ID: 19023.ztv

Herr Olaf Schmidt
Manager, R &D
Hella K.G. Hueck & Co.
Rixbecker Str. 75
59552 Lippstadt
Germany

Dear Herr Schmidt:

We apologize for the delay in answering your letter of March 27, 1998, on headlamp labels, but this Office did not receive a copy of it until November 3. If you wish to communicate with us by fax, we recommend that you mail a hard copy at the same time to minimize the possibility of lost correspondence.

You report that "modern headlamp designs have the approval markings for the USA as well as for the European market on the lens as it is required by the relevant laws." In order to minimize confusion as to whether a headlamp has been designed to conform to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, or to conform with ECE requirements, Hella would like to place the words "Not D.O.T. approved" or "Not D.O.T. certified" on the bottom line of the labels that the company places on the rear of the headlamp housing of ECE headlamps. You have asked that we agree with your plan.

We cannot agree with your plan. We understand that, under this plan, the "DOT" symbol would appear on each lens. S7.2(a) of Standard No. 108 requires that the lens of each original and replacement headlamp manufactured for sale in the United States must be marked with the symbol "DOT." This symbol is the certification required by 49 U.S.C. 30115 that the headlamp meets Standard No. 108. It cannot be qualified by a disclaimer placed on a label on the rear of the headlamp housing. A manufacturer must not mark a headlamp lens with the DOT symbol if the headlamp does not comply with Standard No. 108.

A manufacturer who applies the DOT symbol to the lens of a headlamp that meets ECE requirements but does not comply with Standard No. 108, in our view, has provided certification that is materially false and misleading, and the manufacturer may be liable for a civil penalty. The maximum civil penalties authorized are $1,100 for importation of a single noncomplying headlamp, and $1,100 for each instance of false and misleading certification. We may impose a penalty up to a total of $880,000 for any related series of violations.

Should it come to our attention that noncomplying headlamps with dual ECE/DOT markings are being imported into the United States, we will investigate the matter with a view towards seeking a civil penalty from any responsible headlamp manufacturer doing business in the United States. In addition, if nonconforming headlamps with dual ECE/DOT markings have previously been imported and sold, our laws require the importer to notify purchasers of the noncompliance, and to remedy the noncompliance at no charge.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108#VSA
d.2/26/99

ID: 18795.ztv

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

Re: Motorcycle Headlamp

Dear Mr. Suzuki:

This is in reply to your letter of September 10, 1998, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it applies to a motorcycle headlamp design that your company is considering.

You have asked whether the design depicted in your letter is permitted by the amendment to motorcycle headlamp specifications published in the Federal Register on August 10, 1998 (63 FR 42582). As you have explained it:

"This headlamp system consists of two headlamps disposed symmetrically about the vertical centerline of the motor-cycle. Each headlamp has two single filament bulbs. The lower beam is provided by the inner light sources, on the other hand the upper beam is provided by both of the light sources. In other words, the vehicle provides the lower beam by two light sources, and provides the upper beam by four light sources. The distance of the effective projected luminous lens area of the two headlamps is not greater than 200mm."

You believe that this design complies with new paragraph S7.9.6.2(b) which states:

"If the system consists of two headlamps, each of which provides both an upper and lower beam, the headlamps shall be mounted either at the same height and symmetrically disposed about the vertical centerline or mounted on the vertical centerline. If the headlamps are horizontally disposed about the vertical centerline, the distance between the closest edges of their effective projected luminous lens areas shall not be greater than 200mm (8 in.)."

We confirm that your headlamp system complies with the requirements of S7.9.6.2(b).

We would like to take this opportunity to clarify this new paragraph. S7.9.6.2 covers three types of headlighting systems. Subparagraph (a) applies to a single-headlamp system. Subparagraph (b) applies to a system of two headlamps, each of which provides both an upper and lower beam. Subparagraph (c) applies to a system of two headlamps, one of which provides an upper beam and one of which provides a lower beam. In the systems covered by subparagraphs (a) and (c), the upper beam is not permitted to be higher than the lower beam. But subparagraph (b) is silent as to beam location. The preamble to the August 10 amendment makes clear our intent to prohibit the upper beam from being higher than the lower beam on all motor vehicle headlighting systems, because the higher mounting height gives longer seeing distance to the lower beam, providing a safety advantage to drivers. However, when both beams are provided within a single motorcycle headlamp, there is no discernable safety benefit in requiring that the lower beam be uppermost. Thus, Stanley's design in which the upper beam is provided by both higher and lower light sources is permitted by subparagraph(b).

We also want to clarify that each of the three types of headlamp systems are intended to provide the same safety performance, namely a single complying beam pattern. Regardless of whether a two-headlamp or a one-headlamp system is used, and regardless of whether the upper and lower beam functions of a two-headlamp system are segregated or distributed, the light output and distribution of the system must conform to the requirements of S7.9.1. A system of the type described in subparagraph (b) of S7.9.6.2 is not intended to have twice the light output of systems described in S7.9.6.2(a) or S7.9.6.2(c).

You have also asked for confirmation of your interpretation that "when a headlamp has a single lens, it should be regarded [as] a single headlamp irrespective of the number of the light sources and reflectors within the lamp body." The example you depict shows two light sources and their respective reflectors in a single housing consisting of a single chamber, covered by a single lens. We confirm your interpretation that this is a single headlamp, but not because it has a single lens. The fact that the lamp has a single lens is not the determinant. It is possible to design a headlamp with a single lens but with separate housings and chambers; this type of design would effectively create two headlamps.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.2/22/99

ID: aiam4328

Dear Mr. Chikada: This is in reply to your letter of March 4, 1987, with reference t aiming adjustment of fog lamps. We understand that Stanley is developing a fog lamp and replaceable bulb headlamp with a common lens and housing. Since the portion of the housing also functions as a reflector, the fog lamp moves simultaneously with the headlamp in aiming adjustment. In your view, it will not impair the effectiveness of the headlamp, and you ask for confirmation that the lamp 'is acceptable in the U.S.A.; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 contains no requirement for a fog lamp, and would prohibit it only if it impaired the effectiveness of any other lamp mounted on the front of a vehicle that is required by the standard. Assuming that the fog lamp does not impair the effectiveness of the headlamp, its installation would not crate a noncompliance with Standard No. 108. However, in the absence of a Federal standard on fog lamps, the individual States may establish their own requirement for fog lamps. We are unable to advise you whether this design would be acceptable in each of the 50 States, and other jurisdictions in which the Federal standards must be met, we can only advise you that it does not appear prohibited by Federal law.; The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA). 120 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C., 20036 may be able to advise you as to state laws relevant to your design.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: nht75-2.44

DATE: 12/03/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; illustration; NHTSA

TO: Koito Manufacturing Company, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This replies to your letter of November 8, 1975, concerning the design of four headlamps as illustrated in the drawing attached to your letter.

In response to your questions, and also based on our review of your drawing, we offer the following comments:

1. FMVSS No. 108 permits the use of metal-backed headlamp units, provided the units are hermetically sealed.

2. Headlamp units must be indivisible without damage (units with replaceable bulbs do not meet this requirement).

3. Headlamps must be mechanically (Illegible Word).

4. The Type number (1, 2, 1A or 2A) of the headlamp unit must be molded in the lens (see SAE J57lb).

From our review of your drawing, it appears that except for the Type number markings, your headlamps will meet the above requirements and may be used on motor vehicles. This finding does not, however, exempt a manufacturer (of headlamps or vehicles) from certifying that his headlamps conform to all requirements of FMVSS No. 103.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

KOITO MANUFACTURING CO., LTD.

Elwood T. Driver, Director -- Office of Operating Systems, Motor Vehicle Programs, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

November 8, 1975

Subject: Configuration and Definition of Sealed Beam Headlamp Units in use for Motor Vehicles

Dear Sir:

In reference to the sealed beam headlamp units specified in the applicable Standard SAE J579a (- Sealed Beam Headlamp Units for Motor Vehicles) which is incorporated in Table-1 of the current FMVSS No. 108; Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, we hereby would ask you to advise us about the following configuration.

In the sections of Scope and Definitions of the said SAE J579a, it is so prescribed that:

In Scope: "These specifications apply to sealed beam units (hermetically sealed) --------"

In Definitions: "Sealed Beam Unit - An integral and indivisible optical assembly with the name molded in the lens."

Our question is as to whether the four(4) kinds of headlamp unit configuration as shown in the attached sheet, designed under a conception of "hermetically sealed" and "an integral and indivisible optical assembly" could be used for motor vehicles.

These proposed headlamp units are not of All Glass Sealed Beam Units, but are so-called Metal-backed Sealed Units as shown in the attached sheet, and of course, those dimensional, phtometric and other electrical specifications are designed to comply with all requirements of the FMVSS No. 108 S.4.1.1.21, the applicable SAE J579a, J571b and J573d.

Upon your kind review to this matter, your favourable advice on applicability of these Metal-backed Sealed Beam Headlamp Units in use for motor vehicles would be highly appreciated.

Thanking you in anticipation of your prompt reply, and we remain,

Yours faithfully,

M. Iwase -- Chief

Overseas Technical Section, Engineering Department

Attached: Figs showing an proposed configuration.

(Graphics omitted)

FIG. 3:

Recutangular Headlamp Unit with the equivalent configuration to FIG. 1.

FIG. 4:

Recutangular Headlamp Unit with the equivalent configuration to FIG. 2.

ID: 86-3.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/17/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Yueh-An Chen

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Yueh-Am Chen Division Head Planning Division Yue Loong Motor Company, Ltd. P.O. Box 510 Taoyuan Taiwan 330 Republic of China

Dear Sir:

This is in reply to your letter of January 23, 1986, asking questions about features of motor vehicle headlighting systems.

Your first question is "to which regulations the headlamp assembly unit should be conformed, if this model is to be exported to U.S.A." The regulation that applies to motor vehicle headlighting assemblies is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Its official citation is Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Section 571.108. Standard No. 108 incorporates various materials of the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) pertaining to headlamps, such as photometric performance.

With respect to sealed beam headlamps, you have asked whether "it is necessary for us to set the aiming adjust device in front of the lamp unit, i.e. the aiming can be adjusted outside the vehicle?" The standard requires that all headlamps, whether sealed beam or not, must be capable of mechanical aim, that is to say, with an aiming device placed in front of the lamp unit without the removal of any vehicle parts. However, the actual aim adjustment device such as a screw or knob may be located anywhere.

With respect to replaceable bulb headlamps, you have asked whether there is any regulation "regarding the maximum degree of the inclination" of the lens, such as a 20 degree maximum. No, there is no regulatory limitation. However, the headlamp must comply with the minimum photometric requirements of Standard No. 108 with the lens in its design position, and it must be mechanically aimable using equipment designed to interface with the three aiming pads required to be located on the headlamp lens. The degree to which inclination may be limited is influenced by the design of mechanical aiming equipment available in the field for aim inspection and aiming. Consequently, you should contact manufacturers of such equipment to be sure that your headlamps are designed to be mechanically aimable as required by law.

You have also asked if there is any regulation regarding the necessity of putting on or off the headlamp unit outside the vehicle, i.e. do not need to open hood." No, there is no such U.S. regulation.

Finally, you have asked "If a headlamp unit can satisfy the photometric requirements of the SAP, but a small area of the lens is shaded by the other part of the vehicle" is such a configuration permissible. The answer is yes, as long as the headlamp unit can satisfy the photometric requirements as shaded by that part of the vehicle, and as long as any replacement headlamp units produced by you or others can also meet the photometric requirements in the shaded location.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

January 23, 1986

NHTSA 400 Seventh St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Dear Sir,

We are the largest automobile manufacturer in Taiwan, R.O.C. In order to make our newly designed model satisfy the U.S.A. regulation, we are now confronted by some troubles in the part of headlight system. If it is possible, please provide us with the following informations:

1. To which regulations the headlamp assembly unit should be conformed, if this model is to be exported to U.S.A.

2. If adopting sealed beam headlamp unit, is it necessary for us to set the aiming adjust device in front of the lamp unit, i.e., the aiming can be adjusted outside the vehicle?

3. If adopting replaceable-bulb headlamp unit, not sealed beam, is there any regulation regarding the maximum degree of the inclination of glass lense, e.g., must be less than 20o (inclination degree (A) as showed in Fig)?

4. Is there any regulation regarding the necessary of putting on or off the headlamp unit outside the vehicle, i.e., do not need to open the hood:

5. If a headlamp unit can satisfy the photometric requirements of the SAE, but a small area of the lens is shaded by the other part of the vehicle, then, could it pass the regulations or not?

Your kind assistance and earliest reply will be highly appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

Yueh-An Chen Division Head Planning Division

ID: 13945.ztv

Mr. Tom L. Ricca
Tom L. Ricca Associates
1413 Wyandotte Road
Columbus Ohio 43212

Dear Mr. Ricca:

This is in reply to your letter of January 20, 1997, asking for an interpretation of Federal law and regulations as they may apply to your invention, the "LightGenie."

According to the product literature you enclosed, your invention has the following features. The first is a "40-Second Delay Turnoff"; when the engine is stopped and the ignition key removed while the main lighting switch is on, the lights will be automatically extinguished after 40 seconds. The second feature is "4-Minute Delay Turnoff." When the engine is off, turning the light switch to on will cause the lights which are controlled by the switch to be turned on for four minutes continuously, and then automatically turned off. The third feature is called "4-Hours Blinking Delay Turnoff." Under this feature, when the vehicle engine is stopped, the parking lamps, and headlamps if desired, will blink automatically for four hours before turning off automatically. These three features are acceptable under our law and regulations.

The fourth feature is "Daytime Running Lights", or DRLs as we call them. Whenever the engine is running, the upper beam headlamps will be on, to be extinguished 10 seconds after the engine stops. In addition, the intensity of the headlamps is lowered during the day to avoid glare to other drivers. The lamps switch to lower beam and the parking lamps are illuminated if the outside ambient light level falls below a certain level. However, the main light switch of the vehicle has to be in the headlamp-on position in order for the DRL feature to function. You believe that the LightGenie may not comply with S5.5.11(a) of Standard No. 108 "which can be interpreted as to prevent the production of dangerous glare into the eyes of other drivers by the addition of the on state of either lower beams or upper beams of the headlamps which are not intended to operate as DRL." You would like an interpretation of S5.5.11(a) which would permit your system to be used.

You wish to market the LightGenie in both the OEM and aftermarkets. As you know, DRLs are not required items of original lighting equipment. But once a manufacturer chooses to offer a system that employs lamps on the front of a vehicle that are illuminated during daylight hours, that system must comply with paragraph S5.5.11(a). Paragraph S5.5.11(a)(1) establishes general illumination requirements that do not apply if the DRL system is "(i) a lower beam headlamp intended to operate as a DRL at full voltage . . .; or (ii) an upper beam headlamp intended to operate as a DRL, whose luminous intensity at test point H-V is no more than 7,000 candela . . . ." As we understand it, the LightGenie activates the upper beam headlamps at something less than full intensity during the daytime, switching to full lower beam intensity under low ambient level light conditions. We interpret S5.5.11 as requiring headlamps used as DRLs to be operated in either the upper beam or lower beam mode as specified above, but not permitting switching between upper and lower beam modes. For this reason, your system would not comply with the specifications for OEM DRLs.

However, there is another reason as well. S5.5.11(a) presently requires automatic deactivation of DRLs "when the headlamp control is in any 'on' position . . . ." Your system requires the headlamp control to be in the "on" position in order to operate. You have asked that we read S5.5.11(a)to require deactivation of DRLs "when any upper beams or lower beams of the headlamps which are not intended to be operated as DRL are turned on continuously . . . ." As a practical matter, we do not see how the vehicle's headlamp system could be operated as a headlamp system if the control must be in the "on" position for the LightGenie to operate. As a legal matter, you are requesting in effect an amendment of S5.5.11(a) beyond the limits of an interpretation.

As an aftermarket device, the LightGenie might be usable on vehicles that were not originally equipped with DRLs as long as it allows the headlamp control to perform its original design function. However, the LightGenie would still have to comply with local laws in order to be operated within any State. We are unable to advise you on state laws, and suggest that you contact the Department of Motor Vehicles in the States.

Finally, we call your attention to paragraph S5.5.11(a)(ii) which allows an upper beam headlamp to be used as a DRL only if two conditions are met: that the headlamp's luminous intensity at test point H-V is not more than 7,000 candela, and that the headlamp be mounted not higher than 864 mm above the road surface. This would appear to rule out use of the LightGenie using the upper beam of headlamp of some larger sport utility vehicles and trucks.

If you have further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson at 202-366-5263.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:
108
d:3/19/97

ID: aiam2834

Dear Mr. Trible: This is in response to the letter (enclosed) you received from you constituent Mr. Randy Churaman of Hampton, Virginia, concerning plexiglass covers for headlights.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in 197 proposed rulemaking to allow fixed plastic covers over motor vehicle headlights. However, during the comment period of the proposed rulemaking some controversial items that were raised regarding fixed plastic headlight covers initiated concerns with respect to motor vehicle safety. These concerns were that: (1) moisture condenses inside the plastic covers and greatly increases headlight glare to oncoming traffic, (2) the plastic covers get scratched, thus reducing headlight output and increasing headlight glare at the same time, (3) plastic headlight covers have to be removed to mechanically aim headlamps, which becomes quite expensive to the vehicle owner and (4) correct aim of headlights is often made incorrect when installing fixed plastic headlight covers. Finally, the change in air drag by use of plastic headlight covers is extremely small since the air drag is primarily related to the overall frontal area projection of the vehicle.; Because of the foregoing disadvantages, and no major advantage to fixe plastic headlight covers other than styling, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment*, prohibits fixed plastic covers over headlamps. Specifically, FMVSS No. 108 references SAE Standard J580a, which states in part... 'When in use, a headlamp shall not have any styling ornament or other feature, such as a glass cover or grill, in front of the lens.' There is, however, no prohibition on the installation of original equipment retractable clear plastic headlamp concealment devices on newly manufactured motor vehicles.; I trust the foregoing is fully responsive to your inquiry. Sincerely, Michael M. Finkelstein, Acting Associate Administrator fo Rulemaking;

ID: nht87-3.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/09/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

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

Dear Mr. Chikada:

This is in reply to your letter of September 18, 1987, with respect to a new headlamp design of very low profile. The height of the headlamp is less than that required by dimension A of Figure 4, of Standard No. 108, and you have asked NHTSA: "to make th e height of the headlamp lower than dimension A...on condition that the additional adaptor will be as original equipment".

You are under the impression that our interpretation to you dated March 26, 1987, relating to acceptability of a headlamp lens with a 60 degree angle was an affirmative one conditioned upon the provision of an adaptor as original equipment. In fact, we o nly advised you that such an adaptor should be provided, not that it was required. With respect to your present letter, dimension A is established by Standard No. 108 and cannot be modified except through rulemaking, whether or not an adaptor is provided .

If you wish to submit a petition for rulemaking to amend dimension A of Figure 4 we shall be pleased to consider it. The agency also intends to publish in the near future a notice asking comments on various aspects of vehicle headlamp aim and aiming meth ods which you may wish to consider in relation to your new headlamp design. Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

September 18, 1987

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,

We asked you about use of 60 degrees slanted headlamp by our letter of August 4, 1986. And you replied to us by your letter of March 26, 1987 that our new developed device was permitted to use only when an adaptor is provided as original vehicle equipmen t.

We are now developing a new headlamp which has higher characteristic of aerodynamics than the above headlamp by shortening the height of headlamp. However, we have found it hard to equip the timing pads on the lens because the height of headlamp becomes lower than dimension A required by FMVSS No.108, Figure 4. (See attached drawing.)

So we are asking you following request.

- Request -

We would like to ask you to accept to make the height of headlamp lower than dimension A specified by FMVSS N0.108, Figure 4 on condition that the additional adaptor will be provided as original vehicle equipment.

As mechanical aiming of this lamp can be made only by using additional adaptor, we assure that users will not be given disadvantage even if the height of headlamp becomes lower.

We are looking forward to your reply. Yours Faithfully, Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. T. Chikada Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept. Attachment

ID: aiam3033

Dear Mr. Latshaw: RE: The Back Rack (T.M.) Carrier by Ennova, Inc. This is in reply to your letter of March 13, 1979, to John Womack o this office on behalf of your client Ennova, Inc. Ennova wishes to market a 'back rack carrier', and you have asked several questions with respect to its legality under Federal requirements. The photographs which you enclosed show that the carrier structure is attached to both the front and rear bumpers, and that loads may be carried on the top of the vehicle as well as on a shelf directly behind the vehicle's rear bumper.; Your questions and our answers are: '1. Are equipment carriers which fasten to a privately owned moto vehicle regulated by the National Highway Traffic and Safety Act (hereinafter, the NHTSA) so that state law in this area is preempted?; 2. Does the NHTSA contain any standards or regulations pertaining t roof racks or equipment carriers? Does the motor vehicle safety act contain any such regulations?'; An equipment carrier that attaches to a motor vehicle is an item o 'motor vehicle equipment' as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1391(4), and your client is a 'manufacturer' as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1391(5). There are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that cover this type of motor vehicle equipment, and, therefore, a State is not preempted by 15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) (sic) from prescribing its own safety standards for it. If a safety related defect were discovered in the 'Back Rack', Ennova would be responsible for notification and remedy of it, as required by 15 U.S.C. 1411 *et seq*.; '3. Does the NHTSA establish any guidelines for motor vehicle bumper or fenders which the Back Rack (T.M.) Carrier appears to violate? Does the fact that the rear platform extends out behind the vehicle place the Rack in contravention of any Federal standards?; The Back Rack is intended to become affixed to the rear bumper in semipermanent manner and protrude therefrom. Does this bring the carrier into a regulated area? Is (sic) so, what is the citation of the regulations and what must be done to conform the platform to same?; 4. Does the height, width or depth of any aspect of the Back Rac (T.M.) Carrier present a problem?; 5. The structural supports of the Back Rack (T.M.) Carrier obscure th vehicle's lighting in some aspects both front and rear. Does the obstruction violate any provisions of the NHTSA or the Motor Vehicle Safety Act?; 8. If the Back Rack (T.M.) Carrier as it appears in the photograph were installed by a dealer, would it be in contravention of any federal law, standard or regulation exclusive of laws relating to products liability and defective equipment.'; Your questions concern our jurisdiction over a vehicle before and afte its sale to its first purchaser for purposes other than resale. A dealer has the responsiblity (sic) to deliver to its owner a new vehicle in full compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Paragraph S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108 prohibits the installation of any 'additional lamp, reflective device, or other motor vehicle equipment ... that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard.' Paragraph S4.3.1 requires that 'no part of the vehicle shall prevent a parking lamp, taillamp, stop lamp, turn signal lamp, or backup lamp from meeting its photometric output at any applicable group of test points specified in Figures 1 and 3 [Standard No. 108], or prevent any other lamp from meeting the photometric output at any test point specified in any applicable 'SAE Standard on Recommended Practice'. Therefore, a dealer could not deliver a new car with the Back Rack installed if it impairs the effectiveness of the car's lamps or reflectors or impairs photometric output. After sale, a dealer (or distributor or manufacturer, but not the vehicle owner) has a responsibility under 15 U.S.C. 1397(a) (2) (A) of not 'knowingly rendering inoperative in whole or in part, any device or element design installed on ... a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ....' In the context of Standard No. 108 we have equated a rendering inoperative with impaired effectiveness or impaired photometrics so that the same consideration would apply, a dealer could not install the Back Rack on a used vehicle if it affects compliance with Standard No. 108.; The installation of the Back Rack appears to present some complianc problems. Based upon an informal review and the photographs you submitted, the front part of the carrier may reduce headlamp candlepower output below the required minimum at several test points, as for example, at test points HV, H-3R and 3L and H 9R and 9L on the upper beam, and at test points 1 1/2 D-2R, 1/2 D-1 1/2 R on the low beam.; Looking at the turn signals which are required to have an 8.0 squar inch minimum projected luminous area, the carrier support design may mask them to the extent that the direction of the turn signal might not be clearly understood. The carrier support location may not allow these lamps to provide an unobstructed effective projected illuminated area of outer lens surface, excluding reflex, of at least 2 square inches, measured at 45 degrees to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle. This requirement must also be met by the taillamps. Further with respect to the taillamps, with the carrier in place, they may not be visible through a horizontal angle from 45 degrees to the left and/or right, as Standard No. 108 requries (sic).; The design location of the carrier supports may reduce the minimu effective projected luminous area of the stop lamps below the 8 square inch minimum of Standard No. 108.; As for backup lamps, the visibility requirements are complex, those o SAE Standard J593c as modified by S4.1.1.22 of Standard No. 108, but in essence the lamps must be 'readily visible' to use your phrase.; These interpretations are based upon the photographs you supplied, an are meant to be illustrative as there are many different lighting configurations on vehicles, and we do not know that the Back Rack would affect compliance in all instances.; '7. What are the dimensional requirements of headlight, parking directional and tail lights? What percentage of these lenses must be totally visible?'; Dimensional requirements of headlights conform to SAE J571d *Dimensional Specifications of Sealed Beam Headlamp Units*, June 1966, parking lights, SAE J 222, *Parking Lamps (Position Lamps)* December 1970, direction lights (turn signals) SAE J588e *Turn Signal Lamps (Rear Position Light)*, August 1970. Copies of the foregoing SAE Standards are attached. In addition, the minima and maxima of lens visibility requirements for parking lamps, turn signal lamps and taillamps are set forth in these SAE Standards. The minimum and maximum photometric requirements of headlights are set forth in SAE J 579a, August 1965 and J 579c, December 1974, as well as the design parameters of rectangular headlamp units SAE J 1132, *Sealed Beam Headlamp Units for Motor Vehicles* (copies also attached).; I hope this answers your questions. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: 1985-01.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/15/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: ETL Testing Laboratories, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Gordan Bonvallet Manager, Photometric Division ETL Testing Laboratories, Inc. P.O. Box 2040 Cortland, New York 13045-2040

Dear Mr. Bonvallet:

This is in reply to your letter of February 4, 1985, asking for an interpretation of the humidity testing procedure for replaceable bulb headlamps.

Paragraph S6.8 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 states in pertinent part that after completion of the test cycle in which the headlamp shall have been in an environment of 100oF with a relative humidity of 90+105, it shall then be in an environment with a temperature of 73oF and relative humidity of 30+10% before removal for photometric testing. You believe that this implies an instantaneous transition in temperature/humidity conditions which, in your view, is "impossible to achieve." You have set forth three alternative procedures and ask which is the most acceptable to this agency.

Under your first alternative, the temperature and humidity in the humidity chamber would be reduced to 73oF-43%;, requiring about an hour) whereupon the headlamp would be removed to a "dry box" chamber of the requisite temperature/ humidity before photometric testing. In the second alternative, there would be no such removal before the photometric testing. In the third alternative, the headlamp would be removed from the humidity chamber and immediately carried to a "dry box" with the requisite temperature/ humidity; however, in your test set up this would require three to five minutes elapsed time between chambers.

Paragraph S6.8 does not specify a humidity of 43% in any of its test conditions, and a procedure incorporating the first and second alternatives clearly would not be in accordance with paragraph S6.8. That paragraph, however, does not specify that the temperature/humidity sequences must occur in the same chamber but it does imply that the lower temperature/ humidity soak should take place directly following the higher temperature/humidity one. Therefore, your third alternative is the one that meets the intent of paragraph S6.8. To insure consistency of results, we recommend that no transfer period exceed three minutes and that the headlamp be exposed as briefly and as little as possible to the ambient temperature/humidity of the test laboratory.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Office of Chief Consul National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh St. S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Gentlemen:

Subject: Interpretation of Testing Procedure FMVSS 108 Replaceable Bulb Headlamps

Paragraph S6.8 Humidity of FMVSS 108 states a test procedure which implies a headlamp should undergo an instantaneous transition in temperature/ humidity conditions from 100oF-90% relative humidity (tolerances have been omitted here) to 73oF-30% R.H. This, of course, is impossible to achieve. The attached discussion suggests possible testing procedures to resolve the problem. I request an interpretation on which is acceptable and if none are, please clarify how the test can and should be performed. We expect to have headlamps to test within the next couple of weeks, so prompt consideration would be appreciated.

Very truly yours,

Gordon Bonvallet, Manager Photometric Division

GB/mm Enclosure

Docket No. 81-11

Replaceable Bulb Headlamp

FMVSS 108 Paragraph S6.8 Humidity The present ruling requires the headlamp to be subjected to a controlled environment of 100oF + 9o and a relative humidity of 90% + 10%. Following the 20 consecutive 6 hour test cycles, the headlamp is to be "soaked" for 1 hour at 73oF (20oC) and a relative humidity of 30% + 10% before it is removed for photometric testing.

Most environmental chambers (Thermotron, Blue M, for example) do not have the capabilities to reduce the humidity to 30% (or 40%) at the 73oF temperature. We have constructed a special chamber which is capable of about 35% RH at 73oF although this is very dependent on the room ambient temperature and humidity. This chamber is located near the Photometric test range so we can perform the following photometric test in a very short time. Unfortunately, this chamber is located a couple hundred feet from the standard environmental chamber. At the completion of the humidity test, we must remove the headlamp and carry it to the "dry box" for the one hour soak. Men the headlamp is removed from the 100oF environmental chamber, it immediately is subjected to a cooler room ambient, perhaps 65o -70oF and 60% RH.

We have experimented with a procedure which reduces the temperatures humidity of the environmental chamber following the normal humidity cycles, to a range of 73oF and about 43% RH. This procedure takes about one hour to accomplish. We cannot get the humidity any lower with prolonged operation of the chamber. Following this procedure, the headlamp is carried to the "dry box" for the one hour soak.

I know of no standard environmental chambers which can operate at 100oF - 90% RH and reduce in conditions to 73oF - 30 + 10% RH within a short enough period to allow a one hour soak at the final temperature/humidity conditions, period to allow a one hour soak at the final temperature/humidity conditions, other than s chamber designed for thermal shock and these have no humidity control.

I request an interpretation on which of the described procedures should be used.

1. Following the humidity test, reduce the temperature and humidity in the chamber to 73oF - 43% RH in a one hour period, transfer headlamp to the 73oF - 30 + 10% RH dry box for one hour followed by the photometric test.

2. Following the humidity test, reduce the temperature and humidity in the chamber to 73oF - 43% RH in a one hour period, followed by the photometric test.

3. Following the humidity test, remove the headlamp from the humidity chamber, carry it at room ambient conditions (approximately three minutes - five minutes) to the dry box and soak at 73oF and 30 + 10% RH for one hour followed by the photometric test.

If none of these alternatives is acceptable, please clarify exactly how the test can and should be performed.

Gordon Bonvallet, Manager Photometric Division ETL Testing Laboratories, Inc. February 4, 1985