ID: nht90-3.29

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 25, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; signature by Stephen P. Wood TO: William Waltz -- Wagner Division, Cooper Industries, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Letter dated 4-12-90 to Stephen P. Wood from William Waltz

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of April 12, 1990, 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 1940 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 Stand ard J579c, the word "top" would be used on the 7-inch diameter headlamp instead of the designation "2CI" (you mean "2Dl"), 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-inc h diameter headlamp. The lamps would not bear "DOT" identification. Lectric Limited is willing to "ink stamp" DOT, 2D1, 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 J 579a, 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 rep lacement, 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 whic h 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. 108, 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. 108. Although neither the marking nor the performance of J579c headlamps replicates that of J579a headlamps, I hop e that auto enthusiasts will be willing to accept the marking that goes with the improved performance.

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

ID: 15079.ztv

Kiyoshi Narabu, General Manager
Ichikoh Industries, Ltd.
Technical Department
80 Itado, Isehara
Kanagawa, 259-11
Japan

Dear Mr. Narabu:

This is in reply to your letter of April 21, 1997, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, specifically, the final rule allowing visually/optically aimable headlamps.

Your first question is:

"S7.8.2.1(c) prescribes that a visually/optically aimable lower beam headlamp shall not have horizontal adjustment mechanism other than VHAD. We consider that some kind of horizontal adjustment mechanism are necessary to align lamp axis with vehicle axis at lamp installation on the vehicle. Does horizontal adjustment mechanism that uses only at installation and can not be adjusted by vehicle owner or driver conform to requirement of S7.8.2.1(c)?"

We understand that it is necessary to align properly the horizontal aim at the time the headlamp is installed on a motor vehicle. We do not understand why a horizontal adjustment mechanism has to be a permanent part of the headlamp or vehicle. However, if its design is such that it can never be used again, even with special tools, we would not consider that the installation of a horizontal adjustment mechanism of this type creates a noncompliance with paragraph S7.8.2.1(c).

"S7.8.5.2(c) require permanent fixation of VHAD device calibration on or after September 1, 1998. Does calibration method that vehicle owner or driver can not calibrate using ordinary tools conform to this requirement?"

Your question implies that the calibration can be adjusted by tools that are not "ordinary tools." If the calibration is capable of adjustment by any means, it is not "permanent" within the meaning of the requirement. If the calibration cannot be adjusted, by ordinary tools or otherwise, then it is permanent within the meaning of paragraph S7.8.5.2(c).

If you have any questions regarding this letter, you may contact Taylor Vinson of this Office (FAX 202-366-3820).

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d:6/11/97

ID: 9950

M. Guy Dorleans
Valeo Vision
34, rue St-AndrJ
93012 Bobigny Cedex
France

Dear M. Dorleans:

This responds to your FAX of April 20, 1994, to Mike Perel of this agency, asking for an interpretation of Standard No. 108.

The drawing in your letter depicts a four-lamp headlamp arrangement in which the outermost lamps (lower beam) incorporate HB4 light sources, and the innermost lamps (upper beam), HB3 light sources. In operation, the outermost lamps alone provide the lower beam. However, when the upper beam switch is thrown, all lamps are energized. You ask for confirmation of your interpretation that "outer unit must fulfill table 15a for Low Beam, an (sic) also that inner must fulfill with HB3 alone table 15a High Beam."

Paragraph S7.5 of Standard No. 108 specifies requirements for four-lamp replaceable bulb headlamp systems such as the one you describe. The photometrics that apply to such systems are set forth in paragraph S7.5(b): "The photometrics as specified in subparagraphs (c) through (e) of this paragraph (depicted in Figure 26) . . . ." Because subparagraph (d) applies to a headlamp equipped with dual filament replaceable light sources and Types HB3 and HB4 are single filament sources, the applicable subparagraph is (e), and, more specifically, the four-headlamp specifications of (e)(3).

This will confirm your understanding. Under S7.5(e)(3), the lower beam is to be produced by the outermost lamps and designed to conform to the lower beam requirements of Figure 15; the upper beam by the innermost lamps and designed to conform to the upper beam requirements of Figure 15. This is confirmed in Figure 26. However, the photometrics of Figure 15A will apply on and after September 1, 1994, (Paragraph S7.1).

Simultaneous activation of both upper and lower beams is permitted by S5.5.8 of Standard No. 108 for headlighting systems designed to conform to Figure 15. Later this year, we will amend Standard No. 108 to substitute Figure 15A for Figure 15, effective September 1, 1994.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:108 d:6/6/94

ID: 1983-2.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/23/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Autodrome de Linas-Montlhery/Union Technique de L'Automobile du Motorcycle et du Cycle (H. Le Guen)

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. H. Le Guen Laboratory Director Union Technique de L'Automobile du Motocycle et du Cycle Autodrome de Linas-Montlhery Linas, 91310 Montlhery France

Dear Mr. Le Guen:

This is in reply to your letter of July 27, 1983, to Mr. Vinson of this office asking several questions with respect to the amendment of Standard No. 108, June 2, 1983, which permits semi-sealed replaceable bulb headlamps.

First, you mention certain sealing specifications, contrasting them with references to designed openings, and ask for our comments on this. Although the design that Ford intends to use is not a vented system, the amendment does not specify or prohibit either vented or unvented systems. A vented system using the standardized replaceable light source and the O-ring seal is permissable if the headlamp passes all the recently adopted environmental tests.

With reference to your further questions, there are no tolerances on the dust test. You have also asked whether, assuming that a European type headlamp using the new light source "passes all tests mentioned in the amendment to F.M.V.S.S. 108, would it get D.O.T. approval?" If the lens-reflector unit is bonded, and if with the light source inserted the lamp meets U.S. photometric requirements and all environmental tests specified in the amend-ment, then the manufacturer of the lamp may apply the D.O.T. symbol to it. This is the certification that the lamp meets all applicable U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Under this self-certification process, the manufacturer, rather than D.O.T., approves the lamp for sale.

Finally, you have asked who will manufacture the new bulb and where you might be able to obtain test samples. Ford's initial supplier will be Sylvania/GTE, and you may write GTE Products Corp., West Main Street, Hillsboro, NH 03249, Attn: Mr. Richardson.

I hope this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

LINAS, July 27, 1983

Mr. TAYLOR VINSON NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 400 Seventh Street S.W. WASHINGTON D.C. 20590 U. S. A.

Our ref. HLG/RR/JP/83.1159.33 Signed by: Mr. RENDU

Dear Mr. VINSON,

After reading over pages 24690 to 24716 of the 02 June 1983 Federal Register an interesting discrepancy come up. On the first page (24690), second column lines 10 and 61, and the third column line 62 of the same page, indicate the new plastic headlamp is to be semi-sealed, the opening (for the bulb) non-sealed, the bulb being the sealing piece with its "O" ring seal. Later in the text, page 7 (24696), third column, line 46, (corrosion) mentioned are "drainholes, breathing devices, and other designed openings that are to be in their normal positions" during testing.

If you could please comment on this point and possibly clarify this new standard this would be most helpful to us. In addition, if you could please comment on : Are there any tolerances in the "dust test" ? If a glass lens, metal reflector, European type headlamp, (using the new standard bulb) passes all tests mentioned in the Amendment to F.M.V.S.S. 108, would it get D.O.T. approval? And who is going to manufacture, and where would we able to obtain a sample of the new "standard" bulb?

Thank you very much for your assistance and we hope to hear from you soon.

Sincerely,

H. LE GUEN LABORATORY DIRECTOR

ID: 1985-01.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/02/85

FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: ROGER HAGIE -- MANAGER, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS KAWASAKI MOTORS CORP., U.S.A.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 10/19/84 FROM ROGER HAGIE TO NHTSA, REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION FMVSS 108; OCC 1383

TEXT: Dear Mr. Hagie:

This is in response to your letter of October 19, 1984, asking for an.. interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it relates to motorcycle headlighting systems.

Referencing our letter of July 24, 1984, to Koito in which we confirmed that a motorcycle could be equipped with two headlamps, side by side, each meeting the requirements of SAE J584, you have asked "Does the 75,000 limit (as specified by SAE J584) apply to each lamp individually, or must the total output of both lamps be limited to 75,000 cd?"

SAE J584 states in pertinent part that "The beam or beams from a single lamp shall meet the candle power specifications listed in" Table 1. This table established a maximum of 75,000 candela "anywhere" for a single lamp. This means that the limit applies to each lamp individually under the Koito interpretation.

You have further stated that Kawasaki is considering a headlamp design that consists of two reflectors, each with its own dual-filament bulb, each capable of independent aim installed in a single housing, and behind a single lens. You have asked if such a design is acceptable for a motor-cycle, and whether both reflectors would have to be independently aimable or could the aiming be accomplished by moving the whole lamp assembly.

Your contemplated design is acceptable for motorcycles; SAE J584 refers to a "light source or sources" (see "At-Focus Tests"). However, a two-bulb design in a single housing would have to be designed to meet J584's requirements for a single headlamp including maximum output of 75,000 cd. Further, Standard No. 108 permits independently aimable reflectors, or aim by moving the entire assembly whichever you prefer. All that is required is that the unit meet SAE J566 Headlamp Mountings, January 1960.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

ID: nht94-3.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 6, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: M. Guy Dorleans -- Valeo Vision

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 4/20/94 From Guy Dorleans To Mike Perel

TEXT: Dear M. Dorleans:

This responds to your FAX of April 20, 1994, to Mike Perel of this agency, asking for an interpretation of Standard No. 108.

The drawing in your letter depicts a four-lamp headlamp arrangement in which the outermost lamps (lower beam) incorporate HB4 light sources, and the innermost lamps (upper beam), HB3 light sources. In operation, the outermost lamps alone provide the low er beam. However, when the upper beam switch is thrown, all lamps are energized. You ask for confirmation of your interpretation that "outer unit must fulfill table 15a for Low Beam, an (sic) also that inner must fulfill with HB3 alone table 15a High B eam."

Paragraph S7.5 of Standard No. 108 specifies requirements for four-lamp replaceable bulb headlamp systems such as the one you describe. The photometrics that apply to such systems are set forth in paragraph S7.5(b): "The photometrics as specified in sub paragraphs (c) through (e) of this paragraph (depicted in Figure 26) . . . ." Because subparagraph (d) applies to a headlamp equipped with dual filament replaceable light sources and Types HB3 and HB4 are single filament sources, the applicable subparagr aph is (e), and, more specifically, the four-headlamp specifications of (e)(3).

This will confirm your understanding. Under S7.5(e)(3), the lower beam is to be produced by the outermost lamps and designed to conform to the lower beam requirements of Figure 15; the upper beam by the innermost lamps and designed to conform to the upp er beam requirements of Figure 15. This is confirmed in Figure 26. However, the photometrics of Figure 15A will apply on and after September 1, 1994, (Paragraph S7.1).

2

Simultaneous activation of both upper and lower beams is permitted by S5.5.8 of Standard No. 108 for headlighting systems designed to conform to Figure 15. Later this year, we will amend Standard No. 108 to substitute Figure 15A for Figure 15, effective September 1, 1994.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-1.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/01/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Jaguar Cars, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

C.D. Black, Engineering Manager Legislation, Compliance Product Development 600 Willow Tree Road Leonia, NJ 07605

Dear Ms. Black:

This is in reply to your letters of June 8 and October 17, 1987, with respect to an electrically-operated headlamp leveling system that Jaguar intends to offer on passenger cars beginning with the 1989 model year. Such a device is required by EEC regulat ions. You have informed us that the system does not allow lamps to be adjusted above the "zero" position, only downward to compensate for rear end loading of the vehicle. There is no provision for automatic return to the "zero" position when the engine i s turned off. Further, there will be no indication to the driver from the vehicle instrumentation that re-aim is necessary when the headlamps are adjusted downward. You have concluded, for the six reasons given in your letter of June 8 that "no aspect of FMVSS 108 . . . is contravened by this proposed installation."

The sole restriction that Standard No. 108 imposes upon an item of motor vehicle equipment not covered by the standard but which a manufacturer wishes to add to a vehicle as original equipment is that it not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equip ment that the standard requires (S4.1.3). If a manufacturer concludes that the unrequired equipment would not impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment, it may certify that the vehicle complies with Standard No. 108. Based on our unders tanding of your system, it does not appear to impair the effectiveness of the required equipment. However, we urge you to consider the possible consequences if the driver forgets to return the system to the "zero" position from either of the two adjustme nt positions. These possibilities are a concern because the system does not automatically return to that position, and no warning is provided to the driver that the headlamps are not in their original design position. On the other-hand, if properly used, the system could enhance headlighting effectiveness by ensuring that the headlamp provides the same lighting performance under all conditions of vehicle load.

We hope the information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

June 8, 1987

Ms. Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, D.C. 20590

REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION FMVSS 108 DRIVER ADJUSTMENT OF PASSENGER CAR HEADLAMPS

Dear Ms. Jones:

Jaguar Cars Ltd. of Coventry, England, manufactures passenger cars for worldwide markets. For UK and European road vehicles of all types it will be required, by EEC Directive 76/756 (as amended) Paragraph 4.2.6, to fit a system for maintaining headlamp d ip beam (passing beam) vertical alignment. If this is not achieved by power operated suspension levelling, then either an automatic lamp-levelling system or a control operable from the driving seat must be provided.

Jaguar will fit an electrically operated lamp-levelling system, operable from the drivers seat, to the XJ-S model range on all cars for the United Kingdom and for Europe from Job 1 1989 model year. Jaguar would like to fit this system to cars supplied fo r the USA market.

Jaguar believes that this will not contravene or compromise any aspect of compliance with FMVSS 108 for the following reasons:

1. In a front-engine passenger car, the only adjustment required after the initial aim in the "driver only" condition is downward. (This may not be valid for rear engine cars or for heavy trucks).

2. The lamps will be compatible with the use of mechanical aimers as defined in FMVSS 108 and the sub-referenced SAE J.602. New semi-sealed light units for the USA models will conform with all applicable requirements of FMVSS 108. (Distinct conditions of light units will be used for U.S. and for Europe but they will be designed to fit commonised mountings and therefore will enable use to be made of the lamp levelling feature.)

3. The lamp mounting will be designed to meet the torque deflection test of SAE J.580.

4. A mechanical adjustment facility for manufacturing tolerances and an initial alignment will be fitted to each lamp and will be operable in the manner required by SAE J.580.

5. Subsequent to the initial alignment as defined in lighting inspection code SAE J.599, the only adjustment operable from the driving seat will be downward. Because the lamp provides both passing and driving beams this will enable the driver to adjust t he beams downward if necessitated by heavy rear seat, trunk, or trailer hitch loading. It is impossible to adjust the beams to a higher position than the datum setting by the operation of the control from the drivers seat.

Even if the driver does not use the control under the conditions outlined above, then the dazzle problem would never be worse than that created by conventionally mounted lamps. What the lamp levelling system would provide is the opportunity to eliminate dazzle that would otherwise occur.

6. Jaguar will explain in the owner literature the correct use of the control by the driver. Jaguar will also instruct dealers and servicing outlets of the need to zero the drivers control before checking or adjusting beam alignment.

For the foregoing reasons, Jaguar believe that no aspect of FMVSS 108 or the subreferenced SAE standards is contravened by this proposed installation. However, because of design and manufacturing leadtimes we request your confirmation that our interpreta tion is correct.

We believe we have explained all relevant features of the system but if further information or clarification is required, please contact me by telephone.

Sincerely,

C.D. Black CDB:as Engineering Manager Legislation, Compliance, Product Development

ID: 22310.ztv

Mr. Paul DeStefano
Optical Engineering Supervisor
Valeo Sylvania L.L.C.
1231 'A' Avenue North
Seymour, IN 47274





Dear Mr. DeStefano:

This is in reply to your letter of October 15, 2000, asking for an interpretation of S7.5(g) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Paragraph S7.5(g) requires in pertinent part that the lens of a replaceable bulb headlamp be marked with the bulb marking designation provided in compliance with 49 CFR Part 564. In the hypothetical you present, the same headlamp lens would be used for two similar headlamp systems. The lower beam of one system would include a type H7 halogen bulb. The other system's lower beam includes a high intensity discharge (HID) D2S light source. You would like to mark the lens in front of the lower beam with both "H7" and "D2S," either one positioned above the other, or side by side. In a third variant, the marking could read "H7 or D2S." You state that it would not be possible to interchange the H7 and D2S light sources due to the different mechanical designs and electrical connections. You ask that we concur in your belief that this dual marking satisfies the intent of Standard No. 108.

We cannot concur. The lens marking must indicate only the light source that is behind the lens. The purpose of the marking is to ensure that there is a proper replacement for the light source if required. The aftermarket has begun to offer equipment that can convert filament lamps into HID lamps. This results in significant increases in intensity to the extent that the headlamps may no longer comply with the maximum candela restrictions of Standard No. 108. Dual marking of the lens could be interpreted as countenancing the replacement of an H7 filament type light source with a D2S HID type light source. In addition, local law enforcement officers are aware of the importance of complying lighting equipment to safety in their jurisdictions, and depend upon unambiguous lens marking to assist them in enforcing local lighting laws.

If you have any questions, you may phone Taylor Vinson of this office (202-366-5263).





Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.1/19/01

ID: nht79-1.42

DATE: 10/19/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagen of America

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 101-80, Controls and Displays. Specifically, you asked whether a "barely discernible" light on the headlamp control, which is activated when the ignition is turned to the "on" position, complies with the requirements of the standard. Under S5.3.3, "any illumination that is provided in the passenger compartment when and only when the headlights are activated shall also be variable . . . ." Since the light in question is not activated when the headlamps are activated, it need not meet the intensity requirements of S5.3.3.

SINCERELY,

VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA

JULY 27, 1979

Kathy Demeter Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

SUBJECT: Interpretation - FMVSS 101-80

Dear Kathy,

It is imperative that we obtain a response to the attached request for interpretation. We would appreciate its expeditious handling.

Charles F. Finn

ENC.

VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA

JUNE 26, 1979

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

Subject: Interpretation - FMVSS 101-80

Gentlemen:

Volkswagen requests your concurrence of our interpretation of FMVSS 101-80, Controls and Displays as it applies to the headlamp control.

Presently, as a courtesy to the driver, Volkswagen provides a barely discernible light on the headlamp control. This light is activated when the ignition is turned to the "On" position. This facilitates finding the switch in the dark.

It is our interpretation that this light complies with the standard as specified in Sections S5.3.1 and S5.3.3 and therefore is not required to be variable.

John Carson and Nelson Erickson of the NHTSA, in phone conversations with a member of my staff, indicated that they thought Volkswagen's interpretation was correct and believed that there already was an interpretation rendered by the Chief Counsel's office on this matter. Volkswagen would be desirous of obtaining this document.

Response to this request at your earliest convenience will be greatly appreciated.

Dietmar K. Haenchen Administrator Vehicle Regulations