ID: nht88-4.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/19/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: I. ROBERT EHRLICH -- ENGINEER

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 5-5-88, FROM I. ROBERT EHRLICH, TO RICHARD STROMBOTNE, OCC-2077

TEXT: This responds to your letter addressed to Dr. Richard Strombotne, concerning side impact protection. You requested copies of our two January 1988 proposals, and stated that you are particularly interested in whether or not the proposed standards would a pply to stretch limousines. According to your letter, these vehicles are frequently covered by light sheet steel to fill in the gap created by lengthening a conventional passenger car. You stated that this leaves a wide, unprotected gap in the center.

Enclosed are copies of the two proposals. Your question concerning whether the proposals would apply to stretch limousines is addressed below.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. All motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards. Manufacturers of motor vehicles must certify compliance of their products in accordance with 49 CFR Part 567, C ertification.

Each safety standard applies to specified "types" of motor vehicles and/or motor vehicle equipment. Motor vehicles are classified into the following types: passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers and motorcycles. A defi nition for each motor vehicle type is set forth at 49 CFR Part 571.3.

The two January 1988 notices propose to amend Standard No. 214, Side Door Strength, to upgrade its test procedures and performance requirements. Those amendments, like the current version of Standard No. 214, apply only to passenger cars.

A person who stretches a completed passenger car prior to its first sale to a consumer is considered a vehicle alterer under NHTSA's certification regulation. Part 567.7, Requirements for Persons Who Alter Certified Vehicles, requires alterers to certify that the vehicle, as altered, complies with all applicable safety standards. One issue which sometimes arises when a vehicle is altered is whether it remains the same "type" of vehicle after the alteration, and thus subject to the same standards. We w ould assume ordinarily that the "stretching" of a passenger car would not change the vehicle's classification. Under this assumption, an alterer who stretches a passenger car would be required to certify that the stretched vehicle continues to meet all standards applicable to passenger cars, including Standard No. 214. Thus, in this situation, the proposed amendments would apply to stretch limousines.

I note that it is conceivable that an alterer may be able to demonstrate, depending on the nature of the overall alterations, including alterations other than stretching, that a passenger car which is stretched has changed classification and is considere d a multipurpose passenger vehicle or bus instead of a passenger car. If this were the case, the alterer would be required to certify that the vehicle complies with all standards applicable to the vehicle type for which it is now classified. This would not include Standard No. 214, since, as indicated above, that standard applies only to passenger cars.

A person who stretches a used passenger car is not considered a vehicle alterer and is not required to certify that the modified vehicle continues to meet applicable safety standards. However, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repai r businesses modifying a used vehicle are prohibited by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of equipment in compliance with an applicable F ederal motor vehicle safety standard.

I hope this information is helpful.

ENCLOSURES

ID: nht88-4.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/19/88

FROM: ROBBIE FOLINO-NAZDA -- ATTORNEY-IN-FACT FRITZ COMPANIES, INC.

TO: FRANK E. YOUNG, -- COMMISSIONER FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: ANIMAL WARNING DEVICE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 3/13/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO ROBBIE FOLINO NAZDA, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 102

TEXT: PRODUCT: Animal Warning Device FUNCTION: Whistle sound warns animals of oncoming car MANUFACTURE NAME: Kiang Niao Traffic Material Co., LTD No. 23, Lane 87, Yung Kang Hsiang, Tainan Hsien, Taiwan, R.O.C. EPA ESTABLISHMENT NO: 60144-TW-1 IMPORTER NAME AND ADDRESS: Menard Inc., 4777 Menard Drive, Eau Claire, WI 54703

Enclosed please find samples of animal warning devices. Menard Inc. is proposing to import this product in the future and we are requesting on their behalf, whether there are any restrictions in your agency which would prevent lawful importation of the devices.

Please advise in writing any restrictions or requirements which need to be complied with in order to legally import this product.

If you have any questions or need additional information please contact me.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht88-4.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/20/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: DANA STRAHAN -- CITY OF ORANGE WATER DEPARTMENT

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: REQUEST FROM STRAHAN TO HITCHCOCK, DATED APRIL 8, 1988

TEXT: This is in response to your inquiry earlier this year to Mr. Ralph Hitchcock of our Rulemaking Division, in which you asked for information about Federal regulations that apply to the labeling of a vehicle that has been modified to increase its gross veh icle weight rating (GVWR) above that on the original label. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our certification regulations to you.

Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. As you are aware, our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1381 et seq.; Safety Act), to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-c ertification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

For the purposes of this response, I have assumed that you were concerned about modifying vehicles that are already owned by the City of Orange Water Department. If this is incorrect, and you plan to modify new vehicles before their first sale or your d epartment is in the business of modifying other persons' vehicles, please let me know because different requirements would apply.

Neither the Safety Act nor any of our standards and regulations apply to modifications individual vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Therefore, as a local government agency, the city of Orange, using in-house resources, can perform whatever modi fications it desires to its own vehicles. Similarly, our certification regulation does not require modifiers of used vehicles to provide a separate certification label for the modified vehicle. As a word of caution, however, we suggest that any modific ation made to a vehicle that changes the GVWR assigned by the vehicle's original manufacturer should only be done after the modifier

has made a thorough engineering analysis of the entire vehicle. We would suggest that you contact the original vehicle manufacturer for help in making such an analysis.

You also indicated that you were concerned about potential liability that could arise if no additional label were affixed to show the modified vehicle's new GVWR. As explained above, a person modifying his or her own vehicle after its first purchase wou ld not be subject to any potential liability under Federal law. If you are asking for information about potential liability under the laws of the State of California, this agency does not comment on such potential liability. I suggest that you contact the Attorney General for the State of California or a local attorney for an opinion about potential liability under California law.

I hope this information proves helpful. Please contact this agency again if we can be of further assistance.

ID: nht88-4.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/21/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: GEORGE F. BALL -- GM OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: NOVEMBER 28, 1988 LETTER FROM BALL TO JONES

TEXT: This responds to your letter seeking our opinion as to whether a new minivan GM plans to introduce (referred to as the GM 200 minivans in your letter) could be classified as a "multipurpose passenger vehicle" for the purposes of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. In your letter, you indicated GM's belief that this new minivan should be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle, because it will be constructed on a truck chassis.

Your company has concluded that this minivan will be constructed on a truck chassis for several reasons. First, you state that this chassis has "truck attributes" that make it more suitable for commercial use than a passenger car chassis would be. The examples of such truck attributes set forth in your letter were an integrated ladder-type frame with full-length longitudinal rails and supporting cross-members, an extended width rear axle, a powertrain certified as complying with the light-duty truck e missions standards, and a flat load floor. Second, you state the chassis is a truck chassis because a cargo van version of this vehicle will be marketed and sold for commercial use. Third, you provided an analysis showing that this minivan will have cer tain chassis and body characteristics similar to those characteristics of minivans that are now produced and classified as multipurpose passenger vehicles.

At the outset, I would like to make clear that the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) places the responsibility for classifying a particular vehicle in the first instance on its manufacturer. For this reason, NHTSA do es not approve or endorse any vehicle classifications before the manufacturer itself has classified a particular vehicle. NHTSA may reexamine the manufacturer's classification in the course of any enforcement actions. We will, however, tentatively stat e how we believe we would classify this vehicle for the purposes of the safety standards. It is important for GM to be

2

aware that these tentative statements of classification are based entirely on the information presented to the agency by GM, and the tentative classifications may change after NHTSA has had an opportunity to examine the vehicle itself or otherwise acquir e additional information about the vehicle.

With those caveats, we believe that the GM 200 minivan family could be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle for the purposes of the safety standards, because it will be constructed on a truck chassis. The fact that a cargo van version of the G M 200 will be marketed and sold for commercial use is evidence that the common chassis is a truck chassis. Additionally, the front to rear longitudinal side rails and supporting cross-members that are not present on the A-car chassis shows the GM 200 mi nivan chassis design is more suitable for heavy duty, commercial operations than the A-car chassis. Finally, the characteristics of the GM 200 chassis appear to be similar to the characteristics of other chassis that have been identified as "truck chass is" by their manufacturers. Accordingly, assuming that your description of the GM 200 chassis is accurate, it appears to us that this minivan is constructed on a truck chassis.

The version of your letter to me that has been placed in the public docket has all the information for which you requested confidential treatment deleted from it.

ID: nht88-4.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/21/88

FROM: HOWARD WOLPE -- MEMBER OF CONGRESS

TO: JAMES BURNLEY -- SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 02/23/89 FROM DIANE K. STEED TO HOWARD WOLPE, REDBOOK A33, SECTION 103(D), FMVSS 222; HSPG 17; LETTER DATED 12/12/88 FROM DENNIS D. FURR TO HOWARD WOLPE -- CONGRESS

TEXT: Dear Secretary Burnley:

Enclosed please find a copy of a letter from one of my constituents, Mr. Dennis Furr.

Your consideration of his questions and concerns would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht88-4.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/22/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: CLARENCE M. DITLOW II -- EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR AUTO SAFETY

ATTACHMT: NOVEMBER 7, 1988 LETTER FROM DITLOW TO JONES

TEXT: This responds to your most recent letter to me concerning retrofitting of cars originally equipped with rear seat lap belts with rear seat lap/shoulder belts. In my November 1, 1988 letter to you, I explained that we have sought the voluntary cooperation of manufacturers to make retrofit kits available for those customers who desire them and that the vehicle manufacturers have responded positively to our efforts. I also explained that the fact that retrofit kits are not available for all model lines pr oduced by each manufacturer does not suggest some failure on the part of the vehicle manufacturers or of our policy to encourage the manufacturers to make such retrofit kits available.

In a November 7, 1988 letter, you asserted that my November 1 letter "reflects such callous disregard and ignorance of the facts as to defy belief that you are doing little more than covering up for a GM policy that will kill rear seat passengers." You s tated that you would welcome a "substantive response" to this letter. I am happy to be able to give you such a response.

Let me begin by emphasizing that the lap belts in the rear seat of most vehicles on the road today are effective in reducing the risk of death and injury in a crash. Based on our analysis of a number of crash data files, we estimate that rear seat lap b elts saved about 100 lives and prevented over 1500 serious injuries in 1987 alone. These figures would have been substantially higher if more rear seat occupants used their lap belts. In fact, if everyone had worn their rear seat lap belts each time th ey rode in a vehicle, those belts would have saved about 660 lives and prevented more than 10,000 serious injuries in 1987 alone.

These facts illustrate that the fastest and most effective way to save the greatest number of lives and prevent the greatest number of injuries is to convince the public to use the safety belts, including the rear seat lap belts, that are in their vehicl es every time they ride in those

vehicles. Because of these facts, I do not accept your assertion that GM's policy of not providing rear seat lap/shoulder belt retrofit kits for a few of their past models will "kill people." To the extent that reckless assertions like this tell the pub lic that they should not wear their rear seat lap belts, it is unfortunate that you have chosen to divert attention away from the overriding issue of convincing the public to use their safety belts, and instead chosen to mislead the public about the qual ity of their safety belts.

Even though lap belts have been proven to be effective in reducing the risk of death and injury in a crash, we agree that properly designed lap and shoulder belts have the potential to offer even greater crash protection than lap belts alone. For this r eason, we have proposed to require that all new passenger cars sold in the United States be equipped with rear seat lap and shoulder belts beginning in the 1990 model year. Additionally, we have actively sought the car manufacturers' cooperation in prov iding retrofit kits to interested consumers. As you may know, every domestic manufacturer and many foreign manufacturers now offer retrofit kits for many of their vehicle models.

You objected to General Motors' (GM) statement in its Information Bulletin that retrofit kits are not offered for its 1978-88 Oldsmobile Cutlass, Buick Regal, Chevrolet Monte Carlo, or Pontiac Grand Prix, "because GM safety engineers have concluded that in these cars, a rear seat lap/shoulder belt combination would not enhance the safety offered by the lap belt alone." You asserted that since Leonard Evans, a GM employee, has concluded that lap/shoulder belts are significantly more effective than lap be lts and since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is proposing to require rear seat lap/shoulder belts, there is no "possible scientific basis" for GM's conclusion.

NHTSA's proposal reflects our tentative conclusion that rear seat lap/shoulder belts that are designed and installed at the factory have the potential to offer even greater crash protection than lap belts alone for vehicles in general. However, any parti cular vehicle model's floor pan design, seat stiffness, and seat design (as it relates to occupant posture) can affect the possibility of an occupant submarining under a lap/shoulder belt system in a crash. During the design and production of the vehicl e, the vehicle manufacturer can take these factors into account to minimize the likelihood of such submarining and its associated consequences.

However, this is emphatically not true for vehicles that were not originally engineered and designed to use rear seat lap/shoulder belts as original equipment. With respect to these vehicles, the effectiveness of a retrofitted rear seat lap and shoulder safety belt system may well depend on the belt system's compatability with the vehicle and the installation of the belt system. The suitability of a particular vehicle for retrofitting is therefore a complex question. It is our view that the judgment a s to whether a retrofit lap/shoulder belt system should be installed in a particular vehicle is best made by a vehicle manufacturer, which is most familiar with the detailed seat and structural design and crash performance of the car.

I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you have any further questions or would like some additional information on this subject.

ID: nht88-4.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/09/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: J. E. CARR -- PRODUCT SAFETY & ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 4-29-88, INTERPRETATION OF TERMS FOR FMVSS 124, OCC-1999

TEXT: This letter responds to your inquiry of April 29, 1988, asking this agency for an interpretation of Standard 124, Accelerator Control Systems, as it applies to the components of a diesel truck engine and accelerator control components described in your l etter. I apologize for the delay in this response.

With your letter, you provided diagrams of three different accelerator control systems and fuel metering devices for a diesel engine. The first system (Type I in your letter) was a purely mechanical system. In this system, the linkage from the accelera tor pedal connects to a mechanical governor. This governor is a device that responds to pedal displacement, and causes a rack to move, thereby controlling the flow of fuel from fuel injector pumps into the engine cylinders. The second and third systems described in your letter operate through an electrical-mechanical sequence. In the second system (Type II in your letter), mechanical linkage from the accelerator pedal connects to an electronic pedal position sensor. When the vehicle operator puts pre ssure on the accelerator pedal, this sensor converts that movement into an electrical signal. The electrical impulse travels through a wire to an engine control module (ECM). The ECM interprets pedal position and engine speed from the sensor impulse, an d determines how much fuel must go to the engine cylinders either to maintain or reduce speed in consequence of pedal movement. In turn, the ECM sends a signal to a motor which moves a fuel rack to control the flow of fuel from the injector pumps into t he engine cylinders. In the system you call Type III, the ECM sends a signal directly to individual fuel injector pumps without the intervention of a rack. Otherwise, Type II and III are the same.

On October 28, 1988, at the agency's invitation, you met with us to further explain the background information for this request and why Caterpillar believes that particular components were included in either the accelerator control system or the fuel met ering device. During the

course of that meeting, you agreed with us that Caterpillar's principal concern was not whether any particular component was part of the accelerator control system or the fuel metering device. Instead, you were concerned with the requirement that the th rottle "shall return to idle" under specified conditions. You explained that your ECM is designed to shut off the engine, rather than return the throttle to idle, during many failure modes. We conclude that the requirement that the throttle "return to i dle" is satisfied by a system that shuts off the engine in the specified circumstances.

As S2 of Standard 124 makes clear, the purpose of the standard is to prevent runaway vehicles when certain malfunctions occur in the accelerator control system. If such malfunctions do occur, the standard ensures that the engine will not continue at a hi gh speed, but will return to idle, so that the driver can safely brake the vehicle and get it off the road. In both the Type II and III systems referred to in your letter, the agency understands that a failure in the ECM circuitry, or a failure of the c omponents that respond to the ECM, will either return the throttle to idle or shut down the engine. Either of these results would serve the purpose of Standard 124. Therefore, we interpret the phrase "return to idle" to be satisfied by returning to idl e or going beyond that throttle position to shut off the engine. Accordingly, based on the information you have provided, it appears that your Type II and III systems would comply with Standard 124 regardless of whether the ECM and other components are considered part of the acclerator control system or the fuel metering device.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please call Joan F. Tilghman of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht88-4.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/29/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: DONALD SMITH -- CHIEF INVENTOR NEW INNOVATIVE SYSTEMS

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Smith:

This is in reply to your recent undated letter regarding the "Highway Automatic Communications Indicator (HACI)", as supplemented by a telephone conversation between you and Stephen Wood of my staff on December 20, 1988. You have asked for approval of y our device.

The HACI "will display, via a transparent display screen mounted in the rear window, pre-programmed distress messages, activated only when with the automobile is at a complete standstill." The diagram of the display alert indicates that the message would appear in the middle of the rear window, rather than at the bottom of the window where the lamp would be. When not activated, the device would be transparent. It would be activated by a special switch, not by the brake pedal. It is our understanding that the HACI would be activated only when the vehicle is stationary, and is not wired into the brake light or hazard light system.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has no authority to approve or disapprove individual inventions or devices. We can, however, advise you as to the relationship of the HACI to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act under the authority of which the standards are issued. These standards must be met at the time a vehicle is sold to its first purchaser, and persons other than the purchaser may not modify a vehicle after its sale in a manner that, in essence, renders it noncompliant with any standard.

There are three standards potentially affected by the HACI. The first is the lighting standard, Standard No. 108. Since the HACI's display screen is mounted in the rear window, a problem could arise if the center high mounted stop lamp required by Stan dard No. 108 is also mounted in that area. The HACI is permissible as original vehicle equipment as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of the high mounted lamp, or any other lamp required by Standard No. 108. While this determination is the r esponsibility of the vehicle manufacturer (or dealer, if the HACI is installed after vehicle manufacture but before sale to its first purchaser)

in the first instance, it appears to us that the effectiveness of the high mounted lamp would not be impaired. We base this conclusion on our understanding that the message would appear in the middle of the rear window, instead of at the bottom of the w indow where the lamp would be and that it would apparently be activated only when the vehicle was stationary, such as parked on the side of the road.

The second standard potentially affected is Standard No. 111, relating to rearview mirrors. This standard specifies a field of view to be met by the inside rearview mirror; if the mirror does not provide this field of view, an outside mirror on the fron t seat passenger side must be provided. Since your device is reportedly transparent when not activated, and would be activated only when the vehicle is stationary, it may well be that there is no necessity for the addition of an outside mirror. However , we do not have sufficient information to determine whether the HACI would impede the field of view under all conditions.

The third standard potentially affected is Standard No. 205, relating to glazing. This requires, in part, that all glazing in passenger cars have at least 70 percent light transmittance. To the extent that the display screen reduces light transmittance , it could create a noncompliance with this standard. However, because you have indicated that your display screen is transparent, it does not appear likely that any reduction in light transmittance would fall below the specified minimum.

With this guidance and your knowledge of the HACI, you should be able to judge whether installation of the HACI either before or after the initial sale of a passenger car might be regarded as creating a noncompliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety s tandard, or otherwise be in violation of the Act. An official judgment regarding noncompliance or violation is made by the agency only in the context of an enforcement proceeding.

In addition, you should be aware that the HACI remains subject to the laws of the individual States. We cannot advise you of its legality under these laws. To obtain an opinion on this matter, you may wish to consult the American Association of Motor Ve hicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Va. 22203.

Sincerely,

ID: 86-1.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/10/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Timothy Pawl, P.E. -- President, Pawl Inventioneering Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Timothy Pawl P.E. President Pawl Inventioneering Corporation P.O. Box 5425 West Bloomfield, Michigan 48033

This is in response to your letter of November 29 ,1985, to the former Chief Counsel of this agency Jeffrey R. Miller, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Your letter is vague as to the precise function of your "safety related" lighting device, and whether you wish to offer it as original equipment or equipment intended for installation after the sale of a vehicle to its first purchaser for purposes other than resale. If the latter, then its legality is determinable solely under the laws of each State in which it will be used.

If you intend it as original equipment, on a vehicle at the time of its initial sale, then its legality would be determinable under Standard No. 108. As a general rule, section S4.1.3 prohibits the installation of any device that would impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. You have informed us that your device, which consists of "amber LED's" in the "rear package tray," is inoperative during application of the service brakes; thus, it does not appear that it would impair the effectiveness of the center high-mounted stop lamp.

You have also stated that it is located "in relative proximity" to the center stop lamp but is not combined with it, and you have asked if this meets the intent of S4.4.1 regarding equipment combinations. This section forbids the combination of the center stop lamp with any other lamp or reflective device. Since your device is physically separate from the center lamp, S4.4.1 would not appear to prohibit your device.

You have also stated that when viewed from the rear, "the pattern of illuminated LED's may change, possibly giving the illusion of flashing," and you ask for a definition of "flashing" as described in section S4.6(c). This section has been renumbered S4.5.11, and subsection (c) permits an exception to the general rule that lamps in use must be steady-burning, permitting headlamps and side marker lamps to "flash" for signalling purposes. The definition of flash is that contained in S3, a cycle of activation and deactivation by automatic means, and this definition does not specify frequency or other characteristics. To us, the important question is whether your device complies with section S4.5.11(e) which requires all lamps (other than those specifically excepted) to be steady-burning in use. A lamp that changes patterns may not flash, but it cannot be viewed as steady-burning either.

Finally, you state that "section S4.3 states that no function other than red reflex reflectors shall be combined with CHMSL or rear turn signal lamps" and ask whether amber or any other color "may be used in proximity" since it is not used in combination. We believe you must be referring to section S4.4.1 which states that "no clearance lamp may be combined optically with any taillamp or identification lamp, and no high-mounted stop lamp shall be combined with any other lamp or reflective device." As we do not know the intended functions of your LED device, I can offer only general comments. Although red is the required color for all rear lighting devices except backup and license plate lamps, amber is permitted as an optional color for rear turn signals: furthermore, amber is generally accepted as indicating the need for caution. Thus, amber is not a lens color whose presence on rear lighting devices would per se impair effectiveness. The use of other colors for lighting devices on the rear of vehicles could lead to confusion, and be viewed as impairing the effectiveness of required lighting equipment.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones

Chief Counsel

November 29, 1985

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Council U.S. Department of Transportation 400 7th Street S.W. Washington,D.C. 20590

RE: Request for Interpretation of FMVSS 108

Dear Mr. Miller;

We have under development a new device of a safety related nature for automobiles. Before proceeding further on the development, we are hereby requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108. Our device mounts in the rear package tray area of the automobile. We are therefore concerned about the specific sections pertaining to the operation and restrictions thereof for the Center High Mounted Stoplamp (CHMSL).

As a means of definition of the areas of concern, I will list the specific operating characteristic of our device and then the section from the Standard for which we device an interpretation.

1. Our device has amber colored LED's, during the application of the service brakes, these LED's are disabled ,allowing a vehicle following to observe only the CHMSL. Hence, although in relative proximity (near the target area of the CHMSL) it is not combined with the CHMSL. Does this operation meet the intent of S4.4.1 concerning equipment combinations.

2. When a vehicle containing our device is viewed from the rear by a following vehicle, the pattern of illuminated LED'a may change, possibly giving the illusion or flashing. We therefore need a definition of flashing as described in section S4.6(c), frequency, length of time between periods of "steady-burning" operation, etc.

3. As previously mentioned the device contains amber LED's, section S4.3 states that no function other than red reflex reflectors shall be combined with CHMSL or rear turn signal lamps.... since it is not used in combination per our question (1) may amber be used in proximity. If not amber, are there any other colors that may be acceptable.

We would appreciate your attention to this matter and await your response. If necessary we may be reached by phone at (313) 682-2007.

Sincerely,

E. Timothy Pawl, P.E. President

ID: 86-1.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/10/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. T. Chikada

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

February 10, 1986 Mr. T. Chikada Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept. Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku Tokyo 153, Japan Dear Mr. Chikada: This is in reply to your letter of November 13, 1985, to the former Chief Counsel of this agency, Jeffrey R. Miller, with respect to the ratio of the candlepower between the taillamp, stop lamp, and turn signal lamp (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108). You have enclosed a hypothetical two-compartment lamp design which could be manufactured in three variations of stop, turn signal, and taillamp combinations (layout 1, layout 2, and layout 3). Standard No. 108 incorporates by reference various SAE standards which prescribe candlepower ratios for multiple compartment lamps (J585e Taillamps; J586c Stop Lamps; J588e Turn Signal Lamps). You ask how you can apply the ratio of the candlepower between the lamps. The requirements to which you refer are contained in Note 4 to Table 1 of each of the referenced SAE standards, which in turn cite paragraph 3.1 of each standard. The first sentence of Note 4 establishes the ratio when one function is combined with another (that is to say, optically combined within a single compartment). The second sentence of Note 4 provides, however, that if a multiple compartment lamp is used and the distance between the optical axis for both functions is within the dimensions specified in paragraph 3.1, the ratio is computed with all the compartments lighted. The third sentence of Note 4 states that if these dimensions are exceeded the ratio is computed for only those compartments where the functions are optically combined. In layout 1 the turn signal lamp is not combined with the tail/stop lamp and you have asked for confirmation that only the ratio between the tail lamp and stop lamp must be considered. That is correct. The dimension specified in paragraph 3.1 of each of the SAE standards is a maximum of 22 inches between filament centers in two-compartment lamps. Your layout 2 combines the tail lamp and turn signal lamp in one compartment, and the tail lamp and stop lamp in the second, whereas in layout 3 the first compartment contains one lamp, the tail lamp, and in the second compartment, the tail lamp, stop lamp, and turn signal lamp are present. You ask for confirmation that only the ratios of the lamps in the individual compartments shall be considered. Your hypothetical lamp design does not depict the distance between filament centers of each function, but if they exceed 22 inches then you are correct with respect to layouts 2 and 3. If the distance is less than 22 inches, then the ratio is computed with both compartments lighted. I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel