ID: nht67-1.6

DATE: 09/12/67

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; George C. Nield; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your June 2, 1967, letter contained nine questions concerning several areas of Public Law 89-563 and Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Answers to several of these questions are of common interest to many manufacturers and the National Highway Safety Bureau is developing and planning to issue appropriate policies, procedures and rules to guide manufacturers in respect to some of these questions. In the meantime, we are able to reply to questions 5, 7, and 8 of the June 2, 1967, letter and question 9 of the June 2, 1967, letter as amended by the corrected drawings furnished by your letter of July 18, 1967.

Question 5. Section 113 of Public Law 89-563

Will forms be furnished to us to use to notify the first purchaser, dealer, and Secretary of defects we might find? If not, will an example of an acceptable form be available? Will a more detailed procedure be made available on the action required under Section 113? What would be our liability if a component purchased by us and certified to us to be in conformance with the Motor Vehicle Safety Standards was found after manufacture and delivery not to be in conformance?

Answer

The Bureau is studying the requirements for procedures and forms on defect notification. At present a form is being considered for the manufacturers to report defect information to the Secretary. If after further study forms are also considered desirable for the manufacturer to report to his dealers and the purchasers, you will be advised as to what types of forms are acceptable via publication in the Federal Register.

It is not clear what you mean by "liability." If you refer to your obligations under Section III, this section defines the responsibilities of manufacturers in regard to motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment determined not to be in conformance with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Section III also requires the immediate repurchase of the nonconforming vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment, or that the required conforming part or parts of equipment be furnished to the dealer or distributor for installation and that financial renumeration be made for incoveniences involved. Additionally, the provisions of Section 108 would apply.

Question 7. Title 23, Section 255.7 Applicability:

"(b) Military vehicles. No standard applies to a vehicle or item of equipment manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with Contractual specifications.

(c) Export. No standard applies to a vehicle or item of equipment in the circumstance provided in section 108 (b) (5) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1397) (b) (5)."

We understand that the standard does not apply to military or export vehicles. Will we be allowed to drive on public roads export and/or military buses that do not meet the minimum standards to a port or other destination? If not, what will we have to do to them so that they can be driven on public roads?

Answer

Motor vehicles intended solely for military or for export use are specifically excluded from compliance with Federal motor vehicle standards, and therefore not subject to the provisions of the Act.

Question 8. Standard No. 108 S3.4.3

"Taillamps, license plate lamps, and side marker lamps shall be illuminated when the headlamps are illuminated."

This standard does not mention parking lamps. We would then assume that the parking lamps may or may not be illuminated when the headlamps are illuminated at our discretion or the chassis manufacturer's discretion. Is this correct?

Answer

The parking lamps may or may not be illuminated when the headlamps are illuminated.

Question 9. Standard No. 103 Table II Location of Equipment

These prints show the location of lamps and reflex reflectors we plan to supply to comply with Standard 108 Table II. Are these locations in compliance? If not, please mark one each of the prints with acceptable locations and return them to us.

Answer

The location of lamps and reflectors, as shown on the drawings dated July 17, 1967, appear to be acceptable.

Questions 1, 2, and 6 relate to the subject of "Incomplete vehicles" and questions 3 and 4 relate to labeling and record-keeping. We are currently working on the entire area relating to these other questions and you will be furnished with detailed answers as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

June 2, 1967

George C. Nield -- Acting Director, Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service, U. S. Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Nield: Listed below are several areas of Public Law 89-563 and the Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that we are concerned about and need rulings and/or clarification. If at all possible, we need this information by June 12, 1967.

1. Section 108 of Public Law 89-563

It is quite possible that there might be new chassis at our plant January 1, 1968, to have new bodies mounted on them that do not meet the Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Will we be able to mount bodies on these? From time to time it is a couple of months after a chassis arrives before a body is mounted on it. They also sometimes sit in our field for long periods of time finished before the end customer comes for them or arranges for delivery. I believe you can appreciate the situation we could find ourselves in if we are unable to mount or deliver chassis after January 1, 1968, that were received prior to January 1, 1968. Could we have your comments and a ruling on this?

2. Section 108 of Public Law 89-563 Paragraph (a) (1)

Will replacement parts for buses built prior to January 1, 1968, have to meet applicable Motor Vehicle Safety Standards? In some cases the conforming parts might not fit or work without a lot of rework, etc.

3. Section 108 of Public Law 89-563 (b) (5)

In what manner should we label or tag motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment intended solely for export? Do you have examples or acceptable forms for this?

4. Section 112 of Public Law 89-563

What records, reports, technical data, performance data, and other information are we required to establish and maintain? Will we be required to give notification of performance and technical data to the Secretary and/or to the original purchaser? What will we be expected to do to satisfy this law?

Will we be able to have inspectors designated by the Secretary come here prior to January 1, 1968, to be sure we are in compliance with all applicable Safety Standards if we feel the need?

5. Section 113 of Public Law 89-563

Will forms be furnished to us to use to notify the first purchaser, dealer, and Secretary of defects we might find? If not, will an example of an acceptable form be available? Will a more detailed procedure be made available on the action required under Section 113? What would be our liability if a component purchased by us and certified to us to be in conformance with the Motor Vehicle Safety Standards was found after manufacture and delivery not to be in conformance?

6. Section 114 of Public Law 89-563

We mount bodies on three types of chassis. We build the Blue Bird Forward Control Chassis. The Conventional and Pusher Chassis are built by others, and we mount bus bodies we manufacture on them. It seems logical to me that the chassis manufacturer should certify the chassis by label or tag as stated in the law. Is this correct? We would then be required to certify what? The bus body or the complete vehicle? I don't see how we could certify items such as those cited in Standard No. 102 which we would not alter in any way or some of the equipment in Standard No. 108 that comes in on the chassis that we would not bother such as headlamps. What should the certification tag or label say? Do you have forms or acceptable examples for this?

7. Title 23, Section 255.7 Applicability:

"(b) Military vehicles. No standard applies to a vehicle or item of equipment manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications.

(c) Export. No standard applies to a vehicle or item of equipment in the circumstances provided in section 108 (b) (5) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1397 (b) (5)."

We understand that the standard does not apply to military or export vehicles. Will we be allowed to drive on public roads export and/or military buses that do not meet the minimum standards to a port or other destination? If not, what will we have to do to them so that they can be driven on public roads?

8. Standard No. 108 S3.4.3: "Taillamps, license plate lamps, and side marker lamps shall be illuminated when the headlamps are illuminated."

This standard does not mention parking lamps. We would then assume that the parking lamps may or may not be illuminated when the headlamps are illuminated at our discretion or the chassis manufacturer's discretion. Is this correct?

9. Standard No. 108 Table II Location of Equipment

Enclosed are two prints of

34754 Layout, Lamps and Reflex Reflector Locations, 1968 Model, 74" Headroom Conventional Bus

34755 Layout, Lamps and Reflex Reflector Locations, 1968 Model, 77" Headroom Conventional Bus

34756 Layout, Lamps and Reflex Reflector Locations, 1968 Model, 74" Headroom All American and Pusher Bus

34757 Layout, Lamps and Reflex Reflector Locations, 1968 Model, 77" Headroom All American and Pusher Bus

These prints show the location of lamps and reflex reflectors we plan to supply to comply with Standard 108 Table II. Are these locations in compliance? If not, please mark one each of the prints with acceptable locations and return them to us.

We certainly appreciate your help and consideration on these matters.

Sincerely, David A. Phelps, Jr. Engineering Services

Enclosures

ID: 24524.ztv

D.W. Robertson, Captain
Commonwealth of Virginia
Department of State Police
491 Southlake Boulevard
Richmond, VA 23236

Dear Captain Robertson:

This is in reply to your letter of May 20, 2002, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, which we received on June 3. The subject of your letter was "road lamps."

Specifically, you reported that the 2001 and 2002 model year Acura CL coupes are equipped with "road lamps." You stated that "these lamps are not marked, and from my understanding do not fall under FMVSS 108. These lamps produce 5 watts of power, and the lens and reflector are not specifically focused to any point." You related that "Honda advised that these lamps are located below the headlights . . . and are used in conjunction with both the low beam and high beam headlamps . . . ."

You asked two questions: "1. Are road lamps, as described, sanctioned by FMVSS 108?," and "2. If they are not sanctioned by FMVSS 108, are they sanctioned by NHTSA in some other rule or regulation?"

The lamps you describe are not required by FMVSS No. 108. The question then arises whether lamps other than required lamps are allowed. FMVSS No. 108 permits a new vehicle to be manufactured and/or sold with supplementary lamps, subject to the prohibition imposed by S5.1.3 of the standard that "No additional lamp, reflective device, or other item of motor vehicle equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard."

We have not tested Acura vehicles to judge whether additional lamps of 5 watts located below the headlamps in the front bumper, and operating in conjunction with them, will impair the effectiveness of the upper or lower beam headlamps, or of the front turn signal, parking, or hazard warning system lamps. The label that Honda affixes to each Acura CL coupe certifying that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSS represents, in part, its determination that the road lamps do not impair the effectiveness of other front lighting equipment within the meaning of S5.1.3. We have no basis to question that determination.

As for your second question, "road lamps" are motor vehicle equipment and subject to the agencys safety notification and remedy requirements if a safety-related defect occurs in them. Apart from regulations implementing these requirements, there are no other NHTSA regulations that pertain to auxiliary lighting equipment such as road lamps. This means that any State may regulate these lamps, and their use, as appears appropriate to the State.

If you have any further concerns, please call Taylor Vinson at 202-366-5263.

ref:108

d.7/29/02

ID: aiam1893

Dear Mr. Hilder: This is in response to your letter of March 21, 1975, inquiring as t the effect of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121 on Massachusetts and New Jersey State laws relating to air brake performance.; As you are aware, section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Moto Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) provides that no state or political subdivision of a State may promulgate or continue in effect standards applicable to an aspect of motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment performance which is covered by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, unless the standards are identical.; Standard No. 121 includes provisions relating to truck and bus brak performance, including requirements for stopping distances. A more restrictive State brake requirement than that specified in Standard 121 is voided by S 103(d) since the Federal standard is intended to cover all aspects of air brake performance.; The Federal requirements must be regarded as conclusive with regard t service, emergency, and parking braking capabilities in order to maintain the uniformity necessary in a Federal regulatory scheme. This was affirmed in a recent decision rendered in a case brought by the Motorcycle Industry Council, Inc. against the State of California in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California concerning the preemption of a California State requirement that motorcycle headlamps be wired to operate when the engine is running. The Court held that the California requirement is preempted by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration intended to cover all aspects of performance directly involving motorcycle headlamps.; Therefore, requirements such as those described in your letter would b preempted by Standard 121 since the aspects of performance that would be affected are covered by the Federal standard. You should note that this discussion of State 'requirements' only refers to rules of general applicability within a State or municipality. It does not refer to purchase specifications that may be imposed by any person or organization, including a State or municipality, with respect to vehicles purchased for the person or organization's own use. Such specifications are not limited by Federal law, and in the case of governmental bodies are specifically allowed by S103(d), although of course they cannot alter a manufacturer's duty to conform to Federal standards.; Sincerely, James C. Schultz, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2190

Dear Mr. McNiel: This is in reply to your petition of November 7, 1975, 'for th correction of subsection S4.5.4 and S4.6(b) as set forth by existing Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.'; It is your opinion that S4.5.4, which requires activation of stop lamp upon application of the service brakes, is design restrictive, and 'leaves no opportunity for innovation by the private sector for other solutions for the activation of a motor vehicle's stoplamps' (sic). You have suggested that S4.5.4 be amended to include at its end 'or by other beneficial means which will not impair the lighting system or the mechanical functioning of the vehicle'.; Any performance standard is design restrictive to some extent, it mus restrict manufacturers to designs that meet the desired performance requirements. Its validity as a performance standard depends on whether the restrictions of the standard are only as narrow as reasonably necessary to achieve the desired safety performance. In this case we have found that the requirement meets this test. A signal to other drivers that the service brakes are being applied is precisely the performance being sought in S4.5.4. A signal based on some other condition (e.g., vehicle deceleration) might not be as timely, or might fail altogether to operate at the critical moment (as where it is based on lifting the accelerator pedal). Since the requirement is limited to the desired safety performance, we find it valid, and your petition in this area is denied.; You also ask for an amendment of S4.6(b) to include 'rear lamps' amon those that may be flashed for signalling purposes, since you believe that conventional wiring circuits presently allow these lamps to be flashed when headlamps are flashed. When the headlamps are flashed by means of the on-off switch, it is true that rear lamps will flash. But that type of flashing is in no way restricted by the standard. The flashing intended to be regulated by S4.6(b) is by automatic means (see S3 definitions) and, except for rear turn signal lamps, these automatic devices would not be connected to rear lamp circuits. Thus, there appears to be no need for the amendment you suggest and your petition is accordingly denied.; We appreciate your continuing efforts on behalf of traffic safety. Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs;

ID: aiam2136

Dear Mr. Milby: This responds to Blue Bird Body Company's October 16, 1975, questio whether Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*, preempts a State requirement that air-braked school buses be equipped with an audible and visual antilock failure warning signal and an air pressure gauge with a 3-inch display.; Standard No. 121 requires that trucks and buses be equipped with an ai pressure gauge, but it does not specify the size of the display (S5.1.4). Section S5.1.6 of the standard requires that trucks and buses be equipped with an antilock failure warning signal that is either visible within the driver's forward field of view, or both audible and continuously visible if it is not within the driver's forward field of view.; Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act o 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) provides that no State or political subdivision of a State may promulgate or continue in effect standards applicable to an aspect of motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment performance which is covered by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, unless the standards are identical.; The Federal requirements must be regarded as conclusive with regard t aspects of air brake performance covered by Standard No. 121 in order to maintain the uniformity necessary in a Federal regulatory scheme. This was affirmed in a recent decision rendered in a case brought by the Motorcycle Industry Council, Inc. against the State of California in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California concerning the preemption of a California State requirement that motorcycle headlamps be wired to operate when the engine is running. The Court held that the California requirement is preempted by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 since the NHTSA intended to cover all aspects of performance directly involving motorcycle headlamps.; The requirements described in your letter would be preempted b Standard 121 since the aspects of performance that would be affected are covered by the Federal standard.; You should note that this discussion of State 'requirements' onl refers to rules of general applicability within a State or municipality. It does not refer to purchase specifications that may be imposed by any person or organization, including a State or municipality, with respect to vehicles purchased for the person or organization's own use. Such specifications are not limited by Federal law, and in the case of governmental bodies are specifically allowed by S103(d), although of course they cannot alter a manufacturer's duty to conform to Federal standards.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: 23257.ztv

Mr. Larry Hughson
Vehicle Services Division
2835 N. Kerby Avenue
Portland, OR 97227





Dear Mr. Hughson:

This is in reply to your e-mail of June 18, 2001, to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Region 10 asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You have been informed by a member of the public that Portland's police cars do not comply with Standard No. 108. You cite that portion of S5.5.4 of Standard No. 108 which states that "the high-mounted stop lamp on each vehicle shall be activated only upon application of the service brakes." You state that S5.5.10 does not list the center high-mounted stop lamp, backup lamps, stop lamps, and headlamps (for purposes other than signaling) as lamps that are allowed to flash. You also cite S5.5.10(d) which, in effect, requires these lamps to be steady burning when in use. You ask if there is an alternate standard that applies to police vehicles, or whether police cars are exempt from this requirement.

We surmise from your letter that the police vehicles are equipped with a system that flashes headlamps, stop lamps, the center high-mounted stop lamp, and backup lamps for emergency purposes.

You did not relate whether this lighting system is installed as original equipment or after the vehicles are delivered to the police. I will first address its installation as original equipment. I enclose a copy of a letter that we sent Col. W. Gerald Massengill of the Virginia State Patrol on July 3, 2001, which we believe is applicable to the questions you raise. In brief, the system you describe on Portland's vehicles does not comply with Standard No. 108. However, we traditionally defer to the judgment of a State as to the installation and use of emergency lighting devices on its vehicles. The drivers that operate police vehicles will be instructed to use the warning system only under certain circumstances, such as to alert motorists of the presence of stopped vehicles in the roadway ahead. In all other circumstances, the headlamps, stop lamps

and backup lamps will operate consistent with the requirements of Standard No. 108. The noncompliances are temporary in nature and are necessary for the mission of the police. We believe, then, that the emergency system you describe is permissible as original equipment because of the circumstances which are unique to law enforcement.

If the system is added after the vehicles are delivered to the police department, please note that Federal law (49 U.S.C. 30122), does not prohibit a vehicle owner from adding equipment that may create a noncompliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Thus, installation of the warning system by a city-owned and operated garage is not prohibited under Federal law if installed only on city-owned vehicles. If the installation of the warning system is by a motor vehicle repair business, other than one that is city-owned, we would also consider that permissible for the same reasons as we would allow the system as original equipment.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure
Ref:108
d.7/30/01

ID: aiam0232

Dear Mr. Sugarman: In response to your letter of April 16 I enclose copies of Federa Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 107 (Reflecting Surfaces) and 108 (Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment). Copies of the ASTM and SAE standards cross-referenced in the Federal standards are available from the American Society for Testing and Materials and the Society of Automotive Engineers. You may find particularly helpful SAE Handbook Supplement 19, 'SAE Technical Reports Referenced in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards'.; The answer to your first question is that Standard No. 108 require passenger cars manufactured on or after January 1, 1970, to be equipped with a total of 4 side marker lamps and 4 side marker reflectors, one marker and one reflector, amber in color, on each side of the vehicle 'as far forward as practicable', and one marker and one reflector, red in color, on each side of the vehicle, 'as far to the rear as practicable'(sic) Between January 1, 1969 and January 1, 1970 the option of reflectors or markers, or a combination of the two, was permitted. Prior to January 1, 1969 the Federal lighting standard did not apply to passenger cars. I will note in passing that the rear marker lamps on the Monteverdi displayed at the recent New York show were amber and must be changed to red before these vehicles are sold. There are no requirements as to size and shape of lamps and reflectors, but the SAE standards applicable to them and incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108 do set forth certain photometric requirements which must be met.; In answer to your second question, Table III of Standard No. 10 requires tail lamps to be red, but permits stop lamps and rear turn signals to be either red or amber. A proposal has been issued however (35 F.R. 106) that stop lamps be red only on passenger cars manufactured on or after January 1, 1971.; You have asked in your third question whether headlamps may be place in the grille. The answer to this is yes, provided that this location meets the lateral spacing and height above road surface requirements of Table IV of Standard No. 108. Also, headlamps must not be covered by a grille or plastic shield when in use.; Standard No. 107 does not specify a particular color for the horn rin and hub of the steering assembly but it does specify a maximum permissible value for specular glass.; Finally, other than Standard Nos. 205 (Glazing Materials) and 21 (Windshield Mounting) which all passenger cars must meet, there is no 'specific safety requirement as to the windshield' for convertibles, and there is no 'requirement as to a roll bar'.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief, Regulations Division

ID: aiam4153

Dear Mr. Wagar: This is in reply to your letter of December 27, 1985, with reference t the 'Pulse' and 'Litestar' motor vehicles. You have asked several questions regarding the registration category and highway safety records of these vehicles. I hope the following information will be helpful.; There are no Federal categories for vehicle registration. Each State i free to define vehicles as it wishes for registration purposes. The State definition need not conform to the Federal categorization assigned for purposes of the safety standards. However, regardless of how a State defines a vehicle, under the preemption clause of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 USC 1392(d)) a State may not require compliance of that vehicle with a State standard that differs from a Federal safety standard covering the same aspect of conformance. Such a State standard must be identical with the Federal one. For example, a State could require a horn as a prerequisite to registration since there is no corresponding Federal requirement, but it could not require a motorcycle to be equipped with two headlamps, since Federal Standard No. 108 allows a manufacturer a choice of one or two headlamps.; With reference to the Litestar and Pulse vehicles, we understand tha both vehicles have small outrigger wheels, which support the vehicles at rest. For purposes of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, a 'motorcycle' is a motor vehicle that is designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground. If the outrigger wheels are used only to provide stabilization in turns while the vehicle is in motion, then we would view the vehicle as a 'motorcycle' since it is designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground. However, if this type of vehicle is designed to travel on all four wheels, or capable of it according to outrigger adjustment, the vehicle would not be a motorcycle, but would be a 'passenger car' for purposes of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. (See definition of 'motorcycle' at 49 CFR Sec. 571.3(b)). We have not formally investigated these vehicles for compliance, nor do we have any information regarding their highway safety records.; You also asked whether the 'Litestar' had been brought to our attentio previously. The answer is yes. James Bede, the apparent originator of this type of vehicle, brought one to the headquarters of the Department some years ago and obtained our informal concurrence that it could be classified as a 'motorcycle.'; I hope that this is of assistance to you. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1852

Dear Mr. Dabrowski: This is in response to your letter of February 10, 1975, inquiring a to the effect of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121 on State laws relating to air brake performance.; Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act o 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) provides that no State or political subdivision of a State may promulgate or continue in effect standards applicable to an aspect of motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment performance which is covered by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, unless the standards are identical.; Standard No. 121 includes provisions relating to truck and bus brak performance, including requirements for stopping distances. A more restrictive State brake requirement than that specified in Standard 121 is voided by S 103(d) since the Federal standard is intended to cover all aspects of air brake performance.; The Federal requirements must be regarded as conclusive with regard t emergency braking capabilities in order to maintain the uniformity necessary in a Federal regulatory scheme. This was affirmed in a recent decision rendered in a case brought by the Motorcycle Industry Council, Inc. against the State of California in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California concerning the preemption of a California State requirement that motorcycle headlamps be wired to operate when the engine is running. The Court held that the California requirement is preempted by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 since the NHTSA intended to cover all aspects of performance directly involving motorcycle headlamps.; Therefore, requirements such as those described in your letter would b preempted by Standard 121 since the aspects of performance that would be affected are covered by the Federal standard. You should note that this discussion of State 'requirements' only refers to rules of general applicability within a State or municipality. It does not refer to purchase specifications that may be imposed by any person or organization, including a State or municipality, with respect to vehicles purchased for the person or organization's own use. Such specifications are not limited by Federal law, although of course they cannot alter a manufacturer's duty to conform to Federal standards.; I would note that your statement that neither S5.7.2 nor S5.7.2. 'requires anything other than an application capability' is overbroad. Section S5.7.2 requires modulation of the emergency braking capability, that is, application and release. We have interpreted the S5.7.2.2 requirement that emergency brake system failure 'shall not cause the parking brake to be inoperable' to mean that the parking brake must be capable of application but not release. Under S5.6 the parking brake's normal operation must include both application and release.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3870

Dear Mr. Kasagi: This is in reply to your letter of November 13, 1984, with respect t interpretations of the motorcycle headlighting requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, and SAE J584.; You have asked 'whether other lighting systems than referred i S4.1.1.34, such as non-sealed beam head lamp with two bulbs, are acceptable or not.' The answer is yes. Non-sealed lamps meeting the requirements of SAE J584 are acceptable, including those with two bulbs, as the 'At- Focus Tests' paragraph of J584 is directed to 'light source or sources.'; Your next question is whether photometric compliance is judged when on light is on or two, including the maximum permissible output of 75,000 cd. The answer to this question depends on the design of the lamp, if it is designed so that both bulbs operate simultaneously, then photometrics including maximum output are determined with both bulbs operating. If the design is such that one bulb produces lower beam and the other the upper beam, then compliance is judged by that method of operation. Should one bulb produce both lower and upper beams and the other bulb perform an unregulated lighting function, then the photometric compliance would be judged with only the bulb used for the regulated function. In this case, however, the unregulated bulb must not interfere with the effectiveness of the headlamp. This also answers your final question about conduct of the out-of-focus test. It is to be conducted according to the design intent of the operation of the headlamp, i.e. the design function of each bulb or bulbs.; You have also asked about the geometrical center of a design when on of two bulbs (both with an upper beam and a lower beam filament apparently) is on. Operation of only one bulb alone would result in an assymetrical lighting display off the vehicle's centerline. This is permitted by S4.1.1.34 of Standard No. 108 for the sealed beam lighting systems specified therein. Therefore, we could not logically dissapprove (sic) of it for unsealed headlighting systems. However, if only one bulb performed both the lower beam function and the upper beam, and the other bulb performed an unregulated lighting function, then the bulb providing the lower/upper beams must be located on the vehicle's vertical centerline.; If you have any further questions, we shall be happy to answer them. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel