ID: nht94-7.23

DATE: March 25, 1994

FROM: Tilman Spingler -- Robert Bosch GMBH

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSS 108, S4.Definitions, Integral Beam Headlamp Request for Interpretation

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/5/94 from John Womack to Tilman Spingler (A42; Std. 108)

TEXT:

In this paragraph an integral beam headlamp is defined to be an indivisible optical assembly of lightsource, reflector and lens. In the case of High Intensity Discharge Headlamps where the lightsource is comprised of a bulb and associated electronic modules, it may in some cases not be feasible to integrate the ignition module and the control module in the headlamp housing because of space limitations. In the letter to TOYOTA of March 1991 these modules were permitted to be separately located, but permanently attached by cable at the time of assembly. When the ignition module is installed inside and the control module outside the headlamp housing they will be connected by a 4-core cable in one design. Are there requirements for this cable concerning indivisibility and integration, for example, may it be of the following? - soft cable, resistant to abrasion? - hard cable, resistant to cutting and abrasion? - armored cable? Maximum voltage on 2 cores will be 130 V AC in the on-mode of the headlamp, on the 2 other cores 400 V AC for 700 msec during ignition of the light source. These voltages are much lower than voltages on ignition cables for motor vehicle engines.

ID: nht94-1.99

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 25, 1994

FROM: Tilman Spingler -- Robert Bosch GMBH

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSS 108, S4.Definitions, Integral Beam Headlamp Request for Interpretation

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/5/94 from John Womack to Tilman Spingler (A42; Std. 108)

TEXT:

In this paragraph an integral beam headlamp is defined to be an indivisible optical assembly of lightsource, reflector and lens. In the case of High Intensity Discharge Headlamps where the lightsource is comprised of a bulb and associated electronic mod ules, it may in some cases not be feasible to integrate the ignition module and the control module in the headlamp housing because of space limitations. In the letter to TOYOTA of March 1991 these modules were permitted to be separately located, but per manently attached by cable at the time of assembly. When the ignition module is installed inside and the control module outside the headlamp housing they will be connected by a 4-core cable in one design. Are there requirements for this cable concerning indivisibility and integration, for example, may it be of the following? - soft cable, resistant to abrasion? - hard cable, resistant to cutting and abrasion? - armored cable? Maximum voltage on 2 cores will be 130 V AC in the on-mode of the headlamp, on the 2 other cores 400 V AC for 700 msec during ignition of the light source. These voltages are much lower than voltages on ignition cables for motor vehicle engines.

ID: aiam0120

Dear Mr. Sweet: Thank you for your letter of September 12, 1968, to Mr. J. E. Leysat of this Bureau, requesting a clarification of the aiming requirements for school bus signal lamps as specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; Paragraph S3.1.3.1 of Standard No. 108 specifies that red school bu signal lamps shall conform to SAE Standard J887, 'School Bus Red Signal Lamps,' July 1964, and that amber signal lamps shall conform to the same SAE Standard except for color and candlepower requirements. In the last paragraph of SAE Standard J887, aiming requirements are specified as follows: 'Lamps should be mounted on the school bus with their aiming plane vertical and normal to the vehicle axis. A suggested tolerance for this aim is 5 inches at 25 feet in vertical aim and 10 inches at 25 feet in horizontal aim. If lamps are aimed or inspected with a mechanical headlamp aimer (see SAE J602) the graduation settings for aim should be 2 down and 0 sideways. The limits for inspection should be from 3 up to 7 down and from 10 right to 10 left.'; In accordance with the above quoted paragraph, either visual o mechanical aiming of the signal lamps is permitted. Therefore, the graduation settings and inspection limits, as specified in the last two sentences of the paragraph, are applicable only when a mechanical headlamp aimer is used to aim the signal lamps.; Thank you for writing. Sincerely, Charles A. Baker, Office of Standards on Accident Avoidance Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service;

ID: 1985-04.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/29/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. M. Iwase

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

November 29, 1985 Mr. M. Iwase Manager, Technical Administration Dept. Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd. Shizuoka Works 500, Kitawaki Shimizu-shi, Shizuoka-ken Japan Dear Mr. Iwase: This is in reply to your letter of September 20, 1985, to the former Chief Counsel of this agency, Frank Berndt, asking for a clarification of requirements for motorcycles equipped with two headlamps. You have informed us that your two-headlamp design complies with the photometric requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 (i.e., the at focus and out of focus tests of SAE J584) when the photometric measurements are made with reference to the photometric reference to the photometric reference axis of the individual headlamp unit. However, if this measurement is made at the combined axis, the combined maximum value of the upper beam will exceed 75,000 candela. Photometric measurements are to be made with reference to the photometric reference axis of the individual headlamp unit. Under Standard No. 108, however, the maximum candlepower of each unit on the upper beam is not to exceed 75,000. The fact that the combined maximum value of your system exceeds 75,000 candlepower. However, if the motorcycle headlamp is one consisting of two bulbs in a single housing, then the measurement is made at the combined axis of the two bulbs and the combined candlepower of this two-bulb single headlamp cannot exceed 75,000 candlepower. I hope that this answers your question. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: 1983-2.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/17/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mazda (North America) Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr H. Nakaya Manager Mazda (North America) Inc. 23777 Greenfield Road - Suite 462 Southfield, MI 48075

Dear Mr. Nakaya:

This is in response to your letter of July 8 1983 asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Section S4.2 of SAE Standard J588e Turn Signal Lamps establishes a minimum distance of 4 inches from the optical axis (filament center) of the front turn signal to the inside diameter of the retaining ring of the headlamp providing the lower beam. You believe that it is not necessary to have a retaining ring on a semi-sealed headlamp and you have asked whether you may substitute the edge of the reflector (as shown on your drawing) to measure the dimension covered by S4.2 of J588e.

The point depicted on your drawing appears to be the inner edge of the reflector, rather than the extreme edge; nevertheless, the "reflector edge" you have indicated is the approximate location of a retaining ring on a fully sealed headlamp, and is therefore acceptable as a measuring point under Standard No. 108.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

July 8, 1983

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W.

Washington; D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Mazda requests interpretation regarding the amendment to FMVSS No.108 which allows the use of semi-sealed headlamps (Docket No. 81-11; Notice 3, 48 F.R. 24690).

Section 4.2 of SAE Standard J588e states that, "The optical axis (filament center) of the front turn signal shall be at least 4 in. from the inside diameter of the retaining ring of the headlamp unit providing the lower beam." However, it is not necessary to have a retaining ring on a semi-sealed headlamp. We, therefore, believe that it is appropriate to use the edge of the reflector, instead of the inside diameter of the retaining ring, to measure the dimension described in Section 4.2 of SAE Standard J588e (See attached sketch).

We would appreciate your interpretation of this matter as soon as possible.

Very truly yours, H. Nakaya Manager

HN/ab

cc: Att.

FIGURE 1: SEMI-SEALED HEADLAMP (PLAN VIEW SECTION) GRAPH INSERTED HERE REFLECTOR EDGE

ID: nht79-1.44

DATE: 04/06/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; M. M. Finkelstein; NHTSA

TO: Leyland Cars

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I regret the delay in responding to your July 17, 1978, letter petitioning for reconsideration of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 101-80, Controls and Displays. You requested that the standard be amended to add three ISO symbols so that British Leyland could adopt common specifications in satisfaction of both FMVSS 101-80 and EEC directive 78/316. Your petition is in effect granted in part and is denied in part.

You asked that the ISO symbol (an illuminated light bulb) for the Master Lighting Switch be either substituted for Headlamp and Tail Lamp symbol (an illuminated headlamp) specified in Table 1 of FMVSS 101-80 or added as an option to that specified symbol. This aspect of your petition is denied. If a vehicle contains a master lighting control in addition to a headlamp and tail lamp control, the Master Lighting Switch symbol may be used for the master lighting control. We recognize, however, that most vehicles presently sold in this country have one control that operates all lights, including the headlamps and tail lamps. On vehicles having one control for all lights, the control must be identified by the Headlamp and Tail Lamp symbol. We believe that this is appropriate since the headlamps and tail lamps are the most important lights controlled by a master light control. Further, we believe that the Headlamp and Tail Lamp symbol is more easily recognized than the Master Lighting Switch symbol.

You also asked that the ISO symbol for the Manual Choke be added to Table 1 and the ISO symbol for the Brake System be added to Table 2. No amendment of the standard is necessary to permit your use of these two symbols since FMVSS 101-80 does not specify any requirements regarding symbols for those item. Amendment of the standard to require the use of those symbols would require a new proposal to be issued since such an amendment would be beyond the scope of the October 12, 1976, proposal which led to the June 26, 1978 final rule. Treating this part of your petition as a petition for rulemaking instead of a petition for reconsideration, we grant it. It should be understood that granting the petition does not necessarily mean that an amendment will ultimately be adopted.

SINCERELY,

Engineering and Product Planning Division

British Leyland UK Limited

The Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

JULY 17, 1978 Dear Madam,

PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION CONTROLS AND DISPLAYS FMVSS 101-80

B.L.Cars Ltd., manufacturers of Jaguar, Triumph, Rover, M.G., Austin and Morris passenger cars and Land Rover and Range Rover M.P.V.'s petitions for reconsideration of FMVSS 101-80 - Controls and Displays under CFR 553.35.

We wish to adopt common specifications to satisfy the requirements of FMVSS 101-80 and EEC Directive 78/316 for the identification of controls and displays, and we find this is not possible with the two Regulations as currently written. We therefore request that FMVSS 101-80 be amended in the following respects to enable common specifications to be arrived at.

1. Amend Table 1, Column 3 by substituting for symbol shown in the line titled "Headlamps and Tail lamps" the symbol shown in ISO 2575/111-1975 for Master Lighting Switch, namely

if Separate Switch (Illegible Words)

Alternatively add the ISO symbol as an option.

2. Amend Table 1, Column 3 by adding in the line titled "Manual Choke" the symbol shown in ISO 2575/11-1975 for Choke.

3. Amend Table 2, Column 3 by adding in the line titled "Brake System" the symbol shown in ISO 2575/DAD 2 for Brake Failure.

These three amendments would be a step towards the accomplishment of the objective of the Notice published on 21st October, 1976 to identify these controls and displays with specified symbols which

(Graphics omitted) are internationally standardised. It is anticipated that the Brake System symbol will be adopted by ISO before the effective date of FMVSS 101-80; it has already been adopted by EEC and is under consideration by ECE.

An additional advantage would be to remove the anomaly present in FMVSS 101-80 which specifies the same symbol for two different functions namely Headlamps and Tail lamps control and High Beam telltale.

The preamble to FMVSS 101-80 says that some existing ISO symbols are not included in the final rule due to the fact that additional data are needed on their recognisability. The symbols we have requested to be adopted were produced by ISO in working parties in which representatives from the U.S.A. were engaged and these were the symbols which were considered by these working parties to be the most suitable for the purpose. We believe that there is now no better way to obtain universal recognition of these symbols than their adoption on vehicles in use in the U.S.A. and the rest of the world.

We request that this Petition be given urgent consideration because we have to act quickly to achieve the requirements by the effective date.

(Graphics omitted)

C. J. Goode Chief Engineer Vehicle Safety.

ID: 15643.ztv

Mr. Walter T. Jakobowski
President
Signal Dynamics Corporation
P.O. Box 350441
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33335

Dear Mr. Jakobowski:

This is in reply to your letter of July 28, 1997, asking for an interpretation regarding the preemptive effect of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Your company manufactures motorcycle headlamp modulators "that comply with Standard No. 108." You report receiving comments that certain States do not allow use of this equipment. You ask for "an interpretation and a copy of the statutes that provide for Federal Law pre-empting any state laws that would disallow use of said Headlight Modulator."

Section 30103(b) of Title 49, United States Code, provides in pertinent part that:

Paragraph S7.9.4 Motorcycle headlamp modulation (formerly S5.6) of Standard No. 108 specifies that a headlamp on a motorcycle may be wired to modulate, provided that it does so in accordance with the requirements prescribed by that paragraph. Under 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1), a State may have its own standard which allows a motorcycle headlamp to be wired to modulate in the same manner as prescribed under S7.9.4. However, since the Federal standard specifically allows a modulation of motorcycle headlamps, a State cannot have a standard prohibiting it. For your information, we are not aware of any State that forbids modulation of motorcycle headlamps.

Taylor Vinson provided you with a copy of 49 U.S.C. 30103(b) on your visit to our Office on July 28. If you have further questions, you may reach him at 202-366-3820.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:vsa#108

d.9/11/97

ID: 7244

Mr. Al Twyford
Suite 1200
140 Mayhew Way
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523

Dear Mr. Twyford:

This responds to your letter of April 21, 1992, to the Federal Highway Administration, which has been forwarded to this agency for reply.

You wish to complain "about some makes of new cars that have two sets of headlights (4) which operate at the same time." If this agency plans to do nothing about it, you "plan to take this matter up with Congressmen and U.S. Senators."

You are not alone in your concern about headlamp glare created by new motor vehicles. Other citizens have brought the subject to the attention of Members of Congress. I enclose a copy of a recent letter from the Deputy Administrator of this agency to Senator Cohen of Maine which is representative of our views on this issue. You will see that a number of factors may be responsible for creating a perception of glare. We note that you have already been in touch with the Department of California Highway Patrol, and that California has no periodic motor vehicle inspection.

With respect to the specific comments in your letter, the agency does not "approve" specific headlamp designs. Standard No. 108 sets forth photometric performance requirements to be met on both the upper and lower beam, and does establish maximum limitations at some of the photometric test points. Further, in a four-headlamp system, the upper and lower beams may be provided by all headlamps. Headlamp manufacturers must ensure that their products meet these requirements, and certify that each headlamp complies by placing a "DOT" mark on the lamp. There is no requirement that a manufacturer obtain permission from this agency before introducing the lamps into the market.

We appreciate your concern.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:108 d:5/14/92

ID: nht90-1.83

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/23/90

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

TO: TILMAN SPINGLER -- ROBERT BOSCH GMBH

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 2-13-90 TO TAYLOR FROM RICH VAN IDERSTINE, NHTSA, ATTACHED [43880]; ALSO ATTACHED TELEFAX TO RICHARD VAN IDERSTINE, NHTSA, FROM T. SPINGLER, ROBERT BOSCH GMBH, DATED 1-30-90.

TEXT: This is in reply to your FAX to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Your first question is:

1) To turn the adjusting screws of a HB-2 headlamp it will be necessary to remove two snap on covers without the use of any tool. Will this be legal?

Section S7.7.2 requires a headlamp to be installed with a mounting and aiming mechanism that allows aim inspection and adjustment, "and is accessible for those uses without removal of any vehicle parts, except for protective covers removable without the use of tools." The section is not directed to the number of covers, only the ease of removal for the specified purposes. Therefore, the use of two snap on covers is not prohibited by Standard No. 108.

Your second question is:

2) A combination of HB2-headlight (low + high beam) and auxiliary driving beam in one unit shall be equipped with only vertical adjusting screws for the driving beam. The beam pattern will be so wide that even bulbs with extreme tolerances will allow to meet all photometric requirements without horizontal adjustment. Will this be legal?

Under section S7.7.2, the aiming mechanism of a headlamp must allow for adjustment of both horizontal and vertical aim. Thus, the portion of the lamp that provides the lower and upper beam must have both horizontal and vertical aiming screws, and the he adlamp would not comply with S7.7.2 if either aiming screw is lacking. For that part of the same headlamp that is a driving beam and which is therefore not regulated by Standard No. 108, the manufacturer may provide any means of adjustment it wishes, as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of the aim of the upper and lower headlamp beam.

Your final question is:

3) When will the 9007 bulb be legal? Date of final rule?

According to the plans of this agency, further action on the 9007 (proposed to be known as HB5) is expected in May 1990.

I hope that this responds to your questions.

ID: aiam3909

Dear Mr. Bowditch: On October 29, 1984, the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association file a petition for rulemaking to amend Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment*. The petition requested 'removal from section 4.1.1.36(a)(2) of the limitation requiring the three aiming pads to be located on the exterior face of the headlamp lens.' You have suggested the mounting flange at the lens-reflector joint as an acceptable alternative location for the aiming pads. The language suggested in the petition for amendment of S4.1.1.36(a)(2) would also allow all three legs to be adjustable on the headlamp aimers.; The agency has proposed amendments to Standard No. 108 (49 FR 47880) t delete the final sentence of paragraph S4.1.1.36(a)(2) with reference to aiming locating plates, and to delete Figures 9-1 and 9-2. Thus, this aspect of your petition has already been granted. We have filed your petition as a comment in the docket to be considered in future rulemaking action on this subject. Further, we interpret the words 'The exterior face of each...lens' in paragraph S4.1.1.36(a)(2) to mean all portions of the lens face including the mounting flange which is a molded and indivisible part of the lens. Thus, no rulemaking is considered necessary to implement this item of your petition. Your request also included a suggestion that the minimum height of the lettering for the adjustment of the legs on the aimer adapter should be reduced from 0.25 inch to 4 mm. This is being addressed in pending rulemaking. Therefore, no further action is necessary at this time.; Sincerely, Barry Felrice, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking