ID: nht70-2.35

DATE: 11/12/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. H. Compton; NHTSA

TO: Department of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 21, 1970, to the National Highway Safety Bureau, concerning environmental tests for sealed beam headlamps used on motocycles and motor-driven cycles.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 requires that motorcycle and motor-driven cycle headlamps conform to SAE Standard J584. This SAE Standard, in turn, permits optional use of "one 7-in. sealed beam unit or one 5 3/4-in. Type 1 and one 5 3/4-in. Type 2 sealed beau units meeting the requirements of SAE J579".

Therefore, unsealed motorcycle and motor-driven cycle headlamps must conform to the vibration, moisture, dust and corrosion test requirements of SAE J584. Glass sealed beau motocycle and motor-driven cycle headlamps, which are designed specifically to conform to the requirements of SAE J584 (including photometric values), and which are not intended for use on other vehicles, must conform to the vibration, moisture and corrosion test requirement of SAE J584. Such test requirements would not, however, be applicable if a manufacturer elected to provide optional headlamps meeting the requirements of SAE J579a.

ID: 77-3.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/22/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joan Claybrook; NHTSA

TO: Hon. R. W. Straub - Governor of Oregon

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: The purpose of this letter is to express this agency's views on legislation recently enacted by the State of Oregon which appears to be preempted by Federal legislation of the same subject matter.

Specifically, we understand that ORS 483.404 was amended in June 1977 to require that headlamps on motor vehicles registered in Oregon meet the standards established for such under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 or

". . . the United Nations Agreement concerning the Adoption of Approval and Reciprocal Recognition of Approval for Motor Vehicle Equipment and Parts; done at Geneva on 20 March 1958, as amended and adopted by the Canadian Standards Association (CSA Standard 106.2) or both."

Under 15 U.S.C. 1392(d):

"Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established under this title is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard." [Emphasis added.]

Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1392(a) [Section 103(a) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966] Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (49 CFR 571.108), has been established, effective January 1, 1972, as the Federal standard for lighting devices both as original and replacement equipment on motor vehicles.

The United Nations Agreement, and this Agreement as amended by the Canadian Standards Association, permits the use of motor vehicle headlamps that are not of sealed beam construction and whose candlepower output may exceed 75,000. Further, they do not require that the headlamps be mechanically aimable. Standard No. 108, on the other hand, requires that headlamps a passenger vehicles be of sealed beam construction, imposes a limit of 75,000 candlepower on all but one type of headlamp, and specifies that all headlamps be mechanically aimable. Thus, the United Nations Agreement, and that Agreement as amended by the Canadian Standards Association, do not specify requirements for headlamps that are identical to those of Standard No. 108. This means that this part of the amendment to ORS 483.404 is, in our opinion, preempted by 15 U.S.C. 1392(d), and of no legal effect.

As a consequence, it is our conclusion that any person in Oregon manufacturing for sale, selling, offering for sale, introducing or delivering for introduction in interstate commerce, or importing into the United States through the State of Oregon any lighting equipment that does not conform to Standard No. 108, in reliance upon ORS 483.404, could be subject to civil penalties for apparent violations of 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A) in an amount up to $ 800,000 (15 U.S.C. 1398(a)), and to a restraining order (15 U.S.C. 1399(a)). There is no preemption, however, of your State's right to specify requirements for lighting equipment not currently included in Standard No. 108 (e.g. foglamps).

Section 1392(d) and the Act's preemptive effect have been invariably upheld. (See e.g. Chrysler Corp. v. Malloy, 294 F. Supp. 524 (U.S.D.C. Vt. 1968), Chrysler Corp. v. Tofany, 419 F.2d 499 (C.C.A. 2 1969)). We would also observe that the interpretation by an administering agency of its own statutes and regulations, has been viewed by courts as "of controlling weight." (Thorpe v. Housing Authority of Durham, 393 U.S. 268 (1969) quoted with approval in Chrysler Corp. v. Tofany, supra, at 512.)

We would appreciate the views of the State of Oregon on this subject. Questions on it may be referred to the Chief Counsel of this agency, Joseph J. Levin, Jr. The agency's position on this matter was presented previously in a letter dated May 27, 1977, from Mr. Levin to the Administrator of the Oregon Senate Transportation Committee. The Committee, however, chose to disregard our opinion, when it considered Oregon House Bill 2998 and recommended its passage.

ID: nht76-2.47

DATE: 02/12/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: F. A. McNiel

COPYEE: HON. J. J. PICKLE

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your petition of November 7, 1975, "for the correction of subsection S4.5.4 and S4.6(b) as set forth by existing Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108."

It is your opinion that S4.5.4, which requires activation of stop lamps upon application of the service brakes, is design restrictive, and "leaves no opportunity for innovation by the private sector for other solutions for the activation of a motor vehicle's stoplamps". You have suggested that S4.5.4 be amended to include at its end "or by other beneficial means which will not impair the lighting system or the mechanical functioning of the vehicle".

Any performance standard is design restrictive to some extent; it must restrict manufacturers to designs that meet the desired performance requirements. Its validity as a performance standard depends on whether the restrictions of the standard are only as narrow as reasonably necessary to achieve the desired safety performance. In this case we have found that the requirement meets this test. A signal to other drivers that the service brakes are being applied is precisely the performance being sought in S4.5.4. A signal based on some other condition (e.g., vehicle deceleration, might not be as timely, or might fail altogether to operate at the critical moment (as where it is based on lifting the accelerator pedal). Since the requirement is limited to the desired safety performance, we find it valid, and your petition in this area is denied.

You also ask for an amendment of S4.6(b) to include "rearlamps" among those that may be flashed for signalling purposes, since you believe that conventional wiring circuits presently allow these lamps to be flashed when headlamps are flashed. When the headlamps are flashed by means of the on-off switch, it is true that rear lamps will flash. But that type of flashing is in no way restricted by the standard. The flashing intended to be regulated by S4.6(b) is by automatic means (see S3 definitions) and, except for rear turn signal lamps, these automatic devices would not be connected to rear lamp circuits. Thus, there appears to be no need for the amendment you suggest and your petition is accordingly denied.

We appreciate your continuing efforts on behalf of traffic safety.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

F. A. McNiel 611 Bouldin Avenue Austin, Texas 78704

NOVEMBER 7, 1975

U. S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: A petition for the correction of sub-sections S4.5.4 and S4.6(b) as set forth by existing Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Gentlemen:

Quoting from a letter date of Jan. 29, 1968, from William Heddon Jr., Director of the Department of Transportation National Highway Safety Bureau, in answer to a letter that Congressman J. J. Pickle had forwarded to the Department of Transportation in my behalf, - Director Haddon states:

"under the law the Congress directed us to set 'performance' standards and not standards requiring specific devices or designs. The Congress chose this approach to give the private sector the greatest opportunity for innovation and to permit a variety of solutions in meeting specific performance requirements".

The 'performance' standards as established by FMVSS No. 108 for the functioning of a motor vehicle's stoplamps are as follows;

Except for the size, location, lens type, and candlepower, the only standard 'set' for stoplamp functioning that is covered by FMVSS No. 108 is sub-section S4.5.4, which states:

"The stoplamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes".

Sub-section S4.5.4 is in direct conflict with Director Haddon's letter on two seperate counts, i.e.

1. Said section as worded constitutes a mandate of intendence that a 'specific design' (use of the service brakes) shall be the only means used to activate a motor vehicle's stoplamps.

2. Also, as worded sub-section S4.5.4 leaves no opportunity for innovation by the private sector for other solutions for the activation of a motor vehicle's stoplamps.

In order to comply with Director Haddon's interpretation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, I propose that sub-section S4.5.4 be expanded to read as follows:

"The stoplamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon the application of the service brakes, or by other beneficial means which will not impair the lighting system or the mechanical functioning of the vehicle".

Under Section S4.5 'special wiring requirements'

Sub-section S4.5.7 states - (a) "When the parking lamps are activated the taillamps, license plate lamps, and side marker lamps shall also be activated", - and (b) "When the headlamps are activated in a steady-burning state, the taillamps, license plate lamps, and side marker lamps shall also be activated". - Thus, the said section stipulates that it is mandatory that the side marker lamps be in-circuit with the taillamps and license plate lamps.

Under Section S4.6 'when activated'

S4.6 states, - (a) "Turn signal lamps, hazard warning lamps, and school bus warning lamps shall flash", - and (b) "All other lamps shall be steady-burning, except that means may be provided to flash headlamps and side marker lamps for signaling purposes".

Contextually, S4.5.7 (a) and (b), and S4.6 (b) make it unlawful to flash headlamps and side marker lamps by use of the conventional lamp activating means, as this act would also flash taillamps and license plate lamps.

The only manner by which headlamps and side marker lamps could be flashed and still leave taillamps and license plate lamps steady-burning would be to isolate headlamps and side marker lamps from the conventional wiring circuit by means of auxiliary wiring and switching means which would operate indipendent of the conventional lighting system.

Installation of such auxiliary wiring and switching means would tend to be costly, - and to what avail? In what instance could the flashing of headlamps and side marker lamps for signaling purposes enhance traffic safety, - and at the same time, the flashing of taillamps and license plate lamps be detrimental to traffic safety?

To make S4.6(b) credible, and to prevent perhaps millions of motorists from unwittingly breaking the letter of the law by flashing a vehicle's lights with the conventional light switch, I propose that the word 'rearlamps' be inserted after the word 'headlamps' to make the sub-section read -- "All other lamps shall be steady-burning, except that means may be provided to flash headlamps, rearlamps, and side marker lamps for signaling purposes".

In order to bring FMVSS No. 108 more into line with the apparent intent of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, I respectfully petition the Department of Transportation for rule making to re-phrase sub-sections S4.5.4 and S4.6 (b) of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to include the wording that I have proposed.

Such re-phrasing would establish a standard against which any beneficial means for activating a motor vehicle's stoplamps could be tested.

Such a standard would provide an opportunity for the private sector to innovate means for improving the 'performance' of a motor vehicle's conventional stoplamps in a manner that could materially reduce the toll of "10 percent of the fatal motor vehicle accidents and 49 percent of all motor vehicle accidents" ascribed by the National Highway Safety Bureau as resulting from rear end collision type accidents.

Such re-phrasing would also remove the current restriction that now makes it unlawful under any circumstances for a motorist to flash a vehicle's lamps by the use of the conventional lamp activating switching means.

Respectfully,

Fred A. McNiel Traffic Safety Advocate

copy: Hon. J. J. Pickle

ID: aiam3427

Dear Mr. Aebischer: This is in reply to your letter of June 8, 1981 requesting 'th candlepower rating on a moped headlamp.'; I enclose a copy of SAE Standard J584 *Motorcycle and Motor Drive Cycle Headlamps* April 1964, which contains the information that you request. Most mopeds develop 5 horsepower or less and thus qualify as a 'motor driven cycle.'; If you have any further questions, we shall be pleased to answer them. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

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: aiam2207

Dear Mr. Riggs: This is in reply to your letter of February 6, 1976, asking whether i would violate Standard No. 108 to wire truck tractors to permit 'the customers to activate the truck trailer tail lamps when the tractor marker lamps are activated rather than when the headlamps are activated.'; S4.5.3 of Standard No. 108 which requires the tail lamps to b illuminated when the headlamps are activated applies only to single motor vehicles and not combinations thereof. Therefore we confirm your understanding that the wiring circuitry you propose to install will not violate Standard No. 108.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3714

Dear Mr. Gaia: In your letter of June 2, 1983, to the Office of Chief Counsel, yo asked if there were 'any D.O.T. requirements on miniature bulbs?'; We understand your question to refer to bulbs used in lighting device other than headlamps. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment*, imposes no performance requirements on individual bulbs used in lighting devices other than those used in replaceable bulb headlamps (an option permissible as of July 1, 1983). Other lighting devices must meet the photometric requirements of the standard with the bulb, chosen by the lighting device manufacturer, installed.; I hope that this answers your question. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: nht71-2.22

DATE: 03/29/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; L. R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagen of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: RE: PETITION TO AMEND STANDARD NO. 103

This is in response to your petition of February 24 to Douglas Toms for a amendment of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (35 F.R. 16640).

You petitioned for an amendment of S4.6(b) that would allow use of a non-automatic means for flashing headlamps. Standard No. 103 does not contain requirements for, or prohibitions against, flashing headlamps non-automatically, and therefore installation of such devices is at the option of the manufacturer.

You commented that S4.6(b) appears to require simultaneous flashing of headlamps and side marker lamps if an automatic means of flashing is provided. Your interpretation is incorrect; either headlamps or side marker lamps, or both, may be flashed by automatic means.

You also petitioned for an amendment of S4.1.1.6 and S4.1.1.7 on the basis of a conflict in the dates of applicability of the effective date of the sections. Your petition on this point is moot; this ambiquity was resolved is an amendment to Standard No. 108 published on February 3, 1971 (36 F.R. 1896). I enclose a copy for your information.

ID: nht72-2.24

DATE: 05/09/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; D. W. Toms; NHTSA

TO: Department of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 18, 1972, requesting an interpretation of the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 which relates to the use of mechanical aimers on headlamps.

Standard No. 108 references, in Tables I and III, SAE Standard J580a. As stated in your letter, SAE J580a specifies in part that "Headlamps shall be designed so that they may be checked by mechanical aimers without the removal of any ornamental trim rings or other parts." The language in this requirement, and that contained in other referenced and subreferenced SAE standards, does not specifically identify the design or complete dimensional details of "mechanical aimers." Therefore, the use of any mechanical aimer, including those fitted with special adapters for specific vehicles, would be permitted under the above stated requirement.

Specifically, you asked, "If a vehicle is so designed that the headlamps cannot be checked with mechanical aimers of the type now commonly available without the removal of ornamental trim rings or other parts, does it meet the requirements of Federal Standard 108?" A "commonly available" aimer is defined as one that is manufactured and offered for sale, including an aimer with adapters for special applications. A vehicle which is so designed that the headlamps cannot be checked with mechanical aimers as thus defined, without the removal of ornamental trim rings or other parts, would not meet the requirements of Standard No. 108.

ID: GF009527

Mr. Richard Coffel
456 Coos Bay Wagon Rd.
Roseburg, OR 97470




Dear Mr. Coffel:

This responds to your e-mail dated December 14, 2004, asking "what wattage bulb is legal in a motorcycle headlight?"

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 motorcycle headlamps, is Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. FMVSS No. 108 does not regulate the wattage of light sources (bulbs) used in replaceable bulb headlamps that are marked "motorcycle".Instead, these headlamps must conform to the photometric requirements, measured in candela, in Figure 32 of FMVSS No. 108.

For all other motorcycle headlamps that incorporate replaceable bulbs, S7.7 of FMVSS No. 108 requires, in part, that each replaceable light bulb be designed to conform to the dimensions and electrical specifications furnished with respect to it pursuant to 49 CFR Part 564, Replaceable Light Source Information (these specifications are available online at http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchFormSimple.cfm, Docket No. NHTSA-1998-3397). That is, a replacement bulb must be manufactured to conform to specifications applicable to the original bulb. Replaceable light bulb manufacturers are required to certify compliance with the requirements of S7.7 by marking the light bulb with the symbol "DOT".

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,

/s

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.3/17/05