ID: 1984-1.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/16/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Pekka Suuronen -- Hella Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

MR. Pekka Suuronen Hella, Inc. P.O. Box 1064 Cranford, NJ 07016

This is in response to your letter of November 30, 1983, clarifying your earlier requests for an interpretation of Standard No. 108. You have asked whether replaceable bulb headlamps may be manufactured in sizes identical to the current sizes for sealed beam headlamps, provided that they meet Stardard No. 108 in all other respects.

The replaceable bulb headlamp amendment was adopted with the intent of allowing Vehicle manufacturers greater flexibility in the front end design in order to improve aerodynamics. The amendment allows an original equipment two-lamp system of no specified dimensions, and replacement lamps for these systems. It was not directed towards replacement lamps for existing headlamp systems. However, because no exterior dimensions for headlamps are specified by the amendment, replaceable bulb headlamps intended for use in a two-lamp system, with exterior dimension of sealed beam round or rectangular two-headlamp systems, would be permissible assuming that they meet all other requirements of Standard No. 108, including providing one of the two aiming pad locations specified for replaceable bulb headlamps. However, until Standard No. 108 is amended to allow a four-lamp replaceable bulb headlamp system, these lamps are precluded from being manufactured to replace today's sealed beam round and rectangular sealed beem headlamps used in four-lamp systems.

I hope this provides the clarification you seek.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

November 30, 1983

NHTSA 400 Seventh St. NW Washington, DC 20590 ATTN: Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

Dear Mr. Berndt,

Thank you for your letter of November 17, 1983, reference "NOA-30". I would like to clarify my question. I realize there is only one "legal" replaceable headlamp bulb which I call "Ford bulb", lacking a more official nomenclature.

By " six standard sizes" I mean headlamps, not bulbs. In other words, headlamps that would replace current six types 2D1, 1C1, 2C1, 1A1, 2A1, and 2B1. However, these proposed lamps would have a replaceable "Ford bulb" and a sealing just like in the Ford headlamp. In the case if Type 1 headlamp, only the high beam filament would be connected. The photometrics would meet the current SAE standards, the lamp would be mechanically rimable and the new proposed lamps would comply to all other applicable safety standards, as well.

My question is, would these kinds of headlamps be highway legal?

Please note that Racemark no longer is the importer of Hella. Please correspond to the address shown on the letterhead.

Sincerely,

PEKKA SUURONEN PS / lP

ID: 86-1.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/21/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Dean Hansell, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dean Hansell, Esq. Messrs. Donovan Leisure Newton & Irvine 555 South Flower Street Los Angeles. California 90071

Dear Mr. Hansell:

This is in reply to your letter of January 14, 1986, asking whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 permits headlamps to be nonrectangular.

Standard No. 108 prescribes dimensions only for sealed beam headlamps, in accordance with the terms of the standard and the materials of the Society of Automotive Engineers incorporated by reference. Under these requirements, sealed beam headlamps must be either circular or rectangular according to either the diameters or length/width dimensions specified.

In 1983 Standard No. 108 was amended to allow additional headlighting systems (see paragraph 54.1.1.36) incorporating a replaceable light source with an "0" ring seal. Dimensions are prescribed for this light source. With this type of system, the emphasis on standardization of lighting equipment shifts from size and shape of the unit to the light source itself. This allows the headlamp designer freedom to choose the headlamp size and shape most acceptable to his client within the constraints of the standardized replaceable light source and the photometric requirements of the standard which are essentially the same for all headlamps. Further, such headlamps must be capable of mechanical aim just like sealed beam units.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

January 14, 1986

Erika Z. Jones, Esq. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 4000 Seventh Street, S.W. Room 5219 Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: FMVSS 108 - Request for Interpretation

Dear Ms. Jones:

We seek the Agency's interpretation concerning FMVSS 108 (Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment). Our question is whether headlamps can be nonrectangular.

We find nothing in FMVSS 108 mandating a specific shape for a headlamp. However, the illustrations in FMVSS 108 (for example, figures 11 and 12) all show rectangular headlamps. Although this is presumably due to the fact that only rectangular headlamps were available at the time the regulations were initially written, it did raise a question whether some intention to limit the shape of headlamps was being indicated. In any case, it is now our understanding that in connection with the rewriting of FMVSS 108, the size and shape of headlamps has been "deregulated".

We do understand that, if an alternate shaped headlamp is used, the beam pattern and photometric output specifications of FMVSS 108 must be followed and the headlamp must be capable of being used with a standardized universal adapter (or have an "O" ring).

Thank you for your assistance on this matter.

Yours truly,

Dean Hansell

DH:l

cc: Jere Medlin Crash Avoidance Division

ID: 2903yy

Mr. Saburo Inui
Corporate Manager
Toyota Motor Corporate Services
of North America, Inc.
1850 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036

Dear Mr. Inui:

This responds to your letter of February 20, 1991, with respect to an interpretation of Standard No. 108 as it relates to High Intensity Discharge Headlamp (HID) designs contemplated by Toyota. You explained these designs in greater detail to NHTSA staff members in a meeting with them on February 20.

Standard No. l08 defines an "integral beam headlamp" as one which is neither a sealed beam headlamp nor one equipped with a standardized replaceable light source, but one which is a "headlamp comprising an integral and indivisible optical assembly, including lens, reflector, and light source." You have presented two HID headlamp designs, and have asked whether these lamps are "integral beam headlamps" as defined by Standard No. 108.

These lamps differ from conventional headlamps by having ballast, consisting of a "starter" affixed to the rear of the headlamp, connected to a "converter," which is separated from the headlamp-starter unit. Because of space limitations, it may not be feasible to integrate the ballast into the headlamp enclosure. On one of these headlamps (Figure 2) the starter and converter are directly connected to each other by a "hard wire" while in the other (Figure 3), the starter and converter are connected by "hard wires" that meet at a connector between the two. In this design, the ballast units would be installed separately, then permanently joined by a connector, which could not be separated without destroying the connector. You believe that both designs are "integral beam headlamps."

The phrase "optical assembly" in the definition of "integral beam headlamp", in our view, encompasses all lamp components other than the power source which are required for illumination of the headlamp. This means that an "optical assembly" includes the ballast. Although the lamp, starter, and converter may be permanently attached to each other, and could be considered "indivisible," and the starter could be considered to be "integral" with the lamp body, the positioning of the converter at some distance from the starter, as shown in your Figure 2 and Figure 3, does not render it "integral" within the meaning of the definition, unless it is permanently attached to the starter.

However, a design which had a connector as in your Figure 3 and described in your letter, would be considered both "integral" and "indivisible" if its individual components were not permanently attached to each other until the installation of the device in a motor vehicle, providing that any portion of the device could not be subsequently detached without damage sufficient that the entire device would have to be replaced. This would apply to either original or replacement equipment.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel /ref:l08 d:3/25/9l

ID: nht91-2.45

DATE: March 25, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Saburo Inui -- Corporate Manager, Toyota Motor Corporate Services of North America, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2-20-91 from Saburo Inui to Paul Jackson Rice

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of February 20, 1991, with respect to an interpretation of Standard No. 108 as it relates to High Intensity Discharge Headlamp (HID) designs contemplated by Toyota. You explained these designs in greater detail to NHTSA staff members in a meeting with them on February 20.

Standard No. 108 defines an "integral beam headlamp" as one which is neither a sealed beam headlamp nor one equipped with a standardized replaceable light source, but one which is a "headlamp comprising an integral and indivisible optical assembly, including lens, reflector, and light source." You have presented two HID headlamp designs, and have asked whether these lamps are "integral beam headlamps" as defined by Standard No. 108.

These lamps differ from conventional headlamps by having ballast, consisting of a "starter" affixed to the rear of the headlamp, connected to a "converter," which is separated from the headlamp-starter unit. Because of space limitations, it may not be feasible to integrate the ballast into the headlamp enclosure. On one of these headlamps (Figure 2) the starter and converter are directly connected to each other by a "hard wire" while in the other (Figure 3), the starter and converter are connected by "hard wires" that meet at a connector between the two. In this design, the ballast units would be installed separately, then permanently joined by a connector, which could not be separated without destroying the connector. You believe that both designs are "integral beam headlamps."

The phrase "optical assembly" in the definition of "integral beam headlamp", in our view, encompasses all lamp components other than the power source which are required for illumination of the headlamp. This means that an "optical assembly includes the ballast. Although the lamp, starter, and converter may be permanently attached to each other, and could be considered "indivisible," and the starter could be considered to be "integral" with the lamp body, the positioning of the converter at some distance from the starter, as shown in your Figure 2 and Figure 3, does not render it "integral" within the meaning of the definition, unless it is permanently attached to the starter.

However, a design which had a connector as in your Figure 3 and described in your letter, would be considered both "integral" and "indivisible" if its individual components were not permanently attached to each other until the installation of the device in a motor vehicle, providing that

any portion of the device could not be subsequently detached without damage sufficient that the entire device would have to be replaced. This would apply to either original or replacement equipment.

ID: Evans_10-005739_108

ID: nht87-2.83

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/31/87 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: WILLIAM SHAPIRO -- MANAGER, REGULATIONS AND COMPLIANCE-VOLVO

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: JULY 9, 1987 LETTER FROM SHAPIRO TO JONES IS ATTACHED

TEXT: This responds to your letter concerning the Part 581 Bumper Standard. You asked whether headlamp washer-wiper systems should be removed from a vehicle prior to testing. As discussed below, the answer to your question is yes.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the statutes administered by NHTSA, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensur e that its vehicles and equipment comply with applicable requirements.

Section 581.6 of the Bumper Standard specifies a number of conditions which apply to the standard's impact tests. One of these conditions, set forth in paragraph (a)(5), is that "(t)railer hitches, license plate brackets, and headlamp washers are remove d from the vehicle." You stated that the standard was promulgated prior to the advent of headlamp washer-wiper systems, and suggested that the interpretation of "headlamp washers" can be expanded to include headlamp washer-wiper systems. It is our opini on that for purposes of the Part 581 Bumper the term "headlamp washers" is sufficiently broad to include headlamp washer-wiper systems.

ID: 21652.ztv

Mr. Michael L. Wagner
563 Circle Drive
Fairmount, IN 46928-1963

Dear Mr. Wagner:

This is in reply to your fax of May 16, 2000, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. You had talked with him on the 15^th regarding modulating motorcycle headlamps, reporting that you are "frequently being pulled over by Indiana State Police telling me it is illegal." You also informed him that you had bought your modulating unit in the aftermarket, and that it was not original equipment on your motorcycle.

I am enclosing three of our interpretive letters setting forth legal opinions of this Office on modulating headlamps. They are addressed to Tracey Wagner of the American Motorcyclist Association (February 1, 1990), Walter Jakobowski of Signal Dynamics Corporation (September 11, 1997), and Henry Winokur (January 21, 1999).

In brief, S.7.9.4, Motorcycle headlamp modulation system, of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, permits, but does not require, the installation of a modulating headlamp system as original lighting equipment on motorcycles, provided that the system meets the performance requirements of S7.9.4. Under S5.8, replacement lighting equipment (which includes a modulator sold in the aftermarket) must be designed to conform to the same requirements as original equipment, and to be certified by its manufacturer as complying with these requirements. Federal law (49 U.S.C. 30103(b)) specifies that, when a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in effect, a state may not have a different standard covering the same aspect of performance as the Federal standard. This means that any state law covering modulating headlamp systems on motorcycles cannot prohibit such systems or prescribe different performance requirements than those that appear in Standard No. 108.

Many states reserve the use of flashing lights for emergency vehicles. S4 of Standard No. 108 defines the word "flash" in part as a continuing "cycle of activation and deactivation." The cycle required for modulating headlamps, on the other hand, involves going from a higher intensity to a lower intensity, and the lamp is never deactivated. Thus, a headlamp modulating in accordance with S7.9.4 does not "flash" within the meaning of the Federal lighting laws. If the modulating headlamp system on your motorcycle meets Federal requirements, it should be permitted for use in any state under the preemptive language of Section 30103(b).

If you have further questions, you may phone Taylor Vinson (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:108
d.6/20/00

ID: Koito.2followup

Mr. Kiminori Hyodo
Deputy General Manager, Regulation & Certification
Koito Manufacturing Co. , Ltd.
4-8-3, Takanawa
Minato-ku Tokyo
Japan




Dear Mr. Hyodo:

This responds to your recent letter requesting further clarification of our August 1, 2005, letter of interpretation to Mr. Takayuki Amma of Koito Manufacturing Co. (Koito), in which we stated that your companys proposed intensity-reducing headlamps would not meet the "steady-burning" requirement of S5.5.10 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. As described in Koitos earlier letter, the proposed headlamp would automatically and perceptibly reduce intensity (with approximately a 20-40% reduction in wattage) when the vehicle is stopped, thereafter returning to full intensity once vehicle motion resumed. Your latest letter asked whether a headlamp would be permitted to change in intensity, so long as the light is "perceived to be a steady beam and essentially unvarying in intensity, as well as occurring gradually (e.g. by setting some phase period) such that the change would not be perceptible to oncoming drivers". Presuming that this new design, consistent with your earlier design, would be such that "[a]t all times through the change of the intensity, the lamps provide sufficient level of intensity and will be within the parameters of the minimum and maximum values of candela specified in FMVSS No. 108," the answer to your question is yes.

To reiterate the relevant provision of FMVSS No. 108, paragraph S5.5.10 provides:

S5.5.10   The wiring requirements for lighting equipment in use are:
(a)   Turn signal lamps, hazard warning signal lamps, and school bus warning lamps shall be wired to flash;
(b)   Headlamps and side marker lamps may be wired to flash for signaling purposes;
(c)   A motorcycle headlamp may be wired to allow either its upper beam or its lower beam, but not both, to modulate from a higher intensity to a lower intensity in accordance with section S5.6;
(d)   All other lamps shall be wired to be steady-burning.

In short, S5.5.10(d) of FMVSS No. 108 requires that all lamps must be "steady burning," unless otherwise permitted, and while S5.5.10(b) does permit headlamps to be wired to flash for signaling purposes, we note that paragraph S3 of FMVSS No. 108 defines "flash" as meaning "a cycle of activation and deactivation of a lamp by automatic means." Through our interpretations, we have explained that the "steady-burning" requirement under the standard means "a light that is essentially unvarying in intensity" (see e.g. , February 9, 1982, letter of interpretation to Dr. H.A. Kendall).

We further clarified the requirement in S5.5.10(d) in our March 10, 1994 letter of interpretation to Mr. Joe de Sousa. That letter involved the permissibility of daytime running lamps (DRLs) that operated by using the vehicles lower beam headlamps at less than full intensity through "pulse width modulation," a technique which cycles the headlamps "on and off faster than the eye can detect". In our response to Mr. de Sousa, we stated that although a modulating headlamp technically is not a steady-burning one, for purposes of this requirement under S5.5.10(d), we have concluded that there is no failure to conform if the modulating light from the lamp is perceived to be "steady-burning. "

In our July 21, 1998, letter of interpretation to Mr. Ian Goldstein, we stated that "gradational" daytime running lamps (DRLs), devices that are capable of modulating the intensity of the DRLs according to ambient light conditions, are permissible under FMVSS No. 108. In that letter, we stated, "A DRL with a gradational feature would continue to provide the steady-burning light that is required for DRLs. The standard does not prohibit changes in intensity, which we presume will be within the parameters of the minimum and maximum values of candela specified. "

In sum, if an intensity-reducing headlamp operates in a manner that meets all of the other applicable requirements of the standard and is perceived as being steady-burning, we believe that such a design would be permissible under the standard, and we would not expect it to be a source of distraction to other drivers.

If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.11/5/05

ID: aiam0750

Dear Mr. Nakajima:#In your letter of June 19 you ask whether a propose headlamp symbol would meet the requirements of Standard No. 101.#The NHTSA answered this question in a notice published in the *Federal Register* on May 4, 1971 (36 F.R. 8296). In responding to a question by General Motors whether the published headlamp identification symbol was only representative of the required symbol, or definitive in the sense that it must be copied exactly, the NHTSA stated that it intended the symbol to be representative only.#I enclose a copy of the notice for your information.#Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam5355

Dear Mr. Spingler: This responds to your letter of March 25, 1994 asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 with respect to integral beam headlighting systems. You reference a letter of this office to Toyota in which we permit location of the light source control module outside the headlamp housing but permanently attached to it by a cable. You have asked whether there are 'requirements for this cable concerning indivisibility and integration . . . .' There are no such requirements for the cable in Standard No. 108, and the headlamp manufacturer may adopt the construction that it has determined is most suitable for its design. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel;