ID: 86-6.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/24/86

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: JEFFREY S. JENSEN

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 09/10/86 EST, TO NHTSA FROM JEFFREY S. JENSEN

TEXT: Dear Mr. Jensen:

Your letter of September 10, 1986, has been forwarded to this office for reply. You have devised a way "to inscribe lettering on the inside of car & truck tail lights so that when the brakes are applied the lettering is seen." You asked if there are any laws that apply to this concept.

Because you wish to produce this concept we shall consider it as both original equipment installed by the vehicle manufacturer, and as equipment available in the aftermarket, for purchase by a vehicle owner. The Federal regulation governing vehicle lighting equipment is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. It requires a manufacturer to produce vehicles with certain specified lighting devices meeting specific requirements. Further, under it, additional lighting devices and other motor vehicle equipment are permissible provided they do not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by the standard. The requirements for stop lamps (you called them "tail lights", but taillamps are the rear lights that are on when the headlamps are on, and are not brake activated) are those of SAE Standard J586c, August 1970. It specifies photometric requirements to be met at specific test points, and a minimum effective projected luminous lens area for lamps.

With respect to compliance with the stop lamp requirements of Standard No. 108, the lettering must not prevent the lamp from meeting photometrics at the applicable test points, or from complying with the minimum area requirements. As to whether the concept would nevertheless impair the effectiveness of the stop lamps, this is a decision to be made by the vehicle manufacturer, though it is subject to review by this agency. Anything that distracts the observer of a stop lamp from instantaneously perceiving its message could be considered an impairment.

As an aftermarket device, it is not subject to Standard No. 108, but only to the restriction imposed by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act that manufacturers, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses must not render inoperative in whole or in part devices such as stop lamps that are installed as original safety equipment. If your

device created a noncompliance in the stop lamp, or impaired the effectiveness of it, we would consider this the equivalent of rendering the stop lamp partially inoperative.

Your concept would also be subject to the laws of any State in which a device embodying it is sold or used. We are unable to advise you as to these laws, but you must consider them as well.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

ID: nht95-7.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 16, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John C. Golden -- Product Manager, Lighting & Electrical, Federal Mogul Corporation

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/31/95 LETTER FROM JOHN C. GOLDEN TO JOHN WOMACK

TEXT: Dear Mr. Golden:

This responds to your request for an interpretation asking if, under NHTSA's requirements, your company may market a lighting device, called a "Lightman," for use on warning triangles. I apologize for the delay in responding. As explained below, the answer to your question is yes. However, since the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) regulates use of warning triangles carried in commercial vehicles, that agency's regulations could also affect your product.

You explain that the Lightman is a battery operated safety strobe device, which is in the shape of an equilateral triangle measuring 3 1/2 inches on each side. You would like to market the Lightman specifically for use on warning triangles, but are concerned about the minimum area requirements of Safety Standard No. 125, Warning Devices. You ask, "Does the mounting of one of these devices . . . take away minimum reflective area such that it would render the warning triangles illegal or ineffective?"

As you note, Standard No. 125 specifies requirements for the configuration of warning devices. Warning devices that are subject to Standard No. 125 must be certified as meeting those configuration requirements. As we understand the Lightman, it will be sold to motorists separately from the Standard No. 125 warning devices. However, we understand that you will market the Lightman as appropriate for use with previously-certified warning devices.

There is a provision in our statute that regulates the modifications that motor vehicle manufacturers, dealers, distributors and repair businesses may make to certified vehicles and equipment. (See section 30122 of Title 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq., copy enclosed.) However, this provision does not regulate the modifications that individuals make to their vehicles or items of equipment, such as warning triangles. Thus, under NHTSA's statute, an individual would not be precluded from placing the light on his or her equilateral triangle.

As you note in your letter, the FHWA regulates use of warning devices with regard to commercial trucks, and should be contacted about your question. Responding to your request for a contact in FHWA, we suggest Mr. James Scapellato, Director, FHWA Office of Motor Carrier Research and Standards, at the following address and telephone number:

400 Seventh Street, S.W. Rm. 3107 Washington, DC 20590.

Telephone: (202) 366-1790

We will be happy to forward your letter to Mr. Scapellato, if you would like us to do so.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about our regulations, please feel free to call Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-4.58

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 16, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John C. Golden -- Product Manager, Lighting & Electrical, Federal Mogul Corporation

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/31/95 LETTER FROM JOHN C. GOLDEN TO JOHN WOMACK

TEXT: Dear Mr. Golden:

This responds to your request for an interpretation asking if, under NHTSA's requirements, your company may market a lighting device, called a "Lightman," for use on warning triangles. I apologize for the delay in responding. As explained below, the an swer to your question is yes. However, since the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) regulates use of warning triangles carried in commercial vehicles, that agency's regulations could also affect your product.

You explain that the Lightman is a battery operated safety strobe device, which is in the shape of an equilateral triangle measuring 3 1/2 inches on each side. You would like to market the Lightman specifically for use on warning triangles, but are conce rned about the minimum area requirements of Safety Standard No. 125, Warning Devices. You ask, "Does the mounting of one of these devices . . . take away minimum reflective area such that it would render the warning triangles illegal or ineffective?"

As you note, Standard No. 125 specifies requirements for the configuration of warning devices. Warning devices that are subject to Standard No. 125 must be certified as meeting those configuration requirements. As we understand the Lightman, it will be sold to motorists separately from the Standard No. 125 warning devices. However, we understand that you will market the Lightman as appropriate for use with previously-certified warning devices.

There is a provision in our statute that regulates the modifications that motor vehicle manufacturers, dealers, distributors and repair businesses may make to certified vehicles and equipment. (See section 30122 of Title 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq., copy en closed.) However, this provision does not regulate the modifications that individuals make to their vehicles or items of equipment, such as warning triangles. Thus, under NHTSA's statute, an individual would not be precluded from placing the light on hi s or her equilateral triangle.

As you note in your letter, the FHWA regulates use of warning devices with regard to commercial trucks, and should be contacted about your question. Responding to your request for a contact in FHWA, we suggest Mr. James Scapellato, Director, FHWA Office of Motor Carrier Research and Standards, at the following address and telephone number:

400 Seventh Street, S.W. Rm. 3107 Washington, DC 20590.

Telephone: (202) 366-1790

We will be happy to forward your letter to Mr. Scapellato, if you would like us to do so.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about our regulations, please feel free to call Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 20061.ztv

Mr. Mark Cronmiller
Project Engineer
VDO North America LLC
2669 Bond Street
Rochester Hills, MI 48309

Dear Mr. Cronmiller:

This is in reply to your email of May 14, 1999, with respect to "smart" headlight systems.

You report that these systems adjust headlamp aim vertically and/or horizontally according to driving conditions (e.g., vertically for oncoming traffic, horizontally around curves in the road). You ask whether there are any regulation interpretations relating to these systems, and whether we have plans to regulate or require these types of systems.

We have not issued any interpretations on these new "smart" headlamp systems. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, prescribes headlamp aiming hardware requirements under static conditions only (paragraph S7.8). Once a headlamp is installed on a vehicle, its aim is fixed, but may be adjustable by mechanical means when the vehicle is at rest. A limited ability to adjust vertical aim on some vehicles is also provided by vehicle leveling devices. Our standard does not require that headlamps be aimed at the time the vehicle is manufactured and certified as conforming to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If there is a requirement for correct headlamp aim on new vehicles, it would be that of a State's motor vehicle authority at the time the vehicle is first registered for highway use in that State.

If a "smart" headlamp system meets the static aiming hardware requirements of Standard No. 108, a dynamic aiming feature is permissible. We have no specific plans to regulate or require headlamps with dynamic aim features, but we are monitoring them to form an impression as to their suitability for use under American driving conditions, and to learn if there are any problems of maintenance of aiming integrity, or durability, involved in their use. At a minimum, we would be concerned about the need for fail-safe performance to assure that aim would return to nominally correct, straight ahead in the event of a failure.

Because each State is likely to impose aim-location requirements on new motor vehicles and these requirements may differ from State to State, we note that you may have difficulty getting a "smart" headlamp system accepted as capable of being correctly aimed as may be required by the various States. We recommend that you contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) for determining the legality of the "smart" headlamp system under each State's laws pertaining to correct headlamp aim. AAMVA's address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.7/21/99

ID: 19023.ztv

Herr Olaf Schmidt
Manager, R &D
Hella K.G. Hueck & Co.
Rixbecker Str. 75
59552 Lippstadt
Germany

Dear Herr Schmidt:

We apologize for the delay in answering your letter of March 27, 1998, on headlamp labels, but this Office did not receive a copy of it until November 3. If you wish to communicate with us by fax, we recommend that you mail a hard copy at the same time to minimize the possibility of lost correspondence.

You report that "modern headlamp designs have the approval markings for the USA as well as for the European market on the lens as it is required by the relevant laws." In order to minimize confusion as to whether a headlamp has been designed to conform to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, or to conform with ECE requirements, Hella would like to place the words "Not D.O.T. approved" or "Not D.O.T. certified" on the bottom line of the labels that the company places on the rear of the headlamp housing of ECE headlamps. You have asked that we agree with your plan.

We cannot agree with your plan. We understand that, under this plan, the "DOT" symbol would appear on each lens. S7.2(a) of Standard No. 108 requires that the lens of each original and replacement headlamp manufactured for sale in the United States must be marked with the symbol "DOT." This symbol is the certification required by 49 U.S.C. 30115 that the headlamp meets Standard No. 108. It cannot be qualified by a disclaimer placed on a label on the rear of the headlamp housing. A manufacturer must not mark a headlamp lens with the DOT symbol if the headlamp does not comply with Standard No. 108.

A manufacturer who applies the DOT symbol to the lens of a headlamp that meets ECE requirements but does not comply with Standard No. 108, in our view, has provided certification that is materially false and misleading, and the manufacturer may be liable for a civil penalty. The maximum civil penalties authorized are $1,100 for importation of a single noncomplying headlamp, and $1,100 for each instance of false and misleading certification. We may impose a penalty up to a total of $880,000 for any related series of violations.

Should it come to our attention that noncomplying headlamps with dual ECE/DOT markings are being imported into the United States, we will investigate the matter with a view towards seeking a civil penalty from any responsible headlamp manufacturer doing business in the United States. In addition, if nonconforming headlamps with dual ECE/DOT markings have previously been imported and sold, our laws require the importer to notify purchasers of the noncompliance, and to remedy the noncompliance at no charge.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108#VSA
d.2/26/99

ID: aiam1529

Dear Mr. Beller:#This responds to your May 10, 1974, request fo permission to stamp label information on hose assemblies in place of banding, and to reduce S9.2.5 burst pressure from 350 to 100 psi, and your further request for an interpretation of the status of an inline check valve as part of a vacuum brake hose.#The inline check valve is not subject to Standard No. 106, *Brake hose*, as a brake hose end fitting. In this configuration, the couplers depicted in your drawing are the clamps, and the check valve is a separate component to which the hose assemblies are attached.#The issue of stamping instead of banding will be answered in our upcoming Notice 11 in response to petitions for reconsideration of the brake hose standard.#Your petition for a reduction in the burst strength requirement for vacuum hoses is denied. The minimum burst pressure of 350 psi was established by the Society of Automotive Engineers in 1942, taking into consideration the effects of backfire pressure and the severe underhood environment to which vacuum hose may be exposed. Hoses with this burst pressure have provided excellent reliability and durability. We have no data to justify a reduction in burst strength in view of the two hazards just cited.#Sincerely,Robert L. Carter,Associate Administrator,Motor Vehicle Programs;

ID: aiam1390

Dear Mr. Volberding: This is in reply to your letter dated December 6, 1973, in which yo ask whether there is a distinction between the reference to the 'lowest seating position' for motorcycles in S5.1.2.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, and the reference to 'lowest seating surface' in proposed 'Fields of Direct View' (Docket No. 70-7, Notice 2, 37 FR 7210, April 12, 1972). You also request an explanation for the difference between the reference to 15 inches above the seating surface in Standard No. 205, and 18 inches in Docket No. 70-7.; The notice in Docket No. 70-7, as you may know, has been withdrawn (3 FR 6194, March 7, 1973). However, we would consider the phrase 'lowest seating position' to be synonymous with 'lowest seating surface' with respect to these particular items. The 18-inch requirement proposed in Docket No. 70-7 represented a more recent evaluation than the 15-inch requirement in Standard No. 205 of the minimum desirable area for motorcycle visibility. Had that requirement become effective the agency would have taken steps to ensure that the requirements were consistent with each other.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3790

Dear Mr. DiMaggio: This is in reply to your letter of December 8, 1983, to th Administrator, petitioning for a determination that a noncompliance with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117, *Retreaded Pneumatic Tires*, be deemed inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.; The noncompliance consists of omission of the 'DOT' certificatio symbol. You have represented that tires so affected nevertheless meet Standard No. 117 in all other respects.; It has been the policy of this agency since 1977 to treat omissions o the DOT symbol as failures to certify pursuant to Sections 114 and 108(a)(1)(C) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act rather than as failures to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standard that requires or allows that method of certification. The symbol is not considered to establish a minimum standard of motor vehicle performance. This means that manufacturers who fail to provide the symbol are not required to conduct a notification and remedy campaign, and that accordingly the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is not required to publish notices of petitions requesting inconsequentiality determinations.; Your petition is therefore moot. Thank you for bringing this matter t our attention.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4727

Dear Ms Schmock: This is in reply to your FAX of March 6, l990, wit respect to the relationship between Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, and 'CAC Title 13, Article 9'. You have indicated that CAC requires a headlamp adjustment range in the horizontal of at least +/- 4 degrees, whereas Standard No. 108 requires a horizontal adjustment range of not less than 2.5 degrees. You have asked whether Bosch headlamps still must have an adjustment range of +/-4 degrees in the horizontal although Standard No. 108 has been changed. We understand that 'CAC' refers to 'California Administrative Code'. The effect of the preemption provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act is to prohibit California from adopting and enforcing a minimum horizontal headlamp adjustment range greater or less than 2.5 degrees. Thus, a State requirement that a headlamp have a horizontal range of +/- 4 degrees is invalid because it differs from a corresponding Federal requirement. We are unable to answer your further questions with respect to the California code, and suggest that, for further information you write Department of Motor Vehicles, State of California, 2415 First Avenue, Sacramento, California 95818, ATTN: Mr. A. A. Pierce, Director (FAX 916-732-7854). Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam0261

Dear Mr. Sagerman: This is in response to your letter of October 14, 1970, to the Directo of the National Highway Safety Bureau forwarding information sheets on the TVR Vixen. I am enclosing copies of the Bureau's Consumer Information Regulations (49 CFR Part 575). The substantive provisions, S 575.101 on vehicle stopping distance, S 575.102 on tire reserve load, and S 575.106 on acceleration and passing ability, require the furnishing of specific information in a format which is in the form set out in the regulations. The information sheets which you have provided fall short of these requirements in both form and substance. For example, S 575.101 requires furnishing information on the minimum stopping distance, expressed in feet, for the particular vehicle, from a particular speed, at specified loads, with the braking system in a specified condition. The information provided by you in this regard is incomplete, and is not in the form specified. In addition, the regulations require the information to describe and be valid for each of the vehicles with which it is provided.; Please study the enclosed regulations carefully and forward to u complying consumer information within the near future. Let us know if you need further assistance.; Sincerely, Rodolfo A. Diaz, Acting Associate Director, Motor Vehicl Programs;