ID: 1984-1.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/05/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Stapleton Public Schools

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Ben Barbie Stapleton Public Schools P.O. Box 125 Stapleton, Nebraska 69163

Dear Mr. Barbie:

This is in further reply to your phone call of February 13, 1984, to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regarding the remanufacture of school buses using older model bus bodies on new chassis. You asked whether the school bus safety standards apply to a school bus manufactured with a 1976 model year body mounted on a new chassis.

The applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards is determined by the date of manufacture of the motor vehicle. For vehicles that are completed in several stages, the manufacturer can treat as the date of manufacture the date of the incomplete vehicle, the date of final completion of the vehicle, or a date between those two dates. An "incomplete vehicle" is defined in 49 CFR Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages, as:

an assemblage consisting, as a minimum, of frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations, other than the addition of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, to become a completed vehicle.

The effective date of the school bus safety standards was April 1, 1977. Since the date of manufacture of the school bus chassis is after April 1, 1977, and the date of completion of the vehicle is after April 1, 1977, the completed school bus must meet the requirements of the school bus safety standards. It is extremely unlikely that the 1976 model year body will comply with the school bus standards since the body was manufactured before the effective date of the school bus standards. If your completed vehicle does not comply with the safety standards, your manufacturer, distributor, or dealer cannot certify it as conforming to such standards.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: nht79-2.1

DATE: 09/14/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Tiger Trading Corporation International

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of July 26, 1979, concerning an "after market" motor vehicle accessory you plan to distribute. You describe the accessory as an item of clear plastic that affixes to the inside of the rear window "to greatly improve the rear vision of the driver of a passenger vehicle."

Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, establishes performance requirements for rearview mirror systems. The standard only applies to mirrors installed as original equipment in motor vehicles and does not apply to replacement equipment such as the aftermarket accessory you intend to distribute. However, since the device you plan to distribute is an item of motor vehicle equipment, the recall and remedy provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act), as amended, (15 U.S.C. 1411-1420) would apply to any safety-related defect in your mirror accessory. A copy of the Act is enclosed.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

July 26, 1979

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

To Whom It May Concern:

We will be distributing a new automobile accessory to the retail trade selling "after market" accessories to the public. Following my brief phone conversation with Mr. Joseph F. Zemaitis, NHTSA, San Francisco, we deemed it advisable to check with your offices to determine if there will be any objections to the product.

Basically the article is made of plastic (clear) and is designed to greatly improve the rear vision of the driver of a passenger vehicle. The unit is affixed to the inside of the rear window by means of a self-adhesive mounting bracket. The driver when looking at the rear view mirror, with the field of vision passing through the unit rearward, then is capable of seeing objects on either side of their vehicle, which they cannot normally do so (Illegible Word) viewing through the rear view mirror.

The unit is 9"x3"x1" (rectangular) and is out of the way of any passengers. As it is not permanently mounted to the vehicle, it will break away upon impact. There are no sharp edges and the larger flat portion of the unit faces the interior of the vehicle. We have enclosed photocopies which will enable you to better understand the unit.

In light of the current problems with rearvision from the drivers seat, we believe the product is needed and timely. Your office's concern in this area as evidenced by Docket No. 71-3a;Notice 4 is indicative.

Your earliest comments will be appreciated.

David H. Lewis Import Manager

cc: Joseph F. Zemaitis

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

THIN METAL TO ELIMINATE SUN GLARE (FACES WINDOW)

CLEAR PLASTIC FACING INTERIOR OF VEHICLE

(Graphics omitted)

THIN METAL TO ELIMINATE SUN GLARE (FACES WINDOW)

PLASTIC

CLEAR PLASTIC FACING INTERIOR OF VEHICLE

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht79-2.10

DATE: 09/26/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Dekalb County School System Service Center

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Harry W. Reynolds, Supervisor Fleet Maintenance Division DeKalb County School System Service Center 1780 Montreal Road Tucker, Georgia 30084

Dear Mr. Reynolds:

This responds to your July 27, 1979, letter which asked whether any Federal law or regulations would prohibit the DeKalb County School System from converting the gasoline fuel systems in its school buses to propane fuel or dual propane/ gasoline fuel systems. You specified that you would like this question answered both with respect to school buses manufactured in accordance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75 and with respect to school buses manufactured before that standard's effective date. You also asked which persons may perform the conversions. As explained below, the laws administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) neither prohibit such a conversion of a school bus, regardless of whether it was initially manufactured in compliance with Safety Standard No. 301-75, nor specify which persons may perform such conversions.

Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity, promulgated by this agency pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1974 ("the Act") specifies performance requirements for the fuel systems of new motor vehicles, including school buses, which use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F. (e.g., gasoline).

New vehicles, such as school buses, that have not yet been sold and delivered to a purchaser where the school district) for purposes other than resale and that have been manufactured in compliance with Safety Standard No. 301-75 may be converted to propane and dual propane/gasoline systems. However, any person or entity, other than the purchaser, such as a manufacturer, dealer, or automobile repair business, who performs the conversion would be considered an alterer under NHTSA regulations.

An alterer is required to attach an additional label to the vehicle certifying that the vehicle, as altered, still complies with all applicable safety standards (49 CFR 567.7). Upon conversion of a new gasoline-powered school bus to a propane-powered school bus, Safety Standard No. 301-75 would cease to apply since propane has a boiling point below 32 degrees F. and the standard applies only to vehicles that use fuel with a higher boiling point. Therefore, the alterer would not be required to certify the school bus's continuing compliance with Safety Standard No. 301-75. However, upon conversion of a new gasoline-powered school bus to a dual powered school bus, Safety Standard No. 301-75 would remain applicable and the alterer would be required to certify the vehicle's continued compliance with that standard and all other applicable safety standards.

The installer of a propane or dual propane/gasoline system in a new vehicle would be responsible for any Safety related defects arising from the method of installation. The manufacturer of the system would be responsible for any safety related defects in the system itself. Thus, if a new school bus were found to contain a safety related defect following the addition of a new fuel system the installer or manufacturer, respectively, would be required to notify vehicle owners of any defects and to remedy these defects. (Sections 151 et seq. of the Act, see enclosure). Also, please note if a propane or a dual propane/gasoline system were installed in a used school bus and was later found to contain any safety related defects, the manufacturer of the system would be responsible for notifying vehicle owners of the defect and for remedying them.

Used vehicles manufactured in accordance with Safety Standard No. 301-75, as well as used vehicles manufactured before the effective date of that standard, may also be converted. Nothing in the Act prohibits a vehicle owner from modifying his own vehicles. Moreover, no law administered by the NHTSA prohibits other persons or entities such as manufacturers, distributors, dealers or motor vehicle repair business from modifying used vehicles.

This means that the DeKalb County School District would not be prohibited from converting its gasoline-powered buses, regardless of their date of manufacture, to propane or to dual-powered buses. It also means that if the school district sought to have the conversion done by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business. none of these persons or entities would be prohibited from doing the work.

However, such persons and entities could be subject to section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act, if they converted used vehicles No. 301-75. The section provides in relevant part that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or 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 ....

There is no liability under section 108(a)(2)(A) in connection with Safety Standard No. 301-75, if one of the listed persons or entities converts a used gasoline-powered vehicle into a propane powered vehicle. Modification of the safety systems in a vehicle that is being converted from one vehicle type to another does not violate section 108(a)(2)(A) so long as the modified systems comply with the safety standards that would have been applicable to the vehicle had it been originally manufactured as the vehicle type to which it is being converted. For example, in converting a used gasoline-powered school bus (originally manufactured in compliance with Safety Standard No. 301-75) to a propane-powered school bus, the converter could not violate section 108(a)(2)(A) with respect to Safety Standard No. 301-75, since this standard, as noted earlier, does not apply to propane-powered school buses.

However, there could be liability under this section in connection with Safety Standard No. 301-75 if, for example, one of the listed persons or entities converted a used gasoline-powered school bus (originally manufactured in compliance with Safety Standard No. 301-75) into a dual-powered school bus. In this situation, Safety Standard No. 301-75 would continue to apply to the school bus after the conversion. Thus, if in performing the conversion one of the listed persons or entities knowingly compromised the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 301-75 while adding the propane system, that person or entity would have violated section 108(a)(2)(A).

I hope that you will find this response helpful.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

July 27, 1979

Office of Public Affairs and Consumer Participation National Highway Safety Traffic Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Sir:

The DeKalb County School System currently operates a fleet of 350 school buses which consume approximately 1,000,000 gallons of gasoline annually. We have been considering a number of proposals that would enable us to reduce our annual gasoline requirements. One concept that seems very appealing would be the conversion of gasoline school buses to liquid propane. As we consider liquid propane aa an alternate fuel source, we need the advice and counsel of your department, The following are some matters of concern, and any help you could give to us would be appreciated. 1. Are there any Federal laws or governmental regulations that will prohibit the DeKalb County School System from converting pre FMVSS-301 buses to liquid propane? 2. Are there any Federal laws or governmental regulations that will prohibit the DeKalb County School System from converting school buses equipped with FMVSS-301 fuel system? 3. Are there any Federal laws or govermmental regulations that will prohibit the DeKalb County School System from installing one propane tank and leaving the existing fuel system intact so the vehicle can be powered by a dual system of gasoline and liquid propane? 4. If these conversions can be performed, by whom may they be performed? (the manufacturer, a dealer, a propane supply, or the DeKalb County School System's Fleet Maintenance Division) Our concern for fuel conservation has prompted us to seek your advice and counsel. We have looked into this matter and find ourselves in an uncertain postre due to thhe regulations concernig safety systems originally certified as part of the school bus and by the Safety Standard FMVSS-301. Your counsel will be very much appreciated. Sincerely, Harry Wayne Reynolds, Supervisor Fleet Maintenance Division HWR/mb

ID: nht79-2.11

DATE: 01/17/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: J. R. Randolph

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your December 28, 1978, letter concerning an auxiliary fuel tank installed by the dealer on a 1978 Ford van that you purchased. You are concerned that the auxiliary tank represents a safety hazard due to the location of the tank's filler cap in the left rear wheel-well.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity, specifies performance requirements for fuel systems on motor vehicles. Although the standard applies to completed vehicles rather than to fuel tanks or other fuel system components, your dealer had to assure that your van complied with the standard. A person who mounts an auxiliary fuel tank on a new motor vehicle before the vehicle's first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale is a vehicle alterer under National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regulations. That person is required by 49 CFR 567.7 to affix a label to the vehicle stating that, as altered, the vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards -- including Safety Standard No. 301-75. Therefore, there should be an "alterer" label on your van in addition to the certification label placed on the vehicle by the original manufacturer.

Even if the vehicle complies with Safety Standard No. 301-75, the location and design of the auxiliary fuel tank could constitute a safety-related defect for which the manufacturer would also be responsible. I am, therefore, forwarding a copy of your letter to the agency's Office of Defects Investigation. That office will examine this situation and may be in touch with you at a later date.

Thank you for your letter and for bringing this matter to our attention.

SINCERELY,

December 28, 1978

Chief Counsel Office of the Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sir:

I am writing this letter to inform you of what appears to me to be a definite safety hazard and requesting of you an interpretation of the regulations which authorize either a direct intervention or the issuance of a consumer advisory. This letter is a result of a discussion with, and at the suggestion of, Mr. C. G. Keiper of your Denver office.

On September 7, 1978, I purchased a new 1978 Ford Econoline 150 van from Lakewood Ford, Incorporated. I requested that an auxiliary gas tank be installed and the dealer included the installation on my purchase agreement. Upon delivery to me, I found that the filler cap for the auxiliary gas tank was located in the left rear wheel well. My concerns were responded to by statements which varied from "all after-market auxiliary gas tank installations are the same", to "it meets Federal criteria for a side impact crash".

I subsequently learned that a local dealer, other than Lakewood Ford, had installed the tank according to the manufacturer's directions. The tank is manufactured by ARA.

My concerns are twofold. First, the wheel well is one of the filthiest places on a van, and no reasonable person can keep dirt from entering the auxiliary tank. I have already experienced an engine failure which resulted from dirt in the auxiliary tank; fortunately, the breakdown occurred in the city and only consituted an annoyance. A similar breakdown in the Colorado Rockies, or anywhere else outside a metropolitian area, could conceivably result in explosion and possibly death.

My second concern is that if I were to use tire chains the one on the left rear tire could break, strike the filler cap and cause a fire or explosion.

In either event I am unable to use the product for its intended purpose except in a sterile environment -- normal driving is impossible using this tank except for careless and unthinking persons.

I have brought this matter to the attention of the dealership's president. As of this date, the dealer has not clearly indicated its willingness to either modify the installation to eliminate the hazards or to remove the tank and refund my money.

I will appreciate your consideration in this matter both for my own peace of mind and for the safety of myself and the many people who had the same installation without prior knowledge of the placement of the gas filler cap.

James R. Randolph

cc: JESS B. CARROWAY - LAKEWOOD FORD, INC.; C. G. KEIPER NHTSA, DENVER

ID: nht79-2.12

DATE: 12/14/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mack Trucks

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

DEC 14 1975

Mr. Thomas F. Brown Mack Trucks Engineering Division P.O. Box 1761 Allentown, Pennsylvania 18105

Dear Mr. Brown:

This responds to your October 17, 1979, letter asking about the proper certification label for an intermediate manufacturer that alters the tires and rims on a chassis thereby affecting the gross axle and vehicle weight ratings. In your letter, you suggest an abbreviated certification label that would list the manufacturer's name and date of manufacture, and would make the statement that the vehicle will conform to certain standards if the incomplete vehicle document is followed. The agency agrees that this is a correct certification.

Intermediate manufacturers are required to attach labels to vehicles that they modify to indicate that some manufacturing operation has occurred on a vehicle between the manufacture of its chassis and its final manufacture. The intermediate manufacturer is permitted to select, from among a number of certification statements, the statement or statements that accurately represent the nature of the work undertaken by that manufacturer. Therefore, it is not necessary for an intermediate manufacturer to use all of the certification statements on its labels.

In the situation that you describe, the intermediate manufacturer will make a statement on its label identical to one of the statements made by the chassis manufacturer. Although this appears to be redundant, it is necessary to have the intermediate manufacturer's label on the vehicle making the required certification statement so that a final-stage manufacturer can continue to rely upon the certification labels and upon the statements made in the incomplete vehicle document.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

October 17, 1979

Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Madam: Subject: Request for Interpretation 49 CFR Part 567, Certification Intermediate Manufacturer's Label Section 567.5(b)

Mack Trucks, Inc., a manufacturer of heavy duty diesel trucks, requests interpretation of 49 CFR 567.5(b) concerning the "Intermediate Manufacturer's Label".

In the heavy duty truck industry, the practice of changing the tires and/or rims from those originally furnished on the incomplete vehicle, before delivery to a final-stage manufacturer, is not uncommon.

If a dealer (distributor) changes the tires and rims on a Mack chassis-cab, and the change alters the GAWR's and GVWR of the vehicle, then the dealer becomes an intermediate manufacturer since the validity of the incomplete vehicle document is affected (ref: 49 CFR 568.5). Therefore, the dealer is required to affix an intermediate manufacturer's label to the vehicle.

The requirements pertaining to the content of this label are specified in 49 CFR 567.5(b). As we interpret this section, only one of the four (4) statements (567.5(b)(2)) specified in 567.5 (b)(1) through (b)(3) possibly applies to a tire/GAWR/GVWR change since the conformance status of the safety standards has not changed. Therefore, the intermediate manufacturer's label could consist of only the following:

1. "This vehicle will conform to Standard Nos. ------------ if it is completed in accordance with the instructions contained in the amended incomplete vehicle document furnished pursuant to 49 CFR Part 568."

2. "INTERMEDIATE MANUFACTURE BY" followed by the dealer's name.

3. The month and year of intermediate manufacture.

In the case of a tire/rim/GAWR/GVWR change, statement 1 above, when completed, is simply a restatement of a sentence on the "Chassis-Cab Label" and seems redundant since the only difference between the two statements will be the word "amended".

Mack Trucks, Inc. would appreciate the Administration's comments on what is required of a dealer (distributor) who changes the tires/rims/GAWR/GVWR of an incomplete vehicle.

Very truly yours,

MACK TRUCKS, INC.

Thomas F. Brown Executive Engineer- Vehicle Regulations and Standards

vy

ID: nht79-2.13

DATE: 02/13/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

FEB 13 1979 NOA-30

Mr. Hisakazu Murakami Staff, Safety Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. P.O. Box 1606 560 Sylvan Avenue Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632

Dear Mr. Murakami:

This responds to your January 9, 1979, letter concerning a mistake on the certification labels of approximately 2000 Datsun trucks. You stated that the vehicles, although manufactured in 1979, were incorrectly dated on their certification labels as being manufactured in 1978. You propose to remedy the affected vehicles by crossing out the incorrect date and inserting the correct information.

Your proposed correction is acceptable to the National Highway Traffic Safety-Administration. As long as all other information on the certification label is correct, your modification of existing certification labels will comply with the agency's regulations.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

NOA-30 January 9, 1979

Mr. Roger S. Tilton Office of Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Tilton:

This is to confirm our telephone conversation of January 9th regarding the following problem.

We mistakenly attached the certification label (required by Part 567) on which "78" was printed in the space of year for FMVSS certification statement to the rear bodies of our DATSUN Pick-Up (620) manufactured in 1979. Approximately 2,000 vehicles are involved.

The method of correction which we are now planning to do is to cross out the digits "78" and add the digits "79" directly below as follows:

XX 79

During our conversation I requested your interpretation on whether our method of correction will be accepted by your office and your reply was yes.

We will be able to submit the list of VIN of the vehicles (DATSUN Pick-Up) which are involved in the problem within the next couple of weeks.

Very truly yours,

NISSAN MOTOR CO.,LTD.

Hisakazu Murakami Staff, Safety

HM:mh

ID: nht79-2.14

DATE: 12/05/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

DEC 5 1979

Mr. W. G. Milby Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley, Georgia 31030

Dear Mr. Milby:

This responds to your October 9, 1979, letter relating to the proper classification of school buses on certification labels.

Your letter is accurate in that school buses may be designated as "school buses" on their certification labels. The agency thinks that for the purpose of clarity the term "school bus" should be included on the label to further clarify the particular design of the bus. All other buses that comply only with standards applicable to non-school buses must be certified as "buses".

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

October 9, 1979

Mr. Roger Tilton Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Transportation Safety Administration Department of Transportation Washington, D.C. 20590

SUBJECT: PARTS 567 and 568

Dear Mr. Tilton: The purpose of this letter is to seek confirmation of our recent telephone conversation that it is acceptable to use the word "SCHOOL BUS" as a vehicle classification on Federal certification labels required by the subject parts.

Per our conversation, "SCHOOL BUS" may be used as a vehicle classification in certifying buses meeting school bus standards. Buses not meeting school bus standards must be certified using the vehicle classification "BUS".

Thank you for your reply.

W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services

fvc

ID: nht79-2.15

DATE: 10/01/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Continental Products Corp.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

October 1, 1979

Mr. William G. Finn Operations Manager Continental Products Corp. 1200 Wall Street West Lyndhurst, New Jersey 07071

Dear Mr. Finn:

This is in response to your letter of September 7, 1979, asking whether tire sidewall molding, required by the Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) Standards (49 CFR 575.104), may be accomplished using characters with a height of 6.5 millimeters, rather than 5/32nds of an inch as stated in the regulation (49 CFR 575.104, Figure 1). You also ask whether UTQG sidewall moldings must appear on both sides of the tire.

The specification of 5/32-inch tire sidewall characters was intended by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to establish a minimum requirement to assure readability of the UTQG information presented. The agency has no objection to the use of characters of a height greater than 5/32nds of an inch, e.g., 6.5 millimeters, so long as all characters used to convey UTQG information are of the same height. UTQG information need be molded on only one sidewall of the tire.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

September 7, 1979

Mr. Hipolit - Legal Department National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590 Dear Mr. Hipolit:

Per our telephone conversation of September 5, please let us know the answers to the following questions regarding the UTQG law which goes into effect for radial tires on March 1, 1980.

1. Can the lettering molded into the side-wall of the tire be 6.5 mm high?

2. Must these markings be molded on both sides of the tire, or is one side sufficient?

Your prompt reply would be most appreciated, and we thank you for your consideration and cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,

William G. Finn Operations Manager

WGF:jld

ID: nht79-2.16

DATE: 11/02/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Hisakazu Murakami Technical Representative - Safety Engineering Office of North America Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. 1919 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Suite 707 P.O. Box 57105 WashinSton, D.C. 20037

Dear Mr. Murakami:

This is in response to your letter of September 14, 1979, in which you asked about the applicability of the variable intensity illumination requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 101-80, Controls and Displays, to various components in your company's automobiles. You listed and identified these parts in Figure 1 of your letter which will refer to in answering your questions.

The variable intensity illumination requirements of section 5.3.3 of Safety Standard 101-80 are applicable to (1) "con- trols, gauges, and their identification, and to (2) any illumination that is provided in the passenger compartment when and only when the headlights are activated." As noted in section 5 of Safety Standard 101-80, the location identification, and illumination requirements are applicable only to passenger cars and other vehicles equipped with any control listed in section 5.1 or in column 1 of Table 1. The term "gauqe" is defined in Section 4 as a "display that is listed in section 5.1 or in Table 2 and is not a telltale."

Applying these criteria to the list of automobile components in your letter, I have concluded that none of the listed components, except the ordinary clock and the automatic gear position illumination lamp, are subject to the requirements of section 5.3.3 of Safety Standard 101-80. Since this result resolves the issues raised in Questions Q2.1 - Q2.5 of your letter, I have not addressed them in this response.

The components identified in your diagram by letters a - h (the room lamp, spot lamp, luggage room lamp, personal lamp, radio, foot lamp step lamp, and the luggage room lamp for hatchback vehicles) are not subject to the requirements of section 5.3.3. This is because they are not controls listed in section 5.1 or in column 1 of Table 1 of Safety Standard 101-80 and because they do not illuminate the passenger compartment when and only when the headlights are activated.

Similarly the glove box lamp and the console box lamp (items i and j) are not subject to section 5.3.3. They are not controls listed in Safety Standard 101-80 and they are not activated when and only when the headlights are activated since their activation requires both opening the box lids and switching on the headlights.

The ignition key illumination lamp (item k), which is not a control listed in Safety Standard 101-80, is activated when the light control switch is turned to the "small lights only" position (this activates the clearance clamps, identification lamps, and other exterior lamps other than the headlights.) When the switch is turned to the position that activates both, the small lights and the headlights, the key illumination lamp is deactivated. Consequently, the lamp is not activated when and only when the headlights are activated and is, therefore, not subject to the variable intensity illumination requirements.

You noted in conversation with Ms. Debra Weinner of my office that your company uses two types of clocks (item 1 in your letter) in its automobiles. One is an ordinary clock whose face is illuminated when and only when the headlights are activated. The requirements of section 5.3.5 would apply to the illumination of this type of clock.

The other clock used in your company's automobiles is a digital clock with a flourescent readout which shines with greater intensity during the day and with a lower intensity at night when the headlights are activated. Since this clock is not a control or a display listed in Safety Standard 101-80 and its illumination is not activated when and only when the headlamps are activated, the requirements of section 5.3.3 for continuously variable illumination are not applicable. Section 5.3.3 also provides that light intensity for informational readout systems shall have at least two values. The term "informational readout systems" which is not defined in Safety Standard 101-80 refers to the term "informational readout display," which is defined as "a display using light-emitting diodes, liquid crystals, or other electro illuminating devices where one or more than one type of information or message may be displayed." The term "display" includes only those displays listed in section 5.1 or in column 1 of Table 2 of the standard and these listings do not include a digital clock. Therefore, the digital clock would not be subject to the light intensity requirements for informational readout systems.

The automatic gear position illumination lamp (item m in your letter) is subject to the variable intensity illumination requirements of section 5.3.3. Although it is not a control (see preamble to Safety Standard 101-80, 43 FR 27541, June 26, 1978) this lamp is activated when and only when the headlights are activated.

In Question 2 of your letter, you asked for the definition of the terms "continuously variable" and "variable." The term "continuously variable" is defined in section 5.3.3(a) and (b) of Safety Standard 101-80. It is followed by a description of the two light intensities which must be provided for informational readout systems. The term "variable" appears in the next sentence in section 5.3.3 which states that:

"The intensity of any illumination that is provided in the passenger compartment when and only when the headlights are activated shall also be variable in a manner that complies with this paragraph.

The underlined words in the quoted sentence refer to the definition of "continuously variable" except in the case of informational readout displays where the words refer to illumination of two intensities.

If you have any further questions, I will be happy to answer them.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

September 14, 1979

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Re FMVSS 101-80 - Controls and Displays I would like to take this opportunity to ask for your interpretation with regard to FMVSS No. 101-80 - Controls and Displays.

I would appreciate it if you could please answer the questions that I have attached.

Thank you for your usual fine cooperation.* CR Very truly yours,

NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.

Hisakazu Murakami Technical Representative Safety

HM:kb

Attachments Q-1 Generally speaking, would it be necessary for each one of items (a) to (m) in Figure-1 to meet the requirements of S 5.3.3?

Q-2 Assuming that your answer to Q-1 is "yes",

Q-2.1 Please explain the reason for your answer being "yes"

Q-2.2 Would the light intensity of (a) to (e), as shown in Figure-1, and having individual "On-Off" Manual Switches be considered variable?

Q-2.3 Would the light intensity of (f) Foot Lamp, (g) Step Lamp and (h) Luggage Room lamp, which light automatically only when doors are open, and not when they are closed, be considered variable?

Q-2.4 Would the light ingensity of (i) Glove Box Lamp and (j) Console Box Lamp, which are placed in their boxes and light only when the headlights are activated and their lids are open, be considered variable?

Q-2.5 Would the light intensity of (k) Ignition Key Illumination Lamp, which is placed near ignition key cylinder and lights only when clearance lamps, identification lamps and side marker lamps, etc. (other than headlights) are lit, be considered variable?

Q-2.6 Would the clock (1) with the flourescent display be considered to be the informational readout system?

Q-2.7 Assuming that your answers to Q-2.2 -Q-2.5 are "no", please explain the definition of the word "variable" and "not continuously variable".

Q-2.8 Would the light intensity of (m) Automatic Gear Position Illumination Lamp, which is placed on the floor-console box, be required to be variable, or continuously variable?

**INSERT** (a) Room (Dome) Lamp

(b) Spot Lamp (like one in airplane)

(c) Luggage Room for wagon vehicle -

(d) Personal Lamp for rear seat passengers

(e) Radio

(f) Foot Lamp

(g) Step Lamp

(h) Luggage Room Lamp for hatchback vehicle

(i) Glove Box Lamp

(j) Console Box Lamp

(k) Ignition Key Illumination Lamp (l) Clock

(l) Clock

(m) Automatic Gear Position Illumination Lamp -

FIGURE - 1

ID: nht79-2.17

DATE: 03/19/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Rolls-Royce Motors

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

FMVSS INTERPRETATION Mar 19 1979

Mr. J. B. H. Knight Chief Car Safety Engineer Rolls-Royce Motors Crewe Chesire CW1 3PL England

Dear Mr. Knight:

This responds to your letters of July 11, 1978, and January 18, 1979, concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 101-80, Controls and Displays. I regret the delay in responding to your inquiry. The answers to your questions are as follows:

1. The turn signal control lever used by Rolls-Royce is mounted on the steering column and is positioned horizontally. To operate the turn signals, the lever must be rotated either clock-wise or anti-clock-wise. To label the control lever and to indicate the manner of operation, Rolls-Royce is considering placing the arrows of the turn signal symbol so that they point up and down. You ask whether the standard permits that orientation of the arrows.

The answer is no. Section 5.2.1 requires that the turn signal symbol appear perceptually upright to the driver. The upright position of a symbol is determined by referring to column 3 of Table 1 of the standard. That table shows that the upright position for the turn signal symbol is with the arrows pointing horizontally. Thus, the arrows must point essentially horizontally in the motor vehicle. Complying with the perceptually upright requirement instead of reorienting the symbol to serve other purposes will aid in ensuring quick and accurate identification of the turn signal control. We wish to observe that essentially the same result as that sought by RollsRoyce in reorienting the turn signal symbol could be achieved by placing curved, thinner arrows next to the symbol to indicate mode of operation.

2. (i) You noted that differing display identification requirement for safety belts appear in FMVSS 101-80 and FMVSSS 208. FMVSS 101-80 does not supersede or preempt FMVSS 208 in this area. However, the agency will soon issue a notice that will provide for use of the safety belt symbol in Table 2 of FMVSS 101-80 for the purposes of both standards.

(ii) You are correct in assuming that column 3 of Table 2 should include a reference to FMVSS 105-75 for brake system malfunction displays and a reference to FMVSS 121 for brake air pressure displays. These inadvertent omissions will be corrected in the notice mentioned above. You are also correct in assuming that the options in section 5.3.5 of FMVSS 105-75 are still available.

3. You referred to the statement in the final rule preamble that the visibiiity requirements of 101-80 would be deemed satisfied even if minimal movements by the driver were necessary and suggested that this interpretation be incorporated in section 6, conditions, and amplified. The agency does not believe that this step is necessary. The agency does, however, believe it appropriate to amplify its earlier interpretation. By minimal movement, the agency meant head movement of not more than a few inches. By a "few" inches, we mean up to approximately thee inches. As to your suggestion for specifying the size of the driver to be used in determining compliance with the visibility requirements, the acency will consider this suggestion and address it at a future date.

4. You should comply with the speedometer scale requirements in FMCSS 101-80 since the labelling requirements in FMVSS 127 were deleted in the response to reconsideration petitions that was published July 27, 1978 (43 FR 32421).

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel

NOA-30:KDeMeter:pfp:3/5/79 cc: NOA-30 Subj/Chvon NOA-30 Ms. DeMeter NRMS-11 Interps: Std. 101-80 Redbook: (3) CC