ID: 2708y

Mr. William D. Rogers
President
SportsCar America, Inc.
400 South Elliott Road
Chapel Hill, N.C. 27514

Dear Mr. Rogers:

We have received the (unsigned) petition of SportsCar America, Inc., for a temporary exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, on grounds of substantial economic hardship, and are returning all copies to you for the reasons stated below.

SportsCar America wishes to undertake the importation and sale of passenger cars produced in Brazil. Pursuant to an "Exclusive Distribution Agreement" ("the Agreement") with Alfa Metais Veiculos Ltda. of Brazil, which you enclosed, it has imported a prototype vehicle for study, with reference to its status of conformance with the U.S. vehicle safety and emission standards.

The proper petitioner for this exemption is Alfa Metais Veiculos Ltda., identified in the Agreement that you attached as the "Manufacturer." Under Section l of the Agreement, SportsCar America is to return the prototype to the Manufacturer with "those modifications necessary in order to meet the emission and safety standards necessary for the importation" of the cars, and the Manufacturer will then use it as a model for the production of vehicles for sale in the United States. Under 49 CFR Part 567, the Manufacturer must also attach its certification of compliance to the completed vehicle before its shipment to the United States. Part 555 restricts petitions for temporary exemptions to Manufacturers of motor vehicles.

Although you identify SportsCar America as the "distribution agent", we have no record that the Manufacturer has filed the designation of agent pursuant to 49 CFR 551.45 that is required of Manufacturers offering their products for importation and sale in the United States. Presumably Alfa Metais would wish to appoint SportsCar America as its agent. Once it has done so, SportsCar America may submit the petition on behalf of the Manufacturer. The production and financial data (in dollars, please) must be those of the Manufacturer. However, we regard as relevant to conformance arguments the efforts that SportsCar America intends to make during the time a possible exemption is in effect, as outlined in your petition.

Noting your requests for confidential treatment of information, we are returning all copies of your petition, with our comments. Generally, the agency does not like to accord confidential treatment to all financial data submitted. At a minimum, it would like to include in its notice asking comments from the public a dollar amount of the cumulative net profit or loss experienced by the Manufacturer in the three years preceding the filing of the petition. Similarly, it would like to publish a dollar figure in discussing the effects of a denial of the petition on the petitioner. The purpose of this is our policy that if the public is to make an informed comment on the issue of whether compliance would cause a Manufacturer substantial economic hardship, the public should have access to much the same data as is available to the agency in its determination.

If you would like clarification of any of these matters, Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263) will be happy to provide them.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:555 d:l0/9/90

ID: 10228

The Honorable Bart Stupak
U.S. House of Representatives
902 Ludington St.
Escanaba, MI 49829

Dear Mr. Stupak:

Thank you for your letter enclosing correspondence from your constituent, Mr. Kurt B. Ries, concerning our requirements for school vehicles. Your letter was referred to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for reply, since NHTSA regulates the manufacture of all vehicles, including vans and school buses.

Mr. Ries, Director of the Northeast Michigan Consortium, asks for relief from what he believes is a new Federal regulation. The Northeast Michigan Consortium uses a number of 15-passenger vans to transport students to employment training programs and jobs. Mr. Ries believes the new Federal regulation will require all vehicles transporting students, including vans, to be replaced with "mini-school buses," which he believes is economically unfeasible.

I appreciate this opportunity to address your constituent's concerns. As explained below, the new regulation that Mr. Ries is concerned about is not a Federal regulation, but one that Michigan is considering adopting as State law.

NHTSA has issued safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles, including school buses. Under our regulations, a "school bus" is a vehicle carrying 11 or more persons, that is sold to transport children to school or school-related events. Congress has directed NHTSA to require school bus manufacturers to meet safety standards on aspects of school bus safety, including floor strength, seating systems, and crashworthiness. Each seller of a new school bus must ensure that the vehicle is certified as meeting these safety standards.

While NHTSA regulates the manufacture and sale of new school buses, this agency does not regulate the use of vehicles. Thus, we do not have a present or pending requirement that would require Mr. Ries to cease using his vans for school transportation.

The requirements for the use of school buses and other vehicles are matters for each State to decide. We understand from Mr. Roger Lynas, the State Pupil Transportation Director in Michigan, that Michigan is considering changing its school bus definition to make it more similar to NHTSA's. Such an amendment could affect what vehicles can be used for school transportation under State law. For more information about Michigan's proposed amendment, we suggest Mr. Ries contact Mr. Lynas at (517) 373-4013.

NHTSA does not require States to permit only the use of "school buses" when buses are used for school transportation. However, we support State decisions to do so. NHTSA provides recommendations for the States on various operational aspects of school bus and pupil transportation safety programs, in the form of Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, "Pupil Transportation Safety," copy enclosed. Since school buses have special safety features that conventional buses do not have, such as padded, high-backed seats, protected fuel tanks, and warning lights and stop arms, they are the safest means to transport school children. Guideline 17 recommends that all buses regularly used for student transportation meet our school bus safety standards. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Carol Stroebel Director of Intergovernmental Affairs

Enclosure ref:571 d:9/26/95

ID: 10462-2

Mr. John E. Getz
Director, Mobile Products Engineering
Ellis & Watts
4400 Glen Willow Lake Lane
Batavia, Ohio 45103

Dear Mr. Getz:

This responds to your letter asking whether certain operations that your company performs on used trailers result in the trailers being considered "newly manufactured" for purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You stated that you sometimes change the finishing and equipment of a used trailer for a new application. As an example, you stated that you recently took a 10- year old trailer, stripped the inside, and refinished it as a mobile marketing facility. You also stated that in some cases you may cut a hole in the side and install a door for a specific application. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you indicated that you have also changed trailers by adding heating or air conditioning units, or making the trailer usable as an auditorium.

In your letter, you asked whether the trailers would be considered "newly manufactured" if the running gear, VIN and the basic trailer structure do not change, but the ownership does change. You asked this question in light of the fact that change of ownership is relevant under 49 CFR part 571.7(f) in determining whether a trailer manufactured from new and used components is considered newly manufactured. As discussed below, it is our opinion that the operations you describe do not result in the trailers being considered newly manufactured.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issues safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. The agency does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles or equipment meet all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Section 49 CFR part 571.7(f) reads as follows:

Combining new and used components in trailer manufacture. When new materials are used in the assembly of a trailer, the trailer will be considered newly manufactured for

purposes of [the safety standards], unless, at a minimum, the running gear assembly (axle(s), wheels, braking and suspension) is not new, and was taken from an existing trailer--

(1) Whose identity is continued in the reassembled vehicle with respect to the Vehicle Identification Number; and

(2) That is owned or leased by the user of the reassembled vehicle.

This section only applies when new and used materials are used in the "assembly" of a trailer. It is our opinion that the operations that you describe, i.e., where the running gear, VIN and the basic trailer structure do not change, do not constitute trailer assembly. Therefore, this section, including its provision concerning transfer of ownership, does not apply. We consider your operations to be in the nature of repair or refurbishment of a used trailer, which does not result in the trailer being considered newly manufactured.

I hope this information is helpful. If there are any questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

ref:571 d:3/2/95

ID: 10553

Mr. G. Brandt Taylor
President
Day-Night Mirrors, Inc.
36 Barnes Hill Road
Berlin, MA 01503

Dear Mr. Taylor:

This responds to your letter asking about the requirements applicable to multiple reflectance mirrors in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 111, Rear View Mirrors. You stated that your mirror can change its reflectivity either by mechanically rotating a shaft or by actuating an electrical motor.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, each manufacturer is responsible for "self-certifying" that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards.

FMVSS No. 111 specifies requirements for the performance and location of rearview mirrors. Section S11, which specifies requirements for mirror construction, provides in relevant part that

All single reflectance mirrors shall have an average reflectance of at least 35 percent. If a mirror is capable of multiple reflectance levels, the minimum reflectance level in the day mode shall be at least 35 percent and the minimum reflectance level in the night mode shall be at least 4 percent. A multiple reflectance mirror shall either be equipped with a means for the driver to adjust the mirror to a reflectance level of at least 35 percent in the event of electrical failure, or achieve such reflectance automatically in the event of electrical failure.

You asked several questions about the requirement for adjusting the mirror in the event of electrical failure. You first asked if a manual override knob could be removable. You then asked whether a removable manual override could be supplied by the car manufacturer along with the car keys or with the owner's manual for insertion into the mirror and use only in the event of an electrical failure. You also asked about whether "west coast" mirrors and mirrors on trailer trucks could have a removable manual override.

The answer to each of your questions is that a removable manual override knob would not be permitted. In the preamble to the final rule amending the mirror construction requirements in FMVSS No. 111, NHTSA stated that the agency's goal is to assure that multiple reflectance mirrors are capable of providing adequate images at all times during the vehicle's operation, including electrical failure situations where the mirror is unpowered. (see 56 FR 58513, November 20, 1991)

The manual override knob you discuss would serve as the means for the driver to adjust the mirror's reflectance level. However, a removable manual override knob would not always serve this purpose, since it would not necessarily always be with the mirror. We are concerned that a removable override device may become lost or otherwise not available when a mirror's reflectance needs to be adjusted. Accordingly, since the agency's goal of providing adequate images at all times during the vehicle's operation would only be achieved by requiring this device to be permanent, a removable override would not be permitted.

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

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

ref:111 d:2/13/95

ID: 16206.drn

Mr. George J. Aumond
President
Intec Industries, Inc.
1025 S. Linwood Ave.
Santa Ana, CA 92705

Dear Mr. Aumond:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether your company must assign new vehicle identification numbers (VINs) to used trailer chassis, under the facts described in your letter. If the trailers are modified in accordance with NHTSA's regulations on combining new and used components in trailer manufacture, the trailers would be considered used and the VIN assigned to each trailer may be retained.

Your letter states that Intec Industries is in the process of redesigning 40-foot shipping container chassis to "accommodate new laws pertaining to distribution of weight on bridges." You describe the changes as follows:

The modification is accomplished by modifying an existing 40' straight frame chassis, to accommodate one 20' container, with a 48,000 pound load, or, two empty 20' containers, or one 40' or 45' container with 48,000 pound loads. When completed, only the rear 10' of the 40' frame is not used. The compressed length of finished unit is 30'-0". All braking systems, wheels, tires, accumulation tanks, and fifth wheel components, are essentially left intact, and are incorporated into the new design.

In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you stated that if possible, your company would like to retain the assigned VIN on the modified trailers. You further stated that after the changes are made, the gross vehicle weight rating and the gross axle weight ratings of each trailer chassis will remain the same. The distance between the wheels (on the same side of the vehicle) will be adjusted, so that the trailer chassis' load distribution will be in line with new bridge weight requirements.

NHTSA's regulations at 49 CFR 571.7(f) Combining new and used components in trailer manufacture apply to your company's trailer modifications. That regulation provides:

When new materials are used in the assembly of a trailer, the trailer will be considered newly manufactured for purposes of [the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards] unless, at the minimum, the trailer running gear assembly (axle(s), wheels, braking and suspension) is not new, and was taken from an existing trailer -

(1) Whose identity is continued in the reassembled vehicle with respect to the Vehicle Identification Number; and

(2) That is owned or leased by the user of the reassembled vehicle.

Thus, if the trailers are modified under the conditions described in Section 571.7(f), the trailers would be considered used, and Intec Industries may continue to use the assigned VINs on the modified trailers.

Please note that in the modification process, your company must ensure that the certification labels (assigned pursuant to 49 CFR Part 567 Certification) remain on the trailers. Additionally, in order to avoid a violation of 49 U.S.C. 30112(b), when modifying the trailers, your company must not "knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in [those vehicles] in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard..."

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:565#567
d.2/26/98

ID: 17450.nhf

Mr. Joseph Giletto
Northeastern Equipment
150 Brentwood Drive
Mount Laurel, NJ 08054

Dear Mr. Giletto:

This responds to your inquiry about whether several pieces of construction equipment you intend to import from Italy are motor vehicles that must comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Specifically, you intend to import minitransporters, dumpers, selfloading truck mixers, and concrete mixers. You state that the equipment operates on public roads in exceptional circumstances only and is transported by a trailer when moved over public highways. On the basis of the information you provided in your letter and the brochures you enclosed , it appears that the pieces of construction equipment are not motor vehicles. Since you would not be importing motor vehicles, you would not be required to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues and enforces the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. NHTSA's statute defines the term "motor vehicle" as follows:

[A] vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line. 49 USC 30102(a)(6).

Whether NHTSA considers the various pieces of construction equipment to be motor vehicles depends on their use. In the past, we have concluded that this statutory definition does not encompass mobile construction equipment, such as cranes and scrapers, which use the highway only to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site. In such cases, the on-road use of the equipment is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which they were manufactured. Other construction vehicles, such as dump trucks, frequently use the highway going to and from job sites, and stay at a job site for only a limited time. Such vehicles are considered motor vehicles, since the on-highway use is more than "incidental."

Based on the information you provided in your letter and the brochures you enclosed, it appears that the various pieces of construction equipment you intend to import are not "motor vehicles" within the meaning of the statutory definition. This conclusion is based on the statements in your letter that the construction equipment is loaded onto a trailer when moved between job sites and will be operated at the work-site area only. It is also based on the statement that the equipment will be on the road only when operated at the work-site. Thus, the agency would consider the use of the construction equipment on the public roads to be merely incidental. Since these types of construction equipment are not motor vehicles, they would not be required to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If NHTSA were to receive additional information indicating that the construction equipment uses the public roads on more than an incidental basis, the agency would reassess this interpretation.

If you have further questions regarding NHTSA's safety standards, please contact Nicole Fradette of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:VSA
d.6/2/98

ID: 18890.jeg

Mr. Meyer Snyder
5134 Bocaw Pl
San Diego, CA 92115-1717

Dear Mr. Snyder:

This responds to your letter asking whether you can have the force of the air bags on your 1995 Toyota Camry "turned down." You asked whether this can be done at your Toyota dealer and, if not, where it could be done, and whether you would have to pay for this modification.

As discussed below, there is no legal impediment to vehicle manufacturers and dealers modifying older vehicles so that they have the same kinds of redesigned air bags being offered on most new vehicles. However, such modifications would likely be very complicated and potentially expensive, and we are not aware of any vehicle manufacturers or dealers which make such modifications. You may wish to ask Toyota about whether it is possible to modify your vehicle in this manner and at what cost.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. One of the standards we have issued is Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). Manufacturers install air bags in passenger cars as part of complying with the occupant protection requirements of Standard No. 208.

While the Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply only to new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment, Federal law limits the modifications that can be made by certain businesses to used vehicles. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of a design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard (49 U.S.C. 30122).

A manufacturer, dealer or other business which modified the air bags on your 1995 Toyota Camry would not violate the "make inoperative" provision if, after the modification, the vehicle continued to meet the relevant requirements in effect either on the date of manufacture or as later amended. In 1997 NHTSA amended Standard No. 208 to make it easier for manufacturers to quickly redesign their air bags, e.g., by reducing the power as compared to previous years. Compliance with the amended requirements would thus not violate the "make inoperative" provision. As noted earlier, however, the modifications that would need to be made to an existing vehicle so that it would have redesigned air bags would likely be very complicated and potentially expensive, and we are not aware of any vehicle manufacturers or dealers which make such modifications.

I am pleased to hear that you do not want your air bags turned off. The vast majority of persons, including short persons, are much safer with air bags. Among other things, an air bag will minimize the risk of violently striking the steering wheel and dashboard in a moderate to severe crash.

I would also like to point out that there are a few basic steps that you can take to minimize air bag risks, including wearing your safety belts and, when driving, keeping at least 10 inches between the center of the air bag cover and your breastbone. I have enclosed an information brochure, written in the context of making an informed decision about on-off switches, which provides additional information concerning how you can reduce air bag risks.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:208
d.2/3/99

ID: 19437-1.pja

Mr. Robert Douglas
Director of Product Integrity
AmTran Corporation
P.O. Box 6000
Conway, AR 72033

Dear Mr. Douglas:

This responds to your letter to James Jones of our Safety Assurance Office requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release. Your letter was forwarded to my office because the Office of the Chief Counsel responds to requests for interpretation. AmTran manufactures a school bus with a rear push out window, and you want to know whether the window is large enough to meet the specifications in Standard No. 217. As explained below, your window is not big enough.

From the drawing you enclosed, it appears that the height of the window opening on the interior wall of the bus is about 41.9 centimeters (cm) high. The window is hinged at the top, and when opened the bottom edge swings upward and outward with the assistance of "gas springs." When fully opened, the plane of the window inclines at its outward edge toward the ground at approximately 15 degrees. At the top and bottom of the window, there is a frame that projects toward the interior of the bus, perpendicular to the window surface. As the window rotates open, the interior edge of the frame rotates outward and downward, reducing the window opening by 3.1 cm, to 38.8 cm.

The pertinent part of S5.2.3.1(b)⁽¹⁾ specifies "a push out rear window that provides a minimum opening clearance of 41 centimeters high and 122 centimeters wide  . . .." (emphasis added). We cannot agree with your suggestion that the window opening constitutes the "hole in the body with trim." The words "opening clearance" mean that the exit must meet the clearance specification when the emergency exit window is open. We would measure the exit with the window open during compliance testing because that is the actual opening that would be provided to the passengers in an emergency. The opening needed to comply with the standard must be at least a 41 cm by 122 cm rectangle extending from the interior wall of the bus all the way through to the exterior when the window is opened.

The opening on the rear emergency exit window of your bus is only 38.8 cm high when the window is open, 2.2 cm less than the specified minimum height. Thus, we conclude that your emergency exit window design does not comply with S5.2.3.1(b) of Standard No. 217. The additional fact that you mention, that the window may satisfy the separate requirement of S5.4.2.1(c) involving the passage of the ellipsoid, does not have any bearing on its compliance with S5.2.3.1(b).

I hope that this information has been helpful. If you have any further questions, feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:217
d.6/1/99

1. Although your letter referred to S5.2.2.2(b), we assume you meant S5.2.3.1(b), which corresponds to the quotation you included.

ID: 1982-2.9

DATE: 04/30/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Sure-View Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. M.W. Urban Sure-View, Inc. 1337 N. Meridian Street Wichita, Kansas 67203

Dear Mr. Urban:

This responds to your letter of April 5, 1982. I believe that the copy which I recently sent you of my May 14, 1980, letter to Mr. Seashores clearly and carefully explains the agency's statutory authority to regulate design elements such as size and dimension. As my letter of March 25, 1983 to you noted S9.1 of Standard No. 111 is consistent with that statutory authority.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

April 5, 1982 Mr. Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

This in reference to your response to my letter dated 8 Feb. 1982 including a copy of a letter Mr. Seashore date 14 May 1980.

I cannot agree your response to my letter is in accord with your letter to Mr. Seashore. It is my belief and as I read your letter to Mr. Seashore, that our U.S. Congress has delegated and LIMITED to the NHTSA, through their Parent Department of Transportation, the determining and defining of a type of Standard designated as "Performance Requirement". It is also my belief Congress intentionally withheld from the NHTSA the requiring of "Design Requirements", rightfully the Responsibility, and Authority, of industry.

Section S9.1 of FMVSS 111 requires rearview mirrors of unit magnification on each side of School Buses, each having a minimum of 50 square inches of reflective surface, mounted in such a position that if any portion of each mirror is visible to the driver, it meets the requirement of the NHTSA in accordance with Section 102(2) that reads, "a minimum standard for motor vehicle performance, which is practicable, which meets the need for motor vehicle safety and which provides objective criteria".

School children are entitled to safe transportation and I believe our efforts should be in that direction. The Fourth Circuit Court stated: "If an article my be made safer, and the hard of harm may be made safer, and the hazard of harm may be mitigated by an alternate design or device, at no substantial increase in price, the Manufacturer has a duty to adopt such a design."

The Mirror systems for School Buses, Superior in Safety Performance, specified by the State of Texas, had to be returned by the School Bus Safety Performance. I cannot agree this to be in accord with the intent of our U.S. Congress.

Sincerely,

SURE VIEWS, Inc. M.W. Urban

MMU/hl cc: Congressman Dan Glickman

SA20ARDESGNELEMENT4C

Mr. M.W. Urban Sure-View, Inc. 1337 N. Meridian Street Wichita, Kansas 67203

Dear Mr. Urban:

This responds to your letter of April 5, 1982. I believe that the copy which I recently sent you of my May 14, 1980, letter to Mr. Seashores clearly and carefully explains the agency's statutory authority to regulate design elements such as size and dimension. As my letter of March 25, 1982, to you noted S9.1 of Standard No. 111 is consistent with that statutory authority.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: 1983-2.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/17/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Sylvania GTE Products Corporation -- Ken Alexander, Engineering Manager

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Ken Alexander Engineering Manager Sylvania GTE products Corporation 1231 "A" Avenue North Seymour, Indiana 47274

Dear Mr. Alexander:

This is in reply to your letter of April 8, 1983, following a conversation with Mr. Vinson of this office, with reference to Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

You are concerned with the "design to conform" language as it relates to headlamps, and have asked for an interpretation that it "does not mean that every lamp produced is required to have every photometric point in."

I am not certain what you mean by "every photometric point in." However, a manufacturer is expected to design his headlamps so that each will meet the minimum photometric output in candela set for the by SAE J579C for each test point. The agency does not pursue random occasional photometric failures at individual test points. But if a manufacturer's products show a pattern of failures to meet the minimum at any individual test point, the agency could consider this as an indication that the headlamp was, in fact, not "designed to conform".

I hope this answers you question.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

April 8, 1983

Dear Sirs:

This letter is a follow-up to a conversation that I had with Mr. Taylor Vincent of your office.

As I explained in my conversation, we are a major supplier of halogen headlamps to the automotive industry, both domestic and overseas. We are currently engaged in discussions with one of the major auto makers in Japan, with purpose of us supplying headlamps for the cars that they export into the U.S. The Japanese have a lot of trouble in understanding your rules and regulations, and I have spent a lot of in trying to explain them. What I need the help of your office in is the following. I have gone over in detail with them the parts of FMVSS 108 that relate to photometrics of headlamps. I have explained that the references to SAE J579 is to a "design to conform" standard and does not mean that every headlamp produced has to have every photometric point in. I continued that the headlamp suppliers are reputable companies that have shown due regard in making their headlamps the best possible product, give the constraints of manufacturability; and that this is recognized and accepted by the federal government. Although they seem to understand what I am saying, they have asked me to obtain a supportive statement to this effect form someone within the regulatory agencies.

I understand the most acceptable way of doing this is to send you a brief statement of the above interpretation, from which your office can give a formal note of acceptance and agreement. I have attached same, and would appreciate very much the above mentioned action by your office in as short of time as possible.

I realize these are busy times and am sorry to have to add to your schedule, but our potential Japanese customers are insistent on us getting this not of agreement.

Thank you very much for your help and consideration.

Ken Alexander Engineering Manager KA/rb Attachment