ID: nht94-6.32

DATE: April 14, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Carol I. Morton -- Administrative Assistant, Equipment and Standards Review Unit, Washington State Patrol (Olympia, WA)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/25/94 from Roger W. Bruett (signed by Carol I. Morton) to Chief Council, NHTSA (OCC 9822)

TEXT:

We have received your letter asking whether the Hella Xenon headlamps being installed on BMW 750 passenger cars "are legal for use on motor vehicles."

The Hella Xenon units on the BMW 750 series cars represent the first application of high-intensity discharge (HID) headlamps on motor vehicles. This new technology is permitted by Standard No. 108, as indicated by the test report from ETL Testing Laboratories that you reference in your letter.

We have no information as to whether the specific BMW headlamp system actually complies with Standard No. 108 because we have not tested it. BMW's certification of compliance that is affixed to all 750s raises the presumption that the BMW HID system meets Federal requirements.

A HID system may emit light that is perceived to be somewhat whiter than emitted by conventional headlamps. It may also be perceived as "stronger", to use your word, but a properly aimed HID system should create no more discomfort glare in the eyes of an oncoming driver than a conventional one.

ID: aiam2673

Dear Mr. Gough: In response to your letter of August 19, 1977, we advise you that you mistake in referencing S4.5.2 of Standard No. 108 instead of S4.5.1 in your earlier letter of May 13, 1977, does not alter our previous interpretation of June 16, 1977.; Your design appears to meet the specifications of J564a allowin compliance of the headlamp beam switching system with S4.5.1 when installed in a motor vehicle.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Deputy Chief Counsel

ID: nht94-2.42

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 14, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Carol I. Morton -- Administrative Assistant, Equipment and Standards Review Unit, Washington State Patrol (Olympia, WA)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/25/94 from Roger W. Bruett (signed by Carol I. Morton) to Chief Council, NHTSA (OCC 9822)

TEXT:

We have received your letter asking whether the Hella Xenon headlamps being installed on BMW 750 passenger cars "are legal for use on motor vehicles."

The Hella Xenon units on the BMW 750 series cars represent the first application of high-intensity discharge (HID) headlamps on motor vehicles. This new technology is permitted by Standard No. 108, as indicated by the test report from ETL Testing Laborat ories that you reference in your letter.

We have no information as to whether the specific BMW headlamp system actually complies with Standard No. 108 because we have not tested it. BMW's certification of compliance that is affixed to all 750s raises the presumption that the BMW HID system mee ts Federal requirements.

A HID system may emit light that is perceived to be somewhat whiter than emitted by conventional headlamps. It may also be perceived as "stronger", to use your word, but a properly aimed HID system should create no more discomfort glare in the eyes of a n oncoming driver than a conventional one.

ID: aiam2548

Dear Mr. Henderson: This is in reply to your letter of March 23, 1977, asking for a interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicles Safety Standard No. 123, *Motorcycle Controls and Displays*.; You have noted that Table 3 required the headlamp upper beam indicato to be identified as 'High Beam' while its control may be marked 'Hi' and 'Lo' at the appropriate positions. Because of space limitations near the upper beam indicator you would like to use the identification 'Hi Beam.'; In our opinion 'Hi Beam' would meet the intent of Standard No. 123 t provide a clearly recognizable identification for the upper beam indicator since, as you noted, it would make the display read the same as the control.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: nht76-2.31

DATE: 03/05/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood; NHTSA

TO: Department of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 10, 1976, asking whether S4.6(b) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 allows a flashing side marker lamp "in any location on the side of a motor vehicle without having to comply with State law pertaining to side-mounted turn signals."

S4.6(b) allows side marker lamps to flash for signalling purposes. Since a flashing side marker lamp is in essence a side turn signal lamp, any State regulation specifically addressed to location and flash rate of side turn signals would appear to be preempted by Standard No. 108, if the side marker lamp is combined with a side turn signal lamp. If the side turn signal lamp is a separate lamp, then it would be subject to State regulation.

Your inquirer wishes to install "a side marker lamp on each side near the middle of the trailer to flash with the turn signal lamps." If the lamp to be added is not the intermediate side marker lamp required by Standard No. 108 for trailers whose length is 30 feet or more, it would be governed by the California Vehicle Code and not preempted.

We intend to address the issues of side mounted turn signal lamps, flashing side marker lamps, and flashing headlamps in a rulemaking proposal whose publication is imminent, and I will include your letter in the Docket as a comment to be considered.

YOURS TRULY,

DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL

March 10, 1976

File No.: 61.A218.A4343

James C. Schultz Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

We have a question concerning an interpretation of Section S4.6(b) of FMVSS No. 108. This paragraph states that "means may be provided to flash headlamps and sidemarker lamps for signaling purposes".

We have had an inquiry from a supplier to a major trailer manufacturer as to whether or not he can install a sidemarker lamp on each side near the middle of the trailer to flash with the turn signal lamps. The California Vehicle Code provides that "side-mounted turn signal lamps of an approved type projecting a flashing amber light to either side may be used to supplement the front and rear turn signals. Side-mounted turn signal lamps mounted to the rear of the center of the vehicle may project a flashing red light no part of which shall be visible from the front." The Administrative Regulations require the approved side turn signal lamps to meet the same requirements as SAE Standard J914a.

These standards were adopted to assure that lamps installed on a vehicle as a side turn signal lamp had sufficient performance to be of value to other motorists both day and night, whether mounted on a passenger car, a truck or a trailer. A range of mounting heights was established in our regulations so that the side turn signal lamp would be near the eye height of drivers alongside the vehicle.

In the past, the only vehicles flashing the sidemarker lights as allowed by your standard were passenger cars. In these cases, we had read your standard as permitting the minimum number of sidemarker lamps required by your standard to flash but not giving authority for the indiscriminate addition of numerous other sidemarker lamps in other locations on the side of the vehicle.

We do not see any particular problem with allowing a required sidemarker lamp to flash simultaneously with a required turn signal lamp on the same side and on the same end of the vehicle. Unfortunately, one major passenger car manufacturer selected a system that caused the sidemarker lamps to flash alternately with the turn signals which, in our opinion, detracts from the signal value of the required turn signal instead of adding to it, particularily when both signals are seen to flash alternately at certain angles from the front or rear of the vehicle.

We now come to the question. Does Section S4.6(b) permit a manufacturer to install and flash with the turn signal any sidemarker lamp in any location on the side of a motor vehicle or trailer without having to comply with State law pertaining to side-mounted turn signals?

If the answer is "yes", we ask that you consider an appropriate revision to FMVSS No. 108 within the near future. We suggest that an amendment be proposed to require the side turn signals to flash simultaneously and in unison with the appropriate turn signal rather than alternately with the signal. In addition, we request that:

1. Only the minimum required sidemarker lamps on the each end of the vehicle be allowed to flash with the turn signal lamps.

2. Only sidemarker lamps near the eye height of passenger car drivers alongside the vehicle be allowed to flash. Sidemarker lamps at the extreme tops of trucks and trailer lamps are so far removed from the turn signal that another driver seeing them blink would likely be distracted by them instead of relating them to a turn being signaled.

3. New provisions be worded so attempts of various state laws to require higher-performing side mounted turn signals that are effective in the daytime are not placed in limbo because the Federal Standard allows a far less effective lamp of only 0.25 to 0.62 candlepower to flash in its place.

4. High mounted sidemarker lamps on buses not be allowed to flash as part of the turn signal system, because transit buses are permitted in this State to simultaneously flash all clearance and sidemarker lamps as a crime warning signal when driver or passengers are accosted. These signals are visible both from police patrol cars and police helicopters. Before-and-after surveys have shown that they are quite effective in making substantial increases in the rate of apprehension of suspects.

5. Headlamps not be allowed to flash with the turn signal lamps as now permitted. It is more important that a driver of a vehicle be able to see a lighted roadway in the direction in which he is going rather than using the headlamps to supplement an already effective front turn signal.

We would appreciate receiving your interpretation of the flashing headlamp and sidemarker lamp provisions. If you wish, we will be pleased to send you copies of our regulations on side turn signal lamps, alternately flashing headlamps for emergency vehicles, and data on the reduction in crime on buses following the installation of flashing crime warning lamps.

WARREN M. HEATH Commander Engineering Section

ID: nht73-2.36

DATE: 08/31/73

FROM: R. B. DYSON -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY DAVID SCHMELTZER

TO: New York State Police

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter on August 20, 1973, asking that law enforcement vehicles be excluded from a Federal prohibition against headlight flashers.

There is no such prohibition. While paragraph S4.6(b) of Federal Motor 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.

ID: nht78-2.7

DATE: 10/31/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood for J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Subaru of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 12, 1978, with respect to Subaru's intention to offer "a retracting center auxiliary lamp" on one of its models. You have asked us to comment on the lamp's nomenclature, switching, and compliance problems.

The lamp in question is not an item of lighting equipment required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 and may be added as standard equipment provided it does not impair the effectiveness of equipment that the standard does require. Whether this device would cause impairment we cannot say since you have told us nothing of its candle-power output or its color. If it is operable by a separate on/off switch it could be viewed as impairing the effectiveness of the headlights by causing the operator to use it and rely on it at a time when the headlamps should be in use. We have no opinion on what you should call the lamp.

Even if permissible and not prohibited under Federal lighting requirements we believe that you should be aware of possible problems at the State level. An auxiliary driving light similar to the one you describe (though positioned closer to the right headlamps) was offered as optional equipment on 1969 Dodge cars, named the "Super Lite", and intended to be used in conjunction with low beam headlights to increase the strength of the headlamp system without producing the glare effects associated with high beams. The States of New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont prohibited the lamp primarily because its bluish color was judged close to that of the color reserved for use on emergency vehicles (see Chrysler Corp. v. Rhodes, 294 F. Supp. 665 (1968) and Chrysler Corp. v. Tofany, 419 F.2d 499 (1969)). We therefore suggest that Subaru review its plans with State officials.

SINCERELY,

SUBARU OF AMERICA, Inc.

September 12, 1978

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

Re: FMVSS 108

Dear Mr. Levin:

Subaru of America plans to offer as standard on our MPV, BRAT model, a retracting center auxiliary lamp. We request your office's comments to the following questions.

1. Can we call the center lamp an auxiliary driving lamp?

2. Can we use a single on/off switch for this lamp? Or must it be switched to be used only with bright beam headlamps?

3. What are the compliance problems, if any?

Paul Utans Assoc. Vice President Product Compliance

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht76-2.36

DATE: 11/22/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: TYM Industries Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 27, 1976, to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, concerning lighting requirements for mopeds.

The headlamp must be designed to conform to SAE Standard J584, "Motorcycle and Motor Driven Cycle Headlamps," April 1964. This Standard does not require a sealed beam headlamp, nor is a minimum wattage specified. Obtaining an AAMVA certificate is probably the best way of insuring that a State raises no obstacles to registry of your vehicle.

There is no minimum wattage for the taillamp or stop lamp. These two lamps may be combined. There is no Federal requirement for SAE identification; however, most lamps are so identified, because of the requirements in the state of Virginia.

ID: 2830o

AIR MAIL

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. l08 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

/Ref:108 d:8/26/88

ID: nht88-3.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/26/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: MAMORU ARISAKA -- MANAGER, AUTOMOTIVE LIGHTING HOMOLOGATION SECT. STANLEY ELECTRIC CO., LTD.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 07/07/88 TO ERIKA Z JONES FROM MAMORU ARISAKA, OCC - 2268

TEXT: 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 motor cycle. 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,