ID: 7383

Mr. Steven Henderson
Department of Psychology
McGill University
1205 Dr. Penfield
Montreal PQ H3A 1B1
Canada

Dear Mr. Henderson:

This responds to your letter of August 11, 1992, commenting on my response to you of June 29 with respect to the relationship of your motorcycle headlamp warning device to S5.6 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, the provisions regulating the modulation of motorcycle headlighting systems.

In my letter, I informed you that the device would not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 108, and would affect compliance of the taillamps and turn signal lamps with the standard. I also advised you that if a motorcycle owner could install the device, there would be no violation of Federal law, and that the legality of its use would be determinable under the laws of the individual American states.

In your latest letter, you "agree that the device contravenes the letter of DOT Standard No. 108 as it presently stands." However, "if the device violates the letter of the law while satisfying the spirit or inferred intent of the law in each case," you believe "that the granting of an exception should be considered by the NHTSA."

As I understand it, your principal argument as raised on page 2 of your August 11 letter is that it is improper to consider your device under S5.6 as it is not a motorcycle headlamp modulating system as described in that section. Thus our objections to modulation rate and intensity, based upon the specifications of that section, are misplaced.

Assuming for the sake of argument that you are correct, your device becomes subject to another provision of Standard No. 108 that I did not mention in my June letter. Paragraph S5.1.3 prohibits the installation, as original equipment, of any motor vehicle equipment that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment that Standard No. 108 requires. Application of paragraph S5.1.3 returns us to my comments in June that your device would affect compliance of the taillamps and turn signal lamps with Standard No. 108. The taillamps would no longer be steady-burning, as required by S5.5.10(d). It would appear 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. Thus, under paragraph S5.1.3, installation of the device as aftermarket equipment, if performed by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business would continue to be prohibited by Federal law.

Your latest letter also addresses the issues of taillamp and turn signal conformance. You argue that

"a taillight's purpose is to mark the rear of a motor vehicle during nighttime driving when it would otherwise be invisible. For this reason the law requires that taillights be lit at night. The law makes no such requirement during the day. The law does require that motorcycle headlights be lit during the day. * * * At night the taillight will always be steady-burning as required by S5.5.10(d) because the flasher device is only able to induce taillight flicker during daylight hours due to the photocell circuitry incorporated to prevent the headlamp from generating strobe effects at night. Therefore, the device is in compliance with S5.5.10(d) as it will cause the taillight to flash only at times that it is not required by law to be lit."

The law that applies to your argument is Standard No. 108. Paragraph S5.5.7(b) states in pertinent part that "On each . . . motorcycle . . . when the headlamps are activated in a steady-burning state, the taillamps . . . shall also be activated." Thus, under Standard No. 108 the taillamps must always be activated when the headlamps are activated.

The device also functions through the horn button to cause the turn signal lamps to flash at a rate higher than the maximum permitted by Standard No. 108. In your view, the situation in which the turn signal and horn button are in simultaneous use will be rare. However, if they are used together, "the SAE-specified turn signal flash of 1-2 hz will be perceptually present, the hazard signal flash of 10 hz will also be perceptually present at the same location, and the two signals will not interfere."

We consider that paragraph S5.1.3 applies here as well, and that a flash of 10 hz would impair the effectiveness of the required turn signal flash of 1-2 hz. There could be another undesirable consequence as well. When NHTSA proposed allowing modulating headlamps, commenters were concerned that the flashing might trigger a photic reaction, akin to an attack of epilepsy, in onlookers. NHTSA observed that the reaction was most likely to occur at a frequency of 10 hz against a very dark background. Although your device does not operate at night, its frequency is at the threshold where photic reactions can occur, and we want to bring this fact to your attention.

The agency shares your concern with improving the detectability of motorcycles and their riders. You have suggested writing an "exception" in Standard No. 108 for a period of one or two years so that the safety benefits of the device can be evaluated. We have a procedure under which a manufacturer of motorcycles can petition for a temporary exemption of up to two years, applicable to 2,500 vehicles per year, on the basis that it would facilitate the development and field evaluation of an innovative safety device. Perhaps you can interest a manufacturer in petitioning for a temporary exemption from Standard No. 108 on this basis.

You may also petition the agency for rulemaking to amend Standard No. 108 in a manner that would allow your device. A petition must set forth facts which it is claimed establish that a change in the standard is necessary, and a brief description of the changes which should be made. This means that you should show how your device is expected to improve safety, or, at a minimum, not decrease the existing level of safety. The agency has no plans to initiate rulemaking on its own initiative to permit your device.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:8/28/92

ID: nht92-4.23

DATE: August 28, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

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

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/11/92 from Steven Henderson to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC-7640)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of August 11, 1992, commenting on my response to you of June 29 with respect to the relationship of your motorcycle headlamp warning device to S5.6 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, the provisions regulating the modulation of motorcycle headlighting systems.

In my letter, I informed you that the device would not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 108, and would affect compliance of the taillamps and turn signal lamps with the standard. I also advised you that if a motorcycle owner could install the device, there would be no violation of Federal law, and that the legality of its use would be determinable under the laws of the individual American states.

In your latest letter, you "agree that the device contravenes the letter of DOT Standard No. 108 as it presently stands." However, "if the device violates the letter of the law while satisfying the spirit or inferred intent of the law in each case," you believe "that the granting of an exception should be considered by the NHTSA."

As I understand it, your principal argument as raised on page 2 of your August 11 letter is that it is improper to consider your device under S5.6 as it is not a motorcycle headlamp modulating system as described in that section. Thus our objections to modulation rate and intensity, based upon the specifications of that section, are misplaced.

Assuming for the sake of argument that you are correct, your device becomes subject to another provision of Standard No. 108 that I did not mention in my June letter. Paragraph S5.1.3 prohibits the installation, as original equipment, of any motor vehicle equipment that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment that Standard No. 108 requires. Application of paragraph S5.1.3 returns us to my comments in June that your device would affect compliance of the taillamps and turn signal lamps with Standard No. 108. The taillamps would no longer be steady-burning, as required by S5.5.10(d). It would appear 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. Thus, under paragraph S5.1.3, installation of the device as aftermarket equipment, if performed by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business would continue to be prohibited by Federal law.

Your latest letter also addresses the issues of taillamp and turn signal conformance. You argue that

"a taillight's purpose is to mark the rear of a motor vehicle during

nighttime driving when it would otherwise be invisible. For this reason the law requires that taillights be lit at night. The law makes no such requirement during the day. The law does require that motorcycle headlights be lit during the day. *** At night the taillight will always be steady- burning as required by S5.5.10(d) because the flasher device is only able to induce taillight flicker during daylight hours due to the photocell circuitry incorporated to prevent the headlamp from generating strobe effects at night. Therefore, the device is in compliance with S5.5.10(d) as it will cause the taillight to flash only at times that it is not required by law to be lit."

The law that applies to your argument is Standard No. 108. Paragraph S5.5.7(b) states in pertinent part that "On each...motorcycle...when the headlamps are activated in a steady-burning state, the taillamps...shall also be activated." Thus, under Standard No. 108 the taillamps must always be activated when the headlamps are activated.

The device also functions through the horn button to cause the turn signal lamps to flash at a rate higher than the maximum permitted by Standard No. 108. In your view, the situation in which the turn signal and horn button are in simultaneous use will be rare. However, if they are used together, "the SAE-specified turn signal flash of 1-2 hz will be perceptually present, the hazard signal flash of 10 hz will also be perceptually present at the same location, and the two signals will not interfere."

We consider that paragraph S5.1.3 applies here as well, and that a flash of 10 hz would impair the effectiveness of the required turn signal flash of 1-2 hz. There could be another undesirable consequence as well. When NHTSA proposed allowing modulating headlamps, commenters were concerned that the flashing might trigger a photic reaction, akin to an attack of epilepsy, in onlookers. NHTSA observed that the reaction was most likely to occur at a frequency of 10 hz against a very dark background. Although your device does not operate at night, its frequency is at the threshold where photic reactions can occur, and we want to bring this fact to your attention.

The agency shares your concern with improving the detectability of motorcycles and their riders. You have suggested writing an "exception" in Standard No. 108 for a period of one or two years so that the safety benefits of the device can be evaluated. We have a procedure under which a manufacturer of motorcycles can petition for a temporary exemption of up to two years, applicable to 2,500 vehicles per year, on the basis that it would facilitate the development and field evaluation of an innovative safety device. Perhaps you can interest a manufacturer in petitioning for a temporary exemption from Standard No. 108 on this basis.

You may also petition the agency for rulemaking to amend Standard No. 108 in a manner that would allow your device. A petition must set forth facts which it is claimed establish that a change in the standard is necessary, and a brief description of the changes which should be made. This means that you should show how your device is expected to improve safety, or, at a minimum, not decrease the existing level of safety. The agency has no plans to initiate rulemaking on its own initiative to permit your device.

ID: 21971.ztv

Mr. Thomas J. Carter, P.E.
Carter Engineering
5735 North Lick Creek Road
Franklin, TN 37064






Dear Mr. Carter:

This is in reply to your fax of August 3, 2000, asking for a clarification of whether headlamp aiming mechanisms are required for motorcycles, and, if so, where they are specified in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You reference our letter of December 6, 1999, to Sig. Rotta of Piaggio in which we informed him that we did not intend S7.8.2 of Standard No. 108 to apply to motorcycle headlighting systems, and that we have never required these systems to have aiming mechanisms. You believe that this opinion is contradicted by SAE Recommended Practice J566, "Headlamp Mountings," January 1960, incorporated by reference in Table III of Standard No. 108.

I confirm my earlier statement that Standard No. 108 has never required motorcycle headlighting systems to have aiming mechanisms. SAE J566 requires that headlamps and headlamp mountings be designed and constructed so that:

"1.   The axis of the light beams may be adjusted to the left, right, up, or down from the designed setting, the amount of adjustability to be determined by practical operating conditions and the type of equipment.

2.   The adjustments may be conveniently made by one man with the tools ordinarily available.

3.   When the headlamps are actuated, the aim will not be disturbed under ordinary conditions of service."

As S5.2.1 states, the words "it is recommended that" and "recommendations" or "should be" in SAE Standards and Recommended Practices are read as setting mandatory requirements. Although the word "may" used in SAE J566 is not included in this list, we intend that it be read as a mandate as well. Applying this construction to SAE J566, then, Standard No. 108 requires light beams on all headlamps to be adjustable with the tools ordinarily available, but in no way do I interpret this as imposing a requirement for an "aiming mechanism." The aiming mechanism requirements of Standard No. 108 are imposed by S7.8, and, as I indicated previously, we do not intend S7.8.2 to apply to motorcycle headlamps. We intend the paragraphs of S7.9 Motorcycles and their referenced materials to cover motorcycle headlamps. These do not require motorcycle headlamps to have aiming mechanisms as defined elsewhere in Standard No. 108.

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

Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.9/29/00

ID: aiam4529

Mr. Mamoru Arisaka Manager, Automotive Lighting Homologation 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 July 7, 1988, with respect to a motorcycle lighting device called the 'rolling headlamp.' The headlamp is designed to have its vertical plane always perpendicular to the ground regardless of the inclination of the motorcycle. You have asked whether such a device is legally permissible. Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 does not prohibit alteration of the mounting angle of a headlamp. Although paragraph S4.3.1 requires each lamp to 'be securely mounted on a rigid part of the vehicle,' your lamp appears to be 'securely mounted' even if it is able to rotate. I hope this answers your question. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam1232

Dear Mr. D'Angelo: This is in reply to your letter on August 20, 1973, asking that la enforcement vehicles be excluded from a Federal prohibition against headlight flashers.; There is no such prohibition. While paragraph S4.6(b) of Federal Moto Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 requires headlamps to be steady-burning in use, it also specifically states that 'means may be provided to flash [automatically] headlamps . . . for signalling purposes.' Therefore, manufacturers are not prohibited from equipping vehicles with headlamp flasher units upon customer request.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4530

Mr. Mamoru Arisaka Manager, Automotive Lighting Homologation 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 July 7, 1988, with respect to a motorcycle lighting device called the 'rolling headlamp.' The headlamp is designed to have its vertical plane always perpendicular to the ground regardless of the inclination of the motorcycle. You have asked whether such a device is legally permissible. Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 does not prohibit alteration of the mounting angle of a headlamp. Although paragraph S4.3.1 requires each lamp to 'be securely mounted on a rigid part of the vehicle,' your lamp appears to be 'securely mounted' even if it is able to rotate. I hope this answers your question. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel;

ID: nht90-3.64

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 22, 1990

FROM: M. Iwase -- General Manager, Technical Administration Dept., Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd.

TO: Erika Z. Jones -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re FMVSS No. 108 (Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment) Procedure of Re-calibration for Replaceable Bulb Headlamp with VHAD

ATTACHMT: Attached to diagram entitled Re-Calibration Procedures in The Shops (graphics omitted); Also attached to letter dated 10-3-90 from P.J. Rice to M. Iwase (A36; Std. 108)

TEXT:

FMVSS No. 108 specifies in S7.7.5.2(a)(2)(iv) that the horizontal indicator of VHAD shall be capable of re-calibration over a movement of +-2.5 degrees.

We would like to confirm your interpretation concerning the method and procedures of re-calibration on the vehicle after repair from accident damage.

Enclosed please find a copy of Federal Register dated February 8, 1990 (Page 4425 and 4426), in which NHTSA interprets, as follows;

If the dimensional specifications of vehicle body and appropriate instruction are described in shop manual, re-calibration could be addressed.

However, we don't believe that the method mentioned in the NHTSA's interpretation is practicable, with the following reasons;

(1) There may be some case that linear measurement of distance will be unable to be taken between reference points on vehicle body and headlamp units, owing to interruption of some other parts in engine room.

(2) Even if possible to measure linearly, we are afraid that it will be difficult to measure it precisely.

Therefore we are going to adopt a method of addressing for re-calibration in which headlamp with it's lens being masked partially are lit and visually aimed with the help of photometric beam pattern on the screen. (see Fig. 1 and the enclosed pictures). Our experiment proved that the visually aiming by photometric beam pattern be practicable.

We are fully aware that this method needs some space of 3 meters or so between illuminated headlamps and the scren (see Fig. 2) for clear image of beam pattern, which is not necessarily possible to accomodate in every case.

Therefore we are preparing Shop Manual in which both methods of NHTSA's dimensional data and our proposing visual aiming by photometric beam pattern are prescribed, and presenting the optional alternative of the above two methods. We intend to provide a masking sheet for the visual aiming, with Shop Manual.

We would be greatly appreciate it if you would kindly advise us whether our proposal could go along with NHTSA's intention.

Thanking you for your kind and prompt reply, in advance, we remain, with best regard, yours very truly.

Attachment is entitled Re-Calibration Procedures in The Shops (graphics omitted).

ID: nht79-4.32

DATE: 07/31/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Yamaha Motor Corporation U.S.A.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 2, 1979, to our former Chief Counsel, Joseph Levin asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You have quoted Column 3 of Table IV with respect to motor cycle headlamps and the specification that the one headlamp the standard requires be located "on the vertical centerline, except that if two are used they shall be symmetrically disposed about the vertical centerline". Yamaha would like to equip certain motor cycles with two headlamps, one to be mounted above the other on the vertical centerline with the hope that "this may increase conspicuity and facilitate safety". You have asked whether this mounting arrangement conforms with Standard No. 108.

The arrangement you have in mind is not permitted by the Federal lighting standard. "Symmetrically disposed about the vertical centerline" means that each headlamp is an equal distance from the vertical centerline at the same horizontal location. We believe that this provides better and more evenly distributed forward illumination than the system Yamaha proposes, while being the equivalent in conspicuity.

SINCERELY,

YAMAHA MOTOR CORPORATION U.S.A.

July 2, 1979

Joseph J. Levin Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Levin:

Yamaha is exploring the possibility of utilizing two headlamps on some of our motorcycle models. We believe this may increase conspicuity and facilitate safety. Our question deals with the location of the headlamps pursuant to FMVSS 108.

We would like to place the headlamps on the vertical centerline of the vehicle, one above the other. Column 3 of Table IV of FMVSS 108 states: "on the vertical centerline, except that if two are used they shall be symmetrically disposed about the vertical centerline."

This section, we believe, can be interpreted to allow the placement of dual headlamps in two ways. The lamps may be placed on the vertical centerline, one above the other, or they may be located horizontally so long as they are equal distance from the vertical centerline.

We would deeply appreciate your concurrence with this interpretation or an explanation of permissible locations. Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Michael J. Schmitt Legal Counsel Engineering Division

ID: 1983-3.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/23/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Eddie Wayne

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. Eddie Wayne 4306 Emmet Drive Erie, Pennsylvania 16511

Dear Mr. Wayne:

Thank you for your recent note asking if motorcycle headlamps could not be required to have a blue or green lens across the top portion, so that cycles could be distinguished from a four-wheeled motor vehicle with only one headlamp.

This is an interesting suggestion. However, we would not wish to impose a requirement that would interfere with the effectiveness of the single headlamp with which most motorcycles are equipped. The other side of the coin is marking the four-wheeled vehicle so that it is distinguishable from a motorcycle when one of its headlamps is out. We currently require passenger cars, light trucks, and others, to have amber or white parking lamps and amber front side marker lamps that are illuminated when the headlamps are on. While these lights may not be as readily visible from greater distances as a headlamp, nevertheless their presence on a vehicle does help to distinguish that vehicle from a motorcycle at night, when a headlamp is missing.

Thank you for your interest in safety.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: nht93-5.47

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 5, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA; signature by Kenneth N. Weinstein

TO: Cary Klingner -- Trison Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/12/93 from Cary Klingner to John Womack (OCC-8874)

TEXT:

We have received your letter of July 12, 1993, with respect to Trison's "Daytime Running Lights" module. You have heard that "federal regulations were modified earlier this year that may affect this concept", and ask whether the device "complies with the regulations."

As you have described it, the product activates the lower beam headlamps whenever the engine is running, and may be overridden by the vehicle's headlamp switch. The module "can be installed by any car owner."

On January 11, 1993, we amended Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment to permit motor vehicles to be manufactured with front lamps (other than parking and fog lamps) wired to operate automatically during daytime. Before the amendment, paragraph S5.5.3 of Standard No. 108 required taillamps to be activated when the headlamps are activated. However, the amendment modified this requirement to state that taillamps "need not be activated if the headlamps are activated at less than full intensity" when in use as daytime running lamps. I enclose a copy of the amendment for your information. We have received petitions for reconsideration of aspects of the rule other than S5.5.3, and it is possible that the standard will eventually be amended in response to them.

The amendment does not establish requirements for aftermarket equipment such as your module. There is no Federal restriction on the sale of the module, but there are restrictions on its installation on new vehicles. A manufacturer, distributor, and dealer of a new motor vehicle must deliver it in full compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. As we understand it, your module would activate the lower beam headlamps at their full intensity, and the taillamps would not be activated until the main headlamp switch was used. This would create a noncompliance with S5.5.3, since the taillamps must be activated when the headlamps are activated at full intensity. In addition, the module also impairs the effectiveness of the taillamps within the meaning of a prohibition imposed by S5.1.3. For these reasons, a manufacturer or dealer could not legally install the module on a new motor vehicle before its sale to its first purchaser for purposes other than resale.

With respect to installation of the module in a vehicle after its first sale, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act), no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may "render inoperative, in whole or in part," lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. Because the taillamps apparently will not operate when

the lower beam headlamps are activated at full intensity by the module, in our opinion, the taillamps have been rendered inoperative within the meaning of the statutory prohibition.

However, the module can be installed by the vehicle owner. The statutory prohibition does not apply to the vehicle owner, and modifications by the owner are subject only to State law. We are unable to advise you on State laws and recommend that you seek an opinion from the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

We do not understand your remark that "Minnesota law only requires that the headlamps be on so with our module no other lights or markers will be illuminated," and believe that your interpretation must be incorrect. Under the Act, if a State has a standard on lighting performance, it must be identical to the Federal standard.

I hope that you find this information helpful.