ID: nht80-4.17

DATE: 10/30/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Coded Electronics Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 20, 1980 asking whether your emergency hazard signaling system conforms with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You also asked as to the steps necessary to make it mandatory.

From the specifications provided in your letter, it appears that both modes of operation (hazard and distress) would comply with the flash rates and the percent of current "on" time required by SAE J945, the standard for hazard warning signal flashers incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. If your device meets all other requirements of SAE J945 and SAE J910, the standard for hazard warning signal operating units also incorporated by reference, it should comply with Standard No. 108.

I am enclosing a copy of 49 CFR Part 552, setting forth the procedures under which you may petition for an amendment of Standard No. 108 that would require a distress signaling system on vehicles.

SINCERELY,

FROM: (Illegible Lines)

TO: (Illegible Word)

SUMMARY: (Illegible Lines)

STATUS OF REPLY / REMARKS

DATE ON CORRES.: (Illegible Words)

DATE RECEIVED: (Illegible Words)

NHTSA CONTROL: (Illegible Words)

SUSPENSE DATE: (Illegible Words)

Based on the times stated in the "Product Specification for the Code II," the flash rates and the percent of current "ON" time will meet the requirements of SAE J945 and FMVSS 108 for both modes. For the hazard signal mode the flash rate will be 70 FPM for a normally closed type flashes and the current ON time is 59%. For the emergency distress signal mode, the flash rate will be 71 FPM for a normally open type flashes with an average current ON time of 65%. SAE J945 requires an average of at least three consecutive cycles. If this flashes meets all the other requirements of SAE J945 and J910, and maintains these flash rates, it should qualify.

John (Illegible Word) 9/23/80

MARKETING & MANUFACTURING DIVISION

CODED ELECTRONICS CORPORATION

August 20, 1980

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Legal Division N.H.T.S.A.

Dear Mr. Berndt:

During my recent visit to Washington, I met with Taylor Vincent, Attorney, of N.H.T.S.A. Legal Division. The purpose of that meeting was to introduce an inovation to the Emergency Hazard Signaling System, which my company is presently preparing for promotion and distribution throughout the United States and foreign countries. Mr. Vincent was very receptive to the product and suggested that I submit information to you for your review.

Due to the product's specific nature, the primary function does conform to current D.O.T. Standards, however, the secondary function which provides an additional feature, is not regulated by any D.O.T. Specifications. Enclosed, I have provided the product's discriptions, application, and specification. After reviewing this material, it would be greatly appreciated if you could send to me your interpretation of its acceptability and also the steps necessary for Federal Manditory Legislation.

I would like to thank you for your time; and if you have any questions or would like to discuss any facet of the product, please feel free to call me at (415) 441-2411.

Robert A. Belcher President

ENC.

PRODUCT DESCRIPTION

Coded Electronics Corporation is engaged in the manufacturing, marketing and distribution of a Dual Signal Emergency distress and hazard flasher. The flasher is currently called "CODE II" and refered to from time to time as the product.

The product was developed to utilize the existing 4-Way Hazard Flash system standard on most vehicles in use today. The basic feature that the product provides is that a motorist will now have the option to designate his immediate situation as to a "warning," i.e. stopped to read a map, or "stranded/distressed." i.e. out of gas, or illness of some sort.

The distinction between the Hazard signal (primary function) and the Distress signal (secondary function) is simply a variation in the distress mode. Basically the Distress signal is a modification of the International Distress Signal, the "S.O.S." and is described in the specifications, i.e. short flash, long flash, short flash . . .

The product poses the ability to increase auto safety by clearly defining the existing situation of a stopped vehicle with a maximum of visual via the 4-way lights. It also provides the physically handicapped motorist the ability to designate his situation without having to leave his vehicle, and with a minimum of physical effort.

Our recent efforts have us in contact with California Law Enforcement Agencies which are willing to introduce and acknowledge the additional emergency signal provided by the product along with the hazard signal. Also, we are currently in final negotiations with a major National Auto Accessories Distributor and project introduction to the marketplace within the next few months.

PRODUCT APPLICATION

CODE II, Emergency Distress and Hazard Signal Flasher, is applicable to most vehicles with a standard 4-Way Hazard Signal Flash System.

CODE II installs simply by removing the existing Hazard Flasher, placing the CODE II Flasher in the place of the standard flasher and attaching the Signal selection switch provided with the flasher.

CODE II is a state-of-the-art all electronic flasher designed to meet all existing regulations and to exceed them in reliability and dependability.

Simply, CODE II requires no alternation of the electrical system and utilizes the Hazard Flashing Signal as the primary function along with the optional Distress Signal as the secondary function.

PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS

CODE II

Dual Signal Emergency Distress & Hazard Flasher

HAZARD SIGNAL FLASHER (Primary Function Mode)

A = OFF Time in Seconds (NO FLASH) Sec. 0.36

B = ON Time in Seconds (FLASH) Sec. 0.5

Hazard Signal Flash is within D.O.T. Standards. CODE II also meets and exceeds D.O.T. specifications for reliability.

EMERGENCY DISTRESS SIGNAL FLASHER MODE (Secondary Function)

C = OFF Time in Seconds (NO FLASH) Sec. 0.30

D1 = ON Time in Seconds (FLASH) Sec. 0.36

D2 = ON Time in seconds (FLASH) Sec. 0.92

(Graphics omitted) NOTE: All on and off duration times can vary +/- 10% at most, and can be programmed for any sequence of flashes or any duration of flashes due to its sophisticated electronic design.

ID: NYDOTBILL

Mr. Tom Perreaut
New York State Department of Transportation
Office of Legal Affairs
Building 5, New York State Campus
Albany, NY 12232





Dear Mr. Perreaut:





This responds to your letter and telephone calls asking whether a New York state bill (S.1731-B, January 27,1999,) would be preempted by Federal law, in light of a possible inconsistency with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, "Rearview Mirrors." Your correspondence attaches a revised version of the bill and a letter dated April 16, 1999, from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to your office regarding a previous version of the bill. Further, you attach a copy of a request for comments, dated June 12, 1996, based upon a granted petition for rulemaking to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to require convex cross view mirrors on certain trucks (61 FR 30586). Based on our understanding of your correspondence and telephone calls, we believe that the answer to your question is a qualified no.

According to your correspondence, New York's proposed law states, in relevant part:

Every motor vehicle when driven or operated upon a public highway in the delivery of goods or services to residential or business locations shall be equipped with one or more cross-view back-up mirrors designed to allow the driver of such motor vehicle a view of the area behind the back of the motor vehicle.

For the purposes of the bill, a "motor vehicle" is defined as:

a vehicle that is registered or based in the state of New York, and that is equipped with a cube-style or enclosed delivery bay with a minimum eight feet six inches and a maximum of eighteen feet, provided that any such vehicle be a single unit vehicle which is operated for commercial purposes except for motor vehicles in interstate commerce and rental vehicles....

A "cross-view back-up mirror" is defined as "a mirror mounted on a motor vehicle and so located to enable the driver to view directly behind such vehicle."

Section 30103(b) of our statute, 49 U.S.C. 30103(b) (formerly 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act), states in part:

when a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a State...may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors (49 CFR 571.111), requires side rear view mirrors on trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 4,536 kilograms (kg) or more. The standard at S7.1 (for trucks with GVWRs of between 4,536 kg and 11,340 kg) and at S8.1 (for trucks with GVWRs of 11,340 kg or more) requires mirrors on both sides of the vehicle. The mirrors must be "located so as to provide the driver a view to the rear along both sides of the vehicle and shall be adjustable both in the horizontal and vertical directions to view the rearward scene." The use of the words "a view to the rear" and "rearward scene" does not indicate that the specified field of view extends directly behind the truck. Our review of the rulemaking history of the standard, including the notice we published at 61 FR 30856 (June 12, 1996), indicates that there is no Federal intent to regulate the area directly and immediately behind the type of vehicle in question. New York would thus be regulating a different aspect of performance (i.e., a different field of view) than that regulated by Standard No. 111.

If the State regulation addresses only the area directly behind the motor vehicle and therefore not the area addressed by Standard No. 111, it would not be preempted by 30103(b). However, it is difficult to respond categorically that the State regulation would not be preempted because you have provided little information on what the State would require. The State regulation would be preempted if it conflicts with Federal law, either by creating a situation in which manufacturers cannot comply with both the State and Federal laws, or by interfering in some way with another Federal motor vehicle safety standard (such as the field-of-view requirements for the lighting standard, 49 CFR 571.108).

If NHTSA were to issue a standard regulating the field of view of this area, inconsistent State laws would be preempted to the extent that they are not identical with the Federal standard. Of course, we would consider any relevant State laws when adopting a Federal standard. Currently, we have ongoing rulemaking considering establishing performance for rear cross view mirrors. We expect to publish an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM), following upon 61 FR 30586, on this in the future.

In addition, there may be preemption issues concerning Federal law administered by the Department's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), which has jurisdiction over interstate motor carriers operating in the United States. FMCSA was established on

January 1, 2000, and was formerly a part of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). We note that Mr. Brian Temperine of the FHWA wrote your department on April 16, 1999, concerning preemption issues arising from a previous version of the bill in question. We suggest that you contact the FMCSA at (202) 366-4012 for information concerning preemption, FHWA's April 16, 1999, letter, and FMCSA's views of the current version of the bill.

In closing, we want to make clear that we are not providing any views with respect to the merits of the State mirror requirement to be enacted in New York. This letter only addresses the preemption issue you raised.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Nancy Bell of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.





Sincerely,





Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel





ref:111
d.8/3/00

ID: nht95-7.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 16, 1995

FROM: Kenneth W. Easterling -- Plan B Engineering, Inc.

TO: Taylor Vinson -- NHTSA; Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Collision Avoidance Technology

ATTACHMT: 12/22/95 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Kenneth Easterling (A43; Std. 108); 7/30/93 letter from John Womack to Wayne Ferguson

TEXT: THANK YOU FOR TAKING TIME TO DISCUSS THE DEVELOPMENTS MADE RECENTLY OUR COLLISION AVOIDANCE DEVICE NOW IN THE FINAL DESIGN STAGES. AS PER YOUR DIRECTIVE. I HAVE ATTACHED A BRIEF SYNOPSIS OF THE SUBJECT DEVICE FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AND OPINION.

IF I CAN PROVIDE ANYTHING FURTHER IN TERMS OF PRODUCT ILLUSTRATION OR EXPLANATION, PLEASE GIVE ME A CALL.

WE SINCERELY THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR PERSONAL COMMENTARY AND SUBMISSION TO MR. DUBBIN'S OFFICE FOR INSPECTION.

VERY BEST REGARDS, KENNETH W. EASTERLING

Attachment

Mr. Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel NHTSA, Room 5219

Subject: Rear End Collision Avoidance Re: Proportional Deceleration Indicator Lamps (aka) G-Lamps

Dear Mr. Dubbin:

In recognition of the significant work and contributions to highway safety, I submit for your consideration and opinion, the concept and justification for G-Lamps.

To be specific, an inertial driven, proportional deceleration indicator lamp as an intended enhancement to existing single filament, on/off style incandescent brake lamps. We have recently entered final design stages on the device and initial tests have revealed some startling results in decreased driver reaction times when compared to the industry standard products.

Building on my work experience within the California Highway Patrol, I recognized the need for motorists to be aware of not only when a vehicle ahead of you was braking, but to what degree the deceleration was be made. Tests have shown reaction times were cut in half when a motorist was visually appraised of increasing, hard braking activity instead of having to judge the rate of diminishing distance between his/her vehicle and the braking motorist (as is the case with on/off style brake lamps). In the case of freeway speeds, these reaction times and distances are accumulated from one vehicle to the next (rear) until ultimately (at freeway speeds) a rear end collision is imminent.

G-Lamps was developed to provide motorists to the rear, visual reference to the degree of braking activity on a real-time basis. Valuable distance is directly proportionate to time lost in reacting to sudden stops or increasingly harder braking. As we all know, there exists a tendency to "ride" our brakes when anticipating slow-downs or stops. This has effectively eliminated the benefits of standard brake lamps. From the time of activation, the degree of braking activity is anyone's guess. To motorists to the rear it may very well end up in excessive vehicle damage and injury liabilities.

For your inspection, explanation of the device is delivered on the following pages. I have tried to be as informative as possible without laboring you with manufacturing details that would rival a sales pitch.

I thank you in advance for your input and contributions to this effort.

Kenneth Easterling, President, Plan B Engineering Inc.

Intent and Purpose

The device was conceived to counter the hazards of hard braking while in traffic at highway speeds. It is intended to enhance existing brake indicator lamp systems and not to deviate from customary and expected visual queues during motor vehicle operation with one important exception.

Specifically, braking activity in excess of normal deceleration (defined as an appreciable decay of forward momentum of the vehicle) would activate decelerometer circuitry housed within the lamp bulb itself and be viewed from the rear as proportionately faster flashing light equating to the degree of deceleration. Normal braking would display customary visual queues as a steady burn of the brake lamp.

It is well established through independent studies and government testing, driver reaction times are severely compromised as the distance between vehicles decrease under various breaking conditions. This scenario is aggravated by the need to visually judge the rate of deceleration of the stopping vehicle and a following driver to respond accordingly.

The device proposed will deliver visual feed-back to following motorists of greater than normal braking activity. The ergonomics of the device are geared to normal reflex actions of potential and proportion. The greater the rate of deceleration of the vehicle the faster the cycles per second of the inertial lamp. Therefore, the following vehicle's response will be to react with potentially greater braking activity much sooner than normal. Thus capturing valuable stopping distance that would otherwise be lost. This problem is further exaggerated by less than desirable visual acuity present in more than three quarters of the motoring public.

Abstract of Device (i.e. form, fit and function) While the form and fit of the device mimic the present day designs for incandescent, filament style lamps, the similarity must end there. Unlike it's predecessor, the inertia lamp is mechanically dynamic in function. To operate the device must be subjected to substantial negative G-forces which can only be generated by the sudden and rapid deceleration the vehicle in which it is mounted. Without these influences, the bulb assembly acts as any other lamp bulb, in terms of constant steady burn associated with normal deceleration rate, when the brake system is activated.

By nature of design, the inertia bulb will activate in concert with the steady burning "normal" brake lamp. Once energized, the inertia flash filament portion of the lamp will increase the flash rate by cycles per second (Hz) proportionate to the rate of declaration. This is a desired means of attaining a quantification of braking magnitude.

Microelectronics technology allows the timing circuitry to be housed within a standard "bayonet" style socket with no modification to the manufacturer's electrical or molded lens structures. State of the art manufacturing techniques allow the device to be fabricated in cost ranges considered to be competitive with existing high performance lamps. The solid state design and minimal parts involved insure long life and serviceability.

Summary

In conclusion, our studies indicate this device to be the most straight forward, technically viable and ergonomically effective means of reducing the single most prolific cause of vehicular collisions today, "the rear-ender". Billions of dollars annually are paid out by insurance companies for damages and bodily injury claims directly related to these types of collisions. Considering the enormous loss in work time, productivity in the economy and personal pain and suffering, the numbers are staggering.

Recently a precedence was set by General Motors with the introduction of the Daytime Running Lamp. Recognizing a simple but highly effective means of vehicular illumination, a major, profit oriented corporation was willing to make a billion dollar investment to highway safety. The motoring public as well as the companies that insure their financial responsibility, have come to expect a product that is as safe as technically and morally possible.

ID: nht92-6.42

DATE: May 22, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Larry Nunn -- President, Automotive Lighting Technologies, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/10/92 from Larry Nunn to Office of Chief Council, NHTSA (OCC 7224)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for information on laws and regulations administered by this agency that would apply to an aftermarket product you have under development. Since your product constitutes "motor vehicle equipment," your product would be subject to NHTSA's jurisdiction as follows.

Your letter described your product, called "LeLite," as a lighting system designed to be attached to motorcycle helmets. The system is intended to increase rider visibility by providing the equivalent of a center high mounted stop lamp for motorcyclists. A drawing you enclosed depicts the "LeLite" as attached to the rear of the helmet, and you state that the "LeLite" includes a stop/running lamp with two amber turn signals.

You state that the lighting system is powered by a cord that connects to a "simple harness unit" mounted at a motorcycle location chosen by the motorcyclist. You further state that the harness is designed to attach directly into the motorcycle's brake/running lamp wires feeding from the battery terminal, enabling the system to light up in conjunction with the brake/running lamps on the vehicle.

In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you stated that the "LeLite" is to be sold separately from the motorcycle helmet and is designed to be readily attachable and detachable by the motorcyclist.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to regulate "motor vehicles" and items of "motor vehicle equipment." Section 102(4) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(4)) defines "motor vehicle equipment," in part, 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 ... or intended for use exclusively to safeguard motor vehicles, drivers, passengers, and other highway users from risk of accident, injury, or death.

In your letter, you stated that the "LeLite" is intended to increase motorcyclist visibility by providing the equivalent of a center high mounted stop lamp. Increased motorcyclist visibility on the road would lessen the possibility of the motorcyclist's being hit by others who may not see the motorcyclist in time to avoid an accident. Thus, we would consider the "LeLite" as "motor vehicle equipment" since it is intended for use exclusively to safeguard motorcyclists from risk of accident, injury, or death.

You provided no information about the degree of difficulty involved in connecting the "LeLite's" harness into the motorcycle brake/running lamp wiring system. As previously stated, your intention apparently is that the individual user installs the "LeLite." However, please be aware that if installation into the wiring system should prove difficult for some users, and the "LeLite" should be installed into the motorcycle or motorcycle helmet by a commercial business, Section 108 (a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act could affect your product. That section of the Act requires manufacturers, distributors, dealers and motor vehicle repair businesses to ensure that they do not knowingly render inoperative 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 (FMVSS). As you may be aware, FMVSS No. 108; Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment, specifies requirements for lamps on motor vehicles, and FMVSS No. 218; Motorcycle helmets, establishes minimum performance requirements for motorcycle helmets.

The above-named businesses could sell the "LeLite" but could not install it if the installation would adversely affect the vehicle or helmet's compliance with any of the FMVSS's. In the first instance, it would be the responsibility of these entities to determine whether there is any possibility of such an effect. The prohibitions of Section 108 (a)(2)(A) do not apply to the actions of a vehicle owner in adding to or otherwise modifying his or her vehicle or motorcycle helmet. Thus, a motorcyclist would not violate the Act by installing ,the "LeLite" even if doing so would adversely affect some safety feature in his or her motorcycle or motorcycle helmet.

However, please note that it is this agency's policy to discourage motorcycle helmet users from modifying their helmets. Section S5.6.1 of FMVSS No. 218; Motorcycle helmets requires that the following instruction be placed on helmets: "Make no modifications..." We are concerned that attaching the "LeLite" to a motorcycle helmet may cover the symbol "DOT" that constitutes the helmet manufacturer's certification that the helmet complies with the FMVSS's. Also, Standard No. 218 limits "rigid projections" outside the helmet's shell to those required for operation of essential accessories, and that do not protrude more than 5 millimeters. Based on your letter, the "LeLite" may constitute a "rigid projection." If so, it is not clear that the "LeLite" can meet the restrictions on "rigid projections" outside of the helmet's shell. For these reasons, the agency's policy would be to discourage motorcyclists from modifying their helmets by attaching any device that protrudes beyond the standard.

Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as the "LeLite" are also subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. The Safety Act specifies that if either your company or this agency determines that a safety-related defect exists in the "LeLite," your company as the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the safety-related defect and must either:

(1) repair the product so that the defect is removed; or (2) replace the product with identical or reasonably equivalent products which do not have a defect.

Whichever of these options is chosen, the manufacturer must bear the full expense and cannot charge the owner for the remedy if the equipment was purchased less than 8 years before the notification campaign.

For your information, I have enclosed a copy of the Safety Act, and an information sheet describing how you can obtain copies of our motor vehicle safety standards and any other NHTSA regulation. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht91-1.23

DATE: January 15, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John K. Roberts -- Vice President, Muth Advanced Technologies

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-29-90 to Richard Van Iderstine from John K. Roberts (OCC-5511)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of November 29, 1990, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency. You are developing a "Stop Turn Mirror" (STM) which you intend to be used "in combination with (or possibly in place of) center high-mounted stop lamps (CHMSL's). The STM is so designed that it appears as a mirror to a vehicle operator, but as a stop and turn signal indication system to the operator of a following vehicle.

You have not provided us with a picture of the STM, and we are unable to tell from your letter and description sheet whether the STM is intended to be mounted as an interior rear view mirror, or as an exterior one. As a surrogate for the CHMSL, it would appear to be intended for installation as an interior rear view mirror. However, as a stop and turn signal system, the STM would appear more appropriate as two exterior mirrors mounted on either side of the vehicle. Nevertheless, we shall try to answer your questions on the basis of the information available to us.

Your first question is:

"(1) If the STM satisfies the current explicit requirements of FMVSS 111 and 108, is there further NHTSA approval we should seek before fielding the device?"

NHTSA does not "approve" or "disapprove" items of motor vehicle equipment such as the STM. It will advise whether the equipment is permitted or not permitted by Federal laws, standards, or other regulations. If the equipment is permitted, then it may be manufactured and sold. However, it is the inquirer's responsibility to determine if there are any State and local restrictions on use of the equipment.

For the reasons expressed below, we have serious reservations whether the STM could meet the requirements of Standard No. 108. There is no requirement that a CHMSL be mounted on the rear of a vehicle or in the rear window. STM theoretically could fulfill the requirements for CHMSL's if combined with an interior rear view mirror conventionally placed in the center of the windshield area. In this location, it would appear to be mounted on the vertical centerline of the vehicle as seen from the rear, as the standard requires. The STM will not be perceived by the driver as anything but a mirror; however it must also fulfill the requirement that light from it falling on the rear glazing not reflect back into the mirror, or, in the words of Standard No. 108 that means have been "provided to minimize reflections from the light of the lamp that might be visible to the driver when viewed directly or indirectly in the rear view mirror." Most importantly, the STM must fulfill the photometric requirements and visibility requirements of center high-mounted stop

lamps. Compliance with these requirements is determined with the lamp mounted on or in the vehicle. Because of the different designs of back windows and adjacent "C" pillars in cars, and the distance of the STM from the back window, we believe that compliance with all applicable requirements would be difficult, if not impossible, to achieve.

Standard No. 108 does prohibit the physical combination of the required CHMSL with any other lamp or reflective device. A mirror is not a "reflective device" for purposes of Standard No. 108. Thus the question would be whether the turn signal functions of the STM are clearly separated from the stop function so that the question does not arise as to whether they are combined.

If the STM iS intended to be mounted as one or both exterior rear view mirrors it would not meet the location requirement, and could not be used as a substitute for the required CHMSL. Under Standard No. 108 it would be permissible as supplementary lighting equipment as long as it did not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment that the standard requires. In this instance, in its role as a supplementary stop/turn signal lamp system, we do not consider that the STM would impair the effectiveness of the original stop/turn signal lamp system.

"(2) Would it be reasonable for us to apply for a variance or to seek a change in FMVSS 108, if the STM doesn't meet the letter of FMVSS 106 in certain applications, but demonstrably meets or exceeds the intent of the standard."

"Variances", or exemptions from one or more requirements of a Federal motor vehicle safety standard are only granted to manufacturers of motor vehicles. We have no authority to exempt an equipment manufacturer.

As for seeking a change in Standard No. 108, while any person may file a petition for rulemaking to change a standard, I have no reason to believe that the agency would look favorably on allowing the CHMSL to be combined with a turn signal lamp, or require use of the STM as standard equipment in place of the present CHMSL.

"(3) Before a pickup truck standard is published, would it be possible to certify the STM as a compliant device and ensure that the wording of the new rule doesn't needlessly prohibit utilization of STM's?"

It is a legal impossibility to certify something as a compliant device before the requirements for that device have been formally adopted, and the effective date established for compliance. We anticipate the "pickup truck standard" as you call it will be published sometime in January 1991. If you find that it prohibits utilization of the STM you may file a petition for reconsideration of the rule with the agency within 30 days after its publication.

" (4) Is it possible that someone at NHTSA would like to see this thing or test it before we go too far in our development and larketing? It may be a useful development in vehicle safety devices with importance to industry and the public. It also may be a ready solution to the difficult issue of requiring CHMSL's on pick-up trucks. We would be happy to support

any such investigative effort by supplying a model, information, etc.

We appreciate but decline your offer. The agency is satisfied that its forthcoming rule achieves a reasonable solution to the issue of CHMSL's on pickup trucks. The agency's resources are limited, and must be deployed in areas where there is a reasonable possibility that a mandatory safety standard may result as a consequence of its investigative efforts. Given the facts that the STM addresses an area of safety that is already covered by the CHMSL, and that any safety benefits of the STM remain speculative while those of the CHMSL are well demonstrated, there is no reasonable possibility that the STM would become a mandatory requirement of this agency.

ID: nht90-2.74

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/05/90

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: RAYMOND D. STRAKOSCH PRESIDENT SAFETY PREMIUMS

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 04/25/90 WITH COMPANY BROCHURE ON AUTOMOBILE TRIANGLE DEVICE, FROM RAYMOND D. STRAKOSCH -- SAFETY PREMIUMS TO JOHN MESSERA -- NHTSA

TEXT: Thank you for your letter to John Messera, of our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 125, Warning Devices (49 CFR @ 571.125). You indicated that you have for many years produced and sold a "Signal Glo Car Door Mirror Clip On," which you described as a "dangling safety tag which attaches to the car mirror to alert passersby of emergency needs." These warning devices are made of a reflective plastic material designed with a clip attachment, and come in eight di fferent shapes, including a triangular configuration. These products are slightly more than four inches high.

You also stated that, pursuant to a request from a customer, your company has developed a larger size warning triangle for mounting on a car mirror. You have provided a prototype of this new larger size "Lite at Nite" Reflective Auto Triangle, that is a pproximately 6" at the base and 5 1/2" in height. You stated that, as your warning triangle gets larger, you "wish to make sure it is not confused with the roadside truck version described in Standard No. 125." Additionally, you stated that you wanted t o be certain that the instructions for this larger size warning triangle "in no way conflict with the standard." I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations to you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; the Safety Act) gives this agency the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. This agency has exercised thi s authority to establish Standard No. 125. Section S3 of Standard 125 states that the standard "applies to devices, without self-contained energy sources, that are designed to be carried in motor vehicles, and used to warn approaching traffic of the pre sence of a stopped vehicle, except for devices designed to be permanently affixed to the vehicle." (Emphasis added.)

2

This language in S3 of Standard No. 125 makes clear that the standard's requirements are not limited to devices used by large trucks; that is, Standard No. 125 does not apply only to a "roadside truck version" of a warning device. Instead, the standard a pplies to all devices designed to be carried in any motor vehicle, from the smallest motorcycle to the largest truck, if the device satisfies the other conditions set forth in S3 of the standard.

One of the conditions set forth in S3 is that the device must be designed to be used to "warn approaching traffic of a stopped vehicle." Devices that are not intended to warn approaching traffic of a stopped vehicle, but only to alert passing traffic of the stopped vehicle's need for assistance, are not subject to Standard No. 125. Examples of such devices include a rag tied on a radio antenna and a "HELP" message printed on a folding cardboard sunshade. By the time approaching traffic sees one of the se non-warning devices, the traffic would already be aware that the vehicle displaying such a device was stopped.

Your "Signal Glo Car Door Mirror Clip On" product appears to be designed and to function in the same way other non-warning devices do; i.e., it does not appear to be intended to warn approaching traffic of a stopped vehicle, but to alert passing traffic that the stopped vehicle needs assistance. If this is the case, the "Signal Glo Car Door Mirror Clip On" would not be subject to Standard No. 125.

However, the larger "Lite at Nite" Reflective Auto Triangle may be designed to be used to "warn approaching traffic of a stopped vehicle." It appears from the promotional material enclosed in your letter that this larger triangle is intended to serve the same purpose as what you call "truck warning triangles." We assume that you are describing warning devices that are certified as complying with Standard No. 125. If your larger triangle is to serve this function, it would be subject to Standard No. 125 and would have to conform to all the requirements of the standard. From the enclosed copy of Standard No. 125, you will see that some of the specific requirements with which the larger triangle must conform include minimum size, durability, material, c ontainer, labeling, configuration, color, reflectivity, luminance, and stability.

When the agency has issued an applicable safety standard, section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) provides that no person shall "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate c ommerce, or import into the United States" any new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicles or equipment are in conformity with the applicable standard. Further, the Safety Act provides that NHTSA has no authority to appr ove, certify, or otherwise endorse any commercial product. Instead, section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) establishes a self-certification process under which every manufacturer is required to certify that each of its products meet all applicab le Federal safety standards. To comply with any applicable legal obligations, especially in connection with the manufacturer of the larger size warning triangle, I suggest that you carefully examine the requirements of Standard 125 and consider the desi gn, marketing, and intended use of the new larger warning triangle.

3

You should also be aware that the Safety Act establishes a civil penalty of $ 1,000 for each violation of a safety standard and a maximum penalty of $ 800,000 for a series of violations. In addition, the Act requires manufacturers to notify purchasers a nd remedy any items of motor vehicle equipment, such as warning devices, that do not conform with any applicable safety standards.

I have also enclosed an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, that briefly summarizes our laws and regulations and explains how to get copies of those laws and regulations. If you have any further questio ns or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ENCLOSURES

ID: nht91-7.39

DATE: December 10, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by K. Weinstein)

TO: Frank Vestergaard -- M-CO Denmark

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-16-91 from Frank Vestergaard to NHTSA (OCC 6641)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter requesting information regarding legal requirements with which your company must comply before selling your item of motor vehicle equipment, the "Warn-Mill," that warns of the presence of halted vehicles. As explained below, your device must conform with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 125, Warning Devices (49 CFR S571.125), if it is to be imported into the United States.

In your letter, you stated that the "Warn-Mill" is intended to warn of the presence of halted vehicles, and is intended as a supplement to the "statutory warning triangle." Although no size dimensions were provided, you provided a description of the "Warn-Mill" as a "strong reflecting white triangle, surrounded by red frame, mounted at a magnet foot to be placed at the roof of a halted vehicle." I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations to you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; the Safety Act) gives this agency the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. This agency has exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 125. S3 of Standard No. 125 states that the standard "applies to devices, without self-contained energy sources, that are designed to be carried in motor vehicles, and used to warn approaching traffic of the presence of a stopped vehicle, except for devices designed to be permanently affixed to the vehicle."

It appears that the "Warn-Mill" would be subject to the requirements of Standard No. 125. The "Warn-Mill" has no self-contained energy source and is designed to be carried in motor vehicles. You state that it is to be used to warn of the presence of a stopped vehicle. The "Warn-Mill" is not designed to be permanently affixed to the vehicle because your letter states that it is designed to fall off the vehicle if the vehicle is driven with the "Warn-Mill" still attached.

I note from your letter that your company intends the "Warn-Mill" as a supplement to the "statutory warning triangle." This agency does not recognize such supplements. Since the "Warn Mill" fulfills the applicability criteria of Standard No. 125, it is a "warning device," within the meaning of the standard, and it must comply with all applicable requirements of that standard. From the enclosed copy of Standard No. 125, you will see that some of the specific requirements with which the "Warn-Mill" must conform include minimum size, durability,

material, container, labeling, configuration, color, reflectivity, luminance, and stability. Based upon the information provided in your letter, it does not appear that the "Warn Mill" complies with the stability requirements in S5.6, because the stability testing is done by placing the warning device on a horizontal brushed concrete surface.

When the agency has issued an applicable safety standard, section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) provides that no person shall "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States" any new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicles or equipment are in conformity with all applicable standards and are covered by a certification issued under section 114 of the Safety Act. Unlike jurisdictions in which the vehicles and items of equipment to be offered for sale must be delivered to a governmental entity for testing and approval before they can be sold, the Safety Act gives this agency no authority to approve, endorse, or offer assurances of compliance to any commercial product.

Instead, section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) establishes a self-certification process under which every manufacturer is required to certify that each of its products meets all applicable Federal safety standards. The manufacturer's certification need not be based on actual tests in accordance with the standard. United States law only requires that the manufacturer's certification be made with the exercise of "due care" on the part of the manufacturer. It is up to the individual manufacturer in the first instance to determine what test results, engineering analyses, computer simulations, or other information it needs to certify compliance with the applicable safety standards. Once the manufacturer has made this determination and certified its product in accordance with the applicable standard, it is free to offer the product for sale in the United States. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment that have been certified by the manufacturer to ensure that they do, in fact, comply with the safety standards. NHTSA also investigates alleged defects related to motor vehicle safety.

Please also note that the Safety Act establishes a civil penalty of $1,000 for each violation of a safety standard and a maximum penalty of $800,000 for a series of violations. In addition, the Act requires manufacturers to notify purchasers and remedy any items of motor vehicle equipment, such as warning devices, that do not conform with any applicable safety standards.

You should also be aware of two other provisions of our regulations. One is 49 CFR S551.45, Service of process on foreign manufacturers and importers, which requires manufacturers and importers of motor vehicle equipment, before offering such items for importation into the United States, to designate an agent in the United States upon whom service of all legal notices may be made. The other is 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification, which requires manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment to submit to this agency identifying information and a description of the items of motor vehicle equipment produced. I am, for your information, enclosing copies of both of these regulatory provisions.

I have also enclosed an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment that briefly summarizes our laws and regulations and explains how to get copies of those laws and regulations. If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to write to me.

Attachments

Copy of 49 CFR Ch. V (10-1-90 Edition) pertaining to Sections:

571.125: Standard No. 125: Warning devices and Accelerator control systems; 551.45: Service of process on foreign manufacturers and importers; 552: Petitions for rulemaking, defect, and noncompliance orders; 566: Manufacturer identification; and 567: Certification

Copy of the NHTSA information sheet dated September, 1985 entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment.

Copy of the NHTSA information sheet dated September, 1985 entitled Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Requlations

(Text of attachments omitted.)

ID: aiam4721

"Dear Mr. Ambassador: Thank you for your letter of March 16, 1990 expressing the concern of your country about this agency's new regulations on importation of motor vehicles and equipment. Canada is concerned that, under P.L. l00-562, the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of l988, Canadian vehicle brokers, dealers, and private citizens will not, for all practical purposes, be able to export new or used Canadian market vehicles to the United States. It is concerned further that Canadian individuals and firms will be precluded from providing conformance goods and services for vehicles exported to the United States. Canada therefore requests that this agency modify its regulations with respect to Canadian market vehicles, recognizing their near-compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, and accommodating their entry in the least costly and burdensome manner. You have five specific requests, and I shall address each. Preliminarily, I want to note several things. First, my assurance that this agency gave very careful consideration to the concerns of Transport Canada in adopting final regulations under the 1988 Act, as well as those expressed by Canadian companies that commented on the proposed regulations. As we noted in the notices proposing and adopting those regulations, our discretion to make changes in the regulations was narrowly circumscribed in many instances by the detailed language of that Act. On a more technical level, I want to note that your understanding of our new regulations expressed in paragraphs (a) through (g) on page 2 of your letter is essentially correct. However, with respect to your paragraph (d), please note that determinations of vehicle eligibility for importation may also be made by me as Administrator on my own initiative, and need not be pursuant to a petition. Also, as to paragraph (e), I would like to point out that the bond processing fee, proposed to be $125, is only $4.35 (however, under paragraph (f) the bond is not less than l50% of the dutiable value of the vehicle). Your first request is that the agency 'recognize Canadian market vehicles as a special class of non-complying vehicles requiring only minor changes to meet the FMVSS.' The l988 Act was enacted on October 31, l988, and became effective January 31, l990. I regret to say that none of its provisions authorize the agency to directly distinguish between non-complying vehicles of Canadian manufacture and those originating in other countries. However, the eligibility provisions that you reference in paragraph (d) do permit a basis for minimizing some of the burden that the l988 Act imposes. We begin with the premise that if a Canadian vehicle has not been certified by its manufacturer as in conformance with U.S. standards, then it cannot be presumed to conform in all respects to the U.S. standards. Canadian and U.S. safety standards do differ in some ways (e.g., mandatory automatic crash protection for U.S. market passenger cars manufactured on and after September 1, l989). Nevertheless, we believe that enough similarity may exist to support a finding that a Canadian passenger car is 'substantially similar' to a U.S. passenger car, justifying a determination that it is eligible for importation into the United States, and capable of conversion to meet U.S. safety standards. Further, such a finding may be made on our own initiative. I am pleased to inform you that NHTSA is publishing a notice of tentative determination that would cover all passenger cars certified as meeting the Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, and that were manufactured up to September 1, l989. A copy of the notice is enclosed for your reference. After receiving and considering public comment, we will make a final decision on this matter. If we decide to adopt our tentative determination as a final determination, your first request would, in effect, be granted. Your second request is that we 'exempt such vehicles from the fees.' These fees are the ones mentioned in paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) of your letter, the registered importer annual registration fee, the vehicle eligibility petition fee, and the bond processing fee. Each fee is specifically required by the l988 Act, and must be established in advance of the fiscal year in which it is effective. The registered importer fee is required to cover agency costs for administration of the registration program. The vehicle eligibility fee is required to cover the agency's costs in making and publishing eligibility determinations. The bond processing fee is required to reimburse the U.S. Customs Service for its costs in processing the agency's conformance bond that accompanies each nonconforming vehicle. Congress provided no authority to waive these fees, or to modify them during the fiscal year that they are in effect. Thus, the fees that have been established must remain in effect until October 1, l990. When we begin the review that will lead to next year's fees, we shall be happy to consider whether some provision may be made for Canadian market vehicles. In the meantime, I would like to point out that under our notice of tentative determination on eligibility of Canadian vehicles, the fee of $l,560 would cover the blanket determination of all passenger cars, and would not be applied to each individual model and model year of passenger car. This action would effectively moot Canada's second request that Canadian market passenger cars be exempted from the determination fee. Canada's third request is to 'exempt them from the bonding requirement.' The l988 Act requires the importer of a non-conforming vehicle to furnish an appropriate bond to ensure that the vehicle will be brought into compliance, or will be exported or abandoned to the United States. This is not a new requirement, ever since January 1, l968, each nonconforming vehicle, Canadian or otherwise, has been required to be accompanied by a conformance bond upon its entry into the United States. The l988 Act provides us with no authority to exempt Canadian vehicles, and does not distinguish degrees of nonconformity. Therefore, we believe that we are unable to grant Canada's request, absent specific authorization by the U.S. Congress. The fourth request is to 'exempt them from the requirement that they be imported by registered importers, who must be U.S. citizens.' This request raises two issues: whether Canadian market cars may be imported by persons other than registered importers, and whether registered importers must be U.S. citizens. As to the first issue, the l988 Act does allow one alternative to direct importation by a registered importer. That is, a person other than a registered importer may import a nonconforming vehicle if he has a contract with a registered importer to perform conformance work. This would allow a Canadian citizen to import a Canadian market car, without himself becoming a registered importer. The second issue is whether a Canadian company is permitted to be a registered importer. We believe that a registered importer is a person who is physically present in the territory in which importation occurs, as opposed to an exporter, who is outside that territory. While we are not conversant with the laws of the individual States, we believe that a Canadian company could qualify to do business within an individual State, and become a registered importer. Thus, it is not necessary to be a U.S. 'citizen', but it is necessary to be subject to U.S. jurisdiction. The l988 Act requires the registered importer regulation to contain requirements for recordkeeping, and inspection of records and facilities. Since the jurisdiction of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act does not extend beyond the boundaries of the United States, we believe that it would be difficult to enforce our provisions on inspection of premises, documents, etc. in the territory of another country. This brings us to your fifth and final request, that we 'allow modifications to be done in either the United States or Canada.' Under current regulations, conformance work is permitted to be performed outside the United States. However, vehicles modified in this fashion must be admitted under the same procedures as if they had not been modified. This allows the agency to review the documents on pre-importation conversion work, to ensure that it has been satisfactorily accomplished, before the conformance bond is released. Accordingly, we believe that the concern underlying this request has already been accommodated. If, after reviewing this letter, you have further suggestions for reducing the burdens that the new law may have imposed on importations of Canadian-manufactured vehicles, I would be happy to consider them. Sincerely, Jerry Ralph Curry Enclosure";

ID: aiam4525

"Dear Mr. Tokunaga: This letter responds to your inquiry in which yo ask a number of questions concerning Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) 124, Accelerator Control Systems. I apologize for the delay in this response. In your letter, you describe a new accelerator control system that operates through electrical rather than mechanical signals. You state that the moving components of this system are the accelerator pedal, stepping motor arm, linkage, and the throttle lever. When a driver depresses the accelerator pedal, a pedal sensor converts the displacement into a proportional electric signal. The signal goes through a control unit to a position switch, and then to a stepping motor. This stepping motor works to move the motor's arm and linkage, and they in turn work the throttle lever. Therefore, you say, the engine speed is controlled in proportion to the amount of accelerator pedal displacement. You further inform us that Isuzu already has distributed vehicles equipped with this system in Japan, and that the company would like to market this kind of vehicle in the United States. You present three questions and a diagram of the system components, and request an agency response. First, please be aware that in issuing this interpretation, NHTSA is neither approving, certifying, nor endorsing your new accelerator control system. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, each manufacturer must certify that its product meets agency safety standards, or other applicable standards. However, based on the information you supplied in your letter, I have the following responses. Question I: In this vehicle, Isuzu considers the battery that drives the stepping motor to be one of the energy sources under S5.1, and the return springs (accelerator pedal and throttle lever return springs) the other sources. Is this interpretation correct? We do not have enough information to state whether the battery that drives the stepping motor, or the return springs would be considered energy sources under S5.1. Section S5.1 of Standard 124 requires, among other things, that there be a minimum of two energy sources capable of returning the throttle to idle whenever the driver removes the opposing actuating force, or if there is a single severance or disconnection in the accelerator control system. With respect to the battery, if all system elements are operating properly, then it would appear that removing the actuating force will cause the electrical circuit from accelerator pedal sensor to stepping motor to return the throttle to idle. On the other hand, if there is a failure caused by a severance or disconnection in the accelerator control system between the pedal and the stepping motor, it is not clear to me whether the stepping motor will return to zero, and bring the throttle springs back to idle, or lock the arm and linkage in an 'open-throttle' position. Similarly, it is not clear to me that the accelerator pedal and throttle return springs are capable of returning the throttle to idle in the event of a failure caused by an ACS severance or disconnection. (While you include the throttle lever in your description of the accelerator control system, the agency considers it as part of the fuel metering device. However, as NHTSA explained in the preamble to 124, an energy source under the Standard may be attached to the fuel metering device. 37 FR 20033, September 23, 1972. ) Ordinarily, the agency would have no difficulty in finding that either of the throttle return springs is an energy source capable of returning the throttle to idle. But I cannot tell from your description and diagram whether a severance or disconnection in the electrical system would cause the throttle to lock in a position other than idle. I would make the same observation with respect to the accelerator pedal. I can not tell from the information you supplied what impact a severance or disconnection failure would have on the pedal. For example, it is not apparent whether some element in the electrical system senses a severance or disconnection in the accelerator control system, so that a sensor transmits a signal to the appropriate energy sources that the throttle should return to idle. If the pedal and return springs can operate mechanically and in concert to return the throttle to idle in the event of a failure in the accelerator control system caused by a severance or disconnection, then together they may be an energy source under the Standard. Question 2a: Is a severance in electric wires in this system a severance or disconnection within the meaning of S5.2? Isuzu considers negative because electric wires are not a moving part. A severance or disconnection of the electric wires in this system would be a severance or disconnection within the meaning of S5.2 of Standard 124. Section S4.1 of Standard 124 defines a 'driver-operated accelerator control system' as 'all vehicle components, except the fuel metering device, that regulate engine speed in direct response to movement of the driver-operated control and that return the throttle to the idle position upon release of the actuating force.' You stated in your letter that, in this new system, when the driver depresses the accelerator pedal, the mechanical displacement is converted into electrical signals. These electrical signals are transmitted by wires to a control unit that regulates engine speed in direct response to pressure on the accelerator pedal, again by means of wires that connect the control unit's electrical signal to the appropriate components. Thus, the control unit, all of the components to which it is connected, and the wires that make those connections are 'vehicle components ... that regulate engine speed in direct response to movement of the driver-operated control and that return the throttle to the idle position upon release of the actuating force.' Under S4.1, then, the control unit, the components to which it is connected, and the wires that make the connection are components of the driver-operated accelerator control system. Section S5.2 of Standard 124 requires that the throttle return to idle 'from any accelerator position or any speed...whenever any one component of the accelerator control system is disconnected or severed at a single point.' Please note that this language does not limit the requirement to disconnections or severances of components that are moving parts. Thus, all severances or disconnections of any component of the accelerator control system are within the ambit of the standard. In this case, since the wires are a component of the accelerator control system, the throttle must return to idle whenever a wire is disconnected or severed. Question 2b: If a severance in electric wires were a severance or disconnection under S5.2, what about a short-circuiting that may result from such a severance? Does the Standard require that the throttle returns to the idle position even in such a condition? Yes. Section S5.2 of Standard 124 requires the throttle to return to the idle position whenever any component of the accelerator control system is disconnected or severed at a single point, regardless of the other consequences of the disconnection or severance. In the case of this system, this language requires the throttle to return to idle when any wire is severed, even if the severance results in a short circuit. Question 2c: Our understanding is that a failure (other than severance or disconnection) of a system component itself (i.e. a failure in the accelerator pedal sensor with pedal position switches, control unit, throttle valve position switch, or stepping motor) is not subject to the throttle return requirement under the Standard. Is this correct? Your understanding is partially correct. Standard 124 addresses those circumstances where (1) the driver removes the opposing actuating force, and (2) a severance or disconnection in the ACS causes a failure. Therefore, you are correct that Standard 124 addresses only those failures resulting from a severance or disconnection within the system. However, for electrical systems, shorted or open circuits are the consequence of a change in one or more of the electrical components in the system. The agency would consider such a change a disconnection or severance in the context of this Standard. Question 3: It is our interpretation that the battery and the electric wires from the battery to the control unit are not a part of the accelerator control system under this definition. (That is, the definition of 'driver-operated accelerator control system.') Is this interpretation correct? No, your interpretation is incorrect. We have set out the definition of 'driver-operated accelerator control system' in section S4.1 above, in response to your Question 2a. With respect to your electrical accelerator control system, the electrical impulse that travels between the vehicle battery and the control unit is a direct consequence of the driver's applying an actuating force to the accelerator pedal. Given this aspect of your system's design, both the vehicle battery and the electric wires from the battery to the control unit fall within the definition of 'driver-operated accelerator control system.' I hope you find this information helpful. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel";

ID: 1985-04.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/05/85

FROM: JIM BURNETT -- NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

TO: T. C. GILCHREST -- NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL

TITLE: SAFETY RECOMMENDATIONS, H-85-30, ISSUED 11/05/85 BY NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/30/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES TO SAMSON HELFGOTT, REDBOOK A33(4), STANDARD 108, VSA SECTION 108 (A) 2 (A); LETTER DATED 01/12/89 FROM SAMSON HELFGOTT TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA, OCC 2989; REPORT DATED 06/01/87 FROM NATIONAL PUBLIC SERVICES RESEARCH INSTITUTE, AN EVALUATION OF THE EFFECT OF A REAR WARNING LIGHT ON THE FOLLOWING DISTANCE AND/OR BRAKING RESPONSE TIME (BRT) OF VEHICLES BEHIND; AFFIDAVIT UNDER RULE 132, DATED 09/09/88, BY MERRILL J. ALLEN, IN SUPPORT OF PATENT REAPPLICATION OF AUTOMOTIVE WARNING AND BRAKE LIGHT ARRANGEMENT; BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION OF MERRILL J. ALLEN, DATED 09/09/88 EST

TEXT: NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD WASHINGTON, D.C.

ISSUED: November 5, 1985

Forwarded to:

Mr. T. C. Gilchrest

President

National Safety Council

444 N. Michigan Ave.

Chicago, Illinois 60611

SAFETY RECOMMENDATION(S) H-85-30

Motor vehicles are equipped with lights for seeing, but also for being seen. During hours of darkness, it is illegal in every State to operate a vehicle with the lights unilluminated. During the daytime, lights also can help to make vehicles more readily visible. Daytime illumination can enable other motorists, as well as pedestrians and cyclists, to perceive hazards earlier, take evasive action sooner, and thus possibly avoid a collision.

When ambient illumination is low, in conditions such as dawn, dusk, rain, and overcast, conspicuity may be significantly improved by the use of lights. They also can be valuable when there is little contrast between the color of a vehicle and that of its background, i.e., a light car against snow, or a green car against foliage. Small cars are harder to see at a distance than large ones, and so, as average vehicle size decreases, it, becomes increasingly important to enhance vehicle conspicuity.

It has been demonstrated that improved conspicuity can help prevent a variety of accidents. Among these are head-on collisions and sideswipes with the vehicles traveling in opposite directions, as well as collisions with pedestrians and cyclists. In 1983 there were 156,144 injuries and 10,531 deaths in such accidents. n1

n1 Analysis of data from Department of Transportation's National Accident Sampling System and Fatal Accident Reporting System.

Vehicle conspicuity is one of the factors in highway accidents involving older motorists and pedestrians. As a person ages, he or she needs more light than before to see properly. According to one expert optometrist, those illumination requirements double for each 13 years of a person's age. n2 He recommends that cars be driven with lights on

during the day to improve safety for this growing portion of the population. Today 22 percent of U.S. drivers are age 55 or over, but by the year 2000 that proportion is expected to grow to 28 percent, and to 39 percent by 2050. n3 In 1984, 35.7 percent of the U.S. pedestrians killed by motor vehicles during the hours of daylight, dusk, and dawn were age 55 or older. n4

n2 Merrill J. Allen, "Older Drivers and Pedestrians: Vehicle/Highway Design and Driver Testing," Workshop on the Highway Mobility and Safety of Older Drivers and Pedestrians, Automotive Safety Foundation, Washington, D.C., June 11-12, 1985.

n3 Forward by James L. Malfetti, Editor, "Needs and Problems of Older Drivers: Survey Results and Recommendations -- Proceedings of the Older Driver Colloquium, Orlando, Florida," AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, February 4-7, 1985.

n4 Analysis of data from Fatal Accident Reporting System.

There already have been numerous instances of vehicles operated with daytime running lights. n5 For the last 25 years, Greyhound bus drivers have been Instructed to use headlights both day and night. In the early 1960s, a campaign entitled "Drive Lighted and Live" urged Texas drivers to use their headlights during major holidays. In 1972, the Private Truck Council called for round-the-clock headlight use by its member fleets. In the same year, AT&T's Long Lines Division began a two-year program for its fleet to use headlights at all times.

n5 "Daytime running lights" are any vehicle lights illuminated during the day to make that vehicle more readily visible.

In Finland, motorists driving outside urban areas are required by law to have lights on at all times. A law in Sweden requiring daytime use of lights applies to motorists using all public roads. The requirement can be met in both countries with low-beam headlights or with special running lights described in the regulations. And in countries such as Norway, the Soviet Union, and the United Kingdom, light use is required at times when visibility is low. Most States in the U.S. have similar requirements, but the level of compliance is not known.

Questions of concern to authorities promoting the use of daytime running lights, as well as those contemplating such action, include: Are the lights effective in reducing accident losses? If so, to what degree? And which type of light is best?

Numerous studies have been conducted on the subject, and each has produced the same answer to the first question: Running lights definitely are a means to help reduce the toll in lives and property from highway accidents. However, there is no consensus as to which type of light is best suited to the task, and data are not yet available to predict the degree to which lights will reduce accidents in a given region.

In Finland, the use of daytime lights was studied over a six-year period: two years before there was any government involvement concerning daytime running lights (July 1968 through June 1970), two years in which their use was recommended (July 1970 through June 1972), and then two years in which it was required (July 1972 through June 1974). In the first period, before government action, at least 40 percent, and perhaps as many as 75 percent of the country's motorists already were using daytime running lights. When the practice was a recommended one, the rate was 84 percent, and when light use became mandatory in rural areas during winter, the percentage rose to 97. n6

n6 Kjell Andersson, Goran Nilsson and Markku Salusjarvi, "The Effect of Recommended and Compulsory Use of Vehicle Lighting on Road Accidents in Finland," Swedish National Road and Traffic Research Institute, Report No. 102, 1976.

Researchers found that the increased percentage of use resulting from the new law prompted a measurable decline in a broad range of accidents. The winter daylight accidents in which more than a single vehicle was involved (including collisions with pedestrians, animals, and other vehicles) dropped as much as 21 percent from the first test period to the third, according to several accounts of the results in Finland. n7 A 28-percent reduction was reported in collisions involving vehicles traveling toward each other. n8 These crash reductions were achieved despite increasing traffic volume during the six-year period. With the law initially applying only in winter, the reductions appeared only during those months and not during summer months.

n7 Ibid. Also, Charles H. Kachn, "A Cost/Benefit Study of a Potential Automotive Safety Program on Daylight Running Lights," National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, April 1981; and Michael Perel, "Daytime Running Lights: A Review of the Literature and Recommendations for Research," NHTSA, June 1980.

n8 Andersson et al., op. cit., cited in Kaehn, op. cit.

In Sweden, the daytime running light legislation raised the use level from about 50 percent to more than 95 percent. The estimates of resulting crash reductions vary from 6 to 13 percent, for accidents involving more than a single vehicle. n9

n9 Jkell Andersson and Goran Nilsson, "The Effects on Accidents of Compulsory Use of Running Lights during Daylight in Sweden," Swedish National Road and Traffic Research Institute, S-581 01, Linkoping, Sweden (no date). Also, crash reductions of 5 to 15 percent were reported by Karc Rumar, "Daylight Running Lights in Sweden -- Pre-Studies and Experiences," Society of Automotive Engineers Technical Paper Series, 810191, presented at SAE International Congress and Exposition, February 23-27, 1981.

In both Finland and Sweden, the safety benefits were particularly significant for nonmotorists. Daylight winter accidents involving pedestrians declined 24 percent in the Finnish study. n10 In Sweden, the decline was 17 percent, and accidents in which motor vehicles struck "cycles or mopeds" dropped 21 percent. n11

n10 Kaehn, op. cit., and Perel, op. cit.

n11 Andersson and Nilsson, op. cit. Crash reductions of 27 percent for pedestrians and 25 percent for cyclists were reported in built-up areas in Sweden during summer by David B. Richardson, "Daytime Running Lights -- A Concept Whose Time Has Come," Institute of Traffic Engineers Journal, October 1984.

These studies, both conducted in the 1970s, were particularly valuable because they dealt with entire populations. Since Sweden and Finland are the only countries in which daytime running light use is nearly 100 percent, all types of vehicles and all types of drives in each country were represented. Other studies have been limited to specific fleets, and the results of using such limited test samples may not be extrapolated reliably to the full population.

But the very reasons that prompted these Nordic countries to lead the way in daytime running light use also limit the applicability of their research to the United States. The light conditions are very different. During the long winter in high northern latitudes, ambient light is low throughout most of the day, with lengthy periods of twilight. And with the sun frequently low in the sky, glare is common. These are the kinds of conditions in which daytime running lights are thought to be most effective, but such conditions are not found with comparable frequency throughout the United States.

There are differences as well in climate and road conditions. However, there have been studies in this country that suggest that daytime running lights would be effective, to some extent, in cutting the toll from highway accidents.

One of the earliest studies was conducted by the New York Port Authority. n12 About 200 vehicles operated by the Port Authority were modified so the parking lights and taillights were illuminated automatically when the ignition switch was turned on. The vehicles, some painted black and others yellow, were predominantly sedans and station wagons, with some light trucks and a few heavy trucks. For a year, beginning in July 1967, accidents involving these vehicles were monitored, along with those of a control group of about 400 unmodified vehicles.

n12 Edmund J. Cantilli, "Daylight 'Running Lights' Reduce Accidents," Traffic Engineering, February 1969.

Overall, the group of modified vehicles was involved in 18 percent fewer accidents than those without the change. In addition, the modified group had accidents that were less severe. A "severity index" was calculated, based on a graduated scale of damage and injury, and the modified vehicles scored 66 percent better than the control group. When passenger vehicles only were considered, the modification lowered the accident rate 23 percent, and the severity index improved 41 percent.

Experiments were conducted with other fleets. The daytime running lights program at AT&T's Long Lines Division produced a 32 percent reduction in that fleet's accident rate. n13 Greyhound Lines reported a 12 percent drop. n14 When a group of Checker cabs drove with lights on during the day, and a group of Yellow cabs did not, the Checker cabs had 7.2 percent fewer collisions, according to a 1979 report. n15 A 1965 survey of 181 U.S. companies with lights-on policies found accident reductions up to 38 percent. n16

n13 Editorial, "What Happened to All the Lights?" Diesel Equipment Superintendent Journal, November 1973.

n14 Dennis A. Attwood, "The Potential of Daytime Running Lights as a Vehicle Collision Countermeasure," Society of Automotive Engineers Technical Paper 810190 (1981).

n15 Merrill J. Allen, "The Current Status of Automobile Running Lights," Journal of American Optometry Association, Vol. 50, No. 2, 1979, cited in Attwood, op. cit., and Kaehn, op. cit.

n16 Merrill J. Allen, "Running Light Questionnaire," American Journal of Optometry, Vol. 42, No. 3, March 1965, cited in Attwood, op. cit.

In 1974, the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) conducted tests in Arizona to determine the effect of daytime running lights on the distance at which drivers were able to detect oncoming vehicles. Without lights, the average detection distance was 2,074 feet; with lights, the average distance increased to 4,720 feet. n17

n17 R. W. Oyler, Executive Engineer, General Motors (personal communication to Kare Rumar, March 28, 1977).

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) recently completed a study using more than 2,000 cars, vans, and light trucks operated by three corporate fleets. Half the vehicles were equipped with increased-intensity parking lights that were turned on

automatically with the ignition switch; no changes were made in the other half. The modified vehicles experienced 7 percent fewer daytime multiple-vehicle crashes than did the unmodified ones. n18

n18 Howard Stein, "Fleet Experience with Daytime Running Lights in the United States," Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, May 1985.

The running light studies so far have varied widely in results and test procedures. Their sample sizes often have been to small to provide statistical confidence in the specific results of each individual study. However, all the studies that have been reviewed suggest that the use of running lights during the day will indeed result in a decrease in accidents. The issue now is to determine the level of crash reductions and how this would vary by accident type.

A study conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in 1981 produced inconclusive results about the relative benefits and costs of daytime running lights. To help clarify the issue, NHTSA is sponsoring a field study involving approximately 10,000 vehicles throughout the United States. As in the IIHS study, some of the vehicles will be modified so that lights come on automatically with the ignition; others will serve as a control group. The modified vehicles probably will have lamp intensities of various levels. Accident data will be collected on the vehicles for at least a year, starting in late 1985. There also will be an attempt to compare maintenance and repair costs.

NHTSA is unlikely to consider regulatory efforts until this large-scale fleet study is completed. It is expected to give the clearest picture so far of the likely decreases in accidents, deaths, and injuries from a daytime running lights program.

If a Federal standard were issued to require that vehicles be equipped with ignition-activated daytime running lights, it would have to specify whether low beams, high beams, parking lights, or turn signal lamps should be used, or whether a special running light should be added. If a light were to be added, the size, shape, location, lamp color, and lighting would have to be established. The standard also would have to specify the required light intensity. The NHTSA study should help provide a basis for determining these specifications.

It will take many years before the NHTSA study is evaluated, an acceptable Federal standard is developed, and running lights are incorporated into the U.S. fleet in substantial numbers. Those are years in which a measure already recognized as a means to improve safety would continue to be largely unused on U.S. highways.

Canada is facing a similar problem. As in the U.S., the Canadian government has been studying the crash-reduction potential of daytime running lights. In 1984, the Canadian Minister of Transport said that widespread use of daytime running lights could save 200 lives a year, which is about 5 percent of the total highway deaths each year in Canada. In addition, he said highway injuries could be cut by 2,500 and property losses by $ 200 million. n19

n19 Statement by Lloyd Axworthy, Minister of Transport, Press Release, Transport Canada, May 31, 1984.

An official notice has been drafted describing a proposed regulation that would require ignition-activated daytime running lights on new automobiles. The choice of the type and intensity of the light to be used would be left to the manufacturers, as long as the lights met certain specifications. n20 n20 Winson Ng, Transport Canada (personal communication to NTSB staff, July 5, 1985).

Staff of Transport Canada say the earliest such a regulation could be in effect would be for model year 1988 and 1989. After that, it would be 8 to 10 years before the nation's fleet would be converted substantially to the automatic daytime running light system. Because of this likely delay, programs have been undertaken in at least two Canadian provinces that encourage motorists immediately to start driving during the day with their lights on.

Saskatchewan Government Insurance, which provides mandatory insurance to all motorists in that province, has mounted a major public education campaign. Called "Lights On For Life," this program employs a variety of means to encourage motorists to drive with low-beam headlights on. In print and broadcast media, there are public service announcements, as well as paid advertising. Four vans tour the province, promoting the message. Signs at border crossing say, "In Saskatchewan we drive with our lights on." n21

n21 Suzzane Hart, Program Director, "Lights On For Life," Saskatchewan Government Insurance (personal communication to NTSB staff, July 8, 1985).

The Premier of Saskatchewan has ordered that all vehicles of the provincial government be driven with their lights on during the day, and family members of government workers are encouraged to do the same in their private vehicles. Corporate fleets have followed suit. The message is being promoted as well by trucking associations, car rental companies, tourist information agencies and many other groups and companies. As a result, with the program in operation only about a year, daytime light use has increased in the province from 8.2 to 24.7 percent. n22

n22 Ibid.

The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) required drivers of its own fleet of 300 vehicles to use low-beam headlights during the day, and strongly recommended that staff members and their families follow the same practice in their private vehicles. ICBC subsequently urged the operators of 140,000 fleet vehicles insured by the corporation to use lights in the daytime. The insurance company plans to monitor the damage claims filed by fleets using daytime running lights, and to use the expected crash-reduction results to convince more fleets, as well as the general public, to take up the practice. n23

n23 "ICBC Backs Use of Daytime Headlights," Press Release, Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, June 4, 1984; and "Support Growing for Daytime Driving Lights," ICBC People, no date.

CKIQ, a radio station in Kelowna, British Columbia, has taken the lead in a campaign to promote daytime use of running lights in the province, and the station reports endorsements and participation by groups such as B. C. Telephone, B. C. Transit Co., and

the Canadian Armed Forces. n24 Canadian military vehicles are required to be driven with lights on not just in British Columbia, but in many operations throughout the country. n25

n24 Dave Daniels and Yvonne Svensson, "Headlights for Life," Public Education Fact Sheet, CKIQ Radio, Kelowna, British Columbia, no date.

n25 Hart, op. cit.

The organizers of all these efforts stress that the programs are short-term, designed to enable the Canadian public to start realizing the benefits of daytime running lights immediately -- while work continues toward adoption of a Federal standard.

The National Transportation Safety Board believes that a similar approach could be undertaken in the United States. As in Canada, this would be an interim step in anticipation of a Federal standard. Motorists would be urged to keep their low-beam headlights on when driving during the day.

Therefore, the National Transportation Safety Board recommends that the National Safety Council:

Develop and conduct a program to encourage motorists to drive with their low-beam headlights on during the day. (Class II, Priority Action) (H-85-30)

BURNETT, Chairman, GOLDMAN, Vice Chairman; and BURSLEY, Member, concurred in this recommendation.