[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 218 (Tuesday, November 12, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 68551-68553]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-28558]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571


Denial of Petition for Rulemaking; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standards

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document denies the petition submitted by Valeo, an 
automotive lighting company in Bobigny, France, to amend Federal Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, ``Lamps, Reflective Devices, 
and Associated Equipment,'' to allow headlamps with upper beam 
contributors to have horizontal and vertical aiming capabilities that 
are separate from the lower beam contributors.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Chris Flanigan, Office of 
Rulemaking, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Mr. 
Flanigan's telephone number is: (202) 366-4918. His facsimile number is 
(202) 366-4329.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By a letter dated March 2, 2000, Valeo 
petitioned the agency to allow visually/optically aimable (VOA) 
headlamps that have upper beam contributors optically combined with 
lower beam

[[Page 68552]]

contributor(s) to have their own horizontal and vertical aiming 
mechanisms. None of these upper beam contributor(s) would be a lower 
beam contributor. Additionally Valeo stated that the light-emitting 
surface of each of these upper beam contributors would be marked 
``VO.''
    Currently, paragraphs S7.8.5.3(5)(c) and (d) of FMVSS No. 108 
require that, if the upper beam is combined in a headlamp with a lower 
beam, the vertical and horizontal aim shall not be changed from the aim 
set using the procedures set forth for aiming of the lower beam. The 
effect of this requirement is that, as with previous headlamps that 
have both a lower and upper beam, aiming the lower beam simultaneously 
aims the upper beam. As such, the complex headlamp is as easy to aim as 
a simple one. This promotes correct aim to improve seeing, while 
minimizing glare.

Background

    Proper aim is required to ensure that headlamps installed on motor 
vehicles fulfill the safety functions required by Federal law. There 
are three principal methods of aiming headlamps. The first is visual 
and is done by projecting the beam onto a vertical surface and then 
adjusting the headlamp to an appropriate position. An observer 
determines this position. The second is optical and is done by 
projecting the beam into an optical device that is placed in front of 
the headlamp and then adjusting the headlamp until the beam conforms to 
the appropriate parameters. Lamps utilizing these two methods are 
termed visual/optical aim (VOA) headlamps.
    The third method of aim is mechanical and is done without 
activation of the headlamp. In this case, the proper aim is determined 
through the use of mechanical equipment, either external to the 
headlamp housing or provided as part of the headlamp. External 
mechanical aim was introduced in 1955 by the automotive industry in 
response to aiming concerns expressed by the States. These concerns 
were related to the inability of the first two methods to provide 
accurate and repeatably correct aim at that time.
    The ability of motor vehicle headlamps to be mechanically aimed has 
been a requirement of FMVSS No. 108 from its effective date of January 
1, 1968. Mechanical aiming was necessary because accurate and reliable 
visual or optical aim of the lower beam pattern in use in the United 
States at that time was difficult to achieve. Sealed beam headlamps, 
the only type permitted until 1983, are required to have one of four 
aiming pad patterns on the lens for mechanical aiming. These patterns 
consist of three raised aiming pads arranged as a triangle at specified 
points on the lens that create a precise interface between the headlamp 
and a mechanical aiming device attached to the headlamp during the 
aiming verification process. The mechanical aiming device provides 
information so that the aiming planes of the headlamps on each side of 
the vehicle can be adjusted to be parallel with each other and 
perpendicular to the road surface. Because a headlamp's beam pattern is 
designed to be correctly aimed when the aiming plane is oriented as 
stated, the beam pattern can be accurately and repeatably aimed without 
the need for illuminating the headlamp.
    With the advent of replaceable bulb headlamps in 1983, restrictions 
on the size and shape of headlamps were no longer required. While two 
additional configurations of mechanical aiming pads were permitted, not 
all headlamp designs could accommodate them. In response to this 
problem, the agency has allowed vehicle headlamp aiming devices (VHAD) 
since June 8, 1989. VHAD is an alternative method of mechanical aim 
that is not dependent upon an externally applied mechanical device. It 
is accomplished by mechanical aiming equipment on the vehicle itself.
    As a consequence, the vehicle industry requested that the agency 
allow VOA headlamps, provided that significant visual cues in the beam 
pattern were added to assure accuracy. Subsequently, VOA headlamps 
became part of FMVSS No. 108, and headlamps meeting new beam pattern 
photometric requirements were developed. These headlamps have a beam 
pattern that is relatively insensitive to modest horizontal misaim. VOA 
headlamps were allowed based on comments to the agency that vehicles 
could be built with such close tolerances that no horizontal aim 
adjustment was necessary. Additionally, no useful visual cue for 
horizontal aiming exists. Consequently, because no visual cue was 
available for the purpose of horizontal aiming, the agency did not 
permit any horizontal movement of VOA headlamps. The lamp is 
essentially correctly aimed, horizontally, as installed. As an 
alternative, horizontal-aiming VHADs were permitted on VOA headlamps to 
meet European specifications that require both a horizontal and 
vertical aim adjustment. Thus, to be sold in both the European and U.S. 
markets, a headlamp needs both a horizontal and vertical aiming screw. 
A VOA headlamp intended for use only in the U.S. market need only have 
the vertical one.

Petitioner's Rationale

    Valeo asserted that the rationale for the current requirements was 
derived in the 1980s when headlamps with replaceable light sources were 
first introduced into Federal regulations. At that time, headlamps were 
not as large as today. Because the majority of these lamps had a flat, 
rectangular appearance, there were few aspect-related issues. However, 
today's headlamps have many cavities and are more contoured to the 
shape of the vehicle body. They also can have somewhat vertical shapes. 
Because of these characteristics, the orientation of the upper and 
lower beam contributors becomes more critical to the appearance of the 
vehicle. On the VOA lamps Valeo is contemplating, the cavities 
producing the lower beam have vertical aiming capability. However, they 
would have no horizontal aiming capability unless it is of the VHAD 
type. When the vertical aim on the lower beam is adjusted, unsightly 
gaps can be generated in the area between the headlamp housing and the 
vehicle body. By adding a separate aiming mechanism for the upper beam, 
these gaps could be eliminated.
    Valeo stated that these additional aiming mechanisms on the upper 
beam would not modify the accuracy of the aim of the lower beam 
function. Further, it would not modify the accuracy of the aim of the 
upper beam if lower and upper beam contributors can be illuminated 
separately. Separate illumination allows the ``hot spot'' of both the 
upper and lower beam contributors to be placed at the HV point.
    Valeo stated that another merit of its petition is that of 
international harmonization. European regulations do not preclude 
separate upper and lower beam aiming mechanisms. If the petition was 
granted and FMVSS No. 108 amended, it would then be possible for 
manufacturers to produce only one category of headlamp for the whole 
world market resulting in substantial savings for manufacturers in both 
tooling costs and manufacturing organization.

Agency Analysis

    As part of the justification for amendments allowing VOA headlamps 
in 1996, vehicle manufacturers indicated that they needed no horizontal 
aim adjustment because of the present accuracy of vehicle assembly and 
headlamp positioning on the assembly line. Because of this, and the 
fact that no reliable scientific

[[Page 68553]]

method of achieving horizontal VOA has been determined, two major 
changes were made to FMVSS No. 108 relating to VOA headlamps: (1) The 
beam was made to be much wider and much less sensitive to horizontal 
misaim and, (2) no horizontal aiming screws or mechanisms other than a 
horizontal VHAD were permitted. Valeo needs separate aim adjustments to 
be incorporated for the upper beam contributors to maintain a uniform 
gap around the headlamp housing. As a consequence, it has petitioned to 
amend the standard to allow the upper beams to have their own 
horizontal and vertical aiming capabilities. In addition, to make the 
consumer aware of these additional aiming systems, Valeo recommended 
that the light emitting surface of each upper beam contributor be 
marked ``VO.''
    In 1996, a Regulatory Negotiation Committee that included 
representatives of foreign manufacturers worked with the agency over 
many months to achieve a consensus on all issues and the specific text 
of the amendment to FMVSS No. 108 to allow VOA headlamps. Because the 
present aiming requirements, as applied to VOA, were part of that 
consensus agreement, the agency is reluctant to change these 
requirements, absent a compelling safety reason to do so.
    During the negotiated rulemaking, all of the vehicle manufacturers 
represented on the committee stated that they were capable of building 
vehicles as accurately as needed to install VOA headlamps. However, 
this degree of precision in assembly adds cost.
    Valeo's petition is based on two rationales. The first is a desire 
to have an aesthetically pleasing headlamp by overcoming inaccuracies 
in the design and assembly of motor vehicles such that the headlamp 
housing may be purposefully misaimed, within a certain range, to help 
assure the desired visually symmetric size of the gap between the 
vehicle body and the headlamp or between the headlamp reflector and the 
surrounding headlamp housing. The second is to achieve harmonization 
with European standards.
    Given Valeo's, as well as other manufacturers', desire for 
alternative aiming systems, the agency believes it is incumbent on 
Valeo and the industry to develop a single, objective method for 
vertical and horizontal aiming all VOA headlamps which could be 
incorporated into FMVSS No. 108. The agency does not intend to assess 
individual manufacturer's petitions for alternatives to the current 
requirements. The agency recently used a similar rationale to deny a 
petition from Federal-Mogul Lighting Products (Federal-Mogul) (66 FR 
42985). Federal-Mogul petitioned to amend FMVSS No. 108 to allow 
headlamps that are aimed visually or optically to have a horizontal 
adjuster system that does not have the required +/-2.5 degree 
horizontal adjustment range or the VHAD indicator required by the 
standard. In addition, the agency does not expect to give up the value 
that simultaneous beam aim provides. The agency believes that having 
simply aimed headlamps generally promotes more correctly aimed 
headlamps in the field. This is especially important, given the low 
incidence of periodic headlamp aim inspection in the United States and 
the likely lower level of experience of the service and inspection 
technicians and the public.
    In accordance with 49 CFR part 552, the agency has reviewed the 
petition and concluded that it should not be granted. Accordingly, it 
denies Valeo's petition.

(49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h); delegations of authority at 49 CFR 
1.50 and 501.8)

    Issued on October 31, 2002.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 02-28558 Filed 11-8-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P