ID: 22525.ztv

Mr. Harold Holeman
C5 Creations
2 Renee Lane
Newark, DE 19711





Dear Mr. Holeman:

This is in reply to your email of December 26, 2000, asking for interpretations of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, "Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment."

Your first question is whether "the standards as set forth in FMVSS 108 require that bumper bras or bumper masks have openings around the running lights, parking lights, turning signals, etc.?"

Standard No. 108 does not regulate bumper bras or masks per se. However, lighting equipment is required under Federal law to comply with all requirements of Standard No. 108 when accessory equipment such as bumper bras are installed by regulated persons, whether the equipment is installed as original equipment or aftermarket equipment. The one exception under Federal law is a bra or mask installed by the vehicle owner; if this creates a noncompliance with Standard No. 108, the owner is responsible under any applicable local laws rather than Federal law.

Your next question is "If the bra material is transparent and does not noticeably diminish the luminescence of the lights is the bra design within code without having cutouts for the lights?" Paragraph S7.8.5 prohibits "any styling ornament or other feature, such as a translucent cover or grille, in front of the lens" when the headlamps are activated. We view a transparent bra as an "other feature" and prohibited by Standard No. 108. Thus, a transparent bra could not be installed by a regulated person (i.e., manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business) without violating Standard No. 108, but could be installed by the vehicle owner, provided that it does not violate local laws.

You then ask "Is there a test that should or can be performed to show that the intensity of the running lights is adequate even when covered by the bumper bra?" The photometric tests for each of the lamps covered by Standard No. 108 are essentially those of the Society of Automotive Engineers, which have been incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. These are laboratory tests rather than tests conducted on the vehicle itself. They could be conducted with the transparent bra or mask material cut to fit the lens. Any diminution in light output must not result in photometric output falling below the minimum levels specified for test points in any individual standard.

Like you, we are not aware of any transparent bra or mask on the market. In general, we do not favor covering the lens of any lamp with other material. Dirt and grime may accumulate to the point that candela is reduced below the minimum specified in the standard. Further, it may not be easily removable by washing the cover.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.4/19/01

ID: 1985-03.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/03/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Paul Escobosa, Esq. -- Dinkelspiel, Donovan and Reder

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Paul Escobosa, Esq. Dinkelspiel, Donovan & Reder One Embarcedero Center - 27th Floor San Francisco, California 94111

In reply to your letter of May 22, 1984, to Mr. Vinson of my office, this is to advise you that you will find the truck air brake standard at 49 CFR 571.121, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

As Mr. Vinson informed you, the "Autostop" braking device about which you inquired is not directly regulated by a Federal motor vehicle equipment or vehicle standard. However, its installation on a truck conforming to Standard No. 121 must not render the air brake system inoperative in whole or in part, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A). If installation occurs before the truck is delivered to its first purchaser for purposes other than resale, the installer is required to attach a label to the truck in accordance with 49 CFR 567.7 that the vehicle as altered conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

In any event, as an item of motor vehicle equipment, the "Autostop" is subject to the notification and remedy provisions of 15 U.S.C. 1411 et seq. in the event that either its manufacturer or this agency determines that it contains or creates a safety-related defect.

Original signed by Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

May 22, 1984

Taylor Vinson, Esq. Office of Chief Counsel Department of Transportation 400 - 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Autostop

Dear Mr. Vinson:

Thank you for taking the time to discuss with me the automatic truck braking device which is described in the enclosed Autostop brochure. I was relieved to learn that the device is not within Standard 121 governing air brakes and that no federal testing or other compliance will be necessary for the device to be imported and sold in the United States. I am enclosing the brochure in case this brings to mind any other relevant regulation of which you think we should be aware.

If possible, I would appreciate your sending me a copy of Standard 121 or advising me where I can find it. Again, I thank you for your courtesy.

Original signed by Paul Escobosa

P.E.:ca Enclosure cc: Herman Essen

PAGE INSERT HERE

PAGE INSERT HERE

ID: 86-1.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/03/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Robert C. Shaver -- Mohawk Customs Service

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Robert C. Shaver Mohawk Customs Service Air Cargo Building Hancock International Airport North Syracuse, NY 13212

This responds to your letter to this office, asking whether there was some procedure whereby you could import new truck tires into this country, if those tires do not have the name of the manufacturer on the sidewall. You enclosed an invoice with a note written by a Customs Service officer stating that much tires do not conform with the requirements of our tire standards, because the "tires bear no brand name." Our tire standards do not require that new truck tires have the manufacturer's name or a brand name on the sidewall. For your information, I have enclosed a copy of Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR 571.119). This is the standard applicable to new truck tires. Section S6.5 of this standard lists all of the information that must appear on the sidewalls of all new tires subject to Standard No. 119. As you see, there is no requirement that either the manufacturer's or a brand name appear on the sidewall of these tires. The tire is required to have a tire identification number which identifies the manufacturer. It is possible that the Customs Service was confusing the requirements for truck tires with those for passenger car tires. New passenger car tires are subject to the requirements of Standard No. 119. As you see, there is no requirement that either the manufacturer's name or a brand name appear on the sidewall of these tires. The tire is required to have a tire identification number which identifies the manufacturer. It is possible that the Customs Service was confusing the requirements for truck tires those for passenger car tires. New passenger car tires are subject to the requirements of Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires - Passenger Cars (49 CFR 571.109; copy enclosed). Section S4.3.2 does require that new passenger car tires be "labeled with the name of the manufacturer, or brand name and number assigned to the manufacturer." However, the tires you are seeking to import are not subject to this requirement, because they are not passenger car tires. I suggest that you show this letter to the appropriate officers of the Customs Service, and ask then to reconsider their determination that the tires you seek to import do not comply with Standard No. 119. If you have any further questions in this area, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure

ID: 86-1.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/04/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Benjamin R. Jackson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

February 4, 1986 Mr. Benjamin R. Jackson Executive Director Automobile Importers Compliance Association 1607 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20009 Dear Mr. Jackson: This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard. Specifically, you on vehicles subject to the theft prevention standard to have the required markings entirely within the target area specified for the part by the original manufacturer of the vehicle. You stated that it was possible that target areas specified by the original manufacturer might be suitable for marking by means of labels, but not suitable for marking by means of inscription. If this situation were to occur, you asked if Part 541 could be interpreted to permit manufacturers that must mark by means of inscription to place those markings outside the target area designated by the original manufacturer. Part 541 cannot be so interpreted. In the case of inscribed markings, 541(d)(2)(iii) specifies that the required markings shall be "placed entirely within the target area specified by the original manufacturer for that part." This requirement applies to all markings inscribed for the purposes of Part 541, whether done by an original manufacturer or a direct importer. The policy bases underlying this requirement were explained at length in the preamble to the final rule establishing Part 541. See 50 FR 43166, at 43172, October 24, 1985. First, it is important that all parts be marked in the same target area so that investigators will know exactly where to look on a part for the required marking. The investigator would be alerted to possible suspicious activity if the marking were outside the target area. Second, the different target areas for original equipment and replacement parts marking are intended to ensure that there will be an adequate separation between the areas where the different types of parts will be marked. This will ensure that a thief cannot obliterate an original equipment part marking and affix a counterfeit replacement part marking directly over the area where the original equipment part marking was located. Both of these purposes would be undercut if original manufacturers and direct importers were allowed to designate different target areas for marking vehicles in the same line, Accordingly, Part 541 explicitly requires only one target area for the required marking on each part of a covered line. We do not believe that your concern about inscribing markings on curved surfaces in well-founded. The agency knows of a number of means of inscribing numbers on curved surfaces that would permit direct importers to mark those surfaces within the $15 cost limit set forth in section 604(a)(2) of the Cost Savings Act. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: 86-1.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/10/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. T. Chikada

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

February 10, 1986 Mr. T. Chikada Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept. Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku Tokyo 153, Japan Dear Mr. Chikada: This is in reply to your letter of November 13, 1985, to the former Chief Counsel of this agency, Jeffrey R. Miller, with respect to the ratio of the candlepower between the taillamp, stop lamp, and turn signal lamp (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108). You have enclosed a hypothetical two-compartment lamp design which could be manufactured in three variations of stop, turn signal, and taillamp combinations (layout 1, layout 2, and layout 3). Standard No. 108 incorporates by reference various SAE standards which prescribe candlepower ratios for multiple compartment lamps (J585e Taillamps; J586c Stop Lamps; J588e Turn Signal Lamps). You ask how you can apply the ratio of the candlepower between the lamps. The requirements to which you refer are contained in Note 4 to Table 1 of each of the referenced SAE standards, which in turn cite paragraph 3.1 of each standard. The first sentence of Note 4 establishes the ratio when one function is combined with another (that is to say, optically combined within a single compartment). The second sentence of Note 4 provides, however, that if a multiple compartment lamp is used and the distance between the optical axis for both functions is within the dimensions specified in paragraph 3.1, the ratio is computed with all the compartments lighted. The third sentence of Note 4 states that if these dimensions are exceeded the ratio is computed for only those compartments where the functions are optically combined. In layout 1 the turn signal lamp is not combined with the tail/stop lamp and you have asked for confirmation that only the ratio between the tail lamp and stop lamp must be considered. That is correct. The dimension specified in paragraph 3.1 of each of the SAE standards is a maximum of 22 inches between filament centers in two-compartment lamps. Your layout 2 combines the tail lamp and turn signal lamp in one compartment, and the tail lamp and stop lamp in the second, whereas in layout 3 the first compartment contains one lamp, the tail lamp, and in the second compartment, the tail lamp, stop lamp, and turn signal lamp are present. You ask for confirmation that only the ratios of the lamps in the individual compartments shall be considered. Your hypothetical lamp design does not depict the distance between filament centers of each function, but if they exceed 22 inches then you are correct with respect to layouts 2 and 3. If the distance is less than 22 inches, then the ratio is computed with both compartments lighted. I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: 86-2.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/23/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: ANONYMOUS

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dear

This is in reply to your letter of October 31, 1985, asking for confirmation of your interpretation that the location of a proposed motorcycle rear turn signal system meets the requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Table IV of Standard No. 108 requires motorcycle turn signal lamps to be located "at or near the rear" and to have "a minimum horizontal separation distance (centerline to centerline of lamps) of 9 inches." Further, the "minimum edge to edge separation distance between lamp and tail or stop lamp is 4 inches." The diagram you have attached shows that the minimum horizontal separation distance between the turn signal lamps is 12 inches, and therefore complies with that requirement of Standard No. 107. However, the turn signal lamps are not mounted adjacent to the stop/taillamp which is on the rear of the vehicle on what appears to be the body but forward of it so that in a two-dimensional side elevation the edge to edge separation distance of the stop/taillamp and the turn signals is 3.75 inches. A plan view indicates that the horizontal separation distance between edge to edge is 2 inches. The actual edge to edge separation distance as measured by a continuous straight line is 5 inches, and you believe that this satisfies the standard's requirement for a minimum edge-to-edge separation of 4 inches.

We do not agree with this interpretation since it is premised on a frame of reference different from that used in Table IV to express the location requirements for turn signals. The frame of reference used in Table IV is that of a rear elevation in which the motorcycle is bisected by a vertical centerline. This is the appropriate frame of reference since it implements the safety rationale giving rise to the location requirement. Standard No. 108 specifies a minimum separation distance to minimize the possibility that an observer will be confused as to a lamp's function. A motorist approaching directly from the rear will perceive an edge-to-edge separation distance between the stop/tail and turn signal lamp of only 2 inches if your configuration is used. Therefore, each turn signal lamp must be relocated 2 inches further outboard if it is to comply with Standard No. 108.

Your request for confidentiality is honored, to the extent that the copy of this letter made publicly available will include neither the identification of you and your company, nor the diagram you provided.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: 86-2.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/28/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Bill Taylor

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Bill Taylor General Manager Airport Honda P.O. Box 297 Alcoa, Tenn. 377

Dear Mr. Taylor:

This is in reply to your letter of February 24, 1986 to Ms. DeMeter of this office with reference to the installation of a luggage rack on a vehicle equipped with a center high-mounted atop lamp, and the liability of a dealer for such installation if in accident occurred while the rack was in use.

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, a dealer of new passenger cars must not perform such modifications as will create a noncompliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards before initial sale of the car. This means that a deck mounted luggage rack must be mounted in such a way that the center high-mounted stop lamp continues to meet the visibility and photometric requirements that it did when originally installed. However, compliance with these requirements is judged with the rack in place, and not with the rack in use. There is no liability of a dealer under the Vehicle Safety Act for any accidents that might occur while the rack is in use.

We are not aware of any suits in State courts seeking recovery against dealers who have installed luggage racks on cars equipped with center high-mounted stop lamps.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

February 24, 1986

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Chief Counsel's Office 400 7th St. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Ms DeMeter:

I am writing in reference to a telephone conversation I had with Ms. Walsh of Consumer Affairs on February 25. I was inquiring as to whether or not federal laws would be violated by installing a luggage rack on the trunk of a 1986 Honda. By doing so, if the driver was to put luggage on the rack, it would block the high-mount stop light. My concern is not only if the customer would be in violation of federal law, but also, what would the dealership's liabilities be if there was an accident while the luggage rack was in use.

Ms. Walsh's reply, after talking with you, was that there is no liability to the dealership. In either case, please send me a letter stating what liability if any, the dealership may have.

Sincerely,

Bill Taylor General Manager

rjc

ID: 86-3.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/06/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Paul Utans

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Paul Utans Vice President Governmental Affairs Subaru of America, Inc. 7040 Central Highway Pennsauken, NJ 08109

Dear Mr. Utans:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of the Part 581, Bumper Standard. You asked whether a vehicle with an adjustable suspension height control system is tested at the manufacturer's nominal design highway adjusted height position. You stated that the very reason that adjustable height is provided (increased ground clearance and ramp angle for special operations) would be defeated by requiring bumpers to extend low enough to provide Part 581 protection at the elevated settings. As discussed below, it is our interpretation that a vehicle must be capable of meeting the standard's damage criteria at any height position to which the suspension can be adjusted.

As noted by your letter, section 581.6 of the Bumper Standard sets forth conditions applicable to bumper testing. For example, the vehicle is at unloaded vehicle weight, the front wheels are in the straight ahead position, etc. The standard does not, however, include a test condition specifically addressing suspension height.

Given the absence of a specific test condition concerning suspension height, it is our interpretation that a vehicle must be capable of meeting the standard's damage criteria at any height position to which the suspension can be adjusted. There is no language in the test requirements of the standard limiting their applicability to "the manufacturer's nominal design highway adjusted height position."

This interpretation is consistent with the purpose of the Bumper Standard, set forth in section 581.2, to reduce physical damage to the front and rear ends of a passenger motor vehicle from low speed collisions. If a vehicle's suspension could be adjusted so that its bumper height resulted in bumper mismatch with other vehicles in the event of low speed collisions, the reduction in physical damage attributable to the Bumper Standard would be defeated in whole or part.

We appreciate your concern that the very reason that the adjustable height is provided (increased ground clearance and ramp angle for special operations) is defeated by requiring bumpers to extend low enough to provide Part 581 protection at the elevated settings. As you may know, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration cited reasons along those lines in a notice published in the Federal Register (49 FR 34049) denying petitions for rulemaking to establish safety requirements for bumpers on vehicles other than those covered by Part 581. If the agency were to consider establishing special provisions in Part 581 for vehicles with adjustable suspension height control systems, it would need to be done in rulemaking. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: 86-3.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/27/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Karl-Heinz Faber, Vice President

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Karl-Heinz Faber, Vice President Product Compliance and Service Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. One Mercedes Drive, P.O. BoX 350 Montvale, NJ 07645

Dear Mr. Faber:

This responds to your letter addressed to Mr. Barry Felrice concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays, and use of the "fanfare" symbol. According to your letter, all Mercedes-Benz passenger cars are provided with a horn that when activated produces an audible tone. The control for so activating the horn is located in the steering wheel hub. In addition to the standard horn, your company also offers an optional system on some models which permits the driver to choose either the standard tone or a higher frequency tone by means of a dash-board-mounted rocker switch. The rocker switch is identified by the fanfare symbol. The audible tone selected is then produced by activating the horn control in the steering wheel in the usual manner. This letter confirms that the use of the fanfare symbol for the rocker switch described above is permissible under Standard No. 101.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles and equipment meet applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Standard No. 101 requires that vehicles with any control listed in the standard must meet specified requirements for the location, identification and illumination of such control. See section S5. Among the controls listed in Standard No. 101 is the 'horn' control. See section S5.1 and column 1 of Table 1.

It is our opinion that the "horn" control referred to by Standard No. 101 is limited to that which activates the horn to produce an audible tone. Thus, a separate rocker switch which permits the driver to choose different tones but does not activate the horn to produce an audible tone is not considered to be a "horn" control within the meaning of Standard No. 101. Since a control of this type is not otherwise covered by Standard No. 101 or any other standard, the identification of the control is at the option of the manufacturer.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: 21406.ztv

Herr Tilman Spingler
Automotive Lighting Reutlingen GmbH
Tubinger Strasse 123
72762 Reutlingen
Germany

Dear Herr Spingler:

This is in reply to your fax of March 16, 2000, asking for an interpretation of S7.8.5.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment.

Paragraph S7.8.5.3 specifies requirements for headlamp visual/optical aiming. You note that this paragraph "does not say anything about the measuring distance and the diameter of the photocell to be used when measuring the cut-off for determination of position and quality of the cut-off." You state that the preamble to the final rule adopting S7.8.5.3 mentions a GTB document in which "a measuring distance of 10m and a diameter of the photocell has been proposed." According to your letter, the rationale behind the proposals was that visual aiming, where ever conducted in Europe be done at a 10m distance, "and the instrumental method developed for FMVSS 108 should reflect the 'real world' of visual aiming at that time."

Your question, then, is whether it is permissible for a headlamp manufacturer to "measure the cut-off at 10m with a 10mm photocell for aiming purposes and then measure the light intensity of the correctly aimed headlamp at equal or more than 18.3m. We confirm that this is permissible for the reason indicated below.

Paragraph S7.8.5.3 was adopted pursuant to a negotiated rulemaking in which the attending parties concurred in the drafting and adoption of the language of the preamble and the resulting rule. Although the 10m distance and diameter of the measuring photocell were not incorporated into Standard No. 108, there was unanimous agreement as to this basis for specifying the measuring procedures. The text to which you refer appears at 62 FR 10710 (March 10, 1997). We noted in this preamble (p. 10711) that a procedure had been developed which provided a baseline system for the visual aim test. The procedure was developed by the Groupe de Travail "Bruxelles 1952" (GTB) Short-term Scientific Studies Working Group (SSST WG), and set forth in "Draft minutes of the Meeting held at Budapest 1995 October 3," which is filed in our rulemaking docket as attachment 3-9 to the Committee's minutes of Meeting No. 3. This procedure specifies that the cut-off is to be measured at a distance of 10m using a photocell with an aperture of 10mm. This was understood by all the parties to the negotiated rulemaking, and we intend to include it in the text of Standard No. 108 itself in a future amendment.

In summary, a headlamp with a cut-off feature should be measured and aimed at 10m using a 10mm photocell, and its compliance with photometric requirements determined at 18.3m.

If you have any questions, you may contact Taylor Vinson of this Office (fax 202-366-3820).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.4/6/2000