ID: aiam4660

"Dear Mr. Watanabe: This is in reply to your FAX of September 14, l989 asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08, with respect to a vehicle headlamp aiming device (VHAD), as shown in the drawing attached to your letter. You have two questions: '1) Does a VHAD without a function which compensates the deviation of floor slope satisfy FMVSS No. l08 S7.7.5.2(a)(l(v)?' Paragraph S7.7.5.2(a)(v) states that 'Means shall be provided in the VHAD for compensating for deviations in floor slope not less than 1.2 degrees from the horizontal that would affect the correct positioning of the headlamp for vertical aim.' If a VHAD is 'without a function which compensates the deviation of floor slope' it would not satisfy Standard No. l08. '2) This Head Lamp is designed to be aimed vertically by means of observing only one spirit level placed on the movable reflector, as shown in the drawing. Does this structure of VHAD satisfy FMVSS No. l08 S7.7.5.2(a)(l)(v)?' The answer is yes, if observation of the simple spirit level is coordinated with an off-vehicle measurement of floor slope. As located, the spirit level with the range of +/- 1.2 degree range will allow aim of the headlamp, even though the vehicle may not be level, and willcompensate for floor slopes of up to 1.2 degrees, thus fulfilling the requirement that there be compensatory means when the vehicle upon which the headlamp is mounted is not resting upon level ground. I hope that this answers your questions. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam4965

FAX: 613-998-1965 Dear Mr. White: This responds to your FAX of Februar 18, 1992, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency, who has asked this office to respond to your question 1.a. That question is: 'Is Koito correct in stating that FMVSS 108 does not require the 'O' point on IHAD (sic) indicators to be marked by the numeral '0''? In the letter from Koito that you furnished, Koito had remarked that the requirement in S7.7.5.2(a)(1) and (2) of Standard No. 108 'to have a zero mark' did 'not necessarily mean a mark of figure 'O', but may be just a reference mark.' Koito is incorrect. S7.7.5.2 On-vehicle aiming specifies requirements for Vehicle Headlamp Aiming Devices (VHADs). VHADs provide for headlamp aim inspection in both the vertical and horizontal axes. S7.7.5.2(a)(2) Horizontal aim states that 'An 'O' mark shall be used to indicate alignment of the headlamps relative to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle.' This clearly establishes the requirement for use of the figure '0' as the mark, and not use of a reference mark. You will note that S7.7.5.2(b) references setting the VHAD 'at 'O' vertical and 'O' horizontal.' This means at the 'O' mark. Both S7.7.5.2(a)(1) Vertical aim and (a)(2) reference the necessity to provide 'an equal number of graduations from the 'O' position representing angular changes in the axis.' These graduations are not required to be marked. The presence of the 'O' mark will assist the person aiming the headlamp to ensure that the VHAD is set at the junction of the horizontal and vertical axes, rather than at one of adjacent, unmarked graduations. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam2764

Dear Mr. Schwartz: This is in reply to your letter of February 1, 1978, on motorcycl headlighting.; You have asked whether the prohibition in SAE J580a *Sealed Bea Headlamp* against headlamp covers applies to a motorcycle. You have also asked the reason for the prohibition.; Sae J580a *Sealed Beam Headlamp* is incorporated by reference in Tabl III of Standard No. 108 as one of the standards applicable to headlamps for use on multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses whose overall width is less than 80 inches. One of the SAE standards incorporated by reference for motorcycle headlighting is J584 which, as an option, allows motorcycles to be equipped with headlamps 'meeting the requirements of SAE J579' (i.e. passenger car sealed beam headlamps). There is no reference in J479a to J580a, and we therefore do not read the prohibition against headlamp covers as applying to motorcycles equipped with sealed or unsealed headlamps.; The reason for the prohibition is the degradation in light output tha can result from condensation under unsealed glass covers or from obscuration by grilles in front of the lens.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5385

Dear M. Dorleans: This responds to your FAX of April 20, 1994, to Mik Perel of this agency, asking for an interpretation of Standard No. 108. The drawing in your letter depicts a four-lamp headlamp arrangement in which the outermost lamps (lower beam) incorporate HB4 light sources, and the innermost lamps (upper beam), HB3 light sources. In operation, the outermost lamps alone provide the lower beam. However, when the upper beam switch is thrown, all lamps are energized. You ask for confirmation of your interpretation that 'outer unit must fulfill table 15a for Low Beam, an (sic) also that inner must fulfill with HB3 alone table 15a High Beam.' Paragraph S7.5 of Standard No. 108 specifies requirements for four-lamp replaceable bulb headlamp systems such as the one you describe. The photometrics that apply to such systems are set forth in paragraph S7.5(b): 'The photometrics as specified in subparagraphs (c) through (e) of this paragraph (depicted in Figure 26) . . . .' Because subparagraph (d) applies to a headlamp equipped with dual filament replaceable light sources and Types HB3 and HB4 are single filament sources, the applicable subparagraph is (e), and, more specifically, the four-headlamp specifications of (e)(3). This will confirm your understanding. Under S7.5(e)(3), the lower beam is to be produced by the outermost lamps and designed to conform to the lower beam requirements of Figure 15, the upper beam by the innermost lamps and designed to conform to the upper beam requirements of Figure 15. This is confirmed in Figure 26. However, the photometrics of Figure 15A will apply on and after September 1, 1994, (Paragraph S7.1). Simultaneous activation of both upper and lower beams is permitted by S5.5.8 of Standard No. 108 for headlighting systems designed to conform to Figure 15. Later this year, we will amend Standard No. 108 to substitute Figure 15A for Figure 15, effective September 1, 1994. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam2049

Dear Mr. Fink: This is in reply to your letter of September 3, 1975, concernin Federal preemption of State motor vehicle safety standards. You ask for confirmation that there is no Federal requirement for turn signal lamps or a dual beam headlamp on a motor-driven cycle whose maximum speed does not exceed 30 mph, and that a State is preempted from requiring such items of equipment on these vehicles.; As you noted, 15 U.S.C. 1392(d) provides that where a Federal moto vehicle safety standard is in effect, a State may not establish or maintain in effect a different standard that covers the same aspect of performance as the Federal standard. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment* (49 CFR 571.108), establishes the Federal requirements for motorcycle lighting. All motorcycles manufactured between January 1, 1973, and October 14, 1974, were required to be equipped with turn signal lamps. However, effective October 14, 1974, a motorcycle with 5 horsepower or less whose top speed does not exceed 30 mph need not be manufactured with turn signal lamps as required lighting equipment (S4.1.1.26 of Standard No. 108). Any motorcycle with 5 horsepower or less manufactured on or after January 1, 1969, may be equipped with either a single or multiple beam headlamp (Table III, Standard No. 108, incorporating by reference SAE Standard J584, *Motorcycle and Motor Driven Cycle Headlamps*, April 1964. See Table 1 of J584). This means, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1392(d), that a State is preempted from requiring a motorcycle with 5 horsepower or less to be equipped with a multiple beam headlamp if its manufacturer has equipped it with a single beam one. It also means that, if a motorcycle with 5 horsepower or less whose speed does not exceed 30 mph is not equipped with turn signal lamps, a State may not require them.; I hope you will find this of assistance to your clients, Steyr Daimler-Puch, A. G., and Bombardier, Ltd.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3770

Dear Mr. Wayne: Thank you for your recent note asking if motorcycle headlamps could no be required to have a blue or green lens across the top portion, so that cycles could be distinguished from a four-wheeled motor vehicle with only one headlamp.; This is an interesting suggestion. However, we would not wish to impos a requirement that would interfere with the effectiveness of the single headlamp with which most motorcycles are equipped. The other side of the coin is marking the four- wheeled vehicle so that it is distinguishable from a motorcycle when one of its headlamps is out. We currently require passenger cars, light trucks, and others, to have amber or white parking lamps and amber front side marker lamps that are illuminated when the headlamps are on. While these lights may not be as readily visible from greater distances as a headlamp, nevertheless their presence on a vehicle does help to distinguish that vehicle from a motorcycle at night, when a headlamp is missing.; Thank you for your interest in safety. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3766

Dear Mr. Suuronen: This is in reply to your letters of July 27, 1983, and October 6, 1983 asking whether a sealed headlamp with 'replaceable European H4 bulb' or 'Ford bulb (6 standard sizes)' are considered 'legal,' (like Cibie BOBI) 'provided it meets with all the applicable SAE standards.'; Cibie certifies that its 'BOBI' headlamp complies with all applicabl Federal motor vehicle safety standards, pursuant to Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Thus far, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has not contested that certification.; We do not understand your reference to the Ford bulb in '6 standar sizes.' The only size of that bulb that may be used in the new replaceable bulb headlamp systems is the one specified in the recent amendment to Standard No. 108. However, Volkswagen has petitioned for rulemaking to allow the H4 bulb.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: nht87-1.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/26/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Darryl M. Burman

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Darryl M. Burman, Esq. Messrs. Dotson, Babcock & Scofield 1200 InterFirst Plaza Houston, Texas 77002-5219

Re: Whether market and sale of headlamp covers are regulated by Federal law

Dear Mr. Burman:

This is in reply to your letter of January 9, 1987, asking for an interpretation of 49 CFR 571.108 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Your client wishes to import, market, distribute and sell a "cle ar, plastic headlamp cover...for all makes of cars manufactured in or imported to the United States." The stated safety purpose of the headlamp cover is "to protect the glass headlamps on automobiles from breaking."

Three methods of distribution are contemplated: direct sale by your client, sale through auto parts distribution centers, and sale as optional but uninstalled equipment at the time of the vehicle's original sale (the cover in its wrapping would be in the vehicle trunk). You state that the headlamp cover is not intended to be installed by your client, or its distributors and dealers, but will be accompanied by instructions so that the vehicle owner may install it. Warnings will be provided "about minimum Federal photometric requirements". You wish to know whether the headlamp cover is subject to Standard No. 108 or any other Federal regulation and, if so, the effect and impact of such regulation.

A plastic headlamp cover is "motor vehicle equipment", defined in pertinent part by Section 102(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 USC 1391(4)) as "any...accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle...." Its importer is a "manufac turer", defined in pertinent part by Section 102(5) of the Act as "any person importing...motor vehicle equipment for resale". As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment your client has the responsibility imposed by Sections 151 et seq of the Act to no tify and remedy in the event that either it or this agency determines that a safety related defect exists in the product, or that it fails to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You have already noted that headlamp covers a re not "a regulated safety device" under Standard No. 108. A "defect" under Section 102(11) includes "any defect in performance, construction, components, or materials". Under the best of circumstances a plastic cover when new will reduce light output of a headlamp beneath its designer's intent, whether or not the output falls below the floor established by Standard No. 108 as a minimum for headlamp performance. In service, a plastic headlamp cover may contain condensation under certain climatic conditi ons, or grow increasingly opaque through exposure to ultraviolet rays or other atmospheric components, either of which would further affect the design performance of the headlamp. A conclusion could be reached that such a cover contained a safety related defect and that its importer should notify all purchasers and remedy according to the Act.

Safety problems associated with headlamp covers led to their prohibition when the headlamp is in use, initially under SAE J580 for sealed beam headlamps and later by its incorporation into Standard No. 108, for both sealed beam and replaceable bulb headl amps. The specific prohibition of J580 is why passenger cars are not manufactured with original equipment headlamp covers. Under Section 108(a)(l)(A) of the Act, if a dealer sells a noncomplying motor vehicle, he is in violation of the Act, and may be su bject to civil penalties for it. These penalties, under Section 109, range up to $1000 for a single violation, with a cumulative total of $800,000 for a related series of violations. If a dealer at time of sale provides the means through which a new car meeting all Federal safety standards may be rendered noncompliant immediately after its delivery, we would regard that as tantamount to his having sold a noncomplying motor vehicle in violation of the Act.

Although there is no Federal prohibition against a vehicle owner installing and using headlamp covers, there may nonetheless be local laws covering the sale and use of this equipment. We offer no views of your client's potential exposure under common law , in such situations as use of a deteriorated cover, or when used with a substandard replacement headlamp, except to note that photometric "warnings" may serve no defensive purpose. Photometric values at the individual test points are judged under labora tory conditions. Service facilities do not contain equipment by which on-vehicle compliance of the headlamp can be judged, and the eye is a subjective and unreliable source to discriminate between complying and noncomplying levels of light output.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

January 9, 1987

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington. DC 20590

Re: Letter ruling to determine if market and sale of headlamp covers are regulated by federal law

Dear Ms. Jones:

REQUEST FOR RULING

Our client is in the process of forming a Texas corporation (the "Company") to engage in those activities described below, and, on its behalf, we are requesting an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Ass ociated Equipment ("Standard 108") and other related or applicable rules or regulations of the Department of Transportation. The reason for this request is the lack of specific guidance in determining (i) if the product our client will import, market and sell will be subject to such regulation, or any other federal regulation, and, (ii) if so, the effect and impact of such regulation. The product, which the Company intends to market, sell and distribute and for which the Company seeks approval by the Na tional Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA"), is a clear, plastic headlamp cover (the "Headlamp Cover") for all makes of cars manufactured in or imported to the United States.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The Company proposes to engage in the importation and marketing of the Headlamp Cover, either through direct sales to ultimate consumers or through sales to automobile dealers, distributors and automotive parts distributors. The Headlamp Cover is designe d to protect the glass headlamps on automobiles from breaking. The Company, distributors, automotive dealers and others will not physically install the Headlamp Cover on automobiles. However, the Company does intend to provide warnings and instructions i n the packaging so that the owner of the vehicle may purchase the proper Headlamp Cover and safely install it.

The Company, proposes to distribute the Headlamp Cover in one or more of the following manners:

1. Over-the-counter. The Company wishes to market and distribute its Headlamp Cover to auto parts distributor centers for sale to the consumer. These distribution centers will be instructed not to participate in the installation of the Headlamp Cover.

2. Option offered by Dealer. The Company will sell and distribute the Headlamp Cover to automotive distributors and dealers who will offer them as accessories to purchasers of new automobiles. The automotive distributors or dealers will place the Headlam p Cover, in its original packaging, in the trunk of the automobile and will not install it for the consumer. Automotive distributors of imported automobiles will place the Headlamp Cover in trunks of automobiles at the port of arrival and list the Headla mp Cover on the price sticker as well as the invoice to the dealer.

3. Direct to consumer. The Company also desires to sell its Headlamp Cover directly to consumers, again, with no installation services offered.

CHRYSLER RULING

The Company is aware of a fairly recent denial of petition for rulemaking by the NHTSA regarding an attempt by Chrysler Corporation ("Chrysler") for an amendment to Standard 108 to allow Chrysler to offer removable transparent Headlamp Covers as original equipment on motor vehicles manufactured by Chrysler. It is our client's understanding that such petition was denied primarily because Chrysler's Headlamp Covers caused a reduction in light output between 7.2% and 15.5% and it was conceivable that certa in replacement headlamps purchased by consumers would produce an unacceptable light output when used in conjunction with the Chrysler Headlamp Cover.

The Company believes its proposed activities should be differentiated from those of Chrysler and should not be subject to federal regulation. The differences between the Company's proposal and Chrysler's proposal are: (i) the Company intends to market an d sell, but not manufacture and install, the Headlamp Cover, (ii) the Headlamp Cover is not a regulated safety device as defined in Standard No. 108, (iii) the Headlamp Cover will not be original equipment installed on an automobile at the time of purcha se and will not be installed by the Company. the distributor or the dealer, as prohibited by SAE J580 Sealed Beam Headlamp Assembly and (iv) the Headlamp Cover will not be marketed as a dealer installed option.

Additionally, the Chrysler ruling dealt specifically with the sealed beam headlamp assembly while the Company proposes to initially sell Headlamp Covers for the bulb and reflector type headlamp assembly found on many makes of cars sold in the United Stat es today.

However, similar to Chrysler, the Headlamp Cover, when used with original headlamps furnished by the manufacturers of the automobiles, will satisfy minimum federal photometric requirements.

CONCLUSION

The Company believes its activities should not be compared to those of Chrysler. It is aware that there may exist circumstances or possibilities where the Headlamp Cover may be misused, but intends to make information available to all parties who sell th e Headlamp Cover directly to consumers regarding photometric warnings. The product will also be packaged so that warnings are found on the exterior of the package to warn consumers about minimum federal photometric requirements. The interior of the packa ge will contain complete and accurate instructions for consumer installation of the Headlamp Cover.

The Company questions whether the Headlamp Cover or the contemplated activities of the Company, the distributors and dealers who will sell the Headlamp Cover, fall within federal regulated guidelines. Therefore,the Company hereby requests a ruling differ entiating its sale of the Headlamp Cover from Chrysler and permitting the Company. and the distributors and dealers to whom it sells the Headlamp Cover, to market and sell this product in accordance with the procedures discussed above.

We appreciate your attention to this matter and would be grateful for your prompt response.

If we can provide you with additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Very truly yours,

Darryl M. Burman

ID: aiam1485

Dear Mr. Shue:#This is in reply to your letter of April 15, 1974, t Mr. Schneider requesting an interpretation of identification requirements of Standard No. 101 as it applies to your proposed 1975 headlamp switch identification plate.#The standard provides that a symbol may be used to identify the lighting control. Your plate would use three symbols to identify lighting control operational positions, a different matter. Therefore, your use of the plate is not prohibited by Standard No. 101.#In response to your other questions, as this agency has previously noted (36 F.R. 8296, May 4, 1971), the NHTSA intends the headlamp symbol to be representative only and 'A symbol resembling the one published, with as few as three rays of light, may be used. . . .' The beams of the headlamp symbol, however, must face in the direction shown in Table I, to the right of the lamp. We have proposed adoption of the ISO symbol in which the beams are to the left (38 F.R. 26940, September 27, 1973) but no action has been taken on the proposal.#Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam0980

Dear Mr. Long: This is in reply to your letter of January 30, 1973, concerning acryli headlamp covers.; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 incorporates Society o Automotive Engineers (SAE) Standard J580a, which prohibits the use of acrylic headlamp covers as original equipment. The requirements of SAE Standard J580a have also been incorporated in a number of State regulations, which are applicable to vehicles in use. Copies of Standard No. 108 and SAE Standard J580a are enclosed for your information.; A Notice of Proposed Rule Making (Docket 69-19, Notice 3) on Standar No. 108 was issued on October 16, 1972. This Notice includes a provision for optional use of headlamp covers which conform to certain performance requirements. Such requirements are specified in paragraph S7.9 of the Notice (copy enclosed). Acrylic Industries Pty. Ltd. may be interested in commenting on this *proposed* revision of Standard No. 108. The closing date for comments is April 18, 1973.; If you have any questions on the enclosed documents, please do no hesitate to contact me.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs;