ID: aiam2486

Dear Mr. Gross: This is in reply to your letter of December 17, 1976, asking whether 1 U.S.C. 1392(d) permits the installation of quartz halogen headlamps on State-owned vehicles. It is understood that these headlamps are manufactured in France, and are not of sealed beam construction. Thus they do not conform to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Your letter also commented that certain 'state highway and law enforcement agencies . . . have indicated . . . that they prefer the quartz halogen units but are reluctant to install these units in their state vehicles because they are not of an approved type.'; Importation and sale of nonconforming motor vehicle equipment i expressly forbidden by Section 108 (a) (1) (A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. A civil penalty of up to $1,000 may be imposed for each violation. Therefore, quartz halogen headlamps that do not conform to Standard No. 108 may not be imported into the United States and sold to State agencies.; Your inquiry appears premised that such may be allowable pursuant t Section 1392(d) which reads in pertinent part:>>>Nothing in the section shall be construed to prevent. . . the government of any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement establishes a higher standard of performance than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable federal standard.; <<

ID: 11563ZTV

Mr. Mark A. Evans
Photometric Engineer
Calcoast - ITL
P.O. Box 8702
Emeryville, CA 94662

Dear Mr. Evans:

We have received your letter of February 9, 1996, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it applies to motorcycle headlamps. Specifically you ask for confirmation that motorcycle headlamps using HB2 and/or HB4 light sources must comply with out-of-focus requirements.

As you note, Table III of Standard No. 108 incorporates by reference SAE Standard J584 Motorcycle and Motor Driven Cycle Headlamps, April 1964 as the basic Federal requirement for motorcycle headlamps. Neither SAE J584 nor any provision of Standard No. 108 limit the types of light sources that may be used in a motorcycle headlamp. This means that Standard No. 108 (SAE J584) may be met with a Type HB2 or Type HB4 replaceable light source.

Part of the requirements of Standard No. 108 (SAE J584) are the "Out-of-Focus Tests on Unsealed Units" specifications of Section K of SAE J575. Thus, we confirm your understanding that motorcycle headlamps using Type HB2 or Type HB4 light sources must comply with the out-of-focus requirements of SAE J575. However, the question arises as to which version of SAE J575 applies, the one in effect in 1964 when SAE J584 was adopted, or a later version.

Paragraph S6.1 of Standard No. 108 states that the SAE Standards included in Table III are those published in the 1970 SAE Handbook, except that, for headlamps, unless otherwise specified, the version of J575 is that of December 1988. Correctly, S6.1 should note that SAE J575 DEC88 is for

headlamps for motor vehicles other than motorcycles. SAE J575 DEC88 is paragraphed by numbers rather than by letters and, in any event, no longer includes an out- of-focus test for unsealed units. The version of SAE J575 that is subreferenced by J584 in Standard No. 108 is correctly SAE J575d, August 1967, the version published in the 1970 SAE Handbook. We appreciate the opportunity to provide this clarification.

If you have any questions you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref:108 d:3/4/96

ID: nht68-2.45

DATE: 05/31/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph R. O'Gorman; NHTSA

TO: Oshkosh Truck Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letters of January 15 and March 25, 1958, to the National Highway Safety Bureau, concerning the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to snow removal and heavy duty on-off highway vehicles manufactured by Oshkosh.

Standard No. 108 requires that headlamps be mounted not more than 54 inches above the road surface. Since your snow removal vehicles may be used in hauling operations as a secondary function, and since your heavy duty vehicles are used on the public roads, they are required to be equipped with headlamps located in accordance with Standard No. 108. Additional headlamps mounted on the cab roof or elsewhere on the front of the snow removal vehicle is permitted by the standard.

With reference to your heavy duty vehicles, headlamps located in the bumper, with adequate openings in front of the headlamps; or headlamps located below the bumpere, with protective shields around the headlamps would be permitted by Standard No. 108.

With respect to the requirements of Standard No. 108, we must point out that this Bureau does not issue approvals on items of lighting equipment or on vehicle designs incorporating this equipment. Therefore, the above comments are for your information only and in no way relieve the vehicle manufacturer from his responsibility for certifying that the assembled vehicle meets the requirements of the standard. The certification information that you have provided us in your letter of January 15 is in accordance with our requirements.

We trust this information will be of assistance to you in your desire to comply with the existing safety standards.

ID: 3165yy

Mr. Ken Hanna
Lectric Limited, Inc.
7322 S. Archer Road
Justice, Illinois 60458

Dear Mr. Hanna:

This responds to your letter of July 8, 1991, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency. You asked whether a proposed manufacturing and marketing scheme would be in violation of any NHTSA regulations.

You intend to petition for rulemaking to amend Standard No. l08 to reinstate SAE Standard J579a as an optional standard for sealed beam headlamps. These lamps would be used on "antique cars." Until SAE J579a is reinstated, you would like to manufacture headlamps to conform to SAE J579c, the current specification for sealed beam headlamps that is incorporated into Standard No. 108. However, you do not wish to mark the lenses with the identification nomenclature that SAE J579c requires (presumably because it was lacking from the J579a headlamps with which the antique cars were originally equipped). You ask if you may market these lamps with identification on the package stating that they are "for display purposes only and not approved for highway use."

Your letter clearly indicates that the purpose of manufacturing the sealed beam headlamps is for their installation on motor vehicles, albeit old ones, and not for "display purposes only." The headlamps are motor vehicle equipment, and must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, in this instance, SAE J579c. Partial compliance with the requirements is not permissible, and the lenses of headlamps manufactured to conform with SAE J579c must be marked as that standard requires. Thus, your suggested manufacturing and marketing scheme would not conform to Standard No. l08, and, if pursued, it would be a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

The manufacture and sale of noncomplying motor vehicle equipment is a violation of the for which a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation may be imposed, up to a total of $800,000 for any related series of violations. In addition, as the manufacturer of the equipment, Lectric Limited must certify them as meeting all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and similar penalties may be imposed for certification that is false and misleading in a material respect. Finally, the manufacturer of nonconforming equipment is required to notify and remedy in accordance with the requirements of the Act.

Because SAE J579a and 579c headlamps are identical in external appearance except for lens marking, we do not believe that authenticity of the appearance of older vehicles will be affected to any discernable degree by requiring that their lenses be marked as the contemporary standard requires.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Ref.# Std. 108 D. 7/29/91

ID: 3108yy

Mr. Ken Hanna
Lectric Limited, Inc.
7322 S. Archer Road
Justice, Illinois 60458

Dear Mr. Hanna:

This responds to your letter of July 8, 1991, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency. You asked whether a proposed manufacturing and marketing scheme would be in violation of any NHTSA regulations.

You intend to petition for rulemaking to amend Standard No. l08 to reinstate SAE Standard J579a as an optional standard for sealed beam headlamps. These lamps would be used on "antique cars." Until SAE J579a is reinstated, you would like to manufacture headlamps to conform to SAE J579c, the current specification for sealed beam headlamps that is incorporated into Standard No. 108. However, you do not wish to mark the lenses with the identification nomenclature that SAE J579c requires (presumably because it was lacking from the J579a headlamps with which the antique cars were originally equipped). You ask if you may market these lamps with identification on the package stating that they are "for display purposes only and not approved for highway use."

Your letter clearly indicates that the purpose of manufacturing the sealed beam headlamps is for their installation on motor vehicles, albeit old ones, and not for "display purposes only." The headlamps are motor vehicle equipment, and must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, in this instance, SAE J579c. Partial compliance with the requirements is not permissible, and the lenses of headlamps manufactured to conform with SAE J579c must be marked as that standard requires. Thus, your suggested manufacturing and marketing scheme would not conform to Standard No. l08, and, if pursued, it would be a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

The manufacture and sale of noncomplying motor vehicle equipment is a violation of the for which a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation may be imposed, up to a total of $800,000 for any related series of violations. In addition, as the manufacturer of the equipment, Lectric Limited must certify them as meeting all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and similar penalties may be imposed for certification that is false and misleading in a material respect. Finally, the manufacturer of nonconforming equipment is required to notify and remedy in accordance with the requirements of the Act.

Because SAE J579a and 579c headlamps are identical in external appearance except for lens marking, we do not believe that authenticity of the appearance of older vehicles will be affected to any discernable degree by requiring that their lenses be marked as the contemporary standard requires.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Ref.# Std. 108 D. 7/29/91

ID: 3111yy

Mr. Ken Hanna
Lectric Limited, Inc.
7322 S. Archer Road
Justice, Illinois 60458

Dear Mr. Hanna:

This responds to your letter of July 8, 1991, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency. You asked whether a proposed manufacturing and marketing scheme would be in violation of any NHTSA regulations.

You intend to petition for rulemaking to amend Standard No. l08 to reinstate SAE Standard J579a as an optional standard for sealed beam headlamps. These lamps would be used on "antique cars." Until SAE J579a is reinstated, you would like to manufacture headlamps to conform to SAE J579c, the current specification for sealed beam headlamps that is incorporated into Standard No. 108. However, you do not wish to mark the lenses with the identification nomenclature that SAE J579c requires (presumably because it was lacking from the J579a headlamps with which the antique cars were originally equipped). You ask if you may market these lamps with identification on the package stating that they are "for display purposes only and not approved for highway use."

Your letter clearly indicates that the purpose of manufacturing the sealed beam headlamps is for their installation on motor vehicles, albeit old ones, and not for "display purposes only." The headlamps are motor vehicle equipment, and must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, in this instance, SAE J579c. Partial compliance with the requirements is not permissible, and the lenses of headlamps manufactured to conform with SAE J579c must be marked as that standard requires. Thus, your suggested manufacturing and marketing scheme would not conform to Standard No. l08, and, if pursued, it would be a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

The manufacture and sale of noncomplying motor vehicle equipment is a violation of the for which a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation may be imposed, up to a total of $800,000 for any related series of violations. In addition, as the manufacturer of the equipment, Lectric Limited must certify them as meeting all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and similar penalties may be imposed for certification that is false and misleading in a material respect. Finally, the manufacturer of nonconforming equipment is required to notify and remedy in accordance with the requirements of the Act.

Because SAE J579a and 579c headlamps are identical in external appearance except for lens marking, we do not believe that authenticity of the appearance of older vehicles will be affected to any discernable degree by requiring that their lenses be marked as the contemporary standard requires.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:7/29/9l

ID: nht91-5.6

DATE: July 29, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ken Hanna -- Lectric Limited, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-8-91 from Ken Hanna to Richard Van Iderstine (OCC 6238)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of July 8, 1991, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency. You asked whether a proposed manufacturing and marketing scheme would be in violation of any NHTSA regulations.

You intend to petition for rulemaking to amend Standard No. 108 to reinstate SAE Standard J579a as an optional standard for sealed beam headlamps. These lamps would be used on "antique cars." Until SAE J579a is reinstated, you would like to manufacture headlamps to conform to SAE J579c, the current specification for sealed beam headlamps that is incorporated into Standard No. 108. However, you do not wish to mark the lenses with the identification nomenclature that SAE J579c requires (presumably because it was lacking from the J579a headlamps with which the antique cars were originally equipped). You ask if you may market these lamps with identification on the package stating that they are "for display purposes only and not approved for highway use."

Your letter clearly indicates that the purpose of manufacturing the sealed beam headlamps is for their installation on motor vehicles, albeit old ones, and not for "display purposes only." The headlamps are motor vehicle equipment, and must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, in this instance, SAE J579c. Partial compliance with the requirements is not permissible, and the lenses of headlamps manufactured to conform with SAE J579c must be marked as that standard requires. Thus, your suggested manufacturing and marketing scheme would not conform to Standard No. 108, and, if pursued, it would be a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

The manufacture and sale of noncomplying motor vehicle equipment is a violation of the for which a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation may be imposed, up to a total of $800,000 for any related series of violations. In addition, as the manufacturer of the equipment, Lectric Limited must certify them as meeting all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and similar penalties may be imposed for certification tht is false and misleading in a material respect. Finally, the manufacturer of nonconforming equipment is required to notify and remedy in accordance with the requirements of the Act.

Because SAE J579a and 579c headlamps are identical in external appearance except for lens marking, we do not believe that authenticity of the appearance of older vehicles will be affected to any discernable degree by requiring that their lenses be marked as the contemporary standard requires.

ID: aiam0057

Dear Mr. Prickett: 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 ar referenced in Standard No. 108 are enforceable requirements unless specifically exempted 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. 10 must use bulbs conforming to SAE Standard J573b and bulb sockets conforming to either SAE Standard J567b or SAE Standard J822. The two exceptions are (1) motorcycle headlamps conforming to SAE Standard J584, and (2) disposable (throw-away) type lamp assemblies (other than sealed-beam headlamps) that do not use sockets. Sealed-beam headlamps must conform to SAE Standards J579a and J580a which, in turn, require sealed units conforming to SAE Standard J573b, but do not require sockets conforming to SAE Standards J567b or J822. The disposable type lamps((2) above) are excepted from the requirements of SAE Standard J567b since they 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, David A. Fay, Office of Standards on Accident Avoidance Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service;

ID: 2400y

Mr. Bill Waltz
Wagner Division
Cooper Industries, Inc.
155 Algonquin Parkway
Whippany, NJ 07981

Dear Mr. Waltz:

This is in reply to your letter requesting permission for deviations from marking requirements for round sealed beam headlamps.

Wagner has been asked to assemble some headlamps designed to appear as closely as possible to those produced by Guide Lamp in the l950's. The lamps would be marked "l" and "2" in accordance with the nomenclature of the day, rather than "2Dl", "1C1", and "2C1", as required by Standard No. l08. The DOT symbol would not be provided, "since this obviously was not on the original lamps." You have informed us that the lamps "will be made to today's photometric standards" and "subjected to all the tests currently required of the round headlights." Finally, "they will be distributed on a limited basis through antique parts dealers."

I am sorry, but we have no authority to exempt manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment from any requirements of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Our temporary exemption authority under l5 U.S.C. 1410 extends only to motor vehicles. Further, we have no authority to exempt manufacturers of either vehicles or equipment from their statutory obligation to certify through use of the DOT symbol that their products meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, the motor vehicle lamps which you have identified, and for which you ask an exemption are designated Type C and Type D sealed beam headlamps. As such, they must be designed to conform to the photometric requirements of SAE Standard J579c, December l978, which are incorporated by reference in Standard No. l08. They are considered replacement equipment, and must conform to all requirements of Standard No. 108, including marking and certification.

Standard No. l08 covers both original and replacement vehicle equipment. Depending on the vehicle category, it became effective for original equipment on January 1, l968, and January 1, l969. On January 1, l972, it became effective for equipment intended to replace original equipment on all motor vehicles manufactured on and after January 1, l972. Therefore, it might appear that the standard would not apply in any event to replacement equipment for l950's vehicles. However, the headlamps you describe are designed to conform to all contemporary requirements, except marking and certification. Even though intended for use on l950's vehicles, these circular headlamps are interchangeable with circular headlamps installed on any vehicle manufactured after the effective dates of Standard No. l08. Therefore, they must be designed to conform with Standard No. l08, and marked and certified accordingly.

The intended markings "l" and "2" would signify mistakenly that the headlamps were designed to conform to SAE Standard J579a, October l965 (which also did not require the DOT symbol on the lens). Until June l989, SAE J579a was incorporated in Standard No. l08 as a permissible option to SAE J579c, but the agency deleted it as the lamps appeared to be out of production. However, even had J579a been retained, we could not have allowed the lenses of headlamps manufactured to J579c to be marked according to J579a.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

/ ref:l08 d:4/8/90

ID: nht79-1.16

DATE: 10/25/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: SEV Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. H. J. T. Young Vice President - Technical Affairs SEV Corporation 33201 Harper Avenue St. Clair Shores, Michigan 48082

Dear Mr. Young:

This is in reply to your letter of September 24, 1979, to Mr. Vinson of this office asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You referred to the SAE standard on motorcycle headlamps, J584, which specifies that the "bulb or unit shall be operated at its rated voltage during the photometric test." You asked whether the "rated voltage" of J584 is the same rated voltage of ECE Regulation 37 when the bulb in question is a European bulb bearing an E mark signifying compliance with Regulation 37.

The term "rated voltage" is not defined by J584 or by the corresponding standard on sealed beam headlamps, J579c. It is our opinion, however, that "rated voltage" is the equivalent of "design voltage" on the basis of the SAE standard that covers bulbs used in sealed beam headlamps, J573d, Lamps Bulbs and Sealed Units. Table 2 of J573d lists voltages for such headlamps under the heading of "Design."

We realize that your question arises in the context of recent testing by NHTSA of Cibie headlamps, incorporating European H4 halogen bulbs, for compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 108 for motorcycle headlighting. NHTSA tested these headlamps at 12.8 volts and discovered that the maximum allowable 5000 candela at test point 4D-V was exceeded by many of the lamps tested. You raised the question whether NHTSA should not have tested at 12 volts, the "rated value" given by Regulation 37 for the H4 bulb, at which value all lamps tested by NHTSA would have complied at test point 4D-V.

We do not believe that NHTSA is required by J589 to test the H4 bulb at 12 volts. Regulation 37 specifies a "test voltage" of 13.2 for the H4 bulb, a point apparently recognized by EFPE Company's catalogue "Turned on Lighting" which gives wattage figures for the headlamps in question "at 13.2 design volts as specified by the bulb manufacturer." If anything, NHTSA was overly conservative in testing its lamps at 12.8 volts, for it is apparent that had it tested at 13.2 volts even more failures would have occurred.

As Roman Brooks explained to you, it has been the European practice as nearly as we can determine to test the H4 bulb at 12.8 volts, apparently in recognition that the higher voltage levels are closer to those generated by the electrical systems of the motor vehicles on which the headlamps are installed. Given this fact and Regulation 37's specification of 13.2 test volts, we do not believe that a lamp manufacturer could successfully argue in court that J584 was ambiguous and should be construed against NHTSA in any attempt by this agency to enforce motorcycle headlighting requirements on the basis of results of tests conducted at 12.8 volts.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel