ID: 19499.ztv

Mr. James Cowell
General Manager
Topline Products
No. 1 Topline Plaza
4651 State Street
Montclair, CA 91763

Dear Mr. Cowell:

This is in reply to your letter of January 27, 1999, "requesting approval to use a product in regard to Federal motor vehicle safety standard 108 lighting rules." You understand that "some types of auxiliary lighting are allowed as long as they do not interfere with the standard equipped vehicle lighting such as head lamps, turn signals, and other factory lighting."

Topline wishes to market a "Chevrolet light truck bowtie emblem that glows in the dark," using "an electro luminescent panel." You have enclosed two photos showing the device mounted on a truck at night when the truck's front lamps are lit.

Let me begin by saying that we have no authority to approve or disapprove items of lighting equipment. We do provide manufacturers of auxiliary lighting equipment with opinions regarding the relationship of their devices to Federal law. Your understanding of the relationship of your device as original equipment to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 is correct; the luminescent bowtie is permitted if it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment that Standard No. 108 requires. After studying your photos, it does not appear to us that the light level of the luminescent bowtie is high enough to impair the effectiveness of the other front lighting equipment on a truck. Because the bowtie does not create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108, it is not a violation of Federal law for it to be installed as an aftermarket device.

Whether it is legal to use the luminescent bowtie emblem depends on state and local laws. We note that the color of the device is blue. Some states restrict the use of blue lighting to emergency vehicles. Whether a state with such a law would apply it to use

of this small device we cannot say, as we are not conversant with laws of the individual states.

You should contact the individual states in which you intend to sell your products. You may also wish to contact:

American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators
4301 Wilson Blvd., Suite 400
Arlington, VA 22203
V: 703 522 4200
F: 703 522 1553
Faxback: 888 226 8237

This organization promotes cooperation among the states with motor vehicle safety, administrative matters, and other issues of importance to motor vehicle use.

You may also wish to contact:

Automotive Manufacturers Equipment Compliance Agency, Inc.
1101 15^th St., N.W. Suite 607
Washington, DC 20005
V: 202 898 0145
F: 202 898 0148

This organization is a centralized voluntary agency that notifies government, industry and the public about items of motor vehicle safety equipment that have been tested by accredited laboratories and found to be in compliance with applicable United States industry, state and federal standards.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.3/3/99

ID: 19518.wkm

Mr. Roger C. Anderson
Production Engineering Manager
GT Development Corporation
14601 Interurban Avenue South
Seattle, WA 98168

Dear Mr. Anderson:

This refers to your letter addressed to Walter Myers of my staff and to your telephone conversations with Jim Gilkey of this agency. You asked whether a dash-mounted pneumatic valve attached to the vehicle's air brake circuit to control various non-brake related chassis functions would be subject to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (Standard) No. 106, Brake hoses. The answer is a qualified yes.

You enclosed schematics of the valve in question with your letter and sent a further drawing to Mr. Gilkey by telefax on May 24, 1999. You stated that the valve is to be used in an unprotected accessory air brake circuit to control various non-brake-related chassis functions. You stated that the plastic-bodied toggle valves incorporate Legris push-to-connect (PTC) 1/4-inch cartridges for connection to the B reservoir in the vehicle's air system. The B reservoir and lines supply air to the vehicle's front brakes. You stated that the PTC cartridges are assembled as an integral element to the dash valve in the manufacturing process, and that original equipment manufacturers insert their accessory lines into these cartridges. You stated that it is your understanding that application of the Legris cartridge integral to your dash valve does not constitute a brake hose end fitting and therefore is not subject to Standard No. 106. You asked us to confirm that understanding.

Brake hose end fitting is defined in S4 of Standard No. 106 as "[A] coupler, other than a clamp, designed for attachment to the end of a brake hose." "Brake hose" is defined, also in S4, as:

[A] flexible conduit, other than a vacuum tubing connector, manufactured for use in a brake system to transmit or contain the fluid pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes (emphasis added).

Although your dash valve does not directly supply air to the vehicle's brake system, if the hoses attached to the dash valve transmit or contain brake air pressure from the vehicle's air system, that is, if failure of any such hose would result in a loss of air pressure in the brake system, then such hoses must comply with Standard No. 106. Moreover, your dash valve to which such hoses were attached would also be required to comply with Standard No. 106. However, if you added a check valve to the non-brake-related circuit so that loss of pressure in the circuit did not affect air brake system pressure, the hose would not be considered brake hose subject to Standard No. 106.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Mr. Myers or Mr. Gilkey at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 or (202) 366-5295.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:106
d.7/27/99

ID: 19518.wkm

Mr. Roger C. Anderson
Production Engineering Manager
GT Development Corporation
14601 Interurban Avenue South
Seattle, WA 98168

Dear Mr. Anderson:

This refers to your letter addressed to Walter Myers of my staff and to your telephone conversations with Jim Gilkey of this agency. You asked whether a dash-mounted pneumatic valve attached to the vehicle's air brake circuit to control various non-brake related chassis functions would be subject to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (Standard) No. 106, Brake hoses. The answer is a qualified yes.

You enclosed schematics of the valve in question with your letter and sent a further drawing to Mr. Gilkey by telefax on May 24, 1999. You stated that the valve is to be used in an unprotected accessory air brake circuit to control various non-brake-related chassis functions. You stated that the plastic-bodied toggle valves incorporate Legris push-to-connect (PTC) 1/4-inch cartridges for connection to the B reservoir in the vehicle's air system. The B reservoir and lines supply air to the vehicle's front brakes. You stated that the PTC cartridges are assembled as an integral element to the dash valve in the manufacturing process, and that original equipment manufacturers insert their accessory lines into these cartridges. You stated that it is your understanding that application of the Legris cartridge integral to your dash valve does not constitute a brake hose end fitting and therefore is not subject to Standard No. 106. You asked us to confirm that understanding.

Brake hose end fitting is defined in S4 of Standard No. 106 as "[A] coupler, other than a clamp, designed for attachment to the end of a brake hose." "Brake hose" is defined, also in S4, as:

[A] flexible conduit, other than a vacuum tubing connector, manufactured for use in a brake system to transmit or contain the fluid pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes (emphasis added).

Although your dash valve does not directly supply air to the vehicle's brake system, if the hoses attached to the dash valve transmit or contain brake air pressure from the vehicle's air system, that is, if failure of any such hose would result in a loss of air pressure in the brake system, then such hoses must comply with Standard No. 106. Moreover, your dash valve to which such hoses were attached would also be required to comply with Standard No. 106. However, if you added a check valve to the non-brake-related circuit so that loss of pressure in the circuit did not affect air brake system pressure, the hose would not be considered brake hose subject to Standard No. 106.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Mr. Myers or Mr. Gilkey at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 or (202) 366-5295.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:106
d.7/27/99

ID: 19541.drn

Lisa Shalkowski, Director
Sunshine Child Care Center
1801 S.W. McKinley
Des Moines, IA 50315

Dear Ms. Shalkowski:

This responds to your letter concerning Federal school bus requirements that apply to the sale or lease of a 15-person van to your center. You state that the Sunshine Child Care Center is licensed to care for up to 120 children, about 20 of whom are of school age. You state that you have been trying to purchase a used van, and you also ask whether our school bus requirements apply. You write that "The majority of our van use would be for the purpose of transporting preschool age children to parks, libraries, and other special events" and that "[d]uring the school year, we transport school age children to and from the neighborhood school, which is only five blocks away."

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles. Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30112 requires any person selling or leasing a new vehicle to sell or lease a vehicle that meets all applicable standards. Accordingly, persons selling or leasing a new "school bus" must sell or lease a vehicle that meets the safety standards applicable to school buses. Our statute defines a "schoolbus" as any vehicle that is designed for carrying a driver and more than 10 passengers and which, NHTSA decides, is likely to be "used significantly" to transport "preprimary, primary, and secondary" students to or from school or related events. 49 U.S.C. 30125. By regulation, the capacity threshold for school buses corresponds to that of buses -- vehicles designed for carrying more than ten (10) persons. For example, a new 15-person van that is likely to be used significantly to transport students is a "school bus" and must meet our school bus safety standards.

Your letter did not provide much information on the use of the van, but it appears that use of it to carry students to or from school may be "significant." Your daily and regular use of the van to carry students to and from school is similar to use of a van described in our July 23, 1998 letter to Northside Ford (copy enclosed). That letter addressed the use of a van by a child care facility to transport children to or from school "on regular school days." NHTSA stated that: "Such recurring and consistent use of the van to transport students 'to or from school' would constitute a 'significant' use of the vehicle."

The requirement to sell or lease complying school buses applies only to new buses. If the Sunshine Child Care Center wishes to buy a used 15-person van or enter into a long-term lease of such a bus, that transaction is not regulated by NHTSA. However, using buses that do not meet the school bus standards to transport students could result in increased liability in the event of a crash. Since such liability would be determined by State law, you may wish to consult with your attorney and insurance carrier for advice on this issue.

I hope this information is helpful. For more information about the safety features of a school bus, I am enclosing NHTSA's publication: "School Bus Safety: Safe Passage for America's Children." I am also enclosing NHTSA's Februrary 1999 "Guideline for the Safe Transportation of Pre-school Age Children in School Buses." If you have any further questions please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:VSA#571.3
d.4/7/99

ID: 19548.ztv

Herr Tilman Spingler
Robert Bosch GmbH
Automotive Equipment Div. 2
Postfach 13 42
D-72703 Reutlingen
Germany

Dear Herr Spingler:

This is in reply to your fax of February 3, 1999, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You state that Figures 15-1 and 15-2, Figures 17-1 and 17-2, and Figures 28-1 and 28-1 show a position 10U-90U for a lower beam headlamp with a maximum intensity of 125 cd. In your view, it is not clear whether, for compliance testing, that means a scan on the vertical line from 10U to 90U or a scan of an area from e.g., 45L to 45R and from 10U to 90U.

Each of the Figures you reference specify a maximum of 125 candela for test points 10U-90U. The Figures do not state where in space from left to right to locate the vertical line, and thus, they do not specify that a line is to be measured. It follows that the only description of a set of test points is that of the entire area from 90L to 90R and 10U to 90U, i.e., an area from the extreme left of the test point grid to the extreme right of the test point grid, with an elevation of from 10U to 90U.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.7/2/99

ID: 19566.drn

Mr. Encarnacion H. Gonzalez
P. O. Box 1321
Alice, TX 78332

Dear Mr. Gonzalez:

This responds to your letter asking about the applicability of Federal requirements to an invention you are developing, a "windshield airstream deflector system that forces a fast moving blanket of air over the windshield of vehicles to prevent rain, insects, and other small airborne objects from impacting the windshield." I am pleased to provide the information you requested.

At the outset, let me note that you have obviously spent a great amount of time and effort thinking about how to improve driving visibility. We appreciate your efforts in this area and the contributions that inventors such as you make to motor vehicle safety. Unfortunately, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not have any funds to assist you in manufacturing, evaluating, or certifying or otherwise further developing your product for sale to the public.

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. This agency does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards. Also, it is unlawful for dealers to sell motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment that do not meet applicable standards.

Vehicle manufacturers wishing to install your device in a new vehicle (before first sale of the vehicle to the customer) would be required to certify that their vehicles meet all applicable safety standards with the device installed. Two FMVSSs that might be relevant to your device are Standard No. 103, Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems, which specifies requirements for windshield defrosting and defogging systems, and Standard No. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems, which specifies a number of requirements for windshield wiping and washing systems. It is my understanding that you have informed Dorothy Nakama of my staff that as your device is presently designed, it is not intended to be used instead of a vehicle's windshield defrosting and defogging or wiping and washing system, but would be placed in addition to these systems.

Neither Standard No. 103 nor 104 would preclude the inclusion of your windshield airstream deflector device on a motor vehicle. However, a vehicle manufacturer would need to ensure that if a vehicle had your device, the vehicle's windshield defrosting and defogging system and windshield wiping and washing system met all the requirements of Standards Nos. 103 and 104.

No standards would apply to your device to the extent that it is sold as aftermarket equipment. However, Federal law prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from "making inoperative" a vehicle's compliance with any safety standard. If your device affects the compliance of a motor vehicle with Standard No.103 or Standard No. 104, it could not be installed by the above named businesses. Similarly, your device could not be installed by such businesses if the installation adversely affected a vehicle's compliance with any safety standard.

The "make inoperative" provision does not apply to modifications made by owners to their own vehicles. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles. Also, individual States have authority to regulate modifications that a vehicle owner may make to his or her vehicle. We are not able to provide you with information on State laws.

You should contact the individual States in which you intend to sell your products.

For further information about State laws, you may also wish to contact the following: American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), 4301 Wilson Blvd., Suite 400, Arlington, VA 22203. Their telephone number is: (703) 522-4200, and their FAX number is: (703) 522-1553. The AAMVA promotes cooperation among the states with motor vehicle safety, administrative matters, and other issues of importance to motor vehicle use.

Another source of information about State laws is the Automotive Manufacturers Equipment Compliance Agency, Inc. (AMECA), 1101 15^th St., N.W., Suite 607, Washington, DC 20005. Their telephone number is: (202) 898-0145, and their FAX number is: (202) 898-0148. The AMECA is a centralized voluntary agency that notifies government, industry and the public about items of motor vehicle safety equipment that have been tested by accredited laboratories and found to be in compliance with applicable United States industry, state and federal standards.

Finally, your device is considered to be "motor vehicle equipment" under Federal law. This means that you or whoever manufactures your device would be subject to Title 49 of the U.S. Code, sections 30118-30121, concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. If the manufacturer or NHTSA determined that the product contains a safety related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

I hope this information is helpful. As you requested, I am enclosing a copy of Standards Nos. 103 and 104. If you have any further questions, please contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:103#104#VSA
d.3/29/99

ID: 19584.ztv

Mr. Saul Cohen
Chief Executive Officer
Innovative Brake Lighting Systems cc
P.O. Box 968
Morningside 2057
South Africa
FAX +27 11 784-3109

Dear Mr. Cohen:

We have received your letter of February 16, 1999, in which you informed us about your "intelligent" brake light, and asked that we confirm the legality of it.

We cannot do so as it is presently configured. As you describe it, the device is a center high-mounted stop lamp, with extensions which progressively activate from the outside of the lamp towards the center as foot pressure increases on the brake pedal. You state that "At all times, when the brake switch is activated, at least the outer segments are constantly illuminated without any flashing or flickering, and intensity is maintained." You conclude by saying that "the additional segments will illuminate incrementally towards the middle as braking pressure is increased.

In the United States, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment is the regulation governing motor vehicle lighting equipment. Standard No. 108 requires a center high-mounted stop lamp as original equipment for certain motor vehicles, and specifies requirements for the lamp which must be met by replacement equipment as well. The center lamp must activate when the brake pedal is applied. Your letter indicates that the center of the lamp is the last portion of your device to be activated when the brake pedal is applied, thus, the design does not comply with Standard No. 108.

However, your device could be redesigned to comply in the following manner. There must be a central separate lamp that illuminates first and that meets Standard No. 108's requirements in and of itself, including photometrics. This lamp must not be combined with any other lamp, including the adjacent lamps. The adjacent lamps can illuminate outward from the center lamp as brake pressure is applied, but must not be brighter than the center lamp. As we see it, the illuminated extensions of the device are supplementary lighting equipment. Paragraph S5.1.2 of Standard No. 108 allows supplementary lighting equipment if it does not impair the effectiveness of required lighting equipment. The test for aftermarket equipment is similar; it must not "make inoperative" any lighting equipment required by the standard. If you follow the guidelines set forth in this paragraph, then your device would be an acceptable lighting supplement under S5.1.2. We have previously given an opinion that a center lamp with adjacent extensions may be acceptable under Standard No. 108 (see enclosed letter of May 8, 1991, to Keith Salsman).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:108
d.4//21/99

ID: 19596.ogm

Mr. Lance Tunick
Vehicle Services Consulting
P.O. Box 23078
Santa Fe, NM 87502-3078

Re: Seating Positions

Dear Mr. Tunick:

This is in response to your letter requesting information about seating positions. Specifically, you ask several questions regarding a pair of side-facing folding rear seats that appear in photographs enclosed with your letter. The photographs depict what appears to be a sport utility vehicle or a van with bucket seats for the driver and a front seat passenger, forward folding rear split-bench seats for rear seat passengers, and side-facing folding seats in the cargo compartment. The side-facing seats appear to be anchored to the top of each wheelwell with hinges so that when folded, they partially obscure the rearmost set of side windows. When in use, the seat is supported by legs that unfold when it is deployed.

Your letter asks several questions regarding the side-facing rear seats. First, you ask if the side-facing folding seats are "folding jump seats" as that term is used in 49 CFR 571.3. You then ask if the seats would be considered by the agency to be folding jump seats for the purposes of 49 CFR 571.3, and if the seats, and any belts installed with the seats, would have to meet Standard Nos. 207, 208, or 210. (You recognize that any belts incorporated into the vehicle would have to meet Standard No. 209.) If it is the agency's view that the side-facing folding seats in the vehicle are not folding jump seats but are designated seating positions as set forth in 49 CFR 571.3, you ask if Type 1 seat belts can be installed at these seating positions and whether S4.3.2 of Standard No. 207 or an equivalent would apply. Lastly, you ask, regardless of whether the side-facing folding seats are "jump seats" or "designated seating positions," if the seats could be installed as an aftermarket option (after the vehicle is sold at retail) by a repair shop or dealer without having to comply with Standards Nos. 207, 208 or 210?

The term "designated seating position" is defined at 49 CFR 571.3 as:

any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats. Any bench or split-bench seat in a passenger car, truck or multipurpose passenger vehicle with a GVWR less than 10,000 pounds, having greater than 50 inches of hip room (measured in accordance with SAE Standard J1100(a)) shall have not less than three designated seating positions, unless the seat design or vehicle design is such that the center position cannot be used for seating.

Although your letter did not include any drawings of the vehicle or the seats, it appears from the accompanying photographs that the seats in question are large enough to accommodate a 5^th percentile female. Accordingly, unless these seats are auxiliary seating positions or folding jump seats within the meaning of Section 571.3, they are designated seating positions.

The terms "auxiliary seating," "temporary jump seat" and "folding jump seat" are not defined in the agency's regulations. In an April 28, 1971 letter to Mr. Keitaro Nakajima of Toyota Motor Company, the agency indicated its view that "folding jump seat" as used in Section 571.3 applied "solely to the type of seat that is used from time to time in such vehicles as taxi cabs and limousines to accommodate, for short periods of time, an excess number of passengers." Examination of the photographs depicting the side-facing folding seats in the vehicle that is the subject of your letter indicates that these seats fit within that definition.

Your letter then asks if the side-facing folding seats would have to comply with Standard No. 207, Seating systems, and Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection. You also ask, if belts were installed for these seats, if the anchorages would have to comply with Standard No. 210, Seat belt assembly anchorages.

Standard No. 207 establishes performance requirements for seats and their attachments to a vehicle. S4.2 of Standard No. 207 provides that each occupant seat shall withstand certain forces when tested in accordance with the procedures of S5. Occupant seat is defined in S3 of Standard No. 207 as "a seat that provides at least one designated seating position." As noted above, the side-facing folding seats depicted in the vehicle in the photographs attached to your letter do not provide a designated seating position. They are not, therefore, occupant seats as defined in S3 of Standard No. 207 and are not subject to the performance requirements of the Standard. Similarly, the seat belt requirements of Standard No. 208 apply only to designated seating positions as that term is defined in Section 571.3. In addition, S4.1.1 of Standard No. 210 provides that seat belt anchorages shall be installed for each designated seating position for which a seat belt assembly is required by Standard No. 208. As the side-facing jump seats described in your letter are not designated seating positions for the purposes of Standard No. 208, seat belt anchorages are not required for these seats by Standard No. 210.

Lastly, you ask if the side-facing folding seats could be sold as an after-market option, after the vehicle's first sale at retail, and installed by a dealer or auto repair facility.

After a vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale (i.e., the first retail sale of the vehicle) the only provision in Federal law that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in 49 U.S.C. 301222(b)). That section provides that:

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

Any violation of this "make inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty. However, since Standard Nos. 207, 208, and 210 do not apply to these seats, their installation would not affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard Nos. 207, 208 and 210.

We note, however, that this agency strongly advises that all occupants of light vehicles be properly restrained. Therefore, we would strongly recommend that seat belts be provided for any seating accommodation in a light vehicle (one with a gross vehicle weight rating of less than 10,000 pounds) that is likely to be used while the vehicle is in motion. Similarly, we would advise that crashworthiness performance equivalent to that specified by these standards also be provided to occupants of these vehicles.

I hope that this is responsive to your inquiry. If you have any further questions, please contact Otto Matheke of my staff at (202) 366-5263.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:571
d.3/7/2000

ID: 19603.drn

The Honorable Bob Kerrey
United States Senator
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Kerrey:

Thank you for your letter forwarding correspondence from Ms. Gina Dunning, former Director of the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services, Regulation and Licensure. As you are aware, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers the Federal school bus safety program.

Ms. Dunning wrote to you with concerns about a NHTSA regulation affecting child care centers and Head Start programs. In essence, Ms. Dunning was concerned that we have interpreted our statute to disallow dealers' sales of certain new buses to after school care programs that will significantly use the bus to transport school children "to or from school or an event related to school." The buses are those that are not certified as meeting NHTSA's school bus standards.

Ms. Dunning has written a separate letter to me, expressing her concern about our interpretation and how it would affect child care transportation providers in Nebraska. Her letter to me is substantially similar to the letter she addressed to you. While we understand that Ms. Dunning is no longer the Director of the state agency, we responded to her successor, Mr. Richard Nelson, on March 25, 1999. I am enclosing a copy of my response for your information, with all referenced enclosures.

I hope that the enclosed items are helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:VSA#571.3
d.4/14/99

ID: 19623.ztv

Mr. Tadashi Suzuki
Manager
Automotive Equipment
Legal & Homologation Sect.
Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.
2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku
Tokyo 153-8636
Japan

Dear Mr. Suzuki:

This is in reply to your letter concerning the testing of reflectors of replaceable lens headlamps for chemical and corrosion resistance. I apologize for the delay in our response.

Under the test procedure established by S8.10.1(c), after test fluids are applied to headlamp reflectors, the reflectors "shall be wiped clean with a soft cotton cloth . . . ." You remark that the force applied to the reflector during cleaning is not specified, noting that if Stanley wipes the reflector "so gently that the surface would not be damaged, the headlamp will meet the requirements prescribed in S7.4(h)(2)," but, "on the other hand, if we wipe the reflector without any carefulness, the surface might be damaged." In your opinion, this means that "some kind of attention is needed to meet the requirement of S7.4(h)(2)." You ask "if such kind of attention is permitted under S8.10.1(c)."

S5.8.11 of Standard No. 108 requires that a replacement lens for a replaceable lens headlamp must be provided with a replacement seal in a package "that includes instructions for the removal and replacement of the lens, the cleaning of the reflector, and the sealing of the replacement lens to the reflector assembly." Although you reference only the chemical resistance test of S8.10.1(c), we note that the corrosion test contains a specific requirement that "the reflector shall be cleaned according to the instructions supplied with the headlamp manufacturer's replacement lens" (S8.10.2(b)). The instructions for the cleaning of the reflector may specify the force recommended to be applied for this operation.

If the instructions do not specify the force needed to wipe the reflector clean, we would interpret the test procedure as encompassing the range of force levels that technicians would reasonably employ to perform the required task. Thus, in a compliance test where instructions are silent as to the force to be used, no special care would be taken to use the minimum possible force, nor would the technician deliberately use excessive force.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.9/29/99