ID: nht90-4.82

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: December 13, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: M.J.P. Ravier -- R&D Director, Valeo

TITLE: Re Your ref 861 M 90

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-13-90 to P.J. Rice from J.P. Ravier and Guy Dorleans (OCC 5304); Also attached to letter dated 7-30-90 to J.P. Ravier from Kathleen Demeter

TEXT:

This is in further reply to your letter of July 13, 1990, with respect to whether your "Aiming concept for headlamps, Solution 2" is acceptable under paragraph S7.7.5.2 On-vehicle aiming of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Ms. DeMeter of t his Office has previously addressed your request for confidentiality.

The headlamp aiming concept consists of a spirit level affixed to the reflector, and has its axis parallel to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle. Correct vertical aim is accomplished by ensuring that the bubble in the spirit level is centered at zero. Correct horizontal aim is ensured through a coaxial screw and nut with markings which align with markings on the vehicle body. The system bears graduations that accord with those imposed by S7.7.5.2.

As Valeo was informed when the device was demonstrated to members of this agency on June 29, 1990, the concept is an acceptable vehicle headlamp aiming device under S7.7.5.2. It is designed to meet the vertical aim requirements of S7.7.5.2(a)(1) and the horizontal aim requirements of (a)(2). We are pleased to provide a confirmation in writing.

ID: aiam4164

Dear Mr. Thekkanath: This is in reply to your letter of May 23, 1986, asking for a waive from compliance with the headlamp mounting height requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 with respect to prototype and future production trucks you have developed for military application.; No Federal motor vehicle safety standard applies to a vehicl manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications (Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Sec. 571.7(c)). This means that the headlamps on production models of your military truck may be mounted higher than 54 inches without creating a noncompliance with Standard No. 108. If the truck is also sold for commercial applications, however, it would be required to conform with the 54-inch limitation.; Although the exception quoted above applies to vehicles manufacture for sale, the agency has no objection to limited use on the public roads of nonconforming prototype vehicles that have been developed expressly for sale to the Armed Forces of the United States.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0407

Dear Mr. Lundstrom: This is in reply to your letter of July 12, 1971, to Mr. Douglas W Toms, Acting Administrator, concerning replacement equipment covered in FMVSS No. 108, effective January 1, 1972.; The requirements for original and replacement equipment in FMVSS No 108 cover those items listed in Tables I and III, namely:>>>; Headlamps, Tail lamps, Stop lamps, License plate lamps, Refle reflectors, Parking lamps, Side marker lamps, Backup lamps, Turn signal lamps,; Turn signal operating units, Turn signal flashers, Vehicular hazar warning signal operating units, Vehicular hazard warning signal flashers, Identification lamps, Clearance lamps, Intermediate side marker lamps, Intermediate reflex reflectors<<<; In addition the requirements cover the following items specified in th text of the standard:>>>; School bus warning lamps, Headlamp beam switching devices, Headlam upper beam indicator lamps, Turn signal pilot indicator lamps, Hazard warning signal pilot indicator lamps, Plastic lenses.<<<; Sincerely, E. T. Driver, Director, Office of Operating Systems, Moto Vehicle Programs;

ID: nht90-3.70

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 30, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: S. Watanabe -- General Manager, Automotive Equipment Technical Coordination Dept., Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Letter dated 8-2-90 to R. L. Van Iderstine from S. Watanabe; (OCC 5094)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of August 2, to Mr. Van Iderstine of this agency asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Although rulemaking notices provide the name of a NHTSA staff engineer, such as that of Mr. Van Iders tine, to contact for further information, correspondence asking for interpretations of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards should be addressed to the Chief counsel.

It is your understanding that as of September 1, 1990, "lamp manufacturers such as Stanley, not car manufacturer) have to manufacture the external mechanical aiming of replaceable bulb headlamps which conform to the downward torque deflection requirement s." You ask for confirmation of your understanding.

Your understanding is correct. The last sentence of Section S7.7.5.1(a) of Standard No. 108 states that "Each headlamp system that is designed to conform to paragraph S7.5 and that is designed to use such external aiming devices, and which is manufactur ed on or after September 1, 1990, shall comply with the downward torque deflection requirements of S7.7.5.1(a). Because it is the headlamp system that must comply with the requirement, it is the manufacturer of such system that is required to comply on a nd after September 1, 1990.

As you appear to understand, vehicle manufacturers need not equip their vehicles with the new systems on September 1, 1990, and may continue to manufacture vehicles with the old systems until their inventory is exhausted.

ID: 3132o

Mr. Sadato Kadoya
Manager, Safety Engineering
Mazda (North America), Inc.
Research & Development Center
1203 Woodbridge Avenue
Ann Arbor, MI 48105

Dear Mr. Kadoya:

This is in reply to your letters of July 14, l988, with respect to an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 and a request for confidential treatment of it. We understand that you orally withdrew this request during a telephone conversation with this Office on August 23, l988.

You have asked whether Standard No. l08 permits the use of replaceable bulb headlamps with adjustable reflectors, or the use of such lamps as fog and/or cornering lamps. Although Standard No. l08 defines a replaceable bulb headlamp as one with a bonded lens-reflector assembly, this definition does not preclude a design with an adjustable reflector, as the bond may be applied to a portion of the reflector assembly that is not adjustable. However, a headlamp with an adjustable reflector must be designed to conform with all applicable photometric requirements with the reflector in all positions in which it may be adjusted.

As for its use as a fog or cornering lamp, you are correct that it is acceptable provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. l08. Whether the device impairs the effectiveness is determined by the vehicle manufacturer before it certifies compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The decision, however, may be questioned by this agency if it appears erroneous.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

/ref:l08 d:ll/3/88

ID: nht80-2.47

DATE: 06/06/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dear Mr. Milby: This responds to your letter of January 16, 1980, in which" you asked a number of questions pertaining to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101-80, Controls and Displays. The answers to your questions are presented below and are numbered to correspond with the numbering of the questions in your letter.

1. Section 5.2.1 provides that where Table 1 of Standard 101-80 shows both a symbol and identifying words or abbreviations for a particular control, use of the symbol is mandatory and use of the words or abbreviations is optional.

2. When a manufacturer identifies a control with both the symbol shown in Table 1, Column 3, and the identifying words or abbreviations shown in Table 1, Column 2, only the symbol is subject to the illumination requirements of Section S5.3. That section states that with certain exceptions (i.e., foot operated controls or hand operated controls mounted upon the floor, floor console or steering column or in the windshield header area) "the identification required by S5.2.1 or S5.2.2 of any control listed in column 1 of Table 1 and accompanied by the word 'yes' in the corresponding space in column 4 shall be capable of being illuminated whenever the headlights are actuated." Since this section refers only to the identification required by Safety Standard 101-80, it does not apply to identification which is optional under the standard.

3., 4., 5., 6., 7., 8. In questions designated by these numbers, you asked whether the following controls are subject to the identification and illumination requirements of Standard 101-80:

(a) a driver comfort fan which is not a part of the windshield or rear window defrosting and defogging system or the heating and air conditioning system,

(b) hot water flow valves for heaters which are opened in winter and then closed again in summer,

(c) heater fresh air control valves used to control the ratio of fresh to recirculated air entering the heater,

(d) driver's side window defroster control,

(e) driver's fresh air vent control,

(f) fan control for an optional driver's heater which directs air at the driver's feet.

Section 5 of Standard 101-80 states that each vehicle that is subject to the standard and is manufactured with any control listed in Section 5.1 or in column 1 of Table 1 must comply with the requirements of Standand 101-80 regarding the location, identification and illumination of such control. Of the controls listed above, those lettered (a), (d) and (e) are not listed in either of these locations and thus are not subject to these requirements. Items (b), (c) and (f) are part of a heating or air conditioning system indicated in column 1 of Table 1 and is therefore subject to the location and identification requirements of Standard 101-80. However, the fan control, which directs air at the driver's feet, is not subject to the illumination requirements, since section 5.3.1 states, "control identification for a heating and air conditioning system need not be illuminated if the system does not direct air directly upon windshield." Likewise, if the hot water flow valves and fresh air control valves are mounted upon the floor, floor console or steering column, or in the windshield header area,' then section 5.3.1 does not require them to be illuminated.

9. In your question 9, you asked whether the penultimate line in Table 2 concerning malfunctions in antilocks applies only to vehicles equipped with air brakes and whether the last line concerning brake system malfunctions applies only to vehicles equipped with hydraulic brakes.

The penultimate line of Table 2 applies to all vehicles less than 10,000 pounds GVWR which are equipped with an antilock system, regardless of whether they are air or hydraulic brake equipped vehicles. The agency included the reference to Standard 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, to indicate that section 5.3 of that standard permits a manufacturer to use either a yellow or red warning light depending on whether there is a separate indicator that only warns of antilock failure or there is an indicator which warns of antilock and other brake system failures.

The last line of Table 2 concerning the telltale for brake system malfunction applies to all vehicles equipped with this type of telltale regardless of the type of brake system. The agency included the reference to Standard 105 since section 5.3 of that standard specifies other requirements that brake system malfunction indicators used in hydraulic brake systems must meet.

10. This agency has never established specific size requirements for the identification symbols specified in Tables 1 and 2 of Standard 101-80. Sections 5.2.1 and 6 only require that such symbols be visible to a driver restrained by crash protection equipment. 11. None of the display requirements of Table II of Standard 101-80 apply to vehicles with a GVWR exceeding 10,000 pounds. Displays included in such vehicles in accordance with other standards are subject only to the provisions of those standards.

12. Section 5.3.1 provides that the illumination requirements of Standard 101-80 do not apply to hand operated controls mounted on the steering column. Accordingly, they are not applicable to a hazard control mounted on the steering column.

13. If the clearance lamps are controlled with the headlamp switch, Table 1, footnote 2, of the standard provides that the only identification required is the headlamp switch symbol.

14. Standard 101-80, section 5.2.1, states that controls must be identified with the symbol indicated in Table 1 and that such identification shall be placed on or adjacent to the control. The agency has previously indicated that manufacturers could use a symbol that is a minor deviation from the required symbol, as long as the symbol used substantially resembles that specified in the standard (43 FR 27541, June 26, 1978). Thus, if the wiper symbol you want to use is only a minor deviation and substantially resembles the required wiper symbol, you may use it.

15. You enclosed in your letter a blueprint showing a bank of switches which control multispeed fans and asked whether the identification shown in the print would comply with the requirements of Standard 101-80. Since the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391) requires manufacturers to certify their compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, this agency does not approve products. However, from our understanding of the information you have provided, it appears that the identification you propose to use for fan controls would comply with Standard 101-80. This opinion is based on the fact that your blueprint shows use of the fan symbol in accord with section 5.2.1 and identification of each function of the fan switch in accord with section 5.2.2.

16. With respect to air conditioning systems:

(1) Section 5.3.1 does not require illumination of the control identification if the system does not direct air directly upon the windshield.

(2) Table 1 and section 5.2.1 require the fan symbol to be used to identify the fan for an air conditioning system;

(3) If the air conditioning system control regulates temperature over a quantitative range, the extreme positions must be identified in accord with 5.2.2.

17. With respect to vehicles over 10,000 pounds GVWR, the requirements of Standard 101-80 concerning telltales used to indicate high engine coolant temperature or low engine oil pressure are inapplicable. With respect to vehicles less than 10,000 pounds GVWR, these requirements are applicable. In a letter to Ford Motor Company (copy enclosed), this agency stated that use of the engine symbol which Ford proposed for identification of such telltales would comply with the requirements of Standard 101-80.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

January 16, 1980

Dear Mr. Berndt:

SUBJECT: FMVSS 101-80

The purpose of this letter is to seek confirmation of several issues related to FMVSS 101-80, discussed at a January 9, 1980 meeting of NHTSA. The issues are numbered below in the sequence discussed at the meeting:

1. In all cases where both symbols and wording are shown in Table I, the symbol is mandatory and the wording is optional.

2. In the case of optional wording accompanying mandatory symbols, which require illumination, only the symbol must be illuminated. It is mandatory for the optional wording to be illuminated.

3. There is no requirement relating to driver comfort fans. These fans are provided to direct air at the driver for his comfort as the name indicates. However, they can be adjusted to direct air on the windshield.

4. There is no requirement for hot water flow valves for heaters. Typically, these valves are opened in winter and left open; closed in summer and left closed. Heat in regulated be means of switch controls to operate air blowers.

5. There is " requirement for heater fresh air control valves. These valves are used to control the ratio of fresh/recirculated air entering the heater.

6. The fan control for an optional driver's heater must be identified but not illuminated.

7. There is no requirement for a driver's side window defroster control.

8. There is no requirement for a driver's fresh air vent control.

9. Confirmation is needed with respect to Table II that the next to last line is only applicable to vehicles with air brakes and the last line is only applicable to vehicles with hydraulic brakes.

10. The proportion of the symbols are those developed by the ISO, however, there is no requirement limiting the minimum or maximum sizes of the symbols.

11. None of the requirements of Table II apply to vehicles with a GVWR over 10,000 pounds. This is true even in the case where a display is required by another FMVSS; Example: the turn signal display required by FMVSS 108.

12. A hazard control mounted in the steering column does not require illumination.

13. Clearance lamps may be controlled by the headlamp switch. In this case, only the headlamp symbol should be used.

14. If necessary to accomodate a temporary inventory balance out, a slightly different wiper symbol may appear on the wiper knobs that is required by Table I, provided that the required symbol appears adjacent to the control and is properly illuminatted. It is also satisfactory to provide no symbol on the knob itself.

15. With respect to S5.2.2, a bank of switches which control multi-speed fans will comply if they are identified as shown in the enclosed print 0981233.

16. Air conditioning controls must be identified but not illuminated. The extreme positions of air conditioning controls must be identified. The fan symbol is required for air conditioning fan controls.

17. Any type tell tale may be used for a single display on vehicles over 10,000 pounds GVWR to indicate high engine coolant temperature and/or low engine oil pressure. We understand that Ford Motor Company has proposed an engine symbol for such a display. What is the status of this proposal?

We would like to go on record at this time to alert NHTSA that it may be necessary to revise the effective date of the subject standard as it applies to heavy duty vehicles to alleviate a temporary chassis shortage. This could be caused by a prolonged strike by a major chassis manufacturer which is still in effect. This may result in the mounting of bodies on chassis built after September 1, 1980, which were scheduled for chassis built prior to that date.

Your early response to these items will be appreciated.

Thank you.

Very truly yours, William G. Milby Manager Engineering Services Department

fvc

Enclosure

c: Wilbur Rumph Ben Newberry Jim Moorman Jim Swift Bob DuMond

ID: 23833.ztv

Mr. Lee M. Calkins
Quality Manager
Canfield Equipment Service, Inc.
22077 Mound Road
Warren, MI 48091





Dear Mr. Calkins:

This is in reply to your letter of December 14, 2001, asking for interpretations of 49 U.S.C. 30122 and 49 CFR 571.108, in connection with equipping a law enforcement vehicle with "blackout lighting."

You reported that "police agencies request that vehicles be equipped with manually operated switches to disable brake/turn and backup lights either singly or combined along with disabling one headlamp with a similar switch." You stated that "(t)his is to protect an officer who is undercover on stakeout or following a suspect." You have enclosed a warning by Federal Signal Corporation dated December 5, 2001, which states that "disabling the brake lights on a vehicle . . . violates the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards."

You have asked the following questions:

"1. Please define 'make inoperative.'"

We have not formally defined "make inoperative," but have applied the phrase to specific fact situations in numerous interpretation letters. We shall answer your question by applying it to certain situations that have arisen under 49 CFR 571.108, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. 49 U.S.C. 30122(b) states that "A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard." The phrase "make inoperative" includes the disabling of a device or element of design so that it does not perform its function, such as, with reference to Standard No. 108, disconnection of a lighting device. We have also construed "make inoperative" to encompass any modification of a lamp that might create a noncompliance with the original equipment requirements of Standard No. 108, such as transforming a steady-burning lamp into one that flashes. The phrase also encompasses any modification to an item of vehicle equipment other than a lamp which affects the performance of an item of required lighting equipment, such as alterations to the vehicle body which affect the visibility of lamps at angles specified in Standard No. 108 that the lamps must meet when installed on vehicles.

"2. Please define 'emergency lighting devices.'"

We have not formally defined "emergency lighting devices" either. We understand them to be lighting equipment that is not original equipment required by Standard No. 108, such as strobe lights or flashing red lights. This is in accord with the interpretations you mention in which we considered that flashing lamps were emergency lighting devices. Flashing lights are used on municipal vehicles in motion to indicate to other motorists that the vehicle is proceeding on an emergency mission which has priority over that of other traffic. Flashing lights are used on municipal vehicles at rest to indicate the presence of a potential hazard on or at the side of the road.

"3. Would the addition of these functions [for "blackout lighting"] place the vehicle into non-conformance?"

Yes. There is a specific requirement in S5.5.4 that the stop lamps be activated upon application of the service brakes. In addition, S5.5.7 requires the tail lamps (and other lamps) to be illuminated when the headlamps are activated. Activation of other lighting equipment is covered in appropriate SAE Standards incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. Thus, alteration of a vehicle to equip it with a switch that would allow disabling of any lighting function would, in our view, create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108.

"4. If non-conformance occurs, would the temporary nature of it allow the non-conformance to be treated as stated in the reply to Mr. [Larry] Hughson [dated July 30, 2001]?"

No. We see a clear distinction between the performance of lamps so that they flash and disabling them so that they do not perform. Although not clearly described in the Hughson letter, we surmised that police vehicles were equipped with a system that flashed the headlamps, stop lamps, and backup lamps. The clear purpose of this temporary alteration of performance is to increase the conspicuity of police vehicles so that they may proceed appropriately under the circumstances. There is the opposite intent in the system you describe; lighting equipment would be switched off and no visual cue other than reflex reflectors would be furnished to other motorists either when the vehicle was at rest or in motion. We would not extend the Hughson interpretation to "blackout lighting."

"5. Would having an OEM offer these options be acceptable? Or, would the States have to perform these modifications after purchase?

We do not believe that a vehicle manufacturer could certify compliance of a vehicle with Standard No. 108, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30115, with the switches you describe installed as original equipment. The manufacturer of the switches could not install them without violating Section 30122. Under 49 U.S.C. 30165(a), such a person violating Section 30122 is liable for a civil penalty of up to $5,000 per violation, up to a maximum of $15,000,000 for any related series of violations.

The prohibition of Section 30122 does not extend to any person other than a "manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business." This means that a purchaser such as a State or municipality could perform these modifications after purchase if the modifications were performed by an employee of the State or municipality, without violating Section 30122. We note that Federal Signal Corporation's Safety Warning is addressed to "users" of equipment that can disable stop lamps, indicating that the equipment was not installed by the manufacturer of the vehicle or equipment.

"6. If the interpretation does not allow for these functions in their present form, what suggestions would you make that could allow for these functions in the market place (e.g.) headlamp switch reset or other device?"

We understand the rationale behind disabling a headlamp, in order to alter the appearance of a surveillance vehicle, and disabling other lamps so that they will not alert a suspect in the event of inadvertent activation. However, the failure of these lamps to perform their intended functions does raise safety issues. Moreover, faced with the need to respond instantly to changed circumstances, such as the need to pursue a suspect, the driver may fail to throw the switches to restore the lighting equipment to its normal use. We do not have any suggestions.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108

ID: 0869

Mr. Scott E. Mack
Senior Product Manager
Philips Lighting Company
200 Franklin Square Drive
Somerset, NJ 08875

Dear Mr. Mack:

This is in reply to your letter of April 24, 1995, requesting a confirmation of your interpretation that "Philips Color Clear (TM) Halogen Headlights . . . are in compliance with FMVSS-108."

The product in questions "appears to be colored when not in use" but "when lighted it produces white light as defined by J579C." You have provided a report from ETL Testing Laboratories which "indicates that the color of the light is identical to that of a standard halogen headlight."

There is no definition of white light in SAE J579c Sealed Beam Headlamp Units for Motor Vehicles, December 1978. We believe you mean SAE J578d Color Specification for Lighting Devices, September 1978 which does contain a definition expressed in chromaticity coordinates. The report you supplied indicates that the Philips lamp provides a light within the color coordinates for white when equipped with a red, black, blue, or white insert. As Standard No. 108 contains no requirements for the color of glass lamp lenses or bulbs, only the light emitted from the lamp, we confirm your conclusion that the Philips Color Clear (TM) headlamp has been designed to conform to the color requirements of Standard No. 108.

We appreciated your visit to NHTSA on April 26 to demonstrate the lamp with its various inserts. I understand that the light produced by the lamp, and by a standard headlamp, appeared identical to the naked eye in a side by side comparison.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:108 d:5/11/95

ID: 0897

Mr. R. F. Tolley
Senior Development Engineer
New Products Office
Magneti Marelli UK Ltd.
Lighting Division
Walkmill Lane, Cannock
Staffordshire WS11 3LP
England

Dear Mr. Tolley:

This responds to your letter of April 28, 1995, asking for an interpretation of the torque deflection test specified in paragraph S7.8.5.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

The second sentence of this paragraph states that "The downward force used to create the torque shall be applied parallel to the aiming reference plane, through the aiming pads, and displaced forward using a lever arm such that the force is applied on an axis that is perpendicular to the aiming reference plane and originates at the center of the aiming pad pattern." You believe that the instructions for performing the test are not sufficiently precise and can be interpreted in different ways. Specifically, you are concerned that the standard fails to adequately define the center of rotation of force, which is necessary to determine the downward force applied to the headlamp.

We agree with you, and are examining ways in which the standard might be amended to address the problem you have brought to our attention. Noting that you have presented four possible answers (as well as "some other point"), our comment is that, until NHTSA clarifies the matter, a manufacturer should choose a center of rotation that appears the most appropriate for the design of mechanically aimable headlamp under consideration, in certifying that the headlamp meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

I am sorry that we could not be more helpful at this point. If you have any questions you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:6/8/95

ID: nht81-1.32

DATE: 03/10/81

FROM: STEPHEN W. MATSON -- TRADE SERVICES INC

TO: CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/25/81 FROM FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA TO STEPHEN W. MATSON; REDBOOK A22, STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Sir:

This letter is to formally request your review and interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 as it relates to the placement of a clear lens cover in front of a motorcycle headlamp. The attached drawings demonstrate the specific concept in question.

Information contained in SAE standards referenced in Table III of FMVSS 108 indicates that a specific prohibition exists regarding a headlamp lens cover for passenger cars, multipurpose vehicles, trucks and busses. The SAE Motorcycle Headlamp Standard (SAE J584) contains no such prohibition. It is our understanding that a component configuration such as the one illustrated would not conflict with SAE referenced requirements.

Another section of FMVSS 108 which could relate to this issue is Paragraph S4.1.3 which states that "No . . . . automotive equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard." If, when the secondary lens in question is in place, the photometric requirements of FMVSS 108 can be met or exceeded, the lens cover would then be compatible with the standard.

Detailed review of FMVSS 108 and the other Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards have revealed no other requirements germane to this issue.

Your review of our analysis will be most appreciated. We feel that the proposed concept is in keeping with the spirit as well as the letter of the law. Hopefully your review will confirm our opinion. Should you have any questions on this matter please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

ENC