ID: nht90-2.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 9, 1990

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: ROBERT A ROGERS -- DIRECTOR, ASE, EAS

TITLE: NONE

TEXT:

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

Specifically, you reference an interpretation dated September 12, 1988, that this office provided Koito Corporation, informing it that each of the two Vehicle Headlamp Aiming Device (VHAD) designs depicted "complies with the intent of S7.7.5.2" of Standa rd No. 108. The second design consisted of a detachable spirit level that would be inserted in the bulb socket for the purpose of aiming the headlamp. We informed Koito that under subsection (b)(7) photometric testing is provided for "the VHAD and head lamp assembly (if the headlamp is separable or intended to be used with the VHAD), and that this meant that the VHAD may be integral with the headlamp assembly or separate from it. However, we also cautioned that our comments were based upon the proposa l, and could change with the issuance of the final rule.

You have commented that the final rule was the same with respect to the pertinent VHAD wording. This is not entirely true. The final rule (paragraph S7.7.5.2(b)(vii)) omitted the parenthetical phrase "(if the headlamp is separable or intended to be use d ,with the VHAD). You also noted that paragraph S7.7.5.2(c)(1) of the final rule defines a headlamp assembly as "(the headlamp(s) and the integral or separate VHAD mechanism)". The intent of this language is to specify a VHAD that is a permanent part of the headlamp, and hence integral, or to have a separate VHAD that is part of the mounting mechanism. It was not meant as permitting a VHAD that could be physically separated from headlamp or the mounting mechanism. Thus, in our view and upon our fur ther consideration of the matter, a detachable VHAD does not meet the "intent" of the final rule.

This means that the spirit level design described in your letter, which is not integral to the headlamp or mounting mechanism, is not permissible. We shall provide Koito with a copy of this letter.

DATE: October 3, 1989

FROM: ROBERT A. ROGERS -- DIRECTOR, ASE

TO: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

COPYEE: AUGUST BURGETT; BARRY FELRICE The purpose of this letter is to request that the NHTSA affirm a previous FMVSS 108 interpretation that it has issued. The interpretation involves the applicablity of vehicle headlamp aiming device (VHAD) requirements and is relevant to a design which G eneral Motors is considering.

BACKGROUND

On December 29, 1987, NHTSA published an NPRM (Dicket 85-15, Notice 5) which prrposed extensive revisions to FMVSS 108, including a provision to allow a VHAD.

In a letter dated April 8, 1988, Koito Manufacturing Company asked the agency for confirmation that two different VHAD designs that it was contemplating would comply with the proposed FMVSS 108 revisions. The second design described in the Koito lett er consists of a detachable spirit level that would be inserted in the bulb socket for the purpose of aiming the headlamp. Once the headlamp is aimed, the spirit level would be removed and the headlamp bulb would be reinstalled for normal operation. Th e key aspect of this design is that the VHAD is separate from, rather than integral to, the headlamp.

In responding to Koito on September 12, 1988, the agency stated:

"With respect to your two designs, you appear to have understood that the agency's intent in the proposal was to provide broad parameters for VHADs to afford manufacturers design freedom in meeting the specifications. Under S7.7.5.2 it is the headlam p system that 'includes' a VHAD, rather than 'incorporates' it. Under subsection (b)(7) photometric testing is provided for 'The VHAD and headlamp assembly (if the headlamp is separable or intended to be used with the VHAD)...' This means that the VHAD may be integral with the headlamp assembly, or separate from it (though presumably provided with the vehicle as part of its original equipment), as fits the manufacturer's design. Each of your designs complies with the intent of S7.7.5.2; however, I must emphasize that this (Notice 5) is only a proposal, and the form of a final requirement, if any, has not been determined.

On May 9, 1989, the agency issued a Final Rule (docket 85-15, Notice 8) patterned after the Notice 5 NPRM. With respect to the pertinent VHAD wording, the Final Rule was the same as the NPRM, and the preamble left unchanged the position stated above.

GENERAL MOTORE DESIGN:

The Notice 5 NPRM and Notice 8 Final Rule were partially the result of GM's petitions to permit the use of our new 55 X 135 millimeter integral beam headlamp. This new headlamp (scheduled for introduction in the 1991 model year) has been reviewed on several occasions with agency personnel. During those reviews, we indicated that the 55 X 135 would employ a spirit level VHAD that is integral to the headlamp mounting assembly.

The integral VHAD design entails four spirit levels on each vehicle - one for each headlamp. However, we have recently developed an alternative spirit level VHAD for the 55 X 135 which is not integral to the headlamp assembly. By adopting the non-in tregral VHAD, we are able to provide a single spirit level with each vehicle. This results in a significant cost saving opportunity. The proposed non-intregral VHAD would be furnished with each vehicle equipped with 55 X 135 integral beam headlamps. Th e attached sketch illustrates the VHAD we are comtemplating. To vertically aim the headlamp, the three legs of the VHAD adaptor would be held to the headlamp aiming ring, as shown in the sketch. The vertical adjusting screw on the headlamp would then b e turned to obtain a zero reading of the spirit level, just as with the earlier integral VHAD design.

As mentioned, a move to this VHAD design represents a significant cost saving opportunity for purchasers of the 55 X 135 headlamp. The separate VHAD also serves equally well as the integral VHAD in meeting the needs of motor vehicle safety.

We have carefully reviewed the wording of S7.7 of FMVSS 108, and we believe it supports the use of the separate VHAD being considered for the 55 X 135. In particular, S7.7.5.2(c)(1) explicitly comprehends a VHAD design of the type GM is developing.

Like Koito, GM understands "...that the agency's intent in the proposal was to provide broad parameters for VHADs to afford manufacturers design freedom in meeting the specifications". We also believe that this intent is carried forward to the Final Rul e, since the pertinent wording was unchanged.

However, given that the agency emphasized that its September 12, 1988, comments were based on an NPRM only, we seek confirmation that the agency's interpretation of the actual standard is the same as the September 12 interpretation of the NRPM.

ID: nht72-2.25

DATE: 03/03/72

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

TO: Koito Manufacturing Company, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This replies to your letters of January 27, February 8 and February 9, 1972, to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, regarding questions on headlamp mounting requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

The following comments relate to the specific questions in the letters of each date.

Question 1 - January 27, 1972

The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 and referenced SAE standards do not preclude the headlamp aiming adjustment by direct sliding contact of the headlamp back (Illegible Word) to the housing.

We're concerned however that headlamps of different manufacturers may not always (Illegible Words) properly in such an arrangement because of non-specific dimensional requirements of SAE J571 for the headlamp back envelope. Also in this arrangement pressure is applied to areas of the headlamp not designed for such mechanical pressures. This may result in a high incidence of lamp breakage particularly with some of the "thin walled" lamps.

Question 2 - January 27, 1972

The arrangement of the headlamp mounting ring as shown on Figure 3. conforms to the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Question 3 - January 27, 1972

The arrangement of the headlamp mounting ring as shown on Figure 4 conforms to the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Question 4 - January 27, 1972

The arrangement of the headlamp mounting ring as shown on Figure 5 conforms to the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Your letter of February 8, 1972, relates to the request of January 27 1972, and is therefore answered by the above comments.

The question in your letter of February 9, 1972, relates to a modification of the headlamp (Illegible Words) as described under question 1 in your letter of January 27, 1972, whereby you propose a single locating lug match in the headlamp retaining ring. The requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 are for three-lug indexing. The retaining ring-housing as shown on Appendix - I of your letter of February 9, 1972, does not, therefore, conform to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

This Administration has been concerned about problems of accurate headlamp aim and aim retention capabilities, and currently has a research contract titled "Stability of Headlamp Aim" contract DOT-HS-024-1-202 scheduled for completion in July 1972. In general one of the problem areas seems to relate to insufficient strength and life of headlamp aim and retention mechanisms, along with (Illegible Word) that cause field service problems by shifting or actually falling out when replacement of the headlamp is attempted. If you desire, you may contact Mr. Roger Benion of the Southeast Research Institute, (Illegible Words) Road, San Antonio, Texas, 73284, who manages our stability of headlamp Aid contract, for additional technical contracts on your proposed headlamp aiming mechanism.

We have enclosed a copy of report DOT-HS-(Illegible Words) on "Vehicle Forward Lighting Performance and Inspection Requirements" which includes preliminary research information on headlamp aim.

ID: 15487.ztv

Mr. Junichi Yoshimoto
Deputy General Manager
Technical Administration Dept.
Koito Mfg. Co., Ltd.
Shizuoka Works
500, Kitawaki
Shimuzu-Shi, Shizuoka-Ken
Japan

Dear Mr. Yoshimoto:

This replies to your letter of June 24, 1997, asking questions about four areas of the headlighting requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. I shall discuss them in the order you presented them.

Optical Axis Mark

You have attached a sheet depicting three headlamps. You ask whether the optical axis mark specified by S7.8.5.3(f)(1) is required because, in your opinion, the construction of the headlamps enables one to identify the optical axis of the headlamp.

Paragraph S7.8.5.3(f)(1) reads as follows:

"There shall be a mark or markings identifying the optical axis of the headlamp visible from the front of the headlamp when installed on the vehicle, to assure proper horizontal and vertical alignment of the aiming screen or optical aiming equipment with the headlamp being aimed. The manufacturer is free to choose the design of the mark or markings. The mark or markings may be on the interior or exterior of the lens or indicated by a mark or central structure on the interior or exterior of the headlamp."

Although the choice of the mark is left to the manufacturer, the mark should be of such a nature that it clearly indicates to the operator of headlamp aiming equipment the exact location of the optical axis and where the equipment is to be properly placed, to act as a geometric reference for measuring distances to the floor and between the headlamps and the vehicle's longitudinal axis.

Your question asks, in effect, whether the features shown are sufficient to be the mark required. A trademark is acceptable to indicate an optical axis, and we believe that the trademark in Figure 1 Sealed Beam Headlamp, an oval encircling the name "Koito," clearly indicates its center with the letter "i" thereby indicating the optical axis. The condenser lens in Figure 2 Projector Headlamp has an obvious center, as do all circles, that can be perceived by observers, and is also acceptable as indicating the optical axis. The inner shade in Figure 3 Headlamp with no-fluting lens should provide a clear indication to the operator of headlamp aiming equipment because the axes of the hexagon converge at a clearly designated center point. The last sentence of S7.8.5.3(f)(1) quoted above indicates that the mark may be indicated by a central structure on the interior of the headlamp.

Horizontal Aim

(1) Paragraphs S7.8.5.3(b) and (d) do not specify a horizontal aim adjustment mechanism for visually/optically aimable headlamps. Koito is considering changing some of its existing headlamps to visually aimable ones with "adding the mechanisms (see Figures 4 and 5 in the attached sheet) in which a special cap is put onto the horizontal aiming screw permanently in such a way that it cannot be removed without breakage, to prevent tools from accessing the screw." You ask whether these mechanisms "comply with the requirement of horizontal aim fixation."

The horizontal aiming screw caps are intended to be a permanent part of the lamp, and not intended to be removable with special tools or otherwise. We believe that this is a sufficient safeguard that the headlamps may be considered to comply with the requirement that there shall be no adjustment of horizontal aim of a visually aimable headlamp.

(2) Referring to our letter of June 11, 1997, to Ichikoh, a copy of which you enclosed, you ask whether the horizontal aim should be fixed by the headlamp manufacturer or the vehicle manufacturer. You note that it may be necessary for a vehicle manufacturer to align properly the horizontal aim when the headlamp is installed on a motor vehicle before the horizontal aim is fixed. However, when the horizontal aim is fixed by the vehicle manufacturer, you believe that the vehicle manufacturer should be responsible for certifying compliance with photometric performance requirements.

Paragraph S7.8.5.3 requires a visually/optically aimable headlamp to be designed to conform to the specifications of that paragraph, including the specification of S7.8.5.3(b) that horizontal aim be fixed and nonadjustable. Thus, the design and production of the headlamp is the responsibility of its manufacturer. However, as the preamble to the final rule adopting this requirement stated, "Generally, the vehicle's manufacturer accepts the responsibility for assuring correct aim of new motor vehicles" (62 FR 10710 at 10712). When a headlamp is installed on a motor vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer's required certification of compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards must include photometric compliance.

Aiming Deviation

You believe that S7.8.2.1(a) applies to a visually/optically aimable headlamp "whose construction has no adjustment of horizontal aim." This paragraph reads: "When installed on the vehicle, adjustment of one aim axis through its full on-vehicle range shall not cause the aim of the other axis to deviate more than +/- 0.76 degree." You wish to interpret it as reading: "Adjustment of vertical aim through its full on-vehicle range shall not cause the aim of the horizontal axis to deviate more than +/- 0.76 degree."

This is a correct rephrasing of S7.8.2.1(a) for a visually/optically aimable headlamp whose horizontal aim is fixed.

Visual/Optical Mark

You ask whether your interpretation is correct that the lens of a headlamp that is aimable horizontally by a VHAD, and vertically by visual/optical means, must have its lens marked in accordance with S7.8.5.3(f)(2).

This is correct. Even though the correct horizontal aim is achieved by mechanical means, the fact that the correct vertical aim is determined visually/optically means that the headlamp must have the markings required by S7.8.5.3(f)(2).

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.1/15/98

ID: nht79-2.45

DATE: 05/09/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood for F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 29, 1979, to Bill Eason with respect to headlamp lens marking. Mr. Eason is no longer associated with the Office of Rulemaking and we regret the delay in writing you.

You have asked for a confirmation of your interpretation that:

"The headlamp designed to conform to J579c shall be provided with the lens marking specified in S4.1.1.21 of FMVSS No. 108 even if the upper beam headlamp maximum output is lower than the conventional maximum restriction of 37,500 cd."

You are correct that S4.1.1.21 permits the new code marking for headlamps designed to conform to SAE Standard J579c even if the upper beam headlamp maximum output is lower than the maximum of 75,000 cd permissible under 579c or the previous maximum of 37,500 cd of J579a. But because the code could be misleading, we are considering proposing an amendment of Standard No. 108 that would delete the new code requirement for all headlamps whose maximum candela does not exceed a certain value, such as 40,000 cd.

SINCERELY,

Bill Eason Office of Rulemaking National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

January 29, 1979

Subject: Headlamp Lens Marking

Reference: Docket No. 78-5; Notice 3 of Federal Register Vol. 43, No. 145 dated July 27, 1978

Dear Sir:

With reference to the headlamp lens marking, the latest S 4.1.1.21 of FMVSS No. 108 as amended in Docket No. 78-5; Notice 3 of FR Vol. 43, No. 145 dated July 27, 1978, provides as follows;

Quoted " S 4.1.1.21 The lens of each headlamp designed to confom to SAE Standard J579c, Sealed Beam Headlamp Units for Motor Vehicles, December 1974, manufactured on or after July 1, 1979, shall be marked with the symbol ------------ -------- ." unquoted

The NHTSA's basic intention of establishing the above lens marking code is to give consummers a means of identification to determine which the photometric and beam pattern design specified in either SAE J579c or SAE J579a does apply to the headlamp and also to enable them to replace original headlamp with headlamp of compatible photometric properties, we believe.

In addition, it can be said that the headlamp designed to conform to SAE J579c is substantially different also in the upper and lower beam patter distribution as well as being different in the upper beam photometric maximum output, when compared with the headlamp of SAE J579a, we think.

KOITO MANUFACTURING CO., LTD.

Attn. Bill Eason Office of Rulemaking National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Dated January 29, 1979

We would hereby ask you to provide us with your definite confirmation and our interpretation is as follows;

The headlamp designed to conform to SAE J579c shall be provided with the lens marking specified in S 4.1.1.21 of FMVSS No. 108 even if the upper beam headlamp maximum output is lower than the conventional maximum restriction of 37,500 cd.

If you have another interpretation of this code to this matter, please kindly let us know soonest possible because we have to change lens moulds to provide our headlamp with the proper marking.

Upon your kind review to this matter, your prompt reply would be greatly appreciated.

M. Iwase Chief, Overseas Technical Section Technical Administration Department Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd. Shizuoka Works

PS: POSTAGE STAMP ENCLOSED FOR YOUR REPLY BY AIR.

ID: 15455.ztv

Mr. Tom L. Ricca
Tom L. Ricca Associates
1413 Wyandotte Road
Columbus Ohio 43212

Dear Mr. Ricca:

On March 19, 1997, we replied to your letter of January 20, 1997, asking for an interpretation of Federal law and regulations as they may apply to your invention, the "LightGenie." We informed you that three of four features of the invention were acceptable under the laws and regulations that we administer. These features were the "40-Second Delay Turnoff", the "4-Minute Delay Turnoff," and the "4-Hour Blinking Delay Turnoff."

The fourth feature was "Daytime Running Lights", or DRLs as we call them. We informed you that we interpret S5.5.11 of Standard No. 108 as requiring headlamps used as DRLs to be operated in either the upper beam or lower beam mode, but not permitting switching between upper and lower beam modes. Because your system switches between modes, your system would not comply with the specifications for OEM DRLs.

We also informed you that there was another reason as well. S5.5.11(a) requires automatic deactivation of DRLs "when the headlamp control is in any 'on' position . . . ." Your system requires the headlamp control to be in the "on" position in order to operate. You asked that we read S5.5.11(a)to require deactivation of DRLs "when any upper beams or lower beams of the headlamps which are not intended to be operated as DRL are turned on continuously . . . ." As a practical matter, we did not see how the vehicle's headlamp system could be operated as a headlamp system if the control must be in the "on" position for the LightGenie to operate, and wrote that, as a legal matter, you were requesting in effect an amendment of S5.5.11(a) beyond the limits of an interpretation.

As an aftermarket device, we informed you that the LightGenie might be usable on vehicles that were not originally equipped with DRLs as long as it allows the headlamp control to perform its original design function. However, the LightGenie would still have to comply with local laws in order to be operated within any State.

Finally, we called your attention to paragraph S5.5.11(a)(ii) which allows an upper beam headlamp to be used as a DRL only if two conditions are met: that the headlamp's luminous intensity at test point H-V is not more than 7,000 candela, and that the headlamp be mounted not higher than 864 mm above the road surface. This would appear to rule out use of the LightGenie using the upper beam of headlamp of some larger sport utility vehicles and trucks.

You FAXed us on April 28, 1997, asking for a further interpretation, and before we had a chance to answer, wrote additional letters dated June 6, 1997, and June 23, 1997. This letter responds only to your letter of June 23, 1997, which we understand to be the latest description of your invention.

The LightGenie system is still unacceptable under Standard No. 108. We note that you now describe the "4-Hour Blinking Delay Turnoff" as causing "the parking lamps, tail lamps, license plate lamps, side marker lamps and the headlamps if desired . . . to blink . . . ." This is a noncompliance with S5.5.10(d). Paragraph S5.5.10(b) permits only the headlamps and side marker lamps to flash for signaling purposes. Paragraph S5.5.10(d)requires other lamps (e.g.,parking lamps, taillamps, and license plate lamps) to be wired to be steady burning.

We also call your attention to S5.5.7(b). You write ("(b)") that the LightGenie OEM DRL system "may turn off the tail lamps, parking lamps, license plate lamps and side marker lamps as specified by S5.5.3." This is an incorrect reading of S5.5.3 and overlooks the requirements of S5.5.7(b). Paragraph S5.5.7(b) requires activation of the taillamps parking lamps, license plate lamps, and side marker lamps whenever the headlamps are activated in a steady burning state. The only relief afforded by S5.5.3 is to allow a vehicle manufacturer the option of not activating the taillamps when the headlamps are activated at less than full intensity as permitted by the specifications of S5.5.11(a) for DRLs.

As we advised previously, aftermarket modifications, such as adding the LightGenie system, by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, are forbidden if they create a noncompliance in a vehicle certified as complying when it was manufactured.

You also write ("(c)") in detail about the operation of the LightGenie control. This is so complicated that it requires 48 lines of text for you to describe it. We understand you to say that the LightGenie/DRL headlamp control system is meant to substitute for the headlamp control that would otherwise be provided. The LightGenie headlamp control contains three automatic "on" positions, and four manual "on" positions. We contrast this with the usual headlamp control which contains two manual "on" positions, though some cars add one optional automatic "on" position. This multi-choice headlamp control seems unnecessarily confusing and without an evident safety rationale. However, there are no Federal specifications for operation of headlamp controls, nor can we say that this multi-function control creates an impairment withing the meaning of S5.1.3 as long as there is no confusion about how it activates the headlamps in the headlamp mode.

We understand from "(a)" that the system operates on either the upper beam or the lower beam. This appears to meet our previous objection to a system that operates between beam modes.

Finally, you conclude ("(d)") that the LightGenie OEM DRL system, will not "impair the effectiveness of any lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108, as specified by S5.1.3". The determination of impairment is to be made by the vehicle manufacturer at the time it certifies compliance with all applicable standards including Standard No. 108, and by any alterer at the time of its certification. Unlike your previous letter mentioning the aftermarket, your letter of June 23 speaks of the LightGenie only as "OEM". We regard as original equipment any motor vehicle equipment that is present on a vehicle at the time of its first sale for purposes other than resale. This includes equipment added by a dealer after the vehicle has been certified by its manufacturer. Any person who alters a certified vehicle before its first sale, by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, must affix a label stating that the vehicle has been altered and certifying that the vehicle remains in compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. We believe that a person installing the LightGenie before a vehicle's first sale would be an "alterer" and required to recertify the vehicle.

To sum up, the LightGenie system as described in your letter of June 23, 1997, will be acceptable under Standard No. 108 if it is redesigned so that it does not create noncompliances with S5.5.10(d) and S5.5.7(b), providing those corrections do not impair the effectiveness of other lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108, e.g., reducing the intensity of other lamps on the vehicle that are on the same circuit as the reduced intensity headlamps used as DRLs. With this statement, we do not believe that there is a need for a further interpretation regarding the Light/Genie.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
d.9/29/97
ref:108

ID: nht87-2.57

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/23/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: M. Iwase -- Manager, Technical Administration Dept., Koito Mfg. Co. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. M. Iwase Manager, Technical Administration Dept. Koito Mfg. Co.. Ltd. Shizuoka Works 500, Kitawaki Shimizu-Shi, Shizuoka-ken Japan

Dear Mr. Iwase:

This is in reply to your letter of March 24, 1987, asking two questions with respect to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Your first question concerns an aiming adaptor for replaceable bulb headlamps whole lenses may slant 60 degrees from the vertical or horizontal. You have discovered that the Hopkins universal adaptor cannot be used with these headlamps, and you propose t o provide a special adaptor with each vehicle equipped with such headlamps, as well as aiming adjustment procedure information in the vehicle's service manual. You ask for confirmation of your belief that this is permissible under Standard No. 108.

Standard No. 108 does not require that an aiming adaptor be provided with a motor vehicle, only that its headlamps be capable of mechanical aim. Therefore there is no legal requirement that the adaptor be provided. However, without such an adaptor, an ow ner of a vehicle with the 60-degree headlamps may encounter difficulties at State inspection stations where mechanical aimers are in use, and at repair facilities when headlamps are replaced or after body work has been performed that necessitates reaim o f headlamps. Therefore we believe that provision of the adaptor and aiming information would enhance consumer acceptance of the 60-degree headlamps.

Your second question concerns the legality of the upper aiming boss on a low profile headlamp. Because the height of the lens is insufficient to incorporate the upper aiming boss, you propose to place it on a flange of the lens in a "photometrically inef fective area." However, the flange is concealed when the hood is shut, and the hood must be opened in order for aiming adjustment to occur. You believe that this is acceptable under Standard No. 108 and ask for our confirmation.

Paragraph S4.1.1.36(a)(2) requires that "the lens or each replaceable bulb headlamp shall have three pads which meet the requirements of figure 4...." Your drawing indicates that the flange is part of the headlamp lens even though that portion of the len s is not needed to provide illumination. Therefore this design would appear to meet the requirements of Figure 4 as you have concluded.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Admin. 400 Seventh Ave., S. W. Washington D.C., 20590 USA

Dear Ms. E. Z. Jones

We would like to ask you the following question concerning aiming adjustment for bulb replacement headlamp.

RE: 1) Aiming Adaptor for 60o Slant Bulb Replaceable Headlamp

We are developing and engineering-designing of bulb replaceable headlamp whose lens slants up to about 60o in vertical and horizontal as shown below.

SEE HARD COPY FOR GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATION

Upon our technical review, we have come to conclusion that this headlamp would be able to meet with all of the requirements specified in FMVSS NO. 108.

This headlamp lens has three pads which meet the requirements of Figure 4, Group II Aiming Pad Location (prescribed for 1A1, 2A1 sealed beam unit) and is marked "22H62V" for aiming in accordance with S4.1.1.36-(a)(3) of FMVSS NO. 108.

This headlamp is designed, in accordance with S4.1.1.36(b)(3), so that it would be aimed by use of mechanical aimer specified in SAE J602C.

However, when this headlamp is installed onto the vehicle, the following inconvenience will come about to the aiming of this headlamp, we are afraid.

When user, dealer or vehicle inspection station try to perform aiming of this headlamp by use of the aimer specified in SAE J602C, the universal adaptor (Hopkin's smaller adaptor; stock #0203 - refer to the attached pamphlet) cannot be used onto this hea dlamp.

Because Hopkin's adaptor has the adjustable range in angle of suction cup which is limited within 35o max and adjustable length of legs within 4.0 in. max.

However, this headlamp requires 60o in its adjustable range and 6.2 in. in its adjustable length of legs.

For the above possible inconvenience, we have no other choice but to have each vehicle provided with a set of special adaptor for this headlamp (shown below) so that it could be made mechanical aiming adjustment by means of the aimer specified in SAE J60 2C, we think.

SEE HARD COPY FOR GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATION

The information of aiming adjustment procedures for this headlamp shall be put into vehicle service manual, we think.

Question-1):

We believe that this special adaptor and our countermeasure fully meet with FMVSS NO. 108 and have nothing illegal under FMVSS NO. 108.

We would like you to confirm that our interpretation is correct.

RE: 2) ARRANGEMENT OF AIMING BOSS FOR LOW PROFILE HEADLAMP

We are developing and engineering-designing such a low profile headlamp as the height of its lens is not enough to apply to the aiming boss arrangement in Fig. 4 of FMVSS NO. 108.

SEE HARD COPY FOR GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATION

Accordingly we have an idea to have aiming boss arranged as shown below.

SEE HARD COPY FOR GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATION

(1) The upper aiming boss is located on the flange of lens which is photometrically ineffective area.

(2) The aiming boss location is applied to Fig. 4 of FMVSS NO. 108.

(3) However, the upper boss is located in a part which is covered by the bonner and so the bonner must be opened when aiming adjustment is made.

Question-2):

We believe that the aiming boss arrangement as abovementioned can be applied to FMVSS NO. 108 and have nothing illegal under FMVSS NO. 108.

We would like you to review and confirm that it is correct.

Upon your review, your prompt reply to this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely

M. Iwase, Manager Technical Administration Dept. Koito Mfg. Co., Ltd. Shizuoka Works

Attached: Copy of Universal Adaptors Pamphlet

SEE HARD COPY FOR GRAPHIC AND ADDITIONAL TEXT INFORMATION

ID: 2640o

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 S4.1.1.36(b)(3) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08.

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 assembly 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 assembly "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 vehicle. 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 ref:l08 d:1/14/88

ID: 1984-2.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/24/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Koito Mfg. Co. Ltd. -- M. Iwase, Manager, Techinical Administration Dept.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. M. Iwase, Manager Technical Administration Department Koito Mfg. Co., Ltd. Shizuoka Works 500, Kitawaki Shimuzu-shi, Shitzuoka-ken Japan

This is in reply to your letter of June 21, 1984, to Mr. Driver of this agency asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Mr. Driver has not been an official of this agency for many years, and in the future, your requests for interpretation should be addressed to the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Your first question is whether Safety Standard No. 108 permits a two-headlamp system on motorcycles. The answer is yes. Paragraph S.4.1.1.34 specifies the lighting systems permissible on motorcycles. It allows two Type 2D1 or Type 2 (7 in.), or two Type 2B1 or Type 2B headlamps. Under Table IV, if two headlamps are used, they must be disposed symmetrically around the vertical center line. Two non-sealed headlamps meeting the requirements of SAE J584 may also be used, subject to the same mounting restriction. Therefore the system you propose appears acceptable under Standard No. 108.

You have also asked whether the two headlamps may be mounted one atop the other, rather than side by side. While Table IV specifies that a single headlamp must be mounted "on the vertical centerline", requires that two headlamps be disposed symetrically around it. We do not interpret this language as allowing two headlamps to be mounted adjacent to each other on the vertical centerline.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Air-Mail

Mr. E. T. Driver, Director Official of Crash Avoidance Date: June 21, 1984 Motor Vehicle Programs U.S. Department of Transportation Koito Ref. No.84.06.21.02 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Subject: Two Lamp System of Motorcycle Headlamp

Dear Mr. E. T. Driver;

We are now going to carry out engineering design of motorcycle headlamp of two lamp system as illustrated below.

We know well that there is a fact that the motorcycle with two lamp system headlamp has already been on sale in US market.

We would like you to confirm your opinion concerning the legal applicability of the two lamp system of Motorcycle headlamp.

Configuration of Two lamp system Motorcycle headlamp: INSERT GRAPH HERE Longitudinal center plane of Motorcycle

Upper Beam

Lower Bean

Upper Beam Motorcycle headlamp assembly Lower Beam

Motorcycle headlamp units

1. Photometric performance:

1-1) Each headlamp unit has equivalent dia. in dimension and photometric performance to the other and is designed to comply with the photometric requirements of table 1 & 2 of SAE J584 "Motorcycle and Motor Driven Cycle headlamps "specified in FMVSS No. 108, having two filaments (One is for upper beam and the other is for lower beam).

1-2) As for the combined max. value for the upper beam headlamp, the headlamp unit is optically designed to be less than 75,000 cd.

2. Installation arrangement:

Each headlamp unit is symmetrically installed about the longitudinal center line of Motorcycle.

3. Aiming adjustment mechanism:

Each headlamp unit is designed to be adjusted independently in horizontal and vertical directions

4. Others:

This motorcycle headlamp assembly is designed to conform to all of the requirements of FMVSS No. 108 and SAE J584.

Would you please get us your advice concerning the following questions;

Question:

1. Whether the two lamp system of motorcycle headlamp be permitted legally or not.

2. Additional question in case that the two lamp system of motorcycle headlamp be permitted:

Whether the following installation arrangement be permitted or not.

INSERT GRAPH HERE Vertical arrangment

Longitudinal center plane of Motorcycle

Upon your kind review to the above, your prompt reply would be greatly appreciated, and we remain,

Yours very truly,

M. Iwase, Manager Technical Administration Dept.

Koito Manufacturing. Co., Ltd.

Shizuoka Works

ID: nht78-2.10

DATE: 11/29/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Ichikoh Industries, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 22, 1978, to Bill Eason of our Office of Rulemaking asking several questions about motor vehicle headlamps and the amendment to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 issued on July 27, 1978.

Your questions and our answers are:

1. Ichikoh headlamps are designed to comply with SAE Standard J579c with maximum candela not exceeding 37,500. Does the amendment allow Ichikoh to place "DOT" and the new designation code on the lens of each headlight?

Ichikoh's practice reflects compliance with the option afforded by S4.1.1.33 until July 27, 1978. The deletion of the option has the effect of allowing the higher maximum candlepower permitted by J579c but does not require it. Thus, Ichikoh may continue its existing practice under the amendment. One purpose of the marking code, however, is to enable a consumer to replace original equipment headlamps with lamps of compatible photometric output. Currently, S4.1.1.21 as amended requires the lens of each Ichikoh headlamp designed to conform to J579c to be marked with the new code on and after July 1, 1979. Obviously such a marking will be misleading if, even though designed to conform to J579c, a headlamp's maximum candela does not exceed 37,500. Accordingly, we are reviewing this problem with the idea of proposing rulemaking that would delete the code requirement for all headlamps whose maximum candela does not exceed 37,500. We do not anticipate a change in the requirement of S4.1.1.21 that the lens of each J579c headlamp be marked with the "DOT" symbol since Ichikoh headlamps comply with J579c, even if they do not take advantage of the now-permissible maximum.

2. With reference to your quality control system, will the headlamps "be allowed to exceed 37,500 cd without any modification of the light source (filament) and wattage?"

I am not quite sure what you mean. If you are asking whether Ichikoh may relax quality control so that an occasional headlamp may exceed 37,500 cd the answer is yes. Headlamps designed to J579c are not restricted to the maximum imposed by J579a.

3. You ask our comments on possible mismatch of headlamps on the same vehicle, i.e., one low intensity headlamp and one high intensity headlamp.

NHTSA is concerned about this possibility and, as indicated in reply to your first question, is considering rulemaking to delete the code requirement for low intensity J579c headlamps. Your second question, however, does raise the issue of identification of headlamps whose candela may exceed 37,500 but whose maxima are far less than 75,000. We shall also consider this issue and may issue a consumer bulletin advocating replacement of headlamps in pairs to help resolve this potential problem.

4. You ask whether NHTSA intends to adopt the concept of ECE Regulation No. 20 in the near future. This Regulation requires a mark on a headlamp lens indicating candlepower grade.

The NHTSA does not plan to adopt the requirements of Regulation No. 20 because this regulation is in essence an indicator of quality control.

I hope this answers your questions.

SINCERELY,

ICHIKOH INDUSTRIES, LTD.

ISEHARA-PLANT

September 22, 1978

Bill Eason Office of Rulemaking National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Subject: Motor Vehicle Headlamps

We, Ichikoh Industries, Ltd., are an original equipment manufacturer of sealed beam headlamps, signalling lamps, rear view mirrors and other accessories for motor vehicles.

With regard to the recent amendment of 49 CFR 571.108, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Docket No. 78-5 : Notice 3, issued on July 27, 1978, we would like to confirm you the following matters:

1. All our sealed beam headlamps (circular and rectangular types) have been approved in each States including AAMVA compliance with the applicable (photometric) requirements of FMVSS 108 : that is, SAE Standard J579c.

At the present, the maximum candlepower of each headlamp is maintained as not exceed 37,500 cd, and we have no intention changing to the higher wattage allowed in the above new amendment.

In such a case: Does it permit to indicate "DOT" and new "designation code" defined in new paragraph S4.1.1.21 on each lenses of our headlamps?, and

2. May we interpret that, by the new amendment, the old requirements of the maximum candlepower 37,500 cd to headlamps will be allowed to exceed 37,500 cd without any modification of the light source (filament) and wattage?

This problem concerns to our quality control system.

3. Besides, according to the amended regulation, it can not install both headlamps compliance with SAE J579a and J579c on one (1) vehicle.

However, if the above item No. 1 is accepted, it result in allowing to use the different type headlamps with the same code on a vehicle, that is, the lower candlepower headlamp(s) (not more than 37,500 cd) and the higher candlepower headlamp(s) not more than 75,000cd.

This means headlamp users can not select such different type headlamps with the same identification code, and such mixed use of headlamps would give rise to undesirable influence on the visibilities for road users.

Besides, it would lead to substantially allow the use of both headlamps compliance with SAE J579a and J579c on a vehicle.

We would like to hear your view point on this problem.

4. As you well know, ECE Regulation No. 20, Halogen Headlamps, requires to mark on each headlamp lens severally graded identification indicating the reference of the maximum candlepower. This make easy to know the headlamp grade.

On the other hand, it is impossible to know the headlamp grade (candlepower) with the identification code on the lens under the amended regulation of FMVSS 108.

Do you have the intention to adopt the conception of ECE Regulation No. 20 in the near future?

With regard to the above matters, your kind and early reply would be highly appreciated.

Suminori EGUCHI, Chief Engineer Technical Department.

ID: nht92-7.4

DATE: May 14, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Al Twyford

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/21/92 from Al Twyford to Associate Administrator for Safety, Federal Highway Administration (OCC 7244)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of April 21, 1992, to the Federal Highway Administration, which has been forwarded to this agency for reply.

You wish to complain "about some makes of new cars that have two sets of headlights (4) which operate at the same time." If this agency plans to do nothing about it, you "plan to take this matter up with Congressmen and U.S. Senators."

You are not alone in your concern about headlamp glare created by new motor vehicles. Other citizens have brought the subject to the attention of Members of Congress. I enclose a copy of a recent letter from the Deputy Administrator of this agency to Senator Cohen of Maine which is representative of our views on this issue. You will see that a number of factors may be responsible for creating a perception of glare. We note that you have already been in touch with the Department of California Highway Patrol, and that California has no periodic motor vehicle inspection.

With respect to the specific comments in your letter, the agency does not "approve" specific headlamp designs. Standard No. 108 sets forth photometric performance requirements to be met on both the upper and lower beam, and does establish maximum limitations at some of the photometric test points. Further, in a four-headlamp system, the upper and lower beams may be provided by all headlamps. Headlamp manufacturers must ensure that their products meet these requirements, and certify that each headlamp complies by placing a "DOT" mark on the lamp. There is no requirement that a manufacturer obtain permission from this agency before introducing the lamps into the market.

We appreciate your concern.

Enclosure

April 16, 1992

The Honorable William S. Cohen United State Senate Washington, DC 20510-1901

Dear Senator Cohen:

Thank you for your letter requesting information on the quality of automobile headlamps. Our information should help you respond to a letter from Mr.

Lowell Spicer, of Brunswick, Maine, who wrote you about headlamp glare and other issues.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Under that authority, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has issued vehicle safety standards on a wide variety of subjects. One of these standards, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, "Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment," addresses the safety requirements for vehicle headlighting.

Two of FMVSS No. 108's requirements standardize the beam pattern and light intensity of headlamps. All new headlamps must meet these requirements, which have remained essentially unchanged since 1978. Halogen headlamps may appear much brighter, but they meet the same minimum and maximum output requirements as normal incandescent headlamps. They appear much brighter because of the color spectrum of their light, i.e., they emit light which appears whiter than the light emitted by incandescent headlamp. Another of FMVSS No. 108's requirements allows headlamps to be installed or "mounted" in a proper ground clearance and ramp angles for heavy duty and other vehicles. Because of their size and other characteristics, trucks often have headlamps that are mounted higher than other vehicles.

Our headlamp compliance tests for beam pattern and light intensity show, that when properly aimed, recent model-year headlamps generally fall well within the limits established for glare brightness. However, our tests do not account for the effect of different mounting heights or misaiming. Headlamp replacement and vehicle loading can alter headlamp aim and are often the cause of glare complaints.

Another aspect of recent model-year vehicles that could be contributing to glare is the improper use, misaiming or improper installation of auxiliary fog or driving lamps. These are regulated solely by state law.

The agency has found that factors such as reduced night vision capabilities as people age can adversely influence driving performance. Headlamp glare resistance reduces with driver age. According to research, the headlamp glare resistance of the human eye at age 20 is twice as good as it is for the age of 72. Contrast sensitivity is also an important factor in night vision, and it reduces dramatically, requiring more illumination to see objects as drivers age.

Concerning vehicle headlamps and their brightness due to misaim, States regulate headlamp aim in motor vehicle use and inspection laws. Maine has an annual motor vehicle inspection law. Should Mr. Spicer want to contact his State on the matter of headlamp aim inspection he should contact the following:

Administration of Laws Mr. G. William Diamond, Secretary of State Department of Secretary of State Nash School Station, #148 Augusta, ME 04333

Enforcement of Laws Mr. John Atwood, Commissioner

Department of Public Safety 336 Hospital Street Augusta, ME 04333.

I hope that we have provided enough information to help you answer Mr. Spicer's concerns.

Sincerely,

Frederick H. Grubbe