ID: 3268yy

Deborah K. Nowak-Vanderhoef, Esq.
General Motors Corporation
Legal Staff
New Center One Building
3031 West Grand Boulevard
P.O. Box 33122
Detroit, MI 48232

Dear Ms. Nowak-Vanderhoef:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR 571.209). Specifically, you asked if General Motors Corporation (GM) could include the term "dynamically-tested" in the label required by S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209. The answer is that GM may do so.

Prior to September 1, 1992, S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 requires a dynamically tested manual belt to be labeled with the following statement: "This dynamically-tested seat belt assembly is for use only in (insert specific seating position(s), e.g., front right) in (insert specific vehicle make(s) and model(s)). However, a November 4, 1991 final rule, published at 56 FR 56323, amended S4.6(b) by deleting the term "dynamically-tested" from the required label, effective September 1, 1992. GM would like to continue to include the term "dynamically-tested" on its labels.

NHTSA has often addressed the issue of whether additional information may be provided along with information that is required to be labeled on the product in the context of our safety standards that apply to tires. NHTSA has consistently stated that additional information may be included on tires, provided that the additional information "does not obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information, or otherwise defeat its purpose." See, e.g., our May 31, 1988 letter to Mr. Garry Gallagher of Metzeler Motorcycle Tire. This is the same test we would apply in any of our safety standards for additional information that is provided along with required labeling information.

Applying this test to the situation at hand, the purpose of the labeling requirements in Standard No. 209 is to minimize the likelihood of improper installations of dynamically-tested manual belts, by specifying the particular vehicles and seating positions in which the belts are designed to be installed. GM's proposed labels would provide the information about the particular vehicles and seating positions in which the belts are designed to be installed on the label of these belts. The only difference between GM's proposed labels and the exact language specified in S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 would be that GM's proposed labels would describe the belts as "dynamically-tested seat belt assemblies," instead of "seat belt assemblies." We do not see how this additional description of the belts, which is accurate and consistent with the agency's use of the term "dynamically-tested," would obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information or otherwise defeat its purpose. Therefore, GM's proposed labeling would be permitted under the provisions of S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 that take effect September 1, 1992.

Enclosed with your letter was a petition for reconsideration that you asked be considered if the agency determined that the current language of S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 prohibited the additional information to be provided on the GM labels. Since NHTSA has concluded that Standard No. 209 permits the additional information, we are disregarding that petition for reconsideration and will take no action on it.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

/ref:209 d:12/20/91

ID: 22382

Mr. Donald Myers
Haldex Brake Systems
10930 North Pomona Avenue
Kansas City, MO 64153-1297





Dear Mr. Myers:

This is in response to your letter of November 3, 2000, requesting information on Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 121, "Air Brake Systems." Specifically, you describe the following situation:

Haldex Brake Systems discovered that an internal component to the valve that controls the trailer supply pressure and the tractor parking brakes (made in 1997) was breaking after being in use for several years. This broken component resulted in the lack of separation of the two brake circuits. Haldex determined that this broken component resulted in the air brakes no longer complying with FMVSS No. 121, and that this broken component combined with a major leak in the brake system could result in total loss of the service brakes. Haldex initiated a recall and has been replacing the valves. Haldex has sought reimbursement from its supplier for the cost of the recall, but the supplier has refused, stating that FMVSS No. 121 applies to new motor vehicles only, not to "in service" motor vehicles.

You ask whether FMVSS No. 121 applies to "in service" motor vehicles. The answer is no. FMVSS No. 121 applies only to new motor vehicles. Operational regulations and requirements applicable to "in service" vehicles are administered by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). In addition, individual states may have their own requirements setting minimum "in service" equipment and performance standards for heavy trucks.

Moreover, and with direct applicability here, a manufacturer of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment has an obligation to remedy safety-related defects in its products. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. '30118(c), a manufacturer of a motor vehicle or replacement must notify the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) as well as owners, purchasers, and dealers if the manufacturer:

(1) learns the vehicle or equipment contains a defect and decides in good faith that the defect is related to motor vehicle safety; or

(2) decides in good faith that the vehicle or equipment does not comply with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard.

In addition, the manufacturer must remedy the defect or noncompliance free of charge (49 U.S.C. ' 30120(a)). In this case, the failure of the Haldex brake systems constitutes a defect that is related to motor vehicle safety.

The notification and remedy requirements of Chapter 301 are not generally applicable to suppliers of component parts that are then incorporated into items of motor vehicle equipment by an equipment manufacturer. In such instances, the responsibilities of the supplier are not governed by Chapter 301 and would be determined under other applicable law, such as contract law and the terms of any agreements between the supplier and the equipment manufacturer.

I hope you find this information useful. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Otto Matheke in the Office of the Chief Counsel at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:121
d.7/16/01

ID: 22692

Mr. Jeffrey D. Gonneville
Senior Project Technical Manager
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
80 Broadway
Everett, MA 02149





Dear Mr. Gonneville:

This is in reply to your recent letter concerning the requirements of Standard No. 121, Air brake systems, as they apply to large passenger buses equipped with a liquid crystal display (LCD) information panel. Your letter describes the LCD panel as a microprocessor controlled programmable display having the ability to display a number of conditions in the vehicle, including the air pressure present in the primary and secondary brake systems. You further state that the LCD display would be programmed so the default mode would be to show the primary and secondary brake system pressure. However, in the event that a malfunction or abnormal condition is detected by the vehicle's monitoring system, a message or warning would be displayed on the LCD in place of the brake pressure gauges until the vehicle operator acknowledges the fault and resets the display. Once the display is reset, the LCD will again go to the default mode and display the primary and secondary brake system pressure. In addition to the LCD, you describe the buses as having a traditional warning light and buzzer that will activate in the case of low brake system air pressure.

I am happy to have this opportunity to discuss the role of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in this matter. Under its statutory authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA issued Standard No. 121, "Air brake systems," which specifies minimum performance requirements for trucks, buses, and trailers equipped with air brake systems. Among other things, Standard No. 121 requires that vehicles be equipped with a pressure gauge for each service brake system (S5.1.4) and a warning device that gives continuous warning to a driver when the ignition is in the "on" or "run" position and the service reservoir system pressure is below 60 psi (S5.1.5).

The requirements for pressure gauges are found in S5.1.4 of Standard No. 121. Paragraph S5.1.4 requires a pressure gauge to be "readily visible" to a person seated in the normal driving position. It is the agency's position that in the context of Standard No. 121, "readily visible" means visible whenever the driver wants to see it. It does not mean that the air pressure level should be continuously visible. As we understand your system, the air pressure gauges will be "readily visible" unless a fault indicator or warning message appeared on the LCD. If this occurs, the driver could determine the air pressure at any time by pushing the "reset" button. We have concluded that this operation satisfies S5.1.4 and that your system would be permissible under that section.

A low pressure warning signal is required by paragraph S5.1.5 and must be separate from the pressure gauge. You state that the buses will have a separate warning light and an audible alarm. This would appear to conform to S5.1.5.

I hope that this is responsive to your inquiry. If you have any questions, please contact Otto Matheke of my staff at (202) 366-5253.

Sincerely,

John Womack,
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:121
d.7/16/01

ID: nht76-3.14

DATE: 04/14/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: National Automobile Theft Bureau

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 8, 1976, concerning "track sheets" and "autotels."

Section S4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, lists those components of a motor vehicle that must comply with burn resistance requirements. I have enclosed a copy for your information. An "autotel" under the back seat, between the frame and the body, or pasted to the top of the gas tank does not fall within the ambit of the standard. Consequently, it is our view that this most important and effective deterrent to vehicle theft is not discouraged by any existing motor vehicle safety standard.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has proposed that Standard No. 302 be amended to include all materials exposed to the occupant compartment air space. If this amendment is adopted, an "autotel" under the seat presumably would fall within the purview of the standard. In this case, the "autotel" could not burn at a rate of more than 4 inches per minute. We believe that this would not prove an impediment to the continuation of the "autotel" program as flame-retardant paper is readily available.

If I can be of further assistance in this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

SINCERELY,

NATIONAL AUTOMOBILE THEFT BUREAU

January 8, 1976

Dr. James Gregory, Administrator NYTSA Department of Transportation

We are writing this on behalf of our own investigative efforts as well as for law enforcement generally.

Each auto manufacturer in the United States when assembling a car uses what is called a track sheet or autotel. This piece of paper, and in some cases two pieces of paper, contains detailed information on the identification of various parts of the car being assembled and contains the numbers and information necessary to positively identify that vehicle.

Over the years, auto theft investigators, including our own investigators and those in law enforcement, have been able to identify hundreds of stolen cars by use of this material even though the numbers stamped into the frames and affixed to the dashboard have been changed or obliterated by thieves.

This paper is usually secreted in some portion of the vehicle, sometimes put under the back seat, sometimes between the frame and the body, and in one particular make of car is Scotch taped onto the top of the gas tank.

We have been informed that there is a possibility that this practice might be regarded as adding to the flammability of the interior of a car and, to our knowledge, at least one manufacturer has discontinued this invaluable aid to automobile identification because of the possibility that these tracks might be prohibited by regulation.

I would request that you consider the extreme value of the inclusion of auto tel in the vehicles and, also, consider the very minimum possibility of these contributing to any fire hazard in the car.

We would like a clarification of your Agency's position in this matter in order that we may request the manufacturers to continue these tracks.

We would appreciate any consideration you can give our request.

Michael J. Murphy President

cc: HON. WILLIAM T. COLEMAN -- SECY. OF TRANSPORTATION; HON. EDWARD LEVY -- ATTY. GENERAL; JOHN CARSON -- BRANCH CHIEF, CONTROLS & DISPLAYS, NHTSA

ID: nht92-4.47

DATE: August 6, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Mary C. Andrews

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/17/92 from Mary C. Andrews to NHTSA Legal Counsel (OCC 7439)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking whether a plastic cone design you are developing would comply with the Department of Transportation's requirements applicable to warning devices. You explained that your device is a 24 inch high inflatable cone with reflector strips on the sides. The cone would be weighted down with sand in an enclosed bottom. Based on the information provided in your letter, it appears that your device would not comply with certain provisions of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 125, Warning Devices (49 CFR 571.125, copy enclosed).

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., the "Safety Act") gives this agency the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 125. The Safety Act provides that no person shall "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States" any new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or item of equipment complies with the applicable standard. (See 15 U.S.C 1397(a)(1)(A).) NHTSA has no authority under the Safety Act to approve, certify, or otherwise endorse any commercial product. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a self-certification process under which each manufacturer is required to certify that each of its products meets all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. (See 15 U.S.C. 1403.) I am enclosing a general information sheet explaining NHTSA's regulations.

Standard No. 125 applies to devices, without self-contained energy sources, that are designed to be carried in motor vehicles and used to warn approaching traffic of the presence of a stopped vehicle, except for devices designed to be permanently affixed to the vehicle. See section S3. Your planned product appears to be such a device and would therefore need to comply with all of the requirements of Standard No. 125. As the enclosed copy of the standard indicates, your device would have to comply with specific requirements including those for minimum size, durability, material, container, labeling, configuration, color, reflectivity, luminance, and stability. From the information provided in your letter, it appears that your device would not comply with several of these requirements.

Please be aware that violations of Safety Act provisions are punishable by civil fines of up to $1,000 for each violation of a safety standard. In addition the Act requires manufacturers to remedy their products if they fail

to comply with any applicable safety standards.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standard, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Attachments

Copy of standard.

NHTSA information sheet titled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment.

NHTSA information sheet titled Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations.

(Text of attachments omitted.)

ID: nht91-1.49

DATE: February 22, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Samuel Yk Lau -- Kenwo Industries Ltd.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-24-91 from Samuel Yk Lau to NHTSA (OCC 5657)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of January 24, 1991, asking the agency for an opinion with respect to an "additional brake lamp" that you manufacture and intend to export to the United States. You ask "if there are any regulations, standards, or approval for this kind of product", and, further, "does this product need to have any certificate or approval before it can be sold or installed?"

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, has required the additional stop lamp on all passenger cars manufactured on and after September 1, 1985. The Standard specifies performance and minimum lens area requirements for the lamp, and these requirements must be met by any lamp that is used as original equipment on passenger cars, and by any lamp that is intended to replace a lamp originally installed on a car manufactured on and after September 1, 1985. If the lamp is intended as replacement equipment, its manufacturer must provide certification to the distributor or dealer of the lamp that the lamp meets Standard No. 108. For lighting equipment this certifica- tion may be in the form of a DOT symbol on the product, or a written statement on the packaging that the lamp meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, or such other written certification as the lamp manufacturer may choose (e.g., an invoice). In addition, the lamp manufacturer must file an identification Statement with the agency, and a foreign manufacturer must designate an agent in the United States upon which the agency may serve legal process should that be required. However, there is no requirement that a manufacturer obtain approval from the agency before exporting its certified product to the United States and selling it here.

However, Standard No. 108 does not apply to an additional stop lamp that is intended for use in a passenger car manufactured before September 1, 1985, and there is no requirement that it be certified as meeting Standard No. 108. Under this circumstance, we advise that the packaging for any such lamp should clearly state that it is not intended to replace an original equipment center lamp so that legal questions regarding its conformity with Federal requirements do not arise. Even though the lamp is not subject to Standard No. 108, its foreign manufacturer must designate an agent in the United States, as mentioned in the previous paragraph.

An additional stop lamp for passenger cars manufactured before September 1, 1985, is also subject to the laws of the individual States in which the lamp is sold and used. We are unable to advise you on these laws, and suggest that you write for an opinion to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203, USA.

We enclose a copy of Standard No. 108 and of the SAE standard on supplementary stop lamps that is incorporated by reference. We are also enclosing copies of the Manufacturer Identification and Designation of Agent regulations, and of other materials that our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance provides in response to inquiries of this nature. Questions on these materials should be addressed to that Office.

ID: nht91-7.50

DATE: December 20, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Deborah K. Nowak-Vanderhoef, Esq. -- General Motors Corporation, Legal Staff

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-2-91 from Deborah K. Nowak-Vanderhoef to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 6728)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR S571.209). Specifically, you asked if General Motors Corporation (GM) could include the term "dynamically-tested" in the label required by S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209. The answer is that GM may do so.

Prior to September 1, 1992, S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 requires a dynamically tested manual belt to be labeled with the following statement: "This dynamically-tested seat belt assembly is for use only in (insert specific seating position(s), e.g., front right) in (insert specific vehicle make(s) and model(s)). However, a November 4, 1991 final rule, published at 56 FR 56323, amended S4.6(b) by deleting the term "dynamically-tested" from the required label, effective September 1, 1992. GM would like to continue to include the term "dynamically-tested" on its labels.

NHTSA has often addressed the issue of whether additional information may be provided along with information that is required to be labeled on the product in the context of our safety standards that apply to tires. NHTSA has consistently stated that additional information may be included on tires, provided that the additional information "does not obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information, or otherwise defeat its purpose." See, e.g., our May 31, 1988 letter to Mr. Garry Gallagher of Metzeler Motorcycle Tire. This is the same test we would apply in any of our safety standards for additional information that is provided along with required labeling information.

Applying this test to the situation at hand, the purpose of the labeling requirements in Standard No. 209 is to minimize the likelihood of improper installations of dynamically-tested manual belts, by specifying the particular vehicles and seating positions in which the belts are designed to be installed. GM's proposed labels would provide the information about the particular vehicles and seating positions in which the belts are designed to be installed on the label of these belts. The only difference between GM's proposed labels and the exact language specified in S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 would be that GM's proposed labels would describe the belts as "dynamically-tested seat belt assemblies," instead of "seat belt assemblies." We do not see how this additional description of the belts, which is accurate and consistent with the agency's use of the term "dynamically-tested," would obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information or otherwise defeat its purpose.

Therefore, GM's proposed labeling would be permitted under the provisions

of S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 that take effect September 1, 1992.

Enclosed with your letter was a petition for reconsideration that you asked be considered if the agency determined that the current language of S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 prohibited the additional information to be provided on the GM labels. Since NHTSA has concluded that Standard No. 209 permits the additional information, we are disregarding that petition for reconsideration and will take no action on it.

ID: 77-1.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/26/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 21, 1976, asking whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment applies to fog lamps installed on the rear of passenger cars.

No requirements of Standard No. 108 apply to fog lamps and they are subject to regulation by the individual states. Pursuant to S4.1.3, however, they may be prohibited if they impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108.

You also asked that, absent inclusion of these lamps in Standard No. 108, your letter be treated as a petition "for rulemaking to amend Standard No. 108 to include such lighting requirements . . . for optional use on passenger cars." Your submission does not meet the requirements of our procedural regulations, a copy of which I enclose. Specifically, pursuant to 49 CFR 552.4(c) you should "set forth facts which it is claimed establish that an order is necessary." Among these facts should be reasons why you are petitioning for "optional" rather than mandatory use on passenger cars, and why other vehicles are not included in your petition (if, in fact true).

SINCERELY,

MERCEDES - BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA. INC.

December 21, 1976

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of the Chief Counsel

Subject: Request for Interpretation FMVSS 108

FMVSS 108 specifies performance requirements for certain lamps, reflective devices and associated equipment for use on passenger cars. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. hereby requests interpretation as to whether or not this standard applies to the performance and installation of fog lamps installed on the rear of passenger cars.

This request for interpretation specifically concerns those fog lamps currently used in Europe and subject to EEC regulations, a copy of which is enclosed for your review.

These requirements include a minimum candela output of 150 cd to a maximum of 300 cd measured at any test point within +/- 10 degrees right and left of the lamp axis and +/- 5 degrees up and down on the vertical axis.

The effective projected luminous area for these types of lamps is 140 sq. cm (21.7 sq. in.) maximum. These lamps are wired so as to be switched on with the headlamps and front fog lamps. The color emitted from the lamp when lighted is red within the appropriate SAE-CIE coordinates. The lamp is installed on/or at the rear of the vehicle, left of the centerline, no closer than 100 mm from the stop lamp.

Should this type of lighting device be subject to the current requirement of FMVSS 108, an interpretation is requested as to which aspect of performance this lamp should be designed.

Should this type of lighting device not be subject to the above standard, Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. hereby petitions for rulemaking to amend Standard 108 to include such lighting requirements as previously described for optional use on passenger cars.

Samples of these types of lighting devices can be made available for review and testing. Should additional data be necessary to further evaluate this type of lighting system as currently regulated by EEC, please do not hesitate to contact this office.

HEINZ W. GERTH

ID: nht89-2.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/29/89

FROM: SAMUEL K. SKINNER -- DOT

TO: ERNEST F. HOLLINGS -- CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION UNITED STATES SENATE

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/24/89 EST; FROM JEFFREY R. MILLER -- NHTSA TO MICHAEL E. KASINER -- NATIONAL TRUCK EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATION; REDBOOK A34, STANDARD 204; LETTER DATED 08/01/89 FROM MICHAEL E. KASTNER -- NATIONAL TRUCK EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATI ON; TO SAMUEL K. SKINNER -- DOT, OCC 3809; LETTER DATED 08/26/87 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO TAK FUJITANI

TEXT: Dear Mr. Chairman:

Thank you for your letter, co-signed by other members of the Senate Commerce Committee, concerning the issuance of certain safety standards for light trucks and vans ("LTV's"), including sport utility vehicles. I share your interest in ensuring that occ upants of these vehicles are well protected. As I stated in my confirmation hearing, I place a high priority on the safety of all our transportation systems including motor vehicles used for personal travel. I wish to assure you that the Department is moving expeditiously to improve vehicle safety, including rulemaking for additional LTV safety standards.

The Department has carefully reviewed those passenger-car safety standards which do not currently apply to LTV's, as evidenced by our reports to Congress in May 1987 and April 1988. As noted in those reports, we are committed to prompt rulemaking action s and decisions. Specifically, the Department's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has already issued Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to require both head restraints and rear-seat lap/should belts in LTV's, and an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to require side-impact protection in LTV's. In addition, NHTSA is currently preparing an NPRM to establish a minimum roof-crush resisance standard for LTV's.

In each of these four areas -- head restraints, side-impact protection, roof-crush resistance, and rear-seat lap/shoulder belts -- I expect to begin discussions within the Administration during the next 90 days on our recommendations for the next rulemak ing actions to be taken. These discussions will also address an NPRM to require automatic occupant protection for LTV's. I will advise you of the conclusion of these discussions.

NHTSA is also analyzing the research on how to enhance brake light performance on these vehicles, and expects to make a decision on requiring additional stop lamps by the end of the summer. Lastly, NHTSA has already granted a petition for rulemaking to d evelop a rollover protection standard and has a comprehensive data collection and research program under way to provide the basis for an effective regulation. Most of that research should be completed by year's end, and I assure you that we will not tol erate delays in the research schedule.

We note that the Department has initiated these and other vehicle safety rulemaking proceedings under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which provides a solid, effective, legal framework for these activities. Therefore, we do not believe that specific legislative mandates and timetables for LTV rulemaking projects are necessary or appropriate.

In closing, I appreciate your concern for improving the safety of vehicles and highway travel. Please be assured that this Department will continue to take whatever actions are needed to assure further progress in highway safety.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-3.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/12/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: GEORGE ZIOLO -- DOT PAPERWORK PROCESSOR

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 04/20/88 TO ERIKA Z. JONES FROM GEORGE ZIOLO RE HEADLAMP COMBINATIONS-REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION, FMVSS 108; OCC - 1932;

TEXT: Dear Mr. Ziolo:

This is in reply to your letter of April 20, 1988, asking about the acceptability under Safety Standard No. 108 of modifying imported vehicles so that they are equipped with two Type 2D1 and two Type 1C1 headlamps. You have been informed by the agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance that this is impermissible "because they are 'nonconforming' 'headlight systems'." You disagree because you believe that the minimum requirements of the Standard are satisfied by the Type 2D1 lamps, and that "S4.4 app ears to permit such a combination."

Paragraph S4.4 is not applicable to the situation you present as it refers to combinations of lamps serving different functions; in your discussion, the lamps serve the identical function of headlighting. Given the fact that the Type 2D1 sealed beam 7" diameter headlamps fulfill the headlighting requirements of the Standard, your question must be viewed as whether a supplement to the headlighting system is permissible under Standard No. 108.

Paragraph S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108 permits the addition of nonrequired lighting equipment provided it does not impair the effectiveness of the equipment that the standard requires. The two Type 1C1 5 3/4" diameter sealed beam lamps in a four lamp head lighting system form the major portion of an upper beam headlighting system. The two Type 2D1 lamps in a two lamp headlighting system form the whole of an upper beam headlighting system. Thus, a vehicle furnished with the systems you posit would be equ ipped with more than one upper beam headlighting system. The Type 2D1 system must be designed to conform to the photometric requirements of SAE Standard J579c DEC79 "Sealed Beam Headlamp Units for Motor Vehicles." The SAE Standard establishes at two tes t points, H-V and 4 D-V, maximum allowable candela of 75,000 and 5,000 respectively for each Type 2D1 headlamp. This means that the maximum allowable candela for headlighting systems at these test points is 150,000 and 10,000 candela. The Type 1C1 head lamps will also be designed to conform to SAE J579c. Corresponding maxima at test points H-V and 4 D-V for Type 1C1 systems are 60,000 and 5,000. Thus, a vehicle equipped

with the lamps you have described could emit a total of 270,000 candela at test point H-V (when only 150,000 is permitted), and 20,000 at 4D-V (when only 10,000 is allowable).

Agency research has shown that candela readings in excess of 150,000 greatly increase the potential for glare with little increase in seeing ability. This glare would be visible both to the driver of an oncoming car, and the driver of the modified vehic le itself through creation of a "veiling" glare. The addition of the Type 1C1 headlamps would therefore impair the effectiveness of the Type 2D1 headlighting system, and is forbidden by S4.1.3.

We appreciate your interest in safety.

Sincerely,