ID: nht74-4.19

DATE: 07/22/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Volvo of America Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 19, 1974, question whether required hose labeling under Standard No. 106, Brake hoses, permits placing some required labeling on each of several hose sections which are joined together in one vacuum brake line to form the required label. You ask how a 2 3/8-inch section could otherwise be labeled.

It is not permitted under S9.1 to label a vacuum brake hose with only part of the required information, whether or not it appears with all other required labeling in the same brake line.

You state that 5 inches is required to place all labeling on vacuum nose. We do not understand why the legend could not be shortened to 2 3/8-inches or less. There is no width requirement for lettering and Notice 11 now permits labeling information to appear in any order on the hose to simplify cutting.

Please write again if we have misunderstood the problem you have posed.

Yours Truly,

Volvo of America Corporation

June 19, 1974

Lawrence Schneider, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Volvo hereby requests an interpretation on FMVSS 106. We are planning to use one type of vacuum brake hose of several different lengths jointed together. The shortest piece will have a length of two and three eights inches. The minimum length necessary to provide room for all required FMVSS 106 markings is five inches. My question is can we use a vacuum brake hose, which consists of different lengths of the same hose jointed together, where the marking on the shortest piece is incomplete? If not, what marking would be acceptable for a hose two and three eights inch long?

Thank you for your consideration of this matter and we request your reply as soon as practicable.

Sincerely,

Rick Shue Product Safety Engineer

ID: nht75-2.29

DATE: 10/01/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of September 17, 1975, in which you ask whether a permanent label affixed to the inside surface of a hubcap would satisfy the requirements of a new proposed paragraph S3.2 of Standard No. 211.

The intent of the proposed labeling requirements, part of a general identification scheme for motor vehicle equipment manufacturers, is to ensure rapid and efficient identification of the manufacturer of a defective or nonconforming part or vehicle. The placement of an identifying label on the inside of a hubcap would not hinder rapid identification of the manufacturer. Therefore, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration would consider that a label that is permanently affixed to the inside surface of a hubcap and contains the information specified in proposed paragraph S3.2 of Standard No. 211 would comply with the requirements of S3.2.

We hope this answer is satisfactory. If you have any other questions, please contact us.

YOURS TRULY,

September 16, 1975

Frank Berndt Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Interpretation of Proposed Rule FMVSS 211

This is to ask for your interpretation of FMVSS 211, S.3.2 which was proposed in Docket No. 73-14; Notice 3, published on March 19, 1975.

S.3.2 (labeling requirement) states, "Each wheel nut, wheel disc and hubcap shall be permanently and legibly marked or labeled with . . . . .".

As the location of the mark or the label is not specifically mentioned in S.3.2, may we understand that it is in compliance with S.3.2 to affix permanently and legible the label on the inside surface of the hubcap?

Thank you for your attention to the above question. We look forward to hearing your interpretation of the above.

NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.

Tokio Iinuma

Staff, Safety

ID: nht74-5.48

DATE: 05/17/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Renault, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of May 3, 1974, requesting an interpretation of the test procedure specified in Standard No. 301 (Docket No. 73-20; Notice 2) concerning the operation of the vehicle's fuel pump during testing.

Paragraph S7.1.3 of the standard requires that electrically driven fuel pumps be in operation during the barrier crash tests if they normally operate with the activation of the vehicle's electrical system. If the pump is incapable of functioning with the independent activation of the electrical system and requires the operation of the vehicle's engine, then the pump should not be running during the barrier crash tests.

Thus, the interpretation of the requirement expressed in your letter is correct.

YOURS TRULY,

May 3, 1974

Mr. Lawrence R. Schneider Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION - FMVSS 301-75

We would appreciate receiving a confirmation that our interpretation of @ S.7.1.3 of FMVSS 301-75 (Docket No. 73-20; Notice 2) is correct.

@ S.7.1.3 says, "If the vehicle has an electrically driven fuel pump that normally runs when the vehicle's electrical system is activated, it is operating at the time of a barrier crash".

Our understanding is that while the ignition switch is in the "ON" position, the engine is stopped since the fuel tank is filled with an ASTM type 1 solvent. However, some vehicles equipped with an electrically driven fuel pump include a switch device that shuts off the fuel pump after 1.5 seconds, should the engine stop for any reason.

This means that during the test at the time of the crash the fuel pump will not be running even though the ignition key is turned "ON".

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Francois Louis Manager Technical Standards Department

ID: nht95-2.92

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 22, 1995

FROM: Giuseppe Di Vito -- Societa Italiana Vetro S.p.A., Sede E Stabilimenti

TO: Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Request for legal interpretation, FMVSS 205.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/4/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO GIUSEPPE DI VITO (A43; STD. 205; REDBOOK 2)

TEXT: Dear Sir,

INTRODUCTION

Siv hereby request an interpretation for the testing of a Glass-Plastic glazing item 15A, FMVSS 205. We respectfully request the NHTSA's response at the soonest possible date.

PURPOSE

We ask by this letter for your interpretation involving testing of glazing item AS 15A, Glass Plastic (Annealed Glass-Plastic for use in all position in a Vehicle except for Windshield). We request an interpretation of whether or not test no.5 (bake ANSI Z.26.1-1977) may substitute test no. 4 (boil, ANSI Z26.1-1977) for certification of compliance of that glazing.

BACKGROUND

BMW requested our company to develop a security glazing made of:

1. Door glass: Glass - Polyurethane - Polycarbonate, as per enclosed sketch no. 1. 2. Rear Quarterlite: Glass - Polyvinylbutirale, as per enclosed sketch no. 2.

Both these glass plastic parts have an internal safety spall shield to protect occupants against facial injuries coming form glass particles when the side window is broken or in case of accident. This product meets all the ECE R 43 compliance tests, whi ch include a 100 degrees C (212 degrees F) bake test. The product meets all the applicable test of FMVSS 205 except test n degrees 4 (boil test), which is not compatible with adhesion of the internal spall shield.

This type of glazing will be installed on a limited number of 1996 BMW cars to be sold in Europe and USA. BMW and SIV believe that this spall shield is an important safety innovation, whose absence would not allow introduction of these side windows into the USA.

We expect your urgent answer and thank you in advance.

Attachment Bar graphs - security glazing (omitted).

ID: nht88-2.70

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/14/88

FROM: SADATO KADOYA -- MANAGER, SAFETY -- ENGINEERING, MAZDA

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION - FMVSS 108; LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES, AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT - AUXILIARY LAMPS

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 11-3-88, TO SADATO KADOYA, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, STD 108; ALSO ATTACHED, MEMO DATED 7-14-88, RE: REQUEST FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT OF INFORMATION-49 CFR PART 512, CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION

TEXT: Mazda is currently developing a lamp mechanism that features movable reflectors which can expand the area of illumination according to the driving steering angle on curved roads. The purpose of such a mechanism, when incorporated into the vehicle forwar d lighting system, is to better illuminate the forward curved path of the driver, and to therefore improve night-driving safety on winding roads.

To insure that such a system will be in compliance with all applicable safety standards, Mazda would like to confirm its interpretation of FMVSS 108; Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

In Mazda's proposed system, an electronic control unit adjusts an additional reflector's position to as much as thirty degrees to each side of the zero degree position in accordance with changes in steering angle. Automatic return of the reflectors t o the zero position occurs when the steering angle returns to zero degrees.

According to our interpretation of FMVSS 108, headlamps cannot be equipped with adjustable reflectors (S4.1.1.36). The only relevant provision applicable to fog lamps and cornering lamps is the requirement that they not impair the effectiveness of re quired vehicle lighting equipment (S4.1.3). Are we correct in concluding that although it will not be possible to introduce our adjustable reflector lamp as a headlamp, it may be possible to introduce it as a fog or cornering lamp, assuming the above pr ovision is met?

We would appreciate your interpretation of these issues at your earliest convenience. Please do not limit your discussion to the above regulations, but also address any other regulations and automotive safety considerations that might be pertinent.

ID: 18571-b.wkm

Barjan Products
2751 Morton Drive
East Moline, IL 61244

Dear Sir/Madam:

It has come to our attention that your company manufactures a product called the Air Blow Gun (ABG), which is described as a length of 11.5-foot coiled 1/4 inch tubing with brass fittings on either end and a lever-type blow gun. The ABG attaches to the vehicle's compressed air system which supplies compressed air for its braking system. When attached to the air system, it can be used to clean various surfaces with air pressure. The ABG's container carries the notation "D.O.T. approved" in four places.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), by delegation from the Secretary of Transportation, has the statutory authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). That statutory scheme establishes a self-certification system under which motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers themselves certify that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs. Most of the FMVSSs that apply to motor vehicle equipment require such equipment to be certified by the manufacturer. Where required, that certification is often shown by marking the product itself with the symbol "DOT." NHTSA enforces compliance with the standards by purchasing and testing motor vehicles and equipment. The agency also investigates safety-related defects. If NHTSA or the manufacturer finds that a vehicle or item of equipment does not comply with applicable standards or is found to have a safety-related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for remedying the defect or noncompliance at no charge to the customer. In carrying out its functions, consistent with the self-certification aspects of the program, NHTSA does not approve, disapprove, endorse, test, or grant clearances for products prior to their introduction into the retail market.

Turning now to the ABG, we would classify it as an item of motor vehicle equipment, which is defined in 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(7)(B) as any "part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of a system, part, or component, or as an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle." The ABG would be classified as an accessory if it meets the following two tests:

a. A substantial portion of its expected uses are related to the operation and/or maintenance of motor vehicles; and

b. It is purchased or otherwise acquired, and principally used, by ordinary users of motor vehicles.

After reviewing the product and the information on its container, we conclude that the ABG is an accessory. It was obviously designed and is being marketed with the expectation that a substantial portion of its expected use will be in or on motor vehicles. Further, it would appear that the ABG is intended to be purchased and principally used by ordinary users of motor vehicles, specifically vehicles equipped with air brake systems, as opposed to professional vehicle repair personnel, since its stated purpose is "for fast and easy cleaning," using the vehicle's own compressed air supply. Motor vehicle repair businesses can be expected to have their own air supply.

While the ABG is a motor vehicle accessory, NHTSA has not issued any FMVSSs establishing performance standards applicable to this particular product.⁽¹⁾ Thus, under the certification provisions, certifying or marking the ABG with the "DOT" symbol is not warranted. Nevertheless, you, as the manufacturer, are subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30118 - 30120, which set forth the notification and remedy procedures for products with defects related to motor vehicle safety.

As stated above, NHTSA does not approve motor vehicle equipment or accessories. The phrase "D.O.T. approved," where there are no applicable FMVSSs, is a false certification in violation of 49 U.S.C. 30115 and could be misleading to the public. Accordingly, the notation "DOT approved" must be removed from the product's container and any other promotional literature or information pertaining to this product.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992, or by fax at (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:121#VSA
d.3/23/99

1. FMVSS No. 121. Air brake systems, specifies performance and equipment requirements for braking systems on motor vehicles that are equipped with air brake systems. The standard does not address the use of air pressure from the brake air supply for other purposes, such as use of the ABG for cleaning, but doing so could affect the vehicle's compliance with the air brake standard. Further, if the ABG is permanently integrated into the vehicle's compressed air supply system, as opposed to being attached and detached as needed, the ABG could be subject to FMVSS No. 106, Brake hoses. It could be subject to the brake hose standard if it transmits or contains the brake air pressure used to supply force to a vehicle's brakes, or stated another way, if a failure of the hose would result in a loss of air pressure in the brake system. In such a case, the ABG would be a brake hose and must comply with FMVSS No. 106. If a check valve or other device is used to prevent loss of pressure, however, then the ABG would not contain or transmit the vehicle's brake air pressure and would not be required to comply with the brake hose standard.

ID: nht94-8.24

DATE: February 8, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Honorable Sam Nunn -- Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, U. S. Senate

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated January 11, 1994 from Sam Nunn to Jackie Lowey, letter dated 12/22/94 from Bill Lee to Sam Nunn and letter dated 12/17/93 from Tim Adamson to Bill Lee

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of January 11, 1994, to the Acting Director of Congressional Affairs, DOT, with respect to an inquiry from Georgia State Representative Bill Lee regarding the disposition of surplus HMMMV (Humvee) military vehicles.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is the component within DOT that establishes and enforces the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. In recognition of the fact that compliance with the FMVSS could interfere with the ability of a military vehicle to perform its intended task, we have always exempted from compliance with the FMVSS any motor vehicle that is manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications.

When such a vehicle has reached the end of its useful military life, the question arises as to its proper disposition. NHTSA has no authority over the disposition that any owner wishes to make of his motor vehicle, whether civilian or military in nature, thus the matter is not the subject of any DOT-administered statute or of any NHTSA regulations. From time to time the Department of Defense (DOD) asks our advice on disposal of surplus vehicles; we provide it and DOD appears to follow it. However, in the last analysis, it is DOD's policy that governs the disposal of surplus military motor vehicles.

With respect to the HMMMV, we have advised DOD that we deem it not in the interests of traffic safety to sell for civilian use a motor vehicle that is not in compliance with the FMVSS. We recognize that there is a competing public interest in recovery of Federal funds to the extent practicable but, in our view, it is outweighed by the interest in safety. Given the fact that HMMMVs are now available that meet the FMVSS, we have further advised DOD to consult with the HMMMV's manufacturer to determine whether military vehicles might be retrofitted to comply with the FMVSS. If this can be accomplished, NHTSA would have no objection to the sale of retrofitted military HMMMVs for civilian use.

I hope that this clarifies the matter for Representative Lee.

ID: nht93-5.2

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: June 29, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Charles H. Taylor -- U.S. House of Representatives

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-3-93 from Charles H. Taylor to Jackie Lowey (OCC 8735).

TEXT: This responds to your letter of June 3, 1993, to the Acting Secretary for Legislative Affairs, asking the Department of Transportation (DOT) "to reconsider its rules regarding the sale of surplus HMMMV (Humvee) military vehicles to law enforcement organizations." You have enclosed correspondence from your constituent, Sheriff Long of Buncombe County with respect to this matter. Although your letter states that a letter from the Department of Defense to Sheriff Long is also enclosed, we did not receive it.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is the component within DOT that establishes and enforces the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. In recognition of the fact that compliance with the FMVSS could interfere with the ability of a military vehicle to perform its intended task, we have always exempted from compliance with the FMVSS any motor vehicle that is manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications.

When such a vehicle has reached the end of its useful military life, the question arises as to its proper disposition. NHTSA has no authority over the disposition that any owner wishes to make of his motor vehicle, whether civilian or military in nature, thus we have no "rules" to reconsider, as you have requested. The Department of Defense (DOD), however, asks our advice on disposal of surplus vehicles; we provide it and DOD appears to follow it. However, in the last analysis, it is DOD's policy that governs the disposal of surplus military motor vehicles.

With respect to the HMMMV, we have advised DOD that we deem it not in the interests of traffic safety to sell for civilian use a motor vehicle that is not in compliance with the FMVSS. We recognize that there is a competing public interest in recovery of Federal funds to the extent practicable but, in our view, it is outweighed by the interest in safety. Given the fact that HMMMVs are now available that meet the FMVSS, we have further advised DOD to consult with the HMMMV's manufacturer to determine whether military vehicles might be retrofitted to comply with the FMVSS. If this can be accomplished, NHTSA would have no objection to the sale of retrofitted military HMMMVs for civilian use.

I hope that this clarifies the matter for you.

ID: nht94-1.46

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: February 8, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Honorable Sam Nunn -- Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, U. S. Senate

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated January 11, 1994 from Sam Nunn to Jackie Lowey, letter dated 12/22/94 from Bill Lee to Sam Nunn and letter dated 12/17/93 from Tim Adamson to Bill Lee

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of January 11, 1994, to the Acting Director of Congressional Affairs, DOT, with respect to an inquiry from Georgia State Representative Bill Lee regarding the disposition of surplus HMMMV (Humvee) military vehicles.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is the component within DOT that establishes and enforces the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. In recognition of the fact that compliance with the FMVSS could interfere with the ability of a military vehicle to perform its intended task, we have always exempted from compliance with the FMVSS any motor vehicle that is manufactured for, and sold direct ly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications.

When such a vehicle has reached the end of its useful military life, the question arises as to its proper disposition. NHTSA has no authority over the disposition that any owner wishes to make of his motor vehicle, whether civilian or military in nature , thus the matter is not the subject of any DOT-administered statute or of any NHTSA regulations. From time to time the Department of Defense (DOD) asks our advice on disposal of surplus vehicles; we provide it and DOD appears to follow it. However, in the last analysis, it is DOD's policy that governs the disposal of surplus military motor vehicles.

With respect to the HMMMV, we have advised DOD that we deem it not in the interests of traffic safety to sell for civilian use a motor vehicle that is not in compliance with the FMVSS. We recognize that there is a competing public interest in recovery o f Federal funds to the extent practicable but, in our view, it is outweighed by the interest in safety. Given the fact that HMMMVs are now available that meet the FMVSS, we have further advised DOD to consult with the HMMMV's manufacturer to determine wh ether military vehicles might be retrofitted to comply with the FMVSS. If this can be accomplished, NHTSA would have no objection to the sale of retrofitted military HMMMVs for civilian use.

I hope that this clarifies the matter for Representative Lee.

ID: nht90-2.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 9, 1990

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: ROBERT A ROGERS -- DIRECTOR, ASE, EAS

TITLE: NONE

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter asking for confirmation that an interpretation of a notice of proposed rulemaking remains in effect with respect to the final rule based upon that proposal. I regret the delay in responding.

Specifically, you reference an interpretation dated September 12, 1988, that this office provided Koito Corporation, informing it that each of the two Vehicle Headlamp Aiming Device (VHAD) designs depicted "complies with the intent of S7.7.5.2" of Standa rd No. 108. The second design consisted of a detachable spirit level that would be inserted in the bulb socket for the purpose of aiming the headlamp. We informed Koito that under subsection (b)(7) photometric testing is provided for "the VHAD and head lamp assembly (if the headlamp is separable or intended to be used with the VHAD), and that this meant that the VHAD may be integral with the headlamp assembly or separate from it. However, we also cautioned that our comments were based upon the proposa l, and could change with the issuance of the final rule.

You have commented that the final rule was the same with respect to the pertinent VHAD wording. This is not entirely true. The final rule (paragraph S7.7.5.2(b)(vii)) omitted the parenthetical phrase "(if the headlamp is separable or intended to be use d ,with the VHAD). You also noted that paragraph S7.7.5.2(c)(1) of the final rule defines a headlamp assembly as "(the headlamp(s) and the integral or separate VHAD mechanism)". The intent of this language is to specify a VHAD that is a permanent part of the headlamp, and hence integral, or to have a separate VHAD that is part of the mounting mechanism. It was not meant as permitting a VHAD that could be physically separated from headlamp or the mounting mechanism. Thus, in our view and upon our fur ther consideration of the matter, a detachable VHAD does not meet the "intent" of the final rule.

This means that the spirit level design described in your letter, which is not integral to the headlamp or mounting mechanism, is not permissible. We shall provide Koito with a copy of this letter.

DATE: October 3, 1989

FROM: ROBERT A. ROGERS -- DIRECTOR, ASE

TO: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

COPYEE: AUGUST BURGETT; BARRY FELRICE The purpose of this letter is to request that the NHTSA affirm a previous FMVSS 108 interpretation that it has issued. The interpretation involves the applicablity of vehicle headlamp aiming device (VHAD) requirements and is relevant to a design which G eneral Motors is considering.

BACKGROUND

On December 29, 1987, NHTSA published an NPRM (Dicket 85-15, Notice 5) which prrposed extensive revisions to FMVSS 108, including a provision to allow a VHAD.

In a letter dated April 8, 1988, Koito Manufacturing Company asked the agency for confirmation that two different VHAD designs that it was contemplating would comply with the proposed FMVSS 108 revisions. The second design described in the Koito lett er consists of a detachable spirit level that would be inserted in the bulb socket for the purpose of aiming the headlamp. Once the headlamp is aimed, the spirit level would be removed and the headlamp bulb would be reinstalled for normal operation. Th e key aspect of this design is that the VHAD is separate from, rather than integral to, the headlamp.

In responding to Koito on September 12, 1988, the agency stated:

"With respect to your two designs, you appear to have understood that the agency's intent in the proposal was to provide broad parameters for VHADs to afford manufacturers design freedom in meeting the specifications. Under S7.7.5.2 it is the headlam p system that 'includes' a VHAD, rather than 'incorporates' it. Under subsection (b)(7) photometric testing is provided for 'The VHAD and headlamp assembly (if the headlamp is separable or intended to be used with the VHAD)...' This means that the VHAD may be integral with the headlamp assembly, or separate from it (though presumably provided with the vehicle as part of its original equipment), as fits the manufacturer's design. Each of your designs complies with the intent of S7.7.5.2; however, I must emphasize that this (Notice 5) is only a proposal, and the form of a final requirement, if any, has not been determined.

On May 9, 1989, the agency issued a Final Rule (docket 85-15, Notice 8) patterned after the Notice 5 NPRM. With respect to the pertinent VHAD wording, the Final Rule was the same as the NPRM, and the preamble left unchanged the position stated above.

GENERAL MOTORE DESIGN:

The Notice 5 NPRM and Notice 8 Final Rule were partially the result of GM's petitions to permit the use of our new 55 X 135 millimeter integral beam headlamp. This new headlamp (scheduled for introduction in the 1991 model year) has been reviewed on several occasions with agency personnel. During those reviews, we indicated that the 55 X 135 would employ a spirit level VHAD that is integral to the headlamp mounting assembly.

The integral VHAD design entails four spirit levels on each vehicle - one for each headlamp. However, we have recently developed an alternative spirit level VHAD for the 55 X 135 which is not integral to the headlamp assembly. By adopting the non-in tregral VHAD, we are able to provide a single spirit level with each vehicle. This results in a significant cost saving opportunity. The proposed non-intregral VHAD would be furnished with each vehicle equipped with 55 X 135 integral beam headlamps. Th e attached sketch illustrates the VHAD we are comtemplating. To vertically aim the headlamp, the three legs of the VHAD adaptor would be held to the headlamp aiming ring, as shown in the sketch. The vertical adjusting screw on the headlamp would then b e turned to obtain a zero reading of the spirit level, just as with the earlier integral VHAD design.

As mentioned, a move to this VHAD design represents a significant cost saving opportunity for purchasers of the 55 X 135 headlamp. The separate VHAD also serves equally well as the integral VHAD in meeting the needs of motor vehicle safety.

We have carefully reviewed the wording of S7.7 of FMVSS 108, and we believe it supports the use of the separate VHAD being considered for the 55 X 135. In particular, S7.7.5.2(c)(1) explicitly comprehends a VHAD design of the type GM is developing.

Like Koito, GM understands "...that the agency's intent in the proposal was to provide broad parameters for VHADs to afford manufacturers design freedom in meeting the specifications". We also believe that this intent is carried forward to the Final Rul e, since the pertinent wording was unchanged.

However, given that the agency emphasized that its September 12, 1988, comments were based on an NPRM only, we seek confirmation that the agency's interpretation of the actual standard is the same as the September 12 interpretation of the NRPM.