Interpretation ID: 7171
Manager, Compliance
Porsche Cars North America, Inc.
P.O. Box 30911
Reno, Nevada 89520-3911
Dear Mr. Love:
This responds to your letter of April 3, 1992, requesting concurrence by this Office in your interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 108 for the location of center highmounted stop lamps.
Porsche wishes to install a center lamp on the movable spoiler of its 911 Carrera, a configuration previously approved by this Office providing that all photometric and visibility requirements are met. However, S5.3.1.8 of Standard No. 108 requires that "If the lamp is mounted below the rear window, no portion of the lens shall be lower than 6 inches below the rear window on convertibles, or 3 inches on other passenger cars." Although Porsche's intended center lamp meets this requirement with the spoiler in the extended position (when the car reaches 45 to 55 mph and slows to 9 to 12 mph), at other times, when the spoiler is lowered, the center lamp would be 7.5 inches below the window on the coupe, and 9.5 inches for the convertible.
Nevertheless, you believe that this may be acceptable. You cite an opinion rendered Mazda in which NHTSA did not object to center lamps mounted on tailgates because, as we advised Mazda, the center lamp is a "supplementary" lamp, and that "Even if the deck, hatch, or tailgate upon which it is mounted should be open, following drivers may still observe the signals of the primary stop lamps. . ." You further quote NHTSA's frequently repeated advisory that "Compliance of a vehicle is determined with respect to its normal driving position. . . ," and argue that Porsche's design "fulfills the spirit of the height requirements under all conditions" and the height requirement itself "under a majority of 'normal driving conditions.'" You further argue that even in the down position the triangular relationship between the center lamp and the stop lamps is retained. Finally, you argue that the proposed lamp conforms with NHTSA's philosophy to make Standard No. 108 more performance-oriented "by fulfilling the photometric requirements at all positions."
I am sorry that we cannot concur in your interpretation. When we judge whether a vehicle meets the location and visibility requirements of Standard No. 108, we determine compliance of the vehicle in what appears to us to be its normal operating or driving position. The fact that the vehicle may not comply under all conditions of operation is, of course, of concern to us, but we try to weigh the realities of vehicle design and usage against the need of the public for safety. In the Mazda interpretation, there was no question that the vehicle as manufactured would comply with the locational requirement for center lamps when the tailgate was closed. The "normal driving position" of a vehicle with a tailgate is with the tailgate in the closed position, and use of a vehicle with the tailgate not closed is likely to be infrequent compared with its use with the tailgate closed. In another interpretation, rendered years ago, the fact that a vehicle with hydraulic suspension would not meet the minimum height requirements for headlamps with the vehicle at rest was considered a technical noncompliance only because by the time the vehicle was in its normal operating condition (with the engine running and the car ready to move into the stream of traffic), the suspension had raised the vehicle to a height where the headlamps exceeded the minimum height requirements.
By contrast, the center lamp on the Carerra will not meet the locational requirements from a state of rest up to a minimum of 45 mph, that is to say, under low-speed urban driving conditions where the center lamp is most likely to achieve its purpose of reducing the frequency and severity of rear end impacts. This, to us, is the "normal operating position" of the Carerra with respect to the location of the proposed center lamp.
I would like to close by pointing out that the agency went to a considerable extent in considering the comments of manufacturers before adopting the requirements of S5.3.1.8, in order to minimize design restrictions consistent with safety. NHTSA proposed three alternative locations, and adopted one that was less restrictive than any of the alternatives. Subsequently, pursuant to petitions for reconsideration by vehicle manufacturers, NHTSA relaxed the location requirements of S5.3.1.8 even further.
Sincerely,
Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:108 d:4/27/92