ID: 1984-1.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/19/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Dotech Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Herbert T. Thrower, Jr., P.E. President Dotech, Inc. 306 Clanton Road Charlotte, North Carolina 28210

Dear Mr. Thrower:

This is in response to your letter of February 14, 1984, to Mr. Vinson of my staff asking "is there any reluctance on the part of NHTSA to make a patented device a legal option under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108?"

At present, Standard No. 108 mandates specific items of lighting equipment not optional ones (though "options" as to matters such as size and shape exist among headlamps which are required items). Instead, NHTSA points out that, pursuant to S4.1.3 optional lighting devices (proprietary or not) are allowable, provided that they do not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment the standard requires. When proprietary rights are involved in mandated lighting equipment, manufacturers have been willing to waive their rights.

You have also said that you "presume that other patented automotive devices also must have DOT approval before their optional public use is permissible." I don't know what you have in mind, but under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, no "approval" by DOT is necessary to market "optional" motor vehicle equipment of any sort. Such equipment is subject only to the general requirement that its installation must not affect the compliance of the vehicle with any Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

If you have further questions, please let us know.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

February 14, 1984

Mr. Taylor Vinson Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Admin. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Vinson.

Is there any reluctance on the part of NHTSA to make a patented device a legal option under Federal Motor Vehicle Lighting Code 108?

As you know, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration permit use of various patented drugs for optional public use.

I also presume that other patented automotive devices also must have DOT approval before their optional public use is permissible.

Thank you in advance for your comments.

Very truly yours, Dotech, Inc.

Herbert T. Thrower, Jr., P.E. President

HTT,jr/jhc

ID: nht78-2.9

DATE: 06/30/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Christy Electronics, Inc.

COPYEE: AMER. ASSOC. OF MOTOR VEHICLE ADMINISTRATORS

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Our regional office in White Plains has forwarded your letter of May 29, 1978, for reply.

You have requested "approval" of your vehicle lighting system which flashes the stop lamps at a rate three times per second when the brake pedal is depressed.

We do not "approve" lighting devices but we do provide interpretations whether such devices are permissible under Federal lighting requirements. As an item of original vehicle equipment your device would appear to be prohibited by paragraph S4.6 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. This paragraph requires that all lamps be steady - burning in operation except for turn signal lamps, hazard warning, signal lamps, and school bus warning lamps, and it also allows headlamps and side marker lamps to be flashed for signalling purposes.

As an aftermarket device, however, it would be subject to regulation by the individual States. We are forwarding a copy of your letter to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators for an opinion on this point.

We appreciate your interest in safety.

Sincerely,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

June 8, 1978

Frank B. Caristia Christy Electronics, Inc.

Dear Mr. Caristia:

We are forwarding your letter of May 31, 1978 to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Crash Avoidance in Washington D.C. for their review and action.

Irving Rodness Motor Vehicle Program Specialist

CHRISTY ELECTRONICS, INC.

May 29, 1978

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Gentlemen:

We hereby request approval of our new product, for vehicular use, with function as described below:

1. When the brake pedal is depressed the stop lights will flash three times, at a rate of approximately three flashes per second, and then remain lit as long as the brake pedal is held depressed.

2. When the brake pedal is released, the stop lights go off and the circuit resets, ready to flash the stop lights when the brake pedal is again depressed.

This rapid flashing of the stop lights is intended as a means of "waking up" the driver of the vehicle behind you when making stops on highways.

In case of product failure, a by-pass switch can be thrown to restore the vehicles original stop light circuitry.

Please note that many drivers pump their brakes to cause the stop lights to flash, risking an accident because of increased stopping distance.

Frank B. Caristia President

ID: nht93-6.9

DATE: August 12, 1993

FROM: Joe de Sousa -- President, Safety Pro's International, Inc.

TO: Richard Van Iderstine -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/10/94 from John Womack to Joe de Sousa (A42; Std. 108) and letter dated 8/12/93 from Joe de Sousa to NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel (OCC-8998)

TEXT:

It was a pleasure speaking with you yesterday and we really appreciate the time you devoted in answering our questions and concerns on Regulation 108.

As we discussed in our conversation, the systems we market operate strictly on low beam headlamps. They are connected in parallel to the existing vehicle's lighting and no wires are required to be cut. This preserves the full integrity of the vehicle's system and keeps it fully operational.

The manufacturer of these products believes there is no compromise when dealing with safety and has designed our units for dependability and to eliminate any possibility of malfunction which might cause a safety hazard.

Available is a basic Daytime Running Lights unit which provides for intensity reduction down to 77% of full low beam. It turns on and off with the ignition and is deactivated when all vehicle lights are turned on by the vehicle light switch. A four second delay is featured when turning the engine on to provide maximum energy to the starter. A parking brake cut off can be connected, if desired, to deactivate daytime running lights when the vehicle is idle at night with the engine running and lights are not needed.

Our completely automated system utilizes all the features of our basic unit. Additionally, it incorporates a light sensor and interlocks with the vehicle's windshield wipers to provide complete automatic operation of all vehicle lights with no driver intervention. Like our other unit, the vehicle's original system remains fully operational as a back-up and overrides our unit when activated.

As you will notice in the enclosed information, we've tried to provide a quality line of products designed for safety, durability and convenience.

The installation can be done by anyone with mechanical aptitude or any technician. The average installation time for the basic unit is about 20 minutes while our fully automated system requires about one hour to install. Currently, we are forming a national network of dealers to facilitate installations.

If you would like to see a demonstration on these units, we would be glad to schedule our representative in the Washington D.C. area to stop by and show you how they actually work on a vehicle.

Again, thank you for all your help. If we can ever be of service to your administration, please do not hesitate to call us.

ID: nht73-1.29

DATE: 08/13/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Diamond Reo Trucks, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 19, 1973, asking whether a rear "light signalling" switch may be installed on your vehicles.

As I understand your letter, the switch and circuitry in question provide automatic flashing of side markers, clearance, tail, and identification lamps. Wiring of this nature, whether installed by the incomplete, intermediate, or final stage manufacturer would violate S4.6(b) of Standard No. 108 (formerly S4.5.8(b)). You are correct in saying that a switch and circuit may be furnished by manufacturers of truck-tractors, and incomplete vehicles for flashing only the side markers, and "that trailer manufacturers and subsequent vehicle manufacturers shall be responsible for the electrical circuitry to insure that marker lamps are independent from clearance, tail, and identification lamps." Of course, wiring these lamps to the same on-off switch would not violate the standard provided there is no flasher in the circuit.

You also ask "who assumes the responsibility for older trailers which will not have marker lamps on an independent circuit." The person completing the circuitry on a trailer is responsible for compliance to standards in effect when the trailer is completed.

Yours truly,

July 19, 1973

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation

ATTENTION: Office of the Administrator

SUBJECT: Request for interpretation of use of interrupting switch for flashing vehicle lighting for signalling purposes.

REF: Part 571.108, Standard 108, Paragraphs 54.5.3 & 54.5.8 (b)

Dear Sir:

As a manufacturer of heavy duty motor trucks, Diamond Reo Trucks, Inc. receives many customer requests for a "light signalling" switch, which we have refused to furnish.

Paragraph 54.5.8 (b) permits flashing of headlamps and side marker lamps. Is it the intent that a manufacturer of truck-tractors (complete vehicle when 5th wheel is installed) and original manufacturer of "Vehicles Built in Two or More Stages" may furnish a switch and circuit for flashing markers only, and that trailer manufacturers and subsequent vehicle manufacturers shall be responsible for the electrical circuitry to insure that marker lamps are independent from clearance, tail, and identification lamps? If so, who assumes the responsibility for older trailers which will not have marker lamps on an independent circuit?

Customers report that other truck manufacturers do furnish a rear lighting signalling switch and, due to our refusal (based on our interpretation) to offer this type of switch, Diamond Reo is being placed at a disadvantage when bidding on vehicle build contracts.

Your immediate interpretation will be appreciated.

Very truly yours,

DIAMOND REO TRUCKS, INC. -- R. D. Shepard, Staff Engineer - Electrical & Safety

cc: G. Sztykiel

ID: nht92-7.33

DATE: April 21, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Allan Schwartz -- President, Tron Industries, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/29/92 from Allan Schwartz to Taylor Vinson (OCC 7064)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of February 29, 1992, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, with respect to the acceptability of your product, Lumitron, under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Lumitron is described as "an electronic neon lighting kit for vehicles which is sold and installed as an automotive aftermarket product." You state that it is "legal for street use as long as it is installed below bumper level and under the vehicle." You further state that both the Florida Highway Patrol and Kevin Cavey of this agency "confirmed" your findings that Lumitron "falls under" Standard No. 108. However, the State of Louisiana has "not uniformly adopted or follow the Code of Federal Regulations, 49 CFR Ch. V as it pertains to automotive aftermarket lighting." It appears that authorities in Louisiana believe Lumitron is legal but it has to be approved by the Commissioner. You have asked us for "a letter confirming what we already understand about this regulation that we could submit to the Commissioner. He would then be able to adopt it as Louisiana Law thus making our product legal for use in that state."

Contrary to your assumption and those of the officials you mention, Lumitron is not covered by Standard No. 108. The only aftermarket equipment directly regulated by the standard is equipment intended to replace original equipment required by Standard No. 108, such as headlamps. Such is not the case with Lumitron.

Standard No. 108 was issued under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. We have interpreted that Act as prohibiting the installation on a vehicle of aftermarket equipment by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business that, in the words of the statute, "render inoperative in whole or in part" any of the vehicle's required lighting equipment. We understand that Lumitron casts a light on the pavement under the vehicle. We would, of course, be concerned if the intensity of that light served to mask the intensity of such required lighting items as turn signal and stop lamps, or served to distract other drivers so that the lamps required lamps might be considered partially inoperative.

Regulation of aftermarket equipment such as Lumitron is within the jurisdiction of each State where Lumitron is sold and used, and the Commissioner in Louisiana may proceed as he deems fit. We are unable to advise you on State laws, but if you are interested in how the laws of other jurisdictions may affect Lumitron, we suggest that you write for an opinion to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

ID: 20345.ztv

Mr. Terry W. Wagar
Vehicle Safety Technical Analyst III
Technical Services Bureau
State of New York
Department of Motor Vehicles
Division of Vehicle Safety Services
6 Empire State Plaza
Albany, NY 12228

Dear Mr. Wagar:

This is in reply to your letter of July 20, 1999, to Taylor Vinson of this Office asking two questions on motor vehicle lighting, as clarified by your conversation with him on October 13, 1999.

Comments on Draft of Regulations to Implement Bill S00577

New York has enacted Bill S00577 on July 29, 1998, effective June 1, 1999, which provides for a reduction in insurance premiums for "motor vehicles weighing in excess of ten thousand pounds" if the vehicles are "equipped with factory installed auxiliary running lamps." The purpose of the legislation is "to reduce accidents by increasing vehicle visibility during the day and night." You have submitted for our review and comment the draft by the New York State Insurance Department of an implementing regulation, and a copy of your memorandum of July 1 to Neal Schoen "of our Legal Bureau" with your own opinions and comments.

We greatly appreciate your seeking our advice before the State adopts a regulation that might conflict with preemptive Federal requirements. Under 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1), a state may prescribe a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle only if the standard is identical to the Federal standard. The applicable Federal requirements are those of 49 CFR 571.108, Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. Although the aspect of performance involved is the conspicuity of large vehicles, which the agency has addressed through its requirements for conspicuity marking, New York has not adopted a "standard" that requires the installation of additional conspicuity equipment, but has simply authorized a reduction in insurance premiums for vehicles equipped with auxiliary running lamps. Generally, we do not view this sort of program as preempted by Standard No. 108. However, we are concerned about the specifics of the New York provision.

Specifically, Standard No. 108 seeks to enhance conspicuity of heavy trucks and buses by allowing their manufacturers to equip them with daytime running lamps (DRLs) meeting the requirements of S5.5.11, and by requiring them to be equipped with side marker lamps and reflectors (Tables I and II) and with conspicuity schemes (S5.7). New York offers an incentive to reduce insurance premiums if the visibility of a large vehicle is enhanced day and night with factory installed "auxiliary running lamps." Although New York is not preempted under Federal law from encouraging the installation of such lamps by mandating reduced insurance premiums, the lamps must not be inconsistent with the Federal requirements of Standard No. 108.

The Insurance Department would allow the system to be mounted along the sides and rear of the vehicle, or trailer, at intervals of not more than ten feet. The system would be automatically activated with the ignition of the vehicle's engine and remain so while the vehicle was in operation. The system would flash automatically when the turn/hazard warning system signals are activated, and increase intensity when the brakes are applied. Red lights used as part of the system would not be visible from the front of the vehicle.

This system would not be acceptable under Standard No. 108. Paragraph S5.5.10(d), in essence, requires auxiliary lamps of this nature to be steady burning (unless they supplement lamps that S5.5.10 requires or permits to flash), thus they could not flash with the hazard warning and turn signals. Further, an auxiliary lighting device or system must not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard (S5.1.3).

Your memorandum would modify the Insurance Department's proposed operating scheme by specifying that the lamps be no closer than four feet apart on center, consistent with the height required for side marker lamps. The auxiliary running lamps would essentially be extra side marker lamps, and would be amber in color, and comply with side marker lamp performance. The lamps would automatically illuminate when the head lamps or required side marker lamps are illuminated and would not flash. Finally, the added lamps would not be visible from directly in front or to the rear of the vehicle.

Your suggested modifications largely address the compliance problems inherent in the Insurance Department proposal. We note, however, that S5.5.10(b) of Standard No. 108 permits side marker lamps to flash for signaling purposes. Thus, the lamps that New York is specifying as auxiliary side marker lamps may flash for signaling purposes. However, individual lamps to the rear of the trailer midpoint must be red, rather than amber, to avoid an impairing effect upon the vehicle's red rear side marker lamps. Your phrase "consistent with the height required for side marker lamps" covers a wide range of mounting heights. Standard No. 108 does not specify an upper mounting height limit for side marker devices on large trucks, though it does establish a limit of 60 inches above the road surface for the red side markers mounted at the rear of trailers. We also advise that the lamps should not be mounted directly on the conspicuity tape or reflectors with which these large vehicles are required to be equipped by S5.7 of Standard No. 108. Finally, we note that your modification would result in the auxiliary running lamps operating only when the headlamps are activated, rather than when the ignition is on. This appears contrary to the Legislature's intent to increase visibility by day, as well as by night.

Our Comments on the "Total Vehicle Safety Signalight System"

Your second question deals with the SAFE Foundation's lighting proposal, as shown on a tractor semi-trailer. Your concerns include flashing red and amber lights on the side, and additional amber lamps in a triangular formation on the rear of the vehicle.

As you know, under S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108, auxiliary lighting is prohibited if it impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. With this in mind, we have reviewed SAFE Foundation's "Total Vehicle Safety Signalight System" ("the System")(an invention of Harold Caine as presented by his attorney, Samson Helfgott) as described in your letter, and our comments are given below. For purposes of this interpretation, we assume that none of the System's lamps are intended to serve as either the front or rear side marker lamp required by Standard No. 108. We also assume that the System is capable of being operated both during the day and night.

The System consists of:

1. Side mounted lamps:

Element A: at least four steady burning amber lamps on each side, facing to the side, spaced every 7 to 10 feet with three equal spaces between them: to illuminate whenever the vehicle is in operation, but extinguished when the service brakes are applied. In addition, when a turn signal is operating, the lamps on the turn-indicated side of the vehicle would flash also.

The System's amber side lamps are similar in color and function to front side marker lamps and reflectors that are required by Standard No. 108, and intermediate side marker lamps and reflectors that must be on vehicles whose overall length is 30 feet or more. Accordingly, we regard them as supplementary side marker lamps. On July 20, 1994, we advised Mr. Helfgott that supplemental lighting devices to the rear of the midpoint of a vehicle must be red. However, we understand that many supplemental marker systems that are in use and which consist of discrete lamps or reflectors are, in fact, amber. Accordingly, we do not object to the System's use of amber lamps or reflectors located to the rear of the midpoint, provided they are also located forward of the required red side marker lamps. Their steady burning use does not impair any other lamps. Standard No. 108 permits side marker lamps to flash with the turn signal lamps, and this feature would not cause an impairment of required lighting equipment, even if the required side marker lamps do not flash.

Element B: at least four steady burning red lamps on each side, facing to the side, spaced every 7 to 10 feet, located directly above the four amber lamps: to illuminate when the service brakes are applied.

The red side lamps are intended to indicate that the vehicle is braking. The lamps that Standard No. 108 requires to indicate braking are located on the rear. It is our opinion that a supplementary lighting scheme which indicates braking from three or four lamps spaced along the side of a large vehicle can detract from safety rather than add to it by confusing a driver with a novel and unfamiliar lighting scheme. This is of particular concern in situations where the lights will be visible to drivers approaching (rather than following)the vehicle on two-lane roads. When an array of lamps causes confusion, the effectiveness of all a vehicle's lighting system can be said to be impaired.

2. Rear mounted lamps:

Element A: three steady burning amber lamps in a triangular array on the rear, facing to the rear: to illuminate whenever the vehicle is in operation, but extinguished when the service brakes are applied.

Standard No. 108's lighting scheme establishes red and white as the color of steady burning lamps on a vehicle's rear, and amber and white for the front. The use of an amber array on the rear removes the certainty that red provides, and would impair the effectiveness of all red lamps on the rear.

Element B: three steady burning red lamps in a triangular array on the rear, facing to the rear: to illuminate when the service brakes are applied.

These lamps are activated simultaneously with the required stop lamps and supplement them. The triangular array will be similar to that perceived on vehicles equipped with center high mounted stop lamps. Thus, we do not believe that this will create an impairment.

We have previously provided SAFE Foundation's attorney, Samson Helfgott, with interpretations of Standard No. 108 on June 30, 1989, and September 17, 1990. To the extent that these may seem inconsistent with the interpretation we are providing you, each of the letters was based upon the facts as we understood them at the time. The interpretation we are providing you is controlling, under the facts and assumptions of this letter.

We note that 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1) does not prohibit New York from disallowing use on its roads, even if NHTSA concludes that it would not impair required lighting equipment. Although a State cannot disallow optional types of lighting equipment specifically covered by Standard No. 108, such as daytime running lamps and motorcycle modulating headlamps, it is not precluded from regulating non-covered and additional lighting equipment (such as fog lamps and a non-impairing version of the TVSSS), even if they would be acceptable under S5.1.3.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures

ref.108

d.11/16/99

ID: 19666.ztv

Ms. Karen Coffey
Chief Counsel
Texas Automobile Dealers Association
P.O. Box 1028
Austin, Texas 78767-1028

Dear Ms. Coffey:

We are replying to your letter of February 22, 1999, with respect to the R.E.D. - Alert product. You have asked that we review this product for compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

The R.E.D. - Alert causes the center highmounted stop lamp to flash when the service brakes are applied, for a "predetermined duration," after which the lamp becomes steady burning. You refer to a letter of July 19, 1995, from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Administrator, Dr. Ricardo Martinez, to Mr. Shih-Chiang Chen, advising that the center lamp must be steady burning. This letter also advises that, after a vehicle is sold, Federal law prohibits certain specified entities from modifying the center lamp to cause it to flash, but that the vehicle owner is not precluded from installing the sensor.

Dr. Martinez's letter correctly states the law as it applied then and as it applies now. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment (49 CFR 571.108) requires all lamps to be steady burning in use, other than turn/hazard warning signal lamps and school bus warning lamps (headlamps and front side marker lamps may be flashed automatically as signals). See S5.5.10. Installation of the R.E.D.-Alert would create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108. A dealer in new vehicles is not permitted to knowingly sell a vehicle that fails to conform with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

After a vehicle is sold, 49 U.S.C. 30122 prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from making inoperative safety equipment installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Although the sale of the R.E.D. - Alert is not prohibited by Federal law, its installation on a vehicle after the vehicle's first sale would have the effect of causing the center stoplamp to operate in a manner other than designed, a "making inoperative" within the intent of the prohibition. Although 49 U.S.C. 30122 does not include a vehicle owner, safety is not served by modifications that depart from an original state of compliance, and we strongly encourage vehicle owners not to modify their vehicles so that they no longer conform to the safety standards that they originally met.

We are not conversant with Texas motor vehicle law. Texas may have a specific prohibition against flashing stop lamps that parallels S5.5.10 of Standard No 108, as a state is permitted to do by 49 U.S.C. 30103(b). To the extent that Texas law permits, or, if silent, is interpreted as permitting flashing stop lamps, we would regard that law or interpretation as impermissible under sec. 30103(b) which requires state standards to be identical to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards where both cover the same aspect of performance.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.4/1/99

ID: 1982-1.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/25/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: United Sidecar Association, Inc. -- H. A. Kendall

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

H. A. Kendall, Ph.D. United Sidecar Association, Inc. 1621 Palomino Lane Kingwood, Texas 77339

This is in reply to your letter of February 20, 1982, with respect to pulsating headlamps.

You have interpreted my letter of February 9, 1982 as stating that "for daytime operation of a motorcycle headlight, the light may be permitted to pulsate or modulate from one level of brightness to another." On the contrary, I stated that "a lamp whose intensity varies from a higher output to a lower output...would be prohibited." However, I also said that, if complete deactivation occurs (i.e., from a higher output to no output), then that mode of operation is permissible.

With respect to your latest letter and the problems of headlighting in older motorcycles, there would be no need to have the smaller bulb illuminated, and the "definite on/off/on/off sequence" you mention is sufficient for compliance with Standard No. 108.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

February 20, 1982

Dear Mr Berndt:

My interpretation of your response of February 9, 1982 is that, for daytime operation of a motorcycle headlight, the light may be permitted to pulsate or modulate from one level of brightness to another.

Many of the older motorcycles with only marginal charging systems simply cannot cope with continuous lights on operation without frequent battery charging, externally, or without operating the engine at a very high speed in lower gears to keep the battery charged. However, almost all of the earlier machines have a nonsealed beam headlight containing a minor running (or parking) light in addition to the main twin filament.

As far as NHTSA is concerned, it would appear that as long as the smaller bulb was left on at all times (to provide the lower light output) that the main beam could be operated at some fractionally lower duty cycle, say, about 25%, at say 1.5 to 4 Hz, and still comply with NHTSA's ruling. If this is so, then it would be possible to allow older motorcycles to operate with a relatively simple inexpensive mechanical device to reduce headlight daytime consumption instead of using the very expensive solid state circuitry now available.

The main headlight would have a definite on/off/on/off sequence, however, the small continuous light would prevent the lamp from being extinguished at any time.

Please advise a ruling on this type of device for motorcycle headlights for daytime operation only.

Sincerely,

H. A. Kendall, Ph.D.

HAK/lk

ID: 7064

Mr. Allan Schwartz
President, Tron Industries, Inc.
9130 Wiles Road, Suite 142
Coral Springs, FL 33067

Dear Mr. Schwartz:

This responds to your letter of April 16, 1992, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking for "an opinion why the State of Louisiana has not adopted the Code of Federal Regulations, 49 CFR Ch. V as it pertains to automotive accessory lighting."

Lumitron is described as "an electronic neon lighting kit for vehicles which is sold and installed as an automotive aftermarket product." You state that it is "legal for street use as long as it is installed below bumper level and under the vehicle." You further state that both the Florida Highway Patrol and Kevin Cavey of this agency "confirmed" your findings that Lumitron "falls under" Standard No. 108. However, the State of Louisiana has "not uniformly adopted or follow the Code of Federal Regulations, 49 CFR Ch. V as it pertains to automotive aftermarket lighting." It appears that authorities in Louisiana believe Lumitron is legal but it has to be approved by the Commissioner. You have asked us for "a letter confirming what we already understand about this regulation that we could submit to the Commissioner. He would then be able to adopt it as Louisiana Law thus making our product legal for use in that state."

Contrary to your assumption and those of the officials you mention, Lumitron is not covered by Standard No. 108. The only aftermarket equipment directly regulated by the standard is equipment intended to replace original equipment required by Standard No. 108, such as headlamps. Such is not the case with Lumitron.

Standard No. 108 was issued under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. We have interpreted that Act as prohibiting the installation on a vehicle of aftermarket equipment by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business that, in the words of the statute, "render inoperative in whole or in part" any of the vehicle's required lighting equipment. We understand that Lumitron casts a light on the pavement under the vehicle. We would, of course, be concerned if the intensity of that light served to mask the intensity of such required lighting items as turn signal and stop lamps, or served to distract other drivers so that the lamps required lamps might be considered partially inoperative.

Regulation of aftermarket equipment such as Lumitron is within the jurisdiction of each State where Lumitron is sold and used, and the Commissioner in Louisiana may proceed as he deems fit. We are unable to advise you on State laws, but if you are interested in how the laws of other jurisdictions may affect Lumitron, we suggest that you write for an opinion to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:4/21/92

ID: nht80-2.35

DATE: 05/08/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Avery International

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590

MAY 8, 1980

Mr. Ralph F. Lundregan Government Relations Manager Avery International Specialty Materials Division 50-L Edwards Ferry Road Leesburg, Virginia 22075

Dear Mr. Lundregan:

This is in reply to your letter of April 16, 1980, asking whether Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 allows "reflective markings (such as red diagonal stripes on a white reflective background) to be used to increase visibility on the front of trucks and heavy vehicles".

You are correct that Standard No. 108 does not directly address this question. The section of the standard that appears most pertinent to it, however, is S4.1.3 prohibiting the installation as original equipment of any reflective device "that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by" Standard No. 108. We would be concerned, for example, if reflective materials were installed in a manner that might cause confusion with headlamps or front turn signal lamps. We also wish to point out that under the standard the use of the color red is at the rear of motor vehicles and that its appearance in any other location might also cause confusion.

However, as a practical matter the use of reflective materials as truck and heavy vehicle equipment sold either as original equipment or in the aftermarket is governed by requirements of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (Federal Highway Administration) which prohibit use of the color red on the front of a vehicle. You should review their requirements before proceeding with your marketing plans. (49 CFR 393.26(e)(4)).

Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

AVERY INTERNATIONAL Specialty Materials Division

April 16, 1980

Mr. Stephen P. Wood Rulemaking Section Office of the Chief Council NOA-30 NHTSA 400 7th St., S. W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Wood:

Avery International manufactures self adhesive materials for a wide variety of uses including markings, decals, striping, etc. for various vehicles.

Although our Fasign reflective materials may be used for markings on the side and the rear of trucks and heavy vehicles, a question has been asked on whether similar reflective markings (such as red diagonal stripes on a white reflective background) may be used to increase visibility on the front of such vehicles?

The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 108 on lights and reflective devices does not seem to address this particular question.

Since Avery is in the process of possible marketing for such truck markings, we would appreciate a ruling, interpretation, or reference to something specific regarding this subject.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Sincerely,

Ralph F. Lundregan Government Relations Manager

RFL:jh