ID: nht95-6.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 18, 1995

FROM: Yoshiaki MATSUI -- Manager, Automotive Equipment, Stanley Electric Co.

TO: Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Accessory Lamp with LEDs

ATTACHMT: Attached to 11/9/95 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Yoskiaki Matsui (Std. 108)

TEXT: We, a Japanese manufacturer of automotive lighting devices, are now developing a new type of combination rear lamp that contains red LEDs as accessory lamps. (Please refer to the attached drawing). Would you please advise us about the categorization of this kind of LED accessory lamps.

The operating condition of the LED accessory lamps are as follows,

a) Construction of the combination rear lamp

Tail & stop lamp and turn signal lamp vertically arranged. Red LEDs are disposed along the outer edge of the combination lamp to be used as accessory lamps.

Light source Colour of Colour of the lens light emitted Tail & stop Incandescent bulb Red Red Rear turn Incandescent bulb Amber Amber signal

b) Operating condition for the accessory lamps

When the tail lamp is switched on, the Accessory Lamp A of red LEDs, which is adjacent to the tail lamp, and the Accessory Lamp B of red LEDs, which is adjacent to the rear turn signal lamp, are lit.

Question 1: Red LEDs adjacent to the tail lamp (Accessory Lamp A)

The tail lamp is designed to comply with FMVSS No. 108 using incandescent bulb only, therefore red LEDs need not to be lit for the purpose of the regulatory requirements. Moreover, when the tail lamp and the red LEDs (Accessory Lamp A) are lit together, the intensity of the light emitted from them does not exceed the maximum intensity specified for one lighted section tail lamp.

In such a condition, we believe the red LEDs (Accessory Lamp a) could be regarded as an accessory.

As for the safety, red LEDs (Accessory Lamp A) will contribute to safety by improving the comspicuity of the vehicle, when lit with the tail lamp.

If our interpretation is not acceptable, please inform us of the conditions required in order to regard the red LEDs portion (Accessory Lamp A) as an accessory.

Question 2: Red LEDs adjacent to the rear turn signal lamp (Accessory Lamp B)

Q2-1: As for the red LEDs adjacent to the rear turn signal lamp (Accessory Lamp B), the LEDs emit a red colour light through the amber lens. The lighted section of the red section of the turn signal lamp by a parting rib prepared in the housing, so that the red light from red LEDs will not be emitted through the lens area of the lighted section of the rear turn signal lamp. Therefore, we believe the light from the red LEDs (Accessory Lamp B) will not adversely affect the rear turn signal function even if the red LEDs (Accessory Lamp B) continues to operate when the rear turn signal lamp is operated. Please advise us if our interpretation is acceptable.

Q2-2: If our interpretation described in the above A2-1 is not acceptable, are the red LEDs (Accessory Lamp B) regarded as an accessory provided that the red LEDs (Accessory Lamp B) are turned off during the rear turn signal operation?

Following table shows the lighting condition of Accessory Lamps and our interpretation.

Tail lamp ON Operating Accessory Lamp A ON condition Accessory Lamp B ON OFF Rear turn signal lamp ON OFF ON OFF STANLEY's question Q2-1 Q2-2 Question STANLEY's interpretation OK OK OK OK NHTSA's answer

Your answer will be highly appreciated.

(Drawing omitted.)

ID: nht67-1.28

DATE: 10/04/67

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; William Haddon, Jr., M.D.; NHTSA

TO: House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of August 16 in which you attached a letter from your constituent, Mrs. Beverly Hoffman of San Diego. Mrs. Hoffman asked if there is any Federal or state regulation, or city ordinance, which forbids the removal or concealment of passenger seat belts in taxicabs. Mrs. Hoffman has raised an important question and one which is of vital concern to the objectives of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966: the retention of a safety equipment in a vehicle after its original purchase.

Since I expect that California law is of most interest to both Mrs. Hoffman and you, I will answer her question on the basis of the California Vehicle Code. Since January 1, 1964, Section 27309 has made it an offense to sell in California any new passenger vehicle which does not have at least two state approved restraint belts or harnesses in its front seat. Retention of the front seat belts by the vehicle owner is indirectly required by Section 40001(b) (2) which makes it unlawful for "an owner to request, cause, or permit the operation of any vehicle which is not equipped as required in this Code." (emphasis supplied) Since California has no annual motor vehicle inspection, enforcement of this law has presumably been by spot inspection. Members of the California Highway Patrol (Section 2804) and city traffic officers (Section 2806) have the authority to inspect a vehicle to determine whether its equipment is in compliance with the code.

With respect to rear seat-belts which most directly concern Mrs. Hoffman as a passenger, their installation has not been required by the Code. Such belts as she may have seen in the rear of California taxis have been provided as a courtesy of the owner rather than as a requirement of the law. But, as she directly notes, all passenger cars including taxicabs manufactured on or after January 1, 1968, must comply with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. One of these, Standard No. 208, will require taxis to be manufactured with lap restraint belts installed in each rear seating position. But if the California legislature has not amended the Vehicle Code itself to require their installation it would appear that there is no legal reason why a cab owner may not remove rear seat belts should he wish to go to the trouble.

Under the Act, the Secretary of Transportation does not have the authority to directly regulate motor vehicles "after the first purchase of it in good faith for purposes other than resale." Instead, Congress intended that used vehicles be regulated by periodic state inspection. To implement this intent the Secretary has been directed to study state inspection systems and, in due course, to establish uniform standards applicable to all used motor vehicles. A hypothetical standard and one which we shall consider -- requiring the presence of original equipment safety items at time of each inspection would be sufficient to cover retention of rear seat safety belts. But the Act establishes no requirement that the states or any individual follow any used vehicle standard. For the probable enforcement mechanism of used car standards it is necessary to turn to the companion Highway Safety Act of 1966. Under this Act each state is required to have a highway safety program in accordance with standards promulgated by the Secretary. One such standard, already issued, establishes minimum requirements for periodic motor vehicle inspection. Eventually it is possible that used car standards will be suggested to the states through this motor vehicle inspection standard, but enforcement of the used car standards will be left to the states.

Concerning concealment of the belts, I am aware of no legislation, Federal, state, or municipal, which requires that a safety item not only be retained but also available for use. But I believe that sufficient authority may exist in the Highway Safety Act's mandate to the Bureau to include "vehicle operation" in the highway safety program standards to warrant our serious consideration of it.

I hope that this has answered Mrs. Hoffman's questions and I appreciate her interest in traffic safety.

ID: nht67-1.7

DATE: 12/27/67

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Howard A. Heffron; NHTSA

TO: Department of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: The Federal Highway Administrator has asked me to reply to your letter of November 24, 1967, in which you asked whether tow cars (as defined in the California Vehicle Code), "emergency vehicles, and other specially designed vehicles" come within the coverage of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Standard No. 108 prescribes requirements for lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. It applies, by its terms, to "trucks . . . that are 80 or more inches overall." As you point out, the term "truck" is broadly defined in Subpart A of the Standards and includes any "motor vehicle with motive power . . . designed primarily for transportation of property or special purpose equipment." There is nothing in the definition, nor is there any other reason, to exclude vehicles designed to tow or otherwise assist other disabled vehicles from the coverage of the Standard. Moreover, paragraph S3.4.4.2 of Standard No. 108 provides that "stoplamps on a towing vehicle need not be actuated when service brakes are applied to the towed vehicle or vehicles only." The adoption of specific requirements pertaining to vehicles being towed would indicate that no exclusion for tow cars or tow trucks was intended.

We conclude, therefore, that tow trucks and tow cars that are 80 or more inches wide overall must comply with the provisions of Standard No. 108. That Standard applies to vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 1968. State standards, if any, would continue to apply to tow cars or trucks manufactured prior to that date. I also wish to point out that, by a formal interpretation (published at 32 F.S. 8803), the term "overall width" in Standard No. 108 has been deamed to refer to "the nominal design dimension of the widest part of the vehicle, exclusive of signal lamps, market lamps, outside rearview mirrors, flexible fender extensions, and mud flaps. . . ." We are presently considering an amendment which would extend Standard No. 108 to trucks having a width of less than 80 inches, but the Standard in its prevent form is limited to the larger trucks.

In your letter, you refer to "emergency vehicles" and "special purpose vehicles" and ask whether such vehicles are covered by Standard No. 108. Since you did not further describe the vehicles you had in mind, we cannot tell whether they are of a type which must meet the requirements of the Standard. Since you mention the possibility that some of these vehicles may be deemed "truck tractors," we wish to call your attention to the fact that Standard No. 108, by its terms, does not apply to truck tractors.

If we can be of further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to call upon us.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL

November 24, 1967

Lowell K. Bridwell -- Federal Highway Administrator, U.S. Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Bridwell:

A question has arisen concerning the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 issued January 31, 1967, to tow cars.

A "tow car" is defined in the California Vehicle Code as "a motor vehicle which has been altered or designed and equipped for and exclusively used in the business of towing vehicles by means of a crane, hoist, tow bar, tow line, or dolly or is otherwise exclusively used to render assistance to other vehicles."

Although the definitions for "truck" and "truck tractor" included in Subpart A of Initial Motor Vehicle Safety Standards are broad, there appears to be a number of special purpose vehicles such as tow cars, emergency vehicles, and other specially designed vehicles which may not be included.

Will you please clarify for us the definition of "truck" and "truck tractor" with relation to the above special purpose vehicles.

Very truly yours,

H. W. SULLIVAN -- Commissioner

ID: nht68-1.19

DATE: 08/12/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert M. O'Mahoney; NHTSA

TO: Robert Bosch GMBH

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: The Bureau of Customs has forwarded to us for further reply a copy of your letter to them of May 21 asking whether lighting units for passenger cars, which do not conform to the requirements of Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 108, may be admitted to the United States after January 1, 1969.

Amended Federal standard No. 108, effective January 1, 1969, specifies lighting requirements for various categories of motor vehicle including passenger cars manufactured on or after that date. It does not specify requirements for individual items, or lighting equipment. This means that these individual items, no matter what the date of manufacture, may be imported into the United States after January 1, 1969, because they will have been manufactured on a date when there were no standards in effect applicable to them.

I hope this answers your question.

Sincerely,

TREASURY DEPARTMENT

BUREAU OF CUSTOMS

JUN 25 1968

AIRMAIL

A. Hammerstein Robert Bosch Gmbh

Dear Mr. Hamorstein:

This will acknowledge receipt of your letter dated May 21, 1968 a copy of which was forwarded to the Secretary of Transportation, concerning the application of Federal Safety Standard 108 to lighting uniss that are now being manufactured by Robert Bosch Gmbh.

The joint regulations of the Bureau of Customs and the Department of Transportation, copy enclosed, provide in section 12.80(b)(2)(i) for the importation of a non-conforming vehicle or equipment item if they were manufactured on a date when there were no applicable safety standards in force. Therefore, these lighting units manufactured prior to January 1, 1969, and offered for importation into the United States do not have to be in conformity with Federal Safety Standard 108.

Since your inquiry concerns a specific safety standard not yet in effect, we are forwarding your letter to the Department of Transportation, Highway Safety Bureau, Washington, D.C., for their consideration and direct reply.

Sincerely yours,

John D. Roeison

Assistant Director

(Entry and Liquidation)

Division of Appraisement and Collections

Enclosure 50359

cc: Department of Transportation

ROBERT BOSCH GMBH

CC: Alan S. Boyd

Secretary of Transportation

Lester D. Johnson Commissioner of Customs Department of the Treasury Bureau of Customs

Subject: Title 19-Customs Duties (T.D. 68-16) - Part 12-Special Classes of Merchandise - Importation of Motor Vehicles and Items of Motor Vehicle Equipment - Federal Register Vol. 33, No. 6 of January 10, 1968

Gentlemen:

With the above mentioned publication, certain conditions are imposed for the importation of motor vehicle equipment into the United States.

In our opinion, one case occurring in practice is not covered by the exception granted under section (b). This is the case when replacement items are delivered for automotive vehicle manufactured before entering into force of a relevant Federal Safety Standard.

We are for instance to deliver lighting units equipped with white parking lamps for passenger cars, which are evidently not conforming to Federal Safety Standard 108.

The problem is now, whether it is possible and admissible to import such items and other ones into the United States after January 1, 1969. We add that it is well evident that such items are needed after this date, because vehicles are already equipped in such a manner and it would in our opinion to be too costly to replace two lighting units conforming to the rel;evant Federal Safety Standard, if only one replacement unit not conforming to the relevant Federal Safety standard is needed for a passenger car manufactured before January 1, 1969.

We should be very glad to have a rapid answer from you, since we have already now to care for corresponding replacement units. Leadtime is already now very scare.

Very truly yours,

A. Hammerstein

ID: nht69-1.25

DATE: 02/19/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; C. A. Baker; NHTSA

TO: Trico-Folberth, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of January 1, 1969, concerning your windsheild washer system.

Apparently our letter of October 3, 1968, to Mr. B. C. Johnson was misunderstood. In Mr. Johnson's inquiry of August 23, 1968, he stated "it is easy to deliver 15 cc's of fluid inside the three seconds specified." The wording of our reply acknowledged that this performance would be acceptable--it was not intended to be a literal interpretation of our requirements or the SAE Recommended Practice.

We learned that the SAE Windshield Wiping Subcommittee plans to revise J942, Passenger Car Windshield Washer Systems, to clarify the particular points you question. Meanwhile, we think the intent of Section S4.2 of Standard No. 104 is satisfied by the following interpretation of the referenced SAE Recommended Practice:

1. Paragraph 3.1 of J942 requires that 75% of the effective wiped area be cleared in 10 wiper cycle or less. Section S4.2.1 of Standard No. 104 requires that these areas be established in accordance with subparagraph S4.1.2.1 of Standard No. 104.

2. The requirement to wipe 75% clear must also be not within 15 seconds as stipulated in paragraph 4.1.3(c) of J942.

3. A washer cycle is defined in paragraph 2.11 of J942 as "The system actuation sufficient to deliver approximately 15 cc of fluid to the windshield glazing surface." Note this definition does not actually define the number of actuation necessary to deliver the 15 cc, although the use of the word "actuation" appears to be singular. It is obvious that the intent of paragraph 4.1.3(c) is that this amount of fluid shall be delivered during the 15 second test period.

4. In paragraph 4.4.2(b) of J942 (under the durability test) the Recommended Practice requires: "For manual systems a single actuation shall consist of actuation of the control for a period not to exceed 3 seconds." It is important to note that this specifies the time required for the driver to operate the control--not the total time for the washer system to actuate. It appears this definition refers to a control actuation; whereas, the definition for "washer cycle" refers to a system actuation. This is borne out in paragraph 2.2 of J942 which defines "controls" as "A means for actuating and arresting the windshield washer system. The actuation may be coordinated or semicoordinated with components of the windshield wiper or may be fully independent."

5. Note that the following sentence in paragraph 4.4.2(b) states: "For automatic systems an actuation shall consist of one actuation of the control." This seems to indicate, by inference, that more than one control actuation is acceptable for manual systems.

6. Therefore, the intent of the referenced SAE Recommended Practice by Section S4.2 of Standard No. 104 is that manual washer systems may be actuated more than once to provide the 15 cc of fluid as long as it does not require the operator more than 3 seconds to operate the control for any single system actuation--and the washer system must deliver 15 cc of fluid to clear 75% of the wiped area within 10 cycles and within 15 seconds.

7. Note that any additional system actuations needed to meet the 15 cc requirement will also require that the manufacturer increase accordingly the total number of control actuations for the durability test in Table I, "Test Sequence" in J942.

We assume that your windshield washing system meets these requirements based upon your explanation of your manual system. However, we wish to point out our concern that the existing regulations do not adequately define washer system performance requirements, since it is possible under the current regulations for the driver to be needlessly occupied with the washer controls during a period of reduced visibility. Accordingly, we expect to up-grade the washer system performance requirements as soon as practicable.

ID: nht68-4.8

DATE: 09/03/68

FROM: JOHN A. MCLAINE -- DEPT. OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY, DIV. OF MOTOR VEHICLES, NEW JERSEY

TO: National Highway Safety Bureau

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: As requested, we are enclosing a copy of the letter we wrote to Mr. Paul L. Nine of the Chrysler Corporation after he sent us literature describing the Dodge "Super-Lite".

Since receiving our letter, Mr. Nine has told us that the "Super-Lite" does not conform to the SAE Standards.

SAE J582 states that the color of the light from a supplementary passing lamp must be white. The light from the "Super-Lite" is blue when the person looking at the light is in certain positions in front of the light. When a driver looks into his rear-view mirror and the vehicle behind is equipped with a "Super-Lite" the driver sees a blue light in his rear-view mirror.

New Jersey and many other States have regulations restricting the use of a blue light on the front of a motor vehicle to a motor vehicle operated by a volunteer fireman on his way to a fire, and for other emergency purposes.

SAE J582 also states that for greatest visibility, with reasonable limitations of glare to approaching drivers, the left edge of the stray light immediately to the left of the high intensity zone should be aimed at the vertical line through the lamp center, at 25 feet.

The "Super-Lite" does not meet this requirement because the left edge of the high intensity zone of the "Super-Lite" is aimed 5 1/4" to the left of the vertical line through the lamp center at 25 feet.

I suggested to Mr. Nine that if the color of the "Super-Lite" could be made to conform to the SAE Standard, perhaps we could aim the "Super-Lite" in New Jersey to conform to the SAE requirement. Mr. Nine said that this would not be satisfactory because it would destroy the purpose of "Super-Lite".

The Chrysler engineers also told me that they do not recommend that the "Super-Lite" be used on two-lane highways. I do not know how such a restriction could be enforced to insure maximum safety.

According to the literature, the "Super-Lite" was designed to bridge the gap between high and low beam lights. Our experience has shown that where traffic density permits the use of high beam lights there is no need for additional lighting and when traffic density requires the use of low beam lights there is no need for additional lighting because the tail lights and head lights of the vehicles ahead provide ample guidance.

In spite of the fact that "Super-Lite" does not meet the SAE Standards, Mr. Nine does not believe we can prohibit the use of this light in New Jersey because of Federal Law 89-563 which requires that no State shall have any safety standard applicable to the same item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal Standard.

As you know, Federal Standard 108 requires headlamps, tail lamps, stop lamps, license plate lamps, parking lamps, back-up lamps, turn signal lamps, side marker lamps, and reflectors in accordance with SAE Standards and recommended practices.

Section S 3.1.2 of Standard 108 states that no additional lamp, reflective device and associated equipment shall be installed if it impairs the effectiveness of the required equipment. Mr. Nine believes the Federal Government allows the "Super-Lite under the above section.

We do not believe the Federal Government should permit the use of a driving light which does not meet the SAE Standards, especially since all other motor vehicle lighting equipment is required to meet the SAE Standards. We also believe that the NHSB should have tests made to make certain that the use of auxiliary lights does not impair the effectiveness of the required equipment, and does not increase the danger caused by glare and confusion with various types of emergency lighting equipment.

Your comments will be appreciated.

ID: nht70-2.40

DATE: 12/08/70

FROM: D.W. TOMS -- DIR., NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY CHARLES H. HARTMAN

TO: Physicians for Automotive Safety

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letters of November 6, 1970, to Secretary Volpe and me, concerning child restraint systems. I have taken the liberty of replying to both of your letter, as they seem to raise identical issues.

The points you raise are summarized at the conclusion of your letters. Your first is based upon your belief that no attempt has been made to require labeling on child harnesses that would enable the public "to distinguish between harnesses that provide collision protection, and those that merely serve to secure the child in one place and, at best, prevent him from being thrown forward in a sudden (but controlled) stop." You further state of the latter type of harness.

The Bureau's position in this matter is that harnesses marketed to provide restraint in panic or sudden stop situations must meet the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209. In addition, enforcement proceedings in this area are presently underway to climinate harnesses that do not comply with the standard. The Bureau does not consider that these inexpensive harnesses provide a satisfactory minimum level of protection when used in motor vehicles. Furthermore, consumers desirable of obtaining crash protection for their children may be induced to compromise on safety by the availability of the cheaper systems, without realizing how limited is the effectiveness of these systems. Any benefits obtained from the cheaper harnesses are more than outweighed by these deficiences.

Your second recommendation concerns child seating systems, and consists of two parts. First, you suggest banning the manufacture of child seating systems that do not comply with Standard No. 213. Second, you recommed that warning notices be required on seating systems remaining on the market after April 1, 1971, that do not comply with the standard because they were manufactured before its effective date.

With reference to your first recommendation, the Buresu has proposed to take the action you recommend. In the notice of proposed rulemaking concerning Standard No. 213, published September 23, 1970 (35 F.R. 14786), the Bureau has proposed to extend the Scope of the standard to include all devices for seating children in motor vehicles. This requirement would become effective January 1, 1972, and a copy of the notice is enclosed for your information. Your letters will be placed in the rulemaking docket. With reference to your second recommendation, the Bureau is not authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to require much a warning. The Act, pursuant to which Standard No. 213 and all other motor vehicle safety standards are issued, provides that only motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured after the effective date of a standard must comply with it. We could not, therefore, impose a requirement, including a warning requirement, on those seating systems manufactured before April 1, 1971.

The Bureau agrees, however, that consumers should be aware that child seating systems that do not comply with Standard No. 213 will still be available after April 1, 1971. The Bureau is planning, therefore, to issue an advisory at or about the time the standard becomes effective that will indicate how consumers may distinguish between those child seats that comply with the standard and those that do not.

Your third recommendation is that child harnesses not meeting Standard No. 209 be required to contain warnings as to their deficiencies, and that harnessen that do meet the standard be required to carry detailed information about their value in a crash. As stated above, harnesses that do not comply with the standard may not be manufactured. As to requiring harnesses that do comply to carry detailed information concerning their value, the benefits that these devices can provide will differ according to the dynamics of all individual crash, and are not, therefore, capable of precise statement. The Bureau will, however, consider other methods of informing the public as to the broad safety benefits obtainable from the use of child restraint devices.

Your continued interest in motor vehicle safety is very much appreciated.

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: nht72-2.2

DATE: 02/23/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Cosco Household Products, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 12, 1972, concerning Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, "Child Seating Systems." You ask specific questions, enclosing 3 diagrams, regarding the application of certain provisions of the standard to a child seat you wish to build. You state that this seat in its present form is composed of a tubular steel frame, and has a molded plastic shell to seat the child, to provide head restraint, and to assist in containing the child under lateral decelerations.

You ask whether the shell is a rigid component, stating that it will most probably be manufactured of polyethylene of about .100 inch thickness, and will be deformable by hand. We believe that such a shell could be considered a non-rigid component. There is not at present a definition of "rigid" in the standard and manufacturers should rely on generally available definitions of the term in determining whether or not components are rigid.

You state further that in those areas where the shell contacts the tubular frame it is unquestionably rigid, and ask whether energy-absorbing material could be applied between the frame and the shell, rather than between the shell and the child as specified in S4.10 of the standard. In the particular case you present, it is not clear whether the rigidity of the shell is inherent or results because of its attachment to the frame. If by cushioning this attachment the rigidity will be eliminated, we would no longer consider the component to be rigid. However, the amount of cushioning needed would depend upon the amount necessary to eliminate the rigidity, and would not necessarily be the 1/2-inch thickness specified in S4.10 for covering rigid components. This determination would be for the manufacturer to make, based upon his analysis of when the rigidity has been removed from the component.

With reference to the question presented on sketch 1, we believe it is answered in the preceding paragraphs. Concerning sketch 2 you ask what the standard requires at point N, where there is "essentially no energy-absorbing material between the bottom of the groove and the rigid tube." S4.10 of the standard requires rigid components that may contact the head or torso, with certain exceptions, to be "covered" with energy-absorbing material having a thickness of at least 1/2 inch. If the point N with which you are concerned can contact the head or torso of the child during impact, taking into account compression of the material adjacent to it, then it must be covered with at least the specified thickness of energy-absorbing material.

Your third sketch asks whether energy-absorbing material is required where the shell loops over the tubular steel frame, when the side of the shell is greater than 24 square inches. You are apparently assuming that the area in question is contactable as that term is used in S4.10. In our view the answer to this question depends upon whether the part of the seat in question is actually a "side" and if so if its rigidity is uniform. If the area in question creates a frontal projection we would not consider it to be a "side" under S4.10. If it does not, but the side is significantly more rigid in the area of the tubular frame, then we would not consider the exemption in S4.10.3 to apply, since the shell would not be one component. The hazard created would be identical if the tubular frame were exposed, and not covered by the shell.

Finally, you ask for any information on the status of Notice 5, published September 23, 1970 (35 F.R. 14786). A final rule based on this notice is in preparation, and we expect that it will be issued in the near future. At the same time, we have placed in the docket a report entitled "Report of Test on Child Vehicles and Their Energy Absorbing Materials." This report summarizes recent test work done to investigate test procedures for head restraints and energy absorbing materials for child seats.

ID: nht72-2.35

DATE: 02/15/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: D. M. Schwentker, Esq. -- Busby, Rivkin, Sherman and Levy

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of November 30, 1971, you ask if you may assume certain statements to be true. My reply lists your statements and discusses each separately.

"1. 571.5(a) applies to SAE Standards and Recommended Practices subreferenced by the SAE Standards and Recommended Practices referenced in the Federal Motor Vehicles Safety Standards contained in Part 571 as well as to the primary references.

The Initial Standards incorporate many SAE materials, probably due in large part to the statutory mandate that they be based upon existing standards. The intent of 571.5(a) appears to be to insure that those materials are legitimately incorporated into the Federal requirements, and that materials subject to change are in fact "frozen" as of a day certain, so that the Federal Standards are not subject to attack on grounds of vagueness. J575 is not directly "referred to" in Standard No. 106, but since its inclusion in Standard No. 108 is required to complete the structure of the Standard, I do not regard a direct reference as necessary to bring it within the ambit of 571.5(a). The SAE Standards that are part of Standard No. 108 "refer" to J575 and this is sufficient.

"2. [Materials] . . . 'in effect on the date of adoption of this Part . . . means [materials] . . . in effect on the date of publication in the Federal Register of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard or regulation in which they are referenced . . .'

The answer is obviously "yes" with reference to the Initial Standards; February 3, 1967, was both the "date of adoption of this Part" as well as "the date of publication in the Federal Register of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard or regulation in which they are referenced."

The answer is "no" with respect to Standards published after February 3, 1967. Section 571.5(a) says that materials subject to change incorporated in any Standard published subsequent to February 3, 1967, are those in effect on February 3, 1967, unless the reference to them provides otherwise.

"3. '. . . in effect . . .' with respect to SAE Standards and Recommended Practices means formally adopted by SAE although not necessarily printed in the SAE Handbook.

In the strict legal sense, an SAE Standard is never "in effect" since adherence to it is voluntary. One revision supersedes another but cannot be said legally to "revoke" it, ending its "effectivity."

SAE Standards do not have effective dates. They bear an identifying month and year indicating when the latest revision was approved by the appropriate SAE approval body. Thus, J575d, November 1966, means that the (Illegible Word) was approved by the SAE lighting committee in November 1966. J575d was then printed and circulated to SAE members in January 1967, subsequently appearing in the 1968 Handbook.

J575d then was "in effect" on February 3, 1967 end before appearing in the 1968 Handbook, whether considered as becoming effective upon approval by the SAE lighting committee or upon publication and distribution to SAE members.

"4. SAE J575d is the revision subreferenced in Table III of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 (32 F.R. 18033) under passenger cars, tail lamps (effective January 1, 1969).

Yes. Standard No. 108 was amended to adopt Table III in December 1967, based upon a proposal published on February 3, 1967. The agency did not manifest its intent, in the SPRM or any correspondence that I have been able to discover, that the referenced and subreferenced SAE Standards in the proposed standard were those appearing in the 1967 Handbook (e.g. J575c). It is a general SAE policy, however, as expressed in its Handbooks, that where revision letters are not used, the assumption is that references to Standards will designate the latest revision. Since J575d had been published and circulated in January 1967, it may be reviewed as incorporated by reference into those SAE materials referencing J575 that were part of the NPRM of February 3, 1967.

I hope this answers your questions.