ID: nht68-2.12

DATE: 06/03/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; David A. Fay; NHTSA

TO: Gruppe Autoelektrik

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letters of March 7 and May 15, 1968, to Mr. George C. Nield, concerning the requirements for motorcycle headlamps as specified in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

On motorcycles, Standard No. 108 permits the use of unscaled headlamps conforming to SAE Standard J584. You will note that this SAE standard does not reference bulb sockets conforming to SAE Standard J567, which is intended to insure functional compatibility between bulb sockets and the bulbs listed 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.

ID: nht87-3.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/05/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Patterson Incorporated

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. Barry Patterson President Patterson Incorporated 1920 Springfield Road Kelowna, B.C. VlY 7R8

Dear Mr. Patterson:

This is in reply to your letter of September 21, 1987, asking for our "acceptance and recommendation" of a safety device "endorsed" by the government of the province of Saskatchewan. This device automatically activates parking lamps, and the lower beams of headlamps "with the touch of the Brake Pedal".

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has no authority to accept, recommend, or endorse any item of motor vehicle equipment. We can, however, discuss the relationship of your device to U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, Lamp Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("the Act") under which the standard was issued. This standard applies to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. A device such as yours is permi ssible as original vehicle equipment as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. There is no indication in your descriptive literature that the effectiveness of packing lamps, headlamps, or the stop lamps would be impaired by the installation and operation of your device. With respect to sale in the aftermarket for vehicles in use, your device is not prohibited under the Act if its installation by a person other than the vehicle owner does not rend er inoperative in whole or in part any lamps installed to comply with Standard No. 108. We see no indication that this would occur. However, such an installer should be aware of the wiring requirement in Standard No. 108 that taillamps, parking lamps, si de marker lamps, and the license plate lamp shall be activated when the headlamps are on. The rules for operation of vehicles in use are established by the individual States, and several of these may have restrictions on the use of headlamps during daylight hours. For further information on this subject you should write the American Associati on of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 1201 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.

This agency has proposed that motor vehicles be equipped with daytime running lights, in a manner similar, though not identical, to the new requirement of the Canadian Ministry of Transport. If this proposal is adopted, the Act would prohibit any State f rom having a different standard than the Federal one. As of the effective date of such an amendment to Standard No. 108 daytime operation of frontal lighting should be permissible in all States. If you have any further questions we will be pleased to answer them.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: nht81-2.43

DATE: 07/07/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Carabela USA, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 8, 1981 requesting "the candlepower rating on a moped headlamp."

I enclose a copy of SAE Standard J584 Motorcycle and Motor Driven 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.

ENC.

Carabela USA, Inc.

6-8-81

Office of Chief Council NHTSA

Dear Mr. Schwartz:

Please quote me the candlepower rating on a moped headlamp, if any. Thank you.

Barry N. Aebischer Mktg. Coordinator

ID: aiam3506

Dear Mr. Munoz: This is in reply to your letter of November 22, 1982, asking whethe Federal regulations would prohibit use of your patented device, the 'Illuminated Wonder Panel.' This device would be used in the space provided for the front license plate and consists of a panel on which numbers or letters would be illuminated from behind, if an owner wished to 'personalize' his vehicle. You have indicated that the candela for each character averages .0365, and that with a seven character maximum, a total output of less than .25 candela would result. You submitted photographs showing this device in operation from a distance of 50 feet on a vehicle using parking lamps only, and using parking lamps/low beam headlamps.; Your device is not directly regulated by the Federal motor vehicl safety standard on vehicle lighting, Standard No. 108 (sic) As an item of original equipment, your device is permissible unless it impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard, such as parking lamps and headlamps. Judging by the photographs you submitted, it does not appear that your device would impair the effectiveness of other lighting equipment. As an aftermarket item, your device is subject to regulation by any State in which the vehicle bearing it is registered. You will have to consult these States for further advice.; We hope that this is responsive to your request. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: 17683.ztv

Mr. Nick Tysoe
Rolls-Royce Motor Cars Ltd.
Crewe
Cheshire CW1 3PL
England

Dear Mr. Tysoe:

This is in reply to your fax of March 24, 1998, asking for an interpretation of S7.8.5 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Rolls-Royce is considering a four-lamp headlighting system in which the upper and lower beams would be provided by separate headlamps. You ask if it would be permissible for the lower beam headlamps to be visually/optically aimable and the upper beam headlamps to be mechanically aimable by external means.

This is not permissible under Standard No. 108. We interpret Standard No. 108 as requiring identical headlighting systems on both sides of a new vehicle, including their aiming features. I enclose a copy of a letter dated March 10, 1998, that this Office sent to Herr Spingler of Robert Bosch GmbH which explains the agency's views.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:108
d.6/19/98

ID: nht90-3.46

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 2, 1990

FROM: S. Watanabe -- General Manager, Automotive Equipment Technical Coordination Dept., Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

TO: Richard L. Van Iderstine -- Safety Standards Engineer, NHTSA

TITLE: Re The effective date of the downward torque deflection requirements for external mechanical aiming of replaceable bulb headlamps (S7.7.5.1(a))

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-30-90 to S. Watanabe from P. J. Rice; (A36; Std. 108)

TEXT:

We would like to have your advice on the effective date of the downward torque deflection requirements for external mechanical aiming of replaceable bulb headlamps (Paragraph S7.7.5. 1 (a)).

In our understanding, the effective date is September 1, 1990 and on or after this date, Lamp manufacturers (such as Stanley, not car manufacturer), have to manufacture the external mechanical aiming of replaceable bulb headlamps which conform the downwa rd torque deflection requirements (Paragraph S7.7.5.1 (a)). Are they correct understandings?

Your kind advice will be highly appreciated.

ID: nht68-2.11

DATE: 05/27/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; David A. Fay; NHTSA

TO: FWD Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of January 11, 1968, Dr. William Haddon, Jr., concerning the location of headlamps on vehicles which are used for snow plow service. I regret that a clerical error resulted in this late reply to your inquiry.

Snow plows are motor vehicles and subject to regulatory actions as established by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966.

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 requires that vehicles to which the standard is applicable be equipped with headlamps that are located not less than 24 inches nor more than 54 inches above the road surface (see Table II of the standard). This requirement does not prohibit the use of additions) headlamps located at greater heights as illustrated by the photographs enclosed with your referenced letter.

Thank you for writing.

ID: 12328.ztv

Julius Fisher, Esq.
McAulay Fisher Nissen Goldberg & Kiel, LLP
261 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016-2391

Re: U.S. Patent No. 5,389,913

Warning System for Vehicles

Your file Jodee P-8A

Dear Mr. Fisher:

This is in reply to your letter of August 6, 1996, to the former Chief Counsel, Samuel Dubbin, with respect to whether a warning system for motor vehicles which you describe would be permitted by paragraph S5.1.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment (49 CFR 571.108).

As you describe it, the system "provides a visual indication of a warning situation through use of the parking lamps, high beam headlamps, and back-up lamps." The system operates as follows: "when the horn is sounded, electrical circuits are energized . . . which cause the high beam of the headlamps to flash on and off, in synchronism with the flasher. If the high beams or back-up lamps are already in their 'on' state, they will change to a 'flashing' state." In addition, the parking lamps are activated in a steady-burning state when the horn is sounded (no change takes place if the parking lamps are already on). If the lower beams are on when the horn is sounded, there is no change either; only the upper beams begin to flash.

We note from reading the patent that the system incorporates an "off relay delay" which "is set for a predetermined time during which it stays in its on state after being energized. This predetermined time might be for five seconds." We note also that the system may be extended to other lamps but that the inventors have not chosen to do so because "such might produce confusion and/or an inappropriate response." Finally, we note that the flash rate is unspecified but can be changed. A range of from a quarter of a second to a second is mentioned.

Standard No. 108 establishes lighting requirements that a motor vehicle must meet up to the time it is first purchased in good faith other than for resale. When a vehicle has been manufactured to conform with Standard No. 108, a dealer must not add optional equipment that creates a noncompliance.

The principal provision of Standard No. 108 that affects the warning system is paragraph S5.5.10 which prescribes wiring requirements for lighting equipment in use. Under paragraph S5.5.10(b) "Headlamps and side marker lamps may be wired to flash for signaling purposes". However, under paragraph S5.5.10(d), "All other lamps shall be wired to be steady-burning." This means that it is permissible under paragraph S5.5.10(b) for the upper beam headlamps to flash, but the warning system would create a noncompliance with paragraph S5.5.10(d) when the back-up lamps flashed.

The acceptability of optional lighting equipment is also dependent upon paragraph S5.1.3 which forbids the addition of any equipment "that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard." The warning system's activation of the parking lamps would not appear to have an impairing effect on the front lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. Nor can we conclude that a flashing of the upper beam when the lower beam is on would have an impairing effect.

Under Federal law, the acceptability of the warning system as an item of equipment sold in the aftermarket is determinable by 49 U.S.C. 30122. This section prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses from "making inoperative" any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal safety standard. As we have discussed, the system would create a noncompliance in the operation of the back-up lamp, which, in our opinion, is the same as making it inoperative. However, this prohibition does not apply to an owner who installs the warning system. Nevertheless, the warning system would remain subject to acceptability under local laws. We are unable to advise you on these and suggest that you consult local officials in areas where the inventors would like to sell their warning system.

We appreciate the concern shown in the patent that the system not create confusion and/or an inappropriate response from other drivers. But we believe it more likely than not that a driver ahead of a vehicle equipped with the warning system will indeed be confused when confronted with the sounding of a horn and the sudden presence of flashing upper beam headlamps in the rear view mirrors, and will not understand the "message" that is being conveyed. How this might impact safety is speculative. But with the increasing trend towards aggressive drivers on the roads, a system of this nature could be subject to abuse, even if its flash rate and duration were standardized and immutable.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108#VSA
d:8/30/96

ID: 11698.ZTV

M. Guy Dorleans
International Regulatory Affairs Manager
VALEO
34, rue St.-Andre
93012 Bobigny cedex
France

Dear M. Dorleans:

We have received your letter of March 19, 1996, asking for an interpretation of paragraphs S7.2(a) and S7.5(g) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. These paragraphs require that lenses of replaceable bulb headlamps be marked with the DOT symbol and the HB-type of light source used in the headlamp. Your engineers contemplate a clear-lensed headlamp, and would like to engrave these markings on a visible area of the inner bezel where they are easily seen from the outside. You ask for confirmation that this would meet the "spirit" of the requirement even if the definition of lens doesn't apply to an interior part.

The Federal motor vehicle safety standards specify objective requirements. Failure to mark the lens in the manner specified by Standard No. 108 would create a noncompliance with the standard. Paragraphs S7.2(a) and S7.5(g) are very specific in their requirements that the lens be marked, and do not allow alternative marking of the bezel if the lens is clear.

If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (FAX 202-366-3820).

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref:108 d:4/25/96

ID: nht76-2.48

DATE: 02/26/76

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

TO: Peterbilt Motors Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 6, 1976, asking whether it 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 be 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,

ATTACH.

February 6, 1976

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

Reference: FMVSS-108, Section 4.5.3

Gentlemen:

Peterbilt Motors Company has been requested to construct a fleet of truck tractors. These tractors will, of course, comply with the above referenced regulation, including the referenced sub-section regarding tail lamp operation.

However, we have been further requested to provide electrical wiring and circuitry on the tractors to the tractor cabs which will permit the customer to activate the truck trailer tail lamps when the tractor marker lamps are activated rather than when the headlamps are activated.

Through telephone contact with your office, we were informed that our providing such circuitry would not be in violation of the referenced regulation.

Therefore, by this letter we wish to confirm your telephone remarks and to state our intention that, unless otherwise notified, we will provide the circuitry requested by this customer.

Sincerely,

Arlen E. Riggs -- Legal Manager

cc: K.R. Brownstein - Corporate Legal