ID: 20837.ztv

Mr. Tadzio Suzuki
Manager
Automotive Equipment
Regulation & Homologation Sect.
Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.
2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku
Tokyo 153-8636
Japan

Re: Headlamp Optical Axis Marking

Dear Mr. Suzuki:

This is in reply to your letter of October 15, 1999, asking whether the marking intended to designate the optical axis on a new headlamp complies with S7.8.1(b) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. This section requires the optical axis of visually/optically aimable headlamps to be designated by a mark.

The headlamp assembly will be used on cars intended both for Japan/Europe and the United States and has a common lens, though the light sources will differ. The headlamp intended for Japan/Europe will contain two light sources, each with its own reflector, whereas the U.S. version will be equipped with a single HB5 bulb and a single reflector. The optical axes will be marked on the lens, the U.S. version with a single circle, and the other version with two small diamonds. You relate that the lens is a clear one so that the light sources can be seen easily from outside the lens, and do not believe that multiple markings will create confusion.

The lens is properly marked as required by S7.8.1(b). The two non-required optical axis markings are permissible so long as they do not cause confusion with respect to the required marking. You indicate that the HB5 light source can be clearly seen behind the transparent lens. Therefore, we agree with you that there should be no confusion about the location of the optical axis of the U.S. version headlamp when it is necessary to assure proper horizontal and vertical alignment of the aiming screen or optical aiming equipment.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.3/27/00

ID: aiam2493

Dear Mr. Heath: This is in reply to your letter of December 16, 1976, which raise several questions with respect to motor vehicle lighting and Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; First I want to comment upon this statement: >>>'A NHTSA representative recently indicated that the standard applie to 'original equipment' replacement items such as lenses and lamps designed for specific year model vehicles, but does not apply to 'aftermarket' lighting equipment that is not manufactured for a particular vehicle but is sold for general use on any vehicle.'<<<; This is not entirely true. Standard No. 108 applies in pertinent par 'to lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment for replacement of like equipment or vehicles to which this standard applied.' The standard applies to motor vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 1972. Thus, any replacement of an original equipment item specified by Standard No. 108 must meet original equipment requirements. This not only includes lenses and lamps, such as parking lamps and tail lamps designed for specific year model vehicles but also lighting equipment sold for general use, such as headlamps, clearance lamps, and identification lamps, whose dimensions do not vary over the years.; Your first question is: >>>'1. Some aftermarket-type manufacturers produce lamps and othe devices that are shown in their catalogs for universal use with no vehicle model being mentioned. Some of these lamps may also be supplied to producers of motor homes, boat trailers, horse trailers, commercial trucks and trailers, etc., as original equipment on those vehicles. Does the fact that a portion of the production of a particular lamp is sold as replacements for the original equipment mean that the other portion sold for use on any 1976 truck or trailer is also governed by Standard No. 108 with respect to the 'aftermarket' sales?'<<<; The answer is yes, as I explained in my preliminary remarks about th applicability of Standard No. 108 to all replacement equipment.; >>>'2. In the past, motor vehicles were equipped with round-type seale beam units. Now that rectangular units are available, some owners are interested in converting the original round headlamps to the rectangular type. Are these rectangular sealed beam units and conversion kits sold to the user considered replacement of like equipment on vehicles to which this standard applies or are they subject to state regulations?'<<<; We construe the words 'like equipment' broadly. If one headlightin system is being replaced with another, the replacement headlighting system must meet the requirements of Standard No. 108, even though its configuration differs from that of the original. Obviously, a State may also regulate sale of this equipment if its requirements are identical with the Federal ones.; >>>'3. Manufacturers of nonsealed, quartz-halogen headlamp units ar energetically promoting the sale of the units in many areas of the country. These lamps differ considerably from the sealed beam units originally required on late model vehicles at the time of first sale. Do these lamps fall within federal jurisdiction or are they subject only to state regulation?'<<<; Quartz-Halogen headlamps sold in the aftermarket, intended a replacement for headlamps that comply with Standard No. 108, must also meet Federal requirements. If the lamps do not conform, not only would their sale be a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Section 108(a) (1) (A), but the removal of sealed beam headlamps by the seller or a motor vehicle repair shop to facilitate the installation of the nonconforming ones would also be a violation of the Act (Section 108(a) (2) (A).; >>>'4. A number of items such as flashers, school bus warning lamps and headlamp units are sold for universal use. They might be part of a new vehicle at time of sale or be sold separately as a replacement for vehicles manufactured both before and after 1972 or as an addition to such vehicles. Does this mean that dual regulations are permissible with NHTSA setting standards for the production items used as original equipment replacement and the states setting standards and requiring approval for the identical item for usage not regulated by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards?'<<<; It is NHTSA's position, as explained earlier, that if an item o lighting equipment 'sold for universal use' is capable of replacing equipment on a vehicle manufactured on or after January 1, 1972, then it must meet Standard No. 108, and a State may also regulate it in an identical manner.; You also asked our advice 'on the problem of not being able t recognize whether a particular item has been certified or not.' As an alternative to the DOT mark permitted by S4.7.2 of Standard No. 108, replacement lighting equipment may be certified in two other ways. Pursuant to Section 114 of the Act certification 'may be in the form of a label or tag on such item or on the outside of a container in which such time is delivered.' Thus, access by a State enforcement officer to corporate records is not required.; I hope this answers your questions. Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3109

Dear Mr. Newman: This is in reply to your letter of August 23, 1979, to the former Chie Counsel Joseph J. Levin, Jr. You have asked whether a double-faced turn signal front side marker lamp 'meets the intent' of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, and you enclosed a sample of the lamp for our inspection.; You have quoted paragraph 3.4 of SAE Standard J588e, September 1970 which states 'the flashing signal from a double faced signal lamp shall not be obliterated when subjected to external light rays from either in front or behind at any and all angles.' It is not possible to make a definitive statement about your lamp without actually subjecting it to a representative external light source such as the headlamps of a vehicle in proximity to the vehicle to which the lamp is mounted, but its design appears adequate to meet the intent of paragraph 3.4. Any changes in design of the lenses or baffling from that of the sample lamp submitted, however, might transmit more light from external sources and may not meet paragraph 3.4.; We would also like to observe that since the side marker signal use the front and rear lenses of the turn signal in a single compartment a high intensity ratio of turn signal to side marker signal will be needed if the steady burning light from the side marker lamp is not to obscure the darker portion of the turn signal lamp.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: nht90-4.94

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: December 24, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Herr T. Spingler

TITLE: None

TEXT:

This is in reply to your FAX of July 19, 1990, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency asking for confirmation of an oral interpretation provided you by Jere Medlin, Office of Rulemaking, with respect to replaceable bulb headlamps.

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, defines (section S3) a replaceable bulb headlamp as "a headlamp comprising a bonded lens and reflector assembly and one or two standardized replaceable light sour ces." In Europe you fix the lens to the reflector assembly with a rubber seal and clips. For the U.S. market you propose to add "silicone-glue at four places between lens and housing to prevent removal of the lens." Mr. Medlin informed you that this w ould be a "bonded lens and reflector assembly."

The standard does not define "bonded", but the intent of the definition is that, once the lens is joined to the reflector assembly, it shall not be separable. Any method of adhesion that accomplishes this would be a sufficient bond for purposes of the d efinition. If the application of silicone glue at four places between the lens and the reflector assembly is sufficient to prevent manual separation of the lens from the assembly, then it would be a sufficient bond.

I hope that this answers your question.

ID: nht90-3.44

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 2, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice, NHTSA

TO: T. Spingler, Robert Bosch GmbH

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Letter dated 7-19-90 to R. v. Iderstine from T. Spingler; (OCC 5014)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your FAX of July 19, 1990, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency asking for confirmation of an oral interpretation provided you by Jere Medlin, Office of Rulemaking, with respect to replaceable bulb headlamps.

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, defines (section S3) a replaceable bulb headlamp as "a headlamp comprising a bonded lens and reflector assembly and one or two standardized replaceable light sour ces." In Europe you fix the lens to the reflector assembly with a rubber seal and clips. For the U.S. market you propose to add "silicone-glue at four places between lens and housing to prevent removal of the lens." Mr. Medlin informed you that this w ould be a "bonded lens and reflector assembly."

The standard does not define "bonded", but the intent of the definition is that, once the lens is joined to the reflector assembly, it shall not be separable. Any method of adhesion that accomplishes this would be a sufficient bond for purposes of the d efinition. If the application of silicone glue at four places between the lens and the reflector assembly is sufficient to prevent manual separation of the lens from the assembly, then it would be a sufficient bond.

I hope that this answers your question.

ID: 7008

Mr. S. Watanabe
Manager, Automotive Equipment Legal
& Homologation Sect.
Stanley Electric Co. Ltd.
2-9-13, Meguro-ku
Tokyo 153, Japan

Dear Mr. Watanabe:

This responds to your letter of February 6, l992, to the Administrator, requesting an interpretation of section S7.2(b) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Section S7.2(b) requires that headlamp lenses be marked "with the name and/or trademark of the manufacturer, which is registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office." Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. of Japan has subsidiaries in Thailand and Taiwan. Each subsidiary uses three manufacturer identification marks, and you have asked whether each subsidiary may use one of the marks as a manufacturer identification under S7.2(b).

You also relate that application has been made to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office with respect to one of those identification marks. Certainly, once registration has been completed, Stanley of Thailand and Stanley of Taiwan may use the registered mark and this will be in compliance with Standard No. 108. Stanley has not registered the other two identification marks (TH STANLEY or TW STANLEY, and STANLEY TH or STANLEY TW) because it has concluded that these are not trademarks but the manufacturer's name.

We agree with your suggestion that the identification marks TH STANLEY, TW STANLEY, STANLEY TH, and STANLEY TW are just the manufacturer's name, not a trademark. Section S7.2(b) of Standard No. 108 does not specify any particular form in which the manufacturer's name must appear on the lens, nor does that section require the manufacturer's name to be registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Therefore, there would be no violation of S7.2(b) if your Thai and Taiwanese subsidiaries mark the lenses of their headlamps with the identification marks identified in your correspondence as manufacturer names.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:3/12/92

ID: aiam4625

Dear Mr. Van Straten: This is in reply to your letter of July 12, l989 to this Office, requesting a copy of any agency correspondence with Thomas Gravengood, as well as an interpretation of Federal requirements as they apply to heated motor vehicle lamps produced by your company. Your company manufactures 'heated lights' which are intended to melt snow that accumulates on them in the winter months. In Mr. Gravengood's letter of April 3, l989, to us he stated: 'All lights, lenses, and materials to assemble the heated safety lights have already been certified and passed the Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. We have been advised by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that there is no motor vehicle safety standard no. for heated lights. In order for us to do business at the O.E.M. level we require a letter of approval from you to us that we may pass on to our customers so they may start ordering and we may start producing.' We have no authority to 'approve' or 'disapprove' items of motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, an equipment manufacturer 'approves' each of its own products that are subject to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard by certifying that it meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, or (if it is a vehicle manufacturer), that the vehicle on which the lamp is installed, complies with the standards. However, we can advise you of the relationship of your product to Standard No. 108. This should prove helpful in dealings at the O.E.M. level. There are two types of O.E.M. lighting equipment: lamps that are required by Standard No. 108, and supplementary lamps that do not come under its coverage. Although your product literature indicates that the highmounted heated taillamp supplements the original equipment lamp, it is not clear whether the heated signal lamp serves as the required signal lamp or is a supplement to the original equipment. Accordingly, this letter discusses how Standard No. 108 treats both original required and original supplemental lighting equipment. If you are the manufacturer of original lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108, but not the manufacturer of the vehicle on which it is installed, the vehicle manufacturer, and not you, has the legal responsibility under the Act and Standard No. 108 of ensuring that the equipment complies with the standard, and of certifying that the vehicle meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. As a practical matter, however, vehicle manufacturers generally insist that equipment manufacturers provide assurance that their products meet Federal standards, but the 'certification' they may insist upon is not required by the Act. You are correct that there is no standard that applies to heated lamps as such. The Federal standard that applies is the one imposed by Standard No. 108 for the particular equipment item (taillamps or signal lamps in this instance). If you are manufacturing a lamp as an original equipment supplement to required original lighting equipment, the burden remains on the vehicle manufacturer who installs it. The only restriction on a supplementary lamp that Standard No. 108 imposes is that it not impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment (paragraph S5.1.3, formerly paragraph S4.1.3). Your lamps 'splice into' the wiring for the taillamps and 'marker lamps', according to your product literature. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the vehicle manufacturer to ensure that this installation does not negatively affect the performance of the required taillamps and signal lamps, or otherwise impair its effectiveness. If the vehicle manufacturer determines that no impairment exists, then it may certify that its vehicles comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Observing that the product literature depicts the heated taillamp installed in the upper corners of a school bus body, we must also call attention to an additional provision of Standard No. 108. The location depicted is one that is frequently used for the clearance lamps required by Standard No. 108. Paragraph S5.4 of Standard No. 108 (formerly S4.4) forbids the optical combination of clearance lamps and taillamps. Thus, your lamp cannot optically combine these two functions if it is to be used as new vehicle equipment. Other enclosures to your letter indicate that at present the heated lamp is being installed on buses in use, that is to say, as non-original equipment. The requirements imposed by Standard No. 108 and the Act for aftermarket manufacturers of lighting equipment differ from those for original equipment. If the lamp you produce is intended to replace an original equipment certified lamp, it is considered replacement equipment. As a manufacturer of a replacement taillamp or signal lamp, the legal obligation to produce a complying equipment item falls squarely upon you, as does the certification responsibility. If the lamp is intended only to replace a supplemental lamp, you are not required to certify. However, there may be instances in which your lamp is interchangeable with original certified equipment, and even though you may not intend it as replaceable lighting equipment, you may encounter questions from state and federal authorities if it is not manufactured and certified in accordance with Standard No. 108. Finally, you should be aware of your responsibilities under the Act in the event that your products do not comply with Standard No. 108, or incorporate a safety related defect (an example would be the inability of the lens to withstand the heat produced during the lamp's operation without warping or cracking). If you or this agency determine that a noncompliance or safety related defect occurs in any item of replacement equipment that you manufacture, you have the obligation to notify purchasers, and to remedy the problem through repair, repurchase, or replacement of the item. With respect to original equipment, this obligation falls upon the manufacturer of the vehicle on which it is installed. If you have any further questions we shall be happy to answer them. As you requested, we are enclosing a copy of Mr. Gravengood's letter of April 3. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel;

ID: 16305.ztv

Mr. Vann H. Wilber
Director
Vehicle Safety & International Department
American Automobile Manufacturers Association
1401 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005

Re: Definition of Optical Axis of a Headlamp

Dear Mr. Wilber:

This is in reply to the letter of October 23, 1997, that you and Jeff Erion wrote pointing out a possible inconsistency in the interpretation we provided Steve Law on June 16, 1997, and "the conclusions of the Regulatory Negotiation (Reg Neg) on this subject." Mr. Law had asked whether certain marking configurations met the requirements of paragraph S7.8.5.3(f)(1) of Standard No. 108.

In brief, we advised Mr. Law that markings at the center of each of the four sides of a rectangular headlamp were insufficient to denote the optical axis, which runs directly through the center of the headlamp at 90 degrees to the lens face. However, the final rule and its preamble are silent as to the type of mark that must denote the optical axis. You say that the Reg Neg Committee determined that "marks on the periphery of the lens which could be converged to the center of the lens" would be acceptable, and that Mr. Law's Option C meets this requirement.

The marks on Option C are located at the center of each of the four sides, oriented at 90 degrees from the side. If lines are drawn between opposing sides, they will converge at the center of the headlamp, at the optical axis. We agree that this is a sufficient indication of the optical axis to meet the requirements of paragraph S7.8.5.3(f)(1), and that Mr. Law's Option C is acceptable. This reverses our opinion on Option C that we provided Mr. Law on June 16, 1997.

However, the marks on Option B, located on each side, are parallel to the side. This means that lines drawn between opposing sides will not necessarily intersect on the optical axis unless they are drawn from the center of each line, which is not marked. Option B thus remains unacceptable because lines cannot be converged to the center of the lens from any point on the marks located at the sides of the headlamp.

We are providing Mr. Law and Mr. Erion with a copy of this letter.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
cc: Steve Law
Jeff Erion
d.12/22/97
ref:108

ID: nht92-8.38

DATE: March, 1992 EST

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: S. Watanabe -- Manager, Automotive Equipment Legal & Homologation Sect., Stanley Electric Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/6/92 from S. Watanabe to NHTSA Administrator (OCC 7008)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of February 6, 1992, to the Administrator, requesting an interpretation of section S7.2(b) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Section S7.2(b) requires that headlamp lenses be marked "with the name and/or trademark of the manufacturer, which is registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office." Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. of Japan has subsidiaries in Thailand and Taiwan. Each subsidiary uses three manufacturer identification marks, and you have asked whether each subsidiary may use one of the marks as a manufacturer identification under S7.2(b).

You also relate that application has been made to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office with respect to one of those identification marks. Certainly, once registration has been completed, Stanley of Thailand and Stanley of Taiwan may use the registered mark and this will be in compliance with Standard No. 108. Stanley has not registered the other two identification marks (TH STANLEY or TW STANLEY, and STANLEY TH or STANLEY TW) because it has concluded that these are not trademarks but the manufacturer's name.

We agree with your suggestion that the identification marks TH STANLEY, TW STANLEY, STANLEY TH, and STANLEY TW are just the manufacturer's name, not a trademark. Section S7.2(b) of Standard No. 108 does not specify any particular form in which the manufacturer's name must appear on the lens, nor does that section require the manufacturer's name to be registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Therefore, there would be no violation of S7.2(b) if your Thai and Taiwanese subsidiaries mark the lenses of their headlamps with the identification marks identified in your correspondence as manufacturer names.

ID: nht90-3.87

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 10, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Thomas J. Loughran -- V.P. Engineering, The Grote Manufacturing Company

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-13-90 from T.J. Loughran to J.R. Curry; Also attached to article entitled It's the Law - Rear Amber Reflector (Text omitted)

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter to the Administrator of August 13, 1990, in which you point out an error in an interpretation of Standard No. 108 furnished The Bargman Company on February 26, 1990.

The interpretation intended to refer to an amber turn signal lens, not an amber taillamp lens, as you surmise. We regret the confusion that we have inadvertently caused; the agency does not intend to allow an amber taillamp lens.

Nevertheless, tbe interpretation correctly stated that use of an amber reflex reflector with an amber lamp on the rear is permissible, providing that it does not impair the effectiveness of the required rear lighting and marking equipment, but that it is nevertheless subject to State and local laws regarding vehicles in use. This is consistent with long-standing interpretations on the use of lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment other than those that Standard No. 108 requires.