ID: 20867.ztv

Sig. Alessandro Rotta
USA Project
Two Wheelers Platform
Vehicle Division
Piaggio & C. S.p.A.
Viale Rinaldo Piaggio 25
56025 Pontedera (Pi)
Italy

Dear Signor Rotta:

This is in reply to your fax of November 3, 1999, to Taylor Vinson of this Office.

You ask for a clarification of two issues related to the possibility of your company entering the American market with its motor scooters.

You first ask whether your equipment suppliers should perform tests in accredited laboratories, and, if so, which ones. You want to ensure, "if any accident occurs because of a component failure," that Piaggio "is relieved from the consequences and the supplier of the item will be considered solely responsible." You ask for suggestions in order to avoid such troubles.

Your question relates to the responsibility of a manufacturer under both the Federal law of the United States, and the separate laws of the individual states. Under Federal law, Piaggio must ensure that its motor scooters comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and certify that the scooters meet those standards. We do not tell you how to ensure compliance and to certify. Piaggio may certify on the basis of test reports from its supplier, or it may conduct its own tests, or it may certify on a basis other than testing, such as conducting engineering or computer studies. We do not characterize laboratories as "accredited," nor do we make recommendations. However, for your information, we have used the following independent laboratories to conduct compliance testing for us, for the standards indicated. For Standard No. 108 (lighting equipment): CalCoast Analytical, Inc., P.O. Box 8702, Emeryville, CA 94662-0702 and Intertek Testing Service, P.O. Box 2040, Cortland, NY 13045-2040 ; Standard No. 111 (rearview mirrors): General Testing Laboratories, Route 1 Box 310, Colonial Beach, VA 22443; Standard No. 119 (tires): Smithers Scientific Services, Box 351, Ravenna, OH 44266; Standard No. 120 (rims): Veridian Engineering, Inc., 4455 Genesee Street, Buffalo, NY 14225, and General Testing Laboratories (see address above); and Standard No. 122 (motorcycle brake systems): Carter Engineering, 1134 Beech's Tavern Trail, Franklin, TN 37064. A more complete listing of independent laboratories which are conducting (or have conducted) tests for us is on our website at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/testing/procedures/testlabs.html.

Piaggio must also ensure that the motor scooters are free of safety related defects. In the event that a noncompliance or safety related defect is deemed to exist in its vehicles, Piaggio is required to notify us and the owners of the motor scooters, and to remedy the problem, even if the noncompliant or defective component was manufactured by one of your suppliers.

Liability for accidents is a matter to be determined under the laws of the state where the accident occurred. In the event of a crash attributable to a defective component in a Piaggio, it is possible that both Piaggio and the component supplier would face action in a state court of law, even if the supplier had certified that component as complying with a Federal regulation. In short, there is no way that Piaggio can ensure that a supplier would be "solely" liable. There may be steps that Piaggio can take to reduce its exposure to liability, but that is not a matter on which we can advise you. To consider this matter further, Piaggio should consult a lawyer in the United States whose specialty is product liability law.

Your second question relates to motorcycle headlighting. You comment that S7.9 of Standard No. 108 and SAE J584 do not require any vertical or horizontal aiming mechanism for motorcycle headlamps, but that S7.8.2 does require it for "motor vehicles." You believe that this requirement does not apply to motorcycle headlamps and ask that we confirm your interpretation. You are correct. Although S7.8.2 states that "each headlamp shall be installed on a motor vehicle with a mounting and aiming mechanism ," we do not intend this paragraph to apply to motorcycle headlighting systems. These systems are covered by S7.9 and the certification requirements of S7.2(a). Although S7.9 allows motorcycles to be equipped with one half of a headlamp system used on four-wheeled motor vehicles, the headlamps need not be manufactured with aiming mechanisms if they are intended for motorcycle use (provided that these mechanisms are on the four-wheeled vehicle when such headlamps are installed). We have never required motorcycle headlighting systems to have aiming mechanisms, and we did not intend to create such a requirement when we issued S7.8.2.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref.108
d.12/6/99

ID: 2520y

Mr. Peter Brown
President, KC HiLites, Inc.
Avenida de Luces
Williams, AZ 86046

Dear Mr. Brown:

This is in reply to your letter of April 25, l990, asking for our "comments and approval" regarding an automotive lighting product that your company intends to market. The product is intended for use in a four headlamp systems with lens designations of "L", "LF" or "HB4" on the outboard lamps, and "U", "UF" or "HB3" on the inboard lamps. In normal operation, the lower beam is extinguished when the upper beam is activated; your device would ensure that the lower beam would remain activated when the upper beam is used. You view this as permissible under S5.5.8 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08.

Initially, let me note that we have no authority to "approve" any device or invention for use on motor vehicles. We advise whether such products are permissible under the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, but this advice must not be represented in advertising as Federal approval of the device or invention.

Section S5.5.8 of Standard No. l08 states in pertinent part that "On a motor vehicle equipped with a headlighting system designed to conform to the photometric requirements of Figure 15, the lamps marked "L" or "LF" may be wired to remain permanently activated when the lamps marked "U" or "UF" are activated. Standard No. 108 further specifies that headlamps designed to conform to Figure l5 are the four-lamp sealed beam system Type F (S7.3.7(b)), and a four-headlamp integral beam system (S7.4(a)(1)). In addition, certain types of replaceable bulb headlamp systems may also be designed to conform to Figure l5 photometrics, as shown in recently-adopted Figure 26 (copy enclosed). Replaceable bulb headlamps are also required to have the HB Type number on the lens, as well as the "U" and "L" markings. Therefore, installation of your device on the headlighting systems mentioned above would be permitted by Standard No. l08, and you need not be limited to systems that use HB3 and HB4 light sources.

With respect to the copy on the material you submitted for review, it would be more accurate to reword the marking references to state "'LF', 'L', or 'L' and 'HB4' on the upper. . . and the corresponding designation 'UF', 'U', or 'U' and 'HB3' on the lower. . . ."

We also note your remark "Quad-Beam gives you this extra margin of lighting safety that the factory left out." There is no basis in fact for this statement. Some drivers prefer more foreground light, but there is no indication that the addition of the lower beam when the upper beam is in use has a positive effect upon lighting safety.

As you requested, we are returning your samples.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosures /ref:l08 d:7/2/90

ID: nht95-6.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 11, 1995

FROM: Yoshiaki Matsui -- Manager, Automotive Equipment, Legal And Homologation Section, Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

TO: Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: Headlamp system containing fog lamp

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/20/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO YOSHIAKI MATSUI (A43; REDBOOK 2; STD. 108)

TEXT: We are planning to develop headlamp systems that produce high beam, low beam and fog lamp beam. The fog lamp is reciprocally incorporated with the high beam headlamp, using one dual-filament bulb (ex.; HB2). The high beam and the fog lamp will not be lit simultaniously. Please refer to the attached drawing for the possible operating conditions.

The FMVSS No. 108 specifies no requirement for fog lamp, except that the lamp shall not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the Standard. (S5.1.3) And we believe such a combination we are planning will not impair the effectiveness of the headlamp.

We would like to ask you to give your advice whether such a combination of fog lamp and high beam can be accepted under the FMVSS No. 108.

Your answer will be highly appreciated.

(Drawing omitted.)

ID: nht95-3.88

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 11, 1995

FROM: Yoshiaki Matsui -- Manager, Automotive Equipment, Legal And Homologation Section, Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

TO: Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: Headlamp system containing fog lamp

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/20/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO YOSHIAKI MATSUI (A43; REDBOOK 2; STD. 108)

TEXT: We are planning to develop headlamp systems that produce high beam, low beam and fog lamp beam. The fog lamp is reciprocally incorporated with the high beam headlamp, using one dual-filament bulb (ex.; HB2). The high beam and the fog lamp will not be l it simultaniously. Please refer to the attached drawing for the possible operating conditions.

The FMVSS No. 108 specifies no requirement for fog lamp, except that the lamp shall not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the Standard. (S5.1.3) And we believe such a combination we are planning will not impair the effectiveness of the headlamp.

We would like to ask you to give your advice whether such a combination of fog lamp and high beam can be accepted under the FMVSS No. 108.

Your answer will be highly appreciated.

(Drawing omitted.)

ID: nht89-1.85

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/05/89

FROM: DANIEL F. WIECHMANN

TO: ROBERT A. DETERMAN -- IOWA OFFICE OF CONGRESSMAN FRED GRANDY

TITLE: THE STATE OF IOWA VS. BARRY LYNN SPEICH

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 07/05/89 FROM JEFFREY R. MILLER -- NHTSA TO FRED GRANDY, REDBOOK A33 (3); STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 05/09/89 FROM FRED GRANDY -- CONGRESS TO JERRY CURRY -- NHTSA; LETTER DATED 09/23/88 FROM DANIEL F. WIECHMANN TO RUTH SKLUZACEEK, RE THE STATE OF IOWA VS. BARRY LYNN SPEICH, FRANKLIN COUNTY CRIMINAL NO. WD488435; NO 24.432.0788 [321.424] OF THE CODE OF IOWA; LETTER DATED 10/10/88 FROM JODY JOHNSON -- IOWA DOT TO DANIEL F. WIECHMANN, REF NO 911.2; LETTER DATED 10/14/88 F ROM DANIEL F. WIECHMANN TO RALPH HITCHCOCK -- NHTSA, RE THE STATE OF IOWA VS. BARRY LYNN SPEICH, FRANKLIN COUNTY CRIMINAL NO WD488435; NO. 24.432.0788 [321.424] OF THE CODE OF IOWA

TEXT: Dear Bob:

I believe I had spoken to you earlier about the problem that had arisen concerning the headlight covers on a vehicle of Barry Lynn Speich from Hampton.

A question had arisen as to whether or not this type of lighting device was legal in the State of Iowa. I wrote to Ruth Skluzaceek, Director of Vehicle Registration Office, Lucas State Office Building, Des Moines, Iowa, concerning the same, a copy of my letter of September 23, 1988, being enclosed. In response, on October 11, 1988, I received a letter from Jody Johnson, Administrative Officer, Vehicle Registration, Motor Vehicle Division, Iowa Department of Transportation, to the effect that the St ate of Iowa did not have the authority to approve the headlamp covers, as Iowa Administrative Rule Chapter 450,761 -- 450.1(321) adopted Federal Standards and Equipment Approval, a copy of said letter being enclosed.

As a result of Jody Johnson's letter of October 10, 1988, I followed her advice and wrote to Mr. Ralph Hitchcock, U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Safety Administration Standards, Washington, D.C., setting forth the same information and the same request, a copy which letter is enclosed.

I am sure the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Standards has better things to do, than to answer my letter of October 14, 1988; unfortunately, in a case pending in the District Court of the State of Iowa in and For Franklin County (Magis trat Division) Criminal Division, is important to my client and the answer which we seek is the crucial question in this case as to whether or not the headlamp covers in question are in fact illegal, or are in fact approved.

My logic tells me that these type of covers are in fact approved as I have seen them on numerous vehicles not only in the state of Iowa, but in other states as I have traveled. I am sure that the companies who sell these items would not be selling th em, if they were not in fact approved items.

I am also enclosing some information concerning these headlamp covers which may be helpful in the search that is done.

Your cooperation in this matter is greatly appreciated.

Thank you very much.

Yours very truly,

ENCLOSURES

ID: nht90-3.4

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 2, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Peter Brown -- President, KC HiLites, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Letter dated 4-25-90 to NHTSA Chief Counsel from Peter Brown attached; OCC 4725 TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of April 25, 1990, asking for our "comments and approval" regarding an automotive lighting product that your company intends to market. The product is intended for use in a four headlamp systems with lens designations of "L", "LF" or "HB4" on the outboard lamps, and "U", "UF" or "HB3" on the inboard lamps. In normal operation, the lower beam is extinguished when the upper beam is activated; your device would ensure that the lower beam would remain activated when the upp er beam is used. You view this as permissible under S5.5.8 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Initially, let me note that we have no authority to "approve" any device or invention for use on motor vehicles. We advise whether such products are permissible under the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, but this advice must not be represented in advertising as Federal approval of the device or invention.

Section S5.5.8 of Standard No. 108 states in pertinent part that "On a motor vehicle equipped with a headlighting system designed to conform to the photometric requirements of Figure 15, the lamps marked "L" or "LF" may be wired to remain permanently act ivated when the lamps marked "U" or "UF" are activated. Standard No. 108 further specifies that headlamps designed to conform to Figure 15 are the four-lamp sealed beam system Type F (S7.3.7(b)), and a four-headlamp integral beam system (S7.4(a)(1)). In addition, certain types of replaceable bulb headlamp systems may also be designed to conform to Figure 15 photometrics, as shown in recently- adopted Figure 26 (copy enclosed). Replaceable bulb headlamps are also required to have the HB Type number on the lens, as well as the "U" and "L" markings. Therefore, installation of your device on the headlighting systems mentioned above would be permitted by Standard No. 108, and you need not be limited to systems that use HB3 and HB4 light sources.

With respect to the copy on the material you submitted for review, it would be more accurate to reword the marking references to state "'LF', 'L', or 'L' and 'HB4' on the upper. . . and the corresponding designation 'UF', 'U', or 'U' and 'HB3' on the low er. . . ."

We also note your remark "Quad-Beam gives you this extra margin of lighting safety that the factory left out." There is no basis in fact for this statement. Some drivers prefer more foreground light, but there is no indication that the addition of the lower beam when the upper beam is in use has a positive effect upon lighting safety.

As you requested, we are returning your samples.

ID: nht80-3.9

DATE: 06/25/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mercedes-Benz

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to the questions you raised with Stephen Oesch of my office on May 1, 1980, concerning Standard No. 101-80, Controls and Displays.

You asked if the clearance lamp system symbol shown in Table I of the standard can be used on a rotary switch to identify a position that activates only the parking and side marker lights. You also asked whether the low beam symbol can be used to indicate the headlamp position on the same rotary lighting switch. Such a use of the clearance lamp symbol and low beam symbol is permissible.

Under S5.2.1 and footnote 2 to Table I, the switch which controls not only the headlamps, but also the clearance, identification, parking and/or side marker lamps must have the Table I symbol for headlamps and tail lamps either on or adjacent to it. It appears from the drawing you left with us that the required headlamp and tail lamp symbol would indeed be adjacent to the switch. S5.2.1 also provides that a manufacturer may use additional symbols for the purpose of clarity. Since the additional symbols you contemplate using would inform the driver about the particular lights which are operated by the different positions of the switch, they would serve the purpose of added clarity.

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

ENC.

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: 0697

Mr. Brad Rourke
Director, Government and Community Affairs
The Electric Bicycle Company
27426 Pacific Coast Highway
Malibu, CA 90265

Dear Mr. Rourke:

Thank you for your letter of February 4, 1995. I am pleased to answer your questions about the applicability of the regulations of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to your electric-assisted bicycle.

We have reviewed Adam Englund's memorandum of January 26, 1995, which you enclosed. In general, it is a complete and accurate statement of the applicability of our regulations to motor driven cycles. We have the following comments which I hope you will find helpful.

Certification label. The appropriate regulation is 49 CFR Part 567. The statutory authority that it implements, 15 U.S.C. 1403, was recodified last summer as 49 U.S.C. 30115 without any substantive change.

Vehicle Identification Number. "15 USC 565" should be 49 CFR Part 565.

Lighting. While the analysis is correct, we note that Tables III (required equipment) and IV (location of required equipment) give a reader an immediate ready reference to motorcycle lighting equipment.

Horn. This section can be included in the one following, on controls and displays. The reference to 49 CFR "571.125 Warning Devices" is incorrect. The warning device covered by that standard is a retroreflective triangle, not a horn.

We note also that if a motorcycle is equipped with a windshield, it must comply with Standard No. 205 Glazing Materials, and that motorcycles with hydraulic brake systems are required to be furnished with brake fluid meeting Standard No 116 Brake Fluids.

You also have asked three specific questions. The first relates to the requirement of Standard No. 123 Motorcycle Controls and Displays that the rear brake be operable by the left hand (or right foot) control and the front brake operable by the right hand control. This is the opposite of bicycle brake systems. You believe that most riders will expect the electric bicycle to brake like a conventional one and that accidents may occur as a result of confusion. For this reason, you would like to place the rear brake control on the right handlebar, and the front brake control on the left.

The purpose of Standard No. 123 is "to minimize accidents caused by operator error . . . by standardizing certain motorcycle controls and displays" so that a motorcycle operator can instinctively respond to threatening situations no matter what the machine. Your question raises the possibility that the purpose of the standard might be defeated with respect to the electric bicycle by strict application of Standard No. 123 when it is operated by those who are familiar with bicycle braking systems (though this would not be the case if the operator is switching from a motorcycle to an electric bicycle). We do have authority to exempt manufacturers for up to two years from a requirement if it would promote the development or field evaluation of a low-emission vehicle, or if compliance would prevent the manufacturer from selling a vehicle whose overall level of safety equals or exceeds that of a complying vehicle. The exemption procedures are contained in 49 CFR Part 555. Taylor Vinson of this Office will be glad to answer any questions you have (202-366-5263). You also may petition for rulemaking, as provided in 49 CFR Part 552, for an appropriate amendment to Standard No. 123. However, in the absence of an exemption or a change in Standard No. 123, the braking system of the electric bicycle must operate as provided in this standard.

Your second question relates to headlighting requirements for motor driven cycles. You believe that the headlamp specified by Standard No. 108 will reduce the ability of the electric bicycle to perform at night, and, for this reason, would like to use "a high- power bicycle-type headlamp." SAE J584, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108, permits a motor driven cycle to be equipped with a single beam headlamp. If you wish to use a headlamp that does not comply with Standard No. 108's requirements for motor driven cycle headlamps, you must petition for an exemption, and/or for rulemaking, as discussed in the prior paragraph. In addition to allowance of a single beam headlamp, paragraphs S5.1.1.21 and S5.1.1.22 of Standard No. 108 recognize the limitations of low- powered motorcycles and permit motor driven cycles whose top speed is 30 mph or less to omit turn signal lamps, and to be equipped with a smaller less powerful stop lamp.

Your final question relates to Standard No. 123 and your wish to use a spring-loaded thumb-lever throttle. This is permissible, and no requirements are prescribed for it by Standard No. 123. Your interpretation of Standard No. 123 is correct; a twist- grip throttle is not required, but if it is provided, it must operate in the manner set forth in the standard.

If you have any further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:108#123 d:3/30/95

ID: nht95-2.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 30, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Brad Rourke -- Director, Government and Community Affairs, The Electric Bicycle Company

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 2/4/95 LETTER FROM BRAD ROURKE TO PHIL RECHT

TEXT: Dear Mr. Rourke:

Thank you for your letter of February 4, 1995. I am pleased to answer your questions about the applicability of the regulations of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to your electric-assisted bicycle.

We have reviewed Adam Englund's memorandum of January 26, 1995, which you enclosed. In general, it is a complete and accurate statement of the applicability of our regulations to motor driven cycles. We have the following comments which I hope you will find helpful.

Certification label. The appropriate regulation is 49 CFR Part 567. The statutory authority that it implements, 15 U.S.C. 1403, was recodified last summer as 49 U.S.C. 30115 without any substantive change.

Vehicle Identification Number. "15 USC 565" should be 49 CFR Part 565.

Lighting. While the analysis is correct, we note that Tables III (required equipment) and IV (location of required equipment) give a reader an immediate ready reference to motorcycle lighting equipment.

Horn. This section can be included in the one following, on controls and displays. The reference to 49 CFR "571.125 Warning Devices" is incorrect. The warning device covered by that standard is a retroreflective triangle, not a horn.

We note also that if a motorcycle is equipped with a windshield, it must comply with Standard No. 205 Glazing Materials, and that motorcycles with hydraulic brake systems are required to be furnished with brake fluid meeting Standard No 116 Brake Fluids.

You also have asked three specific questions. The first relates to the requirement of Standard No. 123 Motorcycle Controls and Displays that the rear brake be operable by the left hand (or right foot) control and the front brake operable by the right ha nd control. This is the opposite of bicycle brake systems. You believe that most riders will expect the electric bicycle to brake like a conventional one and that accidents may occur as a result of confusion. For this reason, you would like to place th e rear brake control on the right handlebar, and the front brake control on the left.

The purpose of Standard No. 123 is "to minimize accidents caused by operator error . . . . by standardizing certain motorcycle controls and displays" so that a motorcycle operator can instinctively respond to threatening situations no matter what the mac hine. Your question raises the possibility that the purpose of the standard might be defeated with respect to the electric bicycle by strict application of Standard No. 123 when it is operated by those who are familiar with bicycle braking systems (thou gh this would not be the case if the operator is switching from a motorcycle to an electric bicycle). We do have authority to exempt manufacturers for up to two years from a requirement if it would promote the development or field evaluation of a low-em ission vehicle, or if compliance would prevent the manufacturer from selling a vehicle whose overall level of safety equals or exceeds that of a complying vehicle. The exemption procedures are contained in 49 CFR Part 555. Taylor Vinson of this Office will be glad to answer any questions you have (202-366-5263). You also may petition for rulemaking, as provided in 49 CFR Part 552, for an appropriate amendment to Standard No. 123. However, in the absence of an exemption or a change in Standard No. 12 3, the braking system of the electric bicycle must operate as provided in this standard.

Your second question relates to headlighting requirements for motor driven cycles. You believe that the headlamp specified by Standard No. 108 will reduce the ability of the electric bicycle to perform at night, and, for this reason, would like to use " a high-power bicycle-type headlamp." SAE J584, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108, permits a motor driven cycle to be equipped with a single beam headlamp. If you wish to use a headlamp that does not comply with Standard No. 108's requirement s for motor driven cycle headlamps, you must petition for an exemption, and/or for rulemaking, as discussed in the prior paragraph. In addition to allowance of a single beam headlamp, paragraphs S5.1.1.21 and S5.1.1.22 of Standard No. 108 recognize the limitations of low-powered motorcycles and permit motor driven cycles whose top speed is 30 mph or less to omit turn signal lamps, and to be equipped with a smaller less powerful stop lamp.

Your final question relates to Standard No. 123 and your wish to use a spring-loaded thumb-lever throttle. This is permissible, and no requirements are prescribed for it by Standard No. 123. Your interpretation of Standard No. 123 is correct; a twist-g rip throttle is not required, but if it is provided, it must operate in the manner set forth in the standard.

If you have any further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

ID: aiam4303

Dear Prof. Soardo: This is in reply to your letter of January 16, 1987, to the agency wit reference to the 'homologation in the U.S.A. of a headlamp - optically combined - capable of performing the function of auxiliary driving lamp or as an alternative to the function of the front fog lamp.' You have told us that the device is intended principally for the aftermarket and will use a two- filament H4 bulb, the main filament providing the 'driving beam,' and the secondary filament performing 'the 'fog' function.' When it is mounted on the vehicle it will 'meet the specific aiming requirements contained in the relevant SAE standard, for both light beams.'; As you may know, there are two types of laws in the United States tha pertain to motor vehicle lighting equipment, the laws of the United States government ('Federal' law), and those of the 50 individual States ('Local' law). One of these laws is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.* Standard No. 108 specifies requirements for original equipment, and, as a general rule, only aftermarket equipment that is intended to replace original equipment. There are no original equipment requirements in Standard No. 108 for a combination driving-fog lamp such as you discuss, and hence there are no Federal aftermarket requirements for it either. Provided that this lamp does not impair the effectiveness of required front lamps, Standard No. 108 allows a vehicle manufacturer to install the driving-fog lamp as original equipment. Because Standard No. 108 does not allow use of the H4 bulb in headlamps for four-wheeled vehicles, it could not serve as a headlamp. There are no Federal restrictions preventing the sale of this device in the aftermarket as a supplementary lamp.; However, the lamp would be subject to local law, and some of the State may require approval of it before it is offered for sale. The approval of one State does not signify approval by another, so there would not be 'homologation' permitting sale in all States based upon approval by only one State. Even if a Local law does not require approval of a driving-fog lamp, it may forbid its use. We are unable to advise you on Local laws but you may wish to write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrator for an opinion. The address of this organization is 1201 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel