Interpretation ID: nht94-8.40

DATE: January 26, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Tilman Spingler -- Robert Bosch GmbH

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to FAX dated 12/6/93 from Tilman Spingler to Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TEXT:

We have received your FAX of December 6, 1993, titled "Petition for an 'Exemption for Inconsequential Noncompliance'" with paragraph S7.8.5.2 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. We have also received your FAX of January 14, 1994, in which you seek to withdraw your petition because "we did not realize that it is allowed to use scales without any identification of the markings."

While it is true that the graduations need not be marked, a noncompliance with Standard No. 108 will exist if the spacing of the graduations is not in accordance with Standard No. 108. In your December FAX petitioning for an inconsequentiality determination, you have asked for "permission to use scales with graduations of 0.2/0.4 degree." This indicates that a noncompliance exists, as Standard No. 108 specifies that graduation spacing be not greater than 0.19/0.38 degree. As we explain later in this letter, Bosch is not the proper person to file an inconsequentiality petition. However, Bosch may submit a petition for rulemaking to change paragraph S7.8.5.2.

The regulatory requirements to which you refer occur at S7.8.5.2(a)(1)(i) and (a)(2)(i). The graduation increment specified is based on the need to provide an increment consistent with the laws of the States pertaining to correct aim. The increment corresponds to 1 inch at 25 feet; State aiming laws typically specify aim measurements in whole inches at 25 feet. These paragraphs relate to requirements that must be met by a component of those headlamp systems that are capable of being aimed by equipment installed on a vehicle. This component is called a "Vehicle Headlamp Aiming Device", or "VHAD." Section S3 defines a VHAD in pertinent part as "motor vehicle equipment permanently installed on a motor vehicle by the manufacturer of the vehicle...." Because the VHAD is installed by the vehicle manufacturer, we regard the vehicle manufacturer as responsible for correction of any noncompliance in the VHAD even if the VHAD were manufactured by another person such as Bosch.

If Bosch has manufactured a VHAD whose specifications do not comply with those of S7.8.5.2, Bosch should notify any vehicle manufacturer to whom it has sold the VHAD so that that manufacturer may have information upon which to make a formal determination of noncompliance and to notify this agency in accordance with 49 CFR Part 573. If the vehicle manufacturer wishes to petition the agency for a determination that the noncompliance of the VHAD is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety, the agency will proceed to consider the petition after the manufacturer has notified the agency pursuant to Part 573. Because Bosch is under no legal obligation to correct a noncompliance caused by the VHAD that the manufacturer has installed on the vehicle, Bosch is not the proper party to file such a

petition.

The only effect of granting an inconsequentiality petition is that the vehicle manufacturer is excused from its obligation to notify purchasers and to remedy the noncompliance. The granting of the petition does not effect an amendment of the standard. Thus, the grant does not entitle the petitioner to continue to install a VHAD that does not meet S7.8.5.2(a)(1)(i) and (a)(2)(i) of Standard No. 108.