ID: nht76-2.30

DATE: 12/06/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Wesbar Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 28, 1976, asking several questions with respect to that portion of paragraph S4.4.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 which prohibits the optical combination of clearance and tail lamps. You have also expressed your concern, in a recent telephone conversation with Mr. Vinson of my staff, about the ACUTEK interpretation of October 22, 1976, to be discussed below.

The distinction between the hypothetical lamp in Question 2 of your letter of September 7, 1976, and the Acutek lamp is that there is no opaque barrier wall in the former, separating the tail lamp bulb and the clearance lamp bulb, while in the latter the barrier rises to the base of the bulb. Since Standard No. 108 does not require separate compartments (i.e., an opaque barrier) for tail lamps and clearance lamps, it is obvious that the prohibition against optical combination means that (a) a single bulb may not perform both functions and (b) a single bulb must not be perceived as performing both functions. This was the rationale behind Mr. Driver's advice to Acutek that the available data indicated "that when the tail lamp bulb [on the Acutek lamp] is activated independently from the clearance lamp bulb, and vice versa, there is no appreciable amount of incidental light emitted from the lens of the clearance lamp," and that "the amount of light 'spill' appears to be so small that it would not be interpreted (by a driver following the vehicle on which it is installed) as illuminating the lens of the tail lamp when operated in the clearance lamp mode, and vice versa."

If you apply this general principle to the questions you asked then I think you will have the answers. The principle is necessarily dependent upon the candlepower output of any lamp to which it is applied, a value not given in your questions. Thus, the principle cannot be quantified and the determination of the extent of light spill is necessarily subjective, and certification is dependent upon a manufacturer's good faith in attempting to achieve compliance.

After reviewing this matter I must admit that I am curious as to the safety rationale behind the prohibition. Paragraph S4.4.1 had its genesis in a similar provision in Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety regulations (49 CFR 393.22(b)(3), formerly 393.22(c)) and was adopted in conformance with it. The Society of Automotive Engineers, however, does not prohibit combining these lamps. If clearance lamps are mounted below 72 inches -- the maximum allowable mounting height for tail lamps -- it may be that they could be combined with tail lamps, without any detriment to safety, and at a saving to the consumer. Perhaps you would like to comment on this.

SINCERELY,

WESBAR CORPORATION

October 28, 1976 Frank Berndt

Acting Chief Counsel

U.S. Dept. of Transportation

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Refer: N40-30

1. Thank you for your October 7, 1976 response to our inquiries. Your answers have clarified several grey areas of various manufacturers interpretations of S 4.4.1 of DOT 108.

2. There is one further design on which we would ask for your interpretation in regard to the combination of clearance lamp and tail lamp in approximately the same cell.

3. Your response (paragraph 2 of your letter) to our question: "Can a clearance lamp and tail lamp be combined in a single compartment with no opaque barrier wall existing between the clearance lamp and tail lamp bulb?" was concise and direct but it left one consideration unanswered. Your reply was directed to a lamp which had one lens serving both functions and no opaque barrier between the tail lamp and clearance lamp bulbs respectively.

4. We now ask your interpretation of S 4.4.1 as it would apply to a combination lamp designed as follows:

1. Only a partial partition exists between the clearance lamp and tail lamp compartments.

2. There are separate lenses for clearance and tail lamp functions (though contiguous).

3. The tail lamp partially illuminates the clearance lamp compartment and lens.

4. The clearance lamp partially illuminates the tail lamp compartment and lens.

5. The turn signal filament, when flashing illuminates both clearance and tail light lenses and compartments.

5. Based on your interpretation contained in paragraph 2 of your letter, we believe this lamp would not be approved since the lamps designated for each separate function would illuminate the individual lenses of each function.

6. However, we would prefer not to accept our own interpretation of this design but rather have you give us an NHTSA official interpretation to the following questions:

a. Would a lamp with the design features described in paragraph 5 be approved under S 4.4.1?

b. Does, in fact, the clearance lamp have to be totally isolated in a separate compartment from the tail lamp so that no light from the tail lamp bulb illuminates the clearance lamp lens?

c. Does the fact that there are separate lenses, contiguous to one another, change your interpretation as given in paragraph 2 of your October 7, 1976 letter since both lenses would be illuminated when both or either lamp is in use and, therefore, considered combined optically?

7. For your study and consideration we submit the attached sketch and photos of a model depiciting the conditions outlined in paragraph 5 of this letter.

Your early response will be appreciated.

B. R. Weber Executive Vice President

SIDE VIEW SHOWING RELATIVE POSITION OF CLEARANCE LAMP & TAIL LAMP NOT COMPLETELY ISOLATED FROM ONE ANOTHER

(Graphics omitted)

(LACK OF A FULL DIVIDING WALL PERMITS THE TAIL LIGHT BULB TO ILLUMINATE PART OF THE CLEARANCE LAMP COMPARTMENT AND CONVERSITY, THE CLEARANCE BULB ILLUMINATES PART OF THE TAIL LIGHT COMPARTMENT

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht76-2.31

DATE: 03/05/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood; NHTSA

TO: Department of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 10, 1976, asking whether S4.6(b) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 allows a flashing side marker lamp "in any location on the side of a motor vehicle without having to comply with State law pertaining to side-mounted turn signals."

S4.6(b) allows side marker lamps to flash for signalling purposes. Since a flashing side marker lamp is in essence a side turn signal lamp, any State regulation specifically addressed to location and flash rate of side turn signals would appear to be preempted by Standard No. 108, if the side marker lamp is combined with a side turn signal lamp. If the side turn signal lamp is a separate lamp, then it would be subject to State regulation.

Your inquirer wishes to install "a side marker lamp on each side near the middle of the trailer to flash with the turn signal lamps." If the lamp to be added is not the intermediate side marker lamp required by Standard No. 108 for trailers whose length is 30 feet or more, it would be governed by the California Vehicle Code and not preempted.

We intend to address the issues of side mounted turn signal lamps, flashing side marker lamps, and flashing headlamps in a rulemaking proposal whose publication is imminent, and I will include your letter in the Docket as a comment to be considered.

YOURS TRULY,

DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL

March 10, 1976

File No.: 61.A218.A4343

James C. Schultz Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

We have a question concerning an interpretation of Section S4.6(b) of FMVSS No. 108. This paragraph states that "means may be provided to flash headlamps and sidemarker lamps for signaling purposes".

We have had an inquiry from a supplier to a major trailer manufacturer as to whether or not he can install a sidemarker lamp on each side near the middle of the trailer to flash with the turn signal lamps. The California Vehicle Code provides that "side-mounted turn signal lamps of an approved type projecting a flashing amber light to either side may be used to supplement the front and rear turn signals. Side-mounted turn signal lamps mounted to the rear of the center of the vehicle may project a flashing red light no part of which shall be visible from the front." The Administrative Regulations require the approved side turn signal lamps to meet the same requirements as SAE Standard J914a.

These standards were adopted to assure that lamps installed on a vehicle as a side turn signal lamp had sufficient performance to be of value to other motorists both day and night, whether mounted on a passenger car, a truck or a trailer. A range of mounting heights was established in our regulations so that the side turn signal lamp would be near the eye height of drivers alongside the vehicle.

In the past, the only vehicles flashing the sidemarker lights as allowed by your standard were passenger cars. In these cases, we had read your standard as permitting the minimum number of sidemarker lamps required by your standard to flash but not giving authority for the indiscriminate addition of numerous other sidemarker lamps in other locations on the side of the vehicle.

We do not see any particular problem with allowing a required sidemarker lamp to flash simultaneously with a required turn signal lamp on the same side and on the same end of the vehicle. Unfortunately, one major passenger car manufacturer selected a system that caused the sidemarker lamps to flash alternately with the turn signals which, in our opinion, detracts from the signal value of the required turn signal instead of adding to it, particularily when both signals are seen to flash alternately at certain angles from the front or rear of the vehicle.

We now come to the question. Does Section S4.6(b) permit a manufacturer to install and flash with the turn signal any sidemarker lamp in any location on the side of a motor vehicle or trailer without having to comply with State law pertaining to side-mounted turn signals?

If the answer is "yes", we ask that you consider an appropriate revision to FMVSS No. 108 within the near future. We suggest that an amendment be proposed to require the side turn signals to flash simultaneously and in unison with the appropriate turn signal rather than alternately with the signal. In addition, we request that:

1. Only the minimum required sidemarker lamps on the each end of the vehicle be allowed to flash with the turn signal lamps.

2. Only sidemarker lamps near the eye height of passenger car drivers alongside the vehicle be allowed to flash. Sidemarker lamps at the extreme tops of trucks and trailer lamps are so far removed from the turn signal that another driver seeing them blink would likely be distracted by them instead of relating them to a turn being signaled.

3. New provisions be worded so attempts of various state laws to require higher-performing side mounted turn signals that are effective in the daytime are not placed in limbo because the Federal Standard allows a far less effective lamp of only 0.25 to 0.62 candlepower to flash in its place.

4. High mounted sidemarker lamps on buses not be allowed to flash as part of the turn signal system, because transit buses are permitted in this State to simultaneously flash all clearance and sidemarker lamps as a crime warning signal when driver or passengers are accosted. These signals are visible both from police patrol cars and police helicopters. Before-and-after surveys have shown that they are quite effective in making substantial increases in the rate of apprehension of suspects.

5. Headlamps not be allowed to flash with the turn signal lamps as now permitted. It is more important that a driver of a vehicle be able to see a lighted roadway in the direction in which he is going rather than using the headlamps to supplement an already effective front turn signal.

We would appreciate receiving your interpretation of the flashing headlamp and sidemarker lamp provisions. If you wish, we will be pleased to send you copies of our regulations on side turn signal lamps, alternately flashing headlamps for emergency vehicles, and data on the reduction in crime on buses following the installation of flashing crime warning lamps.

WARREN M. HEATH Commander Engineering Section

ID: nht76-2.32

DATE: 07/23/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: R. H. Willcox, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 16, 1976, asking several questions with respect to the applicability of 15 USC 1397(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 (49 CFR 571.108) to a product manufactured by your client, the W.B. Marvin Manufacturing Company. This product is "a screen which fits on the front part of the automobile and protects the radiator, headlamps and other lower parts of the car" from bugs.

W.B. Marvin would not be in violation of either the Act or Standard No. 108 by manufacturing and selling these screens. Such liability as may exist centers on the installation of them. Standard No. 108 establishes requirements for lighting equipment on new motor vehicles, and for replacement equipment. One of the requirements of SAE Standard J580a, Sealed Beam Headlamp, June 1966, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108, is that "a headlamp, when in use, shall not have any styling or other feature, such as a glass cover or grille in front of the lens." Since the screen is positioned in front of the headlamps it would be an "other feature" of the type intended to be prohibited by the standard if, as appears likely, it affects compliance with headlamp photometrics (SAE Standard J579) or headlamp aim (SAE Standard J580). If installation results in a noncompliance, the screen could not, therefore, be legally installed by a vehicle manufacturer, distributor, or dealer as original equipment on a motor vehicle.

As for replacement equipment, under Section 1397 (a)(2)(A) of the Act an automobile owner may himself modify his vehicle in any manner he chooses, but modifications performed at his request by others may not "render inoperative in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on . . . a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard." If installation of the screen affects compliance with headlamp photometrics or other requirements, then it would appear to "render inoperative" a lighting device installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, within the meaning of Section 1397(a)(2)(A). Installation by the auto service center of the retailer would therefore be prohibited, since such a facility is deemed a "motor vehicle repair business."

There are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that directly apply to the screen as an item of motor vehicle equipment, nor do I know of any other Federal regulation affecting it.

I hope this letter is responsive to your questions.

YOURS TRULY,

CHESTER, HOFFMAN, PARK, WILLCOX & ROSE June 16, 1976

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attention: Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel

Re: W. B. Marvin Manufacturing Co.

Our firm represents The W. B. Marvin Manufacturing Co. of Urbana, Ohio. They have contacted us concerning a product they wish to manufacture for use on automobiles which may involve the application of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, particularly Standard 108 relating to headlamps. I personally have talked with Mr. Vinson of your office concerning the problem and he has advised me to write to you requesting an opinion concerning this situation. There is also a question as to the applicability of Section 108 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicles Safety Act as amended in 1974.

The residents of south Florida have been bothered for years by the "lovebug" problem. These bugs appear in large numbers and accumulate on the headlamps and windshields and other parts of the cars driven on the south Florida highways. The W. B. Marvin Manufacturing Co. has designed a screen which fits on the front part of the automobile and protects the radiator, headlamps and other lower parts of the car from these bugs. At the same time, it is designed to direct the air flow in such a fashion that the bugs are diverted over the windshield so that they do not have an opportunity to come in contact with the windshield at all. This screen has been tested in Florida and had proved to be very successful. Pictures of the screen are enclosed for your information. The screen is designed for easy installation and removal. Tubes are attached to the front bumper of the car. The screen is attached to the car by sliding tubes affixed to the screen into the tubes affixed to the front bumper. Because of this design, the screen can be assembled relatively simply by the car owner or any auto service center. The car owner by himself may then mount the screen on the front of the car or remove it as required.

Without the screen, the bugs are plastered against the headlamps, thus affecting the amount of light coming from the headlamps. With the screen, the bugs will be on the screen, which is easily cleaned, rather than the headlamps. However, there is no question that when installed the screen will reduce the amount of light produced by the headlamps on to the roadway and this raises the question as to the applicability of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Section 108 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

It is W. B. Marvin Manufacturing Company's intention to manufacture this screen and sell it to a retailer such as Sears Roebuck & Co. The retailer would sell the screen directly to the car owner who could either install it himself or have it installed at the retailer's auto service center.

Our client is ready to manufacture this screen and sell it to a retailer or retailers as described above. However, we do not want to advise them to proceed if the manufacturing of the screen or the manner in which the screen is sold and installed in any way violates any applicable Federal laws, rules or regulations. We are therefore requesting your opinion as to the applicability of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Section 108 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to the manufacture, sale and installation of this screen. In this regard, we raise the following questions: 1. Do the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and in particular, Standard 108, apply to this screen as manufactured by The W. B. Marvin Manufacturing Co.?

2. By manufacturing and selling the screen described above, is The W. B. Marvin Manufacturing Co. in violation of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and in particular Standard 108?

3. By manufacturing and selling the screen as described above, is The W. B. Marvin Manufacturing Co. in violation of Section 108, Subparagraphs A (1) and A (2) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act as amended in 1974?

4. Is there any violation of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards or Section 108 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act if the screen in question is manufactured by W. B. Marvin Manufacturing Co., sold by them to a retailer such as Sears Roebuck & Co. and sold by the retailer to the automobile owner who installs the screen himself?

5. If the car owner purchases the screen from a retailer and has the screen installed at the retailer's auto service center, is the retailer and/or the manufacturer in violation of Section 108, Subparagraphs A (1) and A (2) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act as amended in 1974?

6. Does the auto service center of the retailer constitute a "motor vehicle repair business" as used in Section 108, Subparagraphs A (2) (a) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act?

7. Does the manufacturing, sale and installation of the screen in question come within the meaning of the phrase "render inoperative" as that phrase is used in Section 108, Subparagraph A (2) (a) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act?

8. To your knowledge, are there any other Federal statutes or regulations which would prevent the manufacturing and sale of this screen?

As indicated before without the use of the screen the bugs will be plastered against the headlamps and windshield of the vehicle, thus affecting the visibility of the driver. With the screen, the bugs will be contained on the screen from which they can be easily removed and will be diverted over the windshield. In view of this, it does not appear to us that the use of the bug screen renders the vehicle less safe than without the screen. Therefore, if it is your opinion that Section 108 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act is applicable to this situation, we hereby request that you exempt the manufacturer and the retailer from the application of Section 108.

If you need additional information, please call the undersigned and I will provide you with what you need if possible. Thank you for your consideration of this problem.

Roderick H. Willcox

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht76-2.33

DATE: 10/08/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood for F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: The Flxible Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 7, 1976, to Mr. Dyson, formerly of this office, requesting a confirmation that an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, rendered to the Southern California Rapid Transit District on August 5, 1974, is still valid, and that it can be extended to include identification lamps as well.

In our earlier letter we advised the District that the installation of wiring by a manufacturer enabling a purchaser to connect it to normally steady-burning clearance lamps, enabling them to be flashed to signal a crime in progress, would not violate S4.6(b) which requires clearance lamps to be steady-burning, or S4.1.3 that prohibits installation of motor vehicle equipment which impairs the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. This will confirm that that interpretation is still valid.

Your letter, however, raises two additional issues which deserve to be answered for the record. The first is whether the bus manufacturer rather than the purchaser may make the connection, and the second is whether identification lamps may also be included in the warning system. Since it is our opinion that use of the clearance lamps in an emergency mode creates an item of lighting equipment not required by Standard No. 108 and hence outside its coverage, we have concluded that the manufacturer may connect both clearance and identification lamps to the emergency circuit without any resultant nonconformances with S4.6(b) and S4.1.3.

I hope this is responsive to your request.

SINCERELY,

THE FLXIBLE COMPANY

September 7, 1976

Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attention: R. B. Dyson

Reference: FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment

Our Company, a manufacturer of urban transit buses, is in receipt of a recent procurement solicitation for transit vehicles from the Southern California Rapid Transit District (SCRTD), Los Angeles, California, which specifies a requirement for a "crime alarm light" system. This system incorporates appropriate circuits, silent switches, a silent electronic flasher unit and a dual filament bulb, all of which are to be used in conjunction with the clearance lamps. Activation of the switch will cause the clearance lamps to flash signalling a crime-in-progress.

We recognize that Section S4.6(b), FMVSS No. 108, permits the flashing of headlamps and side marker lamps for signalling purposes. However, the referenced Section does not stipulate that the flashing of clearance lamps (and identification lamps which are normally on the same circuit) is permitted; in fact, S4.6 (b) requires "all other lamps shall be steady-burning...".

Effective January 1, 1976, the California Vehicle Code authorized the flashing of clearance lamps as crime alarm lights. A copy of this amendment is attached for your information. Also attached is a copy of an August 5, 1974, letter from your office to the SCRTD stating that the operation of the clearance lamps as a warning lamp causes the clearance lamps to become an item of lighting equipment outside the coverage of Standard No. 108. We are assuming the same provision would apply to identification lamps.

Since your previous letter was written over two years ago and in order to assure ourselves that, as a vehicle manufacturer our product is not in violation of S4.6, FMVSS No. 108, when we comply with an operator's requirement, we request that a similar letter, addressed to the Flxible Company, indicating that the flashing of clearance lamps and/or identification lamps as a warning lamp system is not prohibited by Standard No. 108 be forwarded for retention in our Part 576, Record Retention, file. It is suggested that perhaps an amendment to FMVSS No. 108 incorporating this information is in order.

We thank you for your effort in providing the above requested letter.

R. L. Ratz

Buses: Crime Alarm Lights

25275.5. Any bus operated either by a public agency or under the authority of a certificate of public convenience and necessity issued by the Public Utilities Commission may be equipped with a system of crime alarm lights. The system of crime alarm lights shall consist of the installation of additional lamp sources, not exceeding 32 standard candlepower or 30 watts, in the front and rear clearance lamps required or permitted by Section 25100. Such lamps shall be approved by the department and shall be operated by a flasher unit or units that are not audible inside the bus. When actuated, both rear crime alarm lights shall flash simultaneously and both front crime alarm lights shall flash simultaneously. Crime alarm lights shall be actuated only when a crime is in progress on board the bus or has recently been committed on board the bus.

Added Ch 777. Stats. 1975. Effective January 1, 1976.

ID: nht76-2.34

DATE: 02/17/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Wagner Electric Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 11, 1975, referring to our letter to Ideal Corporation of September 17, 1975. You commented that "customers believe that the NHTSA approves the unqualified use of variable-load flashers for replacement turn-signal applications." You have requested "confirmation that the intent of Standard 108, @ 4.5.6 is to only permit a variable-load flasher to be used only on an Excepted Vehicle." Your interpretation is incorrect.

Although the NHTSA does not approve of the use of variable-load turn signal flashers as replacement for fixed-load flashers, the choice of replacement equipment for a vehicle in use is that of the consumer, and is not subject to Federal control. We have no authority to require that the owner of a vehicle originally equipped with a fixed load flasher replace it with a fixed load flasher. This may be the reason for your confusion with respect to the NHTSA's reaction to Ideal Corporation's petition for rulemaking. It was not necessary to amend the standard as requested by Ideal, since it already allowed the type of replacement suggested, and this agency generally does not regulate modifications by consumers. Such an amendment would have been superfluous.

As indicated in our letter to Ideal, we continue to believe it preferable that consumers be informed that a variable load flasher will not provide an outage indication. To this end the NHTSA is considering rulemaking that would require labeling on containers of variable-load flashers.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

WAGNER ELECTRIC CORPORATION

December 11, 1975

Frank A. Berndt -- Acting Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

We have recently seen your letter of September 17, 1975 to Mr. Martin Rothfield, General Manager, Flasher Division, Ideal Corporation. In your letter there appears a statement which relates to the meaning and interpretation of the provisions of @ 4.5.6 of Standard No. 108 (as amended effective June 6, 1974).

Your letter is a discussion of the meaning of @ 4.5.6 regarding permitting the use of variable-load flashers. We believe your letter was intended to mean that a variable-load flasher may be used as replacement equipment for a fixed-load flasher on any of the vehicle classes specified in S2 as covered by the Standard pursuant to the provisions of @ 4.5.6. S2 specifies passenger cars, multi-purpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, (except pole trailers and trailer convertor dollies), and motorcycles. @ 4.5.6 provides an exception to its provisions for a truck (including a truck capable of accommodating a slide-in camper), bus, multi-purpose passenger vehicles (but only those 80 or more inches in overall width), or for any vehicle (including a passenger car and multi-purpose passenger vehicles less than 80 or more inches in overall width) equipped to tow trailers. That is to say, if any vehicle specified in S2 ordinarily requires an illuminated pilot indicator and also turn-signal lamp failure indication under @ 4.5.6, it would be excepted from those requirements and still be in compliance with the Standard if it was one of the class of vehicles within the meaning of the "except where" language of @ 4.5.6. Consequently, it would be a vehicle as specified in S2 as covered by the Standard pursuant to the provisions of @ 4.5.6.

Customers of Ideal Corporation see a much broader meaning to your letter. We disagree with that meaning and would like to have your concurrence with our interpretation of your letter as indicated above. In this connection we would like to trace the history of @ 4.5.6 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108, as we know it, since our interpretation is based upon such history.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 ("Standard 108" or the "Standard") as it existed at the time of a Notice of Proposed Rule Making issued on January 3, 1970, provided in pertinent part as follows:

"@ 3.4.7 - Except on vehicles using variable-load flashers, a means for indicating to the driver that the turn-signal system is energized, shall be provided in accordance with SAE Standard J588d "Turn Signal Lamps", June, 1966."

In the Notice of Proposed Rule Making concerning Standard 108 which was issued on January 3, 1970 (35 FR 106), the preamble of the NPRM noted:

". . . @ 3.4.7 [of Standard 108] currently exempts all vehicles using variable-load flashers from the requirement for providing an indication to the driver that the turn-signal system is energized. This should apply only to those vehicles which are equipped to tow trailers (which require variable-load flashers and a turn-signal circuit), and it is proposed that the exemption be restricted accordingly (@ 3.5.6)."

The text of @ 3.5.6 as proposed in the NPRM reads as follows:

"All vehicles having turn-signal operating units shall have an illuminated pilot indicator. Except on truck tractors and vehicles equipped to tow trailers, failure of one or more turn-signal lamps to operate shall be indicated in accordance with SAE Standard J588d, "Turn Signal Lamps", June 1966."

In the ammouncement of the adoption of Rule Making issued on October 1970 (35 FR 16840) the preamble states:

"(p) It was proposed that all vehicles be equipped with a turn-signal pilot indicator, and that those vehicles not equipped to tow trailers (i.e. vehicles with a fixed load flasher) be provided with a lamp failure indicator . . . .

Many comments objected to the proposal for a lamp failure indicator on vehicles 80 inches or more in overall width. Heavy-duty flashers used on these vehicles are not presently available with a failure indicator. However, this type flasher is considerably more durable than the fixed load type, used on vehicles of lesser width, which indicates a lamp failure, and the continued use of present heavy-duty flashers for wider vehicles is warranted. Also, vehicles of 80 inches or more overall width are generally used commercially, and many of them are subject to the regulations of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety of the Federal Highway Administration; such vehicles are more frequently inspected and failed lamps more promptly repaired. For the foregoing reasons, vehicles of 80 or more inches overall width are excluded from the requirement in the amended Standard for a turn-signal lamp failure indicator." [Emphasis added.]

The Standard was thereupon amended, effective July 1, 1971, so that @ 4.5.6 provided:

"Each vehicle equipped with a turn signal operating unit shall also have an illuminated pilot indicator. Except on a truck, bus or multi-purpose passenger vehicle 80 or more inches overall width, and on any other vehicle equipped to tow trailers, failure of one or more turn-signal lamps to operate shall be indicated in accordance with SAE Standard J588d "Turn-Signal Lamps," June, 1966."

Following the foregoing amendment to Standard 108 on October 31, 1970 (35 FR 16840), petitions for reconsideration of the amendment were filed by a number of manufacturers. In response to those petitions the NHTSA on February 3, 1971 (36 FR 1896 to 1897) stated:

"8. Paragraph S4.5.6 International Harvester asked that the exemption for lamp outage indication be extended to vehicles equipped with auxiliary lamps or wiring, since these vehicles, like vehicles equipped to tow trailers, use variable-load flashers. However, fixed-load flashers providing lamp outage indication are available on the market for the increased load of an auxiliary lamp. The manufacturer can provide the appropriate flasher with foreknowledge of the intended end configuration of the vehicle, and International Harvester's petition is therefore denied."

@ 4.5.6 of the Standard was then the subject of the following proposed amendment published on January 3, 1974 (38 FR 822) pursuant to a petition by the Ford Motor Company.

"@ 4.5.6 Each vehicle equipped with a turn-signal operating unit shall also have an illuminated pilot indicator. Failure of one or more turn signal lamps to operate shall be indicated in accordance with SAE Standard J588d, "Turn-Signal Lamps", June 1966, except on a truck, bus, or multi-purpose passenger vehicle 80 or more inches in overall width, or a truck that is capable of accommodating a slide-in camper, or any other vehicle equipped to tow trailers, provided that an excepted vehicle is equipped with a variable-load flasher." [Emphasis added.]

@ 4.5.6 of the Standard as it existed prior to January 3, 1974, exempted from the requirement of turn-signal lamp failure indication a class of vehicles which included only a truck, bus, or multi-purpose passenger vehicle 80 or more inches in overall width, or any other vehicle equipped to tow trailers (the "Pre-1974 Excepted Vehicles"). Such class of vehicles had to use a variable-load flasher to ensure uniform flash rate so as to comply with the flash per minute requirements of Standard 108.

The 1974 proposed Rule Making originally was intended to only add "a truck that is capable of accommodating a slide-in camper" to the list of Pre-1974 Excepted Vehicles. Such exemption, as contained in the Standard prior to the 1974 amendment, was obviously a result of (Illegible Word) NHTSA's judgment that while it recognized the value of lamp failure indication, it also recognized that there were certain vehicles on which a uniform flash rate within the flash per minute perimeter of Standard 108 was more beneficial than a lamp failure indication, and on which uniform flash rate could not be obtained without the use of variable-load flasher which without special circuitry could not provide the lamp failure indication. Accordingly, the NHTSA obviously concluded that those vehicles and only those vehicles which would require a variable-load flasher so as to ensure a uniform flash rate, need not comply with the lamp failure indication requirements of @ 4.5.6.

In the announcement of the adoption of Rule Making issued on May 31, 1974 (39 FR 20063) Mr. James B. Gregory, Administrator, NHTSA, stated:

"The NHTSA has determined that the availability of variable load flashers ensuring flash rate control within the limits of the standard is desirable, and should be permitted on trucks capable of accommodating slide-in campers, despite the lack of lamp failure indication. In order to make clear the intent of the regulation, language is being added to specify that the exception applies only to vehicles with variable-load flashers."

@ 4.5.6 of the Standard was ultimately amended, effective June 6, 1974, (39 FR 20063) to read as follows:

"@ 4.5.6 Each vehicle equipped with a turn signal operating unit shall also have an illuminated pilot indicator. Failure of one or more turn signal lamps to operate shall be indicated in accordance with SAE Standard J588d, "Turn Signal Lamps", June, 1966, except where a variable-load turn signal flasher is used on a truck, bus, or multipurpose passenger vehicle 80 or more inches in overall width, on a truck that is capable of accommodating a slide-in camper, or on any vehicle equipped to tow trailers."

(The enumeration of vehicles in the "except where" language - to wit a truck, bus, or multi-purpose passenger vehicle 80 or more inches in overall width, a truck that is capable of accommodating a slide-in camper, or any vehicle equipped to tow trailers being hereinafter referred to as "Excepted Vehicles").

The Standard therefore presently requires each vehicle equipped with a turn-signal operating unit to also have an illuminated pilot indicator, and further requires turn-signal lamp failure indication (sentences 1 and 2, @ 4.5.6). The effect of that requirement is to either (1) mandate the use of a fixed load flasher on all vehicles, including certain vehicles in which the use of a fixed load flasher will increase the flash rate to a level generally exceeding the maximum specified by Standard 108, or (2) render such vehicles which must use a variable-load flasher to ensure a uniform flash rate and hence comply with the flash per minute requirements of Standard 108, to be in non-compliance with the provisions of $ 4.5.6 of Standard 108 relating to turn-signal lamp failure indication unless such vehicle is also equipped with special circuitry which is necessary to sense and indicate a failure in a variable-load system.

We submit that taken in its entirety the language of the Standard 108 and the history of its amendments require the interpretation that only those vehicles which require a variable-load flasher to ensure a uniform flash rate within the limits of Standard 108 should use a variable-load flasher and hence be exempted from the lamp failure indication provisions of Standard 108.

As further support of this we recall that Messrs. Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin & Kahn filed a petition for rule making on January 19, 1971 on behalf of Ideal Corporation for an amendment of @ 4.5.6 of Standard 108 which proposed to add the following sentence to @ 4.5.6:

"Variable-load flashers are permitted as replacement equipment by Standard 108 for any vehicle contemplated by Paragraph S2 herein, where such devices shall operate in accordance with Tables I and III, as applicable."

The effect of such proposed amendment would have been to render meaningless the turn-signal failure indication requirement of Standard 108 because to permit variable-load flashers as replacement equipment for any vehicles contemplated by paragraph S2 (which includes passenger cars as well as the Excepted Vehicles) would mean no turn-signal failure indication on any passenger car having a variable-load turn signal flasher without needing one to ensure a uniform flash rate.

In reviewing the petition for rulemaking, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel, in a letter dated February 23, 1971 addressed to Mr. Earl W. Kintner, states among other things that:

"[Ideal] wishes to continue its established marketing practice of selling variable-load flashers in the after market and of advertising these flashers as "all purpose" flashers. We understand further that variable-load flashers frequently are purchased as replacements for fixed load flashers. When a variable-load flasher is installed as a replacement for an original equipment fixed load flasher, it does not provide the outage indication required by @ 4.5.6. Your client therefore questions whether, under these circumstances, it would properly certify compliance with Standard 108 when the standard becomes applicable to replacement equipment."

After reciting the sentence proposed to be added to the Standard by the petition, Mr. Schneider continues as follows:

"In our view Standard 108 permits your client to continue its practice and to properly certify compliance. S2 states in pertinent part that the standard applies to "lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment for replacement of like equipment on vehicles to which this Standard applies." This means that equipment must comply with applicable requirements regardless of whether it is used as original or replacement equipment. For example, original and replacement variable-load flashers must both meet the appropriate requirements of SAE Standard J590b, "Automotive Turn Signal Flashers" October 1965. It is not intended that a variable-load flasher used as replacement for a fixed load flasher must provide the outage indication required by @ 4.5.6 for vehicles originally equipped with a fixed load flasher." [Emphasis added.]

Such statement was obviously intended to mean that should an owner of a vehicle requiring a variable-load flasher to ensure uniform flash rate choose to use a variable-load flasher, the manufacturer of that variable-load flasher did not have to have such variable-load flasher meet the turn-signal failure indication requirement of the Standard in order to certify that such variable-load flasher meets the other requirements of Standard 108. This is evidenced by the following language taken from Mr. Schneider's comment quoted above:

"For example, original and replacement variable-load flashers must both meet the appropriate requirements of SAE Standard J590b, "Automotive Turn Signal Flashers" October 1965. It is not intended that a variable-load flasher used as replacement for a fixed load flasher must provide the outage indication required by @ 4.5.6 for vehicles originally equipped with a fixed load flasher."

As long as a variable-load flasher is to be used on an Excepted Vehicle, Ideal could continue to certify compliance to Standard 108 even if it knew such flasher was to be used to replace a fixed load flasher on an Excepted Vehicle. Standard 108 provides a specific exception for that situation. Mr. Schneider knew that. He also knew that @ 4.5.6 required each vehicle equipped with a turn-signal operating unit shall also have an illuminated pilot indicator, and he knew that Ideal's proposed amendment would render such requirement meaningless and detract from safety. This is evidenced by the concern expressed in the following language quoted from Mr. Schneider's response to the Ideal's 1971 petition for rule making:

"Although there presently is no legal prohibition on the advertising and sale of variable load flashers, we believe that your client should, in the interest of safety, either market variable load flashers only as replacements for like items or call prospective purchasers' attention to the fact that the flashers do not provide an outage indication. While the owner of a vehicle originally equipped with a fixed load flasher should be free to balance the merits of a fixed load flasher (such as the outage indication) with those of a variable load flasher (such as the continuing flash), he should not be misled as to the characteristics of each type, including the one with which his vehicle was originally equipped.

Please advise us within 10 days of the date of this letter if you wish to pursue this petition further; otherwise we shall consider the petition withdrawn."

Ideal apparently then withdrew its petition.

Reference must again be made to the 1974 Rule Making (38 FR 822). It is clear that the meaning of the statements contained in your letter are clearly as we interpret them when read in light of such rule making. @ 4.5.6 as originally intended to be amended in January 1974 read as follows:

"Each vehicle equipped with a turn-signal operating unit shall also have an illuminated pilot indicator. Failure of one or more turn-signal lamps to operate shall be indicated in accordance with SAE Standard J588d, "Turn Signal Lamps", June 1966, except on a truck, bus, or multi-purpose passenger vehicle 80 or more inches in overall width, or a truck that is capable of accommodating a slide-in camper, or any other vehicle equipped to tow trailers, provided that an excepted vehicle is equipped with a variable-load flasher." [Emphasis added.]

It is obvious that the underlined language could be interpreted to read that it would appear to mandate equipping such vehicles with variable-load flashers originally. Such was not the intent, for they could be equipped with a fixed-load flasher (having turn-signal lamp failure indication but non-uniform flash rate), and hence the clarifying language was added to the June 6, 1974 final version of the rule which makes it clear that you need the pilot indicator and that the failure of the lamps to operate must be indicated in accordance with SAE Standard J588d, except where a variable-load turn signal flasher is used as either original or replacement equipment on an Excepted Vehicle.

Your reference to "any of the vehicle classes specified in S2 as covered by the Standard" obviously does not refer to all passenger cars per se (one class covered by S2 but not enumerated as such in the list of Excepted Vehicles in @ 4.5.6), but to passenger cars "equipped to tow a trailer." For you could not have intended to disregard the explicit provision for turn signal pilot indication and turn signal lamp failure indication which has been an integral part of Standard 108 since prior to January 1970.

In reliance upon your letter of September 17, 1975 to Ideal Corporation, customers believe that the NHTSA approves the unqualified use of variable-load flashers for replacement turn-signal applications. In view of the foregoing discussion contained herein we believe that your letter is not being read as you intended and we request confirmation that the intent of Standard 108, @ 4.5.6, is to only permit a variable-load flasher to be used only on an Excepted Vehicle.

That is our interpretation of @ 4.5.6 and we have so advised our customers. There is confusion on this point and we would like to have the matter cleared up.

Very truly yours,

Kenneth R. Arnold -- Secretary and General Counsel

ID: nht76-2.35

DATE: 06/02/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood; NHTSA

TO: Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 20, 1976, asking for an 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 Electric 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,

STANLEY ELECTRIC CO., LTD.

April 20, 1976

Att.: E. T. Driver Director, Office of Crash Avoidance Motor Vehicle Programs

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

In item (c) of S4.1.1.33, FMVSS No.108 (41F.R. 1483 - January 8, 1976), a tolerance of +7.5% is allowed to the maximum wattage of each circular unit of automotive headlamps.

On the other hand, in item (b) of S4.1.1.21, FMVSS No.108 (40F.R. 54426 - November 24, 1975), such tolerance is not clearly specified for rectangular units.

From the table 3, SAE J573f, however, in case of these rectangular units, we noted, by calculation based on the maximum amperages specified there, that almost the same tolerances are allowed to the maximum wattages as those allowed by S4.1.1.33, FMVSS No.108.

Therefore, we would like to interprete the provision regarding the maximum wattages of rectangular units as that the same tolerance of +7.5% is also being allowed by you. Your comments on this matter is requested.

Furthermore, if such interpretation is not accepted by you, we ask you to amend the provision of S4.1.1.21 so that the same tolerance of +7.5% which is now being allowed for circular units may also be allowed to the maximum wattages of type 1A and type 2A rectangular units.

Thanking you in advance for your cooperation,

T. Takeda Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Dept.

ID: nht76-2.36

DATE: 11/22/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: TYM Industries Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 27, 1976, to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, concerning lighting requirements for mopeds.

The headlamp must be designed to conform to SAE Standard J584, "Motorcycle and Motor Driven Cycle Headlamps," April 1964. This Standard does not require a sealed beam headlamp, nor is a minimum wattage specified. Obtaining an AAMVA certificate is probably the best way of insuring that a State raises no obstacles to registry of your vehicle.

There is no minimum wattage for the taillamp or stop lamp. These two lamps may be combined. There is no Federal requirement for SAE identification; however, most lamps are so identified, because of the requirements in the state of Virginia.

ID: nht76-2.37

DATE: 06/29/76

FROM: J. WOMACK FOR F. A. BERNDT -- NHTSA

TO: Nims Sportsman

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This will confirm your telephone conversation of June 23, 1976, with Mr. Vinson of this office concerning the preemptive effect of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards with respect to moped turn signals.

The Federal standards are issued pursuant to Title 15, United States Code, Section 1392(a). Judging that a multiplicity of State and Federal vehicle safety standards would constitute a burden on interstate commerce, Congress also enacted Section 1392(d), which prohibits a State from establishing or continuing in effect a vehicle safety standard that differs from a Federal safety standard covering the same aspect of vehicle performance. For example, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 contains requirements for motorcycle headlamp performance. Therefore, if a State has a standard on motorcycle headlamp performance it must be identical to the Federal one, and may not impose either greater or lesser requirements. On the other hand, there is no Federal standard for fog lamps, and a State may set whatever requirements it deems appropriate for fog lamps.

How does preemption apply to moped turn signals? Under the Federal standards, a moped is categorized as a "motorcycle" since it is "a motor vehicle . . . having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground." (Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 571.3(b)). For some purposes a moped is considered a "motor-driven cycle" which is "a motorcycle with a motor that produces 5-brake horsepower or less." Standard No. 108 requires motorcycles manufactured on or after January 1, 1973, to be equipped with turn signal lamps. However, in recognition of the limited ability of low-powered motorcycles, Standard No. 108 was amended effective October 14, 1974, to add paragraph S4.1.1.26 which states that "A motor-driven cycle whose speed attainable in 1 mile is 30 mph or less need not be equipped with turn signal lamps." Pursuant to Section 1392(d) this means that a State can validly require a moped to be equipped with turn signal lamps in only two instances: If the moped were manufactured between January 1, 1973 and October 14, 1974, or if it were manufactured on or after October 14, 1974, and has a top speed exceeding 30 mph.

I hope this clarifies the matter for you.

ID: nht76-2.38

DATE: 10/08/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood for F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Trailer Manufacturers Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 9, 1976, asking for an interpretation of two provisions of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You have informed us that "some manufacturers are mounting lamps using lock washers and wing nuts rather than conventional nuts to facilitate the installation of lamps when boat trailers are assembled at the dealer level." S4.3.1 of Standard No. 108 requires that lamps "shall be securely mounted . . . ." and you asked whether wing nuts, used as you described, provide a mounting that complies with S4.3.1. The answer is that this would appear to provide a secure mounting within the intent of Standard No. 108.

S4.3.1.3 requires that front side marker lamps for trailers be located as far to the front as practicable, exclusive of its tongue. You ask whether "the tongue is considered to start where the trailer frame begins to angle inward from its parallel sides . . . ." The answer is yes.

I hope this clarifies Standard No. 108 for you and your members.

YOURS TRULY,

trailer manufacturers association

September 9, 1976

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation NHTSA

With regard to Federal Standard No. 108, confusion has arisen concerning the definitions or interpretation of several items in the standard upon which both ourselves, in the administration of our Trailer Certification Program, and our member manufacturers need an official interpretation.

1. S4.3.1 provides that lamps ". . . shall be securly mounted . . ." Some manufacturers are mounting lamps using lock washers and wing nuts rather than conventional nuts to facilitate the installation of lamps when boat trailers are assembled at the dealer level. When properly used, wing nuts provide a secure fastening, yet we have, informally, heard that they may not be considered as meeting S4.3.1. Do wing nuts, used as indicated above, provide a mounting in accordance with S4.3.1?

2. S4.3.1.3 provides for the location of front side marker lights as far forward as practicable exclusive of the trailer tongue. We have heard, informally, that NHTSA considers that the tongue is considered to start where the trailer frame begins to angle inward from the parallel sides, which location sometimes is quite far to the rear on a boat trailer. If this interpretation is correct, it considerably simplifies boat trailer wiring harnesses and may eliminate the need for angle brackets to mount from side marker lights where the frame is angling inward. Is the above interpretation correct? If not what is the proper interpretation of where the tongue is considered to start?

Executive Secretary DONALD I. REED

ID: AviationUpgradeTechnologies.1

Mr. Torbjrn Lundqvist
Chief Executive Officer
Aviation Upgrade Technologies
6550 So. Pecos Road, #142
Las Vegas, NV 89120

Dear Mr. Lundqvist:

This responds to your letter of October 10, 2002, regarding the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations (NHTSAs) final rule establishing Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 138, "Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems (TPMS)", (67 FR 38704, June 5, 2002).You are concerned about a requirement in the final rule that a lighted indicator on the dashboard must be used to alert the vehicle operator when a tire is significantly under-inflated.You wish to meet with agency representatives to discuss the issue with them in further detail.

We understand that on July 17, 2002, you filed a petition for reconsideration of the TPMS rule, in which you provide a detailed discussion of the alternative TPMS system manufactured by your company whose indicator is external to the vehicle (i.e., the Air Alert Valve Cap System).We also understand that you have contacted NHTSA staff via phone, personal meetings, and written correspondence to discuss your tire pressure monitoring system.If you have new information not currently contained within your petition for reconsideration, we invite you to supplement your earlier submission to the agency. However, we do not believe that a meeting is necessary at this time.Please be assured that all issues raised in your petition will be carefully considered and addressed in our rulemaking response to all petitions for reconsideration received by the agency.

We thank you for your interest in the TPMS rule, and it is our intention to respond to all issues raised in petitions for reconsideration as expediently as possible.A copy of your letter has been included in the rulemaking docket for this final rule.

I hope this information is helpful.If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

cc:Docket No. NHTSA 2000-8572
ref:138
d.11/18/02