ID: 22492

Mr. David Dobradenka
Quality Manager
IEE Automotive
Zone Industrielle Findel
2b, Route de Treves
L-2632 Luxembourg





Dear Mr. Dobradenka:

This responds to your request that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) provide you with specific information regarding the possibility of certifying your company's sensor mat to the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Protection Systems (FMVSS No. 208), as it was amended last year. Automatic suppression is one means of complying with one aspect of the new advanced air bag requirements that were published on May 12, 2000 (65 FR 30680). You specifically request what the procedure is for certification, whether it can be done on a test buck, the "timing" involved, and whether you must pay for the certification.

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized under Title 49, Chapter 301 of the U.S. Code (Motor Vehicle Safety) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Chapter 301 prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Chapter 301 establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

With one exception that is not relevant to your product, FMVSS No. 208 applies only to new vehicles, not to items of individual equipment. Thus, it is the vehicle manufacturer's responsibility to certify compliance with all applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 208. We note that many vehicle manufacturers require their equipment vendors to provide them with data that they can use in certifying their vehicles. This is a contractual obligation between two private parties, and NHTSA does not involve itself in these business arrangements.

Because manufacturers are responsible for self-certification, we do not require any payment to the Federal government. Likewise, NHTSA does not require that any particular procedure be followed. However, we purchase vehicles and test whether a certified vehicle complies with the requirements of FMVSS No. 208 by following the test procedure detailed in that regulation. While a manufacturer may certify based on another test procedure, using NHTSA's test procedure is the best way for a manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles comply with all applicable requirements.

I hope this addresses all your concerns. For your general information, I am enclosing a copy of NHTSA's white paper on information for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Should you have additional questions, please contact Rebecca MacPherson, of my staff, at the above address or at (202)366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:208
d.5/16/01

ID: 22497-5ogm

Mr. Takashi Yoshie
General Manager
Toyota Technical Center, USA
1850 M Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036

Dear Mr. Yoshie:

This in response to your letter dated December 21, 2000, regarding the provisions of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact, as they relate to determining the proper vertical approach angle to be used when testing targets located on safety belt anchorages.Specifically, you are concerned about how to determine the maximum vertical approach angle when testing a target located on a seat belt anchorage on a vehicles B-pillar. We regret any inconvenience that our delay in responding may have caused.

It is your companys view that in the case of a safety belt anchorage located on the B-pillar, the proper amount of downward rotation used to determine the maximum vertical approach angle for testing is ten degrees.This is the amount of rotation that the standard specifies for B-pillar targets. You are concerned, however, that some independent laboratories are interpreting the standard to specify that the amount of downward rotation is five degrees. This is the amount of rotation that the standard specifies for targets on safety belt anchorages. As discussed below, we interpret Standard No. 201 to specify that, in the case of a safety belt anchorage projecting above the surface of the B-pillar, the amount of downward rotation used to determine the maximum vertical approach angle for testing is five degrees. However, if the anchorage does not project above the surface of the B-pillar, the maximum vertical approach angle for testing is ten degrees.

As you know, Standard No. 201 establishes performance requirements for certain areas of vehicle interiors. These performance requirements are intended to reduce the risk of occupant head injury by ensuring that vehicle interiors have certain impact characteristics. Compliance with these performance requirements is tested through the use of a specially designed impactor, the free motion headform (FMH).The FMH, which is instrumented to collect impact data, is projected into certain target zones in the vehicle.

Standard No. 201 does not require that all areas of the upper interior of a vehicle be subject to compliance testing. The Standard sets forth a number of discrete target areas that are to be impacted by the FMH. All of these target areas may be impacted by the FMH provided that the FMH is directed at the target within a certain range of angles. These angles are referred to in Standard No. 201 as approach angles.

S8.13.4 of the standard specifies a range of permissible horizontal and vertical approach angles that constrain the direction of the FMH when approaching particular types of targets. The approach angle limits are specified in Table 1. That table separately lists, among other targets, the left B-pillar, right B-pillar, and seat belt anchorages.

If an approach angle for a particular target is within the range of permissible approach angles, that angle may be used in testing a target area. To allow a determination of the maximum vertical approach angle for a particular target, S8.13.4.2(b)(1) and S8.13.4.2(b)(2) provide specific directions for determining the maximum vertical approach angle used.S8.13.4.2(b)(1) - which applies to all targets except B and other pillar targets - specifies that the maximum vertical approach angle is determined by rotating the FMH downward by 5 degrees while keeping the forehead impact zone in contact with the target circle.In the case of B and other pillars other than A-pillars, S8.13.4.2(b)(2) applies. S8.13.4.2(b)(2) directs that the FMH be rotated downward by 10 degrees with the forehead impact zone remaining in contact with the target circle if the target is on any pillar except an A-pillar. If the maximum vertical angle derived from the use of S8.13.4.2(b)(1) and S8.13.4.2(b)(2) is within the range of permissible vertical approach angles outlined in S8.13.4, a test may be conducted with respect to the target area in question.

It is your companys view that where a target is on a safety belt anchorage located on the B-pillar, the amount of downward rotation used to determine the maximum vertical approach angle for testing is ten degrees. This contention is based on the inclusion of safety belt anchorages as component parts of pillars in the definition of "pillar" within Standard No. 201. According to your argument, seat belt anchorages are part of a pillar under this definition and Target BP2 - which is any seat belt anchorage on a B-pillar - is not a safety belt anchorage target but is more properly a pillar target. You therefore believe that the degree of downward rotation used when establishing the maximum vertical approach angle should be ten degrees and not five degrees.

In reviewing your letter, we note that while you are correct that the standards definition of pillar includes attached components such as safety belt anchorages, it does not specify that the angle specifications for testing targets on pillars should take precedence over the angle specifications for testing targets on seat belt anchorages.

To resolve this issue, we have considered the policy reasons behind specifying special angle requirements for pillars other than A-pillars, and whether those reasons are relevant to seat belt anchorages located on such pillars.

In specifying that when calculating the vertical approach angles for B and other pillar targets there is a required offset of ten degrees of downward rotation, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration sought to delay chin contact with the vehicle to allow appropriate HIC calculations. As the agency explained in the preamble to the August 1995 Final Rule (60 FR 43031, 43036, August 18, 1995), ten degrees of downward rotation was determined to be an appropriate amount for determining the maximum vertical approach angle for B - pillar and other pillar targets.However, five degrees of downward rotation was determined to be the appropriate amount for seat belt anchorage targets.

In the case of seat belt anchorages mounted on the B-pillar, the amount of offset required to delay chin contact would depend, in large part, on the configuration of the particular anchorage.In those instances where a belt anchorage projects above the surface of the B-pillar, a ten degree offset would be unnecessary.In cases where the anchorage design results in BP2 being on or below the surface of the B-pillar, the same degree of offset used for other B-pillar targets - ten degrees - would be appropriate to prevent early chin contact.

Accordingly, we interpret the standard to specify that, in the case of a safety belt anchorage located so that it does not project above the surface of pillars other than A-pillars, the amount of downward rotation used to determine the maximum vertical approach angle for testing is ten degrees. In the instance of anchorages that project above the surface of the pillar, the amount of downward rotation used to determine the maximum vertical approach angle for testing is five degrees.

I hope that this is responsive to your inquiry. If you have any questions or comments, please contact Otto Matheke of this office at (202) 366-5253.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:202
d.10/15/02

ID: 22499

Mr. David Sample
Martinez & Turek, Inc.
300 S. Cedar Avenue
Rialto, CA 92376





Dear Mr. Sample:

This is in response to your letter of December 20, 2000, requesting that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) classify your two pole trailer dollies as non-motor vehicles. As discussed below, the agency considers your pole trailer dollies to be motor vehicles and therefore subject to safety standards administered by this agency.

NHTSA issues safety standards for "motor vehicles." The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) defines a "motor vehicle" as "any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails." (49 U.S.C. 30101 (a)(6)).

In your letter, you describe the configuration of your pole trailer dollies as "a long rocket tank that is capable of sustaining itself as a beam between supporting connections, a tractor and a dolly." You state that your pole trailer dollies will be used to transport a rocket tank over the public roads.

Since your pole trailer dollies are "driven or drawn by mechanical power" and "manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways," NHTSA considers them to be "motor vehicles." As such, your pole trailer dollies must meet all the requirements of the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

In your letter, you list the following five factors you believe the agency should consider in determining whether your pole trailer dollies are motor vehicles:

1. Whether the vehicle will be advertised for use on-road as well as off-road, or whether it will be advertised exclusively for off-road use.
2. Whether the vehicle's manufacturer or dealers will assist vehicle purchasers in obtaining certificates of origin or title documents to register the vehicle for on-road use.
3. Whether the vehicle is or will be sold by dealers also selling vehicles that are classified as motor vehicles.
4. Whether the vehicle has or will have affixed to it a warning label stating the vehicle is not intended for use on public roads.
5. Whether states or foreign countries have permitted or are likely to permit the vehicle to be registered for on-road use.

The agency considers those five factors when determining whether a vehicle is a motor vehicle when it has both off-road and on-road capabilities and when there is little or no evidence regarding the extent of the vehicle's on-road use. Since your pole trailer dollies are manufactured primarily for on-road use, we need not consider these factors.

You state that your pole trailer dollies have been designed to comply with the relevant federal motor vehicle safety standards, except two requirements of Standard No. 121, "Air Brake Systems." The air brakes on your pole trailer dollies do not meet the brake actuation and brake release times required by Standard No. 121. The standard requires a brake actuation time of .60 second, but your pole trailer dollies achieve only .75 second. The standard also requires a brake release time of 1.2 second, but your pole trailer dollies achieve only 1.3 second.

Under these circumstances, you may apply for a temporary exemption under 49 CFR Part 555. This regulation allows manufacturers to obtain a temporary exemption from Federal motor vehicle safety standards on the basis of substantial economic hardship, facilitation of the development of new motor vehicle safety or low-emission engine features, or existence of an equivalent level of motor vehicle safety. You may wish to consider applying for a temporary exemption on the basis of substantial economic hardship or the existence of an equivalent level of motor vehicle safety.

If you apply for a temporary exemption, NHTSA will publish the application in the Federal Register and give the public an opportunity to comment on the application. The agency then will determine whether the application contains adequate justification, grant or deny the temporary exemption, notify you of the decision in writing, and publish the decision and the reasons for it in the Federal Register.

I note that NHTSA received a letter dated May 3, 1999, from Lockheed Martin concerning two trailers purchased from your company. In that letter, Lockheed Martin stated that the two trailers did not meet the requirements of Standard No. 121 and requested an exemption for the two trailers, which the agency denied. I have enclosed a copy of our reply to Lockheed Martin.

I hope you find this information useful. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, you may contact Mr. Dion Casey in the Office of the Chief Counsel at (202) 366-2992.





Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:121
d.1/25/01

ID: 2249y

Mr. Mark F. Holmes
2605-C Norris Court
Philadephia, PA 19121

Dear Mr. Holmes:

This is in reply to your recent undated letter, responding to our letter of October 31, l989, with respect to your Strobalarm lighting device.

In that letter, we advised you that the clearance avoidance portion of the Strobalarm appeared intended to serve as a center highmounted stop lamp, and that under Standard No. l08, that lamp could not be combined with any other lamp or reflective device. Your recent letter and diagrams enclosed with it indicate that the strobe alarm and its LCD display "is wired and housed separately and functions independently from the collision avoidance light." However, your diagrams do not indicate the orientation of the device when installed. Further, your description is unclear. You state that the base will fit in front of the collision avoidance lamp, but you don't state whether the "front" of the lamp is the side nearest the front of the vehicle, or the side emitting light to the rear of the vehicle).

Nevertheless, your remarks do clearly respond to our earlier concern about combinations. Further, you have stated that the alarm and LED portion of the lamp will operate only when the vehicle is at rest, and not at times that the collision avoidance lamp is in operation. It therefore appears that installation and use of this device, as you have described it, would not violate any Federal regulation.

We note the comment in your enclosure that the device "has been designed to meet the department of transportation (lighting division) standards and regulations". This is somewhat inaccurate as there are no Federal specifications for the device to meet, only prohibitions to avoid. Thus, we believe it would be more accurate to say that the device "has been designed not to conflict with standards and regulations of the U.S. Department of Transportation."

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel / ref:l08 d:l/22/90

ID: 22507.ztv

Mr. Peter Hoffman
President
I.D. Lite Products Group, Inc.
4645-A Southern Blvd.
West Palm Beach, FL 33415





Dear Mr. Hoffman:

This is in reply to your letter of December 4, 2000, to the Chief Counsel, requesting an interpretation relating to your "patented product for vehicles, specifically commercial trucks such as tow vehicles."

You identify the product as "designed to back light customer signage by simply sliding in an insert that can be made by any reputable sign shop." The power source is "via cigarette lighter plug or direct connect to any 12vdc source." This indicates to us that your product is intended for sale in the aftermarket to individual owners of motor vehicles for installation by them, rather than for sale as original equipment to manufacturers of motor vehicles who will install it before sale.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment specifies requirements for lighting equipment on motor vehicles. Under Standard No. 108, the color of light emitted from lamps must be white, red, or amber. The color of the light emitted by your product is green. Standard No. 108 would not permit a green lamp on a motor vehicle.

However, because your product is not required as original equipment on motor vehicles, we do not regulate its manufacture and sale as either original or aftermarket equipment. Because your product is intended for installation by vehicle owners, it is exempted from a law that might prohibit it if it were installed by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business.

This means that the question as to the legality of its use is answerable under the laws of each State in which the product is likely to be used. We are unable to advise you on the laws of the individual States, but we believe that the color green may not be allowable in many of them.

I am enclosing for your information copies of three letters we have issued concerning devices which have similarities to your product (dated 5/4/00, to Mr. Browder, 8/13/93, to Mr. Ross, and 6/15/91, to Ms. Funk). The letters address additional issues which may be relevant to your product. (I note, however, that while the two earlier letters suggest contacting the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators for an opinion about State laws, that organization has advised us that they no longer provide such opinions.) I am also enclosing a copy of a paper titled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment."

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:108
d.4/10/01

ID: 2250y

The Honorable Robert J. Lagomarsino
U. S. House of Representatives
2332 Rayburn Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Lagomarsino:

Thank you for your letter to Secretary Skinner on behalf of your constituent, Mike Dunn. You inquired about a school bus passenger restraining device marketed by Mr. Dunn. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration received an inquiry concerning a similar device in 1988. A copy of our responses, which detail the requirements applicable to such a device, are enclosed. I will summarize those requirements below.

The device being marketed by your constituent, a "safety bar" for school bus passengers, consists of a padded metal bar which is attached to the seat back of the seat in front of the seat whose occupants are to be protected by the safety bar. The bar is hinged to swing up to allow entry and exit of the occupants. The hinge mechanism also allows the bar to drop slightly from its lowered position upon impact in an attempt to reduce the likelihood of abdominal injury. The device operates much like the passenger restraint bars found on certain amusement park rides.

As explained by the enclosed letters, federal law does not prohibit the installation of your constituent's product on school buses as long its installation and use would not destroy the ability of the required safety systems to comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). If the safety bars are to be installed in any new school bus, the manufacturer of the bus would have to certify that the bus with the safety bars installed complied with the impact zone requirements set forth in S5.3 of FMVSS No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection (49 CFR Part 571.222).

As the enclosed letters explain, the use of the safety bar would not obviate the need for a school bus with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less to comply with FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash protection (49 CFR Part 571.208). That standard requires that such vehicles be equipped with either safety belts or automatic restraints at all passenger seating positions.

In addition, as explained in the enclosed letters and information sheet, the manufacturer of the safety bars would be considered a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.). Such a manufacturer is responsible for conducting a notification and remedy campaign if the company or this agency decides that the product contains a defect related to motor vehicle safety, or that it does not comply with an applicable safety standard.

I hope you have found this information helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Jerry Ralph Curry

Enclosures /ref: 208, 222 d:l/8/90

ID: 22512.rbm

Mr. Todd Mitchell
Business Unit Manager - Automotive
ITW Meyercord CTG
365 E. North Avenue
Carol Stream, IL 60188





Dear Mr. Mitchell:

This letter responds to your request for an interpretation of the labeling requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Specifically, you have asked whether the required labels, illustrated in figures 6a, 6b, 6c and figure 8 (for vehicles with advanced air bags) of the standard, must be framed by a black border. You have also sought clarification of the requirement that these labels be permanently affixed to the vehicle sun visor.

S4.5.1(b)(2) of the regulatory text states that, except as provided, each vehicle manufactured on or after February 25, 1997, "shall have a label permanently affixed to either side of the sun visor, at the manufacturer's option, at each front outboard seating position that is equipped with an inflatable restraint. The label shall conform in content to the label shown in either Figure 6a or 6b of this standard, as appropriate, and shall comply with the requirements of S4.5.1(b)(2)(i) through S4.5.1(b)(2)(v)." These labels are referred to as "air bag warning" labels. The figure 6(c) label must be affixed to the sun visor only if the label specified by S4.5.1(b)(2) is not visible when the sun visor is in the stowed position. (See S4.5.1(2)(c).) This label is referred to as the "air bag alert" label. Vehicles certified to the advanced air bag requirements of our

May 12, 2000, final rule (65 FR 30680) must have labels that meet the requirements of figure 8.

Figures 6(a), 6(b), 6(c), and 8 specify both label content and format. Figures 6(a), 6(b), and 8 each specify that the label has a black outline, consisting of horizontal and vertical lines. Figure 6(c) does not specify that the label have any outline, although the label depicted in the figure is outlined in black. Accordingly, FMVSS No. 208 requires the air bag warning labels be framed by black vertical and horizontal lines, while the air bag alert label need not be so framed.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has never defined "permanently affixed" as part of a regulation, and has specifically refused to set forth parameters that would so define the term in FMVSS No. 208. ⁽¹⁾

Rather, we have dealt with questions on whether a label is permanently affixed through legal interpretations like this one. ⁽²⁾

Specifically, NHTSA has said that a label is permanent if it cannot be removed without destroying or defacing it and that the label should remain legible for the expected life of the product under normal conditions. Depending on where the label is affixed, various methods of attachment, such as sewing or heat transfer graphics, may meet these criteria.

ID: 22513.ztv

Mr. Tobin Tracy
President
Clr Alt Accessories Dist.
2 Washington Circle, Unit #3
Sandwich, MA 02563





Dear Mr. Tobin:

This is in reply to your letter of November 16, 2000, to the agency asking for a special exemption under 49 U.S.C. 30114 from 49 U.S.C. 30112(a).

You wish "to import clear taillight assemblies deemed for show and competition use as similarly outlined in [Section 30114]." You state that "Our product will be labeled 'OFF ROAD AND COMPETITION USE ONLY.'"

We appreciate your writing for an interpretation of this matter, but must inform you that we cannot grant you an exemption of this nature, for the reasons explained below.

Section 30112(a) requires that motor vehicle equipment imported into the United States comply, and be certified as complying, with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, as an exception to Section 30112(a), noncomplying products may be imported pursuant to Section 30114 which allows the importation of noncomplying motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment on such terms as the agency decides are necessary "for research, investigations, demonstrations, training, show or display, or competitive racing events." You wish to import taillamp assemblies with clear lenses for use on motorcycles among other types of vehicles. These assemblies would not comply with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 that the light from taillamps be red. Although your letter does not address the subject, it is likely that at least some of the motorcycles could be driven on the public roads of the United States.

Over the past few years we have received numerous complaints from motor vehicle law enforcement personnel around the country who have cited drivers of vehicles licensed for on-road use whose original taillamps have been replaced with taillamps with clear lenses. We have investigated a number of manufacturers and importers of these taillamps and find that most of them have advertised or labeled the lamps for off-road or competition use purposes. Notwithstanding such labels, this is not the purpose for which many of these lamps are being bought and used. The use of terms such as "off-road," "show use only," and "competition use only" have no exclusionary meaning under Federal law, and do not excuse a person using them from any responsibilities that may apply. Any item of motor vehicle lighting equipment manufactured to replace lighting equipment that is required on a new vehicle by Standard No. 108 must itself comply with Standard No. 108. To date, we know of no motorcycles being manufactured that are equipped with taillamps having clear lenses. I enclose a copy of a related interpretation that we furnished Mitch L. Williams of Hella, Inc., on July 17, 1998.

In short, motor vehicle replacement lighting equipment must conform to the same requirements as original equipment, and be certified to those requirements, in order to be imported into the United States for sale in the aftermarket. We will not grant an exception to this requirement.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:108
d.4/17/01

ID: 2251y

Mr. James A. Cowan, Jr.
Director of Engineering
Crown Coach Incorporated
13799 Monte Vista Avenue
Chino, CA 91710-5513

Dear Mr. Cowan:

This is in response to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217: Bus Window Retention and Release. I apologize for the delay in responding to your inquiry.

Your letter explained that Crown plans to sell one prototype school bus model which was developed but not produced, and which contains a side emergency exit which is wider than required under Standard No. 217. Because of the wider door, the seatback of the passenger seat located immediately forward of the emergency exit door intrudes into the emergency door exit opening. You have requested an interpretation as to whether this is consistent with Standard No. 217. The answer to your question is no.

Standard No. 217 specifically requires that "[a] vertical transverse plane tangent to the rearmost point of a seatback shall pass through the forward edge of a side emergency door." S5.4.2.1(b). This requirement prohibits the forward seat or seatback from extending into the door opening regardless of the size of the door opening. Therefore, as it is now configured, the bus you have described in your letter is not in compliance with Standard No. 217.

I hope you have found this information helpful. Please contact David Greenburg of this office at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions concerning this issue.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel /ref: VSA d:l/9/90

ID: 22525.ztv

Mr. Harold Holeman
C5 Creations
2 Renee Lane
Newark, DE 19711





Dear Mr. Holeman:

This is in reply to your email of December 26, 2000, asking for interpretations of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, "Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment."

Your first question is whether "the standards as set forth in FMVSS 108 require that bumper bras or bumper masks have openings around the running lights, parking lights, turning signals, etc.?"

Standard No. 108 does not regulate bumper bras or masks per se. However, lighting equipment is required under Federal law to comply with all requirements of Standard No. 108 when accessory equipment such as bumper bras are installed by regulated persons, whether the equipment is installed as original equipment or aftermarket equipment. The one exception under Federal law is a bra or mask installed by the vehicle owner; if this creates a noncompliance with Standard No. 108, the owner is responsible under any applicable local laws rather than Federal law.

Your next question is "If the bra material is transparent and does not noticeably diminish the luminescence of the lights is the bra design within code without having cutouts for the lights?" Paragraph S7.8.5 prohibits "any styling ornament or other feature, such as a translucent cover or grille, in front of the lens" when the headlamps are activated. We view a transparent bra as an "other feature" and prohibited by Standard No. 108. Thus, a transparent bra could not be installed by a regulated person (i.e., manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business) without violating Standard No. 108, but could be installed by the vehicle owner, provided that it does not violate local laws.

You then ask "Is there a test that should or can be performed to show that the intensity of the running lights is adequate even when covered by the bumper bra?" The photometric tests for each of the lamps covered by Standard No. 108 are essentially those of the Society of Automotive Engineers, which have been incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. These are laboratory tests rather than tests conducted on the vehicle itself. They could be conducted with the transparent bra or mask material cut to fit the lens. Any diminution in light output must not result in photometric output falling below the minimum levels specified for test points in any individual standard.

Like you, we are not aware of any transparent bra or mask on the market. In general, we do not favor covering the lens of any lamp with other material. Dirt and grime may accumulate to the point that candela is reduced below the minimum specified in the standard. Further, it may not be easily removable by washing the cover.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.4/19/01