PL 700 halogen wattage?

[TR3driver]

All they need to find is the "DOT" Certification markings. If they're not there, your car fails.

Which AFAIK lets out all PL700s (and replicas) as well as most lamps that take replaceable halogen bulbs. Even my "high tech" complex surface reflector lamps do not bear the DOT marking.

Oddly enough, neither do my old tungsten sealed beams! As I mentioned before, that entire section applies only to cars made since 1994. That's not to say that PA doesn't try to apply it to old cars (dangerous things, shouldn't be allowed on the road anyway), but the Fed doesn't.

 

[DNK]

Been running illegal lights since I started driving my fist car. A Lotus Cortina with the Cibie concave lenses. Didn't pass inspection for the new tags,VA to MD.
Put DOT legal ones in and only put one screw in em so putting the"correct" unit back in would be quicker. Every car I have owned has had "better" lamps in it.

 

[DaveatMoon]

All they need to find is the "DOT" Certification markings. If they're not there, your car fails.

Which AFAIK lets out all PL700s (and replicas) as well as most lamps that take replaceable halogen bulbs. Even my "high tech" complex surface reflector lamps do not bear the DOT marking.

Oddly enough, neither do my old tungsten sealed beams! As I mentioned before, that entire section applies only to cars made since 1994. That's not to say that PA doesn't try to apply it to old cars (dangerous things, shouldn't be allowed on the road anyway), but the Fed doesn't.

Then your bulbs are (at least technically) illegal. The requirement for such a marking is listed in Section S7.3, immediately after the 1994 date you cited in Section S7.1

Also the 1994 date in Section S7.1 is simply the last time a new category of headlamp (probably "Type H") was added. Prior to that date at least one of the categories listed wasn't yet approved, so if units built prior to that date they were not retro-actively approved. Prior to 1984 there were only 4 categories. Prior to 1974 there were only 2, etc.

Again, this is only a problem if lights are chosen that are noticeably brighter than normal DOT approved lighting. If you don't look any different in the dead of night, you won't have a problem. If you put "off-road" bulbs in your car (which 80/90/100W bulbs will be marked as), you're taking a chance which is worsened with every state line you cross.

 

[TR3driver]

I would certainly agree that, no matter what headlamps you opt for, it is very important to not blind oncoming drivers. But if you'll check the photo above, you'll see that my "illegal" headlights actually put LESS light into the other driver's eyes, while putting more light on the road.

I've only been through about 13 states so far with those particular headlights (with much of the driving at night) but I'll continue to take my chances. I'm hoping the CSRs will turn out even better.

Also the 1994 date in Section S7.1 is simply the last time a new category of headlamp (probably "Type H") was added.

Could be.

But the words say the section does not apply to older cars. And if they are going to outlaw cars equipped "as original", I think the AACA et al would have a few words to say on the subject.

 

[DaveatMoon]

But the words say the section does not apply to older cars.

Where?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:]S7.1 Each passenger car, multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck, and
bus manufactured on or after September 1, 1994, shall be equipped with a
headlighting system designed to conform to the requirements of S7.3,
S7.4, S7.5, or S7.6.
[/QUOTE]
That doesn't say anything about anyone <span style="text-decoration: underline">not</span> being regulated.

I used to enforce regulations for a living. You do not read them like a set of instructions, allowing your intellect to interject things like "<span style="font-style: italic">Everything else is O.K.</span>" at the end of lines like that. That would be VERY dangerous to assume. This isn't english, it's legalese.

That section of the regulation (in different form) existed before 1994. Heck, it existed before 1944. Cars and aftermarket parts for them are subject to the regulations in place at the time of manufacture. We all know that or else we'd all be driving British sports cars with catalytic converters & 1980 MGB bumpers grafted on to them. The current regulation, which is actually quite old by regulation standards, is what's currently available online. It's definitions for lighting systems that existed before 1994 still apply, including every one found on our cars. They haven't changed.

 

[TR3driver]

That doesn't say anything about anyone <span style="text-decoration: underline">not</span> being regulated.

Right ... it doesn't say you are allowed to eat white bread either; but it sure doesn't prohibit it.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:]This isn't english, it's legalese.[/QUOTE]Wasn't it Thurgood Marshall who said the law should be interpreted narrowly? In any case, I don't believe any judge would interpret that section as prohibiting anything on cars manufactured before the given date.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:]That section of the regulation (in different form) existed before 1994.[/QUOTE]Which also matters not at all. The current form is the law now.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:]We all know that or else we'd all be driving British sports cars with catalytic converters & 1980 MGB bumpers grafted on to them.[/QUOTE]Which would be perfectly legal, AFAIK, assuming you mean cars made before 1968. Adding seat belts and shoulder harnesses; even roll bars; are perfect examples. <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:] It's definitions for lighting systems that existed before 1994 still apply, including every one found on our cars. They haven't changed. [/QUOTE]The definitions may be the same, but unless the law says which ones are allowed and which ones aren't ... it doesn't say. And we are not yet at the point of "everything not mandatory is forbidden". To be illegal, there must be a law against it.

 

[DaveatMoon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:]To be illegal, there must be a law against it.[/QUOTE]
There is. These are regulations, not laws. There's a difference.

 

[TR3driver]

These are regulations, not laws. There's a difference.

And if the law says I must comply with these regulations, I am. There is still nothing in there that requires a sealed beam headlight on a car made before 1994.

 

[DaveatMoon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:]Cars and aftermarket parts for them are subject to the regulations in place at the time of manufacture. We all know that or else we'd all be driving British sports cars with catalytic converters & 1980 MGB bumpers grafted on to them. The current regulation, which is actually quite old by regulation standards, is what's currently available online.[/QUOTE]
Your question was answered.

 

[TR3driver]

Your question was answered.

Actually, it wasn't. Anyone happen to have a copy of the <span style="font-weight: bold">relevant </span>regulation?