ID: nht76-2.36

DATE: 11/22/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: TYM Industries Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 27, 1976, to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, concerning lighting requirements for mopeds.

The headlamp must be designed to conform to SAE Standard J584, "Motorcycle and Motor Driven Cycle Headlamps," April 1964. This Standard does not require a sealed beam headlamp, nor is a minimum wattage specified. Obtaining an AAMVA certificate is probably the best way of insuring that a State raises no obstacles to registry of your vehicle.

There is no minimum wattage for the taillamp or stop lamp. These two lamps may be combined. There is no Federal requirement for SAE identification; however, most lamps are so identified, because of the requirements in the state of Virginia.

ID: nht76-2.37

DATE: 06/29/76

FROM: J. WOMACK FOR F. A. BERNDT -- NHTSA

TO: Nims Sportsman

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This will confirm your telephone conversation of June 23, 1976, with Mr. Vinson of this office concerning the preemptive effect of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards with respect to moped turn signals.

The Federal standards are issued pursuant to Title 15, United States Code, Section 1392(a). Judging that a multiplicity of State and Federal vehicle safety standards would constitute a burden on interstate commerce, Congress also enacted Section 1392(d), which prohibits a State from establishing or continuing in effect a vehicle safety standard that differs from a Federal safety standard covering the same aspect of vehicle performance. For example, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 contains requirements for motorcycle headlamp performance. Therefore, if a State has a standard on motorcycle headlamp performance it must be identical to the Federal one, and may not impose either greater or lesser requirements. On the other hand, there is no Federal standard for fog lamps, and a State may set whatever requirements it deems appropriate for fog lamps.

How does preemption apply to moped turn signals? Under the Federal standards, a moped is categorized as a "motorcycle" since it is "a motor vehicle . . . having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground." (Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 571.3(b)). For some purposes a moped is considered a "motor-driven cycle" which is "a motorcycle with a motor that produces 5-brake horsepower or less." Standard No. 108 requires motorcycles manufactured on or after January 1, 1973, to be equipped with turn signal lamps. However, in recognition of the limited ability of low-powered motorcycles, Standard No. 108 was amended effective October 14, 1974, to add paragraph S4.1.1.26 which states that "A motor-driven cycle whose speed attainable in 1 mile is 30 mph or less need not be equipped with turn signal lamps." Pursuant to Section 1392(d) this means that a State can validly require a moped to be equipped with turn signal lamps in only two instances: If the moped were manufactured between January 1, 1973 and October 14, 1974, or if it were manufactured on or after October 14, 1974, and has a top speed exceeding 30 mph.

I hope this clarifies the matter for you.

ID: nht76-2.38

DATE: 10/08/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood for F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Trailer Manufacturers Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 9, 1976, asking for an interpretation of two provisions of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You have informed us that "some manufacturers are mounting lamps using lock washers and wing nuts rather than conventional nuts to facilitate the installation of lamps when boat trailers are assembled at the dealer level." S4.3.1 of Standard No. 108 requires that lamps "shall be securely mounted . . . ." and you asked whether wing nuts, used as you described, provide a mounting that complies with S4.3.1. The answer is that this would appear to provide a secure mounting within the intent of Standard No. 108.

S4.3.1.3 requires that front side marker lamps for trailers be located as far to the front as practicable, exclusive of its tongue. You ask whether "the tongue is considered to start where the trailer frame begins to angle inward from its parallel sides . . . ." The answer is yes.

I hope this clarifies Standard No. 108 for you and your members.

YOURS TRULY,

trailer manufacturers association

September 9, 1976

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation NHTSA

With regard to Federal Standard No. 108, confusion has arisen concerning the definitions or interpretation of several items in the standard upon which both ourselves, in the administration of our Trailer Certification Program, and our member manufacturers need an official interpretation.

1. S4.3.1 provides that lamps ". . . shall be securly mounted . . ." Some manufacturers are mounting lamps using lock washers and wing nuts rather than conventional nuts to facilitate the installation of lamps when boat trailers are assembled at the dealer level. When properly used, wing nuts provide a secure fastening, yet we have, informally, heard that they may not be considered as meeting S4.3.1. Do wing nuts, used as indicated above, provide a mounting in accordance with S4.3.1?

2. S4.3.1.3 provides for the location of front side marker lights as far forward as practicable exclusive of the trailer tongue. We have heard, informally, that NHTSA considers that the tongue is considered to start where the trailer frame begins to angle inward from the parallel sides, which location sometimes is quite far to the rear on a boat trailer. If this interpretation is correct, it considerably simplifies boat trailer wiring harnesses and may eliminate the need for angle brackets to mount from side marker lights where the frame is angling inward. Is the above interpretation correct? If not what is the proper interpretation of where the tongue is considered to start?

Executive Secretary DONALD I. REED

ID: nht76-2.39

DATE: 12/03/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Trailer Manufacturers Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 29, 1976, asking whether the "47 Series Tite-Lite," in our opinion, has an "'optically combined' clearance lamp function." The lamp in question is represented as having "two lights [that] provide 15 functions" and you have advised us that "there are no partitions inside the multi-function lens of this lamp."

Paragraph S4.4.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 prohibits the optical combination of clearance lamps with tail lamps and identification lamps. This means that a single bulb in the 47 Series Tite-Lite may not provide both tail lamp and clearance lamp functions. It also means that the light emitted by one bulb must not be perceived as performing the function of the other in addition to its design function. You have neither identified the function performed by both bulbs nor provided us with their candle-power output and we are unable to determine whether the lamp complies with Standard No. 108.

SINCERELY,

Trailer manufacturers association

October 29, 1976

Frank A. Berndt U.S. Department of Transportation

Mr. Weber has sent me a copy of your letter to him of October 7, 1976 (reference N40-30).

With respect to paragraphs one and two of your letter, we wish to know if DOT considers the 47 Series Tite-Lite as described inside and on the cover of the enclosed brochure as having an "optically combined" clearance light function, and with respect to this question only, if the lamp is considered to comply with FMVSS No. 108. There are no partitions inside the multi-functions lens of this lamp.

Director of Engineering DONALD I. REED

TITE-LTE

(Graphics omitted)

At last, a Submergible Light System for Boat Trailers . . .

ID: nht76-2.4

DATE: 02/25/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: General Motors Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of February 10, 1976, concerning the definition of "daylight opening" (DLO) as specified in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion, 49 CFR 571.219, and concerning the procedure used by General Motors to determine DLO.

Your letter states that General Motors is concerned about the definition of DLO as stated in Standard No. 219, and "believes that the wording is not easily understood." The definition of DLO as stated in the Standard is based upon the definition found in paragraph 2.3.12 of Section E, Ground Vehicle Practice, SAE Areospace Automotive Drawing Standards, September, 1963. The SAE definition was slightly modified to reflect the particular characteristics of Standard No. 219. The last phrase of the SAE definition was changed to read "as measured parallel to the outer surface of the glazing material," because there was concern that there might be some confusion if the definition directed measurement by means of a "vertical projection".

Your letter describes General Motors' procedure for obtaining DLO, and asks if this procedure is consistent with the definition of DLO as specified in Standard No. 219. The answer to your question is yes. Your illustration (Figure 1) shows that you are measuring "parallel to the outer surface of the glazing material". Your Figure 1 is a simplified illustration, of course, since nearly all windshields are curved.

Please contact us if we can be of any further assistance.

ID: nht76-2.40

DATE: 10/22/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; C. A. Baker for E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: ACUTEK

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 13, 1976, to Mr. Lewis C. Owen, Safety Standards Engineer, concerning an interpretation of the words "optically combined" as they apply to your Acutek 301 combination rear lamp.

In the Acutek lamp, the data you submitted indicate that when the taillamp bulb is activated independently from the clearance lamp bulb, and vice versa, there is no appreciable amount of incidental light emitted from the lens of the clearance lamp. The amount of light "spill" appears to be so small that it would not be interpreted (by a driver following the vehicle on which it is installed) as illuminating the lens of the taillamp when operated in the clearance lamp mode, and vice versa.

Accordingly, the Acutek 301 combination rear lamp appears to meet the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, "Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment."

SINCERELY,

Acutek

October 13, 1976

Louis C. Owen

NHTSA

Subject: Acutek 301 light

Since our telephone conversation in which you stated that in the opinion of your office you feel the Acutek 301 tailight and clearance light is optically combined therefore it is not in strict compliance with standards.

I have had time now to consider Acutek's position and feel the design of the lamp does not conflict with S4.4.1 of MVSS 108 which states: "two or more lamp, reflective devices or items of associated equipment may be combined if the requirements for each lamp, reflective device and item of associated equipment are met except that no clearance lamp may be COMBINED OPTICALLY with any tail light or identification lamp.

I think the key words are "COMBINED OPTICALLY". It would seem to me that in order for a lamp to be combined optically you would either have to use the tail light lens or the 2 candlepower filament of the bulb for tail light or both to have a lamp that is optically combined tail and clearance. In reviewing the engineering and the Acutek light I find that we are not using either the tail light filament for the tail light lens to accomplish the clearance function. In fact the clearance function is combined with the side marker lens and uses the side marker bulb to accomplish the clearance function. The lamp will not pass for clearance side marker using only the tail light filament also it will not pass for a tail light using only the side marker bulb. In my opinion the Acutek 301 light does not conflict with S 4.4.1 as the clearance light is not optically combined with the tail light and in fact is completely separated from the tail light by a section of reflex reflector.

It is true there is some very small amount of bleed over light from one section of the lamp to the other. This feature does not in any way decrease the effectiveness of the lamp, but rather is an added safety feature.

For some reason there has been an unusually large amount of controversy concerning this lamp design and feel it is unwarranted. Frankly the controversy has been a deterrent to the sales program and I would like to resolve the question of whether or not the light does in fact comply with MVSS108.

I would like for your office to reexamine the Acutek 301 tail light, keeping in mind that to be optically combined the lamp would use the tail lamp section to accomplish the clearance requirement. Since the lamp does not do this there is not doubt in my mind upon re-evaluation you will agree the lamp does meet requirements and will be in aposition to send me a letter so stating.

At the Chicago Boat Show I had the opportunity to look at the new Truck Lite combination lamp, in my opinion this light does not meet MVSS 108 as they are using the tail light lens to accomplish the clearance function.

Enclosed with this letter is the ETL test reprt which indicates the Acutek 301 rear lamp does comply with all requirements for tail, stop, turn, rear reflex, side marker and reflex, clearance and license illuminator including photometric, lens warpage, color, corrosion, vibration, moisture, dust and bulb socket.

In order to reactivate the sales program, I need a letter form you indicating compliance or what needs to be done to the lamp to bring it into compliance. It is important that this be done as soon as possible for the manufacturers of boat trailers are now placing orders for next years requirements and if there is much more delay on my part then my competitors will have succeded in keeping me out of the market. I do not intend to let this happen.

Upon your re-evaluation of the Acutek 301 lamp I am sure you will agree the clearance lamp is not optically combined with the tail lamp but is combined withthe side marker lens and bulb.

I thank you for your consideration.

Kenneth C. Ploeger President

Report Electrical Testing Laboratories, Inc.

Order No. 97552-L

Date August 30, 1976

REPORT NO. 436523 "*ACUTEK 301 DOT SAE A.I.S.T 76" COMBINATION REAR LAMP (WITH OR WITHOUT LICENSE PLATE ILLUMINATOR) AND COMBINED WITH "ACUTEK 201 DOT SAE APC - 76" LENS - CLEARANCE, SIDE MARKER LAMP AND REFLEX REFLECTOR

RENDERED TO

ACUTEK INC.

INTRODUCTION

This report contains the results of examination and test of the above device to demonstrate compliance with the applicable test requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, effective January 1, 1976 and current indicated SAE Standards as requested by the client. Marks of identification comply with the requirements of CAC, Title 13, California Highway Patrol.

[Report Omitted]

ID: nht76-2.41

DATE: 10/29/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Department of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is a reply to your letter of September 16, 1976, referencing an opinion letter to you dated October 21, 1969, and asking whether it conflicts with an opinion letter to Ford Motor Company dated "December 5, 1975". (The true date of the letter is July 7, 1975, we do not know why your copy is dated otherwise).

The 1969 letter informed you that "if one compartment or lamp [in a multicompartment lamp] meets the photometric requirements [of Standard No. 108] the additional compartments or lamps are considered as additional lamps and are, therefore not regulated by . . . Standard No. 108 except by S3.1.2.". The letter also stated that "lamps on a vehicle and not required by this standard are generally subject to regulation by the States." Our 1975 letter to Ford, on the other hand advised the company in effect that the performance of the entire multicompartment assembly was covered by Standard No. 108, and that section 25950(b), of the California Vehicle Code was preempted by it. You have asked whether our letter to Ford conflicts with our earlier letter to you.

There is no present conflict. In an amendment to Standard No. 108 effective January 1, 1973, (copy enclosed) the agency adopted paragraph S4.1.1.12 and figure 1 which established minimum photometric requirements that must be met by multicompartment tail, stop, and turn signal lamps. The act of establishing requirements for the additional compartments in a multicompartment lamp thus voided the 1969 letter to you and the interpretation to Ford is the correct one.

The Monarch taillamp, therefore, must meet the requirements of Table 1 of standard No. 108 and is not a lamp that is "in addition to the minimum required number" as that term is used in California Vehicle Code section 25950(b), which appears to have been amended in an effort to include it.

We appreciate your suggestion on an amendment to Standard No. 108 on lens color.

SINCERELY,

DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL

September 16, 1976

File No.: 61.A218.A3107

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

We recently received a copy of Mr. James C. Schultz's opinion of December 3, 1975, to Ford Motor Company regarding the color of unlighted taillamps. This interpretation appears to conflict with the enclosed interpretation of October 21, 1969, we requested from NHTSA on a similar subject.

In answer to a question we raised on multicompartment lamps, Dr. Robert Brenner informed us that, "if one compartment or lamp meets the photometric requirements, the additional compartments or lamps are considered as additional lamps and are, therefore, not regulated by Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 except by S3.1.2". He also stated that "lamps on a vehicle, and not required by this standard, are generally subject to regulation by the states". These statements appear to mean that once a manufacturer meets the minimum requirements for taillamps for FMVSS No. 108, any additional lamps he chooses to add do not fall under that standard. With respect to the unlighted color of the minimum required lamps, we agree that we are preempted. However, in the case of the Ford lamp, the taillamp section in question was an additional one to which Ford, as an afterthought, attached an amber filter. This lamp was not needed to comply with the federal standards for taillamps, and was an additional lamp not governed by the federal standards as stated in the October 21, 1969, NHTSA interpretation. We, therefore, request that you reconsider whether the interpretation in your letter to Ford Motor Company was overly broad.

The color requirements of the Vehicle Code were amended last year and Section 25950(b) referred to in Ford Motor Company's letter now reads as follows:

"All lamps and reflectors visible from the rear of a vehicle shall be red, except that stop lamps, turn signal lamps and front side-marker lamps required by Section 25100 may show amber to the rear."

"This section applies to the color of a lamp whether lighted or unlighted, and to any reflector exhibiting or reflecting perceptible light of 0.05 candlepower or more per foot-candle of incident illumination, except that taillamps, stop lamps, and turn signal lamps that are visible to the rear may be white when unlighted () and, with respect to vehicles manufactured after January 1, 1974, only such lamps that are in addition to the minimum required number and are visible to the rear may be white or amber when unlighted."

Until 1961, the Vehicle Code color requirements applied to all lamps, whether lighted or unlighted. In that year, the Legislature amended the Code to permit rear lamps to be white when unlighted in view of the General Motors and Chrysler taillamps which, for styling purposes, had white lenses to blend in with the chrome trim on the rear fenders and bumpers. At that time, the visibility problem with the white lenses was not initially apparent. It was then found that, in at least one design, the white lens reflected so much sunlight during the daytime that it washed out much of the effectiveness of the red stoplamp and turn signal. The white lenses were not objectionable on lamps that supplemented the regular red lensed rear lamps, but they were not satisfactory as a total replacement for those lamps.

Even though we recognize NHTSA's preemption in allowing a manufacturer to use any unlighted lens color he wishes for the minimum required rear lamps, we have a strong objection to that position. Observations of stoplamps in the daytime have shown that those with white lenses are less effective in attracting another person's attention than a lamp of the same output with a red lens. It might be argued that this problem of reduced signal effectiveness does not apply to taillamps, since they are only lighted at nighttime. However, during high brightness day-time fog when lights were required on vehicles, the red taillamps are so dim that the white or amber lens covers become a safety hazard due to the high brightness masking of the red light.

We have no technical objection to a rear lamp lens being any color darker than red, because this would improve the contrast of the red signal against its background. We are highly concerned about the use of lenses that are lighter than the required red because of their effect in washing out the signal in daylight. Standard No. 108 already acknowledges this difference with respect to turn signals where amber is required to have more candlepower output than red for equivalent daytime effectiveness. You might wish to make observations yourself in comparing the daylight effectiveness of the red lens on the Monarch with that of the amber lens when the taillamps are turned on. Daytime observations of the white lens on the various Cadillac year models illustrate varying degrees of effectiveness depending upon the slant of the lens and the taillamp intensity.

We would appreciate hearing from you with respect to a clarification of the two interpretations. We also ask that NHTSA consider amending Standard No. 108 to prohibit taillamps and stoplamps from having a lens cover of white, amber, or any other color that has a lighter contrast with the signal than the red lens.

WARREN M. HEATH Commander Engineering Section

ID: nht76-2.42

DATE: 12/01/76 EST

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of November 2, 1976, regarding questions on Docket No. 75-8; Notice 5, for a two-lamp rectangular headlamp system. The answers are provided in accordance with the paragraph numbering of your letter.

1) The two-lamp rectangular headlamps must meet the requirements of SAE J579c.

This is an improved performance lamp over the requirements of SAE J579a and, therefore, must meet the requirements of SAE J579c.

2) The maximum permissible candela for the Type 2B headlamp is 75,000 as specified in SAE J579c. The lower limit for other types of headlamps is retained awaiting future rulemaking action.

3) SAE J580b as specified in the 1976 edition of the SAE Handbook is the correct reference specification for the Type 2B Sealed Beam Headlamp Assembly.

3-1) Answered above

3-2) Answered above

3-3) Appropriate revisions to subreferenced SAE standards have at this time not been made for the Type 2B headlamp. In the case of SAE J580b, conducting the tests with a modified deflectometer to fit the Type 2B lamp would be sufficient. It is anticipated that revisions will soon be made to the appropriate subreferenced SAE standards for the Type 2B headlamp.

Your suggested revisions for the referenced and subreferenced SAE standards to incorporate the Type 2B headlamp, including a modified design of deflectometer, may be sent directly to:

Society of Automotive Engineers Detroit Office, Suite 206 2100 West Big (Illegible Word) Troy, Michigan 43084 ATTENTION: Mr. James Tishkowski

We hope this clarifies the questions contained in your letter. If you have additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

ID: nht76-2.43

DATE: 07/15/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Department of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 22, 1976, asking for interpretations of Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 108 and 205.

Paragraph S4.3.1 of Standard No. 108 requires, as you noted, that lamps and reflective devices be securely mounted on a rigid part of the vehicle. You asked "whether or not flexible mount clearance and sidemarker lamps should be permitted for use on motor vehicles." Your question appears directed towards replacement equipment. The answer is that California may regulate mounts for replacement lighting equipment in the manner it deems appropriate. S4.3.1 applies to the mounting of lighting equipment on new motor vehicles, and does not establish a specification for replacement equipment mounts. The replacement clearance and sidemarker lamps themselves are, of course, subject to Standard No. 108.

You also asked whether there was a provision in Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, that would exempt "Item 3" [AS 3] glazing (to be used for glass partitions and rear side windows of van-type vehicles) from the requirements of ANS Z26 Tests Nos. 1 and 18.

The answer to your question is no. Paragraph S5.1.1 of Standard No. 205 specifies that glazing materials for use in motor vehicles shall conform to the requirements of ANS Z26. The ANS Z26 specifications require "Item 3" glazing materials to comply with Test No. 1, "Light Stability," and Test No. 18, "Abrasion Resistance," regardless of where the "Item 3" glazing is to be used in the vehicle. Thus, there is no provision by which manufacturers of such glazing may be exempted from the test requirements.

SINCERELY,

DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL

June 22, 1976

File No.: 61.A2781.A3107

James C. Schultz Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

We would appreciate your interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 108 and 205 with regard to the following situations:

1. FMVSS No. 108, Section S4.3.1 requires, in part, that lamps and reflective devices be securely mounted on a rigid part of the vehicle. For several years, clearance or sidemarker lamps have been available which have a rubber strap between the mounting plate and the lamp housing that allows the lamp great freedom of movement when attached to "a rigid part of the vehicle".

Each of the lamps we have examined has a small degree of rotation between the mounting plate and the lamp. In addition, when the mounting plate is held against an appropriate mounting surface, the lamp axis is neither parallel nor perpendicular to the planes normally associated with lamp orientation. When a truck with this type of lamp installed is in motion, the wind currents cause the orientation of the clearance lamps to be further distorted and the ones used for the sidemarker function are in constant motion.

We assume that the intent of the regulation is to ensure that the device will maintain a fixed orientation. Since this lamp cannot comply with that requirement, we request your opinion as to whether or not flexible-mount clearance and sidemarker lamps should be permitted to be sold for use on motor vehicles.

2. Due to the increasing popularity of glass partitions in van-type vehicles, we have received many requests for our approval of AS-3 glazing manufactured with one or both sides textured to render it translucent or with designs etched or sand-blasted upon it. This glazing is also used in the rear side windows of vans and bathroom windows in buses and recreation vehicles. Several of the manufacturers have asked to have this type of glazing exempted from ANSI Test Number 18, Abrasion Resistance, because such resistance has no safety value in this application.

Since the purpose of the abrasion test is to ensure that the driver will have an undisturbed view in the areas requisite for driving visibility, it appears unreasonable to require Tests Nos. 1 and 18 to be performed on glazing that is not used for driving visibility. We would like to know if there is a provision which would allow these manufacturers to be exempt from these tests for this type of glazing.

WARREN M. HEATH Commander Engineering Section

CC: AAMVA; VESC

ID: nht76-2.44

DATE: 02/26/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: H. A. Heffron, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 13, 1976, asking for a confirmation of your understanding that Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 does not apply to lighting equipment intended as replacement equipment on motor vehicles manufactured before January 1, 1972.

You are correct in your interpretation. The effective date of Standard No. 108 in its current form is January 1, 1972. Therefore, the term "any vehicle to which this standard applies" contained in S4.7.1 means a motor vehicle manufactured on or after January 1, 1972, and school bus signal lamps intended as replacements for similar lamps on pre-1972 buses are not required to conform to Standard No. 108. This also means, of course, that the manufacturer has no obligation to certify conformance to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. As motor vehicle equipment, however, its manufacturer would be subject to the notification and remedy provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act in the event of the determination of a safety related defect.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

February 13, 1976

Office of the Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sir:

This inquiry concerns the applicability of MVSS 108 to school bus replacement lighting equipment.

MVSS 108 provides with respect to replacement equipment as follows: (S4.7.1)

"Each lamp, reflective device, or item of associated equipment manufactured to replace any lamp, reflective device, or item of associated equipment on any vehicle to which this standard applies, shall be designed to conform with this standard."

I note that as originally issued the amendment to MVSS 108 which extended its applicability to requirements for replacement lighting equipment was to be effective on July 1, 1971 (35 Fed. Reg. 16840) and this effective date was subsequently changed to January 1, 1972. (36 Fed. Reg. 1896)

My specific question is with respect to school buses manufactured prior to January 1, 1972. As I read MVSS 108, its requirements do not apply to replacement equipment for these older vehicles manufactured prior to January 1972 and, therefore, replacement lighting equipment for such pre-1972 school buses, including replacements for the signal lamp required of school buses in S4.1.4, are not required to conform to MVSS 108.

Would you please advise whether any understanding of the applicability of MVSS 108 is correct.

Very truly yours,

Howard A. Heffron