ID: 1983-3.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/18/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Hueck & Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. I. A. Wuddel Westfalische Metall Industrie KG Hueck & Co. Postfach 28 40 4780 Lippstadt Germany

Dear Mr. Wuddel:

This is in reply to your letter of September 9, 1983, to August Burgett of this agency. With reference to the recent amendment to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 permitting semi-sealed replaceable bulb headlamp systems, you have asked whether a headlamp assembly would be allowed which also incorporated a European H1 or H2 bulb, "for an auxiliary driving beam or a front fog lamp, as our customer requests it."

It is our understanding that the H1 bulbs are commonly used in European lamps as the principal lighting source, and that H2 bulbs are used in high intensity supplemental front lamps. Therefore, use of one of these bulbs in a replaceable bulb headlamp would create, in effect, a system of four headlamps. The agency recently denied a petition by Volkswagen for a four-lamp system at this time using the standardized replaceable light source (copy enclosed), because of unresolved issues. We therefore are currently unable to allow a system such as you propose with the H1 or H2 bulb in a common housing with the standardized replaceable light source, creating in effect a four-lamp headlamp system. Further, paragraph S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108, prohibits the installation of additional lighting equipment which impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108, and there is the distinct possibility that this could occur through incorporation of the H1 and H2 bulbs.

Use of the H1 and H2 bulbs in separate and independent units for driving or fog lamps remains permissible, subject to regulation by the individual American States, as these items are not covered by Standard No. 108.

You may be interested to know that Volkswagen of America has recently petitioned us for rulemaking that would allow use of the H4 bulb instead of the standardized replaceable light source in replaceable bulb headlamp systems. A decision is pending whether to grant this petition.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosure

Mr. A. Burgett Office of Vehicle Safety Standards National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. USA - Washington, D.C. 20590

BV Wu/Mei 7509 09-09-1983

Dear Sir,

Since optional headlighting systems are allowed according to FMVSS No. 108 (Docket No. 81-11, Notice 3) on certain promises, we intend to develop a semi-sealed headlamp assembly with two adjacent reflectors, moulded as one part, and a lens covering both reflector sections. The lens and the dual reflector would be sealed. The outward reflector would be equipped with a standardized replaceable bulb (Ford bulb) for the required upper and lower beam, and the inward reflector would be equipped with a european replaceable bulb type "H1" or "H2" for an auxiliary driving beam or a front fog lamp, as our customer requests it. The optical axis of the system would be parallel. On surface of the lens area for upper and lower beam there would be three aiming pads by which a common aiming adjustment of both the upper/lower beam and the auxiliary driving or fog lamp beam could be carried out.

We would like to learn whether such a headlamp assembly would be allowed or it is required that the aiming adjustment must be possible for each reflector.

Please find attached sketch.

Yours sincerely

Westfalische Metall Industrie Kommanditgesellschaft Hueck & Co. i. A. Wuddel Headlamp Assembly

*Insert diagram here

ID: nht87-1.54

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/28/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: T. Chikada -- Manager, Automotive Lighting, Stanley Electric Co. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

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

This is in reply to your letter of August 4, 1986, with respect to a new headlamp and aiming adaptor design. The lens of the headlamp will be tilted 60 degrees from vertical. Although this is too extreme an angle - for use of mechanical aimers for headla mps, you have developed an adaptor for use with the aimer whereby the new headlamp may be mechanically aimed. You have asked whether mechanical aim using the new adaptor is permissible.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 does prescribe the types of aimers to be used with replaceable bulb headlamps, but not the adaptors. As you have noted, the standard does require such headlamps to be capable of mechanical aim by incorporatin g on the lens face three pads which meet the requirements of the Standard's Figure 4. You have informed us that your headlamp design complies with this requirement, and furthermore meets the photometric requirements of Standard No. 108.

However, there are some practical considerations that are important if you intend to market this headlamp. Although providing an aimer adaptor is not required by Standard 108, no adaptors for your unique lamp have been provided to service facilities. The only adaptors which exist today are those designed to accommodate sealed beam headlamps replaceable bulb headlamps with lens angles up to 50 degree for smaller lamps and 40 degrees for larger ones. Neither of these can accommodate the lamp you have prop osed.

In summary, the standard does not appear to preclude use of your new designs, and although not specifically required by the standard, an adaptor should be provided as original vehicle equipment since suitable adaptors do not exist in the service communit y.

Subsequent to August 4, we received your request for confidential treatment of the letter. We replied that it is our policy that substantive interpretations be made publicly available but informed you that we would be willing to delete all identifying re ferences to you and your company. You replied that this was agreeable to you. However, because this headlamp is the subject of SAE Technical paper 870064 Development of MR (Multi-Reflector Headlamp) and was discussed at SAE and was discussed at SAE meeti ngs in February 1987, Stanley has waived all considerations of confidentiality through its public disclosure of the matter. Consequently, this letter will be made publicly available.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

September 4, 1986

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Dear Ms. Jones,

We have asked you an advice about permissibility of mechanical aiming with the additional adaptor by the letter dated August 4, 1986.

As for the above mentioned letter, we would like to ask a favor of you. We would like you to deal with this matter in strict confidence.

Since this headlamp is being developed as our new idea for customer satisfaction, we are trying to keep this information inside of our company. Therefore we would like you to maintain the secrecy of this information strictly against any other third party .

Your kind cooperation will be highly appreciated and as well we are looking forward to your reply to our problem.

Sincerely yours,

Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

T. Chikada Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept.

ID: 21118.ztv

Richard H. Hodson, Esq.
310 North Main Street
P.O. Box 435
Garden City, KS 67846-0435

Dear Mr. Hodson:

Your letter of December 16, 1999, addressed to Ms. Nancy McFadden, the General Counsel of the Department of Transportation, has been forwarded to this Office for reply. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is the component of the Department responsible for issuing, interpreting, and enforcing the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. I am sorry that our response to your letter has been delayed.

You relate that a client of yours was charged with operating a motor vehicle with improper headlamps, specifically that the headlamp bulbs have a blue tint to them. The bulbs are replacement bulbs, and were installed by the previous owner of the vehicle. Your review of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment has led you to conclude that the only permissible colors for headlamps are white and yellow. Yet you understand that some cars have this color of headlamp as original equipment, and you report seeing replacement headlamps, with a similar tint, that are stamped DOT "which presumably reflects approval by your agency," and packaging stating they are legal in all states.

When we revise Standard No. 108 in the near future, we will clearly state that the color of headlamps must be white. The interpretation I am providing, of course, is for the standard as it is presently written. Paragraph S7 of Standard No. 108 sets forth the requirements for headlamps. In various places, S7 specifies that headlamps must meet Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) J1383 APR85. This refers to SAE Recommended Practice J1383 APR 85 "Performance Requirements for Motor Vehicle Headlamps." Of particular interest to you will be the provisions of S7.5 of Standard No. 108 covering replaceable bulb headlamps, the type used by your client. S7.5(c) in pertinent part requires replaceable bulb headlamps to meet "performance requirements of section 5.1.4 of SAE J1383 APR85." This version of SAE J1383 appears in the SAE Handbooks for the years 1986 through 1990 when J1383 APR85 was revised. Section 5.1.4 of SAE J1383 APR85 states that "The color of the headlamp shall be white as specified in SAE J578." This refers to SAE Standard J578c, February 1977 "Color Specification for Electric Signal Lighting Devices" (see S5.1.5 of Standard No. 108). This version appeared only in the 1978 SAE Handbook.

SAE J578c defines white by blue, yellow, green, red, and purple boundaries within a chromaticity diagram. Thus, it is possible to design a headlamp that emits a light that approaches the blue boundary and is perceived as having a blue tint but which nevertheless remains within the boundaries that define "white." These headlamps would comply with the color requirements of Standard No. 108. Without an actual test of your client's headlamp bulbs, it is not possible to say whether the color emitted remains within the boundaries of "white."

A headlamp's replaceable light sources themselves, whether new or replacement equipment (see S5.8.1) must meet the requirements of S7.7 of Standard No. 108 and bear the DOT symbol that represents the light source manufacturer's certification that the light source meets all applicable requirements of the standard. Though not specifically stated in S7.7, which contains no reference to 5.1.4 of SAE J1383 APR85, these bulbs obviously must project a white light in order for the headlamps to comply when the bulbs are installed. Thus, we regard the color white as one of the performance requirements of replacement replaceable light sources covered by the DOT certification. That is why you see replacement bulb packages (presumably containing DOT-certified light sources) stating that the bulbs are legal in all states.

Please note that the DOT symbol does not represent our "approval." We have no authority to approve or disapprove motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. 30115, the manufacturer must certify conformance of its product, and we play no role in the certification process.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.5/4/00

ID: nht94-1.79

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 16, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jerry L. Steffy -- Triumph Designs, Ltd. (England)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to faxes dated 2/11/94 and 2/10/94 from Jerry L. Steffy to Taylor Vinson (OCC 9661)

TEXT:

This responds to your FAXes of February 10 and 11, 1994, to Taylor Vinson of this Office.

You have informed us that in Canada you were able recently "to use ECE Reg. 20 in lieu of FMVSS 108 for a particular headlamp use." You have asked whether it is possible to do the same in the United States.

The answer depends upon whether the ECE Reg. 20 headlamp also meets FMVSS No. 108. Motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States must be equipped with headlamps that comply with FMVSS No. 108. This standard does not incorporate ECE Reg. 20. Therefore, importation and sale in the United States of any motor vehicle equipped with an ECE Reg. 20 headlamp that does not meet Standard No. 108 would be in violation of our law.

You have also asked whether our temporary exemption procedures, 49 CFR Part 555, would permit you to apply for an exemption for this headlamp on the grounds of "an equivalent overall level of motor vehicle safety." After one model year, you would change to a headlamp that meets FMVSS 108.

The exemption procedures are available to manufacturers of motor vehicles, but not motor vehicle equipment. Thus, the manufacturer of an ECE Reg. 20 headlamp could not apply for an exemption. The appropriate petitioner would be the manufacturer of a mo tor vehicle on which a Reg. 20 headlamp is installed as original equipment. We assume that Triumph Designs is associated with the manufacturer of Triumph motorcycles, and this manufacturer would be eligible to submit a petition under Part 555.

If you have any further questions, we shall be pleased to answer them.

ID: nht87-2.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/10/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Anonymous (confidential)

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Dear This is in reply to your letter of March 13, 1987, with respect to whether a new headlamp design is permissible under Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

In the new design, the upper aiming pad is integral with the lens but it recessed and concealed by the lip of the hood. Thus, the hood must be open for a mechanical aimer to be applied. You believe that this is not precluded by section 5.1 of SAE J580 in corporated by reference in Standard No. 109, which requires aiming to be effected "without the removal of any ornamental trim rings or other parts."

Your drawing indicates that the flange is part of the headlamp lens even though that portion of the lens is not needed to provide illumination. The fact that the hood must be raised in order to aim the headlamps does not constitute a "removal" within the meaning of SAE J580. Therefore this design is not prohibited by Standard No. 108.

In accordance of your letter of April 27, 1987, your request for confidentiality is granted to the extent that all information which might identify you or your employer will be deleted from the publicity available copies of this letter.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Ms Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590 13 March 87 Dear Ms Jones

RE: INTERPRETATION OF FMVSS NO. 108, LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES, AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT REFERENCES SAD J580, SECTION 5.1 AUG 79

REQUEST FOR CONFIDENTIALITY - HEADLAMP LENS AND AIMING PAD DESIGN

the of the passenger car seeks a legal interpretation of FMVSS No.108; referen ced SAE J580 Aug 79, Sealed beam headlight assembly and confidentiality of its new headlamp lens and aiming pad design. SAE 580, Section (5.1) states, "Headlamps shall be de signed so that they may be inspected and aimed by mechanical aimers as specified in SAE 602 c (December 1974) without the removal of any ornamental trim rings or other parts."

is proposing a replaceable bulb type headlamp system with the upper aiming pad integral with the lens but recessed and concealed by the lip of the hood as shown in the attached drawing. It is, opinion that our lamp design is permissible under FMVSS No. 108 referenced SAE 580 Section 5.1. That is, if it is acceptable to raise the hood to adjust headlamp so should it be permissible to raise the hood to attach mechanical aimers.

For this reason requests a legal interpretation of SAE J580, Section 5.1 and request confidentiality of our headlamp design described and shown herein. Yours Sincerely Chief Engineer INSERT GRAPHIC

ID: aiam3737

Dear Mr. Le Guen: This is in reply to your letter of July 27, 1983, to Mr. Vinson of thi office asking several questions with respect to the amendment of Standard No. 108, June 2, 1983, which permits semi-sealed replaceable bulb headlamps.; First, you mention certain sealing specifications, contrasting the with references to designed openings, and ask for our comments on this. Although the design that Ford intends to use is not a vented system, the amendment does not specify or prohibit either vented or unvented systems. A vented system using the standardized replaceable light source and the O-ring seal is permissable (sic) if the headlamp passes all the recently adopted environmental tests.; With reference to your further questions, there are no tolerances o the dust test. You have also asked whether, assuming that a European type headlamp using the new light source 'passes all tests mentioned in the amendment to F.M.V.S.S. 108, would it get D.O.T. approval?' If the lens- reflector unit is bonded, and if with the light source inserted the lamp meets U.S. photometric requirements and all environmental tests specified in the amendment, then the manufacturer of the lamp may apply the D.O.T. symbol to it. This is the certification that the lamp meets all applicable U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Under this self- certification process, the manufacturer, rather than D.O.T., approves the lamp for sale.; Finally, you have asked who will manufacture the new bulb and where yo might be able to obtain test samples. Ford's initial supplier will be Sylvania/GTE, and you may write GTE Products Corp., West Main Street, Hillsboro, NH 03249, Attn: Mr. Richardson.; I hope this answers your questions. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: 1916y

Dear :

This is in reply to your letter of June 30, l989, to John Donaldson of this Office titled "Request for Interpretation", submitted on behalf of your client. You request "that all identifying references to myself, my firm and [my client] in this letter and the responsive letter of interpretation" be deleted. Your request is granted on the basis that it relates to confidential business information and may be withheld under applicable Departmental regulations, 49 CFR Part 512.

You describe a lamp system as follows:

"The product is a headlamp consisting of a plastic lens and reflector, arc tubes (two each for high and low beam) and electronics for instant start and re-start of the headlamps as well as management of the operating current. A 12 volt connection is supplied for connection of vehicle line voltage".

You have asked for a letter "confirming" that this lamp system is designed to conform to the integral beam headlamp requirements of paragraph S7.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08, "subject only to compliance with the appropriate photometric requirements of FMVSS l08."

A headlighting system of the nature described must be designed to conform to all the pertinent requirements of S5.5, S7.1, S7.2, and S7.7, as well as S7.4, including mechanical aim and environmental requirements. However, since this headlamp does not use filaments for converting the electrical energy to light energy, certain configurations of such systems may not conform, because some requirements are predicated upon the existence of filaments (e.g., S5.5.9 and S7.4(f)). If the headlamp you describe meets all requirements, then it would appear to be an integral beam headlighting system designed to conform to S7.4. Whether the headlamp in fact meets those requirements is for the lamp manufacturer to determine, as it must assure the manufacturer of the vehicle on which it is installed that he may certify compliance of the vehicle with Standard No. l08. Further, the headlamp manufacturer itself must certify compliance of replacement equipment. If the headlamp is incompatible with these requirements and cannot meet them, then it would not appear to be an integral beam system. In that case, rulemaking would be required to accommodate it within the framework of Standard No. l08.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

/ ref:l08 d:7/2l/89

ID: nht89-2.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/21/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA

TO: Anonymous (confidential)

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: Dear

This is in reply to your letter of June 30, 1989, to John Donaldson of this Office titled "Request for Interpretation", submitted on behalf of your client. You request "that all identifying references to myself, my firm and [my client] in this letter and the responsive letter of interpretation" be deleted. Your request is granted on the basis that it relates to confidential business information and may be withheld under applicable Departmental regulations, 49 CFR Part 512.

You describe a lamp system as follows:

"The product is a headlamp consisting of a plastic lens and reflector, arc tubes (two each for high and low beam) and electronics for instant start and re-start of the headlamps as well as management of the operating current. A 12 volt connection is supplied for connection of vehicle line voltage".

You have asked for a letter "confirming" that this lamp system is designed to conform to the integral beam headlamp requirements of paragraph S7.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, "subject only to compliance with the appropriate photomet ric requirements of FMVSS 108."

A headlighting system of the nature described must be designed to conform to all the pertinent requirements of S5.5, S7.1, S7.2, and S7.7, as well as S7.4, including mechanical aim and environmental requirements. However, since this headlamp does not us e filaments for converting the electrical energy to light energy, certain configurations of such systems may not conform, because some requirements are predicated upon the existence of filaments (e.g., S5.5.9 and S7.4(f)). If the headlamp you describe m eets all requirements, then it would appear to be an integral beam headlighting system designed to conform to S7.4. Whether the headlamp in fact meets those requirements is for the lamp manufacturer to determine, as it must assure the manufacturer of the vehicle on which it

2

is installed that he may certify compliance of the vehicle with Standard No. 108. Further, the headlamp manufacturer itself must certify compliance of replacement equipment. If the headlamp is incompatible with these requirements and cannot meet them, then it would not appear to be an integral beam system. In that case, rulemaking would be required to accommodate it within the framework of Standard No. 108.

Sincerely,

ID: 0324

Mr. Rishi Gupta
Autolite (India) Limited
D-483 Road No. 9-A
Vishwalkarma Industrial Area
Jaipur 302 013
India

Dear Mr. Gupta:

This is in reply to your FAX of August 29, 1994, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency. For future reference, requests for interpretations of U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety regulations should be addressed to the Office of Chief Counsel.

You have asked whether the size and types of aiming pads you propose to place on headlamps manufactured by Autolite conform to DOT specifications. You describe these headlamps as "a 7" round and a 200 x 142 mm rectangular replaceable halogen sealed beams [which] use a replaceable halogen bulb (HB2)." You enclosed diagrams showing "aiming pad's position as per SAE J1383 - 1992" (Figures 1 and 3), and in the manner you wish to place them on the Autolite lamps (Figures 2 and 4). We understand that these replaceable bulb headlamps are intended to be sold as replacements for sealed beam headlamps of the same dimensions.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, is the DOT specification that applies to Autolite's headlamps.

The aimability performance requirements for non-sealed beam headlamps are found in S7.8. of Standard No. 108. S7.8 allows any aiming pad pattern that will fit on the headlamp and that will allow any one of the available aiming adapters described in SAE J602 to be used on the headlamp.

Specifically, S7.8.1 in pertinent part allows non- sealed beam headlamps to be equipped with aiming pads to be used with the photometric procedures of SAE J1383 APR85 (not "1992" as you wrote) when being tested for photometric compliance, and to serve for the aiming reference when the lamp is installed on a motor vehicle. S7.8.5 allows an installed headlamp system to

be aimable with an externally applied aiming device. Under S7.8.5.1, this aiming device shall be the equipment specified in SAE Standard J602 OCT80 Headlamp Aiming Device for Mechanically Aimable Sealed Beam Headlamp Units.

You write that the aiming pad sizes and types you wish to use are identical to those on headlamps sold by Hella, and that ETL Testing Laboratories has told you that the aiming pad positions and types meet DOT specifications. This indicates that Autolite's headlamps would be mechanically aimable with SAE J602 equipment, and therefore permissible as meeting Standard No. 108. We recommend that Autolite verify mechanical aimability with SAE J602 equipment before certifying compliance with Standard No. 108.

Our engineering staff has reviewed your letter and asks that we point out the following errors in Autolite's Figures Nos. 2 and 4. Under both Figures, there is a reference to "HB-2 (H4 P43t)." The HB2 light source is not the same as the H4 P43t light source. The HB2 is a light source permitted by Standard No. 108 while the H4 P43t is not permitted by the Standard for motor vehicles. Under the drawing, the dimension "68.5" should be "68.58 +/- 0.51" (see Figure 4-4 of Standard No. 108). The dimensions of "32" and "52.0" must be the sum of two dimension "A"s from Figure 4-4, thus the sum is 42.16 +/- 0.25 + 42.16 +/- 0.25 = 84.32 +/- 0.50, not 84 as nominally calculated. Finally, with respect to Figure 4 only, because this lamp is intended to replace a 200 x 142 mm sealed beam lamp, the position of the aiming pads are not, but should be identical to the 200 x 142 mm sealed beam to facilitate mechanical aim when only one headlamp is replaced.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:10/26/94

ID: nht94-4.63

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 26, 1994

FROM: Recht, Philip R. -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Gupta, Rishi -- Autolite (India) Limited

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached To 8/29/94 Letter From Rishi Gupta to Richard Van Iderstine (OCC 10324)

TEXT: This is in reply to your FAX of August 29, 1994, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency. For future reference, requests for interpretations of U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety regulations should be addressed to the Office of Chief Counsel.

You have asked whether the size and types of aiming pads you propose to place on headlamps manufactured by Autolite conform to DOT specifications. You describe these headlamps as "a 7" round and a 200 x 142 mm rectangular replaceable halogen sealed beam s [which] use a replaceable halogen bulb (HB2)." You enclosed diagrams showing "aiming pad's position as per SAE J1383 - 1992" (Figures 1 and 3), and in the manner you wish to place them on the Autolite lamps (Figures 2 and 4). We understand that these replaceable bulb headlamps are intended to be sold as replacements for sealed beam headlamps of the same dimensions.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, is the DOT specification that applies to Autolite's headlamps. The aimability performance requirements for non-sealed beam headlamps are found in S7.8. of Standard No. 108. S7.8 allows any aiming pad pattern that will fit on the headlamp and that will allow any one of the available aiming adapters described in SAE J602 to be used on the headlamp.

Specifically, S7.8.1 in pertinent part allows non-sealed beam headlamps to be equipped with aiming pads to be used with the photometric procedures of SAE J1383 APR85 (not "1992" as you wrote) when being tested for photometric compliance, and to serve for the aiming reference when the lamp is installed on a motor vehicle. S7.8.5 allows an installed headlamp system to be aimable with an externally applied aiming device. Under S7.8.5.1, this aiming device shall be the equipment specified in SAE Standard J602 OCT80 Headlamp Aiming Device for Mechanically Aimable Sealed Beam Headlamp Units.

You write that the aiming pad sizes and types you wish to use are identical to those on headlamps sold by Hella, and that ETL Testing Laboratories has told you that the aiming pad positions and types meet DOT specifications. This indicates that Autolite 's headlamps would be mechanically aimable with SAE J602 equipment, and therefore permissible as meeting Standard No. 108. We recommend that Autolite verify mechanical aimability with SAE J602 equipment before certifying compliance with Standard No. 108 .

Our engineering staff has reviewed your letter and asks that we point out the following errors in Autolite's Figures Nos. 2 and 4. Under both Figures, there is a reference to "HB-2 (H4 P43t)." The HB2 light source is not the same as the H4 P43t light so urce. The HB2 is a light source permitted by Standard No. 108 while the H4 P43t is not permitted by the Standard for motor vehicles. Under the drawing, the dimension "68.5" should be "68.58 +/- 0.51" (see Figure 4-4 of Standard No. 108). The dimensions of "32" and "52.0" must be the sum of two dimension "A"s from Figure 4-4, thus the sum is 42.16 +/- 0.25 + 42.16 +/- 0.25 = 84.32 +/- 0.50, not 84 as nominally calculated. Finally, with respect to Figure 4 only, because this lamp is intended to replace a 200 x 142 mm sealed beam lamp, the position of the aiming pads are not, but should be identical to the 200 x 142 mm sealed beam to facilitate mechanical aim when only one headlamp is replaced.