ID: nht87-2.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/17/87

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: C.M. METHA -- AUTOLITE[INDIA] LIMITED

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 02/23/87 FROM C.M. MEHTA TO NHTSA RE DOT APPROVAL ON HEADLAMPS, DRIVING LAMPS ETC FOR MARKETING IN USA

TEXT: Dear Mr. Mehta:

This is in reply to your letter of February 23, 1987, to the Department of Transportation. You mentioned an earlier letter dated January 9, 1987, enclosing a copy of your product catalogue, but I regret to say that this Office has not received it.

As a producer of motor vehicle lighting equipment, you have asked for answers to the following questions:

"1. Details of DOT/SAE approval required in marketing our Headlamp Units 7", 5 3/4" (Round) and Rectangular small and large".

In the United States no "approval" is required to import the headlamps that you mention. However, the manufacturer must assure itself that the headlamps comply with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Dev ices, and Associated Equipment (essentially those of the SAE for round and rectangular sealed beam headlamps), and certify each one as meeting all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This certification is a DOT symbol on the headlamp lens .

"2. Can we market those lamps as referred in Para. No. 1 fitted with 9004, 9005 and 9006 Bulbs. If there is any specifications/technical details available with you, please send us a copy."

The headlamps discussed in paragraph 1 are sizes traditionally associated with sealed beam headlamps, rather than with replaceable bulbs such as the DOT HB1 (9004), HB3 (9005), and HB4 (9006). However, it is permissible to produce headlamps in these siz es, which incorporate replaceable light sources that are specified by Standard No. 108. However, such headlamps must meet all the requirements of the standard applicable to replaceable bulb headlamps. I enclose a copy of Standard No. 108 for your infor mation.

"3. We understand that the use 9004, 9005, 9006 bulbs are permitted on Headlamps with Lens and Reflectors made of Plastic. Kindly advise, if we can use these Reflector made of metal?"

Yes, a headlamp may have a reflector of either plastic or metal.

"4. Details of approval required for High Beam Driving Lamps to be used for off-road vehicles."

"5. The details of specifications for Driving Lamps to be used on Cars, Trucks, etc."

Standard No. 108 does not require vehicles to be equipped with driving lamps and it establishes no requirements for them. If there are any specifications or approvals required, they are those of the individual States in which these lamps would be sold a nd used. For further information on State requirements you should write: American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), 1201 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.

It is the position of this Department that any headlamp unit which is capable of replacing a passenger car headlamp must meet the applicable requirements of Standard No. 108, even if it may also be used on off-road vehicles.

You have also asked for copies of "SAE F-80 Front Fog Lamps" and SAE-J-79 Motor Cycle Headlamps". We are not familiar with these materials and advise you to write: Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, Pa. 15096. As for "Specification for Driving Lamps Using H3 Bulb", this appears to be a European specification unknown to us, as the H3 bulb is one that is not widely used in the United States.

The following is a listing of those requirements that must be completed before shipments begin. You must:

1. Appoint an agent for service of process in accordance with Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 551 (49 CFR 551).

2. Provide information as specified in 49 CFR 566, "Manufacturer Identification."

If you determine in good faith that any lamp manufactured by you does not conform with Standard No. 108 or contains a safety-related defect, section 151 (15 USC 1411) of the Act requires that you furnish notification to the Secretary and to owners in acc ordance with section 153 (15 USC 1413) and to remedy without cost the failure to conform or defect in accordance with 154 (15 USC 1414). Details are contained in 49 CFR 573, 576 and 579.

We are enclosing the following pertinent publications:

1. The Act 2. 19 CFR 12.80, "Regulations for Motor Vehicle "Importation" 3. 49 CFR 551, "Procedural Rules" 4. 49 CFR 573, "Defect and Noncompliance Reports" 5. 49 CFR 576, "Record Retention" 6. 49 CFR 579, "Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility" 7. Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment

If we may be of further assistance, please let us know.

Sincerely,

Enclosures

ID: 22525.ztv

Mr. Harold Holeman
C5 Creations
2 Renee Lane
Newark, DE 19711





Dear Mr. Holeman:

This is in reply to your email of December 26, 2000, asking for interpretations of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, "Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment."

Your first question is whether "the standards as set forth in FMVSS 108 require that bumper bras or bumper masks have openings around the running lights, parking lights, turning signals, etc.?"

Standard No. 108 does not regulate bumper bras or masks per se. However, lighting equipment is required under Federal law to comply with all requirements of Standard No. 108 when accessory equipment such as bumper bras are installed by regulated persons, whether the equipment is installed as original equipment or aftermarket equipment. The one exception under Federal law is a bra or mask installed by the vehicle owner; if this creates a noncompliance with Standard No. 108, the owner is responsible under any applicable local laws rather than Federal law.

Your next question is "If the bra material is transparent and does not noticeably diminish the luminescence of the lights is the bra design within code without having cutouts for the lights?" Paragraph S7.8.5 prohibits "any styling ornament or other feature, such as a translucent cover or grille, in front of the lens" when the headlamps are activated. We view a transparent bra as an "other feature" and prohibited by Standard No. 108. Thus, a transparent bra could not be installed by a regulated person (i.e., manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business) without violating Standard No. 108, but could be installed by the vehicle owner, provided that it does not violate local laws.

You then ask "Is there a test that should or can be performed to show that the intensity of the running lights is adequate even when covered by the bumper bra?" The photometric tests for each of the lamps covered by Standard No. 108 are essentially those of the Society of Automotive Engineers, which have been incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. These are laboratory tests rather than tests conducted on the vehicle itself. They could be conducted with the transparent bra or mask material cut to fit the lens. Any diminution in light output must not result in photometric output falling below the minimum levels specified for test points in any individual standard.

Like you, we are not aware of any transparent bra or mask on the market. In general, we do not favor covering the lens of any lamp with other material. Dirt and grime may accumulate to the point that candela is reduced below the minimum specified in the standard. Further, it may not be easily removable by washing the cover.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.4/19/01

ID: aiam4569

Dear Mr. Perkins: Secretary Burnley has asked me to respond to you letter of September 7, 1988, with respect to your lighting device. In essence, this is a center high-mounted stop lamp, with turn signal lamps adjacent to it. You believe that high-mounted turn signals 'joined with the rear window brake light should have a dramatic effect on rear and side collisions', but you have been told that 'this conception is at present illegal.' Paragraph S4.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 states that 'no high-mounted stop lamp shall be combined with any other lamp or reflective device.' We interpret this as prohibiting lamps or reflective devices that share a single lens or compartment with the center highmounted lamp. Your device shows lamps adjacent to the center highmounted lamp but not combined with it. Therefore, your device is not prohibited by that paragraph of the standard if you wish to market this device as original equipment. The next question to ask is whether it impairs the effectiveness of required lighting equipment (paragraph S4.1.3), principally the center stoplamp. For example, if the yellow turn signals were too bright or if the color of the turn signal were red, these lamps might 'impair the effectiveness' of the center stoplamp. However, this is a determination to be made, in the first instance, by the manufacturer of the vehicle who must certify compliance with Standard No. 108. If you wish to sell your device in the aftermarket, it is acceptable under Federal law if its installation does not adversely affect the operation of motor vehicle equipment installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard so that the equipment would no longer comply with the standard. Assuming that the installation does not have this effect, the legality of installing or using such a device must then be determined according to the laws of any State in which a vehicle so equipped is registered or operated, and these auxiliary lamps must comply with any State requirements. We cannot advise you on State laws. One source of advice is the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Va. 22203. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam4645

FAX 03-792-0007 (Japan) Dear Mr. Chikada: This is in reply to you letter of June 16, l989, to Mr. Van Iderstine of this agency, by FAX as you requested. You have asked four questions with respect to the recently amended Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. We responded to your first two questions in a letter dated June l9 to Mr. Hasegawa of your office. A copy is enclosed for your reference. Since that time, however, in response to a petition by General Motors, we have changed the effective date of paragraph S7.7.5.1(a) to December l, l989, with respect to replaceable bulb headlamp systems. A copy of this notice is also enclosed. Your third question is: How should we prove the confirmation to the requirement of S7.7.2.2? We think the combination of Horizontal and Vertical angle within the aim range will be so huge and it is not practicable to test for all combinations. This paragraph applies to headlamps aimed by moving the reflector relative to the lens and headlamp housing, or vice versa. The agency has frequently advised manufacturers that there is no legal requirement that conformance be demonstrated through the test procedures stated in the standard. While the agency will use those procedures in its compliance testing, the manufacturer may certify compliance with the performance requirements of a standard through engineering studies, computer simulations, mathematical calculations, or other means intended as an exercise of due care and affording a reasonable basis upon which to certify compliance. Your final question is: It is acceptable to set up initial '0' point of S7.7.5.2(a)(2) not mechanically but photometrically? You may determine the 'O' point by whatever means you deem appropriate for the headlighting system, as long as the method achieves a horizontal 'O' point that may be used for the purposes of paragraph S7.7.5.2(a)(2), and any other paragraph in which the horizontal 'O' mark is required to be determined. In the future, please address your requests for interpretations of Standard No. 108 to this office. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure;

ID: nht88-2.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/22/88

FROM: PAUL SCULLY -- VICE PRESIDENT, PETERSON MANUFACTURING COMPANY

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: INTERPRETATION OF "EFFECTIVE PROJECTED LUMINOUS AREA"

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/19/88 TO PAUL SCULLY FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A32 (2) STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

The members and counsel of the Transportation Safety Equipment Institute, who met with you on April 14, 1988, requested that I send you a summary of the interpretations which industry has been using regarding the term, "effective projected luminous area" . This relates to an inquiry from Wesbar and the agency's response on the meaning of this term.

On October 28, 1970, the National Highway Safety Bureau issued the following interpretation:

"The effective projected luminous area is that area of the lens measured on a plane at right angles to the axis of the lamp, excluding reflex reflectors, which is not obstructed by an opaque object, such as a mounting screw, mounting ring, or an ornam ental bezel or trim. This allows the area of rings or other configurations (raised portions) molded in the lens to be considered part of the total effective area, even if this area does not contribute significantly to the total light output."

On October 28, 1979, an interpretation was issued by Roger Compton, Director, Office of Operating Systems, Motor Vehicle Programs, to American Motors Corporation which read as follows:

"The effective projected luminous area is that area of the lens measured on a plane at right angles to the axis of the lamp, excluding reflex reflectors, which is not obstructed by an opaque object. This interpretation allows the area of rings, or ot her configurations molded to the lamp to be considered part of the total effective area, even if this area does not contribute significantly to the total light output."

The above interpretations are basically the same. The vehicle lighting industry has been using these definitions, based on opinions from your agency, for about 18 years. Prior to that time, this same basic definition was even used by a number of indivi dual states. Also, the independent testing laboratories throughout the nation, as well as all manufacturers, have been excluding reflex areas in calculating "effective projected luminous area" for well over 40 years.

In 1987, the Society of Automotive Engineers through the SAE Lighting Committee adopted the following language which is now a part of SAE J387-Terminology:

"Effective projected luminous area" is the part of the light emitting surface measured on a plane at right angles to the axis of a lamp, excluding reflex reflectors, (but including congruent reflexes), which is not obstructed by opaque objects such as mounting screws, mounting rings, bezels or trim or similar ornamented feature areas. Areas of optical or other configurations, for example, molded optical rings or markings, shall be considered part of the total "effective projected luminous area" even if they do not contribute significantly to the total light output. The axis of the lamp corresponds to the H-V axis used for photometric requirements."

Again, you will note that the SAE term clearly excludes the reflex reflector areas. A prismatic reflex reflector is constructed to return light from an outside source. In contrast, a lens optic is designed to direct light which originates inside the le ns area. While it is true that a small amount of light escapes through the prismatic reflector area, this light cannot be controlled or directed and provides nothing more than a minimal glow of light.

I confirmed that the vehicle manufacturers in Detroit have also relied on the interpretations issued by your agency and its predecessor as described above.

The letter to Wesbar Corporation, dated March 16, 1988, appears to have been caused by a misunderstanding involving some engineering terms. We respectfully suggest a prompt clarification should satisfy everyone.

Very truly yours,

ID: 17697.ztv

Tadashi Suzuki, Manager
Automotive Equipment
Legal & Homologation Sect.
Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.
2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku
Tokyo 153,
Japan

Dear Mr. Suzuki:

This is in response to your letter of April 2, 1998, asking for confirmation of the acceptability under Standard No. 108 of Stanley's new visual/optical headlamp system.

The system is based upon an existing system aimed by VHADs. In the new system, the VHAD for vertical aim has been removed. The horizontal aiming mechanism is "deleted by removing the horizontal VHAD and by fixing a cover on the head of the aiming bolt so that the access is impossible." The requisite marks are on the lenses identifying it as a visually/optically aimable headlamp..

You note the remarks in the preamble to the final rule on visually/optically aimable headlamps that "any current headlamp design that is modified to include visual/optical aimability must still provide mechanical aimability if that headlamp is intended to be a replacement in vehicles in which the lamp was used before its redesign." You inform us that this headlamp is intended for a new model year vehicle and that the existing type of headlamp will be provided for the replacement of the present model year of vehicle. The two headlamps will have different parts numbers and lens identifiers. Under these circumstances, you have asked for an interpretation that the new system need not continue to provide mechanical aimability.

It is not advisable for headlamps on the same vehicle to have be aimed by two different means. However, in this situation, where the two headlamps have different parts numbers and lens identifiers, we have concluded that Stanley is justified in concluding that the visually/optically aimable headlamp is not a replacement for the headlamp that is mechanically aimable, and therefore need not retain the mechanical aiming feature on the newer headlamp. We believe that Stanley's intent would be even clearer if the cartons in which each type of replacement headlamp is shipped are marked to identify the specific model year(s) for which replacement is intended.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
NCC-20 ZTVinson:mar:5/30/98:62992:OCC 17697
interp. 108; redbook (2)
NCC-20 ZTVinson:mar:5/21/98:62992:OCC 17697
cc: NCC-01 Subj/Chron
ztv; 17697; U:\ncc20\interp\108\17697.ztv

ID: 06-005429as-6

ID: nht88-3.51

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: SEPTEMBER 14, 1988

FROM: AL CUNNINGHAM -- CHIEF ENGINEER WESTBAR CORPORATION

TO: ERIKA JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL D.O.T.

TITLE: INTERPRETATION OF SAE DEFINITIONS AS THEY APPLY TO FMVSS 108

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED NOV. 3, 1988 TO AL CUNNINGHAM, CHIEF ENGINEER, WESTBAR CORPORATION, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TEXT: We are writing your office requesting official clarification of definitions referred to in SAE J588e as it applies to FMVSS 108. The definition in question is, 2.2 "Multiple Compartment Lamp" and the term used in 3.1 "Single Compartment Lamp".

With this request, we are furnishing two lamps as examples, one identified as 3504 exp. and the second as 3504. The first sample (3504 exp.) has a housing with back and four sides containing a two filament bulb with a single lens covering face of hou sing. This lamp photometrically complies to the basic requirements of a class "A" tail, stop and turn lamp. Would the sample submitted as described above be defined as a single compartment lamp?

The second sample has a housing with a back, two sides and one end, containing one #57 bulb and one #1157 (2 filament) bulb. This housing is closed with two red lenses, one on the end and one on the face with an additional clear lens on bottom side. This lamp also complies to all standards of a class "A" tail, stop and turn lamp plus side marker clearance, license plate illuminator and class "A" reflex side and rear. Would the sample, as submitted and described, be defined as single compartment la mp?

Thank you for reviewing our requests. We look forward to receiving your interpretation of these definitions as they apply to our questions and samples furnished.

Enclosures - 2 samples

ID: 77-1.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/04/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Dry Launch

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 27, 1976, asking several questions about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You referenced my letter of October 7, 1976 to Wesbar Corporation, and my views about the prohibition against the optical combination of lamps (S4.4.1).

It is evident from your letter and others that our previous interpretations of the term "optical combination" have been found to be ambiguous and lacking in the objective criteria that a Federal Motor vehicle safety standard must provide. We have reviewed the matter, and now wish to modify our previous interpretation. In our view a lamp is "optically combined" when the same light source (i.e. bulb) and the same lens area fulfill two or more functions (e.g. taillamp and stop lamp, clearance lamp and turn signal lamp). A dual filament bulb would be regarded as the "same light source". In determining conformance, the photometric requirements for clearance and taillamp functions, where two bulbs are located in a single compartment, must be met with only the bulb energized that is designed to perform the specific function. But the 15 candlepower maximum under Standard No. 108, however, would be determined with both the taillamp and clearance lamp bulb energized. Further, the lamp must be located to meet requirements for both clearance and taillamps. Our re-interpretation means that the issue of light spill-over from one area of the lamp to another is irrelevant to conformance.

You have also asked whether the November 1975 amendments (S4.3.1.1.1) "permit clearance lights that are designed for OEM application only be allowed to have lower or no photometrics in this area but still be considered a combination clearance and sidemarker lamp" as the lamp otherwise complies with Standard No. 108.

The amendment in question was intended to cover clearance lamps only. If a lamp is intended as a combination clearance and side marker lamp and does not meet the requirements for a clearance lamp because of the exemption provided by S4.3.1.1.1, it must nevertheless meet the requirements for side marker lamps. If it doesn't, a separate conforming side marker lamp must be provided.

Yours Truly,

DRY LAUNCH

December 27, 1976

Frank A. Berndt Acting Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration In a recent discussion with an Engineer at the California Highway Petrol's Certification Office in Sacramento, we discussed combining of lighting functions. He had a copy of a letter from you to Mr. B. A. Weber of Wesber Corporation dated October 7, 1976. As a result of reading this, the following two questions come to mind - the third question I have been intending to write you about.

1. Question and Answer to No. 2 was the following:

"Can a clearance lamp and tail lamp be combined in a single compartment with no opaque barrier wall existing between the clearance lamp bulb and the tail lamp bulb?

The answer is no because the same luminous area of the lens would be lighted when both lamps are in use, and the lamps would be "combined optically."

I ask if no barrier existed between the two functions and both photometric tests simultaneously, (that is, neither were over maximums or under minimums) and both passed their tests when the other one was extinquished (that is, not over maximums or not under minimums), why must the opaque wall exist at all? In view of public safety, it would appear to enhance it as well as save money and weight by omitting the opaque wall.

2. If an opaque wall must exist between clearance light and tail light, there is bound to be a certain amount of "spill over" of one compartment's light into the next. In this case what limit of "spill over" might exist realistically?

3. Recently, an amendment to Federal 108 allowed the covering of the 45 degrees sector of a clearance light that was inboard (S4.3.1.1.1). Does this permit clearance lights that are designed for OEM application only be allowed to have lower or no photometrics in this area but still be considered a combination clearance and sidemarker lamp as long as all other rules of Federal 108 are met and they are properly mounted?

I would appreciate a prompt reply as your answers affect two decisions for new lights that we are working on.

Dennis G. Moore

ID: 19837.ztv

[       ]

Dear [     ]:

This is in reply to your letter of March 26, 1999, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it relates to a new product you are developing. Because the product is new, you have commented that you would appreciate our "discretion and confidentiality."

As Taylor Vinson of this Office explained to you on April 9, 1999, our interpretations are a matter of public record, and lighting devices must be described with sufficient detail for the interpretation to be understandable. However, we can, on request, withhold from copies of the interpretation available to the public any material that identifies the addressee and company. You agreed to this treatment of your letter.

You are about to begin the design of a rear identification lamp system which would be a "light bar" with three identification lamps contained within a single lens/base. The lamps would be spaced on 6 to 8-inch centers. You have asked if this conforms to Standard No. 108 "as long as each individual lamp meets the requirements for an identification lamp and as long as there are three distinct 'hot spots' shining through the single lens."

Identification lamps must meet the requirements of SAE Standard J592e Clearance, Side Marker, and Identification Lamps, July 1972, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. Paragraph 2.4 of SAE J592e defines identification lamps as "lamps used in groups of three." This can be interpreted as meaning that the lamps must be separate, individual units. However, we would view this aspect of the identification lamp requirement as met if the light bar were constructed so that the three lamps would be perceived as individual lamps. This does not appear to be the case with your system. We interpret your description as indicating that the entire light bar would be illuminated with the hot spots intended to be discernable from the rest of the light bar. If our understanding is correct, your system would not meet the identification lamp requirement of Standard No. 108. However, if you design the light bar with three chambers behind the single lens so that the assembly when lit has the appearance of three separate lamps with no spillover between the chambers, we would consider that as a design that meets this requirement of Standard No. 108.

You have also asked whether this product can also incorporate "a set of brake lights to act as a 'third eye' brake light, similar to those required for automobiles." In other words, the identification lamp bar would act as a supplementary stop lamp when the brakes are applied.

Standard No. 108 permits supplementary lamps as long as they do not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by the standard (S5.1.3). The function of the identification lamps is to indicate the presence of a large vehicle in the roadway. This effectiveness of this function would not be impaired by an increase in intensity of the lamps when the brake pedal is applied. Therefore, your product can incorporate a supplementary stop lamp function.

If you have any questions you may call Taylor Vinson (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.6/23/99