ID: 12137.ZTV

Mr. Dennis G. Moore
Sierra Products
1113 Greenville Road
Livermore, CA 94550

Dear Mr. Moore:

This responds to your letter of June 26, 1996, to the Administrator asking whether a provision of the California Vehicle Code is preempted by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Table II of Standard No. 108 requires that clearance lamps be located "on the front and rear." However, paragraph S5.3.1.1.1 allows them to "be mounted at a location other than on the front and rear if necessary to indicate the overall width of a vehicle, or for protection from damage during normal operation of the vehicle, and at such a location they need not be visible at 45

degrees inboard." California Vehicle Code Sec. 25100(e) requires that "Clearance lamps shall be visible from all distances between 500 feet and 50 feet to the front or rear of the vehicle."

We see no conflict between Standard No. 108 and CVC Sec. 25100(e). Standard No. 108 incorporates by reference SAE Standard J592e "Clearance, Side Marker, and Identification Lamps", July 1972. Table I specifies photometric minimum candela requirements that these lamps must meet at test points 45 degrees Left, Center, and 45 degrees Right. Thus, even if a clearance lamp is not visible at 45 degrees inboard, it is required to be visible directly to the rear and at 45 degrees outboard. We assume that at that location a clearance lamp would be "visible . . . to the rear of the vehicle" within the meaning of the California requirement.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d:7/29/96

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: 2407y

Dipl.-Ing. H. Westermann
Hella KG Hueck & Co.
Postfach 28 40
4780 Lippstadt
West Germany

Dear Herr Westermann:

This is in reply to your letter of February 21, l990, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, requesting an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 with respect to whether two designs for center highmounted stop lamps (CHMSL) you enclosed are permissible. You wish to know whether the ECE definition of "lamp unity" can be applied, and whether the designs form a CHMSL unity in the sense of Standard No. 108.

The question, as we see it, is not whether the ECE definition can be applied, but whether the two designs you submitted would meet the clearly expressed requirements of Standard No. 108. The standard requires that there be a single lamp, that it have an effective projected luminous area of not less than 4 1/2 square inches, that its signal be visible through a horizontal angle from 45 degrees to the left to 45 degrees to the right of the longitudinal axis of the vehicle, and that it provide specified minimum photometric values at 13 specific test points.

The design represented in Enclosure l appears to pass through the center of the lamp, at the H-V test point, thus affecting compliance of the lamp. Measurement at test points can only be determined by photometric testing. The design represented in Enclosure 2 would not comply with the standard. It is, in effect, two lamps mounted symmetrically about the vertical centerline. Standard No. l08 requires a single lamp, to be mounted on the vertical centerline.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:4/25/90

ID: 2640o

Mr. Toshio Maeda
Executive Vice President
& Chief Operating Officer
Nissan Research & Development, Inc.
P.O. Box 8650
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104

Dear Mr. Maeda:

This is in reply to your letter of June 30, 1987, asking for an interpretation of paragraph S4.1.1.36(b)(3) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08.

That paragraph specifies in pertinent part that a replaceable bulb headlamp shall be designed to conform to Section 6.1-Aiming Adjustment Test, of SAE Standard J580 AUG79 Sealed Beam Headlamp Assembly. Section 6.1.1 states that "when the headlamp assembly is tested in the laboratory, a minimum aiming adjustment of +/-4 deg. shall be provided in both the vertical and horizontal planes." You have asked whether the aiming adjustment is to be achieved by the headlamp assembly, or by both the headlamp assembly "and by the headlamp when it is mounted on the vehicle."

SAE J580 applies to the design of headlamp assemblies, including the functional parts other than the headlamps, such as aiming and mounting mechanisms and hardware. The assembly may include one or more headlamps. Although the headlamp assembly is tested in the laboratory, its design must be identical to the headlamp assembly used on the vehicle. Thus, if the aiming adjustment requirement is met by the headlamp assembly in the laboratory, it should also be met when the assembly is installed on the vehicle. An individual headlamp installed on the vehicle need not meet the aiming adjustment test unless that headlamp is part of a headlamp assembly comprising only one headlamp.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel ref:l08 d:1/14/88

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: 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: nht70-1.50

DATE: 04/01/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. A. Diaz; NHTSA

TO: Florence L. Dawson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your letter of March 2, 1970, to Mr. Douglas Toms concerning the failure of the electrical system in your 1968 Volkswagen has been forwarded to this office for reply.

Present Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards include no specific requirement for electrical systems. However, there are minimum performance requirements for certain vehicle components--such as a brake system warning light and various lighting components--which necessarily rely upon a properly functioning electrical system for compliance with the applicable Standards.

I have enclosed for your information a booklet describing briefly the Federal Standards which are presently in force. A copy of the complete Standards publication and all supplements may be purchased at an annual price of $ 8.00 from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20102.

This Bureau does not become involved in individual contractual relationships, such as exists between you and(Illegible Word) Motors or Volkwagon of America, Incorporated. Accordingly, we cannot assist you in obtaining further repairs for your vehicle. We are, however, interested in your experience from the point of view that what you have encountered might occur in other 1965 Volkwagon vehicles. Presently, we have no knowledge of other related failure, but we have made note of your complaint and we will remain alert for any similar reports.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 does not create a right of action by which a vehicle owner way sue a vehicle manufacturer if a safety-related defect is discovered in a vehicle. I suggest you contact an attorney as to possible recourse under Pennsylvania law.

Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to review your experience.

ID: nht70-1.7

DATE: 03/28/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. A. Diaz; NHTSA

TO: Industrija Gouijevih

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In response to your letter of January 8, 1970, the Department of Transportation hereby assign number 212 to Sava, Industrija Gouijevih,(Illegible Words) Jugoslavija as its approved code mark. The approved code mark is for use in identifying the tire manufacturer in accordance with S4.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 107, and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 USC 1421(1)).

You are correct that all passenger car tires manufactured after August 1, 1968 must have permanently molded into or onto them the approved "DOT" recital. However, the application of the recital is not to import purposes only. The application of the(Illegible Words) by a tire manufacturer is the tire manufacturers self certification that his tire conforms to all of the minimum performance requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109. Standard 109 specifies tire dimensions and laboratory test requirements for bend unseating resistance, strength, endurance and high speed performance; defines tire load ratings; and specifies labeling requirements. A copy of the standard is enclosed.

The National Highway Safety Bureau does not certify tires prior to the manufacturer's application of the "DOT" symbol. However, we do maintain a compliance test program by which certification of manufacturers are verified. Violations of this certification are subject to a fine of $ 1,000.00 per tire.

Your attention is directed to the requirements for designation of an agent in accordance with the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, Subsection (110(a)). This requirement is implemented by our General Procedural Rules, Subpart D - Service of Process: Agents. I have enclosed a copy of those requirements for your information.

ID: 77-4.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/03/77

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

TO: American Trailers, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 20, 1977, letter asking whether your certification labels comply with Part 567, Certification, and Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.

As stated to you in an earlier letter, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not issue approvals of compliance with Federal safety standards or regulations. The agency will, however, give you an informal opinion as to whether your labels appear to comply with the requirements. The agency has determined that the two labels that you submitted do not follow the format established in the regulations and, therefore, do not comply with the requirements. If "R" denotes radial ply and "F" denotes load range, the tire designation should be 10.00 R 20 (F).

SINCERELY,

American Trailers, Inc.

July 20, 1977

Roger Tilton Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Admin.

SUBJECT: NOA-30 (RST)

This letter is to confirm our telephone conversation of July 19, concerning Mr. Levin's letter of July 13, 1977.

We are enclosing two new samples certification labels which have been modified from the original as submitted May 25, 1977. It is our understanding that the changes in the wording for the tire and rim size, and the deletion of the wording "maximum with minimum size tire-rims shown below" will give apparent compliance with the requirements of Part 567 and Standard No. 120.

Jerry McNeil Director of Engineering

ENCLS.

ID: nht73-3.24

DATE: 02/14/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; L. R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Orin D. Miner

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Contact 6 of Milwaukee, Wisconsin has sent us a copy of your letter asking that we respond to your questions.

In your letter you inquire as to the distribution of fines collected from tire manufacturers as a result of their manufacturing tires that do not comply with the requirements of the Federal standard for passenger car tires (Standard No. 109).

Monies collected as settlement offers are transmitted to the general funds of the United States Treasury.

The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, including the passenger car tire standard, are minimum standards vehicle manufacturers and equipment manufacturers are required to meet. They are issued to give assurance that if the product in question meets the standards the public will have some protection against unreasonable risk of death or injury.

In addition to the question of civil penalties, manufacturers of non-conforming vehicles or tires are usually required to issue a defect notification and are urged to replace the defective equipment. Your complaint does not appear to be concerned with a safety related problem but rather with tires that you believe have not given you adequate treadwear. This is not an area covered by existing standards, however, this agency has under consideration a quality grading regulation which would include grading requirements for the treadwear life of each tire manufactured after a given date.

Concerning your recommendation that Federal inspectors be placed in tire manufacturers' plants, this has been considered at various times and the agency's present thinking is that the cost and manpower involved would not warrant this course of action.

Thank you for your interest in auto safety and your views in this area.