ID: aiam3804

Dear Mr. Underwood: This is to follow up on your phone conversation with Stephen Oesch o my staff on Standard No. 203, *Impact Protection for the Driver From the Steering Control System*. You asked how the steering wheel should be positioned when it is tested in accordance with the standard. As explained below, the steering wheel should be positioned at its design angle, as specified by the manufacturer.; Standard No. 203 incorporates by reference Society of Automotiv Engineers Recommended Practice J944, Steering Wheel Assembly Laboratory Test Procedure, December 1965. Section 6.2 of SAE J944 provides that the steering wheel is to be mounted 'at the proper angle as determined by the package drawing.' Therefore, the agency would mount the column at the design angle specified by the manufacturer.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5313

"Dear Mr. Delapp: This responds to your letter requesting a interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, 'Door locks and door retention components,' as it pertains to the locking mechanism of a so-called '5th' door installed on your limousines. I apologize for the delay in responding. We conclude that the locking mechanism on the 5th door is not prohibited by Standard 206. Based on your letter and a conversation with David Elias of my office, I understand that you have replaced the extra panel on the right side of a 1993 Lincoln Town Car based limousine with a passenger door (i.e., the 5th door). The door consists completely of the original equipment manufacturer's materials and hinges. The 5th door is a supplementary door, and does not replace or effect in any way the two side rear doors with which your vehicles are normally equipped. When the 5th door is closed, its locking mechanism engages automatically, and the door cannot be opened from the inside or the outside. A solenoid locking mechanism that unlocks the 5th door is located inside the vehicle in a 'privacy panel' behind the driver's seat. For the driver to unlock the 5th door, the car must be stopped and the driver must then get out of the car and reach through a window into the area behind the driver's seat. The locking mechanism cannot be reached by the driver while seated in the driver's seat, and cannot be reached by the passengers in the rear seats. The 5th door cannot be accidentally opened, unless the locking mechanism has been actively disengaged, the door remains locked. Disengaging the locking mechanism for the 5th door allows the driver to open the door from the outside, although passengers could push the door open from the inside, as well. There are two pertinent requirements of FMVSS No. 206 to your situation. First, S4.1.3 (Door Locks) states that: Each door shall be equipped with a locking mechanism with an operating means in the interior of the vehicle. In two prior letters, to Mr. Charles Murphy on May 10, 1974, and to Mr. Gary Hackett on April 11, 1988, the agency interpreted S4.1.3 to mean that the locking mechanism must also be operable from within the vehicle. The first question to be addressed is whether the 5th door meets the requirement of S4.1.3. We believe the answer is yes, the door is equipped with a locking mechanism with an operating means in the interior of the vehicle that is operable from within the vehicle. The operating means for the locking mechanism is in the interior of the vehicle in that the locking mechanism engages automatically when the 5th door is closed. While the means to disengage the operating mechanism is not accessible to occupants in the vehicle, Standard 206 does not require the locking mechanism to be capable of being disengaged by an occupant. This is because the purpose of the standard is to minimize the chance that occupants of the vehicle will be ejected in a collision. Thus, the thrust of the standard is to ensure that occupants are retained within the vehicle, such as by requiring doors to have door locks that occupants are capable of locking. The second pertinent requirement is S4.1.3.2 (Side Rear Door Locks), which states that: ... when the locking mechanism is engaged both the outside and inside door handles or other latch release controls shall be inoperative. The 5th door appears to comply with S4.1.3.2, in that it cannot be opened from the outside or inside when the locking mechanism is engaged. In a letter to Ms. C.D. Black, dated April 10, 1987, the agency interpreted a question on child safety locks that is relevant to your situation. The child safety lock operated as a 'secondary locking system' that, when activated, rendered the inside rear door handle incapable of opening the door. (It had no effect on the outside door handle.) As we stated in that letter, our conclusion was that Standard 206 permitted the child safety lock because the standard prohibits only secondary locking systems that interfere with the engagement, but not with the disengagement, of the primary locking system. In that letter, we wrote: The answer to your question about the child locking systems is dependent on whether the systems interfere with an aspect of performance required by Standard No. 206. We have determined that the answer is no, because the requirements of... S4.1.3.2 are written in terms of what must occur when the primary system is engaged and impose no requirements regarding the effects of disengaging the system. Thus, the aspect of performance required by S4.1.3 for the interior operating means for the door locks is that it be capable only of engaging the required door locking mechanisms. The aspect of performance required by S4.1.3.2 for door locks on the rear doors is that the inside and outside door handles be inoperative when the locking mechanism is engaged. Since we have determined that... S4.1.3.2 do es not address the effects of disengaging the required door locks-- i.e., S4.1.3.2 does not require that the inside rear door handles be operative (capable of releasing the door latch) when the required locking system is disengaged--a child locking system may be provided on a vehicle if it does not negate the capability of the door lock plunger (the operating means) to engage the door locks. I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any further questions, feel free to contact Mr. Elias at the above address or by phone at (202) 366- 2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam5376

"Dear Mr. Garman: This responds to your letter and telephone cal asking several questions about the responsibilities of various parties after child restraint systems have been involved in a collision and fire during transit from the manufacturer (Gerry Products) to a retail outlet (Toys R Us). I apologize for the delay in responding. You indicate in your letter that the child restraint manufacturer, Gerry Baby Products, has determined that the DOT certification on the child restraints is no longer valid because the restraints were subjected to potential stress by the impact of the truck accident. We understand from your letter that M.F. Bank is storing the child restraint systems damaged in transit, and is prepared to liquidate the stock if directed to do so by the insurer of the transit company. However, the insurer has asked that M.F. Bank ask this agency whether the child restraint systems involved in the loss can be sold as salvage to the public. You state your belief that the systems are salvagable because they did not experience structural damage in the incident. By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. sections 1381 et seq.) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Under that authority, NHTSA issued FMVSS No. 213, 'Child Restraint Systems' (49 CFR 571.213) to reduce the number of children killed or injured in motor vehicle crashes and in aircraft. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing for sale or selling any new item of equipment that does not conform to all applicable FMVSSs or is not covered by a certification of compliance with the applicable FMVSSs. Thus, each new child restraint system must comply with FMVSS No. 213 and must be certified as complying with that standard when it is sold. You first ask whether Federal law would prohibit the sale of the child restraint systems as salvage. The answer is yes, since according to your letter and telephone call, Gerry has indicated that its certification is no longer valid, and has thereby withdrawn the certification. If the child seats are not certified, selling them would violate 108(a)(1)(A). Section 109 of the Act provides any violation of Section 108 is punishable by civil penalties of up to $1,000 per violation, up to a maximum of $800,000 for a series of related violations. You ask in your telephone call whether Federal law prohibits Gerry from concluding that the certification remains valid. If your question is whether the Safety Act or our regulations require Gerry to withdraw the certification simply because the seats were involved in an incident, the answer is no. However, 108(a)(1)(C) of the Safety Act prohibits any person from certifying that a child restraint system complies with Standard 213 if that person, in the exercise of due care, has reason to know that the certificate is false or misleading in a material respect. Gerry is therefore required by the Safety Act to withdraw the certification of the unsold seats if it believes the certification is invalid. If a manufacturer determines, for any reason, that the unsold seats do not comply, NHTSA will not second guess the decision to withdraw the certification. Finally, you ask if it would be possible for NHTSA to send someone to your warehouse to inspect the child restraint systems to determine whether the systems comply with FMVSS No. 213. The answer is no, NHTSA does not inspect products for compliance outside the context of its enforcement activities. The Safety Act establishes a self-certification system under which child restraint manufacturers are responsible for ensuring that their products comply with FMVSS No. 213. NHTSA does not approve, endorse, or give assurances of compliance of any product. I hope this information answers your questions. If you need further information, please feel free to contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: 8317

Mr. Milford R. Bennett
Acting Director
Automotive Safety Engineering
GM Environmental and Energy Staff
Box 9055
Warren, MI 48090-9055

Dear Mr. Bennett:

We have received the petition by General Motors (GM) for temporary exemption of a fleet of approximately 50 GM electric vehicles (GMEVs) from several Federal motor vehicle safety standards. GM would retain title to and ownership of the GMEVs which would be provided to private individuals and used for demonstration purposes over a 2-year period. The exemptions would be effective October 1, 1993. For the reasons set forth below, we are unable to consider the petition in its present form, and recommend that you either supplement it or withdraw and resubmit it when it has been revised in accordance with our procedures.

First, we have comments on several of the Safety Standards from which GM has requested exemption. With respect to Standard No. 105, GM appears to have requested exemption from the standard in its entirety, commenting that until "resolution of remaining EV regulatory issues associated with FMVSS 105 . . . GM is unable to certify the GMEV . . . as being fully compliant . . . ." We suggest that GM restrict its request for exemption to the specific sections of Standard No. 105 that may be affected by the pending resolution of issues involving brakes for electric vehicles and that this will facilitate GM's argument that an exemption would not unduly degrade the safety of the GMEV.

We also prefer the use of objective data to subjective terms where practicable. GM has requested exemption from some of the photometric requirements of Standard No. 108 because the possibility exists that candlepower values may be "slightly below" the minimum requirements "at a few test points". Is it possible to identify the test points and to quantify the potentially lower candela at those points?

Similarly, GM has argued that "preliminary testing has indicated that" the GMEV will "substantially comply" with Standards Nos. 208, 212 and 219. Under section 555.6(c)(2), a petitioner shall provide ". . . testing documentation establishing that a temporary exemption will not unreasonably degrade the safety of the vehicle . . . ." Therefore we ask GM to submit the preliminary test reports in substantiation of its petition.

Finally, GM has also failed to set forth the arguments required by 49 CFR 555.5(b)(7) as to why an exemption would be in the public interest and consistent with the objectives of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

We note in passing the unusual use in the petition of the argument that "the GMEV will provide an overall level of safety that is substantially equivalent to the level of safety of nonexempted vehicles." The argument of overall safety equivalence is the basis for exemption provided by Section 555.6(d), not Section 555.6(c) where a petitioner must demonstrate that an exemption would not unreasonably degrade the safety of the vehicle. However, we interpret GM's argument to mean that it views its failures to meet Standards Nos. 201, 208, 212, and 219, as technical in nature with essentially no degradation in safety, let alone a degradation that approaches unreasonableness. For this reason, we believe all the more strongly that GM should provide the preliminary test report results mentioned above.

When we have received GM's new petition, we shall prepare a Federal Register notice requesting public comment. If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:555 d:3/15/93

ID: aiam1716

Dear Mr. Henderson: This is in reply to your letter of October 17,1974, requesting ou opinion on whether a torso pad you wish to utilize in a newly-designed child seating system must conform to the requirements of paragraph S4.10.1 of Standard No. 213, 'Child Seating Systems' (49 CFR S 571.213). The enclosed description, diagrams, and pictures of the pad show that it is attached directly to the harness restraint of the seating system. You suggest that because it works with the restraint webbing, it provides a cushioning function more or less like deformable, force-distributing material. You also suggest that it falls under the exclusion for belt adjustment hardware.; In our view, based on the information you provide, the torso pad is rigid component of the child seating system, and is subject to the requirements for padding and minimum radii of paragraph S4.10.1. The fact that the pad is attached to the belt system does not alter this conclusion. Paragraph S4.10.1 refers to 'any rigid component,' and the torso shield must be evaluated as a component separately from the belt system or any other component. We have determined that rigid should be interpreted in its normal, dictionary sense, and it appears from the information you have provided that the torso pad by itself is rigid in nature.; We can neither agree that because the torso pad acts as a bel adjustment system it falls within the exemption for 'belt adjustment hardware.' That exemption is intended to apply only to traditional belt adjustment hardware mechanisms, which are generally completely integrated into the belt webbing and do not protrude from it.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4189

Dear Mr. Magnussen: Your telex No. 15615 to the National Bureau of Standards has bee referred to us for reply, since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulates the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment.; You asked for information regarding our regulations fo 'superstructures for vans.' We understand that the 'superstructure' is a structure designed to be mounted in the cargo area of a van by the user, and consists of a roof, floor and sides, and 'windows of plexiglass and the rear window of tempered glass.' Based on the brief description, it appears that the item of motor vehicle equipment you manufacture is either a 'camper' or a 'slide-in camper.' In addition to other requirements applicable to you as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, we have requirements which apply directly to manufacturers of slide-in campers, which I will discuss below. (The information provided in your telex only briefly described your product. If we have not correctly understood the nature of the 'superstructure,' please do not hesitate to contact us.); By way of background information, our agency is authorized, under th National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed), to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Vehicle Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. This process requires each manufacturer to determine in the exercise of due care that its products meet all applicable requirements. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates other alleged safety-related defects. If you or the agency determines that a safety-related defect or noncompliance exists, you are obligated to notify purchasers of your product and remedy the problem without charge. Manufacturers who fail to provide notification of or remedy for a defect or noncompliance may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation. (A general information sheet describing your responsibilities under the Vehicle Safety Act is enclosed.); You as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment are responsible fo certifying compliance with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 126, *Truck-Camper Loading*, sets requirements for a slide-in camper, which is a camper having a roof, floor, and sides, designed to be mounted on and removable from the cargo area of a truck. Standard No. 126 requires you to permanently label each camper with information including its maximum loaded weight. The standard also requires each camper to be furnished with an owner's manual that includes information on total camper weight, proper matching of a truck and slide-in camper, appropriate methods of camper loading, and how to determine the camper's center of gravity and where it should be placed in the truck cargo area.; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials* sets performance requirements for glazing materials used in new motor vehicles and glazing materials sold as items of replacement equipment, including slide-in and other types of campers. The standard establishes both performance requirements, including ones regulating the light transmittance and abrasion resistance of glazing, and labeling requirements applicable to the glazing used in your product. Copies of both Standard Nos. 126 and 205 are enclosed for your convenience.; In addition to the copies of the materials described above, I a enclosing copies of two procedural rules which apply to all manufacturers subject to the regulations of this agency. The first in (sic) 49 CFR Part 566, *Manufacturer Identification*. This rule requires your company to submit your name, address, and a brief description of the items of equipment you manufacture to this agency within 30 days after you import your products into the United States.; The other rule is 49 CFR Part 551, *Procedural Rules*. Subpart D o this regulation requires all manufacturers headquartered outside of the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of all process, notices, orders and decisions. This designation should be mailed to the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20590, and must include the following information:; >>>1. A certification that the designation of agent is valid in for and binding on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made,; 2. The full legal name, principal place of business, and mailin address of the manufacturer,; 3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of th manufacturer's products which do not bear its name,; 4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect unti withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer,; 5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed which may be an individual, firm, or U.S. corporation, and; 6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent.<<< In addition, the designation must be signed by a person with authorit to appoint the agent. The signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his or her signature.; I have also enclosed an information sheet describing the Federal Moto Vehicle Safety Standards. Also enclosed is a description of how you can obtain copies of our motor vehicle safety standards and other regulations.; I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you hav further questions.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5330

Dear Mr. Barker: This responds to your letter concerning the buckl release requirement of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, 'Child Restraint Systems.' I apologize for the delay in responding. You asked for the 'tensile load requirements for the buckle and tongue.' There is no specific requirement in Standard 213 for the tensile force that a child restraint buckle must withstand. Instead, the buckle must maintain its integrity when the child restraint is subjected to a simulated frontal impact at 30 mph with either a six-month-old (17 pounds (lbs.)) or three-year-old (33 lbs.) sized dummy restrained in the car seat. At the conclusion of the simulated impact, the force required to depress the latch button to release the buckle is measured and must be 16 lbs. or less. You also asked for a copy of Procedure D of the American Society for Testing and Materials Standard D756-78. Section S5.4.2 of FMVSS No. 213 sets forth those requirements by making reference to section S4.3(b) of FMVSS No. 209. which, in turn, leads to the reference to Procedure D of ASTM D756-78. The material you requested is enclosed. In addition, you asked for a list of laboratories that test child safety seats and buckles. NHTSA does not endorse particular test laboratories. However, I can provide you with a list of laboratories we are aware of that conduct child restraint compliance tests. There may be other laboratories that can test child safety seats and buckles. Please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff if you have further questions. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures;

ID: aiam2320

Dear Mr. Ryan: This responds to the Topeka Metropolitan Transit Authority's May 17 an 18, 1976, letters asking whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) definition of school bus or its Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*, prevent the utilization of transit buses to transport students to and from school. You ask if a proposed amendment to Kansas statutes would conflict with Federal law or regulation if it exempts transit buses from a requirement that school bus seating be forward-facing.; Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Ac (the Act) (15 U.S.C. S 1392(d)) does preempt State motor vehicle safety requirements of general applicability that are not identical to a Federal standard applicable to the same aspect of performance. In this case, the proposed section 10 appears to be identical to S5.1 of Standard No. 222 insofar as it addresses the direction in which school bus seating must face. It is the opinion of the NHTSA that this portion of the proposed section 10 would therefore not be preempted by Standard No. 222.; The second portion of section 10 provides an exception to th requirement for forward-facing seats, and it is the NHTSA's opinion that the exception is preempted insofar as it might apply to school buses purchased by a metropolitan transit authority after the October 26, 1976, effective date of Standard No. 222.; In the case of transit buses 'designed and sold for operation as common carrier in urban transportation,' however, the exception does not apply to an aspect of performance regulated by a motor vehicle safety standard (i.e., the orientation of seating in transit buses). It would therefore not appear to be preempted by any Federal motor vehicle safety standard.; The NHTSA recently considered inclusion of transit buses in th definition of 'school bus' but concluded that Congress' intent in broadening the definition of 'school bus' did not address inclusion of transit buses involved in student transportation. I have enclosed a discussion of this issue that accompanied the redefinition of 'school bus.'; As you noted in your letter, Highway Program Safety Standard No. 17 *Pupil Transportation Safety* (23 CFR 1204), provides for the transportation of students in school buses and in transit buses.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: nht74-4.14

DATE: 07/11/74

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

TO: Automobile Importers of America

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 24, 1974, asking that the NHTSA reconsider its decision to extend the time period within which it will normally respond to petitions for reconsideration. You also suggest that public meetings be held following the deadline for receipt of petitions.

Although the NHTSA appreciates the need for expeditious handling of petitions for reconsideration, it has become clear through the years that a shorter deadline for action than 90 days after the closing date for receipt of petitions is not practicable. In order to give full consideration to the points raised in the petitions, a period of 90 days from the closing date for petitions is often necessary and in the public interest. Every attempt will be made to remain within this limitation.

With regard to your suggestion that a public proceeding be held after the receipt of petitions, in general such proceedings have been found unnecessary at this stage in the rulemaking process. Written submissions have proven more helpful than oral discussion during this phase, since they tend to provide more constructive information and "hard data." In cases where a public meeting appears advisable, we will of course not hesitate to hold one.

Thank you for your comments.

AUTOMOBILE IMPORTERS OF AMERICA

June 24, 1974

James B. Gregory Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

On April 25, 1974, a notice was published in the Federal Register extending from 90 days to 120 days from publication of a final rule, the time period during which the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will normally respond to petitions for reconsideration. It is the unanimous view of the member companies of the Automobile Importers of America (AIA) that this extension of the NHTSA response time is not in the public interest and that you should reconsider this policy change in light of the following:

(a) With few exceptions, manufacturers must initiate changes in production tooling and order appropriate materials from suppliers promptly after issuance of a new or revised standard in order to meet the specified effective date. Since the deadlines for such production decisions are often short, delay on the part of NHTSA in responding to a petition can serve, in effect, as a denial of the petition.

(b) Manufacturers are allowed a 30-day period after publication of a standard to transmit the text to the factory, translate it to a foreign language (in most instances), construct and perform tests on special prototype vehicles or components, determine the conformance, producibility, and cost of an appropriate design, and, if significant problems are encountered, prepare a Petition for Reconsideration to the NHTSA. In view of this, it does not seem unreasonable to expect NHTSA personnel to respond to the petition within 60 days - double the time allowed for preparation of the petition by manufacturers

It is recognized that rule making decisions are often difficult since they are complex technically and since to serve the public interest, many points of view must be considered. Accordingly, we would suggest that if petitions for reconsideration are received, a public proceeding be scheduled closely following the deadline for such petitions. This would facilitate understanding of the problem and possible solutions and assure consideration of all points of view. In addition it would assure the consideration of the petitions on a timely basis, and provide a forum for the presentation of information adverse to as well as in support of the petitions. Finally, the record of the proceeding would, we believe, be of considerable use to your staff in facilitating and expediting the disposition of petitions.

Ralph T. Millet President

ID: nht91-7.29

DATE: December 4, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Michael D. Incorvaia -- Manufacturing Engineering Manager, Wagner Lighting

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-12-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Michael D. Incorvaia (Std. 102); Also attached to letter dated 7-3-91 from Michael D. Incorvaia to NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel

TEXT:

This responds to your telephone call to Taylor Vinson of this Office on November 21, 1991, in which you pointed out that our letter to you of November 12, 1991, appeared to conflict with paragraph S5.5.6 of Standard No. 108.

You had asked whether Standard No. 108's requirement for an outage indication for turn signal lamps would be met by a new design developed by your company. Our letter of November 12 informed you that motor vehicles must now be manufactured to meet either SAE Standard J588 NOV84, Turn Signal Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles Less Than 2032 mm in Overall Width, or SAE Standard J1395 APR95, Turn Signal Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles 2032 mm or More in Overall Width, and that the outage indication requirement of the previously effective SAE Standard J588e was not adopted in either of the SAE standards. Therefore, under Standard No. 108, Wagner Electric was free to adopt such change in flash rate as its new design may call for.

Your telephone call pointed out that paragraph S5.5.6 of Standard No. 108 continues to require, in pertinent part, that "Failure of one or more turn signal lamps to operate shall be indicated in accordance with SAE Standard J588e, Turn Signal Lamps, September 1970 . . . ." That is correct, and I regret that you were misinformed on this point. Paragraph 4.5 of SAE Standard J588e states, in pertinent part, that "failure of one or more turn signal lamps to operate should be indicated by . . . a significant change in the flashing rate of the illuminated indicator." Electronic flashers available today provide a "significant change" in flash rate by doubling it as an outage indication. Wagner Lighting has developed a lamp outage indication that will remain within the performance parameters of Standard No. 108, but provide an outage flash rate that appears to be slightly less than 50% greater than that of normal operation. However, there will be "a recognized change in flashing rate." You have asked whether these changes may be regarded as "significant" within the meaning of SAE J588e.

The agency has never before addressed this provision in SAE J588e. The provision of an outage rate that is twice that of normal flasher performance represents industry's interpretation of the word "significant", and not NHTSA's. The intent of paragraph 4.5 is to call the attention of the vehicle operator to the failure of a signal lamp to operate. You have represented that the change in flash rate in the Wagner design is one that can be "recognized." Assuming that this is true then the change in flash rate can be viewed as one that is "significant" within

the meaning of SAE J588e.

However, perceiving that a change in flash rates has occurred, and understanding its meaning are different matters. If a double flash rate has been the industry norm, one to which motorists have become accustomed, the meaning of a flash rate that differs from normal operation but is less than double that of ordinary operation might not be readily apparent to the vehicle operator. Therefore, it might be in the interest of safety for operator's manuals and flasher packages to indicate the flash rates that will indicate normal and outage operation.