ID: nht88-1.87

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/06/88

FROM: DENNIS G. MOORE -- PRESIDENT SIERRA PRODUCTS

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/19/88 TO DENNIS G. MOORE, FROM ERIKA Z JONES, REDBOOK A32 (2), STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

Pursuant to a request, via a telephone conversation with Taylor Vinson of your office and Daryl Thomas of our company relative to the "Canadian Problem", these are the events chronologically:

1) My letter to the NHTSA, dated December 27,1986, asking for a clarification on the law pertaining to the combination of tail light with a clearance light.

The March 4, 1977 reply of acting Chief Counsel Frank Berndt, and his June 18, 1979 reply to the Trailer Manufacturer Association.

2) The 25 letter correspondence between our company and the Transport of Canada, Ottawa.

I have also included a letter I sent to the Canadian Consulate General in Los Angeles dated October 9, 1981, regarding my attempt to try and get our Barrier to Trade Agreement enforced.

Finally, I've included a copy of The Canada Gazette dated August 14, 1987 pertaining to "Optically Combined Lamps" for your reference.

I hope this gives you enough information on this issue to settle it as this puts us in a precarious and "expensive" position as the Canadians are not permitting our lights into Canada because of their new law.

I have several other matters I will be sending you letters about in the next few months, some of which are very old petitions and requests for law interpretations that apparently have been "lost" in the NHTSA System.

Very truly yours,

ID: nht88-1.88

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 7, 1988 EST

FROM: MAX J. MIZEJEWSKI -- EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FOREIGN MARKETING SPECIALISTS, INC.

TO: OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: ROADREADER

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 11-03-88 TO M. J. MIZEJEWSKI; FOREIGN MARKETING SPECIALISTS, INC., FROM E.Z. JONES, CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TEXT: The purpose of this letter is to receive written confirmation that the interpretation of the rules and regulations covering the product described below is accurate. Our company is importing a device manufacturered in France that attaches to but is not a n integral part of automobiles and trucks. In reading the regulations it seems as if we fall outside of any specific legal requirement to obtain certification.

The device which we call Roadreader is designed to have two sensors mounted on the front of the automobile which are then tied into an on-board computer which is further wired into the left and right turn light wiring. The device is designed to give a v isual and audible alarm at the time that a vehicle would start to drift off of the highway, crossing either the yellow lane on the left or the white line on the right. It in no way is attached to or affects either the acceleration or braking and does no t in any way interfere with line of sight vision or vehicle lighting. The wiring to the turn indicators is only to allow the device to be shunted upon the turn indicator being put on in order to allow lane changes without the alarm going off.

I am aware that as an importer we assume the responsibilities of the manufacturer for such things as any product recall that might become necessary for some unforeseen reason.

The device is available for your inspection and we'd be most happy to forward it to any governmental agency that would require it, as well as to conform to any other request or requirements of yours or any other agency that we should check with.

I look forward to hearing from you and thank you in advance for your prompt response to this request.

ID: nht88-1.89

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/08/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Isuzu Motors America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Takashi Ohdaira Isuzu Motors America Inc. 21115 Civic Center Drive Southfield, MI 48076-3969

Dear Mr. Ohdaira:

This responds to your December 16, 1987 letter asking several questions about the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, to "swivel type front seats" installed in new compact passenger vans. I regret the delay in responding. Swivel seats are not prohibited by Standard No 207. However, under Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, a front outboard swivel seat must have lap and upper torso restraints that fit the occupant of the seat in any position in which the seat would be occupied while the vehicle is in motion, including the rearward facing position.

Your letter explains that Isuzu is interested in manufacturing some of its vehicles with swivel seats for the driver and front outboard passenger. The seats can be rotated in any direction and self-locked into either a forward-facing or a rearward-facing direction. A release control is provided allowing the seat to be rotated into a new position. You state that Isuzu tentatively plans to install lap and upper torso belt assemblies with emergency-locking retractors that "meet the requirements applicable to a forward-facing front seat" since the capability of the seats to face rearward is "just a secondary function."

You first ask for confirmation of your understanding that Standard No. 207 does not prohibit the installation of front outboard swivel seats. Your understanding is correct. Our standards do not require seats on vehicles other than large school buses to b e forward-facing and thus do not thereby expressly prohibit installation of swivel seats.

Your letter raises the issue of whether the swivel seat installed at the front outboard passenger seating position must comply with the requirements of Standard No. 208 and thus provide lap and upper torso restraints only for the forward-facing position (as opposed to what you term the "secondary" or rearward position). Paragraph S7.1.1 of Standard No. 208 states, in pertinent part: . . . The lap belt of any seat belt assembly furnished in accordance with S4.1.1 and S1.1.2 shall adjust by means of an em ergency-locking or automatic-locking retractor that conforms to S571.209 to fit persons whose dimensions range from those of a 50th-percentile 6-year-old child to those of a 95th-percentile adult male and the upper torso restraint shall adjust by means o f an emergency-locking retractor or a manual adjusting device that conforms to S571.209 to fit persons whose dimensions range from those of a 5th-percentile adult female to those of a 95th-percentile adult male with the seat in any position and the seat back in the manufacturer's nominal design riding position. . . . (Emphasis added.)

The quoted reference to seat "position" in the excerpt from S7.1.1 is not limited to the positions along the vehicle longitudinal centerline to which a seat can be adjusted while forward-facing. We interpret the term as referring also to seat orientation , including the rearward-facing position or any other direction the seat is capable of facing, provided that the seat can be placed in those positions while the vehicle is in motion. Thus, we believe that a front outboard swivel seat must have lap and up per torso restraints that fit the occupant of the seat while the seat is in any position in which it can be occupied while the vehicle is in motion. Starting September 1, 1991, light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with manual safety belts for the driver and front seat passenger seating position will have to meet the requirements of Standard No. 208 in a dynamic crash test. A front outboard swivel seat would have to comply with those requirements with the seat in any position in which it can be occupied while the vehicle is in motion.

We have limited our interpretation to positions in which a seat may be occupied while the vehicle is in motion for the following reasons. The purpose of requiring a seat belt assembly to meet the adjustment requirements of Standard No. 208 with the seat in any position is to ensure that adequate occupant crash protection would be provided to the occupant of the seat regardless of the position he or she chooses for the seat. However, the safety goal of ensuring adequate crash protection for vehicle occup ants relates only to positions in which a seat may be occupied when a vehicle is involved in a crash, i.e., the positions in which a seat may be occupied while a vehicle is in motion. If the swivel seat you plan to install for the front outboard seating position can only be used in its forward-facing position while the vehicle is in motion, then it need meet Standard No. 208's requirements only at forward facing positions and need not conform with the standard's requirements at positions facing in other directions.

In your letter, you suggested the possible ways to limit the rearward-facing capabilities of a front outboard swivel seat. First, you suggested that the vehicle could be manufactured with an interlock system that would prevent the vehicle from starting u nless the front passenger seat faces forward. In our opinion, this system would not sufficiently ensure that the swivel seat would be used only in its forward-facing position while the vehicle is in motion. An occupant of the seat could swivel his or her seat once the vehicle has started and could thus face rearward without the benefit of lap and upper torso restraints.

Your second suggestion has to manufacture the vehicle such that the front passenger seat could swivel rearward only when the driver seat rotated rearward or when the vehicle was "in park." This would prevent the passenger's seat from facing in any direction other than forward while the vehicle was in motion since the driver must face forward to operate the vehicle. We believe that this alternative could satisfactorily ensure that the front outboard p assenger seating position could not face in any direction other than forward while the vehicle is in motion.

In addition to the requirements discussed above, we note also that Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, would require the front outboard swivel seat to have seat belt anchorages for a Type II seat belt assembly. The anchorages would have to m eet the standard's strength requirements (S4.2), and those for their location (S4.3) provided that the safety belt will not be dynamically tested pursuant to Standard No. 208's requirements. Anchorages for a front outboard swivel seat that can be occupie d in its rearward facing position while the vehicle is in motion could be tested to the requirements of 54.2 by the agency with the seat in either the forward or rearward facing position.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

December, 16, 1987

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street. S. W. Washington. D. C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

Subject: Swivel Type Seats - Interpretation

This letter is intended to seek your agency' s advice on the interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) as they related to the swivel type front (first row) seats which Isuzu Motors is planning to use for its compact passenger vans.

This van will have two swivel seats in the first row, one for the driver and the other for front seat passenger. These seats are used as forward-facing seats when the vehicle is in motion but while in park they can be swiveled 180 degrees to face rear-wa rd. The swivel mechanism has a self-lock which locks the seat in position as it is turned every 780 degrees. The users manually manipulate a release control to swivel the seat. An example of how these seats are used is shown in the Attachment.

Since the rearward-facing is just a secondary function of these seats, Isuzu Motors is planning to design these seats to meet the requirements applicable to a forward-facing front seat and a forward-facing front outboard designated seating position. that is, FMVSS 207, 208 and 270. Therefore, Type 2 seat belt assemblies with emergency locking retractors will be installed for both the driver and front seat passenger.

The following is our understanding and questions on FMVSS compliance. I would appreciate receiving your answer to these questions along with any comments you may have.

1. FMVSS does not prohibit using swivel seats in the first row or this type or vehicles. Is this understanding correct?

2. While the vehicle is in motion, the front passenger may want to remain facing rearward. Is such a condition permissible under FMVSS?

3. If the front passenger seat were required to face forward while the vehicle is in motion. Isuzu Motors is considering either of the following arrangements. I would request your comments on these plans:

a. The vehicle does not start unless the front passenger seat faces forward.

b. The front passenger seat swivels together with the driver seat and hence faces forward while the vehicle is being driven.

I would appreciate receiving your answer or comments at your earliest convenience since Isuzu would like to start its design work soon.

Sincerely yours,

Takashi Ohdaira Chief Representative Emission & Safety

/jj c: Mr. Fukuhara, Isuzu Motors, Japan

ID: nht88-1.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/04/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Art Look -- Marketing Executive, Burke Communication Industries

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Art Look, Marketing Executive Burke Communication Industries 1165 North Clark Street Chicago, IL 60610

Your letter of October 30, 1987, addressed to Administrator Diane Steed, was referred to me for reply. You are apparently seeking this Department's approval of your product which you describe as a new warning device for stopped motor vehicles. As explain ed below, we do not provide approvals for products.

Your product is made of inflatable plastic material that you describe as "flexible and extremely durable." When a user inflates your device, the product takes the shape of a cone standing about 18" high. The pictures you enclose indicate that the inflata ble part of the cone has three broad alternating stripes. Two of the stripes are orange, and a 6" "reflective" white stripe is sandwiched between them. Your cone sits on a non-inflatable, spherical, black base filled with "approximately" 3 lbs. of sand.

You state that your device has many advantages over the warning device currently specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 125, Warning Devices. Among the advantages you list are that your device is "more visible at night, up to 1,000 ft. away;" that it "(is) not affected by winds up to 50 MPH;" and that if struck, it "will return to an upright position" without damaging the vehicle involved. You state your company's intention to package your device in a corrugated container with three inflatab le cones to a kit, including both a "new-type double-action hand pump" and instructions for proper use of your device.

Let me begin with some general information about this agency. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is an agency of the Department of Transportation, and has authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safe ty Act) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. However, NHTSA does not approve nor certify motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, or endorse any commercial product. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is required to certify that its products meet all applicable safety standards issued by this agency. Periodically, NHTSA conducts tests to issued by this agency. Periodically, NHTSA conducts tests to determine whether vehicles or equipment comply with these standards, and may investigate alleged safety-related product defects.

One of the safety standards issued by this agency is Standard 125, Warning Devices, which sets uniform performance requirements for certain devices that are designed to be carried in a motor vehicle and use when needed to warn approaching traffic when th e vehicle is disabled and stooped in or by the side of the road. The Standard applies to any such device that does not have a self-contained energy source (such as a battery). Your product falls under this Standard. Thus, it must meet the requirements of Standard 125, such as those on configuration, color, and reflectivity. Failure to comply with a standard renders the manufacturer subject to a civil penalty of $1,000 for each violation and a maximum penalty of $800,000 for a series of violations. In ad dition, the Safety Act requires a manufacturer to recall and remedy or replace a noncomplying item of motor vehicle equipment.

As the above discussion suggests, you do not need approval from NHTSA or any other agency in the Department of Transportation to market your product. However, you do need both to ensure that your product meets Standard 125's requirements and to certify c ompliance. Our preliminary review of your product indicates that you may not be able to make that certification. For example, it appears that your product may not comply with the color, reflectivity, configuration, and stability requirements of Standard 125. If your product fails to meet these or other Standard 125 requirements, you cannot legally market it as a warning device.

I hope you find this response helpful.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure - (Copy of Std. 124 and Std. 125 omitted.)

October 30, 1987

Re: Change or addition to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 125 Warning Devices

Dear Ms. Steed,

As you suggested in an earlier telephone conversation, I am sending you all the pertinent information regarding our new warning device. This road safety device was designed to protect and alert motorists to truck and auto highway breakdowns.

We realize it is our responsibility to bring to your attention the physical, mechanical and aesthetic values of the new unit which allows you to judge its uniqueness and safety features. For this reason we have enclosed all the test results performed by Quinn Laboratories here in Chicago. We are intending to use the 18" size device in our Trucker's/Motorist's kits.

As indicated in the enclosed photos and test results the warning device is fabricated from a flexible and extremely durable plastic material which is inflated before use. The device is filled at the bottom with approximately 3 lbs. of sand and has a 6" b and of reflective material 3" from the top. Upon inflation the device takes on the appearance of a cone 18" high.

The inflatable cones have many advantages over the now available devices. They are more visible at night, up to 1,000 ft. away. (Note: you will find specification and technical information on the 3M reflective material to be used at the top of the cone.) The cones are nor affected by winds up to 50 MPH and if struck, will return to an upright position. Most importantly, if struck, the cone will in no way damage the vehicle involved.

The size and colors of the cones meet with M.U.D.T.C.O. specifications.

When not in use the cones can be deflated to fit into a small compact package.

It is our intention to make a kit of three 18" cones and one new-type double-action hand pump, package in a weather proof corrugated container with instruction for filling the cones and placing them in their proper location, printed on the container. It is virtually impossible for these cones to be assembled incorrectly.

Ms. Steed, we are confident that will all the information enclosed you will judge the merits and outstanding possibilities of our new warning device in a positive manner and allow us to take the next step to get the Department of Transportation's approva l of our new road safety device.

Sincerely,

Art Look Marketing Executive Photos and test results omitted.

ID: nht88-1.90

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/08/88

FROM: STRAHAN, DANA -- CITY OF ORANGE WATER DEPARTMENT

TO: RALPH HITCHOCK

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: DECEMBER 20, 1988 LETTER FROM JONES TO STRAHAN

TEXT: Pls send copy of regulations that are applicable to the GVWR labeling on trucks to Mr. Dana Strahan (Phone 714-532-0356)City of Orange Water Department P.O. Box 449 Orange, Ca 92666-1591

They have modified a vehicle(s) to increase its GVWR above that on the original label, and would like to relabel it (i.e., label says 10,000 lbs, new GVWR is higher). They are concerned about liability which may arise due to the mis labeling.

ID: nht88-1.91

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 8, 1988

FROM: M. IWASE -- MANAGER, TECHNICAL ADMINISTRATION DEPT., KOITO MFG. CO., LTD. TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: Headlamp Aimability (Docket No. 85-15; Notice 5)

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 4-9-90 TO M. IWASE FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD; (A35; STD. 108). ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10-18-89 TO ERIKA Z. JONES FROM M. IWASE AND LETTER 9-12-88 TO M. IWASE FROM ERIKA Z. JONES. TEXT:

We would ask you to provide us with your confirmation of interpretation of proposed rulemaking; Headlamp Aimability as cited in Docket No. 85-15; Notice 5 of Federal Register dated Dec. 29, 1987.

We are now in the stage of studying and developing a new technology of on-vehicle aiming (Vehicle Headlamp Aiming Device) in conformity with the said NHTSA proposal so that we can adopt it into our headlamps as soon as possible in case that the proposal is put into effect as a rule.

Upon our careful review to this proposal and also through our talk with Mr. Richard Van Iderstine / Rulemaking Office of NHTSA, our ideas for headlamp aiming configuration as shown in the attached sheet are fully consistent with NHTSA's intention for hea dlamp aimability proposed therein, we believe.

Please refer to the attached sheet in which our specific questions are shown.

We would greatly appreciate it if you would kindly treat Structure-2 of attached as "Confidential" because it involves our own idea for development of on-vehicle aiming which has something related with our patent application intended hereafter.

Upon your kind review to this matter, your prompt reply would be greatly appreciated.

Attachment

Question:

Whether the following structure of on-vehicle aiming could be accepted in case that the proposed requirements of S7.7.5.2 "On-Vehicle aiming" would be regulated in the FMVSS No. 108 as they are.

Structure-2: Built-in Reflector System [GRAPHICS OMITTED]1) Lens and Housing are bonded together.

2) Built-in reflector is mounted with aiming mechanism onto Housing.

3) Aiming is made by adjusting faced direction of built-in reflector.

4) Spirit level is mounted on built-in reflector and can be seen through lens for the vertical aiming.

5) Headlamp assembly can comply with the applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 108.

ID: nht88-1.92

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/11/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; SIGNATURE UNAVAILABLE; NHTSA

TO: Gary Hackett -- State of Nevada Taxi Cab Authority

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 5/10/74 letter from Lawrence R. Schneider to City of Philadelphia (Std. 206)

TEXT:

Mr. Gary Hackett State of Nevada Taxi Cab Authority Suite 200 1785 E. Square Las Vegas, NV 89155

This is in further response to your March 28, 1988, telephone conversation with Mr. Steve Wood of my staff in which you asked for an Interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components. Your specific question asked whether Standard No. 206 requires door handles on rear doors of motor vehicles. The answer to your question is no.

The agency addressed the question you raise in a May 10, 1974, letter to Mr. Charles Murphy who asked whether manufacturers selling vehicles to the City of Philadelphia can remove the door handles from the vehicles' rear doors. In response, the agency in terpreted Standard No. 206 as not requiring an inside rear door handle. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration stated that the standard's requirements that each passenger car rear door must have a locking mechanism that is operable from withi n the vehicle and that, when engaged, renders the outside and inside door handles inoperative (@4.1.3) specify the performance required of door locking mechanisms only. The agency thus indicated that the standard sets no requirements for inside rear door handles.

I have enclosed a copy of the Murphy letter for your information. Please feel free to contact my office if you have further questions. Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure - See 5/10/74 letter

ID: nht88-1.93

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/12/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Sheila Broderick -- Baker & Botts

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Ms. Sheila Broderick Baker & Botts 555 13th Street/ NW Suite 500 East Washington, DC 20004-1109

This responds to your letter asking for information on some provisions of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR @571.208). You posed two questions, as follows:

1. How many States have safety belt use laws in effect at this time? RESPONSE: As of March 14, 1988 (the date of your letter), 32 States and the District of Columbia had safety belt use jaws in effect. 2. Which States, if any, meet the criteria set forth in Standard No. 208?

RESPONSE: The Department has already stated that the belt use laws in California and the District of Columbia cannot be counted towards rescission of the automatic restraint requirements, according to the terms of those particular laws. Beyond that, Secr etary Burnley has explained that he does not want to risk impeding the national trend toward enactment of State safety belt laws by premature rulings of whether or not particular State laws meet or do not meet the criteria set forth in the Standard. Secr etary Burnley has also stated that when and if it becomes apparent that we may be approaching the point where two-thirds of the population is covered by laws that may meet the criteria, he will rule on the individual State laws. That currently is not the case.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

March 14, 1988 Mrs. Erika Jones Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. 20540

Dear Mrs. Jones:

I was referred to you by Judith Kaplan-Weiner of the Occupational Protection Division. She explained that you may be able to provide some written information on questions I have regarding safety belt laws:

1) How many states have safety belt laws in effect at this time? 2) Which states, if any, meet the criteria set forth in safety standard No. 208?

Any information you can provide on these questions will be very helpful. Due to the urgency of this request, I would appreciate it if you call me at 639-7936 upon completion of your response. I will arrange to have it picked up by messenger.

Sincerely,

Sheila Broderick

ID: nht88-1.94

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/13/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Robert A. Rogers -- Director, Automotive Safety Engineering, General Motors Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Robert A. Rogers Director, Automotive Safety Engineering General Motors Corporation General Motors Technical Center 30400 Mound Road Warren, MI 18090-9015

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays, in connection with a design for head up displays (HUD's) that you are planning to introduce in certain future vehicles. The HUD's would protect readings from selected displays so that they appear as if they were located above the front bumper. The displays would initially include the following: speedometer, turn signal, highbeam, hazard, and low fuel warning. You stated that the HUD's would supplement corresp onding instrument panel displays, and would this be 'redundant displays.' You plan to provide the same light intensity for all of the HUD's, which would be variable and could be turned off by the driver.

You noted that section @5.3.4(b) of Standard No. 101 states in part that the telltales and identification for brakes, highbeams, turn signals, and safety belts may not be adjustable under any driving condition to a level that is invisible, and requested the agency's concurrence that variable illumination intensity, including levels at which the displays would not be visible, is permissible for the redundant (but not the other) turn signal and highbeam telltales. This letter provides our concurrence.

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

Standard No. 101 specifies requirements for the location, identification, and illumination of motor vehicle controls and displays. The purpose of the standard is to ensure the accessibility and visibility of motor Vehicle controls and displays and to fac ilitate their selection under daytime and nighttime conditions, in order to reduce the safety hazards caused by the diversion of the driver's attention from the driving task, and by mistakes in selecting controls.

Standard No. 101 does not itself require that any particular controls or displays be furnished, although several of the controls and displays regulated by the standard are required by other safety standards. The standard instead provides that if certain controls and displays are furnished, they must meet the requirements of the standard. Controls and displays not listed in the standard are not subject to its requirements, except that section 55.3.5 specifies anti-glare requirements for certain sources o f illumination used for the controls and displays not otherwise regulated by Standard No. 101.

No. 101 apply to redundant displays. It is our opinion that where a manufactures provides more than one of a particular display listed in Standard No. 101, e.g., two speedometers, the requirements of the standard for that listed display are met of one of the displays complies with the standard's requirements. The standard's purposes of ensuring the accessibility and visibility of a particular display are fully satisfied by the complying display. Thus, the requirements need not be met again for a redunda nt display. However, redundant gauges, like other gauges not otherwise regulated by Standard No. 101, are subject to the requirements of section @5.3.5. (Telltales are excluded from the requirements of that section.) This interpretation is limited to where a manufacturer provides more than one of a particular telltale or gauge listed in Standard No. 101. We note, for example, that if a manufacturer provides a single fuel level gauge and a single fuel level telltale, neither display would be considered redundant, since gauges and telltales provide different types of information.

With respect to your planned design, it is our opinion that if the turn signal and high beam telltales located on the instrument panel comply with Standard No. 101, the turn signal and high beam telltales provided as HUD's need not meet the standard's re quirements. The light intensities of the turn signal and highbeam telltales provided as HUD's would thus be at the discretion of the manufacturer. Therefore, we concur that variable illumination intensity, including levels at which the displays would not be visible, is permissible for these displays.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

March 17, 1988

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Nassif Building Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

This letter is a request for an interpretation from the NHTSA concerning head up displays (HUDs) and the illumination requirements of FMVSS 101 with respect to certain telltales.

General Motors is planning to introduce head up displays in certain future vehicles. The HUD provides redundant selected vehicle information which appears visible through the windshield. The driver can see through the HUD image which is projected to appe ar as if it is located above the front bumper at a height that is adjustable to accommodate varying driver seated heights. Displays which are now being considered for inclusion in the initial HUD are speedometer, turn signal, highbeam, hazard and low fue l warning. The HUD is capable of operation while the ignition is in the ON position, and is not operational when the ignition is in the ACCESSORY, LOCK, OFF or START positions. The illumination of the present design of this display can be varied over dif ferent ranges of light intensity depending upon whether the parking lights are on or off. When the parking lights are on, the greatest light intensity is substantially less than with the parking lights off. A thumb wheel control for HUD illumination is l ocated on the left side of the instrument panel. It is identified by "HUD Dimmer" above the control, with "LO" (Left) and "HI" (Right) indicating the direction that the wheel must be turned to control illumination. This design permits the driver to adjus t the illumination intensity to a comfortable level of visibility for any ancient lighting condition. The HUD can also be turned off at the option of the driver by moving the thumb wheel illumination control to the extreme low end. Our intent is to provi de the same variable intensity for all head up displays, including the turn signal and highbeam telltales. We seek the agency's concurrence that variable illumination intensity, including levels at which the displays would not be visible, is permissible for the redundant turn signal and highbeam telltales. @5.3.4(b) of FMVSS 101 states in part that: " ... the telltales and identification for brakes, highbeams, turn signals, and safety belts may not be adjustable under any driving condition to a level th at is invisible."

As mentioned above, the turn signal and highbeam displays to be included in the HUD are supplemental to primary instrument panel telltales. The primary telltales would comply with the FMVSS 101 illumination requirement cited above. The question, then, is whether the supplemental head up displays are also subject to this FMVSS 101 requirement. Our reasons for believing that the head up displays are not subject to this requirement are as follows:

They are redundant displays. FMVSS 101 does not specifically indicate whether redundant displays are subject to the illumination requirements. In the absence of clear direction from the wording of the standard, we believe a reasonable interpretation of t he standard would allow a HUD design that can be dimmed to an invisible level since no confusion or driver distraction can arise from the absence of a HUD inasmuch as the vehicle still offers the normal telltales. We believe another reason for permitting dimmable head up displays, including those for turn signal and highbeam, relates to the wide variation of lighting conditions in which it must operate. Because the subject displays appear to be outside the vehicle in the driver's forward view, it is imp ortant that the driver be able to control the brightness of the display. Accordingly, we believe that dimmability of the head up displays is more in line with the intent of FMVSS 101 than would be the alternative of maintaining the turn signal and highbe am head up displays at full illumination intensity at all times.

Some drivers may, for whatever reason, prefer conventional instrument panel displays to head up displays. A provision enabling drivers to turn the HUD off will accommodate this important customer satisfaction concern.

- Invisibility of redundant turn signal and highbeam telltales is not inconsistent with rulemaking history. We have reviewed the rulemaking history of FMVSS 100 and 101 and have located nothing which specifically addresses redundant displays of telltales . We have researched previous interpretation letters issued by the NHTSA for guidance in this matter. We have located several letters which the agency has written concerning the applicability of FMVSS 101 requirements to redundant controls; however, we hav e located no interpretation which addresses the applicability of FMVSS 101 to redundant displays. In the interpretations we have reviewed, the NHTSA has generally maintained that redundant controls are subject to FMVSS 101 requirements. An exception was a letter from the agency to Mazda in July of 1984, which distinguished rear seat controls from the visibility requirement of FMVSS 101. In distinguishing secondary rear seat controls, NHTSA explained that a stated purpose of FMVSS 101 (reducing the safet y hazard caused by the diversion of the driver's attention from the road) would not be compromised by the fact that the driver could not see the identification of rear seat controls. In other instances, where NHTSA has indicated that redundant controls a re subject to FMVSS 101 requirements, it has again based these determinations on the purpose of the standard. While there is some potential for misuse of redundant controls, there is no corresponding potential for "misuse" of redundant displays. That is, the subject head up displays will either be visible or invisible to the driver. If they are visible, there is no issue. If the driver chooses to make them invisible, and therefore not use the HUD, it cannot be relied upon or misused. Further, absence of the head up displays will not result in the driver being deprived of turn signal or highbeam information, sin ce this information would continue to be available from the primary instrument panel telltales.

We have located a single interpretation letter from NHTSA with respect to a HUD. It was dated June 19, 1987, and responded to a manufacturer's request for an interpretation of the requirements of FMVSS 205 related to a membrane in the lower left corner o f the windshield that reduced light transmissibility below 708. With regard to the issues discussed in this June 19, 1987 NHTSA interpretation, we would point out that GM vehicles equipped with HUDs will comply with all of the requirements of FMVSS 103, 104 and 205.

In summary, we believe that it is not only permissible, but also preferable, to provide variable illumination intensity for head up displays. Variable illumination for HUDs best satisfies the intent of FMVSS 101 and the interests of customer satisfaction . Furthermore, FMVSS 101, and previous NHTSA interpretations of which we are aware, do not expressly prohibit dimmability of redundant displays.

If further information concerning our planned head up displays would expedite the agency's response to this request for interpretation, we would be pleased to provide such information.

Sincerely,

Robert A. Rogers, Director Automotive Safety Engineering

cc: Ms. Diane Steed, Administrator, NHTSA Mr. Barry Felrice, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, NHTSA USG 2623

ID: nht88-1.95

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/13/88

FROM: BRIAN HALL -- PRESIDENT, VS TECHNOLOGY

TO: VINSON

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 11-3-88, TO BRIAN HALL, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, STD 108

TEXT: I'm sending this letter to you to find out how to get an approval from the U.S. D.O.T. on a apparatus that I believe will be a useful tool for the safety of a motorcycle, scooter, ATV, etc. driver.

This apparatus will be a high level visability red light that will be worn on the upper back of the driver or passenger on the above mentioned vehicles.

The apparatus is a 2" strap that is worn by putting the arms through the holes so the straps are resting on the shoulders, such as a shoulder harness. There is a square piece of velcro that is sewed to the strap that will be positioned about 3 to 4 in ches above the center of the back. The shoulder harness, as I will call it, is conmfortable to wear. The velcro square on the back will be where a red brake light will be attached. The brake light will be made of plastic with the back of the light hav ing a flat surface that will be velcroed to the square velcro patch on the shoulder harness. Coming from the brake light will be two wires that will be plugged to a pigtail connector that will be safety fastened to the existing brake light wires. The s afety fastner will be included with the package. Instructions on how to locate the right wires will also be in the package with instructions on were it is best to put the safety fastner pigtail. The brake light connector will be plugged into the pigtai l connector so when the brakes levers are applied the high visability brake light will come on at the same time so surrounding vehicle drivers will have a better chance of seeing the motorcycle driver.

I hope that this brief description of what I'm writing to you about is enough for you to understand what I'm trying to do and why I'm seeking for a U.S. D.O.T. approval on this apparatus.

I have talked to the Arizona D.O.T. about this and they referred me to the U.S. D.O.T. in Washington D.C., which I called, to have the information sent to me on the requirements and specifications needed for such a apparatus.

My intentions are to put this on the market as a after market products for those persons who are concerned for their safety as motorcycle, scooter, ATV, etc. driver. Also I'm talking to the military about this for on-base requirement for motorcycle, etc. drivers.