ID: nht76-2.35

DATE: 06/02/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood; NHTSA

TO: Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 20, 1976, asking for an amendment of S4.1.1.21 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to allow a plus tolerance of 7.5 percent on maximum wattage requirements for Type 1A and 2A headlamps.

I enclose a copy of an interpretation furnished the General Electric Company which states that such a tolerance is allowed. However, to clarify our intent we plan to amend Standard No. 108 in the near future in the manner that you suggest.

YOURS TRULY,

STANLEY ELECTRIC CO., LTD.

April 20, 1976

Att.: E. T. Driver Director, Office of Crash Avoidance Motor Vehicle Programs

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

In item (c) of S4.1.1.33, FMVSS No.108 (41F.R. 1483 - January 8, 1976), a tolerance of +7.5% is allowed to the maximum wattage of each circular unit of automotive headlamps.

On the other hand, in item (b) of S4.1.1.21, FMVSS No.108 (40F.R. 54426 - November 24, 1975), such tolerance is not clearly specified for rectangular units.

From the table 3, SAE J573f, however, in case of these rectangular units, we noted, by calculation based on the maximum amperages specified there, that almost the same tolerances are allowed to the maximum wattages as those allowed by S4.1.1.33, FMVSS No.108.

Therefore, we would like to interprete the provision regarding the maximum wattages of rectangular units as that the same tolerance of +7.5% is also being allowed by you. Your comments on this matter is requested.

Furthermore, if such interpretation is not accepted by you, we ask you to amend the provision of S4.1.1.21 so that the same tolerance of +7.5% which is now being allowed for circular units may also be allowed to the maximum wattages of type 1A and type 2A rectangular units.

Thanking you in advance for your cooperation,

T. Takeda Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Dept.

ID: 13434.ztv

Mr. Binh Nguyen
Product Manager
Customer Satisfaction
AutoZone
P.O. Box 2198
Memphis, TN 38101-9842

Dear Mr. Nguyen:

This responds to your letter of December 16, 1996. You informed us that AutoZone "does sell auxiliary driving lights that are either SAE/DOT Approved or For Off Road Use Only." You have asked us several questions about such driving lamps, and we are pleased to respond.

"1. Who regulates auxiliary driving lights - the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) or the Department of Transportation (DOT)?"

DOT has not established specifications for auxiliary lamps such as driving, fog, etc., and does not directly regulate them. Unlike headlamps, for example, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment does not require auxiliary driving lamps to be original equipment on motor vehicles. However, they must not be installed on a motor vehicle, either as original or aftermarket equipment, in a manner that impairs the effectiveness of required lighting equipment (e.g., mounted so close to a turn signal lamp as to mask its signal), and they should not be used as substitutes for headlamps. In addition, DOT has broad jurisdiction over "motor vehicle equipment"; thus, if auxiliary lamps are determined to have a safety related defect, their manufacturer must notify customers and remedy the defect.

The SAE is not a regulatory body and compliance with its standards and recommended practices is voluntary and of no legal significance, unless those standards have been incorporated by reference into Standard No. 108 and/or a State's motor vehicle laws. As stated above, SAE provisions on auxiliary driving, fog, and other such lamps have not been incorporated as Federal requirements.

"2. If no one currently regulates these automotive parts, are there plans at the Federal level to regulate these lights in the future? Who will regulate them and what will be the requirements?"

We have no plans at this time to regulate auxiliary driving or auxiliary lower beam headlamps in the future, but we have publicly stated our intent to regulate front and rear fog lamps. Whether

this will actually occur we cannot say at this time, but it is likely that any regulations will be based on both SAE and European standards.

"3. Do individual states have different restrictions regarding auxiliary driving lights?

4. If the answer is yes, would you please provide me with information on these different restrictions and with contact names for the various state agencies?"

In the absence of Federal regulations, each State may regulate any and all auxiliary lamps under State laws. There may be States with restrictions. However, we are not conversant with the laws of the individual States, and I regret that we are unable to provide you with contact names in the office of the Motor Vehicle Administrator of each State.

"5. What does it mean when a light manufacturer says "This light is DOT/SAE approved?" or "This light is AAMVA approved?"

The phrase "DOT/SAE approved" should never be used. DOT does not have the authority to "approve" or "disapprove" motor vehicle equipment. To the best of our knowledge, SAE does not approve lamps either. Sometimes a manufacturer will use the phrase to imply that the lamp has been manufactured to SAE specifications that have been incorporated into Standard No. 108 as Federal requirements. If this is the case, the manufacturer may simply mark the lamp "DOT" as its certification that the lamp has been manufactured to conform to all applicable requirements of Standard No. 108. Otherwise, the manufacturer must certify compliance by means of a label on the lamp or on the container in which it is equipped. In cases where "DOT/SAE approved" appears on auxiliary lamps and their packages, the marking is meaningless. We shall answer your question on AAMVA under Question 7. below

"6. Who is the AAMVA?"

"AAMVA" is the abbreviation for the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, an organization whose members are the motor vehicle administrators of the individual States. It is located at 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

"7. What role does the AAMVA play in regulating auxiliary driving lights or any automotive lighting.?"

Some States require registration of manufacturers doing business within their borders. Because auxiliary lamps are not required lighting equipment under Standard No. 108, a State may set its own standard for these lamps, and require manufacturers to obtain a certificate of conformance with the State standard as a condition for selling the auxiliary lamps in the State. We understand that AAMVA previously performed the service of obtaining these certificates. However, another organization appears to have assumed that role. This new organization is the Automotive Manufacturers Equipment Compliance Agency, Inc. (AMECA), Suite 605, 1101 15th St. N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20005. I am not familiar with the phrase "This lamp is AAMVA approved" but it may mean that AAMVA had obtained the necessary clearances for sale of the lamp in those States which permit AAMVA-approved lamps.

"8. How does a light manufacturer get his/her lights approved for sale at the federal and state levels?"

As I explained earlier, DOT has no authority to "approve" lighting equipment. All that is required under Federal law for a lamp to be sold is that it comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards and bear its manufacturer's certification of compliance in the form indicated in response to Question 5. Since no Federal requirements apply to driving lamps, no permission to sell or certify is required under Federal law. The individual States may require State approval before sale, and we recommend that you consult AMECA as to its recommendations for sale in the individual States.

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:/8/97

ID: 1983-1.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/26/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 7, 1982, to Mr. Vinson of this office asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 with respect to a new option for school buses permitted by Wisconsin. This option would allow two additional red lamps, front and rear, as a supplement to the red warning lamp system required by paragraph S4.1.4(a) of the standard.

As a general rule, supplemental lighting is permitted by Standard No. 108 as long as it does not "impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment" required by the standard (paragraph S4.1.3). In our opinion, the separate lamps that would be permitted by Wisconsin on the front of the school bus, between the bottom of the windshield and the top of the highest headlamp, would not impair the effectiveness of the front lighting equipment. The lamps on the rear, however, according to Wisconsin, could be incorporatedn "in an existing lamp" provided that such incorporation "shall not interfere with or override the existing unit's function." We believe that the language both of Standard No. 108 and the Wisconsin specification would effectively prohibit incorporation of the warning lamp into the stop lamp of the school bus. However, we believe that this language would allow its combination with the tail lamp, or its addition as a separate lamp.

We trust that this is responsive to your request.

SINCERELY,

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

December 7, 1982

Taylor Vinson Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Taylor:

I am writing for an interpretation of FMVSS 108 based on the attached copy of the new Wisconsin School Transportation Specifications. You will note that Wisconsin is asking for an additional warning light on each side, front and back, tied into the existing warning light flasher system in order to make school buses more visible to vehicular traffic.

It is the opinion of Blue Bird that this does not affect the requirements of FMVSS 108 providing the basic requirements of this standard are not altered by the addition of the additional two (2) lights front and rear.

I am looking forward to your prompt response.

Thank you.

Thomas D. Turner Manager Engineering Services

C: DEWEY BRUNNER; JIM MOORMAN

Wisconsin School Transportation Specifications

(a) The bus shall be equipped with alternating red flashing lamps.

1. The bus shall be equipped with 2 red warning lamps at the rear of the vehicle and 2 red warning lamps at the front of the vehicle, which shall be controlled by a manually actuated switch and shall flash alternately at rate of 60 to 120 cycles per minute. A brake or door operated switch shall not be permitted. The "on" period shall be long enough to permit bulb filament to come up to full brightness.

a. An option is permitted, whereby, 2 additional alternating flashing red lights may be mounted on both the front and rear of the bus. The additional front facing lights shall be located between the bottom of the windshield and the top of the highest headlamp. They may be mounted on the fender or the cowl.

b. The additional rear facing lights may be separate lamps mounted within 12 inches above or below the directional turn signals or may be incorporated in an existing lamp. Any incorporation with an existing unit shall not interfere with or override the existing unit's function.

c. The optional system shall have units with a red lens of at least the same diameter as the required alternating lights. The alternating "on," "off" positions shall be opposite from those of the required alternating lights. The effect will produce the required top mounted flashing light and an optional mid-height mounted light to flash on opposite sides simultaneously. The result can be described as a "wig-wag" or "cross-arm" effect.

2. The red warning lamps shall be of seal beam construction or other improved type such as strobe, not less than 5 inches in diameter and visible from a distance of at least 500 feet along the axis of the vehicle in bright sunlight.

3. There shall be a visible or audible means of giving clear and unmistakable indication to driver when the signaling system is turned on.

4. Each red warning signal lamp shall be mounted with its axis substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis of vehicle.

5. The front and rear red warning signal lamps shall be spaced as far apart laterally as practicable, and in no case shall the spacing between lamp centers be less than 3 feet.

6. The front red warning signal lamps shall be located so that they can be clearly distinguished when headlamps are lighted on lower beam.

7. The warning signal lamps shall be mounted at the front above the windshield and at the rear so that the lower edge of the lens is not lower than the top line of the side window openings.

8. The front and the rear signal lamps shall be unobstructed by any part of the vehicle from 5 degrees above to 10 degrees below horizontal and from 30 degrees to the right and 30 degrees to the left of the centerline of the vehicle.

9. The area around the lens of each alternately flashing red signal lamp and extending outward approximately 3 inches shall be painted black on all school buses. This subdivision shall not apply to vehicles not specifically manufactured as school buses and which have red warning signal lamps mounted above the roof top. Red warning signal lamps on such vehicles shall be equipped with black hoods at least 3 inches long.

10. Except as provided in sub. (9) above, red warning signal lamps may be equipped with hoods to shield from rays of sun for improved visibility.

ID: 1985-01.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/11/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHSTA

TO: Kazutoshi Kasagi -- Chief Inspector, International Trade and Industry Inspection Institute Ministry of International Trade and Industry (Japan)

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. Kazutoshi Kasagi Chief Inspector Internationally Agreed Safety Division International Trade & Industry Inspection Institute Ministry of International Trade & Industry Japanese Government 15-1, 6 Chome Ginza Chuo-ku Tokyo, Japan

This is in reply to your letter of November 13, 1984, with respect to interpretations of the motorcycle headlighting requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, and SAE J584.

You have asked "whether other lighting systems than referred in S4.1.1.34, such as non-sealed beam head lamp with two bulbs, are acceptable or not." The answer is yes. Non-sealed lamps meeting the requirements of SAE J584 are acceptable, including those with two bulbs, as the "At-Focus Tests" paragraph of J584 is directed to "light source or sources."

Your next question is whether photometric compliance is judged when one light is on or two, including the maximum permissible output of 75,000 cd. The answer to this question depends on the design of the lamp; if it is designed so that both bulbs operate simultaneously, then photometrics including maximum output are determined with both bulbs operating. If the design is such that one bulb produces lower beam and the other the upper beam, then compliance is judged by that method of operation. Should one bulb produce both lower and upper beams and the other bulb perform an unregulated lighting function, then the photometric compliance would be judged with only the bulb used for the regulated function. In this case, however, the unregulated bulb must not interfere with the effectiveness of the headlamp. This also answers your final question about conduct of the out-of-focus test. It is to be conducted according to the design intent of the operation of the headlamp, i.e. the design function of each bulb or bulbs.

You have also asked about the geometrical center of a design when one of two bulbs (both with an upper beam and a lower beam filament apparently) is on. Operation of only one bulb alone would result in an assymetrical lighting display off the vehicle's centerline. This is permitted by S4.1.1.34 of Standard No. 108 for the sealed beam lighting systems specified therein. Therefore, we could not logically disapprove of it for unsealed headlighting systems. However, if only one bulb performed both the lower beam function and the upper beam, and the other bulb performed an unregulated lighting function, then the bulb providing the lower/upper the lower beam function and the upper beam, and the other bulb performed an unregulated lighting function, then the bulb providing the lower/upper beams must be located on the vehicle's vertical centerline.

If you have any further questions, we shall be happy to answer them.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

November 13, 1984

Mr. Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590, U.S.A.

Dear Mr. Frank Berndt:

This is to ask you about interpretation and applicability of FMVSS 108 and SAE J584(Motorcycle Headlamp). Before asking questions, I'm pleased to introduce our organization. International Trade and Industry Inspection Institute (ITIII) is an affiliated inspection organization of Ministry of International Trade and Industry, Japanese Government and has three main functions. ITIII itself conducts test and inspections of industrial products under the control of MITI and ITIII administrates private inspection organizations, consumer bodies and manufacturers in terms of inspection and test. ITIII also is involved in the drafting process of inspection standards and inspection method of industrial products. ITIII has been an approved laboratory of lighting equipments by American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) and we have regular visits of Mr. Bardel and Mr. Cardarelli from AAMVA. We keep close relations with AAMVA for many years.

Inquiry

FMVSS 108 S4. 1. 1.34 specifies acceptable lighting system of motor cycles. This arises the question of whether other lighting systems than referred in S4.1.1.34, such as non-sealed beam head lamp with two bulbs, are acceptable or not. If it is acceptable, we have three questions to ask you further with regard to SAE J584.

Question 1

Which case should non-sealed beam lamp comply with specified photometric value of SAE J584 either when one bulb is lighted on or two bulbs are on? How should we interpret the requirement of Maximum 75000 cd in each case?

Question 2

Which should be the case of geometrical center when one bulb is on as illustrated below?

"INSERT GRAPHIC"

Question 3

How should we conduct out of focus test of the applicable case asked in question 1?

I hope this contact will be the first step to create good relation with your organization and I appreciate your quick response to our question.

Best regards,

Kazutoshi Kasagi

Chief Inspector, Internationally Agreed Safety Division

ID: 1982-3.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/21/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. R. Scheiner; NHTSA

TO: Kioto Manufacturing Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

October 21, 1982

AIR MAIL

M. Iwase, Manager Technical Administration Department Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd. Shizuoka Works 500 Kitawaki Shimizu-Shi, Shizuoka-Ken JAPAN

Dear Mr. Iwase:

This is in reply to your letter of September 8, 1982, regarding signal flashing on an auxiliary lamp. You asked several questions on your proposed auxiliary lamp which would be installed as original equipment to supplement the lower beam headlamp:

1. Whether this auxiliary lamp would be legally accepted to be flashed for a passing signaling purpose.

2. In case that this auxiliary lamp is designed to comply with the requirements of SAE J583d - Fog Lamps, instead of SAE J582a -Auxiliary Low Beam Lamp: Whether the auxiliary lamp (Fog Lamp) could be legally accepted to be flashed for a passing signal purpose.

The answer to these questions is: No.

Paragraph S4.6 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment allows turn signal and hazard warning signal lamps to flash but subparagraph (b) states:

"All other lamps shall be steady-burning, except that means may be provided to flash headlamps and side marker lamps for signaling purposes."

We interpret "all other lamps" to include all lamps, required and auxiliary lighting such as the lamp you propose.

In summary we interpret FMVSS No. 108 not to allow the auxiliary lamp you propose to be used as a flashing lamp.

Sincerely,

Stanley R. Scheiner, Acting Chief Crash Avoidance Division Office of Vehicle Safety Standards

NHTSA:OVSS:CAD:Medlin:orb:9/27/82:(JWASE) REWRITTEN:Medlin:orb:9/30/82 RETYPED:orb:10/7/82: REW:Vinson:nbb 10/18/82 Copies to: NRM-01 Chron NRM-11 Chron/Subject/Medlin's File/Hold;NOA-30 Interps;NOA-30 Redbook(3)

No Control

ID: 21067.ztv

John F. Letchford, Esq.
Dilworth Paxson LLP
3200 Mellon Bank Center
1735 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-7595

Dear Mr. Letchford:

This is in reply to your letter of November 30, 1999, with respect to whether "a device that causes the backup lamps to steadily burn for a few seconds upon actuation of the horn would violate" 49 CFR 571.108 ( Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108).

Specifically, the device would cause the upper beam of a vehicle's headlamps to flash and "backup lights to illuminate and burn steadily" for three seconds or less, when the vehicle's horn is sounded. The purpose of the device is to provide a visual warning to others in front of or behind a vehicle of a potential danger or threat requiring an audible warning, i.e, use of the horn. You have cited S5.5.10(b) of Standard No. 108 which permits headlamps to be wired to flash for signaling purposes, but you are concerned with S5.5.10(d) that requires all other lamps to be wired to be steady burning.

S4 of Standard No. 108 defines "flash" as a "cycle of activation and deactivation of a lamp by automatic means . . . ." We would not regard a backup lamp that illuminated steadily for three seconds or less to be a lamp that is not steady burning within the meaning of S5.5.10(d), or flashing, within the definition of S4. However, the determinative question is whether a backup lamp can be used for purposes other than to indicate a reverse movement of the vehicle. The answer is no. See SAE Standard J593c, Backup Lamps, February 1968, which Tables I and III of Standard No. 108 incorporate by reference (copy enclosed). Paragraph 2 of Installation Requirements states that "Backup lamps shall not be lighted when the vehicle is in forward motion." It is clear that the device you discuss is intended to be used under normal operating conditions of the vehicle on the public roads, and that its installation would create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108.

We appreciate your client's interest in motor vehicle safety and regret that we cannot provide the letter you requested.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:108
d.3/30/2000

ID: nht75-6.25

DATE: 05/02/75

FROM: JAMES C. SCHULTZ -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: FRAZER F. HILDER -- GENERAL COUNSEL GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION

TITLE: N40-30

TEXT: Dear Mr. Hilder:

This is in response to your letter of March 21, 1975, inquiring as to the effect of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121 on Massachusetts and New Jersey State laws relating to air brake performance.

As you are aware, section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) provides that no State or political subdivision of a State may promulgate or continue in effect standards applicable to an aspect of motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment performance which is covered by a Federal Motor vehicle safety standard, unless the standards are identical.

Standard No. 121 includes provisions relating to truck and bus brake performance, including requirements for stopping distances. A more restrictive State brake requirement than that specified in Standard 121 is voided by @ 103(d) since the Federal standard is intended to cover all aspects of air brake performance.

The Federal requirements must be regarded as conclusive with regard to service, emergency, and parking braking capabilities in order to maintain the uniformity necessary in a Federal regulatory scheme. This was affirmed in a recent decision rendered in a case brought by the Motorcycle Industry Council, Inc. against the State of California in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California concerning the preemption of a California State requirement that Motorcycle headlamps be wired to operate when the engine is running. The Court held that the California requirement is preempted by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration intended to cover all aspects of performance directly involving motorcycle headlamps.

Therefore, requirements such as those described in your letter would be preempted by Standard 121 since the aspects of performance that would be affected are covered by the Federal standard. You should note that this discussion of State "requirements" only refers to rules of general applicability within a State or municipality. It does not refer to purchase specifications that may be imposed by any person or organization, including a State or municipality, with respect to vehicles purchased for the person or organization's own use. Such specifications are not limited by Federal law, and in the case of governmental bodies are specifically allowed by @ 103(d), although of course they cannot alter a manufacturer's duty to conform to Federal standards.

Sincerely,

ID: nht75-4.8

DATE: 05/02/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. C. Schultz; NHTSA

TO: General Motors Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of March 21, 1975, inquiring as to the effect of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121 on Massachusetts and New Jersey State laws relating to air brake performance.

As you are aware, section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) provides that no State or political subdivision of a State may promulgate or continue in effect standards applicable to an aspect of motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment performance which is covered by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, unless the standards are identical.

Standard No. 121 includes provisions relating to truck and bus brake performance, including requirements for stopping distances. A more restrictive State brake requirement than that specified in Standard 121 is voided by @ 103(d) since the Federal standard is intended to cover all aspects of air brake performance.

The Federal requirements must be regarded as conclusive with regard to service, emergency, and parking braking capabilities in order to maintain the uniformity necessary in a Federal regulatory scheme. This was affirmed in a recent decision rendered in a case brought by the Motorcycle Industry Council, Inc. against the State of California in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California concerning the preemption of a California State requirement that motorcycle headlamps be wired to operate when the engine is running. The Court held that the California requirement is preempted by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration intended to cover all aspects of performance directly involving motorcycle headlamps.

Therefore, requirements such as those described in your letter would be preempted by Standard 121 since the aspects of performance that would be affected are covered by the Federal standard. You should note that this discussion of State "requirements" only refers to rules of general applicability within a State or municipality. It does not refer to purchase specifications that may be imposed by any person or organization, including a State or municipality, with respect to vehicles purchased for the person or organization's own use. Such specifications are not limited by Federal law, and in the case of governmental bodies are specifically allowed by @ 103(d), although of course they cannot alter a manufacturer's duty to conform to Federal standards.

ID: 19163.ztv

Mr. Fred Kelly
President
Hamsar Diversco Inc.
5320 Downey Street
Burlington, Ontario
Canada L7L 6M2

Dear Mr. Kelly:

This is our answer to your letter of November 12, 1998, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, as a followup to your phone conversation with him on lamps for vehicles equipped with snow plows. This letter also reflects your conversation with Mr. Vinson on December 2.

Our reply discusses your obligations as a Canadian-based manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment selling its product in the United States. We also discuss the obligations that arise on various persons when a snow plow is installed on a motor vehicle.

You wrote us that you "have sold approximately 2500 sets of lights that would not comply with the DOT regulations as far as the low beam, high beam, and park/turn photometric output are concerned," and you asked about your responsibilities on

December 2. We understand that all these lamps were sold to a single customer in the United States for retail sale under the customer's brand name.

The obligations under Federal law of a Canadian-based manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment selling its product in the United States.

We require manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment based outside the United States to file a designation of agent for service of process through whom legal documents may be sent. In the December 2 phone call, we informed you that Hamsar Diversco, Inc., had not designated an agent, and that it must do so. I enclose a copy of 49 CFR Sec. 551.45 so that you may comply with this requirement at your earliest convenience.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, applies to the lamps you sell. They are considered replacement headlamps, parking lamps, and turn signal lamps. As such, they must meet all applicable specifications of Standard No. 108, including photometric output. They must also be certified as meeting those requirements in order to be imported and sold in the United States. You have informed us that the lamps do not comply, but not whether the lamps have been certified as complying. Importation and sale of nonconforming and uncertified replacement lighting equipment is a violation of 49 U.S.C. 30112(a) for which a civil penalty may be imposed. This penalty may be as high as $1,100 for a single violation, and up to $880,000 for a related series of violations. The same penalties apply for lack of certification, or for certification that is false and misleading in a material respect.

When a manufacturer decides that a vehicle or equipment item fails to conform with an applicable standard such as Standard No. 108, 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Reports the manufacturer must, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118-30120, notify us within 5 days of its decision, and thereafter notify its customers and provide a free remedy for the noncompliance through repair, repurchase, or replacement with an equivalent conforming item. Hamsar Diversco is the fabricating manufacturer, but your customer, who we understand is the importer of the equipment, is also a "manufacturer," for purposes of notification and remedy, because the statutory definition of the term "manufacturer" includes those who import motor vehicle equipment for resale. With respect to vehicle equipment that is imported, either the fabricating manufacturer or the importer for resale must notify us, and that is considered notice by both (Sec. 573.3(b)).

After a person notifies us, that person then proceeds to notify owners and remedy the noncompliance as specified in 49 CFR Part 577, Defect and Noncompliance Notification. The manufacturer also has a continuing obligation to file quarterly reports on the progress of each recall campaign covering six calendar quarters after the campaign has begun.

The obligations under Federal law of the person who installs the snow plow.

As you and Mr. Vinson discussed in November, S5.3.1.1 of Standard No. 108, in essence, requires headlamps, parking lamps, and front turn signal lamps, as installed on a vehicle, to comply with visibility and photometric requirements specified in SAE materials that have been incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. If a snow plow prevents any of these lamps from complying, an auxiliary lamp that complies must be provided. Although the lamps you have provided apparently do not comply, the discussion below assumes that the headlamps and other lamps comply with Standard No. 108.

Under our laws, a motor vehicle must continue to comply with Standard No. 108 when additional equipment that performs work is added to it. This requirement applies both when the plow is added by the time of the vehicle's initial sale (S5.3.1.1), and after it is sold (49 U.S.C. 30122).

If the plow is installed not later than the time of the initial sale, we regard the installer as an "alterer." A person who alters a new vehicle, other than by the addition of readily detachable components, must add its certification to the vehicle in the manner prescribed by 49 CFR 567.7, stating that the vehicle as altered continues to meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. We do not regard a snow plow as a "readily detachable component" (this term includes mirrors and tire and rim assemblies). Thus, it is incumbent upon the installer of the plow to determine whether the vehicle will continue to comply with Standard No. 108 when the plow is installed. We believe that the lamps installed on the vehicle must continue to comply when the snow plow is in any position that may be used when the vehicle is in motion or signaling a turn.

If the plow is installed after sale by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, that person has the legal obligation under Sec. 30122 to ensure continued conformance with Standard No. 108 but is not required to certify compliance. However, Sec. 30122 imposes no obligation on an individual vehicle owner.

Whether lamps may be redundant

In your letter of November 12, you commented that "since the park/turn on the vehicle is fully functional and is not blocked by the addition of the snowplow, the vehicles park/turn is sufficient and the additional park/turn on the snowplow lamp is redundant."

Whether an additional parking/turn signal lamp is redundant, in our view, depends on the design of the vehicle and the potential positions of the plow. Assuming that you are manufacturing sets of lamps for universal application and not with respect to a particular motor vehicle, we believe that the set should include a parking/turn signal lamp that will meet Standard No. 108 when it is installed on the plow.

If you have any further questions, Taylor Vinson will be glad to answer them (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:108#573#577
d.1/22/99

ID: Wolford.2

Kevin M. Wolford, Executive Director
Automotive Manufacturers
Equipment Compliance Agency, Inc. ,
1101 15^th Street, NW, Suite 607
Washington, DC 20005-5020




Dear Mr. Wolford:

This responds to your letter in which you requested clarification of certain issues pertaining to the requirements for replacement lighting equipment under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Specifically, your letter asked whether a manufacturer designing a lamp with a bulb using an indexed base, but which has a series of LEDs, would need to meet the requirements for a "single compartment" lamp or a "three compartment" lamp (i.e. , whether a bulb with several LEDs has a single light source or multiple light sources). You also asked whether it would be permissible under FMVSS No. 108 to develop a lamp with a red bulb that complies with the Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) standard for bulbs. I am pleased to have the opportunity to explain the relevant provisions of our standard.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. It is the responsibility of manufacturers to certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards before they can be offered for sale (see 49 CFR Part 571).

As you are aware, FMVSS No. 108 specifies requirements for original and replacement lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. The standard applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers (except pole trailers and trailer converter dollies), and motorcycles. Paragraph S5.8.1 of the standard provides, "Except as provided below, 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 to this standard."

We would note that the substantive issues raised in your letter, regarding compliance of certain lamp designs with the requirements of Standard No. 108, have largely been addressed in prior interpretations. The first scenario presented in your letter involves a replacement lamp (non-headlamp) that includes a series of LEDs. You stated that the hypothetical replacement lamp is designed with an indexed base conforming to SAE J567, Lamp Bulb Retention System. Your letter, in effect, asked whether the LEDs, taken together, would be considered a single light source when determining photometric compliance with Standard No. 108 (thereby being subject to the requirements for one lighted section), or whether the LEDs would be considered individual light sources (thereby being subject to the requirements for three lighted sections).

As we explained in our December 30, 1992 letter of interpretation to Mr. T. Kouchi, lamps with LEDs are considered to have multiple light sources, with each LED constituting a single source. The letter goes on to state that "any device that contains more than three lighted sections, or LEDs, need only comply with the requirements prescribed for three lighted sections". We note, however, that in our December 21, 2005 letter of interpretation to Mr. Takayuki Amma (see enclosure), we stated that if a number of LEDs is wired such that failure of any one LED would cause the entire array of LEDs to cease functioning, we would consider the array of LEDs to be a single light source. Furthermore, each array of LEDs wired in this manner would be considered one light source for the purposes of determining number of lighted sections in SAE J588e, Turn Signal Lamps, which is incorporated by reference in FMVSS No. 108. For example, a turn signal lamp that is wired with two arrays of LEDs, operating in the manner described above, would be considered a two-lighted-section lamp.

As to the second issue presented in your letter regarding the permissibility of using a red bulb in a taillamp, such a configuration would be permissible under FMVSS No. 108. Under Table I and Table III of FMVSS No. 108 and appropriate SAE standards incorporated by reference, the color of the light from taillamps and stop lamps must be red (without specifying either bulb color or lens color). The color specifications that such lamps must meet in order to comply with FMVSS No. 108 are contained in SAE Standard No. J578c, Color Specifications for Electric Signaling Devices (February 1977), which S5.1.5 of FMVSS No. 108 incorporates by reference. The ECE regulation mentioned in your letter (E/ECE/324/Rev.1/Add.36/Rev.3/Amend.3) is not a substitute for SAE J578c.

On this point, your letter also questioned whether the interpretation as expressed in our October 5, 2000 letter to Senior Trooper W.L. Hill has been changed. It has not. In that letter, it was stated that we were not aware of any manufacturer certifying a taillamp with a red bulb and a clear lens under FMVSS No. 108. However, the response reflected our understanding that a red bulb/clear lens configuration was not economically feasible at that time, not that such a configuration is impermissible under the standard. Since then, we understand that some manufacturers are currently producing lamps with red LED bulbs and clear lenses that do comply with the standard.

Your letter also raised the separate issue of how the above principles apply to aftermarket manufacturers in light of our notice of interpretation published in the Federal Register on October 8, 2004, which interpreted paragraph S5.8.1 of the standard dealing with replacement lighting equipment (69 FR 60464). In response to several requests for reconsideration of that notice of interpretation, the agency published a revised notice of interpretation in the Federal Register on November 1, 2005 (70 FR 65972). We encourage you to read this latest notice of interpretation (see enclosure).

In that second notice, we have decided to adopt a less restrictive interpretation of S5.8.1, which, simply stated, requires that a lamp (or other item of lighting equipment) manufactured to replace a lamp on a vehicle to which Standard No. 108 applies, is permitted so long as the vehicle manufacturer could have certified the vehicle to the standard using the replacement lamp instead of the lamp actually used (including replacement headlamps using different light sources than the original equipment headlamps). In light of our revised interpretation of S5.8.1, we believe that there would not be a significant difference in the treatment accorded to original equipment manufacturers and aftermarket/replacement equipment manufacturers.

If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:108
d.1/5/06