ID: nht90-3.61

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 20, 1990

FROM: Harry B. Skinner -- Chief, Traffic Engineering Division, Office of Traffic Operations, NHTSA

TO: Oliver M. Sprangers -- A. T. Kearney, Inc.

TITLE: Re HTO-21

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-27-90 from Olivier M. Sprangers to James T. Brooks; Also attached to letter dated 1-8-91 from Paul J. Rice to Olivier M. Sprangers (A37; Std. 125)

TEXT:

We have received your letter of June 27 and forwarded your request to the U.S. Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for response.

Personnel from the NHTSA will be able to better evaluate your safety device than our staff member, Mr. James T. Brooks.

Your interest in promoting highway safety is greatly appreciated. If we can be of further assistance, please let us know.

ID: nht90-3.62

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/22/90

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: HANNO WESTERMANN--HELLA KG HUECK & CO.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 2-6-87 TO DR. BURGETT FROM HANNS-OUTFRIED WETERMANN; ALSO ATTACHED TO GRAPHS (INFORMATION OMITTED)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter to Dr. Burgett of this agency with respect to "multi bulb devices", specifically "how the requirements for one-, two-, or three compartment lamps (lighted sections) as it is documented in FMVSS No. 108, Figure 1b have to b e interpreted. . . ." You have asked this question because "Hella would like to equip motor vehicles with signalling devices which have--opposite to conventional lamps--a great number of replaceable miniature bulbs instead of e.g. one 32 cp bulb." Your question assumes that Standard No. 108 is to be interpreted in a manner that equates the number of lighted sections with the number of bulbs providing the light. Finally, you have stated that the total area of the lamp is not larger than current one-co mpartment lamps.

We regret the delay in responding to your letter, but we have recently completed rulemaking, begun in September 1988, which is relevant to your question. On May 15, 1990, an amendment to Standard No. 108 was published, effective December 1, 1990, the ef fect of which is to restrict Figure lb to replacement equipment. I enclose a copy of the amendment for your information.

Your question relates to "signalling devices" for new motor vehicles, and Figure lb shows that, specifically, you refer to turn signal lamps. Beginning December 1, 1990, Standard No. 108 will specify two different standards for turn signal lamps. If the lamp is intended for use on multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, and trailers whose overall width is 80 inches or more, it must be designed to conform to SAE Standard J1395 APR85 "Turn Signal Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles 2032 mm or More in Overall Width." SAE J1395 also provides that these lamps may be used on vehicles less than this width, except for passenger cars. If a motor vehicle is not equipped with a turn signal lamp designed to conform to SAE J1395, it must be equipped with a t urn signal lamp designed to conform to SAE Standard J588 NOV84 "Turn Signal Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles Less Than 2032 mm in Overall Width."

In the May 1990 amendments, section S3 of Standard No. 108 was amended to add a definition for "Multiple Compartment Lamp". such a lamp is "a device which gives its indication by two or more separately lighted areas which are joined by one or more common parts, such as a housing or lens." The multiple bulb device that you described appears to meet this definition.

SAE J1395 establishes luminous intensity minima and maxima photometric requirements without reference to either compartments or lighted sections, and all that is required is for the lamp to comply at the individual test points specified. New section S5. 1.1.31 clarifies that measurements of a multiple compartment turn signal lamp on vehicles to which SAE J1395

applies are to made for the entire lamp and not for the individual compartments.

However, SAE J588 NOV84 continues to specify different minimum photometric requirements for one, two, and three "lighted sections". Because the SAE does not prescribe photometric requirements for more than three lighted sections, we have concluded that any device that contains more than three lighted sections need only comply with the requirements prescribed for three lighted sections.

I hope that this is responsive to your request.

ID: nht90-3.63

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/22/90

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: JACK RADEMACHER -- CHIEF ENGINEER, POLAR TANK TRAILER, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 5-8-90 TO S. P. WOOD FROM J. RADEMACHER; (OCC 4776)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of May 8, 1990, to Stephen P. Wood of this Office, asking for reconsideration of a recent interpretation of Standard No. 108.

We assume you mean our letter of January 9, 1990, to Howard Kossover of Oklahoma City. That interpretation stated that if rear lamps on a semi-trailer were mounted 27 inches forward of the rear edge of the vehicle, they were not mounted "on the rear", t he location specified by Standard No. 108. We also observed that compliance with the 45-degree visibility requirements in that location appeared questionable. You say that it has long been the practice of the Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association (TT MA) and its members that "if the 45 degree visibility requirement of these lights were met 'on the rear' of the trailer both inboard and outboard, the manufacturer met the intent of the standard." You inform us that the liquid bulk transport industry is especially affected by this interpretation because of reasons of practicality unique to tank transports. On these vehicles, you state that the rear lamps have been "mounted as far as 36 inches forward from the rear of the bumper", but that, in this loca tion, they "still maintain the 45 degree visibility requirements." You therefore ask for reconsideration of the interpretation if the 45 degree visibility requirements are met.

The lamps in your letter (and Mr. Kossover's) are stop, turn signal, and tail lamps. Only the tail lamps are presence lamps. The stop lamps and turn signal lamps operate independently of the headlamps. That is to say, they are intended for use at all times and not just at night or under other conditions of reduced visibility. They indicate actions taken by the vehicle operator to signal his operational intentions to other drivers and pedestrians. Problems with depth perception of following drivers could result if the lamps are not mounted "on the rear" as the standard requires. We are willing to interpret "on the rear" as meaning the trailing edge of the rear fender, which may not extend as far rearward as the bulk tank container, provided the vi sibility requirements are met, but we conclude that a mounting location for stop and turn signal lamps that is 36 inches forward from the rear of the bumper is not "on the rear" as the standard requires.

ID: nht90-3.64

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 22, 1990

FROM: M. Iwase -- General Manager, Technical Administration Dept., Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd.

TO: Erika Z. Jones -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re FMVSS No. 108 (Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment) Procedure of Re-calibration for Replaceable Bulb Headlamp with VHAD

ATTACHMT: Attached to diagram entitled Re-Calibration Procedures in The Shops (graphics omitted); Also attached to letter dated 10-3-90 from P.J. Rice to M. Iwase (A36; Std. 108)

TEXT:

FMVSS No. 108 specifies in S7.7.5.2(a)(2)(iv) that the horizontal indicator of VHAD shall be capable of re-calibration over a movement of +-2.5 degrees.

We would like to confirm your interpretation concerning the method and procedures of re-calibration on the vehicle after repair from accident damage.

Enclosed please find a copy of Federal Register dated February 8, 1990 (Page 4425 and 4426), in which NHTSA interprets, as follows;

If the dimensional specifications of vehicle body and appropriate instruction are described in shop manual, re-calibration could be addressed.

However, we don't believe that the method mentioned in the NHTSA's interpretation is practicable, with the following reasons;

(1) There may be some case that linear measurement of distance will be unable to be taken between reference points on vehicle body and headlamp units, owing to interruption of some other parts in engine room.

(2) Even if possible to measure linearly, we are afraid that it will be difficult to measure it precisely.

Therefore we are going to adopt a method of addressing for re-calibration in which headlamp with it's lens being masked partially are lit and visually aimed with the help of photometric beam pattern on the screen. (see Fig. 1 and the enclosed pictures). Our experiment proved that the visually aiming by photometric beam pattern be practicable.

We are fully aware that this method needs some space of 3 meters or so between illuminated headlamps and the scren (see Fig. 2) for clear image of beam pattern, which is not necessarily possible to accomodate in every case.

Therefore we are preparing Shop Manual in which both methods of NHTSA's dimensional data and our proposing visual aiming by photometric beam pattern are prescribed, and presenting the optional alternative of the above two methods. We intend to provide a masking sheet for the visual aiming, with Shop Manual.

We would be greatly appreciate it if you would kindly advise us whether our proposal could go along with NHTSA's intention.

Thanking you for your kind and prompt reply, in advance, we remain, with best regard, yours very truly.

Attachment is entitled Re-Calibration Procedures in The Shops (graphics omitted).

ID: nht90-3.65

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/23/90

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: JEFF CORNELL -- ENGINEERING, THE BARGMAN COMPANY

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 7-25-90 TO T. VINSON--NHTSA, FROM J. CORNELL; (OCC 5035; ALSO ATTACHED TO DOCKET SEARCH REPORT (INFORMATION OMITTED)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of July 25, 1990, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking for clarification of the amendments to Standard No. 108 which were published on May 15 of this year.

With reference to section S5.1.1.31, requiring photometric measurement of the entire lamp (and not its individual compartments), you have asked whether this includes the maximums because the preamble to the final rule discussed the requirement only in te rms of the minimums.

Section S5.1.1.31 refers unqualifiedly to "measurements" of photometrics, and thus includes maximums as well as minimums. The preamble spoke of minimums only as an example, and was not intended to exclude maximums. I am sorry if this caused some confus ion.

You have also pointed out that the preamble refers to a minimum luminous lens area of 12 square inches for certain lamps, while the applicable SAE standards that Standard No. 108 incorporates by reference state the minimum as 75 square centimeters, which is only 11.625 square inches. You request a clarification of this point.

The appropriate value is 75 square centimeters (11.625 square inches). As a general rule of construction, the text of a standard constitutes the legal requirements which apply. When a value is clearly stated, as in the SAE materials, it takes precedenc e over an inconsistent value appearing outside the standard, such as in the preamble to the May 15 amendments. The earlier versions of the SAE standards (which the new SAE materials supersede for new motor vehicle equipment) spoke in terms of 12 square i nches, and the agency retained this non-metric terminology for purposes of discussing in the preamble the difference between the old and new requirements. Although the SAE could have adopted a value of 77.42 square centimeters (12 square inches) in its new materials, it chose to round the value off to 75 square centimeters, thereby reducing its previously specified minimum luminous lens area by .375 square inch.

With respect to another concern, you have presented the hypothetical of the use "in a molded bumper or fiberglass cap" of three identical single compartment stop lamps per side, none of whose individual luminous lens areas meets the 75 square centimeter requirement, but which, in combination, would exceed it. You have asked whether this would comply with the new requirements.

Our answer is no. On may 15, Standard No. 108 was also amended to add a definition for "Multiple lamp arrangement." (S3). This is "an array of two or more separate lamps on each side of the vehicle which operate together

to give a signal." Paragraph 5.3.2 of the newly-incorporated SAE Standard J1398 MAY85 for stop lamps on wide vehicles states in pertinent part that "The functional lighted lens area of a single lamp ... and each lamp of a multiple lamp arrangement shall be at least 75 square centimeters." The configuration you describe is a "multiple lamp arrangement" and each lamp in the array is subject to the minimum specified requirement.

You further ask, if "the vendor making these lights mounts the individual lights in a molded housing", whether this would create a "multiple compartment lamp", and if so, "then how is it different if it is installed into a molded bumper or fiberglass cap ." The definition of "Multiple compartment lamp" adopted on May 15 states that it is "a device which gives its indication by two or more separately lighted areas which are joined by one or more common parts, such as a housing or lens."

Multiple lamps cannot be combined to create a "multiple compartment lamp". If the individual lamps are mounted in a molded housing, they remain "an array of two or more separate lamps on the same side of the vehicle which operate together to give a signa l", that is to say, a "multiple lamp arrangement." The "lighted areas" of a "multiple compartment lamp" are something less than a complete lamp, but, when joined by common parts become a single lamp. The configuration you describe is not a "multiple co mpartment lamp."

If you have any further questions, we shall be pleased to answer them.

ID: nht90-3.66

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 24, 1990

FROM: Mr. and Mrs. Albert J. Fasel

TO: Arthur H. Neill, Jr. -- Chief, Crash Avoidance Division, Office of Vehicle Safety

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to drawing entitled "Eye-Level Turn Signal" (graphics omitted); Also attached to letter dated 9-25-90 from P.J. Rice to Mr. and Mrs. A.J. Fasel (A36; Std. 108); Also attached to copy of Standard No. 111 (text omitted)

TEXT:

Thank you for sending the Rules and Regulations.

In the Safety Standard No. 108, could you give us a positive interpretation that says there is no law or regulation that prohibits turn signals being amber and in no way is an impairment to the function of the center high mounted red stop lamp.

Red is used on a traffic signal and amber is always caution. This idea has been used for years. For 80 years, they used red tail lights exclusively. Not until recently have they incorporated amber into their signals.

On Page 48237, a field test results shows a signal lamp design more effective.

On Page 48239, to Delay Safety Standard No. 108 to await new improvements will result in delay of implementing requirements known to appreciably reduce accidents and save lives.

This draws your attention. You know the vehicle ahead is slowing or stopping, with the addition of the amber turn signals, you would also know if the car is going to turn.

In conclusion we feel the principals that apply to the center high mounted red stop lamp applys to the amber eye-level turn signals and merits this improvement.

Please give this some expert consideration and reply.

Enclosed is a picture. We have a photo-type and to really see its effectiveness it has to be seen in action.

"EYE-LEVEL TURN SIGNAL" Albert J. Fasel - #P3788

ABSTRACT:

This invention relates to automotive turning signals and in particular to a signal that is used in conjunction with the rear bumper signal lights. The signal is mounted in the rear window of the vehicle. Two different models are used. One model for use with an already existing rear window

light or without one. The unit would straddle the already existing light or it comes with a brakelight if there is not one. By using this it aids in seeing the directional in poor weather conditions such as bright sun, rain, snow or fog.

MARKETS & DISTRIBUTION:

Based on the effectiveness, efficiency, safety and convenience, market potential is good. It could be sold through parts & accessories retailers and wholesalers, miscellaneous merchandise stores, department stores and mail order catalogs.

STATUS:

This invention is currently Patent Pending.

This invention now has a Patent No. 4,896,250 issued Jan. 23rd, 1990.

ID: nht88-1.78

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/21/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: JAMES T. STREET -- PRESIDENT, STREET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS, INC.

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 211, Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs, and Hub Caps (49 CFR @ 571.211). Specifically, you sent me some product sheets showing several different designs of "spinner" hub caps, and asked whether y ou can market these items at both the wholesale and retail levels. The answer is no.

I have enclosed copies of my May 13, 1987, letter to the Honorable William E. Dannemeyer and my November 13, 1987, letter to Mr. William J. Maloney. In these letters, I reaffirmed our past interpretations stating that spinner hub caps do not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 211, and have not complied with that Standard since it became effective on January 1, 1968. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act [15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)] makes it illegal to "manufa cture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States" any hub caps that do not comply with Standard No. 211 (Emphasis added). We would consider each sale or offer for sal e of spinner hub caps to be a separate violation of this statutory provision. Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a civil penalty of up to $ 1000 for each violation of section 108(a), up to a maximum of $ 800,000.

I appreciate your efforts to ensure that your company does business in a way that complies with all our requirements. If you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at th is address, or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Enclosure

ID: nht88-1.79

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: MARCH 25, 1988

FROM: AMNON SHOMLO -- PRESIDENT, A.A.S.

TO: ERIKA JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 8-10-88, TO AMNON SHOMLO, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES-NHTSA, STD 108

TEXT: Enclosed please find samples of our PEACE decal. It is designed to be placed in front of the center highmounted brake light to project the word "PEACE" when the brake is applied.

If you separate the decal from its protective paper, you will notice that the white letters and design are printed on transparent plastic, in an effort to preserve the basic requirements for an effective projected luminous area of the lens and the specif ied candela.

Prior to marketing this decal we would like to know what Federal/Legal authorizations we need to obtain, stating we comply with all the regulations and the requirements regarding this product. If your office is not in the position to fully examine and a pprove the intended use of this decal, please advise where and how we can go about attaining such an authorization/certificate of approval.

I can be reached at (904) 731-6409 daily from 9-5pm. I look forward to your reply.

ID: nht88-1.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/01/88 EST

FROM: BRIAN HALL -- VS TECHNOLOGY PRESIDENT

TO: VINSON

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/03/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO BRIAN HALL, REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Mr. Vinson:

I'm sending this letter to you to find out how to get an approval from the U.S. D.O.T. on a apparatus that I believe will be a useful tool for the safety of a motorcycle, scooter, ATV, etc. driver.

This apparatus will be a high level visibility red light that will be worn on the upper back of the driver or passenger on the above mentioned vehicles.

The apparatus is a 2" strap that is worn by putting the arms through the holes so the straps are resting on the shoulders, such as a shoulder harness. There is a square piece of velcro that is sewed to the strap that will be positioned about 3 to 4 in ches above the center of the back. The shoulder harness, as I will call it, is comfortable to wear. The velcro square on the back will be where a red brake light will be attached. The brake light will be made of plastic with the back of the light havi ng a flat surface that will be velcroed to the square velcro patch on the shoulder harness. Coming from the brake light will be two wires that will be plugged to a pigtail connector that will be safety fastened to the existing brake light wires. The sa fety fastner will be included with the package. Instructions on how to locate the right wires will also be in the package "with instructions on were it is best to put the safety fastner pigtail. The brake light connector will be plugged into the pigtai l connector so when the brakes levers are applied the high visability brake light will come on at the same time so surrounding vehicle drivers will have a better chance of seeing the motorcycle driver.

I hope that this brief description of what I'm writing to you about is enough for you to understand what I'm trying to do and why I'm seeking for a U.S. D.O.T. approval on this apparatus.

I have talked to the Arizona D.O.T. about this and they referred me to the U.S. D.O.T. in Washington D.C., which I called, to have the information sent to me on the requirements and specifications needed for such a apparatus.

My intentions are to put this on the market as after market products for those persons who are concerned for their safety as motorcycle, scooter, ATV, etc. driver. Also I'm talking to the military about this for on-base requirement for motorcycle, et c. drivers.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-1.80

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/28/88

FROM: CLAIRE HAVEN -- VICE PRESIDENT, QUADWEST

TO: ERIKA JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 11-22-88 TO CLAIRE HAVEN, QUADWEST, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, NHTSA; REDBOOK A33; STDS. 209, 208, 302; VSA 108(A)(2)

TEXT: As You can see by the enclosed letter, I've been corresponding with Carl Clark, Inventor Contact, at the Department of Transportation, regarding the Joyride Seatbelt Pad.

We propose to sell this pad as a comfort item to be used on the shoulder strap of a standard seatbelt. By eliminating the uncomfortable pressure and chafing of some seatbelts, we believe our product will increase the use seatbelts generally, thereby inc reasing the level of driver safety.

Mr. Clark has advised us that he see no objection to the use of Joyride Seatbelt Pad. Therefore, upon his advice, I am requesting a formal letter from you, as Chief Counsel, that our product does not take the manufacturer-installed seatbelt out of compl iance with applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards. A sample of the Joyride Seatbelt Pad is enclosed for your reference.

As we wish to distribute our new product shortly, we would be most grateful for you early reply.

Thank you for your help.