ID: nht90-2.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 8, 1990

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

TO: BILL WALTZ -- WAGNER DIVISION, COOPER INDUSTRIES, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 10-13-89 TO STEPHEN WOOD FROM BILL WALTZ ATTACHED; (OCC 4056). TEXT:

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 1950's. The lamps would be marked "1" and "2" in accordance with the nomenclature of the day, rather than "2D1", "1C1", and "2C1", as required by Standard No. 108. 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 curren tly 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 15 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. 108 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 su ch, they must be designed to conform to the photometric requirements of SAE Standard J579c, December 1978, which are incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. They are considered replacement equipment, and must conform to all requirements of standa rd No. 108, including marking and certification.

Standard No. 108 covers both original and replacement vehicle equipment. Depending on the vehicle category, it became effective for original equipment on January 1, 1968, and January 1, 1969. On January 1, 1972, it became effective for equipment intende d to replace original equipment on all motor vehicles manufactured on and after January 1, 1972. Therefore, it might appear that the standard would not apply in any event to replacement equipment for 1950'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 1950's vehicles, these circular headlamps are interchangeable with circular headlamps installed on any vehicle manufactured after the effective dates of Standard No. 108. Therefore, they must be designed to conform with Standard No. 108, and marked and certified accordingly.

The intended markings "1" and "2" would signify mistakenly that the headlamps were designed to conform to SAE standard J579a, October 1965 (which also did not require the OT symbol on the lens). Until June 1989, SAE J579a was incorporated in Standard No. 108 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.

ID: nht68-1.14

DATE: 03/15/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; David A. Fay; NHTSA

TO: Gruppe Autoelektrik

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of March 7, 1968, to Mr. George C. Mield, concerning the requirements for motorcycle headlamps as specified in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

On motorcycles Standard No. 108 permits the use of unsealed head-lamps conforming to SAE Standard J524. You will note that this SAE Standard(Illegible Words)not reference bulb sockets conforming to SAE Standard J567, which is intended to insure functional compatibility between bulb sockets and the bulbs lasted in SAE Standard J573. Therefore, the bulbs used in motorcycle headlamps conforming to SAE Standard J584 need not conform to SAE Standard J573.

Thank you for writing.

Sincerely,

US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration National Highway Safety Bureau Attention George C. Nield Acting Director

Subject: Safety Standard 108

Dear Mr. Nield,

With your letter of July 10, 1987, you informed me that secondary and related SAE standards are indirectly part of the above-mentioned standards.

I have concluded from your statement that employment bulbs according to SAE standard J573 is compulsory from the date of entering into force of standard 108.

A special problem is the design of motor cycle head-lamps to conform with the new safety standard 108 of January 1, 1969.

Indeed, safety standard 108 prescribes for motor cycle headlamps SAE standard J 584 of April 1964. This standard relates to J 575 d of August 1967. Both standards allow in principle unsealed units for motor cycle headlamps.

However, in the next related standard J 573 "lamp bulbs and sealed units" no appropriate bulb can be found suitable for unsealed headlamps.

Therefore I feel that also for motor cycle headlamps only sealed units are permitted from January 1, 1969.

I should be very grateful to have a rapid answer from you since we have no more much lead time for redesigning and re-tooling our motor cycle headlamps.

Sincerely yours, ROBERT BOSCH GMBH Gruppe Xutoslektrik,

ID: 1984-1.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/14/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Department of State Police; Commonwealth of Virginia

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

U.S. Department of Transportation

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

MAY 14 1984

B. R. Belsches, Captain Safety Officer Department of State Police Commonwealth of Virginia P.O. Box 27472 Richmond, Virginia 23261-7472

Dear Captain Belsches:

This is in response to your letter of April 20, 1984, asking for an interpretation of paragraph S4.6(b) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 and "a history relative to the inclusion of such function of headlamps and marker lamps."

Paragraph S4.6(b) allows means to be provided for the automatic flashing of headlamps and side marker lamps for signaling purposes, as an exception to the general rule that vehicle lamps (other than turn and hazard warning signals, and school bus warning lamps) be steady-burning in use. This confirms your understanding of the wording of the standard and its effect. It does not allow, however,modulating headlamps which do not flash on and off, but deviate between a higher intensity end a lower one.

Originally, paragraph S3.5 of the standard (see e.g . 49 CFR 371.21, Standard No. 108 rev. as of January 1, 1970) stated that "normally steady-burning lamps may be capable of being flashed for signaling purposes." On January 3, 1970, the agency proposed paragraph S4.6 (35 F.R. 106) as it exists today. It was adopted on October 31, 1970 (35 F.R. 16840). The agency observed that some commenters requested that additional lamps be permitted to flash and some requested that flashing headlamps be prohibited. It also noted that, with the exceptions set forth in S4.6(a), flashing lamps should be reserved for emergency and road maintenance-type vehicles, and that flashing lamps are otherwise prohibited in the Uniform Vehicle Code. The agency further noted that lamps could be flashed by the driver merely by turning the switch on and off, and that itcould not prohibit that type of operation, but that the definition of "Flash," also adopted in the amendments, made clear that automatic flashers for use with steady-burning lamps other than headlamps and side marker lamps were prohibited.

This is the rulemaking history of paragraph S4.6. I hope that this will answer your questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA

DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE P.O.Box 2472, Richmond, Virginia 23261-7472

April 20, 1984

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel, NHTSA 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

In Virginia we prohibit flashing or modulating headlamps used for the purpose of emergency warning; however, there appears to be some conflict to this Virginia mandate in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

I refer to 49CFR (FMVSS), Part 571.108, Paragraph S4.6, Subparagraph b. From the wording in this paragraph, it appears that manufacturers are permitted to provide a means to flash headlamps and side marker lamps for signaling purposes.

Would you provide us an interpretation of this paragraph and, if possible, a history relative to the inclusion and benefit of such function of headlamps and marker lamps.

Sincerely,

B. R. Belsches, Captain Safety Officer (AC-804-323-2017)

BRB/kf

ID: lawrence.2.ztv

Mr. Lon Lawrence
3305 Boyd Drive
Carlsbad, NM 88220

Dear Mr. Lawrence:

This is in reply to your recent fax to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency asking that we intervene on your behalf with the Attorney General of New Mexico so that she may inform "all New Mexico Law enforcement agencies that modulating headlamps [on motorcycles] are legal."

You reported that the New Mexico Motorcycle Riders Organization (NMMRO) has expressed an intent to draft a letter to the state Attorney General for an interpretation but that NMMRO had not yet done so. In the meantime, on July 24, 2003, the New Mexico State Police sent you a letter (which you also faxed to us) stating that it finds "no current legal foundation for your assertion that Federal Statues [sic] preclude local entities from citing you for the use of modulating headlamps," but then advises that the commander of the Roswell District has been instructed "to have his officers refrain from citing for the use of modulating headlamps."

We are not familiar with the laws of New Mexico. We know, however, that some States have objected to modulating motorcycle headlamps because, in their opinion, such headlamps "flash," in contravention of State laws that allow flashing lamps to be used only on emergency vehicles. I am enclosing copies of several of our most recent interpretations on State laws and modulating motorcycle headlamps: letters to Frank A. Schaub (March 24, 2003), relating to Connecticut law, to Michael L. Wagner (June 20, 2000), relating to Indiana law, and to Henry S. Winokur (January 21, 1999), relating to Maryland law. They may prove helpful to you and others in your contacts with the motor vehicle authorities of your State.

If you have any questions, you may call Eric Stas of this Office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:108
d.9/9/03

ID: aiam4714

Dear Mr. Maday: This is in reply to your letter with respect to th automatic light switching device whose potential for the U.S. market you are assessing. The device automatically activates the headlamps at a pre-determined (but adjustable) level of darkness. There is a manual override for the operator. I regret the delay in responding. You have asked two questions: 'l. What legislation is in force or pending regarding the mandatory utilization of such daytime running lights for vehicles?' None. The agency once proposed that motor vehicles be equipped with daytime running lamps as an option, but it terminated rulemaking on this subject without taking action. '2. What regulations, standards, forms, etc. have to be submitted to you or the appropriate agency to ensure that the product meets any U.S. specifications or standards prior to importation. None. There are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to this item of motor vehicle equipment. However, if you intend it to be installed as an item of original equipment, it must not create a noncompliance with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, or result in an impairment of the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that the standard requires. For example, the standard requires the taillamps to be activated when the headlamps are activated. Therefore, when your device activates the headlamps, the taillamps must also be activated. Though expressed in somewhat different terms, the acceptability of your device in the aftermarket is governed by a similar consideration: it may not be installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business if the installation would render inoperative any element of design or device installed in accordance with Standard No. 108. The device would remain subject to the laws of any State in which it is sold or operated. We are unable to advise you as to its acceptability under State laws, and recommend that you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam5656

"Dear Mr. Russell: This responds to your FAX of November 15, 1995, t Blane Laubis of this agency, asking for an interpretation of Federal lighting regulations as they may affect your plans to modify your 1956 Jeep. You wish to add two additional auxiliary lights to supplement your upper beams, and you ask whether these lights are 'required to be DOT approved.' The answer is no, the DOT regulation on motor vehicle lighting (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment does not prescribe requirements for lamps intended to supplement the headlamps, and thus the lamps of which you speak do not have to be certified as meeting Standard No. 108. As a matter of information, your use of the words 'DOT approved' reflects a common misconception. We have no authority to approve or disapprove lighting equipment. Under our statute, a lighting (or vehicle) manufacturer is required to certify that its equipment (or vehicle) meets Standard No. 108 (if it is replacement equipment included in the standard), and the use of the DOT symbol on the item is the most frequently used method of certification. This means that the 'DOT approved' headlamps on your 1956 Jeep are probably replacement sealed beams with DOT markings on them. You ask whether there is any limitation to bulb wattage for auxiliary lamps used to supplement the headlamps when used on the upper beam. There is no wattage limitation, however, if auxiliary lamps were installed by the dealer on a new vehicle before its first sale, we would regard the vehicle manufacturer's certification as negated if the brightness and location of the auxiliary lamps were such as to affect an oncoming driver's ability to perceive the front turn signals. Although your Jeep was manufactured long before the effective date of Standard No. 108 (January 1, 1969), we ask you to consider this safety concern when adding auxiliary lamps. We do not know the local laws on this subject, and recommend that you seek advice from the Department of California Highway Patrol. If you have any further questions, Taylor Vinson of this Office will answer them for you (phone 202-366-5263). Sincerely, Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel";

ID: nht87-1.69

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/22/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; SIGNATURE UNAVAILABLE; NHTSA

TO: T. Chikada

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. T. Chikada Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept. Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakemeguro, Meguro-ku Tokyo 153, Japan

Dear Mr. Chikada:

This is in reply to your letter of March 13, 1987, with respect to the mounting height of driving lamps and front fog lamps. Noting that these lamps are not equipment required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, you have asked whether they need to be mounted within the range of height which the standard prescribes for headlamps, or may they be mounted, for example, at a height lower than 22 inches such as in the front bumper.

Any lamp that is not required by Standard No. 108 may be added to a motor vehicle and located wherever it appears suitable, provided that the lamp at its location does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. Headlamps , parking lamps, and turn signal lamps are the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108 on the front of a passenger car, and any other four-wheeled vehicle of less than 80 inches overall width. Although Standard No. 108 imposes a minimum mounting height of 22 inches on headlamps, it allows parking lamps and turn signal lamps to be mounted as low as 15 inches above the road surface, which means that they could be mounted in the front bumper, or otherwise close to the mounting location of fog lamps and driving lamps. Therefore, compliance with paragraph S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108 would require a manufacturer of a vehicle equipped with fog and driving lamps to ensure that they do not impair the effectiveness of the headlamps, turn signal lamps, and parking lamps.

Because fog lamps and driving lamps are not covered by Standard No. 108, the individual States may have their own restrictions on the mounting height of these lamps. We regret that we are unable to advise you on these laws. However, the American Associat ion of Motor Vehicle Administrator (AAMVA), 1201 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C., may be able to advise you.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Dear Ms. Jones,

Re : Mounting height of auxiliary driving lamps and front fog lamps

We have a question on mounting height of driving lamps and front fog lamps.

Do they need to be mounted within the range of height which is required for headlamps in FMVSS No. 108?

Although they help the function of headlamps, they are not required lighting equipments in FMVSS No. 108.

So we understand that they can be mounted in the lower position than 22 inches, the lower required height of headlamps; for example, into the front bumper, the height of which is less than 22 inches.

We would like to have your confirmation on this matter. We are looking forward to your reply.

Yours sincerely,

Stanley Electric Co, Ltd.

T. Chikada Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept.

ID: 2776y

AIR MAIL

Mr. M. Iwase General Manager Technical Administration Department Koito Mfg. Co. Ltd. Shizuoka Works 500, Kitawaki Shimizu-Shi, Shizuoka-Ken Japan

Dear Mr. Iwase:

This is in response to your letter of November 20, l990 with respect to "interpretation and/or petition" concerning combination headlighting systems.

Koito has asked about the permissibility of two or four lamp headlighting systems in which the upper beam would be provided by integral beam headlamps, and the lower beam by replaceable bulb headlamps.

The systems you describe would not be permissible under Standard No. l08, which allows only the three types of headlighting systems that you mention. Integral beam headlighting systems must be comprised of integral beam headlamps which, by definition, are headlamps other than sealed beam or replaceable bulb headlamps. Replaceable bulb headlighting systems are those that incorporate the standardized replaceable light sources listed in Standard No. l08.

We are transmitting your request to the Office of Rulemaking, for consideration as a petition for rulemaking.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:108 d:l2/l3/90

ID: nht90-4.83

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: December 13, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: M. Iwase -- General Manager, Technical Administration Department, Koito Mfg. Co. Ltd.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-20-90 to Paul Jackson Rice from M. Iwase (OCC 5458)

TEXT:

This is in response to your letter of November 20, 1990 with respect to "interpretation and/or petition" concerning combination headlighting systems.

Koito has asked about the permissibility of two or four lamp headlighting systems in which the upper beam would be provided by integral beam headlamps, and the lower beam by replaceable bulb headlamps.

The systems you describe would not be permissible under Standard No. 108, which allows only the three types of headlighting systems that you mention. Integral beam headlighting systems must be comprised of integral beam headlamps which, by definition, a re headlamps other than sealed beam or replaceable bulb headlamps. Replaceable bulb headlighting systems are those that incorporate the standardized replaceable light sources listed in Standard No. 108.

We are transmitting your request to the Office of Rulemaking, for consideration as a petition for rulemaking.

ID: aiam4130

Gentlemen: This is in response to a letter from Robert Bosch GmbH dated March 13 1986, with reference to 'Approval for exemption from Humidity test S6.8' of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; You have asked that vented replaceable bulb headlamps produced b Robert Bosch be exempted from compliance with paragraph S6.8 of Standard No. 108 on the grounds that failure to comply would be inconsequential noncompliance. You request that this exemption continue until such time as S6.8 is modified, presumably in accordance with the petition for its amendment which you filed in October 1985. The purpose of your request is to allow you 'to test headlamps with ventilation openings pursuant to the procedure described on page 4' of your petition, and in the event that that test is successful 'we request authority to use the headlamps in motor vehicles.'; I should like to explain briefly our exemption authority because we ca not consider your request. You have asked us to excuse prospective conduct that would otherwise be a noncompliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Our laws and regulations do not permit this course of action. The inconsequentiality regulations (Part 556) excuse past conduct under which noncompliances have already occurred but which have ended at the time the petition is filed. A grant of an inconsequentiality petition means that the manufacturer of motor vehicles or of motor vehicle equipment is relieved of its obligation to notify purchasers of the existence of the noncompliance, and to remedy it.; Your petition for rulemaking is under evaluation, and you will b notified of the agency's decision in the near future. Until such time as the standard may be amended, all manufacturers are required to comply with all the requirements contained therein. Thus, an exemption such as you request is not possible.; As an aside, we note that the letter appears to have been signed by Herr Berg and another Bosch representative whose signature is illegible. It would be helpful to us if your letters to us would contain the name and title of the signers below their signatures, so that we can address our replies to the proper office. You may also wish to note for your records that Ms. Steed is the Administrator of NHTSA (since 1983, in fact) and that her first name is Diane, rather than Diana.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel