ID: 15484.ztv

Mr. Alan Robinson
9 Romney Wynd
Clifton Park
Ramsey
Isle of Man IM8 3NJ
United Kingdom

Dear Mr. Robinson:

This is in reply to your FAX of June 23, 1997, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency. Mr. Van Iderstine had furnished you previously with copies of interpretations regarding the use of electronic message boards "fixed to the rear of vehicles." You now present five certain conditions which you believe "must apply to permit legal use of such a message display."

The agency interpretations indicate that, in general, an electronic message board cannot be used as original equipment if it impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Nor can an electronic message board be installed in the aftermarket by certain persons (i.e., a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business) if this "makes inoperative" any lighting equipment originally installed in accordance with Standard No. 108. With respect to lighting devices, the agency deems impairment of effectiveness and a making inoperative as equivalent. Even if permissible under Federal law, electronic message boards may be prohibited by the various states of the United States.

Your letter has given us a chance to review the subject of electronic message boards. The recurring concern with any supplementary lighting device is its potential to distract other drivers sharing the roadway from understanding and responding to the lighting devices required by Standard No. 108. This is particularly true if the supplementary device is one emitting verbal messages which must be read and its information processed, as compared with, for example, a flashing signal indicating a turn. This is a "message" which is instantly understood upon perceiving it.

As a consequence of our review, we have concluded that electronic message boards have the potential to impair any rear lighting devices (or make them "inoperative"), including the hazard warning system. This is a warning signal readily recognized by other motorists. We have concluded that an electronic message board has the potential to impair the effectiveness of the hazard warning system.

Thus, in our opinion, electronic message boards are not permitted on motor vehicles that have been manufactured to conform to Standard No. 108. However, if an electronic message board is simple enough that a vehicle owner may install it without seeking help from a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, the owner is violating no Federal law if (s)he installs and uses it, and the legality of its use is determinable under state laws. We are not conversant with these laws.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.8/4/97

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: 15504.drn

Mr. Donald W. Vierimaa
Vice President - Engineering
Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association
1020 Princess Street
Alexandria, VA 22314-2247

Dear Mr. Vierimaa:

This responds to your association's request that this office review the most recent revisions of the Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association's (TTMA) Recommended Practice Number 56, "Trailer Vehicle Identification Number" and Recommended Practice Number 53, "U. S. Trailer Certification Label." We have reviewed both draft documents as time and resources would allow and offer the following comments. Please note, however, that these comments do not constitute any sort of NHTSA approval or endorsement of the TTMA's Recommended Practices. TTMA is responsible for the accuracy and completeness of the documents.

In general, the TTMA Recommended Practice No. 56 appears to be correct about NHTSA's vehicle identification number requirements as set forth in 49 CFR Part 565 Vehicle Identification Number Requirements. In general, Recommended Practice No. 53 appears to be correct about NHTSA's labeling requirements in 49 CFR Part 567 Certification and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120 Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars. (49 CFR 571.120).

However, in several instances, the Recommended Practices go beyond what is required by NHTSA's regulations to recommend one particular means be used to meet the Federal requirement, when NHTSA's regulations leave that matter to the discretion of the vehicle manufacturer. Examples of the TTMA recommendations going beyond the NHTSA regulations may be found in the directions provided in Recommended Practice No. 56's Part 13.0 on the Vehicle Descriptor (Second) Section Code, and Part 15.0 Vehicle Indicator (Fourth) Section Code. For Recommended Practice No. 53, an example is found in the combined certification and tire-rim information provided in Section 6.0 "Certification Label Requirements."

While TTMA is free to make these recommendations, it may be helpful for your members to recognize the distinction between information or labeling required by NHTSA, and which therefore must follow an exact format according to Federal law, as opposed to matters that are within the discretion of the manufacturer and for which the TTMA provides one suggested means by which the requirement(s) may be fulfilled.

I also note that in Section 12.5 (pages 12-13) in No. 56, TTMA provides recommendations for handling certification and VIN assignment responsibilities for trailers sold in a bankruptcy sale. You correctly note that NHTSA has not yet issued an interpretation on this issue, and in the absence of a specific fact situation to be addressed, we will not comment. However, your members should be advised that if they decide to follow TTMA's advice on the bankruptcy issue, they will be doing so at their own risk, as NHTSA may not agree with TTMA's recommendation. The safest course if this situation should arise, is to write to the Chief Counsel and ask for an interpretation.

We offer the following comments on particular sections of each recommended practice:

COMMENTS ON RECOMMENDED PRACTICE NUMBER 56 "TRAILER VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER"

2.0 Purpose:

An extra sentence should be added to Section 2.1 as follows: "This Recommended Practice references relevant provisions of NHTSA's VIN regulation in parentheses; e.g. (565.3(h)) for the definition of `manufacturer'".

4.4 Trailer Kits:

The citation should be changed from "49 CFR 571.115, S2 and S3" to " 49 CFR 565.2".

9.5 Format

Section 9.5 addresses situations where there are spaces in a VIN, and comments: "The space can, however, be filled with any approved letter or number listed in Section 9.3." This sentence is not necessarily true. In the twelfth through seventeenth positions of the VIN (production sequence), other than characters designated for use by the SAE in the twelfth through fourteenth positions (because the manufacturer makes fewer than 500 vehicles per year), numbers must be used. Section 565.6(d)(3) states that the twelfth through seventeenth positions "shall represent the number sequentially assigned by the manufacturer in the production process if the manufacturer produces 500 or more vehicles of its type annually." (Emphasis added.)

17.0 Interpretations and Questions:

If there are any questions about VINs, the first person TTMA members should contact is the VIN Coordinator at (202) 366-6018.

Requests for legal interpretations may be obtained by writing to:

Chief Counsel
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
400 Seventh Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20590

Information on legal interpretations may be obtained from:

DOROTHY NAKAMA (202) 366-2992.

Please note that NHTSA attorneys do not provide oral interpretations or other "informal answers to questions."

Excerpts from Legal Interpretations Issued by NHTSA Pertaining to VINs

I suggest the following cautionary language precede the section with excerpts from interpretations:

The following excerpts from NHTSA's Chief Counsel's interpretation letters are provided for the reader's convenience only. NHTSA strongly advises that before deciding to rely on an excerpt, the reader review the entire letter from which the excerpt was taken.

Further, in attempting to use these interpretations to resolve a question, please be aware that they represent the views of the Chief Counsel based on the facts of individual cases. If you are aware of a previous interpretation that appears to address your question, please cite that interpretation and present your question to the Chief Counsel. Do not act on the assumption that the interpretation is necessarily applicable to your situation. There may be critical factual differences between your situation and those addressed in previous interpretations. Further, the agency's standards and regulations change from year to year, and past interpretations may no longer be applicable.

Interpretation letters are available from: NHTSA Technical Reference, Room 5108, 400 Seventh St., S. W., Washington, D.C. 20590. Phone number (202) 366-4941. Please be sure to reference 49 CFR part or NHTSA regulation being interpreted.

NHTSA's interpretation letters are available for viewing on the Internet at: "http:\\www.nhtsa.dot.gov". On the home page, click on "Table of Contents", then on "Regulations and Standards" under "NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search". Letters may be searched by "key words" such as date, name of addressee, or subject matter.

Finally, I note that in a June 29, 1993 letter to TTMA, I advised you that the "Anti Car Theft Act of 1992" resulted in adding Section 511, Altering or removing motor vehicle identification numbers, to Title 18 of the United States Code. Section 511 provides that whoever knowingly removes, obliterates, tampers with, or alters an identification number for a motor vehicle or motor vehicle part, for purposes other than repair, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both. It may be helpful to your members if Section 511 was mentioned somewhere in the recommended practice, perhaps in the section containing excerpts from NHTSA's legal interpretations.

COMMENTS ON RECOMMENDED PRACTICE NUMBER 53 "U. S. TRAILER CERTIFICATION LABEL"

3.1 References:

The correct title for Standard No. 120 is Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars and the correct title for Part 568 is Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages.

4.2 Certification Label ... Specifications:

4.2 should read as follows:

"The label must be affixed to a location on the forward half of the left side of the trailer such that it is easily readable from outside the trailer without moving any part of the trailer."

6.0 Certification Label Examples:

6.2 The example shown in S6.2 (certification label not combined with Std. 120 labeling requirements) provides the correct information in the correct order specified in Part 567. However, in the S6.2 example, the "Date of Manufacture" should read "Month and Year of Manufacturer", as specified at 49 CFR 567.4(g)(2). The information "All Axles 19,000 with 10.00-20(F) Tires" should be preceded by "Gross Axle Weight Rating [GAWR]".

6.8 In the example shown in S6.8, "Date of Manufacture" should read "Month and Year of Manufacture."

Excerpts from Rulemaking and Interpretations

On excerpts from interpretation letters, my earlier comments provided for Recommended Practice Number 56 also apply to this discussion.

I hope this information is helpful. If there are any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:565#567#120

d.9/11/97

ID: 15521.drn

Mr. Gerald Plante
Manager, Compliance & Technical Liaison
Saab Cars USA, Inc.
4405 - A International Blvd.
Norcross, GA 30093

Dear Mr. Plante:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether, in a vehicle identification number (VIN), the third position in the fourth section (the twelfth position overall) can be designated with an alphabetical letter, rather than a number. As provided below, the answer is yes.

NHTSA's VIN regulations are at 49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number Requirements. Section 565.6, Content requirements, states that the VIN consists of four sections of characters and describes each section. Section 565.6(d)(3) states that: "The third through the eighth characters of the fourth section [i.e., the twelfth through the seventeenth positions of the VIN] shall represent the number sequentially assigned by the manufacturer in the production process if the manufacturer produces 500 or more vehicles of its type annually." (Emphasis added.)

You state that Saab wishes to use an alphabetical letter in the twelfth position of the VIN to "denote the introduction of significant running changes" during a model year. As an example, if a significant running change is made in production beginning with the 25,001 produced vehicle, VIN positions twelve through seventeen would go from A25000 to B25001. Your letter states that positions thirteen through seventeen would remain as sequential serial numbers.

In a telephone conversation with George Entwistle and Dorothy Nakama of this agency, you explained that Saab manufactures fewer than 100,000 worldwide of any Saab model in any model year, and does not use the twelfth position for numbering its vehicles. You also stated that Saab does not wish to use a number in the twelfth position because those unfamiliar with the Saab VIN numbering system may look at the twelfth position and get the mistaken impression that 100,000 or 200,000 of a particular model have been manufactured.

For the following reasons, Saab may use the twelfth VIN position to designate significant running changes made in vehicle production during a model year. The views offered in this interpretation letter are limited to the twelfth VIN position. This letter is also limited to situations where fewer than 100,000 vehicles are manufactured for the U.S. market in a model year.

In a VIN, the twelfth through seventeenth positions (a total of six positions) are available so that manufacturers can number the production sequence of a particular vehicle model in the hundreds of thousands. Because Saab produces fewer than 100,000 of each of its models, the twelfth position presumably has an "0" occupying it. We do not believe there would be ambiguity about or misunderstanding of the meaning of the twelfth position if we permitted use of an alphabetical letter, instead of the 0. The twelfth through the seventeenth positions would "represent" the number sequentially assigned by the manufacturer in the production process, as required by 565.6(d)(3).

In allowing your use of a letter in the twelfth position for production of fewer than 100,000 vehicles, we considered that the purpose of the VIN is "to simplify vehicle identification information retrieval and to increase the accuracy and efficiency of vehicle recall campaigns." (49 CFR 565.1) Identifying significant running changes during the course of a model year could increase the accuracy and efficiency of recall campaigns by limiting the affected vehicles to those manufactured during a specified running change, rather than affecting the entire production run of a model during a model year.

If Saab uses the twelfth VIN position to designate running changes with alphabetical letters, it must comply with the following. Section 565.7(c) requires that manufacturers shall submit to NHTSA the information necessary to decipher the characters contained in its VINs. Amendments to the information shall be submitted to the agency for VINs containing an amended coding. Section 565.7(d) specifies that the information required under paragraph (c) shall be submitted at least 60 days prior to offering for sale the first vehicle identified by a VIN containing that information. Thus, you must inform NHTSA at least 60 days before the offer for sale of the first vehicle with a VIN containing a letter in the twelfth position. Also, Saab must ensure that the letters assigned in the twelfth position are sequentially assigned and are the letters specified in Section 565.4(g). Saab need not notify this agency every time a letter in the twelfth position is changed.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:565
d.8/4/97

ID: 15541.pad

Ms. Ginny Schafer
1790 Highgrove Dr.
Alpharetta, GA 30201

Dear Ms. Schafer:

This responds to your June 26, 1997, letter asking whether the "slipcover type product" you wish to make must meet Federal flammability standards. Your letter does not describe the product in detail, but presumably it would be used to protect the vehicle seat against wear and tear. You state that the slipcover "will be slipped on over the seat, and it will not interfere with seat belts or children's car seats. (There will be an opening in the fabric to accommodate seat belts.)" The product would be sold to consumers in the aftermarket for installation in their own vehicles.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, Congress has established a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the information set forth in your letter.

There currently is no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that directly applies to your product. Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, applies to new, completed vehicles and not to aftermarket items of equipment sold separately from a vehicle, such as a slipcover sold in the aftermarket. Thus, your aftermarket product need not meet Federal flammability requirements.

While no safety standard applies to your product, you should be aware that under 49 U.S.C. 30118-30121, each manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment (such as aftermarket vehicle seat slipcovers) is responsible for ensuring that its product is free of safety-related defects. If you or NHTSA determines that a safety related defect exists, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

In addition, 30122 of our statute prohibits motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative any part of a device or element of

design installed on or in a vehicle in compliance with the Federal safety standards. While it is unlikely that your product would be installed by persons listed in 30122, if a commercial entity does install it, it must ensure that the product does not undermine the vehicle's compliance with the flammability resistance requirements.

The prohibition of 30122 does not apply to individual owners who install equipment in their own vehicles. Thus, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles.

Because the slipcover is used with child seats and vehicle belts, you should ensure that the product not interfere with the performance of those safety systems. The opening on the slipcover for the belts must not restrict the belt's ability to remain taut or to tighten up in a crash. The slipcover should not have padding that can compress in a crash and introduce slack into the vehicle belt system. Excessive slack can cause the child seat to move too far out of the seating position in a crash, which can result in a greater likelihood the child's head would contact hard surfaces.

State or local jurisdictions might have their own requirements for the slipcover you wish to produce. For information about those requirements, you should contact the Department of Motor Vehicles in any state in which the equipment will be sold or used.

You identified two types of fabric by name and manufacturer and ask if they meet Federal flammability requirements. NHTSA does not test products before their sale, nor can we assure manufacturers that a particular supplier meets the Federal requirements. If you intend that your slipcovers meet flammability resistance requirements, which would be a decision we would encourage, you should contact the manufacturer of the fabric for information on conformance of the product.

If you have any other questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:213#302
d.8/21/97

ID: 15542.drn

Mr. Neil Henderson
General Manager
Concept Works, Inc.
55 Oscaleta Road
South Salem, NY 10590

Dear Mr. Henderson:

This responds to your July 1, 1997, request for an interpretation whether an emergency reflective triangle your company plans to distribute must meet Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 125 Warning devices. The answer is no.

Your letter states that the emergency reflective triangle will be distributed as part of a promotional road kit. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you stated that your company intends to distribute the kit to regular motorists, and not to commercial drivers.

Since October 31, 1994, Standard No. 125 has applied only to warning devices, without self-contained energy sources, that are designed to be carried in buses and trucks that have a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 10,000 pounds. Since your reflective triangle is intended for use with vehicles other than buses and trucks, Standard No. 125 does not apply to your triangle.

Please note that if your triangle does not meet all of Standard No. 125's specifications, you must ensure that the triangle is not marked with the symbol "DOT" and does not include the statement that the warning device complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

I hope this information is helpful. If you need further information, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:125
d:7/25/97

ID: 15566.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 July 7, 1997, asking for an interpretation of the headlighting requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Your letter contains a drawing of a headlamp with two light sources, two separate lens and separate aimable reflectors and one housing. You have asked whether a pair of these units would be regarded as a two-lamp or a four-lamp headlighting system for purpose of compliance with the photometric requirements of Figure 15 (four lamps) or Figure 17 (two lamps).

Because the two light sources are in a single housing, we regard your drawing as showing a single headlamp. Therefore, a system consisting of two of these lamps would be a two-lamp system, required to comply with the photometric requirements of Figure 17.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.8/11/97

ID: 15568.ztv

Mr. Walter E. Ellis
51 Silver Maple Way
Cincinnati, OH 45246

Dear Mr. Ellis:

This Office has received your letter of June 17, 1997, to the Office of Civil Rights of Handicapped, Department of Health, Chicago.

You are concerned about glare caused by upper beams of headlamps used during daylight hours, and believe that this deprives you of "the same civil rights of unrestricted vision" as would occur for wheelchair users were wheelchair ramps for stairs removed. You have asked for the procedure to exercise your civil rights and to correct the problem. You have also asked for a copy of "the law for the Civil Rights of the Handicapped."

This agency establishes the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards which apply to the manufacture of motor vehicles. One of these, Standard No. 108, covers motor vehicle lighting. After evaluating data from Scandinavian countries which indicated that daytime use of headlamps had the potential to reduce vehicle crashes, and subsequent to Canada's requiring them on all new vehicles sold there, we amended Standard No. 108 to permit a vehicle manufacturer to install "daytime running lamps" (DRL). Thus, the original intent of allowing DRLs was for its potential safety benefit.

Under the American DRL standard, a manufacturer may use any pair of front lamps for the DRL feature, other than parking lamps (too small to be effective) or fog lamps (too bright). If the manufacturer chooses to use the headlamps as a DRL, either the upper or lower beam may be used. The lower beam DRL may be operated either at full or reduced intensity, but a DRL using the upper beam must be operated at reduced intensity as you have noted. As we are beginning to learn from the increasing numbers of vehicles on the road with DRLs, DRLs on some vehicles have resulted in a number of complaints of glare. I assure you that we are aware of these concerns and that we are reviewing possible ways of addressing them.

You might also be interested to know that the owner of a vehicle with DRLs has the right to have the system disconnected. However, the owner cannot have the dealer otherwise modify the performance of the DRL system as installed.

Regarding your assertion that your civil rights may have been violated, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 794 and 794(a), and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12132, prohibit discrimination against any qualified individual with a disability, by reason of such disability. Specifically, these laws prohibit discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance, any program or activity conducted by an Executive agency, or any services, programs or activities of a public entity. The term "public entity" includes any State or local government or any department, agency, special purpose district, or other instrumentality of a State or States or local government.

If you believe there has been discrimination on the basis of your disability, you may file a complaint directly with the Department of Justice, who will refer it to an agency of the Federal government that has jurisdiction over the matter. Complaints must be filed no later than 180 days from the date of the alleged discrimination. Complaints may be filed on DOJ Form ADA-II No. 1190-007 (which may be requested by calling 202 514-0301) and should be forwarded to:

U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
Coordination and Review Section
P.O. Box 66118
Washington, D.C. 20035-6118

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

ID: 15590.ztv

Kiyoshi Narabu, General Manager
Technical Department
Ichikoh Industries, Ltd.
80 Itado, Isehara
Kanagawa, 259-11
Japan

Dear Mr. Narabu:

This is in reply to your letter of July 16, 1997, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, specifically, the final rule allowing visually/optically aimable headlamps, published on March 10, 1997 (62 FR 10710).

Your first question is:

Paragraph S7.8.2.1(c) states that a visually/optically aimable headlamp that has a lower beam shall not have a horizontal adjustment mechanism, unless the mechanism meets the requirements of S7.8.5.2. New paragraph S7.8.5.2(c) was added as part of the visually/optically aimable headlamp specifications on March 10, 1997. This new paragraph applies to headlamps equipped with VHADs manufactured for use on motor vehicles manufactured on and after September 1, 1998, and requires that the calibration be fixed. The headlamp you describe appears to incorporate a VHAD that will be used only on the headlamp, at the time the headlamp was manufactured, and is not intended to be used thereafter. We view this design as conforming to the requirement of S7.8.5.2(c) that calibration be permanently fixed.

Your second question is whether NHTSA's failure to amend S7.8.5.2(a)(2)(iv) is an oversight, since the preamble indicated that the paragraph would be changed to eliminate an inconsistency. Yes, this was an oversight which we shall correct shortly.

Finally, you have said that "S7.8.5.2(c) does not specify the application of calibration for horizontal VHAD device or vertical VHAD device," and asked whether the requirement applies only for the horizontal VHAD device. Effective with vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1998, S7.8.5.2(c) requires that each headlamp equipped with a VHAD have its calibration permanently fixed. The definition of VHAD in S4 of Standard No. 108, as amended on March 10, 1997 (62 FR at 10717) indicates that it is a device used for determining the horizontal aim of a headlamp, or vertical aim, or both horizontal and vertical aim. Thus, the prohibition will apply to any VHAD with which a headlamp will be equipped, horizontal, vertical, or both.

If you have any questions regarding this letter, you may contact Taylor Vinson of this Office (FAX 202-366-3820).

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.10/30/97

ID: 15591.jeg

Mr. Shintaro Nakatsuka
Vice President and General Manager
Mazda (North America), Inc.
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Suite 910
Washington, DC 20036

Dear Mr. Nakatsuka:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 208's requirements for passenger air bag manual cut-off devices. You note in your letter that S4.5.4.3 of the standard requires a telltale on the instrument panel to notify vehicle occupants when the passenger air bag has been deactivated by use of the manual cutoff device that is permitted in certain vehicles under the provisions of S4.5.4. You also note that S4.5.4.3(d) specifies that the telltale "shall not be illuminated at any time when the passenger air bag is not deactivated." You state that it is your belief that this specific prohibition would not apply to the illumination of the telltale for a brief period during a bulb check when the vehicle is started, and ask us to advise whether this is correct. As discussed below, your understanding is correct.

While Standard No. 208 does not address the subject of bulb checks for cut-off device telltales, the general subject of bulb checks for telltales is addressed in other safety standards. S5.3.1 of Standard No. 101 specifies for most telltales that "(a) telltale shall not emit light except when identifying the malfunction or vehicle condition for whose indication it is designed or during a bulb check upon vehicle starting." Moreover S5.3.2 of Standard No. 105 requires a bulb check function for brake indicator lamps.

We agree with your view that the concept of a bulb check is well understood by vehicle owners and operators and therefore, if a bulb check function was to be incorporated in the telltale required by S4.5.4.3, there would be no danger of confusion and it could possibly enhance the reliability of the manual cut-off switch device permitted by S4.5.4. Given general industry practice in this area and the treatment in other Federal motor vehicle safety standards of bulb checks for telltales, we agree that the prohibition in S4.5.4.3(d) of Standard No. 208 should be interpreted as not applying to the illumination of the cut-off device telltale for a brief period during a bulb check when the vehicle is started.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:208
d.10/20/97