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: 12292.drn

The Honorable Ernest F. Hollings
United States Senate
1835 Assembly Street
Columbia, S.C. 29201

Dear Senator Hollings:

Thank you for your letter to Mr. John Horsley, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs, at the U.S. Department of Transportation. Since you request an interpretation of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) regulations, Mr. Horsley has asked me to respond.

Your letter informs us that your constituent, Mr. Pritchard, wishes to disable a "dashboard warning light" on his motor vehicle. Mr. Wyeth Ruthven of your Columbia office has informed my staff that Mr. Pritchard owns a model year 1992 Chrysler Town and Country minivan. After the vehicle is driven 60,000 miles, a light actuates on the front dashboard, as a reminder that the vehicle should undergo a maintenance inspection. Mr. Pritchard apparently wishes to disable the maintenance inspection reminder display light.

NHTSA has issued a number of safety standards that apply to new motor vehicles. None of our standards, however, regulates a maintenance inspection reminder display. Thus, our requirements do not restrict anyone from disabling the display or arranging with a commercial business to disable it. We would like to note, however, that certain other displays, such as an air bag readiness indicator, are required by our safety standards and thus could not be disabled by a commercial business. In addition, state laws may restrict the changes a vehicle owner may make to his or her vehicle. Mr. Pritchard might want to contact South Carolina state officials for information on that issue.

I hope this information is helpful. If you need any other information, please let me know.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:101
d:8/29/96

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: 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: nht76-1.30

DATE: 03/01/76

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

TO: Leisure Time Products, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 29, 1976, requesting an interpretation of the requirements of S.6 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, as they apply to the manufacture of mobile homes with a GVWR of greater than 10,000 pounds.

The standard requires that these vehicles be equipped with outside mirrors of unit magnification, each with not less than 50 in<2> of reflective surface, on both sides of the vehicle. While you are free to provide additional mirrors, the standard clearly requires two mirrors each of which has at least 50 in<2> of reflective surface. Substitution of a number of small mirrors for one or both of the 50 in<2> mirrors is impermissible, even if a total reflective area of 50 in<2> is provided.

If you require any further assistance, do not hesitate to write.

SINCERELY,

Leisure time PRODUCTS, INC.

January 29, 1976

Chief Council N.H.T.S.A. Department of Transportation

SUBJECT: Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111

As a manufacturer of motor homes of over 10,000 pounds GVWR, I am not certain on how to interpret Section S6 of Standard No. 111. I understand the minimum requirements for mirror size, capability, and location which would be applicable. The item which I question is the 50 in<2> of reflective surface. Are the mirrors required to be of one piece instead of possibly two piece? For example, two mirrors one with 40in.<2> reflective surface and additional mirror of adequate size to meet the 50in.<2> requirement for each side of vehicle.

Your immediate attention to this matter would be appreciated. Thank you.

Tommy Watson Engineer of Codes and Standards

ID: 7638

Mr. R.J. Misorski
Director, Maintenance & Repair
Maersk Inc.
231 Tyler Street
Port Newark, NJ 07114

Dear Mr. Misorski:

This responds to your letter of August 6, 1992, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You write with reference to an amendment that became effective December 1, 1991, requiring a minimum of 12 square inches of lens area for rear stop or turn signals on vehicles over 80 inches wide, regardless of the separation between lamps. You request confirmation of your feeling that "equipment manufactured prior to December 1, 1991 would be exempt from this ruling", and that "it only applies to equipment that is manufactured after December 1, 1991." You have asked for this interpretation to "ensure compliance with our equipment fleet."

What the amendments require is that multipurpose passenger vehicles, buses, trucks, and trailers whose overall width is 80 inches or more, which are manufactured on and after December 1, 1991, be equipped with stop and turn signal lamps that meet the new requirements. Stop and turn signal lamps which were manufactured prior to that date that do not meet the new requirements are permissible to replace original equipment of the same type on vehicles manufactured before December 1, 1991, but they cannot be used as either original or replacement stop and turn signal lamps on vehicles manufactured on and after December 1, 1991. Furthermore, Standard No. 108 continues to allow manufacture and sale on and after December 1, 1991, of the old type of stop and turn signal lamps for replacement of original equipment on vehicles manufactured prior to December 1, 1991.

I hope that this assists you with your compliance question. We shall be pleased to answer any further questions you may have.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:8/21/92

ID: 77-3.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/13/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Brock Adams; NHTSA

TO: Hon. R. J. Lagomarsino - H.O.R.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your May 16, 1977, letter enclosing correspondence from Mr. (Illegible Word) Smith concerning the safety of radial tires.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), an agency of the Department of Transportation, promulgates safety standards requiring that tires meet minimum levels of strength and endurance. Should a tire not meet the performance levels prescribed in the tire standards, its manufacturer would be in violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Pub. (Illegible Word) 89-563) and subject to the penalties specified thereunder.

The NHTSA has not concluded that radial tires produced in the United States are less safe than those produced elsewhere. All tires, sold in the United States, both domestically and foreign-manufactured, must comply with (Illegible Word) safety standards.

The problem to which your constituent refers, the so-called "phoney steel belted radial," concerns steel belted radial ply tires that use only a single steel belt in their construction. As cited above, our standards specify performance and not design requirements. Thus, tire manufacturers may use whatever materials they choose in constructing tires that meet the prescribed performance level. Within our standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires - Passenger Cars, we require the tire manufacturer to identify the generic name of the material used in the ply cords, and we require that the actual number of plies in the tread area be specified. Therefore, when a consumer purchases a new passenger car tire, he can identify whether the steel belted radial ply tire has one or two steel belts.

Since your constituent describes a situation of misleading advertising, I believe his letter should also be reviewed by the Federal Trade Commission. I suggest that you contact that agency for an opinion on the issue.

ID: nht80-2.39

DATE: 05/29/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: John Evans Mfg. Co.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

MAY 29 1980

Mr. Tom Spencer John Evans Mfg. Co. P.O. Box 669 Sumter, South Carolina 29150

Dear Mr. Spencer:

This responds to your May 6, 1980, telephone conversation with Roger Tilton of my staff in which you asked about the certification responsibilities for an incomplete trailer manufacturer. You indicated in your conversation that you manufacture chassis for trailers and supply them to finalstage manufacturers who complete them by the addition of a body. In particular, you asked whether you are required to comply with the provisions of Part 568.4, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages.

Part 568 places certain certification responsibilities upon incomplete vehicle manufacturers. The term "incomplete vehicle" is defined in section 568.3, as an assemblage including, at a minimum, the frame, chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension and braking system to the extent that these systems are to be part of the completed vehicle. If a chassis that you manufacture is completed to the extent that it has the above-listed components and merely needs the addition of a body by a final-stage manufacturer, it would be considered an incomplete vehicle and would be required to comply with the incomplete vehicle document requirements of Part 568. Please note that your incomplete trailer need not have all of the components listed above to be considered an incomplete vehicle subject to Part 558. It need only have those components in the list that will be found in the completed vehicle. Since your trailer is an incomplete vehicle but not a chassis-cab as that term is defined in Part 567, Certification, it would not be required to have a chassis-cab manufacturer's certification label attached to it.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: nht78-3.23

DATE: 02/14/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Collins Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your November 15, 1977, letter asking several questions concerning Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release.

In your first question, you paraphrase the requirements of S5.3.3 concerning emergency exit force requirements and release motion and ask whether your understanding of the section is correct. Your interpretations of the standard's requirements are accurate.

Second, you enclosed photographs of a manufacturer's rear emergency door release mechanism and asked whether it complies with the standard's requirements. The force release mechanism shown in the pictures does not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 217. The release mechanism is not located in the high force access region as required by the standard, and the motion required for release of the exit is not upward as required by paragraph S5.3.3

Finally, you asked whether your enclosed copy of Standard No. 217 which includes paragraph S5.2.3.1 is up-to-date. The answer to your question is yes. You have been confused by paragraph S5.2.3.1 because it states that a bus must have, at a minimum, one rear emergency door or a side emergency door and a rear push-out window. The requirement for one rear emergency door does not preclude a schoolbus with a 10,000 pound GVWR or less from using two (double) rear emergency doors. Paragraph S5.4.2.2 states ". . . the opening of the rear emergency door or doors shall be . . ." (Emphasis added). The use of the term "doors" in paragraph S5.4.2.2 indicates that double doors are permitted.

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.