ID: nht90-3.62

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/22/90

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: HANNO WESTERMANN--HELLA KG HUECK & CO.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 2-6-87 TO DR. BURGETT FROM HANNS-OUTFRIED WETERMANN; ALSO ATTACHED TO GRAPHS (INFORMATION OMITTED)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter to Dr. Burgett of this agency with respect to "multi bulb devices", specifically "how the requirements for one-, two-, or three compartment lamps (lighted sections) as it is documented in FMVSS No. 108, Figure 1b have to b e interpreted. . . ." You have asked this question because "Hella would like to equip motor vehicles with signalling devices which have--opposite to conventional lamps--a great number of replaceable miniature bulbs instead of e.g. one 32 cp bulb." Your question assumes that Standard No. 108 is to be interpreted in a manner that equates the number of lighted sections with the number of bulbs providing the light. Finally, you have stated that the total area of the lamp is not larger than current one-co mpartment lamps.

We regret the delay in responding to your letter, but we have recently completed rulemaking, begun in September 1988, which is relevant to your question. On May 15, 1990, an amendment to Standard No. 108 was published, effective December 1, 1990, the ef fect of which is to restrict Figure lb to replacement equipment. I enclose a copy of the amendment for your information.

Your question relates to "signalling devices" for new motor vehicles, and Figure lb shows that, specifically, you refer to turn signal lamps. Beginning December 1, 1990, Standard No. 108 will specify two different standards for turn signal lamps. If the lamp is intended for use on multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, and trailers whose overall width is 80 inches or more, it must be designed to conform to SAE Standard J1395 APR85 "Turn Signal Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles 2032 mm or More in Overall Width." SAE J1395 also provides that these lamps may be used on vehicles less than this width, except for passenger cars. If a motor vehicle is not equipped with a turn signal lamp designed to conform to SAE J1395, it must be equipped with a t urn signal lamp designed to conform to SAE Standard J588 NOV84 "Turn Signal Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles Less Than 2032 mm in Overall Width."

In the May 1990 amendments, section S3 of Standard No. 108 was amended to add a definition for "Multiple Compartment Lamp". such a lamp is "a device which gives its indication by two or more separately lighted areas which are joined by one or more common parts, such as a housing or lens." The multiple bulb device that you described appears to meet this definition.

SAE J1395 establishes luminous intensity minima and maxima photometric requirements without reference to either compartments or lighted sections, and all that is required is for the lamp to comply at the individual test points specified. New section S5. 1.1.31 clarifies that measurements of a multiple compartment turn signal lamp on vehicles to which SAE J1395

applies are to made for the entire lamp and not for the individual compartments.

However, SAE J588 NOV84 continues to specify different minimum photometric requirements for one, two, and three "lighted sections". Because the SAE does not prescribe photometric requirements for more than three lighted sections, we have concluded that any device that contains more than three lighted sections need only comply with the requirements prescribed for three lighted sections.

I hope that this is responsive to your request.

ID: nht90-3.63

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/22/90

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: JACK RADEMACHER -- CHIEF ENGINEER, POLAR TANK TRAILER, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 5-8-90 TO S. P. WOOD FROM J. RADEMACHER; (OCC 4776)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of May 8, 1990, to Stephen P. Wood of this Office, asking for reconsideration of a recent interpretation of Standard No. 108.

We assume you mean our letter of January 9, 1990, to Howard Kossover of Oklahoma City. That interpretation stated that if rear lamps on a semi-trailer were mounted 27 inches forward of the rear edge of the vehicle, they were not mounted "on the rear", t he location specified by Standard No. 108. We also observed that compliance with the 45-degree visibility requirements in that location appeared questionable. You say that it has long been the practice of the Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association (TT MA) and its members that "if the 45 degree visibility requirement of these lights were met 'on the rear' of the trailer both inboard and outboard, the manufacturer met the intent of the standard." You inform us that the liquid bulk transport industry is especially affected by this interpretation because of reasons of practicality unique to tank transports. On these vehicles, you state that the rear lamps have been "mounted as far as 36 inches forward from the rear of the bumper", but that, in this loca tion, they "still maintain the 45 degree visibility requirements." You therefore ask for reconsideration of the interpretation if the 45 degree visibility requirements are met.

The lamps in your letter (and Mr. Kossover's) are stop, turn signal, and tail lamps. Only the tail lamps are presence lamps. The stop lamps and turn signal lamps operate independently of the headlamps. That is to say, they are intended for use at all times and not just at night or under other conditions of reduced visibility. They indicate actions taken by the vehicle operator to signal his operational intentions to other drivers and pedestrians. Problems with depth perception of following drivers could result if the lamps are not mounted "on the rear" as the standard requires. We are willing to interpret "on the rear" as meaning the trailing edge of the rear fender, which may not extend as far rearward as the bulk tank container, provided the vi sibility requirements are met, but we conclude that a mounting location for stop and turn signal lamps that is 36 inches forward from the rear of the bumper is not "on the rear" as the standard requires.

ID: nht90-3.64

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 22, 1990

FROM: M. Iwase -- General Manager, Technical Administration Dept., Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd.

TO: Erika Z. Jones -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re FMVSS No. 108 (Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment) Procedure of Re-calibration for Replaceable Bulb Headlamp with VHAD

ATTACHMT: Attached to diagram entitled Re-Calibration Procedures in The Shops (graphics omitted); Also attached to letter dated 10-3-90 from P.J. Rice to M. Iwase (A36; Std. 108)

TEXT:

FMVSS No. 108 specifies in S7.7.5.2(a)(2)(iv) that the horizontal indicator of VHAD shall be capable of re-calibration over a movement of +-2.5 degrees.

We would like to confirm your interpretation concerning the method and procedures of re-calibration on the vehicle after repair from accident damage.

Enclosed please find a copy of Federal Register dated February 8, 1990 (Page 4425 and 4426), in which NHTSA interprets, as follows;

If the dimensional specifications of vehicle body and appropriate instruction are described in shop manual, re-calibration could be addressed.

However, we don't believe that the method mentioned in the NHTSA's interpretation is practicable, with the following reasons;

(1) There may be some case that linear measurement of distance will be unable to be taken between reference points on vehicle body and headlamp units, owing to interruption of some other parts in engine room.

(2) Even if possible to measure linearly, we are afraid that it will be difficult to measure it precisely.

Therefore we are going to adopt a method of addressing for re-calibration in which headlamp with it's lens being masked partially are lit and visually aimed with the help of photometric beam pattern on the screen. (see Fig. 1 and the enclosed pictures). Our experiment proved that the visually aiming by photometric beam pattern be practicable.

We are fully aware that this method needs some space of 3 meters or so between illuminated headlamps and the scren (see Fig. 2) for clear image of beam pattern, which is not necessarily possible to accomodate in every case.

Therefore we are preparing Shop Manual in which both methods of NHTSA's dimensional data and our proposing visual aiming by photometric beam pattern are prescribed, and presenting the optional alternative of the above two methods. We intend to provide a masking sheet for the visual aiming, with Shop Manual.

We would be greatly appreciate it if you would kindly advise us whether our proposal could go along with NHTSA's intention.

Thanking you for your kind and prompt reply, in advance, we remain, with best regard, yours very truly.

Attachment is entitled Re-Calibration Procedures in The Shops (graphics omitted).

ID: nht90-3.65

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/23/90

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: JEFF CORNELL -- ENGINEERING, THE BARGMAN COMPANY

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 7-25-90 TO T. VINSON--NHTSA, FROM J. CORNELL; (OCC 5035; ALSO ATTACHED TO DOCKET SEARCH REPORT (INFORMATION OMITTED)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of July 25, 1990, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking for clarification of the amendments to Standard No. 108 which were published on May 15 of this year.

With reference to section S5.1.1.31, requiring photometric measurement of the entire lamp (and not its individual compartments), you have asked whether this includes the maximums because the preamble to the final rule discussed the requirement only in te rms of the minimums.

Section S5.1.1.31 refers unqualifiedly to "measurements" of photometrics, and thus includes maximums as well as minimums. The preamble spoke of minimums only as an example, and was not intended to exclude maximums. I am sorry if this caused some confus ion.

You have also pointed out that the preamble refers to a minimum luminous lens area of 12 square inches for certain lamps, while the applicable SAE standards that Standard No. 108 incorporates by reference state the minimum as 75 square centimeters, which is only 11.625 square inches. You request a clarification of this point.

The appropriate value is 75 square centimeters (11.625 square inches). As a general rule of construction, the text of a standard constitutes the legal requirements which apply. When a value is clearly stated, as in the SAE materials, it takes precedenc e over an inconsistent value appearing outside the standard, such as in the preamble to the May 15 amendments. The earlier versions of the SAE standards (which the new SAE materials supersede for new motor vehicle equipment) spoke in terms of 12 square i nches, and the agency retained this non-metric terminology for purposes of discussing in the preamble the difference between the old and new requirements. Although the SAE could have adopted a value of 77.42 square centimeters (12 square inches) in its new materials, it chose to round the value off to 75 square centimeters, thereby reducing its previously specified minimum luminous lens area by .375 square inch.

With respect to another concern, you have presented the hypothetical of the use "in a molded bumper or fiberglass cap" of three identical single compartment stop lamps per side, none of whose individual luminous lens areas meets the 75 square centimeter requirement, but which, in combination, would exceed it. You have asked whether this would comply with the new requirements.

Our answer is no. On may 15, Standard No. 108 was also amended to add a definition for "Multiple lamp arrangement." (S3). This is "an array of two or more separate lamps on each side of the vehicle which operate together

to give a signal." Paragraph 5.3.2 of the newly-incorporated SAE Standard J1398 MAY85 for stop lamps on wide vehicles states in pertinent part that "The functional lighted lens area of a single lamp ... and each lamp of a multiple lamp arrangement shall be at least 75 square centimeters." The configuration you describe is a "multiple lamp arrangement" and each lamp in the array is subject to the minimum specified requirement.

You further ask, if "the vendor making these lights mounts the individual lights in a molded housing", whether this would create a "multiple compartment lamp", and if so, "then how is it different if it is installed into a molded bumper or fiberglass cap ." The definition of "Multiple compartment lamp" adopted on May 15 states that it is "a device which gives its indication by two or more separately lighted areas which are joined by one or more common parts, such as a housing or lens."

Multiple lamps cannot be combined to create a "multiple compartment lamp". If the individual lamps are mounted in a molded housing, they remain "an array of two or more separate lamps on the same side of the vehicle which operate together to give a signa l", that is to say, a "multiple lamp arrangement." The "lighted areas" of a "multiple compartment lamp" are something less than a complete lamp, but, when joined by common parts become a single lamp. The configuration you describe is not a "multiple co mpartment lamp."

If you have any further questions, we shall be pleased to answer them.

ID: nht90-3.66

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 24, 1990

FROM: Mr. and Mrs. Albert J. Fasel

TO: Arthur H. Neill, Jr. -- Chief, Crash Avoidance Division, Office of Vehicle Safety

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to drawing entitled "Eye-Level Turn Signal" (graphics omitted); Also attached to letter dated 9-25-90 from P.J. Rice to Mr. and Mrs. A.J. Fasel (A36; Std. 108); Also attached to copy of Standard No. 111 (text omitted)

TEXT:

Thank you for sending the Rules and Regulations.

In the Safety Standard No. 108, could you give us a positive interpretation that says there is no law or regulation that prohibits turn signals being amber and in no way is an impairment to the function of the center high mounted red stop lamp.

Red is used on a traffic signal and amber is always caution. This idea has been used for years. For 80 years, they used red tail lights exclusively. Not until recently have they incorporated amber into their signals.

On Page 48237, a field test results shows a signal lamp design more effective.

On Page 48239, to Delay Safety Standard No. 108 to await new improvements will result in delay of implementing requirements known to appreciably reduce accidents and save lives.

This draws your attention. You know the vehicle ahead is slowing or stopping, with the addition of the amber turn signals, you would also know if the car is going to turn.

In conclusion we feel the principals that apply to the center high mounted red stop lamp applys to the amber eye-level turn signals and merits this improvement.

Please give this some expert consideration and reply.

Enclosed is a picture. We have a photo-type and to really see its effectiveness it has to be seen in action.

"EYE-LEVEL TURN SIGNAL" Albert J. Fasel - #P3788

ABSTRACT:

This invention relates to automotive turning signals and in particular to a signal that is used in conjunction with the rear bumper signal lights. The signal is mounted in the rear window of the vehicle. Two different models are used. One model for use with an already existing rear window

light or without one. The unit would straddle the already existing light or it comes with a brakelight if there is not one. By using this it aids in seeing the directional in poor weather conditions such as bright sun, rain, snow or fog.

MARKETS & DISTRIBUTION:

Based on the effectiveness, efficiency, safety and convenience, market potential is good. It could be sold through parts & accessories retailers and wholesalers, miscellaneous merchandise stores, department stores and mail order catalogs.

STATUS:

This invention is currently Patent Pending.

This invention now has a Patent No. 4,896,250 issued Jan. 23rd, 1990.

ID: nht90-3.67

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 27, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Carol Zeitlow -- Manager, Engineering Services, Oshkosh Truck Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Letter dated 8-1-90 to T. Vincon from C. Zeitlow; (OCC 5067); also attached to photocopies of Federal Register (text omitted)

TEXT:

This in reply to your letter of August 1, 1990, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, with respect to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You ask for confirmation that "the hazard warning light should always over-ride the stop lamp" when they are "together on a vehicle." I am pleased to provide that confirmation. Under the relevant SAE materials on stop lamps that are incorporated by ref erence in Standard No. 108, when a stop signal is optically combined with the turn signal, the circuit shall be such that the stop signal cannot be turned on if the turn signal is flashing. Because the hazard warning system operates through the turn sig nal lamps, the stop signal cannot be turned on in an optically combined lamp if the hazard system is in use.

You have also noted that in your version of Standard No. 108, no reference is made to SAE Standard J1395. It was not until May 15 of this year that Standard No. 108 was amended to incorporate SAE J1395 (with an effective date of December 1, 1990). I en close a copy of that amendment for your information.

If you have any further questions, we shall be pleased to answer them.

ID: nht90-3.68

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 27, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Heracilio R. Prieto -- President, Easton Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-22-89 from H.R. Prieto to E. Jones (OCC 3378); Also attached to literature entitled Codedge Label Dating Machine (text omitted)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking about the marking and labeling requirements in Standard No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids (49 CFR 571.116). You asked whether you could comply with the requirement in Standard No. 116 that each brake fluid container be labeled with a "serial number identifying the packaged lot and date of packaging" by means of a "label notch coding system," which you described as a mechanical device which permanently notches a label. Standard No. 116 does not prohibit the use of a label notch coding system provided that it is not susceptible to being torn. However, any label notch coding system must be permanent and unambiguous, and satisfy all other relevant provisions of the standard.

Section S5.2 of Standard No. 116 sets forth packaging and labeling requirements for brake fluid containers. Section S5.2.2.2 requires each packager of a brake fluid to include information that is either "marked" directly on the container or marked on a label that is "permanently affixed to the container." Section S5.2.2.2(a)-(g) sets forth the specific information that must appear directly on or be labeled on every brake fluid container. Section S5.2.2.2(d) requires that the container be marked with "a serial number identifying the packaged lot and date of packaging."

Information about the label notch coding system enclosed with your letter and samples of your notched labels show that you use the system known as "code-dating," which uses uniquely spaced notches to represent a code that can be translated into a packagi ng date by means of a "Codedge decoder card." With this number or date represented by notches, tbe number could be traced by the packager to the packaging date and lot number through its production quality control records. While the "Codedge" system on ly identifies the year of manufacturing by means of a single digit, your recent letter indicates that an additional notch will be added to identify the decade.

With respect to the label notch coding system, if the notches clearly identified the packaged lot and date of packaging, the combination would be a "serial number" and would appear to comply with the requirement of S5.2.2.2(d).

I would also like to note that section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1407) requires every manufacturer to certify that its products comply with all applicable safety standards. For this reason, this agency has no au thority to approve, endorse, or offer assurances of compliance with respect to any system of labeling brake

fluid containers.

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

ID: nht90-3.69

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 27, 1990

FROM: William Shapiro -- Manager, Regulations and Compliance, Volvo Cars of North America

TO: Paul J. Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re FMVSS 210, Request for Interpretation

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-9-90 from P.J. Rice to W. Shapiro (A36; Std. 210)

TEXT:

Section 4.3.2 of FMVSS 210 sets forth the anchorage location requirements for the upper torso portion of type 2 seat belt assemblies. Section 3 defines seat belt anchorage as the provision for transferring seat belt assembly loads to the vehicle structu re.

Volvo is currently designing a type 2 seat belt assembly for the rear seating positions of a proposed vehicle. The retractor is mounted within the seat back, in order to improve the seat belt geometry, to increase the comfort of the occupants, and to al low movement of the seat back. The retractor is located outside of the zone specified in Section 4.3.2, figure 1. However, the shoulder portion of the belt travels from the retractor through a device we are calling a "belt anchor", which is the functio nal equivalent of a d-ring. Kindly see the attached drawings, Appendices A & B, for clarity.

The belt anchor is located within the specified zone. Its function is to transfer the seat belt assembly load to the vehicle structure, and to determine the angle the belt crosses the vehicle occupant.

This belt anchor complies with the force requirements of the standard. Please see the attached drawings, Appendices C, D & E for the forces in the proposed design. For comparison, Appendices F & G show the forces on a current vehicle.

Volvo believes that a correct interpretation of FMVSS 210 in this case is that the belt anchor is the upper anchorage point for this seat belt system. Please confirm this for us.

Our engineers must finalize the design by this Fall. As such, we respectfully request that you reply by November 1, 1990.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. Should you have any questions, kindly contact Linda Gronlund of my office at 201-767-4815.

ID: nht90-3.7

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 5, 1990

FROM: Robert H. Jones -- President, Triple J Motors Saipan, Inc.

TO: Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance Enforcement, NHTSA

TITLE: Re REF: 2013-138

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-11-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Robert H. Jones (A37; VSA Sec. 103(8)); Also attached to letter dated 1-22-91 from Robert H. Jones to Clive Van Orden (OCC 5733); Also attached to letter dated 12-11-90 from Robert H. J ones to Clive Van Orden; Also attached to letter dated 10-11-90 from Robert H. Jones to Congressman Ben Blaz; Also attached to letter dated 7-6-89 from Bob Jones to Congressman Ben Blas

TEXT:

I have written letters to you in the past regarding the FMVSS compliance in the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands (CNMI), but have never seen any action.

It is my understanding that the FMVSS apply in full force to the CNMI. As such, I have dutifully refrained from bringing in nonconforming vehicles. Due to the apparent complete failure of any local enforcement (as admitted by local officials--see enclos ed letter), my competitors are not so constrained and are engaging in what seems like unfair competition by bringing in cheap nonconforming vehicles.

Now it is okay with me if you have no interest in "compliance enforcement" in the CNMI. Perhaps it's better for the people? I can get the cheap nonconforming cars too. All I want is a level playing field, and to know the rules. Will I get compliance enforcement? Or should I join the competition and bring in the vehicles that do not comply?

Attachment

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Office of the Governor Capitol Hill, Saipan MP/USA 96950 The Honorable Ben Blaz Phone: (670) 322-5091/2/3 Member of Congress Telefax: (670) 322-5096/99 1130 Longworth House Office Building Telex: 783-622 Gov.NMIWashington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Blaz:

Re: Triple J Motors - Bob Jones - Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) Applicability to the CNMI

We reply to your letter to us of October 5, 1990. You explain that Mr.

Bob Jones, of Triple J Motors, has a problem. It goes like this. Triple J, apparently, makes sure all the vehicles it imports and registers in the Commonwealth are in compliance with the FMVSS. Triple J fears possible federal enforcement action or. po ssibly worse, a customer law suit arising

from an auto accident and grounded on the company's failure to sell cars safety equipped to federal standards.

Compliance with these standards raises Triple J's investment in the automobiles so equipped. This added investment must be taken into consideration when Triple J sets its retail prices. Triple J's competitors in the Commonwealth, by design or accident, don't uniformly follow the federal standards. The competitor's retail prices need not, therefore, include consideration of the added cost of equipping vehicles for compliance with the FMVSS. Because of this, Triple J feels at a competitive disadvantag e in the market place. Triple J seeks a level playing field: It wants all CNMI automobile dealers compelled to follow the federal safety rules or, alternatively, that none of them including itself, be compelled to follow the rules.

Mr. Jones asks you for help. What would he have you do? He wants you to see to it that the CNMI enforces the FMVSS or he wants you to obtain a declaration, preferably from the U.S. Attorney and the Department of Transportation, that the federal safety standards don't apply in the CNMI. Before taking action, you ask for our comments and views. Here they are.

We only enforce laws that apply in the CNMI. Do these federal safety standards apply in the CNMI? By our Covenant with the United States, we were obliged to except federal laws that applied to Guam and the several states as of January 9, 1978. Federal enabling legislation behind the FMVSS has been on the books since 1966. The legislation applied to Guam and the states on January 9, 1979. It looks like we get the law. But this is not the end of the analysis.

We would accept application of the FMVSS here only if such federal law did not deny us our guaranteed right of local self-government with respect to internal affairs. It is my view that automobile safety is an internal affair. It is the subject for sel f-government. The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards do not apply in the CNMI.

These federal safety standards are imposed on the states by virtue of the Commerce clause of the Federal Constitution. The federal Commerce clause does not apply in the CNMI; it cannot carry the FMVSS into our islands. Besides, consider the practicality of the situation. We move slowly on two lanes roads up and down twelve and fourteen mile long islands. Our drivers aren't hooked into a vast system of U.S. interstate highways where uniform safety equipment might be necessary to protect highspeed free ways carrying commerce between the states. We can't even drive to Tinian. We're small, wind-swept islands out here without even a traffic light.

I will say this, however: If I find that our people need the protection of some or all of the motor vehicle safety standards included in the FMVSS program, I'll be the first to move for immediate adoption of those standards ... by local law. Until then , it is our position that the FMVSS does not apply here and will not be enforced by my Administration.

If you address this matter on a national level, Congressman, please take our views into consideration. Thank you so much for consulting us. You

are a true friend of the Northern Marianas.

Sincerely,

LORENZO I. DE LEON GUERRERO Governor

cc: Lt. Governor Resident Representative to the United States Director, Department of Public Safety Director, Department of Finance Triple J Motors

ID: nht90-3.70

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 30, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: S. Watanabe -- General Manager, Automotive Equipment Technical Coordination Dept., Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Letter dated 8-2-90 to R. L. Van Iderstine from S. Watanabe; (OCC 5094)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of August 2, to Mr. Van Iderstine of this agency asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Although rulemaking notices provide the name of a NHTSA staff engineer, such as that of Mr. Van Iders tine, to contact for further information, correspondence asking for interpretations of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards should be addressed to the Chief counsel.

It is your understanding that as of September 1, 1990, "lamp manufacturers such as Stanley, not car manufacturer) have to manufacture the external mechanical aiming of replaceable bulb headlamps which conform to the downward torque deflection requirement s." You ask for confirmation of your understanding.

Your understanding is correct. The last sentence of Section S7.7.5.1(a) of Standard No. 108 states that "Each headlamp system that is designed to conform to paragraph S7.5 and that is designed to use such external aiming devices, and which is manufactur ed on or after September 1, 1990, shall comply with the downward torque deflection requirements of S7.7.5.1(a). Because it is the headlamp system that must comply with the requirement, it is the manufacturer of such system that is required to comply on a nd after September 1, 1990.

As you appear to understand, vehicle manufacturers need not equip their vehicles with the new systems on September 1, 1990, and may continue to manufacture vehicles with the old systems until their inventory is exhausted.