ID: aiam4733

Dear Mr. Watanabe: This is in reply to your letter of March 19, 1990 asking whether a new combination rear lamp is permitted under Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. The lamp consists of three compartments. In its normal operating mode, when the taillamp and/or stop lamp are activated, all three compartments show a red light. Your question arises with respect to three different operating modes. The first occurs when the turn signal is activated, the red light in one of the compartments is replaced by an amber flashing one. The second occurs when the backup lamp is activated, the red light in another of the compartments is replaced by a white steady-burning one. The third occurs when both the backup lamp and turn signal are activated, in this event, the combination lamp would present an amber flashing light, a red steady-burning one, and a white steady-burning one. You have informed us that 'the requirement of photometric and lighted area for each lamp function comply to FMVSS No. 108 and related SAE Standards.' Further, as for the stop and taillamp functions, they comply with requirements for one and three compartment lamps when operating with one or three compartments (we assume that they would also meet the requirements for two compartment lamps). The lamp appears to be intended to fulfill the requirements of Standard No. 108 for turn signal, stop, tail, and backup lamps. Thus, your question appears to be whether Standard No. 108 requires separate lamps or compartments dedicated to a specific purpose, or whether your multiple purpose lamp is acceptable. Standard No. 108 does not prohibit a combination of the functions that any chamber of your lamp provides. When a specific function is activated, the lamp will perform that particular function in a manner that appears to meet the minimum standard established by Standard No. 108. Assuming that the CIE color definitions for white, amber, and red are met by the backup, turn, and stop/tail functions, the lamp appears to be permissible under Standard No. 108. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam3557

Dear Mr. Karner: This responds to your October 1, 1981, letter asking whether it woul be permissible to attach a label to a door stating 'To Open Door in Emergency Pull Down'. You indicate that the door is not an emergency door in compliance with Standard No. 217, *Bus Window Retention and Release*. You question whether the addition of the label in conformance to a contract with the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) would make the door an emergency door that would be required to comply with the standard. The CTA requires that door to be so labelled because it desires the door to be used as a means of escape.; The standard states that buses shall be equipped with a minimum numbe of emergency exits and that all emergency exits shall be labelled properly and comply with the requirements of the standard. One purpose of the standard is to provide sufficient emergency exits. Another purpose is to provide uniform emergency exit markings and operating instructions. You have stated that your vehicle has the requisite number of emergency exits, properly marked, so that the door in question is not required in counting the total number of exits for purposes of complying with the standard.; As you know, not all doors are required to be emergency exits. Fo example, the front entrance door of a vehicle need not be an emergency exit. If it is not labelled an emergency exit, it need not comply with the requirements of the standard relative to emergency exits. Similarly, the door to which you refer need not comply with the emergency exit requirements if it is not labelled as an emergency exit. However, since your proposed label refers to the emergency nature of the door, it appears to place the door within the category of an emergency exit that would be required to comply with the standard. The CTA intends the door to be used as an emergency exit and the label will indicate to riders that the door is suitable for such purposes. You may not, therefore, refer to the door as an emergency door unless the door complies with all of the requirements.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2886

Dear Mr. Nettles: This responds to REMCO's September 14, 1978, request to know th Federal braking requirements for an air-braked or pulpwood trailer.; In addition to the requirements of Standard No. 106-74, *Brake Hoses* the only Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard regulating the braking of air-braked vehicles is Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*. As you know, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Standards also apply to the use of air-braked vehicles in interstate commerce.; All of the requirements of Standard No. 121 apply to the manufacture o a logging or pulpwood trailer except for the 'no lockup' provision of S5.3.2. Specifically, S5.3.2.2 of the standard states:; >>>S5.3.2.2 When stopped in accordance with S5.3.2, any traile designed exclusively for harvesting logs or pulpwood and constructed with a skeletal frame and no means for attachment of a solid bed, body, or container, and with an arrangement of air control lines and reservoirs designed to minimize damage in off- road operations, need not meet the requirements relating to wheel lockup, but must nevertheless meet the requirements of staying within the 12-foot lane.<<<; There is no exclusion from the parking brake requirements of S5.6 Therefore, a parking brake capability using an energy source unaffected by loss of service brake air pressure is required. The standard specifies performance, not design, and does not require installation of a spring brake design. I have enclosed a copy of a recent proposal that would modify the requirements so that pulpwood trailers would not be required to provide parking brake capability. The reasons for this proposal are listed in the preamble to the notice. This proposal has not been made final.; For clarification, I would add that 'heavy hauler' trailers ar excluded from the entire standard until January 1, 1979. Heavy hauler trailers are defined to include the so-called 'pole trailers' used in logging that have air brake lines that adapt to fore-and-aft extension of the trailer.; I am also enclosing a *Federal Register* notice that explains th effect of a recent court decision on the 'no lockup' requirement for trailers.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2918

Dear Mr. Shuster: This responds to your inquiry dated November 29, 1978, on behalf of on of your constituents, Mr. C. Stake, requesting information about Federal safety standards concerning door locks on automobiles. Specifically, Mr. Stake is concerned that the doors on his 1977 Mercury Monarch can be unlocked by a child from the inside by lifting the door handle.; I am enclosing a copy of Safety Standard No. 206 (49 CFR 571.206) which specifies performance requirements for side door locks and side door retention components to minimize the likelihood of occupants being thrown from the vehicle as a result of impact. That standard specifies that each door on a passenger car shall be equipped with a locking mechanism with an operating means in the interior of the vehicle. Paragraph S4.1.3.1 of the standard specifies that when the locking mechanism on a side *front* door is engaged, the outside door handle or other outside latch release control shall be inoperative. For side *rear* doors, however, paragraph S4.1.3.2 requires both the outside and inside door handles to be inoperative when the locking mechanism is engaged.; This latter requirement was specifically included in the standard t address Mr. State's concern, that is, to prevent children from unlocking rear doors by means of the door handle. The design restriction was limited to rear doors on the basis that the danger arises primarily with unattended children sitting in the rear seat. A child sitting in the front seat is likely under the watchful eye of the driver. Further, there is the consideration that in emergency situations the driver may need to unlock his front door as easily and quickly as possible.; Since the Standard No. 206 requirements have been in effect for som time, we assume that the situation Mr. Stake describes is true only of the front doors of his Mercury Monarch. As noted above, however, there are competing safety considerations involved with door locks on front side doors.; Please contact our office if your constituent has any further question concerning this matter, or have him contact us directly.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2575

Dear Mr. Stahl: This is in reply to your letter of April 7, 1977, requestin interpretations with respect to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 123, *Motorcycle Controls and Displays*.; You have asked whether a speedometer may be marked to register speed i kilometers per hour only. The answer is no. Table 3 of Standard No. 123 requires that motorcycle speedometers indicate speed in miles per hour. You have also asked whether a speedometer may be marked to register speed in both miles and kilometers per hour. The answer is yes. The requirement that speedometers be marked in miles per hour is a minimum requirement only and there is no legal objection to a manufacturer adding kilometer markings to the dial.; "Your next question is whether Standard No. 123 preempts a New Yor State law, passed in 1976, that requires speedometers of all motor vehicles manufactured after September 1, 1980, to measure speeds in both miles and kilometers per hour. The answer is yes, assuming that a j motorcycle is defined as a 'motor vehicle' under New York law. As you know 15 U.S.C. 1392(d) provides that no State shall have authority to establish with respect to a motor vehicle a safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicles as a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Speedometers marking is clearly the same 'aspect of performance' in both the Federal and New York requirements, and it appears that New York would be preempted from requiring a motorcycle manufacturer to mark its speedometer in kilometers, though the manufacturer would not be prohibited by Standard No. 123 from voluntarily doing so."; Your final question is whether NHTSA contemplates changing Standard No 123 'mandating only or optional km/h speedometer markings.' The answer is yes. I enclose a copy of an NPRM published on December 13, 1976, proposing a new standard on *Speedometers and Odometers*. The proposal specifically allows use of kilometer markings on motorcycle speedometers in addition to the required markings in miles per hour. Note, however, that it would not apply to 'motor driven cycles whose speed attainable in one mile is 30 mph or less' (*e.g.*, mopeds) or police motorcycles.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4068

Dear Mr. Panetta: This responds to your request that we review the concerns expressed b one of your constituents, Mr. Joseph Loschiavo, about certain van seats. According to Mr. Loschiavo, the Monterey County Van Program for senior citizens uses vans with seats that are very low and close together, making it difficult for persons to get up out of the seats. He suggested that either the seats be raised about eight inches or that special seats be provided for persons who have problems with the present seats.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues moto vehicle safety standards. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, *Seating Systems*, establishes requirements to minimize the possibility of seat failure during vehicle collisions. However, NHTSA does not have any standards concerning the height or spacing of van seats.; The Monterey County Van Program has several options in obtaining van with appropriate seating. In purchasing new vans, the Program may either select from among the variety of vans offered by the major vehicle manufacturers, or go to one of a number of companies that customize vans to purchasers' specifications. A number of companies also modify used vehicles.; We note that new vans, including vans which are modified prior to firs sale, are required to be certified to comply with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The specific certification requirements are set forth at 49 CFR Part 567, *Certification*. If a used vehicle is modified by a business such as a garage, the business is not required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard. This is required by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Thus, if a business replaced a van's existing seats with higher seats, it would need to make sure that it was not rendering inoperative the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 207 or any other Federal motor vehicle safety standard.; I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Erika Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1006

Dear Mr. Monk: Dr. Brinegar asked that I review and respond to your letter of Decembe 23, 1972, regarding warning devices.; As you know from previous correspondence, the National Highway Traffi Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued a Notice of Proposed Rule Making on a standard for warning devices in November 1970. One of our major concerns in issuing this standard was the great variety of warning devices of all sizes, shapes, forms and configurations that were available to the motoring public. While many of these provided varying degrees of effectiveness, the great variety also created confusion and misunderstanding to the motoring public. Standardization of these devices was therefore of prime importance.; In response to this notice many comments, designs and recommendation were suggested for inclusion in the standard. All responses were carefully reviewed and evaluated before we issued the final rule in March 1972. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 125 represents an attempt to achieve a balance between many factors including shapes, size, cost, visibility, stability and weight. Since these triangle are designed for ultimate use in all kinds of vehicles, from passenger cars to heavy trucks, we had to be careful not to specify requirements that would put them beyond the reach of the average motoring public.; We are appreciative of your comments to the docket and your subsequen correspondence of the Department of Transportation, regarding the wind stability requirement of the device. Vehicles traveling at 70 mph do not create an effective wind velocity of 70 mph off the roadside. Research data shows that warning devices designed to withstand wind velocities of approximately 40 mph will be sufficient for the majority of wind conditions created by truck turbulence and atmospheric wind velocities without unnecessary penalties in weight and cost. However, Standard No. 125 will in no way restrict the manufacture and sale of devices with higher wind-resistance capabilities for special uses. These are *minimum* standards.; Again, we appreciate your interest in this aspect of motor vehicle safety. it is the ideas and opinions of concerned individuals, such as yourself, that enable us to ensure rules and regulations that are meaningful and worthwhile to the motoring public. Thank you for writing E.T. Driver, Director, Office of Operating Systems, Motor Vehicle Programs;

ID: aiam1953

Dear Mr. Kennebeck: This responds to Volkswagen of America's March 25, 1975, petition fo rulemaking to amend S4.5.3.3 of Standard No. 208, *Occupant crash protection*, to allow, at the manufacturer's option, visual warning lamps which remain activated whenever front outboard safety belts are not in use. Your petition states that it supersedes Volkswagen's February 20, 1975 petition for rulemaking.; Your petition explains that Volkswagen, in offering a passive bel system in its Rabbit model on an optional basis, provides an ignition interlock system and a passenger-side warning system to encourage passive belt usage, although such systems are not required by the standard. You correctly note that a January 16, 1975, letter to Volkswagen from the NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel indicates that additional safety devices such as these are not prohibited by our minimum safety standards, as long as their installation does not have the effect of causing required systems not to comply.; Your petition requests an amendment of Standard No. 208's warnin provisions to permit a visual warning longer than the 4- to 8-second reminder light presently required by S4.5.3.3. You apparently have concluded that language in our January 16 letter prohibits the provision of any additional visual warning with a duration different than 4-8 seconds.; Our January 16 letter states 'additional [safety] devices could not b installed if that installation has the effect of causing the required systems not to comply.' This does not prevent the installation of a second visual warning which operates continuously when seat belts are not in use at either front designated seating position. The manufacturer who provides such additional warning would only have to ensure that the required 4- to 8-second visual reminder required under S4.5.3.3 operates independently of the additional warning.; For this reason, we conclude that Volkswagen may provide the additiona warning it desires without amendment of Standard No. 208. Accordingly, Volkswagen's petition is denied as unnecessary. Please advise the NHTSA if this interpretation does not permit Volkswagen to provide the degree of additional warning for which it petitioned.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs;

ID: 07-005877 sheath

ID: 86-1.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/26/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Michael Love

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Michael Love Safety Compliance Manager Porsche Cars North America. Inc. 200 South Virginia Street Reno, NV 89501

Dear Mr. Love:

This is in reply to your letter of December 10, 1985, to Mr. Vinson of this office, with respect to an aftermarket center high-mounted stop lamp kit that Porsche wishes to offer through its dealer network.

You initially reference the preamble of August 31, 1984 (49 FR 34488) in which NHTSA stated that it would study the request of General Motors to supply an aftermarket kit "and consider whatever legal action may be required to remove impediments to the lamp's use". You ask the following questions:

"1) What is the result of NHTSA's study of GM's request?"

NHTSA has not proceeded to the study referenced because it subsequently decided such a study was unnecessary for the reasons set forth in our answer to your second question.

"2) What impediments are there to the sale, installation and use of an aftermarket CHMSL?"

NHTSA does not consider that any Federal impediments exist to the sale, installation, and use of such aftermarket devices, and further is not aware at this time of any State impediments to such sale, installation and use. However, we strongly recommend that these devices be designed to comply as closely as possible with those meeting Federal requirements. For example, a State may have a law prohibiting interior-mounted lamps that cause reflections on the rear window; Standard No. 108 requires original equipment center high-mounted stop lamps to be provided with means to minimize such reflections, and aftermarket lamps should also be so designed to minimize reflections in order to comply with the State requirement.

"3) Does NHTSA advocate the sale and installation in the aftermarket of CHMSL retrofit kits by original vehicle manufacturers for vehicles not covered by the requirements of FMVSS 108?"

NHTSA believes that retrofitting passenger cars with a center high-mounted stop lamp meeting original equipment specifications will prove to be as beneficial in reducing the incidence of low speed rear end collisions as in the population of passenger cars on which it has been installed as original equipment, and NHTSA encourages such retrofit. However, NHTSA's research study did not include other types of motor vehicles such as buses, trucks, and trailers though intuitively the concept would appear to have some merit.

(4) Does NHTSA know of or anticipate any States passing requirements for aftermarket CHMSL's that are more stringent than those required by FMVSS 108 for original equipment lights?"

No.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

December 10, 1985

Z. Taylor Vinson Office of Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Vinson,

Due to customer demand, Porsche AG is considering offering through Porsche Cars North America, Inc., a Center High Mounted Stop Light (CHMSL) aftermarket kit for sale and installation by its Dealer network.

This kit would be intended for installation on vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1985 and not originally equipped with a CHMSL. Porsche has several questions regarding the language in the supplementary information for the August 31, 1984 final rule on FMVSS 108, 49 FR 34488. It states:

"GM further commented that the proposal did not address the after market package which General Motors had intended to make available through our dealers, since it only speaks of passenger cars manufactured between September 1, 1989 and September 1, 1985".

Also,

"The agency was not aware that GM had intended to offer an aftermarket package until receiving its comment. Such an amendment would be outside the scope of the proposal, and accordingly, was not considered. Under paragraph S4.7.1, the standard covers the aftermarket only to the extent that GM (or any manufacturer) offers a lamp intended as replacement for an original equipment center high-mounted stop lamp. However, to encourage retrofit in the aftermarket, NHTSA will study GM's request and consider whatever legal action may be required to remove impediments to the lamp's use".

Specifically,

1) What is the result of NHTSA's study of GM's request?

2) What impediments are there to the sale, installation and use of an aftermarket CHMSL?

3) Does NHTSA advocate the sale and installation in the aftermarket of CHMSL retrofit kits by original vehicle manufacturers for vehicles not covered by the requirements of FMVSS 108?

4) Does NHTSA know of or anticipate any states passing requirements for aftermarket CHMSL's that are more stringent than those required by FMVSS 108 for original equipment lights:

Respectfully,

Michael Love Safety Compliance Manager

cc: Kurt Meier

ML/ma