ID: aiam4641

Dear: With respect to the interpretation furnished you on July 21 l989, you have requested the following clarification in your letter of the 28th: that the provisions of paragraph S7.4 of Standard No. 108 that relate to filament usage do not apply to the headlamp system previously described. You have also confirmed that this system is designed to conform to all other requirements of Standard No. 108 'including photometric, special wiring, mechanical aim, environmental and marking requirements. Paragraph S7.4 describes a variety of headlighting systems which come under the heading of 'integral beam systems.' The beams in these systems will be produced by 'beam contributors' (S7.4(a)(3)), headlamps containing 'two light sources' (S7.4(b)), or headlamps containing 'a single filament' (S7.4(c)). The arc tubes in the system you describe would appear to be 'beam contributors' within the meaning of S7.4, and the filament language of paragraph S7.4 would not apply to this particular type of integral beam headlighting system. We will honor your continuing request that your name and those of your firm and client be deleted from the copy made publicly available. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel;

ID: nht87-1.78

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/22/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: P. Soardo -- Istituto Elettrotecnio Nazionale, Galileo Ferraris

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Prof. P. Soardo Istituto Elettrotecnico Nazionale Galileo Ferraris 10155 Torino Italy

This is in reply to your letter of January 16, 1987, to the agency with reference to the "homologation in the U.S.A. of a headlamp -optically combined - capable of performing the function of auxiliary driving lamp or as an alternative to the function of the front fog lamp." You have told us that the device Is intended principally for the aftermarket and will use a two-filament H4 bulb, the main filament providing the "driving beam, " and the secondary filament performing "the ' fog' function." When it is mounted on the vehicle it will "meet the specific aiming requirements contained in the relevant SAE standards, for both light beams. "

As you may know, there are two types of laws in the United States that pertain to motor vehicle lighting equipment, the laws of the United States government. "Federal" law) , and those of the 50 individual States ("Local" law). One of these laws is Feder al Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.. Standard No. 108 specifies requirements for original equipment, and, as a general rule, only aftermarket equipment that is intended to replace original equipme nt. There are no original equipment requirements in Standard No . 108 for a combination driving-fog lamp such as you discuss, and hence there are no Federal aftermarket requirements for it either. provided that this lamp does not impair the effectiveness of required front lamps, Standard No. 108 allows a vehicle manufacturer to install the driving-fog lamp as original equipment. Because Standard No. 108 does not allow use of the H4 bulb in headlamps for four-wheeled vehicles it could not serve as a head lamp. There are no Federal restrictions preventing the sale of this device in the aftermarket as a supplementary lamp.

However, the lamp would be subject to Local law, and some of the States of one State does not signify approval by another, so there would not be "homologation" permitting sale in all States based upon approval by only one State. Even if a Local law does not require approval of a driving-fog lamp, it may forbid its use . We are unable to advise you on Local laws but you may wish to write the American Association of Motor Vehicle administrators for an opinion. The address of this organization is 1201 Conn ecticut Avenue, N.W. , Washington, D.C. 20036.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Strada delle Cacce, 91 10135 Torino - Italy

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION (NHTSA) U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street. S.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590 (USA)

Dear Sirs,

a manufacturer or lighting equipment has asked us whether it is possible to obtain homologation in the U.S.A. of a headlamp -optically combined -capable or performing the function of auxiliary driving lamp or as an alternative to the function or the fron t fog lamp.

The device, which is intended mainly for the aftermarket. uses a two-filament bulb, type H4.

The main filament is used to obtain the driving beam. the secondary filament is used to obtain the "fog" function.

The special design characteristics or this light unit allow the headlamp -when mounted on the vehicle - to meet the specific aiming requirements contained in the relevant SAE standards, for both light beams.

We look forward to hearing your comments to the above at your earliest convenience.

Thanking you in advance for your cooperation, we remain.

Yours sincerely. (P. Soardo)

ID: nht89-2.64

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/09/89

FROM: KARL HEINZFABER -- MERCEDES BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA INC

TO: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION, FMVSS 108, LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/01/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO KARLHEINZ FABER -- MERCEDES BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA; REDBOOK A34; STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Mr. Wood:

Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. (MBNA) requests an interpretation of the word "headlamp" as used in Standard 108.

Paragraph S7.2 of the Final Rule published in the Federal Register of May 9, 1989 (Docket No. 85-15, Notice 8), states that each headlamp or beam contributor must be marked with its voltage. The term headlamp is not defined separately under S4 definitio ns, however, a "replaceable bulb headlamp" is defined as a "headlamp comprising a bonded lens and reflector assembly and one or two standardized replaceable light sources." Based on the definition of "replaceable bulb headlamp", it is our understanding t hat marking the lens, the reflector, or the light source with the voltage would be in compliance with paragraph S7.2.

We would appreciate your response at your earliest opportunity as the effective date of this marking requirement is December 1, 1989.

Should you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact Toivo Raabis at (201) 573-2624 in our Safety Engineering Department.

Thank you in advance for your reply.

Sincerely,

ID: 1985-04.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/12/85

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: LARRY HIROHATA -- VEHICLE EQUIPMENT SAFETY SPECIALIST DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY OFFICE HONOLULU, HAWAII

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 08/09/85 FROM JOHN LOVSTEDT TO JERE MEDLIN -- NHTSA

TEXT: Dear Mr. Hirohata:

This is in reply to the letter of August 9, 1985, from John Lovetedt, Highway Safety Manager, to Mr. Jere Medlin of this agency asking for a clarification of paragraph S4.5.11(c) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, published in the Federal Register on July 22, 1985.

This paragraph (a renumbering of a paragraph in effect since January 1, 1972) states that "means may be provided to flash headlamps and side marker lamps for signaling purposes." Mr. Lovstedt asked whether this meant that a headlamp could be wired to operate as a turn signal lamp. On the basis of a specific prohibition in regulations of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety against combining a headlamp and a turn signal lamp, he concluded that headlamps should not be so wired.

This conclusion is correct. We believe that confusion could result from such a configuration given the relatively minor light output of a turn signal lamp compared with that of a headlamp. The provision is intended to allow cycles of activation and deactivation by automotic means of headlamps on police and emergency vehicles.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

ID: aiam3696

Dear Mr. Alexander: This is in reply to your letter of April 8, 1983, following conversation with Mr. Vinson of this office, with reference to Standard No. 108 *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment*.; You are concerned with the 'design to conform' language as it relate to headlamps, and have asked for an interpretation that it 'does not mean that every lamp produced is required to have every photometric point in.'; I am not certain what you mean by 'every photometric point in' However, a manufacturer is expected to design his headlamps so that each will meet the minimum photometric output in candela set forth by SAE J579C for each test point. The agency does not pursue random occasional photometric failures at individual test points. But if a manufacturer's products show a pattern of failures to meet the minimum at any individual test point, the agency could consider this as an indication that the headlamp was, in fact, not 'designed to conform'.; I hope this answers your question. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: 22690.ztv

Mr. James Haydn
Koito Europe Ltd.
Kingswood Road
Hampton Lovett Industrial Estate
Droitwich Spa
Worcestershire WR9 0QH
England





Dear Mr. Haydn:

This is in reply to your e-mail of February 13, 2001, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency. You have asked whether a new headlamp design complies with the specifications of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment.

The headlamp has a "Bi-xenon unit that produces the low and high beams together with a separate high beam in the same assembly." You understand that you "can only have the Bi-xenon unit for the photometric performance, therefore my questions are, for the separate high beam." You have asked whether you are correct in assuming that the separate upper beam cannot be used under Standard No. 108.

No, your assumption is incorrect. Standard No. 108 permits the upper beam of a headlamp to be provided by two light sources and thus does not prohibit use of your design. However, regardless whether the upper beam is provided by one or two light sources, the maximum intensity limits for upper beams at test points H-V and 4D-V must not be exceeded. These values appear in the photometric Figures that Standard No. 108 has adopted for various types of headlighting systems.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.4/10/01

ID: nht94-8.19

DATE: February 11, 1994

FROM: Jerry L. Steffy -- Triumph Designs, Ltd.

TO: Taylor Vinson -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/16/94 from John Womack to Jerry L. Steffy (A42; Std. 108; Part 555)

TEXT:

Since I faxed you with my question regarding FMVSS 108 and ECE Reg. 20, I received Part 555 of 49 CFR from Luke Loy.

555.5 implies that we could apply for an exemption from FMVSS 108 for this headlamp since there exists "an equivalent overall level of motor vehicle safety." This is of course, if NHTSA recognizes the worthiness of the testing under ECE Reg. 20.

This exemption would only be for the first model year as afterwards we will change to a headlamp already FMVSS 108.

Can you please confirm for the if this is a route we can employ in this instance?

Best regards.

2-10-94 fax from J.L. Steffy to Taylor Vinson:

Dear Taylor:

Luke Loy suggested that I contact you with a specific query I have. Recently, in Canada, we were able to use ECE Reg. 20 in lieu of FMVSS 108 for a particular headlamp system use. Is it possible to substitute ECE 20 for FMVSS 108 in the states in some instances? Of course the majority of our suppliers fulfill testing according to FMVSS 108 however, there are individual exceptions. Some cases may require significant investment in order to have individual cases comply, so it is important to know.

Best regards

ID: nht94-1.52

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: February 11, 1994

FROM: Jerry L. Steffy -- Triumph Designs, Ltd.

TO: Taylor Vinson -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/16/94 from John Womack to Jerry L. Steffy (A42; Std. 108; Part 555)

TEXT:

Since I faxed you with my question regarding FMVSS 108 and ECE Reg. 20, I received Part 555 of 49 CFR from Luke Loy.

555.5 implies that we could apply for an exemption from FMVSS 108 for this headlamp since there exists "an equivalent overall level of motor vehicle safety." This is of course, if NHTSA recognizes the worthiness of the testing under ECE Reg. 20.

This exemption would only be for the first model year as afterwards we will change to a headlamp already FMVSS 108.

Can you please confirm for the if this is a route we can employ in this instance?

Best regards.

2-10-94 fax from J.L. Steffy to Taylor Vinson: Dear Taylor:

Luke Loy suggested that I contact you with a specific query I have. Recently, in Canada, we were able to use ECE Reg. 20 in lieu of FMVSS 108 for a particular headlamp system use. Is it possible to substitute ECE 20 for FMVSS 108 in the states in some instances? Of course the majority of our suppliers fulfill testing according to FMVSS 108 however, there are individual exceptions. Some cases may require significant investment in order to have individual cases comply, so it is important to know.

Best regards

ID: nht87-2.62

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/03/87

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: DOUGLAS H. BOSCO -- HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/19/88 TO DOUGLAS H BOSCO, FROM ERIKA Z JONES, REDBOOK A32 (2) STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 06/16/88, TO ERIKA Z. JONES, FROM DOUGLAS H. BOSCO; LETTER DATED 06/09/88 TO JERRY K YOST FROM L.F ROLLIN; LETTER DATED 03/28/8 8 TO C-MORE-LITE JERRYS SERVICE FROM DON O. HORNING RE TEST REPORT NO 92606; 1988 LETTER TO ERIKA JONES FROM JERRY'S SERVICE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Bosco:

This is in reply to your recent letter on behalf of your constituent, Jerry Yost. Mr. Yost would like to know of the permissibility under Federal regulations of a headlamp relay which would allow a headlamp's lower beam to remain in operation when the u pper beam is activated. You enclosed some diagrams from Mr. Yost and asked for confirmation of his assessment that they would demonstrate that "the candela criterion in the existing regulations for high-beam" would be met "when low and high-beam are com bined."

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, is the regulation governing the permissibility of relays allowing simultaneous operation of upper and lower beams on motor vehicle headlamps. The standar d specifies requirements for two generic types of headlamps, sealed beam (an indivisible unit encompassing the reflector, lens, and light source), and replaceable bulb (the replaceable in the event of burn out). Eight different types of sealed beam head lamps are permitted (denominated Types A through H), and three types of replaceable bulbs (He1, HB3, and HB4). However, in only one of the sealed beam systems is simultaneous operation of upper and lower beam specifically permitted, the Type F system (pa ragraph S4.5.12). Simultaneous beam operation is also permitted in replaceable bulb headlighting systems comprising four headlamps designed to conform to Type F photometry (S4.5.8, with Type F photometrics at Figure 15). Simultaneous operation of both beams is not a required feature of any of these systems but an option available to vehicle manufacturers. Thus, Mr. Yost's relay is permissible in any of these systems employing the simultaneous activation option.

However, simultaneous activation of both beams is explicitly prohibited in headlighting systems consisting of four replaceable bulb lamps designed to meet photometrics other than those of Type F (S4.5.8), and implicitly prohibited under the agency's inte rpretations of materials of the Society of Automotive Engineers relating to means of switching beams that are incorporated by reference into Standard No. 108. These materials refer to operation of separate beams with no reference to joint operation. As I discussed with your Administrative Assistant, Mitch Stogner, the agency's principal historic concern with simultaneous

2 activation of lower and upper headlamp beams is that the maximum candlepower limitations established by the Federal vehicle lighting standard could be exceeded. These limitations are set forth in SAE Standard J579c, the photometric requirements applic able to all headlighting systems except those designed to meet Type F photometry. These photometrics were intentionally adopted to allow simultaneous activation without exceeding the overall candlepower limit deemed desirable for motor vehicle safety. Based upon its research, the agency has concluded that frontal lighting on motor vehicles should not exceed 150,000 candela when the lamps are activated. In addition, the Type F. photometrics establish maximum values for two lower beam test points in o rder to reduce the possibility of excessive foreground light and glare resulting from simultaneous use. The diagrams that Mr. Yost provided describe the installation and operation of the relay, measurement of 7" circular headlamps (Type D under Standard No. 108) with a mechanical aimer, and how various types of headlighting systems look on the front of cars. While we appreciate having the benefit of this information, only that pertaining to the design of the relay is relevant to permissibility of use with systems designed to meet Type F photometrics.

As Standard No. 108 does not specify the design of relay switches, Mr. Yost should be encouraged to contact motor vehicle manufacturers who may be interested in using headlighting systems designed to meet Type F photometrics with the option of simultaneo us activation of both beams. The agency has no present plan to modify Standard No. 108 to allow simultaneous use with any system employing photometrics other than Type F and, as indicated earlier, considers this a prohibited practice with other systems.

I hope that this information is useful to you.

Sincerely,

ID: nht80-3.32

DATE: 08/06/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Self Cycle & Marine Distributors

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 2, 1980, to Taylor Vinson of this office with respect to a driving lamp that is being used by a number of your customers as a replacement motorcycle headlight. In your opinion the lamp has not been tested for compliance with Federal motorcycle headlamp requirements, and you have asked whether you may continue to sell the item as a driving lamp in spite of the fact "that some customers are utilizing it as a head lamp."

By way of introduction, as you may know, this agency has been in litigation since 1978 over unsealed headlamps that meet European specifications for passenger cars but not the U.S. standards for such lamps. Although they are certified as meeting U.S. requirements for motorcycles only, they are in reality imported and sold as replacement headlamps for passenger cars. Our primary argument in these cases is that the manufacturers of these lamps are legally required to certify compliance with, in the words of the statute, "all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards" which means all standards applicable to any use of which the headlamp is physically capable.

We, therefore, believe that if any lamp is physically capable of replacing a motorcycle headlamp, it should conform and be certified as conforming with SAE J584 incorporated by reference in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. If sales of a noncomplying lamp were actively promoted by the seller to replace a motorcycle headlamp, we could view this as a willful violation of Federal requirements and we would probably engage in appropriate enforcement action.

Your letter implies that the purchasers themselves install the headlamps. This is not a violation of any Federal requirement. But a "manufacturer," "distributor," "dealer," or "motor vehicle repair business" is prohibited by 15 U.S.C. 1597(a)(2)(A) from replacing conforming equipment with a nonconforming item, and liable for a penalty of up to $ 1,000 per item if it does so.

SINCERELY,

Self Cycle & Marine Distributors

July 2, 1980

Taylor Vinson, Esq. Office of Chief Council National Highway Traffice Safety Admin.

Dear Mr. Vinson:

Self Cycle & Marine Distributors currently carries within our product line a driving lamp. To our knowledge, this lamp has never been tested for compliance with SAE J584, however, since this light was intended to be used in addition to a OEM headlight it is exempt from this requirement. However, we have found out that a number of consumers are utilizing this light as a replacement headlight in order to give their motorcycle a "chopper" look. Can we continue to sell this item as a driving lamp to spite the fact that some consumers are utilizing it as a head lamp? Until we have an opinion from your office, we have temporary suspended sales on this item as well as frozen our reorder of this item from Japan. Since large sums of money are at stake, I would appreciate an opinion from your office within ten (10) working days.

Paul D. Wharton Chairman of the Board

(Graphics omitted)