Interpretation ID: aiam2879
Assoc. Vice President
Product Compliance
Subaru of America
Inc.
7040 Central Highway
Pennsauken
NJ 08109;
Dear Mr. Utans: This is in reply to your letter of September 12, 1978, with respect t Subaru's intention to offer 'a retracting center auxiliary lamp' on one of its models. You have asked us to comment on the lamp's nomenclature, switching, and compliance problems.; The lamp in question is not an item of lighting equipment required b Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 and may be added as standard equipment provided it does not impair the effectiveness of equipment that the standard does require. Whether this device would cause impairment we cannot say since you have told us nothing of its candlepower output or its color. If it is operable by a separate on/off switch it could be viewed as impairing the effectiveness of the headlights by causing the operator to use it and rely on it at a time when the headlamps should be in use. We have no opinion on what you should call the lamp.; Even if permissible and not prohibited under Federal lightin requirements we believe that you should be aware of possible problems at the State level. An auxiliary driving light similar to the one you describe (though positioned closer to the right headlamps) was offered as optional equipment on 1960 Dodge cars, named the 'Super Lite', and intended to be used in conjunction with low beam headlights to increase the strength of the headlamp system without producing glare effects associated with high beams. The States of New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont prohibited the lamp primarily because its bluish color was judged close to that of the color reserved for use on emergency vehicles (see *Chrysler Corp. v. Rhodes*, 294 F. Supp. 665 (1968) and *Chrysler Corp. v. Tofany*, 419 F.2d 499 (1969)). We therefore suggest that Subaru review its plans with State officials.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel