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

ID: 2507y

Mr. Mike Love
Manager, Safety Compliance
Porsche Cars North America, Inc.
100 West Liberty Street
P. O. Box 30911
Reno, Nevada 89520-3911

Dear Mr. Love:

This responds to your request that this agency determine that the new feature added to the antitheft device proposed to be installed on the MY 1991 911 and 928 Porsche car lines, represents a de minimis change in the system that was the basis for the agency's previous granting of a theft exemption for those car lines beginning in MY 1990, and that therefore Porsche 911's and 928's containing the new device would be fully covered by that exemption.

As you are aware, the Porsche 911 and 928 car lines were granted an exemption, pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543, from antitheft marking because Porsche showed that the antitheft device to be used in lieu of marking on these car lines was likely to be as effective as parts marking. This exemption was issued on May 25, 1989, and appeared in the Federal Register on June 2, 1989 (54 FR 23727).

The agency granted the exemption from theft marking because the agency found that based on substantial evidence, the agency believed that the antitheft device is "likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the theft prevention standard (49 CFR Part 541)." In the granting of the exemption from theft marking, the agency stated that it believed that the device will provide the types of performance listed in 49 CFR Part 543.6(a)(3): Promoting activation; attracting attention to unauthorized entries; preventing defeat or circumventing of the device by unauthorized persons; preventing operation of the vehicle by unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the reliability and durability of the device.

In your letter, it was stated that beginning from MY 1991, Porsche plans to modify the antitheft device that is standard equipment on the Porsche 911 and 928, as follows: integrate the alarm control unit with the central locking and interior light control units; incorporate a feature that will also monitor the glove box for unauthorized opening; improve diagnostic capability in order to enhance serviceability; and install a capability to accept other features (such as motion sensors) if they are desired in the future.

In addition, it was stated that the changes in the system will be virtually unnoticeable to the operator, and that the system will still be armed passively by locking either door with the key. Further, with the addition of the glovebox, all the same points of entry, such as the doors, hood, and hatch, will be monitored by the system and the engine disabling and alarm features will be the same. Porsche further stated that the system "will be as protected and tamper resistant as the current system."

After reviewing the proposed changes to the componentry and performance of the antitheft device on which the exemption was based, the agency concludes that the changes are de minimis. While the new device has enhanced componentry and provides some aspects of performance not provided by the original device, it also continues to provide the same aspects of performance provided by the original device and relies on essentially the same componentry to provide that performance. Therefore, it is not necessary for Porsche to submit a petition to modify the exemption pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543.9(c)(2).

If Porsche does not implement the new antitheft device as described in your letter, or delays implementation until after MY 1991, we request that Porsche notify the agency of such decisions.

It is my understanding that, in an April 13, 1990, telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of NHTSA's Office of Chief Counsel, you stated that Porsche was not requesting confidential treatment of any information provided in your letter. Therefore, a copy of your letter, and this response, will be placed together in NHTSA's public docket.

Sincerely,

Barry Felrice Associate Administrator for Rulemaking

ref:Part 543 d:5/3l/90

ID: 10878

Mr. Musa K. Farmand
Gonz555-B Blanding Boulevard
Orange Park, FL 32073

Dear Mr. Farmand:

This responds to your letter of April 27, 1995. Your letter concerns a law suit in which you represent plaintiffs injured in an automobile accident. In this law suit, the counsel for the defendant has moved to amend his answer to assert that 49 CFR 571.208, paragraph S4.1.5.2(c)(2) requires each state to allow for mitigation of damages in any seat belt use law and that paragraph preempts the Florida mandatory seat belt law. According to your letter, the Florida law "does not allow a mitigation of damages defense with respect to an alleged failure to wear a seat belt." As explained below, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration agrees with you that the Florida safety belt use law is neither expressly nor impliedly preempted by Federal law.

Purpose of Paragraph S4.1.5.2(c)(2)

Before discussing the issue of preemption, I want to discuss the background and purpose of Paragraph S4.1.5.2(c)(2). That paragraph was added to Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208) as part of a final rule issued July 17, 1984 concerning automatic restraints (49 FR 28962). That final rule required all new cars to have automatic protection (air bags or automatic belts) starting in the 1990 model year. The final rule included a provision that the automatic restraint requirement would be rescinded if the Secretary of Transportation determined, not later than April 1, 1989, that a sufficient number of States had enacted belt use laws meeting certain minimum criteria to cover at least two-thirds of the U.S. population (paragraph S4.1.5). Under S4.1.5, the Secretary was not required to make any determination about any State safety belt laws. In fact, the Secretary never did so, in part because not enough States adopted mandatory seat belt use laws of any

sort prior to April 1, 1989. Because no determination was made under S4.1.5, the automatic restraint requirements are now in effect for all passenger cars.

The minimum criteria were set forth in S4.1.5.2 of Standard No. 208 . One of the criteria was "a provision specifying that the violation of the belt usage requirement may be used to mitigate damages..." (S4.1.5.2(c)(2)). However, S4.1.5 neither purported to require nor was intended to require States to enact safety belt use laws. In addition, S4.1.5 did not require that any State safety belt use laws had to incorporate the minimum criteria of S4.1.5.2. Paragraph S4.1.5 merely provided that the Secretary would rescind the automatic restraint requirement if he or she determined that a sufficient number of States enacted laws which met the criteria of S4.1.5.2 by April 1, 1989.

Preemption

The Florida safety belt use law is not and never has been either expressly or impliedly preempted by Federal law.

Standard No. 208 was issued under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 which expressly preempts state laws only to the extent provided by section 30103. That section provides for the express preemption of State motor vehicle safety standards that are not identical to Federal standards. However, the Florida seat belt law is not a motor vehicle safety standard within the meaning of Chapter 301, since it does not regulate motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment performance. Accordingly, the Florida law is not expressly preempted.

The Florida law is not impliedly preempted because (1) Congress has not occupied the field of regulation of the behavior of motor vehicle occupants; and (2) the Florida seat belt law does not conflict with any Federal law or interfere with the objectives of Federal law.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have other questions or need some additional information, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:208 d:5/9/95 Your letter correctly notes that this provision was deleted from Standard No. 208 by a final rule issued on September 2, 1993 (58 FR 46551).

ID: 10878r

Mr. Musa K. Farmand
Gonz555-B Blanding Boulevard
Orange Park, FL 32073

Dear Mr. Farmand:

This responds to your letter of April 27, 1995. Your letter concerns a law suit in which you represent plaintiffs injured in an automobile accident. In this law suit, the counsel for the defendant has moved to amend his answer to assert that 49 CFR 571.208, paragraph S4.1.5.2(c)(2) requires each state to allow for mitigation of damages in any seat belt use law and that paragraph preempts the Florida mandatory seat belt law. According to your letter, the Florida law "does not allow a mitigation of damages defense with respect to an alleged failure to wear a seat belt." As explained below, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration agrees with you that the Florida safety belt use law is neither expressly nor impliedly preempted by Federal law.

Purpose of Paragraph S4.1.5.2(c)(2)

Before discussing the issue of preemption, I want to discuss the background and purpose of Paragraph S4.1.5.2(c)(2). That paragraph was added to Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208) as part of a final rule issued July 17, 1984 concerning automatic restraints (49 FR 28962). That final rule required all new cars to have automatic protection (air bags or automatic belts) starting in the 1990 model year. The final rule included a provision that the automatic restraint requirement would be rescinded if the Secretary of Transportation determined, not later than April 1, 1989, that a sufficient number of States had enacted belt use laws meeting certain minimum criteria to cover at least two-thirds of the U.S. population (paragraph S4.1.5). Under S4.1.5, the Secretary was not required to make any determination about any State safety belt laws. In fact, the Secretary never did so, in part because not enough States adopted mandatory seat belt use laws of any

sort prior to April 1, 1989. Because no determination was made under S4.1.5, the automatic restraint requirements are now in effect for all passenger cars.

The minimum criteria were set forth in S4.1.5.2 of Standard No. 208 . One of the criteria was "a provision specifying that the violation of the belt usage requirement may be used to mitigate damages..." (S4.1.5.2(c)(2)). However, S4.1.5 neither purported to require nor was intended to require States to enact safety belt use laws. In addition, S4.1.5 did not require that any State safety belt use laws had to incorporate the minimum criteria of S4.1.5.2. Paragraph S4.1.5 merely provided that the Secretary would rescind the automatic restraint requirement if he or she determined that a sufficient number of States enacted laws which met the criteria of S4.1.5.2 by April 1, 1989.

Preemption

The Florida safety belt use law is not and never has been either expressly or impliedly preempted by Federal law.

Standard No. 208 was issued under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 which expressly preempts state laws only to the extent provided by section 30103. That section provides for the express preemption of State motor vehicle safety standards that are not identical to Federal standards. However, the Florida seat belt law is not a motor vehicle safety standard within the meaning of Chapter 301, since it does not regulate motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment performance. Accordingly, the Florida law is not expressly preempted.

The Florida law is not impliedly preempted because (1) Congress has not occupied the field of regulation of the behavior of motor vehicle occupants; and (2) the Florida seat belt law does not conflict with any Federal law or interfere with the objectives of Federal law.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have other questions or need some additional information, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref: 208 d:6/14/95 Your letter correctly notes that this provision was deleted from Standard No. 208 by a final rule issued on September 2, 1993 (58 FR 46551).

ID: 07-004380-3as

ID: 0705r

Mr. Jeffrey D. Shetler
Manager of Government Relations
Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A.
P.O. Box 25252
Santa Ana, CA 92718-2016

Dear Mr. Shetler:

This responds to your letter of February 2, 1995, asking whether Safety Standards Nos. 108 and 123 permit a motorcycle turn signal pilot indicator to be green.

You have noted that, under Table III of Standard No. 108, SAE J588 NOV84 is the appropriate standard that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has incorporated by reference for motorcycle turn signal lamps. You have further noted that the SAE standard specifies requirements for turn signal pilot indicators if the front turn signal lamps are not readily visible to the driver. Finally, paragraph 5.4.3.3 of SAE J588 specifies that the indicator, if located on the outside of the vehicle, should emit a yellow-colored light. On the other hand, Standard No. 123, which specifies requirements for turn signal lamp identification, does not specify a color for turn signal pilot indicators.

You believe that SAE J588 was written with passenger cars in mind and that its color and area requirements are specified because the location of an outside indicator lamp is further away than a lamp located inside the vehicle on the instrument panel. You also believe that Standard No. 123 does not need to address distance from the driver's eye because the turn signal lamp will always be within a reasonable distance from the driver's eye. Thus, you have concluded that any pilot lamp color would be acceptable.

We have reviewed specifications of both the SAE and Standard No. 123. SAE J588 NOV84 Turn Signal Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles Less Than 2032 MM in Overall Width is incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108, and, under Table III, is the standard specified for motorcycle turn signal lamps. Because paragraph S5.1.1 of Standard No. 108 does not contain a section modifying the applicability of J588 to motorcycles, all the requirements of J588 apply to motorcycles, including

turn signal pilot indicators and their color. All that Standard No. 123 does, through Table III, is to specify the shape of the turn signal indicator. It is silent as to the color of the indicator.

We believe that you are correct in your conclusion that J588 was not written with motorcycles in mind, at least for two-wheeled motorcycles such as Kawasaki makes. Two colors are prescribed by SAE J588, the choice of which depends on the location of the indicator. Under paragraph 5.4.3.2, a green-colored light "with a minimum area of 18 sq. mm." must be used "if the illuminated indicator is located inside the vehicle." Under 5.4.3.3 a yellow-colored light with "a minimum projected illuminated area of 60 sq. mm." must be used "if the illuminated indicators are located on the outside of the vehicle, for example on the front fenders." Since two-wheeled motorcycles do not have enclosed cabins, all references to "inside" and "outside" the vehicle are inapposite.

Since you brought this matter to our attention, we have conducted an informal survey of the color of turn signal indicators on motorcycles sold in the United States. We find that the predominant color is amber, though Harley-Davidson, accounting for 12% of the market, uses green. We view the use of either color as in accord with J588. Therefore, if Kawasaki wishes to change its indicator color from amber to green, it will not violate Standard No. 108 by doing so.

As J588's color specifications are coupled with those for the minimum illuminated area of the display, and you have not raised the question of an appropriate size for a green turn signal indicator, we call your attention to paragraph S5.2.2 of Standard No. 123 which requires that the display for turn signal lamps and other equipment "be visible to a seated operator under daylight conditions."

If you have any further questions, Taylor Vinson of this office will be glad to answer them for you (202- 366-5263).

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:108 d:5/3/95

ID: 1985-02.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/07/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. M. Mizuguchi

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. M. Mizuguchi Ashimori Industry Co., Ltd. 12, 4-chome Yokobori, Higashi-ku Osaka, Japan

Dear Mr. Mizuguchi:

Your letter of February 28, 1985, was forwarded to my office for reply. You asked whether the webbing attached to a buckle you intend to use must meet the webbing width requirement of S4.2 of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. The webbing is enclosed in a plastic sheath. As explained below, the webbing must meet the width requirement of the standard.

S4.2 of Standard No. 209 provides that the "width of the webbing in a seat belt assembly shall be not less than 1.8 inches, except for portions that do not touch a 95th percentile adult male with the seat in any adjustment position and the seat back in the manufacturer's nominal design riding position when measured under the conditions prescribed in S5.1(a)." The purpose of S4.2 is to ensure that belt webbing which comes into contact with an occupant has a minimum width that spreads the load imposed by the belt in a crash. By requiring webbing to spread rather than concentrate the load, the belt width requirement helps minimize the possibility of webbing-caused injury.

In the case of your design, the webbing is enclosed in a tightly-fitting plastic sheath. You state that the webbing/sheath combination can come into contact with an occupant. The sheath enclosed with your sample is made from an easily deformable plastic. Thus, when the crash loads are imposed by the belt, the sheath will deform and the crucial factor in concentrating the load on an occupant is the width of the belt. Since the webbing/sheath combination can contact and impose crash loads on an occupant, the agency concludes that the webbing must meet the minimum width requirement of S4.2.

If the webbing were encased in a reinforced sheath that did not appreciably deform under loading, the agency would consider both the width of the webbing and its encasing sheath in determining whether the requirement of S4.2 was met.

I have enclosed the sample of your product sent with your letter. If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Ref. No M/M02-28 Osaka Feb, 28, 1985

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

Attn: Mr. Francis Armstrong Director Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance Enforcement

Dear Mr. Francis Armstrong,

We'd like to ask you the following question. Recently, we are trying to make a soft and flexibility seat belt system, and then the enclosed buckle is one of our sample. This sample is composed of narrow webbing and a little solid plastic boot. However, according to FMVSS NO. 209 item 4.2 (a) "webbing width" describing it's width should be not less than 1.8 inches (about 46mm), the problem of elongation and etc, it is very difficult for us to judge whether our sample does conform to regulation N0.209 on the view of interpretation of the Law or not. Of course, this assembly does meet with the requirement of seat belt assembly prescribing in NO. 209. When this sample is located in vehicle, we are afraid that this sample will touch slightly or enough to person's body. Here, we enclosed please find our sample of buckle side of seat belt assembly herewith. So could you pleases inform us of your official comments very soon. Your earliest written answer will be highly appreciated.

Yours faithfully,

Ashimori Industry Co., Ltd.

M. Mizuguchi

encl. sample of bucket seat

ID: 001179drn

Pierre Villeneuve, Standard Technician
Girardin Minibus
Trans Canada Highway
Drummondville, (Quebec) J2B 6V4
CANADA

Dear Mr. Villeneuve:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release. Specifically, you wish to know "how many emergency exits" are needed on each side of a non-school bus over 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) GVWR with "21 passengers" (not including the driver).

Standard No. 217 requirements applicable to the bus at issue are at S5.2.2.1 and S5.2.2.2, Buses with GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds. S5.2.2.1 requires that non-school buses provide unobstructed openings for emergency exits based on the number of "designated seating positions on the bus," a term which includes the drivers seat. Thus, the bus at issue has 22 designated seating positions.

Standard No. 217 does not specify the number or types (i.e., doors versus windows) of emergency exits that must be provided. However, the standard specifies the total area of the unobstructed openings for emergency exits that must be provided. For the bus at issue, S5.2.2.1 specifies that the unobstructed openings for emergency exits must amount to 9,504 square centimeters (cm) (432 cm x 22 designated seating positions). At least 3,801.6 cm (40 percent) of the total required area of unobstructed openings shall be provided on each side (i.e., the right side or left side) of a bus.

The following explains how the 9,504 cm is to be allocated among the right and left sides of the bus and the rear emergency exit.

Emergency exits on the right side of the bus You stated that there was only one door, opposite the drivers seat, for entrance and egress. If the front door meets Standard No. 217 emergency exit requirements, it can be considered an emergency exit. See June 30, 1988, letter to Mr. Terry K. Brock (copy enclosed): "As long as the front door meets all applicable requirements for emergency exits under Standard No. 217, the door can be considered as an emergency exit. " However, as specified in S5.2.2.1, regardless of its actual area, the front door cannot be credited with more than 3,458 cm of the total area requirement.

Subtracting the square centimeters of the front door (not to exceed 3,458 square centimeters) from 3,801.6 cm, the remainder (of the area representing the unobstructed openings for the right side emergency exit) may be allocated to a side exit such as a window. The combined unobstructed opening area for the front door and the right side emergency exit window must total at least 3,801.6 cm.

Emergency exits on the left side of the bus The combined unobstructed openings for emergency exits for the left side of the bus must also be at least 3,801.6 cm. The emergency exits may consist of a left side emergency door and an emergency exit window, or may consist of emergency exit windows only.

Rear emergency exits Although you did not ask about rear emergency exits, please note that the unobstructed opening for the rear emergency exit must total at least 1900.8 cm (9,504 cm (total unobstructed area) minus 3801.6 cm (right side) minus 3801.6 cm (left side)). S5.2.2.2 states that when the bus configuration precludes installation of an accessible rear exit (such as a rear exit door), a roof exit that meets the requirements of S5.3 through S5.5 when the bus is overturned on either side, with the occupant standing facing the exit, shall be provided in the rear half of the bus.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:217
d.5/6/03

ID: 002293cmc

Mr. Pierre Villeneuve
Girardin Minibus
Route Transcanadienne
Drummondville, Quebec J2B 6V4

Dear Mr. Villeneuve,

This is in response to your fax of November 4, 2002, requesting information on the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) Nos. 207, Seating systems, and 210, Seat belt assembly anchorages, to commercial buses. In your letter you ask if both FMVSS Nos. 207 and 210 apply to passenger seats on commercial buses. The answer to your question is that FMVSS No. 210 is applicable to passenger seats of all buses regardless of whether they are used for commercial purposes, as long as the vehicles gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) is 10,000 pounds or less. FMVSS No. 207 does not apply to passenger seats on buses that are designed for occupancy while the vehicle is in motion regardless of weight.

By way of background, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 authorizes the National Highway Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. 49 U.S.C. 30112(a) prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards and is certified as being in compliance.

FMVSS No. 207 applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses. (See S2.) However, S4.2 of FMVSS No. 207 establishes general performance requirements, stating that:

When tested in accordance with S5, each occupant seat, other than a side-facing seat or a passenger seat on a bus, shall withstand the following forces, in newtons ... (Emphasis added.)

Accordingly, passenger seats on buses are excluded from the general performance requirements for seats under FMVSS No. 207, and only the drivers seat of a bus must meet the general performance seat requirements under this regulation. FMVSS No. 207 also sets out requirements for restraining devices for hinged or folding seats or seat backs. (See S4.3.) But again, passenger seats in buses are excluded from this requirement.

FMVSS No. 210 also applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses. (See S2.) FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash protection, establishes which designated seating positions on buses require seat belt assemblies and FMVSS No. 210 establishes the standards for the belt anchorages those assemblies are required to meet. In determining whether seat belt anchorages need to be installed, S4.1.1 of FMVSS No. 210 references FMVSS No. 208 and states:

Seat belt anchorages for a Type 1 or a Type 2 seat belt assembly shall be installed for each designated seating position for which a Type 1 or a Type 2 seat belt assembly is required by Standard No. 208[.] Seat belt anchorages for a Type 2 seat belt assembly shall be installed for each designated seating position for which a Type 2 seat belt assembly is required by Standard No. 208[.]

S4.4.3.2 of FMVSS No. 208, states in pertinent part that:

[E]ach bus with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less, except a school bus, shall be equipped with an integral Type 2 seat belt assembly at the driver's designated seating position and at the front and every rear forward-facing outboard designated seating position, and with a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly at all other designated seating positions.

For buses with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds, seat belt assembly requirements only apply to the drivers designated seating position. (See FMVSS No. 208 S4.4.3.1.) Accordingly, for these vehicles the passenger seats need not meet the requirements of either FMVSS No. 207 or FMVSS No. 210.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any further questions please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-0536.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:207
d.1/16/03

ID: 00473.ztv

Mr. Charles I. Sassoon
President
Panor Corp.
125 Cabot Ct.
Hauppauge, NY 11788

Re: Maxxima Lamp M40130R

Dear Mr. Sassoon:

This is in reply to your letter to Taylor Vinson of this Office. You asked for our opinion whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 permits the "Maxxima LED Sequential Stop/Tail/Turn Signal Lamp M40130R" that your company seeks to manufacture. You did not state whether the Maxxima lamp is intended as original equipment or as replacement equipment.

According to your letter, "when turn signaling is activated, separate sections of light are illuminated sequentially." The stop and tail functions "operate as normal steady burn and intermittent braking respectively." You have enclosed a test report by an independent laboratory indicating that a sample Maxxima lamp met all photometric requirements for the three functions of the lamp. You have also provided a sample of the Maxxima lamp. The Maxxima lamp is circular in shape, and when we activated it, we found that "sequentially" meant that the turn signal function illuminated from the center outwards to the perimeter. However, we found that the stop function also activated identically; the lamp became illuminated in two distinct phases.

Paragraph S5.1.4, Equipment combinations, of Standard No. 108 states that "two or more lamps . . . may be combined if the requirements for each lamp . . . are met," with exceptions not relevant here. Therefore, Standard No. 108 does not prohibit a single lamp that combines complying stop, tail, and turn signal functions. Essential to compliance is conformance to the specifications of SAE standards incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108 as well as specific requirements of Standard No. 108 itself. Because the Maxxima lamp may be used on any four-wheeled motor vehicle regardless of width, its stop lamp function must comply with both SAE J1398 MAY85 and SAE J586 MAY84. The Maxxima turn signal lamp function must comply with both SAE J1395 APR85 and SAE J588 NOV84. The taillamp function must comply with SAE J585e, September 1977, which applies to all vehicles regardless of width.

I enclose a copy of our response to W.E. Baldwin, PhD., who wrote us on September 1, 1988, concerning a sequentially-activated center high-mounted stop lamp. We informed Dr. Baldwin that Standard No. 108 requires stop lamps to be activated upon application of the service brakes, and that this meant that all bulbs providing the center stop signal must be simultaneously activated, not sequentially. Similarly, all light sources providing a turn signal must be illuminated simultaneously when the turn signal operating control is activated. Failure of all light sources to illuminate simultaneously means that the stop and turn signal functions of the Maxxima lamp would not comply with the minimum luminous lens area requirement of applicable SAE standards at all times after the brake pedal is applied or the turn signal operating control is activated. Thus, the stop and turn signal function of the Maxxima lamp would not comply with Standard No. 108.

Standard No. 108 also requires a minimal size for the functional lighted lens area of a turn signal lamp. The Maxxima turn signal lamp function must comply with SAE J1395 APR85, paragraph 5.3.2 of which specifies that the area be at least 75 square centimeters for turn signal lamps on vehicles whose overall width is 80 inches or more. Paragraph S5.1.1.26(a) of Standard No. 108 specifies that this area be at least 50 square centimeters for narrower vehicles.When the turn signal function is activated on the Maxxima lamp, the minimum area requirement is not met at the time the first cycle begins because of the sequential nature of the lamps operation, a further noncompliance with Standard No. 108.

If you have further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:108
d.5/22/03