ID: aiam2297

Dear Mr. Plummer: This responds to Remco's April 26, 1976, question whether an exclusio from a safety standard based on the gross axle weight rating (GAWR) of an axle is met by using the rating of the axle beam by its manufacturer, or whether the truck or trailer manufacturer must also consider the load-bearing abilities of the wheels, rims, and hubs used with the axle beam.; Gross axle weight rating is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 to mean: >>>. . .the value specified by the vehicle manufacturer as th load-carrying capacity of a single axle system, as measured at the tire-ground interfaces.<<<; This definition means that the determination of GAWR is made by th vehicle manufacturer and that the axle beam rating of the component suppler cannot be the only basis for GAWR calculation. The GAWR is the value established at the tire-ground interfaces at each wheel position, and this means that the wheels, rims, hubs, and tires must be included in the determination. Thus, with regard to the exclusion from Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*, until September 1, 1977, for any vehicle with an axle that has a GAWR of 24,000 pounds or more, the vehicle manufacturer must take into consideration each component on the axle as well as its attachment to the vehicle frame.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0678

Dear Mr. Lundstrom: This is in reply to your letter of March 28, 1972, requestin elaboration of a statement made in the preamble to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 125, Warning Devices. You asked that the NHTSA identify the specific data it used in determining that with respect to wide angle positioning of the device, a lower minimum candlepower than that required by the E.C.E. Provides adequate protection.; As I said in my letter to you of March 27, 1972, in response to similar request, a large amount of material has been placed in this public docket as background for the rulemaking action. All of this material has been carefully studied by the NHTSA, and together with the expertise and judgment of NHTSA personnel, relied on in reaching the decisions involved in issuing this standard. In informal rulemaking proceedings, the decisions are based on the total weight of the agency's knowledge, not on particular items of information.; I will comment, however, that some of the materials relating to th passage that you quoted were submittals from Chrysler Corporation (Nr. 147) and the California Highway Patrol (Nr. 143), and the University of California report on triangle reflector performance (General Reference Nr. 17, Attachment 2).; Sincerely yours, Robert L. Carter, Acting Associate Administrator Motor Vehicle Programs;

ID: aiam5291

Dear Mr. Henneberger: This responds to your letter in which you reques an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, on behalf of your client, MICO, Inc. I apologize for the delay in our response. You ask that the agency give you an interpretation that FMVSS 105 does not preclude the installation of MICO's product, an auxiliary hydraulic brake lock, under the circumstances you have described. As you note in your letter, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. According to your letter, MICO's auxiliary hydraulic brake lock operates as follows. The device permits hydraulic system fluid to pass from the master cylinder to the brakes when the brake pedal is applied, thereby increasing hydraulic brake pressure. The device then blocks the return of the hydraulic fluid to the master cylinder when pressure is removed from the brake pedal. The device is not designed to be used when the vehicle is in motion, but only when the vehicle has been brought to a full stop, and the mechanical parking brake applied. At that point, the vehicle operator activates the auxiliary brake lock by means of a separate control switch. The device is deactivated prior to moving the vehicle. FMVSS 105 specifies requirements for hydraulic brake service brake and associated parking brake systems. The standard applies to vehicles with hydraulic service brake systems. In the case of an auxiliary hydraulic brake lock, there is no applicable standard for it as a separate item of motor vehicle equipment. However, since installation of the device requires cutting into a vehicle's braking system, it may affect a vehicle's compliance with safety standards. If MICO's auxiliary brake lock is installed as original equipment on new vehicles, the vehicle manufacturer would be required to certify that the entire brake system satisfies the requirements of FMVSS 105. If the device is added to a new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. In particular, the vehicle would need to continue to comply with FMVSS 105. MICO, as the manufacturer of the device, would have no certification responsibilities. However, a vehicle manufacturer or alterer might require information from MICO in order to make its necessary certification. Much of the information that you provided to us in your request for an interpretation might be useful in this regard. Should the auxiliary brake lock be installed on a used vehicle by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, the installer would not have to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard. I note that while we do not have any opinion about the safety of MICO's product, it is our understanding that certain vehicle manufacturers have stated that hydraulic brake locking devices should not be used on their vehicles. I enclose an example from a GMC service bulletin. MICO may wish to consult with these manufacturers concerning whether the use of its product in these vehicles would raise any safety concerns. Enclosed is an information sheet which identifies Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers. I note that the Safety Act's provisions concerning defects are applicable to motor vehicle equipment manufacturers even if their equipment is not covered by a safety standard. I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact David Elias of my office at the above address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures;

ID: aiam4380

Dear Mr. Short: This responds to your letter to our office concerning our certificatio requirements for manufacturers of school buses. I apologize for the delay in responding to your inquiry.; According to your letter, California's school bus regulations requir vehicles considered as 'school buses' under state law to be certified as 'school buses' under Federal law. Vehicles considered as 'school buses' under state law include multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's) used to carry two or more handicapped pupils confined to wheelchairs. Consequently, under California's school bus regulations, an MPV cannot be used to carry handicapped students unless it is certified as meeting our school bus safety standards. Because manufacturers have informed you that NHTSA prohibits them from certifying an MPV as a school bus, you request that we remove this restriction by permitting the school bus certification for MPV's.; Your understanding is correct that our regulations prohibit MPV's to b certified as 'school buses.' Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and NHTSA regulations, manufacturers classify their new motor vehicles in accordance with the definitions we issued for our motor vehicle safety standards (49 CFR Part 571.3) and certify that their vehicles meet all Federal safety standards applicable to the vehicle type. Under the definitions of Part 571.3, the issue of seating capacity makes the school bus and MPV definitions mutually exclusive. The passenger seating capacity of an MPV must be 9 or less, while that of a school bus must be 10 or more. A manufacturer cannot certify a vehicle as a 'school bus' in compliance with Federal school bus safety standards unless the vehicle is of a size that puts it within the school bus category.; Adopting your suggestion that we permit some MPV's to be certified a school buses could not be accomplished without changing either our 'school bus' definition, our regulations for certifying vehicles, or the application of our school bus safety standards. As explained below, we must decline your implicit request to make these changes because of a statutory restriction and because we believe their adoption is not warranted by a safety need.; We are precluded from adopting the suggestion that we expand our schoo bus definition to include some MPV's because our school bus definition is governed by legislation enacted by Congress. In the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974, Congress added a 'school bus' definition to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act which is based on the design and intended use of a 'bus.' Congress directed that upgraded school bus safety requirements be applied to buses that carry more than 10 passengers and that are determined by NHTSA likely to be significantly used for the purpose of school transportation.; Your second implicit suggestion is that we change our certificatio regulations to permit manufacturers to certify a vehicle as both an 'MPV' and a 'school bus.' Such a change would not be practical. A manufacturer's certification of a vehicle is a declaration that the vehicle is manufactured to comply with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to that vehicle type. Since our performance requirements for MPV's are not identical to those for school buses, an MPV cannot be manufactured to meet the standards applicable to both vehicle types.; The third suggestion implicit in your letter is that a dua certification can be effectuated by extending the application of our school bus safety standards to some MPV's. We are not aware of any data suggesting a safety need for such a change. MPV's already have their own safety standards to ensure adequate levels of safety performance for those vehicles. Because of those standards, we do *not* prohibit the sale of MPV's to transport school children. Further, we do not believe the change you suggest is necessary to address the issue raised in your letter. Federal law does not prohibit manufacturers from voluntarily manufacturing MPV's to meet school bus standards on aspects of performance that do not conflict with MPV standards, such as emergency exits and joint strength. California may thus specify performance standards now applicable to school buses for MPV's used to transport handicapped children, provided that the MPV's can continue to comply with MPV standards. Of course, the vehicles would still be certified only as MPV's.; In your letter, you mentioned that you examined the definitions se forth in Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, *Pupil Transportation Safety*, for 'Type I' and 'Type II' school vehicles. As you know, Standard No. 17 was issued under the Highway Safety Act as a standard for State highway safety programs. Since the 'standard' consists of our recommendations for the operation of school vehicles, the Type I and Type II school vehicle definitions found in Standard No. 17 are relevant for determining the operational recommendations applicable to different school vehicles. Those definitions do not, however, change the Vehicle Safety Act's definition of a school bus or the Act's requirements for a manufacturer to certify school buses to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.; I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if yo have further questions.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: 13705cos.co

Mr. Terry Emerson
Cosco Inc.
Product Standards Manager
2525 State St.
Columbus, IN 47201

Dear Mr. Emerson:

This responds to your December 6, 1996 letter asking for confirmation that S5.2.3.2 of Standard 213, "Child Restraint Systems," does not apply to booster seats. Your question relates to a petition for exemption for inconsequential noncompliance that Cosco submitted in July 1996 with the understanding, which you now believe to be incorrect, that S5.2.3.2 applies to those seats. Because you now believe S5.2.3.2 does not apply, you believe there is no noncompliance at issue and wish to withdraw the petition.

You are correct that the booster seats are not subject to S5.2.3.2. S5.2.3.2, which requires that surfaces contacting a dummy's head must be covered with energy absorbing foam, applies by way of S5.2.3.1 to child restraint systems (other than child harnesses) that are recommended for children whose masses are less than 10 kg (weighing less than 22 lb). Those restraints are infant-only and convertible restraints. You state that the booster seats in question are recommended for children whose masses are from 13.6 kg to 27 kg (weighing 30 to 60 lb).⁽¹⁾ Given that recommended range for the boosters, S5.2.3.2 does not apply.

We consider your petition to be withdrawn, as you request, and will take appropriate steps to close the action. If you have any questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:213
d:3/14/97

^1. This accords with S5.5.2(f) of Standard 213, which prohibits booster seats from being recommended for children whose masses are less than 13.6 kg.

ID: aiam4660

"Dear Mr. Watanabe: This is in reply to your FAX of September 14, l989 asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08, with respect to a vehicle headlamp aiming device (VHAD), as shown in the drawing attached to your letter. You have two questions: '1) Does a VHAD without a function which compensates the deviation of floor slope satisfy FMVSS No. l08 S7.7.5.2(a)(l(v)?' Paragraph S7.7.5.2(a)(v) states that 'Means shall be provided in the VHAD for compensating for deviations in floor slope not less than 1.2 degrees from the horizontal that would affect the correct positioning of the headlamp for vertical aim.' If a VHAD is 'without a function which compensates the deviation of floor slope' it would not satisfy Standard No. l08. '2) This Head Lamp is designed to be aimed vertically by means of observing only one spirit level placed on the movable reflector, as shown in the drawing. Does this structure of VHAD satisfy FMVSS No. l08 S7.7.5.2(a)(l)(v)?' The answer is yes, if observation of the simple spirit level is coordinated with an off-vehicle measurement of floor slope. As located, the spirit level with the range of +/- 1.2 degree range will allow aim of the headlamp, even though the vehicle may not be level, and willcompensate for floor slopes of up to 1.2 degrees, thus fulfilling the requirement that there be compensatory means when the vehicle upon which the headlamp is mounted is not resting upon level ground. I hope that this answers your questions. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam4978

"Dear Mr. Maekawa: This responds to your letter of February 21, 1992 asking for a clarification of our letter of December 18, 1991. In that letter we discussed 'a combination tail/stop lamp that would be mounted on the deck lid ('Lamp B') immediately adjacent to a combination tail\stop lamp that is mounted on the vehicle body ('Lamp A')'. You informed us that each lamp complied with the requirement for effective projected luminous lens area, but that neither complied with photometric requirements. You asked whether Ichikoh could consider the two adjacent lamps as one lamp for purposes of measuring photometrics. We replied that it was not possible to consider the two lamps as one, and that we regarded the lamp that was on the vehicle body as the one that should be designed to conform to Standard No. 108. You have asked whether this advice is consistent with an interpretation given Mazda on June 28, 1985, with respect to a similar design. That letter informed Mazda that compliance of the design would be judged with the vehicle in its normal driving position, thereby implicitly agreeing that the two lamps could be considered one for photometric purposes. The difference in the interpretations originated in the way each manufacturer described its design. Ichikoh referred to its design as two adjacent lamps. Mazda described its configuration as a (single) lamp constructed so that a portion of it is fixed to the body and a portion on the decklid. Our review of the two designs shows that they are essentially similar, and that the Mazda design comprises, in fact, two adjacent lamps. As it was not our intent to change the earlier interpretation, we confirm that the June l985 interpretation remains valid, and that the December 1991 letter is overruled to the extent that it is inconsistent with it. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: 22594

Mr. Henry E. Seiff, P.E.
Director of Technology
The Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition
1100 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 850
Arlington, VA 22209





Dear Mr. Seiff:

This is in response to your letter of January 3, 2001, in which you request an interpretation of the bonfire test procedures of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 304, "Compressed Natural Gas Fuel Container Integrity." The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) recently amended these procedures, and you ask whether the new procedures specify both a horizontal and vertical test for compressed natural gas (CNG) fuel containers less than 1.65 meters in length, or only a horizontal test. The answer is the new procedures specify only a horizontal test for such containers.

In the past, Standard No. 304 did specify that CNG fuel containers less than 1.65 meters in length were tested in both the horizontal and vertical positions. However, on October 30, 2000, NHTSA amended the standard's bonfire test procedures. (65 FR 64624).

Now, under S8.3.2(a) of Standard No. 304, the CNG fuel container is positioned "in accordance with paragraphs (b) and (c) of S8.3.2." Paragraph (b) of S8.3.2 specifies that the CNG fuel container is positioned "so that its longitudinal axis is horizontal and its bottom is 100 mm (4 inches) above the fire source." (Emphasis added). Paragraph (c)(1) of S8.3.2 specifies that a CNG fuel container that is 1.65 meters (65 inches) in length or less is positioned "so that the center of the container is over the center of the fire source." Thus, taken together, paragraphs (b) and (c) of S8.3.2 specify that a CNG fuel container that is 1.65 meters in length or less is positioned so that its longitudinal axis is horizontal, its bottom is 100 mm above the fire source, and its center is over the center of the fire source.

The new bonfire test procedures do not specify that a CNG fuel container that is 1.65 meters in length or less is tested in the vertical position.

I hope you find this information useful. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Mr. Dion Casey in the Office of Chief Counsel at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:304
d.2/13/01

ID: aiam3559

Dear Mr. Knoedler: This is to follow-up on your phone conversation with Mr. Stephen Oesc of my staff concerning the application of section 5.4.3.3 and 5.4.3.4 of Standard 213, *Child Restraint Systems* to harnesses. If a harness is used as a portion of child restraint system, such as a booster seat, it must comply with the requirements of S5.4.3.3. If a harness is to be used alone, without any other structure, as a child restraint system, it must comply with section 5.4.3.4 of the standard.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: nht69-2.35

DATE: 10/21/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; B. M. Crittenden for Robert Brenner; NHTSA

TO: Department of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of August 20, 1969, concerning multiple compartment tail, stop and turn signal lamps.

The answers to your specific questions (numbered in accordance with your letter) are as follows:

1. (a)(b) If one compartment or lamp meets the photometric requirements, the additional compartments or lamps are considered as additional lamps and are, therefore, not regulated by Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 except by S3.1.2.

(c) The manufacturer has no choice in interpreting paragraph S3.1.1.7. However, the manufacturer does have a choice in how he designs his turn signal lamps to comply with S3.1.1.7.

2. In your reference to Mr. Baker's letter of May 13, it was interpreted that "all lamps or compartments shall be photometered simultaneously." Paragraph S3.1.1.7 clearly states that "photometric requirements . . . . shall be provided by one or a combination of the compartments or lamps." Therefore, if two lamps or compartments of a three lamp or three compartment lamp meet the photometric requirements, they shall be photometered together as a unit and the third lamp or compartment is considered an "additional lamp."

(a) Individual tests are permitted to determine whether one compartment actually does comply.

(b) No. The intent of paragraph S3.1.1.7 is clear. This section permits the use of either one or a combination of the compartments or lamps in meeting the photometric requirements.

3. (a)(b) Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 requires one tail lamp and one stop lamp on each side of the vehicle. If one lamp of a multiple lamp or one compartment of a multiple compartment lamp meets the requirements, 1(a) above would apply. If two or more lamps or compartments are necessary to meet the requirements, they shall be photometered together as a unit.

4. (a) I am not familiar with State requirements "that each rear lamp on a vehicle must perform a specific function and be approved for that function," and do not read California Vehicle Code Section 24003 as a requirement of this nature. There is no such requirement in Standard No. 108. Lamps on a vehicle, and not required by the Standard, are generally subject to regulation by the States.

(b) Same as 1(a).

(c) Same as 1(a).

5. (a) If one compartment meets the requirements, 1(a) applies. If both are needed to meet the requirements, they are to be tested as a single unit.

(b) Same as 5(a).

In general, we believe that the above replies answer your several questions. However, should you have any additional questions with respect to a specific rear lighting arrangement for a specific vehicle, we would be pleased to provide further clarifying information.

August 20, 1969

Robert Brenner Acting Director National Highway Safety Bureau

We have a copy of a letter to Mr. Charles W. Heyer of Electrical Testing Laboratories from Mr. Charles A. Baker regarding photometric test procedures. That letter quite clearly points out the method in which the National Highway Safety Bureau desires multicompartment turn signal lamps to be photometered. However, it raises additional questions concerning procedures to be used both by a laboratory in determining compliance of a device with the Federal standards and by a manufacturer in designing a lamp to meet those standards.

The photometric requirements in SAE(Illegible Word) were developed several years ago before multicompartment lamps were in common use. These(Illegible Word) reasonably well fulfilled the need in upgrading the performance of single-compartment lamps at that time. Later, experience with some of the original multicompartment lamps and complaints about excessive brightness of the taillamps and stoplamps on vehicles brought about a need for revising the standards.

At that time, each section of a multicompartment lamp was treated in the same manner as an individual lamp, since their performance was little different than that of individual lamps set side by side. Therefore, each compartment of a three-compartment lamp had to(Illegible Words) and the 80 candlepower minimum for a turn signal lamp. In addition, each compartment was allowed to have a maximum intensity of 15 candlepower at or above(Illegible Word) for the taillamp and 300 candlepower in red for the turn signal lamp.

The above maximum values were reasonable when only one or two lamps were used on each side of the vehicle. Unfortunately, the first three-compartment lamps were built with such high light output that each compartment barely(Illegible Word) with the maximum. This meant in some cases that the combined taillamp output on each sivo of the vehicle was over 45 candlepower and the combined turn signal output was barely below the total maximum of(Illegible Word) candlepower, thereby being annoyingly bright to following drivers.

The manufacturers and the SAE Lighting Committee recognized this problem and after a number of demonstration of systems and rewriting of proposed crafts developed the multicompartment rear lamp specification in SAE J575d. The original brightness problem appeares to be quite simple and could have been solved merely by reducing the maximum intensities allowed multicompartment lamps; however, the manufacturers more concerned that they would then be squeezed between a high minimum value for each compartment and a low maximum value which did not allow sufficient leeway for normal design and production.

The SAE studies indicated that with the types of multiple compartment lamps that were in use about three years ago, the values in SAE(Illegible Word) applying to the total light output of the multicompartment lamp were reasonable. This standard did not cover every condition of brightness and lens area that might be involved in providing anytime effectiveness while limiting nighttime brightness to reduce annoyance, but it was a first step in this direction.

Manufacturers who have attempted to comply with both FMVSS 108 and SAE J576d have differences in interpretation of your requirements. We would like to have the following points clarified so we do not cause the manufacturers unnecessary difficulties when we test devices for compliance with Federal and State standards:

1. Section 3.1.1.7 of FMVSS No. 108 specifies in part that the photometric requirements "shall be provided by one or a combination of the compartments or lamps".

(a) Does this mean that if one compartment or lamp meets the minimum and maximum requirements, the other compartments or lamps can have photometric output either below the(Illegible Word) required or above the maximum permitted?

(b) Does this mean that(Illegible Word) lamps may be used to meet the minimum requirements with the others adding stray light, provided the maximum requirement of 15 candlepower in the case of taillamp and 100 candlepower in the case of turn signal lamps is not exceeded when all lamps or compartments are lighted simultaneously?

(c) Does the manufacturer have the choice in interpreting this section as to which method is most favorable to him for his particular design?

2. Mr. Baker's letter of May 12 states that "The sums of the measured candlepowers at the test points of separately photometered lamps or compartments of a combination shall not be acceptable", whereby implying that all lamps or compartments shall be photometered simultaneously.

(a) What was the purpose of stating in Section 3.1.1.7 that photometric requirements shall be provided by "one" or a combination of compartments if individual tests are not permitted to cetorine whether one compartment actually does comply?

(b) If it is the intent that the compartments shall be measured simultaneously, should not the above section be recorded to eliminate the implied alternative of having only one of the lamps comply?

3. FMVSS No. 108 makes no mention of the method of testing multicompartment and multilamp taillamps and stoplamps, as Section 3.1.1.7 applies only to turn signals.

(a) Do the standards require each compartment of a taillamp or stoplamp to be tested separately to show compliance with J575c, or are they to be tested simultaneously as required of turn signals?

(b) Must each separate lamp or individual compartment meet the taillamp-to-stoplamp ratio, or is it sufficient that the compartments when lighted together meet the(Illegible Word) even though a particular lamp or compartment does not comply individually.

4. The California Vehicle Code contains a Section J1000 which prohibits a motor vehicle from being equipped with any lamp or illuminating device not specifically required or permitted by the Code. The manufacturers would like to interpret Section(Illegible Words) permitting any number of additional taillamps and and stoplamps on each side, provided only the lamp meets the requirements of J575c. The only limitation they propose is that all of the lamps taken together do not exceed the maximum candlepower requirements in(Illegible Word), do an example of(Illegible Word) of the(Illegible Word) of the effectiveness of the(Illegible Words) lamp. They would also use photometric(Illegible Word) showing that the total stoplamp to total taillamp output complies with the ratio requirements of J575c; again; to prove non-impairment.

(a) Do the Federal standards preempt States from enforcing present requirements that each rear lamp on a vehicle must perform a specific function and to approved for that function?

(b) Are all of the seneraio lamps in a multiple rear lamp arrangement considered by the bureau as comprising one lamp and(Illegible Word) to be taken as such by the states in enforcing identical standards?

(c)(Illegible Word) the Federal standard merely require the minimum of one stoplamp and raillamp on each side of the vehicle to meet the requirements of(Illegible Word), with the additional optional lamps to be provided at the manufacturers discretion regardless of whatever standards the states may have for any such supplemental lamps?

5. Some modern designs of multicompartment lamps have three compartment configurations where the large(Illegible Word) compartment is a backup lamp and on each side of it is a taillamp-stoplamp combination. Other configurations include a three compartment lamp centeres; on the rear of the vehicle where the(Illegible Word) compartment is a taillamp-stoplamp combination and the compartments on each side of it perform only taillamp functions.

(a) Where two rear lamp compartments are separated by a backup lamp compartment, is the entire lamp to be tested as a simple unit as though the rear lamp sections were adjacent to each other?

(b) With respect to the cervico where a taillamp is on each side of a center-mounted stoplamp, are the taillamps considered a part of the physically integral three-compartment center lamp for the purposes of determining compliance with minimum and maximum specification and ratio requirements? Or, is the taillamp on each side of the(Illegible Word) to be tested simultaneously with the other taillamps on that particular side of the vehicle for the purposes of determining compliance?

The manufacturers have been quite(Illegible Word) in developing different variations of multiple lamps and multicompartment lamps and each has his own interpretation as to how his particular arrangement might be considered as complying with a specific federal or(Illegible Word) standard. We have been asked a number of questions such as those above as a result of our program of purchasing and testing(Illegible Word) for conformance to the standards.

We would very such appreciate your giving consideration to this problem and providing us with specific information that we can use(Illegible Word) injuries from foreign and American manufacturers and in using the correct test procedure for determining compliance of a specific device with the requirements.

WARREN M. HEATH Commander Engineering Section

be: George Gaudaen, SAE

Ford Motor Company

June 10, 1975

Richard B. Dyson, Esq. Assistant Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

Re: 1975 Monarch Rear Taillamp Part No. (2)(A)(2) - IP2R(2)S(3)T75CT

We are writing to seek the express confirmation of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of the preemptive effect of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108, 49 CFR 571.108 ("Standard 108") on passenger car lighting, as was provided by NHTSA in Motorcycle Industry Council, Inc. v. Younger, No. Civ. S74-120 (D.C.E.D. cal., Sept. 24, 1974).

This request is being made so that we may respond to the attached correspondence (Attachment I) from Mr. Warren M. Heath, Commander; California Highway Patrol, concerning compliance with Section 25950 * of the California Vehicle Code by the 1975 Monarch rear taillamps. Mr. Heath's letters of April 8 and May 25 contend that the amber lens applied over a red lens on one of the Monarch taillamp compartments violates that provision of the California Vehicle Code Section 25950 which does not permit a taillamp to be amber when unlighted. On this basis, Mr. Heath has stated that similarly equipped 1976 model year Monarchs will not be eligible for registration in California.

* Section 25950 provides in pertinent part: "(b) All lamps and reflectors visible from the rear of a vehicle shall be red, except that stop lamps, turn signal lamps and front side-marker lamps required by Section 25100 may show amber to the rear.

This section applies to the color of a lamp whether lighted or unlighted, and to any reflector exhibiting or reflecting perceptible light of 0.05 candlepower or more per foot - candle of incident illumination, except that taillamps, stop lamps and turn signal lamps visible to the rear may be white when unlighted."

We believe the provisions of Section 25950 are prempted by Standard 108, and that pursuant to Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 USC 1392(d)), California is precluded from the enforcement of any nonidentical standard.

As the NHTSA has confirmed on several occasions, the Standard's lighting requirements are intended to be comprehensive and exclusive, and leave no room for differing state standards. The statement of the Administrator cited by the Court in the Motorcycle Industry Council judgment is particularly pertinent here where California seeks to enforce a differing standard for the precise function (i.e., taillamp color) covered by Standard 108. (Letter from James B. Gregory, Administrator NHTSA, to W. Pudinski, Commissioner, Dept. of Highway Patrol, dated Nov. 8, 1973, N40-30 (RED).)

Compliance of the Monarch rear lamps with the requirements of Standard 108 has been confirmed by tests conducted at Ford. (Attachment II) Therefore, we seek an opinion on the issue of preemption with respect to the differing California requirements of Section 25950.

For your assistance, we are enclosing color photos of the Monarch and Monarch Ghia rear lamps which demonstrate their appearance when lighted and unlighted. (Attachment III) Photo #1 is of the Monarch rear lamp unlighted. Photo #2 shows the taillamp (3 exterior red compartments) lighted. Photos #3 and #4 are of the Monarch Ghia.

If you have any questions on this matter, please so inform me. I may be reached by telephone at (313) 337-6462. We hope to receive a response at your earliest convenience.

Nancy Kolodny Staff Attorney

Attachments