ID: nht92-7.14

DATE: May 6, 1992

FROM: Peter K. Brown -- President, KC HiLites

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/15/92 from Paul J. Rice to Peter K. Brown (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

I wrote to you in April of 1990, regarding your opinion and interpretation of the law relative to hi and low beam headlight use.

The product in question is called, the quad beam and we have been selling it now since mid 1990, directed at vehicles with 4 headlamp systems.

In as much, as vehicles with 2 headlamp systems represent a good part of the vehicle population, and that most of the 2 headlamp equipped vehicles, use only the low beam filaments when on low beam and only the high beam filament when high beam is selected, has prompted me to write to you again.

Our quad beam will enable the low beam to work in conjunction with the high beam, which will dramatically increase the amount of light output.

My question then is, can our product legally be used on two headlamp systems, either sealed beam or replaceable bulb type?

I appreciate your help on this. I am including a copy of your previous letter for your reference.

ID: nht91-7.37

DATE: December 9, 1991

FROM: Hanno Westermann -- Hella KG Hueck & Co.; Olaf Schmidt -- Hella KG Hueck & Co.

TO: Richard L. van Iderstine -- NHTSA

TITLE: Definition of 2 or 4 Headlamp System

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/5/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Herrn. Westermann u. Schmidt (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Since the great revision of FMVSS No. 108 by Docket 85-15, Notice 12 of February 8, 1990, we are missing a paragraph clarifying the definition of a 2 or 4 headlamp system respectively.

In the former version of 108, this definition was done under para. S4.1.1.36, but today there only remains figure 26, which explains the application of photometric requirements with respect to the bulb or bulb combination used.

We assume that no changes to the sense of 108 have been made for this matter so that our remarks could be added to FMVSS 108 by short term to avoid the current discrepancies between headlamp manufacturers and the test laboratories.

Attached you will find a sketch representing our understanding of the definition of a 2 or 4 lamp system, deriving from the former 108.

Many thanks for your endeavours in this and

A Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

Attachment

Drawings of Replaceable Bulb Headlamp Systems. (Graphics omitted)

ID: 7288

Mr. Peter K. Brown
President, KC HiLites, Inc.
Avenida de Luces
Williams, AZ 86046-0155

Dear Mr. Brown:

This responds to your letter of May 6, 1992, with respect to your "quad beam" product. You point out that, in normal operation, the headlamp lower beam is extinguished when the upper beam is activated; "quad beam" ensures that the lower beam remains activated when the upper beam is used. We advised you on July 2, 1990, that installation of "quad beam" would be acceptable on certain types of four-lamp headlighting systems. You have now asked whether the device can "legally be used on two headlamp systems, either sealed beam or replaceable bulb type?"

Paragraph S5.5.9 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 states that "[except for certain four-lamp systems enumerated in S5.5.8] the wiring harness or connector assembly of each headlamp system 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." This would preclude installation of the "quad beam" on two lamp headlamp systems.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:6/15/92

ID: nht92-6.8

DATE: June 15, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Peter K. Brown -- President, KC HiLites, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/6/92 from Peter K. Brown to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7288)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of May 6, 1992, with respect to your "quad beam" product. You point out that, in normal operation, the headlamp lower beam is extinguished when the upper beam is activated; "quad beam" ensures that the lower beam remains activated when the upper beam is used. We advised you on July 2, 1990, that installation of "quad beam" would be acceptable on certain types of four-lamp headlighting systems. You have now asked whether the device can "legally be used on two headlamp systems, either sealed beam or replaceable bulb type?"

Paragraph S5.5.9 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 states that "(except for certain four-lamp systems enumerated in S5.5.8) the wiring harness or connector assembly of each headlamp system 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." This would preclude installation of the "quad beam" on two lamp headlamp systems.

ID: nht88-3.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/19/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: DOUGLAS H. BOSCO -- HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 06/16/88, TO ERIKA Z. JONES, FROM DOUGLAS H. BOSCO; LETTER DATED 08/03/87 TO DOUGLAS H. BOSCO FROM ERIKA Z. JONES; LETTER DATED 06/09/88 TO JERRY K. YOST FROM L. F ROLLIN; LETTER DATED 03/28/88 TO C-MORE-LITE JERRYS SERVICE FROM DO N O. HORNING RE TEST REPORT NO 92606; 1988 LETTER TO ERIKA Z. JONES FROM JERRY SERVICE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Bosco:

This is in reply to your letter of June 16, 1988, with reference to your constituent Jerry Yost of Occidental. Thank you for enclosing our previous correspondence on Mr. Yost's C-More Light invention. This device is a relay which would allow a headlamp 's lower beam to remain in operation when the upper beam is activated. In my reply of August 3, 1987, I advised you that the Federal motor vehicle lighting standard explicitly prohibits simultaneous activation of upper and lower beams in four-lamp headl ighting systems other than the one we call Type F (S4.5.8 of 49 CFR 571.108 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108). I explained that our historical concern has been that the maximum candlepower limitations of the Federal standard might be exceeded.

In your latest letter, you have enclosed a copy of a test report by Industrial Testing Laboratories and a letter from the California Highway Patrol. You have asked the steps, if any, that Mr. Yost should take to market legally his device. The test repor t is intended to show that maximum candela will not be exceeded when the device is used in a four-lamp headlamp system. California advised that the device appeared legal to install on vehicles equipped with Type F headlamp systems, and that "this system is also permitted by California law as long as the photometric output is within the standards established for any other type of headlight. The ITL tests appear to show compliance".

We have reviewed the ITL test report, and find it indicative of the features and limitations of Mr. Yost's system. The test report shows a failure of the dual filament 2A1 lamp (second column from the left) at test point 4D-V where 3490 candlepower is m easured. Note the maximum limitation of 2500 candlepower at that test point (third column from the right, same line). Contrasted with this is an unusually low reading of 2540 candlepower for the same test point with the single filament 1A1 lamp (third column from the left) when up to 5000 candela is allowed (fourth column from the right). The net result, however, is that the combined maximum of 6030 candlepower (fourth column from the left) is well within the allowable 7500 maximum of Standard No. 10 8 (first column from the right). In essence, the test report indicates that the light at

2 test point 4D-V produced by the system under test does not achieve the balance contemplated by the standard, although the light at other test points meets the requirements of the standard.

While the test report indicates that a system using the lamps tested might conform to Standard No. 108, this was achieved by using what appear to be two lamps of moderate performance. The agency believes it likely that replacement headlamps for such a s ystem would more likely approach the maxima prescribed for 4D-V and other test points for Type 1A1 and 2A1 headlamps with the result that simultaneous operation of upper and lower beams would exceed the established limits. In other words, although an or iginal equipment headlighting system using the relay might meet Federal photometric specifications, there is no assurance that replacement lights would. Type F systems have been designed to preclude exceeding the maxima. Thus, our concern remains for l ighting systems using lamps other than Type F. The agency's views on simultaneous operation are discussed in further detail in a Federal Register notice published in 1986, a copy of which I enclose (Docket No. 81-11; Notice 14).

As I indicated before Mr. Yost's device may be legally installed as original or aftermarket equipment on any passenger car equipped with a Type F headlamp system. Use with any other original equipment headlighting system is expressly prohibited by Stand ard No. 108. As for aftermarket applications other than Type F, he should be aware of the statutory section (15 USC 13979(a)(2)(A)) prohibiting manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses from rendering inoperative, in whol e or in part, any equipment installed in accordance with a safety standard if installation of the relay would result in a noncompliance with Standard No. 108.

We are providing a copy of this letter to the California Highway Patrol so that it may be aware of our views on this subject.

Mr. Yost and the agency share a common desire to improve foreground lighting, a subject currently under study at NHTSA. We appreciate his interest in motor vehicle safety.

ENCLOSURE

Sincerely,

ID: aiam2646

Dear Mr. Green: In his letter of June 16, 1977, our Mr. Driver, Director of the Offic of Crash Avoidance, commented that although the Federal motor vehicle lighting standard 'is generally in accordance with standards developed and published by the Society of Automotive Engineers, it does not specifically require sealed-beam headlamps.'; This should not be interpreted as an opinion that Federal Motor Vehicl Safety Standard No. 108 does not require sealed beam headlamps. While there is no such requirement *per se* in the text of the standard, Standard No. 108 incorporates by reference SAE Standard J579a *Sealed Beam Headlamp Units for Motor Vehicles*, August 1965, and SAE Standard J580a *Sealed Beam Headlamp*, June 1966. Compliance of headlamps with these standards is required, whether as original or replacement equipment.;

ID: nht76-2.27

DATE: 03/12/76

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

TO: CaL Light Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your latestletter, dated February 17, 1976, you asked "Does the Federal motor vehicle safety standards allow the use of one half of an automobile headlight system on a motorcycle?"

There is no Federal prohibition against an owner modifying his motorcycle to use any lighting configuration, though there may be State or municipal restrictions. The answer where a manufacturer is involved, however, depends upon the type of automobile headlamp system used. Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 requires a motorcycle to be equipped with a headlamp system conforming to SAE Standard J584, Motorcycle and Motor Driven Cycle Headlamps, April 1964. Two options allowed are use of a single 7 inch sealed beam unit, or of one 5 3/4 inch Type 1 and one 5 3/4 inch Type 2 sealed beam unit, provided these headlamps meet the requirements of SAE J579a, Sealed Beam Headlamp Units for Motor Vehicles, August 1965. Thus, "one half" of a two-headlamp, or of a four-lamp circular lens passenger car headlighting system could be used on a motorcycle. But use of a system comprised of one Type 1A plus Type 2A (rectangular lens), is not currently permitted under Standard No. 108.

Since there is an equivalence of performance between rectangular and circular lens headlamps systems, if you wish to merchandise a two-lamp (Type 1A plus Type 2A) rectangular system for use on motorcycles, you may wish to submit an additional petition for an amendment of Standard No. 108.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

CAL LIGHT CO.

February 17, 1976

RICHARD B. DYSON -- U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, NHTSA

Dear Mr. Dyson,

In reply to your letter of February 12, 1976, first of all, we did not at that time, December 10, 1975, petition the NHTSA for an ammendment. The petition for ammendment was filed on January 27, 1976 by our letter of January 14, 1976.

I have recieved much stationary from your office, however, little of it pertains to the basic context of my letters. I shall request basically the same as I have in my previous letters, although I shall use a different format. I would like your office to give me a yes or no answer on the following question, Does the Federal motor vehicle saftey standards allow the use of one half of an automobile headlight system on a motorcycle?.

I shall be awaiting your prompt reply.

Truly,

Lawrence MacEachern

ID: nht76-2.46

DATE: 01/14/76

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

TO: Department of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of December 8, 1975, asking four questions, the answers to which would provide an interpretation of Standard No. 108 with respect to separation distance of a turn signal lamp from the nearest edge of a Type 2 headlamp.

SAE Standard J588d, Turn Signal Lamps, June 1966, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108, requires in pertinent part that "The optical axis (filament center) of the front turn signal lamp shall be at least 4 inches from the inside diameter of the retaining ring of the headlamp unit providing the lower beam . . . ." We agree with your opinion that the reference to filament center may have been added because of the difficulty of determining the location of the optical axis in certain instances. In the vast majority of cases, however the filament center is on the optical axis, and the addition of the provision assists in determining compliance with the requirement.

You have asked:

"1. Is the filament center always to be taken as the center of the optical axis?"

The answer to this question is no. In some instances the filament center will not be on the optical axis. When this is the case the standard is ambiguous as to whether distance is measured from the optical axis or the filament center. While we prefer the optical axis, under the present wording either must be viewed as legally supportable.

"2. Is the center of the emitted light always to be taken as the center of the optical axis?"

The answer is yes.

"3. If the answers to the above two questions are no, does the vehicle manufacturer have the choice as to which method is most favorable to him?"

Yes, because of the ambiguity the manufacturer may choose either the optical axis or filament center as the point of measurement.

"4. What is the optical axis of a two- or three- compartment lamp?"

The optical axis of a multi-compartment lamp is the center of the light emitted by the array, treated as a single complex light source. The "half-value" method you described in your letter is a valid method of finding the optical axis of a complex light source as well as that of a simple one.

Finally you have asked whether, if we agree with the need for clarification, the letter can be considered a petition for rulemaking or whether a formal petition should be submitted.

We agree that clarification is needed and accordingly plan to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking in the near future.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

December 8, 1975

Frank Berndt -- Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

When inspecting 1976 passenger cars, we discovered a problem in measuring the distance of a front turn signal lamp from the nearest edge of the Type 2 headlamp. Federal Standard No. 108 requires that turn signal lamps meet the 4-inch minimum spacing in SAE J588d. Standard No. 108 also permits lamps to be mounted closer than the 4-inch interval if they emit 2-1/2 times the minimum candlepower otherwise specified.

SAE J588d clearly states that the distance shall be measured from the optical axis of the turn signal lamp to the inside diameter of the retaining ring from the headlamp providing the low beam. It then, unfortunately, makes the requirement ambiguous by a parenthetical reference to the filament center.

The SAE wording was satisfactory when it was adopted a number of years ago, because lamp designs then had the optical axis coincident with the filament. More recent designs have kept the filament 4 inches from the headlamp but have used the ambiguity as a loophole to allow the optical axis to be unreasonably close to the headlamp.

The 4-inch separation was adopted by SAE after a number of complaints about the lack of effectiveness of some turn signals that were snuggled up against the headlamps. The brightness of the adjacent low beam headlamps washed out the turn signals so they would not attract an oncoming driver's attention unless he was looking almost directly at them. The SAE Lighting Committee made nighttime demonstrations of turn signals at various distances from the headlamps in view of a proposal that the edges of the lamps be separated by a minimum distance such as 2 or 2 inches. A jury-type judgment indicated that the present requirement was barely acceptable usually and would allow vehicle manufacturers sufficient design freedom in placing the lamps on vehicles.

The attached drawing illustrates the absurdity of the "filament center" interpretation for modern-day turn signals (and incidentally the skill and ingenuity of lamp designers). Figure I shows a current lamp with a filament center meeting the 4-inch requirement but with an optical center much closer to the headlamp. Figure II illustrates a left-hand version of the same lamp with a filament center that does not meet the 4-inch requirement but with an optical center farther removed from the headlamp. The second lamp provides a more effective signal from an opposing driver's viewpoint, but it would be illegal if measured from the filament center.

The filament center reference apparently was added to the SAE standard because of an assumed difficulty in determining the location of the optical axis. An axis of any object usually passes through a point of symmetry. In the case of a symmetrical light beam meeting turn signal photometric requirements, the optical axis falls in a plane on either side of which is one-half of the total light output. The optical axis is easily located by measuring the intensity of the lamp at HV and then sliding an opaque card with a straight edge across the face of the lens until the photometer reading is one-half the HV value.

In view of the foregoing discussion, we would appreciate your interpretation of Standard No. 108 with respect to the following questions:

1. Is the filament center always to be taken as the center of the optical axis?

2. Is the center of the emitted light always to be taken as the center of the optical axis?

3. If the answers to the above two questions are no, does the vehicle manufacturer have the choice of which method is most favorable to him?

4. What is the optical axis of a two- or three-compartment lamp?

If you agree with the need for clarification, can this letter be considered a basis for your initiating a proposed change in Standard No. 108 or must this Department submit a formal petition for a rulemaking?

Very truly yours,

WARREN M. HEATH -- Commander, Enforcement Services Division

Enclosure

cc: Lou Owen, NHTSA; Francis Armstrong, NHTSA

(Graphics omitted)

ID: aiam2583

Dear Ms. Jenny: Permit me to comment upon Oregon House Bill 2998 which I understand i to be considered by the Transportation Committee of the Oregon Senate on June 3, 1977.; The Bill would amend ORS 483.404 to require that headlamps on moto vehicles registered in Oregon meet the standards established for such under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 or; >>>'...the United Nations Agreement concerning the Adoption of Approva and Reciprocal Recognition of Approval for Motor Vehicle Equipment and Parts, done at Geneva on 20 March 1958, as amended and adopted by the Canadian Standards Association (CSA Standard 106.2) or both.'<<<; Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1392 (a) [Section 103(a) of the National Traffi and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966] Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment* (49 CFR 571.108), has been established, effective January 1, 1972, as the Federal standard for headlamps both as original and replacement equipment on motor vehicles. Under 15 U.S.C. 1392(d); >>>'Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established unde this title is in effect, *no State* or political subdivision of a State *shall have any authority* either *to establish*, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment *any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard*.' [Emphasis added.]<<<; The United Nations Agreement, and this Agreement as amended by th Canadian Standards Association, permit the use of motor vehicle headlamps that are not of sealed beam construction and whose candlepower output may exceed 75,000, and do not require that they be mechanically aimable. Standard 108, on the other hand, requires that headlamps on passenger vehicles be of sealed beam construction, imposes a limit of 75,000 candlepower on all but one type of headlamp, and requires that all headlamps be mechanically aimable. Thus, the United Nations Agreement, and this Agreement as amended by the Canadian Standards Association, do not specify requirements for headlamps that are identical to those of Standard No. 108. This means that if House Bill 2998 is enacted in its present form the language that I quoted from it would, in our opinion, be preempted by 15 U.S.C. 1392(d), and of no legal effect. This means also that any person in Oregon manufacturing for sale, selling, offering for sale, introducing or delivering for introduction in interstate commerce, or importing into the United States a headlamp that did not conform to Standard No. 108, in reliance upon House Bill 2998 were it to be enacted, would be subject to civil penalties for apparent violations of 15 U.S.C. 1397(a) (1) (A) in an amount up to $800,000 (15 U.S.C. 1393 (a)), and to a restraining order (15 U.S.C. 1399(a)).; Section 1392(d) and the Act's preemptive effect have been invariabl upheld. (See *e.g. Chrysler Corp v. Malloy*, 294 F. Supp 524 (U.S.D.C. Vt. 1968), *Chrysler Corp v. Tofany*, 419 F.2d 499 (C.C.A. 2 1969)) We would also observe that the interpretation of the preemption language by this agency, as the administering agency, has been viewed by courts as 'of controlling weight.' (*Thorpe v. Housing Authority of Durham*, 393 U.S. 268 (1969) quoted with approval in *Chrysler Corp. v. Tofany, supra*, at 512.); If you have any questions, Taylor Vinson of this office will be glad t assist you (202-426-9511).; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: 19040.ztv

Mr. Siegfried Hetz
Senior Optic Engineer
Robert Bosch Corporation
38000 Hills Tech Drive
Farmington Hills, MI 48331-3417

Dear Mr. Hetz:

This is in reply to your fax of November 4, 1998, asking for an interpretation of the vehicle headlamp aiming device (VHAD) requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You have enclosed several engineering drawings for our review and asked whether "the design passes NHTSA's requirements to be permanently fixed (tamper-proofed)." Later, by letter of November 13, 1998, you provided Taylor Vinson of this Office with a sample of a mockup of the proposed VHAD.

The requirement that concerns you is S7.8.5.2(c) of Standard No. 108. This requires each headlamp with a VHAD to be manufactured with its calibration permanently fixed by the headlamp manufacturer. We have examined your drawings and the VHAD. The principal feature is a "wedge block [which] will lock into the V-HAD plate while also locking the V-HAD legs down in position." One of our engineers was able to remove the wedge block with a letter opener, after some minutes, and after consulting your drawing with its sectional view depicting the wedge block. However, we have decided that the calibration of the VHAD is "permanently fixed" as required by S7.8.5.2(c). It is our opinion that a person interested in removing the wedge block would have to remove the headlamp to do so, but, in the absence of access to your engineering drawing with its sectional view, would be unlikely to be able to proceed further and remove the wedge block.

Please let Mr. Vinson know if you wish the mockup returned (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.12/28/98