ID: nht90-4.60

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: November 13, 1990

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

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re FMVSS No. 108 (Lamp, reflective devices, and associated equipment) Photometric Measurement Procedures for L.E.D. CHMSL

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-17-90 to M. Iwase from Paul Jackson Rice (A37; Std. 108)

TEXT:

We would hereby ask you to provide us with your kind advice concerning photometric measurement procedures for L.E.D. center high-mounted stop lamps (CHMSL).

Photometric output of L.E.D. lighting device decreases as the time passes after activation, as shown in Figure 1. This is caused by the thermal characteristic of L.E.D. discrete itself. Our question is about the timing of photometry when the photometri c output of L.E.D. CHMSL should be measured for the verification of compliance with the photometric requirements of FMVSS No. 108. It is reasonable that it shall be measured when 5 minutes has elapsed after the lamp is energized, with the following reas ons, we think;

(1) Our real-car field test has been performed to see how often and how long foot brake application (stop lamp operation) is raised during actual driving in the certain urban area. As the result of our field test, it was found that the c ontinuance is for 5 minutes at best for our brake application (refer to Figure 2).

(2) Section 3.1.5.3 "Photometric Minumums" in SAE J1889 JUN88 specifies, as follows;

Photometric Minumums: For measurements to photometric minimum requiments, the test "device light output shall first be stabilized by energizing the device at laboratory ambient temperature (23 +/- 5 degrees C) until either internal he at builtup saturation has occured or 30 minutes has elapsed, whichever occurs first.

This provision is true of steady burn lamps, for example tail lamp, parking lamp, etc., however not true of stop lamp which is energized during just the period of service brake operation.

(3) S4.8 "Warpage Test on Devices with Plastic Components" and Table 1 "Cycle Time (Min)" in SAE J575 JUL83 specifies 5-on/5-off operating cycle for stop lamps.

Whether could our interpretation above-mentioned be legally accepted? Upon your kind review, your prompt reply would be highly appreciated.

Attachment

Figure 1. Photometric Output Of L.E.D. And Incandescent Bulb (Graph Omitted) Figure 2. Brake Application Period (Graph Omitted) Test Method: Three (3) vehicles (A, B and C) chosen at random were chased and measured brake application periods. Date: January 10, 1990 Location: Urban area (in Nagoya city)

Remark: Each test data of three vehicles is continuous, namely Vehicle A was measured the brake application for 72 minutes, and Vehicle B and C were measured for 24 minutes, respectively.

ID: 86-2.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/21/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Dave Trowbridge

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Dave Trowbridge Aftermarket Sale Creation Windows of Indiana, Inc. P.O. Box 1046 Elkhart, Indiana 46515

Dear Mr. Trowbridge:

This is in reply to your letter of February 25, 1986, with reference to a design for a center high-mounted stop lamp intended for pickup covers or shells. You have asked for our advice regarding the applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

The center high-mounted stop lamp is required only on passenger cars, and its specifications apply only to original or replacement equipment on cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985. There are no requirements for aftermarket applications such as you envision. The legality of your device would be determined under the laws of a State where the lamp is installed or used.

We would recommend, however, that you attempt to conform your device as closely as possible to Federal requirements, such as an illuminated lens area of not less than 4 square inches, and mounted in such a manner as to minimize reflections in the rear glass. A copy of the Federal standard is enclosed.

I hope that this answers your questions. We appreciate your interest in motor vehicle safety.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

February 25, 1986 Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Assn. 400 7th Street Southwest Washington, DC 20590

Gentlemen:

We are manufacturers of custom windows and doors for the recreational vehicle market, automotive aftermarket and second party vehicle manufacturers. Of particular concern is our production and design of the "3rd stop light" to our door assemblies for pickup cover doors (see attached).

Our doors are supplied to manufacturers of these covers or shells and will be supplied with this added safety feature.

Your assistance, at your earliest possible convenience, is appreciated in advance regarding those pertinent and applicable NHTSA, FMVSS or other specifications that may apply to the mounting of this light assembly to the inside of the door assemblies we manufacture for our customers. The light assembly itself will be either sourced or manufactured with concern for those specifications that may apply to the light and its visibility, wiring, etc.

Cordially, Dave Trowbridge Aftermarket Sales

DT/jb

Attachment

ID: 3326o

Mr. C. S. Allen
Commander
Department of California Highway Patrol
P.O. Box 942898
Sacramento, CA 94298-000l

Dear Mr. Allen:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Standard No.l02, Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect. That standard requires vehicles equipped with automatic transmissions have a starter interlock. You stated that you believe that a vehicle would not meet the standard if it was also equipped with a starter interlock bypass switch. As discussed below, we agree with your position.

According to your letter, the California Highway Patrol has become aware that a school bus manufacturer "has been building vehicles equipped with automatic transmissions which, although equipped with the interlock required by 49 CFR 57l.l02 S3.l.3, are also equipped, at the driver's position, with a momentary contact push-button switch, the purpose of which is to bypass the transmission neutral safety switch." If the driver uses one hand to operate the bypass switch and the other hand to operate the regular starter key-type switch, the bus can be started with the transmission shift lever in a forward or reverse drive position.

You noted that the manufacturer stated its belief that the bypass switch complies with Standard No. l02 since the switch is regarded as "an emergency feature, not intended to be used for routine engine starts." You stated that it is your position that "the bypass switch renders buses equipped with automatic transmissions in violation of FMVSS l02" and that the manufacturer "appears to be interpreting FMVSS l02 as meaning that the starter shall not be capable of being started from the driver's position with the transmission in gear unless the driver intends to do that." Emphasis in original.

Section S3.l.3, which applies only to vehicles equipped with automatic transmissions, reads as follows:

S3.l.3 Starter interlock. The engine starter shall be inoperative when the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position.

It is our opinion that a vehicle would not meet this requirement if it can be started, when the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position, by means of the regular starter key-type switch and a starter interlock bypass switch . In this instance, the engine starter would not be "inoperative." This opinion is not changed by the fact that the manufacturer may intend the bypass switch as an emergency feature, not intended to be used for routine engine starts. The intention of the manufacturer does not change the fact that the engine starter would not be "inoperative," and Standard No. l02 does not provide for any exceptions to this requirement (for covered vehicles).

We are referring your letter to our Office of Enforcement for appropriate action.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel / ref:l02 d:l2/30/88

ID: nht79-3.46

DATE: 06/18/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPREATION

TEXT: This responds to your May 21, 1979, letter confirming your discussions with Roger Tilton of my staff relating to the emergency exit requirements of school buses that are constructed with an additional exit door. The additional door is installed so that the vehicle can be better used as a general transit vehicle when not in use for school purposes.

The statements that you make in your letter are, for the most part, accurate. However, your third statement which indicates that the additional door could not be marked as an emergency exit is not entirely accurate. Additional emergency exits in school buses, beyond those required by Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, must comply with the emergency exit requirements applicable to exits in non-school buses. If the door to which you refer is not designed or constructed as an emergency exit but rather is designed as an additional door for the routine loading and unloading of passengers, it need not be labeled as an emergency exit. If on the other hand the door is intended as an emergency exit and is constructed in accordance with the emergency exit requirements for doors in non-school buses, it should be labeled as an emergency exit in accordance with the labeling requirements for exits in non-school buses.

SINCERELY,

May 21, 1979

Roger Tilton, Office of The Chief Counsel U. S. Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Tilton:

This letter is a follow-up to our phone conversation of May 18, 1979, relative to the usage of a school bus with a side exit door for mass transit.

We explained that the bus or buses would be used for school transportation and during the off hours would be put into service as transporters for the general public.

The general public use requires a rear side exit door in addition to the entrance door at front side.

Our understanding of the conversation was as follows:

1. Bus would meet all Federal Safety Standards for School Buses.

2. Since the vehicle meets the emergency exit requirements mandated by the Federal Standards for school buses - no emergency exits as noted in FMVSS 217, Sections S5.2 and S5.2.1, are required since the vehicle meets the school bus emergency exit requirements.

3. The side exit door could not be labeled as an emergency exit.

I trust that you concur with my recollection of the conversation, and would appreciate your confirmation of this letter. Thanking you in advance, I remain

James Tydings, Specifications Engineer

ID: nht80-4.20

DATE: 11/07/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: International Harvester

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Stephen E. Mulligan International Harvester 4O1 North Michigan Avenue Chicago, IL 60611

Dear Mr. Mulligan:

This is in response to your letter of October 1, 1980, in which you ask whether compliance with 49 CFR 567, Certification, will satisfy the requirements of S4.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, 49 CFR 571.115.

Section 4.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115 requires that the vehicle identification number (VIN) "appear clearly and indelibly upon either a part of the vehicle other than the glazing that is not designed to be removed except for repair or upon a separate plate or label which is permanently affixed to such a part." S4.3.1 requires each character to appear in a capital, sans typeface. In the case of passenger cars and trucks of 10,OOO pounds or less GVWR, each character must have a minimum height of 4 mm. s4.4 specifies that the VIN for passenger cars and trucks of 10,000 pounds or less GVWR shall be located within the passenger compartment.

Section 567.4 of Part 567, Certification (49 CFR 567), requires that the certification label be permanently affixed to the vehicle, and display the vehicle identification number. Consequently, for all vehicles except passenger cars and trucks of lO,OOO pounds or less GVWR, compliance with S 567.4 of Part 567 would also effect compliance with S4.3 of Standard No. 115 so long as capital, sans typeface was used.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

October 1, 1980

Mr. Frank Berndt U.S. Department of Transportation Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington DC 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I am writing to request clarification of requirements which arise under Part 567 - Certification. S 567.4 requires each manufacturer of motor vehicles to affix to each vehicle a label which shall be permanently placed so that it cannot be removed without destroying or defacing it. The label is required to contain the vehicle identification number (VIN).

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115 requires that each vehicle manufactured have a VIN which shall appear clearly and indelibly upon either a part of the vehicle or upon a separate plate or label permanently affixed to such a part.

International Harvester Company requests confirmation that compliance with the certification label requirements of Part 567 insures that there is also compliance with the VIN requirements set forth in FMVSS 115.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

Very truly yours,

Stephen E. Mulligan

SEM:sh

ID: nht81-1.25

DATE: 03/05/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Gillig Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

FMVSS INTERPRETATION Mr. Roy O. Smith

Manager of Body Design Gillig Corporation Box 3008 Hayward, California 94540

Dear Mr. Smith:

This responds to your letter of November 20, 1980, inquiring about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. You asked for our confirmation that a foot-operated turn signal control on your new transit bus is not subject to the identification requirements of Section S5.2.1.

The identification requirements of Section S5.2.1 of Safety Standard No. 101 are applicable to "hand operated" controls. Since the turn signal control on your new transit bus is foot operated, those requirements are not applicable. Since the standard does not include any other identification requirements for turn signal controls, your conclusion stated above is correct.

While the identification requirements of Section S5.2.1 are not applicable to your transit bus, you may wish to identify the turn signal control in some manner in order to prevent confusion when persons unfamiliar with foot-operated turn signal controls operate your transit bus.

The agency is currently conducting research on the standardization of the location of critical controls, including the turn signal control. We would appreciate receiving information as to why you are locating the turn signal control on the floor when the vast majority of other vehicles have the control mounted as a stalk on the steering column.

We would also note that Standard No. 101's display requirements for turn signals are applicable to your transit bus if it has a GVWR of under 10,000 pounds. Also Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, includes other requirements related to turn signals.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

November 20, 1980

Mr. Frank Berndt CHIEF COUNSEL U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

On our new transit bus, we use foot actuated push buttons to operate the turn signals. Section S5.2.1, (a) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 101-80, requires that "Any hand operated control listed in column 1 of Table I that has a symbol designated in column 3 shall be identified by that symbol".

Since our turn signal control is foot operated, not hand operated, it is our opinion that this requirement does not apply to our arrangement. Your comments would be appreciated.

Very truly yours,

GILLIG CORPORATION

Roy O. Smith

Manager of Body Design

ROS:1r

ID: nht78-2.7

DATE: 10/31/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood for J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Subaru of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 12, 1978, with respect to Subaru's intention to offer "a retracting center auxiliary lamp" on one of its models. You have asked us to comment on the lamp's nomenclature, switching, and compliance problems.

The lamp in question is not an item of lighting equipment required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 and may be added as standard equipment provided it does not impair the effectiveness of equipment that the standard does require. Whether this device would cause impairment we cannot say since you have told us nothing of its candle-power output or its color. If it is operable by a separate on/off switch it could be viewed as impairing the effectiveness of the headlights by causing the operator to use it and rely on it at a time when the headlamps should be in use. We have no opinion on what you should call the lamp.

Even if permissible and not prohibited under Federal lighting requirements we believe that you should be aware of possible problems at the State level. An auxiliary driving light similar to the one you describe (though positioned closer to the right headlamps) was offered as optional equipment on 1969 Dodge cars, named the "Super Lite", and intended to be used in conjunction with low beam headlights to increase the strength of the headlamp system without producing the glare effects associated with high beams. The States of New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont prohibited the lamp primarily because its bluish color was judged close to that of the color reserved for use on emergency vehicles (see Chrysler Corp. v. Rhodes, 294 F. Supp. 665 (1968) and Chrysler Corp. v. Tofany, 419 F.2d 499 (1969)). We therefore suggest that Subaru review its plans with State officials.

SINCERELY,

SUBARU OF AMERICA, Inc.

September 12, 1978

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

Re: FMVSS 108

Dear Mr. Levin:

Subaru of America plans to offer as standard on our MPV, BRAT model, a retracting center auxiliary lamp. We request your office's comments to the following questions.

1. Can we call the center lamp an auxiliary driving lamp?

2. Can we use a single on/off switch for this lamp? Or must it be switched to be used only with bright beam headlamps?

3. What are the compliance problems, if any?

Paul Utans Assoc. Vice President Product Compliance

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht79-1.17

DATE: 11/05/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Bajaj Auto Limited

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. M. S. Keshav Manager - Research & Development Bajaj Auto Limited Bombay Poona Road Akurdi - Poona - 411 035 India

Dear Mr. Keshav:

This is in reply to your letter of September 2, 1979, to Francis Armstrong asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. SAE Standard J588e August 1970 is the referenced standard for turn signal lamps. Paragraph 4.2 of J588e requires that as mounted on the vehicle "The optical axis (filament center) of the front turn signal lamp shall be at least 4 inches from the inside diameter of the retaining ring of the headlamp unit providing the lower beam". You mentioned that on some motorcycles sold in the United States this requirement is satisfied only with the handlebar in the straight ahead position but not when turned to the full lock position. You asked whether this complies with Standard No. 108.

Table IV specifies that the minimum edge to edge separation between the headlamp and turn signal lamp on motorcycles is 4 inches. Most manufacturers have interpreted this requirement to mean that the separation is permanent, and have supplied turn signals that are mounted stationary with the headlamp, and that turn with it so that the separation distance is maintained. Therefore, the configuration you describe would not comply with Standard No. 108 because Federal requirements for location and mounting of lighting equipment are intended to apply to a vehicle under all its operating conditions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

BAJAJ AUTO LIMITED

RD 39363 Date: 2nd September 1979.

Mr. Fransis Armstrong, Director Office of the Vehicle Safety Compliance Enforcement U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Dear Sir,

We refer to FMVSS Part 571, S108 Table IV/SAE J 588c 4.2 standand. As per the standard the minimum edge to edge separation distance between turn signal lamp and head lamp should be 4 inches. We have come across some vehicles sold in U.S.A. wherein this dimension is satisfied only in the straight ahead driving position i.e. when the handle bar is kept straight. In such vehicle, since the turn signal flasher lamps are fitted in the front on the non steered portion of the vehicle, the distance between the turn signal flasher lamp and the head lamp is almost zero when the handle bar is turned to the full lock position. Please let us know whether this is permissible as per the regulation.

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully, For BAJAJ AUTO LIMITED

M. S. KESHAV MANAGER - RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

ID: nht79-1.3

DATE: 01/26/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Motor Coach Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. T. Szkolnicki Mechanical Engineering Motor Coach Industries, Inc. Pembina, North Dakota 58271

Dear Mr. Szkolnicki:

This responds to your January 2, 1979, request for confirmation that a July 23, 1976, interpretation of S5.3.3 and S5.3.4 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, has been incorporated into the body of the regulation. I regret that you did not receive a reply to your letter of November 27, 1978, which was addressed to someone who is no longer in this office.

The interpretation in question has not been incorporated into the body of the regulation. During a court review of the standard which only recently concluded, the agency was making a few changes to the standard as possible. Consideration is now being given to revision of the standard in minor respects, but no date has been established for action. Until any such action is taken, you may continue to rely on the July 23, 1976, interpretation as the agency's official view of the meaning of S5.3.3 and S5.3.4.

Sincerely,

Original signed By

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

January 2, 1979

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590

Attn: Mr. Frank A. Berndt Acting Chief Counsel

Dear Mr. Berndt:

We refer you to our letter of November 27th, copy enclosed, in which we referred your letter of July 23rd, 1976 to White Motor.

We would appreciate a reply, confirming that an amendment to the FMVS 121 was issued.

MOTOR COACH INDUSTRIES

T. Szkolnicki, Supervisor Mechanical Engineering

TS/cf Enclosure

November 27th, 1978

U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, Washington, D.C. 20590

Attention: Frank A. Berndt - Acting Chief Counsel

Dear Mr. Berndt:

We refer you to your letter of July 23rd, 1976, to the White Motor Corporation, copy enclosed. The letter refers to the FMVSS #121. Specifically, it refers to the apply and release times for brake chambers that have a lower max. brake chamber pressure.

The last paragraph notes that "the agency will issue an interpretive amendment to S5.3.3 and S5.3.4 to reflect this interpretation".

Can you advise if this amendment was issued, and if so, please forward a copy of this. If the amendment was not issued, can you comment on when this will be done? Thank you.

Yours very truly,

MOTOR COACH INDUSTRIES, INC.,

T. Szkolnicki, Supervisor, Mechanical Engineering.

TS/jp

ID: nht79-1.36

DATE: 11/23/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOV 23 1979

Mr. T. Fujita Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Department Stanley Electric Co., Ltd 2-9-13, Nakameguro Meguro-ku Tokyo 153, Japan

Dear Mr. Fujita:

This is in reply to your letter of October 17, 1979, asking for an interpretation for Paragraph S4.3.1.7 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

S4.3.1.7 says in effect that a front turn signal lamp and a low beam headlamp may be closer to each other than 4 inches "if the sum of the candlepower values of the turn signal lamp measured at the test points within each group listed in Figure 1 is not less than two and one-half times the sum specified for each group for yellow turn signal lamps."

You have asked whether a motorcycle turn signal lamp should "satisfy the values specified in S4.3.1.7 or half those values. The answer is, the values specified in S4.3.1.7. Half those values would be "less than two and one-half times the sum specified ..." and impermissible under S4.3.1.7.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel October 17, 1979

Att.: Mr. Michael M. Finkelstein Associate Administrator for Rulemaking

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590 U. S. A.

Re: Photometric requirement of a motorcycle front turn signal lamp which is mounted closer to the low beam headlamp than 4 inches.

Dear Mr. Finkelstein,

Section 4.3.1.7 of FMVSS No.108 specifies as follows;

S.4.3.1.7

The requirement that there be not less than 4 inches between a front turn signal lamp and a low beam headlamp, specified in SAE Standard J588e, "Turn Signal Lamps," September 1970, shall not apply if the sum of the candlepower values of the turn signal lamp measured at the test points within each group listed in Figure 1 is not less than two and one-half times the sum specified for each group for yellow turn signal lamps.

When we apply this provision to a motorcycle turn signal lamp, we would like to have your opinion as to which one of the following requirements the lamp should satisfy.

A: the values specified in S.4.3.1.7

B: half the values of that specified in S.4.1.3.1.7

Thanking you in advance for your cooperation,

Very truly yours,

Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

T. Fujita Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Dept.

MF/mo