ID: 23723.ztv

Shigeyoshi Aihara, Project Manager
Regulation and Compliance
Ichikoh Industries, Ltd.
80 Itado Isehara-City
Kanagawa-Pref.
259-1192 Japan





Dear Mr. Aihara:

This is in reply to your letter of October 24, 2001, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, presented at the conclusion of a meeting in our offices that day with representatives of this agency. You supplemented the letter with an e-mail of October 29, 2001, to Richard Van Iderstine of the Office of Safety Performance Standards.

You have asked a question with reference to the definition of "replaceable bulb headlamp" that appears in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. In pertinent part, S4 of Standard No. 108 defines a replaceable bulb headlamp as a "headlamp comprising a bonded lens and reflector assembly."

Ichikoh has designed a headlamp with a lens and reflector assembly "fixed with synthetic rubber hot melt, clips, screws, and clamps." Although the "lens is separate from" the reflector, your letter stated that it cannot be removed from the reflector assembly "unless clamps (10 portions) are broken." You state that "when a lens is damaged, it will be exchanged by the whole lamp assembly," and assure us that the lens cannot be removed without destroying the housing. However, you confirmed that the headlamp can be reassembled using the screws provided, and that the housing is not destroyed, only damaged to the extent that all the features that hold the lens are not present. You have asked whether this configuration is sufficient to comprise "a bonded lens and reflector assembly."

We have provided only four interpretations of this phrase. On July 13, 1987, we informed Dr. Ernst of Hella that a design in which the lens was joined to the reflector by three screws did not constitute "a bonded lens and reflector assembly." On December 24, 1990, we informed Herr Spingler of Bosch that if a lens could not be manually separated from the housing, we would consider the bond sufficient for purposes of defining "replaceable bulb headlamp. On March 8, 1995, we again wrote Herr Spingler, on this subject, informing him that "the intent of the definition was that the lens and reflector assembly be an indivisible unit upon manufacture of the headlamp." This meant that, "if a lens is broken, the entire lens reflector assembly must be replaced." Finally, on September 11, 1998, we responded to Mr. Muraoka of Koito with respect to a headlamp "whose lens is bonded not with one adhesive agent, but with using some screws or clamps." We informed Koito that its design would not be a replaceable bulb headlamp because the connection was divisible and impermanent.

In the Ichikoh design under discussion, the lens is fixed to the housing by ten clamps, two clips, and screws. If a lens is broken, you initially informed us that the entire headlamp assembly would have to be replaced, since the lens could not be removed without breaking the clamps. However, it appears from subsequent discussions that the design of this headlamp is such that the lens can be replaced using the screws, even though the clamps are broken. This, in essence, is the interpretation we provided Dr. Ernst in 1987 when we said that a lens held by three screws was not a bonded assembly. Also, the synthethic rubber hot melt serves not as a bonding agent but as a gasket, in a manner similar to an O-ring in the Ernst lamp. Thus, the Ichikoh design does not comprise a "bonded lens and reflector assembly" for the purpose of defining a "replaceable bulb headlamp."

Your letter depicts four alternative designs, and you have described two more in your e-mail. Each of these alternatives utilizes the same clip and clamp arrangement as the original design, and a variation of the screw design intended to make the screw less accessible. Although the intent is to make it less likely that the lens will be replaced separately, in no case is it impossible to do so. Therefore, none of Ichikoh's alternatives comprise a "bonded lens and reflector assembly."

As we informed Herr Spingler in 1990, "the intent of the definition is that, once the lens is joined to the reflector assembly, it shall not be separable," and that "any method of adhesion that accomplishes this would be a sufficient bond." In view of our interpretations over the years, it is likely that only an adhesive agent will provide a bond that satisfies the definition.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures
Ref:108
d.12/11/01

ID: nht80-3.20

DATE: 07/15/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: General Motors Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 29, 1980, requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 with respect to headlamp design. Specifically, General Motors asks whether a headlamp with a mounting tang that differs from the design illustrated in SAE Standard J571d, Dimensional Specifications for Sealed Beam Headlamp Units, June 1976 and SAE Recommended Practice J1132, 142 mm x 200 mm Sealed Beam Headlamp Unit, January 1976 is permissible. It is your opinion that this variance has no effect upon headlamp interchangeability or otherwise affects safety.

As you know, paragraph S4.1.1 requires headlamps to be "designed to conform" to SAE materials incorporated by reference, which include J571d and J1132. The SAE materials contain detailed drawings and dimensional requirements which manufacturers have followed in headlamp design. Standard No. 108 has been criticized for its specificity regarding headlamps although this aspect of it has been judicially upheld as necessary to the overall safety performance of the headlighting system. Standardization through such specificity is necessary to achieve the safety goals of interchangeability and ease of replacement.

To encourage innovation and relieve manufacturers of unnecessary restrictions, as well as to enhance the performance aspects of Standard No. 108, we believe that a manufacturer can certify that its headlamps have been designed to conform to Standard No. 108 without the necessity of strict adherence to the SAE dimensions if the safety purposes of Standard No. 108 are in no way compromised. Principally, headlamps must continue to be interchangeable with those of like nominal dimensions. With this in mind, the tang design postulated by General Motors is not prohibited by Standard No. 108 provided that headlamps incorporating it are interchangeable with those that meet all the design specifications of SAE J571d and SAE J1132.

SINCERELY,

ID: 18322.ztv

Mr. Yaichi Oishi
General Manager
Government Affairs Department
Toyota Technical Center, USA, Inc.
1850 M Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036

Dear Mr. Oishi:

This is in reply to your letter of July 7, 1998, requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You cite S7.5(d)(2):

The lower and upper beams of a headlamp system consisting of two lamps, each containing either one or two replaceable light sources, shall be provided as follows:

(i) The lower beam shall be provided . . .

(A) By the outboard light source (or the upper one if arranged vertically) . . .

(ii) The upper beam shall be provided. . .

(A) By the inboard light source (or the lower one if arranged vertically) . . .

Toyota believes that the outboard light source must always provide the lower beam, except when neither light source is outboard of the other, i.e. when the light sources "are arranged perfectly vertically," the upper light source must provide the lower beam. You comment that "since it is nearly impossible to have light sources arranged 'perfectly vertically,' we believe that the agency's intent was that the light source may be considered outboard rather than vertically arranged for light source offsets beyond a certain nominal distance." You have determined that the nominal distance between optical axes should be 5 mm because "this is the distance at which we believe the two light sources can be optically recognized as being arranged offset from one another."

By way of background, this specification was originally adopted in the 1970s to apply to four-lamp sealed beam headlighting systems in which each lamp was identical in size and contained only a single light source. When the lamps were mounted horizontally, side by side with identical horizontal centerlines, the outboard lamps were required to be the ones providing the lower beam, which also served to mark the width of the vehicle. When the lamps were mounted vertically, one atop the other with identical vertical centerlines, the lower beam continued to mark the width of the vehicle, but it was required to be the uppermost headlamp in order to provide a greater seeing distance. This established the location priority for the lower beam, that it be the outermost beam, and uppermost beam if the vertical axes of the lamps coincided.

Paragraph S7.5(d)(2) extends this specification to headlighting systems consisting of two replaceable bulb headlamps with one or two light sources. The 1990s have seen the advent of headlighting systems and locations that were not contemplated when the location priority was established. We must therefore interpret S7.5(d)(2) and similar location requirements in a manner that best implements the agency's original safety intent, that the lower beam must be no further inboard than, and no lower than, the upper beam. Accordingly, where the vertical or horizontal axes of headlamps or light sources do not coincide, what is "upper" and "lower" will be determined by the relationship of the horizontal axes of a system's headlamps or light sources. The Toyota design depicts a system in which the lower beam headlamps are the outermost, in accordance with Standard No. 108. But the upper beam is provided by a headlamp whose horizontal axis is higher on the vehicle than the horizontal axis of the lower beam headlamp. This arrangement does not meet the intent that the lower beam be provided by "the upper one if arranged vertically."

In the forthcoming notice of proposed rulemaking to rewrite the headlamp specifications of Standard No. 108, the agency intends to propose modifying the current language to make the outboard position the only location requirement for the lower beam unless the upper and lower beams are arranged exactly vertically. This will ensure that the most frequently used headlamp beam can also serve to indicate the overall width of the vehicle from the front.

On March 25, 1998, we responded to a request by Stanley Electric Co. for an interpretation of S7.5(e)(2)(i)(A), the similar location specification for a two-lamp headlamp system each containing two replaceable light sources. I enclose a copy for your information. In the Stanley design, the lower beam was provided by the uppermost light source but its vertical centerline was inboard of that of the upper beam light source. We informed Stanley the design of this headlamp system did not comport with the original intent of Standard No. 108 that the lower beam be provided by either the outermost lamp or by one with an identical vertical centerline to the upper beam lamp. We concluded by saying that "the lower beam light source must not only be the uppermost of the two light sources but, also, its vertical centerline must not be inboard of the vertical centerline of the upper beam light source."

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
d.10/29/98
ref:108

ID: 1982-3.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/08/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Don Vesco Products Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 15, 1982, asking about the legality of "covering of a headlamp on a motorcycle with a clear cover."

You reported that manufacturers of motorcycles and fairings are producing such covers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration views this practice as prohibited and will take appropriate steps to make it views known. The legal authority for this is based upon a requirement of the SAE incorporated by reference in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 or, alternatively, paragraph S4.1.3 of that standard.

SAE Standard J580 (both a and b versions), Sealed Beam Headlamp Assembly, is incorporated by reference in Tables I and III of Standard No. 108 as one of the standards pertaining to headlamps for use on passenger cars, trucks, buses, and multi-purpose passenger vehicles. A paragraph in each version states that, "When in use, a headlamp shall not have any styling ornament or other feature, such as a glass cover or grill, in front of the lens." SAE J580a applies to all sealed beam headlamps, while the scope of J580b is considerably narrower, including only those not covered by SAE J579c.

The principal referenced SAE material for motorcycle headlamps is J584a Motorcycle Headlamps. As options, both J584 and S4.1.1.34 of Standard No. 108 allow, in effect, a motorcycle to be equipped with one half of any sealed beam system permissible on four-wheeled motor vehicles.

Paragraph S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108 forbids the installation of additional equipment "that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required" by Standard No. 108. Because of moisture accumulation, discoloration, cracks, etc., a glass or plastic cover might tend over a period of time to diminish or distort the headlamp beam. This is of particular concern with reference to the unsealed headlamps implicitly permitted by SAE J584 because of the tendency of the reflector to deteriorate with age.

For the reasons stated above, the agency has concluded that no headlamp may have a glass or plastic shield in front of it when in use, regardless of the type of vehicle on which it is used.

As for the turn signals, no part of the vehicle may impair their visibility through horizontal angles 45 degrees to the right and left of the vehicle (for right and left turn signals respectively) measured at the longitudinal axis of the vehicle. An unobstructed illuminated area of outer lens surface of at least 2 square inches excluding reflex is necessary to meet this requirement. You will have to judge for yourself whether the turn signal requirements are met with your planned cover in place.

If you have any further questions, we shall be happy to answer them.

SINCERELY,

DON VESCO PRODUCTS, INC.,

September 15, 1982

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

To whom it may concern;

We are a small manufacturing firm and we produce various motorcycle products. Our main product at this time is a motorcycle fairing as shown in the photo on this letterhead. I am in the redesign stage of this fairing and would like to produce a product with flush fitting turn signals and possibly a covered headlight. I cannot find any D.O.T. specifications on the covering of a headlamp on a motorcycle with a clear cover. Many motorcycle accessory companies are producing fairings with this feature and, at least two motorcycle manufacturing companies are producing motorcycles with this feature. I have enclosed a number of copies showing the headlamp coverings as now produced.

What I want to know is what specifications are required to add this feature, or, is there simply nothing stating that such a feature is permissible?

I also would like to know what specifications will be required to add a clear covering over normal D.O.T. approved turnsignals. I can find no ruling that in any way prohibits or even mentions any clear covering that does not interfere with the operating of the lamp or the visability. We have limited funds and cannot afford to tool up for a special flush fitting turnsignal. However, our experiments have added up to a 23% increase in fuel economy on our test motorcycle using the new design and we feel that the commuter can use any gain possible. A 23% increase in fuel economy with no mechanical changes and only aerodynamic improvements is significant.

Time is of the essense. We must have some information on this within the next 4 weeks. Thank you for your cooperation.

Matt Guzzetta, Vice-President

ID: aiam5558

"Dear Mr. Tolley: This responds to your letter of April 28, 1995 asking for an interpretation of the torque deflection test specified in paragraph S7.8.5.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. The second sentence of this paragraph states that 'The downward force used to create the torque shall be applied parallel to the aiming reference plane, through the aiming pads, and displaced forward using a lever arm such that the force is applied on an axis that is perpendicular to the aiming reference plane and originates at the center of the aiming pad pattern.' You believe that the instructions for performing the test are not sufficiently precise and can be interpreted in different ways. Specifically, you are concerned that the standard fails to adequately define the center of rotation of force, which is necessary to determine the downward force applied to the headlamp. We agree with you, and are examining ways in which the standard might be amended to address the problem you have brought to our attention. Noting that you have presented four possible answers (as well as 'some other point'), our comment is that, until NHTSA clarifies the matter, a manufacturer should choose a center of rotation that appears the most appropriate for the design of mechanically aimable headlamp under consideration, in certifying that the headlamp meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. I am sorry that we could not be more helpful at this point. If you have any questions you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this office (202-366-5263). Sincerely John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: 2285y

Mr. Victor Crisci
70 Lenox Road
Wayne, NJ 07470

Dear Mr. Crisci:

This is in response to the telephone call you made to me after receiving the interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08 furnished you on August 7, l989.

To summarize, you wished to know whether a "safety light flasher" to be installed on your motorcycle would conflict with DOT regulations. This device flashes a motorcycle headlamp between upper and lower beam for 2 to 4 seconds, then returns the light to the beam it was in when the flasher was activated. If the headlamp is off, the flasher will turn it on and initiate an identical flash cycle. We advised you that Standard No. l08 allowed flashing headlamps only on vehicles equipped with turn signals (S5.5.10(c)), and that the provision applicable to motorcycle headlamps (S5.5.l0(d)) permitted only headlamp modulators, which must provide varying intensities within a single beam, and not between beams.

You have questioned this interpretation because motorcycles are required to be equipped with turn signals. We have reviewed Standard No. l08, and have concluded that your device is prohibited, albeit for reasons other than section S5.5.10(c). Section S5.5.1 requires that the means for switching between upper and lower beams conform to one of two SAE Recommended Practices, either J564a, or J565b. The first requires that the switch be operated by a simple movement of the driver's hand or foot. We do not interpret this as allowing automatic switching between upper and lower beams. Although the second provides for automatic switching, it is in the context of changing the upper beam to the lower one when oncoming traffic is approaching. Your device does not contain this feature.

We must also bring your attention to section S5.1.3. This section prohibits the installation of supplementary lighting devices if they impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment that is required by Standard No. l08. In our opinion, a device that switches between upper and lower beam at times when the headlamp is illuminated would impair the roadway illumination that the headlamp is intended to supply. In addition, if the flasher caused lamps other than the headlamp to flash (such as the taillamp, which must be activated when the headlamp is steady-burning), that are required to be steady-burning in use, a noncompliance with section S5.5.11(e) would result.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

/ref:l08 d: 2/l4/90

ID: nht95-2.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 29, 1995

FROM: Jeffrey D. Shetler -- Kawa Saki Motors Corp., U.S.A

TO: Taylor Vinson -- NHTSA

TITLE: Projector Beam Headlamp

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/24/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP RECHT TO JEFFREY SHETLER (A43; STD. 108); ALSO ATTACHED TO 2/7/94 LETTER FROM JEFFREY D. SHETLER TO NHTSA ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR ENFORCEMENT; ALSO ATTACHED TO 5/6/94 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO JEFFREY D. SHETLER

TEXT: Attached per my telephone conversation with Mr. John Womack are the following:

1. Two drawings of projector beam headlamps a) original drawing submitted with our February 7, 1994 request for interpretation (Drawing A) b) modified drawing showing the addition of a cowling over the headlamp (Drawing B)

2. February 7, 1994 Kawasaki correspondence to NHTSA

3. May 6, 1994 correspondence from Mr. Womack

Standard 108 requires a motorcycle to have at least one headlamp. Table IV requires the headlamp to be located on the vertical centerline, except that if two are used they shall be symmetrically disposed about the vertical centerline.

The subject Kawasaki motorcycle headlamp in Drawing A and B contains the upper and lower beam in one housing and is a single headlamp. However, the addition of the cowling (Drawing B), which is a permanent part of the motorcycle to which the headlamp wi ll be applied, provides the appearance of two headlamps.

My question to Mr. Womack during our telephone conversation was concerning the addition of the cowling and the interpretation of the requirements in Standard 108.

Will the revised proposed application of the projector beam headlamp to a motorcycle as seen in Drawing B meet the requirements of Standard 108?

Thank you in advance for your quick response to our inquiry.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. I can be reached at (714) 770-0400 ext. 2456.

Regards

DRAWINGS OMITTED.

ID: nht90-1.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/14/90

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: VICTOR CRISCI

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER FROM VICTOR CRISCI TO ERICA Z. JONES DATED JUNE 28, 1989 ATTACHED

TEXT: This is in response to the telephone call you made to me after receiving the interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 furnished you on August 7, 1989.

To summarize, you wished to know whether a "safety light flasher" to be installed on your motorcycle would conflict with DOT regulations. This device flashes a motorcycle headlamp between upper and lower beam for 2 to 4 seconds, then returns the light t o the beam it was in when the flasher was activated. If the headlamp is off, the flasher will turn it on and initiate an identical flash cycle. We advised you that Standard No. 108 allowed flashing headlamps only on vehicles equipped with turn signals (S5.5.10(c)), and that the provision applicable to motorcycle headlamps (S5.5.10(d)) permitted only headlamp modulators, which must provide varying intensities within a single beam, and not between beams.

You have questioned this interpretation because motorcycles are required to be equipped with turn signals. We have reviewed Standard No. 108, and have concluded that your device is prohibited, albeit for reasons other than section S5.5.10(c). Section S 5.5.1 requires that the means for switching between upper and lower beams conform to one of two SAE Recommended Practices, either J564a, or J565b. The first requires that the switch be operated by a simple movement of the driver's hand or foot. We do n ot interpret this as allowing automatic switching between upper and lower beams. Although the second provides for automatic switching, it is in the context of changing the upper beam to the lower one when oncoming traffic is approaching. Your device do es not contain this feature.

We must also bring your attention to section S5.1.3. This section prohibits the installation of supplementary lighting devices if they impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment that is required by Standard No. 108. In our opinion, a device that sw itches between upper and lower beam at times when the headlamp is illuminated would impair the roadway illumination that the headlamp is intended to supply. In addition, if the flasher caused lamps other than the headlamp to flash

(such as the taillamp, which must be activated when the headlamp is steady-burning), that are required to be steady-burning in use, a noncompliance with section S5.5.11(e) would result.

ID: 9661

Mr. Jerry L. Steffy
Triumph Designs, Ltd.
Hinckley
Leicestershire LE10 3BS
England

Dear Mr. Steffy:

This responds to your FAXes of February 10 and 11, 1994, to Taylor Vinson of this Office.

You have informed us that in Canada you were able recently "to use ECE Reg. 20 in lieu of FMVSS 108 for a particular headlamp use." You have asked whether it is possible to do the same in the United States.

The answer depends upon whether the ECE Reg. 20 headlamp also meets FMVSS No. 108. Motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States must be equipped with headlamps that comply with FMVSS No. 108. This standard does not incorporate ECE Reg. 20. Therefore, importation and sale in the United States of any motor vehicle equipped with an ECE Reg. 20 headlamp that does not meet Standard No. 108 would be in violation of our law.

You have also asked whether our temporary exemption procedures, 49 CFR Part 555, would permit you to apply for an exemption for this headlamp on the grounds of "an equivalent overall level of motor vehicle safety." After one model year, you would change to a headlamp that meets FMVSS 108.

The exemption procedures are available to manufacturers of motor vehicles, but not motor vehicle equipment. Thus, the manufacturer of an ECE Reg. 20 headlamp could not apply for an exemption. The appropriate petitioner would be the manufacturer of a motor vehicle on which a Reg. 20 headlamp is installed as original equipment. We assume that Triumph Designs is associated with the manufacturer of Triumph motorcycles, and this manufacturer would be eligible to submit a petition under Part 555.

If you have any further questions, we shall be pleased to answer them.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108#555 d:3/16/94

ID: nht94-7.40

DATE: March 16, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jerry L. Steffy -- Triumph Designs, Ltd. (England)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to faxes dated 2/11/94 and 2/10/94 from Jerry L. Steffy to Taylor Vinson (OCC 9661)

TEXT:

This responds to your FAXes of February 10 and 11, 1994, to Taylor Vinson of this Office.

You have informed us that in Canada you were able recently "to use ECE Reg. 20 in lieu of FMVSS 108 for a particular headlamp use." You have asked whether it is possible to do the same in the United States.

The answer depends upon whether the ECE Reg. 20 headlamp also meets FMVSS No. 108. Motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States must be equipped with headlamps that comply with FMVSS No. 108. This standard does not incorporate ECE Reg. 20. Therefore, importation and sale in the United States of any motor vehicle equipped with an ECE Reg. 20 headlamp that does not meet Standard No. 108 would be in violation of our law.

You have also asked whether our temporary exemption procedures, 49 CFR Part 555, would permit you to apply for an exemption for this headlamp on the grounds of "an equivalent overall level of motor vehicle safety." After one model year, you would change to a headlamp that meets FMVSS 108.

The exemption procedures are available to manufacturers of motor vehicles, but not motor vehicle equipment. Thus, the manufacturer of an ECE Reg. 20 headlamp could not apply for an exemption. The appropriate petitioner would be the manufacturer of a motor vehicle on which a Reg. 20 headlamp is installed as original equipment. We assume that Triumph Designs is associated with the manufacturer of Triumph motorcycles, and this manufacturer would be eligible to submit a petition under Part 555.

If you have any further questions, we shall be pleased to answer them.