ID: nht91-7.54

DATE: December 26, 1991

FROM: Charles W. O'Connor -- Assistant Secretary, Echlin Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: C. Scott Greer; Lawrence F. Henneberger; Jon P. Leckerling; Joan McKinnon; Larry Pavey

TITLE: Re: Commander and Voyager Electronic Brake Controls

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/26/92 from Paul J. Rice to Charles W. O'Connor (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

This letter comments on your letters of May 23, 1991 and November 22, 1991 to Mr. William J. Lewandoski of Kelsey-Hayes Corporation ("Kelsey-Hayes"), a manufacturer of electronic brake controls and a competitor of Tekonsha Engineering Company ("Tekonsha"), the manufacturer of the Commander and Voyager electronic brake controls. Tekonsha is a subsidiary of Echlin Inc. Our comments are first directed at your conclusion in your November 23, 1991 letter that Tekonsha's Commander and Voyager electronic brake controls "appear to violate Standard No. 108 and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Device." The reference to "Device" and precise meaning of the language following the words "Standard No. 108" is not clear to us.

Section S4.5.4 of Standard No. 108 (49 CFR Section 571.108) provides in pertinent part that "The stoplamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes." Your interpretation appears to be based on the theory that the trailer brakes, standing alone, are "service brakes." It seems clear to us that "service brakes" refers to the brakes of each vehicle together because it takes both sets of brakes to stop both vehicles in a reasonably effective manner. This interpretation is consistent with the common sense view that the service brakes are applied by stepping on the foot pedal as well as the wording of Section 24603(f) of the California Vehicle Code which states, in pertinent part, "Stoplamps shall be activated upon application of the service (foot) brake..."

The term "service brake" is defined in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards at 49CFR Section 571.3 as follows: "'Service brake' means the primary mechanism designed to stop a motor vehicle." Service brakes are those brakes normally used to stop the vehicle and which will stop the vehicle under normal and emergency situations. The combined brakes on both vehicles meet this standard and the "primary mechanism" standard. It is difficult and dangerous to stop both vehicles using the brakes of the towing vehicle alone and virtually impossible and extremely dangerous to stop both vehicles using the brakes of the towed vehicle alone.

Your November 22, 1991 letter seriously misquotes Tekonsha's product literature and leads us to believe that your opinion is based on a misunderstanding with respect to how the Voyager, Commander and other electronic brake controls operate. Your quote, in the second paragraph on page 2 is "The Voyager will not apply the trailer brakes unless the manual override slidebar is applied." That statement is not true. The brochure you cited actually states "IN A

STATIONARY STATE, the Voyager will not apply the trailer brakes unless the manual override slidebar is applied" (emphasis added). The fact is that this is true in almost all electronic brake controls including those made and sold by Kelsey-Hayes.

Your letter does not comment on important safety features provided by Tekonsha's Commander and Voyager electronic brake controls which are superior to both existing Kelsey-Hayes products and Tekonsha's older style brake controls (herein the "2030 style"). Tekonsha spent large amounts of its own money developing superior and safer products for consumers while Kelsey-Hayes has not invested a nickel. Rather than compete fairly in the marketplace, it turns to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA"), which effectively protects Kelsey-Hayes from competition.

The first question one should ask is "Why do the Commander and Voyager brake controls have a manual override?" First and foremost, it permits the driver to properly set the brakes of the trailer to provide optimum braking performance for the towing and towed vehicles. The vehicles start together, stay together and stop together and, for all practical purposes, are a single vehicle.

Second, the brakes on the trailer serve as emergency brakes. If the service brakes fail when the driver applies the foot pedal, then the driver could activate the towing vehicle's emergency (parking) brake and activate the manual override to operate the trailer brakes. The emergency (parking) brakes on the towing vehicle do not activate the stoplamps on the towing vehicle. This is permitted by Federal law. See 49 CFR Section 393.25 (f). Notwithstanding that the law does not require that the activation of the emergency brakes on the towed vehicle activate the stoplamps on the towed vehicle, you want the activation of the emergency brakes on the towed vehicle to activate the stoplamps on the towed vehicle.

Third, the manual override is used in conjunction with the towing vehicle accelerator to control sway, although this use is inconsequential and not encouraged by Tekonsha. Because some drivers are aware of the laws of physics, they figure out that they can use the manual override in conjunction with the accelerator on the towing vehicle to control sway. To be able to control sway is a safety feature. In the "sway control" mode the intent of the driver is to control sway and not to stop or diminish the speed of the combined vehicle and, in this mode, the advanced Tekonsha brake controls do not activate the stoplamps which avoids sending false braking signals to trailing vehicles.

Only in the mind's eye is there "a differential in speeds between towing and towed vehicles." To the extent such a differential does exist, it exists only momentarily and cannot be observed by the human eye. Not only is a "differential in speeds" not mentioned in the regulations, but no one explains why a differential in speeds resulting from the towing vehicle accelerating (not physically possible because both parts of the combination accelerate together) is lawful but a differential resulting from applying the manual override (it does not work this way in practice) is unlawful. It is a distinction without a difference. In the sway control mode, an experienced driver will simultaneously accelerate the towing vehicle and manually apply the trailer brakes to stop the sway and the combination continues without any differential in speeds.

There are a number of situations where an operator intends to and does reduce speed without activating the stoplamps. For example, a driver using cruise control can reset the cruise control to a lower speed by merely pushing a button that reduces the speed of the vehicle until the driver releases the button. Downshifting is another example and, the most frequently used, removing the foot from the accelerator.

It might be helpful to recall that the purpose of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the "Act") is to "reduce traffic accidents and deaths and injuries to persons resulting from traffic accidents" (See Section 1 of the Act, 15 USC Section 1381), not to bar the development of new and safer products such as the Commander and Voyager electronic brake controls.

If you are not persuaded that the Commander and Voyager electronic brake controls comply with Section S4.5.4 of Standard No. 108, then the language should be amended to make them legal. Your agency has the power to establish "appropriate Federal motor vehicle safety standards" and that same power permits the amendment of existing standards to recognize technological advances.

There have been significant changes in the design and equipment of towing vehicles that called for advances in brake controls. Many towing vehicles are now equipped with such desireable features as cruise control, electronic engine controls and rear-wheel anti-lock brakes. These are desireable particularly when one is towing a 5,000 pound trailer down the road. These features do present a real challenge to brake control manufacturers because they are all susceptible to interference from brake controls. For safety purposes, the new towing vehicle features called for state of the art brake controls that:

1. DON'T put electrical noise on the 12 volt power system; 2. DON'T put signals on the stoplight circuit;and 3. DON'T invade the hydraulic brake system.

Tekonsha designed at great expense its Commander and Voyager electronic brake controls within the constraints set forth above. With respect to the dangers created by connecting to the stoplamp circuit see, for example, Ford Motor Company Bulletin Number 10 (copy attached).

We ask that you reconsider your position and, if you still feel constrained by the existing wording of Section S4.5.4, then the wording should be changed to read:

"The stoplamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service (foot) brakes."

We turn now to your May 23, 1991 letter which was written after the September 10, 1990 letter to Lawrence F. Henneberger, Esq. The September 10, 1990 interpretive letter concluded that Section S4.5.4 preempts in part Section 24603 (f) of the California Vehicle Code. The September 10, 1990 letter was written after a thorough evaluation of the Tekonsha Commander electronic brake control by engineering and legal representatives of NHTSA.

How could NHTSA issue its May 23, 1991 letter which reverses in part its September 10 1990 letter without notifying and giving Tekonsha an opportunity to comment. While we appreciate that both your May 23, 1991 and November 22, 1991 letter qualified your interpretation by stating "appear", you have placed a powerful anti-competitive tool in the hands of a competitor.

We suggest one way to clear up the havoc is to rule that all three of your letters i.e., the November 22 and May 23, 1991 letters to Mr. Lewandoski and your letter of September 10, 1990 to Mr. Henneberger are all void from the beginning. If you did this, you could then make a proper technical evaluation of the Commander and Voyager electronic brake controls. If a fair and objective evaluation concluded that not connecting to the stoplamp circuit advanced motor vehicle safety, then you could proceed accordingly. If a fair and objective evaluation resulted in a different conclusion, Tekonsha is prepared to live with the results on a prospective basis.

ID: nht91-7.55

DATE: December 30, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Wallace F. Forbes -- Planar Support Systems, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-11-91 from Wallace F. Forbes to Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TEXT:

This responds to your November 11, 1991 letter in which you asked whether there are any standards that apply to a product you are developing. The product is a "portable back support product which people would be likely to use in their automobiles as well as in other environments."

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act), it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its motor vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements. The following provides our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Your product would fall within NHTSA's jurisdiction if it is an item of "motor vehicle equipment" as that term is defined in S102(4) of the Safety Act. Section 102(4) defines "motor vehicle equipment" as:

any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component or as any ACCESSORY, OR ADDITION TO THE MOTOR VEHICLE ... (emphasis added).

In determining whether an item is an "accessory ... to the motor vehicle," NHTSA applies two criteria. The first criterion is whether a substantial portion of the expected uses of the item are related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. The agency determines the expected uses by considering product advertising, product labeling, and the type of store that retails the product, as well as available information about the actual use of the product. The second criterion is whether the product is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles (E.G., items normally used by professional vehicle repair and maintenance personnel would not qualify). If the product satisfies both criteria, the product is considered to be an "accessory" and this is subject to the provisions of the Safety Act.

While your letter does not provide sufficient information for us to determine whether your product would satisfy the first criterion, you should be able to make a determination based on the factors set forth above. If your product did satisfy the first criterion, it would appear to satisfy the second criterion.

If your product is an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA has not issued any safety standards that would directly apply to your product. However, there are two statutory provisions of which you should be aware. First, S108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act states that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard...

These commercial entities could sell your product, but could not install it if the installation would negatively affect the vehicle's compliance with the safety standards. The standards your product would be most likely to affect are those for occupant protection in interior impacts (Standard No. 201), head restraints (Standard No. 202), and flammability resistance (Standard No. 302). (The safety standards are found in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 571.) Please note however, that the render inoperative prohibition would NOT apply to vehicle owners who install your product in their own vehicles.

Second, if your product is an item of motor vehicle equipment, Planar Support Systems would be a motor vehicle equipment manufacturer. As a manufacturer, you would be subject to the requirements of S151-159 of the Safety Act, concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. If you or the agency determined that your product had a defect related to motor vehicle safety, you would have to notify all product purchasers of the defect, and either repair or replace the product. An information sheet for new manufacturers is enclosed.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any more questions about this issue, feel free to contact Mary Versailles at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht91-7.6

DATE: November 12, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

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

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-3-91 from Michael D. Incorvaia to NHTSA

TEXT:

This responds further to your letter of July 3, 1991, which we informed you on August 20, will be accorded confidential treatment.

Paragraph 4.5 of SAE Standard J588e, Turn Signal Lamps, September 1970, states that "failure of one or more turn signal lamps to operate should be indicated by a 'steady on', 'steady off', or 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.

Your letter indicates that the design contemplated by Wagner Electric is for application in new motor vehicles. Although SAE J588e remains in effect as a replacement equipment standard, Standard No. 108 has been amended to incorporate by reference new SAE standards for turn signal lamps, and it is these standards that now apply to turn signals on new motor vehicles. Specifically, on and after December 1, 1990, a motor vehicle must 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 APR85, Turn Signal Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles 2032 mm or More in Overall Width. The outage indication requirement of SAE J588e was not adopted in either of the SAE standards, and has not been incorporated directly in Standard No. 108. This means outage indication is no longer a requirement on new motor vehicles, and that Wagner Electric, under Standard No. 108, may adopt such change flash rate as its design may call for.

We are returning the tape that you enclosed.

ID: nht91-7.7

DATE: November 13, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Thomas D. Turner -- Manager, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-19-91 from Thomas D. Turner to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 6385)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of August 19, 1991, requesting an interpretation of section S5.3.2 of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. That section specifies two force application options for release mechanisms of emergency exits, low force application and high force application.

Your letter was sent in connection with an investigation by NHTSA's Office of Enforcement of a possible noncompliance of a 1990 Blue Bird bus with that standard, and you sent a sample bus window to assist in understanding your letter. You requested confirmation of your understanding that the requirements of section S5.3.2, "with regard to motion, apply to the application forces and not the release mechanisms being activated by the forces." You also requested confirmation of your "understanding of the principles of mechanics, as applicable to FMVSS 217 requirements, that straight linear forces can cause rotary motion to occur and can be used to manually operate a rotary mechanism." You asked these questions to support your contention that the release mechanism of the 1990 Blue Bird bus window can be operated by a force that is straight, perpendicular to the undisturbed exit surface, and that the high force application option is therefore available for that window. The issues raised by your letter are addressed below.

Section S5.3.2 specifies that certain emergency exits "shall allow manual release of the exit by a single occupant using force applications each of which conforms, at the option of the manufacturer, either to (a) or (b)." Subparagraphs (a) and (b) set forth requirements for the two application force options, low force and high force. The specified requirements cover location, type of motion, and magnitude. The type of motion specified in (a) for low force application is "rotary or straight"; the type of motion specified in (b) for high force application is "straight, perpendicular to the undisturbed exit surface."

We agree that the requirements in (a) and (b) concerning type of motion refer to the force applications that would be made by a single occupant and not to the release mechanisms that are activated by such force applications. While we do not disagree with your contention that it is possible for straight linear forces to cause rotary motion to occur, we do not believe, based on our examination of your sample bus window, that the force application that must be made by a single occupant to release the window would be "straight, perpendicular to the undisturbed exit surface." We interpret the term "type of motion," as used in (a) and (b), to refer to the entire motion of a force application that would be made by a single occupant in releasing an exit. In order to operate the release mechanism on the Blue Bird bus, it appears that a single occupant must lift the release handle upward as well as pulling it outward. Given the upward part of the motion, it would not be "perpendicular to the undisturbed exit surface." Therefore, the high force application option is not available for such a design, and it must meet the low force application requirements.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht91-7.8

DATE: November 13, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Robert A. Nordmeyer -- Nordic Associates

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-18-91 from Robert A. Nordmeyer to NHTSA Administrator

TEXT:

This responds to your September 18, 1991 letter to NHTSA's Rulemaking office concerning your design for an aftermarket sun visor. Your letter has been referred to me for reply.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes our agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. The Act also authorizes us to require the recall and remedy of any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that contains a safety defect.

There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that applies to an aftermarket sun visor. The safety standards relating to sun visors (Standard 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, and 302, Flammability of Interior materials) apply only to new motor vehicles and not to items of aftermarket equipment.

The sun visor in a new vehicle is regulated by Standard 201, which requires that the visor be "constructed of or covered with energy-absorbing material" and that the visor's mounting must "present no material edge radius of less than 0.125 inch that is statically contactable by a spherical 6.5-inch diameter head form." The purpose of that requirement is to reduce the injuries that occur when unrestrained occupants strike the visor or its mounting with their heads. If your sun visor were installed by the manufacturer of a new motor vehicle, the visor would have to comply with the visor requirements of Standard 201. I am enclosing a copy of the standard for your review.

Standard 302 requires sun visors in new vehicles to meet the flammability resistance requirements of the standard. The standard specifies that the material used on the visor must not burn at a rate of more than four inches per minute. A copy of the standard is enclosed.

Although your sun visor would be sold in the aftemarket, not as an item of original equipment, Standards 201 and 302 can nonetheless affect persons who install the visor. The Safety Act provides that a person who manufactures, distributes, sells or repairs motor vehicles cannot "render inoperative" a regulated device such as a sun visor or its mountings. If a repair shop were to remove a vehicle's sun visor and replace it with your visor, the shop would be in violation of the Act unless your visor complied with the standards. An individual owner may install a visor in his or her own vehicle without regard to the standards.

You should also be aware that our safety defect authority has a bearing on the manufacture and sale of your visor. Under the Safety Act, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. A manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment is subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that NHTSA or a manufacturer determines that the manufacturer's product contain a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Please contact us if you have further questions.

ATTACHMENTS

NHTSA Information Sheet Entitled INFORMATION FOR NEW MANUFACTURERS OF MOTOR VEHICLES AND MOTOR VEHICLE EQUIPMENT, dated September, 1985. (Text omitted)

Copy of the Code of Federal Regulations (10-1-90 edition) pertaining to S 571.201: Standard 201 - Occupant protection in interior impacts. (Text omitted)

ID: nht91-7.9

DATE: November 14, 1991

FROM: Edward F. Conway, Jr. -- Assistant General Counsel, Recreation Vehicle Industry Association

TO: Jerry R. Curry -- Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection; Docket No. 89-22; Notice 03

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/17/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Edward F. Conway Jr. (A39; Std. 216)

TEXT:

The purpose of this letter is to request clarification and guidance concerning the roof crash resistance test procedures and pass/fail criterion for van conversions and motor homes with a raised roof, which are prescribed in the subject notice.

In its comments in response to Notice 01 of Docket No. 89-22, RVIA pointed out that the roof crash resistance test procedures and pass/ fail criterion for van conversions and motor homes should not be the same as those for a passenger car and urged NHTSA to develop special test procedures and a separate pass/fail criterion for these vehicles, which take into account their dissimilar physical characteristics.

For example, the prescribed roof crush resistance test device cannot be applied in the manner shown in figure 1 of standard 216 on many van conversions and motor homes that have a raised roof. Instead of impacting solely on the prescribed point, the device will also impact or "foul" the leading edge of the raised roof above and behind that point.

Also, the roof crash test pass/fail criterion for van conversions and motor homes should not be the same as that prescribed for a subcompact and other passenger cars.

In a typical full size passenger car, the floor to roof height is approximately 45 inches and distance between the head of a 50th percentile male seated in the driver's seat and the roof interior surface is approximately 6 inches. In smaller passenger cars, there is often considerably less head room.

However, in a van conversion or a motor home, the floor to roof height may be as much as 76 inches and the head of the 50th percentile male could be as much as 36 inches from the roof. Nevertheless, the roof crash resistance test device still may not depress the roof structure of these vehicles more than the FIVE INCHES allowed for a passenger car roof structure.

Thus, a van conversion or motor home with a roof elevated sufficiently to allow occupants to stand upright would fail the roof crush resistance test if its roof structure was depressed more than five inches, despite the fact its depressed roof structure remains well above the heads of seated occupants!

In the subject Notice, NHTSA did not resolve these issues. Instead, it merely acknowledged that these and other issues raised by commentators concerning alternative test procedures and requirements merit further consideration. NHTSA also stated that it will analyze these issues further and may propose amendments to the test procedure.

In the meantime, we respectfully request that NHTSA provide clarification and guidance concerning the roof crush resistance test procedures and the pass/fail criterion for van conversions and motor homes with a raised roof.

ID: nht92-1.1

DATE: December 30, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: T. Kouchi -- Director & General Manager, Automotive Equipment, Development & Administration Dept., Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/23/92 from T. Kouchi to Paul J. Rice (OCC 8081)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of November 25, 1992, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it relates to light-emitting diodes (LEDs).

You ask that we reply to the following three questions:

"(1) Is it possible for us to group LED tail & stop lamps into three categories in terms of the number of lighted sections to determine applicable photometric requirements, as specified in paragraph 4.1.5.1 of SAE J1889 DEC 88?"

The term "three categories" does not appear in Standard No. 108. Further, SAE J1889 is not incorporated into Standard No. 108, either by direct or indirect reference. We believe that you must be asking whether multiple light source lamps (such as LEDs) may be considered as lamps with three lighted sections for purposes of determining photometric compliance with Standard No. 108. The answer is yes, they may be so considered. We are aware that, in general, the use of LEDs does not permit distinguishing distinct lighted sections. As the agency explained to Valeo of France on July 7, 1992, because the SAE does not prescribe photometric requirements for more than three lighted sections in its materials that are incorporated into Standard No. 108, any device that contains more than three lighted sections, or LEDs, need only comply with the requirements prescribed for three lighted sections.

"(2) Where the above view is acceptable, could we consider the number of lighted section (sic) as 'one' in case of a lamp which contains three LED arrays arranged as shown in the attached drawing, if the circumferenc (sic) of three projected luminous areas does not exceed 150mm both in horizontal and vertical dimension?"

The answer is no under Standard No. 108 as it presently exists. The drawing you have enclosed depicts three "lighted areas of LEDs" with two separations. Your question is based upon SAE J1889, which defines a "one compartment LED lamp" as one whose "maximum projected linear dimension" does not exceed 150mm. Thus, the linear dimension of a two-compartment LED lamp is 151-300mm, and that of a three-compartment LED lamp is 301mm and greater. These dimensional specifications prevent LED lamps from achieving intensities higher than conventional filament lamps of similar sizes. However, we cannot base our answer upon SAE J1889 since it is not incorporated into Standard No. 108. Based upon our interpretation to Valeo, each of the lighted areas would constitute a three-section device because it contains three or more LEDs.

This, of course, could result in a lamp consisting of these three devices

creating glare in the eyes of a following driver, an undesirable result, and we believe that you should keep this possibility in mind in further development of this design.

"(3) Where the number of lighted section (sic) is determined as 'one' in the above, can we locate 'the geometric center of the illuminated area' at the point marked in the attached drawing, according to paragraph 2.6 of SAE J1889 JUN88?"

The answer is no because SAE J1889 is not incorporated into Standard No. 108. You must refer to the SAE requirements that are incorporated into Standard No. 108 that apply to the respective rear lamp functions in order to answer this question. These are SAE J588 NOV 84 and SAE J1385 APR 85 for turn signal lamps, SAE J586 FEB 84 and SAE J1398 MAY 85 for stop lamps, and SAE J585e September 1977 for taillamps.

ID: nht92-1.10

DATE: 12/28/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: PHILIP E. STERN, ESQUIRE -- RAND, ALGEIER, TOSTI & WOODRUFF ATTORNEYS AT LAW

COPYEE: DAVID LOMBARDI -- TRANSPORTATION DIRECTOR, PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS; MARSHA SAILESBURY -- CONSULTANT, PUPIL TRANSPORTATION, STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-25-92 FROM PHILIP E. STERN TO PAUL J. RICE (OCC 8054)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of November 25, 1992, to this agency requesting information on placement of video cameras on school buses. You stated that you are the attorney for the Sussex Wantage Board of Education, a school district in Northern New Jersey, and that you are interested in speaking with other school districts that may use video cameras on their school buses.

This agency knows of no specific studies or tests that have been conducted on the use of video cameras in school buses from the standpoint of either motor vehicle or behavioral safety. With respect to the latter, this agency is also not aware of any data which would indicate any safety consequences resulting from passenger behavior on school buses. We have, however, had occasion recently to address the issue of the applicability of our Federal motor vehicle safety standards to the installation of "silent monitors" in school buses.

Please find enclosed, therefore, a copy of a November 17, 1992, letter of interpretation that we wrote to Ms. Shirley A. Stewart of Herndon, VA. Ms. Stewart explained that her company was installing "silent monitors," which she described as six-inch cubes of welded steel designed to hold video cameras, in school buses in Prince George's County, Maryland. Should you wish to discuss this issue with Prince George's County school officials, your point of contact would be Mr. David Lombardi, Transportation Director, Prince George's County Public Schools, 13300 Old Marlboro Pike, Upper Marlboro, MD 20702, (301) 952-6570. Another possible source of information is Ms. Marsha Sailesbury, Consultant, Pupil Transportation, State Board of Education, 100 North First Street, Springfield, IL 63777; (217) 782-5256.

I hope this information will be helpful to you. Should you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-1.11

DATE: 12/28/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: DANIEL K. UPHAM -- PRESIDENT, SYS TEK CORPORATION

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 8-17-89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD TO ALAN S. ELDAHR (STD. 108); ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-9-92 FROM DANIEL K. UPHAM TO NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL (OCC 8111)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of December 9, 1992, with respect to whether a "portable lighted message display using L.E.D. technology" is permissible under Federal law. The product would be sold in the aftermarket. As you indicate, "[i]t will be either battery powered or it will be powered using the vehicle power source via cigarette lighter or directly to the car's electrical harness." It will be installed in either the side rear or rear window.

We assume that battery-powered devices, and those activated through the cigarette lighter, are so simple that the vehicle owner can install and use the device without resorting to the assistance of others. Under this circumstance, there is no restriction that applies to this device under the laws administered by this agency. Nevertheless, the device may be subject to restrictions imposed by a State in which it is operated.

However, if attaching the device to the car's electrical harness is a task that may be performed by a person other than the vehicle owner, a different consideration applies. A manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business may not install the device if it renders inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Examples of equipment added pursuant to a Federal standard and that could be affected by the sign board are the stop lamps, both center highmounted and conventional, and the inside rear view mirror. I enclose a copy of an interpretation of the agency dated August 17, 1989, to Mr. Alan S. Eldahr, and call your attention to our views on impairment by message boards expressed on the second page. This letter also provides the address of an organization that you may consult on applicable State laws.

Installation of the message board in a side rear window by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business would appear permissible. The only required side lighting equipment are front and rear lamps and reflectors, intended to mark the extremities of the vehicles, and we do not believe that their function would be negatively affected by installation of the message board.

ID: nht92-1.12

DATE: 12/24/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: KENNETH W. WEBSTER II -- PROJECT ENGINEER, TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH CENTER INC.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10-26-92 FROM KENNETH W. WEBSTER, II TO PAUL J. RICE (OCC 7930)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of October 26, 1992, seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 124, Accelerator Control Systems (49 CFR @ 571.124). More specifically, your letter requested clarification of the correct test procedure for S5 of Standard No. 124 under a specific condition.

By way of background information, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its vehicles or products meet all applicable safety standards. Manufacturers must have some basis for their certification that a vehicle or product complies with all applicable safety standards. This does not necessarily mean that a manufacturer must conduct the specific tests set forth in an applicable standard. Certifications may be based on, among other things, engineering analyses, actual testing, and computer simulations.

Section S5 of Standard No. 124 requires vehicles to comply with certain requirements "when the engine is running under any load condition, and at any ambient temperature between -40 degrees F. and +125 degrees F. after 12 hours of conditioning at any temperature within that range." (Emphasis added.) For purposes of the safety standards, the term any "means generally the totality of the items or values, any one of which may be selected by the Administration for testing." (49 CFR @ 571.4) Therefore, vehicles must meet Standard No. 124's requirements at all temperatures within the specified range.

Your letter states that some vehicles are impossible to start after conditioning for 12 hours at -40 degrees F. You asked which of the following procedures would be correct when testing a vehicle which will not start:

Alternative (1): Test with engine not running at the -40 degrees F. test condition.

Alternative (2): Raise temperature until engine will start. Record test temperature and perform test.

In conducting a compliance test, NHTSA would follow the procedures set forth in Standard No. 124. The agency would not follow the Alternative (1) test procedure since the standard specifies requirements that must be met "when the engine is running."

The agency could conduct a compliance test at any temperature or temperatures within the specified -40 degrees F. to +125 degrees F. range. I note that S5.3 specifies that the performance requirement for maximum time to return to idle position varies depending on whether the vehicle is "exposed to ambient air at 0 degree F to -40 degrees F. during the test or for any portion of the 12-hour conditioning period." This language makes it clear that the ambient air does not need to be held at a single temperature during the conditioning period or during the test.

If NHTSA chose to conduct a compliance test at -40 degrees F. and the vehicle would not start because of the extreme cold, the agency would most likely either use a standard engine heater to assist in starting the vehicle or warm the entire vehicle to a temperature where it would start. I note, however, that if the agency did warm the vehicle to assist in starting, it might lower the temperature back down to -40 degrees for purposes of conducting the test.

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