ID: nht95-1.89

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 6, 1995

FROM: Terry M. Habshey -- Oxy Tire Incorporated

TO: Philip Recht -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/24/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO TERRY M. HABSHEY (A43; STD. 109; STD. 110; STD. 119; STD. 120; PART 534; PART 575)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Recht,

Your name and address was referred to me by Ms. Terri Droneburg of the Tire I.D. and Record Keeping Dept of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration as the person responsible for giving a legal interpretation as to our request for a D.O.T. n umber for new tires.

I am the president of a tire company located in Montevallo, Alabama just South of Birmingham off interstate Hwy 65. We are a global tire distributer involved in export only. We export mainly to second and third world markets.

We are currently constructing a new building that will house a state of the art manufacturing facility. This facility is somewhat unique in function, which is why I am sure we were directed to you. We have made arrangements to take certain quantitie s of new first line tires from many of the U.S. tire manufacturers on an ongoing basis. These tires consist of original equipment overruns, appearance blems, etc. I would point out that all the tires we receive are new and meet or exceed the minimum st andards set forth by the Department of Transportation. In accordance with our contracts, and for marketing reasons only, we remove most of the information from the sidewalls of the tires. This fact makes our project necessary.

We intend to remove, by a new process, the surface areas on both sides of the carcass (tire). This process does not expose the original cord or bead of the tire, nor does it come in contact with the original tread. It only removes a thin layer of th e sidewall rubber. This is a necessary step in the preparation of the carcass to be able to receive a new sidewall which is achieved by applying a thin layer of new rubber to be followed by the next step in our manufacturing process which is "cooking" o r vulcanizing the new sidewall onto the tire. This is achieved by a process using specially designed equipment developed specifically for this project. The equipment uses heat and light pressure to the area of the tire that needs it (the sidewall). Th is process does not expose the original tread, inner cavity, or bead to heat or pressure. When the process is complete, we have a tire that has had its sidewall remade. It will have a new registered trade name, logo, and identifying marks along with the size, safety information, mounting instructions, maximum and minimum inflating instructions, etc. We would inspect and test each tire we had performed a manufacturing function on. In addition, we currently and will continue to carry a world wide produc t liability insurance policy. We believe and hope that you will agree that this new and unique process is qualified to receive a D.O.T. number designation of our tires as new tires. Since they are, in fact new tires. I want to make it very clear, so t hat their is no misunderstanding, that each and every tire we receive is a new tire recently produced and meets all minimum standards established by the Department of Transportation.

As you know, a new recapped tire is a tire that has had thousands of miles of use and can and does in many cases have small puncture cuts and so forth on the carcass. A new tread is then reapplied which is never as reliable as the original tread.

These differences, we believe, are significant. Our tires are new, they have never been mounted or used. They are recently manufactured with original tread and new in every respect. Also, each tire will be retested by us and we will stand behind ea ch prior to selling. For these reasons we request a new D.O.T. number and wish to be the manufacturer of record. Please excuse the length of this letter, however I thought that a complete outline of all the details were necessary to facilitate your eva luation in rendering a decision. Mr. Recht, please feel free to call me at (205) 665-4771 if you have any questions regarding this project. Or, if necessary, we invite you to visit our facility at your convenience.

ID: nht95-2.66

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 3, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jeffrey D. Shetler -- Manager of Government Relations, Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 2/2/95 LETTER FROM JEFFREY D. SHETLER TO NHTSA OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL

TEXT: Dear Mr. Shetler:

This responds to your letter of February 2, 1995, asking whether Safety Standards Nos. 108 and 123 permit a motorcycle turn signal pilot indicator to be green.

You have noted that, under Table III of Standard No. 108, SAE J588 NOV84 is the appropriate standard that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has incorporated by reference for motorcycle turn signal lamps. You have further noted t hat the SAE standard specifies requirements for turn signal pilot indicators if the front turn signal lamps are not readily visible to the driver. Finally, paragraph 5.4.3.3 of SAE J588 specifies that the indicator, if located on the outside of the vehi cle, should emit a yellow-colored light. On the other hand, Standard No. 123, which specifies requirements for turn signal lamp identification, does not specify a color for turn signal pilot indicators.

You believe that SAE J588 was written with passenger cars in mind and that its color and area requirements are specified because the location of an outside indicator lamp is further away than a lamp located inside the vehicle on the instrument panel. Yo u also believe that Standard No. 123 does not need to address distance from the driver's eye because the turn signal lamp will always be within a reasonable distance from the driver's eye. Thus, you have concluded that any pilot lamp color would be acce ptable.

We have reviewed specifications of both the SAE and Standard No. 123. SAE J588 NOV84 Turn Signal Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles Less Than 2032 MM in Overall Width is incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108, and, under Table III, is the standard s pecified for motorcycle turn signal lamps. Because paragraph S5.1.1 of Standard No. 108 does not contain a section modifying the applicability of J588 to motorcycles, all the requirements of J588 apply to motorcycles, including turn signal pilot indicat ors and their color. All that Standard No. 123 does, through Table III, is to specify the shape of the turn signal indicator. It is silent as to the color of the indicator.

We believe that you are correct in your conclusion that J588 was not written with motorcycles in mind, at least for two-wheeled motorcycles such as Kawasaki makes. Two colors are prescribed by SAE J588, the choice of which depends on the location of the indicator. Under paragraph 5.4.3.2, a green-colored light "with a minimum area of 18 sq. mm." must be used "if the illuminated indicator is located inside the vehicle." Under 5.4.3.3 a yellow-colored light with "a minimum projected illuminated area of 60 sq. mm." must be used "if the illuminated indicators are located on the outside of the vehicle, for example on the front fenders." Since two-wheeled motorcycles do not have enclosed cabins, all references to "inside" and "outside" the vehicle are inap posite.

Since you brought this matter to our attention, we have conducted an informal survey of the color of turn signal indicators on motorcycles sold in the United States. We find that the predominant color is amber, though Harley-Davidson, accounting for 12% of the market, uses green. We view the use of either color as in accord with J588. Therefore, if Kawasaki wishes to change its indicator color from amber to green, it will not violate Standard No. 108 by doing so.

As J588's color specifications are coupled with those for the minimum illuminated area of the display, and you have not raised the question of an appropriate size for a green turn signal indicator, we call your attention to paragraph S5.2.2 of Standard N o. 123 which requires that the display for turn signal lamps and other equipment "be visible to a seated operator under daylight conditions."

If you have any further questions, Taylor Vinson of this office will be glad to answer them for you (202-366-5263).

ID: nht92-3.22

DATE: 10/08/92

FROM: T. KOUCHI, -- DIRECTOR & GENERAL MANAGER, AUTOMOTIVE EQUIPMENT DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, STANLEY ELECTRIC CO., LTD.

TO: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: RE.: PHOTOMETRIC TEST METHOD OF HMSL

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-1-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO T. KOUCHI (A40; STD. 108)

TEXT: We Would like to ask you some questions about photometric test method of High-Mounted Stop Lamp (HMSL) using Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) as light sources.

BACKGROUND: HMSL is required to conform to SAE J186a which is referenced in Table III of FMVSS 108. We know, however, that SAE J1889 has been published as a technical guide to standard practice for LED lighting devices. So, in making photometric measurement of HMSL incorporating LEDs, we usually follow testing method described in Sec. 3.1.5 (Photometry Test) of that SAE document.

PROBLEMS: When we conduct photometric measurements of HMSL incorporating LEDs according to the test method of SAE J1889 as mentioned above, the lamp must be energized, for the measurement of photometric minimums, "until either internal heat buildup saturation has occurred or 30 minutes has elapsed, whichever occurs first" as recommended in Sec. 3.1.5.3. However, since it is rather difficult to determine the exact time of internal heat buildup saturation every time when measuring lamps, we make it a rule to conduct measurement 30 minutes after the lamp energization. We think it is reasonable that the lamp should be energized for stabilization beforehand, because the light output of a lamp changes with time at the beginning of operation due to the unique character of LEDs. But, after energization for such a long time as 30 minutes, the light output decreases by approximately 30% of the initial value depending on the type of lamp.

So we must always allow a margin of the same percentage when designing initial light output of the lamp, which necessitates increase in the number of LEDs used, lamp size, product cost, and, therefore, user's expense.

SOLUTION: To solve the above mentioned problems, and for reasons as will be stated in the following, we consider that the warm-up time of HMSL incorporating LEDs should be 5 minutes for measurement of photometric minimums.

Reasons: 1) The time duration is usually within a minute or 3 minutes at the longest that a driver keeps to step on the brake pedal. We do not have the statistical data about this time duration, but some members of our staff who drive a car everyday gave us similar values.

2) The light output of the lamp does not always stabilize in 5 minutes, but it is not necessary to take a warm-up time above the time duration the lamp is continuously operated in real driving.

3) SAE J575 "Warpage Test on Devices with Plastic Components" prescribes, in Table 1, operating cycles of individual signal lamps during the warpage test, and it specifies 5 on-5 off operation for a stop lamp. This specification of 5-minute energization deserves attention because it seems to be established taking into consideration actual way of usage of stop lamps.

Based on the above explanation, we would like you to revise FMVSS 108 by adding a new provision, in certain place thereof, specifying that HMSL incorporating LEDs shall be energized for 5 minutes before measurement of photometric minimums. Your view on this matter is highly appreciated.

Furthermore, regarding actual steps of photometric measurement, we ask you to permit the following. We would like to have your comment on this matter also.

STEPS: 1. Measure luminous intensity at H-V axis after the lamp was energized for 5 minutes.

2. After the light output stabilized, measure luminous intensities at all test points including H-V axis.

3. From the results of Steps 1 and 2, calculate the decrease rate of the luminous intensity at H-V axis from the time the lamp was energized for 5 minutes to the time the light output stabilized.

4. Multiply the luminous intensities at test points excluding H-V axis obtained at Step 2 by the reciprocal of the decrease rate calculated at Step 3, to estimate the luminous intensities to be measured at respective test points after the lamp was energized for 5 minutes. Then the individual estimated values are deemed the measured photometric values and they are recorded.

ID: nht95-7.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 14, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Bob Clement -- U.S. House of Representatives

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 10/03/95 Letter from Bob Clement to Ricardo Martinez

TEXT: Dear Congressman Clement:

Thank you for your letter of October 3, 1995, enclosing correspondence from Mr. Dale Allen Pommer concerning his attempts to have a third seat belt installed in the back seat of his 1983 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer. Mr. Pommer has been told that this cannot be done because of safety laws. You requested comments on Mr. Pommer's letter. As explained below, there is not Federal prohibition against the modification Mr. Pommer would like done to his vehicle. However, Federal law does place some limits on how the modification is done. The installation of additional seat belts must be done in a way that does not compromise the performance of the existing seat belts.

Some background information about the agency may be useful. NHTSA has the authority to issue federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Federal motor vehicle safety standards are minimum standards, and may be exceeded by manufacturers. Federal law prohibits the manufacture or sale of any new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment which does not conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect at the time of manufacture.

After the first retail sale, there is a limit on the modifications that can be made by certain businesses to vehicles. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard (49 USC @ 30122). In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition would require a business which modifies motor vehicles to ensure that it does not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard.

A safety belt is an item of motor vehicle equipment and all safety belts sold in the United States must be certified as complying with Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, regardless of whether the belts are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as a replacement part, Standard No. 209 sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies. The additional belt which might be added to Mr. Pommer's vehicle must comply with the requirements of Standard No. 209.

In addition to Standard No. 209, the agency has issued two additional safety standards which apply to new vehicles and affect safety belts: Standard No. 208, Occupant Crast Protection, which sets forth requirements for occupant protection at the various seating positions in vehicles, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, which establishes strength and location requirements for seat belt anchorages. The 1983 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer would have been required to have, at a minimum, a lap belt at each rear designated seating position.

A "designated seating position" is defined by NHTSA regulations as:

any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design and vehicle design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion . . . Any bench or split-bench seat . . . having greater than 50 inches of hip room (measured in accordance with SAE Standard J1100(a)) shall have not less than three designated seating positions.

Since the 1982 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer had a rear bench seat with 49.5 inches of hip room, that seat was required to have a minimum of two lap belts.

The "make inoperative" prohibition discussed earlier would not prohibit a business from adding a third seat belt to Mr. Pommer's vehicle. In addition, the anchorages would not have to comply with Standard No. 210. However, in adding the third seat belt, is is possible that the existing belts and anchorages would have to be relocated. The businesses contacted by Mr. Pommer may be concerned that the belts and anchorages could not be removed and replaced without "making inoperative" the compliance of those belts and anchorages.

I hope this information has been helpful.

ID: nht94-7.38

DATE: March 17, 1994

FROM: Eric T. Stewart -- Engineering Manager, Mid Bus

TO: Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Reference: Amendment to FMVSS 571.217 published in the Federal Register November 11, 1992 (Docket 88-21 notice No. 3)

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/1/94 from John Womack to Eric T. Stewart (A42; Std. 217); Also attached to letter dated 7/7/93 from John Womack to Thomas D. Turner

TEXT:

The background to this amendment indicates that the "final rule requires a minimum of 1 inch wide retro-reflective tape ...." (page 49421). The actual amendment reads that the retro-reflective tape is to be "a minimum 3 centimeters wide". (page 49425) (CFR571.217 S 5.53(c)). These two dimensions are not the same since 1.00 inch is equal to 2.54 centimeters.

I believe that the intent of this rule making was to make the retro-reflective tape 1.00 inch wide and an error has taken place in converting the dimension to metric units. I am requesting written clarification indicating how wide NHTSA wants the retro-reflective tape around the outside perimeter of a school bus emergency door.

If you have any questions, please call me at (419) 221-2525.

ID: nht93-6.16

DATE: August 17, 1993

FROM: Erika Z. Jones -- Mayer, Brown & Platt

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/7/93 from John Womack to Erika Z. Jones (A41; Std. 213)

TEXT:

I am writing to confirm our interpretation of FMVSS 213, S5.2.3.2, regarding the covering required on a surface that can be contactable by a child's head.

That provision requires that a contactable surface be covered by material with a specified compression deflection and a minimum thickness of 3/4 inch for materials having a 25 percent compression-deflection resistance of less than 1.8 psi.

As I understand this provision, the required covering material need not be provided in a single piece, as long as the material taken together would satisfy the compression deflection and minimum thickness requirements. Specifically, we understand that the requirement could be met by providing energy absorbing material in two pieces -- one piece bonded to the seat shell and one piece contained within the back of the permanently attached seat cushion, if the combined thickness of the two pieces is at least 3/4 of an inch.

We appreciate knowing whether you concur with this understanding of the requirements of FMVSS 213. Thank you for your attention to this request.

ID: nht94-1.86

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 17, 1994

FROM: Eric T. Stewart -- Engineering Manager, Mid Bus

TO: Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Reference: Amendment to FMVSS 571.217 published in the Federal Register November 11, 1992 (Docket 88-21 notice No. 3)

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/1/94 from John Womack to Eric T. Stewart (A42; Std. 217); Also attached to letter dated 7/7/93 from John Womack to Thomas D. Turner

TEXT:

The background to this amendment indicates that the "final rule requires a minimum of 1 inch wide retro-reflective tape ...." (page 49421). The actual amendment reads that the retro-reflective tape is to be "a minimum 3 centimeters wide". (page 49425) (CFR571.217 S 5.53(c)). These two dimensions are not the same since 1.00 inch is equal to 2.54 centimeters.

I believe that the intent of this rule making was to make the retro-reflective tape 1.00 inch wide and an error has taken place in converting the dimension to metric units. I am requesting written clarification indicating how wide NHTSA wants the retro- reflective tape around the outside perimeter of a school bus emergency door.

If you have any questions, please call me at (419) 221-2525.

ID: nht91-3.29

DATE: April 26, 1991

FROM: John Marcum -- Electric Vehicles, S.A.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-11-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to John Marcum (A38; Part 591; VSA S108(j))

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter of 22 April, 1991 concerning EVSA's request for a temporary exemption from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards for its prototype electric minibus. I understand that the exemption is not possible since it was requested after the vehicle was manufactured.

As you point out, however, this imported minibus is evidently exempted from compliance for up to 5 years since it is being used for "research, investigations studies or demonstrations or training". The "research, investigations and studies" references seems clear enough, but I would appreciate clarification as to whether "demonstration and training" can include the carrying of passengers for demonstration and evaluation services. If so, are there any special conditions that must be observed. For example, could the passengers pay for the rides or should the rides be free? Is there a limit as to the length of time during which the passenger demonstration phase is scheduled?

We are reviewing the regulations you sent us and will provide any further information that may be needed.

ID: nht69-2.35

DATE: 10/21/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; B. M. Crittenden for Robert Brenner; NHTSA

TO: Department of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of August 20, 1969, concerning multiple compartment tail, stop and turn signal lamps.

The answers to your specific questions (numbered in accordance with your letter) are as follows:

1. (a)(b) If one compartment or lamp meets the photometric requirements, the additional compartments or lamps are considered as additional lamps and are, therefore, not regulated by Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 except by S3.1.2.

(c) The manufacturer has no choice in interpreting paragraph S3.1.1.7. However, the manufacturer does have a choice in how he designs his turn signal lamps to comply with S3.1.1.7.

2. In your reference to Mr. Baker's letter of May 13, it was interpreted that "all lamps or compartments shall be photometered simultaneously." Paragraph S3.1.1.7 clearly states that "photometric requirements . . . . shall be provided by one or a combination of the compartments or lamps." Therefore, if two lamps or compartments of a three lamp or three compartment lamp meet the photometric requirements, they shall be photometered together as a unit and the third lamp or compartment is considered an "additional lamp."

(a) Individual tests are permitted to determine whether one compartment actually does comply.

(b) No. The intent of paragraph S3.1.1.7 is clear. This section permits the use of either one or a combination of the compartments or lamps in meeting the photometric requirements.

3. (a)(b) Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 requires one tail lamp and one stop lamp on each side of the vehicle. If one lamp of a multiple lamp or one compartment of a multiple compartment lamp meets the requirements, 1(a) above would apply. If two or more lamps or compartments are necessary to meet the requirements, they shall be photometered together as a unit.

4. (a) I am not familiar with State requirements "that each rear lamp on a vehicle must perform a specific function and be approved for that function," and do not read California Vehicle Code Section 24003 as a requirement of this nature. There is no such requirement in Standard No. 108. Lamps on a vehicle, and not required by the Standard, are generally subject to regulation by the States.

(b) Same as 1(a).

(c) Same as 1(a).

5. (a) If one compartment meets the requirements, 1(a) applies. If both are needed to meet the requirements, they are to be tested as a single unit.

(b) Same as 5(a).

In general, we believe that the above replies answer your several questions. However, should you have any additional questions with respect to a specific rear lighting arrangement for a specific vehicle, we would be pleased to provide further clarifying information.

August 20, 1969

Robert Brenner Acting Director National Highway Safety Bureau

We have a copy of a letter to Mr. Charles W. Heyer of Electrical Testing Laboratories from Mr. Charles A. Baker regarding photometric test procedures. That letter quite clearly points out the method in which the National Highway Safety Bureau desires multicompartment turn signal lamps to be photometered. However, it raises additional questions concerning procedures to be used both by a laboratory in determining compliance of a device with the Federal standards and by a manufacturer in designing a lamp to meet those standards.

The photometric requirements in SAE(Illegible Word) were developed several years ago before multicompartment lamps were in common use. These(Illegible Word) reasonably well fulfilled the need in upgrading the performance of single-compartment lamps at that time. Later, experience with some of the original multicompartment lamps and complaints about excessive brightness of the taillamps and stoplamps on vehicles brought about a need for revising the standards.

At that time, each section of a multicompartment lamp was treated in the same manner as an individual lamp, since their performance was little different than that of individual lamps set side by side. Therefore, each compartment of a three-compartment lamp had to(Illegible Words) and the 80 candlepower minimum for a turn signal lamp. In addition, each compartment was allowed to have a maximum intensity of 15 candlepower at or above(Illegible Word) for the taillamp and 300 candlepower in red for the turn signal lamp.

The above maximum values were reasonable when only one or two lamps were used on each side of the vehicle. Unfortunately, the first three-compartment lamps were built with such high light output that each compartment barely(Illegible Word) with the maximum. This meant in some cases that the combined taillamp output on each sivo of the vehicle was over 45 candlepower and the combined turn signal output was barely below the total maximum of(Illegible Word) candlepower, thereby being annoyingly bright to following drivers.

The manufacturers and the SAE Lighting Committee recognized this problem and after a number of demonstration of systems and rewriting of proposed crafts developed the multicompartment rear lamp specification in SAE J575d. The original brightness problem appeares to be quite simple and could have been solved merely by reducing the maximum intensities allowed multicompartment lamps; however, the manufacturers more concerned that they would then be squeezed between a high minimum value for each compartment and a low maximum value which did not allow sufficient leeway for normal design and production.

The SAE studies indicated that with the types of multiple compartment lamps that were in use about three years ago, the values in SAE(Illegible Word) applying to the total light output of the multicompartment lamp were reasonable. This standard did not cover every condition of brightness and lens area that might be involved in providing anytime effectiveness while limiting nighttime brightness to reduce annoyance, but it was a first step in this direction.

Manufacturers who have attempted to comply with both FMVSS 108 and SAE J576d have differences in interpretation of your requirements. We would like to have the following points clarified so we do not cause the manufacturers unnecessary difficulties when we test devices for compliance with Federal and State standards:

1. Section 3.1.1.7 of FMVSS No. 108 specifies in part that the photometric requirements "shall be provided by one or a combination of the compartments or lamps".

(a) Does this mean that if one compartment or lamp meets the minimum and maximum requirements, the other compartments or lamps can have photometric output either below the(Illegible Word) required or above the maximum permitted?

(b) Does this mean that(Illegible Word) lamps may be used to meet the minimum requirements with the others adding stray light, provided the maximum requirement of 15 candlepower in the case of taillamp and 100 candlepower in the case of turn signal lamps is not exceeded when all lamps or compartments are lighted simultaneously?

(c) Does the manufacturer have the choice in interpreting this section as to which method is most favorable to him for his particular design?

2. Mr. Baker's letter of May 12 states that "The sums of the measured candlepowers at the test points of separately photometered lamps or compartments of a combination shall not be acceptable", whereby implying that all lamps or compartments shall be photometered simultaneously.

(a) What was the purpose of stating in Section 3.1.1.7 that photometric requirements shall be provided by "one" or a combination of compartments if individual tests are not permitted to cetorine whether one compartment actually does comply?

(b) If it is the intent that the compartments shall be measured simultaneously, should not the above section be recorded to eliminate the implied alternative of having only one of the lamps comply?

3. FMVSS No. 108 makes no mention of the method of testing multicompartment and multilamp taillamps and stoplamps, as Section 3.1.1.7 applies only to turn signals.

(a) Do the standards require each compartment of a taillamp or stoplamp to be tested separately to show compliance with J575c, or are they to be tested simultaneously as required of turn signals?

(b) Must each separate lamp or individual compartment meet the taillamp-to-stoplamp ratio, or is it sufficient that the compartments when lighted together meet the(Illegible Word) even though a particular lamp or compartment does not comply individually.

4. The California Vehicle Code contains a Section J1000 which prohibits a motor vehicle from being equipped with any lamp or illuminating device not specifically required or permitted by the Code. The manufacturers would like to interpret Section(Illegible Words) permitting any number of additional taillamps and and stoplamps on each side, provided only the lamp meets the requirements of J575c. The only limitation they propose is that all of the lamps taken together do not exceed the maximum candlepower requirements in(Illegible Word), do an example of(Illegible Word) of the(Illegible Word) of the effectiveness of the(Illegible Words) lamp. They would also use photometric(Illegible Word) showing that the total stoplamp to total taillamp output complies with the ratio requirements of J575c; again; to prove non-impairment.

(a) Do the Federal standards preempt States from enforcing present requirements that each rear lamp on a vehicle must perform a specific function and to approved for that function?

(b) Are all of the seneraio lamps in a multiple rear lamp arrangement considered by the bureau as comprising one lamp and(Illegible Word) to be taken as such by the states in enforcing identical standards?

(c)(Illegible Word) the Federal standard merely require the minimum of one stoplamp and raillamp on each side of the vehicle to meet the requirements of(Illegible Word), with the additional optional lamps to be provided at the manufacturers discretion regardless of whatever standards the states may have for any such supplemental lamps?

5. Some modern designs of multicompartment lamps have three compartment configurations where the large(Illegible Word) compartment is a backup lamp and on each side of it is a taillamp-stoplamp combination. Other configurations include a three compartment lamp centeres; on the rear of the vehicle where the(Illegible Word) compartment is a taillamp-stoplamp combination and the compartments on each side of it perform only taillamp functions.

(a) Where two rear lamp compartments are separated by a backup lamp compartment, is the entire lamp to be tested as a simple unit as though the rear lamp sections were adjacent to each other?

(b) With respect to the cervico where a taillamp is on each side of a center-mounted stoplamp, are the taillamps considered a part of the physically integral three-compartment center lamp for the purposes of determining compliance with minimum and maximum specification and ratio requirements? Or, is the taillamp on each side of the(Illegible Word) to be tested simultaneously with the other taillamps on that particular side of the vehicle for the purposes of determining compliance?

The manufacturers have been quite(Illegible Word) in developing different variations of multiple lamps and multicompartment lamps and each has his own interpretation as to how his particular arrangement might be considered as complying with a specific federal or(Illegible Word) standard. We have been asked a number of questions such as those above as a result of our program of purchasing and testing(Illegible Word) for conformance to the standards.

We would very such appreciate your giving consideration to this problem and providing us with specific information that we can use(Illegible Word) injuries from foreign and American manufacturers and in using the correct test procedure for determining compliance of a specific device with the requirements.

WARREN M. HEATH Commander Engineering Section

be: George Gaudaen, SAE

Ford Motor Company

June 10, 1975

Richard B. Dyson, Esq. Assistant Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

Re: 1975 Monarch Rear Taillamp Part No. (2)(A)(2) - IP2R(2)S(3)T75CT

We are writing to seek the express confirmation of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of the preemptive effect of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108, 49 CFR 571.108 ("Standard 108") on passenger car lighting, as was provided by NHTSA in Motorcycle Industry Council, Inc. v. Younger, No. Civ. S74-120 (D.C.E.D. cal., Sept. 24, 1974).

This request is being made so that we may respond to the attached correspondence (Attachment I) from Mr. Warren M. Heath, Commander; California Highway Patrol, concerning compliance with Section 25950 * of the California Vehicle Code by the 1975 Monarch rear taillamps. Mr. Heath's letters of April 8 and May 25 contend that the amber lens applied over a red lens on one of the Monarch taillamp compartments violates that provision of the California Vehicle Code Section 25950 which does not permit a taillamp to be amber when unlighted. On this basis, Mr. Heath has stated that similarly equipped 1976 model year Monarchs will not be eligible for registration in California.

* Section 25950 provides in pertinent part: "(b) All lamps and reflectors visible from the rear of a vehicle shall be red, except that stop lamps, turn signal lamps and front side-marker lamps required by Section 25100 may show amber to the rear.

This section applies to the color of a lamp whether lighted or unlighted, and to any reflector exhibiting or reflecting perceptible light of 0.05 candlepower or more per foot - candle of incident illumination, except that taillamps, stop lamps and turn signal lamps visible to the rear may be white when unlighted."

We believe the provisions of Section 25950 are prempted by Standard 108, and that pursuant to Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 USC 1392(d)), California is precluded from the enforcement of any nonidentical standard.

As the NHTSA has confirmed on several occasions, the Standard's lighting requirements are intended to be comprehensive and exclusive, and leave no room for differing state standards. The statement of the Administrator cited by the Court in the Motorcycle Industry Council judgment is particularly pertinent here where California seeks to enforce a differing standard for the precise function (i.e., taillamp color) covered by Standard 108. (Letter from James B. Gregory, Administrator NHTSA, to W. Pudinski, Commissioner, Dept. of Highway Patrol, dated Nov. 8, 1973, N40-30 (RED).)

Compliance of the Monarch rear lamps with the requirements of Standard 108 has been confirmed by tests conducted at Ford. (Attachment II) Therefore, we seek an opinion on the issue of preemption with respect to the differing California requirements of Section 25950.

For your assistance, we are enclosing color photos of the Monarch and Monarch Ghia rear lamps which demonstrate their appearance when lighted and unlighted. (Attachment III) Photo #1 is of the Monarch rear lamp unlighted. Photo #2 shows the taillamp (3 exterior red compartments) lighted. Photos #3 and #4 are of the Monarch Ghia.

If you have any questions on this matter, please so inform me. I may be reached by telephone at (313) 337-6462. We hope to receive a response at your earliest convenience.

Nancy Kolodny Staff Attorney

Attachments

ID: aiam0338

Dear Mr. Verrill: #This is in reply to your letter of May 3, 1971 requesting an additional interpretation of the Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulation. #If in fact, the vehicle manufactured is not considered a motor vehicle within the meaning of the Act and the mini-bike interpretation (34 F.R. 15416)(copy enclosed), then Part 574, the Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulation, and section 113 (15 U.S.C. 1402) will be inapplicable. #Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel;