ID: 18080.ztv

Mr. L. W. Camp
Director, Automotive Safety Office
Environmental and Safety Engineering
Ford Motor Company
330 Town Center Drive
Dearborn, MI 48128

Dear Mr. Camp:

This is in reply to your letter of May 28, 1998, asking that we concur in your conclusion that Ford's "Auto Low Beam" feature complies with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

The feature is intended for a vehicle equipped with a two-headlamp system. If the upper beam of one of the headlamps fails, the feature activates the lower beam of that headlamp and notifies the driver.

You point out that paragraph S5.5.9 of Standard No. 108 requires that:

"[t]he wiring harness . . . of each headlamp assembly shall be designed so that only those light sources intended for meeting lower beam photometrics are energized when the beam selector switch is in the lower beam position, and that only those light sources intended for meeting upper beam photometrics are energized when the beam selector switch is in the upper beam position."

You are concerned that S5.5.9 might not allow Ford to manufacture vehicles with the "Auto Low Beam" because the feature would energize a lower beam light source when the beam selector switch is in the upper beam position.

When an upper beam fails, the headlamp system would not meet S5.5.9. It is only when this type of failure occurs that the Auto Low Beam feature activates the lower beam. However, we do not view S5.5.9 as applying to a failure condition.

A supplementary lighting feature such as the Auto Low Beam is subject to the prohibition of S5.1.3 that it not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. Although there will be an imbalance of headlamp beams when the Auto Low Beam operates, we do not believe that the automatic operation of the lower beam will impair the effectiveness of the upper beam. The Auto Low Beam provides an alternative headlighting system that will function until the safety performance of the original headlamp system can be restored.

In summary, the Auto Low Beam system is permissible as original equipment under Standard No. 108.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
d.7/15/98
ref:108

ID: Bailes.1

Mr. Alistair Bailes
Perei Group Ltd.
Sunbury House
Ivy Road
Aldershot
GU12 4TX
United Kingdom




Dear Mr. Bailes:

This responds to your letter, in which you seek confirmation as to whether your proposed front turn signal lamp would meet the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. You also asked whether your proposed lower beam headlamps visual/optical aiming mechanism would meet the standards requirements. We are pleased to have the opportunity to explain the relevant requirements of our standard.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. FMVSS No. 108 specifies requirements for original and replacement lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. The following represents our opinion based on the facts set forth in your letter.

Your letter described and depicted your proposed vehicle frontal lighting system as having a turn signal with a single reflector illuminated by a PY21W filament bulb. According to your letter, the housing containing the turn signal has two lenses, a primary lens (with an area of over 22 cm ²) and a smaller secondary lens which emits light but does so in a manner that is "superfluous to the performance and is primarily an aesthetic embellishment".(Looking at the exterior of the vehicle, the two lenses have the appearance of two separate lamps with a small amount of space between them.)You stated, however, that this second lens is necessary to meet European requirements that the turn signal be 400 mm or less from the extreme outer edge of the vehicle. In your letter, you asked whether this proposed design would comply with FMVSS No. 108.

Furthermore, your letter shows a pair of headlamps with two separate adjustment mechanisms for the lower beam. You described the system as having visual/optical aiming, with two adjustment mechanisms: (1) a vertical/horizontal adjustment and (2) a horizontal adjustment. Your letter stated that vertical aim is adjusted by rotating the vertical/horizontal adjustment, and horizontal aim is adjusted by rotating both adjustments. According to your letter, the system is not equipped with a vehicle headlamp aiming device (VHAD). In your letter, you asked whether this proposed design would comply with FMVSS No. 108 or whether a VHAD would be required. Alternatively, you asked whether compliance could be achieved by disabling or removing the horizontal adjustment, but while retaining the vertical adjustment.

FMVSS No. 108 sets forth requirements for turn signals (see S5.1) and their location (see S5.3) on a vehicle, as contained in Tables I-IV of the standard. (We note that although these tables distinguish between vehicles less than 80 inches (2032 mm) in width and those greater than 80 inches (2032 mm) in width, the requirements for the number and location of turn signals are essentially the same for the purposes of the present analysis.)For front turn signal lamps, the standard requires the vehicle manufacturer to install one amber lamp at or near the front of the vehicle on each side of the vertical centerline, at the same height, as far apart as practicable.

In paragraph S5.3.2(b)(1), the standard states, "When a vehicle is equipped with any lamp listed in Figure 19 of this standard [including front turn signal lamps], each such lamp must provide not less than 12.5 square centimeters of unobstructed effective projected luminous lens area in any direction throughout the pattern defined by the corner points specified in Figure 19 for each such lamp".Paragraph S5.3.1.7 of the standard further provides, "On a motor vehicle on which the front turn signal lamp is less than 100 mm from the lighted edge of a lower beam headlamp, as measured from the optical center of the turn signal lamp, the multiplier applied to obtain the required minimum luminous intensities shall be 2.5".

While we cannot provide a determination as to whether your proposed frontal lighting system would comply with FMVSS No. 108, we can offer certain observations based upon the photograph accompanying your letter. It appears that the front turn signal is amber, as required under the standard, and its location in the assembly suggests that it is capable of being mounted at or near the front of the vehicle on each side of the vertical centerline, at the same height, as far apart as practicable. Your letter states that the primary lens has an area greater than 22 square centimeters, which is the minimum size for front turn signal lenses on passenger cars required by the standard (see S5.1.1 and SAE J588 Nov. 1984). Further, you must ensure that the lamps effective projected luminous lens area would meet the standards visibility requirement of at least 12.5 square centimeters, as installed with all obstructions considered. Alternatively, you could design this lamp to conform to the visibility requirements specified in S5.3.2(b)(2).

We would bring two matters to your attention. First, if our understanding of your photograph is correct, this lamp would be mounted on the drivers side of the vehicle, in which case it appears that the upper beam is more outboard than the lower beam. However, Standard No. 108 requires the lower beam to be at a more outboard location, relative to the upper beam. Unless your photograph is mislabeled, your proposed design would apparently not meet that requirement.

Second, the standard necessitates that careful attention be paid to the spacing between the turn signal and the lower beam headlamp. Again, if this turn signal lamp is located less than 100 mm from the lighted edge of a lower beam headlamp, as measured from the optical center of the turn signal lamp, paragraph S5.3.1.7 requires the intensity of the turn signal to be multiplied by 2.5. Assuming for the sake of argument that the above issue related to upper/lower beam location is resolved and presuming that the primary lens meets all other requirements for a turn signal under FMVSS No. 108, we do not believe that the presence of a separate and discrete embellishment provided by the secondary lens would violate S5.3.1.7, because the turn signal provided by the primary lens would meet the requirements of the standard without being masked by the headlamp. Furthermore, we have no reason to believe that the illumination provided by the secondary lens would impair the vehicles required lighting equipment.

As to the issue of the horizontal aim of the lower beam headlamp, paragraph S7.8.5.3(b), Horizontal aim, lower beam, of FMVSS No. 108 provides, "There shall be no adjustment of horizontal aim unless the headlamp is equipped with a horizontal VHAD. If the headlamp has a VHAD, it shall be set to zero".In the 1997 final rule amending Standard No. 108 to permit headlamps that are visually or optically aimed, the agency adopted this requirement for horizontal aim to either be fixed and nonadjustable, or have a horizontal VHAD, because the lower beam would not have any visual cues for achieving correct horizontal aim, and it would not be possible to add such visual features without damaging the beam pattern (see 62 FR 10710, 10712 (March 10, 1997)). Visual/optical aim headlamps became part of FMVSS No. 108, but they were required to meet new beam pattern photometric requirements, with a beam pattern relatively insensitive to modest horizontal misaim.

In 1999, Federal-Mogul Lighting Products (Federal-Mogul) petitioned the agency for rulemaking to amend FMVSS No. 108 to allow visually/optically aimed headlamps to have a horizontal adjuster system that does not have the required 2.5-degree horizontal adjustment range or a VHAD indicator, as required by the standard. As we noted in our denial of Federal-Moguls petition, our 1997 final rule permitted visual/optical aim headlamps, based upon comments to the agency stating that vehicles could be built with such close tolerances that no horizontal aim adjustment would be necessary, and we noted that no useful visual cue for horizontal aiming exists (see 66 FR 42985, 42986 (August 16, 2001)). Because no visual cue was available for the purpose of horizontal aiming, the agency did not permit any horizontal movement of such headlamps, with the lamp essentially being correctly aimed as installed. As an alternative, horizontal-aiming VHADs were permitted (but not required) on visual/optical aiming headlamps as a means for manufacturers to meet European requirements for both a horizontal and vertical aim adjustment, but that the horizontal VHAD must be set to zero.

Because visual/optical aim headlamps do not currently have any feature that would allow anyone other than the headlamps manufacturer to objectively assess the accuracy of horizontal aim, a vehicle manufacturer seeking to adjust the horizontal aim of these lamps on a new vehicle would have no objective, repeatable way to assess the impact of its horizontal aim adjustments on real world lighting performance. Because of this limitation, neither the agency nor anyone else, including vehicle dealers and State safety inspectors, could assure correct headlamp aim. As stated in our denial of Federal-Moguls petition, we believe that it is incumbent upon the industry to develop a single method for horizontal aiming that could be incorporated into FMVSS No. 108, and we will not assess individual manufacturers petitions for alternatives to installation of a horizontal VHAD.

In light of the limitations that the standard places upon horizontal aiming of visual/optical aim headlamps, your proposed design, as presented, would not comply with the relevant requirements of Standard No. 108. The standard does not permit a horizontal adjustment mechanism for the lower beams of such headlamps, unless it is a VHAD that is set to zero.

Furthermore, we do not believe that elimination of the "horizontal adjustment (2)", as depicted in the diagram accompanying your letter, would suffice to remedy this. Your suggestion to remove the horizontal adjustment and "have only vertical adjustment" would apparently not meet the requirement of the standard, because the remaining adjustment is presented as a "vertical/horizontal adjustment (1)" and the letter states that horizontal aim is adjusted by rotating both adjustments. Thus, elimination of adjustment (2) would nevertheless appear to leave horizontal aim adjustment capability as part of adjustment (1), which is not permitted under the standard.

If you have any further questions, you may call Mr. Eric Stas of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.11/4/05

ID: nht75-2.40

DATE: 12/10/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Cal Light Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 4, 1975, telling us of your wish to market a rectangular sealed beam headlamp unit for motorcycles. In your opinion this might be prohibited by "federal inaction to update FMVSS-108 SAE J584 April 1964 to the amended SAE J584b December 1971."

Substitution of J584b would not be a solution to your problem since it does not specify a Type 2A sealed-beam headlamp unit as one of the approved options. There would have to be both a substitution of J584b and a provision in Standard No. 108 itself that either a Type 2 or Type 2A sealed beam headlamp unit may be used. I enclose a copy of a regulation that tells how you may submit a petition for rulemaking for an appropriate amendment to Standard No. 108.

You also enclosed a letter from the California Highway Patrol stating that it was amending its regulations

"to allow the use of motorcycle headlamps which comply with the type 2 lower beam photometric requirements and the motorcycle upper beam requirements, though we are not sure what position NHTSA would take upon this interpretation".

Such action by the California Highway Patrol appears precluded by Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. The effect of this section is to prohibit California from having a State lighting standard that differs in any way from Standard No. 108. Since the Federal lighting standard does not allow the California amendment, the State regulation appears invalid.

Notwithstanding California's "approval" of your headlamp, your sale of this rectangular headlamp for motorcycles as either original equipment or as replacement equipment (but only for motorcycles manufactured on or after January 1, 1972) would appear to be a violation of Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Act, unless and until Standard No. 108 is amended. There is a maximum penalty of $ 1,000 for each violation, up to $ 800,000 for any related series of violations.

YOURS TRULY,

CAL LIGHT CO.

November 4, 1975

Richard B. Dyson Acting Chief Counsel Office of Chief Counsel

I am writing you this letter on the suggestion of Mr. Lowenstern, NHSTA enforcement. I have designed, developed, manufactured, and marketed a Rectangular Motorcycle Headlight. It is a good looking, well built, and efficient headlamp, which has gained an approval from the California Highway Patrol. The unit complies with all the requirements, of all the regulatory agencies. However, there are some apparent conflicts within your FMVSS-108 which might confuse enforcement authorities.

The conflict arises from federal inaction to update FMVSS-108 SAE J584 April 1964 to the ammended SAE J584B December 1971. The reference here, is to one test point, 1/2 degree down 1 degree right to right (1/2D-1R o R). In this test point current FMVSS standards hold 10,000 CP as Max., while SAE recommend 15,000 CP, our unit produces 12,800 CP. This extra CP is a great benefit to the motorcyclist to see merging traffic on his near side. To further complicate the matter, FMVSS-108 allows motorcycles to use 1/2 of an automobile headlighting system, without requiring them to meet the motorcycle headlamp requirement of 1/2D-1R to R.

Therefore, I would like your office to tell me if it feels there is a just cause to hold my product off the market.

Enclosed are copies of the test report from ITL, a letter stating the position of the CHP and the approval issued by the CHP. Your prompt reply will be appreciated.

L.A. MacEachern- Cal Light

ID: 77-2.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/29/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Marchal America - Western Region

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 9, 1977, to Mr. Vinson of this office asking for clarification of the effect of the preemption section of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act upon the use of quartz iodine headlamps by State fire and police organizations. Your letter was prompted by mine of January 18, 1977, to Jack D. Gross, Jr., National Sales Manager of Marchal America, in which I concluded that the preemption section was inapplicable to the conversion of vehicles by owners after initial manufacture.

Title 15 U.S.C. @ 1392(d) reads in pertinent part:

"Nothing in the section shall be construed to prevent . . . the government of any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to . . . motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement establishes a higher standard of performance than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable federal standard."

In my opinion, the preemption language is irrelevant to your primary concern of assuring local agencies that the Federal government has no objection to their use of headlamps that do not comply with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

As I explained to Mr. Gross, the purpose of the preemption doctrine is to ensure uniform national manufacturing standards reserving to States and political subdivisions thereof the right to establish standards setting a higher level of performance on vehicles procured for their own use.

We have always construed this language narrowly. You have not informed us of the existence of any State law, municipal ordinance, or any other legislative act by a State or political subdivision establishing a level of performance for headlamps on publicly owned vehicles, that a manufacturer must meet, and thus the preemption question, in a legal sense, does not arise.

Instead, you have presented the situation of a few State and local agencies (city police, highway patrol, fire department, sheriff) who wish to substitute quartz iodine headlamps on publicly owned vehicles. Although 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A) prohibits the removal of vehicle equipment installed in accordance with a safety standard, that prohibition does not extend to the vehicle owner. Thus, there is no Federal legal objection to any interested State or local agency replacing its conventional headlamps with quartz iodine ones. Indeed, we would be interested in knowing the views of these agencies after a period of use.

We understand from your letter that the headlamps in question are imported as conforming to the motorcycle headlamp requirements of SAE J584, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. As long as the headlamps do not exceed the candlepower maxima established by J584, and are not advertised or sold to the general public as suitable for use on passenger cars Marchal America would not appear to be violating the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

SINCERELY,

MARCHAL AMERICA WESTERN REGION

February 9, 1977

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

ATTN: Taylor Vinson

Re: Your File No. N40-30

This is in reply to your correspondence dated January 18, 1977 and our phone conversation on February 7, 1977 regarding headlamp replacements.

Semi-sealed H-4 Iodine headlamp replacements are currently being used by the Highway Patrol, Sheriff, City Police, Fire and Highway Departments in ten of the eleven states in my region. The primary usage of these lamps is in critical need rural areas. General usage is prohibitive because these units cost four to five times more than standard units. Each department that has installed these units conducted cost vs. benefits testing. In each case the results were consistent. Benefits are:

Low Beam: 1. Less glare to opposing drivers;

2. More uniform light pattern on road and shoulder;

3. Light color makes it easier on eyes;

4. Dramatic reduction of whiteout caused by stray vertical light in fog and snow.

High Beam: 1. Besides the obvious increase in distance, peripheral vision is greatly increased allowing the operators to see pedestrians, side traffic and livestock at a great enough distance to allow them to react safely. High beam is primarily used in Code 2 or Code 3 operation where standard headlamps don't give adequate illumination for safe operation of high speed emergency vehicles.

Additional

Benefits: 1. If a rock or debris cracks the lens, you don't lose your headlight in a critical emergency situation;

2. Bulb life span is comparable to standard units and the intensity doesn't deteriorate with age.

We are not talking about an experimental unit that has never been tested. These headlamps are manufactured under the extremely tough international lighting standards known as the "E" or European Code. Every other country in the world has now adopted this standard including our neighbors in Canada. These headlamps are in daily use by some of the most respected state and local safety organizations in the country.

The reason I asked for the clarification on 15 U.S.C. 1392(d) was because the California Highway Patrol has an extremely hazardous fog condition in their central valley. They were interested in testing these units because of their low beam qualities in fog and snow, but they wanted 1392(d) interpreted in writing to make sure it was o.k.

The pertinent part of Section 1392(d) reads:

"Nothing in the section shall be construed to prevent . . . the government of any state or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement establishes a higher standard of performance than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable federal standard."

My interpretation of this section prior to your letter was our headlamp came under the classification of motor vehicle equipment and in each case of its use a higher standard of performance was established in both public and operator safety with the use of this unit.

These units are being imported under federal standard 108 J584 for motorcycle use. The spread from motorcycle to vehicle usage starts when a police department discovers that the headlamps that work so well in their motorcycles plug right into their patrol cars.

The international lighting standard mandates that the bulbs be interchangable regardless of the manufacturer, reflector size or shape of the lamp. This was done so that no matter where you travelled, replacement bulbs would be readily available regardless of the type of vehicle.

I respectfully submit these comments for you to consider.

CHAD DORNSIFE

ID: nht91-3.31

DATE: April 29, 1991

FROM: George D. Powley -- Project Engineer, Truck-Lite Co., Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re FMVSS NO. 108 (Lamp, reflective devices, and associated equipment) Interpretation and/or petition for Orientation of electrical contact blades on sealed beam headlamps

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-22-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to George D. Powley (A37; Std. 108)

TEXT:

We would like your advice regarding the orientation of electrical contact blades on sealed beam headlamps. We are contemplating the future production of a 2A1 type sealed beam with a contact blade orientation differing from that shown in SAE Standard J571, fig. 6 "type 2A sealed beam headlamp unit 4 x 6 1/2 in. (100 x 165 mm) rectangular unit" (Attachment A), which establishes a blade orientation that we will describe as being rotated 148 degrees 54' in the clockwise direction from the orientation established for a "type 2B sealed beam headlamp 142 x 200 mm" as shown in fig. 1 of SAE Standard J1132 (Attachment B).

We would like to produce both a large rectangular 2B1 and a small rectangular 2A1 using the same blade orientation. Specifically, we would propose to use the 2B1 orientation on the 2A1 unit. We wish to stress that the electrical function of each terminal in all cases would conform to the appropriate specification, and all the dimensional requirements, other than the "31 degrees 06' " orientation for the 2A1, would be adhered to on both products.

We do not feel that this proposed electrical contact orientation will in any way adversely effect the lamps performance or its ability to interchange with existing lamps in motor vehicles presently in the field.

We have observed that Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd., of Japan is apparently presently marketing a 2A1 glass sealed beam unit with a non-standard blade orientation, and it is worthy of note that our proposed orientation differs from theirs only in that our terminal pattern would be rotated 180 degrees from theirs with respect to the top of the lamp.

We thank you for your prompt consideration of this matter. Should you have any questions, please contact the writer at (716) 665-6214 Extension 231.

Attachments

Attachment A

Figure 6 Type 2A Sealed Beam Headlamp Unit 4 x 6 1/2 in (100 x 165 mm) Rectangular Unit (Text and graphics omitted)

Attachment B

SAE Recommended Practice 142 x 200 mm Sealed Beam Headlamp Unit -- SAE J1132

Figure 1 Type 2B Sealed Beam Headlamp 142 x 200 mm (5.6 x 7.9 in) Rectangular Unit

(Text and graphics omitted)

ID: nht93-4.50

DATE: June 28, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Steven Henderson -- Department of Psychology, McGill University

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-26-93 from Steven Henderson to Howard Smolkin (OCC 8732).

TEXT: This responds to your petition of May 26, 1993, to the Acting Administrator for rulemaking to amend Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to permit use of your motorcycle "horn-activated headlight/signallight flasher system." As you have described it, pushing the horn button "causes the headlight and signal lights to flash 10 times per second." This matter has been the subject of previous correspondence by this Office, specifically letters to you from Chief Counsel Rice dated June 29, 1992, and August 28, 1992.

As Mr. Rice informed you in his first letter, the operation of your device conflicted with several paragraphs of Standard No. 108. First, the flash rate of 10 cycles per second exceeded the maximum of 280 cycles per minute that is allowed under S5.6.1(a) for modulation of motorcycle headlamps. Second, the taillamps would no longer be steady-burning as required by S5.5.10 (d). Further, it appeared that the turn signal rate would also cease to comply with the flash rate of 60-120 per minute specified by SAE requirements incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108.

You responded on August 11, 1992, that it was improper to consider your device under S5.6 as it is not a motorcycle headlamp modulating system as described in that section. Thus, in your view, our objections to modulation rate and intensity, based upon that section, were misplaced. In his reply of August 28, 1992, Mr. Rice assumed for the sake of argument that your device was not part of a headlamp modulating system subject to S5.6. However, he pointed out that S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108 prohibits installation of equipment that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment that Standard No. 108 requires, and that the applicability of that paragraph did not affect his previous comments regarding the noncompliances of the flashing taillamps and the turn signal flash rate. He also commented that the device's flash rate of 10 hz would impair the effectiveness of the required turn signal flash of 1-2 hz, as well as having another undesirable consequence, the triggering of a photic reaction in an observer.

The cover letter to your petition of May 26, 1993, states that the taillamps will now be steady burning. Further, the system has been redesigned so that the turn signal has priority, "so that if the horn button is pressed while a turn is being signalled, the turn signal continues to flash at 2 hz and only the headlamp flickers at the 10 hz rate." Your letter also contains data and arguments indicating that our concern about photic reaction to a 10 hz rate is misplaced. In our view, these modifications and comments have adequately addressed our previous concerns about your system, and no rulemaking is required for its manufacture and sale. For this reason, we see no need for further agency action upon your petition. However, the amendments you have asked for differ in some respects from the redesigned system you have described

(e.g., that both the turn signals and the headlamp be permitted to flash at 10 hz). If you wish to go forward with the redesigned system without an amendment to Standard No. 108, we ask that you withdraw your petition. On the other hand, if you wish us to go forward with consideration of your petition, please inform us.

Your most recent letter raised one further question with regard to S5.1.3, that is, whether the operation of the headlamp at 10 hz impairs the effectiveness of a turn signal operated at 2 hz. We have noted that S5.6 permits simultaneous operation of a turn signal and a headlamp modulating in the range of 6 hz, and have concluded that the difference in flash rate ought not to impair the turn signal function.

Finally, we would like to advise you that usage of the system in the United States is governed by the laws of any State in which the system is operated, and not by any Federal regulation. We are unable to advise you as to the permissibility of use of your system under State laws, and suggest that you contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203, for an opinion.

ID: aiam4002

Dear Mr. Chikada: This is in response to your letter of June 27, 1985, to the forme Chief Counsel of this agency, Frank Berndt, asking for an interpretation regarding Figure 4-1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; With reference to a two- lamp system headlamp with two reflectors, yo have asked which of three specified Points should be regarded as the 'center of aiming pattern' within the meaning of Figure 4-1. The answer is Point B, the center of the bulb for the lower beam. NHTSA provided a clarification of this in the final rule permitting two-bulb replaceable bulb headlighting systems, published on May 22, 1985. I enclose a copy for your information. In it, the agency remarked that 'NHTSA expects the aiming pads to be located on the optical axis of the lower beam portion of the headlamp when only one light source is used for the lower beam.'; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel

ID: nht75-2.41

DATE: 12/17/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: State of Maine

COPYEE: LEONARD FINK

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: We have received copies of correspondence between you and Leonard A. Fink, Washington counsel for Bombardier/Puch motorized bicycles, concerning requirements of the State of Maine for motor driven cycle headlamps. I understand that Mr. Fink has provided you with a copy of my letter of September 17, 1975 to him. Mr. Fink has asked that I write you directly concerning our views on Federal preemption of State motor vehicle safety standards.

At issue is whether the State of Maine may continue to require motorcycles of 5 horsepower or less to be equipped with multiple beam headlamps. In my letter to Mr. Fink I stated:

"Any motorcycle with 5 horsepower or less manufactured on or after January 1, 1969, may be equipped with either a single or multiple beam headlamp (Table III, Standard No. 108, incorporating by reference SAE Standard J584, Motorcycle and Motor Driven Cycle Headlamps, April 1964. See Table I of J584. This means, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1392(d) that a State is preempted from requiring a motorcycle with 5 horsepower or less to be equipped with a multiple beam headlamp if its manufacturer has equipped it with a single beam one".

You replied to Mr. Fink on November 7, 1975 that

"Table I appears to be inconclusive . . . . The most reasonable interpretation . . . is that motor driven cycles at high beam frequently utilize both the upper beam of the multiple beam light and a additional single beam light, whereas motor driven cycles at low beam may use the lower beam of the multiple lights (Table II of J584). At any rate, I have not found any clear preemptive language such as we find with regard to turn signal lamps in Standard No. 108 @ 4.1.1.26."

There are actually four different permissible lighting configurations available for motor driven cycles. The "multiple beam light and an additional single beam light" to which you refer is one of them, specifically the "one 5 3/4 inch Type 1 and one 5 3/4 inch Type 2 sealed beam units" referred to in SAE J584's General Requirement. But the photometrics of Table I do not refer to this configuration, whose photometrics are those of J579. As a practical matter motor driven cycles will rarely if ever be equipped with more than one headlamp because of the severe drain on their low power reserve. In recognition of the limited generating capability of motor cycles with 5 horsepower or less, J584 does allow use of a single beam headlamp as the sole forward lighting source. The texts of the sections on Beam Aim During Photometric Test and At-Focus Tests refer specifically to test methods for single beam headlamps, and while the standard could be even more specific, its requirements appear to be generally understood by manufacturers and law enforcement officials. It is not a prerequisite for preemption that there be language in the body of Standard No.

108 specifying allowable headlamp systems for motor driven cycles. Where, as here, the area of motor driven cycle headlighting is clearly covered by Standard No. 108, a State must allow all four headlighting systems and cannot require only one of them.

If Maine officials would like the NHTSA to consider changing these existing Federal requirements for motor-driven cycles, they should submit a petition for rulemaking pursuant to 49 CFR Part 552 for an amendment to Standard No. 108.

If you have any further questions I would be pleased to answer them.

SINCERELY,

FRIEDMAN, MEDALIE AND OCHS

November 17, 1975

Frank Berndt, Esq. Acting Chief Counsel U.S. Dept. of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Admin.

Re: Federal Preemption of State of Maine Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

As suggested by Mr. Taylor Vinson in our telephone conversation of November 17, I am enclosing copies of the following correspondence re the above:

1. My letters dated August 22, 1975 and September 22, 1975 to Robert S. Raymond, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, Maine.

2. Your letter dated September 17, 1975 to me, a copy of which was enclosed with my September 22, 1975 letter to Mr. Raymond.

3. Mr. Raymond's reply letter to me dated November 7, 1975.

One would have thought that your September 17 letter clearly resolved any doubts as to whether the State of Maine could require motor driven cycles of 5hp or less to be equipped with a multiple beam headlight. Alas, Mr. Raymond still seems unpersuaded. Mr. Vinson thus suggested that NHTSA deal directly with Mr. Raymond. I would appreciate your doing so and sending us copies of the relevant correspondence.

For your information, on November 17 I contacted Mr. Walter Ross, Chairman, Motorcycle Headlight Task Force, SAE, 216-266-2272. Mr. Ross confirmed that SAE J584 permitted either single or multiple beam headlight in this case. According to Mr. Ross, SAE will provide any further statement of clarification in support.

On behalf of our clients, Steyr-Daimier-Puch, A.G., and Bombardier, Ltd., and others in the same position, our thanks for your efforts to resolve this situation.

Leonard A. Fink

cc: TAYLOR VINSON (W/ENCS.)

STATE OF MAINE DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL November 7, 1975

Leonard A. Fink, Esquire Friedman, Medalie, Ochs and Jacks

Re: Federal preemption - motor driven cycle headlights

Please excuse my tardiness in researching the questions you presented to me pertaining to the above matter.

It is my feeling at this point that federal rules and regulations in the motor vehicle safety area do indeed generally preempt state regulations. I say this, however, with the qualification that federal courts narrowly construe the preemptive provisions to give states as much flexibility as possible within the federal regulatory framework.

With that introduction in mind, it is my present feeling that there is no federal requirement which prohibits a state from requiring a high and low beam headlight on a motor driven cycle with 5 horsepower or less whose speed does not exceed 30 m.p.h. I say this after having carefully studied Table III of Federal Standard No. 108 which incorporates by reference SAE Standard J584. Both you and Mr. Frank Berndat have placed great significance on Table I of SAE J584. At best, however, Table I appears to be inconclusive as to the issue we are concerned with. The most reasonable interpretation of Table I of J584 is that motor driven cycles at high beam frequently utilize both the upper beam of the multiple beam light and an additional single beam light, whereas motor driven cycles at low beam only use the lower beam of the multiple lights (Table II of J584). At any rate, you have not indicated to me and I have not found any clear preemptive language such as we find with regard to turn signal lamps in Standard No. 108 @ 4.1.1.26.

In conclusion, I feel it would be improper for me at this time to recommend a change in Maine's regulations pertaining to head lamps on motor driven cycles. I will be glad to correspond with you further regarding this matter.

ROBERT S. RAYMOND Assistant Attorney General Criminal Division

cc: CAPT. RICHARD JONES -- DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY

FRIEDMAN, MEDALIE, OCHS AND JACKS

September 22, 1975

Robert S. Raymond, Esq. Assistant Attorney General Criminal Division Attorney General's Office

AUGUSTA, MAINE 04330

Re: Federal Preemption

Following up my letter of you of August 22 and our several telephone conversations, I am enclosing for your information a copy of an opinion letter dated September 17, 1975 from Frank Berndt, Esq., Acting Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

As you will see, Mr. Berndt's letter makes clear that Federal Safety Standard No. 108 permits a motor driven cycle of 5 bp or less to be equipped with either a single or multiple beam headlight. Furthermore, Mr. Brandt's letter states "This means, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1392 (d), that a State is preempted from requiring a motorcycle with 5 horsepower or less to be equipped with a multiple beam headlamp if its manufacturer has equipped it with a single beam one."

I would hope that under these circumstances you can promptly advise the appropriate State of Maine officials that the Bombardier/Puch motorized bicycle, and any others in the same category, quality for registration and inspection with the single beam headlight. As you can well understand continued delay in resolving this matter is working a hardship on purchasers, dealers and distributors of the motorized bicycle.

Please contact me if you have any questions.

Leonard A. Fink

ID: nht75-2.45

DATE: 06/06/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. C. Schultz; NHTSA

TO: State of Vermont

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 17, 1975, to this agency asking questions about paragraph S4.6(b) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, relating to headlamp flashers. Your reference to S4.5.8(b) is out-dated by approximately three years and I am enclosing a copy of Standard No. 108 as it now exists.

You asked the reason for the section in question, which provides that "All other lamps shall be steady-burning, except that means may be provided to flash headlamps and side marker lamps for signaling purposes." You also asked whether all motor vehicles, including motorcycles, are "authorized" by this section to use flashing headlamps, and finally whether the standard prohibits States from promulgating regulations to control flashing headlamps.

S4.6(b) was not intended as a regulation of this aspect of motor vehicle performance, in the sense that it would preempt all State regulation of the sale or use of headlamp flashers. It is basically merely an exception to the requirement of Standard 108 that all lamps (other than turn signals, hazard warning signals, and school bus warning signals) be steady-burning. The section, in other words, was included to make it clear that automatic headlamp flashers are not prohibited by the Federal standard. With reference to your questions, this is the only way in which they are "authorized" by Standard 108.

We have concluded, therefore, that State regulation of headlamp flashers is not preempted by the Federal standard.

SINCERELY,

STATE OF VERMONT

DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES

April 17, 1975

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Request is hereby submitted for official interpretation of Federal Safety Standard 108-S4.5.8(b) as follows:

Reason for authorization of standard S 4.5.8 (b).

Are all motor vehicles, including motorcycles, authorized to use flashing headlamp(s)?

Does this Federal Standard prohibit states from promulgating regulations governing control of flashing headlamps.

Thanking you in advance for your prompt reply, I remain

Ernest D. Mathews Chief, Field Services

ID: 17382.ztv

Tadashi Suzuki, Manager
Automotive Equipment
Legal & Homologation Sect.
Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.
2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku
Tokyo 153,
Japan

Re: Motorcycle Headlamp Arrangement

Dear Mr. Suzuki:

This is in reply to your letter of February 17, 1998, asking for confirmation of your interpretation of the motorcycle headlamp requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Stanley is considering developing a two-lamp motorcycle headlamp system, each of which contains an upper beam and a lower beam light source. The upper beam would be provided by the upper light source or by both light sources. The lower beam would be provided by the lower light source. The upper light source is outboard of the lower light source. You believe that this would be an acceptable arrangement because we have previously said that two headlamps with HB2 bulbs were acceptable if mounted symmetrically about the vehicle's vertical centerline.

Stanley's arrangement is permitted by Standard No. 108. Since Stanley is currently developing this system, however, we would prefer that the lower beam be provided by the upper light source, although this is not a requirement of Standard No. 108. This rearrangement of light sources would make Stanley's new system consistent with the two lamp motorcycle headlamp system permitted by S7.9.1(b) which requires a motorcycle headlighting system using half of a passenger car headlighting system to mount the lower beam as high as practicable. This is also consistent with requirements for two-lamp headlamp systems on other motor vehicles in which the lower beam is to be provided by the most outboard light source (or by all light sources) and the upper beam by the most inboard one(see S7.4(b). The reason for these specifications is that the lower beam will provide greater seeing distance at a higher and more outboard mounting location.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.6/3/98