ID: nht88-2.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/20/88

FROM: GEORGE ZIOLO -- DOT PAPERWORK PROCESSOR

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TITLE: HEADLAMP COMBINATIONS - REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION, FMVSS 108

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 09/12/88 TO GEORGE ZIOLO FROM ERIKA Z JONES; REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 108;

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

I assist graymarket automobile importers in conforming their vehicles.

Some foreign models come equipped with four headlamps two of which are 7" diameter and two 5 3/4" diameter.

My clients modify them by installing two Type 2D1 (7" dia) high & low beam units outboards, and two Type 1C1 (5 3/4" dia) high beam units inboards.

OVSC (NEF-32) rejects such installations because they are "nonconforming" "headlighting systems". It is my opinion that such rejection is without basis.

As I understand it, the FMVSS are "minimum standards". S4.1.1 confirms this by requiring that "...each vehicle...be equipped with at least the number of lamps...specified in Tables I and III,...."

My clients' installation of two Type 2D1 lamps satisfies the minimum requirement specified in Table III.

My clients' installation of two Type IC1 lamps in addition to the two Type 2D1 lamps is not counter to a "headlighting system" as I can find in the standard. In addition, S4.4 appears to permit such combination.

While it may have been necessary to ensure symmetry in headlighting systems combinations in motorcycles by way of S4.1.1.34, where Table III calls for only one lamp, such clarification relative to vehicles other than motorcycles is obviously not needed s ince symmetry in such will be natural.

I therefore kindly request that you determine whether or not FMVSS 108 allows lamp combinations as outlined above and advise me at your earliest convenience. The cited lamp combinations are desired by my clients for reasons of appearance. Also, modificat ion of such vehicles to delete the 2D1 (7") lamp in lieu of a 2C1 (5 3/4") lamp is costly, including replacement of the entire front grille.

Sincerely,

FEDERAL REGISTER VOL 52, NO 208 10/28/87 NHTSA 49 CFR PART 571 (DOCKERT 87-15 NOTICE 1) FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS, VEHICLE CLASSIFICATION (TEXT OMITTED)

ID: aiam0698

Dear Mr. Belier: This is in reply to your letter of April 24, 1972, in which you pose questions about the operation of the seat belt warning system under Standard 208 and about the intent of the headlamp adjustment requirement under Standard 215.; Your questions on Standard 208 deal with the requirement in S7.3.3 tha the warning system in a vehicle with an automatic transmission must not operate when the engine is operating and the gear selector is in the 'Park' position. In answer to your first question, if the two conditions for non-operation exist, the warning system must not operate, regardless of the position of the hand brake lever. If either condition does not exist, e.g., the transmission is in 'Park' but the engine is not operating, it would be permissible to have the system operate, and its operation could be controlled by the hand brake so long as the hand brake circuitry does not interfere with the mandatory operation of the system under S7.3.1 and S7.3.5.; If the shift lever is in the neutral position, as stated in your secon question, you are free to choose whether to have the system operate or not, since S7.3 does not require either operation or non-operation when the transmission is in neutral.; In response to your last question on Standard 208, an 'operatin engine' is an engine that is rotating. It is permissible to have a system in which the warning operates when the transmission is in 'Park' and the ignition is 'On', but the warning must shut off when the engine begins to operate.; The other operating mode of your system has no direct counterpart i Standard 208. As you describe it, returning the ignition to the 'off' position will activate the warning system, even after removal of the key, until the belts are returned to their stowed positions. Our letter of August 17, 1972, explained that this will not conform to the requirement of S7.3.2 that the warning must not operate when the belts at occupied front positions have been operated.; We recognize that there are other possible alternatives to the require interlock system as a means of encouraging seat belt usage, and several have been suggested. We consider it important, however, that these systems work in a substantially uniform manner, for maximum public safety, acceptance and convenience. On the basis of all the material we have received to date, including yours, we have decided that our present requirements represent the best combination for the alternative to passive restraints in the period 1973-1975. I therefore must deny your petition to substitute your system, or allow it as an alternative, for the interlock system.; Sincerely, Douglas W. Toms, Administrator

ID: 19884.ztv

Mr. Ron Woodward, P.E.
Section Supervisor Optics & Adv. Eng.
Federal Mogul
2513 58^th Street
Hampton, VA 23661

Dear Mr. Woodward:

This is in reply to your letter of April 19, 1999, requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment as it applies to a proposed horizontal alignment system for use with visual/optical aim headlamps.

Paragraph S7.8.2.1(c) of Standard No. 108 states that "A visually/optically aimable headlamp that has a lower beam shall not have a horizontal adjustment mechanism unless such mechanism meets the requirements of paragraph S7.8.5.2 of this standard." You reference previous interpretations of this office which state "that disabled horizontal adjusters are acceptable [i.e., are not horizontal aim mechanisms within the meaning of the phrase]," that "certain types of anti-tamper screws are not permitted" ("ones that can be driven in one direction"), but not all types of such screws, and "exposed screw heads were also rejected because pliers could be used to rotate the screw."

You have enclosed a drawing showing a horizontal alignment system that you propose to use. It "would be used during manufacturing to achieve proper mechanical alignment of the mounting surface and lamp optical system and is not meant to be adjustable after manufacture." The drawing you enclose shows both a plan and section view of your system. There is an "external shroud [which] prevents adjustment by wrenches and pliers." There is also a center section described as "center anti-tamper post [which] prevents entry of standard Torx driver bit, screw driver, & Allen wrench." You ask whether we would regard this as a horizontal adjustment mechanism as prohibited by S7.8.2.1(c).

Yes, we would regard this design as a horizontal aim mechanism within the meaning of S7.8.2.1(c)(and impermissible because it does not meet S7.8.5.2). Although the center anti-tamper post prevents entry of a standard Torx driver bit, non-standard Torx driver bits are readily available which would defeat your intent that the horizontal alignment not be adjustable after manufacture. Specifically, SK Drive Tamper-Proof Torx Bits are available through internet web sites, if not tool jobbers and mobile tool sales outlets, and these are intended to fit the center anti-tamper post and allow entry.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.6/28/99

ID: 1985-01.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/04/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Brian Gill -- Senior Manager, Certification Dept., American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Brian Gill Senior Manager Certification Department American Honda Motor Co., Inc. P.O. Box 50 Gardena, California 90247

This is in response to your letter of May 25, 1984, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Table IV specifies that the minimum horizontal separation distance "(centerline to centerline of lamp)" for rear turn signal lamps on motorcycles is 9 inches. You have asked whether the "centerline" refers to the distance between the lens centers, between the centers of the effective projected luminous areas, or between the bulb centers.

You asked for confirmation of your belief that the proper interpretation is found in the referenced SAE Standard, J588e, which contains the language "Optical axes (filament centers)," implying that the correct distance is that between the "bulb centers" as you term it.

We find no direct correlation between the phrases "centerline to centerline of lamps" and "optical axis (filament center) ." The lamp is a device emitting light whereas "optical axis (filament center)" does not refer to the lamp but only to a portion of its light-producing component. As that phrase is used in SAE J588e, it defines the method of measuring distances between bulbs in multi-compartment lamps for the purpose of testing for photometric requirements (paragraph 3.1), or in measuring the separation of the turn signal from the headlamp (paragraph 4.2, where, incidentally, it is expressed as the distance between filament and a lamp component, the retaining ring).

Taken literally, "centerline to centerline of lamps" in our view means the distance between lens centers. In the response to petitions for reconsideration of the center high-mounted stoplamp amendment (May 17, 1984), the question was asked whether the "center" of the lamp was its geometric center, its optical center, or the center of the bulb filament. The agency replied that the center of the lamp is the geometric center. Since the purpose of the minimum separation requirement is to insure that the turn signal is perceived as such, we believe that the correct interpretation of "centerline to centerline" is a measurement from the geometric center of one lamp to the geometric center of the other lamp. The geometric center would be anonymous with the term "geometric centroid of lens" as used in SAE J1221 Headlamp-Turn Signal Spacing. Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: 1984-2.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/07/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Cibie/Marchal -- G. Couffinhal

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. G. Couffinhal Cibie/Marchal 17, rue Henri Gautier 93012 Bobigny Cedex France

This is in reply to your letter of April 19, 1984, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency. With respect to the standardized light source socket for replaceable bulb headlamps, you have asked whether a bulb socket design with a "bottom view" diameter of 29.7 mm. etc. would be acceptable.

As you have noted, Dimension P of Figure 3-7 and 3-8 of Standard No. 108 specifies a millimeter dimension of "(28.75 to 28.65)". The dimension of your design exceeds this figure, and is therefore noncompliant with requirements intended to insure proper function with standardized replaceable light sources. It is not permitted by Standard No. 108.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

17, rue Henri Gautier 93012 Bobighy Cedex Telephone (1) 843.93.70 - Telex 210 323 F

N.H.T.S.A. Mr. Richard Van IDERSTINE

Office of Vehicle Safety Standards Room 5307 400 Seventh St., SW WASHINGTON DC 20590 - USA -

Le 19 Avril 1984

Dear Richard

CIBIE requests interpretation concerning the interchangability drawing of the headlamp bulb assembly socket (In reflector) figure 3-7 of the Federal Register - Volume 48 Number 191 - Dated Friday September 30, 1983.

We draw your attention to the bottom view dimension "P" which appears to identify a circle of diameter 28,70 +/- ,005 mm. We would request your opinion about the enclosed drawing dated April 13th 1984 showing three arcs of circle with a diameter of: 29,7 + 1 + 0 mm.

The reason for this request is quite simply in order to obtain a better injection gate in the mould.

This design peculiarity has no effect upon the requirements as laid down by the NHTSA for either the correct installation of the bulb nor the hermeticity of the head light unit.

For information please find enclosed a copy of our drawing E 3277-80 which illustrates the nature of our request.

We would appreciate your interpretation of this matter as soon as possible.

Yours sincerely,

G. COUFFINHAL

COPY: 030 - M. GERARD A36 - M. DORLEANS 039 - Mme THAIN 050 - M. J. MARSHALL

********INSERT GRAPHIC********

COUPE A

ID: 86-4.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/03/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Davis C. Thekkanath

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Davis C. Thekkanath Sr. Supervising Engineer Oshkosh Truck Corporation P.O. Box 2566 Oshkosh, WI 54903-2566

Dear Mr. Thekkanath:

This is in reply to your letter of May 23, 1986, asking for a waiver from compliance with the headlamp mounting height requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 with respect to prototype and future production trucks you have developed for military application.

No federal motor vehicle safety standard applies to a vehicle manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications (Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Sec. 571.7(c)). This means that the headlamps on production models of your military truck may be mounted higher than 54 inches without creating a noncompliance with Standard No. 108. If the truck is also sold for commercial applications, however, it would be required to conform with the 54-inch limitation.

Although the exception quoted above applies to vehicles manufactured for sale, the agency has no objection to limited use on the public roads of nonconforming prototype vehicles that have been developed expressly for sale to the Armed Forces of the United States.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

May 23, 1986

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C.

SUBJECT: Waiver FMVSS1O8

We are manufacturers of heavy duty vehicles both commerical and military. We have recently developed a new vehicle - our model Z-1838. This will be used as a military cargo transport truck. These trucks have their head- lights located higher than the maximum allowable of 54 inches (FMVSS1O8). This is to protect the lamps from the brush and other objects during cross- country runs. Although we do not have a supply contract for the specific vehicles from the U.S. military at this time, we have built a few prototypes for tests, etc. We would, therefore, request you to exempt these vehicles, both the prototypes and any future production vehicles for the U.S. Government, under the Z-1838 configuration, from the headlight height requirements per FMVSS1O8.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

OSHKOSH TRUCK CORPORATION

Davis C. Thekkanath Sr. Supervising Engineer

DCT:lh

ID: GF006332

Mr. Timothy C. Murphy
Vice President, Engineering
Peterson Manufacturing Company
4200 East 135^th Street
Grandview, MO 64030

Dear Mr. Murphy:

This responds to your letter dated August 18, 2004, asking whether strobing stop lamps or auxiliary lamps are permissible under the requirements of Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 108.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements. The issues raised by your letter are addressed below.

The Federal standard applicable to lighting equipment, including stop lamps, is FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. The relevant sections of that standard read as follows:

S5.5.10 The wiring requirements for lighting equipment in use are:

(a) Turn signal lamps, hazard warning signal lamps, and school bus warning lamps shall be wired to flash;

(b) Headlamps and side marker lamps may be wired to flash for signaling purposes;

(c) A motorcycle headlamp may be wired to allow either its upper beam or its lower beam, but not both, to modulate from a higher intensity to a lower intensity in accordance with section S5.6;

(d) All other lamps shall be wired to be steady-burning. [emphasis added]

In short, S5.5.10(d) of FMVSS No. 108 mandates that all lamps be steady burning, unless otherwise explicitly permitted.In the present case, stop lamps do not fall under any exception enumerated in S5.5.10 (a) through (c).Accordingly, FMVSS No. 108 requires stop lamps to be steady burning. We regard a strobe lamp as one that flashes. For this reason, the strobing stop lamps described in your letter would be prohibited by FMVSS No. 108, if they are installed as original equipment on motor vehicles.They would also be prohibited from being sold as replacement for original equipment stop lamps.Further, unless auxiliary lamps mentioned in your letter fall under any exception enumerated in S5.5.10 (a) through (c), they must also be steady burning.

This prohibition would also apply to aftermarket lighting installation because 49 U.S.C. 30122 prohibits manufacturers, dealers, distributors, and motor vehicle repair businesses from making inoperative safety equipment installed in accordance with FMVSS No. 108 (and any other applicable FMVSS as well).Accordingly, installation of a strobing lamp not permitted by S5.5.10 would create a noncompliance with FMVSS No. 108 which constitutes "making inoperative" within the meaning of the statute.

The list of persons prohibited from making vehicle modifications affecting compliance in 49 U.S.C. 30122 does not include vehicle owners.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.11/1/04

ID: nht94-4.64

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 27, 1994

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Thomas L. Wright -- Coordinator, Technical Support New Jersey Division of Motor Vehicles

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 7/15/94 FROM THOMAS L. WRIGHT TO ROBERT HELLMUTH

TEXT: This responds to your letter of July 15, 1994, to Robert Hellmuth of this agency requesting an opinion whether brush guards offered as accessories for Range Rovers and installed in front of headlamp units are in violation of Standard No. 108.

Our letter is based upon the configurations of "brush bars" depicted as accessory equipment in a 1994 Range Rover brochure. The brochure notes that brush bars "may be illegal for on-road use in some states. Please check local regulations before purchas e, installation, or use." We note that this advisory applies to the rear lamp guards as well. The purpose of the brush bar is to offer protection to the grille, radiator, and front and rear lamps, and it does so by incorporating three slender horizontal bars in front of the lenses of the front and rear lamps.

Paragraph S7.8.5 of Standard No. 108 states that headlamps when activated "shall not have any styling ornament or other feature, such as a translucent cover or grille, in front of the lens." The lamp guard portion of the brush bar is the type of "other f eature . . . in front of the lens" that is prohibited by Standard No. 108. Thus, under Federal law, a Range Rover could not be displayed for sale and sold with a brush bar installed unless the lamp guards had been removed. This should present no proble m as, according to the brochure, the "lamp protectors are easily removable for cleaning and maintenance." In our view, the proper time for installation of the lamp protectors is when the vehicle begins to be used off-road.

Although there is no similar direct prohibition in Standard No. 108 applicable to other vehicle lamps, the parking lamps, turn signal lamps, and rear lamps are required to conform with the photometric requirements of Standard No. 108 when the lamp guards are in place. This is based upon two paragraphs of the standard. S5.3.1.1 prohibits any part of a vehicle from preventing parking lamps, turn signal lamps, and rear lamps from meeting the required photometric output. S5.1.3 prohibits the installation of supplementary motor vehicle equipment that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment that Standard No. 108 requires as original equipment.

The guards are designed for maintenance by the owner, and their installation by the owner after purchase of the Range Rover would not be in violation of Federal law, even if installed for on-road use. Operation of the Range Rover is subject only to Stat e law, and a State may forbid on-road use of a Range Rover with the lamp guards installed if it so chooses.

ID: 0274

Mr. Thomas L. Wright
Coordinator, Technical Support
New Jersey Division of Motor Vehicles
CN 179
Trenton, NJ 08666

Dear Mr. Wright:

This responds to your letter of July 15, 1994, to Robert Hellmuth of this agency requesting an opinion whether brush guards offered as accessories for Range Rovers and installed in front of headlamp units are in violation of Standard No. 108.

Our letter is based upon the configurations of "brush bars" depicted as accessory equipment in a 1994 Range Rover brochure. The brochure notes that brush bars "may be illegal for on-road use in some states. Please check local regulations before purchase, installation, or use." We note that this advisory applies to the rear lamp guards as well. The purpose of the brush bar is to offer protection to the grille, radiator, and front and rear lamps, and it does so by incorporating three slender horizontal bars in front of the lenses of the front and rear lamps.

Paragraph S7.8.5 of Standard No. 108 states that headlamps when activated "shall not have any styling ornament or other feature, such as a translucent cover or grille, in front of the lens." The lamp guard portion of the brush bar is the type of "other feature . . . in front of the lens" that is prohibited by Standard No. 108. Thus, under Federal law, a Range Rover could not be displayed for sale and sold with a brush bar installed unless the lamp guards had been removed. This should present no problem as, according to the brochure, the "lamp protectors are easily removable for cleaning and maintenance." In our view, the proper time for installation of the lamp protectors is when the vehicle begins to be used off-road.

Although there is no similar direct prohibition in Standard No. 108 applicable to other vehicle lamps, the parking lamps, turn signal lamps, and rear lamps are required to conform with the photometric requirements of Standard No. 108 when the lamp guards are in place. This is based upon

two paragraphs of the standard. S5.3.1.1 prohibits any part of a vehicle from preventing parking lamps, turn signal lamps, and rear lamps from meeting the required photometric output. S5.1.3 prohibits the installation of supplementary motor vehicle equipment that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment that Standard No. 108 requires as original equipment.

The guards are designed for maintenance by the owner, and their installation by the owner after purchase of the Range Rover would not be in violation of Federal law, even if installed for on- road use. Operation of the Range Rover is subject only to State law, and a State may forbid on-road use of a Range Rover with the lamp guards installed if it so chooses.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:108 d:10/27/94

ID: nht88-2.97

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/11/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: SCOTT A. SNYDER

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 3-10-88 TO NHTSA FROM SCOTT A. SNYDER

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 10, 1988, to the Department's regional office in Philadelphia, asking for a response concerning "ornamental lighting." In your opinion "a few extra lights on the side and rear of a vehicle would help other people see you better while driving at night."

The agency is interested in the role that vehicle conspicuity plays in accidents and accident avoidance. With reference to motorcycles, we have amended our motor vehicle lighting standard to prescribe performance characteristics for headlamp modulation. We were prepared to amend the standard to require the activation of motorcycle headlamps when the ignition was turned on (but did not do so when we learned that almost all motorcycles were being wired to operate in that fashion). Some time ago we aske d the public to comment on ways of increasing the conspicuity of large vehicles as our research had indicated that reflective tape applied to the side and rear of wide trucks and trailers might lessen crashes and crash severity, and our research still co ntinues in this area. Most importantly we adopted the center highmounted stop lamp for passenger cars because of the ability it demonstrated in test fleets to reduce the frequency of rear end impacts.

The type of lights of which you speak are referred to as "presence" lamps (as contrasted with "signal" lamps), and the agency over the years has acted with respect to all motor vehicles by requiring them to be equipped with side marker lamps, and by incr easing the lens area for stop lamps. As the Federal safety standards are by statutory definition "minimum" safety standards, the requirement that there be two taillamps, for example, does not mean that a manufacturer may not add two more if it wishes, o r any lighting device not covered by the standard. The sole restriction is that lighting devices added by the manufacturer or dealer that are in excess of the minimum must not impair the effectiveness of the equipment required by the standard. This cou ld happen, for example, if a fog lamp (not covered by the standard) was of an intensity and located so that it masked an adjacent front turn signal. With respect to nighttime operation, the critical issue would appear to be that additional lighting devi ces not create glare to oncoming and following drivers.

The owner of the vehicle is not under a similar Federal restriction, and may personally add such additional lighting devices as seems desirable, subject to the laws of the States where the vehicle is registered and/or driven. However, the owner may not have these devices installed by a motor vehicle dealer or repair business if the result is to render wholly or partially inoperative any of the vehicle's original lamps or reflectors.

We appreciate your suggestion for improving motor vehicle safety.