ID: nht93-5.21

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 12, 1993

FROM: Cary Klingner -- Trison Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/5/93 from John Womack (signature by Kenneth N. Weinstein) to Cary Klingner (A41; Std. 108; VSA 108(a)(2)(A)h

TEXT:

TRISON INC. has developed a "Daytime Running Lights" module. The product keeps the low beam headlamps on whenever the vehicles engine is running. The module is placed under the hood and can be installed by any car owner. The unit is transparent to the vehicles lighting system thus allowing the headlamp and marking light switch to override it at any time. The product connects to the battery positive terminal, the highbeam headlamp, the lowbeam headlamp and one simply wraps around one spark plug wire.

The unit was developed because of the Minnesota law that requires headlamps to be on during daylight inclement weather. This law has created a problem in that some people forget to turn on their lights when required, or forget to turn them off when they leave their vehicle, which runs down the battery. Our unit will alleviate both problems if the driver does not override the module with the vehicle headlamp switch. The Minnesota law only requires that the headlamps be on so with our module no other lights or markers will be illuminated.

We understand that federal regulations were modified earlier this year that may affect this concept and we would like to market this product nationwide. Would you review our safety device and give us an opinion as to whether it complies with the regulations.

Thank you for your time, your response will be greatly appreciated.

ID: 1983-2.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/17/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Sylvania GTE Products Corporation -- Ken Alexander, Engineering Manager

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Ken Alexander Engineering Manager Sylvania GTE products Corporation 1231 "A" Avenue North Seymour, Indiana 47274

Dear Mr. Alexander:

This is in reply to your letter of April 8, 1983, following a conversation with Mr. Vinson of this office, with reference to Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

You are concerned with the "design to conform" language as it relates to headlamps, and have asked for an interpretation that it "does not mean that every lamp produced is required to have every photometric point in."

I am not certain what you mean by "every photometric point in." However, a manufacturer is expected to design his headlamps so that each will meet the minimum photometric output in candela set for the by SAE J579C for each test point. The agency does not pursue random occasional photometric failures at individual test points. But if a manufacturer's products show a pattern of failures to meet the minimum at any individual test point, the agency could consider this as an indication that the headlamp was, in fact, not "designed to conform".

I hope this answers you question.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

April 8, 1983

Dear Sirs:

This letter is a follow-up to a conversation that I had with Mr. Taylor Vincent of your office.

As I explained in my conversation, we are a major supplier of halogen headlamps to the automotive industry, both domestic and overseas. We are currently engaged in discussions with one of the major auto makers in Japan, with purpose of us supplying headlamps for the cars that they export into the U.S. The Japanese have a lot of trouble in understanding your rules and regulations, and I have spent a lot of in trying to explain them. What I need the help of your office in is the following. I have gone over in detail with them the parts of FMVSS 108 that relate to photometrics of headlamps. I have explained that the references to SAE J579 is to a "design to conform" standard and does not mean that every headlamp produced has to have every photometric point in. I continued that the headlamp suppliers are reputable companies that have shown due regard in making their headlamps the best possible product, give the constraints of manufacturability; and that this is recognized and accepted by the federal government. Although they seem to understand what I am saying, they have asked me to obtain a supportive statement to this effect form someone within the regulatory agencies.

I understand the most acceptable way of doing this is to send you a brief statement of the above interpretation, from which your office can give a formal note of acceptance and agreement. I have attached same, and would appreciate very much the above mentioned action by your office in as short of time as possible.

I realize these are busy times and am sorry to have to add to your schedule, but our potential Japanese customers are insistent on us getting this not of agreement.

Thank you very much for your help and consideration.

Ken Alexander Engineering Manager KA/rb Attachment

ID: 77-1.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/02/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Department of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 16, 1976, which raises several questions with respect to motor vehicle lighting and Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

First I want to comment upon this statement:

"A NHTSA representative recently indicated that the standard applies to 'original equipment' replacement items such as lenses and lamps designed for specific year model vehicles, but does not apply to 'aftermarket' lighting equipment that is not manufactured for a particular vehicle but is sold for general use on any vehicle."

This is not entirely true. Standard No. 108 applies in pertinent part "to lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment for replacement of like equipment or vehicles to which this standard applied." The standard applies to motor vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 1972. Thus, any replacement of an original equipment item specified by Standard No. 108 must meet original equipment requirements. This not only includes lenses and lamps, such as parking lamps and tail lamps designed for specific year model vehicles but also lighting equipment sold for general use, such as headlamps, clearance lamps, and identification lamps, whose dimensions do not vary over the years.

Your first question is:

"1. Some aftermarket-type manufacturers produce lamps and other devices that are shown in their catalogs for universal use with no vehicle model being mentioned. Some of these lamps may also be supplied to producers of motor homes, boat trailers, horse trailers, commercial trucks and trailers, etc., as original equipment on those vehicles. Does the fact that a portion of the production of a particular lamp is sold as replacements for the original equipment mean that the other portion sold for use on any 1976 truck or trailer is also governed by Standard No. 108 with respect to the "aftermarket" sales?"

The answer is yes, as I explained in my preliminary remarks about the applicability of Standard No. 108 to all replacement equipment.

"2. In the past, motor vehicles were equipped with round-type sealed beam units. Now that rectangular units are available, some owners are interested in converting the original round headlamps to the rectangular type. Are these rectangular sealed beam units and conversion kits sold to the user considered replacement of like equipment on vehicles to which this standard applies or are they subject to state regulations?"

We construe the words "like equipment" broadly. If one headlighting system is being replaced with another, the replacement headlighting system must meet the requirements of Standard No. 108, even though its configuration differs from that of the original. Obviously, a State may also regulate sale of this equipment if its requirements are identical with the Federal ones.

"3. Manufacturers of nonsealed, quartz-halogen headlamp units are energetically promoting the sale of the units in many areas of the country. These lamps differ considerably from the sealed beam units originally required on late model vehicles at the time of first sale. Do these lamps fall within federal jurisdiction or are they subject only to state regulation?"

Quartz-halogen headlamps sold in the aftermarket, intended as replacement for headlamps that comply with Standard No. 108, must also meet Federal requirements. If the lamps do not conform, not only would their sale be a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Section 108(a)(1)(A), but the removal of sealed beam headlamps by the seller or a motor vehicle repair shop to facilitate the installation of the nonconforming ones would also be a violation of the Act (Section 108(a)(2)(A).

"4. A number of items such as flashers, school bus warning lamps, and headlamp units are sold for universal use. They might be part of a new vehicle at time of sale or be sold separately as a replacement for vehicles manufactured both before and after 1972 or as an addition to such vehicles. Does this mean that dual regulations are permissible with NHTSA setting standards for the production items used as original equipment replacement and the states setting standards and requiring approval for the identical item for usage not regulated by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards?"

It is NHTSA's position, as explained earlier, that if an item of lighting equipment "sold for universal use" is capable of replacing equipment on a vehicle manufactured on or after January 1, 1972, then it must meet Standard No. 108, and a State may also regulate it in an identical manner.

You also asked our advice "on the problem of not being able to recognize whether a particular item has been certified or not." As an alternative to the DOT mark permitted by S4.7.2 of Standard No. 108, replacement lighting equipment may be certified in two other ways. Pursuant to Section 114 of the Act certification "may be in the form of a label or tag on such item or on the outside of a container in which such item is delivered." Thus, access by a State enforcement officer to corporate records is not required. If an item subject to Standard No. 108 is not marked "DOT," if it bears no certification label or tag, and if its container is unmarked, then it has not been certified as required.

I hope this answers your questions.

SINCERELY,

DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL

December 16, 1976

File No.: 61.A218.A3107

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

The finding of the U.S. District Court in Pennsylvania against state requirements for presale approval of items of motor vehicle equipment regulated by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, if upheld, will eventually result in all states curtailing their approval programs. The question then becomes one of determining specifically which items of equipment are federally regulated.

The answer appears clear-cut with respect to equipment standards that apply to an individual item such as brake hoses, safety glazing, emergency triangular reflectors, seat belts, etc. It is not so clear with respect to the part of Standard No. 108 which applies to "lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment for replacement of like equipment on vehicles to which this standard applies". A NHTSA representative recently indicated that the standard applies to "original equipment" replacement items such as lenses and lamps designed for specific year model vehicles, but does not apply to "aftermarket" lighting equipment that is not manufactured for a particular vehicle but is sold for general use on any vehicle. It is important to us to know whether or not we may have misinterpreted the discussion.

We are investigating how best to amend our laws, regulations, and approval procedures if the Pennsylvania decision becomes binding upon all states. The following questions have arisen with respect to which items of lighting equipment are regulated by Standard No. 108 and which are not:

1. Some aftermarket-type manufacturers produce lamps and other devices that are shown in their catalogs for universal use with no vehicle model being mentioned. Some of these lamps may also be supplied to producers of motor homes, boat trailers, horse trailers, commercial trucks and trailers, etc., as original equipment on those vehicles. Does the fact that a portion of the production of a particular lamp is sold as replacements for the original equipment mean that the other portion sold for use on any 1976 truck or trailer is also governed by Standard No. 108 with respect to the "aftermarket" sales?

2. In the past, motor vehicles were equipped with round-type sealed beam units. Now that rectangular units are available, some owners are interested in converting the original round headlamps to the rectangular type. Are these rectangular sealed beam units and conversion kits sold to the user considered "replacement of like equipment on vehicles to which this standard applies" or are they subject to state regulations?

3. Manufacturers of nonsealed, quartz-halogen headlamp units are energetically promoting the sale of the units in many areas of the country. These lamps differ considerably from the sealed beam units originally required on late model vehicles at the time of first sale. Do these lamps fall within federal jurisdiction or are they subject only to state regulation?

4. A number of items such as flashers, school bus warning lamps, and headlamp units are sold for universal use. They might be part of a new vehicle at time of sale or be sold separately as a replacement for vehicles manufactured both before and after 1972 or as an addition to such vehicles. Does this mean that dual regulations are permissible with NHTSA setting standards for the production items used as original equipment replacement and the states setting standards and requiring approval for the identical item for usage not regulated by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards?

Lighting equipment subject to FMVSS No. 108 is not required to be marked in any way with the manufacturer's name or model number nor is a DOT certification symbol required. Without such markeings and symbol, neither a potential customer nor an officer inspecting devices offered for sale at retail outlets has any way of knowing whether a particular device is one that has been certified by the manufacturer as meeting the standard or whether it is a bootleg product that is locally produced or imported without complying with the standard. Neither the customer nor the officer has access to the store's records to determine whether or not the manufacturer included the federally-required certification with the shipment.

If the federal standards totally preempt the state requirements on lighting devices, manufacturers will no longer need to place any markings on their products, since the federal standards make no such requirement. It, therefore, becomes impossible for any local agency to attempt to enforce the federal standard and, in view of the limited enforcement personnel in NHTSA, it means that anyone can sell almost anything he wants with little change of being detected by NHTSA and being prosecuted by the Department of Justice.

We would appreciate your answers to the above questions and your advice on the problem of not being able to recognize whether a particular item has been certified or not.

WARREN M. HEATH Commander Engineering Section

cc: AAMVA; VESC

ID: nht87-2.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/19/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. T. Chikada

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

AIR MAIL

Mr. T. Chikada Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Department Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku Tokyo 153, Japan

Dear Mr. Chikada:

This is in reply to your letter of March 4, 1987, with reference to aiming adjustment of fog lamps. We understand that Stanley is developing a fog lamp and replaceable bulb headlamp with a common lens and housing. Since the portion of the housing also fu nctions as a reflector, the fog lamp moves simultaneously with the headlamp in aiming adjustment. In your view, it will not impair the effectiveness of the headlamp, and you ask for confirmation that the lamp "is acceptable in the U.S.A."

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 contains no requirements for a fog lamp, and would prohibit it only if it impaired the effectiveness of any other lamp mounted on the front of a vehicle that is required by the standard. Assuming that the fog lamp does not impair the effectiveness of the headlamp, its installation would not create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108. However, in the absence of a Federal standard on fog lamps, the individual States may establish their own requirements for f og lamps. We are unable to advise you whether this design would be acceptable in each of the 50 States, and other jurisdictions in which the Federal standards must be met; we can only advise you that it does not appear prohibited by Federal law.

The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), 1201 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington; D.C., 20036 may be able to advise you as to state laws relevant to your design.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

March 4, 1987

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

Dear Ms. Jones,

Re : Aiming adjustment of Front fog lamps

We are now developing a new fog lamp, which has a common lens and housing with a replaceable bulb headlamp. (See attached drawing.)

Since the portion of housing also functions as a reflector, this new fog lamp moves simultaneously with headlamp in aiming adjustment.

This fog lamp is designed to satisfy the requirements of SAE Standard J583. So it will not impair the effectiveness of the headlamp, or rather, it will promote the function of headlamp. We Think this new fog lamp is acceptable in the U.S.A.

Please give your advice whether our understanding is right or not.

Sincerely yours,

Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

T. Chikada Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept.

SEE ATTACHMENT

ID: aiam2330

Dear Mr. Nims: This will confirm your telephone conversation of June 23, 1976, wit Mr. Vinson of this office concerning the preemptive effect of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards with respect to moped turn signals.; The Federal standards are issued pursuant to Title 15, United State Code, Section 1392(a). Judging that a multiplicity of State and Federal vehicle safety standards would constitute a burden on interstate commerce, Congress also enacted Section 1392(d), which prohibits a State from establishing or continuing in effect a vehicle safety standard that differs from a Federal safety standard covering the same aspect of vehicle performance. For example, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 contains requirements for motorcycle headlamp performance. Therefore, if a State has a standard on motorcycle headlamp performance it must be identical to the Federal one, and may not impose either greater or lesser requirements. On the other hand, there is no Federal standard for fog lamps, and a State may set whatever requirements it deems appropriate for fog lamps.; How does preemption apply to moped turn signals? Under the Federa standards, a moped is categorized as a 'motorcycle' since it is 'a motor vehicle. . .having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground.' (Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 571.3(b)). For some purposes a moped is considered a 'motor-driven cycle' which is 'a motorcycle with a motor that produces 5-brake horsepower or less.' Standard No. 108 requires motorcycles manufactured on or after January 1, 1973, to be equipped with turn signal lamps. However, in recognition of the limited ability of low-powered motorcycles, Standard No. 108 was amended effective October 14, 1974, to add paragraph S4.1.1.26 which states that 'A motor- driven cycle whose speed attainable in 1 mile is 30 mph or less need not be equipped with turn signal lamps.' Pursuant to Section 1392(d) this means that a State can validly require a moped to be equipped with turn signal lamps in only two instances: If the moped were manufactured between January 1, 1973 and October 14, 1974, or if it were manufactured on or after October 14, 1974, and has a top speed exceeding 30 mph.; I hope this clarifies the matter for you. Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: 1889y

Mr. Sadato Kadoya
Manager, Safety Engineering
Mazda (North America), Inc.
Research & Development Center
1203 Woodbridge Avenue
Ann Arbor, MI 48105

Dear Mr. Kadoya:

This is to provide you with a clarification of our letter to you dated November 3, l988, based upon your telephone conversation with Taylor Vinson of this Office.

Our letter advised you that Standard No. l08 did not preclude the use of replaceable bulb headlamps with adjustable reflectors. In reply, you have cited two provisions of the standard which appear in conflict with this interpretation. With respect to a headlamp equipped with one or two HBl light sources, S4.1.1.36(e)(l) states that "There shall be no mechanism that allows adjustment of an individual [HBl] or adjustment of reflector aim with two [HBls]." To similar effect with respect to HB3 and HB4 light sources is S4.1.1.36(f)(l). Standard No. l08 has been amended effective June 8, l989, and the corresponding requirements are now S7.5(d)(l) and (e)(l). Each has been revised to state "There shall be no mechanism that allows adjustment of an individual light source, or, if there are two light sources, independent adjustment of each reflector."

We believe that the revised wording of the new sections clearly allow the adjustment of single reflectors in single light source replaceable bulb headlamps, and dual reflectors in dual-light source replaceable bulb headlamps, provided that the reflectors are not capable of independent adjustment. Further, new S7.7.2.2 specifically addresses how moveable reflectors must operate.

The intent of these sections is to prohibit headlamp designs in which the bulb alone is adjusted to aim the headlamp since this is contrary to mechanical aim requirements, or, where there is more than one reflector in a headlamp, designs in which each reflector may be adjusted independently, since this is also contrary to achieving precise mechanical aim.

Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

/ ref:l08 d:7/l0/89

ID: nht89-2.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/10/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: SADATO KADOYA -- MANAGER, SAFETY ENGINEERING MAZDA (NORTH AMERICA), INC. RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT CENTER

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Kadoya:

This is to provide you with a clarification of our letter to you dated November 3, 1988, based upon your telephone conversation with Taylor Vinson of this Office.

Our letter advised you that Standard No. 108 did not preclude the use of replaceable bulb headlamps with adjustable reflectors. In reply, you have cited two provisions of the standard which appear in conflict with this interpretation. With respect to a headlamp equipped with one or two HB1 light sources, S4.1.1.36(e)(1) states that "There shall be no mechanism that allows adjustment of an individual [HB1] or adjustment of reflector aim with two [HB1s]." To similar effect with respect to HB3 and HB4 li ght sources is S4.1.1.36(f)(1). Standard No. 108 has been amended effective June 8, 1989, and the corresponding requirements are now S7.5(d)(1) and (e)(1). Each has been revised to state "There shall be no mechanism that allows adjustment of an individ ual light source, or, if there are two light sources, independent adjustment of each reflector."

We believe that the revised wording of the new sections clearly allow the adjustment of single reflectors in single light source replaceable bulb headlamps, and dual reflectors in dual-light source replaceable bulb headlamps, provided that the reflectors are not capable of independent adjustment. Further, new S7.7.2.2 specifically addresses how moveable reflectors must operate.

The intent of these sections is to prohibit headlamp designs in which the bulb alone is adjusted to aim the headlamp since this is contrary to

mechanical aim requirements, or, where there is more than one reflector in a headlamp, designs in which each reflector may be adjusted independently, since this is also contrary to achieving precise mechanical aim.

Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.

Sincerely,

ID: 2071y

Mr. Sadato Kadoya
Manager, Safety Engineering
Mazda (North America), Inc.
Research & Development Center
1203 Woodbridge Avenue
Ann Arbor, MI 48105

Dear Mr. Kadoya:

This is to provide you with a clarification of our letter to you dated November 3, l988, based upon your telephone conversation with Taylor Vinson of this Office.

Our letter advised you that Standard No. l08 did not preclude the use of replaceable bulb headlamps with adjustable reflectors. In reply, you have cited two provisions of the standard which appear in conflict with this interpretation. With respect to a headlamp equipped with one or two HBl light sources, S4.1.1.36(e)(l) states that "There shall be no mechanism that allows adjustment of an individual [HBl] or adjustment of reflector aim with two [HBls]." To similar effect with respect to HB3 and HB4 light sources is S4.1.1.36(f)(l). Standard No. l08 has been amended effective June 8, l989, and the corresponding requirements are now S7.5(d)(l) and (e)(l). Each has been revised to state "There shall be no mechanism that allows adjustment of an individual light source, or, if there are two light sources, independent adjustment of each reflector."

We believe that the revised wording of the new sections clearly allow the adjustment of single reflectors in single light source replaceable bulb headlamps, and dual reflectors in dual-light source replaceable bulb headlamps, provided that the reflectors are not capable of independent adjustment. Further, new S7.7.2.2 specifically addresses how moveable reflectors must operate.

The intent of these sections is to prohibit headlamp designs in which the bulb alone is adjusted to aim the headlamp since this is contrary to mechanical aim requirements, or, where there is more than one reflector in a headlamp, designs in which each reflector may be adjusted independently, since this is also contrary to achieving precise mechanical aim.

Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

/ ref:l08 d:7/l0/89

ID: 2072y

Mr. Sadato Kadoya
Manager, Safety Engineering
Mazda (North America), Inc.
Research & Development Center
1203 Woodbridge Avenue
Ann Arbor, MI 48105

Dear Mr. Kadoya:

This is to provide you with a clarification of our letter to you dated November 3, l988, based upon your telephone conversation with Taylor Vinson of this Office.

Our letter advised you that Standard No. l08 did not preclude the use of replaceable bulb headlamps with adjustable reflectors. In reply, you have cited two provisions of the standard which appear in conflict with this interpretation. With respect to a headlamp equipped with one or two HBl light sources, S4.1.1.36(e)(l) states that "There shall be no mechanism that allows adjustment of an individual [HBl] or adjustment of reflector aim with two [HBls]." To similar effect with respect to HB3 and HB4 light sources is S4.1.1.36(f)(l). Standard No. l08 has been amended effective June 8, l989, and the corresponding requirements are now S7.5(d)(l) and (e)(l). Each has been revised to state "There shall be no mechanism that allows adjustment of an individual light source, or, if there are two light sources, independent adjustment of each reflector."

We believe that the revised wording of the new sections clearly allow the adjustment of single reflectors in single light source replaceable bulb headlamps, and dual reflectors in dual-light source replaceable bulb headlamps, provided that the reflectors are not capable of independent adjustment. Further, new S7.7.2.2 specifically addresses how moveable reflectors must operate.

The intent of these sections is to prohibit headlamp designs in which the bulb alone is adjusted to aim the headlamp since this is contrary to mechanical aim requirements, or, where there is more than one reflector in a headlamp, designs in which each reflector may be adjusted independently, since this is also contrary to achieving precise mechanical aim.

Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

/ ref:l08 d:7/l0/89

ID: 1984-2.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/07/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; David W. Allen; NHTSA

TO: Morton; Lewis; King & Krieg

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Charles B. Lewis Esq. Morton, Lewis King & Krieg P.O. Box 2425 Knoxville, TN 37901

Dear Mr. Lewis:

This is in reply to your letter of June 22, 1984, asking for an interpretation of 49 C.F.R. 571.108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

Paragraph S4.6 in pertinent part requires that headlamps when activated shall be steady-burning. You present the situation of a Honda motorcycle which has a headlamp that is illuminated when the engine is running "or while the motorcycle is otherwise moving while in gear." Allegedly, the engine stopped running for awhile and during the period of time the clutch was disengaged, there was no headlight and a collision ensued. Your consultant states that "the engine has to be turning for the headlight to burn and such a system does not comply with the 'steady-burning' requirement of the regulation, since the light would not burn without the engine turning."

The Federal requirement, is that when a headlamp is on, it shall provide a steady beam. The Honda lamp meets this requirement. There is no Federal requirement that the headlamp be on when the engine is running or that it remain on when the engine is not running. The agency's Enforcement office informs us that many motorcycles are wired so that the headlamp remains illuminated when the engine is off, but that the Honda design is not unique.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

June 22, 1984

Mr. Frank Burndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, SW Room 5219 Washington, D. C. 20590

Re: Honda Motor Company, Ltd. (Hopper) Model XL125S; CFR Title 49

Dear Mr. Burndt:

We have a seemingly unique and serious problem regarding the interpretation of Title 49, S571.108 relating to the definition of a "steady-burning headlamp." The involved unit is a Honda, 1980, XL125S which has a headlight powered by a coil in the AC generator and which illuminates when the engine is running or when the motorcycle is otherwise moving while in gear. Briefly, the engine allegedly stopped running for a short period of time and during the period of time the clutch was disengaged by the rider there was no headlight and a collision ensued.

A professor from Vanderbilt University has checked the regulations referred to hereinbefore and says that when the engine stops turning the headlight stops burning and that this makes this particular unit and those units of all other manufacturers defective and not in compliance with the federal regulations mentioned hereinabove. The professor says the flaw in design is that the engine has to be turning for the headlight to burn and such a system does not comply with the "steady-burning" requirement of the regulation, since the light would not burn without the engine turning. The witness says the light is "steady burning" when the engine is turning and is in compliance with the regulation during such operation. The witness doing this testing says that many other things are defined, such as "flash" but that "steady-burning" is not defined and that it can only mean the above interpretation.

We have talked to your office on several occasions, the last time being with Mr. Taylor Vinson, and were advised that if we would briefly state the facts you could give us an advisory opinion and perhaps other enlightening comments which would assist us. This is very important to all manufacturers of units of this type, in addition to being directly involved in a lawsuit against Honda at this time. It is the desire of all manufacturers, and in particular my client, Honda, to comply with all regulations; and they believe they are in compliance here, but respectfully request the opinion of your office.

Thank you for your assistance and the assistance of the Department in this matter.

Yours truly,

MORTON, LEWIS, KING & KRIEG

Charles B. Lewis

CBL/bs