ID: nht94-7.23

DATE: March 25, 1994

FROM: Tilman Spingler -- Robert Bosch GMBH

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSS 108, S4.Definitions, Integral Beam Headlamp Request for Interpretation

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/5/94 from John Womack to Tilman Spingler (A42; Std. 108)

TEXT:

In this paragraph an integral beam headlamp is defined to be an indivisible optical assembly of lightsource, reflector and lens. In the case of High Intensity Discharge Headlamps where the lightsource is comprised of a bulb and associated electronic modules, it may in some cases not be feasible to integrate the ignition module and the control module in the headlamp housing because of space limitations. In the letter to TOYOTA of March 1991 these modules were permitted to be separately located, but permanently attached by cable at the time of assembly. When the ignition module is installed inside and the control module outside the headlamp housing they will be connected by a 4-core cable in one design. Are there requirements for this cable concerning indivisibility and integration, for example, may it be of the following? - soft cable, resistant to abrasion? - hard cable, resistant to cutting and abrasion? - armored cable? Maximum voltage on 2 cores will be 130 V AC in the on-mode of the headlamp, on the 2 other cores 400 V AC for 700 msec during ignition of the light source. These voltages are much lower than voltages on ignition cables for motor vehicle engines.

ID: nht88-3.58

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/26/88

TO: BARRY FELRICE -- ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR RULEMAKING, NHTSA U.S. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/09/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO BLANCHE KOZAK; REDBOOK A33 [2]; VSA 108 [A] [1] [A]; LETTER DATED 04/04/89 FROM NANCY L. BRUCE -- DOT TO CHESTER ATKINS -- HOUSE; LETTER DATED 03/29/89 FROM CHESTER G. ATKINS -- HOUSE TO NANCY BRUCE -- DOT, RE MRS. BLANCHE KOZAK; LETTER DATED 10/16/79 FROM EDWIN P. RIEDEL; REPORT UNDATED; LETTER DATED 08/09/88 FROM BLANCHE G. KOZAK TO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TEXT: Dear Mr. Felrice;

On Dec. 9, 1980 my husband was involved in a fatal accident while driving a 3-wheel Cushman Vehicle, as a security guard, at the Lawrence General Hospital.

I have been informed by Ma. Secr. of Public Safety, Charles V. Barry that there are two basic designs for the Cushman Vehicle, one specifically for on-road use, categorized as a Police Vehicle and under the jurisdiction of the NHTSA as a motorcycle. The other an off-road unit which is not under the jurisdiction of the Registry of Motor Vehicles since the Registry is authorized to regulate only on-road Vehicles. According to Secr. Barry, the unit my husband was killed on is an off-road vehicle, ther efore, it does not come under the jurisdiction of the Registry of Motor Vehicles.

Enclosed you will please find an Oct. 16, 1979 copy of the Common-weath of Massachusetts, Registry of Motor Vehicles classification and Registration of the vehicle on which my husband was killed. As you can see it contradicts Secr. Barry's informatio n to me since it had been registered and passed inspection for on-road use as a Police Vehicle, on the Public Roadways.

On July 22, 1988 you sent Congressman Florio the following statement in regards to the Cushman Vehicle; "This vehicle is classified as a motorcycle under current definitions found in Code of Federal Regulations Vol. 49, Part 571.3." You further stated "Ma. is currently one of the States that has a motorcycle helmet use law for all riders."

After a Congressional Inquiry, Mr. Edward Harril, Director of Congressional Relations, sent Congressman the following information; "Our inquiry of the Vehicle's manufacturer indicates that the particular vehicle involved in this accident was indeed ce rtified for road use and would thus be considered a "motor vehicle" subject to the jurisdiction of NHTSA, and not the Commission, under 15 U.S.C. 2052 (A) (1) (C)."

Please be informed that none of the above regulations were made known to my husband, he was issued the vehicle by the Lawrence General Hospital as a motor vehicle requiring only his car license to operate and was not warned of the potential hazards in herent in the unit. I feel a determination should be made as to what agency should regulate the use of this vehicle on Public Highways and the person required to operate it should be warned of the hazards inherent in the unit.

ID: nht72-2.23

DATE: 09/13/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver for R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Hon. P. H. D. Fratinghuysen - H.O.R.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 31, 1972, to Secretary of Transportation John A. Volpe, concerning Mr. Richard J. Orgass' comments on headlighting for motor vehicles.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 required that the initial Federal motor vehicle safety standards be based on existing standards. In this respect, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, the initial Federal standard on lighting requirements, specifies that headlamps conform to existing standards, these of the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE Standards J579a and J5SCa) for sealed beam headlamps. The SAE standards were developed by authorities in the field of vehicular lighting and were adopted by a number of State and Federal regulatory agencies prior to the existance of Standard No. 108. Specifying the use of these standard headlamp assemblies enhances traffic safety, since replacement assemblies are readily available when needed by the vehicle operator.

It is recognized that a number of currently available headlamps produce higher lighting intensities than those permitted by Standard No. 108. Such headlamps, while providing a more effectively illuminated roadway for the driver behind the lamps, could under certain traffic environments produce an annoying or even blinding effect on approaching drivers. Therefore, all aspects of highway safety must be considered during the development of new or revised requirements which will eventually be included in Standard No. 108.

As an indication of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's plans for improving headlighting, I am enclosing a copy of an Advance Notice of Proposed Rule making relating to Standard No. 108. Included In the Notice are several proposals which affect the present requirements for headlamps. Also, a recently completed research program on improved forward lighting included studies and evaluations on the performance and other technical aspects of several types of headlamps, including the quartz-halogen type. Results of this research will assist in the development of requirements for more effective headlighting systems. It is anticipated that a second notice including new and revised requirements for headlighting will be Issued late in 1972.

Thank you for bringing Mr. Orgass' comments to my attention.

ID: 15291.ztv

M. Guy Dorleans
International and Regulatory Affairs Manager
VALEO Vision
34, rue Saint-Andre
93012 Bobigny cedex
France

Dear M. Dorleans:

This is in reply to your letter of May 22, 1997, regarding the "Baroptic" lower beam headlamp developed by VALEO. This headlamp is visually/optically aimable, incorporating one removable light source. You have enclosed drawings (Figs. 1-4) illustrating the new headlamp.

You believe that the headlamp would be permitted by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, but you have asked the following three questions:

"a) Does the provision in S7.4(a)(3) apply? We think it does not, since the 'Baroptic' is not an integral beam. As a matter of consequence, the ratio between the luminance of each light-emitting surface is not a legal criterion. Nor is the relative contribution of each Fresnel lens to the lowbeam beam pattern."

If you have decided that the "Baroptic" is not an integral beam headlamp system, then paragraph S7.4(a)(3) would not apply since paragraph S7.4 applies only to integral beam headlamp systems. The "Baroptic" lower beam headlamp will be a "replaceable bulb headlamp" regulated under paragraph S7.5 provided that its replaceable light source is designed to conform to the requirements of Appendix A or Appendix B of Part 564 and the appropriate information has been submitted to and accepted by NHTSA.

"b) Where do we need to mark the name of the light source as required in S7.5(g)? We propose to place this mandatory marking on the outer lens (6), in front of the center of the midpoint Fresnel lens if an odd number of lenses is used (Figure 3a), or in between the central Fresnel lenses if their number is even (Figure 3b)."

S7.5(g) requires only that the lens of a replaceable bulb headlamp be marked "in front of " each replaceable light source. The locations you have chosen meet this requirement.

"c) We have the same question and same proposal as above for the 'mark' of the optical axis' as per S7.8.1(b) of FMVSS 108."

S7.8.1(b) requires headlamps to have a mark or markings that are visible from the front of the headlamp . . . to identify the optical axis of the headlamp . . ." These markings " may be on the interior or exterior of the lens or indicated by a mark or central structure on the interior or exterior of the headlamp." The marks for optical axis that are shown in Figure 3(a), Figure 3(b), and Figure 4 of your submission would appear to indicate the optical axis itself of the respective headlamp design, but must be placed in the location necessary for correct aiming and photometric testing.

If you have further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (FAX 202-366-2830).

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d:7/3/97

ID: nht76-5.38

DATE: 05/20/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John Womack; NHTSA

TO: Earl M. Hoosline

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of April 11, 1976, requesting information concerning your daughter's purchase of a 1972 Plymouth whose odometer was allegedly rolled back.

The Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (Pub. L. 92-513) prohibits alteration of the mileage indicated on an odometer and requires that a written disclosure of a vehicle's mileage be provided by the seller to the purchaser at the time the ownership of a vehicle is transferred. If the correct mileage is unknown, however, the Act requires a statement to that effect to be furnished in written form to the buyer. There is no requirement that these disclosure statements be retained by either the transferor or the transferee.

Violation of any of the above requirements may subject the violator to civil liability where his actions were intended to defraud the purchaser. The Act makes available to the buyer a remedy in the amount of $ 1,500 or treble damages, whichever is greater. To obtain this remedy, section 409 of the Act provides that a private civil action be instituted in State or Federal court.

If a vehicle has traveled over 100,000 miles and this is not reflected on the odometer, the odometer disclosure statement should indicate that the mileage registered on the odometer does not reflect the true number of miles the vehicle has driven. If the suggested Federal form is used in making the disclosure, the following statement should be checked:

"I further state that the actual mileage differs from the odometer reading for reasons other than odometer calibration error and that the actual mileage is unknown."

However, since the actual mileage would be known in the case where the odometer had simply passed the 100,000 mark, the seller should state what the actual mileage is.

For your information, I am forwarding copies of the relevant portions of the Act and the disclosure requirements, in addition to the consumer information pamphlet on odometers.

SINCERELY,

DEAR SIRS:

Legal April, 11, 1976

Would like a little information on odometer tampering law: Daughter bought a 197 plymouth (SECOND HAND) actual miles on odometer card 45,800 miles. Drove 2000 miles and had to have over hauled mechanic stated the car had much over the named mileage how far back does odometer check have to be kept -- my understand, was owned & sold by at least two dealers before us. If the car has gone over the 100, thousand mark does that all have to be shown on paper, please let me know by returned mail if any information would be helpful to me & others

Thank you

Earl M. Hoosline

ID: 18560.ztv

Mr. Malcolm R. Currie
President and CEO
Currie Technologies Inc.
7011 Havenhurst Ave., Unit A
Van Nuys, CA 91405

Dear Mr. Currie:

This is in reply to your letter of August 11, 1998, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, requesting a temporary exemption from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to motor driven cycles. You believe that your product, an electric bicycle, qualifies for an exemption under 49 U.S.C. Sec.30113(b)(3)(B)(iii). This section authorizes exemptions that "would make the development or field evaluation of a low-emission motor vehicle easier and would not unreasonably lower the safety level of that vehicle." You plan to introduce your product in September 1998 if the exemption is approved.

I am sorry to inform you that we cannot grant an exemption on the basis of your letter. Section 30113 has been implemented by 49 CFR Part 555, and the procedures set out in this regulation must be followed both by you and the agency in considering requests for temporary exemptions. To apply for an exemption on the basis of Sec. 30113(b)(3)(B)(iii), you must submit an application containing the information specified in Sec. 555.5(b) and Sec. 555.6(c).

The agency does not grant blanket exemptions from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (49 CFR Part 571). This means that your application must identify each standard, or the part of each standard, that applies to motor driven cycles, and from which you are requesting exemption. As indicated above, the application should contain sufficient information upon which the Administrator may find that the exemption "would make the development or field evaluation of a low-emission motor vehicle easier and would not unreasonably lower the safety level of that vehicle."

When we have received an application meeting the procedural requirements of Part 555, we prepare and publish in the Federal Register a notice inviting interested persons to comment on the application, which provides them a period of 30 days in which to do so. After evaluating the comments, we prepare and publish the Administrator's decision. The entire exemption process requires three to four months. This means that, under the best of circumstances, we could not give you an answer as early as September 1998.

If you have any questions, please call Taylor Vinson (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:555
d.9/29/98

ID: 9166

The Honorable Ken Calvert
Member, United States House of
Representatives
3400 Central Avenue, Suite 200
Riverside, CA 92506

Dear Mr. Calvert:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Alexander H. Patnode of Lake Elsinore, concerning an engine stand your constituent purchased from Pep Boys. Mr. Patnode asked for assistance after the engine stand caused the engine to fall, injuring his ankle.

As explained below, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) considers the engine stand to be "motor vehicle equipment," subject to our regulation. NHTSA has authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. 49 U.S.C. section 30102(a)(7) defines "motor vehicle equipment" in relevant part as:

(A) any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured; (B) any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of a system, part or component, or as an accessory, or addition to a motor vehicle... (emphasis added)

Although an engine stand is not a system, part, or component of a motor vehicle, it would be considered an "accessory" to a motor vehicle. NHTSA has typically used two criteria in determining whether a product is an "accessory." The first criterion is whether a substantial portion of the expected use of the item is related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. Expected use is determined by considering product advertising, product labeling, the type of store that sells the equipment, and information about how the product is used. The second criterion is whether the product is intended to be purchased or otherwise acquired, and principally used by, ordinary users of motor vehicles. If a product satisfies both criteria, it is deemed an "accessory."

We have determined the engine stand is an accessory, and thus an item of motor vehicle equipment. Applying the two criteria

to the engine stand, (1) the engine stand is intended to be used in the maintenance of motor vehicle engines, and (2) assuming the stand was new when sold to Mr. Patnode, it was intended to be acquired and used by ordinary users of motor vehicles.

We have searched our files by computer for reported complaints about engine stands, and for manufacturers' service bulletins and recalls. The search was conducted according to manufacturer (Rally) and equipment type (motor vehicle equipment: jacks, and other). A summary of the search results is enclosed. We found no reported instance of an injury caused by an engine stand, or of a manufacturer's issuing a service bulletin or recall because of an engine stand problem.

We will keep a copy of Mr. Patnode's letter in our files on reported complaints. In the future, the letter may be helpful in establishing a pattern of safety-related concerns caused by the type of engine stand that resulted in Mr. Patnode's injury.

I hope this information is helpful. If there are any questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

cc: Harleigh Ewell, Esq. Office of the General Counsel Regulatory Affairs Division U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission Washington, D.C. 20207-0001 ref:vsa102(4) d:6/18/95

ID: nht94-1.77

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 10, 1994

FROM: Norman Duncan -- President, Study-Tech, Inc.

TO: Rodney Slater -- Administrator, FHA Transportation Department

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/18/94 from John Womack to Norman Duncan (A42; VSA 108(a)(2)(A); Std. 108) and letter dated 10/22/93 from John Womack to Thomas G. Cehelnik

TEXT:

The purpose of this letter is to request from your office AN INTERPRETATION OF THE EXISTING VEHICLE CODE as it may apply to a safety-warning system that our corporation has devised.

The system:

- Is designed to operate at the rear of vehicles to warn the cars following that they are slowing down.

- Can be attached to either the existing brake lights of the vehicle, or could use separately mounted "warning lights" mounted at the rear- deck level and facing toward the back of the vehicle.

- Will automatically be activated the moment the vehicle "begins to slow-down" due to deceleration.

There are many benefits to be derived from the use of this device.

For example:

- There are critical time intervals between when a driver notes an emergency ahead and when the driver reacts. Precious seconds are lost before the driver's reflex action activates the brake lights.

(Note: Using the "Early-Warning Slow-Down Safety Light", the driver following would see the warning light at the precise moment that the vehicle begins to slow.)

According to statistics gathered from several state's traffic and crash facts books, (Eg. "Illinois Crash Facts and Statistics - 1992), about 25% of all collisions involving two vehicles are rear-end type accidents. This is an alarming fact! This type o f accident is in the category of "Could-be-Avoided" if drivers were more alert, or a warning signal was given at the moment of deceleration of the vehicle in front.

That degree of being "alert" in normal traffic is the foundation for our "Early-Warning Slow-Down Safety Light". We envision this device to be the latest in an emerging field of new safety devices. The newest safety devices include: the air bags, the rear-deck additional "stop light", improved head lamps and Anti-locking Brake Systems. Soon, we understand, General Motors will install running lights for their cars that will be "on" whenever the ignition is turned on. All of these

recently developed safety features are designed to bring about higher standards for safety for our nation's highways. Our device, we feel, is another important extension of this concern to make our U.S. vehicles as safe as possible.

We need your assistance and look forward to your answers to the following questions:

A. Can current vehicle codes be interpreted to allow for an automatic signal when a vehicle begins to slow-down?

B. If vehicle codes do not allow for this type of device, would you or some member of your staff be willing to assist us in an effort to develop plans to allow this type of device?

C. Would you or members of your staff be interested in attending a demonstration of the prototype of the safety device? (To be arranged.)

It is our goal to apply for a patent for this device because it represents important "new" technology in this particular field.

An early response from your office would be appreciated very much. We look forward to hearing from you.

ID: nht91-5.40

DATE: September 9, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ernest Wolf -- President, Sky-Top Sunroofs Ltd.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-22-91 from Ernest Wolf to Legal Counsel, NHTSA

TEXT:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 118 Power Windows (49 CFR S571.118), on behalf of the International Sunroof Institute (ISI). As you noted in your letter, the agency has published a final rule amending Standard No. 118 in the April 16, 1991, edition of the Federal Register (56 FR 15290). You requested clarification of certain requirements in that final rule.

The agency has received several petitions for reconsideration of the final rule amending Standard No. 118. One such petition is from ISI. The agency is currently reviewing the merits of each petition. The agency will issue a notice in the Federal Register granting and/or denying the petitions. In that notice, the agency will also address the concerns raised in your request for an interpretation on Standard No. 118. Please let us know if you have any questions about the issues raised in your letter after our response to the petitions for reconsideration has been published and you have had the opportunity to review it.

If you need more information on this subject, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address, or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-2.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 14, 1995

FROM: Lance Tunick -- Vehicle Science Corporation

TO: Taylor Vinson, Esq. -- Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Request for interpretation of FMVSS 108

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/3/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO LANCE TUNICK (A43; Std. 108)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Vinson:

This letter requests an interpretation of a portion of SAE J586 (Feb. 84) installation requirements for rear stop lamps (section 5.4.1), as incorporated by reference in FMVSS 108, Table III.

More specifically, this request concerns the visibility requirements for rear stop lamps. The referenced SAE section states that "to be considered visible, the lamp must provide an unobstructed view of the outer lens surface of at least 12.5 square cent imeters measured at 45 degrees to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle." (Emphasis added.) "Outer lens surface", however, is not defined either in the SAE materials or in FMVSS 108.

We believe that "outer lens surface" when used in the above section of J586 means "light emitting surface" as defined in SAE J387.

Please confirm the agency's definition of "outer lens surface" as used in the visibility requirement in SAE J586 (Feb. 84).

Given testing and production deadlines, we kindly request as prompt an answer as possible.

Thank you for your kind attention.