ID: aiam5451

Dear Mr. Kover: This responds to your letter of July 25, 1994, to Jer Medlin of this agency. You have presented several questions regarding an electric circuit that you have designed for use in motor vehicles, and which you call a Light Control Unit (LCU). The LCU automatically turns off the headlamps and tail and parking lamps when the ignition is turned off if the lamps have been activated. The LCU also automatically turns on the headlamps and the tail and parking lamps whenever the windshield wipers are turned on. If the LCU fails when the lights are on, a Light Bus Monitor will automatically restore them. You have the following questions: 'Would a motor vehicle operator be in violation of the federal motor vehicle safety standards by maintaining both the head and tail/park lights on during the hours of daylight?' No. The Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not tell an owner when it is or is not permissible to use safety equipment. 'Does the LCU meet the federal motor vehicle safety standards? Could the LCU be integrated into the light system of new production vehicles or currently registered vehicles,' The Federal motor vehicle safety standard on lighting, Standard No. 108, does not apply to supplementary lighting devices such as the LCU. The LCU is permissible on new vehicles provided it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. We do not see that it has this effect. It is permissible to be installed on currently registered vehicles by manufacturers, distributors, dealers or motor vehicle repair businesses provided that it does not make inoperable any part installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. We do not see that the LCU has this effect either. You have also told us that the LCU may be used to operate lamps as Daytime Running Lamps (DRLs) by maintaining the light switch in the on position when the wiper switch has been turned off. One feature of this function is that the LCU 'allows the operator to turn off either the head lights only or both the head lights and tail/park lights via the light switch.' Your question is 'If the operator should elect to employ the LCU as a DRL unit does it meet the federal motor vehicle safety standards?' Under Standard No. 108, a DRL system is a system of any pair of lamps on the front of a vehicle (other than parking lamps or fog lamps) that is automatically activated and that is automatically deactivated when the operator places the headlamp control in the on position. Further, DRLs can be lower beam headlamps operated at full voltage. Assuming that the LCU turns the lower beam headlamps on rather than the upper beam ones, your system would function as a DRL meeting the requirements of Standard No. 108 when the lower beam headlamps are automatically activated by the windshield wipers and deactivated by turning off the ignition. However, the feature that allows the headlamps to be turned off manually (whether or not simultaneously turning off the parking lamps and taillamps) is not part of a DRL system as specified by Standard No. 108. Your final request is that we 'include the federal specifications for electronic devices.' We are unsure what you mean by this as we have no 'specifications for electronic devices.' I enclose a copy of S5.5.11 of Standard No. 108, the DRL specifications. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel Enclosure;

ID: nht87-2.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/13/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. M. Arisaka

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

AIR MAIL

Mr. M. Arisaka Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Sect. Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku Tokyo 153, Japan

Dear Mr. Arisaka:

This is in reply to your letter of November 12, 1986, to former Chief Counsel Jeffrey Miller, concerning the photometric reference this for a two lamp headlamp system, and location of aiming pads.

Your first question is what is the mechanical axis for performing photometry tests where the upper beam in a dual beam headlamp if provided by HB3 and HB4 light sources. As you know, the answer is simple for a single bulb sealed beam headlamp of symmetri cal dimensions: a line perpendicular to the aiming plane through the geometric center of the lens (SAE Standard J579c). Thus, the reference axis for the lower beam of your system would be the geometric center of the portion of the lens that is illuminate d by the HB4. The reference axis for the upper beam is not as easy to identify. Theoretically it should be the center of the light pattern that is produced by the two bulbs. This point would probably be somewhere between the midpoint of the axes of the H B3 and the HB4 and the axis of the HB3. This point is not shown on any of your drawings. However, since the intensity of the lower beam is usually less than 5000 cd at rest point H-V, the theoretical point described above will be very close to the axis o f the HB3. For this reason, the axis of the HB3 should be used as the reference axis for your system. In summary, your Case 1 Table A depicts the proper reference axes.

You have also asked where the aiming pads ought to be located on such a headlamp system, saying that NHTSA's interpretation letter of September 6, 1985, indicated that the pads should be placed on the lower beam portion of the lamp's lens, but that lamps twisted on which they were placed elsewhere. Our 1985 letter was written at a time when experience with these lamps was limited. We now believe that the pads can be located anywhere that will permit proper mechanical aiming, proper reference for photome tric purposes, and that do not interfere with the forming of the beam. Therefore, either of the two locations you present, or any other location, is acceptable provided that the three conditions mentioned above are met.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

November 12, 1986

Mr. Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Dear Mr. Miller,

Re. Photometric reference axis for two lamps system, and location of aiming pads

We would like to know a view of the photometric reference axis for two-lamp system with two bulbs (HB3 and HB4), and location of aiming pads.

In case that both HB3 and HB4 are used for the upper beam, where the reference axis for 'the upper beam and the lower beam should be placed in photometric measurement? We show examples of reference axis in Table A.

In addition to the question above, we would like to know where the aiming pads of two-lamp system with two bulbs are located. (Please see Table B.)

On your letter of September 6, 1985, the aiming pads should be located on the optical axis of the lower beam portion (HB4) of the headlamp. But now, there is a lamp which aiming pads is located on the other location in the U.S. market. We would like to k now the view of NHTSA again.

We are looking forward to your reply to our questions. Sincerely yours, Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

Sincerely yours,

Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

A. Arisaka Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Sect.

Enc. Table A : Reference axis in photometric measurement Table B : Location of the aiming pads

SEE HARD COPY FOR GRAPHIC INFORMATION

ID: aiam2939

Dear Mr. Miyazawa, This is in reply to your letter of June 14, 1978, to Mr. E. T. Driver requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment*. Your letter depicted the use of two headlamps, both round and rectangular, mounted side by side, and also one above the other.; Table IV of FMVSS No. 108 requires that if two headlamps are mounted o a motorcycle they must be symmetrically disposed about the vertical centerline. The same requirement applies to taillamps, stoplamps, and reflex reflectors. This has been interpreted previously, in the case of reflex reflectors, to mean that if two are used they may be mounted only side by side. Four headlamp systems are now permitted on motorcycles. These are specified in the new paragraph S4.1.1.34 in the amendment published in the *Federal Register* July 27, 1978. A copy of the new amendment is enclosed, along with copies of previous notices that constitute FMVSS No. 108. However, if two headlamps are mounted on a motorcycle, they still must be mounted side by side and equidistant from a vertical centerline of the body of the motorcycle.; This agency is currently considering an amendment to the standard tha will, if approved, permit the positioning of headlamps and reflectors one above the other when two are mounted on a motorcycle. The necessary rulemaking procedures, if initiated, would take several months and there is no certainty that the contemplated amendment would be issued.; We welcome your further comments and questions, Sincerely, Michael M. Finkelstein, Associate Administrator fo Rulemaking;

ID: aiam1311

Dear Mr. Pudinski: This is in response to your letter of October 1, 1973, in which yo asked that we review an enclosed opinion by the California Attorney General on the question of preemption of California motor vehicle regulations by Federal standards. The opinion concluded that the California requirement that motorcycles be wired so that their headlamps are lit whenever their engines are running was not preempted. This conclusion was contrary to the position taken in an NHTSA letter of November 14, 1972, to Mr. Edward Kearney.; We adhere to the position stated in the November 14, 1972, letter tha the California requirement is preempted, and consider the legal opinion by the California Attorney General to be an erroneous view of the Federal law.; The opinion properly viewed the question as turning on the applicatio of the phrase in S. 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392(d), 'applicable to the same aspect of performance.' If the Federal standard (Standard No. 108, 49 CFR 571.108) covers a given aspect of performance, any State requirement must be identical to it. The California opinion relied on the language in the main opinion of one of the Super Lite cases, *Chrysler Corp. v. Tofany*, 419 F.2d 499 (1969), that preemption should be 'narrowly construed', and went on to find that since Standard 108 does not specifically address the matter of wiring the headlamps when the engine is running, that aspect of performance is not covered by the standard and the California law is valid.; More important, however, than the nebulous concept of whethe preemption is 'narrowly' construed (a concept with which Judge Friendly, concurring in *Chrysler*, did not agree) is the point made at the end of the main opinion, that the administering Federal agency was supporting the State's position regarding the scope of the Federal regulation. The Court quoted the U.S. Supreme Court in *Thorpe v. Housing Authority of Durham*, 393 U.S. 268, 276 (1969):; >>>[W]hen construing an administrative regulation, 'a court mus necessarily look to the administrative construction of the regulation if the meaning of the words used is in doubt. . . . [T]he ultimate criterion is the administrative interpretation, which becomes of controlling weight unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation.'<<<; In this case the situation is the opposite of that in the Super Lit cases. The NHTSA's position is that the standard does cover the aspect of performance in question. As stated in the NHTSA letter of November 14, 1972, the standard 'establishes requirements for motorcycle headlighting, along with special wiring requirements for motorcycles and other vehicles.' It is the intent of the NHTSA that its requirements for headlamp performance, configuration, and wiring cover all aspects of performance directly involving headlamps, and thus preempt any non-identical State standards relating to headlamps.; The implication of the California opinion is that any mode of design o performance that is not expressly dealt with in the Federal standard is open to regulation by the States. Such a position is impractical, where the agency's intent is to have a comprehensive, uniform regulation in a given area. In order to preempt the field it would be necessary for a Federal agency to anticipate the imaginative regulatory impulses of future State agencies or legislatures and include in a standard such provisions as, 'It is not required that motorcycle headlamps be wired to operate when the engine is running.' Congress clearly intended the NHTSA to establish a single set of uniform standards to which manufacturers must comply, and that intent would tend to be defeated by the position taken in the California opinion. Federal regulation has a negative as well as a positive aspect: in determining that there should be certain requirements in an area, we also are deciding against imposing others. The only way to effectuate such a decision is to declare, as we have done here, that our regulation is intended to be exclusive, and to describe as necessary its outer limits.; The California opinion's factual comparison with the Super Lite case is also inapt. The Super Lite itself was a new type of lighting equipment, a supplementary lamp, for which Standard 108 contained no requirements. Headlamps, by contrast, are comprehensively regulated by the standard.; For these reasons, we conclude that the California requirement tha motorcycle headlamps be wired to operate when the engine is running is preempted by Standard 108, and void.; While we feel constrained by law to so conclude, I want you to kno that I have instructed my staff to consider the merit of amending the Federal lighting standard to include the California requirement in 108.; Sincerely, James B. Gregory, Administrator

ID: nht93-1.17

DATE: 01/22/93

FROM: GUY DORLEANS -- INTERNATIONAL AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MANAGER, VALEO LIGHTING

TO: CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: AIMABILITY OF HEADLAMPS

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 3-4-93 FROM JOHN WOMACK TO GUY DORLEANS (A40; STD. 108)

TEXT: Valeo Lighting is currently studying new principles for aiming small circular headlamps. Two versions are considered:

Version A:

A pair of headlamp spacer rims, hereunder designated by the acronym "HSR", are permanently attached to the car. The lens of each headlamp has 3 bosses, so that the HSR shown on sheet A1 easily finds its place between the lens and a standard circular adpater for 5" 3/4 sealed-beam units. Sheet B2 shows the assembly, before adjunction of readily available aimers for 5" 3/4 sealed beams units.

The pair of "HSR" is placed in an accessory kit, in the trunck. Relevant instructions for use are included in the owner's manual.

Version B:

The part shown on sheet B1 replaces the functions of the HSR and the function of the standard circular adapter.

The B1 specific adapter (see sheet B2) is the link between the lens of the headlamp and the external 5" 3/4 aimers, these latter devices being available in the United States for more than 30 years.

In this case also, a pair of specific adapters are sold with the car, and permanently placed in the trunck of each car. Relevant informations are provided by the owner's manual.

-------

Valeo respectfully asks NHTSA to confirm that both versions are in compliance with Standard 108.

Do not hesitate to contact me if further clarifications are needed.

ATTACHMENTS

(GRAPHICS OMITTED.)

ID: 2283y

Tracey Powell
Legislative Coordinator
Government Relations
American Motorcyclist Association
P.O. Box 6114
Westerville, OH 43081-6114

Dear Tracey Powell:

This is in reply to your letter of November l4, l989, with respect to existing prohibitions in some States against the use of modulating headlamps on motorcycles. The apparent basis of the prohibition is that flashing lamps are generally reserved for emergency vehicles. You point out the distinction that Standard No. l08 makes between the two types of headlamps, and ask our "assistance in attaining uniform recognition of the legal use of modulating headlights through the United States . . . ."

As you note, there is a legal distinction in Standard No. l08 between a modulating headlamp (one that goes from a higher to a lower intensity within either the upper or lower beam) and a flashing one (one that goes from either the upper or lower beam to off). Further, section S5.6.1 of Standard No. l08 provides that "A headlamp on a motorcycle may be wired to modulate." The authority of States to regulate this aspect of motorcycle lighting is constrained by section l03(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (l5 U.S.C. 1392(d)). This section provides in pertinent part that:

[w]henever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . is in effect, no State. . . shall have any authority either to extablish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle. . . any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle. . . which is not identical to the Federal standard."

The effect of this provision of the Safety Act with respect to lighting is to expressly prohibit a State from enacting a law that forbids a manufacturer from installing headlamp modulators on motorcycles.

I hope that this responds to your concerns.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel / ref:VSA#l08 d:2/l/90

ID: 7196

Mr. Gonshiro Miyoshi
Manager, Design Administration Dept.
Technical Division Ichikoh Industries, Inc.
80 Itado, Isehara-City
Kanagawa, 259-11 Japan

Dear Mr. Miyoshi:

This responds to your letter of April 6, 1992, asking for an interpretation of Standard No. 108. With respect to a headlamp system consisting of two lamps, each containing two light sources, you have asked "Is it permissible to have the bulb center of the lower beam lower than that of the upper beam (maximum height difference is 10mm) if they are arranged horizontally?"

Paragraph S7.5(d)(2) specifies the manner in which "the lower and upper beams of a headlamp system consisting of two lamps, each containing either one or two light sources, shall be provided . . ." In such headlamps where each light source provides a beam, the lower beam is provided "by the outboard light source (or upper one if arranged vertically)," and the upper beam is provided "by the inboard light source (or the lower one if arranged vertically)."

Although the standard could be presumed to contemplate that two light sources within a headlamp would be located on the same horizontal or vertical plane, there is no specific requirement for light source placement. Because the difference in the horizontal mounting planes for bulb centers in your design is only 10mm, this difference is not sufficient to conclude that the light sources are vertically arranged, thus requiring that the lower beam bulb center be the "upper" one, or on a plane that is higher. However, for your design to be permissible, the lower beam in this essentially horizontal array must be provided by the outboard light source in the headlamps as specified in S7.5(d)(2).

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:5/8/92

ID: nht92-7.9

DATE: May 8, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Gonshiro Miyoshi -- Manager, Design Administration Dept., Technical Division Ichikoh Industries, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/6/92 from Gonshiro Miyoshi to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7196)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of April 6, 1992, asking for an interpretation of Standard No. 108. With respect to headlamp system consisting of two lamps, each containing two light sources, you have asked "Is it permissible to have the bulb center of the lower beam lower than that of the upper beam (maximum height difference is 10mm) if they are arranged horizontally?"

Paragraph S7.5(d)(2) specifies the manner in which "the lower and upper beams of a headlamp system consisting of two lamps, each containing either one or two light sources, shall be provided . . ." In such headlamps where each light source provides a beam, the lower beam is provided "by the outboard light source (or upper one if arranged vertically)," and the upper beam is provided "by the inboard light source (or the lower one if arranged vertically)."

Although the standard could be presumed to contemplate that two light sources within a headlamp would be located on the same horizontal or vertical plane, there is no specific requirement for light source placement. Because the difference in the horizontal mounting planes for bulb centers in your design is only 10mm, this difference is not sufficient to conclude that the light sources are vertically arranged, thus requiring that the lower beam bulb center be the "upper" one, or on a plane that is higher. However, for your design to be permissible, the lower beam in this essentially horizontal array must be provided by the outboard light source in the headlamps as specified in S7.5(d)(2).

ID: 21406.ztv

Herr Tilman Spingler
Automotive Lighting Reutlingen GmbH
Tubinger Strasse 123
72762 Reutlingen
Germany

Dear Herr Spingler:

This is in reply to your fax of March 16, 2000, asking for an interpretation of S7.8.5.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment.

Paragraph S7.8.5.3 specifies requirements for headlamp visual/optical aiming. You note that this paragraph "does not say anything about the measuring distance and the diameter of the photocell to be used when measuring the cut-off for determination of position and quality of the cut-off." You state that the preamble to the final rule adopting S7.8.5.3 mentions a GTB document in which "a measuring distance of 10m and a diameter of the photocell has been proposed." According to your letter, the rationale behind the proposals was that visual aiming, where ever conducted in Europe be done at a 10m distance, "and the instrumental method developed for FMVSS 108 should reflect the 'real world' of visual aiming at that time."

Your question, then, is whether it is permissible for a headlamp manufacturer to "measure the cut-off at 10m with a 10mm photocell for aiming purposes and then measure the light intensity of the correctly aimed headlamp at equal or more than 18.3m. We confirm that this is permissible for the reason indicated below.

Paragraph S7.8.5.3 was adopted pursuant to a negotiated rulemaking in which the attending parties concurred in the drafting and adoption of the language of the preamble and the resulting rule. Although the 10m distance and diameter of the measuring photocell were not incorporated into Standard No. 108, there was unanimous agreement as to this basis for specifying the measuring procedures. The text to which you refer appears at 62 FR 10710 (March 10, 1997). We noted in this preamble (p. 10711) that a procedure had been developed which provided a baseline system for the visual aim test. The procedure was developed by the Groupe de Travail "Bruxelles 1952" (GTB) Short-term Scientific Studies Working Group (SSST WG), and set forth in "Draft minutes of the Meeting held at Budapest 1995 October 3," which is filed in our rulemaking docket as attachment 3-9 to the Committee's minutes of Meeting No. 3. This procedure specifies that the cut-off is to be measured at a distance of 10m using a photocell with an aperture of 10mm. This was understood by all the parties to the negotiated rulemaking, and we intend to include it in the text of Standard No. 108 itself in a future amendment.

In summary, a headlamp with a cut-off feature should be measured and aimed at 10m using a 10mm photocell, and its compliance with photometric requirements determined at 18.3m.

If you have any questions, you may contact Taylor Vinson of this Office (fax 202-366-3820).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.4/6/2000

ID: 2816o

The Honorable Douglas H. Bosco
House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Bosco:

This is in reply to your letter of June l6, l988, 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, l987, I advised you that the Federal motor vehicle lighting standard explicitly prohibits simultaneous activation of upper and lower beams in four-lamp headlighting systems other than the one we call Type F (S4.5.8 of 49 CFR 57l.l08 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08). 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 report 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 measured. 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. l08 (first column from the right). In essence, the test report indicates that the light at 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. l08, 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 system 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 original 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 lighting 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 l986, a copy of which I enclose (Docket No. 81-11; Notice l4).

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 Standard No. l08. As for aftermarket applications other than Type F, he should be aware of the statutory section (15 USC 1397(a)(2)(A)) prohibiting manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses from rendering inoperative, in whole 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. l08.

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.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

cc: Department of California Highway Patrol P.O. Box 942898 Sacramento, CA 94298-0001

ref:108 d:8/l9/88