ID: vanhool.2

Mr. Wilfried Geens
Compliance and Regulations
Van Hool N.V.
Bernard Van Hoolstraat 58
B-2500 Lier Koningshooikt
Belgium

Dear Mr. Geens:

This responds to your letter of July 23, 2004, in which you sought clarification as to whether certain identified headlamp assembly designs for one of your motor coach models would comply with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. Your letter went on to describe four potential headlamp assembly designs containing three horizontally-aligned lamps on each side of the vehicle, which reflect "European styling" that you wish to introduce to the U.S. market. To simplify the discussion, each of these proposed designs is described below, followed by our response.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA does not provide approval of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, and we do not determine compliance of a vehicle or item of equipment outside the context of an actual enforcement proceeding. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. The following represents our opinion regarding the applicability of our laws to your products based upon the facts set forth in your letter.

Before turning to your specific questions, I would like to clarify generally our requirements for headlighting systems of the type described in your letter. Your letter described your existing European headlamp assembly containing three projector lamps on each side, two of which provide an upper beam. These projector lamps are all at the same height, with a center lower beam projector flanked by two upper beam projectors.

An enclosure to your letter depicting one of the headlamp assemblies used in this system leads us to believe that your system uses replaceable light sources. You stated that this design is in compliance with the relevant UN Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) Directive (ECE R48.02).

Vehicles offered for sale in the U.S. must meet all applicable requirements of NHTSAs FMVSSs, and FMVSS No. 108 prohibits a vehicle with a replaceable bulb headlamp system from having more than two upper beams and two lower beams. Specifically, paragraph S7.5, Replaceable bulb headlamp systems, subparagraph (a) provides, "The system shall provide only two lower beams and two upper beams and shall incorporate not more than two replaceable light sources in each headlamp."  Based upon your questions, it is apparent that you recognize this limitation and seek to identify lamp arrangements that meet the requirements of the standard. For the sake of analysis, we assume that your motor coaches are 80 inches or more in overall width and that the described upper and lower beams comply with the photometric requirements of FMVSS No. 108.

PROPOSAL 1

"Keep the European look with the 3 lamps at each side, permanently disconnecting the electrical supply of the outer upper beams (See enclosure, position 4)."

Response

We believe that this proposed design would not comply with FMVSS No. 108. Paragraph S5.3.1 of the standard discusses the location of required equipment, and that provision states that for multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, trailers, and buses 80 inches or more in overall width, such equipment must be located as specified in Table II of the standard. In turn, Table II provides related to buses that " each headlamp providing the lower beam [shall be located], at the same height, 1 on each side of the vertical centerline, as far apart as practicable."

Based upon your diagram showing a "disconnected" upper beam headlamp at the outboard-most position, we believe that it would clearly be practicable to locate the lower beam in that position. As a result the lower beams would not be located as far apart as practicable, so it appears that this proposed design would not comply with FMVSS No. 108.

PROPOSAL 2

"Replace the outer upper beams (Position 4) by an amber reflex reflector, in addition to the reflex reflectors allready [sic] fitted on the front bumper."

Response

We believe that this proposed design would not comply with FMVSS No. 108. In this case, the amber reflex reflector would be an item of supplemental lighting equipment not required under the standard. Consequently, its incorporation into the headlamp assembly, as described, again would impermissibly prevent the lower beams from being located as far apart as practicable. (See discussion in response to Proposal 1 immediately above.)

PROPOSAL 3

"Replace the outer upper beams (Position 4) by turn signal lamps, in addition to the turn signal lamps at the top of the front lighting clusters (Position 3)."

Response

We believe that this proposed design would not comply with FMVSS No. 108. Table II provides that turn signal lamps in buses shall be located as follows: "At or near the front 1 amber on each side of the vertical centerline, at the same height, and as far apart as practicable. On the rear 1 red or amber on each side of the vertical centerline, at the same height, and as far apart as practicable." As noted above, Table II also requires lower beam headlamps (again, items of required equipment) to be as far apart as practicable.

However, for required lamps that are required to be as far apart as practicable, we have not established a hierarchy regarding which of those items should take precedence in terms of placement location. If the only turn signal lamp on the front of the vehicle were located at the outboard-most position as a substitute for that upper beam headlamp (position 4 of your diagram), such configuration might be permissible.

Nevertheless, Proposal 3 clearly demonstrates that it is practicable to include a turn signal at position 3 (already present directly above the outboard-most headlamp) and that it is practicable to include a headlamp at position 4 (currently a high beam). Thus, your current design demonstrates that it would be practicable to move the lower beam headlamp to the most outboard position (position 4). Such location would meet the standards requirement for the lower beam headlamps to be as far apart as practicable. As a result, it appears that this proposed design would not comply with FMVSS No. 108.

PROPOSAL 4

"Replace the outer upper beams by any other device in compliance with FMVSS No. 108, S5.5.11 (e.g. daytime running lamps) without changing the European look."

Response

We believe that this proposed design would not comply with FMVSS No. 108. In this case, the daytime running lights would be an item of supplemental lighting equipment not required under the standard. Consequently, their incorporation into the headlamp assemblies, as described, would again prevent the lower beams from being located as far apart as practicable. (See discussion in response to Proposal 1 above.)

If you have any questions, you may contact Eric Stas of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.9/7/04

ID: 15291.ztv

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

Dear M. Dorleans:

This is in reply to your letter of May 22, 1997, regarding the "Baroptic" lower beam headlamp developed by VALEO. This headlamp is visually/optically aimable, incorporating one removable light source. You have enclosed drawings (Figs. 1-4) illustrating the new headlamp.

You believe that the headlamp would be permitted by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, but you have asked the following three questions:

"a) Does the provision in S7.4(a)(3) apply? We think it does not, since the 'Baroptic' is not an integral beam. As a matter of consequence, the ratio between the luminance of each light-emitting surface is not a legal criterion. Nor is the relative contribution of each Fresnel lens to the lowbeam beam pattern."

If you have decided that the "Baroptic" is not an integral beam headlamp system, then paragraph S7.4(a)(3) would not apply since paragraph S7.4 applies only to integral beam headlamp systems. The "Baroptic" lower beam headlamp will be a "replaceable bulb headlamp" regulated under paragraph S7.5 provided that its replaceable light source is designed to conform to the requirements of Appendix A or Appendix B of Part 564 and the appropriate information has been submitted to and accepted by NHTSA.

"b) Where do we need to mark the name of the light source as required in S7.5(g)? We propose to place this mandatory marking on the outer lens (6), in front of the center of the midpoint Fresnel lens if an odd number of lenses is used (Figure 3a), or in between the central Fresnel lenses if their number is even (Figure 3b)."

S7.5(g) requires only that the lens of a replaceable bulb headlamp be marked "in front of " each replaceable light source. The locations you have chosen meet this requirement.

"c) We have the same question and same proposal as above for the 'mark' of the optical axis' as per S7.8.1(b) of FMVSS 108."

S7.8.1(b) requires headlamps to have a mark or markings that are visible from the front of the headlamp . . . to identify the optical axis of the headlamp . . ." These markings " may be on the interior or exterior of the lens or indicated by a mark or central structure on the interior or exterior of the headlamp." The marks for optical axis that are shown in Figure 3(a), Figure 3(b), and Figure 4 of your submission would appear to indicate the optical axis itself of the respective headlamp design, but must be placed in the location necessary for correct aiming and photometric testing.

If you have further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (FAX 202-366-2830).

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d:7/3/97

ID: 24157.ztv

Robert G. Mills, Supervisor, Homologation
Triumph Motorcycles, Ltd.
Jacknell Road
Hinckley, Leicestershire LE10 3BS
United Kingdom

Dear Mr. Mills:

This is in reply to your fax of March 14, 2002, asking three questions with respect to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (FMVSS No. 108). Pursuant to our request, you provided supplemental information on April 17, 2002.

Your questions are:

"1. If an SAE recommended practice that is referenced in FMVSS 108 is revised and updated by SAE, is the latest revision . . . automatically adopted in FMVSS 108? If not, does an earlier dated version remain in the regulation?

SAE materials that are referenced and subreferenced in FMVSS No. 108 are not automatically updated when the SAE revises them, and "earlier dated versions" remain in effect. That is because an SAE update requires an amendment to FMVSS No. 108 in order to be incorporated as a requirement. Under U.S. law, amendments to Federal regulations such as FMVSS No.108 must be proposed for public comment before they can be adopted.

2. You describe a new headlamp design and ask for confirmation of your conclusion that it complies with S7.9.6.2(b) of FMVSS No. 108.

Paragraph S7.9.6.2(b) requires that:

"If the [motorcycle headlamp] 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)."

In your design, there would be "two visibly separate headlights" which would be placed "in one seamless housing," each headlamp providing an upper and lower beam, and each lamp placed symmetrically about the vertical centerline. Further, "[o]n each side, there will be clear cover placed over the outside of the lamp." You believe that this headlamp design is allowable but report that your supplier disagrees. In his view, a headlamp is permitted a maximum of two bulbs, and that use of a single housing effectively creates a four-bulb headlamp which is not permitted.

We evaluated a similar situation in our letter of February 22, 1999, to Tadashi Suzuki of Stanley Electric Co. (copy enclosed). Our letter commented that "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." However, the supplementary information that you furnished clarifies that the Triumph headlighting system is designed to be installed in a single housing, and that the upper and lower beam headlamps are not separable from the housing. This design differs from that posited by Stanley and, in our opinion, could not be considered a two-lamp headlamp system. As such, the requirements of S7.9.6.2(b) do not apply to this design, and Triumph needs to ensure that this headlamp complies with the requirements of S7.9.6.2(a).

We would like to further comment that a headlamp with four light sources is permitted as a motorcycle headlamp. While there is a limitation on the number of light sources for motor vehicle headlamps, there is no limitation for motorcycle headlamps.

"3. Table IV of FMVSS 108 states that the minimum separation distance between a turn signal and a headlight must be 4 inches. However, since turn signals must comply with the requirements of SAE J588, does the factoring table in SAE J588 apply if we want to mount the turn signals closer to the headlights than 4 inches? If is difficult for us to decide if close mounting of turn signals is permissible as FMVSS [108] appears to preclude mounting turn signals closer than 4 inches yet J588 gives you a possibility to do so."

We were asked this question by BMW in a letter of August 15, 1983, and I enclose a copy of our response to Karl-Heinz Ziwicka. The interpretation remains valid. The minimum spacing requirements established by Table IV between motorcycle headlamps and turn signal lamps must be met, for the reasons expressed in our letter, notwithstanding the fact that SAE J588 NOV84 and its predecessor in effect at that time permit a closer spacing of these lamps if a multiplier is applied to the minimum luminous intensities.

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
Ref:108
d.5/24/02

ID: aiam4192

Dear Mr. O'Neill: Thank you for your letter of January 22, 1986, asking how ou regulations affect a product you manufacture. Your letter and the literature you enclosed describe your product as a modified acrylic tinted shield which fits over the front end of a passenger car. According to the pictures you enclosed with your letter, your shield fits over the headlights of some vehicles, in others it apparently only covers the front turn signals. I regret the delay in our response. As discussed below, your product could be affected by two Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has th authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet our safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates other alleged safety-related defects.; The agency has issued Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*, which set performance and marking requirements for glazing materials used in a vehicle. Auxillary wind deflectors are among the items of glazing materials covered by the standard. The agency has applied the standard to the type of wind deflector that is used at the location necessary for driving visibility. The purpose of the requirement is to ensure that wind deflectors do not obstruct or distort the vision of a driver. Thus, for example, the agency has said in a letter of October 2, 1985, to Mr. Rosario Costanzo that the standard would apply to a wind deflector designed to be mounted in the side window of a vehicle. The literature you enclosed shows that your product, which is a type of plastic shield, is not mounted in a location necessary for driving visibility and thus would not be covered by Standard No. 205.; Installation of your product in a new vehicle prior to its first sal would be affected by Standard No. 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment*, which sets, among other things, minimum candle power requirements for headlamps and turn signals. In addition, paragraph S4.1.3 of the standard prohibits the installation of motor vehicle equipment that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. Furthermore Society of Automotive Engineers Standard J580, *Sealed Beam Headlamp Assembly*, which is incorporated by reference in paragraph S4.1.1.36 and Tables I and II of Standard No. 108, prohibits styling features in front of headlamps when the lamps have been activated. Thus, S4.1.3, S4.1.1.35, and Tables I and II prohibit the use of fixed transparent headlamp covers as original equipment on motor vehicles. Part 567, *Certification*, of our regulations provides that a person that alters a new vehicle prior to its first sale must certify that the vehicle, as altered, still conforms with all applicable safety standards. Thus, an alterer could not install a version of your product which covers the headlamps of a vehicle. If a version of your product covers the turn signal or any other lighting device, the alterer must certify that the vehicle lights will still comply with Standard No. 108 with your product in place. Persons violating the certification requirements are subject to a civil fine of up to $1,000 per violation.; Installation of your product in a used vehicle would be affected b section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly tampering with devices or elements of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Thus, a commercial business could not install a version of your product which covers the headlamps of a vehicle. If the version of your product covers the turn signal or any other required lighting device, the business must assure that the vehicle lamps will still comply with Standard No. 108 with your product in place. Commercial businesses that violate section 108(a)(2)(A) are subject to a civil penalty of $1,000 per violation.; The prohibition of section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individua vehicle owners who may install or remove any items of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, the agency encourages vehicle owners not to remove or otherwise tamper with vehicle safety equipment. Also, any modifications made by a vehicle owner would have to comply with applicable state law.; In addition, you as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment ar subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. I have enclosed an information sheet which outlines those requirements.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: 86-6.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/08/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Roger Hagie -- Government Relations Manager, Kawasacki Motors Corp. USA

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 10/20/83 letter from F. Berndt to BMW of North America, Inc.

TEXT:

Mr. Roger Hagie Government Relations Manager Kawasaki Motors Corp. USA P.O. Box 25252 Santa Ana, CA 92799-5252

Dear Mr. Hagie:

This is in response to your letter of April 26, 1985, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. I regret the delay in responding to your letter.

Specifically, you have called our attention to a proposed motorcycle accessory, consisting in part of a "nylon mesh which is stretched in front of the headlamp lens" and intended to protect the "headlamp from damage by stones or other road debris." You have asked whether this accessory would be permissible under paragraph 54.1.3 of Standard No. 108 which in effect allows optional equipment that does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that the standard does require. You have advised us that "the nylon mesh does cause some reduction in the photometric output of the lamp" but that testing of the specific headlamp that the mask is designed to fit "has determined that with the mesh in place, light output is still more than 1208 of the minimums specified by SAE J584.. . " You have quoted a 1983 letter from the former Chief Counsel giving two examples of impairment, one a plastic cover causing a dislocation of beam pattern, or a cover that is subject to accelerated hazing or cracking, but you have stated that it is unclear whether any degree of impairment is unacceptable, or only an impairment that causes light output to fall beneath the minimum photometrics prescribed by Standard No. 108.

Because Federal motor vehicle safety standards are minimum performance standards, the fact that the mesh causes some reduction in photometric output does not mean that it "impairs" the effectiveness of the headlamp unless it reduces light output below the minimum levels imposed by the standard. You have stated that with the mesh installed light output is still more than 120% of the minimum required. If Kawasaki is satisfied that this output will be met with any original equipment headlamp, then it may certify compliance with Standard No.

108 of any motorcycle on which the mesh is an original equipment accessory.

The question of the permissibility of the mesh as an after market accessory is not easily answered. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits actions by manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses that "render operative in whole or in part" equipment which has been installed to comply with a Federal vehicle safety requirement. We would view dealer-installation of the mesh as rendering a headlamp partially inoperative if it resulted in a diminution of headlamp light output below the standard's minimum level. The prohibition does not apply to owner modifications. Whether an owner modification is legal is answerable under the laws of the States where a vehicle is registered and operated.

A further observation is that although an original equipment headlamp-mesh combination may meet or exceed the minimum photometrics, it is possible that a replacement headlamp would fall beneath the threshold of photometric compliance with the mesh in place. We suggest that you consider these safety issues before proceeding to offer the accessory.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

April 26, 1985

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

RE: Request for Interpretation, FMVSS 108

Dear Sir:

Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A. requests an interpretation of the acceptability of a proposed motorcycle accessory, a device to cover and protect the leading surface of a motorcycle fairing and headlamp from damage by stones or other road debris.

More specifically, the product consists of a vinyl or leather "mask" which fits snugly to the front of the fairing and incorporates a nylon mesh which is stretched in front of the headlamp lens.

Our question relates to the issue of whether this mesh covering over the headlamp lens is permissible according to FMVSS 108. Your attention is directed to the letter of October 20, 1983 from then Chief Counsel Frank Berndt to Karl-Heinz Ziwica of BMW North America (file ref. NOA-30), copy attached.

In this letter, Mr. Berndt indicates that NHTSA has "concluded that headlamp covers for motorcycles are not per se prohibited by Standard 108." Mr. Berndt continues to indicate " if they impair the effectiveness of the headlamp." He goes on to describe two examples of impaired effectiveness that the agency would presumably consider contrary to the intent of FMVSS 108: an extreme installation angle of the cover or deterioration of the cover itself.

What remains unclear from Mr. Berndt's letter is whether any degree of impairment of the light output is to be considered unacceptable, or whether the unacceptable level might be reached if the impairment caused light output to drop below the photometric standards applicable to the lamp.

In the case of the mask under consideration by Kawasaki, the nylon mesh does cause some reduction in the photometric output of the lamp. However, testing of the specific headlamp that this mask is designed to fit has determined that with the mesh in place, light output is still more than 120% of the minimums specified by SAEJ584, the applicable standard. Thus, while some "impairment" is acknowledged, performance with the mask in place still exceeds the requirements of FMVSS 108.

In conclusion, Kawasaki seeks NHTSA's opinion whether a mesh headlamp cover which is not subject to hazing, cracking or discoloration, and which does not cause light output to drop below the minimum levels specified by FMVSS 108 would be considered in Compliance with FMVSS 108 if offered for sale on a specific Kawasaki motorcycle.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

KAWASAKI MOTORS CORP., U.S.A.

Roger Hagie Government Relations Manager

See 10/20/83 letter from F. Berndt to BMW of North America, Inc.

ID: Hyodo.B-3

Mr. Kiminori Hyodo
Deputy General Manager, Regulations & Certification
Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
4-8-3, Takanawa
Minato-ku Tokyo
Japan




Dear Mr. Hyodo:

This responds to your letter, in which you sought clarification under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, as to the location of the axis of reference for a headlamp that incorporates a bending light function. Specifically, you asked about the location of the axis of reference for a bending light mechanism where a portion of the nominal beam pattern is actively redirected to provide illumination in a turn. The issues raised by your letter are addressed below.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. FMVSS No. 108 sets forth the requirements for both original equipment and aftermarket lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment for use on motor vehicles covered under the standard. NHTSA does not provide approval of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, it is the responsibility of manufacturers to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture (see 49 U.S.C. 30115 and 49 CFR Part 567, Certification).

Regarding the requirements for a headlamp with a bending light function, this topic was addressed in a Request for Comments published in the Federal Register on February 12, 200. (see 68 FR 7101). In that document, we explained that under FMVSS No. 108, "the bending light performance (by automatically reaiming the lamp) is not prohibited because the Standard does not specifically address the initial or subsequent aim of a headlamp in a headlighting system.. 68 FR at 7102. We noted that in a July 21, 1999 interpretation letter to Mr. Mark Cronmiller, VDO North America, we stated that if a "smart" headlamp system meets the static aiming hardware requirements of FMVSS No. 108, a dynamic aiming feature is permissible.

After discussing our July 1999 interpretation, we included the following paragraph in our document in the Federal Register:

We note that S5.3.1.1 of Standard No. 108 also requires that lamps and reflective devices must be installed such that their photometric requirements are met on motor vehicles and that no other part of the vehicle shall prevent that. As such, the additional hardware added to achieve AFS must not prevent headlamps, or any other required lamps, from meeting the required performance in any manner whether AFS is operating or not. Additionally, for the bending light mechanization where some of the light in the nominal beam pattern is actively redirected, the photometric requirements of the headlamp must be met regardless of active changes in the light distribution within the beam. 68 FR at 7102.

In your letter, you asked about the last sentence of the foregoing paragraph. You stated that for bending light mechanization where some of the light in the nominal beam pattern is actively redirected, "NHTSA clarified its legality that the photometric requirements must be met regardless of the active changes in the light distribution within the beam pattern . . . but did not address the location of the axis of reference for the determination of photometric compliance.. You stated that for this type of system, when the optical axis (kink) of the lower beam headlamp moves due to the swivel of an adaptive beam contributor that is utilized with a non-swiveling base beam, you must compensate the goniometer to locate the axis of reference to H = 0 degree / V = 0 degree for that determination.

Your letter stated further:

We construe that the goniometer must be compensated because the docket explicitly allows the swiveling of the beam pattern and further requires compliance to the FMVSS 108 lower beam photometric requirement in all the situations throughout the activation of the bending light function. In light of these requirements, in a system where some of the light in the nominal beam pattern is actively redirected and the optical axis (kink) moves due to the changes in the vehicles steering angles, photometry should be done in the direction where the optical axis (kink) of the headlamp is actually directed. This results in exactly the same situation as required for the category 1 bending light mechanization (i.e. swiveling of the whole beam pattern) where a lower beam headlamp meeting the photometric requirements of FMVSS 108 is allowed to be directed toward the direction of the vehicles steering. Also, the direction coincides with the drivers gaze direction when negotiating curves, which is consecutive to the original purpose of the bending light function and significant for the improvement of safety.

As part of reviewing your letter, we analyzed the paragraph in our February 2003 notice that you asked about. We note that the paragraph construed the language of S5.3.1.1 of FMVSS No. 108 as it existed at that time. Subsequently, we amended that portion of the standar. (see 69 FR 48805, 48813 (August 11, 2004)). The standard no longer includes the former language of S5.3.1.1 that "no part of the vehicle" shall prevent lamps from meeting photometric requirements. Instead, the standard now states at S5.3.2(a) that lamps and reflective devices must be installed in a location where they comply with all applicable photometric requirements and visibility requirements with all "obstructions" on the vehicle.

We note that in making this change, the agency explained that it was clarifying the sentence and moving it, without making any substantive changes. Thus, in the August 2004 notice, the agency viewed the superseded S5.3.1.1 requirement that no part of the vehicle prevent lamps from meeting photometric requirements as referring to obstructions, a more narrow view than it took in the February 2003 notice. In retrospect, and after reviewing the relevant language and comparing how the agency viewed it in the February 2003 and August 2004 notices, we believe the more narrow reading was correct.

In any event, the language of S5.3.1.1 construed in the paragraph you asked about is no longer in FMVSS No. 108. That paragraph is not a correct explanation of the standards requirements today and should be disregarded.

As to what is required for the design you asked about, and similar to the situation where the entire headlamp is reaimed, the standards photometry requirements must be met in the nominal position of the lower beam headlamp (i.e., considering the location of the axis of reference to coincide with the longitudinal axis of the vehicle).

As defined under S4 of FMVSS No. 108, "axis of reference" means "the characteristic axis of the lamp for use as the direction of reference (H=0, V=0) for angles of field for photometric measurements and for installing the lamp on the vehicle.. In the case of a visually/optically aimable headlamp, for example, the agency would orient the axis of reference through the headlamp optical axis marks. These marks are required by S7.8.5.3(f)(1) to establish the horizontal and vertical alignment of the headlamp, aiming screen, and goniometer, relative to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle. Furthermore, SAE J575 DEC88, as incorporated by reference into FMVSS No. 108, specifies that the vertical axis of the test sample be vertical and perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle when mounted on the goniometer, and that the intersection of the H and V planes (a.k.a. axis of reference) be parallel to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle. Once the nominal aim was established, photometry testing would be conducted. FMVSS No. 108 does not require that photometric requirements be met for other axes of reference.

We note that the photometry requirements of FMVSS No. 108 are intended both to ensure adequate illumination of the roadway and overhead signs and to avoid unnecessary glare to other drivers. While, as discussed above, the standard does not include photometric test requirements for a headlamp with a bending light function other than for the nominal position of the lower beam headlamp, we encourage manufacturers to carefully consider accommodating both of these goals as they design headlamp systems incorporating this new technology.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.2/10/06

ID: 1132

Mr. Yoshiaki Matsui
Manager
Automotive Equipment
Legal & Homologation Section
Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.
2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku
Tokyo 153, Japan

Re: Headlamp System Containing Fog Lamp

Dear Mr. Matsui:

This replies to your letter of August 11, 1995, with reference to possible headlamp systems that produce a fog lamp beam, as well as upper and lower beams. According to your letter, "the fog lamp is reciprocally incorporated with the high beam headlamp, using one dual-filament bulb (ex.; HB2). The high beam and the fog lamp will not be lit simultaneously." You refer to paragraph S5.1.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 and conclude that "such a combination will not impair the effectiveness of the headlamp."

We agree, with respect to the headlamp itself, that a fog lamp operating simultaneously with the lower beam will not impair the effectiveness of the lower beam's photometrics and ability to illuminate the roadway. We view this as a supplement to the lower beam. However, under S5.1.3, the question is whether the fog lamp, either operating alone or when the lower beam headlamp is activated, will impair the effectiveness of any front lighting equipment that is required by Standard No. 108. The responsibility for the determination of compliance with S5.1.3 is not Stanley's, but that of the manufacturer of the vehicle in which the combination headlamp is installed, who must certify that its vehicle meets all applicable U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

The other front lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108 consists of parking lamps and turn signal lamps. The amber parking lamps serve to mark a vehicle, a function incidentally served by white fog lamps. Thus we do not believe that the Stanley headlamp would impair the effectiveness of parking lamps in any position in which the headlamp may be installed on the front of a vehicle.

The situation differs with respect to turn signal lamps. A vehicle manufacturer must take care to ensure that a vehicle on which the combination headlamp is installed conforms to the requirements of Standard No. 108 and to paragraph 5.1.5.4 of SAE Standards J588 NOV84 or J1395 APR85, the two turn signal standards incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. Paragraph 5.1.5.4 treats the relationship between luminous intensity and photometrics "where the front turn signal is mounted in close proximity to the low beam headlamp or any additional lamp used to supplement or used in lieu of the low beam, such as an auxiliary low beam or fog lamp." It does this by establishing luminous intensity multipliers based upon the distance that separates the lamps. For example, if the space between the front turn signal and the lighted edge of the fog lamp is 75 mm to less than 100 mm, the photometric requirements for a front turn signal lamp are 1.5 times more than those required when the spacing is 100 mm or more (Paragraph S5.3.1.7 of Standard No. 108 requires the multiplier at this distance to be 2.5 when the lamp is a lower beam headlamp rather than a fog lamp).

Finally, as a cautionary note, we believe that Stanley should evaluate the glare potential of the headlamp when the fog lamp and lower beam are operating simultaneously, as it is important to safety that oncoming drivers not be distracted or discomforted in the operation of their vehicles.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:108 d:9/20/95

ID: nht95-6.52

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 20, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Mr. Yoshiaki Matsui -- Manager, Automotive Equipment, Legal & Homologation Section, Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

TITLE: Re: Headlamp System Containing Fog Lamp

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/11/95 LETTER FROM YOSHIAKI MATSUI TO CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TEXT: Dear Mr. Matsui:

This replies to your letter of August 11, 1995, with reference to possible headlamp systems that produce a fog lamp beam, as well as upper and lower beams. According to your letter, "the fog lamp is reciprocally incorporated with the high beam headlamp, using one dual-filament bulb (ex.; HB2). The high beam and the fog lamp will not be lit simultaneously." You refer to paragraph S5.1.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 and conclude that "such a combination will not impair the effectiveness of the headlamp."

We agree, with respect to the headlamp itself, that a fog lamp operating simultaneously with the lower beam will not impair the effectiveness of the lower beam's photometrics and ability to illuminate the roadway. We view this as a supplement to the lower beam. However, under S5.1.3, the question is whether the fog lamp, either operating alone or when the lower beam headlamp is activated, will impair the effectiveness of any front lighting equipment that is required by Standard No. 108. The responsibility for the determination of compliance with S5.1.3 is not Stanley's, but that of the manufacturer of the vehicle in which the combination headlamp is installed, who must certify that its vehicle meets all applicable U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

The other front lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108 consists of parking lamps and turn signal lamps. The amber parking lamps serve to mark a vehicle, a function incidentally served by white fog lamps. Thus we do not believe that the Stanley headlamp would impair the effectiveness of parking lamps in any position in which the headlamp may be installed on the front of a vehicle.

The situation differs with respect to turn signal lamps. A vehicle manufacturer must take care to ensure that a vehicle on which the combination headlamp is installed conforms to the requirements of Standard No. 108 and to paragraph 5.1.5.4 of SAE Standards J588 NOV84 or J1395 APR85, the two turn signal standards incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. Paragraph 5.1.5.4 treats the relationship between luminous intensity and photometrics "where the front turn signal is mounted in close proximity to the low beam headlamp or any additional lamp used to supplement or used in lieu of the low beam, such as an auxiliary low beam or fog lamp." It does this by establishing luminous intensity multipliers based upon the distance that separates the lamps. For example, if the space between the front turn signal and the lighted edge of the fog lamp is 75 mm to less than 100 mm, the photometric requirements for a front turn signal lamp are 1.5 times more than those required when the spacing is 100 mm or more (Paragraph S5.3.1.7 of Standard No. 108 requires the multiplier at this distance to be 2.5 when the lamp is a lower beam headlamp rather than a fog lamp).

Finally, as a cautionary note, we believe that Stanley should evaluate the glare potential of the headlamp when the fog lamp and lower beam are operating simultaneously, as it is important to safety that oncoming drivers not be distracted or discomforted in the operation of their vehicles.

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

ID: nht95-4.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 20, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Mr. Yoshiaki Matsui -- Manager, Automotive Equipment, Legal & Homologation Section, Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

TITLE: Re: Headlamp System Containing Fog Lamp

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/11/95 LETTER FROM YOSHIAKI MATSUI TO CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TEXT: Dear Mr. Matsui:

This replies to your letter of August 11, 1995, with reference to possible headlamp systems that produce a fog lamp beam, as well as upper and lower beams. According to your letter, "the fog lamp is reciprocally incorporated with the high beam headlamp, using one dual-filament bulb (ex.; HB2). The high beam and the fog lamp will not be lit simultaneously." You refer to paragraph S5.1.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 and conclude that "such a combination will not impair the effectivene ss of the headlamp."

We agree, with respect to the headlamp itself, that a fog lamp operating simultaneously with the lower beam will not impair the effectiveness of the lower beam's photometrics and ability to illuminate the roadway. We view this as a supplement to the low er beam. However, under S5.1.3, the question is whether the fog lamp, either operating alone or when the lower beam headlamp is activated, will impair the effectiveness of any front lighting equipment that is required by Standard No. 108. The responsib ility for the determination of compliance with S5.1.3 is not Stanley's, but that of the manufacturer of the vehicle in which the combination headlamp is installed, who must certify that its vehicle meets all applicable U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety s tandards.

The other front lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108 consists of parking lamps and turn signal lamps. The amber parking lamps serve to mark a vehicle, a function incidentally served by white fog lamps. Thus we do not believe that the Stanley headlamp would impair the effectiveness of parking lamps in any position in which the headlamp may be installed on the front of a vehicle.

The situation differs with respect to turn signal lamps. A vehicle manufacturer must take care to ensure that a vehicle on which the combination headlamp is installed conforms to the requirements of Standard No. 108 and to paragraph 5.1.5.4 of SAE Stand ards J588 NOV84 or J1395 APR85, the two turn signal standards incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. Paragraph 5.1.5.4 treats the relationship between luminous intensity and photometrics "where the front turn signal is mounted in close proximity to the low beam headlamp or any additional lamp used to supplement or used in lieu of the low beam, such as an auxiliary low beam or fog lamp." It does this by establishing luminous intensity multipliers based upon the distance that separates the lamps. For example, if the space between the front turn signal and the lighted edge of the fog lamp is 75 mm to less than 100 mm, the photometric requirements for a front turn signal lamp are 1.5 times more than those required when the spacing is 100 mm or mo re (Paragraph S5.3.1.7 of Standard No. 108 requires the multiplier at this distance to be 2.5 when the lamp is a lower beam headlamp rather than a fog lamp).

Finally, as a cautionary note, we believe that Stanley should evaluate the glare potential of the headlamp when the fog lamp and lower beam are operating simultaneously, as it is important to safety that oncoming drivers not be distracted or discomforted in the operation of their vehicles.

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

ID: bailey.ztv

The Honorable Kay Bailey Hutchison
United States Senate
10440 North Central Expressway, Suite 1160
LB 606
Dallas, TX 75231

Dear Senator Hutchison:

We are replying to your recent inquiry on behalf of your constituent, Walter E. Brown of Tyler. Dr. Brown is the owner of a 1995 BMW. When he attempted to buy a replacement lens for one of his headlamps, he was told by his local dealer that the lens was unavailable, and later, that the part was no longer available and that he would have to replace the entire headlamp assembly. BMW of North America telephoned him and told him that "a new government regulation precluded BMW from selling the lens separately." Dr. Brown was referred to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. He asked that you look into this matter for him.

As Dr. Brown indicated in his letter to you, the applicable regulation is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 (49 CFR 571.108,Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment). This regulation prescribes requirements for both original and replacement motor vehicle headlamps. Until 1983, all headlamps were required to be sealed and indivisible, so that if the bulb burned out or the lens cracked, the entire headlamp had to be replaced. Because headlamps were sealed, contaminants such as dust and moisture could not enter and the integrity of the reflector over the life of the headlamp was assured.

In 1983, Standard No. 108 was amended to allow non-sealed headlamps with replaceable bulbs. To maintain the integrity of the reflector, replaceable bulbs were required to have a seal at their base, and the headlamp lens had to be bonded to the reflector. These non-sealed headlamps had to pass environmental tests verifying their ability to resist heat, dust, and corrosion. However, the requirement that the lens be bonded to the reflector means that if either the lens or the reflector broke or was defective, the entire lens/reflector unit had to be replaced. This appears to be the type of headlamp that was installed on Dr. Brown's 1995 BMW. Therefore, in order to replace a cracked lens, he has to buy a lens/reflector assembly. This is necessary to ensure that his replacement headlamp provides the same continuing level of safety as his original headlamp.

Since December 1995, one specific type of replaceable bulb headlamp (one incorporating an on-board aiming device) has been permitted to have a lens designed to be replaceable, provided that the lamps pass even more stringent environment tests. However, all 1995 model cars were manufactured before the effective date of this new alternative headlamp requirement, and thus were not permitted to have headlamps with replaceable lenses. Since the headlamps in Dr. Brown's car do not have replaceable lenses, his dealer must replace the complete lens/reflector assembly. This has been the practice since 1983 and is not the result of "a new government regulation." It is the December 1995 regulation, not the older one, that permits replacement lenses for one type of headlamp.

I hope that this explanation will be useful to Dr. Brown.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.6/23/98