ID: 07-004380-3as

ID: 0705r

Mr. Jeffrey D. Shetler
Manager of Government Relations
Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A.
P.O. Box 25252
Santa Ana, CA 92718-2016

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 that 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 vehicle, 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. You 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 acceptable.

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 specified 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 indicators 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 inapposite.

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 No. 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).

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:108 d:5/3/95

ID: 10878

Mr. Musa K. Farmand
Gonz555-B Blanding Boulevard
Orange Park, FL 32073

Dear Mr. Farmand:

This responds to your letter of April 27, 1995. Your letter concerns a law suit in which you represent plaintiffs injured in an automobile accident. In this law suit, the counsel for the defendant has moved to amend his answer to assert that 49 CFR 571.208, paragraph S4.1.5.2(c)(2) requires each state to allow for mitigation of damages in any seat belt use law and that paragraph preempts the Florida mandatory seat belt law. According to your letter, the Florida law "does not allow a mitigation of damages defense with respect to an alleged failure to wear a seat belt." As explained below, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration agrees with you that the Florida safety belt use law is neither expressly nor impliedly preempted by Federal law.

Purpose of Paragraph S4.1.5.2(c)(2)

Before discussing the issue of preemption, I want to discuss the background and purpose of Paragraph S4.1.5.2(c)(2). That paragraph was added to Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208) as part of a final rule issued July 17, 1984 concerning automatic restraints (49 FR 28962). That final rule required all new cars to have automatic protection (air bags or automatic belts) starting in the 1990 model year. The final rule included a provision that the automatic restraint requirement would be rescinded if the Secretary of Transportation determined, not later than April 1, 1989, that a sufficient number of States had enacted belt use laws meeting certain minimum criteria to cover at least two-thirds of the U.S. population (paragraph S4.1.5). Under S4.1.5, the Secretary was not required to make any determination about any State safety belt laws. In fact, the Secretary never did so, in part because not enough States adopted mandatory seat belt use laws of any

sort prior to April 1, 1989. Because no determination was made under S4.1.5, the automatic restraint requirements are now in effect for all passenger cars.

The minimum criteria were set forth in S4.1.5.2 of Standard No. 208 . One of the criteria was "a provision specifying that the violation of the belt usage requirement may be used to mitigate damages..." (S4.1.5.2(c)(2)). However, S4.1.5 neither purported to require nor was intended to require States to enact safety belt use laws. In addition, S4.1.5 did not require that any State safety belt use laws had to incorporate the minimum criteria of S4.1.5.2. Paragraph S4.1.5 merely provided that the Secretary would rescind the automatic restraint requirement if he or she determined that a sufficient number of States enacted laws which met the criteria of S4.1.5.2 by April 1, 1989.

Preemption

The Florida safety belt use law is not and never has been either expressly or impliedly preempted by Federal law.

Standard No. 208 was issued under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 which expressly preempts state laws only to the extent provided by section 30103. That section provides for the express preemption of State motor vehicle safety standards that are not identical to Federal standards. However, the Florida seat belt law is not a motor vehicle safety standard within the meaning of Chapter 301, since it does not regulate motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment performance. Accordingly, the Florida law is not expressly preempted.

The Florida law is not impliedly preempted because (1) Congress has not occupied the field of regulation of the behavior of motor vehicle occupants; and (2) the Florida seat belt law does not conflict with any Federal law or interfere with the objectives of Federal law.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have other questions or need some additional information, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:208 d:5/9/95 Your letter correctly notes that this provision was deleted from Standard No. 208 by a final rule issued on September 2, 1993 (58 FR 46551).

ID: 10878r

Mr. Musa K. Farmand
Gonz555-B Blanding Boulevard
Orange Park, FL 32073

Dear Mr. Farmand:

This responds to your letter of April 27, 1995. Your letter concerns a law suit in which you represent plaintiffs injured in an automobile accident. In this law suit, the counsel for the defendant has moved to amend his answer to assert that 49 CFR 571.208, paragraph S4.1.5.2(c)(2) requires each state to allow for mitigation of damages in any seat belt use law and that paragraph preempts the Florida mandatory seat belt law. According to your letter, the Florida law "does not allow a mitigation of damages defense with respect to an alleged failure to wear a seat belt." As explained below, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration agrees with you that the Florida safety belt use law is neither expressly nor impliedly preempted by Federal law.

Purpose of Paragraph S4.1.5.2(c)(2)

Before discussing the issue of preemption, I want to discuss the background and purpose of Paragraph S4.1.5.2(c)(2). That paragraph was added to Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208) as part of a final rule issued July 17, 1984 concerning automatic restraints (49 FR 28962). That final rule required all new cars to have automatic protection (air bags or automatic belts) starting in the 1990 model year. The final rule included a provision that the automatic restraint requirement would be rescinded if the Secretary of Transportation determined, not later than April 1, 1989, that a sufficient number of States had enacted belt use laws meeting certain minimum criteria to cover at least two-thirds of the U.S. population (paragraph S4.1.5). Under S4.1.5, the Secretary was not required to make any determination about any State safety belt laws. In fact, the Secretary never did so, in part because not enough States adopted mandatory seat belt use laws of any

sort prior to April 1, 1989. Because no determination was made under S4.1.5, the automatic restraint requirements are now in effect for all passenger cars.

The minimum criteria were set forth in S4.1.5.2 of Standard No. 208 . One of the criteria was "a provision specifying that the violation of the belt usage requirement may be used to mitigate damages..." (S4.1.5.2(c)(2)). However, S4.1.5 neither purported to require nor was intended to require States to enact safety belt use laws. In addition, S4.1.5 did not require that any State safety belt use laws had to incorporate the minimum criteria of S4.1.5.2. Paragraph S4.1.5 merely provided that the Secretary would rescind the automatic restraint requirement if he or she determined that a sufficient number of States enacted laws which met the criteria of S4.1.5.2 by April 1, 1989.

Preemption

The Florida safety belt use law is not and never has been either expressly or impliedly preempted by Federal law.

Standard No. 208 was issued under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 which expressly preempts state laws only to the extent provided by section 30103. That section provides for the express preemption of State motor vehicle safety standards that are not identical to Federal standards. However, the Florida seat belt law is not a motor vehicle safety standard within the meaning of Chapter 301, since it does not regulate motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment performance. Accordingly, the Florida law is not expressly preempted.

The Florida law is not impliedly preempted because (1) Congress has not occupied the field of regulation of the behavior of motor vehicle occupants; and (2) the Florida seat belt law does not conflict with any Federal law or interfere with the objectives of Federal law.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have other questions or need some additional information, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref: 208 d:6/14/95 Your letter correctly notes that this provision was deleted from Standard No. 208 by a final rule issued on September 2, 1993 (58 FR 46551).

ID: nht93-4.4

DATE: May 19, 1993

FROM: Richard A. Zander -- Project Engineer, AlliedSignal Automotive Proving Grounds

TO: Office of Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/23/94 from John Womack to Richard A. Zander (A42; Std. 105)

TEXT:

I am writing to obtain your official interpretation of the following statement in 49 CFR 57, 105 Section S5.1.4.2(a) "each vehicle with GVWR of 10,000 lbs. or less shall be capable of making 5 fade stops (10 fade stops on the second test) from 60 mph at a deceleration not lower than 15 fpsps for each stop, followed by 5 fade stops at the maximum deceleration attainable from 5 to 15 fpsps."

I am requesting your official interpretation of the phrase "at a deceleration not lower than 15 fpsps for each stop." As further reference Section S7.11.2.1 states "Attain the required deceleration within 1 second and, as a minimum, maintain it for the remainder of the stopping time."

Within the industry, I know of three different interpretations of this statement, there could by more:

1. The average deceleration for the stop must be greater than 15 fpsps. The average deceleration is calculated from one second after the stop begins to a vehicle speed of 5 mph.

2. After 1 second the deceleration can not drop below 15 fpsps even for an instant. If the deceleration drops below 15 fpsps at any time it is considered a failure even if the average deceleration is greater than 15 fpsps. 3. The average deceleration for the stop must be greater than 15 fpsps and the deceleration must be greater than 15 fpsps for at least 75% of the stop excluding the first second of the stop.

In the "Laboratory procedures for FMVSS No. 105-83, TP-105-83-00, dated January 31, 1984, page 1.49, data sheet No. 1.16 for the fade stops, requests the following information for the deceleration "Average Sust Decel" see pages 1 and 2 of Attachment A. Therefore, it appears that NHTSA's interpretation of the statement "at a deceleration not lower than 15 fpsps for each stop" is "the average sustained deceleration."

Pages 3 & 4 of attachment A are a typical fade stops. The X axis is time and on the Y axis is deceleration and pedal force.

Interpretation ONE would consider these a pass because the average deceleration was greater than 15 fpsps and the pedal force did not exceed 150 lbs.

Interpretation TWO would consider these a fail because several data points fell below 15 fpsps. This interpretation appears to not consider the intent of the fade procedure. The intent being that a vehicle be capable of making multiple

high deceleration stops in a short period of time without drastic changes in effectiveness. Thus the recovery stops have a maximum and a minimum pedal force requirement based on the baseline check stops.

Maintaining an average deceleration of at least 15 fpsps insures adequate heat build up in the linings to determine if they will fade or drastically change effectiveness.

The deceleration could fall below 15 fpsps for short periods of time due to instrumentation noise or in stop fade which was not immediately compensated for by the driver. Interpretation THREE would consider these a pass because the average deceleration is greater than 15 fpsps and the deceleration is greater than 15 fpsps for 75% of the stop after the first one second.

Considering the intent of the fade procedure, the 75% requirement is not necessary to insure adequate heat build-up in the linings.

The NHTSA interpretation "average sustained deceleration" would also consider these a pass.

I am also requesting that you send the latest version of the test procedure for FMVSS No. 105 from the office of vehicle compliance. Please send to:

Richard Z. Zander Allied Signal Automotive Proving Grounds 3214 State Road 2 New Carlisle, IN 46552

Thank you for your time and effort to respond to my requests.

ATTACHMENT

Laboratory Procedures for Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105-83; TP-105-83-00; January 31, 1984. (Text omitted)

ID: nht93-6.29

DATE: September 2, 1993

FROM: Donald W. Vierimaa -- Vice President-Engineering, Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: TTMA Engineering Committee; Tank Conference Engineering Committee; The 3M Company; Reflexite

TITLE: Conspicuity

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/7/94 from John Womack to Donald W. Vierimaa (A42; Std. 108)

TEXT:

We request three interpretations pertaining to S5.7 of FMVSS 108.

Conversion from S1 to English linear dimensions

May we consider the following nominal English dimensions equivalent for the purpose of compliance with S5.7 of FMVSS 108?

FMVSS 108 English English Citation Item Metric (actual**) (nominal)

5.7.1.3(b) Length of 300 mm 11.8 inches 12 inches red or white +/- 150 mm +/- 5.9 inches +/- 6 inches block of (150 mm (5.9 inches (6 inches sheeting to 450 mm) to 17.7 in.) to 18 inches)

5.7.1.3(d) Width of Grade 50 mm min* 1.9 inches 2 inches DOT C2 sheeting

5.7.1.3(d) Width of Grade 75 mm min* 2.9 inches 3 inches DOT C3 sheeting

5.7.1.3(d) Width of Grade 100 mm min* 3.9 inches 4 inches DOT C4 sheeting

5.7.1.4(b) Edge of white 75 mm min. 2.9 inches 3 inches sheeting to any lamp

5.7.1.4(c) Edge of red 75 mm min. 2.9 inches 3 inches sheeting to an amber lamp

5.7.1.4.1(a) Height of 1.25 m 49.2 inches 49 inches horizontal sheeting on rear

5.7.1.4.1(b) Length of 300 mm min* 11.8 inches 12 inches sheeting in upper contours of trailer

5.7.1.4.2(a) Height of 1.25 m 49.2 inches 49 inches horizontal sheeting on side of trailer

5.7.1.4.2(b) Alternative 25 mm min* 0.98 inches 1 inch width of two strips of Grade DOT C2 sheeting and their separation 25 mm max 0.98 inches 1 inch

5.7.1.5 Sheeting 3 mm min 0.118 inches 1/8 (0.125) certification inch character height

5.7.1.5 Sheeting 300 mm max 11.8 inches 12 inches certification marking separation

5.7.2.2(b) Alternative 100 mm max 3.9 inches 4 inches reflex reflector center to center separation

5.7.2.3 Reflex 3 mm min 0.118 inches 1/8 (0.125) reflector inch certification character height

* Assumed to be minimum. ** Significant decimal places for comparison.

The nominal English dimensions without underlining would appear to be acceptable conversions since they exceed the minimum metric dimensions. The nominal English dimensions underlined would, however, exceed the metric maximum dimension.

SAE J1322 JUN85, "Preferred Conversion Values for Dimensions in Lighting - Inch-Pound Units/S1," describes how English units may be converted to S1 (metric) units, but does not describe how to convert S1 units to English Units.

Vertical Location of Rear and Side Sheeting Cargo tank trailers may have a "vertical" surface only at their "belt line" which may be as high as 90 inches (2.3 m) above the ground. Retroreflective sheeting could, however, be located much closer to the ground, but for some

cargo tank trailers this may place the sheeting on non-vertical surfaces. In our comment of March 31, 1992 to Docket No. 80-9; Notice 4 we stated that "it is not clear from the proposed rulemaking as to where retroreflective material should be placed on curved surfaces of tank and some dump trailers or angled surfaces of some dump trailers."

One manufacturer of retroreflective sheeting states that "the sheeting could be applied at a maximum angle of 30 degrees to the vertical." This manufacturer reports that "An angle greater than this provides less conspicuity as defined by NHTSA."

May retroreflective sheeting be located significantly higher than 1.25 m above the road surface if there is no vertical surface lower than this height without installing structure just for the sheeting?

Upper Contour Sheeting

May the horizontal and vertical sheeting to the right and left upper contours of the trailer body required per S5.7.1.4.1(b) be of the dimensions and location shown in the enclosed figures 1 through 5?

Since a number of trailer manufacturers are presently installing conspicuity treatments in accordance with S5.7 of FMVSS 108 as standard equipment or at the request of their customers, your timely response is desirable.

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: nht95-2.73

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 9, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Musa K. Farmand -- Gonzalez & Farmand, P.A.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 04/27/95 LETTER FROM MUSA K. FARMAND TO MARY VERSAILLES

TEXT: Dear Mr. Farmand:

This responds to your letter of April 27, 1995. Your letter concerns a law suit in which you represent plaintiffs injured in an automobile accident. In this law suit, the counsel for the defendant has moved to amend his answer to assert that 49 CFR 571 .208, paragraph S4.1.5.2(c)(2) requires each state to allow for mitigation of damages in any seat belt use law and that paragraph preempts the Florida mandatory seat belt law. According to your letter, the Florida law "does not allow a mitigation of dam ages defense with respect to an alleged failure to wear a seat belt." As explained below, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration agrees with you that the Florida safety belt use law is neither expressly nor impliedly preempted by Federal law.

Purpose of Paragraph S4.1.5.2(c) (2)

Before discussing the issue of preemption, I want to discuss the background and purpose of Paragraph S4.1.5.2(c)(2). That paragraph was added to Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208) as part of a final rule issued July 17, 1984 co ncerning automatic restraints (49 FR 28962). That final rule required all new cars to have automatic protection (air bags or automatic belts) starting in the 1990 model year. The final rule included a provision that the automatic restraint requirement would be rescinded if the Secretary of Transportation determined, not later than April 1, 1989, that a sufficient number of States had enacted belt use laws meeting certain minimum criteria to cover at least two-thirds of the U.S. population (paragraph S 4.1.5). Under S4.1.5, the Secretary was not required to make any determination about any State safety belt laws. In fact, the Secretary never did so, in part because not enough States adopted mandatory seat belt use laws of any sort prior to April 1, 1 989. Because no determination was made under S4.1.5, the automatic restraint requirements are now in effect for all passenger cars.

The minimum criteria were set forth in S4.1.5.2 of Standard No. 208. n1 One of the criteria was "a provision specifying that the violation of the belt usage requirement may be used to mitigate damages . . ." (S4.1.5.2(c)(2)). However, S4.1.5 neither pur ported to require nor was intended to require States to enact safety belt use laws. In addition, S4.1.5 did not require that any State safety belt use laws had to incorporate the minimum criteria of S4.1.5.2. Paragraph S4.1.5 merely provided that the S ecretary would rescind the automatic restraint requirement if he or she determined that a sufficient number of States enacted laws which met the criteria of S4.1.5.2 by April 1, 1989.

n1 Your letter correctly notes that this provision was deleted from Standard No. 208 by a final rule issued on September 2, 1993 (58 FR 46551).

Preemption

The Florida safety belt use law is not and never has been either expressly or impliedly preempted by Federal law.

Standard No. 208 was issued under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 which expressly preempts state laws only to the extent provided by section 30103. That section provides for the express preemption of State motor vehicle safety standards that are not identical to Federal standards. However, the Florida seat belt law is not a motor vehicle safety standard within the meaning of Chapter 301, since it does not regulate motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment performance. Accordingly, the Florida law is not express ly preempted.

The Florida law is not impliedly preempted because (1) Congress has not occupied the field of regulation of the behavior of motor vehicle occupants; and (2) the Florida seat belt law does not conflict with any Federal law or interfere with the objectives of Federal law.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have other questions or need some additional information, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht71-1.10

DATE: 06/04/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Voevodsky Associates, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 19 concerning installation by vehicle manufacturers of your Cyberlite system as original equipment on motor vehicles.

You ask two questions:

"(1) Is the installation . . . of the Voevodsky-Cyberlite System . . . permissible under Motor Vehicle safety Standard No. 108?"

"(2) If the installation . . . is permissible . . . does a state have the authority to (a) require the system, (b) permit the system, or (c) prohibit the system.

Section 103 (d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 in effect permits the States to regulate any aspect of performance that is not covered by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. As discussed in your meeting with NHTSA representatives on May 13, Standard No. 108 permits the installation of additional lighting equipment that does not impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment. It does not appear that the Cyberlite system, with the performance characteristics and location on the vehicle as you have described it, would impair the effectiveness of other vehicle lamps, and its installation is considered permissible under Standard No. 108. Since Standard No. 108 does not prescribe requirements for this aspect of performance, the States are free to require, permit, or prohibit the use of your warning system.

Sincerely,

VOEVODSKY ASSOCIATES, INC.

May 19, 1971

Laurance R. Schneider National Highway Traffic Safety Agency

Dear Mr. Schneider:

On 13 May 1971 I met with Richard Dyson, Lewis Owen, and Mike Esposito and on 14 May 1971 I met with Robert H. Cannon, Jr. As a result of these meetings I was directed to write to you for an opinion from the National Highway Traffic Safety Agency on the following legal questions.

(1) Is the installation on motor vehicles of the Voevodsky-Cyberlite System as described in the submission under Docket No. 69-19; Notice 1, permissible under Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108?

(2) If the installation on motor vehicles of the Voevodsky Cyberlite System is permissable under Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, does a state have the authority to (a) require the system, (b) permit the system, or (c) prohibit the system?

The Voevodsky - Cyberlite System is an intervehicular deceleration warning communications system in which a red or amber warning light is center mounted on the rear of the leading vehicle at the same height as existing stop lights to communicate a component of deceleration initiated by the driver of the leading vehicle to the driver of a following vehicle. A device for measuring the deceleration of the leading vehicle is rigidly attached to this vehicle. The warning light is pulsed in a controlled fashion at a rate which varies exponentially with a component of deceleration. This component of decelaration will take into account the intensity of break action, the deceleration caused by all other frictional forces including aerodynamic, which vary from vehicle to vehicle and lastly, the deceleration caused by the component of gravitational forces parallel to the slope of the road. The exponential variation compensates for the neural response of the following driver to the pulsed coded light. The "on" time per cycle of the light pulse is also shortened with increasing frequency rate to provide a redundant warning. In practice, the maximum delay time for the driver in the following vehicle to obtain the knowledge of the degree of deceleration of the lead vehicle is 1/2 second while the deceleration is minimum; and the minimum delay time is approximately 1/14 second when the deceleration is maximum, thereby defining the band width of the information system. A 50% increase in frequency of the light pulses from 1.0 pulses per second to 7.6 pulses per second for each 0.1 "g" increase in deceleration from 0 to 0.5 g's provides the desired exponential relationship and the 50% duty cycle provides the necessary information band width.

Sincerely yours,

Dr. John Voevodsky

cc: Robert H. Cannon,

Richard Dyson;

Mike Esposito;

Lewis Owen

ID: 1983-3.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/02/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Peterson Manufacturing Company -- Paul Scully, Vice President

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Paul Scully Vice President Peterson Manufacturing Company 4200 East 135th Street Grandview, MO 64030

Dear Mr. Scully:

This is in reply to your letter of July 22, 1983, to Mr. Cavey of this agency.

With respect to paragraph S4.1.1.7 of Standard No.108 Lamps Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment you have stated your understanding that paragraph applies only to turn signal lamps manufactured between January 1, 1972 and September 1, 1978, and that turn signal lamps must now comply with SAE Standard J588e, September 1970.

Paragraph S.4.1.1.7 did allow vehicular compliance with SAE J588d as an option to J588e. J588d required that any turn signal lamp used on a vehicle whose overall width was 80 inches or more have a minimum of 12 square inches effective projected luminous lens area. On the other hand, SAE J588e requires a minimum of 8 square inches effective projected luminous lens area on all single compartment rear turn signal lamps, regardless of vehicle width. However, on vehicles 80 inches or more in overall width, two turn signal lamps or compartments per side may be mounted closer together than 22 inches provided each meets single compartment photometric requirements and each has a minimum effective projected luminous lens area of 12 square inches. Thus, your understanding is correct.

I would also point out that, pursuant to Section S4.7.1 of Standard No. 108, the continued manufacture of turn signal lamps meeting J588d is permissible as replacement equipment for vehicles manufactured between January 1, 1972 and September 1, 1978.

Mr. Cavey has provided the copy of BMCS regulations which is enclosed.

Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

July 22, 1983

Mr. Kevin Cavey National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street SW Nassif Building Washington, DC 20590

Dear Kevin:

I need a copy of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety Regulations and I no longer have in my files the address of that agency. Would you be kind enough to telephone them and request that a copy of that booklet be forwarded to me. I would certainly appreciate it.

On a completely separate subject, a question arose today concerning the meaning of Paragraph S4.1.1.7 in FMVSS 108. The specific question related to the square inches of area needed for a turn signal on vehicles over 80".

My interpretation of the regulation has been that turn signal lamps for vehicles over 80" must comply with J588e dated September, 1970. This standard requires 8 square inches of area for single compartment lamps. That standard also spells out that when lamps are mounted closer together than 22" on vehicles over 80", they must then individually meet all of the requirements and must be 12 square inches.

Paragraph S4.1.1.7 only applies to turn signal lamps manufactured between January 1, 1972 and September 1, 1978 and simply permitted compliance with the prior standard J588d. This specific paragraph, in my judgment, only relates to vehicles built between the dates spelled out above and does not impact the area requirements as otherwise spelled out in J588e. Specifically, it is our understanding that the rear turn signal area for single compartment lamps is eight square inches regardless of the width of the vehicle. The only exception to this requirement is spelled out in the SAE standard which states that the area must be 12 square inches if indeed the units are placed closer together than 22". Can you please advise me if my interpretation is correct?

Very truly yours,

Paul Scully Vice President

PS/sld