ID: 86-2.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/28/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: T. Chikada

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. T. Chikada Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Department Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku Tokyo 153, Japan

Dear Mr. Chikada;

This is in response to your letter of February 5, 1986, asking for an opinion regarding a "decorative extra lighting device." It appears from the drawing that you enclosed that the device would be a part of a three-compartment housing incorporating also a rear turn signal lamp, and one that performs that tail and stop functions. It would be mounted on the rear side of a motorcycle. You have informed us that the lens color of the device would be red and its maximum luminous intensity lower than the minimum of the adjacent taillamp.

Paragraph S4.1.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 forbids the installation of lighting devices not required by the standard if such a device would impair the effectiveness of the equipment that is required. It is our impression that your device performs the function of a rear side marker lamp, required to be installed on all motor vehicles other than motorcycles. However, you have not told us any of the operational characteristics of the lamp, such as whether it would be steady burning in use and activated simultaneously with the headlamp and taillamp, or whether it would flash with the rear turn signal lamp. Nevertheless, it would appear to be acceptable as a supplemental taillamp or turn signal lamp, or as a side marker lamp, either with or without the decorative trim.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel February 5, 1986

Att.: Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 U. S. A.

Re. : Installation of decorative extra lighting device to the vehicle, which is not specified in FMVSS No. 108

Dear Ms. Jones,

According to your letter of Nov. 4, 1985, we would ask you an advice for the following decorative extra lighting device.

This device will be mounted on the rear side of a motorcycle. We enclose a drawing which shows the size, shape and the proximity to a tail & stop lamp and a rear turn signal lamp. A lens color of this decorative extra lamp is red and its maximum luminous intensity is lower than the minimum of the tail lamp. There is a possibility of attaching an ornament on this accessory lamp.

We are looking forward to your advice.

Sincerely yours,

Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

T. Chikada, Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept.

Enc. The details of the device

ID: 86-6.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/08/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Roger Hagie -- Government Relations Manager, Kawasacki Motors Corp. USA

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 10/20/83 letter from F. Berndt to BMW of North America, Inc.

TEXT:

Mr. Roger Hagie Government Relations Manager Kawasaki Motors Corp. USA P.O. Box 25252 Santa Ana, CA 92799-5252

Dear Mr. Hagie:

This is in response to your letter of April 26, 1985, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. I regret the delay in responding to your letter.

Specifically, you have called our attention to a proposed motorcycle accessory, consisting in part of a "nylon mesh which is stretched in front of the headlamp lens" and intended to protect the "headlamp from damage by stones or other road debris." You have asked whether this accessory would be permissible under paragraph 54.1.3 of Standard No. 108 which in effect allows optional equipment that does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that the standard does require. You have advised us that "the nylon mesh does cause some reduction in the photometric output of the lamp" but that testing of the specific headlamp that the mask is designed to fit "has determined that with the mesh in place, light output is still more than 1208 of the minimums specified by SAE J584.. . " You have quoted a 1983 letter from the former Chief Counsel giving two examples of impairment, one a plastic cover causing a dislocation of beam pattern, or a cover that is subject to accelerated hazing or cracking, but you have stated that it is unclear whether any degree of impairment is unacceptable, or only an impairment that causes light output to fall beneath the minimum photometrics prescribed by Standard No. 108.

Because Federal motor vehicle safety standards are minimum performance standards, the fact that the mesh causes some reduction in photometric output does not mean that it "impairs" the effectiveness of the headlamp unless it reduces light output below the minimum levels imposed by the standard. You have stated that with the mesh installed light output is still more than 120% of the minimum required. If Kawasaki is satisfied that this output will be met with any original equipment headlamp, then it may certify compliance with Standard No.

108 of any motorcycle on which the mesh is an original equipment accessory.

The question of the permissibility of the mesh as an after market accessory is not easily answered. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits actions by manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses that "render operative in whole or in part" equipment which has been installed to comply with a Federal vehicle safety requirement. We would view dealer-installation of the mesh as rendering a headlamp partially inoperative if it resulted in a diminution of headlamp light output below the standard's minimum level. The prohibition does not apply to owner modifications. Whether an owner modification is legal is answerable under the laws of the States where a vehicle is registered and operated.

A further observation is that although an original equipment headlamp-mesh combination may meet or exceed the minimum photometrics, it is possible that a replacement headlamp would fall beneath the threshold of photometric compliance with the mesh in place. We suggest that you consider these safety issues before proceeding to offer the accessory.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

April 26, 1985

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

RE: Request for Interpretation, FMVSS 108

Dear Sir:

Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A. requests an interpretation of the acceptability of a proposed motorcycle accessory, a device to cover and protect the leading surface of a motorcycle fairing and headlamp from damage by stones or other road debris.

More specifically, the product consists of a vinyl or leather "mask" which fits snugly to the front of the fairing and incorporates a nylon mesh which is stretched in front of the headlamp lens.

Our question relates to the issue of whether this mesh covering over the headlamp lens is permissible according to FMVSS 108. Your attention is directed to the letter of October 20, 1983 from then Chief Counsel Frank Berndt to Karl-Heinz Ziwica of BMW North America (file ref. NOA-30), copy attached.

In this letter, Mr. Berndt indicates that NHTSA has "concluded that headlamp covers for motorcycles are not per se prohibited by Standard 108." Mr. Berndt continues to indicate " if they impair the effectiveness of the headlamp." He goes on to describe two examples of impaired effectiveness that the agency would presumably consider contrary to the intent of FMVSS 108: an extreme installation angle of the cover or deterioration of the cover itself.

What remains unclear from Mr. Berndt's letter is whether any degree of impairment of the light output is to be considered unacceptable, or whether the unacceptable level might be reached if the impairment caused light output to drop below the photometric standards applicable to the lamp.

In the case of the mask under consideration by Kawasaki, the nylon mesh does cause some reduction in the photometric output of the lamp. However, testing of the specific headlamp that this mask is designed to fit has determined that with the mesh in place, light output is still more than 120% of the minimums specified by SAEJ584, the applicable standard. Thus, while some "impairment" is acknowledged, performance with the mask in place still exceeds the requirements of FMVSS 108.

In conclusion, Kawasaki seeks NHTSA's opinion whether a mesh headlamp cover which is not subject to hazing, cracking or discoloration, and which does not cause light output to drop below the minimum levels specified by FMVSS 108 would be considered in Compliance with FMVSS 108 if offered for sale on a specific Kawasaki motorcycle.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

KAWASAKI MOTORS CORP., U.S.A.

Roger Hagie Government Relations Manager

See 10/20/83 letter from F. Berndt to BMW of North America, Inc.

ID: 77-1.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/04/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Wesbar Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your frank letter of January 13, 1977, commenting upon the lack of clarity you feel exists in my letter to you of December 6, 1976, interpreting Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

As a lawyer it is obvious to me that the best regulatory practice is to be as specific as possible in establishing requirements and prohibitions. When a regulation itself is unclear, however, its interpretation may necessarily be imprecise. Because the term "optical combination" in S4.4.1 is not defined, my answers were necessarily worded in general terms though with the thought of establishing a general framework of guidance for you. They were not intended to be "a masterpiece of bureaucratic weasel words." My letter meant, in plain English, that where tail lamps and clearance lamps are in a single compartment we don't want one lamp to perform, or to be perceived as performing, the function of the other. It is evident from your letter and others that our previous interpretations of the term "optical combination" have been found to be ambiguous and lacking in the objective criteria that a Federal motor vehicle safety standard must provide. We have reviewed the matter, and now wish to modify our previous interpretation. In our view a lamp is "optically combined" when the same light source (i.e. bulb) and the same lens area fulfill two or more functions (e.g. taillamp and stop lamp, clearance lamp and turn signal lamp). A dual filament bulb would be regarded as the "same light source". In determining conformance, the photometric requirements for clearance and taillamp functions, where two bulbs are located in a single compartment, must be met with only the bulb energized that is designed to perform the specific function. But the 15 candlepower maximum under Standard No. 108, however, would be determined with both the taillamp and clearance lamp bulb energized. Further, the lamp must be located to meet requirements for both clearance and taillamps. Our re-interpretation means that the issue of light spill-over from one area of the lamp to another is irrelevant to conformance.

SINCERELY,

January 13, 1977

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

Refer: N40-30 Your letter of December 6, 1976

A combination of a Christmas holiday with the family in Arizona and year end activity here in our plant has prevented our sending you a reply to the referenced letter at an earlier date.

As far as we are concerned, your response to our October 28 letter is a masterpiece of bureaucratic weasel words and one which avoids positive answers or defensible positions on the specific questions we submitted.

Discussing first your lengthy second paragraph; from line 6 we quote: ". . . . Standard 108 does not require separate compartments (i.e. and opaque barrier) for tail lamps and clearance lamps . . . " Perhaps you can give some scientific explanation how two lamps can be in the same compartment and not interfere optically with one another. The degree of candlepower emanating from each bulb is dependent on their respective candlepowers and in the case of tail and clearance lamp bulbs, the lumens generated are not very far apart since clearance lamp bulbs deliver 2 c.p. and tail lamp bulbs 3 c.p. If tail lamp and clearance lamp bulbs were positioned relatively close together in the single compartment (a condition you state is permissible) I submit that a "driver in a following vehicle" could not possibly interpret one lamp from the other.

May we refer you to line 15 of the second paragraph of your letter and we quote: "there is no appreciable amount of incidental light emitted from the lens of the clearance lamp . . . " To any engineer or attorney involved with compliance regulations, the words "appreciable amount" are incongruous when applied to a standard such as 108, the purpose of which is to spell out specific optical values, tests, and locations for lights. DOT 108 standard permits no deviation from the SAE standards referenced, which standards positively indicate optical values for lamps. Nor does DOT 108 permit any option on the number and types of lamps required on a trailer or where these lamps shall be located. "Appreciable" has no measureable value, therefore, we ask, whose judgement will prevail when evaluating the design and testing of a lamp, the manufacturer or your compliance people. How would you legally defend your position that a light has an "appreciable" amount of spill, hence is illegal, in the absence of an applicable photometric standard.

We also object to the language: "The amount of light spill appears to be so small . . ." (sce para. 2 line 17). What numerical candlepower value do you assign to the words "appears to" as a measure of whether or not a lamp conforms to the published standard? Would we receive approval from your compliance group on a lamp we have marked "DOT" on the basis of our contention that to us the lamp "appears to" meet the photometric standards?

How evasive can a response to our specific question be than your blanket reply of: "If you apply this general principle to the questions you asked, then I think you will have the answers."

We refer you to page 2, lines 2, 3, and 4 of your letter, which we quote: "The principle is necessarily dependent upon the candlepower output of any lamp to which it is applied, a value not given in your questions." Of course we didn't specify "candlepower output". Those values are specified in DOT 108. Or perhaps you were unaware that clearance lamp bulbs and tail lamp bulbs are manufactured to *SAE J573f which specified: Typical Service Trade No. Mean Spherical Candela M ** 57 2 candlepower at 14 volts T *** 1157 3 candlepower at 14 volts

* Photometric tests performed under SAE J592e and SAE J585d are always made using 2 c.p. and 3 c.p. bulb respectively.

** M - Marker, Clearance, Identification

*** T - Tail

These are the lamps and respective candlepowers you will find in all tail lamps and clearance lamps.

Therefore, with such a small candlepower difference between clearance and tail lamp output, the "spill" (to quote your letter) from one to the other, with bulbs exposed in the same compartment, equate one another.

We read with surprise in your letter that "certification is dependent upon a manufacturer's good faith in attempting to achieve compliance." We would like to believe that statement, but the actual experiences of many trailer manufacturers with your compliance people, doesn't bear out what you say. The compliance man recognizes but one criteria: does it or does it not meet the specific requirements of the published standard.

At this moment in time the DOT is quibbling over a specific interpretation of S 4.4.1 with such indecisive language as: "appears to be", "appreciable amount", "good faith". It could be that your indefinite position merely covers a too hasty interpretation by one of your staff, but whatever the reason, please either resolve this problem in terms of specific numbers, or rewrite S 4.4.1 so that there can be no possible misinterpretation of your requirements.

You asked the writer to comment on combining tail and clearance lamp. This combination for boat trailers and some camping trailers is an extremely sensible approach. The 108 standard blankets big semi trailers and small duck boat trailers with the same sets of rules, which rules for a semi trailer are as totally practical as they are totally impractical for a small boat trailer.

In the matter of boat trailers, the over 80" lighting requirements are almost impossible to meet. For example, consider a boat trailer carrying a sail boat. It is virtually impossible to locate an identification light bar that won't be swept off or severely bent when the boat is launched. Use of an identification light bar on a trailer should be eliminated. Very few are operable after a launching.

The trailer manufacturer certifies his trailer as meeting the DOT standards, when it leaves his plant. The dimensions of the boats that trailer may carry vary wiedely and many a trailer's actual width is exceeded by the hull it carries. This is knowledge the trailer manufacturer would not have when he produced the trailer.

It would be economical as well as practical to permit a boat trailer manufacturer to mount his tail lamp in such a position that it would serve the dual purpose of clearance and tail lamp, with no detriment to safety. If anything, we would consider such an arrangement a safer condition than the use of seperate lights.

In conclusion, would you please give us specific answers to the questions posed in paragraph 6 of letter of October 28, 1976, at your earliest convenience. For your convenience a copy of same is attached.

B. R. Weber Executive Vice President

cc: SEN. WILLIAM PROXMIRE; SEN. GAYLOR NELSON

ID: 24200.ztv

Trooper Lawrence D. Richardson
Massachusetts State Police
200 Scotland Road
Newbury, MA 01950

Dear Trooper Richardson:

This is in reply to your e-mail earlier this year to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Webmaster. You are concerned about several motor vehicle lighting devices that you have seen recently on vehicles in your state. These include "red, green, purple, blue and other colors that are mounted in the front or rear of the vehicle," vehicles with clear taillamp lenses, and vehicles with no rear "reflective red lenses." You asked whether these types of devices are allowable.

We do not understand your reference to your motor vehicle law that "refers to part 571 as far as after market lights are concerned." Whether non-standard lighting equipment is allowable on vehicles in use is at bottom a matter of State law. The legality of modifications by vehicle owners is generally determined by laws of the jurisdiction where a vehicle is registered and/or operated. We believe, therefore, that Massachusetts law contains the answers to your questions.

Under Federal law, much of what you have observed would not be permissible as original vehicle equipment. As you realize, motor vehicles are originally manufactured with lighting equipment that emits red, amber, or white light. No other colors are permitted for original equipment lighting by the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on vehicle lighting (49 CFR 571.108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment) (except that some States reserve blue for use in emergency lighting). Items of replacement lighting equipment are also required under Federal law to emit the same color light as the original equipment they are designed to replace.

Accessory equipment on new vehicles is permissible under Federal law if it does not impair the effectiveness of original equipment required by Standard No. 108. We interpret this as prohibiting lamps of colors different than red, amber, or white, because of the possibility that non-standard colors could cause momentary confusion in other drivers, diverting their attention from lamps that signal driver intention, such as stop lamps and turn signal lamps. This means that we do not allow green, purple, or blue lamps as original equipment on private vehicles. Further, we do not allow red lamps of any sort, or reflectors, to be mounted at a location other than the rear side, or rear, of a vehicle.

Generally, if accessory lighting equipment is not permissible on new vehicles, it will not be permissible as an aftermarket accessory for vehicles in use. The legal consideration in this instance is whether the accessory makes inoperative in any way a lamp installed in accordance with Standard No. 108. Usually, we conclude that, if a device impairs the effectiveness of a required item of lighting equipment, it will also make that equipment inoperative in part. However, our law does not prohibit a vehicle owner personally from making any safety equipment inoperative on his or her vehicle. In that instance, the legality of installation and use is determined under State law.

Some replacement taillamp housings are available with clear lenses, intended to be used in conjunction with a red incandescent light source. We are unaware of any original equipment lamp required to emit the color red that consists of a clear lens and a red bulb and that is certified to comply with standard No. 108. This is not simply a design choice; we know of no red bulb now or ever in production that conforms to Standard No. 108s color specification. The combination of a clear bulb and a red lens, therefore, is the only way to design a lamp that conforms to Standard No. 108s requirement that its light be red. This means that the manufacturer of clear lenses or lamps intended to replace lenses or lamps whose original color was red is in violation of S5.8 of Standard No. 108. Many of these original equipment taillamps also incorporate the red reflex reflector that Standard No. 108 requires to be located on the rear side and rear of vehicles, whereas the replacements with clear lenses do not. This also does not comport with Standard No. 108. A similar situation exists with respect to headlamps that originally incorporated amber side reflex reflectors. If the replacement lamp does not include the reflector, this, too, would not comport with Standard No. 108.

You also mentioned "snake eyes" lights "that are displayed where the window washer fluid should be coming out, in all different colors," including purple, green, and blue. Such an accessory would appear to have an impairing effect upon original lighting equipment if its colors are other than white or amber (on the front), or red (on the rear), or if the light is of such an intensity as to distract another drivers attention from the light emitted by required lighting equipment.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.7/29/02

ID: 17325.ztv

Mr. F.G.M. Bol
Car Innovations
P.O. Box 143
2665 ZJ Bleiswijk (Holland)
Netherlands

Dear Mr. Bol:

This is in reply to your January 1998 letter to the Department informing us of your V.E.B. System, and stating that "it remains to you the decision to commercialize this product in co-operation with us."

You are interested in marketing this system "with an auto-manufacturer." Therefore, you intend the V.E.B. system to be installed as original equipment on motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States. The system may be best described as a center highmounted stop lamp that displays a vehicle's registration number under ordinary circumstances and the word "stolen" when the vehicle is being operated without the owner's authority.

The center highmounted stop lamp must comply with all requirements of United States Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. One of these requirements is that the lamp comply with the requirements of Figure 10. This Figure prescribes minimum and maximum candela to be measured at 18 individual test points. If any one of these test points is obscured by the vehicle's registration number or the word "stolen," then it is not legal to install the lamp on a motor vehicle. We believe that it might be difficult to design a lamp that both displays the information you anticipate and meets Standard No. 108. I enclose a copy of Figure 10 so that you may determine whether any of the 18 test points may be obscured by the V.E.B. system. A second requirement is that the lens area must be at least 4.5 square inches. Any obstruction would affect this, too.

Standard No. 108 also prohibits the installation of any device that impairs the effectiveness of required lighting equipment such as the center stoplamp. Even if the candela and lens area requirements are met, the clarity and meaning of the stop signal may be undermined by letters or numbers appearing when the lamp is lit that have no relation to the stop lamp function.

The Department has no authority to engage in commercial promotions with manufacturers, and we cannot help you with this product.

Finally, we would like to call your attention to a typographical error on the cover and interior of your sales folder. The verb indicating theft in English is "to steal," not "to steel."

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:108
d:5/6/98

ID: 20178.ztv

ECIE
Via Comune Antico, 43
20125 Milano
Italy
Attn: Mara Migliazza

Dear Ms. Migliazza:

We are replying to your emails of June 18, 1999, to Kenneth Weinstein of this agency, and of July 8, 1999, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. We apologize for the delay in responding to you.

In your first email, you have told us that your company manufactures lighting equipment for motorcycles and that you "have the certificate of compliance and test report of our device with tests according to your FMVSS 108." You have asked whether the certificate of compliance is "always acceptable for you or have we to remake all the test to obtain another certificate after some year?" You reference a headlamp that meets the 1992 version of Standard No. 108 and is molded with a "92DOT" symbol, which is supported by "the test report and the certificate of compliance of 1992."

First, a clarification. We believe that you are using the term "certificate of compliance" to mean the statement by a test laboratory that the lighting device that it has tested meets the specifications of Standard No. 108, as indicated by the accompanying test report. However, under our laws, a "certificate of compliance" is the indication by a manufacturer that its lighting product meets Standard No. 108, such as the DOT symbol on a headlamp lens.

Each item of motorcycle lighting equipment covered by Standard No. 108 must comply with the standard, and be certified by its manufacturer as conforming to the standard. A test report based on proper testing can verify that the particular lamp tested conforms to Standard No. 108, and can afford a reasonable basis for the manufacturer to certify compliance, by concluding that identical lamps, if tested, would also conform to Standard No. 108. However, human and mechanical errors in production (such as failure to account for variations in tolerances) can result in the production of non-complying products. Therefore, we believe that a manufacturer of lighting equipment should test its product pursuant to a quality control program after the lighting item is produced to assure itself that the product as manufactured conforms to Standard No. 108.

In your email of July 8, 1999, you ask if we can write "what is the US right procedure for lighting device certification." We are pleased to provide you with this information. The lens of each headlamp (other than a motorcycle headlamp) must be certified by marking it with the DOT symbol (S7.2(a) of Standard No. 108), whether the headlamp is original or replacement equipment. Other items of replacement lighting equipment, including motorcycle headlamps, may be certified either by marking with the DOT symbol (S5.8.10), or "by a label or tag on the equipment or on the outside of the container in which the equipment is delivered" (49 U.S.C. 30115). Other than headlamps, no certification is required for lighting items installed on a motor vehicle as original equipment; the manufacturer of the vehicle attaches a label to the vehicle certifying that it complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and this includes certification to the requirements of Standard No. 108. Of course, the vehicle manufacturer should obtain test reports and other quality-related assurances from the lighting equipment manufacturer that the equipment complies before it affixes its vehicle certification label.

There is no need to "register" a certificate of compliance with NHTSA or any other entity. However, a manufacturer located outside the United States is required to designate an agent in the United States who can receive official correspondence (49 CFR 551.45). Further, all manufacturers of equipment covered by Standard No. 108 are required to file an identification statement with us (49 CFR 566).

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.10/28/99

ID: 1985-04.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/18/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. David Gruenzner

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

November 18, 1985 Mr. David Gruenzner President, Future Tech Inc. P.O. Box 26B Mankato, MN 56002 Dear Mr. Gruenzner: This is in reply to your letter of September 23, 1985, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it applies to an aftermarket high-mounted stop lamp/turn signal lamp system. You intend to market three models, as more completely described in the next paragraph. All models are mounted in the interior of the car. Our primary concern is the possibility that the interior-mounted unit will cause undesirable reflections in the rear window, reducing the ability of the operator to judge conditions to the rear of his vehicle as seen through the rear view mirror. For this reason, Standard No. 108 requires the new center-mounted stop lamps mounted on the interior to be provided with means to minimize such reflections. These lamps now in production incorporate shrouds that abut the rear window glazing. Though your after market device would not be prohibited by Standard No. 108 since it does not appear to impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard, we encourage you to incorporate design features which will prevent undesirable reflections. Also care should be taken to ensure that, when the device is installed, it does not impair the field of view required for rear view mirrors by Safety Standard No. 111. Your device consists of eight miniature lamps, four mounted on each side of the vertical centerline. We also have some additional concerns about the operation of one of your three models. In the first model, in the turn signal mode, the lamps operate sequentially from the center outward in the direction of the intended turn. In the stop lamp mode, the entire unit will illuminate, "sending a sequential (sic) flashing beam from the middle to both sides." We view the sequential flashing of the lights from the center outwards in the stop lamp mode as prohibited by paragraph S4.6 of the standard which requires all lamps that are flashed for signaling purposes. However, the stop function in the second model is indicated by a steady-burning in use, except for turn signal/hazard warning signal lamps, and headlamps and side marker lamps that are flashed for signaling purposes. However, the stop function in the second model is indicated by a steady-burning light, thus complying with our requirements. In the third model, there will be an additional amber colored lens mounted on top of the red lens. The brake signal will be indicated by a steady red light, while the turn signals will be indicated by flashing amber ones. This method of operation is also acceptable under Standard No. 108 which permits rear turn signals to be either amber or red.

We are unable to assist you with State laws that may affect your devices. We suggest you contact the vehicle administrators in the States where you intend to market your system. I hope that this is responsive to your request. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: nht90-3.71

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: Attached to letter dated 7-13-90 from S. Watanabe to S.P. Wood

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of July 13, 1990, requesting an interpretation of how the photometric requirements of FMVSS 108 would apply to a combined taillamp and side marker lamp. Your letter indicates that "the light output of side marker lamp is als o emanated toward the rear of the vehicle mixed with tail lamp light, and similarly, the light output of tail lamp is also emanated toward the side mixed with side marker lamp light." You requested answers to the following two questions.

"1) Should the Tail lamp function of this lamp meet the photometric requirements for 2 lighted sections, or 3 lighted sections?"

Although NHTSA and the SAE have not defined "lighted section", we understand it to be that portion of a lens that is illuminated, either singly by a single light source, or in common by more than one light source. Your question assumes that the number o f bulbs in your lamp is equal to the number of lighted sections, that is to say, that each bulb illuminates a separate section of the lens. However, in your design, all bulbs contribute, without interruption by a divider or other light-directing feature , to the illumination of the lens. Therefore, we regard your lamp as a single compartment lamp to which the single lighted section requirements of SAE Standard J585e Tail Lamps (Rear Position Lamps), September 1977, apply, even though the illumination i s provided by three light sources.

"2) Should the Side marker function of this lamp meet the photometric requirement of SAE J592e by 3 lighted sections or 1 lighted section?"

Standard No. 108 also incorporates by reference SAE Standard J592e Clearance, Side Marker, and Identification Lamps, July 1972. Unlike SAE J585e, SAE J592e does not contain different photometric requirements depending on the number of lighted sections. Therefore, we interpret your question as asking whether photometric compliance is determined on the basis of the bulb that is dedicated to that purpose, or by all three bulbs. Because there is no clearly defined side marker lamp other than the portion of the lamp that is visible from the side, compliance should be measured using all three light sources in the lamp.

I hope you find this information helpful.

ID: nht91-5.6

DATE: July 29, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ken Hanna -- Lectric Limited, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-8-91 from Ken Hanna to Richard Van Iderstine (OCC 6238)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of July 8, 1991, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency. You asked whether a proposed manufacturing and marketing scheme would be in violation of any NHTSA regulations.

You intend to petition for rulemaking to amend Standard No. 108 to reinstate SAE Standard J579a as an optional standard for sealed beam headlamps. These lamps would be used on "antique cars." Until SAE J579a is reinstated, you would like to manufacture headlamps to conform to SAE J579c, the current specification for sealed beam headlamps that is incorporated into Standard No. 108. However, you do not wish to mark the lenses with the identification nomenclature that SAE J579c requires (presumably because it was lacking from the J579a headlamps with which the antique cars were originally equipped). You ask if you may market these lamps with identification on the package stating that they are "for display purposes only and not approved for highway use."

Your letter clearly indicates that the purpose of manufacturing the sealed beam headlamps is for their installation on motor vehicles, albeit old ones, and not for "display purposes only." The headlamps are motor vehicle equipment, and must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, in this instance, SAE J579c. Partial compliance with the requirements is not permissible, and the lenses of headlamps manufactured to conform with SAE J579c must be marked as that standard requires. Thus, your suggested manufacturing and marketing scheme would not conform to Standard No. 108, and, if pursued, it would be a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

The manufacture and sale of noncomplying motor vehicle equipment is a violation of the for which a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation may be imposed, up to a total of $800,000 for any related series of violations. In addition, as the manufacturer of the equipment, Lectric Limited must certify them as meeting all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and similar penalties may be imposed for certification tht is false and misleading in a material respect. Finally, the manufacturer of nonconforming equipment is required to notify and remedy in accordance with the requirements of the Act.

Because SAE J579a and 579c headlamps are identical in external appearance except for lens marking, we do not believe that authenticity of the appearance of older vehicles will be affected to any discernable degree by requiring that their lenses be marked as the contemporary standard requires.

ID: nht89-3.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/01/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: KARL-HEINZ FABER -- VICE PRESIDENT PRODUCT COMPLIANCE SERVICE AND PARTS MERCEDES-BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 08/09/89 FROM MERCEDES BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA TO STEPHEN P. WOOD; REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION, FMVSS 108, LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT; OCC 3823

TEXT: Dear Mr. Faber:

This is in reply to your letter of August 9, 1989, with respect to the interpretation of the word "headlamp" as it appears in paragraph S7.2 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

In pertinent part, this paragraph specifies that certain markings shall be placed on the lens of each headlamp, with "each headlamp" to be marked with the voltage and part or trade number. Noting that "headlamp" is not a defined term but "replaceable bu lb headlamp" is, you have asked for confirmation that marking the lens, the reflector, or the light source with the voltage would be in compliance with paragraph S7.2.

The agency intends that the voltage be indicated on the exterior of the headlamp. If the manufacturer does not wish to put it on the lens, Standard No. 108 will permit, as of December 1, 1989, voltage marking to be on an exterior part of the headlamp bo dy, but not on the light source.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely