ID: nht78-1.9

DATE: 12/26/78

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

TO: Marque Motors

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

DEC 26 1978

Mr. Sheldon C. Brooks Marque Motors 8711 Lyndale Ave., So. Bloomington, Minnesota 55420

Dear Mr. Brooks:

This is in response to your letter of December 4, 1978, requesting an exemption from the requirements of Part 581, Bumper Standard (49 CFR 581), for ten Lamborghini Countach vehicles currently under construction. You state that the Lamborghini Company's small size and difficult economic situation preclude immediate redesign of the Countach model to bring it into compliance with the bumper regulation.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 215, Exterior Protection (49 CFR 571.215), from which Lamborghini had been granted an exemption, was issued under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Safety Act). Section 123 of the Safety Act permits the exemption of motor vehicles from safety standards when compliance would cause a manufacturer substantial economic hardship and the manufacturer has attempted in good faith to comply (15 U.S.C. 1410). Standard No. 215 was revoked effective September 1, 1978.

The present bumper regulation, Part 581, effective September 1, 1978, was issued under Title I of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (Cost Savings Act) (15 U.S.C. 1901), which permits exemptions only for passenger motor vehicles manufactured for a special use. In view of the narrowness of this statutory provision, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has no authority to grant an exemption from Part 581 on the basis of economic hardship or limited production.

Part 581 applies to passenger motor vehicles, other than multipurpose vehicles, manufactured on or after September 1, 1978 (49 CFR 581.5(a)). Therefore, vehicles manufactured by Lamborghini which are completed after August 31, 1978, must meet the requirements of the regulation, if they are imported into or sold in the United States.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

December 4, 1978

Richard Hipolit NASSIS Room 5219 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Hipolit:

With regard to our telephone conversation of December 1st regarding the Lamborghini Company, I would like to state that I am an associate of the company and I have been asked by them to work with the proper authorities here in the United States in order to extend the bumper exemption on the Lamborghini Countach.

In speaking with Joe Levin he suggested that I take the matter up with you, and that if you were in a position to interpret the law that something could be done if it fell within the interpretation of that law. Speaking with you, you stated that you could call me back today, Monday, regarding the possibility of accepting approximately 10 cars that are under construction to be exported to the United States. As the Lamborghini factory is undergoing extensive reorganization it would take us approximately 18 months to design the automobile in a fashion that would meet the present bumper requirements. As you know, the company is very small and its production is extremely limited. Especially limited are those cars that find their way to the United States. I would estimate that a maximum of 25 cars enter the United States, cars of the Countach variety, in any given year.

I would appreciate hearing from you as to whether it is possible to extend the bumper exemption for 18 months or so on these 10 cars. This would relieve the company of a great deal of pressure and might make the difference between its existence and nonexistence. As this company is one that produces one of the hallmark type of automobiles of the Italian people, it would be a good bit of public relations for all to extend the exemption. I'm at your disposal at any time to be in Washington to explain the case personally or to help in any way that I possibly can. I appreciate your interest and cooperation and do hope that we can get affirmative results.

Kind regards,

Sheldon C. Brooks President

SCB:dlw

ID: nht78-2.1

DATE: 12/06/78

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

TO: American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. Brian Gill American Honda Motor Co., Inc. P.O. Box 50 Gardena, California 90247

Dear Mr. Gill:

This is in response to your letters of October 9, 1978, and October 20, 1978, concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, Vehicle identification number.

Since the agency was considering petitions for reconsideration when your letter was received, we concluded that it would be more helpful to respond to your letter after the revised standard was issued. A copy of the amendments to the standard and a copy of a notice of proposed rulemaking to further amend the standard are enclosed.

The type face shown in the attachment to your letter of October 9, 1978, meets the requirements of S4.3.1. Since the standard does not specify a location for the placement of the VIN on motorcycles, it may be stamped on the certification label. However, Honda should also consider stamping the VIN on the cycle frame as well, to aid in recovery if the motorcycle is stolen.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

Enclosures

October 9, 1978

Office of Chief Council NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 400 - 7th Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20591

Dear Sir:

Attached are sheets showing the format of the type face which Honda Motor Co., Ltd. intends to use for the vehicle identification number required by FMVSS 115.

Please inform me as soon as possible whether this type face meets the requirement of S4.3.1 of Standard number 115.

Yours truly,

AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.

Brian Gill Manager Certification Department

BG:lw

Enclosure

October 20, 1978

Office of Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 400 Seventh St. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sir:

This is to request your official interpretation as to the suitability of a method for compliance with the requirement of section S4.3 of FMVSS 115, Vehicle Identification Number (V.I.N.). That section gives the general requirements for the part of the vehicle upon which the V.I.N. must appear.

Section S4.4 of the standard gives specific requirements for the location of the V.I.N. for passenger cars and trucks of 10,000 pounds or less GVNR but there is no such specification for other vehicles, such as motorcycles.

We respectfully request your confirmation that the requirements of S4.3 for motorcycles will be met if the V.I.N. is stamped on the label required by S 567.4 (e) of Part 567 - Certification.

Your earliest response will be appreciated. Please call me if you have any questions.

Yours truly,

AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.

Brian Gill Manager Certification Department

BG:rk

ID: nht78-2.10

DATE: 11/29/78

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

TO: Ichikoh Industries, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 22, 1978, to Bill Eason of our Office of Rulemaking asking several questions about motor vehicle headlamps and the amendment to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 issued on July 27, 1978.

Your questions and our answers are:

1. Ichikoh headlamps are designed to comply with SAE Standard J579c with maximum candela not exceeding 37,500. Does the amendment allow Ichikoh to place "DOT" and the new designation code on the lens of each headlight?

Ichikoh's practice reflects compliance with the option afforded by S4.1.1.33 until July 27, 1978. The deletion of the option has the effect of allowing the higher maximum candlepower permitted by J579c but does not require it. Thus, Ichikoh may continue its existing practice under the amendment. One purpose of the marking code, however, is to enable a consumer to replace original equipment headlamps with lamps of compatible photometric output. Currently, S4.1.1.21 as amended requires the lens of each Ichikoh headlamp designed to conform to J579c to be marked with the new code on and after July 1, 1979. Obviously such a marking will be misleading if, even though designed to conform to J579c, a headlamp's maximum candela does not exceed 37,500. Accordingly, we are reviewing this problem with the idea of proposing rulemaking that would delete the code requirement for all headlamps whose maximum candela does not exceed 37,500. We do not anticipate a change in the requirement of S4.1.1.21 that the lens of each J579c headlamp be marked with the "DOT" symbol since Ichikoh headlamps comply with J579c, even if they do not take advantage of the now-permissible maximum.

2. With reference to your quality control system, will the headlamps "be allowed to exceed 37,500 cd without any modification of the light source (filament) and wattage?"

I am not quite sure what you mean. If you are asking whether Ichikoh may relax quality control so that an occasional headlamp may exceed 37,500 cd the answer is yes. Headlamps designed to J579c are not restricted to the maximum imposed by J579a.

3. You ask our comments on possible mismatch of headlamps on the same vehicle, i.e., one low intensity headlamp and one high intensity headlamp.

NHTSA is concerned about this possibility and, as indicated in reply to your first question, is considering rulemaking to delete the code requirement for low intensity J579c headlamps. Your second question, however, does raise the issue of identification of headlamps whose candela may exceed 37,500 but whose maxima are far less than 75,000. We shall also consider this issue and may issue a consumer bulletin advocating replacement of headlamps in pairs to help resolve this potential problem.

4. You ask whether NHTSA intends to adopt the concept of ECE Regulation No. 20 in the near future. This Regulation requires a mark on a headlamp lens indicating candlepower grade.

The NHTSA does not plan to adopt the requirements of Regulation No. 20 because this regulation is in essence an indicator of quality control.

I hope this answers your questions.

SINCERELY,

ICHIKOH INDUSTRIES, LTD.

ISEHARA-PLANT

September 22, 1978

Bill Eason Office of Rulemaking National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Subject: Motor Vehicle Headlamps

We, Ichikoh Industries, Ltd., are an original equipment manufacturer of sealed beam headlamps, signalling lamps, rear view mirrors and other accessories for motor vehicles.

With regard to the recent amendment of 49 CFR 571.108, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Docket No. 78-5 : Notice 3, issued on July 27, 1978, we would like to confirm you the following matters:

1. All our sealed beam headlamps (circular and rectangular types) have been approved in each States including AAMVA compliance with the applicable (photometric) requirements of FMVSS 108 : that is, SAE Standard J579c.

At the present, the maximum candlepower of each headlamp is maintained as not exceed 37,500 cd, and we have no intention changing to the higher wattage allowed in the above new amendment.

In such a case: Does it permit to indicate "DOT" and new "designation code" defined in new paragraph S4.1.1.21 on each lenses of our headlamps?, and

2. May we interpret that, by the new amendment, the old requirements of the maximum candlepower 37,500 cd to headlamps will be allowed to exceed 37,500 cd without any modification of the light source (filament) and wattage?

This problem concerns to our quality control system.

3. Besides, according to the amended regulation, it can not install both headlamps compliance with SAE J579a and J579c on one (1) vehicle.

However, if the above item No. 1 is accepted, it result in allowing to use the different type headlamps with the same code on a vehicle, that is, the lower candlepower headlamp(s) (not more than 37,500 cd) and the higher candlepower headlamp(s) not more than 75,000cd.

This means headlamp users can not select such different type headlamps with the same identification code, and such mixed use of headlamps would give rise to undesirable influence on the visibilities for road users.

Besides, it would lead to substantially allow the use of both headlamps compliance with SAE J579a and J579c on a vehicle.

We would like to hear your view point on this problem.

4. As you well know, ECE Regulation No. 20, Halogen Headlamps, requires to mark on each headlamp lens severally graded identification indicating the reference of the maximum candlepower. This make easy to know the headlamp grade.

On the other hand, it is impossible to know the headlamp grade (candlepower) with the identification code on the lens under the amended regulation of FMVSS 108.

Do you have the intention to adopt the conception of ECE Regulation No. 20 in the near future?

With regard to the above matters, your kind and early reply would be highly appreciated.

Suminori EGUCHI, Chief Engineer Technical Department.

ID: nht78-2.11

DATE: 07/10/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; M. M. Finkelstein; NHTSA

TO: Hon. Paul Trible - H.O.R.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to the letter (enclosed) you received from your constituent Mr. Randy Churaman of Hampton, Virginia, concerning plexiglass covers for headlights.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in 1972 proposed rulemaking to allow fixed plastic covers over motor vehicle headlights. However, during the comment period of the proposed rule-making some controversial items that were raised regarding fixed plastic headlight covers initiated concerns with respect to motor vehicle safety. These concerns were that: (1) moisture condenses inside the plastic covers and greatly increases headlight glare to oncoming traffic, (2) the plastic covers get scratched, thus reducing headlight output and increasing headlight glare at the same time, (3) plastic headlight covers have to be removed to mechanically aim headlamps, which becomes quite expensive to the vehicle owner and (4) correct aim of headlights is often made incorrect when installing fixed plastic headlight covers. Finally, the change in air drag by use of plastic headlight covers is extremely small since the air drag is primarily related to the overall frontal area projection of the vehicle.

Because of the foregoing disadvantages, and no major advantage to fixed plastic headlight covers other than styling, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, prohibits fixed plastic covers over headlamps. Specifically, FMVSS No. 108 references SAE Standard J580a, which states in part . . . "When in use, a headlamp shall not have any styling ornament or other feature, such as a glass cover or grill, in front of the lens." There is, however, no prohibition on the installation of original equipment retractable clear plastic headlamp concealment devices on newly manufactured motor vehicles.

I trust the foregoing is fully responsive to your inquiry.

ENC. CONSTITUENT'S LETTER

EXECUTIVE TOWER, BOX 59 2101 EXECUTIVE DR. HAMPTON, VA 23666

Dear Mr. Trible

I own a Datsun 280 Z sports car which has a very aerodynamic front end except for the cutouts for the headlights (see sketch). In other countries there are clear plexiglass covers available for the headlights, which fit over the cutouts, and complete the aerodynamic lines. In this country these covers are illegal for reasons which are beyond my comprehension since they would reduce the air drag of the car, and therefore give better gas milage. I would like to see the law changed to permit the use of these headlight covers, or know why they are illegal.

Randy Churaman

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht78-2.12

DATE: 08/29/78

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

TO: Cibie Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in belated reply to your letter of December 15, 1977, requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. Your request concerned the legality of installation on motor vehicles of remote manual or of automatic headlamp aiming equipment.

If a headlamp assembly meets the requirements of Standard No. 108 when installed with or without auxiliary means of aiming, we consider the assembly to be in conformance. Your device does not appear to impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment within the prohibition of S4.1.3, and either device that you described would apparently provide an additional safeguard against glare when the rear of the vehicle is heavily loaded.

SINCERELY,

CIBIE CORPORATION

Office of the Chief Counsel N.H.T.S.A.

December 15 1977

Dear Sir

Headlamp "Aim Correction"

Cibie Corporation is a Delaware Corporation, the American subsidiary of CIBIE PROJECTEURS of Bobigny, France. Cibie Projecteurs manufacturers automotive lighting equipment of every description: headlamps, fog and spotlamps, combination lamps, etc. In addition, headlamp aim correction units are manufactured for passenger cars.

In Europe, these aim correction units are referred to as headlamp levellers; this terminology may lead to confusion with suspension levellers in the United States, hence I have coined the name "aim correction units" in the absence of a recognized term.

The aim correction units manufactured by Cibie are of two types: manual and automatic. Both types are additional to the normal aim features of the headlamp system to which they are applied. That is to say, the correct aim of the headlamps is first established by means of a screwdriver adjustment made externally to the headlamp by a person standing at the front of the car. (Sometimes the screwdriver is not required, where the slotted-head screw has a finger-tip knob molded onto it, allowing the basic aim to be made with the fingers directly.)

The movement of the headlamps that is applied by the aim correction units to the basic correct adjustment is in a downward sense only, to compensate for a full luggage load in the trunk. Thus, the aim correction units cannot of themselves produce dazzle; however, failure by the driver to take advantage of them can allow dazzle to persist (due to luggage load) that could otherwise be removed by their use.

Dealing with the two types of aim correction unit, taking the manual type first: there are two types of manual aim correction unit, two-position and variable.

The earlier two-position type incorporates a cam in the headlamp mounting itself. A small lever, moved by hand, produces a downward correction of the headlamp aim; this lever is accessible by raising the engine hood of the car.

The later variable type incorporates a small piston unit and control knob under the instrument panel, operable from the driving seat. Hydraulic tubing connects the piston unit to a slave unit on each headlamp, lowering the headlamp aim by any desired amount within the design limits of movement. Again, the aim correction is downwards only.

The automatic aim correction unit incorporates hydraulic sensors on the vehicle suspension which, by means of hydraulic tubing and the same slave units, correct the headlamp aim downward without any action on the part of the driver. In the case of the automatic system, headlamp aim is also corrected dynamically for vehicle pitching movements as well as statically for luggage load.

These three types of aim correction unit have been in use in Europe for many years. The automatic unit is currently standard equipment on the Lancia Beta.

Council Directive 76/756 of the European Common Market now requires passenger cars to be fitted with headlamp aim correction units, operable from the driver's seat or automatic. Thus, it is entirely possible that European passenger car manufacturers may wish to export to the United States models of cars in which the European headlamps have been replaced with SAE sealed beams, in accordance with FMVSS 108, but still retaining the aim correction feature, whether manual or automatic.

Cibie Projecteurs, as manufacturer of the aim correction units, would wish to be in a position to advise its customers as to the eligibility of these units for importation into the United States.

Therefore, Cibie Corporation requests a legal opinion as to whether a passenger car that complies in all respects with FMVSS 108, but in addition is equipped with manual or automatic aim correction as described above, would be deemed still in compliance with FMVSS 108.

Inasmuch as the application of the Council Directive takes effect during 1978, the earliest possible answer to this enquiry would be greatly appreciated.

H J T YOUNG Vice President - Technical Affairs

ID: nht78-2.13

DATE: 06/02/78

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

TO: Minnesota State Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Jim Downey of our regional office has forwarded for reply your letter of May 3, 1978, in which you asked whether a single beam headlighting system is permissible on mopeds.

The answer is yes. The portion of SAE Standard J584 that you have quoted only establishes an option to the specific requirements of J584. Table 1 of J584 permits motor driven cycles to be equipped with a single (upper) beam headlamp. We consider mopeds to be "motor driven cycles" as defined by 40 CFR 571.3(b) and J584 as they are invariably powered by a motor developing less than 5 horsepower.

I hope this answers your question.

SINCERELY

STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY

May 3, 1978

Jim Downey National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Regional Office

Dear Mr. Downey:

We are having difficulty in determining whether FMVSS 108 permits single beam road lighting for mopeds.

Page 32914 of Federal Register 39, No. 178, dated September 12, 1974, contains a reference to NHTSA exploring forward lighting needs of motor-driven cycles and indicates that a decision would be made as to whether a reduced minimum standard would be appropriate.

We are unable to locate any writings as to the conclusions arrived at beyond that point other than reference in FMVSS 108 (S4.1.1) that ". . . each vehicle shall be equipped with at least the number of lamps . . . specified in Tables I and III, as applicable. Required equipment shall be designed to conform to the SAE Standards or Recommended Practices referenced in those tables."

Table III indicates one (1) white headlamp for motorcycles and cites SAE Standard J584. This standard (J584) contains the general requirement of ". . . one 7-inch sealed beam unit or one 5 3/4 inch Type 1 and one 5 3/4 inch Type 2 sealed beam units meeting the requirements of SAE J579 may be used on a motorcycle or a motor driven cycle."

Since compliance with either option of J584 results in having a high beam and a low beam we are unable to conclude that one (1) single beam headlamp on a moped constitutes compliance with FMVSS 108.

Our concern arises from the fact that our state recently adopted moped legislation requiring the same lighting equipment as is required of motorcycles and we must give due consideration to federal requirements in view of the fact that Minnesota law requires motorcycles to have both an upper beam and a lower beam.

Your assistance in this matter is deeply appreciated.

Colonel James C. Crawford Chief Minnesota State Patrol

ID: nht78-2.14

DATE: 08/23/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt for J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Nippondenso Company, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 10, 1978, to Mr. Vinson of this office requesting confirmation of interpretations of Paragraph S4.7 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

This confirms your interpretations.

Paragraph S2, Application states the coverage of the standard: to specified vehicle types "and to lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment for replacement of like equipment on vehicles to which this standard applies" i.e. those vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 1972. The equipment items listed in Tables I and III are required motor vehicle lighting equipment, and any item manufactured as a replacement for one of these items that has been original equipment on 1972 or later model vehicles, must meet Standard No. 108's requirements and be so certified.

Paragraph S4.7 allows certification by means of a DOT symbol placed on the item itself. No specific design or size is required. The manufacturer may certify by other means as well, specifically those set forth for all equipment items covered by a standard, in Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403): "a label or tag on [the] item or on the outside of a container in which such item is delivered". We would view an indelible stamp on the container as "a label" within the meaning of Section 114 if Nippondenso wished to certify by this means.

I have no other suggestions regarding use of the DOT symbol, except that it should be of a size and in a location sufficient to readily identify the item as meeting Federal requirements, thereby avoiding any possible misunderstanding.

Sincerely,

August 10, 1978

Taylor Vinson Senior Staff Attorney Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Vinson:

This letter is to confirm our telephone conversation of August 8, 1978 in which I requested information pertaining to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Section 4.7.

Question: Is the DOT symbol required on replacement equipment?

Answer: The DOT symbol can be used on either of the following: 1. Stamped on the equipment.

2. Label or tag attached to the equipment stating that the equipment is certified by DOT.

3. Stamped on the container in which the equipment is packaged.

Question: Is there any specific design or size required when using the DOT symbol?

Answer: There is no specific design or size required by DOT.

Question: Please define replacement equipment?

Answer: Replacement equipment is defined as any item of equipment which replaces original equipment that is required to meet compliance specifications set by DOT.

The above information you supplied was transmitted to our head office in Japan. However, they would appreciate the above information in a letter form signed by you. They have also requested any additional information which will be helpful to them in understanding the requirements regarding the DOT symbol.

Thank you for your kind assistance.

Anna Racanelli Assistant General Manager

ID: nht78-2.15

DATE: 03/15/78

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

TO: Vetter Fairing Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 1, 1978, on motorcycle headlighting.

You have asked whether the prohibition in SAE J580a Sealed Beam Headlamp against headlamp covers applies to a motorcycle. You have also asked the reason for the prohibition.

SAE J580a Sealed Beam Headlamp is incorporated by reference in Table III of Standard No. 108 as one of the standards applicable to headlamps for use on passenger cars, and on multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses whose overall width is less than 80 inches. One of the SAE standards incorporated by reference for motorcycle headlighting is J584 which, as an option, allows motorcycles to be equipped with headlamps "meeting the requirements of SAE J579" (i.e. passenger car sealed beam headlamps). There is no reference in J579a to J580a, and we therefore do not read the prohibition against headlamp covers as applying to motorcycles equipped with sealed or unsealed headlamps.

The reason for the prohibition is the degradation in Light output that can result from condensation under unsealed glass covers or from obscuration by grilles in front of the lens.

SINCERELY,

Vetter Fairing Company

February 1, 1978

Office of Chief Council Joseph J. Levin, Jr. National Highway Traffic Safety Admin.

Dear Sir:

After reviewing Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations 571.108, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, I find a need to have several points of this regulation, relevant to our business, clarified and interpreted per your office.

Table III, Required Motor Vehicle Lighting Equipment, Item - Headlamps, references the applicable SAE standard or recommende practice for passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses to be, in part, SAE J580a, June 1966. Contained within SAE J580a, sealed beam headlamp, under General Requirements it states "A headlamp, when in use, shall not have any styling or other feature, such as a glass cover or grille in front of the lens."

Is it correct to assume that this prohibition does not apply to a motorcycle or to a motorcycle with attached side car? Also would you please state the reason/s why passenger cars are prohibited from having any styling or other feature, such as a glass cover or grille in front of the lens when a headlamp is in use?

Table III, Required Motor Vehicle Lighting Equipment, Item - Headlamps, references the applicable SAE standard or recommended practice for motorcycles to be, in part, SAE J584, April 1964. Standard SAE J584, motorcycle and motor driven cycle headlamps makes no mention of any prohibition of having any styling or other feature, such as a glass cover or grille in front of the lens when a headlamp is in use.

Is it correct to infer that it is legal and within the scope of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 108, to have styling or other feature, such as a glass cover, or plastic cover or grille in front of the lens when a headlamp is in use on a motorcycle or on a motorcycle with attached side car?

It is in the intent of Vetter Fairing Company as a manufacturer of motorcycle accessories to conceive, research, design, produce, manufacture and market motorcycle accessories which meet or exceed all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation.

Your review of any and all applicable regulations relevant to our business is appreciated and your interpretation of such regulations pertaining to the above questions is requested so that we can meet our obligations, to consumers, to manufacturer motorcycle accessories which are safe and which comply with all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

W. W. Schwartz Technical Engineer Research & Development Dept.

cc: C. VETTER C. PERETHIAN

ID: nht78-2.16

DATE: 06/02/78

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

TO: State of Delaware

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 18, 1978 which asks the following questions:

"Is there a Motor Vehicle Safety Standard which requires all motorcycles to be equipped with turn signals, other than those expressly exempted under FMVSS 108 (whose speed atainable in 1 mile is 30 mph or less) S4.1.1.26?"

Yes. Paragraph S4.1.1 of Standard No. 108 requires, in part, that motor vehicles be equipped with the lamps specified in Table III. Turn signal lamps are required for motorcycles under Table III.

"Does the standard apply to only highway-use vehicles with trail-bikes exempted?"

Yes. The motorcycles covered by Standard No. 108 must be "motor vehicles" in the first instance, in order to be subject to the regulatory authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. A "motor vehicle" is one "manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads and highways". This would exclude a trail bike unless its manufacturer had certified it to meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, indicating his intent that it be used on-road as well as off-road.

We are enclosing a copy of Standard No. 108 as you requested.

SINCERELY,

STATE OF DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY

May 18, 1978

Joseph J. Levin, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Levin:

The Delaware Division of Motor Vehicles would appreciate your assistance in determining the following:

Is there a Motor Vehicle Safety Standard which requires all motorcycles to be equipped with turn signals, other than those expressly exempted under FMVSS108 (whose speed attainable in 1 mile is 30 mph or less) S.4.1.1.26?

We would appreciate a copy if such a standard exists. Also, does the standard apply to only highway-use vehicles with trail-bikes exempted?

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Robert J. Voshell Director, Motor Vehicle Division

ID: nht78-2.17

DATE: 06/08/78

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

TO: Chrysler Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 4, 1978, to Howard Dugoff requesting confirmation of two interpretations of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You have cited our letter of December 29, 1976, to your Mr. Weil as support for your views.

With respect to your first concern, you have stated your understanding that in a multiple compartment taillamp the manufacturer has the option of using one or more compartments to meet the minimum photometric requirements specified for taillamps, but when the intensity ratio of the turn signal lamp to the taillamp is computed, the ratio must be determined with all taillamp compartments lighted.

As we interpret Standard No. 108's requirements for taillamps (SAE Standard J585d, Tail Lamps (Rear Position Light), August 1970), a single compartment lamp may be used as a taillamp, but if a multiple compartment lamp or multiple lamps are used to meet the photometric requirements, S3.1 of J585d requires that the combination of the compartments or lamps must be used to meet the photometric requirements for the corresponding numbers of lighted sections (Table 1, J585d) in those instances where the distances between filament centers do not exceed 22 inches for two-compartment or lamp arrangements, and 16 inches for three compartment or lamp arrangements. If these distances are exceeded, each compartment or lamp must comply with the photometric requirements for one lighted section. Therefore your interpretation is incorrect that a manufacturer may use only one compartment of a multi-compartment lamp when considering compliance with the photometric requirement for taillamps.

Your second concern is the requirement for multiple lamps in excess of three. You have noted that Table 1 of SAE J585 makes no provision for candlepower requirements where there are more than three lighted sections. Noting that the maximum candlepower permissible rises in increments of 5 per section (15 for one section, 20 for two sections, 25 for three sections) you have asked for confirmation of your opinion that "it appears logical that the allowable candlepower for a four compartment system should be 30 candlepower."

Standard No. 108 does not specify requirements for compartments or lamps in excess of three. If you wish to use a four compartment or lamp system you are legally free to distribute the candlepower as you deem appropriate. Accordingly we have no objection to your belief that 30 candlepower is allowable provided that the multiple compartment lamp or multiple lamp arrangement meets all other requirements of J585d.

SINCERELY,

CHRYSLER CORPORTION May 4, 1978

Howard Dugoff Deputy Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Dugoff:

Re: MVSS 108 - Requirements for Multiple Cavity Tail Lamps or Multiple Tail Lamps

The NHTSA provided interpretations of certain requirements of MVSS No. 108 as applied to photometric test requirements for multiple cavity and multiple lamp configurations in a letter of December 29, 1976. Our further review of MVSS No. 108 has uncovered two additional points pertaining to tail lamps on which we would appreciate your advice.

I. Photometric Requirements

MVSS No. 108 incorporates by reference SAE Recommended Practice J585d which specifies the photometric requirements for tail lamps. Paragraph 3.1 of SAE J585d provides that multiple compartment lamps (or multiple lamps) may be used to meet the photometric requirements for a tail lamp. Additionally, paragraph 3.1 describes how multiple compartments or multiple lamps are to be treated if they are in fact used to meet the photometric requirements for a tail lamp.

Our understanding of these requirements is that the manufacturer has the option to use one or more compartments of a multi-compartment lamp (or one or more lamps of a multiple lamp system) to meet the photometric requirements specified. In cases where the manufacturer uses only one compartment of the lamp to meet the photometric requirements for a tail lamp, compartments or lamps not used are considered as "supplemental lamps" and are not required to meet test requirements except for the differential values discussed in the next paragraph.

The above is consistent with your letter of December 29, 1976 that stated that the NHTSA interprets MVSS No. 108 as requiring that the ratio of the turn signal lamp to the tail lamps must be computed with all the lamps lighted when multiple compartment and multiple lamp configurations are used. Such a requirement, of course, maintains the differentiation between the turn signal and the tail lamps.

The net result of the above as we interpret the regulation is that where there is a multiple compartment tail lamp (or where there are multiple tail lamps) it is necessary to measure the output of all tail lamps in determining the ratio between tail lamp intensity and turn signal intensity. However, it is permissible to use only one compartment of a multi-compartment lamp (or one lamp from a multiple lamp system) when considering compliance with the photometric requirements for tail lamps; other lamps or compartments would be merely "supplemental."

II. Multiple Lamps in Excess of Three

Section 3.1 of SAE J585d further provides that if one or more lamps of a multiple compartment lamp (or multiple lamps) is used to meet the prescribed photometric requirements for tail lamps the maximum candlepower for the combination of all the compartments (or lamps) must not exceed those set forth in Table 1 of SAE J585d for the corresponding number of lighted sections. The candlepower values specified in Table 1 are 15 for a one lighted section, 20 for two lighted sections, and 25 for three lighted sections. Use of lamps with four or more compartments or lamps are not prohibited. However, the Table does not contain a progression of maximum candlepower values for lamps with additional compartments beyond three. While not specified in the standard, in keeping with the progression of higher values in the Table for one, two, and three compartment lamps, i.e., 15, 20, and 25 candlepower, it appears logical that the allowable candlepower for a four compartment system should be 30 candlepower.

We would appreciate your confirmation of our interpretation of these provisions of MVSS No. 108 set forth in Section I and Section II above.

Thank you for your assistance.

R. O. Sornson Manager Environmental Relations