ID: 15938.ztv

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

Dear Mr. Suzuki:

This is in reply to your letter of August 29, 1997, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it applies to two possible arrangements of a motorcycle tail and stop lamp, which has more than three lighted sections.

Attachment 1 to your letter depicts the two rear lamp configurations. Attachments 2 and 3 are copies of correspondence in 1985 between Stanley and this Office asking similar questions about a combination rear motorcycle lamp with more than three lighted sections.

Since Chief Counsel Berndt's letter to Stanley, dated March 1, 1985, SAE Standard J586 FEB84 has replaced SAE Standard J586c, August 1970, as Standard No. 108's specifications for stop lamps for motorcycles. However, there is no substantive change between the two standards that affect the 1985 interpretation. SAE Standard J585e, September 1977, remains the Federal specification for motorcycle taillamps. As before, both standards prescribe requirements for lamps with three lighted sections but are silent as to requirements for lighted sections greater than three.

We have reviewed the paragraphs 3.1 and 4 of SAE Standard J585e, paragraphs 5.1.5.2 and 5.4.1 of SAE Standard J586, and S5.1.1.6 and S5.1.1.26(b) of Standard No. 108. These are the appropriate references cited in your letter that apply to this interpretations. In 1985, we informed you that Stanley's design for a lamp with four lighted sections "would be acceptable provided that each of the four compartments meets the minimum value specified for test points in a section when there are three lighted sections." We affirm that that 1985 interpretation remains our interpretation in 1997.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.10/20/97

ID: 11615ZTV

Mr. Jerry Jones
341 Jean Street
Mill Valley
CA 94941

Dear Mr. Jones:

We have received your letter of February 20, 1996, with respect to a motorcycle headlamp system that you are developing. Under your system, the headlamp is rotated about the beam axis and in a direction opposite and equal to the banking angle of the motorcycle when it is in a curve.

In its simplest form, a 5-inch motorcycle headlamp is used. A variant allows the lamp to pivot on a vertical axis. A third form "uses multiple miniature quartz reflector lamps commonly used for slide projectors and display lighting." You are interested in learning "how this device could comply with current federal regulations."

The Federal motor vehicle safety standard that applies to motorcycle headlighting systems is 49 CFR 571.108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment . Table III of this standard directly incorporates SAE Recommended Practice J566 Headlamp Mountings, January 1960 , and applies it to motorcycle headlamps. It requires that "headlamps and headlamp mountings shall be so designed and constructed that . . . (3) When the headlamps are secured, the aim will not be disturbed under ordinary conditions of service." From your description, it would appear that aim would not be disturbed as your simplest design only rotates the lamp around the beam axis, thus permitting this design. However, the design that allows the lamp to pivot on a vertical axis would disturb horizontal aim within the prohibition of the SAE language quoted above.

In addition, motorcycle headlamps must comply with the specifications of Standard No. 108, none of which permit a lamp of the nature of your third variant.

If you have further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:108 d:4/16/96

ID: 1985-01.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/27/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. H. Horiyoshi Mazda (North America), Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. H. Horiyoshi Executive Vice President and General Manager Mazda (North America), Inc. 24402 Sinacola Court Farmington Hills, MI 48018

Dear Mr. Horiyoshi:

This is in reply to your letter of November 21, 1984, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it would apply to a contemplated parking lamp system.

Usually passenger cars are designed with two parking lamps, one on each side of the vehicle front. Mazda would have two such lamps on each vehicle side, each of the two lamps flanking the headlamp. You have asked whether, in determining the H-V axis, one takes the axis as the center of each lamp, or should one consider the pair a single device and place the H-V axis at the midpoint between them.

Standard No. 108 requires passenger cars to be equipped with a minimum of two parking lamps, located "as far apart as practicable." Therefore, the outermost parking lamp, (the one located between the turn signal lamp and the headlamp) is the lamp that must meet the parking lamp requirements of Standard No. 108, and the H-V axis for purposes of compliance would be determined at the center of the lens of that lamp. Supplementary lighting equipment is permissible under Standard No. 108 and does not have to meet the standard's requirements, but it must not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by the standard (paragraph S4.1.3). Because of the difference in candela between parking lamps and headlamps, information available to us does not indicate that your supplementary parking lamp would have this effect, and consequently, the design would be permitted.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: 1985-01.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/14/85 EST

FROM: BARRY FELRICE -- NHTSA RULEMAKING

TO: FRED W. BOWDITCH -- MVMA TECHNICAL AFFAIRS DIVISION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 10/29/84 FROM FRED W. BOWDITCH -- MVMA TO DIANE K. STEED -- NHTSA, PETITION

TEXT: Dear Mr. Bowditch:

On October 29, 1984, the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association filed a petition for rulemaking to amend Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

The petition requested "removal from section 4.1.1.36(a) (2) of the limitation requiring the three aiming pads to be located on the exterior face of the headlamp lens." You have suggested the mounting flange at the lens-reflector joint as an acceptable alternative location for the aiming pads. The language suggested in the petition for amendment of S4.1.1.36(a) (2) would also allow all three legs to be adjustable on the headlamp aimers.

The agency has proposed amendments to Standard No. 108 (49 FR 47880) to delete the final sentence of paragraph S4.1.1.36(a) (2) with reference to aiming locating plates, and to delete Figures 9-1 and 9-2. Thus, this aspect of your petition has already been granted. We have filed your petition as a comment in the docket to be considered in future rulemaking action on this subject. Further, we interpret the words "The exterior face of each...lens" in paragraph S4.1.1.36(a) (2) to mean all portions of the lens face including the mounting flange which is a molded and indivisible part of the lens. Thus, no rulemaking is considered necessary to implement this item of your petition. Your request also included a suggestion that the minimum height of the lettering for the adjustment of the legs on the aimer adapter should be reduced from 0.25 inch to 4 mm. This is being addressed in pending rulemaking. Therefore, no further action is necessary at this time.

Sincerely,

ID: 1985-02.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/28/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Gordon Bonvallet

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Gordon Bonvallet Manager, Photometric Division ETL Testing Laboratories, Inc P.O. Box 2040 Cortland, NY 13045-2040

Dear Mr. Bonvallet:

This is in reply to your letter of February 13, 1985, to this Office asking whether the agency intended to eliminate the maximum allowable value for parking lamp candlepower in the amendments of November 26, 1984 which established Figure 1b.

Thank you for calling this matter to our attention. The amendment appears to have the effect you ascribe to it, though it was not the agency's intention that it do so. The maximum values of SAE J222 December 1970 are those that should apply, and we shall reinstate them in the near future.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

February 13, 1985

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Gentlemen:

Subject: Interpretation of Rule Making 49CFR Part 571 (Docket No. 83-12: Notice 2)

Figure 1b in the reference Docket shows a minimum allowable candlepower value of 4.0 for a one section "Parking" lamp. No maximum is indicated.

Is the intent to eliminate the allowable maximum candlepower for parking lamps or should the maximum values as listed in SAE J222 Dec. 70, referenced in FMVSS 108, be used? (SAE J222 JAN77 eliminated the maximum values.)

Very truly yours,

Gordon Bonvallet, Manager Photometric Division

GB/mm

ID: 19211.ztv

Mr. Malcolm R. Currie
President and CEO
Currie Technologies Inc.
7011 Hayvenhurst Ave.,Unit A,
Van Nuys, CA 91406

Dear Mr. Currie:

This is in reply to your letter of November 27, 1998, with respect to an interpretation this Office furnished Gary Starr on May 22, 1998.

With reference to electric bicycles, this letter stated that

"If the pedal assist system will not operate on its own in the absence of muscular effort (after it may have been started by muscular power), the bicycle on which it is installed will not be deemed to be a 'motor vehicle.'"

You interpret this statement to mean:

"If the electric motor can only be activated by muscular power, (i.e., by pedaling the bicycle to a certain minimum speed), and the motor, once activated by muscular power, can continue to drive the bicycle even if the rider then stops pedaling (i.e., stops exerting muscular power), then the vehicle is still not deemed to be a 'motor vehicle.'"

This is an incorrect interpretation. If the motor, once activated by muscular power, can continue to drive the vehicle in the absence of muscular power, the vehicle is considered to be a "motor vehicle" since, without the input of muscular power, the vehicle is entirely "driven by mechanical power" with the meaning of the statutory definition of a "motor vehicle" (49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6)). Our letter of May 22, says, in effect, that a vehicle is not a "motor vehicle" if, in the absence of muscular power, mechanical power alone is insufficient to drive it.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:571
d.1/14/99

ID: nht73-4.27

DATE: 06/14/73

FROM: AUTOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Hayden; Smith; Ford & Hays

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 21, 1973, forwarding to us your second attempt to compose a letter that will conform to Part 577, Defect Notification, for a defect involving the lighting in boat trailers manufactured by V/M Custom Boat Trailers. We responded to an earlier letter from you on May 16, 1973.

Section 577.6 prohibits the making of any statement in the notification that either states or implies that the problem discussed is not a defect, or that it does not relate to motor vehicle safety. As we indicated to you in our letter of May 16, we considered your statement, "The defect on those trailers . . . does not affect the mechanical operation of said trailer except insofar as the lighting is inefficient as installed according to the U.S. Department of Transportation" to be prohibited by section 577.6. The additional phrase, "This statement is one of fact only and is not intended to be a disclaimer which is prohibited by section 577.6 of the Act", which you have now inserted, does not remedy that deficiency. The regulation states that such a statement may not be made at all; it does not allow it to be made and denied.

Our objection to the statement is with your description of the defect as an "inefficiency" according to the Department of Transportation. This safety related defect results, rather, from violations of law which require your client's products to meet minimim safe levels of performance. We recommend that rather than attempt once again to rewrite your statement, and risk violation of the regulation, you delete it entirely, and send the notification to purchasers forthwith.

In other respects your notification appears to conform to Part 577.

ID: nht94-1.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 21, 1994

FROM: Allan Garman -- M.F. Bank & Co., Inc., Denver Branch

TO: Walt Myers -- NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel, Rulemaking Division

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 5/31/94 From John Womack To Allan Garman (A42; Std. 213; VSA 108(a)(1)(A)

TEXT: Total number of pages INCLUDING THIS COVER PAGE: 5

Mr. Myers:

As a followup to our telephone conversation this afternoon regarding the saleability of 287 baby car seats being transported inside a tractor-trailer which was involved in an accident, my 4-pg. "File Report" to the Insurance Adjuster follows for your re view.

Although the "File Report" contains some information which will be of minimal interest to you, I felt it best if I provided you with all the information I have.

Please respond by answering the following questions:

1) Is there law in effect which would prohibit us from selling the involved car seats as salvage due to the fact that they were involved in a transit accident?

2) Assuming the subject car seats complied with all federal safety regulations and guidelines prior to being involved in this truck accident, are there any other laws, rules, regulations, guidelines, or recommended practices under the NHTSA's jurisdictio n which we should consider before offering these car seats for eventual sale to the public?

3) Can we arrange to have an NHTSA representative from the local Denver office inspect these car seats at our warehouse and render an opinion as to whether they comply with all applicable federal safety standards?

My most sincere thanks to you for researching this matter for us. I look forward to your response.

Please find my address, telephone number, and fax number on the "File Report" letterhead.

(ATTACHMENT OMITTED)

ID: nht94-1.62

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 17, 1994

FROM: Karl-Heinz Ziwica -- General Manager, Environmental Engineering, BMW of North America, Inc.

TO: Barbara A. Gray, Office of Market Incentives, NHTSA, U.S. Department of Transportation

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/9/94 from Barry Felrice to Karl-Heinz Ziwica (Part 543)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Gray:

This letter is to inform the agency that beginning with the 1995 model year, BMW will be utilizing the 7-carline parts marking exemption granted by the NHTSA on October 9, 1986 (51 CFR 3633). As was explained to you by Mr. James C. Patterson of my staff on February 7, 1994, there have been three updates to the anti-theft device previously approved on the 7-carline. Accordingly, BMW requests that the NHTSA determine these updates constitute de minimus changes to the 7-carline's anti-theft device.

The following paragraphs describes the updates:

1. The remote device has become an integral component within the vehicle key and is the actuator for the alarm system. This change is identical to the change that BMW made on the 8-carline anti-theft device, which NHTSA has already determined to be de m inimus (NHTSA letter from Mr. Barry Felrice to K.-H. Ziwica dated 10/04/93).

2. The monitoring circuits for radio theft and glove box entry, now, monitor glass breakage to further ensure the security of the entire occupant compartment, rather than, the individual components. All other monitoring (e.g. doors, hood, trunk, etc.) h as remained as when the device was previously approved.

3. The anti-theft device's siren has been changed to a 112db siren.

If further information is needed or you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Mr. Patterson on (201) 573-2041.

ID: nht93-1.10

DATE: January 14, 1993

FROM: Bob Dittert -- Trooper, Texas Department of Public Safety, Safety Education Service

TO: Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

COPYEE: Janet Monteros -- Office of the Attorney General, General Litigation Section

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-5-93 from John Womack to Bob Dittert (A41; Std. 205; VSA 103(d))

TEXT: It would be appreciated if your agency would make clear the authority of the CFR's concerning automotive equipment standards for new vehicles and after- market equipment.

1. Are the CFR's law and enforceable only by federal agents?

2. Are the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards law and only enforceable on new manufactured vehicles?

3. Are states allowed to enact legislation that allows less stringent standards than the CFR's?

4. Concerning the installation of non-complying automotive equipment, i.e., sun screening, taillamp 'black out' lenses, neon license plate lamps, etc., is this allowed by the owner but prohibited installation by a commercial entity?

I am of the understanding that the CFR 48, Part 571.105 requires light transmission of 70% minimum (words illegible) is this correct? If this is correct and Texas law, VCS S701(illegible) Art. XII, Sec. 184(C), allows light transmission of only 35% (words illegible) action of Federal law? (Words illegible) Sec. 108 stated that if a Federal standard for any item of automotive equipment exists that standard will take precedence over any state standard and this section also empowers the Department (Texas Department of Public Safety) to control the sale and use of automotive equipment. If the state statutes are in error can that be remedied by the Federal Government? If so, how?

It doesn't seem realistic that every state could have different standards for automotive equipment, either new manufactured vehicles or after-market!

Your answers to these questions are awaited in ernest.