ID: aiam3919

Dear Mr. Bennett: This responds to your inquiry about ventilation holes in the front o motorcycle helmets currently being manufactured by other companies. You give the location of these ventilation holes as being between the reference plane and the test line, one inch above that plane, and ask whether these holes are permitted under Standard No. 218, *Motorcycle Helmets*.; Standard No. 218 requires, in paragraph S5.4, that: 'Each helmet shal have a protective surface of continuous contour at all points on or above the test line described in S6.1.3.' In paragraph S6.1.3, this test line is required to be drawn one inch above the reference plane in the frontal portion of the helmet. The continuous contour requirement is important because both the impact attenuation and penetration tests in the standard are performed on the helmet area above the test line. This helmet test area is the shaded area illustrated in Figure 2 of Standard No. 218. Therefore, any ventilation holes located between the reference plane and the test line in the front portion of a helmet would be permitted under the standard, as long as they are not located on or above the test line.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel

ID: nht92-7.4

DATE: May 14, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Al Twyford

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/21/92 from Al Twyford to Associate Administrator for Safety, Federal Highway Administration (OCC 7244)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of April 21, 1992, to the Federal Highway Administration, which has been forwarded to this agency for reply.

You wish to complain "about some makes of new cars that have two sets of headlights (4) which operate at the same time." If this agency plans to do nothing about it, you "plan to take this matter up with Congressmen and U.S. Senators."

You are not alone in your concern about headlamp glare created by new motor vehicles. Other citizens have brought the subject to the attention of Members of Congress. I enclose a copy of a recent letter from the Deputy Administrator of this agency to Senator Cohen of Maine which is representative of our views on this issue. You will see that a number of factors may be responsible for creating a perception of glare. We note that you have already been in touch with the Department of California Highway Patrol, and that California has no periodic motor vehicle inspection.

With respect to the specific comments in your letter, the agency does not "approve" specific headlamp designs. Standard No. 108 sets forth photometric performance requirements to be met on both the upper and lower beam, and does establish maximum limitations at some of the photometric test points. Further, in a four-headlamp system, the upper and lower beams may be provided by all headlamps. Headlamp manufacturers must ensure that their products meet these requirements, and certify that each headlamp complies by placing a "DOT" mark on the lamp. There is no requirement that a manufacturer obtain permission from this agency before introducing the lamps into the market.

We appreciate your concern.

Enclosure

April 16, 1992

The Honorable William S. Cohen United State Senate Washington, DC 20510-1901

Dear Senator Cohen:

Thank you for your letter requesting information on the quality of automobile headlamps. Our information should help you respond to a letter from Mr.

Lowell Spicer, of Brunswick, Maine, who wrote you about headlamp glare and other issues.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Under that authority, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has issued vehicle safety standards on a wide variety of subjects. One of these standards, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, "Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment," addresses the safety requirements for vehicle headlighting.

Two of FMVSS No. 108's requirements standardize the beam pattern and light intensity of headlamps. All new headlamps must meet these requirements, which have remained essentially unchanged since 1978. Halogen headlamps may appear much brighter, but they meet the same minimum and maximum output requirements as normal incandescent headlamps. They appear much brighter because of the color spectrum of their light, i.e., they emit light which appears whiter than the light emitted by incandescent headlamp. Another of FMVSS No. 108's requirements allows headlamps to be installed or "mounted" in a proper ground clearance and ramp angles for heavy duty and other vehicles. Because of their size and other characteristics, trucks often have headlamps that are mounted higher than other vehicles.

Our headlamp compliance tests for beam pattern and light intensity show, that when properly aimed, recent model-year headlamps generally fall well within the limits established for glare brightness. However, our tests do not account for the effect of different mounting heights or misaiming. Headlamp replacement and vehicle loading can alter headlamp aim and are often the cause of glare complaints.

Another aspect of recent model-year vehicles that could be contributing to glare is the improper use, misaiming or improper installation of auxiliary fog or driving lamps. These are regulated solely by state law.

The agency has found that factors such as reduced night vision capabilities as people age can adversely influence driving performance. Headlamp glare resistance reduces with driver age. According to research, the headlamp glare resistance of the human eye at age 20 is twice as good as it is for the age of 72. Contrast sensitivity is also an important factor in night vision, and it reduces dramatically, requiring more illumination to see objects as drivers age.

Concerning vehicle headlamps and their brightness due to misaim, States regulate headlamp aim in motor vehicle use and inspection laws. Maine has an annual motor vehicle inspection law. Should Mr. Spicer want to contact his State on the matter of headlamp aim inspection he should contact the following:

Administration of Laws Mr. G. William Diamond, Secretary of State Department of Secretary of State Nash School Station, #148 Augusta, ME 04333

Enforcement of Laws Mr. John Atwood, Commissioner

Department of Public Safety 336 Hospital Street Augusta, ME 04333.

I hope that we have provided enough information to help you answer Mr. Spicer's concerns.

Sincerely,

Frederick H. Grubbe

ID: aiam1662

Dear Mr. Calvin: This responds to your October 23, 1974, question in behalf of Steadma Containers, Ltd., asking if Standard No. 121, *Air brake systems*, applies to the Steadman 'liftainer', which is described as a semi-trailer frame capable of carrying 20- and 40-foot cargo containers that are loaded by means of cranes mounted at each end of the semi-trailer. The vehicle is used to move containers in terminal areas and is used on the highway only in relocation to another terminal.; The 'liftainer' is a motor vehicle as that term is defined in th National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, because it uses the highway on a necessary and recurring basis to move between work sites. A discussion of the motor vehicle definition is enclosed for your information. As a motor vehicle, it is subject to the requirements of Standard No. 121 for trailers, effective January 1, 1975.; I have also enclosed a discussion of Standard No. 121's applicabilit to vehicles purchased by Canadians for use between Canadian and United States points. The standard would apply to Steadman trailers if they are purchased for use on U.S. highways.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: 1984-3.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/08/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Lawrence F. Henneberger -- Arent, Fox, Kintner,Plotkin and Kahn

TEXT:

Mr. Lawrence F. Henneberger Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin & Kahn Washigton Square 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036-5339

This responds to your letter of August 27, 1984, on behalf of your client, the Breed Corporation. You asked whether section S4.5.2 of Standard No . 208, Occupant Crash Protection, would apply to totally mechanical air bag restraint systems such as those to be produced by Breed. As explained below, the readiness indicator requirements do not apply to a totally mechanical system.

The readiness indicator requirement was first adopted by the agency in November 1970. The text of the rule provided, in applicable part, that "an occupant protection system that deploys in the event of a crash should have a monitoring system with a readiness indicator. The system components monitored shall include all electrical and compressed gases, if present." As you correctly pointed out, the agency explained in the problem to the November 1970 rule that it was particularly concerned about monitoring electrical circuitry and pressure vessels, two critical elements of then available crash-deployed system. The agency said that "although manufacturers are urged to provide monitoring for all system elements for which it is feasible, the specific requirements of the standard in this regard are that electrical circuitry and pressurized gases, if present, be monitored,...."

In response to petitions for reconsideration, the agency modified the readiness indicator requirement on October 1, 1971. Several petitioners argued that monitoring of pressure vessels and electrically actuated explosive release devices could impair the integrity or reliability of those devices. The agency deleted the specific reference to an electrical and compressed gas monitoring system so that manufacturers could "avoid designs that are prone to deterioration. . . ." The amendment did not, however, otherwise affect the coverage of the requirement and therefore a totally mechanical system does not have to have a monitoring system with a readiness indicator.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

August 27, 1984

Frank A. Berndt, Esquire Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Room 5219 Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Request for Interpretation; Inapplicability of Readiness Indicator Provision of FMVSS 208 to Non-Electric Crash Protection System

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Our firm represents Breed Corporation, located in Lincoln Park, New Jersey, which anticipates the production and marketing of a mechanical, self-contained air bag module. Breed seeks a letter of interpretation from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration confirming that sub-section 54. 5.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208, the "readiness indicator" provision, does not apply to totally mechanical airbag restraint systems such as those to be produced by Breed.

Regulatory Background

A readiness indicator requirement, as proposed by NHTSA, first appeared in an advance notice of proposed rule making for passive occupant restraint systems such as the air bag in July of 1969. Passive crash protection technology then and for a number of years thereafter suggested electrical, rather than mechanical, systems for this purpose.

Indeed, in a final rule notice issued on November 3, 1970, Douglas Toms, the then Director of NHTSA' s predecessor agency, the National Highway Safety Bureau, observed:

"The proposed requirement for a readiness indicator for crash-deployed systems brought forth several questions as to which system elements were required to be monitored. Obviously any deployable system will have some qualities . . . that are not suitable for monitoring, and other aspects whose monitoring would be very difficult and costly. System monitoring of electrical circuitry and pressure vessels, two of the most critical elements where they exist, is, however, feasible with present technology. Therefore..., the specific requirements of the standard in this regard are that electrical circuitry and pressurized gases, if present, be monitored...." (35 Fed. Reg. 16928 (1970).)

The narrow application of subsection S4.5.2 was reconfirmed in an October 1971 rule making notice, in which the Safety Administration observed:

"To permit manufacturers to avoid designs that are prone to deterioration, the readiness indicator requirement has been amended by omitting specific reference to compressed gases and electrical circuits. " (36 Fed. Reg. 19254 (1971).)

Request for Interpretation

Breed Corporation respectfully submits that its completely mechanical air bag system, which consists of five basic components (knee bolster, steering column, nonpressurized, solid state gas generator, air bag and crash sensor), is not subject to the readiness indicator requirement of subsection S4. 5.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208, 49 C.F.R. 571.208, which is intended to cover occupant protection systems with electrical circuitry and/or pressurized gases.

We request that the agency confirm, by letter of interpretation, our understanding of the city provision.

Sincerely,

Lawrence F. Henneberger cc: Thomas C. McGrath, Jr., Esquire John C. Culver, Esquire

ID: nht68-1.17

DATE: 04/30/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; David A. Fay; NHTSA

TO: JOSEPH LUCAS LIMITED

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of March 1, 1968, to the Deputy Director, National Highway Safety Bureau, concerning your interpretation of certain requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

The installation requirements contained in the SAE Standards that are referenced in Standard No. 108 are enforceable requirements unless specifically excepted by Standard No. 108. With respect to the installation of license plate lamps, Standard No. 108 provides an exception to the "Installation Recommendations" contained in SAE Standard J587b, in that Standard No. 108 requires a location "at rear license plate." This exception permits installation of the lamp at the top, sides or bottom of the license plate, instead of top and sides only as specified by SAE installation recommendations.

With two exceptions, the lighting devices required by Standard No. 108 must use bulbs conforming to SAE Standard J573b and bulb sockets conforming to either SAE Standard J56b or SAE Standard J822. The two exceptions are (1) motorcycle headlamps conforming to SAE Standard J584, and (2) disposable (throw-away) type lamp assemblied (other than sealed-beam headlamps) that do not use sockets. Sealed-beam headlamps must conform to SAE Standard J567a and J580a which, in turn, require sealed units conforming to SAE Standards J567b or J822. The disposable type lamps ((2) above) are excepted from the requirements of SAE Standard J567b since thy are equipped with non-replaceable bulbs and electrical connectors rather than sockets. It is to be noted that Standard No. 108 is not applicable to motorcycles until January 1, 1969.

Sincerely,

The Administrator Federal Highway Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

For the attention of Deputy Director National Highway Safety Bureau

Dear Sir,

We wish to refer to U.S. Federal Standard 108 and two problems which we foresee in meeting the requirements.

1. Illumination of Licence Plates

We have been considering the implications of a recent report that the Federal Safety by Authorities are treating the 'Installation Recommendation' in S.A.E. J587b (Licence Plate Lamps) as an enforceable part of the Standard.

Since this paragraph is not part of the Test Specification, it is not wholly within our power to ensure compliance with it, since we cannot always be sure that a vehicle manufactures will locate a given number plate scheme in the attitude which we recommend. There is nothing to stop Adminvorrthing the whole scheme while continuing to comply with the photometric specification.

Thus, we are greatly concerned that a passage which is specifically stated to be a recommendation should be enforced. There has, up to the present, been no information to this effect. We have always understood that it is not the intention of the Society of Automotive Engineers that their recommendations should be enforced and that only when such a recommendation has been given a thorough trial may it then be made into a standard.

The Tail-lamp J585 and Turn-signal lamp J588 standards contain installation requirements. We should like to know if these are also being regarded as a part of the Standard and are being enforced.

2. Lamp Bulbs

There have also been indications that only those bulbs listed in S.A.E. Standard J573b will be acceptable under the new Federal Standard. The various S.A.E. standards for different functions of lamps all refer to Section C of S.A.E. standard J575 which in turn refers to standard J575b, but also states that where special bulbs are specified they should be submitted in with the devices and the same or similar bulbs should be used in the tests. The implication of this is that lamps not having bulbs fitted to them which comply with the S.A.E. standard could be submitted with samples of their own bulbs, and the lamps would be acceptable in this form.

The use of cartridge bulbs presents rather a special case since many of the signalling lamp standards (notably the back-up lamp standard J 595b) also call up the bulb-socket standard J 567, and the Federal Standard itself calls up the Recommended Practice J822, so that there is no provision for a suitable socket for the cartridge bulbs. This will therefore be the subject of a separate petition.

However, Motor-cycle headlamps are rather different. In this case no bulb socket standard is called up. We have always sent over motor-cycle headlamps fitted with bulbs with British pre-focus caps. The majority of British motor-cycles transmit too much vibration to the headlamps for sealed-beam units to be practical. If it is the intention to require that only bulbs listed in the S.A.E. standard shall be fitted to all motor vehicles, then a situation will arise where there will not be suitable headlamps available for British motor-cycles.

We submit the above points for consideration and would be pleased to know whether our interpretation of the Standard and whether the difficulties we anticipate are, in fact, real, and to know what line is ought to take in order to comply with the Standard.

Yours truly,

JOSEPH LUCAS (ELECTRICAL) LIMITED --

M.D. Prickett, Chief Engineer - Special Duties

ID: aiam4025

Dear Mr. Ioth: Thank you for your letter of August 5, 1985, concerning a product yo wish to import into the United States. You asked several questions about the application of our regulations to your product. I hope the following discussion answers your questions.; According to the literature you enclosed in your letter, the product i a device which prevents the normal operation of a vehicle until the driver's safety belt is fastened. The product is installed directly beneath the vehicle's accelerator. Until the driver's safety belt is fastened, a lock system prevents the accelerator from being depressed. According to the drawing accompanying your letter, your product requires the installation of a new buckle and latchplate in a vehicle's safety belt system. To install the latchplate, the vehicle's safety belt must be cut.; Our agency has the authority under the National Traffic and Moto Vehicle Safety Act to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Vehicle Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet our safety standards. In the case of an imported product, the importer is considered the manufacturer of the product for the purposes of our requirements. In addition to ensuring that your product complies with all applicable safety standards, you are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with noncompliances or defects related to motor safety.; If your product is installed in a new vehicle prior to its first sal to a consumer, then the person performing the alteration would be considered a vehicle alterer under our certification regulation (49 CFR Part 567), a copy of which is enclosed. Part 567.7 requires alterers to certify that the vehicle, as altered, complies with all applicable safety standards. In particular, the installer of your device would have to ensure that the safety belt system still complied with all of the requirements, including the safety belt webbing strength requirement of Standard No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*, a copy of the standard is enclosed.; Installation of your device in a used vehicle could be affected b section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section provides, in part:; >>>No manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repai business shall knowingly render inoperative...any device (sic) element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard....<<<; Thus, a commercial business installing your product in a used vehicl would have to ensure that it did not knowingly render inoperative the vehicle's compliance with any of our safety standards by the installation of your device.; You also asked about our regulations concerning the importation o products. Section 110(e) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1399(e)) requires every manufacturer who offers a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment for importation into the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as his or her agent upon whom service of all processes, orders, notices, decisions and requirements may be made. In order for that designation to be valid, the following information must be submitted to the Office of the Chief Counsel:; 1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and binding o the manufacturer under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made,; 2. The full legal name, principal place of business and mailing addres of the manufacturer,; 3. Marks, trade names, or other designation of origin of any of th manufacturer's products which do not bear its name,; 4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect unti withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer.; 5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed which may be an individual, a firm or a U.S. corporation, and; 6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent. In addition, the designation must be signed by one with authority t appoint the agent. The signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his or her signature.; I hope this information is of assistance to you. If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: nht76-1.9

DATE: 08/09/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Clayton Dewardre Company Limited

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Clayton Dewandre Company's May 20, 1976, request for confirmation that its "Dual Brake Booster" system is designed to conform to the definition of "split service brake system" and the requirements of S5.1.2 and S5.1.3 specified in Standard No. 105-75, Hydraulic Brake Systems. In unimpaired braking, the Dual Brake Booster system supplies two separate brake circuits, the primary circuit which is initially powered by the driver's application of pedal force and subsequently supplemented by pressurized fluid from the pump accumulator system, and the secondary circuit which is powered by pressurized fluid from the pump accumulator system. In the event of a primary circuit failure, a mechanical connection unimpaired by a loss of reservior fluid continues to modulate the secondary circuit. In the event of the a secondary circuit failure, the driver's pedal application continues to actuate the primary circuit by muscular effort alone. A single master cylinder reservoir is provided to supply the primary circuit. A single pump reservoir supplies the pump, accumulator, and secondary circuit.

As you are no doubt aware, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act does not authorize a "type approval" of vehicle design as the basis for certification (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(1)(A)). Our comments on the description of your system do not relieve the vehicle manufacturer of its responsibility to design a system for each of its products that actually complies with the standard's requirements.

From your description of the system, it would appear to qualify as a "split service brake system" as that term is defined in S4 of the standard. You state that, in the event either subsystem is failed, the other subsystem is capable of indefinite operation. This conforms to the

2

NHTSA's September 14, 1973, letter to Citroen on the meaning of "unimpaired operation" of a subsystem.

With regard to partial failure performance, you state that the vehicle can meet the requirements of S5.1.2 (inadvertently designated as S5.1.1 in your letter) using either of the two subsystems.

With regard to the requirements of S5.1.3 (for inoperative brake power assist unit or brake power unit), you indicate that the vehicle is capable of stopping within the specified distances of column IV of Table II "purely by muscular effort of the driver". By this we assume you mean that the vehicle conforms to the condition required for testing under S5.1.3.1, i.e., with one power unit inoperative and deleted of all reserve capability. Please note that the NHTSA regards the "pump and accumulator" energy source to constitute a "brake power unit" and not a "brake power assist unit", because the described unit "provides the energy required to actuate the brakes, either directly or indirectly through the auxiliary device, with the operator action consisting only of modulating the energy application level." (S4 definition of "brake power unit").

We are assuming that Clayton Dewandre does not object to making public the designs described in your May 20 letter. The NHTSA will place the materials in the public docket three weeks after the date of this letter unless we hear otherwise from you.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

Clayton Dewandre Company Limited

May 20, 1976

James B. Gregory -- Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation

Dear Sir,

Request for advice on the conformities of New Design equipment to the revised Hydraulic Brake System Standard FMVSS 105-75

Clayton Dewandre would like to take this opportunity to introduce to you our newly developed Hydraulic Brake Booster and associated system, (Illegible Word) on behalf of our potential customers, we seek clarification from you regarding its compliance with the revised Hydraulic Brake Standard FMVSS 105-75.

We would refer to section S4 and the definition of a "Split Service Brake System" which includes a statement that a failed sub-system, quote "shall not impair the operation of any other sub-system".

Our interpretation of the expression "impair" is "reduce (Illegible Word) prescribed effective level", and that same implied level is quantified under requirements S.5.1.1. Partial Failure and S.5.1.3. In-operative Brake Power Assist Unit. Both the latter clauses call for the same level of performance i.e. stopping distances from a vehicle speed of 60 m.p.h. without exceeding a pedal force of 150 lbs. Vehicle Cars Trucks<10000 lbs. trucks>10000 lbs. Stopping 456' 517' 613' distance (.263g) (.233g) (.195g)

We would like to show, with reference to the attached description of the Dual Brake Booster, that with a power failed situation or rear brakes failed, we have the same residual secondary braking i.e. the front brakes, being activated purely by muscular effort of the driver, with chamber (a) acting as a conventional master cylinder. The designed performance for this condition in the case of a 2000 Kg (4,400 lbs) gross weight vehicle would be .3g for a pedal force 71 lbs (316N). This meets the prescribed performance tabled above.

Should a failure occur in the other sub-system (Illegible Words) mechanically by further movement of the pedal (approximately 12 mm.) for full output to "knee point". Fluid under pressure is delivered by the valve in proportion to pedal effort. Again in this case, the system is tuned to provide an acceptable performance. The attached figures show a retardation of .3g for 52 lbs (231N) pedal force, which is well within the prescribed limits.

2

(Illegible Text)

Yours faithfully,

W. M. PAGE -- Senior Engineer - Systems Engineering

[Attachments Omitted.]

ID: nht72-2.21

DATE: 01/17/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Truck Body and Equipment Association, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 21, 1971, to Lawrence R. Schneider requesting an interpretation on the mounting of front identification lamps.

Standard No. 108 requires that identification lamps be mounted "as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle" (Table II). The "vehicle" is the vehicle as completed, and not the incomplete vehicle. Therefore, if the "top" of the vehicle, i.e., the highest point, is a location other than the cab, the identification lamps must be mounted at the "top", and not on the cab, if it is practicable to do so. Generally, manufacturers of van-body vehicles have found it practicable to mount identification lamps on the van body. Modified lighting diagram 0-1 which you enclosed originally depicted the correct location of identification lamps for a truck with a van body.

If the manufacturer of the cab portion of a truck has placed identification lamps on the cab, the lamps need not be removed when the lamps necessary for conformance are added at the "top."

Sincerely,

December 21, 1971 Mr.

Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION U. S. Department of Transportation

Subject: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION ON MOUNTING HEIGHT OF FRONT IDENTIFICATION LAMPS.

Re: Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108

The above referenced FMVSS No. 108, becoming effective January 1, 1972, establishes the location and mounting heights of the front identification lamps by stating-----

" . . . as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle . . ."

"On the front only-- and No part of the lamps or mountings shall extend below the top of the vehicle's windshield."

Insofar as trailers are concerned, identification lamps are not required on the front of the trailer. The reasoning for this is that the identification lamps stop the truck tractor will serve the requirement.

We shall use a typical van body truck as an example. (See attached Lighting Diagram O-1.) It is our contention that if identification lamps are mounted on top of chassis-cab vehicles--i.e. incomplete vehicles--as supplied by the chassis manufacturers, it is permissible to leave these lamps in place. We contend that it is not necessary to remove these chassis supplied lamps, nor is it necessary to add an additional set of identification lamps at the top of the body. Of course we realize that if there are not any identification lamps on top of the cab (vehicles 80 or more inches overall width), we would be held responsible to equip the truck with front identification lamps (as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle) as required by FMVSS No. 108.

Please advise us in writing if our interpretations are correct and in full compliance with FMVSS No. 108.

Your earliest response will be appreciated.

Very truly yours,

TRUCK BODY AND EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATION --

Paul A. Tatarski

Manager Engineering Services

Enclosure:

(Graphics omitted)

FOR VEHICLES OF 80 OR MORE INCHES OVERALL WIDTH

RECOMMENDED LAMP AND REFLECTOR LOCATIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108

(DRAWING IS NOT TO SCALE)

The general areas indicated for lamps and reflectors are acceptable to the U.S. Department of Transportations National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety. Consult Federal MVSS No. 108 and the applicable tables therein for exact requirements such as: mounting height limitations lamp combinations and alternative locations.

LEGEND

1. Headlamps (2)-white (4 optional)

2. Front side-marker lamps (2)-amber

3. Front side reflectors (2)-amber

4. Front turn-signal lamps (2)-amber

4a. Front turn-signal lamps (2)-amber (optional location)

5. Front identification lamps (3)-amber 5a. Front identification lamps (3)-amber (optional location)

6. Front clearance lamps (2)-amber

7. Rear side-marker lamps (2)-amber

8. Rear side reflectors (2)-red

9. Rear identification lamps (3)-red

10. Rear clearance lamps (2)-red

11. Rear reflectors (2)-red

12. Rear stop-tail & turn-signal lamps (2)-red

13. Rear licence plate lamp (1)-white

14. Rear backup lamp (1)-white (location optional provided optical requirements are met)

15. Intermediate side-marker lamps (2)-amber (if vehicle is 30' or more overall length)

16. Intermediate side reflectors (2)-amber (if vehicle is 30' or more overall length)

NOTE

LAMPS AND REFLECTORS MAY BE MOUNTED AT OTHER PRACTICABLE LOCATIONS PROVIDED LOCATION AND VISIBILITY REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108 ARE MET.

Lighting Diagram

Supplement 1/1/71

ID: 15487.ztv

Mr. Junichi Yoshimoto
Deputy General Manager
Technical Administration Dept.
Koito Mfg. Co., Ltd.
Shizuoka Works
500, Kitawaki
Shimuzu-Shi, Shizuoka-Ken
Japan

Dear Mr. Yoshimoto:

This replies to your letter of June 24, 1997, asking questions about four areas of the headlighting requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. I shall discuss them in the order you presented them.

Optical Axis Mark

You have attached a sheet depicting three headlamps. You ask whether the optical axis mark specified by S7.8.5.3(f)(1) is required because, in your opinion, the construction of the headlamps enables one to identify the optical axis of the headlamp.

Paragraph S7.8.5.3(f)(1) reads as follows:

"There shall be a mark or markings identifying the optical axis of the headlamp visible from the front of the headlamp when installed on the vehicle, to assure proper horizontal and vertical alignment of the aiming screen or optical aiming equipment with the headlamp being aimed. The manufacturer is free to choose the design of the mark or markings. The mark or markings may be on the interior or exterior of the lens or indicated by a mark or central structure on the interior or exterior of the headlamp."

Although the choice of the mark is left to the manufacturer, the mark should be of such a nature that it clearly indicates to the operator of headlamp aiming equipment the exact location of the optical axis and where the equipment is to be properly placed, to act as a geometric reference for measuring distances to the floor and between the headlamps and the vehicle's longitudinal axis.

Your question asks, in effect, whether the features shown are sufficient to be the mark required. A trademark is acceptable to indicate an optical axis, and we believe that the trademark in Figure 1 Sealed Beam Headlamp, an oval encircling the name "Koito," clearly indicates its center with the letter "i" thereby indicating the optical axis. The condenser lens in Figure 2 Projector Headlamp has an obvious center, as do all circles, that can be perceived by observers, and is also acceptable as indicating the optical axis. The inner shade in Figure 3 Headlamp with no-fluting lens should provide a clear indication to the operator of headlamp aiming equipment because the axes of the hexagon converge at a clearly designated center point. The last sentence of S7.8.5.3(f)(1) quoted above indicates that the mark may be indicated by a central structure on the interior of the headlamp.

Horizontal Aim

(1) Paragraphs S7.8.5.3(b) and (d) do not specify a horizontal aim adjustment mechanism for visually/optically aimable headlamps. Koito is considering changing some of its existing headlamps to visually aimable ones with "adding the mechanisms (see Figures 4 and 5 in the attached sheet) in which a special cap is put onto the horizontal aiming screw permanently in such a way that it cannot be removed without breakage, to prevent tools from accessing the screw." You ask whether these mechanisms "comply with the requirement of horizontal aim fixation."

The horizontal aiming screw caps are intended to be a permanent part of the lamp, and not intended to be removable with special tools or otherwise. We believe that this is a sufficient safeguard that the headlamps may be considered to comply with the requirement that there shall be no adjustment of horizontal aim of a visually aimable headlamp.

(2) Referring to our letter of June 11, 1997, to Ichikoh, a copy of which you enclosed, you ask whether the horizontal aim should be fixed by the headlamp manufacturer or the vehicle manufacturer. You note that it may be necessary for a vehicle manufacturer to align properly the horizontal aim when the headlamp is installed on a motor vehicle before the horizontal aim is fixed. However, when the horizontal aim is fixed by the vehicle manufacturer, you believe that the vehicle manufacturer should be responsible for certifying compliance with photometric performance requirements.

Paragraph S7.8.5.3 requires a visually/optically aimable headlamp to be designed to conform to the specifications of that paragraph, including the specification of S7.8.5.3(b) that horizontal aim be fixed and nonadjustable. Thus, the design and production of the headlamp is the responsibility of its manufacturer. However, as the preamble to the final rule adopting this requirement stated, "Generally, the vehicle's manufacturer accepts the responsibility for assuring correct aim of new motor vehicles" (62 FR 10710 at 10712). When a headlamp is installed on a motor vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer's required certification of compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards must include photometric compliance.

Aiming Deviation

You believe that S7.8.2.1(a) applies to a visually/optically aimable headlamp "whose construction has no adjustment of horizontal aim." This paragraph reads: "When installed on the vehicle, adjustment of one aim axis through its full on-vehicle range shall not cause the aim of the other axis to deviate more than +/- 0.76 degree." You wish to interpret it as reading: "Adjustment of vertical aim through its full on-vehicle range shall not cause the aim of the horizontal axis to deviate more than +/- 0.76 degree."

This is a correct rephrasing of S7.8.2.1(a) for a visually/optically aimable headlamp whose horizontal aim is fixed.

Visual/Optical Mark

You ask whether your interpretation is correct that the lens of a headlamp that is aimable horizontally by a VHAD, and vertically by visual/optical means, must have its lens marked in accordance with S7.8.5.3(f)(2).

This is correct. Even though the correct horizontal aim is achieved by mechanical means, the fact that the correct vertical aim is determined visually/optically means that the headlamp must have the markings required by S7.8.5.3(f)(2).

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.1/15/98

ID: aiam3217

Dear Mr. Richards: This is in response to your letter of February 29, 1980, requestin information on the Federal odometer disclosure requirements. The question you raised is whether odometer disclosure statements have to be executed and retained when the vehicle involved in a purchase and sale is a salvage vehicle.; If the vehicle is repairable and will subsequently be used as a moto vehicle, disclosure must be made. However, if the vehicle is so badly damaged that it cannot be returned to the road, it will have ceased to be a motor vehicle for purposes of the odometer regulations (49 CFR Part 580). Disclosure would therefore not be required. You must keep in mind that this is a judgement that will have to be made in good faith by the seller of the vehicle.; Sincerely, John Womack, Assistant Chief Counsel