ID: 2352y

Mr. T. Chikada
Manager, Automotive Engineering
Lighting Control Dept.
Stanley Electric Co. Ltd.
2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku
Tokyo 153, Japan

Dear Mr. Chikada:

This is in reply to your letter of August 9, l989, to the former Chief Counsel, Erika Jones. You have asked for an interpretation of two of the amendments of May 9, 1989, to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08. We have delayed answering you until action could be taken on petitions for reconsideration of the May 9 amendments. This action was taken on February 8, 1990 (copy of Federal Register notice enclosed), and the new amendments adopted then, effective March 12, l990, include definitions of "Direct reading indicator" and "Remote reading indicator."

Section S7.7.5.2(a)(l)(iii) states in pertinent part that each graduation on a Vehicle Headlamp Aiming Device (VHAD) "shall indicate a linear movement of the scale indicator of not less than 0.05 in. (1.27 mm) if a direct reading analog indicator is used," and "if a remote reading indicator is provided, it shall represent the actual aim movement in a clear, understandable format." Your letter depicts two devices identified as a "direct reading analog indicator" and a "remote reading indicator", and you ask for confirmation that each conforms with the requirements of the section.

Preliminarily, we observe that your drawings do not depict how the devices are determined to be "direct" and "remote". Our interpretation of your "direct indicator" is that the location of the bubble is proportional to the slope of the surface and the adjustment, i.e., as the angle of aim changes, so does the location of the bubble, and its location relative to the graduations changes in proportion to the angle of aim. Our interpretation of your "remote indicator" is that the location of the bubble represents the difference between the correct setting and the actual setting of the adjustment, and the reading may or mau not be proportional to the difference. Based on these interpretations, either device would appear to be capable of meeting the recently adopted definitions of direct and remote reading indicators.

For example, if either device were mounted in its entirety on the headlamp to sense vertical attitude, the devices would both appear to be capable of directly reading the aim of the headlap and also appear to be capable of accommodating variations in floor slope. In this case, each device would meet the definition of a "direct reading indicator". And if either device were mounted in whole or in part elsewhere than on the headlamp or its aiming or mounting equipment (e.g., mounted on the firewall, inner fender panel, instrument panel), and linked mechanically to the headlamp such that its vertical aim was correctly displayed on the indicator, each device would also appear to meet the definition of a "remote reading indicator".

Paragraph S7.7.2 requires in pertinent part that each headlamp aiming mechanism allow aim inspection and adjustment, and be accessible for such uses "without removal of vehicle parts, except for protective covers removable without the use of tools." You have asked whether the protective cover mentioned includes the cover to protect the spirit level when it is a component of the VHAD. The answer is no. The protective cover mentioned is one intended to shield the entire VHAD, or a cover that is not transparent and inhibits the proper aim inspection and adjustment. A transparent cover or transparent portions of a cover protecting the indicator (in your case, the spirit level of your direct reading indicator) is not required to be removable. However, if your remote reading indicator has a transparent protective cover, it would be required to be removable without the use of tools to gain access to the dial indicator, if the indicator is not adjustable with the cover in place.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:l08 d:3/l5/90

ID: 000899_Kagimoto_antipinch

Ms. Reiko Kagimoto
Tokai Rika Co., Ltd.
260, Toyota 3-chrome, Oguchi-cho,
Niwa-gun, Aichi-ken, 480-0195
JAPAN




Dear Ms. Kagimoto:

This responds to your e-mail inquiry asking several questions about an "anti-pinch" requirement (i.e., an automatic reversal requirement) for power side sliding doors. Your questions are restated below, with our answers.

Question 1: FMVSS No. 118 specifies the automatic reversal requirement for [some] power windows, partitions, and roof panel systems. Are sliding doors excluded from the requirement even if they have an automatic reversal system?

Answer: Yes, sliding doors are excluded from FMVSS No. 118 automatic reversal requirements even if they have an automatic reversal system.

Question 2: Does NHTSA have any plan to add sliding doors to the automatic reversal requirement of FMVSS No. 118 in the near future?

Answer: NHTSA does not have any plan at this time to require an automatic reversal requirement for power side sliding doors. However, we are instituting a new database that will track injuries and fatalities associated with motor vehicle events that do not involve crashes. The database will include power window and power door injuries and fatalities. We could amend the FMVSSs in the future if the new database indicates a safety need to do so.

Question 3: Considering the safety of vehicle occupants, should we advise our engineers to design the anti-pinch feature of their sliding doors to comply with the FMVSS No. 118 automatic reversal requirement?

Answer: NHTSA does not have any recommendations as to whether the sliding doors should meet the FMVSS No. 118 automatic reversal requirement.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:118#206
d.4/7/06

ID: nht91-2.29

DATE: March 13, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: James W. Lawrence -- Manager, Compliance and Technical Legislation, Volvo GM Heavy Truck Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-15-90 from James W. Lawrence to Stephen P. Wood (OCC 4912); Also attached to letter dated 4-9-90 from Stephen P. Wood to Mehdi Rowghani (A35; Std. 214; Part 541)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of June 15, 1990 concerning replacement doors. I apologize for the delay in our response. You quote an April 9, 1990 interpretation letter to Mr. Rowghani concerning Standard No. 214, Side Door Strength. You note that the letter states that "there is no requirement that the replacement door restore the vehicle to a condition in which it continues to meet Standard No. 214." You requested a clarification of this statement as you believe that the "render inoperative" provision of Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act would require "installation of parts meeting the same performance requirements as OEM parts."

The "render inoperative" provision of section 108(a)(2)(A) would prohibit any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from removing and replacing an undamaged side door, unless the vehicle continued to comply with Standard No. 214. However, that section does not require a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business to return a vehicle to compliance with a standard if it has been "rendered inoperative" by another agent, such as a crash. The sentence you quote begins, "if damage to a vehicle is such that its original door must be replaced." The interpretation was intended to be limited to situations where damage is so extensive that the vehicle would no longer comply with Standard No. 214.

I hope you find this clarification helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht87-3.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/09/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. T. Chikada Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept. Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku Tokyo 153, Japan

Dear Mr. Chikada:

This is in reply to your letter of September 18, 1987, with respect to a new headlamp design of very low profile. The height of the headlamp is less than that required by dimension A of Figure 4, of Standard No. 108, and you have asked NHTSA: "to make th e height of the headlamp lower than dimension A...on condition that the additional adaptor will be as original equipment".

You are under the impression that our interpretation to you dated March 26, 1987, relating to acceptability of a headlamp lens with a 60 degree angle was an affirmative one conditioned upon the provision of an adaptor as original equipment. In fact, we o nly advised you that such an adaptor should be provided, not that it was required. With respect to your present letter, dimension A is established by Standard No. 108 and cannot be modified except through rulemaking, whether or not an adaptor is provided .

If you wish to submit a petition for rulemaking to amend dimension A of Figure 4 we shall be pleased to consider it. The agency also intends to publish in the near future a notice asking comments on various aspects of vehicle headlamp aim and aiming meth ods which you may wish to consider in relation to your new headlamp design. Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

September 18, 1987

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 U. S. A.

Dear Ms. Jones,

We asked you about use of 60 degrees slanted headlamp by our letter of August 4, 1986. And you replied to us by your letter of March 26, 1987 that our new developed device was permitted to use only when an adaptor is provided as original vehicle equipmen t.

We are now developing a new headlamp which has higher characteristic of aerodynamics than the above headlamp by shortening the height of headlamp. However, we have found it hard to equip the timing pads on the lens because the height of headlamp becomes lower than dimension A required by FMVSS No.108, Figure 4. (See attached drawing.)

So we are asking you following request.

- Request -

We would like to ask you to accept to make the height of headlamp lower than dimension A specified by FMVSS N0.108, Figure 4 on condition that the additional adaptor will be provided as original vehicle equipment.

As mechanical aiming of this lamp can be made only by using additional adaptor, we assure that users will not be given disadvantage even if the height of headlamp becomes lower.

We are looking forward to your reply. Yours Faithfully, Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. T. Chikada Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept. Attachment

ID: PFTF142.TMP

Mr. Tim Peffley
Manager of Quality Systems and Engineering
SpecTemp, Inc.
5406 U.S. Rt. 24
Antwerp, OH 45813





Dear Mr. Peffley:

This responds to your January 23, 2001, letter regarding the use of laminated glass for AS2 and AS3 locations.

You state in your letter that you are writing on behalf of your company, SpecTemp, Inc. (SpecTemp) which is a glass fabricator and temperer servicing an array of different industries. You ask about a lamination technique developed by UCB Chemical Corp. which creates a laminated unit by using a liquid resin application technique. More specifically, the glazing produced by this technique consists of two sheets of glass held together by a liquid resin which, when cured, will provide adhesive strength as a glass laminate.

SpecTemp is seeking from this office a letter that "interprets and condones using laminated, fully tempered safety glass lites, as a unit, in AS2 and AS3 vehicle locations." Further you ask 1) whether there are special tests that must be conducted, outside of your normal DOT testing, for laminated glass that will be used in AS2 and AS3 vehicle locations, 2) whether you must designate any special markings when using laminated glass in side lite installations, and 3) whether you can use your current DOT etch designation. As explained below, outside of the performance, location, labeling, and certification requirements contained in this agency's glazing standard for the type and location of glazing described above, no "special tests" or "special markings" exist. Furthermore, you may use your current DOT etch designation for this glazing provided that it was assigned by this agency pursuant to the glazing standard requirements.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment.

Federal law establishes a self-certification system under which motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers themselves certify that their products comply with all applicable standards. For that reason, NHTSA neither endorses, approves, nor conducts testing of products prior to their introduction into the retail market. Rather, we enforce compliance with the standards by purchasing vehicles and equipment and testing them. We also investigate safety-related defects. I will now address the specific questions raised in your letter.

First you ask whether there are special tests that must be conducted outside of your normal testing for laminated glass that will be used in AS2 and AS3 locations. The answer is no. Pursuant to NHTSA's authority, the agency has established FMVSS No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205). FMVSS No. 205 incorporates by reference "ANS Z26," the American National Standards Institute's Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways. FMVSS No. 205 and ANS Z26 specify performance requirements for various types of glazing (called "Items"), and specify the locations in vehicles in which each item of glazing may be used. (In your letter, you incorrectly identified the codes AS2 and AS3 as "vehicle locations." Those designations are codes required on glazing materials by section 6 of ANS Z26.) Your company's product, a laminated glass, may be used in the vehicle areas designated for Item 2 and/or Item 3 glazing subject to its meeting the prescribed tests for those Items contained in FMVSS No. 205.

Your second and third questions ask whether you must designate any special markings when using laminated glass in side lite installations, and whether you can use your current DOT etch designation. No "special markings" requirements exist for the glazing you describe, and you may continue to use your manufacturer code mark assigned by DOT. (In your letter, you incorrectly refer to the manufacturers code mark as a "DOT designation.") However, you must comply with the marking and certification requirements set forth in S6 of FMVSS No. 205.

For your further information, I am enclosing a fact sheet we prepared entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment, and Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Nancy Bell of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:205
d.6/22/01

ID: 17382.ztv

Tadashi Suzuki, Manager
Automotive Equipment
Legal & Homologation Sect.
Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.
2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku
Tokyo 153,
Japan

Re: Motorcycle Headlamp Arrangement

Dear Mr. Suzuki:

This is in reply to your letter of February 17, 1998, asking for confirmation of your interpretation of the motorcycle headlamp requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Stanley is considering developing a two-lamp motorcycle headlamp system, each of which contains an upper beam and a lower beam light source. The upper beam would be provided by the upper light source or by both light sources. The lower beam would be provided by the lower light source. The upper light source is outboard of the lower light source. You believe that this would be an acceptable arrangement because we have previously said that two headlamps with HB2 bulbs were acceptable if mounted symmetrically about the vehicle's vertical centerline.

Stanley's arrangement is permitted by Standard No. 108. Since Stanley is currently developing this system, however, we would prefer that the lower beam be provided by the upper light source, although this is not a requirement of Standard No. 108. This rearrangement of light sources would make Stanley's new system consistent with the two lamp motorcycle headlamp system permitted by S7.9.1(b) which requires a motorcycle headlighting system using half of a passenger car headlighting system to mount the lower beam as high as practicable. This is also consistent with requirements for two-lamp headlamp systems on other motor vehicles in which the lower beam is to be provided by the most outboard light source (or by all light sources) and the upper beam by the most inboard one(see S7.4(b). The reason for these specifications is that the lower beam will provide greater seeing distance at a higher and more outboard mounting location.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.6/3/98

ID: nht80-4.13

DATE: 10/23/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Interregional Services Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of September 5, 1980, asking whether there is a Federal bumper standard applicable to trucks, and who is responsible for installation of the rear bumper on a truck manufactured in two or more stages. You also inquire whether a truck without a rear bumper is considered a completed vehicle for purposes of Federal regulations, and whether a truck with a frame rail extending beyond the rear end of the vehicle body would violate Federal standards.

The Part 581 Bumper Standard (49 CFR Part 581) applies only to passenger motor vehicles other than multipurpose passenger vehicles. Thus, there is no Federal bumper standard applicable to trucks, and Federal regulations do not impose responsibility for bumper installation on any party in the chain of manufacture.

Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages, defines "completed vehicle" as a vehicle that requires no further manufacturing operations to perform its intended function, other than the addition of readily attachable components (49 CFR @ 568.3). Since the vehicle referred to in your letter apparently is capable of performing its intended function without addition of a bumper, the absence of a bumper would not be relevant in determining the vehicle's final-stage manufacturer for purposes of compliance and certification of compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards (49 CFR @@ 567.5 and 568.6).

At the present time, there are no Federal standards which prohibit the extension of a frame rail beyond the rear end of a truck body. However, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is considering proposal of a regulation which would require protective devices to reduce vehicle penetration under the rear ends of heavy trucks and trailers.

ID: nht95-3.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 29, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Doug Russel -- Design Engineer, Advance Engineered Products

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 05/03/95 LETTER FROM DOUG RUSSELL TO JOHN WOMACK (OCC 10888)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Russel:

This responds to your letter asking about the brake power requirements in section S5.4.2 of Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems (49 CFR 571.121). You asked whether there are any limitations on the pressure which can be used to achieve the required deceleration rate specified in S5.4.2.2. As explained below, the same limitation on the pressure which can be used to achieve the deceleration rate specified in S5.4.2.1 applies to the deceleration in S5.4.2.2. You also asked wh ether brakes must be capable of meeting the specific deceleration rate specified in S5.4.2.2. The answer to that question is yes.

Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. Congress has authorized this agency the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable t o new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has used this authority to establish Standard No. 121, which applies to braking systems on vehicles equipped with air brakes. The agency, however, does not approve motor vehicle or mo tor vehicle equipment, nor does it endorse any commercial products. Instead, Congress has established a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

Standard No. 121's brake power requirements are set forth in section S5.4.2. The purpose of these requirements is to help ensure that brakes retain adequate stopping capability during and after exposure to prolonged or severe use, such as long, downhill driving. The brake power procedure specified by that section is conducted on a dynamometer and is intended to replicate real world brake performance. The specified decelerations are designed to heat the brakes to simulate severe driving conditions.

Section S5.4.2 requires that each brake

shall be capable of making 10 consecutive decelerations at an average rate of 9 f.p.s.p.s from 50 m.p.h. to 15 m.p.h., at equal intervals of 72 seconds, and shall be capable of decelerating to a stop from 20 m.p.h. at an average deceleration rate of 14 f .p.s.p.s. 1 minute after the 10th deceleration.

For the first ten decelerations, section S5.4.2.1 specifies the conditions under which the decelerations must be performed, including that "The service line air pressure shall not exceed 100 p.s.i. during any deceleration." For the eleventh deceleration, S5.4.2.2 specifies that "one minute after the end of the last deceleration required by S5.4.2.1 and with the drum or disc rotating at a speed of 20 m.p.h., decelerate to a stop at an average deceleration rate of 14 f.p.s.p.s."

In asking whether there are any limitations on the pressure which can be used to achieve this eleventh deceleration, you noted that S5.4.2.2, unlike S5.4.2.1, does not explicitly specify a pressure limitation. However, reading section S5.4.2 (including S5.4.2.1 and S5.4.2.2) as a whole, the brake line pressure limitation set forth in S5.4.2.1 applies to the eleventh deceleration as well. Section S5.4.2 specifies a test procedure consisting of a series of events, i.e., preparing the dynamometer for the test including a 100 p.s.i. pressure limit, then making 10 decelerations on the dynamometer under the conditions set forth in S5.4.2.1, then making the eleventh deceleration. Section S5.4.2.2 does not specify any change in the dynamometer pressure limit for the eleventh deceleration. The dynamometer pressure limit specified for the brake power test simply reflects the fact that tractor trailer brakes are typically configured to operate at a maximum nominal brake pressure of approximately 100 psi. Use of a higher brake pressure that differed from a vehicle's actual maximum brake pressure would result in the brake power test not being representative of real world brake performance.

In response to your second question, section S5.4.2 specifies that a brake must be capable of decelerating to a stop from 20 m.p.h. at an average deceleration rate of 14 f.p.s.p.s. 1 minute after the 10th deceleration. See also S5.4.2.2. A brake which c ould not achieve this specified deceleration rate for the eleventh deceleration would not comply with the Standard's requirements.

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

ID: 10888

Mr. Doug Russel
Design Engineer
Advance Engineered Products
144 Henderson Drive
Regina, Saskatchewan S4V 2B2

Dear Mr. Russel:

This responds to your letter asking about the brake power requirements in section S5.4.2 of Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems (49 CFR 571.121). You asked whether there are any limitations on the pressure which can be used to achieve the required deceleration rate specified in S5.4.2.2. As explained below, the same limitation on the pressure which can be used to achieve the deceleration rate specified in S5.4.2.1 applies to the deceleration in S5.4.2.2. You also asked whether brakes must be capable of meeting the specific deceleration rate specified in S5.4.2.2. The answer to that question is yes.

Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. Congress has authorized this agency the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has used this authority to establish Standard No. 121, which applies to braking systems on vehicles equipped with air brakes. The agency, however, does not approve motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment, nor does it endorse any commercial products. Instead, Congress has established a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

Standard No. 121's brake power requirements are set forth in section S5.4.2. The purpose of these requirements is to help ensure that brakes retain adequate stopping capability during and after exposure to prolonged or severe use, such as long, downhill driving. The brake power procedure specified by that section is conducted on a dynamometer and is intended to replicate real world brake performance. The specified decelerations are designed to heat the brakes to simulate severe driving conditions.

Section S5.4.2 requires that each brake

shall be capable of making 10 consecutive decelerations at an average rate of 9 f.p.s.p.s from 50 m.p.h. to 15 m.p.h., at equal intervals of 72 seconds, and shall be capable of decelerating to a stop from 20 m.p.h. at an average deceleration rate of 14 f.p.s.p.s. 1 minute after the 10th deceleration.

For the first ten decelerations, section S5.4.2.1 specifies the conditions under which the decelerations must be performed, including that "The service line air pressure shall not exceed 100 p.s.i. during any deceleration." For the eleventh deceleration, S5.4.2.2 specifies that "one minute after the end of the last deceleration required by S5.4.2.1 and with the drum or disc rotating at a speed of 20 m.p.h., decelerate to a stop at an average deceleration rate of 14 f.p.s.p.s."

In asking whether there are any limitations on the pressure which can be used to achieve this eleventh deceleration, you noted that S5.4.2.2, unlike S5.4.2.1, does not explicitly specify a pressure limitation. However, reading section S5.4.2 (including S5.4.2.1 and S5.4.2.2) as a whole, the brake line pressure limitation set forth in S5.4.2.1 applies to the eleventh deceleration as well. Section S5.4.2 specifies a test procedure consisting of a series of events, i.e., preparing the dynamometer for the test including a 100 p.s.i. pressure limit, then making 10 decelerations on the dynamometer under the conditions set forth in S5.4.2.1, then making the eleventh deceleration. Section S5.4.2.2 does not specify any change in the dynamometer pressure limit for the eleventh deceleration. The dynamometer pressure limit specified for the brake power test simply reflects the fact that tractor trailer brakes are typically configured to operate at a maximum nominal brake pressure of approximately 100 psi. Use of a higher brake pressure that differed from a vehicle's actual maximum brake pressure would result in the brake power test not being representative of real world brake performance.

In response to your second question, section S5.4.2 specifies that a brake must be capable of decelerating to a stop from 20 m.p.h. at an average deceleration rate of 14 f.p.s.p.s. 1 minute after the 10th deceleration. See also S5.4.2.2. A brake which could not achieve this specified deceleration rate for the eleventh deceleration would not comply with the Standard's requirements.

I hope this information has been 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,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:121 d:6/29/95

ID: 2638y

Mr. William Waltz
Wagner Division
Cooper Industries, Inc.
155 Algonquin Parkway
Whippany, NJ 07981

Dear Mr. Waltz:

This is in reply to your letter of April 12, l990, stating that Wagner Division "would like to petition N.H.T.S.A. for a 'Determination of Inconsequentiality' for non-compliance."

Specifically, Wagner wishes to manufacture round sealed beam headlamps (not "bulbs" as you call it) for Lectric Limited, a small parts business geared towards the antique automobile hobby. The headlamps are intended for use on "antique automobiles". We understand that term to mean any automobile manufactured in l940 and subsequent model years that was originally equipped with round sealed beam headlamps. Although the headlamps would be designed to conform to current specifications, those of SAE Standard J579c, the word "top" would be used on the 7-inch diameter headlamp instead of the designation "2CI" (you mean "2D1"), the numeral "1" for "1C1" on the single beam 5 3/4-inch diameter headlamp, and the numeral "2" for "2C1" on the dual beam 5 3/4-inch diameter headlamp. The lamps would not bear "DOT" identification. Lectric Limited is willing to "ink stamp" DOT, 2Dl, 1C1, and 2C1 "on either the face and or the rear" of each headlamp so that they would not be mistaken for those conforming to SAE J579a, and to print instructions for purchasers explaining the difference. Lectric Limited is also willing to insure that the headlamps are marketed only through antique auto specialty retailers.

First, let me explain that your request cannot be considered as one for a determination of inconsequentiality. These determinations are made after-the-fact in order to determine whether a manufacturer must fulfill statutory obligations which include replacement, repurchase, or repair of the already-manufactured noncompliant product. What you seek is permission to produce motor vehicle equipment that fails to comply with labeling requirements. Unfortunately, the agency has no exemption provisions which can address this issue. We have authority to exempt manufacturers of motor vehicles from compliance for a temporary period, but we have no authority to exempt manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, on either a temporary or permanent basis. Further, we cannot waive the marking requirements of sections S7.2 and S7.3 of Standard No. l08, even for the limited purpose and subject to the restrictions you discuss.

After due consideration of the matter, we believe that you have no choice other than to conform to the marking requirements of Standard No. l08. Although neither the marking nor the performance of J579c headlamps replicates that of J579a headlamps, I hope that auto enthusiasts will be willing to accept the marking that goes with the improved performance.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:l08 d:7/25/90