Interpretation ID: 1982-1.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/30/82

FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: ARMOND CARDARELLI -- DIRECTOR, SAFETY EQUIPMENT SERVICE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF MOTOR VEHICLE ADMINISTRATORS

TITLE: NOA-30

TEXT: Dear Mr. Cardarelli:

The purpose of this letter is to call your attention to a practice of the AAMVA which we believe should be reviewed.

Recently we received copies of Certificate of Equipment Approval Nos. 800643, 800641, 800642, and 800193, rendered "Candle Power Inc." of Rockville, Maryland. In each instance, the Certificate describes the item as a "Motorcycle Headlamp Unit," specifies its use "on Motorcycles" and states that the unit is "in compliance with the United States Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108." It is the implications of AAMVA's certification of compliance that we question.

First of all, we believe that a legal certification of conformance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards can be made only by the manufacturer of the unit. We believe that the role of the independent test laboratories is to provide data indicating compliance upon which a manufacturer can base its certification, but that a single test report cannot alone establish certification. It has been the policy of this agency never to judge conformance on the basis of test results of a single lamp because of the multitude of test points to be met and variables in the manufacturing process and the quality control procedures of the individual manufacturers. Indeed, the agency has said that test failures will not lead to a noncompliance determination if they are "random" or "occasional." We therefore believe it is inappropriate for the AAMVA Certificate to state that a lamp conforms to Standard No. 108 when that statement is made on the basis of a single test report submitted by the manufacturer and when it is intended to cover production for five years after the issuance of the Certificate. On the other hand, it would not be inappropriate for the Certificate to state that the test report showed the unit in compliance with appropriate SAE requirements.

P2

With respect to Candlepower's headlamps, they are unsealed units which we believe to be intended primarily for use on passenger cars but which may also meet the requirements of J584 for motorcycle use. In our litigation presently pending against importers of these headlamps, we are taking the position that the manufacturer, with knowledge of the capacity for dual use of these headlamps, must certify conformance (in the words of 15 U.S.C. 1413) "with all applicable safety standards" which means standards applicable to both passenger car and motorcycle headlamps. We do not approve of a split certification whereby a headlamp capable of two end uses is certified only for one. We therefore view the AAMVA statement of compliance with Standard No. 108 inappropriate from this standpoint as well. On the other hand, it would not be inappropriate for the Certificate to state that the unit complies with SAE J584.

We request that AAMVA review its practice with regard to statements of Federal conformity on its approval certificates and that you provide us with its view.

Sincerely,