Interpretation ID: nht75-2.40

DATE: 12/10/75

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

TO: Cal Light Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 4, 1975, telling us of your wish to market a rectangular sealed beam headlamp unit for motorcycles. In your opinion this might be prohibited by "federal inaction to update FMVSS-108 SAE J584 April 1964 to the amended SAE J584b December 1971."

Substitution of J584b would not be a solution to your problem since it does not specify a Type 2A sealed-beam headlamp unit as one of the approved options. There would have to be both a substitution of J584b and a provision in Standard No. 108 itself that either a Type 2 or Type 2A sealed beam headlamp unit may be used. I enclose a copy of a regulation that tells how you may submit a petition for rulemaking for an appropriate amendment to Standard No. 108.

You also enclosed a letter from the California Highway Patrol stating that it was amending its regulations

"to allow the use of motorcycle headlamps which comply with the type 2 lower beam photometric requirements and the motorcycle upper beam requirements, though we are not sure what position NHTSA would take upon this interpretation".

Such action by the California Highway Patrol appears precluded by Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. The effect of this section is to prohibit California from having a State lighting standard that differs in any way from Standard No. 108. Since the Federal lighting standard does not allow the California amendment, the State regulation appears invalid.

Notwithstanding California's "approval" of your headlamp, your sale of this rectangular headlamp for motorcycles as either original equipment or as replacement equipment (but only for motorcycles manufactured on or after January 1, 1972) would appear to be a violation of Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Act, unless and until Standard No. 108 is amended. There is a maximum penalty of $ 1,000 for each violation, up to $ 800,000 for any related series of violations.

YOURS TRULY,

CAL LIGHT CO.

November 4, 1975

Richard B. Dyson Acting Chief Counsel Office of Chief Counsel

I am writing you this letter on the suggestion of Mr. Lowenstern, NHSTA enforcement. I have designed, developed, manufactured, and marketed a Rectangular Motorcycle Headlight. It is a good looking, well built, and efficient headlamp, which has gained an approval from the California Highway Patrol. The unit complies with all the requirements, of all the regulatory agencies. However, there are some apparent conflicts within your FMVSS-108 which might confuse enforcement authorities.

The conflict arises from federal inaction to update FMVSS-108 SAE J584 April 1964 to the ammended SAE J584B December 1971. The reference here, is to one test point, 1/2 degree down 1 degree right to right (1/2D-1R o R). In this test point current FMVSS standards hold 10,000 CP as Max., while SAE recommend 15,000 CP, our unit produces 12,800 CP. This extra CP is a great benefit to the motorcyclist to see merging traffic on his near side. To further complicate the matter, FMVSS-108 allows motorcycles to use 1/2 of an automobile headlighting system, without requiring them to meet the motorcycle headlamp requirement of 1/2D-1R to R.

Therefore, I would like your office to tell me if it feels there is a just cause to hold my product off the market.

Enclosed are copies of the test report from ITL, a letter stating the position of the CHP and the approval issued by the CHP. Your prompt reply will be appreciated.

L.A. MacEachern- Cal Light