No Brakes,
you may be correct, but based on California's poorly written vehicle code regarding auxiliary lights and fog or passing lights, the California Highway Patrol has no way to defend their position on auxiliary lamps when they are wired and positioned per the California vehicle code. Currently there is no way for them to distinguish between legal and "illegal" lamps. Neither the SAE or DOT regulate auxiliary lamps. Even the factory fog lamps on my Tundra have no DOT or SAE codes.
On the morning of May 4, 2009, I was cited by a CHP officer for not having “off road light” covers per California vehicle code section 24411. The ticket is "non-correctable" and is an automatic fine of $165.
He made no attempt to inspect the lights for any markings, mounting, aiming considerations or whether or not they were switched with the factory headlamps.
I challenged the ticket in writing to the court (I didn't want to sit in the court room for 3 hours while other plead their cases). I submitted photos and documentation of the wiring and position of the lights. I also included the information below from the NHTSA and previous California precedent in court on "Driving lamps". The ticket was dismissed.
So legal or illegal? There is no way for a person or and officer to make this determination because there is no way to determine this by examining any auxiliary lights on the market, to my knowledge. If No Brakes has evidence to the contrary, I sure would like to hear it. Can an officer write a ticket for not having "off-road" lights covered? Absolutely! Is it defendable in court? If the lights are wired and positioned according the vehicle code, definitely.
From the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/...13434.ztv.html
Regarding Auxiliary Driving Lights
"1. Who regulates auxiliary driving lights - the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) or the Department of Transportation (DOT)?"
DOT has not established specifications for auxiliary lamps such as driving, fog, etc., and does not directly regulate them. Unlike headlamps, for example, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment does not require auxiliary driving lamps to be original equipment on motor vehicles. However, they must not be installed on a motor vehicle, either as original or aftermarket equipment, in a manner that impairs the effectiveness of required lighting equipment (e.g., mounted so close to a turn signal lamp as to mask its signal), and they should not be used as substitutes for headlamps. In addition, DOT has broad jurisdiction over "motor vehicle equipment"; thus, if auxiliary lamps are determined to have a safety related defect, their manufacturer must notify customers and remedy the defect.
The SAE is not a regulatory body and compliance with its standards and recommended practices is voluntary and of no legal significance, unless those standards have been incorporated by reference into Standard No. 108 and/or a State's motor vehicle laws. As stated above, SAE provisions on auxiliary driving, fog, and other such lamps have not been incorporated as Federal requirements.
"2. If no one currently regulates these automotive parts, are there plans at the Federal level to regulate these lights in the future? Who will regulate them and what will be the requirements?"
We have no plans at this time to regulate auxiliary driving or auxiliary lower beam headlamps in the future, but we have publicly stated our intent to regulate front and rear fog lamps. Whether this will actually occur we cannot say at this time, but it is likely that any regulations will be based on both SAE and European standards.
"3. Do individual states have different restrictions regarding auxiliary driving lights?
4. If the answer is yes, would you please provide me with information on these different restrictions and with contact names for the various state agencies?"
In the absence of Federal regulations, each State may regulate any and all auxiliary lamps under State laws. There may be States with restrictions. However, we are not conversant with the laws of the individual States, and I regret that we are unable to provide you with contact names in the office of the Motor Vehicle Administrator of each State.
"5. What does it mean when a light manufacturer says "This light is DOT/SAE approved?" or "This light is AAMVA approved?"
The phrase "DOT/SAE approved" should never be used. DOT does not have the authority to "approve" or "disapprove" motor vehicle equipment. To the best of our knowledge, SAE does not approve lamps either. Sometimes a manufacturer will use the phrase to imply that the lamp has been manufactured to SAE specifications that have been incorporated into Standard No. 108 as Federal requirements. If this is the case, the manufacturer may simply mark the lamp "DOT" as its certification that the lamp has been manufactured to conform to all applicable requirements of Standard No. 108. Otherwise, the manufacturer must certify compliance by means of a label on the lamp or on the container in which it is equipped. In cases where "DOT/SAE approved" appears on auxiliary lamps and their packages, the marking is meaningless. We shall answer your question on AAMVA under Question 7. below
"6. Who is the AAMVA?"
"AAMVA" is the abbreviation for the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, an organization whose members are the motor vehicle administrators of the individual States. It is located at 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.
"7. What role does the AAMVA play in regulating auxiliary driving lights or any automotive lighting.?"
Some States require registration of manufacturers doing business within their borders. Because auxiliary lamps are not required lighting equipment under Standard No. 108, a State may set its own standard for these lamps, and require manufacturers to obtain a certificate of conformance with the State standard as a condition for selling the auxiliary lamps in the State. We understand that AAMVA previously performed the service of obtaining these certificates. However, another organization appears to have assumed that role. This new organization is the Automotive Manufacturers Equipment Compliance Agency, Inc. (AMECA), Suite 605, 1101 15th St. N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20005. I am not familiar with the phrase "This lamp is AAMVA approved" but it may mean that AAMVA had obtained the necessary clearances for sale of the lamp in those States which permit AAMVA-approved lamps.
"8. How does a light manufacturer get his/her lights approved for sale at the federal and state levels?"
As I explained earlier, DOT has no authority to "approve" lighting equipment. All that is required under Federal law for a lamp to be sold is that it comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards and bear its manufacturer's certification of compliance in the form indicated in response to Question 5. Since no Federal requirements apply to driving lamps, no permission to sell or certify is required under Federal law. The individual States may require State approval before sale, and we recommend that you consult AMECA as to its recommendations for sale in the individual States.
If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office ( 202-366-5263 ).
Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d:/8/97
RULING
EL DORADO CO. SUPERIOR CT.
FILED 12-30-96
No . PV-001706
APPELLATE DECISION
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF EL DORADO
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
vs.
RICHARD RUSSELL
Appellant was cited on December 14, 1995, by CHP Officer Lord for a violation of Vehicle Code § 24411, which requires auxiliary lamps on an off-road vehicle to be covered or hooded and turned off whenever he vehicle is driven upon a highway. Specifically, the section states:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a vehicle may be equipped with not more than eight lamps for use as headlamps while the vehicle is operated or driven off the highway. The lamps shall be mounted at a height of not less than 16 inches from the ground, or more than 12 inches above the top of the passenger compartment, at any place between the front of the vehicle and a line lying on a point 40 inches to the rear of the seat occupied by the driver, shall be wired independently of all other lighting circuits, and, whenever the vehicle is operated or driven upon a highway, shall be covered or hooded with an opaque hood or cover, and turned off.
Officer Lord testified that he looks at the auxiliary light to see if there is an SAE stamp; if not, he considers it to be an auxiliary light which must be covered pursuant to Vehicle Code § 24411.
Appellant contends that the two auxiliary lamps on his vehicle are "driving lights" and conform to Vehicle Code § 24402 and are not "off-road lights" regulated by Vehicle Code § 24411. Appellant submits Federal Motor Safety regulations and Department of'. Transportation regulations that along with the provisions of Vehicle Code § 24402 make no provision for the lights being covered or requiring SAE approval.
Vehicle Code § 24402 provides, in relevant part:
Any motor vehicle may be equipped with not to exceed two auxiliary driving lamps mounted on the front at a height of not less than 16 inches nor more than 42 inches. Driving lamps are lamps designed for supplementing the upper beam from headlamps and may not be lighted with the lower beam.
Driving, passing, and fog lights are all "auxiliary lighting equipment" within the definition of Vehicle Code § 375(a); similarly, all three types are considered auxiliary lights under the California regulations pertaining to motor vehicles [13 Cal. Admin. C. § 710]. Auxiliary lamps must meet certain mechanical testing requirements set forth in 13 Cal. Admin. C. § 711; there is not evidence in the record that appellant's lights failed to meet any of these requirements. Each type of auxiliary light must meet certain photometric test requirements; while passing lamps and fog lamps must meet certain SAE requirements, driving lights must only meet requirements specified in 13 Cal. Admin. C. § 712 (a) ; there are no SAE requirements, and there is no evidence that appellant's lights failed to meet the requirements set forth in the Administrative Code.
There is no federal regulation of driving, passing, or fog lights; the California Highway Patrol is therefore authorized to establish requirements for such lighting [13 Cal. Admin. C. §§ 622; 623(b)]. There is no evidence in the record of what, if any, requirements CHP has established for the regulation of this equipment. There is no way of ascertaining from the law and the record in this case whether Officer Lord's determination is arbitrary and personal to him or whether it reflects some CHP standard.
The uncontradicted evidence in this case demonstrates that appellant's lights fall within the definition of "driving lights" in Vehicle Code § 24402. That section does not require driving lights to be covered. The administrative regulations pertaining 'to driving lights do not refer to any SAE requirements. While the authority to regulate driving lights is vested in the CHP, there is no evidence that CHP has promulgated such a regulation and if so, what that regulation is.
Vehicle Code § 24402 was added to the Vehicle Code in 1959; Vehicle Code § 24411 was last amended in 1986. It is a principle of statutory construction that it is assumed that the Legislature has existing laws in
mind when it enacts a statute. "The failure of the Legislature to change the law in a particular respect when the subject is generally before it and changes in other respects are made is indicative of an intent to leave the law as it stands in the aspects not amended" [Estate of McDill (1975) 14 Cal.3d 831, 838]. Further, when a statute is susceptible of two reasonable constructions, it must construed "as favorably to the defendant as its language and the circumstances of its application may reasonably permit" [Keller vs. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 619, 631].
The judgment of the trial court is reversed.
Dated: December 26, 1996
EDDIE T. KELLER
Judge of the Superior Court
TERRENCE m. FINNEY
Judge of the Superior Court
CHARLES E. GOFF
Superior Court Judge, Assigned
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Shaggy
