ID: nht87-2.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/09/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Thomas Baloga

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Thomas Baloga Safety Engineering Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. P.O. Box 350 Montvale, NJ 07645

Dear Mr. Baloga:

Thank you for your letter of May 28, 1987, to Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning the requirements of Standard No. 301 Fuel System Integrity. You noted that there is a conflict in the standard about the correct ground clearance of the contoured impact s urface used in the school bus impact test of the standard. You noted that S7.5.1 of the standard refers to the dimension between the ground to the lower edge of the impact surface as 5.25 + 0.5 inches, while Figure 2 of the standard shows dimension is 5. 25 + 0.5 inches.

The agency adopted the use of the contoured barrier in a final rule issued on April 16, 1975. The preamble to the final rule stated that "The contoured barrier would incorporate the moving barrier specifications of SAE Recommended Practice J972a (March 1 973). However, the impact surface of the barrier would be at a height 30 inches above provision. Studies have shown that a 30-inch test height is more representative of actual collisions. This would be a typical engine height of vehicles that might impac t a schoolbus." Thus, in S75.1 of the standard, the agency adopted the ground clearance as 5.25 inches + 0.5 inches to ensure that the top of the barrier would be 30 inches from the ground. In Figure 2, the agency apparently incorporated the barrier dime nsions directly from the SAE Recommended Practice J972a, without changing the ground clearance dimension.

We will publish an amendment to the standard that will correct the ground clearance dimension set out in Figure 2 of Standard No. 301.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

May 28, 1987

Mr. Steve Oesch Legal Counsel Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Subject: FMVSS 301 "Fuel System Integrity" Printing Error

Dear Mr. Oesch:

Mr. Bob Williams, Office of Rulemaking, has verbally confirmed that a printing error exists in Figure 2 of the subject standard. Specifically, Dimension D in Figure 2 should be 5.25 (inches) instead of 12.25. The correct 5.25 inch dimension is stated in the text within paragraph S7.5.1. Would you be so kind and confirm this printing error in writing; perhaps it can be incorporated into our other request concerning a printing error in FMVSS-208.

Thank you very much for accommodating our requests.

Sincerely,

Thomas Baloga Safety Engineering (201) 573-2622

TCB/Wdo-M/A18

ID: nht87-2.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/09/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Alberto Negro

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Alberto Negro Fiat Research & Development - USA Branch Parklane Towers West Suite 1210 Dearborn, MI 48216

Dear Mr. Negro:

This is a response to Mr. Rossi's request for an interpretation of the Federal motor vehicle theft prevention standard (49 CFR Part 541), which he asked that I direct to you. That standard requires that certain parts of high-theft carlines, including the engine and transmission, be marked with the vehicle identification number, if the part is an original equipment part, or with the letter "R" and the manufacturer's trademark, if the part is a replacement part. Mr. Rossi stated that it is occasionally ne cessary to remove the original equipment engine or transmission from one of these cars and install a replacement engine or transmission in the car. The original equipment engine and/or transmission is then sent to the factory to be repaired and reconditi oned. Following such repair, the engine and/or transmission is then put into the replacement parts network.

Mr. Rossi stated his belief that the original equipment part should have the original equipment identification removed and a replacement marking put onto the part. He then asked whether Ferrari was required to remove the footprint left by the original eq uipment identification marking or if that should be left on the part. The answer is that Ferrari and all other reconditioners are not permitted to remove from any reconditioned part the original equipment identification marking inscribed or affixed to th e part in compliance with Part 541. further, reconditioners are not required to inscribe or affix any additional markings to parts they have reconditioned.

Title II of the Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-547: the Theft Act) includes a provision that addresses this question. This section (18 U.S.C. 511) reads as follows:

S511. Altering or removing motor vehicle identification numbers

(a) Whoever knowingly removes, obliterates, tampers with, or alters an identification number for a motor vehicle, or motor vehicle part, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(b)(1) Subsection (a) of this section does not apply to a removal, obliteration, tampering, or alteration by a person specified in paragraph (2) of this subsection (unless such person knows that the vehicle or part involved is stolen).

(2) The persons referred to in paragraph (1) of this subsection are

(A) a motor vehicle scrap processor or a motor vehicle demolisher who complies with applicable State law with respect to such vehicle or part;

(B) a person who repairs such vehicle or part, if the removal, obliteration, tampering, or alteration is reasonably necessary for the repair; and

(C) a person who restores or replaces an identification number for such vehicle or part in accordance with applicable State law.

None of the exceptions set forth in 18 U.S.C. 511(b)(2) would permit Ferrari to routinely remove original equipment markings from reconditioned engines and transmissions. The first exception is not applicable, since Ferrari is clearly not a motor vehicle scrap processor or demolisher. The second exception would be applicable only in rare instances, since it is not usually necessary to remove the original equipment identification marking in order to recondition engines or transmissions. The third excepti on was explained as follows in the House Report on the Theft Act (H.R. Rep. No. 1087, 98th Cong., 2d Sess., at 24 (1984)): "The exemption also applies to persons acting under the authority of the Secretary of Transportation or State law to restore or rep lace such markings." for the policy reasons discussed below, we will not give reconditioners authority to routinely remove original equipment identification markings from engines and transmissions. Assuming Ferrari does not have authority under applicabl e State law to remove such markings, the third exception does not apply to Ferrari when it is reconditioning engines and transmissions.

If reconditioners of engines and transmissions were allowed to routinely remove the original equipment identification markings, the law enforcement purposes of the Theft Act would be seriously undermined. In response to some comments received on the prop osed Part 541, a new S541.6(b) was added to the final rule. This section expressly prohibits covered major parts from being marked as both original equipment and replacement parts. The preamble to the final rule explained the reasons for prohibiting such "dual markings" as follows:

Dual markings would give thieves the opportunity to present stolen original equipment parts as properly marked replacement parts. Once the original equipment identification (the VIN) had been obliterated from those stolen parts, a legitimate replacement part marking would remain. Assuming that the obliteration of the VIN were performed reasonably proficiently, repair shops and investigators would have little reason to suspect chat this part was anything other than a properly identified replacement part. 50 FR 43178; October 24, 1985.

These same law enforcement concerns would arise if Ferrari were to remove the VIN markings from its reconditioned engines and transmissions. If those parts were marked as both original equipment and replacement parts, the problems associated with dual ma rkings would arise. If, on the other hand, Ferrari were to try to obliterate the footprint from the original equipment, law enforcement officials would have no means of distinguishing engines Ferrari had reconditioned from stolen engines on which thieves had obliterated the original equipment marking and added a counterfeit replacement marking. In either case, it would cause confusion and uncertainty for law enforcement officials if Ferrari and the large number of other reconditioners were legitimately and routinely to remove the original equipment identification from reconditioned parts and add a replacement part marking to those parts.

Indeed, such action by reconditioners would serve to defeat the purpose of the Theft Act, which was to "decrease the ease with which stolen vehicles and their major parts can be fenced." If reconditioners routinely removed the original equipment markings from the engines and transmissions they reconditioned, car thieves could also remove those original equipment markings with impunity. If the thieves were ever questioned by law enforcement officials about the obliterated original equipment marking, they could respond that the marking must have been obliterated during reconditioning. If obliterated original equipment markings on parts do not provide law enforcement officials with evidence of illegal activity, there would seem to be no reason to require the original equipment markings on the parts.

Further, a requirement that all persons reconditioning engines and transmissions obliterate the original equipment marking and add a replacement part marking would impose significant additional costs and burdens on those persons. This would be inconsiste nt with the Theft Act's stated purpose of minimizing regulation of the aftermarket motor vehicle industry.

All of these potential problems can be avoided if reconditioners simply leave the original equipment marking on the parts after reconditioning. When those markings are left in place by reconditioners, thieves cannot claim that an engine or transmission t hat has a "footprint" in the area where the original equipment identification is placed is just a reconditioned part. Instead, the "footprint" would alert law enforcement officials to the likelihood that the original equipment marking had been unlawfully removed from the part. Further, no burdens are imposed in reconditioners if they must leave the original equipment markings in place and are not required to add any markings of their own. Therefore, we conclude that the Theft Act and Part 541 require th at businesses that recondition any major parts required to be marked pursuant to Part 541 leave those markings in place on the reconditioned parts. Part 541 does not require reconditioners to add any further identification markings to these parts.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Ms. Erika Jones Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

SUBJECT: Theft Prevention Standard Request for Agency Interpretation

Dear Ms. Jones:

On October 24, 1985, the agency published in the Federal Register (50 FR 43166) the final rule for the Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard and Selection of Covered Major Parts as required by the Motor Vehicle Theft law Enforcement Act of 1984.

The Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard requires a manufacture whose car line(s) fall above the median theft rate to mark the fourteen (14) major parts with the vehicle identification number (VIN) and replacement parts for those high theft lines are to be marked with the manufacturers logo and the letter "R". The standard also requires that the "target area" for marking of the replacement parts be different from the marking of the original parts marking so that repair shops and investigators can identify an original part from a replacement part.

On occasions, it becomes necessary for Ferrari to replace the original engine and/or gearbox in a customers vehicle in order to prevent tying up a customer's vehicle for an extended period to correct a major problem in the engine and/or gearbox. This rep lacement engine and/or gearbox will contain the label with the Ferrari logo and the letter "R" beginning with 1987 models.

The original engine and/or gearbox is then sent to the factory to be repaired and re-conditioned and at that point is placed in the spare parts network. The re-conditioned part will have the label containing the VIN removed and a replacement label affixe d prior to going into the spare parts network. The removal of the original parts marking label and the affixing of the replacement label is causing Ferrari some concern and they have asked that we request an agency interpretation on how to best handle th is matter.

The regulations in paragraph 541.5(d)(v)(8) requires that the removal of the label must "discernibly alter the appearance of that area of the part where the label was affixed by leaving residual parts of the label or adhesive in that area, so that invest igators will have , evidence that a label was originally present". The label to be affixed to the original engine and gearbox will be riveted and glued to the part so that when it is removed a "footprint" will be left behind.

The concern that Ferrari has for which they are requesting an agency interpretation is what to do with the "footprint" left by the original label after it is removed once the engine and/or gearbox has been re-conditioned prior to going into the spare par ts network? Do they remove the footprint or do they leave it on the part? If they are to remove it, do they have to fill in the two holes which were drilled for the rivets?

Ferrari does not want to cause confusion with repair shops or investigators when the "re-conditioned" engine and/or gearbox is used at some later date to replace a customers engine and/or gearbox that is in need of some major repair.

The agency's response to this request of interpretation should be sent to the Fiat R & D office in Dearborn, Michigan to the attention of Mr. Alberto Negro. We are prepared to supply you with any further information you may need to respond to our request .

Sincerely yours,

Ing. M. Rossi FSM/ai

ID: nht87-2.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/09/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Roberto Troilo

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Roberto Troilo SIV 66050 San Salvo ITALY Telex 60028

Dear Mr. Troilo:

This responds to your phone conversation with Mr. Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning how regulations adopted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and other Federal agencies affect glazing material used in motor vehicles. Specifically, you asked if a double-zoned tempered windscreen can be used in an off-road agricultural tractor, which has a top speed of 40 kilometers per hour. Based on the information you have provided us, it does not appear that our safety standards would apply at a ll to your vehicles, as explained below.

The motor vehicle safety standards apply only to vehicles that are "motor vehicles" within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act(15 U.S.C. 1391). Section 102(3) of this Act defines a "motor vehicle" as:

any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

The agency has interpreted this language to exclude from the definition of motor vehicle any vehicle which is sold primarily for off-road use, even though it may use public roads incidentally to travel from one site to another. In addition, some vehicles are excepted from this classification despite their use on the highway. This includes vehicles which have a low maximum speed capability and whose unusual configuration distinguishes them from the traffic flow. Your vehicle appears to fit into these exe mpted categories, and from the information you have provided, it would appear that our safety standards do not apply to your vehicle.

For your further information, we also note that the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has regulations which may affect your vehicle. OSHA's standards for agriculture are contained in 29 CFR Part 1928. (CFR st ands for the Code of Federal Regulations, the annual publication of all Federal regulations of current applicability and legal effect.) While there is no provision concerning glazing requirements for agricultural vehicles, there are other requirements su ch as roll-over protective structures. We are forwarding a copy of OSHA's standards to you by mail.

I hope this information is useful. Please contact us again if you need further assistance.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: nht87-2.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/09/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Marzia Puccioni Jones

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Marzia Puccioni Jones Alpex Manufacturing Company 10926 "J" Street Omaha, Nebraska 68137

Dear Ms. Jones:

This letter responds to your letter enclosing a prototype horn/light and requesting information on its "legality". The horn/light is intended to be installed on the roof of a pickup truck or van. The light is located on the rear of the horn and would be visible to following drivers. The light comes on when the driver presses the horn button to sound the horn and goes off when the horn button is released. I regret the delay in this response.

You asked whether the horn complies with safety and other pertinent regulations; whether the light at the back of the horn must be red or amber; whether it is permissible to mount the horn on the cab of a pick-up truck or van roof; and whether the horn is "DOT-approved," or if it would be in violation.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment pursuant to its authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. However, N HTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor does it endorse any commercial products. Instead, the vehicle safety act establishes a "self-certification" process under which manufacturer must certify that its product meets applicab le safety standards. Periodically, NHTSA tests whether vehicles or equipment comply with these standards, and may investigate alleged safety-related product defects.

There is only one standard which may apply to your product if it is installed on new vehicles. Standard 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, applies to vehicle lighting. As we understand your product, its light is not intended to ser ve as any of the lights required by the standard on a van or pickup. Therefore, the requirements directed to those types of lights would not be applicable. However, there is a general requirement that might affect your horn/light. S4.1.3 prohibits the in stallation of any light that would impair the effectiveness of any required light. The activation of the light on your product could lead following drivers to believe incorrectly that the vehicle equipped with your light is stopping. Repeated false stopp ing signals might reduce the driver's responsiveness to the activation of the vehicle's brake lights.

If your product is installed as aftermarket equipment, it would not be subject to any requirement in Standard No. 108. Standard No. 108 covers aftermarket lighting equipment only to the extent that the aftermarket light replaces required original lightin g equipment. Because there is no original equipment for the kind of light you described, the standard does not apply to your aftermarket product.

Regardless of whether your product is affected by any of our standards, please be aware that if you or the agency finds your product to contain a safety-related defect after you market the product, you are responsible for conducting a notice and recall c ampaign under S154 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 USC 1414).

Further, you should be aware that State law may apply to produce such as your horn/light. You may wish to consult the State and local transportation authorities in the areas you intend to market your horn.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones

Department of Transportation 12-18-86 Office of the Chief Counsel Ms. Erika Jones RM 5219 Nassif Bldg. 400 7th St. S.W. Washington. D.C. 2051O

Dear Ms. Jones:

Enclosed is a sample of a new born model prototype we would like to manufacture and market.

As the sample indicates the horns incorporates a light at the posterior of the horn. This light comes on only when the horn is sounded and stays on until the horn button is released.

We need some information from your office as to the legality of this horn. Would this horn comply with safety and other pertinent regulations? What color must the light be if in compliance red or amber? Where would you allow mounting of the horn as it is intended to be mounted on the cab of a pick-up truck or van roof? Is this horn DOT approved and would it be any violation?

In speaking to Mr. Roman Brooks of the Vehicle Safety Compliance Office, he indicated to submit a sample or drawing immediately for your prompt review. We would appreciate a swift reply as everything is in waiting pending your information. Thank you for your assistance.

Best Regards

Marzia Puccioni Jones ALPEX MANUFACTURING COMPANY

ID: nht87-2.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: JULY 9, 1987

FROM: WILLIAM SHAPIRO -- MANAGER, REGULATIONS AND COMPLIANCE - VOLVO

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TITLE: PART 581; BUMPER STANDARD DAMAGEABILITY REQUIREMENTS - REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO AUGUST 31, 1987 LETTER FROM JONES TO SHAPIRO

TEXT: In Part 581 the performance requirements for vehicle bumpers is set forth. Section 581.6 describes the condition of the bumper for testing. Paragraph (a)(5) of this section allows for headlamp washers to be removed prior to the test. This standard was promulgated prior to the advent of headlamp washer-wiper systems. Volvo believes the interpretation of "headlamp washers" can therefore be expanded to include headlamp washer-wiper systems so the standard can remain current with automotive technology.

We look forward to hearing from you on this matter. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me.

ID: nht87-2.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/09/87

FROM: LEO CAREY, DIRECTOR, OSHA DIRECTORATE OF FIELD OPERATIONS

TO: BETH WHITMAN -- KEN-TOOL

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 02/11/88 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO BETH WHITMAN; REDBOOK A31, STANDARD 110, 120; SA 19AR; STEELHAMMERS 2J; SA 29AR STEELHAMMERS 2J; LETTER DATED 01/21/87 FROM SL LEPOSKY TO DISTRIBUTORS; UNDATED LETTER FROM SL LEPOSKY TO AL L DISTRIBUTORS AND SALESMEN RE NON USE OF DUCK BILLED STEEL TIRE HAMMERS

TEXT: Dear Ms. Whitman:

This is in response to your letter of May 28, 1987, concerning the use of "steel duck billed hammers" for farm and truck tire repair and service, and confirms the telephone discussion with Mr. Bode of our staff.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) does not prohibit the proper use of a steel duck billed hammer for servicing wheels used on large vehicles such as trucks, tractors, trailers, buses and off-road machines.

Under the OSHA regulations at 29 CFR 1910.177(d)(6), employers are required to furnish and assure that only tools recommended in the rim manual for the type of wheel being serviced are used to service rim wheels. Further, under 29 CFR 1910.177(f)(8), th e regulations specify that: No attempt shall be made to correct the seating of side and lock rings by hammering, striking or forcing the components while the tire is pressurized.

If we may be of further assistance, please contact us.

ID: nht87-2.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/13/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Noel H. McMormick

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Noel H. McCormick Personal Lines Coordination Manager Sentry Insurance 1800 North Point Drive Stevens Point, WI 54481

Dear Mr. McCormick:

This responds to your letters to our Administrator, concerning whether your company should be subject to 49 CFR Part 544, Insurer Reporting Requirements, for the reports due not later than October 25, 1987. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explai n our rulemaking procedures to you.

As you know, we publish annual amendments to the listing of insurance companies subject to the reporting requirements of Part 544. These amendments are made in accordance with the informal rulemaking provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act; 5 U.S. C. 553. Those provisions require the agency to publish a proposed listing of insurers subject to the reporting requirements, and give the public an opportunity to comment on the proposal. After all comments are received, the agency evaluates the comments and publishes a final listing.

On May 28, 1987, we published a proposed listing of insurers that would be subject to the reporting requirements for the October, 1987 reports: 52 FR 19898 (copy enclosed). As you will see, this proposed listing identifies your company as one that would be subject to the reporting requirements. The comment period for this proposal closes on July 13, 1987. The agency will consider all comments received as of that date in preparing the final listing of insurance companies required to file a report in Octo ber, 1987.

Pursuant to normal informal rulemaking procedures, your first letter on this subject was treated as a comment on the proposed listing and put in the public docket for this rulemaking action, along with any other comments we receive on the proposed listin g. In your most recent letter, you stated that, in a telephone conversation with agency staff, you "did not receive an adequate explanation" of why your company would be subject to these reporting requirements. Therefore, you stated that your company doe s not plan to file an October, 1987 report. Agency staff cannot offer any opinions about what the final agency decision on this matter will be before the decision has been made. No final decision can be made until all comments have been considered and th e statutory provisions and past agency positions reexamined. This procedure will begin after July 13, 1987, when the comment period closes.

You should be aware of the fact that if your company is included in the final listing of subject insurance companies and you do not file the required report, this agency has authority to seek both a civil penalty and injunctive relief against your compan y' pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 2028.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

May 27, 1987 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street. SW Washington. D.C. 20590

RE: INSURER REPORT - 1986 AUTOMOBILE THEFT CLAIMS

This letter is a follow-up to my letter of May 6. 1987 and our phone conversation of May 27, 1987. We appreciate your effort in reviewing and concurring that our premium writings on a countrywide basis are 0.984%

We have been informed that A. M. Best has rounded this percentage to 1%, and thus in the Federal Register, Sentry will be listed as one of the companies required to submit data for the report due October 25, 1987.

In my May 27 phone conversation, I did not receive an adequate explanation as to how .984 can be rounded to 1%. Without that explanation. our interpretation is that our percentage is less than 1%. Therefore, Sentry does not plan to submit data for the Oc tober, 1987 report.

Sincerely yours,

Noel H. McCormick Personal Lines Coordination Manager SENTRY INSURANCE A MUTUAL COMPANY

ID: nht87-2.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/13/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; SIGNATURE UNAVAILABLE; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Yueh-An Chen

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Yueh-An Chen Division Head Planning Division Yue Loong Motor Engineering Center P.O. Box 510 Taoyuan, Taiwan Republic of China

Dear Mr. Chen:

This is in reply to your letter of June 5, 1987, asking whether certain rear lighting arrangements are acceptable under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You have submitted a diagram showing four lamps on either side of the vertical centerline of the rear of the car. The most inboard lamps, denoted "R", are the backup lamp system. Yue Loong contemplates four different functions for the remaining three sys tems of lamps, "A", "B", "C", and "D", "E", "F" (inboard to outboard) and asks about acceptability.

1. In the first system, ABC or DEF will serve the respective turn signal functions. All lamps would serve as hazard warning signal lamps and stop lamps. Standard No. 108 generally does not prohibit lamp clusters from performing multiple functions. This s ystem is permissible as long as ABC and DEF meet all Standard No. 108's requirements for turn, hazard warning, and stop signals when tested in those modes. Your diagram, however, does not indicate which, if any, of these lamps provide the taillamp functi on that Standard No. 108 also requires for the rear of motor vehicles. Therefore, lamps ABC and DEF would have to meet the taillamp requirements as well.

2. The second system differs from the first in that the hazard warning system would not operate through all six lamps of the turn signal system, but only through the two most outboard lamps. This system is permissible, as Standard No. 108 does nor mandat e use of all turn signal lamps for the hazard warning signal mode, requiring only "at least one" on each side of the vehicle, front and rear.

3. The third system differs from the second in that the two most outboard lamps would no longer be part of the stop lamp system. We view this arrangement as permissible. Standard No. 108 requires that stop lamps, turn signal lamps, and taillamps be locat ed "as far apart as practicable". In a literal sense this would appear to require stacking the lamps vertically at the outboard edges of the vehicle, but NHTSA has not adopted a design-restrictive interpretation of this requirement. The determination of practicability is initially that of the manufacturer, but it is subject to review and comment by this agency in instances where such a determination appears clearly erroneous. Where the turn signal system (or part of it) is located at the outboard edges of the vehicle, and the stop lamps and taillamps are adjacent to it, or to each other, we view the "practicability" requirement as met.

4. The fourth system differs from the third in that the stop lamp system would be either that of the systems discussed in items 2 and 3 above, and operating according to Section 3 of your letter. Either system would be acceptable, subject to the operatio nal restriction with turn signal lamps that I shall discuss in my response to Section 3.

Next, you have presented four kinds of flashing arrangements for the turn signal lamps. You ask (a) which could meet Standard No. 108, and (b) which could meet Standard No. 108 assuming a flash cycle of 1-4 seconds. With respect to (a), all four would ap pear to be acceptable. The standard allows multiple turn signal lamps either to flash simultaneously, or sequentially in the direction of the turn. With respect to (b), Standard No. 108 specifies that a turn signal flasher provide not less than 60 and no t more than 120 cycles per minute. This translates to not less than 1 and not more than 2 cycles per second. This requirement would have to be met by all lamps in arrangement i.e. where all lamps operate simultaneously. When operating sequentially, each lamp individually would be subject to the restrictions with the result that the inclusive cycle for a three lamp system would be not less than 3 seconds and not more than 6 seconds. Therefore, arrangements (a), (b), and (c) would meet this requirement as suming a flash cycle of 4 seconds, but arrangement (d) would not, being restricted to a cycle of 2 seconds maximum.

In your third question, or Section 3 as you term it, you have combined the conditions of your first two questions and attached a table of "detailed operating states" of the rear lamps, which incorporates three attached figures, with the question whether it would comply with Standard No. 108. Two of the Operating States illustrated denote the stop lamp "on" and, individually, the right or left turn signal as "on". Standard No. 108 does not allow simultaneous activation of the stop lamp and turn signal la mp when the stop signal is optically combined with the turn signal, In that event, the circuit must be such that the stop signal cannot be turned on in the turn signal which is flashing (paragraph 4.2, SAE Standard J586c Stop Lamps, August 1970, incorpor ated by reference in Standard No. 108). Our other comment concerns "Fig. a", "Fig. b", and "Fig. c" depicting flash cycles of the turn signal lamp;. As we noted earlier, the individual lamps are subject to the cycle minima and maxima of 1 to 2 cycles per second, and none of the rates depicted in the three Figures appears to meet the minimum requirement of 1 second. Otherwise, the "Operating State" table appears acceptable.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

June 5, 1987

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Jones,

On Jan. 23, 1986 we consulted NHTSA about the problems of headlamps systems, and received your reply letter of May. 8, 1986. The information was very useful to us, thank you again for your kind assistance.

Now, we still have some questions about the turn signal lamps and other rear lamps, will you please kindly give us your suggestions as soon as possible?

The feature of rear lamps of the vehicle is shown as fig. 1. In the following conditions, which could meet the requirements of the FMVSS No. 108 and other related U.S.A. regulations?

1. As shown in Fig. 1, "R", is the backup lamp, and the lighting function of the other lamps "A", "B", "C", "D", "E", "F" are shown as Table 1. In the four cases, which could meet the requirements of U.S.A. regulations?

2. As shown in Fig. 2, there are four kinds of flashing arrangements for the turn signal lamps "ABC" (LH) & "DEF" (RH). a. Which could meet the requirements of U.S.A. regulations? b. If the period of flashing (t) 1 cycle = 1 - 4 sec. which could meet the requirements of U.S.A. regulations?

3. Combining the conditions of section 1, 2, we set a detailed operating state of the rear lamps as shown in Table 2. Could it meet the requirements of U.S.A. regulations?

Your kind assistance and earlier reply will be highly appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

Yueh-An Chen Division Head Planning Division SEE HARD COPY FOR GRAPHIC INFORMATION

ID: nht87-2.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/13/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. M. Arisaka

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

AIR MAIL

Mr. M. Arisaka Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Sect. Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku Tokyo 153, Japan

Dear Mr. Arisaka:

This is in reply to your letter of November 12, 1986, to former Chief Counsel Jeffrey Miller, concerning the photometric reference this for a two lamp headlamp system, and location of aiming pads.

Your first question is what is the mechanical axis for performing photometry tests where the upper beam in a dual beam headlamp if provided by HB3 and HB4 light sources. As you know, the answer is simple for a single bulb sealed beam headlamp of symmetri cal dimensions: a line perpendicular to the aiming plane through the geometric center of the lens (SAE Standard J579c). Thus, the reference axis for the lower beam of your system would be the geometric center of the portion of the lens that is illuminate d by the HB4. The reference axis for the upper beam is not as easy to identify. Theoretically it should be the center of the light pattern that is produced by the two bulbs. This point would probably be somewhere between the midpoint of the axes of the H B3 and the HB4 and the axis of the HB3. This point is not shown on any of your drawings. However, since the intensity of the lower beam is usually less than 5000 cd at rest point H-V, the theoretical point described above will be very close to the axis o f the HB3. For this reason, the axis of the HB3 should be used as the reference axis for your system. In summary, your Case 1 Table A depicts the proper reference axes.

You have also asked where the aiming pads ought to be located on such a headlamp system, saying that NHTSA's interpretation letter of September 6, 1985, indicated that the pads should be placed on the lower beam portion of the lamp's lens, but that lamps twisted on which they were placed elsewhere. Our 1985 letter was written at a time when experience with these lamps was limited. We now believe that the pads can be located anywhere that will permit proper mechanical aiming, proper reference for photome tric purposes, and that do not interfere with the forming of the beam. Therefore, either of the two locations you present, or any other location, is acceptable provided that the three conditions mentioned above are met.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

November 12, 1986

Mr. Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Dear Mr. Miller,

Re. Photometric reference axis for two lamps system, and location of aiming pads

We would like to know a view of the photometric reference axis for two-lamp system with two bulbs (HB3 and HB4), and location of aiming pads.

In case that both HB3 and HB4 are used for the upper beam, where the reference axis for 'the upper beam and the lower beam should be placed in photometric measurement? We show examples of reference axis in Table A.

In addition to the question above, we would like to know where the aiming pads of two-lamp system with two bulbs are located. (Please see Table B.)

On your letter of September 6, 1985, the aiming pads should be located on the optical axis of the lower beam portion (HB4) of the headlamp. But now, there is a lamp which aiming pads is located on the other location in the U.S. market. We would like to k now the view of NHTSA again.

We are looking forward to your reply to our questions. Sincerely yours, Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

Sincerely yours,

Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

A. Arisaka Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Sect.

Enc. Table A : Reference axis in photometric measurement Table B : Location of the aiming pads

SEE HARD COPY FOR GRAPHIC INFORMATION

ID: nht87-2.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/13/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Mark Roberts

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Mark Roberts 40 East Stillforest Houston, Texas 77024

Dear Mr. Roberts:

This is in reply to your letter of June 9, 1987, with respect to an aftermarket motorcycle lamp that you wish to produce. You refer to the lamp as a "motorcycle safety light" that would supplement other motorcycle lighting and "would be a rear facing or all direction light with an amber colored lens that would flash". You have asked if there are any restrictions or guidelines for such a lamp.

Your letter does not indicate the size, flash rate, or intensity of the light, nor whether you intend it to be installed by motorcycle dealers prior to the first sale, or available only for installation on motorcycles already in use. However, I can give you some general guidelines.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment contains the requirements that apply to motorcycles and must be met at the time of sale and delivery to their first owners. Generally, except as provided i n the standard (e.g. motorcycle headlamp modulating devices) all lamps must be steady burning in use. Your lamp, however, would flash, and therefore appears precluded as an item of original equipment. Further, vehicle equipment must not impair the effect iveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. Although in the absence of specifications of your lamp we cannot say whether it would impair the effectiveness of required motorcycle lighting equipment, we note that an rearward facing amber flashi ng lamp could create confusion with a rearward facing amber turn signal lamp.

As an aftermarket device intended for vehicles in use, your lamp is subject only to the Federal restriction that its installation by a dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business shall not render inoperative in whole or in part other required l ighting equipment. Should your device place an excessive drain on a motorcycle battery affecting the operability of other lighting equipment it could be viewed as violative of the Federal restriction. However, even if this question is answered in the neg ative, the question of the acceptability of the supplemental lamp is determined by the laws of the state in which the device is sold or used. We are unable to advise you on these laws, and suggest that you write American Association of Motor Vehicle Admi nistrators, 1301 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20016, for further information.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Dept. of Transportation Erika Jones Chief Council Natl. Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219 400 7th Street SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones,

Our company is interested in producing a motorcycle safety light intended as an after market piece of equipment, and not to replace original equipment. It would be a rear facing or all direction light with an amber colored lens that would flash.

Please tell me of any restrictions and / or guidelines that might affect the design and production of such a light. Is there is a manual of such information, I would greatly appreciate being sent one. Thank you for your attention.

Yours,

Mark Roberts