ID: 1985-04.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/25/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Barry Felrice; NHTSA

TO: Karl-Heinz Faber -- Vice President, Product Compliance and Service, Mercedes Benz of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Karl-Heinz Faber Vice President, Product Compliance and Service Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. One Mercedes Drive Montvale, NH 07645

I am writing in response to your letters about the headlamp cleaning systems you intend to install on certain 1986 model year vehicles. Your letters provide information about these systems and their performance. My staff has carefully reviewed the information and how it relates to Standard No. 108. "Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment."

Our finding is that headlamp cleaning systems as proposed would be governed by paragraphs S4.1.1.36(b)(3), S4.1.3. and S4.3.1.1. The intent of the requirements in these paragraphs is 1) to assure mechanical aimability of the lamp as installed in the vehicle, and 2) to assure that all photometric performance requirements are met with and without installation of auxiliary vehicle parts or accessories, (and if performance degradation must occur, to assure that an auxiliary lighting device is provided). Additionally, the "fail safe" requirements of Standard 112, "Headlamp Concealment Devices" provides a precedent for a requirement that a headlamp should meet all photometric performances requirements, should a wiper fail.

In viewing your company's systems relative to the requirements, it appears possible to design a replaceable bulb headlamp for a specific vehicle application which includes a wiper type headlamp cleaning system, that meets the intent of the law. This could occur if the headlamp system and cleaning system were designed to meet the requirements together: i.e., the photometric performance requirements of FMVSS No. 108 could be met with the wipers in any achievable position and with any standardized replaceable light source. The system would also have to provide for the wiper to accommodate mechanical aiming. The information presented by you appears to show that the design of your system has taken these needs into account. NHTSA would anticipate that any replaceable bulb headlamp system in such an application would be certified by the vehicle manufacturer to meet the performance requirements using a standardized replaceable light source which has minimum lumen output and which has the filament at the maximum out of position tolerance, any replacement headlamp, and any headlamp cleaning system parts. This would be necessary to ensure that the vehicle would remain in compliance when replacement parts are used.

In consideration of the above, NHTSA believes that replaceable bulb headlamp systems with wiper type cleaning systems designed to be compatible and designed to conform to Standard 108 are permissible under the present Standard.

In summary, NHTSA views the use of the wiper type headlamp cleaning system in conjunction with replaceable bulb headlamps as permissible so long as due care is taken to ensure that the systems are designed to conform together, and can remain in compliance in the event of parts replacement.

Sincerely, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking

ID: aiam4452

Dear Ms. Black: This is in reply to your letters of June 8 and Octobe l7, 1987, with respect to an electrically-operated headlamp leveling system that Jaguar intends to offer on passenger cars beginning with the l989 model year. Such a device is required by EEC regulations. You have informed us that the system does not allow lamps to be adjusted above the 'zero' position, only downward to compensate for rear end loading of the vehicle. There is no provision for automatic return to the 'zero' position when the engine is turned off. Further, there will be no indication to the driver from the vehicle instrumentation that re-aim is necessary when the headlamps are adjusted downward. You have concluded, for the six reasons given in your letter of June 8 that 'no aspect of FMVSS 108 . . . is contravened by this proposed installation.' The sole restriction that Standard No. 108 imposes upon an item of motor vehicle equipment not covered by the standard but which a manufacturer wishes to add to a vehicle as original equipment is that it not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that the standard requires (S4.l.3). If a manufacturer concludes that the unrequired equipment would not impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment, it may certify that the vehicle complies with Standard No. 108. Based on our understanding of your system, it does not appear to impair the effectiveness of the required equipment. However, we urge you to consider the possible consequences if the driver forgets to return the system to the 'zero' position from either of the two adjustment positions. These possibilities are a concern because the system does not automatically return to that position, and no warning is provided to the driver that the headlamps are not in their original design position. On the other hand, if properly used, the system could enhance headlighting effectiveness by ensuring that the headlamp provides the same lighting performance under all conditions of vehicle load. We hope the information is helpful. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel;

ID: 15334.ztv

Herr Tilman Spingler
Robert Bosch GmbH
FAX 9-011-49-7121-35-1792

Dear Herr Spingler:

This is in reply to your FAX of "6/5/1997" with respect to the visual/optical headlamp aiming provisions of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. I regret that it has taken so long to get back to you with an answer.

Specifically, you "would like to know whether it is permitted to install on one side of the vehicle a headlamp with VHAD (onboard aiming) for vertical aim and on the opposite side a visually aimable headlamp in the case when a vehicle manufacturer wants to change from VHAD-headlamps to visually aimable headlamps during the production period of a certain vehicle type."

A mixed installation of this nature is not permissible. Paragraph S7.1 of Standard No. 108 requires a motor vehicle, other than a motorcycle, to "be equipped with a headlighting system designed to conform to the requirements of S7.3, S7.4, S7.5 or S7.6." (emphasis supplied). Paragraph S7.8.5 states that "When a headlamp system is installed on a motor vehicle, it shall be aimable with at least one of the following: . . ., an on-vehicle headlamp aiming device installed by the vehicle or lamp manufacturer, as specified in S7.8.5.2; or by visual/optical means, as specified in S7.8.5.3." (emphasis supplied). In these paragraphs, the standard does not refer to individual headlamps but to a "system." In our opinion, the use of the word "system" means that all headlamps within a headlighting system must comply with the same set of requirements, including its aiming features. This means that the aiming system must be identical for each headlamp in a system. For example, if one headlamp has a VHAD and is also optically/visually aimable, all headlamps in the system must have a VHAD and be optically/visually aimable.

In addition, the headlighting scheme described in your letter would not be permissible because the VHAD on the headlamp that is not visually/optically aimable appears to allow for vertical aim only and does not include a horizontal aiming feature as required by S7.8.5.2.

This interpretation requiring identical headlamps on both sides of a vehicle also ensures that all headlamps in a headlighting system on a new vehicle are designed to comply with the same photometrics.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.3/10/98

ID: nht87-2.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/17/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: MMC Services Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Nobuyoshi Takechi Technical Manager MMC Services Inc. 3000 Town Center Suite 1960 Southfield, MI 48075

Dear Mr. Takechi:

This is in reply to your letter of April 24, 1987, with reference to the legality of a proposed concealed headlamp design. As we understand the proposed design, the headlamp could be used in the "concealed" position as a forward warning (which you believ e "is similar to the daytime running light principle" and "is useful to avoid accidents") and in the unconcealed position as a headlamp to provide visibility of the roadway ahead. A portion of the vehicle body in front of the concealed headlamp would be clear, allowing the beam from the concealed lamp to shine through it. The steady burning forward warning signal would be given by pulling a spring-loaded switch. Releasing the switch would turn off the headlamp. Thus, the concealed headlamp would not, as a practical matter, be used for providing visibility of the roadway ahead but as an alternative to the vehicle's audible warning device, the horn. The proposed use would be a visual "horn." Finally, you state that the beam pattern and intensity of the l amp "is corresponding to the headlamp's," although you do not explain how this is possible, given the potential for interference from the vehicle's body.

Standard No. 108 prohibits covers or other styling features in front of a required headlamp when it is being used for purposes such as illuminating the roadway ahead or increasing the visibility of the vehicle in conditions of reduced visibility. We do n ot consider this prohibition applicable when a headlamp is being used, in all likelihood momentarily, for forward signalling as described. Further, use in this manner would not appear to impair the lighting equipment required by the standard. Additionall y, headlamps may be wired to flash for signalling purposes, as you have proposed, however, we are unable to advise you whether operation of this device is acceptable under the laws of the individual States. Your letter does not indicate whether the beam utilized is the upper beam or the lower beam; some jurisdictions such as the District of Columbia and Virginia prohibit use of the upper beam for signaling purposes. Others may restrict use of headlamps or a portion of them during daylight hours; we expe ct to learn more about this in comments to the docket on the daytime running lamp proposal. In the meantime, I would advise you to write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 1201 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20036, for its views on State laws.

You have stated that this use "is similar to the daytime running light principle." However, as proposed by the Government of Canada, and by the U.S. Government in the Federal Register (52 FR 9316) such "DRLs" would be automatically energized, and not ene rgized at the driver's choice as is your device. Therefore, we do not view the operation of your device as similar to the daytime running light principle.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

April 24, 1987

Ms. Erika Jones, Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION U. S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

MMC has been developing concealed headlamps for application to our future models. (See attached). In this design, a portion of the body in front of the concealed headlamps is replaced with a clean material. This will allow the driver to give a steady-state forward warning without having to open the headlamp. The driver gives a forward warning by pull ing a spring-loaded switch, such as the headlamp upper/lower beam changing lever, and the headlamps are turned off by release of this switch. The photometric performance (beam pattern and intensity) is corresponding to the headlamp's.

We believe this function is similar to the daytime running light principle, is useful to avoid accidents, and we find no regulations prohibiting such system.

Please provide us with your opinion as to the legality of this system.

If you have any questions, please contact me at (313) 353-5444. Very truly yours,

Nobuyoshi Takechi Technical Manager

NT/sg MMC SERVICES, INC.

Enclosure

ID: 15230.ztv

Mr. Tadashi Suzuki
Manager, Homologation Section
Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.
2-9-13 Nakameguro, Meguroku
Tokyo 153, Japan

Dear Mr. Suzuki:

This is in reply to your letter of May 15, 1997, to Richard VanIderstine of this agency asking for an interpretation of the visual/optical aiming specifications for headlamps. Because the Office of Chief Counsel is the designated office for providing legal interpretations of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards including Standard No. 108, please address your future requests for interpretations to this Office.

There are two matters for which you request clarification. Paragraph S7.8.2.1(c) states that "A visually/optically aimable headlamp that has a lower beam shall not have a horizontal adjustment mechanism unless such mechanism meets the requirements of paragraph S7.8.5.2 of this standard." You "think that the construction which vehicle user can not reach horizontal adjustment mechanism, can be treated as 'No horizontal adjustment mechanism' in view of S7.8.2.1(c), even if horizontal adjustment can be done only in manufacturing process." You ask whether your understanding is correct, and, if correct, whether you can use the construction shown in the three figures you enclosed with your letter.

We agree with your interpretation. If a headlamp is equipped with a mechanism allowing horizontal adjustment only at the time the vehicle is manufactured, and is thereafter inaccessible for adjustment, we will not consider this design to be a "horizontal adjustment mechanism" within the meaning of paragraph S7.8.5.2. The language of that paragraph prescribes performance requirements for on-vehicle aiming devices and clearly indicates that these apply to horizontal adjustment mechanisms that may be used over the life of the headlamp to adjust the horizontal aim of the headlamp.

With respect to the three figures, Example A depicts an adjustment bolt which requires for horizontal adjustment the use of a special tool that the user will not have. In Example C, a special coupler is used during the manufacturing process and "shipment will be done without this special coupler. So vehicle user can not do." We regard these as horizontal adjustment mechanisms within the meaning of S7.8.2.1(c) since the headlamp remains capable of horizontal adjustment, even if you do not intend it to be adjustable by the vehicle user. As such, if either Example A or C is to be used, each must meet the requirements of paragraph S7.8.5.2. However, in Example B, the headlamp cannot be further adjusted after the manufacturing process. Because further adjustment is not possible, we do not regard this construction as a horizontal adjustment mechanism.

The second matter concerns language in the preamble to the final rule. In discussing the visual/optical aimability identification mark for existing headlamp designs, you quote the agency as saying at 62 FR 10714 that the discussion therein "does not mean that existing designs can be changed from being mechanically aimable to being visually/optically aimable." You understand that you cannot change the design of a current mechanically aimable headlamp to be visually/optically aimable only, but that you can add visual/optical aimability to a mechanically aimable headlamp as an alternative. However, if a vehicle manufacturer offers "a new model vehicle, even outlook of vehicle is almost same as previous one", you believe that you can manufacture two different types of "outlook" headlamps, a mechanically aimable one for replacement of the previous model, and a visually/optically aimable one for original equipment and replacement of the new model. You also comment "Of course we can distinguish them." You ask whether your understanding is correct.

We are not sure what you mean by an "outlook" headlamp. The situation we believe you are presenting is one in which a new model vehicle would be equipped with the same headlighting systems that appeared on an older vehicle. You are asking whether the headlamp that was furnished with mechanical aim on the older vehicle (and will still be manufactured for replacement purposes) can be manufactured for the new model vehicle (as both original and replacement equipment) without the mechanical aiming feature. The answer is no. Although the vehicle design has changed, the design of the headlamp has not changed, and it must continue to be manufactured with the mechanical aiming feature even though it is installed on a new model vehicle, and even though you may be able to distinguish the two.

We will be pleased to answer any further questions you may have.

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

ID: 17697.ztv

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

Dear Mr. Suzuki:

This is in response to your letter of April 2, 1998, asking for confirmation of the acceptability under Standard No. 108 of Stanley's new visual/optical headlamp system.

The system is based upon an existing system aimed by VHADs. In the new system, the VHAD for vertical aim has been removed. The horizontal aiming mechanism is "deleted by removing the horizontal VHAD and by fixing a cover on the head of the aiming bolt so that the access is impossible." The requisite marks are on the lenses identifying it as a visually/optically aimable headlamp..

You note the remarks in the preamble to the final rule on visually/optically aimable headlamps that "any current headlamp design that is modified to include visual/optical aimability must still provide mechanical aimability if that headlamp is intended to be a replacement in vehicles in which the lamp was used before its redesign." You inform us that this headlamp is intended for a new model year vehicle and that the existing type of headlamp will be provided for the replacement of the present model year of vehicle. The two headlamps will have different parts numbers and lens identifiers. Under these circumstances, you have asked for an interpretation that the new system need not continue to provide mechanical aimability.

It is not advisable for headlamps on the same vehicle to have be aimed by two different means. However, in this situation, where the two headlamps have different parts numbers and lens identifiers, we have concluded that Stanley is justified in concluding that the visually/optically aimable headlamp is not a replacement for the headlamp that is mechanically aimable, and therefore need not retain the mechanical aiming feature on the newer headlamp. We believe that Stanley's intent would be even clearer if the cartons in which each type of replacement headlamp is shipped are marked to identify the specific model year(s) for which replacement is intended.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
NCC-20 ZTVinson:mar:5/30/98:62992:OCC 17697
interp. 108; redbook (2)
NCC-20 ZTVinson:mar:5/21/98:62992:OCC 17697
cc: NCC-01 Subj/Chron
ztv; 17697; U:\ncc20\interp\108\17697.ztv

ID: nht87-3.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/03/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: M. Iwase, Manager, Technical Administration Dept. Koito Mfg. Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 7/23/87 letter from Erika Z. Jones to M. Iwase (Std. 108)

TEXT:

Mr. M. Iwase, Manager Technical Administration Dept. Koito Mfg. co., Ltd. Shizuoka Works 500, Kitawaki Shimuzu-shi, Shizuoka-ken JAPAN

This is in reply to your letter of September 15, 1987, with further reference to features of a 60 degree slant replaceable bulb headlamp presently being developed by Koito. You have explained that the aiming pads for the new system will be installed on t he aiming adapter, rather than the headlamp lens, and have asked for confirmation that this is "not illegal" under Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

As you noted in your letter, paragraph S4.1.1.36(a) (2) specifically requires the exterior face of each replaceable bulb headlamp lens to have three aiming pads. The agency has no specifications for the design of aiming adapters, and a headlamp without a iming pads would be one that is not designed to conform to the standard.

The agency is examining concepts for aiming methods for other than mechanical aim, but no amendments to Standard No. 108 are contemplated that would permit or require aiming pads to be on aiming adapters.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Air-Mail Ms. Erica Z. Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Admin. 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Dear Ms. E. Z. Jones:

We would like to further ask you the following question of headlamp aiming adaptor in connection with your kind advice mentioned in your letter of July 23, l987 replying to our letter of March 24, l987. (Refer to the attached.)

RE = 1 ) Aiming Adaptor for 60 " Slant Bulb Replaceable Headlamp

As shown below, instead of being installed, on the lens of headlamps, aiming bosses are installed on the surface of the special adaptor which is to be equipped onto each vehicle so that mechanical aiming can be performed, by use of the headlamp aimer " s pecified SAE J602C.

Of course, the special adaptor is so designed that it can be surely attached onto the proper design position of headlamps.

The aiming bosses and markings, which are applied to 54. 1. 1.36 (a) (2)& (3) of FMVSS No. 108, are placed on the surface of the special adaptor.

(INSERT GRAPHICS)

Attn: Ms. Erica Z. Jones Date: Sept. 15, 1987 Page: 2 / 3

Question:

We believe that the aiming boss installation as abovementioned can be applied to FMVSS NO. 108 and not illegal under FMVSS NO. 108. We would like you to confirm whether our interpretation is correct or not.

Aiming pads are specified in 54.1. 1.36 (a) (2) of FMVSS NO. 108 as follows;

"The exterior face of each replaceable bulb headlamp lens shall have three pads which meet the requirements of Figure 4, Dimensional Specifications for Location of Aiming Pads on Replaceable Bulb Headlamp Units .. ."

However, for all this prescription, we can not find it necessary that aiming pads shall be placed on the lens of headlamps which can be aimed by the use of the adaptor equipped onto each vehicle, because the special adaptor can be designed regardless of lens bosses so as to be surely attached onto the proper design position of headlamps in any way, we think.

And it is not only useless but also impractical that the specified aiming bosses are placed onto the lens of headlamps which slant up to about 60o in vertical and horizontal, because the projection of the aiming bosses becomes higher according to the len s slant inevitably.

(INSERT GRAPHICS)

Attn: Ms. Erica Z. Jones Date: Sept. 15, 1987 Page: 3 / 3

Upon our consideration of the abovementioned matter, it should not be required that aiming bosses shall be placed on the lens of headlamps which are aimed by use of the special adaptor equipped onto each vehicle.

Upon your review, your prompt reply to this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours, M. Iwase Manager Technical Administration Dept. Koito Mfg. Co., Ltd. Shizuoka Works

See 7/23/87 letter from Erika Z. Jones to M. Iwase.

ID: 15826.ztv

Herr Olaf Schmidt
Hella KG Hueck & Co.
Rixbecker Strabe 75 75
59552 Lippstadt
Germany

Dear Herr Schmidt:

This is in reply to your letter of August 15, 1997, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency, concerning the conformity of a new headlamp design to the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You report that Hella has designed a headlamp to be visually aimable in accordance with the amendments to Standard No. 108 that were published on March 10, 1997. To facilitate the production of new vehicles on which the headlamp will be installed, the headlamp will incorporate a bubble-vial type of vehicle headlamp aiming device (VHAD) which is not required for visually aimable headlamps. The headlamp will be provided "with an initial pre-setting so that the location of the cut-off line [of the beam] corresponds very close (less than one tenth of a degree) to the indication of the bubble scale." You assure us that "The VHAD will not interfere [with] the aiming and performance of the headlamps" and that "[t]his auxiliary vertical VHAD is intended as a production aid and will not be mentioned in the owner's manual of the relevant car."

Paragraph S7.8.5. of Standard No. 108 in pertinent part requires headlighting systems installed on motor vehicles to "be aimable with at least one of the following" methods, which are specified as an externally applied aiming device, an on-vehicle headlamp aiming device, or by visual/optical means, each method to be "as specified" by a cited paragraph of Standard No. 108. This means that a headlamp may be both visually/optically aimable and aimable using a VHAD. However, the VHAD must conform to the requirements of Standard No. 108, one of which is that it be capable of horizontal aim adjustment. The Hella "auxiliary VHAD" does not include this feature. Therefore, the headlamp design you contemplate would appear not to conform to Standard No. 108.

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to ask us.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.2/18/98

ID: aiam1291

Dear Mr. Mathews: This responds to your letter No. 8495, dated October 5, 1973, to th National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concerning the legality of an automotive headlamp having a sealed metal reflector, glass lens arrangement. It is understood from your letter that such a headlamp would meet all requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, including photometric and electrical performance, interchangeability and mechanical aiming.; Specifically your question is: 'Would a hermetically sealed metal an glass headlamp, (one in every way interchangeable with existing approved sealed beams except that the reflector would be metal instead of glass), be acceptable under current federal regulations?'; The answer to your question is 'yes.' Sincerely, E. T. Driver, Director, Office of Operating Systems, Moto Vehicle Programs;

ID: 15305.ztv

Mr. Mark A. Evans
Photometric Engineer
Calcoast - ITL Lighting Technology
P.O. Box 8702
Emeryville, CA 94662

Dear Mr. Evans:

This is in reply to your letter of May 16, 1997, to Messrs Van Iderstine and Boyd of this agency. For your future reference, the Office of Chief Counsel has been designated as the Office of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration responsible for providing legal interpretations of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

You ask what components of a headlamp must be included when a corrosion test is conducted on it pursuant to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Specifically you ask whether it is "just the housing lens, reflector and bulb?" Because paragraph S8.4(b) "makes a reference to unfixtured," you also ask whether that implies that "the aim and mounting hardware should be included?" Finally, because the connector is to be attached to the bulb, you ask whether that makes "the bulb compression spring a headlamp component?"

The performance requirements to which paragraph S8.4 relates are set forth in paragraph S7.4(h)(3) (applicable to integral beam headlamps) and paragraph S7.5(i) (applicable to replaceable bulb headlamps). These paragraphs require that, after a corrosion test of a headlamp conducted according to paragraph S8.4, "there shall be no evidence of external or internal corrosion or rust visible without magnification." When a headlamp is tested as provided in paragraph S8.4, it is to be tested "with connector attached to the terminals, unfixtured . . . ." Paragraph S4 defines a headlamp test fixture as a test device "whose mounting hardware and components are those necessary to operate the headlamp as installed" on a motor vehicle.

Since the headlamp is to be tested unfixtured, this means that a test headlamp need not be equipped with mounting hardware and associated components at the time of testing for corrosion resistance. However, all other components of the headlamp would be subject to the corrosion test, including its aiming hardware (if so equipped) and the bulb compression spring, and be required to comply with corrosion resistance requirements specified by Standard No. 108.

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

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.6/24/97