ID: aiam4547

Dear Mr. Ziolo: This is in reply to your letter of April 20, 1988 asking about the acceptability under Safety Standard No. 108 of modifying imported vehicles so that they are equipped with two Type 2D1 and two Type 1C1 headlamps. You have been informed by the agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance that this is impermissible 'because they are 'nonconforming' 'headlight systems'.' You disagree because you believe that the minimum requirements of the Standard are satisfied by the Type 2D1 lamps, and that 'S4.4 appears to permit such a combination.' Paragraph S4.4 is not applicable to the situation you present as it refers to combinations of lamps serving different functions, in your discussion, the lamps serve the identical function of headlighting. Given the fact that the Type 2D1 sealed beam 7' diameter headlamps fulfill the headlighting requirements of the Standard, your question must be viewed as whether a supplement to the headlighting system is permissible under Standard No. 108. Paragraph S4.l.3 of Standard No. 108 permits the addition of nonrequired lighting equipment provided it does not impair the effectiveness of the equipment that the standard requires. The two Type 1C1 5 3/4' diameter sealed beam lamps in a four lamp headlighting system form the major portion of an upper beam headlighting system. The two Type 2D1 lamps in a two lamp headlighting system form the whole of an upper beam headlighting system. Thus, a vehicle furnished with the systems you posit would be equipped with more than one upper beam headlighting system. The Type 2D1 system must be designed to conform to the photometric requirements of SAE Standard J579c DEC79 'Sealed Beam Headlamp Units for Motor Vehicles.' The SAE Standard establishes at two test points, H-V and 4 D-V, maximum allowable candela of 75,000 and 5,000 respectively for each Type 2D1 headlamp. This means that the maximum allowable candela for headlighting systems at these test points is 150,000 and l0,000 candela. The Type 1C1 headlamps will also be designed to conform to SAE J579c. Corresponding maxima at test points H-V and 4 D-V for Type 1C1 systems are 60,000 and 5,000. Thus, a vehicle equipped with the lamps you have described could emit a total of 270,000 candela at test point H-V (when only 150,000 is permitted), and 20,000 at 4D-V (when only l0,000 is allowable). Agency research has shown that candela readings in excess of 150,000 greatly increase the potential for glare with little increase in seeing ability. This glare would be visible both to the driver of an oncoming car, and the driver of the modified vehicle itself through creation of a 'veiling' glare. The addition of the Type 1C1 headlamps would therefore impair the effectiveness of the Type 2D1 headlighting system, and is forbidden by S4.1.3. We appreciate your interest in safety. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel;

ID: nht90-1.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/05/90

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

TO: TRACEY POWELL -- LEGISLATIVE COORDINATOR GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, AMERICAN MOTORCYCLIST ASSOCIATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED NOVEMBER 14, 1989 TO STEPHEN WOOD, NHTSA, FROM TRACEY POWELL, AMERICAN MOTORCYCLIST ASSOCIATION, [OCC-4154] AND LETTER DATED AUGUST 3, 1989 TO TRACEY POWELL FROM W. MARSHALL RICKERT, MARYLAND DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION, ATTACHED.

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 14, 1989, with respect to existing prohibitions in some States against the use of modulating headlamps on motorcycles. The apparent basis of the prohibition is that flashing lamps are generally reserved for em ergency vehicles. You point out the distinction that Standard No. 108 makes between the two types of headlamps, and ask our "assistance in attaining uniform recognition of the legal use of modulating headlights through the United States . . . ."

As you note, there is a legal distinction in Standard No. 108 between a modulating headlamp (one that goes from a higher to a lower intensity within either the upper or lower beam) and a flashing one (one that goes from either the upper or lower beam to off). Further, section S5.6.1 of Standard No. 108 provides that "A headlamp on a motorcycle may be wired to modulate." The authority of States to regulate this aspect of motorcycle lighting is constrained by section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Mo tor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)). This section provides in pertinent part that:

[whenever] a Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . is in effect, no State . . . shall have any authority either to extablish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle . . . any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle . . . which is not identical to the Federal standard."

The effect of this provision of the Safety Act with respect to lighting is to expressly prohibit a State from enacting a law that forbids a manufacturer from installing headlamp modulators on motorcycles.

I hope that this responds to your concerns.

ID: nht95-4.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 1, 1995 EST

FROM: Adam Englund -- Electric Bicycle Company, LLC

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Request for Interpretation

ATTACHMT: 1/19/96 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Adam Englund (A44; Std. 108; Std. 116; Std. 119; Std. 120; Std. 122)

TEXT: The Electric Bicycle Company, LLC, 3601 Empire Avenue, Burbank CA, 91505 (hereinafter, "EBC") is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of Nevada. EBC hereby requests an interpretation with respect to certain Federal Motor Veh icle Safety Standards for the EV Warrior, an electric/human-powered bicycle to be manufactured by EBC.

Confidentiality

Certain portions of this document contain confidential information and trade secrets related to our product and marketing strategy. We have carefully calculated our market position. Based on that market analysis, we spent a great deal of time, money and effort to develop the EV Warrior. As we are about to launch our initial production run, we are aware that other electric bicycles are also entering the market. Our insistence on compliance with FMVSS sets us apart from our competitors. As such, t he very existence, and certainly the content of this Request for Interpretation is confidential and constitutes trade secrets.

We seek an interpretation of certain Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards with respect to the electric bicycle that we are about to manufacture.

CONFIDENTIAL

[The EV Warrior is essentially a multi-speed bicycle with attached electric motors that drive the rear wheel through a friction drive wheel against the rear tire. The transmissions of each power source - human and electric - are entirely separate. W hereas the bicycle employs six speed derailleur shifting, the electric motor powers the rear wheel through a single drive wheel on a roller clutch against the tire. The EV Warrior employs many standard bicycle components, including wheels, tires, cantil ever or optional hydraulic disc bicycle brakes, "Grip Shift" gear shifters, cranks and pedals

The power pack is integrated into the chassis of the cycle and is not intended to be removed, especially by the consumer. However, were the electric assist motor to be removed, the device would still function fully as a bicycle. (Without the assist m otor, the EV Warrior's equipment would be regulated under 16 CFR 512 by the Consumer Products Safety Commission - as a bicycle.)

Using the electric motor alone, the EV Warrior is capable of traveling approximately 15 miles at 12 m.p.h. Its maximum speed is under 25 m.p.h. Even with pedaling, it is difficult to push the bike beyond 25 m.p.h. Its total weight is approximately 85 lbs. Separate service brake systems operate the front and rear brakes, respectively.]

A. License Plate Attachment

CONFIDENTIAL

[We would like you to confirm our understanding that marine grade hook-and-loop material is an acceptable method of attaching the license plates. In my conversation with Luke Loy, NHTSA Safety Compliance Engineer, he advised me that since the FMVSS ar e silent on this issue, such attachment is acceptable.]

B. Adjustability of Headlight Beam, Standard No. 108 Table III, "Headlamps"

This Standard specifies the applicable SAE Recommended Practice for "Headlamp Mountings", SAE J566, Jan. 60. It recommends that:

"Headlamps and headlamp mountings shall be so designed and constructed that:

1. The axis of the light beams may be adjusted to the left, right, up, or down from the designed setting, the amount of adjustability to be determined by practical operating conditions and the type of equipment."

CONFIDENTIAL

One primary rationale for beam adjustability is to compensate for changes in a vehicles suspension system. However, the EV Warrior has no springs or shocks. Rather, it uses a fixed frame and fork. In our experience, bicycle headlamps are continually knocked out of alignment. So, we have designed the headlamp to be secured such that the aim will not be disturbed under ordinary conditions of service [per SAE J566, Jan. 60, par.]

We request an interpretation that the practical operating conditions for a motor driven cycle, whose top speed is under 25 mph and whose operation will correlate to a normal bicycle, dictate that its headlamp (which meets all other headlamp requiremen ts) need not be adjustable.

C. Hydraulic system biodegradable synthetic oil. Standard No. 116, "Motor vehicle brake fluids".

CONFIDENTIAL

[Our basic model EV Warrior employs mechanically activated wire cable "cantilever" brakes, front and rear. However, we currently offer a "standard option" hydraulic front disc brake. This brake, made by Sachs of Germany, is far superior to virtually any cantilever brake. It offers excellent braking power; simplicity in set-up, maintenance and operation; reliability; and fine modulation.

The Sachs hydraulic brake uses a green colored biodegradable synthetic oil, Shell Naturelle HF-E 15, that is not in contact with any elastomeric components made of styrene and butadiene rubber (SBR), ethylene and propylene rubber (EPR), polychloropren e (CR) brake hose inner tube stock or natural rubber (NR)."] Standard No. 116, S4. states that:

"Brake fluid means a liquid designed for use in a motor vehicle hydraulic brake system in which it will contact elastomeric components made of styrene and butadiene rubber (SBR), ethylene and propylene rubber (EPR), polychloroprene (CR) brake hose inn er tube stock or natural rubber (NR).",

and,

"Hydraulic system mineral oil means a mineral-oil-based fluid designed for use in motor vehicle hydraulic brake systems in which the fluid is not in contact with components made of SBR, EPR or NR."

The synthetic oil employed by the Sachs system is neither a "Brake fluid" because it is not in contact with any components made of SBR, EPR, CR or NR, nor is it an "Hydraulic system mineral oil" as it is not petroleum based.

"S5. Requirements This section specifies performance requirements for DOT 3, DOT 4 and DOT 5 brake fluids; requirements for brake fluid certification; and requirements for container sealing, labeling and color coding for brake fluids and hydraulic sys tem mineral oils . . ."

CONFIDENTIAL

[The standard sets out the requirements for "brake fluid" and other requirements for "hydraulic system mineral oil. However, there are no requirements under S5. for fluids that do not fall within either of these definitions. EBC seeks an interpretat ion that, by omission, there are no requirements under FMVSS 116 for the hydraulic system biodegradable synthetic oil as used in the Sachs hydraulic brake system.]

D. Hydraulic Service Brake System Standard No. 122, "Motorcycle brake systems", S5.1.2

CONFIDENTIAL

[The Sachs brake differs from traditional hydraulic systems in that it is a closed system that employs a simple actuator instead of a master cylinder with a reservoir. In open systems, to compensate for brake pad wear, the master cylinder system requ ires a reservoir. However, the Sachs brake compensates for brake pad wear through a simple screw adjustment in the brake lever. This is an excellent system that is commensurate with the weight and simplicity of our electric bicycle. It is, in fact, mu ch easier to adjust than any cable type bicycle brake.]

Standard No. 122, S5.1.2 Hydraulic service brake systems, requires that:

"Each motorcycle equipped with a hydraulic brake system shall have the equipment specified in S5.1.2.1 and S5.1.2.2."

S5.1.2.1 States that:

"Each master cylinder shall have a separate reservoir for each brake circuit, with each reservoir filler opening having its own cover, seal and cover retention device . . ." (emphasis added) CONFIDENTIAL

[Since the Sachs hydraulic system employs no master cylinders, a simple calculation bears out the premise that when there is no master cylinder, the number of master cylinder reservoirs required is zero.

Alternatively, this standard seems to assume that an hydraulic brake system requires a master cylinder reservoir for its proper operation and does not contemplate an actuator system. We request an alternate interpretation that this standard applies t o an open system that requires a reservoir, but not to a closed, actuator system as employed by the EV Warrior. The reservoir serves no purpose in a closed system.

If your interpretation agrees with ours, that a reservoir is not required, then we hope you will also agree that, a fortiori, labeling requirements of S5.1.2.2, for a non-existent reservoir would also not be required.]

E. Tire requirements, Standard No. 119, "Pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars", S6. Requirements.

CONFIDENTIAL

[The EV Warrior's electric motor will propel the vehicle at no more than 25 m.p.h. (40 k.p.h.). Consequently, the maximum speed of the EV Warrior is about the same as a regular bicycle - and considerably slower than racing cyclists. Even when the mot or is operating at near peak efficiency (and hence reduced speed), the batteries will last no more than 15 miles (24 kilometers) or 1.5 hours. Unlike an internal combustion engine whose fuel tank can be filled in seconds, the EV Warrior generally takes over-night, or at best, a couple of hours to re-charge. Thus there is necessarily a period between each 1-1/2 hour trip when the tires will cool down. It is literally impossible for the EV Warrior to obtain the speeds, or travel anywhere near the non-s top distances contemplated by Standard No. 119]

Standard No. 119, S7.2 Endurance test procedures, require the test for motorcycle tires to be performed at a speed of 55 m.p.h. (90 k.p.h.) for 47 hours.

Standard No. 119, S7.4 High speed performance test procedures, requires testing at speeds of 50 m.p.h. (80 k.p.h.) for two hours, 75 m.p.h. (121 k.p.h.) for 30 minutes, 80 m.p.h. (129 k.p.h.) for 30 minutes and 85 m.p.h. (137 k.p.h.) for 30 minutes.

CONFIDENTIAL

Clearly, these standards are inappropriate for a low-speed, short range electric bicycle such as the EV Warrior. It is not germane whether the EV Warrior's tire/rim combination remains undamaged at 55 mph, because the vehicle can never attain that sp eed. Similarly, the performance characteristics of the tires and rims after 47 hours is not apropos because the, vehicle cannot be operated continuously for that duration. Because it must be recharged after 1.5 hours for 30 minutes to 8 hours (thereby allowing the tires to cool), such a continuous-use endurance test is meaningless. As such, we request an interpretation that, Standard No. 119 cannot reasonably be applied to such a low speed, short range vehicle as the EV Warrior.

We at EBC have joined together to produce an entirely new form of transportation. Children are first introduced to transportation with bicycles. Electric bicycles will allow the smoothest and most natural transition from bikes to electric vehicles. As the first mass marketed electric vehicle, the EV Warrior vehicle will introduce an entire generation to electric vehicles and hasten the electric transportation revolution.

ID: nht95-7.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 1, 1995 EST

FROM: Adam Englund -- Electric Bicycle Company, LLC

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Request for Interpretation

ATTACHMT: 1/19/96 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Adam Englund (A44; Std. 108; Std. 116; Std. 119; Std. 120; Std. 122)

TEXT: The Electric Bicycle Company, LLC, 3601 Empire Avenue, Burbank CA, 91505 (hereinafter, "EBC") is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of Nevada. EBC hereby requests an interpretation with respect to certain Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for the EV Warrior, an electric/human-powered bicycle to be manufactured by EBC.

Confidentiality

Certain portions of this document contain confidential information and trade secrets related to our product and marketing strategy. We have carefully calculated our market position. Based on that market analysis, we spent a great deal of time, money and effort to develop the EV Warrior. As we are about to launch our initial production run, we are aware that other electric bicycles are also entering the market. Our insistence on compliance with FMVSS sets us apart from our competitors. As such, the very existence, and certainly the content of this Request for Interpretation is confidential and constitutes trade secrets.

We seek an interpretation of certain Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards with respect to the electric bicycle that we are about to manufacture.

CONFIDENTIAL

[The EV Warrior is essentially a multi-speed bicycle with attached electric motors that drive the rear wheel through a friction drive wheel against the rear tire. The transmissions of each power source - human and electric - are entirely separate. Whereas the bicycle employs six speed derailleur shifting, the electric motor powers the rear wheel through a single drive wheel on a roller clutch against the tire. The EV Warrior employs many standard bicycle components, including wheels, tires, cantilever or optional hydraulic disc bicycle brakes, "Grip Shift" gear shifters, cranks and pedals

The power pack is integrated into the chassis of the cycle and is not intended to be removed, especially by the consumer. However, were the electric assist motor to be removed, the device would still function fully as a bicycle. (Without the assist motor, the EV Warrior's equipment would be regulated under 16 CFR 512 by the Consumer Products Safety Commission - as a bicycle.)

Using the electric motor alone, the EV Warrior is capable of traveling approximately 15 miles at 12 m.p.h. Its maximum speed is under 25 m.p.h. Even with pedaling, it is difficult to push the bike beyond 25 m.p.h. Its total weight is approximately 85 lbs. Separate service brake systems operate the front and rear brakes, respectively.]

A. License Plate Attachment

CONFIDENTIAL

[We would like you to confirm our understanding that marine grade hook-and-loop material is an acceptable method of attaching the license plates. In my conversation with Luke Loy, NHTSA Safety Compliance Engineer, he advised me that since the FMVSS are silent on this issue, such attachment is acceptable.]

B. Adjustability of Headlight Beam, Standard No. 108 Table III, "Headlamps"

This Standard specifies the applicable SAE Recommended Practice for "Headlamp Mountings", SAE J566, Jan. 60. It recommends that:

"Headlamps and headlamp mountings shall be so designed and constructed that:

1. The axis of the light beams may be adjusted to the left, right, up, or down from the designed setting, the amount of adjustability to be determined by practical operating conditions and the type of equipment."

CONFIDENTIAL

One primary rationale for beam adjustability is to compensate for changes in a vehicles suspension system. However, the EV Warrior has no springs or shocks. Rather, it uses a fixed frame and fork. In our experience, bicycle headlamps are continually knocked out of alignment. So, we have designed the headlamp to be secured such that the aim will not be disturbed under ordinary conditions of service [per SAE J566, Jan. 60, par.]

We request an interpretation that the practical operating conditions for a motor driven cycle, whose top speed is under 25 mph and whose operation will correlate to a normal bicycle, dictate that its headlamp (which meets all other headlamp requirements) need not be adjustable.

C. Hydraulic system biodegradable synthetic oil. Standard No. 116, "Motor vehicle brake fluids".

CONFIDENTIAL

[Our basic model EV Warrior employs mechanically activated wire cable "cantilever" brakes, front and rear. However, we currently offer a "standard option" hydraulic front disc brake. This brake, made by Sachs of Germany, is far superior to virtually any cantilever brake. It offers excellent braking power; simplicity in set-up, maintenance and operation; reliability; and fine modulation.

The Sachs hydraulic brake uses a green colored biodegradable synthetic oil, Shell Naturelle HF-E 15, that is not in contact with any elastomeric components made of styrene and butadiene rubber (SBR), ethylene and propylene rubber (EPR), polychloroprene (CR) brake hose inner tube stock or natural rubber (NR)."] Standard No. 116, S4. states that:

"Brake fluid means a liquid designed for use in a motor vehicle hydraulic brake system in which it will contact elastomeric components made of styrene and butadiene rubber (SBR), ethylene and propylene rubber (EPR), polychloroprene (CR) brake hose inner tube stock or natural rubber (NR).",

and,

"Hydraulic system mineral oil means a mineral-oil-based fluid designed for use in motor vehicle hydraulic brake systems in which the fluid is not in contact with components made of SBR, EPR or NR."

The synthetic oil employed by the Sachs system is neither a "Brake fluid" because it is not in contact with any components made of SBR, EPR, CR or NR, nor is it an "Hydraulic system mineral oil" as it is not petroleum based.

"S5. Requirements This section specifies performance requirements for DOT 3, DOT 4 and DOT 5 brake fluids; requirements for brake fluid certification; and requirements for container sealing, labeling and color coding for brake fluids and hydraulic system mineral oils . . ."

CONFIDENTIAL

[The standard sets out the requirements for "brake fluid" and other requirements for "hydraulic system mineral oil. However, there are no requirements under S5. for fluids that do not fall within either of these definitions. EBC seeks an interpretation that, by omission, there are no requirements under FMVSS 116 for the hydraulic system biodegradable synthetic oil as used in the Sachs hydraulic brake system.]

D. Hydraulic Service Brake System Standard No. 122, "Motorcycle brake systems", S5.1.2

CONFIDENTIAL

[The Sachs brake differs from traditional hydraulic systems in that it is a closed system that employs a simple actuator instead of a master cylinder with a reservoir. In open systems, to compensate for brake pad wear, the master cylinder system requires a reservoir. However, the Sachs brake compensates for brake pad wear through a simple screw adjustment in the brake lever. This is an excellent system that is commensurate with the weight and simplicity of our electric bicycle. It is, in fact, much easier to adjust than any cable type bicycle brake.]

Standard No. 122, S5.1.2 Hydraulic service brake systems, requires that:

"Each motorcycle equipped with a hydraulic brake system shall have the equipment specified in S5.1.2.1 and S5.1.2.2."

S5.1.2.1 States that:

"Each master cylinder shall have a separate reservoir for each brake circuit, with each reservoir filler opening having its own cover, seal and cover retention device . . ." (emphasis added) CONFIDENTIAL

[Since the Sachs hydraulic system employs no master cylinders, a simple calculation bears out the premise that when there is no master cylinder, the number of master cylinder reservoirs required is zero.

Alternatively, this standard seems to assume that an hydraulic brake system requires a master cylinder reservoir for its proper operation and does not contemplate an actuator system. We request an alternate interpretation that this standard applies to an open system that requires a reservoir, but not to a closed, actuator system as employed by the EV Warrior. The reservoir serves no purpose in a closed system.

If your interpretation agrees with ours, that a reservoir is not required, then we hope you will also agree that, a fortiori, labeling requirements of S5.1.2.2, for a non-existent reservoir would also not be required.]

E. Tire requirements, Standard No. 119, "Pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars", S6. Requirements.

CONFIDENTIAL

[The EV Warrior's electric motor will propel the vehicle at no more than 25 m.p.h. (40 k.p.h.). Consequently, the maximum speed of the EV Warrior is about the same as a regular bicycle - and considerably slower than racing cyclists. Even when the motor is operating at near peak efficiency (and hence reduced speed), the batteries will last no more than 15 miles (24 kilometers) or 1.5 hours. Unlike an internal combustion engine whose fuel tank can be filled in seconds, the EV Warrior generally takes over-night, or at best, a couple of hours to re-charge. Thus there is necessarily a period between each 1-1/2 hour trip when the tires will cool down. It is literally impossible for the EV Warrior to obtain the speeds, or travel anywhere near the non-stop distances contemplated by Standard No. 119]

Standard No. 119, S7.2 Endurance test procedures, require the test for motorcycle tires to be performed at a speed of 55 m.p.h. (90 k.p.h.) for 47 hours.

Standard No. 119, S7.4 High speed performance test procedures, requires testing at speeds of 50 m.p.h. (80 k.p.h.) for two hours, 75 m.p.h. (121 k.p.h.) for 30 minutes, 80 m.p.h. (129 k.p.h.) for 30 minutes and 85 m.p.h. (137 k.p.h.) for 30 minutes.

CONFIDENTIAL

Clearly, these standards are inappropriate for a low-speed, short range electric bicycle such as the EV Warrior. It is not germane whether the EV Warrior's tire/rim combination remains undamaged at 55 mph, because the vehicle can never attain that speed. Similarly, the performance characteristics of the tires and rims after 47 hours is not apropos because the, vehicle cannot be operated continuously for that duration. Because it must be recharged after 1.5 hours for 30 minutes to 8 hours (thereby allowing the tires to cool), such a continuous-use endurance test is meaningless. As such, we request an interpretation that, Standard No. 119 cannot reasonably be applied to such a low speed, short range vehicle as the EV Warrior.

We at EBC have joined together to produce an entirely new form of transportation. Children are first introduced to transportation with bicycles. Electric bicycles will allow the smoothest and most natural transition from bikes to electric vehicles. As the first mass marketed electric vehicle, the EV Warrior vehicle will introduce an entire generation to electric vehicles and hasten the electric transportation revolution.

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: nht68-1.9

DATE: 12/15/68

FROM: LAWRENCE SCHNEIDER FOR ROBERT M. O'MAHONEY--NHTSA

TO: Heath Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of November 13 with regard to the applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards to the GT-18 Trail Bike kit, and the "Boonie-Bike" assembled from it.

I am unable to tell from your letter the exact nature and use of the Boonie-Bike but I will assume that it is an off-the-road special purpose motorcycle designed for recreational use. Such a machine is a "motor vehicle" for purposes of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1955 since, like a multipurpose passenger vehicle, it is equipped with special features for off-road use but is capable of being operated both on and off the public roads. Thus it is not correct to say that trail bikes have not been considered motor vehicles in the past. The interpretation to which you refer, incidentally, if it appears, will be directed toward the so-called "mini-bikes".

Accordingly, it is possible to confirm your understanding that:

". . . for the purposes of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, Heath's responsibility is limited to insuring that any kit item which it supplies to which a Federal Safety Standard is directly applicable (i.e., only glazing materials at the present time) shall meet such Safety Standards, and inasmuch as Heath does not build the kits or perform the actual conversion, it is not a manufacturer of motor vehicles and consequently not responsible for the entire assembled product."

Since a Boonie-Bike is equipped with a "5-broke horse power Briggs and Stratton 4-cycle engine" it is sub-classified as a "motor-driven cycle" which is defined as "a motorcycle with a motor that produces 5-brake horsepower or less".

As you(Illegible Word) Federal Standard(Illegible Word) 103 will apply to motorcycles manufactured or assembled on or after January 1, 1969. Motorcycles are required to be manufactured with one white headlamp in accordance with SAE Standard J584 (Motorcycle and Motor Driven Cycle Headlamps). This SAE Standard allows a motor driven cycle to be assembled with either a single or multiple beam headlamp. Consequently a motor driven cycle assembled with a single beam headlamp is not subject to paragraphs S3.4.1 and S3.4.2 of Federal Standard No. 108 requiring provision of a headlamp beam switch and indicator.

I hope this answers your questions

ID: 1984-3.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/19/84

FROM: ROGER HAGIE -- KAWASAKI MOTORS CORP USA

TO: OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION...FMVSS 108

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 01/02/85 FROM FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA TO ROGER HAGIE, REDBOOK A26, STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Sir:

Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A. requests an interpretation of the provisions of FMVSS 108 with respect to a new headlamp design/concept under development at Kawasaki.

We are aware of the interpretation issued by your office to Koito Manufacturing Co. (letter dated July 24, 1984) in response to their request of June 21, 1984. In this interpretation, you confirmed that two headlamps, each meeting the requirements of SAE J584 may be used on a motorcycle when mounted side-by-side as described by Koito's letter.

Kawasaki wishes to clarify a question which we feel was raised by the Koito request and your response, and to further determine your position with respect to our design ideas. Concerning the Koito request, Koito stated that their "headlamp unit is optically designed to be less than 75,000 cd". It is unclear to us whether Koito was referring to the output of a single lamp in their dual-lamp system, or whether the maximum output of both lamps together would not exceed 75,000 cd. Therefore, our first question is: Does the 75,000 limit (as specified by SAE J584) apply to each lamp individually, or must the total output of both lamps be limited to 75,000 cd?

Kawasaki is considering a headlamp design that consists of two reflectors, each with its own dual-filament bulb, and each capable of independent aim, installed in a single housing, and behind a single lens. Bulbs would be a standardized, replaceable unit, accessible from the rear of the housing. The assembly would meet all of the environmental and other requirements of SAE J584 and FMVSS 108. In some respects, this unit would be similar to the headlamp design proposed by Ford and approved by NHTSA on May 20, 1983. Our questions with respect to this design are: First, is such a design acceptable for a motorcycle? Secondly, would both reflectors have to be independently aimable, or could the aiming be accomplished by moving the whole lamp assembly as long as the aiming requirements of SAE J566 and the photometric requirements of SAE J584 are met?

Kawasaki would appreciate your earliest response to these questions. Please contact the undersigned if there are any questions or if any additional information is required.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

ID: 8832

Mr. Charles Jennings
1330 Heathwick Lane
Houston, TX 77043

Dear Mr. Jennings:

This responds to your letter received in this Office on July 2, asking for an opinion of your invention, the Alternating Wavelength Low-Beam (AWL).

The AWL "connects to the already existing low beam headlights, by just plugging it between the electrical sockets and the lights." The effect of the device is to create "light modulations of less than 17 per second, alternating from one of the two existing low-beam headlights to the other, and at the same time, changing wavelengths slightly, from one to the other (not flashing on and off)."

We have no opinion on the safety merits of your invention but can provide you with an interpretation of its relationship to Federal law. The AWL appears intended as an aftermarket device. There are no Federal restrictions on the sale of this device. Nor is there any Federal restriction upon installation of the AWL when it is installed on a vehicle by its owner. Such an installation appears a distinct possibility from your brief description of it. At this point, the question of the legality of its use is determined under the laws of the States where the AWL is operated. You represent that its operation in Texas is acceptable to the Department of Public Safety. However, this opinion would not be binding on other States. We are unable to advise you on the legality of using the AWL in the various States and suggest that you ask for an opinion from the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

However, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) prohibits most persons other than the owner (specifically, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses) from acts that may "knowingly render inoperative", in whole or in part, safety equipment that the vehicle manufacturer has added pursuant to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The lower-beam headlamps are original equipment installed by the vehicle manufacturer under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Standard No. 108 requires headlamps to be steady-burning in use, though means may be provided to flash them on and off automatically for signalling purposes. Because the modulation created by the AWL results in a headlamp beam that is neither steady burning nor an on-off signal flash, the vehicle's headlamp system would no longer be in compliance with Standard No. 108. In our view, the headlamp system's performance would have been rendered partially inoperative within the meaning of the Act's prohibition when the AWL is sold in the aftermarket and installed by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, and motor vehicle repair business. The Act provides for a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of the prohibition.

We hope that you find this information useful.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108#VSA d:8/2/93

ID: nht93-5.43

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 2, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Charles Jennings

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/21/93 from Charles Jennings to Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TEXT:

This responds to your letter received in this Office on July 2, asking for an opinion of your invention, the Alternating Wavelength Low-Beam (AWL).

The AWL "connects to the already existing low beam headlights, by just plugging it between the electrical sockets and the lights." The effect of the device is to create "light modulations of less than 17 per second, alternating from one of the two existing low-beam headlights to the other, and at the same time, changing wavelengths slightly, from one to the other (not flashing on and off)."

We have no opinion on the safety merits of your invention but can provide you with an interpretation of its relationship to Federal law. The AWL appears intended as an aftermarket device. There are no Federal restrictions on the sale of this device. Nor is there any Federal restriction upon installation of the AWL when it is installed on a vehicle by its owner. Such an installation appears a distinct possibility from your brief description of it. At this point, the question of the legality of its use is determined under the laws of the States where the AWL is operated. You represent that its operation in Texas is acceptable to the Department of Public Safety. However, this opinion would not be binding on other States. We are unable to advise you on the legality of using the AWL in the various States and suggest that you ask for an opinion from the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

However, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) prohibits most persons other than the owner (specifically, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses) from acts that may "knowingly render inoperative", in whole or in part, safety equipment that the vehicle manufacturer has added pursuant to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The lower-beam headlamps are original equipment installed by the vehicle manufacturer under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Standard No. 108 requires headlamps to be steady-burning in use, though means may be provided to flash them on and off automatically for signalling purposes. Because the modulation created by the AWL results in a headlamp beam that is neither steady burning nor an on-off signal flash, the vehicle's headlamp system would no longer be in compliance with Standard No. 108. In our view, the headlamp system's performance would have been rendered partially inoperative within the meaning of the Act's prohibition when the AWL is sold in the aftermarket and installed by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, and motor vehicle repair business. The Act provides for a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of the prohibition.

We hope that you find this information useful.

ID: aiam1927

Dear Mr. Miyazawa: This responds to your letter of May 15, 1975, regarding Federal Moto Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108 requirements for Type 1A and 2A automotive headlamps.; The following answers are provided for your specific questions: >>>1. FMVSS No. 108 would not prohibit use of metal-back Types 1A an 2A headlamps that conform to all requirements of the standard.; 2. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not issu approvals on automotive equipment. The equipment manufacturer self certifies that the equipment conforms to the applicable FMVSS. The various states may, however, require equipment approval. Information on these approvals may be obtained from the America Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 1201 Connecticut Avenue, Washington, D. C. 20036.; 3. The drawings of the Type 1A and 2A headlamp submitted with you letter, indicate that aiming pads have been deleted. Aiming pads are required by FMVSS NO. 108.<<<; For your information enclosed is a copy of FMVSS No. 108, whic includes requirements for Types 1A and 2A headlamps, and a copy of Docket No. 75-8, Notice 1, that proposes to allow use of the four-lamp rectangular systems indefinitely.; Sincerely, E. T. Driver, Director, Office of Crash Avoidance, Moto Vehicle Programs;