ID: nht92-8.26

DATE: March 16, 1992

FROM: Shigeyoshi Aihara -- Manager, Information Services, Ichikoh America, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Subject: Interpretation of FMVSS No. 108, paragraph S7.4(i)(6)

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/6/92 from Paul J. Rice to Shigeyoshi Aihara (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

We would like to ask for your judgment concerning fogging after humidity test of replaceable bulb headlamp specified in FMVSS No.108, paragraph S7.4(i)(6).

Paragraph S.7.4(i)(6) is defined as follows:

"After a humidity test conducted in accordance with paragraph S8.7, the inside of the headlamp shall show no evidence of delamination or moisture, fogging or condensation visible without magnification, and the headlamp shall meet the photometric requirements applicable to the headlamp system under test."

Our questions concern the sentence "the inside of the headlamp shall show no evidence of delamination or moisture, fogging or condensation visible without magnification, and the headlamp ---"

A drawing of our headlamp with on-board aiming system is attached to this letter. The headlamp is a vented system. The bubble indicator cover of types A and B differ as shown in the attached sketches.

Question 1: After the humidity test, both types A and B show the fogging in the location as shown in attached sketches. But, this fogging is gone at normal temperature. We think this fogging does not affect the performance of headlamp such as bubble indicator visibility, photometry and others. Is such fogging acceptable after the humidity test ?

Question 2: May we understand that "the inside of housing" means the lens and reflector portions?, or Must we understand it to mean the entire inside portion of headlamps?

Your prompt reply would be greatly appreciated.

ID: 17632.ztv

Mr. L. W. Camp
Director
Automotive Safety Office
Ford Motor Company
300 Town Center Drive
Dearborn, MI 48126

Dear Mr. Camp:

This is in reply to your letter of March 23, 1998, with respect to an interpretation of "permanent" fixation of vehicle headlamp aiming device (VHAD) calibration.

Paragraph S7.8.5.2(c) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 requires that "Each headlamp equipped with a VHAD that is manufactured for use on motor vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1998, shall be manufactured with its calibration permanently fixed by its manufacturer." You reference our letter to Ichikoh Industries dated June 11, 1997, in which we said that if the calibration is capable of adjustment by any means it is not "permanent." You believe that this interpretation is not in accord with the intent of the rulemaking "and if read literally creates an impracticable and unreasonable standard." You have asked for an additional clarification of the term "permanent."

In your opinion, "the intent of the term 'permanent' was to help prevent adjustment of the VHAD calibration by either service mechanics or the operator, once set by the manufacturer. This would facilitate the proper aim of headlamps equipped with VHAD devices in the field. The [Regulatory Negotiation] Committee never intended that headlamp manufacturers prevent a determined individual from deliberately altering the calibration, as this is neither reasonable nor practicable."

You believe that S7.8.5.2(c) would be satisfied if a VHAD is tamper resistant or tamper indicant. With respect to tamper resistance, you write that a system could be designed so that the calibration mechanism would not permit misadjustment by a customer using ordinary tools or by a dealer using special tools provided only by the vehicle manufacturer. Ford also believes that if a vehicle is designed so that the vehicle structure prevents access to the VHAD calibration mechanism, the calibration should be considered "permanently fixed." Ford also believes that the term "tamper indicant" can be synonymous with "permanent."

Analogizing to emission control calibration systems incorporating a cap which must be destroyed in order to defeat the manufacturer's emission control calibration setting, you believe that a similar cap design could prevent "anyone aiming a headlamp from inadvertently making an adjustment of the VHAD calibration."

I would like to explain our interpretation to Ichikoh Industries in light of the concerns you raise. We disagree that the intent of the requirement for "permanent" calibration is to help prevent adjustment of the VHAD calibration by just service mechanics or vehicle owners. The intent is to prevent adjustment by vehicle distributors and dealers as well. We also acknowledge that headlamp manufacturers cannot design a system that will absolutely prevent intentional tampering. We believe that the test for determining whether calibration is permanent is whether it is tamper-resistant both with respect to owners, service mechanics, vehicle distributors, and vehicle dealers.

The specific question asked by Ichikoh Industries was "(d)oes calibration method that vehicle owner or driver cannot calibrate using ordinary tools conform to [the requirement for permanent calibration]?" As we noted in our reply, this question implied that the calibration could be adjusted by tools that are not "ordinary tools." We stated that if the calibration is capable of adjustment by any means, it is not permanent, and that if the calibration cannot be adjusted, by ordinary tools or otherwise, then it is permanent.

I note that the question we were answering was asked in the context of calibration being performed by a vehicle owner or driver. The point we were trying to make in answering the question was that just because a vehicle owner or driver would need to obtain and use special tools to calibrate the VHAD device would not be sufficient to make the headlamp manufacturer's calibration permanent. However, this principle would not apply in a situation where special tools existed but the headlamp manufacturer reasonably believed that the tools would not available to the public, including service mechanics and vehicle distributors and dealers. This is because, in such a situation, neither a vehicle owner nor a mechanic could obtain or use such tools to calibrate the VHAD device.

We cannot provide an interpretation as to whether a particular design would be tamper-resistant outside the context of specific information about the design. We would be cautious, however, with respect to the approach of making systems "tamper indicant" as opposed to tamper-resistant. In our view, the mere fact that it would become readily apparent that a system has been calibrated would not, by itself, necessarily discourage such calibration. Thus, unless such systems could also be viewed as tamper-resistant, we would not consider them to be "permanent" in the context of the requirement at issue.

We do not agree with Ford's view that the calibration is "permanently fixed" if a vehicle is designed to prevent access to the VHAD calibration feature. Although Ichikoh asked a similar question regarding vehicle structures and aiming devices, its question was in the context of horizontal aiming systems and not calibration. We advised Ichikoh that if the horizontal aiming mechanism was not accessible for aiming the headlamp, it would be regarded as absent for purposes of meeting Standard No. 108. Ford's question is whether the VHAD calibration can be regarded as "permanently fixed" if the VHAD is inaccessible when the headlamp is installed on a vehicle. The answer is no; Standard No. 108 clearly states that the VHAD calibration is to be fixed by the headlamp manufacturer at the time the headlamp is manufactured. This means that its accessibility when the vehicle manufacturer installs the headlamp is irrelevant to the issue of whether its calibration is "permanently fixed."

If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.6/18/98

ID: 20061.ztv

Mr. Mark Cronmiller
Project Engineer
VDO North America LLC
2669 Bond Street
Rochester Hills, MI 48309

Dear Mr. Cronmiller:

This is in reply to your email of May 14, 1999, with respect to "smart" headlight systems.

You report that these systems adjust headlamp aim vertically and/or horizontally according to driving conditions (e.g., vertically for oncoming traffic, horizontally around curves in the road). You ask whether there are any regulation interpretations relating to these systems, and whether we have plans to regulate or require these types of systems.

We have not issued any interpretations on these new "smart" headlamp systems. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, prescribes headlamp aiming hardware requirements under static conditions only (paragraph S7.8). Once a headlamp is installed on a vehicle, its aim is fixed, but may be adjustable by mechanical means when the vehicle is at rest. A limited ability to adjust vertical aim on some vehicles is also provided by vehicle leveling devices. Our standard does not require that headlamps be aimed at the time the vehicle is manufactured and certified as conforming to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If there is a requirement for correct headlamp aim on new vehicles, it would be that of a State's motor vehicle authority at the time the vehicle is first registered for highway use in that State.

If a "smart" headlamp system meets the static aiming hardware requirements of Standard No. 108, a dynamic aiming feature is permissible. We have no specific plans to regulate or require headlamps with dynamic aim features, but we are monitoring them to form an impression as to their suitability for use under American driving conditions, and to learn if there are any problems of maintenance of aiming integrity, or durability, involved in their use. At a minimum, we would be concerned about the need for fail-safe performance to assure that aim would return to nominally correct, straight ahead in the event of a failure.

Because each State is likely to impose aim-location requirements on new motor vehicles and these requirements may differ from State to State, we note that you may have difficulty getting a "smart" headlamp system accepted as capable of being correctly aimed as may be required by the various States. We recommend that you contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) for determining the legality of the "smart" headlamp system under each State's laws pertaining to correct headlamp aim. AAMVA's address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

If you have further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263)

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.7/21/99

ID: nht90-4.64

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: November 20, 1990

FROM: M. Iwase -- General Manager, Technical Administration Dept., Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re FMVSS No. 108 (Lamp, reflective devices, and associated equipment) Interpretation and/or Petition for Combination of Headlighting Systems

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-13-90 to M. Iwase from Paul Jackson Rice (A36; Std. 108)

TEXT:

We would hereby ask you to provide us with your kind advice to the subject matter.

There are three (3) different kinds of headlighting system as specified in the current FMVSS No. 108 --- Sealed Beam Headlighting System of S7.3, Integral Beam Headlighting System of S7.4 and Bulb Replaceable Headlighting System of S7.5.

We are thinking of taking a new headlamp configuration into our design of headlamps which seems not to come under any of lighting systems abovementioned, as shown in the attached sheet-1.

It is a combination of the current systems, consisting of the integral beam headlighting and the bulb replaceable headlighting, and is a possible and reasonable construction for hybrid headlighting systems combining a new technology of HID headlighting a nd the conventional tungusten filament headlightings, we think. We would hereby ask for your kind advice as to whether the said combination of lighting systems could be accepted in use for the automobile headlamps under the current FMVSS No. 108.

Our intended configuration is just a conbination of lighting systems currently permitted in use, never raising argument on the safety and performance aspect, we believe.

If the configuration is not accepted just because it has not been provided in the wording of the lighting systems of FMVSS No. 108, we would like to petition an amendment of FMVSS No. 108 so that such a configuration as we intend might be accepted to use , by submitting the attached sheet-2 enclosed herewith.

Your kind and favourable attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Attached Sheet 1

Combination of Headlighting Systems

4 Lamp System (Drawing omitted.)

Note:(1) Lower Beam Headlamp is designed to conform to the applicable requirement of S7.5. (2) Upper Beam Headlamp is designed to conform to the applicable requirements of S7.4. (3) Photometric design is in conformity with Fig. 15 of FMVSS No. 108.

2 Lamp System

(Drawing omitted.)

(1) Lower Beam Headlamp is designed to conform to the applicable requirement of S7.5. (2) Upper Beam Headlamp is designed to conform to the applicable requirement of S7.4. (3) Photometric design is in conformity with Fig. 17 of FMVSS No. 108.

Attached Sheet 2

Atten: Mr. Paul Jackson Rice Date: November 20, 1990

Petition for Amendment of FMVSS No. 108 (Lamp, reflective devices, and associated equipment) Combination of Integral Beam and Bulb Replaceable Headlighting System We would hereby petition to amend FMVSS No. 108, as belowmentioned, so that a combination of Integral Beam Headlamp and Bulb Replaceable Headlamp can be use for automobile headlamps;

S7 should be changed as follows;

S7. Each passenger car, multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck and bus shall be equipped with a headlighting system designed to conform to the requierments of S7.3, S7.4 or S7.5. Headlighting systems may be a combination of integral beam headlighting system and bulb replaceable headlighting system provided that each headlamp or part of headlamp meets the applicable requirements. In this case, photometric requirements of Fig. 15 or Fig. 17 shall be met according to the lamp system.

ID: aiam3733

Dear Mr. Nakaya: This is in response to your letter of July 8, 1983 asking for a interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; Section S4.2 of SAE Standard J588e *Turn Signal Lamps* establishes minimum distance of 4 inches from the optical axis (filament center) of the front turn signal to the inside diameter of the retaining ring of the headlamp providing the lower beam. You believe that it is not necessary to have a retaining ring on a semi-sealed headlamp and you have asked whether you may substitute the edge of the reflector (as shown on your drawing) to measure the dimension covered by S4.2 of J588e.; The point depicted on your drawing appears to be the inner edge of th reflector, rather than the extreme edge, nevertheless, the 'reflector edge' you have indicated is the approximate location of a retaining ring on a fully sealed headlamp, and is therefore acceptable as a measuring point under Standard No. 108.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: 1888y

The Honorable Fred Grandy
House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Grandy:

This is in reply to your recent letter to the Administrator Designate, Jerry Curry, on behalf of your constituent Daniel Weichmann, Jr., of Hampton. You enclosed a copy of Mr. Weichmann's letter to this agency with respect to headlamp covers which, regrettably, we have been remiss in answering. You asked that we review this matter and that you be provided a copy of our response. We are pleased to reply directly to you, with a copy to Mr. Weichmann so that he may be apprised immediately of our views.

Mr. Weichmann was advised by the Iowa Department of Transportation on October 10, 1988, that "The department specifically does not approve head lamp covers", because Iowa has adopted "Federal standards on equipment approval". Consequently, "If the headlamp covers in question meet the Federal Standards they would qualify under Iowa law." Thus, Mr. Weichmann asked us whether headlamp covers are approved by this agency.

Headlamp covers are not permissible as items of original motor vehicle equipment. Paragraph S7.7.5 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, in pertinent part, states that when headlamps are operated they "shall not have any styling ornament or other feature, such as a translucent cover or grill, in front of the lens." Although Standard No. l08 was only recently amended to state this prohibition expressly (I enclose a copy of the amended standard), the prohibition has existed since January l968 through the incorporation by reference in Standard No. l08 of an SAE headlamp Standard, J580b, which contained the identical language. The safety reason for the prohibition is the reduced effectiveness of a headlamp beam when it must pass through an extra layer of glazing, particularly if that glazing is tinted, yellowed, or cracked, or if moisture has condensed on the inside of the cover. Thus, headlamp covers are also implicitly prohibited by paragraph S5.1.3 of Standard No. l08 which forbids the installation of optional original equipment that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment, such as headlamps, that are required by Standard No. l08.

The Iowa DOT's views are consistent with the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act which permit States to enact State motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new vehicles provided that they are identical to Federal ones covering the same aspect of performance. Although the Federal standards do not regulate operation of a vehicle after it is sold, and hence could not prohibit a vehicle owner in Iowa from installing headlamp covers and operating his vehicle with them, Iowa's enforcement of a headlamp cover prohibition for vehicles in use would be consistent with its prohibition of them as original vehicle equipment. However, we cannot interpret Iowa law, and reach no conclusion as to whether its statutes or regulations have that effect.

Should either you or Mr. Weichmann have further questions, we shall be pleased to answer them.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Acting Administrator Enclosure

cc: Daniel Weichmann, Jr.

The Honorable Fred Grandy Mason City IA / ref:l08 d:7/5/89

ID: 15590.ztv

Kiyoshi Narabu, General Manager
Technical Department
Ichikoh Industries, Ltd.
80 Itado, Isehara
Kanagawa, 259-11
Japan

Dear Mr. Narabu:

This is in reply to your letter of July 16, 1997, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, specifically, the final rule allowing visually/optically aimable headlamps, published on March 10, 1997 (62 FR 10710).

Your first question is:

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 the mechanism meets the requirements of S7.8.5.2. New paragraph S7.8.5.2(c) was added as part of the visually/optically aimable headlamp specifications on March 10, 1997. This new paragraph applies to headlamps equipped with VHADs manufactured for use on motor vehicles manufactured on and after September 1, 1998, and requires that the calibration be fixed. The headlamp you describe appears to incorporate a VHAD that will be used only on the headlamp, at the time the headlamp was manufactured, and is not intended to be used thereafter. We view this design as conforming to the requirement of S7.8.5.2(c) that calibration be permanently fixed.

Your second question is whether NHTSA's failure to amend S7.8.5.2(a)(2)(iv) is an oversight, since the preamble indicated that the paragraph would be changed to eliminate an inconsistency. Yes, this was an oversight which we shall correct shortly.

Finally, you have said that "S7.8.5.2(c) does not specify the application of calibration for horizontal VHAD device or vertical VHAD device," and asked whether the requirement applies only for the horizontal VHAD device. Effective with vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1998, S7.8.5.2(c) requires that each headlamp equipped with a VHAD have its calibration permanently fixed. The definition of VHAD in S4 of Standard No. 108, as amended on March 10, 1997 (62 FR at 10717) indicates that it is a device used for determining the horizontal aim of a headlamp, or vertical aim, or both horizontal and vertical aim. Thus, the prohibition will apply to any VHAD with which a headlamp will be equipped, horizontal, vertical, or both.

If you have any questions regarding this letter, you may contact Taylor Vinson of this Office (FAX 202-366-3820).

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.10/30/97

ID: 2396y

Robert A. Rogers, Director
Automotive Safety Engineering
Environmental Activities Staff
General Motors Corporation
General Motors Technical Center
30400 Mound Road
Warren, MI 48090-9015

Dear Mr. Rogers:

This is in reply to your letter asking for confirmation that an interpretation of a notice of proposed rulemaking remains in effect with respect to the final rule based upon that proposal. I regret the delay in responding.

Specifically, you reference an interpretation dated September 12, l988, that this Office provided Koito Corporation, informing it that each of the two Vehicle Headlamp Aiming Device (VHAD) designs depicted "complies with the intent of S7.7.5.2" of Standard No. l08. The second design consisted of a detachable spirit level that would be inserted in the bulb socket for the purpose of aiming the headlamp. We informed Koito that "under subsection (b)(7) photometric testing is provided for "the VHAD and headlamp assembly (if the headlamp is separable or intended to be used with the VHAD)", and that this meant that the VHAD may be integral with the headlamp assembly or separate from it. However, we also cautioned that our comments were based upon the proposal, and could change with the issuance of the final rule.

You have commented that the final rule was the same with respect to the pertinent VHAD wording. This is not entirely true. The final rule (paragraph S7.7.5.2(b)(vii)) omitted the parenthetical phrase "(if the headlamp is separable or intended to be used with the VHAD)". You also noted that paragraph S7.7.5.2(c)(l) of the final rule defines a headlamp assembly as "(the headlamp(s) and the integral or separate VHAD mechanism)". The intent of this language is to specify a VHAD that is a permanent part of the headlamp, and hence integral, or to have a separate VHAD that is part of the mounting mechanism. It was not meant as permitting a VHAD that could be physically separated from headlamp or the mounting mechanism. Thus, in our view and upon our further consideration of the matter, a detachable VHAD does not meet the "intent" of the final rule. This means that the spirit level design described in your letter, which is not integral to the headlamp or mounting mechanism, is not permissible. We shall provide Koito with a copy of this letter.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:4/9/90

ID: aiam2270

Dear PFC Phillips: This is in reply to your letter of April 8, 1976, asking about Stat laws applicable to fog lamps, driving lamps, and quartz-iodine halogen driving lamps.; The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 1828 Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. may be able to provide you answers with respect to State laws, as each State, rather than the Federal government, sets its own requirements for registration and use of motor vehicles within its borders.; The only aspect that you mentioned which we cover in our Federa vehicle lighting standard is the minimum and maximum height of headlamps above the road surface. These measurements are 24 inches and 54 inches respectively, measured from the center of the headlamp on the vehicle at curb weight. If a State has a law on maximum and minimum headlamp height it is required to be identical to this one. States may permit or prohibit fog lamps, driving lamps, and quartz-iodine halogen driving lamps as they choose since there are no Federal requirements for them.; Yours truly, Stephen P. Wood, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3911

Dear Mr. Iwase: This is in reply to your letter of February 1, 1985, with reference t the compliance with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 of a proposed motorcycle headlamp design.; In the design shown in your letter a single housing would contain tw dual-filament bulbs, each with an independently aimed reflector. You have stated that the headlamp can comply with the photometric requirements of SAE J584 when either compartment is lit, and that the assembly will meet all other requirements of J584.; A dual bulb arrangement in a single housing is considered a singl headlamp, and therefore its compliance will be judged when both compartments are lit to provide either the upper or lower beam. Assuming that when both compartments are lit the combined candlepower at individual test points does not exceed the maxima imposed by J584 for those test points, your design appears to comply with Standard No. 108.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel