ID: aiam4987

Dear Mr. Love: This responds to your letter of April 3, 1992 requesting concurrence by this Office in your interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 108 for the location of center highmounted stop lamps. Porsche wishes to install a center lamp on the movable spoiler of its 911 Carrera, a configuration previously approved by this Office providing that all photometric and visibility requirements are met. However, S5.3.1.8 of Standard No. 108 requires that 'If the lamp is mounted below the rear window, no portion of the lens shall be lower than 6 inches below the rear window on convertibles, or 3 inches on other passenger cars.' Although Porsche's intended center lamp meets this requirement with the spoiler in the extended position (when the car reaches 45 to 55 mph and slows to 9 to 12 mph), at other times, when the spoiler is lowered, the center lamp would be 7.5 inches below the window on the coupe, and 9.5 inches for the convertible. Nevertheless, you believe that this may be acceptable. You cite an opinion rendered Mazda in which NHTSA did not object to center lamps mounted on tailgates because, as we advised Mazda, the center lamp is a 'supplementary' lamp, and that 'Even if the deck, hatch, or tailgate upon which it is mounted should be open, following drivers may still observe the signals of the primary stop lamps. . .' You further quote NHTSA's frequently repeated advisory that 'Compliance of a vehicle is determined with respect to its normal driving position. . . ,' and argue that Porsche's design 'fulfills the spirit of the height requirements under all conditions' and the height requirement itself 'under a majority of 'normal driving conditions.'' You further argue that even in the down position the triangular relationship between the center lamp and the stop lamps is retained. Finally, you argue that the proposed lamp conforms with NHTSA's philosophy to make Standard No. 108 more performance-oriented 'by fulfilling the photometric requirements at all positions.' I am sorry that we cannot concur in your interpretation. When we judge whether a vehicle meets the location and visibility requirements of Standard No. 108, we determine compliance of the vehicle in what appears to us to be its normal operating or driving position. The fact that the vehicle may not comply under all conditions of operation is, of course, of concern to us, but we try to weigh the realities of vehicle design and usage against the need of the public for safety. In the Mazda interpretation, there was no question that the vehicle as manufactured would comply with the locational requirement for center lamps when the tailgate was closed. The 'normal driving position' of a vehicle with a tailgate is with the tailgate in the closed position, and use of a vehicle with the tailgate not closed is likely to be infrequent compared with its use with the tailgate closed. In another interpretation, rendered years ago, the fact that a vehicle with hydraulic suspension would not meet the minimum height requirements for headlamps with the vehicle at rest was considered a technical noncompliance only because by the time the vehicle was in its normal operating condition (with the engine running and the car ready to move into the stream of traffic), the suspension had raised the vehicle to a height where the headlamps exceeded the minimum height requirements. By contrast, the center lamp on the Carerra will not meet the locational requirements from a state of rest up to a minimum of 45 mph, that is to say, under low-speed urban driving conditions where the center lamp is most likely to achieve its purpose of reducing the frequency and severity of rear end impacts. This, to us, is the 'normal operating position' of the Carerra with respect to the location of the proposed center lamp. I would like to close by pointing out that the agency went to a considerable extent in considering the comments of manufacturers before adopting the requirements of S5.3.1.8, in order to minimize design restrictions consistent with safety. NHTSA proposed three alternative locations, and adopted one that was less restrictive than any of the alternatives. Subsequently, pursuant to petitions for reconsideration by vehicle manufacturers, NHTSA relaxed the location requirements of S5.3.1.8 even further. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam3327

Dear Mr. Spena: This is in reply to your letters of July 18, 1980, to the Administrato and myself and confirms a telephone conversation between Dr. Devin of your office and Taylor Vinson of ours, on August 5, 1980.; You have asked the following questions: '1. Does any Federal Regulation addresss (sic) the issue of intermixin motorcycle and other motor vehicle parts?'; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 *e seq*.), a copy of which I enclose, is the authority for Federal regulation of the manufacture of motorcycles and other motor vehicles. The Federal motor vehicle safety standards (49 CFR Part 571) implement the Act.; Neither the Act nor the Standards directly address the issue of th intermixing of parts of motorcycles and other motor vehicles. However, use of one half of a passenger car headlighting system is permitted as a motorcycle headlighting system (see paragraph S4.1.1.34 of 49 CFR 571.108). As a general rule, under the Act and Standards use of motorcycle equipment as original equipment on passenger cars and other motor vehicles is not prohibited unless such use creates a noncompliance with any Federal motor vehicle safety standard applicable to the vehicles or a defect related to motor vehicle safety.; In addition, section 108(a) (2) (A) of the Act prohibits an '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 in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. We interpret this as forbidding anyone but the owner of a vehicle in use from removing and substituting original vehicle equipment if it results in a noncompliance. This prohibition has at least a theoretical application to the intermixing of vehicle parts.; '2. Can NHTSA provide any suggestions, recommendations or guidance o this matter?'; We are unable to be helpful because few instances of intermixing cam to mind. We are currently in litigation with an importer of European passenger car headlamps that are purportedly certified only to 'motorcycle' requirements but which, in fact are being sold for use on passenger cars. This would not appear to be a true instance of intermixing since there appears to be little market for them as motorcycle headlamps. Generally, however, it would not appear sound practice to use equipment in an application not intended by its manufacturer.; '3. We would also like to know your position on 'kit cars''. There are no regulations or standards applicable to 'kit cars' per se nor do we even have a definition of the term. But some general principles apply under the Act nonetheless.; The classic 'kit car' operation involves the removal of an old vehicl body from its chassis and its replacement with a new one. The resulting assemblage retains the title of the vehicle's original incarnation. As the Act defines a 'manufacturer' to include one who assembles motor vehicles, a person in the business of assembling kit cars bears the manufacturer's statutory responsibility (15 U.S.C. 1411 *et seq*.) for notification and remedy in the event his assembly operations create a safety related defect in the vehicle.; A newly-assembled vehicle using its previous title is considered 'used and does not have to comply with the safety standards that apply to 'new' vehicles. However, we interpret Section 108(a) (2) (A), discussed in response to your first question, as requiring the assembler, if it is the party removing the old body, to insure that the vehicle upon completion of reassembly had it been originally manufactured with the new body meet the standards with which it would have complied. For example, if a new fiberglass convertible body is mounted on the chassis of a 1972 Volkswagen Beetle, the vehicle must meet all standards that apply to 1972 convertibles. If it does not, its assembler as a 'manufacturer' appears to be obligated under the Act to notify purchasers and remedy the noncompliances.; Some of the safety standards apply to individual equipment items suc as tires, lighting equipment, glazing and seat belts. Any item covered by a Federal equipment standard and supplied in the kit must meet such standard.; Outside this framework our position is necessarily determined by th facts of each use but generally, the greater the number of new parts used in a vehicle, the more likely we are to consider it as one which must meet the standards that apply to new vehicles.; If you have any further questions Mr. Vinson will be happy to answe them (202-426-9511).; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5630

"Dear Mr. Ferreira: This responds to your FAX message to Mr. Jer Medlin of this agency, asking whether your 'master switch' on a transit bus must be illuminated pursuant to Standard No. 101, Controls and displays. Your master switch has four controls, 'engine stop,' 'run,' 'lights,' and 'park.' In a telephone conversation with Mr. Medlin, you explained that your 'run' control functions as an 'engine start' control, and your 'park' control functions as a 'clearance lamps systems' control. As explained below, Standard No. 101 specifies illumination for the 'engine stop' and 'park' controls, but not for the 'run' and 'light' controls. In addition, there are identification requirements for those controls. Your drawing of the master switch shows that the switch resembles a tuning knob on a radio. Like a knob, the switch can be turned to each of the above four positions, one position at a time. Because turning the master switch knob to each position activates the described function, we would consider each position to be a separate control. You write that the master switch will be placed on a 'driver's side control panel,' a location that subjects controls to Standard No. 101's illumination requirements. S5.3.1 of Standard No. 101 (referencing Tables 1 and 1(a) Identification and Illumination of Controls), specifies that if: a control is provided, is listed in column 1 of either Table 1 or 1(a), and is accompanied by the word 'yes' in the corresponding space in column 4, Illumination, of the table, the 'identification ... of any control' shall be capable of being illuminated whenever the headlights are activated. 'Engine stop' control The identification of the 'engine stop' control must be capable of being illuminated whenever the headlights are activated. This is because in Tables 1 and 1(a), the 'engine stop' control is specified in column 1, and accompanied by 'yes' in the corresponding space in column 4 of each table. 'Park' control Two issues are raised by your 'park' control. The first relates to Standard No. 101's requirements for identifying controls. Under the standard, the control that regulates the parking lights is the 'clearance lamps system' control, rather than the 'park' control. Since your control regulates the parking lights, it must be identified as 'Marker Lamps', 'MK Lps' or (as you propose) with the symbol specified in column 3 of Table 1. Labeling the control as 'park' could confuse some persons into thinking 'park' is a transmission park position. The second issue is the illumination requirement. The identification of the control must be capable of being illuminated whenever the headlights are activated. As noted above, your park control has to be identified as 'Marker Lamps' or 'MK Lps'. In Table 1, the control is specified in column 1, and accompanied by 'yes' in the corresponding space in column 4. Thus, the control must be illuminated. 'Run' control The same two issues discussed in our answer directly above, pertain to this control. First is Standard No. 101's requirements for identifying controls. Under the standard the control that will start the engine must be identified as 'engine start' (rather than 'run') as described in both Tables 1 and 1(a), when it is separate from the key locking system (as is yours). The control need not be illuminated. In both Tables 1 and 1(a), the 'engine start' control (which is the correct identification of the control) is specified in column 1, without a corresponding 'yes' for illumination in column 4 of either table. 'Lights' control The same two issues discussed above are relevant here. The illustration you enclosed with your letter shows that you use both the word 'Lights' and an identifying symbol to identify your Lights control. We are not sure that you are correctly using the symbol. The symbol you use is listed in Table 1 of Standard No. 101 as that for the master lighting switch. A master lighting switch regulates all exterior vehicle lights. If your 'lights' control only regulates headlamps and taillamps, and not all exterior vehicle lights, please designate the headlamps and taillamps as specified in column 3 of Table 1. The 'lights' control need not be illuminated. In both Tables 1 and 1(a), the 'lights' control is specified in column 2, without a corresponding 'yes' for illumination in column 4 of either table. I hope this information is helpful. If you need any further information, please contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Our FAX number is (202) 366-3820. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam0584

Dear Mr. Waldherr: In your letter of February 2 you refer to paragraph S4.5.1 of Moto Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 and its reference to SAE Recommended Practice J564a, *Headlamp Beam Switching*, April 1964. You ask 'whether there is anything in your Docket related to Rule No. 108 to bring it up to either J564b or J564c.'; Perhaps you misread S4.5.1, but it does allow conformance with J564b a an alternative to J564a. No proposal has been issued requiring or allowing conformance with J564c.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2310

Dear Mr. Takeda: This is in reply to your letter of April 20, 1976, asking for a amendment of S4.1.1.21 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to allow a plus tolerance of 7.5 percent on maximum wattage requirements for Type 1A and 2A headlamps.; I enclose a copy of an interpretation furnished the General Electri Company which states that such a tolerance is allowed. However, to clarify our intent we plan to amend Standard No. 108 in the near future in the manner that you suggest.; Yours truly, Stephen P. Wood, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3839

Dear Mr. Couffinhal: This is in reply to your letter of April 19, 1984, to Richard Va Iderstine of this agency. With respect to the standardized light source socket for replaceable bulb headlamps, you have asked whether a bulb socket design with a 'bottom view' diameter of 29.7 mm. etc. would be acceptable.; As you have noted, Dimension P of Figure 3-7 and 3-8 of Standard No 108 specifies a millimeter dimension of '(28.75 to 28.65)'. The dimension of your design exceeds this figure, and is therefore noncompliant with requirements intended to insure proper function with standardized replaceable light sources. It is not permitted by Standard No. 108.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2311

Dear Mr. Martin: This is in reply to your letter of March 8, 1976, asking for a amendment of S4.1.1.21 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to allow a plus tolerance of 7.5 percent on maximum wattage requirements for Type 1A and 2A headlamps.; I enclose a copy of an interpretation furnished the General Electri Company which states that such a tolerance is allowed. However, to clarify our intent we plan to amend Standard No. 108 in the near future in the manner that you suggest.; Yours truly, Stephen P. Wood, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2815

Dear Col. Crawford: Jim Downey of our regional office has forwarded for reply your lette of May 3, 1978, in which you asked whether a single beam headlighting system is permissible on mopeds.; The answer is yes. The portion of SAE Standard J584 that you hav quoted only establishes an option to the specific requirements of J574. Table 1 of J584 permits motor driven cycles to be equipped with a single (upper) beam headlamp. We consider mopeds to be 'motor driven cycles' as defined by 49 CFR 571.3(b) and J584 as they are invariably powered by a motor developing less than 5 horsepower.; I hope this answers your question. Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: 18747.ztv

The Honorable Sam Farr
House of Representatives
701 Ocean Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95060

Dear Mr. Farr:

We are replying to your recent letter to the Department on behalf of your constituent, Ed Krumwiede of Aptos. Mr. Krumwiede has asked several questions regarding DOT regulation of imported car accessories.

Specifically, he would like to import three types of accessories for the Jeep Cherokee and asks whether they are regulated by the Department. The three types are:

"1) An exterior carrier for the spare tire, which would bolt onto the undercarriage of the vehicle;

"2) A metal guard for the vehicle's front grille to protect it from flying rocks or other hazards; and

"3) Similar guards for the vehicle's taillights."

This equipment is "regulated" but we have no requirements directly applicable to any of the items and which would affect the ability of Mr. Krumwiede to import and sell them.

More specifically, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is the agency within the Department of Transportation which is authorized to regulate the safety aspects of motor vehicle equipment, such as the accessories that Mr. Krumwiede would like to import. However, NHTSA has issued no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that applies to any of the three items of equipment listed above. Nevertheless, if Mr. Krumwiede imports motor vehicle equipment for resale, he becomes its "manufacturer" under our laws, and is responsible for notification and recalling the equipment if either he or NHTSA determines that the equipment contains a defect related to motor vehicle safety.

Mr. Krumwiede has a further responsibility if he intends to install the equipment on Jeep Cherokees. As a dealer in motor vehicle equipment, he must ensure that the equipment, as installed, does not result in the Jeep becoming noncompliant with any of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards to which it has been certified as complying. Specific concerns that

Mr. Krumweide should consider are whether the exterior tire carrier might obscure the center highmounted stop lamp, whether the grille guards in some manner might be placed in front of the headlamps and other front and front-side lamps as well, and whether the taillamp guards might prevent these lamps (and other rear and side lighting functions that may be housed in the same lamp) from complying with the full range of photometric and visibility requirements specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. This standard specifically prohibits grilles and covers over headlamps when they are in use. A final concern is whether the grille guard might affect the operation of air bags. I have enclosed copies of two letters addressing lamp guards and grille guards, one dated October 27, 1994 addressed to Thomas L. Wright, and the other dated July 3, 1997, addressed to Steve Brookmire. The obligation under Federal law to ensure continued conformance applies only to manufacturers, dealers, distributors, and motor vehicle repair businesses, and does not extend to a vehicle owner personally installing the equipment. However, we urge vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles.

The vehicle owner is also subject to state laws regarding the safe function and use of vehicles. Many states refer to Standard No. 108 and may not permit grille guards even if the owner personally installs them. We are not conversant with state laws and Mr. Krumweide should seek a clarification from the Department of Motor Vehicles in the states where he intends to sell the grille guards

For interpretations of Federal regulations, Mr. Krumweide may telephone Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). For information on the procedures to be followed in importing the equipment, he should call George Entwistle, Equipment and Imports Division, Office of Safety Assurance (202-366-5306).

I hope that this information is helpful to your constituent.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:591
d.10/15/98

ID: 86-3.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/11/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Terry W. Wagar

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Terry W. Wagar Technical Services Bureau Division of Vehicle Safety Services Department of Motor Vehicles State of New York Albany, NY 12228 Dear Mr. Wagar:

This is in reply to your letter of December 27, 1985, with reference to 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 is 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 that 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 attention 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

December 27, 1985

Ms. Erika C. Jones Chief Council NHTSA 400 7th Street S.W. Washington. D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

The subject of my inquiry is a vehicle recognized by the trade names "Pulse" or "Litestar". Our concerns are:

1. How to register; Motorcycle or Motor Vehicle?

2. What if any are the highway safety records of this vehicle?

3. What is the opinion of the NHTSA regarding registration category and compliance with federal safety standards?

I understand that the "Litestar" has been brought to the attention of the Chief Council in the past. Is this correct?

I have enclosed some information on both the "Pulse" and "Litestar" for your reference.

Thank you for any assistance you may give us.

Sincerely, Terry W. Wagar Technical Services Bureau

TWW:nl Encs.