ID: aiam2547

Dear Mr. Mahr: This responds to your February 23, 1977, letter asking whether For Motor Company's record keeping practices conform to the regulations of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).; Your letter refers to material allegedly destroyed by Ford pertainin to accident and recall information involving headlamp concealment devices in 1967 Mercury Cougars. The NHTSA is unable to ascertain from the information that you have submitted whether or not Ford's record keeping violates our requirements.; The NHTSA implemented on August 20, 1974, a regulation requirin manufacturers to retain for a period of 5 years records generated or acquired after August 15, 1969, concerning motor vehicle malfunctions that may be related to motor vehicle safety (49 CFR 576, *Record Retention*). Since the recall to which you refer occurred prior to this regulation, it is possible that the identified records were generated or acquired prior to the promulgation of the regulation, and therefore, the destruction of these records would not necessarily mean that Part 576 was violated.; The NHTSA has a public file concerning the headlamp concealment device referred to in your letter. This file containing 26 pages of information will be sent to you by our Technical Reference Branch under separate cover.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: nht92-6.24

DATE: May 29, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Herr Spingler -- Robert Bosch GmbH

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/3/92 from Herr Spingler to Richard van Iderstine (OCC 7289)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of April 3, 1992, to Mr. Van Iderstine of this agency asking for a "quick answer" to your question regarding the acceptability of a new headlamp design. Please be advised that my Office is the one to which questions of interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 should be addressed, and that correspondence addressed to the Chief Counsel allows us to respond more quickly to the concerns of the writer.

We understand that you discussed the headlamp with Mr. Van Iderstine on his recent trip to Europe, and that it will be used in a replaceable bulb headlighting system that is governed by S7.5 of Standard No. 108. Your proposed headlamp incorporates a lower beam provided by an ellipsoid and an upper beam provided by a parabola. The drawing you enclosed shows the lower beam source above the upper beam source. When the upper beam is on, both bulbs will be activated simultaneously.

Where, as in your design, each headlamp contains two light sources, S7.5(d)(2) (i)(A) and S7.5(e)(2)(i)(A) specify that the lower beam shall be provided by the outboard or uppermost light source. S7.5(d)(2)(ii)(A) and (B) and S7.5(e) (2)(ii)(A) and (B) specify that the upper beam shall be produced by the lowermost, or both, light sources. The beams in your headlamp are provided in this manner, and, therefore, are in accordance with the requirements of Standard No. 108.

ID: nht90-3.97

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 13, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Robert Erhardt -- Senior Project Engineer, Advance Transformer Co.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-8-90 from R. Erhardt to P.J. Rice (OCC 5113)

TEXT:

This is in response to your letter of August 8, 1990, received on the 21st. Although the ZIP code was correct, the address was not. For your future use, the agency's address is 400 7th Street SW.

You wish to road test engineering samples of a new type of headlamp system by equipping one to 10 private and/or company vehicles with them. The test would continue indefinitely for lifetime and reliability evaluation. You would like to be advised of th e laws concerning such an undertaking.

We assume that the experimental headlamp system is presently outside the coverage of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, the Federal vehicle standard on lighting, and that the existing headlamp system that meets Standard No. 108 would be removed so th at the new one could be installed. Modifications to vehicles in use are directly addressed by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). Under this section, "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle" pursuant to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. A "motor vehicle repair business" is defi ned by that section as any person who holds himself out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation. The prohibition, you will note, does not extend to the vehicle owner.

With respect to your planned test procedure, removal of the vehicle's original headlamp system would render it inoperative within the meaning of the statutory language. However, if the vehicles concerned were owned by the company, and if the headlamp re moval were performed in a company garage by company personnel, the prohibition would not apply. In addition, if the vehicles were privately owned and either the owner or the company garage removed the headlamps, the prohibition also would not apply (ass uming that the company garage does not repair non-company vehicles for compensation).

The question of the legality of use of the experimental system after its installation is determinable under the laws of the States where the vehicles are registered and will be operated. Thus, we suggest that you contact the Department of Motor Vehicles in Springfield for an interpretation under local law. If the modified vehicles will be operated in States other than Illinois, we recommend that you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

Given your wish to begin the program as early as August 27, you may telephone Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263) should you have any further questions.

ID: 1984-1.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/09/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Proto-Systems Inc. -- Barry M. Davis, Vice President

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Barry M. Davis Vice President Proto-Systems, Inc. P.O. Box 871 Pembroke, Massachusetts 02359

This is in reply to your letter of December 29, 1983, with respect to the "Headlight Kit" which you manufacture as "an aftermarket add on headlamp concealment device for the Camaro." You have stated that it will be sold in retail outlets and be offered by Chevrolet dealers as a new car option. You have asked whether the product requires certification under Safety Standard No. 112 and, if so, how may it be included in your packaging and promotional material. If you are not required to certify, you would like to know if you may use the DOT symbol and the phrase "meets Federal safety standards" on your packaging.

We have two types of safety standards: those that vehicles must meet, and those that individual equipment items must meet. Safety Standard No. 112, Headlamp Concealment Devices, is an example of the former; when equipped with a headlamp concealment device, a vehicle must meet certain performance requirements. The vehicle must meet these requirements at the time of sale to the first purchaser for purposes other than resale, and be certified as meeting the requirements. Certification of compliance with the vehicle safety standards is provided by the vehicle manufacturer; however, if the vehicle is altered before its sale, in more than a minor way, the alterer must provide an additional certification identifying himself as a modifier and that the vehicle as modified continues to meet the standards. Assuming that Chevrolet dealers perform the modification, it is they, not you, who must apply the alterer's label. The alterer's certification requirements are contained in 49 CFR Section 567.7.

Once a vehicle has been sold, no alterer's certification is required, but the party performing the alterations is required to insure that he is not "rendering inoperative in whole or in part" the headlighting system. We would interpret this to mean that if the concealment system's performance were not the equivalent of that obtainable under Standard No. 112 a violation might exist. This prohibition is established by Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. However, the prohibition does not preclude the vehicle owner from himself making any modification he chooses (subject, of course, to local law).

This means that regardless of whether your system is sold to new car dealers or to retail stores in the aftermarket your company has no certification responsibility. Thus, the use of a DOT symbol would be improper and could even be viewed as technically false and misleading under Section 108(a)(1)(C) of the Act, for which a civil penalty might be imposed. The phrase "meets Federal safety standards" is also inaccurate. However, if your tests and other data clearly indicate that a Camaro would meet Standard No. 112 with the system in place, we would not object to your including a qualifying phrase such as "Vehicle can meet Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 112 if system is installed in accordance with instructions." That would afford a basis upon which the new car dealer could rely in affixing his alterer's label, and would reassure an after-sale modifier that he was not violating the Act.

I hope that this has been helpful to you. For your information, I enclose copies of Standard No. 112, 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, and the Act.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I am a manufacturer of aftermarket automotive accessories. We are in the process of developing a product which may or may not involve coverage under a safety standard in CFR title 49. I have received conflicting opinions about wheater the product is covered and finallly was referred to you by Steve Oesch of your office.

The product we are going to produce called the "Headlight Kit" will be sold as an after maket add-on headlamp concealment device for the Carmo. It will be sold in retail outlets and be offered by car dealers as a new car option.

Briefly, the device operates by means of a motorized, opaque panel which covers the existing stationary headlamps. When the normal healight switch is operated the panels covering both sets of headlamps drops down leaving the beams unconstructed.

It was brought to my attention by Mr. Van Iderstien and Mr. Medlin, safety standard engineers in the office of vehicle safety standards, division of crash avoidance, that our product was covered under Code of Federal Regulations title 49 part 566 section 571.112 concerning headlamp concealment devices, and SAE standard J579c concerning beam pattern requirements for sealed beam headlamp.

Our Headling Kit has been designed to comply fully with all provisions of the standards.

This is of particular importance to us because our competitors' products do not comply. It is our intention to represent this product as being in full compliance with Federal safety standards. We are currently printing promotional and packaging material and recently need your response to the following:

1. Does this prouct require certification under 571.112?

2. If certification is required, what is the procedure for allowing us to include this certification on our packaging and promotional materials?

3. If certification is not required, may we still include on our package:

a. The symbol - "DOT" b. The phrase - "Meets federal safety standards"

Please call me with any question. Our production schedules have already been made. Your prompt attention would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Barry M. Davis Vice President, Proto-Systems, Inc. BMD/dmj

ID: aiam2498

Dear Mr. Cheshire: This is in response to your letter of January 26, 1977, asking fo confirmation of several interpretations of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment*.; You are correct that, as an equipment standard, Standard No. 10 applies only to replacement of equipment that was originally mounted on the vehicle to enable it to comply with the requirements of the standard. It does not apply to items not covered by the standard, but which are frequently provided as new vehicle options, such as fog lamps and cornerning (sic) lamps. Any item of lighting equipment not required is permissable (sic) to be installed, as you also noted, if it does not impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment (paragraph S4.1.3). Additional lighting equipment is otherwise subject to State regulation.; You also asked 'what would be the NHTSA's stand on products where SA standards do not exist, for example halogen headlights?' A halogen headlamp that does not comply with Standard No. 108 and is intended as a replacement headlamp may not be imported and sold for this use. On the other hand, halogen fog lamps may be imported and sold, subject to State regulations.; I hope this answers your questions. Yours truly, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: nht76-1.5

DATE: 02/18/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Ford Motor Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your February 3, 1976, letter pointing out an error in the publication of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Control Location, Identification, and Illumination, in Supplement 109 to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations.

While the Federal Register is, of course, the official source of the law, we share your concern for the accuracy of the supplements. The error in Table 1 of Standard No. 101 was discovered immediately upon its publication and steps were taken to correct it. We expect the correction to appear in the supplement to be mailed on February 25, 1976.

YOURS TRULY,

Ford Motor Company

February 3, 1976

Dr. James B. Gregory Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations" - Supplement 109, dated December 3, 1975

In the subject publication, the technical reproduction of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 101, "Control Location, Identification and Illumination, Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks and Buses" is in error. Columns 3 and 4 of Table I are incorrect, and page 3 was revised without a change in the revision date.

Attachments I through IV show Table I:

* as it appears in the December 3 supplement,

* before the latest amendment,

* amendments published in Docket 1-18; Notice 11 (40 FR 31770-71) July 29, 1975,

* as it should appear.

We appreciate the fact that the Federal Register is the official source for information related to amendments to the rules. Howeve, the value of the supplement lies in the fact that the revisions and pagination provide for a complete and up-to-date reference that is of continued use. Mistakes in this document may lead to unnecessary confusion.

Because of the importance of this document in our daily work and because the source of the information originates with your staff, we would like to request that you look into this matter to correct the current mistake and, if possible, have some member of your staff included in a galley proof review procedure to ensure that supplements are complete and accurate.

J. C. Eckhold Director Automotive Safety Office

Table 1 -- Control Identification and Illumination COLUMN 1 COLUMN 2 COLUMN 3 Permissible Motor Vehicle Equipment Control Word or Abbreviation Symbol Engine Start Engine Start (Illeg.) None Engine Stop Engine Stop (Illeg.) None Manual Choke Choke None Head Throttle Throttle None Automatic Vehicle Speed Control Headlamps and Taillamps Lights (Illegi.) (Illeg.) Vehicular Hazard Warning Signal Hazard (Illeg.) Clearance Lamps Clearance Lamps or CL (Illeg.) Identification Lamps Identification Lamps or ID LPS None Windshield Wiping System Wiper or Wipe (Illeg.) Windshield Washing System Washer or Wash (Illeg.) Windshield Defrosting and Defrost or Def None Defogging System Heating and Air Conditioning None System

(Graphics omitted) COLUMN 1 COLUMN 4 COLUMN 5 Alternate Motor Vehicle Equipment Control (Illeg.) Illumination Symbol Engine Start None Engine Stop None Yes Manual Choke None Hand Throttle None Automatic Vehicle Speed Control None Yes Headlamps and Taillamps (Illeg.) Vehicular Hazard Warning Signal Yes Clearance Lamps (Illeg.) Yes Identification Lamps None Yes Windshield Wiping System (Illeg.) Yes Windshield Washing System Yes Windshield Defrosting and None Yes Defogging System Heating and Air Conditioning None Yes System

n1 Use when engine control is separate from the key locking system.

n2 Use also when clearance, identification lamps and/or side marker lamps are controlled with the headlamp switch.

n3 Use also when clearance lamps, identification Lamps and/or side marker lamps are controlled with one switch other than the headlamp switch.

n4 Framed areas may (Illegible Words).

(Graphics omitted)

TABLE 1 - Control Identification and Illumination COLUMN 1 COLUMN 2 Motor Vehicle Equipment Control Word or Abbreviation Engine Start Engine Start (Illeg.) Engine Stop Engine Stop (Illeg.) Manual Choke Choke Hand Throttle Throttle Automatic Vehicle Speed Control Headlamps and Taillamps Lights (Illeg.) Vehiclular Hazard Warning Signal Hazard Clearance Lamps Clearance Lamps (Illeg.) or CL LPS Identification Lamps Identification Lamps or ID LPS Windshield Wiping System Wiper or Wipe Windshield Washing System Washer or Wash Windshield Defrosting and Defrost or Def Defogging System Heating and Air Conditioning System

(Graphics omitted) COLUMN 1 COLUMN 3 COLUMN 4 Permissible Motor Vehicle Equipment Control Illumination Symbol Engine Start None Engine Stop None Yes (Illeg.) Manual Choke None Hand Throttle None Automatic Vehicle Speed Control None Yes Headlamps and Taillamps (Illeg.) Vehicular Hazard Warning Signal (Illeg.) Yes Clearance Lamps (Illeg.) Yes Identification Lamps None Yes Windshield Wiping System (Illeg.) Yes Windshield Washing System (Illeg.) Yes Windshield Defrosting and None Yes Defogging System Heating and Air Conditioning None Yes System

(Illegible Lines)

(Graphics omitted) Column 1 Column 4 Alternate Permissible Symbol . None None None None None Headlamps and Taillamps (Illeg.) Vehicular Hazard Warning Signal (Illeg.) Clearance Lamps (Illeg.) None Windshield Wiping System (Illeg.) Windshield Washing System (Illeg.) None None (Illegible Word) areas may be filled.

(Graphics omitted)

TABLE I - Control Identification and Illumination COLUMN 1 COLUMN 2 COLUMN 3 Motor Vehicle Equipment Word or Permissible Control Abbreviation Symbol Engine Start ENGINE START n1 None Engine Stop ENGINE STOP n1 None Manual Choke CHOKE None Hand Throttle THROTTLE None Automatic Vehicle Speed Control None Headlamps and Taillamps LIGHTS n2 (Illeg.) Vehicular Hazard Warning Signal HAZARD (Illeg.) Clearance Lamps CLEARANCE LAMPS n3 or CL LPS (Illeg.) Identification Lamps IDENTIFICATION LAMPS or ID LPS None Windshield Wiping WIPER or System (Illeg.) (Illeg.) Windshield Washing WASHER or WASH (Illeg.) System Windshield Defrosting DEFROST or DEF None and Defrosting System Heating and Air None Conditioning System

COLUMN 1 COLUMN 4 n3 COLUMN 5 Motor Vehicle Equipment Alternate Illumination Control Permissible Symbol Engine Start None Engine Stop None Yes n1 Manual Choke None Hand Throttle None Automatic Vehicle Speed Control None Yes Headlamps and (Illeg.) n4 Taillamps Vehicular Hazard (Illeg.) n4 Warning Signal Yes Clearance Lamps (Illeg.) n4 Yes Identification Lamps None Yes Windshield Wiping (Illeg.) System Yes Windshield Washing (Illeg.) System Yes Windshield Defrosting None Yes and Defrosting System Heating and Air None Yes Conditioning System

n1 Use when (Illegible Word) control is separate from the key locking system.

n2 Use also when clearance, identification lamps and/or side maker lamps are controlled with the headlamp switch.

n3 Use also when clearance lamps, identification lamps and/or side market lamps are controlled with one switch other than the headlamp switch.

n4 Heated areas may be filled.

(Graphics omitted)

ID: 1937y

Mr. Victor Crisci
70 Lenox Road
Wayne, NJ 07470

Dear Mr. Crisci:

This is in reply to your letter of June 28, l989, to the former Chief Counsel of this agency, Erika Jones. You intend to install a "safety light flasher" on your motorcycle, and would like to know whether it would conflict with DOT regulations.

The Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply to vehicles in use, such as your motorcycle. Further, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act does not prohibit you, as the motorcycle's owner, from personally modifying your vehicle as you see fit, even if doing so adversely affects equipment or safety features installed pursuant to a Federal safety standard. (The Act does prohibit motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses from making such modifications if they render inoperative, wholly or partially, equipment or safety features installed in accordance with a Federal safety standard). However, modifications by an owner to his or her vehicle are subject to regulation under State and local laws applicable to vehicles in use on their roadways.

We are unable to advise you whether New Jersey law specifically covers the addition of the safety light flasher. However, under the Vehicle Safety Act, any laws enacted by a state regarding motor vehicle lighting must be identical to Federal standards covering the same aspects of vehicle lighting performance. The applicable Federal regulation, as you realize, is Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08, a copy of which is enclosed as you requested.

As you describe the operation of the flasher, if the headlamp is on (in either beam), the flasher will flash the headlamp between upper and lower beams for 2 to 4 seconds, then returns the light to the beam it was in when the flasher was activated. If the headlamp is off, the flasher will turn it on and initiate an identical flash cycle. The sequence is initiated by pushing the horn button.

Standard No. 108 would appear to preclude the installation of your device on new motorcycle, i.e., prior to its first sale to a consumer, or on a used motorcycle, if installed by one of the four entities listed above in the second paragraph. Although paragraph S5.5.10(c) of the standard provides that "headlamps and side marker lamps may be wired to flash for signalling purposes", that section does not apply to motorcycles since they are not equipped with side marker lamps. The applicable provision for motorcycles is paragraph S5.5.10(d). This states that " a motorcycle headlamp may be wired to allow either its upper beam or its lower beam, but not both, to modulate from a higher intensity to a lower intensity". Your system, on the other hand, flashes between beams, which is not permissible. Moreover, motorcycle headlamp modulating systems must also comply with the requirements of paragraph S5.6, and there is no indication that your system would do so.

Thus, the answer to your question is that your system would conflict with the Federal regulation applicable to motorcycle lighting if installed under the circumstances described in the preceding paragraph. However, there is nothing under Federal law that prohibits you personally from installing the device on your motorcycle.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:l08 d:8/7/89

ID: 24548.ztv

Kenneth M. Bush, Regulations Manager
Government Regulations Department
American Suzuki Motor Corporation
3521 East Imperial Highway
Brea, CA 92822-1100

Dear Mr. Bush:

This is in reply to your letter of May 30, 2002, asking whether a motorcycle headlamp design you are contemplating "complies with the requirements of S7.9.6.2(a)" of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

The Suzuki design is a single headlamp with two light sources mounted on the vertical centerline. The upper light source incorporates both an upper and a lower beam filament. The lower light source "has only a single filament." You are considering two illumination methods.

In the first method, the lower light source is activated whenever the upper light source is activated on either the upper or lower beam filament. In the second method, the lower light source would be activated with the upper light source upper beam, but the lower beam would be provided only by the lower light source.

S7.9.6.2(a) specifies that a motorcycle headlamp system consisting of a single headlamp shall be mounted on the vertical centerline. If the headlamp contains more than one light source, each light source shall be mounted on the vertical centerline with the upper beam no higher than the lower beam. You believe that the first method meets S7.9.6.2(a) because"both light sources are illuminated for both high beam and low beam operation." We concur with your interpretation because the single upper light source contains both an upper and lower beam filament.

You ask whether the second illumination method also complies. In this case, only the lower light source provides the lower beam. Thus, the upper beam light source is higher than the sole light source providing the lower beam, and this design would not comply with S7.9.6.2(a).

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

ref:108

d.8/1/02

ID: 77-3.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/16/77

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

TO: J. R. Green

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your letter of April 8, 1977, to the President of the United States concerning the need for improved motor vehicle headlamp standards has been referred to this office for consideration and reply.

We have received considerable information regarding the effects of foreign and domestic motor vehicle headlighting equipment, including engineering papers and test data on "selective yellow" headlamps. All information concluded that filtering of headlamps to produce yellow reduces the photometric intensity of the lamp, thereby reducing the actual seeing distance. Some vehicle operators subjectively concluded they can see further with yellow headlamps, but objective seeing distance tests with specific target characteristics and distances indicate a loss of seeing distance.

It is also true that while the original intent in using yellow headlamps was to reduce the glare from oncoming vehicle headlamps, our current test data indicates that a yellow light does not reduce glare. The white light is, therefore considered safer and is the basis for requiring white light in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 (copy enclosed).

Although this lighting standard is generally in accordance with standards developed and published by the Society of Automotive Engineers, it does not specifically require sealed-beam headlamps. However, it does require headlamps which are designed to be aimed properly when installed in prealigned mechanical assemblies. The lamp itself may be sealed-beam (filament is enclosed only by the lamp shell in an inert atmosphere) or it may be a halogen lamp (filament is surrounded by a small envelope containing a halogen gas). Specifically, the halogen-bulb headlamp is legal if incorporated into an otherwise legal motor vehicle headlamp.

I trust the foregoing is fully responsive to your inquiry.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

AUGUST 18, 1977

James R. Green 3396 Alma Street Lynwood, California 90262

Dear Mr. Green:

In his letter of June 16, 1977, our Mr. Driver, Director of the Office of Crash Avoidance, commented that although the Federal motor vehicle lighting standard "is generally in accordance with standards developed and published by the Society of Automotive Engineers, it does not specifically require sealed-beam headlamps."

This should not be interpreted as an opinion that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 does not require sealed beam headlamps. While there is no such requirement per se in the text of the standard, Standard No. 108 incorporates by reference SAE Standard J579a Sealed Beam Headlamp Units for Motor Vehicles, August 1965, and SAE Standard J580a Sealed Beam Headlamp, June 1966. Compliance of headlamps with these standards is required, whether as original or replacement equipment.

Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

ID: 17757.ztv

Frank Zalar, Quality Engineering & Regulatory Manager
General Electric Automotive Lighting
Worldwide Automotive Lighting Department
General Electric Company
1975 Noble Road, Nela Park
Cleveland, OH 44112-6300

Dear Mr. Zalar:

This is in reply to your letter of March 24, 1998, on optical axis markings for sealed beam headlamps.

Paragraph S7.8.1(b) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 requires motor vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1998, to be equipped with headlamps which have a mark or markings to identify the lamp's optical axis that are visible from the front of the headlamp when installed on the vehicle. You present two types of markings for our consideration which you believe will satisfy this requirement.

The first headlamp lens marking is a "window" which is centered on the optical/mechanical axis of the lamp. We confirm that this is a sufficient marking under S7.8.1(b).

The second headlamp lens marking comprises "horizontal and vertical lines formed by flute edges of the lens the centermost of which denote the optical axis of the lamp." If the lamp does not employ horizontal flute edges at the lamp center, the headlamp center will be marked to indicate the optical axis. The intersection of the centermost horizontal and vertical lines also appear to be a sufficient marking under S7.8.1(b).

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

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.5/6/98