ID: nht95-2.59

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 28, 1995

FROM: R F Tolley -- Senior Development Engineer, New Products Office, Magneti Marelli UK Ltd. Lighting Division

TO: Chief Council -- Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, NHTSA

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/8/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO R. F. TOLLEY (A43; STD. 108)

TEXT: Dear Chief Council

Question concerning FMVSS108

External Aiming - Torque/Deflection Test

I would like to raise a question with you concerning the interpretation of the torque/deflection test contained in FMVSS108 section S7.8.5.1.(a).

I understand that this test is to take into account the weight of beam aiming equipment when aiming lamps. However I believe the instructions for performing the test are not sufficiently precise and can be interpreted in different ways.

Please see attached sketch which I have used to explain my query. In order to determine the downward force which is applied to the lamp, so as to cause the lamp aim to rotate downward, it is necessary to define the centre of rotation of the force. Sinc e torque = downward force multiplied by the distance to the centre of rotation of the force, then

downward force = Torque (20lbf.in) / distance to the centre of rotation of the force

My question is, where is the centre of rotation of the force taken to be? Is it?

a) the centre of the aiming pad pattern,

b) the point at which the axis (which passes through the centre of the aiming pad pattern and is perpendicular to the aiming reference plane), passes through the aiming reference plane,

c) the centroid of the reflector,

d) the centre of rotation of the headlamp assumed to be the centre of the pattern formed by the headlamp adjusters,

e) some other point.

With large, angled modern lamps the difference between the above points can be great, therefore it is important to select the correct point.

In summary my question is- When applying a downward force to create a downward torque (with respect to lamp aim), where is the centre of rotation of the force taken to be?

Attachment: FMVSS 108 EXTERNAL AIMING TORQUE DEFLECTION TEST

(Graphics omitted.)

ID: 23112.ztv

Mr. Edward M. Kronk
Butzel Long, PC
Suite 500
150 West Jefferson
Detroit, MI 48226-4430





Dear Mr. Kronk:

This is in reply to your letter of April 26, 2001, asking three questions about the relationship of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108 to lighting equipment that may be marketed as being for off-road use but that is capable of being installed on-road vehicles and used on the public highways. You remarked that "there is interest in the automotive enthusiast community in using so-called 'European-styled' or 'E-Code' Headlamps as replacement headlamps," and that they are not certified as complying with Standard No. 108. Your questions, and our responses, are set forth below.

"1. May automotive headlamps that do not comply with FMVSS 108 be imported and sold in the US for "off-road" use on "off-road" vehicles?

"Off-road" and "off-road vehicles" are not terms defined in Standard No 108 or in any other regulation or law that we administer, and have no legal meaning. You identify the headlamps as "replacement headlamps." In our view, S5.8, Replacement equipment, of Standard No. 108 requires that any motor vehicle replacement headlamp that is offered for sale in the United States must comply with the same requirements as are applicable to the original equipment that it replaces. I enclose letters on related subjects that we sent to Mitch L. Williams of Hella on July 17, 1998, and to Tobin Tracy of Clr Alt Accessories on April 17, 2001. We informed Mr. Tracy that "any item of motor vehicle lighting equipment manufactured to replace lighting equipment that is required on a new vehicle by Standard No. 108 must itself comply with Standard No. 108," and that such a term as "off-road" has no exclusionary meaning under Federal law.

"2. Does the answer to question 1 change if, despite the express intent of the manufacturer and seller of the headlamps that they be used only "off-road," they are capable of being installed and used "on-road" in conventional "on-road" vehicles?

As noted above, if the headlamps are capable of being installed and used in motor vehicles subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (i.e., "conventional 'on-road' vehicles"), they are motor vehicle headlamps that must comply with Standard No. 108 in order to be imported or sold regardless of the "intent" of the importer or seller. Even if we assume the best of intentions, we recognize that a seller has no control over the use of a product after it is sold.

"3. If the importation and sale of such noncompliant headlamps intended for off-road use only is permitted, what packaging and labeling requirements, if any, apply to their importation and sale?

As we have indicated in response to question 2, such lamps may not be imported or sold regardless of their packaging or labeling.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:108
d.6/28/01

ID: nht68-3.49

DATE: 08/05/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; David A. Fay; NHTSA

TO: Department of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of July 1, 1968, to Mr. George C. Nield, concerning a clarification of paragraph S 3.4.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Paragraph S 3.4.3 specifies that, as a minimum, the taillamps shall be illuminated when the headlamps are illuminated, except when the headlamps are being flashed. The phrase "except when the headlamps are being flashed", permits the vehicle manufacturer to use a separate switch or flasher for illuminating the headlamps only when it would not be appropriate or in the interest of safety to simultaneously illuminate the taillamps and headlamps. In addition to the examples cited in your letter, such devices could also be used for flashing the headlamps on public transit vehicles to indicate an emergency situation.

Since the subject matter of S 3.4.3 is taillamps and since Federal Standard No. 108 is otherwise silent as to headlamp flashing, this matter appears to be within the purview of the California vehicle code.

Thank you for your continued interest in the motor vehicle safety standards.

ID: 2107y

Mr. Karl-Heinz Faber, Vice President
Product Compliance
Service and Parts
Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.
P.O. Box 350
Montvale, NJ 07645-0350

Dear Mr. Faber:

This is in reply to your letter of August 9, l989, with respect to the interpretation of the word "headlamp" as it appears in paragraph S7.2 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08.

In pertinent part, this paragraph specifies that certain markings shall be placed on the lens of each headlamp, with "each headlamp" to be marked with the voltage and part or trade number. Noting that "headlamp" is not a defined term but "replaceable bulb headlamp" is, you have asked for confirmation that marking the lens, the reflector, or the light source with the voltage would be in compliance with paragraph S7.2.

The agency intends that the voltage be indicated on the exterior of the headlamp. If the manufacturer does not wish to put it on the lens, Standard No. l08 will permit, as of December 1, l989, voltage marking to be on an exterior part of the headlamp body, but not on the light source.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel / ref:l08 d:ll/l/89

ID: aiam4709

Dear Mr. Smith: This is in reply to your letter of January 26, l990, t the agency with respect to a safety lighting device. You have asked for our recommendations regarding this invention. The problem addressed by your invention is 'that vehicles need some way of signaling following drivers if the headlamps of their vehicles are blinding you.' Your solution is to install a button that activates the backup lamps and extinguishes them in a matter of a second or less. One alternative would be to operate only a single backup lamp, and another, to activate only the license plate lamp. This would provide a warning to the following driver. The agency is concerned with glare, but its investigation of the phenomenon indicates that there are two types: discomfort glare, and disabling glare. Although it is certainly an annoyance, the glare produced by a headlamp shining into a rear view mirror is discomfort glare. In our judgment, a vehicle driver looking into the mirror will not suffer disabling glare so that he is unable to discern vehicles approaching, or pedestrians in the roadway, most vehicles are equipped with manual 'day/night' mirrors which may be easily operated in the event of discomfort. Equipment manufacturers have already addressed the problem by providing rear-view mirrors that have a photoelectric cell that dips them when a certain level of light intensity is reached. In summary, the agency does not believe that there is a nationwide safety problem requiring it to mandate the use of your device on motor vehicles as new vehicle equipment. As an aftermarket item which a dealer could offer a new-car purchaser, its installation would be subject to the general prohibition in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 that supplemental lighting devices shall not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that Standard No. 108 requires. The question to be answered, therefore, is whether the device would impair the effectiveness of the backup lamps, or other rear lighting devices. The problem here is the necessity of rear lighting devices to provide clear and unambiguous signals and messages to following drivers. Anytime a lighting device does not provide a cue to which a following driver is accustomed, the potential for confusion arises. The driving public is unfamiliar with the sudden, though temporary, activation of the backup lamp, at normal driving speeds, or a modification in intensity of the license plate lamp. Without a substantial nationwide public education campaign, the signal imparted by your device is not likely to be understood by a following driver, and might distract him from the signals of the other rear lighting devices. In this sense, we believe that your device might impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that Standard No. 108 does allow. You have also noted the State prohibitions against use of backup lamps when the car is going in a forward direction. Even if the agency concluded that the device was permissible and would not cause impairment, the States are not precluded from enacting and enforcing their own standards on the use of lighting systems. You may be interested to know that two letters to the Editor of The New York Times have appeared on this issue in the last month which suggest the use of existing lighting equipment to signal following drivers that their upper beams are on. I enclose these letters for your consideration. I am sorry that we cannot be more encouraging in our remarks, but we do appreciate your interest in motor vehicle safety. Sincerely yours, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure;

ID: nht89-3.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/01/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: KARL-HEINZ FABER -- VICE PRESIDENT PRODUCT COMPLIANCE SERVICE AND PARTS MERCEDES-BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 08/09/89 FROM MERCEDES BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA TO STEPHEN P. WOOD; REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION, FMVSS 108, LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT; OCC 3823

TEXT: Dear Mr. Faber:

This is in reply to your letter of August 9, 1989, with respect to the interpretation of the word "headlamp" as it appears in paragraph S7.2 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

In pertinent part, this paragraph specifies that certain markings shall be placed on the lens of each headlamp, with "each headlamp" to be marked with the voltage and part or trade number. Noting that "headlamp" is not a defined term but "replaceable bu lb headlamp" is, you have asked for confirmation that marking the lens, the reflector, or the light source with the voltage would be in compliance with paragraph S7.2.

The agency intends that the voltage be indicated on the exterior of the headlamp. If the manufacturer does not wish to put it on the lens, Standard No. 108 will permit, as of December 1, 1989, voltage marking to be on an exterior part of the headlamp bo dy, but not on the light source.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely

ID: 86-1.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/21/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Yoshikazu Ito

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Yoshikazu Ito Manager, Operations Sect. Overseas Operations Dept. Tokai Rika Co. Ltd. Oguchi-cho Aichi Pref. 480-01 JAPAN

Dear Mr. Ito:

This is in reply to your letter of November 29. 1985, to Jeffrey R. Miller, former chief counsel of this agency, with reference to the acceptability of a headlamp switch under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. According to you, "upper and lower lamps light at the same time when a driver puts on the switch for headlamp horn in a daytime with light switch OFF...."

You have asked whether the circuit complies with Standard No. 108 and any SAE standards referenced in Standard No. 108. Standard No. 108 does not specify circuit design. The "optical horn" is neither required nor prohibited by Standard No. 108 and is viewed as permissible for its use for momentary signalling purposes. This would include simultaneous activation of both upper and lower beam filaments as in your design.

I believe that this uppers your other questions as well.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

November 29, 1985

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

Re: Head Lamp Switch Circuit

Dear Sir:

We are automotive switch manufacturer in Japan and are making prototype of a head lamp switch for our customer's new car model for U.S.A. which has a circuit by which upper and lower lamps light at the same time when a driver puts on the switch for head lamp horn in a daytime with light switch OFF (please see an attached sheet). To our experience, the circuit has never been designed for cars which are to be marketed in U.S.A.

Would you like to answer the following questions?

1. Does the above-mentioned circuit comply with requirements of FMVSS and the concerned standards (SAE?) referred in FMVSSS:

2. What provision(s) of FMVSS and the standards involve this matter?

3. What are interpretation of the FMVSS and the standards provision(s)?

We really appreciate it if you could kindly send us your answers by December 27, 1985. Your kind assistances have been useful for us all the time.

Thank you for your assistance in advance.

Faithfully yours,

TOKAI RIKA CO., LTD.

Yoshikazu Ito, Manager Technical Operations Sect. Overseas Operations Dept.

ID: nht72-2.23

DATE: 09/13/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver for R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Hon. P. H. D. Fratinghuysen - H.O.R.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 31, 1972, to Secretary of Transportation John A. Volpe, concerning Mr. Richard J. Orgass' comments on headlighting for motor vehicles.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 required that the initial Federal motor vehicle safety standards be based on existing standards. In this respect, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, the initial Federal standard on lighting requirements, specifies that headlamps conform to existing standards, these of the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE Standards J579a and J5SCa) for sealed beam headlamps. The SAE standards were developed by authorities in the field of vehicular lighting and were adopted by a number of State and Federal regulatory agencies prior to the existance of Standard No. 108. Specifying the use of these standard headlamp assemblies enhances traffic safety, since replacement assemblies are readily available when needed by the vehicle operator.

It is recognized that a number of currently available headlamps produce higher lighting intensities than those permitted by Standard No. 108. Such headlamps, while providing a more effectively illuminated roadway for the driver behind the lamps, could under certain traffic environments produce an annoying or even blinding effect on approaching drivers. Therefore, all aspects of highway safety must be considered during the development of new or revised requirements which will eventually be included in Standard No. 108.

As an indication of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's plans for improving headlighting, I am enclosing a copy of an Advance Notice of Proposed Rule making relating to Standard No. 108. Included In the Notice are several proposals which affect the present requirements for headlamps. Also, a recently completed research program on improved forward lighting included studies and evaluations on the performance and other technical aspects of several types of headlamps, including the quartz-halogen type. Results of this research will assist in the development of requirements for more effective headlighting systems. It is anticipated that a second notice including new and revised requirements for headlighting will be Issued late in 1972.

Thank you for bringing Mr. Orgass' comments to my attention.

ID: 77-2.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/27/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Senate Transportation Committee

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Permit me to comment upon Oregon House Bill 2998 which I understand is to be considered by the Transportation Committee of the Oregon Senate on June 3, 1977.

The Bill would amend ORS 483.404 to require that headlamps on motor vehicles registered in Oregon meet the standards established for such under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 or

". . . the United Nations Agreement concerning the Adoption of Approval and Reciprocal Recognition of Approval for Motor Vehicle Equipment and Parts; done at Geneva on 20 March 1958, as amended and adopted by the Canadian Standards Association (CSA Standard 106.2) or both."

Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1392(a) [Section 103(a) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966] Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (49 CFR 571.108), has been established, effective January 1, 1972, as the Federal standard for headlamps both as original and replacement equipment on motor vehicles. Under 15 U.S.C. 1392(d).

"Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established under this title is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard." [Emphasis added.]

The United Nations Agreement, and this Agreement as amended by the Canadian Standards Association, permit the use of motor vehicle headlamps that are not of sealed beam construction and whose candlepower output may exceed 75,000, and do not require that they be mechanically aimable. Standard No. 108, on the other hand, requires that headlamps on passenger vehicles be of sealed beam construction, imposes a limit of 75,000 candlepower on all but one type of headlamp, and requires that all headlamps be mechanically aimable. Thus, the United Nations Agreement, and this Agreement as amended by the Canadian Standards Association, do not specify requirements for headlamps that are identical to those of Standard No. 108. This means that if House Bill 2998 is enacted in its present form the language that I quoted from it would, in our opinion, be preempted by 15 U.S.C. 1392(d), and of no legal effect. This means also that any person in Oregon manufacturing for sale, selling, offering for sale, introducing or delivering for introduction in interstate commerce, or importing into the United States a headlamp that did not conform to Standard No. 108, in reliance upon House Bill 2998 were it to be enacted, would be subject to civil penalties for apparent violations of 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A) in an amount up to $ 800,000 (15 U.S.C. 1398(a)), and to a restraining order (15 U.S.C.

1399(a)).

Section 1392(d) and the Act's preemptive effect have been invariably upheld. (See e.g. Chrysler Corp. v. Malloy, 294 F. Supp 524 (U.S.D.C. Vt. 1968), Chrysler Corp. v. Tofany, 419 F.2d 499 (C.C.A. 2 1969)) We would also observe that the interpretation of the preemption language by this agency, as the administering agency, has been viewed by courts as "of controlling weight." (Thorpe v. Housing Authority of Durham, 393 U.S. 268 (1969) quoted with approval in Chrysler Corp. v. Tofany, supra, at 512.)

If you have any questions, Taylor Vinson of this office will be glad to assist you (202-426-9511).

ID: nht79-1.18

DATE: 04/09/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Alfa Romeo, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. D. Black, Manager U.S. Engineering Office Alfa Romeo, Inc. 250 Sylvan Avenue Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632

Dear Mr. Black:

This is in reply to your letter of March 12, 1979, to Mr. Vinson of this office asking for an opinion of whether a red rear fog lamp system would be permissible under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as original equipment. This lamp system would be of the same intensity as the stop lamp system, installed in a separate compartment within the rear lamp assemblies. The system would have a separate switch and be operational only when the headlamp switch is in the "On" position.

As you have noted, Standard No. 108 does not specify requirements for either front or rear fog lamps. Lighting equipment supplementary to that required as original equipment may be provided at the manufacturer's option if it does not impair the effectiveness of any equipment installed in accordance with Standard No. 108 (S4.1.3). On the basis of your submission, we are unable to form an opinion whether your system would impair effectiveness within the meaning of S4.1.3. If it is Alfa Romeo's judgment that the red fog lamps will not impair the effectiveness of the taillamps, stop lamps, turn signal lamps or backup lamps, then you may have a reasonable basis upon which to install the fog lamp system and to certify compliance with S4.1.3.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel

Alfa Romeo, Inc.

March 12, 1979 Ref. Nr. 068

Dear Mr. Vinson:

FMVSS 108 is lacking in the area of non specified lighting devices, and we find it necessary to request your interpretation of the standard itself.

We would like to incorporate into our rear light assemblies a rear red fog lamp of the same intensity of the present stop lamp. The fog lamp would be installed in a separate compartment within the rear lamp assembly. This compartment having its own lens and reflector. We propose to use a separate switch with warning light for operation of this fog lamp. It would only be operational when the headlamp switch is in the "on" position.

We feel this system has merit for U.S. model Alfa Romeo vehicles. For the same reason, it is standard on our European models. However, FMVSS 108 is absent of any reference to such a device. One could, but its absence, assume it is either permissible or forbidden. We think that the intent of 108 is to permit the use of such non specified safety features.

Could you please discuss this with one of your 108 experts and let us know your combined opinions as to its compliance status.

A diagram of the tail lamp assembly indicating the desired location for such a device in the as yet unoccupied compartment is enclosed.

Sincerely yours,

D. Black