ID: 01931.ztv

Mr. Jack W. DeYoung
Tumbleweed Trucks, Inc.
318 Kwanzan Drive
Lynden, WA 98264

Dear Mr. DeYoung:

This is in reply to your letter of October 18, 2002, with respect to the flash rate of hazard warning signal system flashers. You have invented a flasher "which is designed to produce a hazard signal consisting of repeating cycles of a number of short flashes followed by a longer pause." Your question, in essence, is whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 requires "a uniform flash rate" for hazard warning signal system flashers or permits a varying one. It is your opinion that the standard does not require a "uniform flash rate."

Standard No. 108 requires that hazard warning signal flashers be designed to conform to SAE Recommended Practice J945, "Vehicular Hazard Warning Signal Flasher," February 1966. Paragraph 3 of J945 and its accompanying Figure 1 specify requirements for "Flash rate and percent Current On" Time" measurements." The flash rate must be 60 to 120 flashes per minute for "normally open" (i.e., variable load) flashers, and 90 to 120 flashes per minute for "normally closed" (i.e., fixed load) flashers. SAE J945 also requires that "flashing rate and percent current on time . . . be measured after the flashers have been operating for a minimum of five consecutive cycles and shall be an average of at least three consecutive cycles."

We have examined the diagram in your letter relating to your flasher invention.It shows that this design would not comply with Standard No. 108. We calculate that its flash rate would be 136.8 flashes per minute, exceeding the maximum permissible 120 flashes per minute. Specifically, the diagram shows two consecutive cycles of 160ms "on" followed by 200ms "off." These cycles are followed by a third cycle of 160ms "on followed by 620ms "off." The first two cycles equate to 166.7 flashes per minute, while the third cycle equates to 76.9 flashes per minute. The average of the three cycles is 136.8 flashes a minute.

While you might be able to modify your invention to reflect a complying flash rate for three specific cycles, we interpret the standard as requiring compliance over any three cycles chosen at random. The drastic change that would appear required for you to comply at three specific cycles would sharply reduce (and possibly eliminate entirely) the ability to comply at another three cycles chosen at random. Further such a change in your design would, we believe, affect the ability of the flasher to meet the percent on-time requirements. The need to fulfill both flash rate and percent on-time requirements may explain why industry has always chosen a uniform rate for flashers. Thus, while you are correct that SAE J945 does not specify that all cycles of flash be of the same duration, it is likely that the only way to meet the specification is to provide a "uniform flash rate."

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.11/14/02

ID: 02-27-02Morganltr

Mr. Allan R. Morgan
Morgan's Auto Body, Inc.,
200 68^th Place
Capitol Heights, MD 20743





Dear Mr. Morgan:

This responds to your letter to L. Robert Shelton, Executive Director of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), asking three questions about the regulation of aftermarket parts. Your letter was referred to my office for reply. Each of your questions is answered below.

Question 1: Has the U.S. Department of Transportation (the "Department") issued any guidelines or adopted any regulations governing the use of aftermarket parts in the auto body repair business?

NHTSA is the agency within the Department of Transportation that regulates auto safety. We will therefore answer your questions about the Department by discussing NHTSA's activities in this area.

Our answer is no, we have not issued guidelines or regulations restricting use of aftermarket parts in the repair of vehicles, except as noted below. NHTSA has the authority to issue safety standards for both motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Most Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) issued by the agency apply only to new vehicles. However, certain standards apply to parts and equipment, whether they are installed in new vehicles or sold in the aftermarket. Examples of these standards are Standard No. 106 (Brake hoses); Standard No. 108 (Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment); Standard No. 109 (New pneumatic tires); Standard No. 116 (Motor vehicle brake fluids); Standard No. 205 (Glazing materials); and Standard No. 209 (Seat belt assemblies). If an item of equipment that is regulated by a safety standard were used in the repair of a vehicle, the item must be certified as meeting the applicable standard.

NHTSA also regulates motor vehicle safety defects. The defect provisions we administer apply to both motor vehicles and motor vehicle replacement equipment, including items of aftermarket equipment that are not regulated by a safety standard. Under 30118 of Chapter 301 of Title 49 of the United States Code, "Motor Vehicle Safety" (49 U.S.C. 30118), if a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that an item of motor vehicle equipment contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. Thus, NHTSA has the authority to order recalls of aftermarket crash parts, whether they are made by the vehicle manufacturer or by an independent parts manufacturer.

We also note that our regulations do prohibit manufacturers, dealers, distributors, and repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable FMVSS (49 U.S.C. 30122). This provision does not, however, concern replacement parts or systems that were made inoperative due to a vehicle crash.

Question 2. Has the Department conducted or contracted for any safety studies on vehicles repaired using aftermarket parts?

The General Accounting Office (GAO) recently issued a report on replacement crash parts. The report identifies several studies of replacement crash parts, but notes that their results do not resolve the issue of safety. The report contains recommendations "to strengthen NHTSA's ability to detect and order the recall of unsafe vehicle parts." A copy of this report is enclosed for your information.

In addition, in 1990-91, NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC) addressed the issue of possible adverse safety aspects of the use of non-original equipment manufacturer replacement sheet metal components in some detail. OVSC sent interrogatory letters on this subject to the three major then-domestic automobile manufacturers, seeking test data as well as the answers to questions on the issue of whether replacement sheet metal components, such as fenders, hoods, and doors, could possibly reduce the crash protection provided by a vehicle.

Although all three manufacturers indicated concern about this issue, none produced any test data in response to NHTSA's original inquiry. Ford Motor Company (Ford) reported that it had performed some studies on non-OEM replacement part fit and finish, structural quality, and corrosion. Ford stated that these tests indicated that the parts were not equivalent to original equipment, but also reported that it had not conducted any tests to determine if vehicles equipped with these replacement parts would comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. General Motors Corporation stated that it had not performed any safety testing on non-OEM crash parts. Chrysler Corporation (Chrysler) representatives met with OVSC on this issue and subsequently conducted limited testing to observe the effectiveness of an offshore-manufactured hood with respect to a vehicle's compliance with FMVSS No. 219, "Windshield zone intrusion." No windshield zone intrusion was noted during the test.

During this inquiry, NHTSA also received a letter from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), a private not-for-profit organization established by the insurance industry, which described testing that IIHS sponsored in 1987 on a Ford Escort with cosmetic body parts (such as the grill, left and right front fenders and front door sheet metal) removed and a "competitive hood" installed. IIHS reported that the vehicle complied with FMVSS Nos. 208, 212, 219, and 301 by a wide margin, and concluded that the data clearly showed that the use of cosmetic body parts, whether made by an OEM or a "competitive factory," did not affect the safety performance of the vehicle.

Question 3. Is the Department aware of any civil cases involving the use of aftermarket parts in auto body repair?

While we have not conducted an exhaustive search of this subject, NHTSA is aware of at least one class action lawsuit concerning aftermarket parts brought in Illinois state court against the State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. A copy of the court's opinion in the case, Avery, et al. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 746 N.E.2d 1242 (Ill. Ct. App., 5^th Dist. 2001), is enclosed for your information.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, you may contact Robert Knop of this office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:misc
d.3/4/02

ID: 02024.ztv

Michael Shipley, Lieutenant
City of Carlsbad Police Department
2560 Orion Way
Carlsbad, CA 92008-7280

Dear Lieutenant Shipley:

This is in reply to your letter of September 9, 2002. I regret our delay in responding to your letter which, although properly addressed, did not reach our office until October 28.

You asked for "a waiver from the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards to allow for the purchase, repair, installation, and use of a feature commonly known as a 'blackout switch.'" The switch would disconnect a vehicles stop lamps and back up lamps. You understand that it is permissible for the Department itself to install the switch, but ask for a waiver on behalf of "a third party installation company."

I enclose a letter from this Office dated April 4, 2002, to Lee M. Calkins. That letter also pertains to the Federal Signals system which you wish to use. In that letter, we pointed out that, under the make inoperative prohibition of 49 U.S.C. 30122, the switch could not be installed by a "manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business." We did not discuss further the meaning of "motor vehicle repair business," except that the term does not include the owner of a vehicle. Under Section 30122(a), a motor vehicle repair business means "a person holding itself out to the public to repair for compensation a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment." If the "third party installation company" you mentioned is a "motor vehicle repair business" as defined by Section 30122(a), it would be prohibited from installing the blackout switch.

If you have any questions, you may phone Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:108
d.12/6/02

ID: 0216

Mr. Joe Kover
463 West Creekside Lane
Kaysville, UT 84037

Dear Mr. Kover:

This responds to your letter of July 25, 1994, to Jere Medlin of this agency. You have presented several questions regarding an electric circuit that you have designed for use in motor vehicles, and which you call a Light Control Unit (LCU).

The LCU automatically turns off the headlamps and tail and parking lamps when the ignition is turned off if the lamps have been activated. The LCU also automatically turns on the headlamps and the tail and parking lamps whenever the windshield wipers are turned on. If the LCU fails when the lights are on, a Light Bus Monitor will automatically restore them.

You have the following questions:

"Would a motor vehicle operator be in violation of the federal motor vehicle safety standards by maintaining both the head and tail/park lights on during the hours of daylight?"

No. The Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not tell an owner when it is or is not permissible to use safety equipment.

"Does the LCU meet the federal motor vehicle safety standards? Could the LCU be integrated into the light system of new production vehicles or currently registered vehicles;"

The Federal motor vehicle safety standard on lighting, Standard No. 108, does not apply to supplementary lighting devices such as the LCU. The LCU is permissible on new vehicles provided it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. We do not see that it has this effect. It is permissible to be installed on currently registered vehicles by manufacturers, distributors, dealers or motor vehicle repair businesses provided that it

does not make inoperable any part installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. We do not see that the LCU has this effect either.

You have also told us that the LCU may be used to operate lamps as Daytime Running Lamps (DRLs) by maintaining the light switch in the on position when the wiper switch has been turned off. One feature of this function is that the LCU "allows the operator to turn off either the head lights only or both the head lights and tail/park lights via the light switch." Your question is "If the operator should elect to employ the LCU as a DRL unit does it meet the federal motor vehicle safety standards?"

Under Standard No. 108, a DRL system is a system of any pair of lamps on the front of a vehicle (other than parking lamps or fog lamps) that is automatically activated and that is automatically deactivated when the operator places the headlamp control in the on position. Further, DRLs can be lower beam headlamps operated at full voltage. Assuming that the LCU turns the lower beam headlamps on rather than the upper beam ones, your system would function as a DRL meeting the requirements of Standard No. 108 when the lower beam headlamps are automatically activated by the windshield wipers and deactivated by turning off the ignition. However, the feature that allows the headlamps to be turned off manually (whether or not simultaneously turning off the parking lamps and taillamps) is not part of a DRL system as specified by Standard No. 108.

Your final request is that we "include the federal specifications for electronic devices." We are unsure what you mean by this as we have no "specifications for electronic devices." I enclose a copy of S5.5.11 of Standard No. 108, the DRL specifications.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:108 dL10/14/94

ID: 02388.ztv

Ms. Collette Walsh
345 University Avenue
Belleville
Ontario K8N 5T7
Canada

Dear Ms. Walsh:

This is in reply to your fax of November 12, 2002, with respect to your fax requests of September 4 and 5, 2002, for interpretations of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Im sorry to say that we have no record of receiving your earlier faxes.

The interpretation you requested on September 4 concerns the headlamp lens marking requirement of the standard for a Type H headlighting system, specifically S7.3.9(c). Paragraph (c) requires that "The face of letters, numbers, or other symbols molded on the surface of the lens shall not be raised more than 0.020 in. (0.5 mm) . . . ." It also requires that "The marking shall be molded in the lens and shall be not less than in. (6.35 mm) in size."

You asked whether "the lens marking (pattern) [must be] in the mold at the time of manufacture" and whether "an acceptable alternative [would be] . . . to laser etch the lens after the molding process." You explained that the marking would be indelible and not raised more than 0.020 in.

We have no information on the durability of laser etching on a headlamp lens but note that a laser etching would not be "molded into the lens" as specified in S7.3.9(c). Therefore, we do not regard your alternative as one that would comply with the standard.

The interpretation you requested on September 5 again involves lens marking. You asked whether it is acceptable to place the information required to be on a lens "on the top of the housing of a tail lamp or headlamp assembly" You added that "the marking would be clearly visible only if the trunk lid or engine compartment lid was open." This would not be acceptable. The information required to be on a lens must be placed on the lens.

If you have further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office at 202-366-5263.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
12/10/02

ID: 02409GF

Robert E. Norton II, Esq.
Senior Staff Counsel
Office of the General Counsel
DaimlerChrysler Corporation
1000 Chrysler Drive
Auburn Hills, MI 48326-2766

Dear Mr. Norton:

This responds to your letter dated November 8, 2002, concerning the lease of specially ordered prototype vehicles to the United States Army Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command. In your letter you state that your company is entering into a contract to provide the vehicles for a military research program. The vehicles will be built in conformity with contractual specifications. It is our understanding that the vehicles will not be certified to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). You further state that DaimlerChrysler will retain the title to the vehicles and lease them to the Army. You ask us to interpret 49 CFR 571.7(c), which provides that no Federal motor vehicle standard applies to a vehicle or item of equipment manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications, as applying to this lease arrangement. 

It is our opinion that a transaction where a vehicle is manufactured for, and leased directly to, the Army in conformity with contractual specifications is tantamount to a sale directly to the Army for purposes of 571.7(c). We note that as a general matter, applicability of the FMVSS does not vary depending upon whether a vehicle is sold or leased to a consumer. That is, all FMVSS applicable to vehicles sold by manufacturers are also applicable to vehicles leased by manufacturers. Similarly, in applying 571.7(c), we see no reason to treat vehicles manufactured for, and leased to, the military differently from vehicles sold to the military.

Please be advised that upon the termination of this lease arrangement, DaimlerChrysler cannot sell these vehicles to the general public, unless they were originally certified to the FMVSS. If the vehicles were not originally certified to the

FMVSS, DaimlerChrysler will need to take the necessary steps to prevent the vehicles subsequent use on U.S. highways. For example, DaimlerChrysler may choose to destroy the vehicles, export the vehicles, or sell the vehicles to the military.

I hope this information is helpful.  If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact George Feygin of my staff at 202-366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Senior Assistant Chief Counsel

ref:571
d.1/16/03

ID: 0274

Mr. Thomas L. Wright
Coordinator, Technical Support
New Jersey Division of Motor Vehicles
CN 179
Trenton, NJ 08666

Dear Mr. Wright:

This responds to your letter of July 15, 1994, to Robert Hellmuth of this agency requesting an opinion whether brush guards offered as accessories for Range Rovers and installed in front of headlamp units are in violation of Standard No. 108.

Our letter is based upon the configurations of "brush bars" depicted as accessory equipment in a 1994 Range Rover brochure. The brochure notes that brush bars "may be illegal for on-road use in some states. Please check local regulations before purchase, installation, or use." We note that this advisory applies to the rear lamp guards as well. The purpose of the brush bar is to offer protection to the grille, radiator, and front and rear lamps, and it does so by incorporating three slender horizontal bars in front of the lenses of the front and rear lamps.

Paragraph S7.8.5 of Standard No. 108 states that headlamps when activated "shall not have any styling ornament or other feature, such as a translucent cover or grille, in front of the lens." The lamp guard portion of the brush bar is the type of "other feature . . . in front of the lens" that is prohibited by Standard No. 108. Thus, under Federal law, a Range Rover could not be displayed for sale and sold with a brush bar installed unless the lamp guards had been removed. This should present no problem as, according to the brochure, the "lamp protectors are easily removable for cleaning and maintenance." In our view, the proper time for installation of the lamp protectors is when the vehicle begins to be used off-road.

Although there is no similar direct prohibition in Standard No. 108 applicable to other vehicle lamps, the parking lamps, turn signal lamps, and rear lamps are required to conform with the photometric requirements of Standard No. 108 when the lamp guards are in place. This is based upon

two paragraphs of the standard. S5.3.1.1 prohibits any part of a vehicle from preventing parking lamps, turn signal lamps, and rear lamps from meeting the required photometric output. S5.1.3 prohibits the installation of supplementary motor vehicle equipment that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment that Standard No. 108 requires as original equipment.

The guards are designed for maintenance by the owner, and their installation by the owner after purchase of the Range Rover would not be in violation of Federal law, even if installed for on- road use. Operation of the Range Rover is subject only to State law, and a State may forbid on-road use of a Range Rover with the lamp guards installed if it so chooses.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:108 d:10/27/94

ID: 03076Dashney_type1_positioningbelt

Mr. Howard Dashney
Executive Director
Michigan Association for Pupil Transportation
6250 W. Michigan Avenue
Lansing, MI 48915

Dear Mr. Dashney:

This responds to your December 19, 2002, letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and subsequent phone conversation with Deirdre Fujita of my staff, concerning the application of Federal motor vehicle safety standards to the installation of "positioning belts" on large (over 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight rating) school buses. You inquire on behalf of the Michigan Association for Pupil Transportation (MAPT), which represents various school bus fleet administrators, including public and private school bus fleets, private contractors, and Head Start fleet operators.

You explained that MAPT members have been informed by the Michigan Department of State Police, Motor Carrier Division (MCD), that they will no longer be able to use positioning belts in their school buses. You explain that positioning belts are used to hold special-needs students upright in their seats when they cannot remain upright on their own, and/or to control the movement of students with behavioral problems. You state that the belts are attached to the seat frames or seat backs of the school bus seats and "are not meant for or used as protection in a crash." You further explain that MCD inspectors have prohibited the use of the belts because they believe that the belts do not comply with Federal standards. You ask two questions regarding this situation.

I note that we have also received a related inquiry from Sgt. Sharron Vancampen of the MCD, asking about use of the positioning devices on school buses. Because your letters ask about the same situation, we will respond to you both simultaneously and will copy you both on our responses.

First, you ask whether large school buses must meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that apply to buses. The answer is yes. Under our definitions of motor vehicles (49 CFR 571.3) a "school bus" is a type of "bus." Thus, a school bus must meet all FMVSSs applying to "school buses" and those applying to "buses." Second, you ask if the MCD is correct in its interpretation of our standards.^[1]

Based on the information you provided in your letter and on the phone, generally speaking, few NHTSA requirements apply to the situation presented. We assume that the positioning belts are being installed on used (not new) buses by MAPT members.

The installation of the belts is not in itself a violation of NHTSA requirements. According to the information you provided, the belts presumably meet all applicable requirements of the Federal motor vehicle safety standard for seat belt assemblies, FMVSS No. 209. Thus, the sale of these belts to your members did not violate Federal requirements.

The belts are being used to restrain and/or position children, some of whom weigh 50 pounds or less. As such, there is an issue as to whether the belts are "child restraint systems" subject to FMVSS No. 213. We believe the answer is no, because the belts are Type 1 seat belt assemblies (i.e., lap belts), and Type 1 seat belts are excluded from the definition of "child restraint system" in S4 of FMVSS No. 213, Child Restraint Systems.

Your members installation of the positioning belts is not directly regulated by an FMVSS. Safety standards that apply to installation of seat belts, FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and FMVSS No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, are "vehicle standards" applying only to new vehicles. The general rule is that installation of aftermarket equipment is not subject to the requirements set forth in vehicle standards.

However, there is another statutory provision that might affect MAPT members installation of the belts. If a vehicle is modified after its first sale, 49 U.S.C. 30122 provides, in pertinent part:

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard.

School buses are certified as meeting Federal school bus safety standards. Seats on a large school bus are certified to the "compartmentalization" requirements of FMVSS No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. The compartmentalization concept calls for sturdy yet yielding well-padded high-backed seats to protect passengers. With respect to Standard No. 222, the compartmentalized school bus seats are elements of design installed in compliance with this safety standard. The "make inoperative" prohibition requires any entity listed in 30122 to ensure that the school buses will continue to afford the occupant protection required by Standard No. 222, even with the positioning belts attached to them.

Note, however, that the make inoperative prohibition does not apply to modifications vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply to a situation where MAPT members installed the belts in their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. Nonetheless, NHTSA urges owners to exercise care in modifying their vehicles so as not to degrade the safety provided by the original systems. Further, States have the authority to regulate the use of motor vehicles, including the manner in which school buses are modified and operated.

Note also that, notwithstanding your intent in using the belts only as "positioning belts," as a practical matter the belts could act similarly to "lap belts" in a crash. NHTSA recommends that lap belts be installed only on "seat belt ready" school bus seats (seats that are able to withstand the forces generated in a crash), and also in a manner that meets FMVSS No. 210.

To summarize, the sale of the seat belts to MAPT members did not violate the FMVSSs. The installation of the belts on the school bus seats by the MAPT members was not subject to an FMVSS, if the members modified their own vehicles. If a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business modified the vehicle, the modifier must be sure not to make inoperative any part of the school bus seat installed in compliance with FMVSS No. 222 or any other Federal safety standard. We recommend that lap belts be properly installed on "seat belt ready" seats on school buses.

Please contact Deirdre Fujita at (202) 366-2992 if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:VSA#209#213
d.4/9/03

ID: 0322

Mr. Tom Determan
Engineering Manager
Brownie Tank Mfg. Co.
1241 - 72nd Ave. N.E.
Minneapolis, MN 55432

Dear Mr. Determan:

This is in reply to your letter of September 2, 1994, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. You have inquired about the mounting height requirements specified in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 for side marker lamps and reflex reflectors installed on tank trucks.

You understand that "side marker lamps must be mounted at any height above 15" from ground level, and reflex reflectors must be mounted between 15" and 60" from ground level."

You are correct. Standard No. 108 (Tables II and IV) specifies that side reflex reflectors on trucks shall be mounted not less than 15 inches nor more than 60 inches above the road surface, and that side marker lamps must be mounted not less than 15 inches above the road surface. This means that side marker lamps may be placed at heights greater than 60 inches.

Noting your thought that enforcement personnel are mistakenly applying requirements for trailers to tank trucks of your customers, I would like to say that the requirements are the same for trailers, except that, under Table II which applies to trailers whose overall width is 80 inches or more, the rear side marker lamps are subject to the same 60-inch height limitation as the side reflex reflectors.

I hope that this is helpful in resolving your problem.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:108 d:12/7/94

ID: 0324

Mr. Rishi Gupta
Autolite (India) Limited
D-483 Road No. 9-A
Vishwalkarma Industrial Area
Jaipur 302 013
India

Dear Mr. Gupta:

This is in reply to your FAX of August 29, 1994, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency. For future reference, requests for interpretations of U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety regulations should be addressed to the Office of Chief Counsel.

You have asked whether the size and types of aiming pads you propose to place on headlamps manufactured by Autolite conform to DOT specifications. You describe these headlamps as "a 7" round and a 200 x 142 mm rectangular replaceable halogen sealed beams [which] use a replaceable halogen bulb (HB2)." You enclosed diagrams showing "aiming pad's position as per SAE J1383 - 1992" (Figures 1 and 3), and in the manner you wish to place them on the Autolite lamps (Figures 2 and 4). We understand that these replaceable bulb headlamps are intended to be sold as replacements for sealed beam headlamps of the same dimensions.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, is the DOT specification that applies to Autolite's headlamps.

The aimability performance requirements for non-sealed beam headlamps are found in S7.8. of Standard No. 108. S7.8 allows any aiming pad pattern that will fit on the headlamp and that will allow any one of the available aiming adapters described in SAE J602 to be used on the headlamp.

Specifically, S7.8.1 in pertinent part allows non- sealed beam headlamps to be equipped with aiming pads to be used with the photometric procedures of SAE J1383 APR85 (not "1992" as you wrote) when being tested for photometric compliance, and to serve for the aiming reference when the lamp is installed on a motor vehicle. S7.8.5 allows an installed headlamp system to

be aimable with an externally applied aiming device. Under S7.8.5.1, this aiming device shall be the equipment specified in SAE Standard J602 OCT80 Headlamp Aiming Device for Mechanically Aimable Sealed Beam Headlamp Units.

You write that the aiming pad sizes and types you wish to use are identical to those on headlamps sold by Hella, and that ETL Testing Laboratories has told you that the aiming pad positions and types meet DOT specifications. This indicates that Autolite's headlamps would be mechanically aimable with SAE J602 equipment, and therefore permissible as meeting Standard No. 108. We recommend that Autolite verify mechanical aimability with SAE J602 equipment before certifying compliance with Standard No. 108.

Our engineering staff has reviewed your letter and asks that we point out the following errors in Autolite's Figures Nos. 2 and 4. Under both Figures, there is a reference to "HB-2 (H4 P43t)." The HB2 light source is not the same as the H4 P43t light source. The HB2 is a light source permitted by Standard No. 108 while the H4 P43t is not permitted by the Standard for motor vehicles. Under the drawing, the dimension "68.5" should be "68.58 +/- 0.51" (see Figure 4-4 of Standard No. 108). The dimensions of "32" and "52.0" must be the sum of two dimension "A"s from Figure 4-4, thus the sum is 42.16 +/- 0.25 + 42.16 +/- 0.25 = 84.32 +/- 0.50, not 84 as nominally calculated. Finally, with respect to Figure 4 only, because this lamp is intended to replace a 200 x 142 mm sealed beam lamp, the position of the aiming pads are not, but should be identical to the 200 x 142 mm sealed beam to facilitate mechanical aim when only one headlamp is replaced.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:10/26/94