ID: 11526DRN

Michael A. Tonelli, Esq.
Barr, Murman, Tonelli, Herzfeld & Rubin
First of America Plaza
201 East Kennedy Blvd., Suite 901
Tampa, FL 33672-0118

Dear Mr. Tonelli:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Charles Gauthier, formerly of this agency, asking whether multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) must meet Federal standards for passenger cars. We have addressed this question in a December 26, 1995 letter to Jane Thorntorn Mastrucci, Esq. A copy of our letter to Ms. Mastrucci is enclosed.

You also asked for the current "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards [FMVSSs] regarding student transportation" and a copy of the current Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17 "Pupil Transportation Safety." Due to the volume of the material, we are unable to provide copies of the school bus FMVSSs. However, they are readily available at Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 571. For your reference, I have enclosed an information sheet that describes ways to obtain the material. Enclosed is a copy of Guideline No. 17, which is set forth at 23 CFR '1204.4.

I hope this information is helpful. If you need any further information, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:vsa#571.3 d:3/4/96

ID: 11537.WKM

Mr. Francis R. Laux
Manager, Safety Standards
Safety Affairs & Regulations
General Motors Corporation
1660 L Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036

Dear Mr. Laux:

This responds to your letter to me in which you ask whether the back door glazing on two models of General Motors vehicles would be excluded from the definition of "back door" in the September 28, 1995 amendments to Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door locks and door retention components. The answer is yes as to the glazing half of both door designs.

The agency published a final rule on September 28, 1995, (60 FR 50124) extending the requirements of FMVSS No. 206 to the back doors of passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV), if so equipped, with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less. Exclusions from the definition of "back door," however, include:

[A] door or window composed entirely of glazing material whose latches and/or hinges are attached directly onto the glazing material (emphasis added).

Your questions address the meaning of the emphasized words as applied to the two MPV models in question.

Both MPV models you refer to are equipped with 2-part back doors. The top halves of the doors are composed of glazing that swings outward and upward. The bottom halves are all-metal tailgates that swing outward and downward. On one model the hinges are attached to the glazing by use of mechanical fasteners that are separated from actual contact with the glazing by a washer. The upper part of the door on the other model is composed of glazing, but the hinges are imbedded in the glazing, then covered by a decorative composite material that you refer to as ARIM@ (reaction injection molding). This door is also equipped with a high- mounted stop lamp centered at the top of the door.

You ask whether both windows would be deemed composed "entirely" of glazing material when both contain electric defroster elements and as pointed out above, one contains decorative surround and a high-mounted stop lamp. You suggest that "the agency's intent is to exempt those doors or windows whose latches and/or hinges are attached to glazing material which is the principal structural component of the door or window, rather than to mandate compliance of doors and windows that are not `composed entirely of glazing material'" (emphasis in original).

In excluding doors and windows "composed entirely of glazing material," the agency was referring to the very type doors you describe, that is, where the entire door itself is glazing as opposed to window glazing that is mounted in and framed by a metal door. As explained in the preamble to the final rule, a door composed only of glazing, be it glass, plastic, or glass/plastic, could be expected to fail in a crash before the latches or hinges would fail. In that case, it would be meaningless to require the latches and hinges to comply with the standard. It is immaterial that the glazing might contain defrosting elements, decorative material, or a high-mounted stop lamp, since those components do not strengthen the glazing. Thus, as you correctly pointed out in your letter, the agency intended to exclude from the requirements of the standard those doors and windows where glazing is the "principal structural component of the door or window."

Your other concern was whether the hinges on your upper door halves were attached "directly onto" the glazing. With respect to the model on which the door half is attached by mechanical fasteners separated from the glazing by a washer, the agency would still consider those hinges attached "directly onto" the glazing. It could reasonably be expected that the bare metal of the hinge would be separated from the bare glazing of the door or window by a washer, gasket, or some other cushioning material. The same consideration would apply to the model in which the hinge is embedded into the glazing and covered with decorative material for aesthetic purposes. Either way, the hinges are mounted directly to the glazing, as opposed to being attached to the metal frame into which the glazing is mounted. Accordingly, the agency considers the upper halves of both door designs as being composed entirely of glazing, and the hinges of both are mounted directly onto the glazing. Both doors, therefore, are excluded from the requirements of the standard.

The above discussion does not apply to the bottom halves of the doors in question. Since those doors are metal doors, the latches and hinges on them must comply with the requirements of the standard.

If you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref:206 d:5/6/96

ID: 11538ZTV

Mr. Gene Noll
Buyer
Fitz Auto Parts, Inc.
24000 Highway 9
Woodinville, WA 98072-9753

Dear Mr. Noll:

This is in reply to your letter of January 26, 1996, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. Your company's business is "the buying and selling of used auto parts". You would like to buy and import Canadian vehicles to be "dismantled for parts and then destroyed." You state that none of these vehicles "will be resold or have a chance of being put back on the road as a whole vehicle." You have asked for our opinion on how you might do this under the importation regulations that this agency administers.

Our laws do not address the question of the importation of a nonconforming motor vehicle for salvage purposes. There is no specific provision, therefore, that will permit you to do so. However, under our interpretations, a vehicle without an engine and transmission may be considered an assemblage of motor vehicle parts, rather than a motor vehicle. The assemblage can be imported as motor vehicle equipment. But it would be better to forego importation of the engines and transmissions in order to avoid creating the impression with Customs, E.P.A., and NHTSA that the engines and transmissions will be reinstalled, and that motor vehicles are, in fact, being imported without the intent of conforming them.

However, even under this scenario, certain equipment installed on a vehicle cannot be legally imported unless the equipment meets applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This equipment includes brake hoses, lamps and reflectors, tires, rims for vehicles other than passenger, brake fluid, glazing, and seat belt assemblies. Generally, conformance of these items is indicated by the presence of a "DOT" symbol on them (lighting equipment may have "SAE" instead). Any of the items listed above that do not bear these symbols must be removed from a motorless vehicle before the assemblage may be imported.

If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref:591 d:2/27/96

ID: 11539ZTV

Mr. Paul W. Neagle, P.E.
Director of Engineering
Teledyne Specialty Equipment
P.O. Box 246
Canal Winchester, OH 43110-0246

Dear Mr. Neagle:

We have received your letter of February 1, 1996, asking for an interpretation of the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 with respect to lighting on the rear of trailers.

Your company has developed a new system to attach a transportable forklift to a trailer. When installed on some trailers, "it requires the tail/brake/turn lights to be mounted more toward the center of the trailer, similar to many dump truck applications." A trailer manufacturer has asked you to confirm "that this lighting follows the requirements that the tail/brake/turn lights be mounted as far apart as practicable."

It is apparent from your letter, product brochure, and photo that the specific purpose of the trailer is to carry the forklift, and, therefore, that the forklift is part of the trailer's normal equipment. Under S5.3.1.1 of Standard No. 108, when motor vehicle equipment prevents compliance with the visibility or photometric requirements of the standard by any required lamp or reflective device, an auxiliary lamp or device may be provided to meet these requirements. We note that the forklift is equipped with conspicuity marking which will be visible from the side of the trailer when it is carried on the trailer, as well as well as a red rear side reflector. There appear to be additional lamps and reflectors on the rear of the forklift, although this is not clearly indicated. We believe that compliance of the vehicle with Standard No. 108 for certification purposes must be determined

with the forklift installed (the photo you enclosed appears to depict the trailer without the forklift). However, because the trailer can be used without the forklift, care should be taken to ensure that the trailer carries the full complement of trailer lighting and marking equipment specified in Standard No. 108 when the forklift is removed.

You are correct that Standard No. 108 requires taillamps, stop lamps and turn signal lamps to be mounted "as far apart as practicable". The word "practicable" was chosen by NHTSA in order to afford manufacturers maximum flexibility in designing their products for specific end needs. When a manufacturer has determined that these lamps, on any specific vehicle, are "as far apart as practicable" with respect to that vehicle, then the manufacturer may certify compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards including Standard No. 108. NHTSA will not contest that certification unless it is clearly erroneous. NHTSA recognizes that required lamps mounted on the rear of a narrow forklift which is part of a trailer's rear lighting equipment may be mounted closer to the vehicle's vertical centerline than would be the case with trailers of a more conventional configuration, and that it might not be practicable to locate them at a wider distance from the centerline.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref:108 d:4/24/96

ID: 11540.JEG

Mr. Robert J. Bishop
Manager--Inflator Engineering
BAICO
1501 Midpark Road
Knoxville, Tennessee 37921

Dear Mr. Bishop:

This responds to your letter asking about Standard No. 208's requirements for pressure vessels that are continuously pressurized. Section S9.1 of the standard incorporates certain provisions of the Hazardous Materials Regulations issued by DOT's Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA). You noted that you have recently received an exemption from RSPA concerning one of those provisions, 49 CFR 178.65- 11(a). Under RSPA's regulation, you must conduct a pressure test on each cylinder before it is shipped, including holding a specified pressure for 30 seconds. Under the exemption, the hold time for testing each cylinder may be limited to "that which is adequate to show compliance." You asked whether compliance with the provisions of the exemption "satisfies the intent of paragraph S9.1, FMVSS 208."

The answer to your question is that an exemption from RSPA does not change your responsibility under Standard No. 208. However, as discussed below, Standard No. 208 does not incorporate all of the provisions of 49 CFR 178.65-11(a). In particular, Standard No. 208 does not require you to test each cylinder but instead requires you to assure that each cylinder, if tested in accordance with 49 CFR 178.65-11(a), including the 30 second hold time, would meet the specified performance requirements.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to certify that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards.

Section 9.1 of Standard No. 208 states:

A pressure vessel that is continuously pressurized . . . shall not leak or evidence visible distortion when tested in accordance with ' 178.65-11(a) of this title and shall not fail in any of the ways enumerated in ' 178.65-11(b) of this title when hydrostatically tested to destruction.

You noted in your letter that 49 CFR 178.65-11(a) specifies, among other things, that "each cylinder must be tested at an internal pressure of at least the test pressure and must be held at that pressure for at least 30 seconds." Under RSPA's regulation, you must conduct the pressure test on each cylinder before it is shipped, including holding a specified pressure for 30 seconds. However, paragraph 7b(1) of the exemption RSPA granted you (DOT-E 11494) provides that "the hold time at test pressure . . . may be limited to that which is adequate to ensure compliance."

Your letter raises two issues. The first is whether NHTSA requires each cylinder to be tested. The second is whether a 30 second hold time is required to satisfy Standard 208.

Testing.

Unlike RSPA=s requirements, NHTSA does not require each cylinder to be tested. The RSPA requirement to test each cylinder before it is shipped is a quality control provision. When NHTSA added the requirements for pressure vessels to Standard No. 208 (see May 6, 1972 final rule (37 FR 9222), copy enclosed), the agency adopted some, but not all of RSPA's Specification 39 (49 CFR 178.65). Notably, the "quality control" requirements of RSPA were not adopted. NHTSA stated:

A continuously pressurized vessel is required to conform to the requirements of Specification 39 concerning type, size, service pressure, and test pressure of vessels (paragraph 2 of the specification); seams (6(b)); wall thickness (7); openings and attachments (9 (a) and (b)); safety devices (10); pressure tests (11); and flattening tests (12). The reference to the latter two paragraphs are drafted to make it clear that the quality control aspects of those paragraphs are not included in the standard. The remaining portions of Specification 39 . . . are not incorporated. [Emphasis added.]

Thus, while Standard No. 208 incorporated the pressure test performance requirements of that paragraph, it did not adopt the quality control provisions. There is no requirement in the standard that each cylinder must be pressure tested. However, as explained more below, you are responsible for assuring the compliance of each cylinder with the specified performance requirements.

30-Second Hold Time.

Although the RSPA exemption permits you to test your cylinders for less than 30 seconds, an exemption from RSPA does not change your responsibility under Standard No. 208. Under Standard No. 208, you are responsible for assuring that each cylinder, if tested in accordance with 49 CFR 178.65-11(a), including the 30 second specification, would not leak or evidence visible distortion. However, nothing in Standard No. 208 requires you to test each cylinder or to test for a 30 second minimum. You may be able to provide such assurance by a variety of means, included, but not limited to, engineering analyses, computer simulations, testing each cylinder, sample testing, or a combination of these activities.

While your exemption from RSPA does not change your responsibility under Standard No. 208, you may be able to use the testing you conduct to meet RSPA responsibilities to also meet your Standard No. 208 responsibility. That is, you may be able to base your certification of compliance with Standard No. 208 on the data you already have.

If you have any other questions, please feel free to contact Edward Glancy of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:208 d:5/9/96

ID: 11541MLV

Jerry G. Sullivan, PE
The Braun Corporation
P.O. Box 310
Winamac, IN 46996

Dear Mr. Sullivan:

This responds to your letter of January 30, 1996, requesting clarification of a recent amendment to the definition of "designated seating position" in 49 CFR '571.3. On March 24, 1995, the agency amended the definition of "designated seating position" to specify that a location intended for securement of an occupied wheelchair during vehicle operation will be regarded as four designated seating positions (60 FR 15504). You asked for clarification of whether this amendment applies in the following situations:

(1) Calculation of the payload of a vehicle.

(2) Classification of a vehicle as a school bus vs. multipurpose passenger vehicle (mpv).

(3) Classification of a vehicle as a bus vs. mpv.

As amended, the definition of designated seating position states, in pertinent part:

* * * For the sole purpose of determining the classification of any vehicle sold or introduced into interstate commerce for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, any location in such vehicle intended for securement of an occupied wheelchair during vehicle operation shall be regarded as four designated seating positions.

According to the above-quoted language, a wheelchair position is regarded as four designated seating positions only for situation (2) above. If a vehicle is not intended for transportation of students, the determination of whether the vehicle is a bus or an mpv is done regarding any wheelchair locations as a single designated seating position. The calculation of payload or gross vehicle weight rating for any vehicle, including school buses, is done regarding any wheelchair locations as a single designated seating position.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have other questions or need some additional information, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref:571.3 d:2/22/96

ID: 11545REGGER

Mr. Jim Lee
Quality Manager
Gerry Baby Products Co.
1500 E. 128th Avenue
Thornton, CO 80241

Dear Mr. Lee:

This responds to Gerry=s letters of October 3 and December 18, 1995, and telephone conversations involving you, Gerry counsel Eric Witte and Deirdre Fujita of my staff, concerning two additions you wish to make to labeling information required by Standard No. 213, AChild Restraint Systems.@ I apologize for the delay in responding. As explained below, the statements are permitted.

Gerry=s question relates to S5.5.1(m) and S5.6 of Standard No. 213. S5.5.1(a) requires child restraints to be labeled with the following statement, inserting an address and telephone number:

Child restraints could be recalled for safety reasons. You must register this restraint to be reached in a recall. Send your name, address and the restraint=s model number and manufacturing date to (insert address) or call (insert telephone number). For recall information, call the U.S. Government=s Auto Safety Hotline at 1- 800-424-9393 . . . .

S5.6 of Standard 213 requires this statement to be included in the printed instructions for each child restraint. (S5.6.1.7)

First suggested change Gerry first asks whether it may add the following statement (or a similar one) to the above, instructing consumers not to place return address stickers on their cards: APlease print or type your address. Do not use address labels which can become damaged or illegible and could prevent you from being contacted in the event of a recall.@ Gerry believes this is needed because Gerry receives about 250 registration cards a year with missing or illegible address labels which were lost or damaged in the mail. Gerry cannot register these consumers without their names and addresses.

Our answer is that the additional statement is permitted. NHTSA has a longstanding position that manufacturers may present information in addition to the required information, if the additional information is presented in a manner that is not likely to obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information. See, e.g., May 24, 1993 letter to Steve Flint (permitting French and Spanish translations of registration form); April 17, 1989 letter to Robert Craig (labeling child seats with metric units). Copies of these letters are enclosed.

S5.5.2(m) is intended to maximize child seat owner registrations, so that as many child seats as possible are remedied in a recall campaign. The information you want to add to S5.5.2(m) accords with that purpose. Assuming that the information is presented in a manner that is unlikely to confuse prospective registrants or otherwise discourage them from registering their seats, you may add the statement.

Second suggested change You ask if Gerry may also add the following, after Gerry=s A800" telephone number: AThis is for recall registration only. For consumer concerns please call 1- 800-626-2996.@ Gerry believes this addition Aeliminates any confusion the consumer may have concerning the appropriate number to call if problems arise.@ In a March 12, 1996 telephone conversation with Ms. Fujita, you also explained that the suggested change could reduce costs for Gerry. Currently, registration information is collected for Gerry by a separate company, which charges Gerry extra for re-directing calls that relate to matters other than registration.

The additional statement is permitted, for the same reasons we discussed above. The statement appears to help you better serve your customers and reduce unnecessary costs. The statement does not appear likely to obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information.

Petition for Rulemaking In the December letter, which Gerry originally sent to Barry Felrice, NHTSA Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards, Gerry describes its request as a Apetition to change [Standard] 213....@ As discussed with you on March 12, since we have concluded that the labeling changes you seek are already permitted, we understand Gerry to have withdrawn its petition.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please call Ms. Fujita at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:213 d:3/29/96

ID: 11552ZTV

M. Guy Dorleans
International Regulatory Affairs Manager
Valeo
34, rue Saint-AndrJ
93012 Bobigny
France

Dear M. Dorleans:

We have received your letter of January 31, 1996, asking for confirmation that certain motor vehicle equipment being manufactured by Valeo is considered a replaceable headlamp lens for purposes of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You have enclosed drawings to assist us in this interpretation.

The drawings show that the "replaceable lens" as you term it is a bonded assembly of an opaque device and a translucent device. The translucent device seems intended to be placed in front of two unidentified light sources (we assume that at least one of these provides headlighting). The opaque device serves as the spacer to locate the translucent device as just stated. We confirm that this equipment is a "replaceable lens" within the meaning of Standard No. 108 even though it does contain opaque material.

You have stated that the markings required by S7.2(e) (for a replacement headlamp lens with seal are "placed on the upper flange of the opaque part." In this position, it appears that the markings will not be visible when the headlamp is installed. Paragraph S7.2(a) requires that the lens of each replacement equipment headlamp be marked with the symbol "DOT" which constitutes the manufacturer's certification of compliance with all applicable standards. For purposes of complying with S7.2(a), and to reassure the public of the

compliance of the headlamp, we urge that Valeo ensure that the DOT marking is applied to the front of the lens where it will be visible to an observer after it has been installed.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref:108 d:3/14/96

ID: 11561MLV

Mr. Juergen Babirad
ORSC Consultant
Rehabilitation Technology Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 540
Kinderhook, NY 12106h

Dear Mr. Babirad:

This responds to your letter of February 5, 1996, requesting "a waiver of FMVSS 208 in regards to the air bag deployment system." You explained that you have

been asked to advise a consumer with regards to installing an aftermarket six way power seat base into his 1995 Dodge Ram Van. This power seat base installation mounts in an area which requires the relocation of one of the air bag deployment sending units found under the driver's seat. The instructions provided by the OEM specifically prohibit relocation of this unit.

You further explained that the van owner "is permanently disabled and requires a wheelchair for all of his mobility." Because of the special design of this seat base, he is able to transfer into the seat.

In summary, our answer is that the vehicle may be modified. NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that modifies the seat on a vehicle to accommodate a condition such as you describe. A more detailed answer to your letter is provided below.

I would like to begin by noting that repair businesses are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to certain regulatory limits on the type of modifications they may make. In certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our requirements to provide some allowances to a repair business which cannot conform to our requirements when

making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities. Since the situation you describe is among those given special consideration by NHTSA, this letter should provide you with the relief you seek.

Our agency is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition would require repair businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil fines up to $1,000 per violation.

Moving a seat, and presumably moving the seat belts for the seat, could affect compliance with four safety standards: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. Your letter provides information that the modification to the vehicle cannot be done in a way that would not violate the make inoperative prohibition.

In situations such as yours where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider any violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition a purely technical one justified by public need. As I have already noted above, NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that modifies the seat on the vehicle to accommodate the condition you describe.

We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made to the seat, and the person making the modifications should consider the possible safety consequences of the modifications. For example, in moving a seat, it is critical that the modifier ensure that the seat is solidly anchored in its new location. In addition, you should consult with the manufacturer to determine the effect of moving the air bag deployment sending unit. The modification may cause the air bag to deploy, and the manufacturer should be able to provide information on how the modification can be safely performed. Finally, if the vehicle is sold, we encourage the owner to advise the purchaser of the modifications.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions or need some additional information in this area, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref:VSA#208 d:3/21/96

ID: 11563ZTV

Mr. Mark A. Evans
Photometric Engineer
Calcoast - ITL
P.O. Box 8702
Emeryville, CA 94662

Dear Mr. Evans:

We have received your letter of February 9, 1996, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it applies to motorcycle headlamps. Specifically you ask for confirmation that motorcycle headlamps using HB2 and/or HB4 light sources must comply with out-of-focus requirements.

As you note, Table III of Standard No. 108 incorporates by reference SAE Standard J584 Motorcycle and Motor Driven Cycle Headlamps, April 1964 as the basic Federal requirement for motorcycle headlamps. Neither SAE J584 nor any provision of Standard No. 108 limit the types of light sources that may be used in a motorcycle headlamp. This means that Standard No. 108 (SAE J584) may be met with a Type HB2 or Type HB4 replaceable light source.

Part of the requirements of Standard No. 108 (SAE J584) are the "Out-of-Focus Tests on Unsealed Units" specifications of Section K of SAE J575. Thus, we confirm your understanding that motorcycle headlamps using Type HB2 or Type HB4 light sources must comply with the out-of-focus requirements of SAE J575. However, the question arises as to which version of SAE J575 applies, the one in effect in 1964 when SAE J584 was adopted, or a later version.

Paragraph S6.1 of Standard No. 108 states that the SAE Standards included in Table III are those published in the 1970 SAE Handbook, except that, for headlamps, unless otherwise specified, the version of J575 is that of December 1988. Correctly, S6.1 should note that SAE J575 DEC88 is for

headlamps for motor vehicles other than motorcycles. SAE J575 DEC88 is paragraphed by numbers rather than by letters and, in any event, no longer includes an out- of-focus test for unsealed units. The version of SAE J575 that is subreferenced by J584 in Standard No. 108 is correctly SAE J575d, August 1967, the version published in the 1970 SAE Handbook. We appreciate the opportunity to provide this clarification.

If you have any questions you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref:108 d:3/4/96