ID: 1983-3.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/20/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: BMW of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATON

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. Karl-Heinz Ziwica, Manager Safety & Emission Control Engineering BMW of North America, Inc. Montvale, New Jersey 07645

Dear Mr. Ziwica:

This is in reply to your letter of August 4, 1983, to Mr. Vinson of this office asking for a reconsideration of our December 8, 19B2, letter in which we stated that Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 prohibits the use of glass or plastic shields in front of motorcycle headlamps. You have pointed out that this appears to reverse a previous interpretation issued by this office on March 15, 1978, in which we concluded that such covers were not precluded.

As is well known, SAE Standard J580 Sealed Beam Headlamp Assembly precludes the use of covers in front of headlamps in use. Because Standard No. 108 allows installation on motorcycles of half of a passenger car sealed beam headlighting system (principally because SAE J584 allows use of headlamps meeting SAE J579 Sealed Beam Headlamp Units), the 1982 interpretation applied the prohibition against covers to all sealed beam headlamps, even those used on motorcycles. With respect to unsealed lamps, the agency cited paragraph S4.1.3, the prohibition against installation of additional equipment impairing the effectiveness of required lighting equipment, and concluded that the possibility of deterioration of light output through cracked or discolored covers precluded covers over nonsealed lamps. On the other hand, the 1978 interpretation concluded that, since the cross referenced J579 did not itself reference J580, the prohibition did not apply.

We have reviewed this matter and have concluded that headlamp covers for motorcycles are not per se prohibited by Standard No. 108. As the 1978 interpretation implies, and as you make explicit, the only standard Table III directly incorporates for motorcycle headlamps is J584, whereas J580 is one of several standards directly incorporated for headlamps on four-wheeled vehicles. Nevertheless, we still conclude that these covers are prohibited if they impair the effectiveness of the headlamp.

If, for example, the angle of the cover is so extreme that headlamp "effectiveness" is "impaired" because of deterioration of the beam, then the manufacturer may wish to remove the shield or redesign it. If, as another example, a plastic cover is intended and a manufacturer has knowledge that it is susceptible to accelerated hazing or cracking, the manufacturer should not use a cover manufactured of this plastic.

In summary, this letter modifies both our 1978 and 1982 opinions by concluding that headlamp covers for motorcycles are permissible if they will not impair the effectiveness of the headlamp.

The agency is reviewing this subject to determine if rulemaking is advisable to prohibit covers of any sort over motorcycle headlamps, similar to the prohibition against such covers on four-wheeled motor vehicles.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

August 4, 1983

Mr. Z. Taylor Vinson, Esq. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, DC 20590

RE: Motorcycle Headlamp Cover

Dear Mr. Vinson:

On February 1, 1983, members of the motorcycle industry met with you and NHTSA rulemaking (lighting) and enforcement personnel to discuss NHTSA's new interpretation regarding the installation of transparent covers in front of motorcycle headlamps. This interpretation, contained in a December 8, 1982 letter from Frank Berndt, NHTSA Chief Counsel, stated that NHTSA now views that FMVSS 108 prohibits the use of glass or plastic shields in front of motorcycle headlamps. This reverses a previous interpretation contained in a March 15, 1978 letter from Joseph J. Levin, Jr., then NHTSA Chief Counsel, which stated that NHTSA did not read the prohibition against covers as applying to motorcycles equipped with either sealed or unsealed headlamps because the referenced motorcycle headlamp standard in Table III of FMVSS 108, SAE J584, does not prohibit the installation of such covers.

We disagree with the reversal of the earlier interpretation.

Table III of FMVSS 108 requires motorcycles to comply with SAE Standard J584, April 1964. SAE J584 sets forth photometric requirements for motorcycle headlamps and does not prohibit glass covers. It also provides for alternative compliance by fitting headlamps conforming to SAE 579 (which, incidentally, also does not prohibit such covers). S4.1.1.34 provides that a motorcycle may be equipped with various combinations of headlamps from the passenger car headlamp systems, and contains no prohibition of headlamp covers. The only prohibition against the use of headlamp covers in FMVSS 108 is contained in SAE Standard J580a/b, referenced in Table III and applies only to sealed beam headlamps installed in passenger cars, multi-purpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses. SAE J580a and J580b are concerned with the aim of a headlamp's beam, and proscribe glass covers so the aim can be readily inspected using a mechanical aimer that registers on the headlamp's three aiming pads. J584 motorcycle headlamps do not have these aiming pads, so there is no such need to preclude the use of glass covers.

NHTSA to support its position that Standard 108 precludes the use of covers over motorcycle headlamps relies on two arguments. We disagree with both:

1. That the prohibition contained in SAE Standard J580 applies to motorcycles, since SAE J580 is referenced in Table III of FMVSS 108.

SAE J580 does not apply to motorcycles. It is referenced in Table III of FMVSS 108 only for passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses. The primary referenced requirement for motorcycles in FMVSS 108 is SAE J584, which contains no such prohibition. SAE J584, in turn, permits alternative compliance with SAE J579, which neither contains such a prohibition nor references J580. In addition, S4.1.1.34 contains additional means of compliance for motorcycles, but no such prohibition.

2. That the "impairs the effectiveness" clause of S4.1.3 of FMVSS 108 precludes the use of such covers because the covers "impair the effectiveness" of headlamps.

This is an improper interpretation of S4.1.3. The impaired effectiveness requirement was intended to preclude the use of devices that render the required devices (although themselves meeting the standard) ineffective. For example, the fitting of a red lamp to a vehicle immediately adjacent to the required amber front side marker lamp and likewise an amber lamp fitted adjacent to the required rear red side marker lamp would impair the effectiveness of the required lamps, as ambiguity would result. Such an impairment would also result from the placement of an extremely bright lamp adjacent to a signal lamp, thus obliterating the light output of the signal lamp. Impairment of effectiveness does not relate to durability requirements as NHTSA would suggest.

In those instances where durability of lamps, lens materials, and other equipment is deemed to be important, FMVSS 108 contains specific durability requirments applicable to such equipment. As long as the headlamp cover does not preclude the headlamp from conforming to the performance requirements specified in FMVSS 108 at the time of sale of the motorcycle, the cover does not "impair the effectiveness" of the required equipment.

The interpretation of December 8 refers to the "impairs the effectiveness" clause of FMVSS 108, S4.1.3, as if impairing were an absolute, regardless of whether an impaired lamp were still within specifications. Compliance with specifications, however, is implicit to S4.1.3 because only lamps complying with specifications are required by this standard. S4.3.1.1. clearly relates compliance of any lamp to meeting or not meeting photometric output.

In addition, the preamble to the January 17, 1983 notice of proposed rulemaking to amend FMVSS 108 (Docket 81-11: Notice 2) discusses the very subject of permissible impairment and concludes that compliance with required photometrics is the only test that can be applied. In rejecting petitioner's argument that conformance of a lamp should be based on relative degradation from the original output, NHTSA states (48 FR 1994), "....a lamp that far exceeded the minimum could "fail" if diminution exceeded 10 percent, even though the safety based J579c minima were still met. Such a result would appear to be excessive as a minimum safety standard. ...NHTSA believes it simpler and preferable that photometric measurements be taken at the end of each of the relevant tests in the sequential test series, and that the lamp at each such point comply with the photometrics of J579c". Thus, this preamble recognizes that photometric standards are composed of minimums and maximums, and that there would be no difference between a lamp designed to lower output and one that deteriorated to that same level, as long as both lamps at the reduced level of output comply with specifications.

That compliance is the sole criterion is further underscored in the letter of interpretation from Frank Berndt, then NHTSA Acting Chief Counsel, to Roderick A. Willcox, July 23, 1976, in which it is stated, in reference to a bug screen placed in front of headlamps, "Since the screen is positioned in front of the headlamps it would be an "other feature" of the type intended to be prohibited by the standard if, as appears likely, it affects compliance with headlamp photometrics (SAE Standard J579 or headlamp aim (SAE Standard J580)."

One of the issues raised at the meeting was whether the BMW headlamp/cover complied with the photometric requirments of FMVSS 108. We indicated to you that we would have such a unit tested at an independent laboratory and submit the results to NHTSA. Electrical Testing Laboratories (ETL) has just completed the environmental and photometric tests prescribed by FMVSS 108 on one of our headlamps, and we attach a copy of their report. The report shows that the headlamp with glass cover passed the photometric tests of SAE J584, April 1964, both before and after the required environmental tests.

BMW uses the J584 motorcycle headlamp because, as recognized by NHTSA in 44 FR 20536, its photometrics are superior for motorcycles. The glass cover is designed as an integral part of the lamp and provides improved aerodynamics, which result in self-cleansing action; the cover also protects the headlamp from impacts and prevents the leadlamp's exposure to rain and dirt. Heat from the headlamp, which is on all the time, is sufficient to prevent buildup of moisture on the cover, while the cover, because of its distance in front of the lamp, minimizes the baking on of dirt and bugs. Generally, we find that most motorcycle owners maintain their vehicles better than do passenger car owners, and tend not to ride them as much in inclement weather.

Also enclosed is a copy of an ETL report showing that the glass cover complies with the light stability, luminous transmittance, impact, fracture and abrasion resistance tests of Z26.1. In the past, both AAMVA and California Highway Patrol have issued certificates of approval on the cover glass, as well as the whole lamp (including the cover glass).

We are not aware of any field experience indicating any problems with discoloration or cracks in the cover glass, or deterioration of the reflector.

Also, as we agreed in our meeting, we are attaching the names and addresses of owners in the Washington, D.C. area of older BMW motorcycles fitted with such covers whom you may wish to contact. This information is being provided to enable you to examine the headlamp/cover assemblies of these older motorcycles to determine what, if any, deterioration in headlamp performance can be attributed to age. This would aid you in the formulation of future proposed rulemaking should you later decide some durability require-ment may be appropriate for such lamp/cover assemblies.

Aside from a perceived (but not demonstrated) durability concern on NHTSA's part with respect to headlamp covers generally, the primary reason repeatedly given by NHTSA in opposition to such covers is their effect on mechanical aimers. Obviously, with a motorcycle there is no such concern since motorcycle headlamps can not be mechanically aimed because mechanical aiming requires the use of two headlamps, while motorcycles are permitted to have only one headlamp. This is the reason a motorcycle headlamp is not required to have the three aiming pads mounted on the lens.

In conclusion, we believe the interpretation contained in the December 8, 1982 Berndt letter is in error, particularly as it would apply to motorcycles equipped with headlamps conforming to SAE J584, as specified by Table III in FMVSS 108. Very truly yours,

Karl-Heinz Ziwica, Manager Safety & Emission Control Engineering

DE/fw 0510 - 83 Attachments

Owners of older BMW motorcycles having cover glass in front of headlamp who are willing to have their headlamps examined:

David Gray 1977 BMW RS 305 Tapawingo Road Vienna, VA 22180 Telephone: 703 938-0060

Robert Henig 1977 BMW RS 11800 Dewey Road 35,000 miles Wheaton, MD 20906 Telephone: 301 942-5198

George R. Sams 1979 BMW RT 1104 Tyler Avenue 21,000 miles Annapolis, MD 21403 Telephone: 301 267-3487 Bus.

301 263-9473 Home

ID: 23912.ztv

Mr. Denis Igoe
Automotive Lighting
47000 Liberty Drive
Wixom, MI 48393





Dear Mr. Igoe:

This is in reply to your fax of January 16, 2002, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it pertains to visually-optically aimable (VOA) headlamps.

You identified yourself as working in the automotive industry" for a "forward lighting manufacturer." With respect to a headlamp currently in production, you wrote that "a proposal for cost savings is to eliminate the horizontal VHAD and the ability to adjust in the horizontal." As you see it, "the issue becomes: through vehicle service it is possible a new headlamp w/o horizontal adjustment (& VHAD) could be paired with an old headlamp with horizontal adjustment (& VHAD) on the very same vehicle." You have asked, "aiming instructions notwithstanding, is this situation compliant or not, with existing NHTSA regs?"

Section S7.8.5.3(b) of Standard No. 108, applicable to VOA headlamps, prohibits horizontal adjustment of horizontal aim of the lower beam of a headlamp unless the headlamp is equipped with a horizontal VHAD. Thus a horizontal aim adjustment feature is not a requirement for VOA headlamps but an option of the headlamp manufacturer. The situation you posit is one in which a vehicle in service could have one lower beam that was horizontally adjustable and the other lower beam would not be horizontally adjustable.

This headlamp mixture would not be permissible as original equipment on new motor vehicles. Some years ago we were asked by Robert Bosch GmbH whether it would be permissible to install on one side of a vehicle a headlamp with VHAD (onboard aiming) for vertical aim and on the opposite side a VOA headlamp in the case where a vehicle manufacturer wanted to change from VHAD-headlamps to visually aimable headlamps during the production of a certain vehicle type. On March 10, 1998, we replied to Bosch (see the enclosed letter to Tilman Spingler) that "all headlamps within a headlighting system must comply with the same set of requirements, including its aiming features."

We have addressed the issue of compatibility of replacement headlamps in both the preamble to the final rule adopting VOA headlamps and in an interpretation letter to Stanley Electric Co. dated June 22, 1998 (copy enclosed). In the preamble, we observed that "any current headlamp design that is modified to include visual/optical aimability must still provide mechanical aimability if that headlamp is intended to be a replacement in vehicles in which the lamp was used before its redesign" (62 FR 10710 at 10714, March 10, 1997). Citing that language, Stanley informed us that it would modify headlamp aiming features on an existing model headlamp for a new model year headlamp but would continue producing the old design for replacement purposes. The two headlamp designs would have different parts numbers and lens identifiers. Stanley asked for confirmation that the new system need not continue to provide mechanical aimability. We replied to Tadashi Suzuki of Stanley on June 22, 1998, stating that we did not consider the new design to be a "replacement" requiring retention of the mechanically aimable feature because the two headlamps would have different part numbers and lens identifiers. We also advised that Stanley's intent would be "even clearer if the cartons in which each type of replacement headlamp is shipped are marked to identify the specific model year(s) for which replacement is intended."

In your fact situation, we assume that mechanical aimability is not an issue, and that both headlamps are VOA in type. Nevertheless, as we also advised Stanley, "[I]t is not advisable for headlamp on the same vehicle to have to be aimed by two different means." Accordingly we would encourage you to take steps to distinguish the new and old headlamp designs by the means that we suggested to Stanley (different part numbers, lens identifiers, carton marking), to minimize the possibility that a replacement headlamp might be installed that is not identical to the original headlamp, thereby creating a headlighting system that would not comply with the original equipment requirements of Standard No. 108.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:108
d.4/5/02

ID: aiam2098

Dear Mr. Bowers: This is in reply to your letter of July 8, 1975, to Ed Leysath of thi agency concerning wattage requirements for Type 1A and 2A headlamps.; Your specific question is whether the wattage specifications in Federa Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 for Type 1A and 2A headlamps are design wattages or maximum wattages.; Paragraph S4.1.1.21(b) of Standard No. 108 specifies that, 'Each Typ 1A headlamp shall be *designed* for a maximum of 50 watts. Each Type 2A headlamp shall be *designed* for a maximum of 60 watts for each filament.' (Emphasis added.) It follows, therefore, that the 50- and 60- watt values are design wattages. You are correct in your interpretation that a tolerance of approximately 7.5% applies to these values, and that an ampere value of 4.20 for a 50-watt filament and 5.02 for a 60-watt filament is permitted. The 7.5% tolerance as you know is the average actual maximum wattage (as opposed to design wattage) rating of headlamps listed in Table 2 of SAE Standard J573 as determined by multiplication of the maximum amperage times the design volts.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: nht88-1.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/14/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Research & Development, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Toshio Maeda Executive Vice President & Chief Operating Officer Nissan Research & Development, Inc. P.O. Box 8650 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104

Dear Mr. Maeda:

This is in reply to your letter of June 30, 1987, asking for an interpretation of paragraph 54.1.1.36(b)(3) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

That paragraph specifies in pertinent part that a replaceable bulb headlamp shall be designed to conform to Section 6.1-Aiming Adjustment Test, of SAE Standard J580 AUG79 Sealed Beam Headlamp Assembly. Section 6.1.1 states that "when the headlamp assembl y is tested in the laboratory, a minimum aiming adjustment of +/-4 deg. shall be provided in both the vertical and horizontal planes." You have asked whether the aiming adjustment is to be achieved by the headlamp assembly, or by both the headlamp assemb ly "and by the headlamp when it is mounted on the vehicle."

SAE J580 applies to the design of headlamp assemblies, including the functional parts other than the headlamps, such as aiming and mounting mechanisms and hardware. The assembly may include one or more headlamps. Although the headlamp assembly is tested in the laboratory, its design must be identical to the headlamp assembly used on the vehicle. Thus, if the aiming adjustment requirement is met by the headlamp assembly in the laboratory, it should also be met when the assembly is installed on the vehicl e. An individual headlamp installed on the vehicle need not meet the aiming adjustment test unless that headlamp is part of a headlamp assembly comprising only one headlamp.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

June 30, 1987 Ref: W-253-H

Ms. Erika Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th St., S.W. Room 5219 Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

Nissan Research & Development, Inc., on behalf of Nissan Motor Company, Ltd. of Tokyo, Japan, hereby submits this request for an interpretation relating to the replaceable bulb headlamp aiming provisions in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108, "Lam ps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment."

Among its requirements, S4.1.1.36(b) (3) of Standard 108 stipulates that the replaceable bulb headlamp shall be designed to conform to Section 6.1 - "Aiming Adjustment Test" of SAE J580 AUG79, "Sealed Beam Headlamp Assembly.

Item 6.1.1 of the above-referenced "Aiming Adjustment Test" states that, "when the headlamp assembly is tested in the laboratory, a minimum aiming adjustment of + 4 deg. shall be provided in both the vertical and horizontal planes."

Nissan's question is whether this minimum aiming adjustment requirement is to be achieved:

1. by the headlamp assembly (by the component unit) itself, or

2. by both the headlamp assembly (as a component unit)

and by the headlamp when it is mounted on the

vehicle?

Erika Jones June 30, 1987 Page Two

Thank you very much for your assistance. Please contact Mr. Tomoyo Hayashi of my Washington staff at (202) 466-5284, if you have any questions or require further details. I would appreciate it if you would please also notify Mr. Hayashi when your respons e has been issued.

Sincerely,

Toshio Maeda Executive Vice President & Chief Operating Officer

ID: aiam3414

Dear Mr. Haenchen: This is in reply to your letter of May 27, 1981, asking for a interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Your company is considering, for fuel economy purposes, use of an engine stop/start system by which the engine would be switched off within a few seconds after a vehicle has come to a complete stop, and, to save battery capacity, the headlamps would also be deactivated. The parking lamps, however, will remain on. You believe that Standard No. 108 would not preclude such a system.; Although your letter does not mention it, we assume that when th parking lights are activated, the taillamps, license plate lamps, and side marker lamps would also be on, as required by S4.5.7(a) of Standard No. 108. The question then arises whether the system described is prohibited by paragraph S4.1.3 which states that 'No...motor vehicle equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required' by Standard No. 108. Although the primary function of headlamps is to illuminate the roadway in front of the driver at night or under conditions of reduced visibility, they also serve to indicate the presence of the vehicle to traffic approaching from the opposite direction. In a situation where, on a two-lane road, a car has pulled to the shoulder temporarily, a headlamp will be perceived at a greater distance than a parking lamp to oncoming traffic. Headlamps also serve an illuminating function when people have paused in unfamiliar neighborhoods in an effort to discern their whereabouts. We believe, therefore, that your device could be viewed as impairing the effectiveness of headlamps within the meaning of S4.1.3.; This, however, is not a view dispositive of the issue. Compliance wit Standard No. 102 would also appear to be affected as that standard requires that the engine starter be inoperable when the transmission shift lever is in the forward or reverse position. Last year the agency granted a rulemaking petition with respect to an engine stop/start system such as you have discussed. I enclose a copy for your information. Although no notice has yet been published on this question, we shall endeavor to include a reference to headlamp switching devices in any future rulemaking activity on this subject.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: LEDlamp.1

Mr. Takayuki Amma
Manager, Regulation & Certification
Koito Manufacturing Co. , Ltd.
4-8-3, Takanawa
Minato-kuTokyo
Japan




Dear Mr. Amma:

This responds to your letter, in which you seek clarification as to whether your proposed headlighting system would meet the requirements for a "combination headlighting system" under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Specifically, your letter explained that you wish to combine an "integral beam lower beam headlamp" that uses LEDs (wired in series), with a "replaceable bulb upper beam headlamp". As discussed below, we believe that your proposed design with an LED array would be permissible, provided that it meets the applicable photometric requirements of the standard.

As an initial matter, we note that your letter was in the first instance submitted under a request for confidentiality, but the agency denied that request in a separate letter dated June 20, 2005. In a July 13, 2005 e-mail to Eric Stas, you stated that you would not be appealing that determination.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA does not provide approval of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, and we do not determine compliance of a vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment outside the context of an actual enforcement proceeding. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date ofmanufacture. FMVSS No. 108 specifies requirements for original and replacement lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. The following represents our opinion regarding the applicability of our regulations on your proposed product based upon the facts set forth in your letter and your demonstration of the lamp in a meeting at NHTSA headquarters in Washington, D.C.

Your letter described a proposed vehicle front lighting system with two headlamps, which you consider to be a "combined headlighting system" under S7.6 of our standard. Your letter stated that this system design would include all of the forward lighting equipment required by FMVSS No. 108 and that it would meet the relevant requirements of the standard for each item (e.g. , meeting S7.4 for the integral beam headlamp and meeting S7.5 for the replaceable bulb headlamp).

We understand that your proposed system would include an array of six LEDs that would provide the lower beam headlamp illumination and that you believe it would meet the standards lower beam photometric requirements. We also understand that the LED portion of the lower beam would remain activated and contribute toward meeting the standards upper beam photometric requirements. Your letter stated that the upper beam portion of the lamp would have an independent reflector and a replaceable light source, while sharing the same lens and housing with the LED lower beam lamp.

In your letter, you also expressed your opinion that the LED lower beam portion of the lamp constitutes a single, simultaneously-aimable light source unit, which is part of an "integral and indivisible optical assembly" which includes the lens, reflector, and LED light source. As discussed in the meeting with NHTSA staff, you stated that you consider the array of LEDs to constitute a single light source, because they are wired in a series, such that failure of a single LED causes all of the LEDs to cease operation. You further stated that because the lower beam lamp is an integral beam headlamp, the entire lamp would need to be replaced in the event of a burned out or damaged LED. Furthermore, referencing the definition of "integral beam headlamp" contained in S4 of Standard No. 108, your letter stated that "[t]here is no restriction on the number of light sources useable for the headlamp".

As you are aware, paragraph S7, Headlighting Requirements, of FMVSS No. 108 requires vehicles to be equipped with one of several permissible headlighting system options, whose specifications are set forth in the standard (i.e. , systems conforming to the requirements of S7.3, 7.4, 7.5, or S7.6). Of relevance here, paragraph S7.6, Combination Headlighting System, provides that such systems "shall be comprised of either two headlamps designed to conform to the requirements of S7.6.2, or any combination of four headlamps designed to conform to the requirements of S7.3.7, S7.4, or S7.5 of this standard".

Paragraph S7.6.2 states that for combination headlighting systems consisting of two headlamps, each headlamp shall be designed to conform to Figure 17-1 (Photometric Test Point Values for Mechanical Aim Headlighting Systems) or Figure 17-2 (Photometric Test Point Values for Visual/Optical Aim Headlighting Systems) and shall be a combination of two different headlamp types chosen from the following types: a Type F headlamp, an integral beam headlamp, and a replaceable bulb headlamp. A portion of the headlamp that contains an integral beam headlamp must be designed to conform to the requirements of S7.4(c) through (h) of this standard. A portion of the headlamp that contains a replaceable bulb headlamp must be designed to conform to the requirements of S7.5.

Under paragraph S4, "integral beam headlamp" is defined as "a headlamp (other than a standardized sealed beam headlamp designed to conform to paragraph S7.3 or a replaceable bulb headlamp designed to conform to paragraph S7.5) comprising an integral and indivisible optical assembly including lens, reflector, and light source, except that a headlamp conforming to paragraph S7.8.5.2 or paragraph S7.8.5.3 may have a lens designed to be replaceable". The definition of the term "integral beam headlamp" does not place a limitation on the number of light sources in such lamp. However, under S7.4(b), there are locational requirements which correspond to whether each headlamp has one or two light sources. As we explained in our December 30, 1992 letter of interpretation to Mr. T. Kouchi, we have previously considered lamps with LEDs (which as a practical matter always have multiple LEDs) to have multiple light sources, with each LED constituting a single light source.

However, the situation where a number of LEDs are wired in series, such that they would operate or fail as a single unit, is different than the ones we have previously addressed. Because you have wired the LEDs as a series, failure of one LED would cause all of the LEDs to cease functioning. Thus, in such cases, we agree that the entire array of LEDs is a single light source, regardless of the hardware involved. Therefore, we believe that a combination headlighting system with an integral beam lower beam headlamp using LEDs would be permissible, if such LEDs are wired in series and allow the headlamp to meet the photometric requirements of the standard.

We also note that it may be possible for a lower beam headlamp with LEDs to meet the requirements of a different alternative under paragraph of S7.4, Integral Beam Headlighting System, by using beam contributors, each of which would contribute to meeting the headlamps photometric requirements (see S7.4(a)(2) and (d)).

Your letter also requested clarification regarding what constitutes the "optical center" of a lower beam headlamp, which you suggest should be the geometric center of the portion of the lens that is illuminated by the LED light sources. You argued that this approach would provide the appropriate geometric reference for measuring the "distance to floor and between the lamps" and that it would also serve as an "optical axis" to ensure proper horizontal and vertical aiming of the headlamp, as well as determine a correct alignment to the photometer axis. You seek confirmation that in determining the relative location of the lower beam and upper beam light sources, the "optical center" of the LED lower beam headlamp shall be used and that a design where the optical center of the LED lower beam headlamp is placed most outboard and above the upper beam light source, such lamp would be considered to conform to the requirements of S7.4(b) and (c), as well as S7.5(d)(2) and (3).

We agree that for LED lower beam headlamps with a clear lens (i.e. , where light passes through the lens without being optically redirected), the optical center should be determined as the geometric center of the portion of the lens that is illuminated by the LED light sources. Over the last several decades, the agency has replied many times to requests for interpretation regarding the center of lamps, but requests have all involved filament bulb lamps. We note that in a 1984 final rule responding to petitions for reconsideration under FMVSS No. 108, the agency referred to "optical center" as the reference center during photometric measurement (see 49 FR 20818 (May 17, 1984)), and in our January 14, 1976 letter of interpretation to the Department of California Highway Patrol, we stated that the center of the emitted light is always taken to be the center of the optical axis.

In the case of a clear lens LED headlamp, we believe that your recommended approach is consistent with these prior statements. Although not referenced in our standards, we note that the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) standard J1889, L.E.D. Lighting Devices, provides two options for determining the "LED lighting device light center". The first option is to determine the geometric center of the total illuminated area of the lamp, and the second option is to determine the geometric center of all of the individual LED light source centers. However, the agency does not believe that the second option is a valid method for measuring the optical center, because it may not correlate to the actual photometric output of the lamp (e.g. , different LEDs could have varying intensities).

If you have any further questions, you may call Mr. Eric Stas of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.12/21/05

ID: aiam2629

Dear Governor Ray: The purpose of this letter is to express this agency's views o legislation recently enacted by the State of Washington, which appears to be preempted by Federal regulation of the same subject matter.; Specifically we understand that R.C.W. S45.37.320 was amended in Ma 1977 to require that motor vehicle 'lighting devices'; >>>'...shall correlate with, and, so far as practicable, conform to th then current standards and specifications of the society of automotive engineers applicable to such equipment and to the headlamp standards established by the United Nations agreement concerning the adoption of approval and reciprocal recognition of approval for motor vehicle equipment and parts done at Geneva on March 20, 1958, as amended and adopted by the Canadian standards association (CSA standard D106.2): *Provided*, that the sale, installation, and use of any headlamp meeting the standards of either the society of automotive engineers or the United Nations agreement, as amended, shall be lawful in this state.'<<<; Under 15 U.S.C. 1392(d): >>>'Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established unde this title is in effect, *no State* or political subdivision of a State *shall have any authority* either *to establish*, or to continue in effect with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment *any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard.' [Emphasis added.]<<<; Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1392(a) [Section 103(a) of the National Traffi and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966] Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment* (49 CFR 571.108), has been established, effective January 1, 1972, as the Federal standard for lighting devices both as original and replacement equipment on motor vehicles.; Although Standard No. 108 incorporates by reference many lightin standards of the society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) it contains numerous qualifications of, and variations from, the SAE specifications. Even when Federal requirements and SAE specifications are identical, amendments by the SAE, which occur frequently, do not amend the corresponding Federal requirements. In short, that portion of the amendment to RCW S46.37.320 requiring compliance to SAE specifications does not establish requirements that are identical to those of Standard No. 108 and, in our opinion, are preempted by 15 U.S.C. 1392(d) and of no legal effect.; In addition, the United Nations Agreement, as amended by the Canadia Standards Association, permits the use of motor vehicle headlamps that are not of sealed beam construction and whose candlepower output may exceed 75,000. Further, it does not require that the headlamps be mechanically aimable. Standard No. 108, on the other hand, requires that headlamps on passenger vehicles be of sealed beam construction, imposes a limit of 75,000 candlepower on all but one type of headlamp, and specifies that all headlamps be mechanically aimable. Thus, the United Nations Agreement, as amended by the Canadian Standards Association, does not specify requirements for headlamps that are identical to those of Standard No. 108. This means that this part of the amendment to R.C.W. S46.37.320 is, in our opinion, also preempted by 15 U.S.C. 1392(d), and of no legal effect.; As a consequence, it is our conclusion that any person in Washingto manufacturing for sale, selling, offering for sale, introducing or delivering for introduction in interstate commerce, or importing in the United States through the State of Washington any lighting equipment that does not conform to Standard No. 108, in reliance upon R.C.W. S46.37.320, could be subject to civil penalties for apparent violations of 15 U.S.C. 1397(a) (1) (A) in an amount up to $800,000 (15 1399(a)). There is no preemption, however, of your State's right to specify requirements for lighting equipment not currently included in Standard No. 108 (*e.g.* foglamps).; Section 1392(d) and the Act's preemptive effect have been invariabl upheld. (See *e.g. Chrysler Corp. v. Malloy,* 294 F. Supp. 524 (U.S.D>C. Vt. 1968), *Chrysler Corp. v. Tofany*, 419 F.2d 499 (C.C.A. 2 1969)). We would also observe that the interpretation by an administering agency of its own statutes and regulations, has been viewed by courts as 'of controlling weight.' (*Thorpe v. Housing Authority of Durham* 393 U.S. 268 (1969) quoted with approval in *Chrysler Corp. v. Tofany, supra*, at 512.); We would appreciate the view of the State of Washington on thi subject. Questions on it may be referred to the Chief Counsel of this agency, Joseph J. Levin, Jr.; Sincerely, Joan Claybrook

ID: maxzonenew

Mr. Galen Chen
Marketing Department
Maxzone Vehicle Lighting Corp.
5100 Walnut Grove Avenue
San Gabriel, CA 91776

Dear Mr. Chen:

This is in reply to your email (copy enclosed) concerning replacement lighting equipment. We apologize for the delay in our response.

You reported that your company is developing "a new headlamp" for 1998-2001 model Honda Accord passenger cars (we shall refer to this as the "Maxzone headlamp"). You informed us that the original equipment (OE) headlamp for these vehicles consists of "High Beam (9005 bulb), Low Beam (9006 bulb), Park Signal and reflector. No fog lamp function." (We would also note that the OE headlamp on this model Honda Accord appears to incorporate the required front turn signal and side marker lamp as well.) The Maxzone headlamp consists of "High Beam (H1 bulb), Low Beam (H3 bulb), Park Signal and weve added Fog Lamp (H3 bulb) to this headlamp assembly. It also comes with reflector." You informed us "the numbers of different functions after tests all pass SAE/DOT requirements." You asked whether the Maxzone headlamp could be certified and sold as legal replacements for the 1998-2001 Honda Accord models. As discussed below, the answer to this question is no.

Under S5.8, Replacement equipment, of Standard No. 108, "Each lamp . . . manufactured to replace any lamp . . . on any vehicle to which this standard applies, shall be designed to conform to this standard." (S5.8.1)

S7.1 of Standard No. 108 requires a motor vehicle, other than a motorcycle, to "be equipped with a headlighting system designed to conform to the requirements of S7.3, S7.4, S7.5, or S7.6." Maxzone stated that the OE headlighting system on the 1998-2001

Honda Accord consists of headlamps with HB3 (9005) and HB4 (9006) replaceable light sources. Thus, a replacement headlamp for this vehicle must be evaluated according to the requirements of S7.5, Replaceable bulb headlamp systems.

S7.5(b) requires that each headlamp in the system be designed to conform to the photometrics as specified in S7.5(c) through (e) using any light source of the type intended for use in such system.Considering that this particular vehicle incorporates HB3 and HB4 replaceable light sources in its OE headlighting system, we view S5.8.1 and S7.5(b) as requiring each replacement headlamp for this vehicle to be designed to conform to the specified photometry when using HB3 and HB4 replaceable light sources. Because replaceable light sources are, by regulation, designed to be non-interchangeable, it would not be possible for the Maxzone replacement headlamp to comply with the applicable photometry using HB3 and HB4 replaceable light sources when the Maxzone headlamp is designed to use replaceable light sources other than HB3 and HB4. Therefore, the Maxzone headlamp could not be certified and sold as a replacement for a 1998-2001 Honda Accord headlamp. This also means that a headlamp dealer or motor vehicle repair business could not remove the original headlamp and install the Maxzone headlamp as a replacement without violating 49 U.S.C. 30122. This section prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses from making inoperative equipment installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

You also informed us that the Maxzone headlamp "comes with reflector." We are unsure of your meaning. We interpret S5.8.1 as requiring replacement lighting equipment designed for specific motor vehicles to incorporate, at a minimum, the same required functionality as included on the original equipment lamp it is intended to replace. If the original Accord headlamp incorporated an amber side reflex reflector in compliance with Standard No. 108, each replacement headlamp for that Accord must also incorporate an amber side reflex reflector if we are to regard it being "designed to conform to this standard" within the meaning of S5.8.1.

I hope that this information is useful to you. If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:108
d.3/13/03

ID: nht91-1.47

DATE: February 20, 1991

FROM: Saburo Inui -- Corporate Manager, Toyota Motor Corporate Services of North America, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re Interpretation of FMVSS No. 108 -- High Intensity Discharge Headlamps

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-25-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Saburo Inui (A37; Std. 108)

TEXT:

This is a request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard ("FMVSS") No. 108 concerning High Intensity Discharge Headlamps ("HID").

Although in the February 8, 1990 amendment of FMVSS 108 (Docket No. 85-15; Notice 12) NHTSA clarified that HID headlamps are not excluded as integral beam headlamp systems, Toyota has some additional concerns.

1. Configuration:

S5.4, Equipment combinations, provides that "(t)wo or more lamps . . . may be combined if the requirements for each lamp . . . are met . . . ."

S4. Definitions, defines "Integral Beam Headlamp" as "a headlamp comprising an integral and indivisible optical assembly including lens, reflector, and light source, that is neither a standardized sealed beam headlamp designed to conform to paragraph S7.3 nor a replaceable bulb headlamp designed to conform to paragraph S7.5."

The Toyota HID headlamp comprises "an integral and indivisible optical assembly including lens, reflector, and light source" (see Figure 1), and although it contains replaceable bulbs (the inexpensive parking lamp and turn signal lamp bulbs are replaceable), it is not a "replaceable bulb headlamp DESIGNED TO CONFORM TO PARAGRAPH S7.5." (Emphasis added.)

Therefore, the Toyota combination HID headlamp system is not precluded by FMVSS 108, provided of course that all other applicable requirements are met. (To suggest otherwise would require the replacement of the entire assembly at substantial cost should only an inexpensive parking lamp or turn signal bulb fail.)

2. Hard-wire connection:

Due to limited space for accommodation of HID headlamps in the vehicle, it may not be practicable to integrate the ballast (starter and converter) into the headlamp enclosure.

In one case, the ballast would be divided into two units -- a starter and a converter -- permanently connected using hard-wire (electrical wire resistant to cutting and abrasion) as depicted in Figure 2.

Such a headlamp configuration would still constitute an integral beam headlamp system, we believe.

3. Hard-wire and connector:

In some cases, vehicle body construction may dictate that the ballast units be installed in the vehicle separately, and then permanently connected electrically.

In such cases, electrical connectors would have to be provided between the starter and the converter as depicted in Figure 3.

To be considered an integral beam headlamp system under FMVSS 108, we believe all three of the following conditions would have to be met by such an HID headlamp:

(1) Connectors would be permanently coupled at vehicle assembly.

(2) Only complete headlamp systems would be available as replacement parts, and not individual parts, such as a starter or converter.

(3) Connectors supplied with replacement parts for use by repair shops and garages would be designed to be fastened permanently after coupling (they would self-destruct if they were subsequently forced apart), and would be described in the shop manuals.

With these three conditions, headlamp replacement would always mean replacement of the entire headlamp system, resulting in consistency with conventional integral beam headlamp systems.

This "hard wire" or "hard wire and self-destruct connector" arrangement is indispensable to enable us to install our HID headlamp system into our U.S. vehicles. We therefore seek NHTSA's confirmation of our interpretations concerning the use of these headlamp systems.

Thank you for your prompt consideration of this matter.

Should you have any questions, please contact Mr. Manabu Morisaka of my staff at (202) 775-1707.

Attachments

Figures 1, 2, and 3 (Graphics omitted)

ID: 07-000527es-as