ID: 18464.ztv

Mr. Ralf Wohl
EMB Incorporated
6780 Depot Street
Sebastopol, CA 95472

Dear Mr. Wohl:

This is in reply to your fax of July 29, 1998, to Taylor Vinson of this Office with respect to your electric motorcycle.

Your first question is whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 123 Motorcycle Controls and Displays requires a motorcycle to be equipped with a supplemental engine stop control. The answer is yes; as you have noted, S5.1 states that "Each motorcycle shall be equipped with a supplemental engine stop control, located and operable as specified in Table 1" (our emphasis). You have also asked whether the operation of your control, as you have described it, "is adequate for this purpose." As you have also noted, "Operation - Column 3" of Table 1 is blank. This means that Standard No. 123 does not specify how the supplemental engine stop control shall be operated. This choice is left to the manufacturer but obviously it must be a control that provides an alternative means of stopping the engine. On your electric motorcycle, the primary stop control is the twist grip handlebar on which the throttle is returned to the off position. If the throttle sticks in the open position, the propulsion system may also be overriden and deactivated by application of the brakes. We view this as a "supplemental engine stop control" within the general meaning of the term.

You also tell us of your wish to manufacture motorcycles for a limited time using "an off the shelf 28V military headlamp that does not meet all the photometric requirements for a motorcycle per FMVSS 571.108," and ask whether a waiver is possible. I enclose a copy of our regulations (49 CFR Part 555) under which manufacturers of motor vehicles, including motorcycles, may apply for temporary exemptions from one or more of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, this process takes from three to four months because of the necessity to publish a notice in the Federal Register asking for comments on the application.

This may not be responsive to your situation since it is possible that your technical difficulties will be solved by then. Other than Part 555, we have no authority to grant a waiver from compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

If you have any questions, you may call Mr. Vinson (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:123
d.11/12/98

ID: 20836.ztv

Mr. Shigeyoshi Aihara
Project Manager
Regulation and Compliance
Ichikoh Industries, Ltd.
80 Itado Isehara-City
Kanagawa Pref. 250-1192
Japan

Dear Mr. Aihara:

This is in reply to your letter of October 21, 1999, asking for an interpretation of Standard No. 108's requirements for visibility of front turn signals. You have made this request for a specific design which you have enclosed. I am sorry that our reply has been delayed.

This design depicts a lamp assembly containing a headlamp and a turn signal lamp. The assembly has a transparent lens. The turn signal lamp has a separate amber lens inside the assembly. Standard No. 108 requires that "to be considered visible, the lamp must provide an unobstructed view of the outer lens surface, excluding reflex reflectors, of at least 12.5 square cm measured at 45 deg. to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle." (paragraph 5.4.1 of SAE Standard J588 NOV84 incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108). Your question, in essence, is whether the "outer lens surface" is the surface of the amber lens of the turn signal lamp alone, or that portion of the surface of the transparent lens of the entire lamp assembly that is in front of the amber lens of the turn signal lamp. The drawing you furnished identifies the "unobstructed view area" measured at the 45 deg. observation angle with respect to the amber lens alone as

" C." The "unobstructed view area" measured at the 45 deg. observation angle with respect to the amber lens projected on the transparent lens in front of it is identified as "B." The area of "B" is much larger than the area of "C." You have asked for confirmation that the transparent lens surface may be regarded as the "outer lens surface" and that unobstructed view area "B" is acceptable under Standard No. 108.

I regret that we cannot confirm your interpretation. It is clear to us that the term "outer lens surface" as used in SAE's and NHTSA's turn signal lamp standard, SAE Standard J588 NOV84, for the purpose of observable lens area of a signal lamp, means the lens of the turn signal lamp itself. When the turn signal lamp is part of a larger assembly with a separate lens, the term"outer lens surface" continues to mean the lens surface of the turn signal lamp, the lamp that is actually providing the light, without reference to the surface of the lens of the larger lamp assembly. Thus, area "C" is the area that must meet the visibility requirements.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.6/14/00

ID: hyundai.ztv

Mr. Roger Babcock
Manager, Corporate Affairs
Hyundai America Technical Center, Inc.
5075 Venture Drive
Ann Arbor, MI 48108

Dear Mr. Babcock:

This is in reply to your letter of March 19, 2003, asking for an interpretation as to whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108 preempts a California statute relating to fog lamps.

You reported that "a California statute, Title 13, Section 691" states that "Foglamps shall be mounted so the inner edge of the lens retaining ring is no closer than 10 cm (4 in.) to the optical center of the front turn signal lamp."In your view, "FMVSS 108 allows fog lamps to be located less than 4 inches from front turn signal lamps in certain circumstances" by virtue of "SAE J588, which is incorporated into FMVSS 108."

Under 49 U.S.C. 30103(b), Preemption, a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard "applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle . . . only if the standard is identical to" a Federal motor vehicle safety standard that is in effect. Fog lamps are not required items of lighting equipment under FMVSS No. 108. Thus, the action by California in regulating the spacing between fog lamps and turn signal lamps is not "an aspect of performance" that is covered by FMVSS No. 108. Therefore, we do not find that FMVSS No. 108 preempts the California statute.

We do not view SAE J588 as relevant to this issue. SAE J588 NOV84, "Turn Signal Lamps For Use on Motor Vehicles Less Than 2032 MM in Overall Width," is incorporated by reference in FMVSS No. 108 as the Federal standard applicable to turn signal lamps on passenger cars and motorcycles, and on multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, trailers, and buses of less than 80 inches (2032 mm) in overall width (see S5.1.1 and Table III). J588 does contain references to fog lamps. Under J588, if the lighted edge of "the low beam headlamp or any additional lamp used to supplement or used in lieu of the lower beam, such as an auxiliary low beam or fog lamp" is closer than 100 mm (4 in.) to the geometric centroid of the front turn signal functional lighted area, the luminous intensity of the turn signal lamp is required to be higher than it would be if the spacing between the turn signal and other lamp were 100 mm or greater (See J588, 5.1.5.4 and 5.1.5.4.2). But the reference to fog lamps is illustrative only, and the thrust of J588 is to regulate performance of turn signal lamps.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.5/2/03

ID: aiam0139

Dear Mr. Niguma: Thank you for your letter of November 30, 1968 (your reference No GSAE-26) requesting information to a number of questions reletod (sic) to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. I regret that we did not receive your October 5, 1968 letter and that the pressure of work has delayed my answer to your most recent letter.; I am glad to send you the following information: >>>a. MVSS No. 112 - Headlight Concealment Devices. 1. It is stipulated in S.4.6 that 'each headlamp concealment devic shall, within an ambient temperature range of -20 to +120 degrees F., be capable of being fully opened in not more than three seconds after actuation of the mechanism described in S.4.3.' With regard to the temperature condition at the time of a test, if only the ambient temperature satisfies the said temperature conditions, is it all right to pay no regard to other conditions, such as the sticking of frost, ice, etc.?; ANSWER: It is only necessary that the ambient temperature condition (-20 to +120 degrees F.) be satisfied at the time of the test.; b. MVSS No. 114 - Theft Protection. 1. With regard to the stipulation in 5.4.2 that 'The prime means fo deactivating the car's engine or other main source of motive power shall not activate the deterrent required by S.4.1(b),' we have provided the ignition switch with four stages as shown in the sketch below: our key-locking system is of the mechanism that the system does not activate at the stage 'Off', activates only at the stage, 'Lock' and satisfies S.4.4. Does this mechanism conform to S.4.2?; ANSWER: The system as you describe it appears to conform to S4.2 however, the Bureau does not issue approvals of any specific system, and the development of equipment to comply with this requirement is the responsibility of the individual manufacturer.; 2. With reference to the stipulation in S.4.1. 'Each passenger ca shall have a key-locking system that, whenever the key is removed, will prevent ----.', we would like to know whether or not we must provide such a mechanism as the key can be removed only at the stage 'Lock' and cannot at the stage 'Off'.; ANSWER: A locking system having such a position that the key may b removed without activating either the cars' steering lock or its self-mobility lock would not conform to the standard in its present form, since paragraph S4.1 of the standard requires each car to have a key locking system that, whenever the key is removed, will prevent either steering or self-mobility of the car, or both.; c. MVSS No. 201 - Occupant Protection in Interior Impact 1. With regard to the interpretation of the stipulation in S.3.1 '___ the deceleration of the head form shall not exceed 80 g for more than 3 milliseconds,' when the deceleration wave -- shown in the chart below -- is obtained.; in case delta t sub 1 < 3 milliseconds, we interpret that the standard is satisfied even when delta t sub 1 delta t sub 2 + delta t sub 3 + ___ = sigma delta t sub i > 3 milliseconds.; Is our interpretation correct? (Illustration omitted) ANSWER: Your interpretation is correct. The standard permits more tha one peak that exceed 80g which, cumulatively, may add to more than 3 milliseconds. No single peak may continuously exceed 80g for more than a 3 millisecond duration.; 2. When the areas stipulated in S.3.1.1.(d) --' Areas outboard of an point of tangency on the instrument panel of a 6.5 inch diameter head form tangent to an inboard of vertical longitudinal plane tangent to the inboard edge of the steering wheel,' -- are illustrated, which of the following hatched portions in the figures below is in conformity to the stipulation? (Illustration omitted); ANSWER: Figure (a) is correct for the inboard side. Presen requirements do not apply to the area outboard of the steering wheel on the instrument panel.; d. MVSS No. 207 - Anchorage of Seats. S.3.3 Folding and hinged seats. Except for folding auxiliary *seats an seats with backs which are adjustable for occupant comfort only*.; 1. Is it correct to interpret that the underlined part is referring t seats with backs of reclining mechanism enabling to adjust the angle of the back?; ANSWER: Yes. 2. Or, should we interpret that the seats with reclinable backs com under the hinged seats?; ANSWER: No. 3. a. In the case of car with four doors, if the front seats are thos with reclinable backs, these are presumed to be the ones corresponding to (1). Is this interpretation correct?; ANSWER: Yes. S.3.3.1 The release control shall be readily accessible to the occupan of that seat and *to the occupant of any seat immediately behind that seat*.; 1. The above stipulation is presumed to be laid down for the egress o the passengers on the rear seat. Therefore, when the reclining seats are installed in a four-door car, we would like to consider it unnecessary to pay regard to the underlined part. Is this interpretation correct?; ANSWER: Yes. 2. In the case of a two-door car, if the control which can be easil operated by passengers on the rear seat is installed only on one side (the right side), the passengers on the rear seat can operate the control by moving to the right side. Consequently, we consider it sufficient to install only on the right side the control which is easily accessible to the passengers on the rear seat. Is this interpretation correct?; ANSWER: In the case of a two-door car, for a split back or bucket sea arrangement, where both seat backs fold, a release control should be provided on the outboard side of each folding seat back. If the seat back is split and only one seat back folds, only one release control is required on the outboard side.; e. MVSS No. 210 - Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages 1. We judge that the fastening strength of the seat belt anchorage wil change, depending on the shape of the eye bolt attaching the seat belt to the seat belt anchorage point.; If an anchorage is tested by using our designed seat belt assembly an the strength of the anchorage can be assured, we understand that the anchorage fully conforms to the standard, and also understand that it is not necessary to guarantee the owners of Mazda vehicles if they attach a seat bolt assembly other than the one designated by us. Is our interpretation correct?; We, of course, will specify in our Operation Manual that the seat bel assembly designated by our company must be used.; ANSWER: Under Paragraph S.5.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standar No. 210, anchorages are to be tested by using a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly as defined in FMVSS No. 209. If you follow this procedure, using a belt which complies to No. 209, and your anchorages meet the requirements of Standard No. 210, then you are in compliance with this standard.<<<; I must point out that this Bureau does not issue approvals on items o equipment or on vehicle designs. Therefore, the above comments are for your information only and in no way relieve the vehicle manufacturer from his responsibility for certifying that the assembled vehicle meets the requirements of the Standards.; Sincerely, H. M. Jacklin, Jr., Acting Director, Motor Vehicle Safet Performance Service;

ID: 21718.ztv

Michel Luc Bataini, Eng. Jr.
DBM Reflex Enterprises Inc.
1620 Dagenais Blvd. West
Laval, Quebec H7L 5C7
Canada

FAX 450-622-3017

Dear Mr. Bataini:

This is in reply to your fax of May 25, 2000, with questions about S5.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. This paragraph specifies that "Two or more lamps, reflective devices, or items of associated equipment may be combined, if the requirements for each lamp, reflective device and item of associated equipment are met . . . ."

It is your assumption that "a front side reflector made of 2 different items is legal only if both item individually meet the regulation." You then asked "if two reflective devices (each device do not meet the regulation by itself) molded separately, are assembled on the same housing, then, would that be legal? If not, molding those two items together and then assembling them with the housing would be legal?"

S5.4 allows a manufacturer to combine two lamps, reflective devices, or items of motor vehicle lighting equipment provided that each lamp, reflective device, or item of motor vehicle equipment used in the combination complies with the requirements of Standard No. 108 which apply to it. You have informed us that neither of the reflective devices in your design comply with Standard No 108's requirements, presumably those for a front side marker reflector. This means, then, that S5.4 does not apply to your design, and that we must answer your letter without reference to S5.4.

The drawing accompanying your letter shows that the reflective devices to which you refer would be incorporated into a headlamp housing and be visible from the side when light is reflected from them. The proper question, then, is whether Standard No. 108 permits a front side marker reflector to consist of two reflective devices molded separately and assembled on the same housing. The answer is yes, provided that when assembled on the housing they meet the requirements of SAE Standard J594f Reflex Reflectors January 1977, principally those relating to photometry. It follows then, that two reflective devices may be molded together and mounted on the same housing if they comply with SAE J594f 's requirements for reflex reflectors as mounted on the housing.

You will note that some rear lamp units are designed so that compartments that are lit are separated by multiple red reflex reflective devices, neither of which alone may be sufficient to comply with the rear red reflex reflector requirements of Standard No. 108, but, taken together, meet the standard. In this situation also, the reflex reflectors are not "combined" within the meaning of S5.4.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.7/19/00

ID: 86-2.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/28/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: T. Chikada

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

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 response to your letter of February 5, 1986, asking for an opinion regarding a "decorative extra lighting device." It appears from the drawing that you enclosed that the device would be a part of a three-compartment housing incorporating also a rear turn signal lamp, and one that performs that tail and stop functions. It would be mounted on the rear side of a motorcycle. You have informed us that the lens color of the device would be red and its maximum luminous intensity lower than the minimum of the adjacent taillamp.

Paragraph S4.1.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 forbids the installation of lighting devices not required by the standard if such a device would impair the effectiveness of the equipment that is required. It is our impression that your device performs the function of a rear side marker lamp, required to be installed on all motor vehicles other than motorcycles. However, you have not told us any of the operational characteristics of the lamp, such as whether it would be steady burning in use and activated simultaneously with the headlamp and taillamp, or whether it would flash with the rear turn signal lamp. Nevertheless, it would appear to be acceptable as a supplemental taillamp or turn signal lamp, or as a side marker lamp, either with or without the decorative trim.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel February 5, 1986

Att.: 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.

Re. : Installation of decorative extra lighting device to the vehicle, which is not specified in FMVSS No. 108

Dear Ms. Jones,

According to your letter of Nov. 4, 1985, we would ask you an advice for the following decorative extra lighting device.

This device will be mounted on the rear side of a motorcycle. We enclose a drawing which shows the size, shape and the proximity to a tail & stop lamp and a rear turn signal lamp. A lens color of this decorative extra lamp is red and its maximum luminous intensity is lower than the minimum of the tail lamp. There is a possibility of attaching an ornament on this accessory lamp.

We are looking forward to your advice.

Sincerely yours,

Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

T. Chikada, Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept.

Enc. The details of the device

ID: 06-005423as

ID: 1983-1.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/18/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Ichikoh Industries Ltd. -- F. Takata, Manager, Technical Research and Homologation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. F. Takata

This is in response to your letter of March 10, 1983, to Marx Elliot of this agency, In that letter, you requested our view as to whether a mirror label printed by a "screen printing process" would comply with section 5.4.2 of FMVSS 111. The screen printing process involves painting the required warning label on the reverse surface of the mirror in such a way that the warning can be read from the front of the mirror.

Section 5.4.2 of FMVSS 111 provides that certain convex mirrors must have "indelibly etched" on the lower edge of the mirror's reflective surface the warning "Objects in Mirror Are Closer than They Appear." Your screen printing process uses a painting process to place the required lettering on a mirror. Since the process does not involve etching, mirrors having a warning placed on them by that process would not now comply with FMVSS 111.

You should be aware, however, that Toyota Motor Corporation has petitioned this agency to permit processes other than etching to be used to place the FMVSS 111 warning on mirrors. We expect to respond to the Toyota petition in the very near future. Should the agency grant the Toyota petition, it could result in an amendment to the Standard permitting the process described in your letter.

Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Mr. W. Mark Elliot Rulemaking Program Manager Lighting & Visibility. NHTSA

Re: Interpretation of FMVSS No. 111

Dear Mr. Mark Elliot,

First of all, we thank you very much for your kindly reply on headlamp regulation addressed to our Mr. Aihara. Your informations are very useful for us, thank you again.

We also produce the rear view mirrors for motor vehicle. We would like to ask you the interpretation of FMVSS no. 111, Section 5.4.2.. Section 5.4.2. is defined as follows:

S5.4.2 Each convex mirror shall have indelibly etched on the lower edge of the mirror's reflective surface in letters not less than 3/16 inch or no more than 1/4 inch high, the words "Objects in Mirror Are Closer Than They Appear".

The words "OBJECTS IN MIRROR CLOSER THAN THEY APPEAR" on the sample mirror enclosed this letter was printed by screen printing process as shown in the attached sheets.

Questions: May we understand that marking method of enclosed sample complies with requirements of FMVSS No. 111, Section 5.4.2?

And if your have any comments on enclosed sample, please inform us. We await your early reply.

Very Truly yours.

F. Takata, Manager Technical Research & Homologation Enclosures

ID: nht87-2.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/13/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Mark Roberts

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Mark Roberts 40 East Stillforest Houston, Texas 77024

Dear Mr. Roberts:

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

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

Dear Ms. Jones,

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

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

Yours,

Mark Roberts

ID: nht90-3.91

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 10, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Kent D. Smith

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-27-90 from K.D. Smith to S.P. Wood (OCC 4761)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of April 27, 1990, to Stephen P. Wood of this Office, as a follow-up to his letter of March 22 replying to your request for an interpretation on January 26.

Your device activates the backup lamps for a period of one second or less as a signal to the driver of a following car that (s)he should lower the headlamp beam. Mr. Wood informed you that use of backup lamps for any other than their intended purpose co uld be viewed as an impairment of the backup signal function, and would thereby be prohibited under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You now ask two further questions.

The first question is "What steps would have to be taken in regard to (SAE Standard J593e, Backup Lamps) which would permit me to test market this product?" You have cited paragraph 4.2 which states that "Backup lamps shall not be lighted when the vehic le is in forward motion." As a minor correction, let me note that the SAE Standard incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108 is J593c, February 1968, and the paragraph cited appears with the identical wording as paragraph 2 under "Installation Requi rements." We have no specific authority under which an inventor can install a device on motor vehicles in use for test marketing purposes when the installation might result in a noncompliance. In fact, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act specifically prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on a vehicle pursuant to a Federal safety standard. Because the instal lation would result in a noncompliance by operation of the backup lamps while the vehicle was in forward motion, its installation for test market purposes on vehicles in use appears precluded by the statutory prohibition.

However, a manufacturer of motor vehicles may petition for a temporary exemption from paragraph 2 on the basis that an exemption would facilitate the development and field evaluation of an innovative safety device. Such exemptions may be granted for a p eriod of up to two years, and they cover up to 2500 vehicles a year while the exemption is in effect. I enclose a copy of 49 CFR Part 555 which contains our exemption procedures. Thus, to test market your device you would have to persuade a manufacture r of new motor vehicles to petition for its use.

Your second question is whether you would be in violation of Federal law by manufacturing and selling this device. The answer is no. This device is outside the coverage of Standard No. 108, and no one is prohibited from either selling the device or buy ing it. However, as noted earlier, its installation by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle

repair business on a vehicle in use, would be prohibited by the Act.

Attached is a copy of 49 CFR Pt 555 (text omitted).