ID: 6918

Mr. William H. Spain
Touch Wood
5417 Caldwell Mill Road
Birmingham, AL 35242

Dear Mr. Spain:

This responds to your letter of January 21, 1992, to Taylor Vinson of this office, with reference to your "Auxiliary Lighting Device". I understand that you have also discussed the Device on the phone with Mr. Vinson on March 3, and with Mr. Van Iderstine of the Office of Rulemaking on March 26. You have referenced sections S5.1.3, S5.1.1.11, S5.3.1.1, S5.5.3 and S5.5.10(a) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, and ask for an "initial first impression as to whether or not we might have a problem."

In your experience, "it is not an uncommon occurrence for a tractor/trailer to lose its taillamps due to a circuit or wiring malfunction." When this occurs, you point out that the driver's only choice is to activate his hazard warning system, which is not its intended purpose, and which defeats the normal turn signal circuits. Your Device would permit the operator of the tractor to employ the rear turn signal lamps as surrogate taillamps if the vehicle's standard taillamps were inoperative. Specifically, "a reduced voltage is fed through both right and left rear turn signal circuits to cause both turn signal lamps to illuminate at a reduced brilliance equal to that of a normal tail lamp." The Device has an alternative function. It permits the turn signal lamps to be used at full intensity as fog lamps to increase rear visibility. The activation of the turn signal switch within 1/2 second overrides the Device and allows normal operation of the turn signal lamps. The Device is activated through a toggle switch on the dash, which glows to indicate to the driver that it is engaged.

The applicability of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the "Act") and Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to tractor-trailer combinations is not well defined. Standard No. 108 is, in essence, a manufacturing standard that applies to individual motor vehicles. It ceases to apply at the time of purchase by its first owner (other than the manufacturer or dealer). Once a vehicle is sold, questions of continued compliance with the standards, including Standard No. 108, must be answered with reference to the Act. The question presented by your letter concerns a device added to one vehicle before its first sale that is intended to affect the lighting performance on another vehicle after the sale of the second vehicle (i.e., when it has become a "vehicle in use", to use the statutory term). We recently provided another interpretation of the applicability of Standard No. 108 and the Act to towing and towed vehicle combinations which I would like to discuss, as it provides a basis for our interpretation to you, but is nevertheless distinguishable from it by its facts (letter of April 3, 1992, to Echlin Corp.)

The Echlin Corp. device (the "Control") was intended to control trailer sway by allowing the towing vehicle's driver to apply the towed vehicle's brakes through modulated pressure by use of a hand control in the towing vehicle. The wiring of the Control was such that the trailer stop lamps were not activated when the Control was in use. Standard No. 108 and the laws of some States require that the stop lamps be activated when the service brakes are applied. We informed the manufacturer of the Control that, under the specific facts of the case, the question was not one to be answered under Standard No. 108 as applying to new vehicles, but to be answered under the Act as it affects vehicles in use. The Act contains a general prohibition (l5 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) against knowingly rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design on a vehicle in use that has been installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The prohibition applies to any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business. With respect to the Control, the dealer of the towed vehicle adds the Control to the towing vehicle (a vehicle in use) at the time that the towed vehicle is purchased. In our opinion, the legal question was whether the dealer of the towed vehicle had rendered the stop lamps of the towed vehicle partially inoperative by its installation of the Control on the towed vehicle. In our opinion, it was not the installation of the Control but its use that was critical. The user of the Control, the vehicle operator, is not covered by the prohibition. Therefore, we informed Echlin that the sale and use of the Control does not violate the Act.

This interpretation can also be viewed as stating that "inoperability" as the word is used in the statute must result from a direct act, and not an indirect one. This, however, was not our intent. We do not believe that a person should be excused from responsibility simply because an intervening agency is required to operate a device that that person has manufactured or sold. Although many of the facts concerning the use of the Control and your Device are similar, the fact of importance in this instance is the primary purpose of the equipment in question. The primary purpose of the Control was to control trailer sway, not to affect the operation of the stop lamps. The primary purpose of your Device is to affect vehicle lighting, by serving as surrogate and supplementary lighting equipment.

A further fact in difference is that you envision the Device to be installed as part of the manufacture of the tractor trailer, and not added by the dealer of the trailer to a tractor trailer in use. This raises the question of the certification that the Act requires by the truck tractor manufacturer of compliance with Standard No. 108, specifically S5.1.3. As your letter indicates, you are aware that S5.1.3 prohibits the installation of additional lamps or reflectors "or other motor vehicle equipment that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by" Standard No. 108. It is manifest that installation of the Device has no effect upon the lighting equipment of the vehicle on which it is installed, the truck tractor. The question is whether S5.1.3 can be read as prohibiting the installation of a device on one vehicle that may affect the operation of lighting equipment on another vehicle.

We believe that S5.1.3. can be so read because the term "lighting equipment required by" Standard No. 108 is general in nature, and not restricted to the vehicle on which the additional equipment is installed. Although Standard No. 108 does not establish lighting requirements to be met by combinations of towing and towed vehicles, we interpret S5.1.3 as prohibiting installation of any original equipment on the towing vehicle that could impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108 to be installed on a towed vehicle. The determination of whether impairment exists is initially made by the manufacturer in certifying compliance of the towing vehicle to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If a manufacturer installs as original equipment on one motor vehicle a device whose sole purpose is to affect the lighting performance of another motor vehicle, then that manufacturer must take into account whether that device would impair the effectiveness of the other vehicle's lighting equipment in certifying compliance to S5.1.3. If that decision appears clearly erroneous, NHTSA may make its own determination in order to effect compliance with Standard No. 108.

We turn first to the question of the use of the Device as a surrogate taillamp on a vehicle equipped with red rear turn signal lamps. When used as a taillamp surrogate, the Device would substitute one steady-burning red rear light for another. If, as you indicate, the intensity of the surrogate taillamp is no greater than that of the original taillamp (and thereby maintains the ratio of difference required in combination turn signal- taillamps), there would appear to be no impairment of rear lighting equipment.

When used as a fog lamp on a vehicle equipped with red rear turn signal lamps, the taillamps are not disabled, and the Device activates the turn signal lamps at full intensity in a steady burning mode. Commonly, combination rear lamps on large vehicles also include the stop function as well. Because of the similarity of intensity between the steady burning fog lamp and the stop function provided by the same filament, or the stop function in an adjacent lamp, we believe that the stop signal would be impaired when the Device is used as a fog lamp in a lamp configured as described in this paragraph.

When used on a trailer equipped with the amber turn signal lamps that Standard No. 108 permits, different considerations apply. All lamps that serve as marker lamps on the rear (taillamps, identification lamps, clearance lamps) are required by Standard No. 108 to be red in color. On a trailer equipped with amber rear turn signals, the use of your Device would result in a pair of steady burning amber marker lamps on the trailer rear where, heretofore, the motoring public has not been accustomed to seeing them. Thus, the question arises under S5.1.3 whether the effectiveness of the required red rear lighting equipment is impaired when the Device activates steady burning amber rear lamps.

You are aware of this possibility, but have pointed out to Mr. Vinson that the Device is intended for use when the taillamps are not available. Because taillamps, identification lamps, and clearance lamps share the same wiring, inoperability of the taillamps often means inoperability of the other rear marker lights. Thus, the steady burning amber lamps provided by the Device may be the only operating marker lamps on the rear of the vehicle. You believe that this is preferable to no lights at all. We would agree that, in this circumstance, there would be no impairment of required rear lighting equipment within the meaning of S5.1.3.

However, the Device provides no safeguards against operation of the amber turn signal lamps in the taillamp mode when the taillamps (and other rear marker lamps) remain operative. Further, it permits operation of the amber turn signal lamps in the fog lamp mode regardless of the operability of the other rear marker lamps. Because the Device is intended for use only under conditions of reduced visibility, such as night and fog, when the headlamps are activated, there is a potential for confusion when a motorist is confronted with simultaneously operating steady burning red and amber lamps. In this situation, a conclusion could be drawn that the utilization of the Device to create a steady burning amber lamp could, within the meaning of S5.1.3, impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that is required to be red. You told Mr. Vinson of your willingness to provide a warning with the Device cautioning against its use when the taillamps are operative, and we appreciate your concern with the issue. You may wish to reexamine the efficacy of amber lamps as fog lamps. We understand that the most effective rear fog lamps are red, and that red is the only color permitted in Europe.

You pointed out in your letter that, absent the Device, the tractor operator might choose to employ the flashing hazard warning lights for other than their intended purpose. We believe that today's motorists interpret flashing red or amber hazard lamps on moving vehicles as a signal that the vehicle is moving slower than the stream of traffic, and that caution is advised. Thus, safety may be enhanced when the hazard lamps flash, as they provide a contrast with the steady burning but less intense red rear taillamps.

Finally, even if acceptable under the regulations and statutes administered by this agency, vehicles engaged in the commercial aspects of interstate commerce are subject to the regulations of the Office of Motor Carrier Standards (OMCS) Federal Highway Administration, and to the regulations of the individual States where the trailer is operated. We are not able to advise you of their restrictions, if any. You may write the Director, OMCS, Room 3404, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590 for an interpretation. The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203, may be able to provide you with an interpretation of State laws. Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:108 d:4/27/92

ID: nht76-4.38

DATE: 02/25/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: State of Connecticut

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letters of June 24, 1975, and May 30, 1975, regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 217 and 205. Please excuse our delay in answering your questions.

In your letter of June 24, 1975, you asked whether Standard No. 217 applies to school buses, and if so, whether Connecticut's regulations concerning emergency exits for school buses are in conflict with the Federal standard. By notice published in the Federal Register on January 27, 1976 (41 FR 3871) Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, 49 CFR 571.217, was amended to specify requirements for emergency doors for school buses, pursuant to the provisions of Section 202 of the Motor Vehicle and Safety Amendments of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-492, 88 Stat. 1484, 15 U.S.C. 1392).

Since Standard No. 217, as amended, applies to school buses, effective October 26, 1976, any State regulations which differ are voided by @ 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)). The Connecticut regulations are, therefore, preempted by Standard No. 217, since @ 103(d) requires the State regulations to be "identical" to the Federal standard.

It should be noted, however, that while the State of Connecticut may not issue a regulation which differs from similarly applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard requirements, Connecticut (or any of its political subdivisions) may in its own contracts for school bus purchases require more stringent specifications, as long as the Federal minimum requirements are met.

In your letter of May 30, 1975, you asked whether Lucite AR and other similar rigid plastics are allowed for use as side windows of buses under Standard No. 205, even though S5.1.2.1 does not list the use for "Item 12" rigid plastics.

"Item 12" is a classification created by the NHTSA for rigid plastics which comply with all the tests required of "Item 5" rigid plastics as defined in ANS Z26, with the exception of the test for resistance to undiluted denatured alcohol. Paragraph S5.1.2.1, Item 12 - Rigid plastics, provides that "Item 5" safety plastic materials may be used in motor vehicles only in the locations specified, at levels not requisite for driving visibility. These locations include "Standee windows in buses" and "readily removable windows". However, there is no provision in S5.1.2.1 which allows the use of "Item 12" plastic materials for fixed, side windows in buses.

Standard No. 205 defines readily removable windows in buses having a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds to include pushout windows and windows mounted in emergency exits that can be manually pushed out of their location in the vehicle without the use of tools, whether or not one side remains hinged to the vehicle. Rigid plastics can only be used for side windows in buses if the side window is a readily removable window as defined by S5.1.1.4 or a standee window.

I hope this letter clarifies your questions concerning Standard Nos. 217 and 205. Please contact us if we can be of any further assistance.

YOURS TRULY,

STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES

June 24, 1975

Richard Dyson Assistant Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

This is in regard to your recent reply to Mr. W. G. Milby, Staff Engineer from the Blue Bird Body Company in Fort Valley, Georgia concerning Connecticut regulations for emergency exits on school buses.

I have no question with the response that State regulations must be identical to Federal standard or are considered void. I can understand the reasoning behind this decision and agree with it completely. The interpretation I would have is; Does Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #217 apply to school buses, and if it does; are Connecticut regulations concerning emergency doors and emergency windows in conflict with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #217?

I am attaching for your information copies of those sections of Connecticut regulations concerning emergency exits from the "MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR TYPE I SCHOOL BUS CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPMENT and all correspondence pertaining to this subject.

Thank you for your cooperation and assistance in this regard.

John L. O'Connell Pupil Transportation Administrator

ATTACHMENTS

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

May 19, 1975

Richard Dyson Assistant Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation NHTSA

The State of Connecticut recently adopted new school bus specifications which will become effective on school buses manufactured after January 1, 1976. In two areas these specifications are more restrictive than FMVSS 217 Bus Window Retention and Release.

In section 14-275B-16 (d) and 14-275B-17 (a), (see attached copies), the Connecticut specifications call for emergency exit release forces of between 5 and 15 pounds and 5 and 20 pounds respectively. Since these forces are different than those required by FMVSS 217, this imposes an additional constraint on school bus manufacturers for that state. Also, we are concerned that latch forces as low as 5 pounds could result in inadvertent opening of emergency exits.

We are in receipt of a copy of a letter which you sent to Mr. Donald L. Gibson, dated November 29, 1974, with file reference N40-30 (KK). In that letter you state:

"The federal requirements must be regarded as conclusive with regard to parking brake performance and emergency braking capability in order to maintain the uniformity necessary in a federal regulatory scheme. If states were permitted to impose additional requirements in an area regulated by a federal safety standard, manufacturers would be confronted with an impossible task of compliance. This reasoning formed the basis of the recent decision rendered in a case brought by the Motorcycle Industry Council, Inc., against the State of California in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California concerning the preemption of a California State requirement that motorcycle lamps be wired to operate when the engine is running. The court held that the California requirement is preempted by the Federal Motor Vehicle Standard 108 since the NHTSA intended to cover all aspects of performance directly involving motorcycle headlamps."

It appears to us that this current conflict between the new Connecticut regulations and FMVSS 217 is similar to the matter which you addressed in your letter quoted above.

In the light of such conflicting specifications, what is our responsibility as a school bus manufacturer.

W. G. Milby Staff Manager

cc: JOHN O'CONNELL; DAVE PHELPS

MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR TYPE I SCHOOL BUS CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPMENT PAGES 9 AND 10 the release mechanism should be turned to open the emergency door shall be painted on the outside of the emergency door in black on the national school bus yellow background. The emergency door shall have a horizontal opening of at least 30 inches and a vertical opening of at least 48 inches measured from the floor level. No steps shall lead to the emergency door. The emergency door or exit shall be devised so as to be opened from the inside and the outside.

(b) The passage to the emergency door shall be kept clear of obstructions. For rear doors the horizontal clearance of 30 inches shall be maintained for a distance of at least twelve inches inside the bus. When the emergency door is in the left side, a minimum horizontal clearance of 30 inches and a vertical clearance of 48 inches shall be maintained between it and the center aisle.

(c) The upper and lower portion of the central rear emergency door shall be equipped with approved safety glass, the exposed area of which shall be not less than four hundred (400) square inches in the upper portion and not less than three hundred (300) square inches in the lower portion. The left side emergency door shall be equipped with safety glass in the upper portion and the lower portion shall be of at least the same gauge metal as the body outer panels. The emergency door shall be hinged on the right side if it is in the rear end of the bus and on the front side if it is in the left side and shall open only outward. Control from the driver's seat shall not be permitted.

(d) The emergency door shall be equipped with a slide-bar, cam-operated latch which shall be a minimum stroke of one inch. The latch shall be equipped with a suitable electric plunger-type switch connected with a distinctive audible signal automatically operated and located in the driver's compartment which shall clearly indicate the unlatching of this door and no cutoff switch shall be installed in the circuit. The switch shall be enclosed in a metal case, and wires leading from the switch shall be concealed in the body. The switch shall be so installed that the plunger contacts the farthest edge of the slide bar in such a manner that any movement of the slide bar will immediately close the circuit and activate the signal. The door latch shall be equipped with an interial handle which shall be capable of quick release upon application of a force between 5 and 15 pounds but shall be protected against accidental release. It shall lift up to release the latch. The outside handle shall be installed in a vertical position when latched so as to minimize hitching and shall be a non-detachable device.

(e) An audio alarm shall indicate to the driver when any door is in the locked position while the ignition switch is in the "on" position.

Sec. 14-275b-17. Emergency Windows. (a) A rear emergency window at least 16 inches height and as wide as practicable shall be provided in any where the emergency door is not in the rear. The rear window shall be designed so as to be opened from either the inside the outside. It shall be hinged at the top and be equipped a linkage or mechanism that will automatically hold the (Illegible Word) window against the force of gravity at a hinge opening angle 60 + 5 degrees measured from the closed window position. Such linkage or mechanism shall not prevent the window from (Illegible Word) a full 90 degrees due to gravitational forces should the bus be inverted. A positive latch on the inside shall provide (Illegible Word) quick release upon application of a force between 5 and 20 pounds but offer protection against accidental release. The outside handle shall be non-detachable and designed to minimize hitching.

(b) Labeling shall indicate in 1/2 inch letters on the inside the window operates and in letters at least two inches in height the words "Emergency Exit" above on the inside and directly below on the outside. clearly indicate to the driver the unlatching of the rear emergency window or the opening of any push-out emergency windows and no cutoff switch shall be installed in the (Illegible Word)

(d) If there is a space between the top of the rear divan seat the inside lower edge of the rear emergency window, such space shall be covered by a material of sufficient strength to sustain 600 pounds weight.

Sec. 14-275b-18. Exhaust System and Muffler. The exhaust system shall include the exhaust manifold and gaskets, piping leading from the flange of the exhaust manifold to and including the muffler(s). The system shall not extend into the body and shall be attached to the chassis. The tail pipe(s) shall be non-flexible sixteen gauge steel or equivalent and shall extend beyond the rear end of the chassis frame but not beyond the rear limit of the bumper. The complete exhaust system shall be tight and free from leaks and shall be properly insulated from the electrical wiring or any combustible part of the bus. It shall not pass within twelve inches of the fuel tank or its connections except that the exhaust system may come within four inches of the tank or its connections if a suitable heat baffle is installed between the exhaust system and such tank or connections. The size of the in the exhaust system shall not be reduced below that at the engine manifold.

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

June 10, 1975

John O'Connell Pupil Transportation Adm. Department of Motor Vehicles

On May 19, 1975, I wrote Mr. Richard Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel for NHTSA with regard to the emergency exit requirements in the new Connecticut School Bus Specifications VS Federal Standard 217, Bus Window Retention and Release per our earlier telephone conversation.

Attached please find a copy of the reply to that letter from Mr. James C. Schultz, Chief Counsel for NHTSA. I think it would be good for us to discuss this reply and so after you have had a few days to review this letter I will plan to call you.

Look forward to talking to you shortly.

W. G. Milby Staff Engineer

c: DAVE PHELPS

ID: nht74-5.7

DATE: 04/01/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Charles F. Aycock

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of February 16, 1974, asking whether courtesy lights for trucks carry the message "clear" and "thanks" are in violation of any Federal regulations. The courtesy lights to which you refer in your letter do not violate any regulation of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. We have forwarded a copy of your letter to the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety in the Federal Highway Administration for a response in regard to the motor carrier safety regulations.

ALDRIDGE, HARDING & AYCOCK

FEBRUARY 16, 1974

LAWRENCE SCHNEIDER -- CHIEF COUNSEL, DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION

RE: COURTESY LIGHTS

I represent Tom Paine, of Bovina, Texas, who has developed a lighting system for large tractor-trailer vehicles and a patent is now pending on same.

During the course of developing the product we were advised to contact the American Association of Motor Vehicles to obtain their Certificate of Approval in the 47 states represented by the Association. We are now in the process of filing that application, and on this date I discussed same with Mr. Frank Bergsman, in your office of Standards and Enforcement. Mr. Bergsman suggested that we write to you regarding the legality of the use of the product insofar as any Federal regulations are concerned.

Specifically, the courtesy lights are a set of two lights, one of which is a green light with the word "clear" stamped on the lens. The other light is a blue light with the word "thanks" stamped in the lens. The green light goes on the front of the motor vehicle and when a truck passes the vehicle with the green light on the front the operator of the vehicle being passed simply turns a toggle switch which activates the green light that may readily be seen in the rear view mirrow of the passing trucker. Of course, the purpose of this light is to show the passing trucker that his trailer has cleared the vehicle he is passing. The lens which go on the back of the truck would simply be a 'thank you' device which may also be activated by a simple toggle switch.

I am enclosing a copy of the Application filed in the

2 Patent Office with the describing pictures, which I think will make the purpose of the units more clear. My client was a trucker for many years, and during the course of driving trucks noted that truckers wore out many sets of head lights and clearance lights blinking them off and on as a courtesy gesture to passing vehicles. His product simply is designed to avoid those problems.

Specifically, we cannot find anything in the motor carrier safety regulations as revised, including the amendments, that prohibits the use of said equipment. We were, however, wanting an opinion from your office as to whether or not we would be in violation of any Federal safety regulation if these products were manufactured and placed on motor carrier vehicles.

We do understand that there are certain state jurisdictions that we will have to obtain permission from before selling the product in that state. We will proceed to obtain that jurisdiction, but we want to satisfy ourselves that we were completely in compliance with any Federal statutes or regulations.

Your assistance and opinion would surely be appreciated, and we would look forward to hearing from you as quickly as possible. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me.

CHARLES F. AYCOCK

ENCL.

Graphics omitted)

THOMAS G. PAINE

THRU: CHARLES F. AYCOCK

COURTESY LIGHT FIXTURE

ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE

A visual signaling system for large trucks passing each other while traveling in the same direction, after nightfall. Each vehicle mounts a pair of signal lamps adjacent the front and rear ends which lamps are illuminated under control of the driver to signal another vehicle or acknowledge receipt of a signal.

This invention relates to signaling systems for relatively large road vehicles such as trailer trucks.

One of the hazards encountered during nighttime motor vehicle travel, is difficulty in judging distances. This problem arises in particular when one vehicle passes another while traveling in the same direction and after passing moves laterally into the right-hand lane from the left-hand passing lane. Before moving back to the right-hand lane, a driver of a passing vehicle should be certain that there is sufficient clearance between his vehicle and the vehicle just passed. Judging such clearance is particularly difficult in connection with relatively long trucks such as tractor cabs with trailers hitched thereto. It is current practice in such vehicle passing situations, for the driver of the vehicle being passed to momentarily turn on the high beams of the headlamps which are reflected in the rear view mirror of the passing vehicle in order to signify to the driver that his vehicle has cleared the front end of the vehicle being passed. It is therefore an important object of the present invention to provide a signaling system to more positively and reliably take care of the foregoing situation in which the drivers of two vehicles wish to communicate with each other.

In accordance with the present invention, large vehicles such as elongated trucks are provided with a pair of signal lamps adjacent the front and rear ends thereof, said lamps being provided with bulb covers of different colors having faces on which a message is made visible by illumination of the lamp. Illumination of the lamp adjacent the front end is effected under control of the vehicle driver within the cab in order to signal the driver of a passing vehicle that his vehicle has cleared the front end of the vehicle being passed. The lamp mounted adjacent the front end may accordingly bear the letters "Clear" that become visible to the driver in a passing vehicle through the rear view mirror when the lamp is illuminated. The rear end mounted signal lamp, on the other hand, is provided with lattering such as "Thanks" so that the driver of the passing vehicle may acknowledge receipt of the "Clear signal by illuminating the rear mounted lamp. The illumination produced by the two lamps is of different colors so that the messages may be readily distinguished from each other at a glance.

These together with other objects and advantages which will become subsequently apparent reside in the details of construction and operation as more fully hereinafter described and claimed, reference being had to the accompanying drawings forming a part hereof, wherein like numerals refer to like parts throughout.

Figure 1 is a simplified top plan view of a pair of road vehicles in a passing situation, the vehicles being provided with the signaling system of the present invention.

Figure 2 is a perspective view illustrating one of the signal lamps associated with the system of the present invention.

Figure 3 is a perspective view illustrating the other of the lamps associated with the signaling system.

Figure 4 is a longitudinal sectional view through one of the lamps.

Figure 5 is a simplified electrical circuit diagram corresponding to the system of the present invention.

Referring now to the drawings in detail, Figure 1 illustrates a typical two lane road generally referred to by reference numeral 10 on which vehicles travel in the same direction. A vehicle generally referred to by reference numeral 12 traveling in the right-hand lane is accordingly shown being passed by another vehicle generally referred to by reference numeral 14 traveling in the same direction in the left-hand or passing lane. As is well known, the passing lane is only used during the passing maneuver and the passing vehicle will return to the right-hand traveling lane after passing another vehicle, with sufficient clearance. Figure 1 illustrates this passing situation wherein the passing vehicle has cleared the vehicle 12 being passed.

The system of the present invention is shown installed on relatively long vehicles which include, for example, a tractor cab 16 at the front end to which a trailer 18 is hitched. Each vehicle mounts a pair of signal lamps including a signal lamp 20 mounted adjacent the front end of the vehicle and a signal lamp 22 mounted adjacent the rear end of the vehicle. When the passing vehicle 14 has cleared the vehicle 12, as shown in Figure 1, the driver of the vehicle 12 will cause signal lamp 20 thereon to be illuminated producing illumination 24 emitted forwardly therefrom, which will be observed by the driver of the passing vehicle 14 through the rear view mirror. This signal will then be acknowledged by the driver of the vehicle 14 by causing the rear mounted signal lamp 22 to be illuminated producing illumination 26 emitted rearwardly therefrom.

Each of the signal lamps 20 and 22 is similar in construction and operation to each other except for the signaling indicia and color of it light transmitting cover 28 as shown in Figures 2, 3 and 4. Each lamp includes a relatively rigid base 30 adapted to be fixedly mounted on the vehicle. The base includes a relatively flat, rectangular reflective portion 32 from which a peripheral flange 34 extends rearwardly terminating in a seating rim 36 adapted to abut the surface of the vehicle. Extending from the front face 38 of the cover 28, is a peripheral rim 40. The rim 40 of the cover is provided with a plurality of spaced projections 42 adapted to be snapped into retainer openings 44 formed in the flange portion 34 of the base 30. A sealing gasket 46 is sandwiched between the rims 36 and 40 of the base and cover, when the cover is assembled on the base as shown in Figure 4. Ventilation holes 48 are formed in the flat reflective portion of the base so as to permit dissipation of heat generated within the space 50 enclosed by the cover.

A pair of incandescent bulb assemblies 52 are mounted on the reflective portion 32 of the base within the space 50 in order to emit illumination through the colored cover 28 on which the signal indicia is mounted as shown in Figures 2 and 3. Electrical conductors extend from the bulb assemblies 52 through a central opening in the base lined by a nonconductive grommet 54.

As shown in Figures 2 and 3, the indicia mounted on the cover of lamp 22 is in the form of letters spelling "Clear" in order to signify that a passing vehicle has sufficiently cleared another vehicle as shown in Figure 1. The lamp 20 on the other hand is provided with indicia on its cover which spells "Thanks" thereby acknowledging receipt of the "Clear" signal. The lamps may be selectively controlled by the driver in a vehicle from the cab by means of switches 56 and 58 as shown in Figure 5 which thereby complete parallel lighting circuits through the associated lamps connected, for example, to the vehicle battery 60.

The foregoing is considered as illustrative only of the principles of the invention. Further, since numerous modifications and changes will readily occur to those skilled in the art, it is not desired to limit the invention to the exact construction and operation shown and described, and accordingly all suitable modifications and equivalents may be resorted to, falling within the scope of the invention.

What is claimed as new is as follows:

1. In combination with an elongated, road vehicle having front and rear ends, a signaling system comprising, a pair of lamps respectively mounted adjacent the front and rear ends of the vehicle, and means for selectively illuminating said lamps to signal another vehicle traveling in the same direction, the lamp on the front end bearing indicin signifying clearance in the direction of travel and the lamp on the rear end bearing acknowledgment indicia.

2. The combination of claim 1 wherein said lamps respectively include covers of different colors.

3. The combination of claim 2 wherein each of said lamps includes a relatively rigid base having a substantially flat reflective surface and a rim portion provided with retainer openings, each of said covers having a peripheral flange provided with projections received within said retainer openings, and incandescent bulb means mounted on the reflective surface enclosed within the cover.

4. The combination of claim 1 wherein each of said lamps includes a relatively rigid base having a substantially flat reflective surface and a rim portion provided with retainer openings, a cover having a peripheral flange provided with projections received within said retainer openings, and incandescent bulb means mounted on the reflective surface enclosed within the cover.

5. The combination of claim 4 wherein the cover for the lamp adjacent the front end is colored green as background for the indicin "clear", while the cover for the lamp on the rear end is colored blue as background for the indicia "thanks".

6. The combination of claim 1 wherein said lamps include light transmitting covers respectively colored green and blue, the indicia on the cover for the front end mounted lamp reading "clear" while the indicia on the cover for the rear end mounted lamp reading "thanks".

ID: nht92-7.26

DATE: April 27, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: William H. Spain -- Touch Wood

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/21/92 from William H. Spain to Taylor Vinson (OCC 6918)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of January 21, 1992, to Taylor Vinson of this office, with reference to your "Auxiliary Lighting Device". I understand that you have also discussed the Device on the phone with Mr. Vinson on March 3, and with Mr. Van Iderstine of the Office of Rulemaking on March 26. You have referenced sections S5.1.3, S5.1.1.11, S5.3.1.1, S5.5.3 and S5.5.10(a) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, and ask for an "initial first impression as to whether or not we might have a problem."

In your experience, "it is not an uncommon occurrence for a tractor/trailer to lose its taillamps due to a circuit or wiring malfunction." When this occurs, you point out that the driver's only choice is to activate his hazard warning system, which is not its intended purpose, and which defeats the normal turn signal circuits. Your Device would permit the operator of the tractor to employ the rear turn signal lamps as surrogate taillamps if the vehicle's standard taillamps were inoperative. Specifically, "a reduced voltage is fed through both right and left rear turn signal circuits to cause both turn signal lamps to illuminate at a reduced brilliance equal to that of a normal tail lamp." The Device has an alternative function. It permits the turn signal lamps to be used at full intensity as fog lamps to increase rear visibility. The activation of the turn signal switch within 1/2 second overrides the Device and allows normal operation of the turn signal lamps. The Device is activated through a toggle switch on the dash, which glows to indicate to the driver that it is engaged.

The applicability of the National Traffic and Motor vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the "Act") and Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to tractor-trailer combinations is not well defined. Standard No. 108 is, in essence, a manufacturing standard that applies to individual motor vehicles. It ceases to apply at the time of purchase by its first owner (other than the manufacturer or dealer). Once a vehicle is sold, questions of continued compliance with the standards, including Standard No. 108, must be answered with reference to the Act. The question presented by your letter concerns a device added to one vehicle before its first sale that is intended to affect the lighting performance on another vehicle after the sale of the second vehicle (i.e., when it has become a "vehicle in use", to use the statutory term). We recently provided another interpretation of the applicability of Standard No. 108 and the Act to towing and towed vehicle combinations which I would like to discuss, as it provides a basis for our interpretation to you, but is nevertheless distinguishable from it by its facts (letter of April 3, 1992, to Echlin Corp.)

The Echlin Corp. device (the "Control") was intended to control trailer sway by allowing the towing vehicle's driver to apply the towed vehicle's brakes through modulated pressure by use of a hand control in the towing vehicle. The wiring of the Control was such that the trailer stop lamps were not activated

when the Control was in use. Standard No. 108 and the laws of some States require that the stop lamps be activated when the service brakes are applied. We informed the manufacturer of the Control that, under the specific facts of the case, the question was not one to be answered under Standard No. 108 as applying to new vehicles, but to be answered under the Act as it affects vehicles in use. The Act contains a general prohibition (15 U.S.C. 1397 (a) (2)(A)) against knowingly rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design on a vehicle in use that has been installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The prohibition applies to any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business. With respect to the Control, the dealer of the towed vehicle adds the Control to the towing vehicle (a vehicle in use) at the time that the towed vehicle is purchased. In our opinion, the legal question was whether the dealer of the towed vehicle had rendered the stop lamps of the towed vehicle partially inoperative by its installation of the Control on the towed vehicle. In our opinion, it was not the installation of the Control but its use that was critical. The user of the Control, the vehicle operator, is not covered by the prohibition. Therefore, we informed Echlin that the sale and use of the Control does not violate the Act.

This interpretation can also be viewed as stating that "inoperability" as the word is used in the statute must result from a direct act, and not an indirect one. This, however, was not our intent. We do not believe that a person should be excused from responsibility simply because an intervening agency is required to operate a device that that person has manufactured or sold. Although many of the facts concerning the use of the Control and your Device are similar, the fact of importance in this instance is the primary purpose of the equipment in question. The primary purpose of the Control was to control trailer sway, not to affect the operation of the stop lamps. The primary purpose of your Device is to affect vehicle lighting, by serving as surrogate and supplementary lighting equipment.

A further fact in difference is that you envision the Device to be installed as part of the manufacture of the tractor trailer, and not added by the dealer of the trailer to a tractor trailer in use. This raises the question of the certification that the Act requires by the truck tractor manufacturer of compliance with Standard No. 108, specifically S5.1.3. As your letter indicates, you are aware that S5.1.3 prohibits the installation of additional lamps or reflectors "or other motor vehicle equipment that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by" Standard No. 108. It is manifest that installation of the Device has no effect upon the lighting equipment of the vehicle on which it is installed, the truck tractor. The question is whether S5.1.3 can be read as prohibiting the installation of a device on one vehicle that may affect the operation of lighting equipment on another vehicle.

We believe that S5.1.3. can be so read because the term "lighting equipment required by" Standard No. 108 is general in nature, and not restricted to the vehicle on which the additional equipment is installed. Although Standard No. 108 does not establish lighting requirements to be met by combinations of towing and towed vehicles, we interpret S5.1.3 as prohibiting installation of any original equipment on the towing vehicle that could impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108 to be installed on a towed vehicle. The determination of whether impairment exists

is initially made by the manufacturer in certifying compliance of the towing vehicle to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If a manufacturer installs as original equipment on one motor vehicle a device whose sole purpose is to affect the lighting performance of another motor vehicle, then that manufacturer must take into account whether that device would impair the effectiveness of the other vehicle's lighting equipment in certifying compliance to S5.1.3. If that decision appears clearly erroneous, NHTSA may make its own determination in order to effect compliance with Standard No. 108.

We turn first to the question of the use of the Device as a surrogate taillamp on a vehicle equipped with red rear turn signal lamps. When used as a taillamp surrogate, the Device would substitute one steady-burning red rear light for another. If, as you indicate, the intensity of the surrogate taillamp is no greater than that of the original taillamp (and thereby maintains the ratio of difference required in combination turn signal- taillamps), there would appear to be no impairment of rear lighting equipment.

When used as a fog lamp on a vehicle equipped with red rear turn signal lamps, the taillamps are not disabled, and the Device activates the turn signal lamps at full intensity in a steady burning mode. Commonly, combination rear lamps on large vehicles also include the stop function as well. Because of the similarity of intensity between the steady burning fog lamp and the stop function provided by the same filament, or the stop function in an adjacent lamp, we believe that the stop signal would be impaired when the Device is used as a fog lamp in a lamp configured as described in this paragraph.

When used on a trailer equipped with the amber turn signal lamps that Standard No. 108 permits, different considerations apply. All lamps that serve as marker lamps on the rear (taillamps, identification lamps, clearance lamps) are required by Standard No. 108 to be red in color. On a trailer equipped with amber rear turn signals, the use of your Device would result in a pair of steady burning amber marker lamps on the trailer rear where, heretofore, the motoring public has not been accustomed to seeing them. Thus, the question arises under S5.1.3 whether the effectiveness of the required red rear lighting equipment is impaired when the Device activates steady burning amber rear lamps.

You are aware of this possibility, but have pointed out to Mr. Vinson that the Device is intended for use when the taillamps are not available. Because taillamps, identification lamps, and clearance lamps share the same wiring, inoperability of the taillamps often means inoperability of the other rear marker lights. Thus, the steady burning amber lamps provided by the Device may be the only operating marker lamps on the rear of the vehicle. You believe that this is preferable to no lights at all. We would agree that, in this circumstance, there would be no impairment of required rear lighting equipment within the meaning of S5.1.3.

However, the Device provides no safeguards against operation of the amber turn signal lamps in the taillamp mode when the taillamps (and other rear marker lamps) remain operative.

Further, it permits operation of the amber turn signal lamps in the fog lamp mode regardless of the operability of the other rear marker lamps. Because the Device is intended for use only under conditions of reduced visibility, such as night and fog, when the headlamps are activated, there is a potential for confusion when a motorist is confronted with simultaneously operating steady burning red and amber lamps. In this situation, a conclusion could be drawn that the utilization of the Device to create a steady burning amber lamp could, within the meaning of S5.1.3, impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that is required to be red. You told Mr. Vinson of your willingness to provide a warning with the Device cautioning against its use when the taillamps are operative, and we appreciate your concern with the issue. You may wish to reexamine the efficacy of amber lamps as fog lamps. We understand that the most effective rear fog lamps are red, and that red is the only color permitted in Europe.

You pointed out in your letter that, absent the Device, the tractor operator might choose to employ the flashing hazard warning lights for other than their intended purpose. We believe that today's motorists interpret flashing red or amber hazard lamps on moving vehicles as a signal that the vehicle is moving slower than the stream of traffic, and that caution is advised. Thus, safety may be enhanced when the hazard lamps flash, as they provide a contrast with the steady burning but less intense red rear taillamps.

Finally, even if acceptable under the regulations and statutes administered by this agency, vehicles engaged in the commercial aspects of interstate commerce are subject to the regulations of the Office of Motor Carrier Standards (OMCS) Federal Highway Administration, and to the regulations of the individual States where the trailer is operated. We are not able to advise you of their restrictions, if any. You may write the Director, OMCS, Room 3404, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590 for an interpretation. The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203, may be able to provide you with an interpretation of State laws.

ID: aiam5369

"Dear Mr. Love: This responds to your request for an interpretation o Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) No. 101, Controls and displays and No. 102, Transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect. I apologize for the delay in our response. You asked about the standards in connection with three options your company is considering for changing its 'Tiptronic' automatic transmission system. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 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 vehicles meet applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. The current Tiptronic automatic transmission system can be described as follows: The shift lever is located in the middle console, where it can be moved along either of two slots which are located essentially parallel to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle. The left slot (automatic function) is essentially the same as a conventional automatic transmission gear shift lever, with the following positions (in order): P R N D 3 2 1. At the D position (only) of the left slot, the gear shift lever can be transferred to the M (manual) position of the right slot (manual function). The right slot consists of the following positions (in order): + M -. When the gear shift lever is in the right slot, the driver can select a higher gear (+) or lower gear (-) by tapping the shift lever. The shift lever always returns to the 'M' position after being tapped. There are two gear position displays, one on the middle console and the other on the instrument panel. The middle console display, which is not illuminated, shows each of the 10 positions where the shift lever may be placed. It also shows the position which is selected. The display on the instrument panel, which is illuminated, has two columns which correspond to the slots on the middle console. However, while the left column (corresponding to the left slot or automatic function) shows the positions P R N D 3 2 1, the right column (corresponding to the right slot or manual function) shows the positions 4 3 2 1. In other words, the right column portion of the display shows the available gears and the actual gear selected rather than + M -. For both columns, the selected position or gear is indicated by an illuminated arrow. In your letter to NHTSA, you indicate that Porsche is considering the following three options for modifying its system: Option 1. The first proposed modification would eliminate the 3, 2 and 1 positions on the left (automatic) slot. Option 2a. The second proposed modification would eliminate the 3, 2 and 1 positions on the left (automatic) slot and the + and - positions on the right (manual) slot. Gear selection in the manual mode would be accomplished not by the shift lever but by shift rocker switches on the steering wheel. Option 2b) The third proposed modification would provide only one slot with the following positions (in order): P R N D M D. In the M position, gear selection would be accomplished by shift rocker switches on the steering wheel. For each of the proposed modifications, the shift lever positions would be labeled on the middle console, in the same manner as the current system. Similarly, the middle console would not be illuminated. The instrument panel display would not change for any of the options. You ask a number of questions concerning whether the Tiptronic system, as modified under options 1, 2a and 2b, would comply with Standards No. 101 and 102. The issues raised by your letter are addressed below. I will begin by identifying the requirements of Standards No. 101 and No. 102 which are relevant to your questions. Section S3.1.4.1 of Standard No. 102 states: Except as specified in S3.1.4.3, if the transmission shift lever sequence includes a park position, identification of shift lever positions, including the positions in relation to each other and the position selected, shall be displayed in view of the driver whenever any of the following conditions exist: (a) The ignition is in a position where the transmission can be shifted. (b) The transmission is not in park. S3.1.4.4 states: Effective September 23, 1991, all of the information required to be displayed by S3.1.4.1 or S3.1.4.2 shall be displayed in view of the driver in a single location. At the option of the manufacturer, redundant displays providing some or all of the information may be provided. Standard No. 101 specifies requirements for the location, identification and illumination of automatic gear position indicators. Section S5.1 requires that gear position display must be visible to the driver under the conditions of S6. Section S5.3.1 and Table 2 of the standard together require that automatic gear position displays be illuminated whenever the ignition switch and/or the headlamps are activated. The entry in Table 2 concerning the automatic gear position display references Standard No. 102. In a April 2, 1989 letter to Porsche concerning the Tiptronic system, we concluded that, given the reference in Standard No. 101 to Standard No. 102, where multiple gear position displays are provided and one complies with Standard No. 102 and the others do not, the requirements of Standard No. 101 must be met for the display which complies with Standard No. 102. With this background in mind, I will discuss the existing Tiptronic system and the three possible modifications. For the reasons discussed above and in our April 2, 1989 letter, while multiple gear position displays are permitted, one such display must comply with all of the relevant requirements of Standards No. 101 and No. 102. Since your console display is not illuminated, it would obviously not comply with Standard No. 101. I will therefore address your letter in the context of whether the instrument panel display meets the requirements of the two standards. I assume that the instrument panel is activated during the times specified by Standard No. 102. Under section S3.1.4.1 of Standard No. 102, there must be a display of all of the shift lever positions in relation to each other, and there must be an indication of the position that the driver has selected. In our April 2, 1989 letter, we stated that your design has the following ten shift lever positions: P R N D 3 2 1 + M -. We noted that the right column of the alternative instrument panel displays identified in your letter showed either 4 3 2 1 or 4 3 M 2 1 instead of + M -. We concluded that if the instrument panel display was to be used to meet the requirements of Standard No. 102, it would be necessary for the display to show the 10 actual shift lever positions, including + M -. Porsche evidently did not follow the opinion provided in that letter, since Porsche neither provided illumination for the console display nor showed the 10 actual shift lever positions, identified in our letter, on the instrument panel display. While we do not understand the reason for this decision by Porsche, we believe that one could reasonably argue that the + and - locations are not really shift lever 'positions,' since the shift lever cannot be left in those locations. Under this view, + M - could be seen as 'one' shift lever position, which is represented on the instrument panel by 4 3 2 1. We would accept this as an alternative way of characterizing the current Tiptronic system, and are therefore not aware of any compliance problems. I will now turn to the three possible modifications. Once again, since the non-illuminated console display would not meet the requirements of Standard No. 101, the relevant question is whether the instrument panel display meets the relevant requirements of Standards No. 101 and No. 102. A common problem for all three options would be that the instrument panel display retained from the original Tiptronic system would not correspond to the shift lever positions of the modified designs. This could be corrected for options 1 and 2a simply by deleting the 3 2 1 portion of the left column. A more complicated correction would be needed for option 2a, since the display would need to show the following positions in relation to each other: P R N D M D. I have several other comments on your letter. You stated that for all three options, Porsche believes that it is not necessary to have the shift lever positions 3, 2 and 1, or to necessarily display those positions if selected automatically in the D position, as long as they as displayed when selected manually by use of the shift lever (in option 1) or shift rocker switch(es) (in options 2a and 2b). Porsche is correct that it is unnecessary to provide shift lever positions 3, 2 and 1. Moreover, to the extent that such shift lever positions are not provided but the gears are instead selected automatically in the D position or manually in the M position by tapping the shift lever or shift rocker switch, it is unnecessary to display the gears. You also stated the following: Porsche believes that under options 2a and 2b, both the shift lever and the shift rocker switch(es) would be considered as 'shift levers' during the period when they are capable of changing the transmission position. The 'shift lever position' would then be defined as the transmission position, or mode of operation, that was selected by manipulation of any combination of 'shift levers.' It follows then that identification of 'shift lever position' would entail identifying the distinct transmission operating modes, in relation to each other and the specific mode selected. . . . For options 2a and 2b, Porsche believes it is not necessary to illuminate the shift rocker switches, just as it is not necessary to illuminate the shift lever, under the provisions of FMVSS 101, as long as the display in the speedometer showing transmission position is illuminated. We would not view the shift rocker switch(es) as shift levers under any circumstances. Instead, for the vehicle designs at issue, the lever provided on the middle console would be the only shift lever. When the shift lever is in the 'M' position, the shift rocker switch(es) simply permit manual shifting that is akin to the automatic shifting that occurs when the shift lever is in the 'D' position. The rocker switch(es) could not be used to shift the transmission to P, R or N. Under these circumstances, we view the rocker switch(es) as a control which is auxiliary to the shift lever and unregulated by Standard No. 102. I note that we might take a different position if the rocker switch(es) permitted the transmission to be shifted to P, R or N, since Standard No. 102 includes requirements to prevent shifting errors. I also note that Standard No. 101 does not require transmission shift levers or controls which are auxiliary to shift levers to be illuminated. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ";

ID: aiam4590

"Dear Mr. Mayer: This responds to your request for an interpretation o Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. l0l, Controls and Displays, and No. l02, Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect. You asked about the standards in connection with a new transmission and related gear shift mechanism that you are considering producing. I note that your accompanying request for confidentiality was withdrawn by an August l5, l988 letter signed by your attorney, effective September 30, l988. You stated that the new transmission is characterized by two functions, a manual gear shift and an automatic gear shift, combined in a single unit. A motor vehicle incorporating the transmission does not have a clutch pedal. Operation of the transmission is entirely dependent on the position selected for the gear shift lever. The shift lever is located in the middle console, where it can be moved along either of two slots which are located essentially parallel to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle. The left slot (automatic function) is essentially the same as a conventional automatic transmission gear shift lever, with the following positions (in order): P R N D 3 2 l. At the D position (only) of the left slot, the gear shift lever can be transferred to the M (manual) position of the right slot (manual function). The right slot consists of the following positions (in order): + M -. When the gear shift lever is in the right slot, the driver can select a higher gear (+) or lower gear (-) by tapping the shift lever. The shift lever always returns to the 'M' position after being tapped. You plan to provide two shift displays, one on the middle console and the other on the instrument panel. You stated that you believe that a dual function transmission of the type described in your letter is permitted if it meets the various requirements of Standards No. l0l and l02 and asked whether we agree with your interpretation. You also asked three questions related to certain aspects of the transmission and related gear shift lever and shift displays. Your questions are responded to below. By way of background information, and as noted in your letter, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 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 vehicles meet applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. I agree with your basic contention that a dual function transmission of the type described in your letter is permitted if it, and the accompanying gear shift lever and shift displays, meet the various requirements of Standards No. l0l and l02. The performance requirements specified in the two standards do not prohibit dual function transmissions. I have one primary comment concerning how you should evaluate Standards No. l0l and No. l02 with respect to the compliance of a vehicle equipped with the transmission. In some instances, these standards specify different requirements depending on whether a vehicle is equipped with a manual transmission or an automatic transmission. Thus, a critical issue is which of these requirements would need to be met by a vehicle equipped with your planned transmission. While you characterize the transmission as having two functions, a manual gear shift and an automatic gear shift, combined in a single unit, it is our opinion that the transmission is an automatic transmission for purposes of Federal motor vehicle safety standards. It is possible, of course, to manually control most conventional automatic transmissions, at least to some extent, by means of the gear shift lever, e.g., by shifting the lever from D to L. Your transmission would differ from a conventional automatic transmission primarily in having an additional means of manual control. However, the transmission would still be an automatic transmission. Vehicles equipped with the transmission would thus need to meet the requirements specified by Standards No. l0l and No. l02 for vehicles equipped with an automatic transmission, and not the requirements specified for vehicles equipped with a manual transmission. I will now address your three specific questions. You stated that it appears to you that when the shift lever is in the manual slot, it is permissible to have the lever, after tapping to shift up or down, return to the original middle position, and asked for our interpretation on this point. We agree that this basic design is permitted under Standards No. l0l and No. l02. Your second and third questions, which I will address together, concern the shift displays. You stated that you believe it is permissible for both of the dual shift pattern displays, i.e., the one on the middle console and the one on the instrument panel, to be constantly visible so that the driver can simultaneously see the currently used shift mode and also the alternative, and asked for our evaluation of this point. You also asked about the permissibility of two alternative instrument panel displays. I will begin my discussion of these questions by identifying the relevant requirements of Standards No. l0l and No. l02. Section S3.2 of Standard No. l02 states that the '(i)dentification of shift lever positions of automatic transmissions . . . shall be permanently displayed in view of the driver.' NHTSA has previously interpreted 'position' to mean the shift lever positions in relation to each other and the position that the driver has selected at the time of selection. Therefore, the display of a gear lever sequence and a gear position indicator is required for automobiles equipped with automatic transmissions. NHTSA has previously interpreted the requirement for permanent display as requiring a display that can be seen regardless of the operating mode of the engine. Thus, it is not permissible for the required display to be visible (e.g., in the case of an electronic display, be activated) only when the key is in the ignition switch. (I note that on August 25, l988, NHTSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend the requirement for permanent display. A copy is enclosed.) Standard No. l0l specifies requirements for the location, identification and illumination of automatic gear position displays. Section S5.l requires that gear position displays must be visible to the driver under the conditions of S6. Section S6 provides that the driver is restrained by the crash protection equipment installed in accordance with Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, adjusted in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. Section S5.3.l and Table 2 of the standard together require that automatic gear position displays be illuminated whenever the ignition switch and/or the headlamps are activated. The entry in Table 2 concerning the automatic gear position display references Standard No. l02. Your design includes the following ten shift lever positions: P R N D 3 2 l + M -. Under section S3.2 of Standard No. l02, all of these positions must be permanently displayed, i.e., there must be a display of the l0 positions in relation to each other and there must be an indication of the position that the driver has selected. As indicated above, Standard No. l0l specifies requirements for the location, identification and illumination of automatic gear position displays. The fact that your design would include more than one gear position display raises several issues, including (l) whether more than one display is permitted, (2) whether each display (where multiple displays are provided) must meet all of the requirements specified by Standards No. l0l and No. l02, and (3) whether multiple displays can be used to meet the requirements of the standards for gear position displays where no single display meets the requirements. It is our opinion that more than one display is permitted. It is also our opinion that if one display meets all of the requirements of Standards No. l0l and No. l02, the additional display(s) provided voluntarily by the manufacturer need not meet any particular requirements (except for section S5.3.5 of Standard No. l0l, which specifies requirements for sources of illumination not otherwise regulated by that standard). We have not previously found it necessary to address the issue of whether multiple displays can be used to meet the requirements of the standards for gear position displays where no single display meets the requirements. However, one commenter on the August 25, l988 notice cited above asked whether two displays could be used together to demonstrate compliance with section S3.2 of Standard No. l02. We plan to address that specific issue in the context of that rulemaking. While it is not entirely clear from your letter, the display on the middle console may provide permanent display (including times when the ignition is not on) of the shift lever positions, i.e., a display of the l0 positions in relation to each other and an indication of the position selected by the driver. It appears, however, that illumination is not provided for this display. Given the reference in Standard No. l0l to Standard No. l02, it is our opinion that where multiple gear position displays are provided and one complies with Standard No. l02 and the others do not, the requirements of Standard No. l0l must be met for the display which complies with Standard No. l02. If the display on the console fully met the requirements of Standards No. l0l and No. l02, it would be unnecessary for the additional display on the instrument panel to also meet the standards (with the exception of section S5.3.5 of Standard No. l0l, as noted above). I note that neither of the alternative instrument panel displays shown in your letter show all of the shift lever positions. While the displays do show P R N D 3 2 l, they show either 4 3 2 l or 4 3 M 2 l instead of + M -. If the instrument panel display, rather than the console display, was to be used to meet the requirements of section S3.2 of Standard No. l0l, it would be necessary for the display to show the l0 actual shift lever positions, including + M -. I also assume that the instrument panel display is not activated when the ignition is not on and thus does not provide a permanent display. I would like to note that the discussion in the preceding paragraph should not be read as a suggestion that you change the instrument panel display to show + M - instead of 4 3 2 l or 4 3 M 2 l. One consequence of your design is that, in the manual mode, the driver would not know what gear the car was in from either observing the location of the gear shift lever or by knowing the shift lever position (+ M or -). Your design takes care of this, however, by providing an indication of actual gear position on the instrument panel display. Assuming that you can meet the requirements of Standards No. l0l and No. l02 by means of the console display, we believe that it would be a desirable feature of your design to indicate actual gear position on the voluntarily provided instrument panel display. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions concerning this matter, please contact me. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam4985

"Dear Mr. Spain: This responds to your letter of January 21, 1992, t Taylor Vinson of this office, with reference to your 'Auxiliary Lighting Device'. I understand that you have also discussed the Device on the phone with Mr. Vinson on March 3, and with Mr. Van Iderstine of the Office of Rulemaking on March 26. You have referenced sections S5.1.3, S5.1.1.11, S5.3.1.1, S5.5.3 and S5.5.10(a) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, and ask for an 'initial first impression as to whether or not we might have a problem.' In your experience, 'it is not an uncommon occurrence for a tractor/trailer to lose its taillamps due to a circuit or wiring malfunction.' When this occurs, you point out that the driver's only choice is to activate his hazard warning system, which is not its intended purpose, and which defeats the normal turn signal circuits. Your Device would permit the operator of the tractor to employ the rear turn signal lamps as surrogate taillamps if the vehicle's standard taillamps were inoperative. Specifically, 'a reduced voltage is fed through both right and left rear turn signal circuits to cause both turn signal lamps to illuminate at a reduced brilliance equal to that of a normal tail lamp.' The Device has an alternative function. It permits the turn signal lamps to be used at full intensity as fog lamps to increase rear visibility. The activation of the turn signal switch within 1/2 second overrides the Device and allows normal operation of the turn signal lamps. The Device is activated through a toggle switch on the dash, which glows to indicate to the driver that it is engaged. The applicability of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the 'Act') and Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to tractor-trailer combinations is not well defined. Standard No. 108 is, in essence, a manufacturing standard that applies to individual motor vehicles. It ceases to apply at the time of purchase by its first owner (other than the manufacturer or dealer). Once a vehicle is sold, questions of continued compliance with the standards, including Standard No. 108, must be answered with reference to the Act. The question presented by your letter concerns a device added to one vehicle before its first sale that is intended to affect the lighting performance on another vehicle after the sale of the second vehicle (i.e., when it has become a 'vehicle in use', to use the statutory term). We recently provided another interpretation of the applicability of Standard No. 108 and the Act to towing and towed vehicle combinations which I would like to discuss, as it provides a basis for our interpretation to you, but is nevertheless distinguishable from it by its facts (letter of April 3, 1992, to Echlin Corp.) The Echlin Corp. device (the 'Control') was intended to control trailer sway by allowing the towing vehicle's driver to apply the towed vehicle's brakes through modulated pressure by use of a hand control in the towing vehicle. The wiring of the Control was such that the trailer stop lamps were not activated when the Control was in use. Standard No. 108 and the laws of some States require that the stop lamps be activated when the service brakes are applied. We informed the manufacturer of the Control that, under the specific facts of the case, the question was not one to be answered under Standard No. 108 as applying to new vehicles, but to be answered under the Act as it affects vehicles in use. The Act contains a general prohibition (l5 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) against knowingly rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design on a vehicle in use that has been installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The prohibition applies to any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business. With respect to the Control, the dealer of the towed vehicle adds the Control to the towing vehicle (a vehicle in use) at the time that the towed vehicle is purchased. In our opinion, the legal question was whether the dealer of the towed vehicle had rendered the stop lamps of the towed vehicle partially inoperative by its installation of the Control on the towed vehicle. In our opinion, it was not the installation of the Control but its use that was critical. The user of the Control, the vehicle operator, is not covered by the prohibition. Therefore, we informed Echlin that the sale and use of the Control does not violate the Act. This interpretation can also be viewed as stating that 'inoperability' as the word is used in the statute must result from a direct act, and not an indirect one. This, however, was not our intent. We do not believe that a person should be excused from responsibility simply because an intervening agency is required to operate a device that that person has manufactured or sold. Although many of the facts concerning the use of the Control and your Device are similar, the fact of importance in this instance is the primary purpose of the equipment in question. The primary purpose of the Control was to control trailer sway, not to affect the operation of the stop lamps. The primary purpose of your Device is to affect vehicle lighting, by serving as surrogate and supplementary lighting equipment. A further fact in difference is that you envision the Device to be installed as part of the manufacture of the tractor trailer, and not added by the dealer of the trailer to a tractor trailer in use. This raises the question of the certification that the Act requires by the truck tractor manufacturer of compliance with Standard No. 108, specifically S5.1.3. As your letter indicates, you are aware that S5.1.3 prohibits the installation of additional lamps or reflectors 'or other motor vehicle equipment that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by' Standard No. 108. It is manifest that installation of the Device has no effect upon the lighting equipment of the vehicle on which it is installed, the truck tractor. The question is whether S5.1.3 can be read as prohibiting the installation of a device on one vehicle that may affect the operation of lighting equipment on another vehicle. We believe that S5.1.3. can be so read because the term 'lighting equipment required by' Standard No. 108 is general in nature, and not restricted to the vehicle on which the additional equipment is installed. Although Standard No. 108 does not establish lighting requirements to be met by combinations of towing and towed vehicles, we interpret S5.1.3 as prohibiting installation of any original equipment on the towing vehicle that could impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108 to be installed on a towed vehicle. The determination of whether impairment exists is initially made by the manufacturer in certifying compliance of the towing vehicle to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If a manufacturer installs as original equipment on one motor vehicle a device whose sole purpose is to affect the lighting performance of another motor vehicle, then that manufacturer must take into account whether that device would impair the effectiveness of the other vehicle's lighting equipment in certifying compliance to S5.1.3. If that decision appears clearly erroneous, NHTSA may make its own determination in order to effect compliance with Standard No. 108. We turn first to the question of the use of the Device as a surrogate taillamp on a vehicle equipped with red rear turn signal lamps. When used as a taillamp surrogate, the Device would substitute one steady-burning red rear light for another. If, as you indicate, the intensity of the surrogate taillamp is no greater than that of the original taillamp (and thereby maintains the ratio of difference required in combination turn signal- taillamps), there would appear to be no impairment of rear lighting equipment. When used as a fog lamp on a vehicle equipped with red rear turn signal lamps, the taillamps are not disabled, and the Device activates the turn signal lamps at full intensity in a steady burning mode. Commonly, combination rear lamps on large vehicles also include the stop function as well. Because of the similarity of intensity between the steady burning fog lamp and the stop function provided by the same filament, or the stop function in an adjacent lamp, we believe that the stop signal would be impaired when the Device is used as a fog lamp in a lamp configured as described in this paragraph. When used on a trailer equipped with the amber turn signal lamps that Standard No. 108 permits, different considerations apply. All lamps that serve as marker lamps on the rear (taillamps, identification lamps, clearance lamps) are required by Standard No. 108 to be red in color. On a trailer equipped with amber rear turn signals, the use of your Device would result in a pair of steady burning amber marker lamps on the trailer rear where, heretofore, the motoring public has not been accustomed to seeing them. Thus, the question arises under S5.1.3 whether the effectiveness of the required red rear lighting equipment is impaired when the Device activates steady burning amber rear lamps. You are aware of this possibility, but have pointed out to Mr. Vinson that the Device is intended for use when the taillamps are not available. Because taillamps, identification lamps, and clearance lamps share the same wiring, inoperability of the taillamps often means inoperability of the other rear marker lights. Thus, the steady burning amber lamps provided by the Device may be the only operating marker lamps on the rear of the vehicle. You believe that this is preferable to no lights at all. We would agree that, in this circumstance, there would be no impairment of required rear lighting equipment within the meaning of S5.1.3. However, the Device provides no safeguards against operation of the amber turn signal lamps in the taillamp mode when the taillamps (and other rear marker lamps) remain operative. Further, it permits operation of the amber turn signal lamps in the fog lamp mode regardless of the operability of the other rear marker lamps. Because the Device is intended for use only under conditions of reduced visibility, such as night and fog, when the headlamps are activated, there is a potential for confusion when a motorist is confronted with simultaneously operating steady burning red and amber lamps. In this situation, a conclusion could be drawn that the utilization of the Device to create a steady burning amber lamp could, within the meaning of S5.1.3, impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that is required to be red. You told Mr. Vinson of your willingness to provide a warning with the Device cautioning against its use when the taillamps are operative, and we appreciate your concern with the issue. You may wish to reexamine the efficacy of amber lamps as fog lamps. We understand that the most effective rear fog lamps are red, and that red is the only color permitted in Europe. You pointed out in your letter that, absent the Device, the tractor operator might choose to employ the flashing hazard warning lights for other than their intended purpose. We believe that today's motorists interpret flashing red or amber hazard lamps on moving vehicles as a signal that the vehicle is moving slower than the stream of traffic, and that caution is advised. Thus, safety may be enhanced when the hazard lamps flash, as they provide a contrast with the steady burning but less intense red rear taillamps. Finally, even if acceptable under the regulations and statutes administered by this agency, vehicles engaged in the commercial aspects of interstate commerce are subject to the regulations of the Office of Motor Carrier Standards (OMCS) Federal Highway Administration, and to the regulations of the individual States where the trailer is operated. We are not able to advise you of their restrictions, if any. You may write the Director, OMCS, Room 3404, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590 for an interpretation. The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203, may be able to provide you with an interpretation of State laws. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: nht75-1.18

DATE: 12/31/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in further response to your letter of November 12, 1975, asking whether this agency considers Standard 105-75 on hydraulic braking systems to be preemptive of State regulations concerning brake wear warning devices. You asked the question in light of the proposed uniform State regulation requiring such devices recently adopted by the Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission.

There are presently no requirements in the Federal motor vehicle safety standards dealing directly with the subject of brake wear indicators or warning devices. The question, therefore, becomes whether the Federal safety standards on braking performance were intended generally to cover this aspect of performance, analogously to the situation in which Standard 108 was held to be preemptive in Motorcycle Industry Council v. Younger, No. CIV S74-126 (E. D. Cal. 1974). The guiding rule, as set forth by the U. S. Supreme Court in Florida Lime & Avocado Growers v. Paul, 373 U. S. 132, 141-142 (1963), is "whether both regulations can be enforced without impairing federal superintendence of the field." Under the accepted doctrines as set forth in cases such as Thorpe v. Housing Authority of Durham, 393 U. S. 268 (1969), and Chrysler v. Tofany, 419 F.2d 499, 511-12 (2d Cir. 1969), the interpretation of this question by the administering agency is "of controlling weight unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation."

The NHTSA has determined that the issuing of requirements for brake wear indicators by the States does not conflict with or otherwise impair our present regulation of braking systems, and that brake wear indicators are not within the intended scope of the present Federal safety standards. We therefore conclude that the existing standards are not preemptive of such State regulations. You should be aware that the agency is actively proceeding with rulemaking development work in this area, and may within the next year issue requirements that would alter these legal relationships.

SINCERELY,

MOTOR VEHICLE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION

November 12, 1975

Dr. James B. Gregory, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Request for Statement of Scope of Braking Standards; Proposed Uniform State Brake Component Wear Warning Regulation

The Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of the United States, Inc. (MVMA) requests a statement by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration of the preemptive effect of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 105, 105-75, and 121, in light of Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. MVMA believes that those standards preempt any state statute or regulation implementing the proposed uniform state regulation requiring brake wear warning devices recently adopted by the Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission. Briefly, that regulation would require that manufacturers of all highway use vehicles except motorcycles, trailers and semi-trailers provide a "visible, audible or tactile signal" when brake friction materials are worn to the discard point. (A copy of the VESC regulation is appended to this letter. The copy is of the draft prepared by the VESC for its annual meeting on July 30, 1975, which was adopted without substantial amendment on that date.)

Forty-two states and the District of Columbia are now members of the VESC. Under the terms of the Vehicle Equipment Safety Compact, "each party state obligates itself to give due consideration to any and all rules, regulations and codes issued by the Commission and hereby declares its policy and intent to be the promotion of uniformity in the laws of the several party states relating to equipment." A copy of the Vehicle Equipment Safety Compact is also appended.

MVMA includes in its membership manufacturers of more than 99% of the motor vehicles made in the United States. Our members are vitally affected by both Federal and state regulation of motor vehicles.

MVMA believes that state legislation or regulation incorporating this proposed brake wear warning device requirement is preempted by presently effective Federal motor vehicle safety standards which govern brake performance of affected vehicles; i.e., FMVSS 105 and 121. We urge the Administrator to publish a clear statement in the Federal Register, addressing this preemption issue and asserting that under the authority of Section 103(d) of the Safety Act, such legislation or regulation is preempted by these standards. MVMA believes that the issue raised here is as important as the question raised by the Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association on state enforcement policies, which occasioned the Administration to publish a strong preemptive statement in the Federal Register on June 2, 1971 (36 FR 10744).

Summary of Legal Issues

We believe that a brief review of the treatment given to the preemption question in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act is appropriate.

Section 103(d) of the Act (15 USCA Section 1392(d)) provides:

"(d) Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established under this title is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal Standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the Federal Government or the government of any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard of performance than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable Federal standard."

The express statutory inclusion of such a preemption provision is relatively unusual. The statute does not broadly permit states to establish or enforce identical standards; it prohibits standards which are not identical to Federal standards. Congress made plain the necessity for Federal preemption and the broad reach the preemption provision was to have. For example, the Senate Report (S. Rep. No. 1301, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., 1966) stressed the paramount Federal Role (page 4):

"Out of the committee's hearings, there emerged a clear outline of the basic needs to be served by Federal legislation:

"1. The promotion of motor vehicle safety through voluntary standards has largely failed. The unconditional imposition of mandatory standards at the earliest practicable date is the only course commensurate with the highway death and injury toll.

"2. While the contribution of the several States to automobile safety has been significant, and justifies securing to the States a consultative role in the setting of standards, the primary responsibility for regulating the national automotive manufacturing industry must fall squarely upon the Federal Government." [Emphasis added]

The Senate Report also explained why preemption was needed to insure uniformity (page 12):

"The centralized, mass production, high volume character of the motor vehicle manufacturing industry in the United States requires that motor vehicle safety standards be not only strong and adequately enforced, but that they be uniform throughout the country. At the same time, the committee believes that the States should be free to adopt standards identical to the Federal standards, which apply only to the first sale of a new vehicle, so that the States may play a significant role in the vehicle safety field by applying and enforcing standards over the life of the car. Accordingly, State standards are preempted only if they differ from Federal standards applicable to the particular aspect of the vehicle of item of vehicle equipment (sec. 104)." [Emphasis added.]

The House Report (H.R. Rep. No. 1776, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., 1966) makes a similar statement. See page 11 where the House Report emphasizes the need for national solution of this "nationwide problem", and see also the emphasis on uniformity at page 17 -- "this preemption subsection is intended to result in uniformity of standards so that the public as well as industry will be guided by one set of criteria rather than by a multiplicity of diverse standards."

In view of this legislative history of Section 103(d), it is clear that the comprehensive attention which the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has given to brake systems and components in the formulation of Standards 105 and 121 preempts the regulation which the Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission now proposes for legislative or regulatory adoption by member states.

The currently effective Federal standard on hydraulic brake systems, FMVSS No. 105 (49 CFR S 571.105), states in its "Purpose and scope" section that it specifies requirements for ". . . brake systems intended to ensure adequate braking performance under normal and emergency conditions." The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has taken the position that the purpose and scope provision of a Federal standard defines the aspect of performance covered -- see 35 Fed. Reg. 18000, November 24, 1970. The aspect of performance thus stated in FMVSS No. 105 necessarily embraces what the VESC now proposes as State law or regulation. Although FMVSS 105 does not deal in specific detail with all of the components of a hydraulic brake system, this system approach follows the Congressional expectation of how the Federal standards should operate. * Moreover, in addition to its system approach "to ensure adequate braking performance", FMVSS No. 105 specifically addresses failure of the system and requires a system effectiveness warning indicator light (@ 4.2.2). That requirement alone leaves no room for State adoption of a different warning requirement such as the VESC now proposes.

* For example, the Senate Report states at page 6:

"Unlike the General Services Administration's procurement standards, which are primarily design specifications, both the interim standards and the new and revised standards are expected to be performance standards, specifying the required minimum safe performance of vehicles but not the manner in which the manufacturer is to achieve the specified performance (sec. 101(b)). Manufacturers and parts suppliers will thus be free to compete in developing and selecting devices and structures that can meet or surpass the performance standard.

"The Secretary would thus be concerned with the measurable performance of a braking system, but not its design details. Such standards will be analogous to a building code which specifies the minimum loadcarrying characteristics of the structural members of a building wall, but leaves the builder free to choose his own materials and design. Such safe performance standards are thus not intended or likely to stifle innovation in automotive design."

FMVSS No. 105-75 becomes effective on January 1, 1976. This standard has been under intense consideration by the Administration and by industry since 1968. In the course of that consideration the NHTSA considered and rejected matters which are pertinent here. For example, the Administration had proposed that brakes be installed so that the lining thickness of drum brake shoes and brake pads could be visually inspected without removing the drums or pads. Subsequently the Administration decided to abandon that proposal (37 Fed. Reg. 17972, September 2, 1972). The Administration has also stated that FMVSS No. 105 would provide consumers "with braking systems that have been optimized with respect to safety, performance, and cost," (38 Fed. Reg. 3047, February 1, 1973).

For any state now to enact an additional warning requirement would fly in the teeth of FMVSS No. 105-75. Such action would make a mockery of the uniformity which Congress said was necessary in adopting the preemption provision of the National Safety Act.

Also relevant is FMVSS No. 121, Air Brake Systems (49 CFR S 571.121). This standard "establishes performance and equipment requirements for braking systems on vehicles equipped with air brake systems." Its stated purpose "is to insure safe braking performance under normal and emergency conditions." Standard 121 clearly is a comprehensive set of requirements encompassing every aspect of performance of air brake systems. Section 5.1.4, Section 5.1.5, and Section 5.1.6 provide requirements for gauges and warning signals. It would be anomalous indeed if various states were now permitted to require additional warning devices to be added to the system.

General Motors Corporation, a member of MVMA, has informed MVMA of a determination of preemption that was made on May 2, 1975, by Mr. James Schultz, then Chief Counsel of the NHTSA, in a letter to Mr. Frazer F. Hilder, General Counsel of General Motors Corporation. General Motors, in its letter of March 21, 1975, questioned the supplemental air brake performance requirements of the Massachusetts and New Jersey Departments of Public Utilities and indicated that those requirements were not identical to FMVSS No. 121 requirements.

Briefly, the Massachusetts statute and regulations required that all braking systems be constructed and designed to permit release by the operator from the normal operating position. Although FMVSS No. 121 requires the parking brake system to be operable after failure of both the service and emergency brake systems (@ 5.7.2.2), it does not expressly address the issue of how release of the parking brake should be made.

The New Jersey "autobus" regulation required an automatic emergency brake system as contrasted to the optional automatic or modulated system permitted in S5.7 of FMVSS No. 121. In addition, the New Jersey stopping distances for service and emergency brakes were not identical to the requirements of FMVSS No. 121.

In his May 2, 1975 answer to General Motors' request for a determination of preemption, Mr. Schultz stated in part as follows:

"Standard No. 121 includes provisions relating to truck and bus brake performance, including requirements for stopping distances. A more restrictive state brake requirement than that specified in Standard 121 is voided by @103(d) since the Federal Standard is intended to cover all aspects of brake performance. [Emphasis supplied.]"

In the course of extensive rulemaking for the development of Standards 105 and 121, the NHTSA has made its intention clear that those standards cover every aspect of braking performance on the vehicles to which they apply. In view of that expressed intention, a recent decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California is germane. The case is Motorcycle Industry Council, Inc. et al v. Younger, et al No. CIV. S74-126, decided September 23, 1974. The Court reviewed a California statute requiring that motorcycles be wired so that headlamps would be lit whenever engines were running. The Court held that the statute related to the same "aspect of performance" as does FMVSS 108 and therefore was preempted.

In your letter of November 8, 1973 to Mr. W. Pudinski of the Department of California Highway Patrol concerning the preemptive effect of FMVSS No. 108 upon that California statute you stated as follows:

"The implication of the California opinion is that any mode of design or performance that is not expressly dealt with in the Federal standard is open to regulation by the states. Such a position is impractical, where the Agency's intent is to have a comprehensive, uniform regulation in a given area . . . . Congress clearly intended the NHTSA to establish a single set of uniform standards to which manufacturers must comply, and that intent would tend to be defeated by the position taken in the California opinion. Federal regulation has a negative as well as a positive aspect; in determining that there should be certain requirements in an area, we also are deciding against imposing others. The only way to effectuate such a decision is to declare, as we have done here, that our regulation is intended to be exclusive, and to describe as necessary its outer limits." [Emphasis supplied.]

In light of the legislative history, and the administrative and judicial interpretations of Section 103(d) of the Safety Act, Standards 105 and 121 appear clearly to be comprehensive and exclusive requirements covering all aspects of hydraulic and air brake system performance. The omission from those standards of an express requirement for an audible or visual wear signalling device does not permit a State to impose such a requirement.

MVMA urges that the NHTSA promptly publish a statement that state adoption and enforcement of the VESC's brake wear warning regulation is preempted by Federal standards.

We appreciate your consideration of this request.

Thomas H. Hanna

CC: RICHARD B. DYSON; FRANK A. BERNDT

ID: 571.108 -- AMA -- Schaye--front color changing light

Paul Schaye
CEO, Pedestrian Safety Solutions
245 Park Avenue, 41st Floor
New York, NY 10167

Dear Mr. Schaye:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of whether your auxiliary lamp, the Auto Motion Alert (“your product”), is permissible under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment.  Because your product would be installed as aftermarket equipment, not as original equipment, and would not replace original equipment, and because FMVSS No. 108 applies only to equipment installed as original equipment or that replaces original equipment, we have interpreted your request as asking whether the installation of your product is permissible under the “make inoperative” provision of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Safety Act).  The Safety Act prohibits most automotive businesses from installing aftermarket lighting equipment if doing so would take the vehicle out of compliance with FMVSS No. 108.  For auxiliary lamps, the primary restriction imposed by FMVSS No. 108 is that the lamps cannot impair the effectiveness of a vehicle’s required lighting equipment.

We have tentatively concluded that your product is unlikely to impair the effectiveness of required lighting equipment, and is therefore unlikely to violate the “make inoperative” provision.  However, we wish to emphasize that the existence of impairment would depend on the context in which your lamp is used, and thus must be determined on a case-by-case basis.  It is the responsibility of the business installing your product to determine whether doing so constitutes a “make inoperative” violation. We explain our reasoning below.

Description of your product
You describe your product as a lamp that is designed to be installed above a vehicle’s front license plate using the two top mounting screws.  You state that the purpose of installing the lamps on a vehicle is to communicate to road users ahead of the vehicle whether the vehicle is decelerating, accelerating, or maintaining a constant speed. You state that your product consists of a strip of amber and white LEDs, although you do not provide the exact photometric intensity.  Either the white or amber LEDs are activated, depending upon the underlying condition.  You state that the white LEDs are activated and steadily burn while the vehicle is accelerating or travelling at a constant speed, and that the amber LEDs are activated and steadily burn while the vehicle is decelerating or stopped.  The LEDs are actuated by a microcontroller that detects the vehicle’s acceleration using internal accelerometers.  We also understand, based on our communications with you, that the brightness of the LEDs, the threshold levels of acceleration or deceleration activating the LEDs can be controlled through software, although it is our understanding that the product will be sold as a sealed unit that is not adjustable by the end user. You state that, although the LEDs activate independently of other vehicle systems (including the braking system), your product is powered by either a direct connection to the vehicle’s battery, or a 12-volt DC wire supply that is live when the vehicle is turned on.  The exterior housing consists of a weather-resistant polymer enclosure with gasket type seal. 

Applicable Requirements
Because you state that you intend to sell your product aftermarket, the primary potential restriction on its installation is the Safety Act’s “make inoperative” provision. 49 U.S.C.           § 30122.  The “make inoperative” provision states that manufacturers, distributors, dealers, rental companies and motor vehicle repair businesses may not “knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard” promulgated under the Safety Act.  This means that the businesses subject to the “make inoperative” provision would be prohibited from installing your product on a vehicle if doing so would take the vehicle out of compliance with any FMVSS.  The “make inoperative” provision does not apply vehicle owners, and these owners are not precluded from modifying their vehicle by NHTSA’s statutes or regulations.  State and local laws, however, may impact whether an owner may use a vehicle they have modified in a particular jurisdiction.

NHTSA considers the installation of an aftermarket lamp to violate the “make inoperative” provision if the installation of the same lamp as original equipment would violate FMVSS No. 108.[1]  As a non-required (“auxiliary”) lamp, your product is not required to meet any of the performance requirements in FMVSS No. 108 that it would need to meet if it were installed as original equipment.[2]  However, your product would be prohibited under FMVSS No. 108 (and thus, would violate the “make inoperative” provision) if it would “impair[] the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard.” FMVSS No. 108, S6.2.1.    

Because the existence of impairment is, in part, a function of the context in which an auxiliary lamp is used, impairment must be determined on a case-by-case basis.  If a business subject to the “make inoperative” provision installs an aftermarket auxiliary lamp, that entity is responsible for determining whether doing so causes impairment.  If NHTSA determines that a business to which the “make inoperative” provision applies has impaired the effectiveness of required lamps, that business would be subject to a fine of up to $22,329 per violation.[3]  

Discussion
Based on the information you provided in your interpretation request, we have tentatively concluded that your product, if configured and installed in conformance with the restrictions described in letter, is unlikely to impair the effectiveness of a vehicle’s required lighting, and its installation on a vehicle would be unlikely to constitute a “make inoperative” violation.  There are four aspects of auxiliary lamps that are relevant to impairment: brightness (i.e., photometric intensity), color, location, and activation pattern.  What follows is a brief explanation of NHTSA’s safety concerns for each of these characteristics, along with examples of instances in which the agency would consider an auxiliary lamp to violate the impairment prohibition.  It should be noted that determining whether an auxiliary lamp impairs the effectiveness of required lamps involves a holistic assessment of the context in which the auxiliary lamps are used, and the examples provided are not exhaustive.  Thus, although this letter discusses these four characteristics separately, they should not be considered in isolation, nor should they be considered an exhaustive list of all the considerations that should be taken into account when making an impairment determination.

Brightness (Photometric Intensity)
NHTSA interprets the impairment provision to prohibit auxiliary lamps that are so bright as to obscure or distract from a vehicle’s required lamps.  For example, NHTSA has in the past stated that auxiliary lamps that were so bright as to “mask” adjacent required turning signal lamps would be prohibited due to impairment.[4]   While you do not state the precise brightness of your product, you state that its brightness “is limited and so would not impair or mask the vehicle’s headlamps or turn signals.”  Although the extent to which your product would interfere with a vehicle’s required lighting may vary depending on the design and performance of a particular vehicle’s required lamps, we do not believe your product would impair the effectiveness of a vehicle’s required lamps on the basis of brightness if its photometric intensity is sufficiently limited such that your product’s LEDs are noticeably dimmer than the vehicle’s required head lamps and front turn signal lamps.

Color
NHTSA interprets the “impairment” provision to prohibit auxiliary lamps that are colors the agency believes are likely to cause confusion to other road users.  For auxiliary lamps located on the front of the vehicle, colors that could cause confusion include red (which could be confused for a tail lamp), green (which could be confused for a traffic signal), and blue (which could be confused for a law enforcement vehicle).  By contrast, we have consistently said that amber and white lamps are permissible on the front of the vehicle.[5]  Because your product illuminates as either amber or white, depending on the underlying condition, we do not believe your product would impair a vehicle’s required lamps on the basis of color.

Location
NHTSA interprets the “impairment” provision to prohibit auxiliary lamps that are mounted in locations that cause them to interfere with the ability of a vehicle’s required lamps to achieve their purpose. For example, NHTSA has stated in the past that auxiliary lamps placed too close to FMVSS No. 108-compliant identification lamps would be prohibited because they may confuse other road users.[6]  The agency has long maintained that highway traffic safety is enhanced by the familiarity of drivers with established lighting schemes, which facilitates their ability to instantly recognize the meaning the lamps convey and respond accordingly. Therefore, any auxiliary lighting on the front of a vehicle must be located such that it would not interfere or be confused with other required lamps.  Your product is designed to be no wider than a license plate.  In the case where a license plate holder is mounted at the centerline of the vehicle at a lower mounting height than the vehicle’s required lamps, we think your product would, in most cases, be unlikely to interfere with the required lamps’ ability to achieve their function based on proximity.  However, we note that if a vehicle’s front license plate were located somewhere other than the centerline of the front bumper, and especially if it were located near a vehicle’s required lamps, it would be likely that the installation of your product on the front license plate holder would cause impairment.  Our determination in this letter that your product would be unlikely to impair the effectiveness of required lamps on the basis of mounting location assumes that your product is mounted on front centerline of the vehicle.  If your product were mounted somewhere other than the front centerline of the vehicle, we believe that it would be more likely to impair the effectiveness of the vehicle’s required lamps.

Activation Pattern
NHTSA interprets FMVSS No. 108 to require that all auxiliary lamps be “steady burning,” with the sole exception being auxiliary lamps that supplement required lamps that flash, such as turn signals.[7]  While this requirement has been relatively straight-forward to apply in the past, the introduction of new, programable lighting devices (such as your product) that are intended to communicate driver intent to other road users, has convinced the agency that it is necessary to clarify the meaning of “steady burning.”  To this end, we are clarifying here that the requirement that auxiliary lamps be steady burning does not mean that an auxiliary lamp is prohibited from being activated or deactivated automatically.  Rather, it means that the lamp must be steady burning when activated, and that the event that triggers its activation or deactivation (in this case, the vehicle’s rate of acceleration or deceleration exceeding a certain minimum threshold) cannot be so frequent or random that the lamp would distract or confuse other road users.  For example, a lamp that activated and deactivated on an extremely short time interval due to sensitivity to slight changes in the underlying conditions, would not be considered steady-burning.[8]  More traditional examples of lamps that are not steady-burning include, but are not limited to, strobes and turn signals.  By contrast, an auxiliary lamp that gradually changes in intensity based on ambient lighting conditions may be considered steady burning.[9] 

We have determined that your product would likely be considered steady burning because the event that triggers the activation of the LEDs—the deceleration of the vehicle—is likely not something that occurs so frequently or randomly that it would cause your product to appear to flash, which could confuse or distract other road users.  We note that this determination rests on the assumption that your product’s accelerometer is calibrated not to be overly sensitive to small changes in acceleration.    

We acknowledge that this interpretation supersedes some of our prior, more restrictive interpretations of the concept of “impairment.”  In particular, this letter specifically supersedes our previous interpretation concluding that all auxiliary lamps used to communicate “non-standard signals” (i.e., information other than what is communicated by required lamps) to other drivers would categorically impair the effectiveness of a vehicle’s required lamps.[10]  We reiterate, however, that auxiliary lamps may not be used to communicate non-standard signals (or, in fact, any signals) if doing so impairs the effectiveness of required lighting. 

Other Considerations
You should be aware that, even if your product is permissible under FMVSS No. 108 and the “make inoperative” provision, it is possible that State and local laws or restrictions may apply to your product. You may wish to consult the State and local transportation authorities in the areas you intend to market your product to make sure it is permissible under these laws. 

Finally, regardless of whether your product is subject to the restrictions of FMVSS No. 108 or the “make inoperative” provision, please be aware that if you or this agency finds your product to contain a safety-related defect after you market the product, you are responsible for conducting a notice and recall campaign as required under 49 U.S.C. §§ 30118-30120.

If you have further questions, please contact Daniel Koblenz of my staff at 202-366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jonathan C. Morrison
Chief Counsel

Dated: 9/9/19

Ref: FMVSS No. 108

[1] E.g., Letter to Timothy C. Murphy (Nov. 1, 2004), available at https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/GF006332.html.

[2] We note that auxiliary lamps that use plastic optical materials must comply with S14.1.2, and are subject to various other minor restrictions that are not relevant here.

[3] See 49 CFR part 578.

[4] E.g., Letter to Mark Wallach (Oct. 17, 2006), available at https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/Wallach.3.htm.

[5] E.g., Letter to Anthony M. Cooke (Oct. 19, 2006), available at https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/Legg1.htm.

[6] E.g., Letter to [REDACTED] (Jan. 21, 2004), available at https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/GF007705.html.

[7] Prior to 2007, FMVSS No. 108 included an explicit requirement that, with the exception of certain types of required lamps (e.g., turn signal lamps), all lamps on a vehicle, including auxiliary lamps, must be steady burning.  In 2007, NHTSA implemented an administrative reorganization of FMVSS No. 108 which, among other things, converted the blanket “steady burning” requirement (and its exceptions) into individual activation requirements for each type of required lamp.  See 72 FR 68234 (Dec. 4, 2007).  Although the reorganized rule no longer includes a blanket “steady burning” requirement, NHTSA stated in the preamble to the reorganized rule that its “rewrite of FMVSS No. 108 is considered administrative in nature because the standard’s existing requirements and obligations are not being increased, decreased, or substantively modified.” Moreover, NHTSA continues to believe that flashing auxiliary lamps would impair the effectiveness of required lamps by distracting or confusing other road users.

[8] E.g., Letter to Timothy C. Murphy (Nov. 1, 2004), available at https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/GF006332.html.

[9] E.g., Letter to Ian Goldstein (July 21, 1998), available at https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/18164.ztv.html.

[10] E.g., Letter to Kerry Legg (Feb. 21, 2008), available at https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/07-001583as.htm.

ID: nht89-3.35

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: November 7, 1989

FROM: S. Kadoya -- Manager, Safety and Technology, Mazda Research & Development of North America, Inc.

TO: Stephen P. Wood -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA; George Parker -- Assoc. Administrator-Enforcement, NHTSA

TITLE: Re Request for Interpretation of 49 CFR Parts 571 and 581 with respect to active suspension systems.

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-2-90 from P.J. Rice to S. Kadoya (A36; Std. 108; Std. 111; Std. 209; Std. 208; Std. 212; Std. 219; Std. 301; Part 581

TEXT:

The purpose of this letter is to request NHTSA's interpretation of the requirements and test conditions of the following Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS); as they apply to active suspension systems:

S108, "Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment" S111, "Rearview mirrors" S204, "Steering control rearward displacement" S208, "Occupant crash protection" S212, "Windshield mounting" S219, "Windshield zone intrusion of S301, "Fuel system integrity"

In addition, Mazda also requests an interpretation of the requirements of Part 581, "Bumper Standard," as they apply to active suspensions. Because this interpretation request covers several safety standards and because each standard may involve a parti cular person that is assigned to it, Mazda's questions regarding these individual standards have been presented in separate appendices to this letter. Each appendix addresses only one safety standard. Mazda hopes that this method will facilitate distri bution of this document to the appropriate NHTSA personnel. Mazda is writing to you both because the questions raised concern not only the interpretation of a given standard but enforcement issues as well.

Mazda is currently developing an active suspension system for possible use in future vehicle programs. The benefits of such a system have been, by now, well documented and, therefore, will not be repeated here. More importantly, Mazda is now working to establish a compliance testing protocol to the requirements of 49 CFR Parts 571 and 581. In attempting to establish this testing protocol numerous questions have arisen regarding the applicability, test conditions, and testing logistics of these Parts as they pertain to active suspension systems. In formulating this request, Mazda has reviewed past NHTSA interpretations for similar types of suspension systems. This request covers those questions that Mazda feels were not answered by previous interpr etations.

In order to obtain a meaningful interpretation of the requirements of the above listed safety standards, Mazda would like to stipulate an assumed active suspension system. For the purposes of this interpretation request the assumed system is actuated by hydraulic fluid or compressed air. An

electronic controller with feedback control regulates vehicle attitude to programmed design positions based on such inputs as:

1. vehicle speed 2. lateral acceleration 3. steering angle, and 4. suspension height

The primary sensed parameter for feedback control is suspension height. This system maintains a level vehicle body attitude, controls body pitch and roll, and effects a more aerodynamic vehicle profile at highway speeds. At vehicle speeds in excess of " Z" mph, where Z is greater than 35 mph, the suspension height is lowered by "x" mm. Control pressure is developed by a hydraulic pump or air compressor driven off the engine. Consequently, the active suspension system is only operational when the vehicl e's engine is operating. If the engine/vehicle should remain unused for a period of, say, days pressure in the control system will fall such that the suspension height may be lowered by as much as "y" mm, where "y" is greater than "x". The suspension h eight is returned to its nominal or design position for vehicle operation after such an extended period of inoperation almost immediately after starting the vehicle's engine. For convenience, let's call this assumed system, the ACS system.

Mazda is concerned about the protocol of compliance testing of vehicles equipped with an active suspension system. These concerns arise because many of the safety standards, primarily those listed above, do not specify a suspension height that is to be used during compliance testing. This has not been necessary with conventional suspension systems, and it may not be necessary with vehicles equipped with active suspension systems, if it is assumed for the purposes of compliance testing that the vehicle 's ignition switch is in the "on" position, i.e., the engine is operational and, thus, so is the system's hydraulic pump/air compressor. If this is indeed the case, the system is able to determine automatically a specified suspension height given a vehi cle speed and vehicle loading condition; just as a conventional shock absorber/spring system would determine mechanically a suspension height for these same given conditions. Unfortunately, the above listed standards do not specify explicitly the status of the vehicle's ignition switch. In most instances it is obvious that the ignition switch must be "on" for the vehicle to be able to fulfill its intended purpose. However, Mazda seeks a definitive interpretation of the status of a vehicle's ignition s witch, as well as the applicability of these standards as a function of the status of the ignition switch.

Furthermore, Mazda is concerned about the logistics of compliance testing. This is because the assumed active suspension system derives its power from the vehicle's engine when it is running, i.e., the system's ability to maintain and regulate suspension height is only possible during engine operation. For reasons of practicality and safety, a vehicle's engine is not actually operational during compliance testing. Therefore, Mazda is seeking from NHTSA guidelines by which Mazda may be able to establis h a means to maintain the intended suspension height for compliance testing purposes in the absence of engine operation. Mazda is reluctant to establish these means without such guidelines from NHTSA because it is

concerned that NHTSA may consider tests conducted in this manner to be in violation of the requirements of 49 CFR Parts 571 and 581 and, thus, invalid.

Mazda sincerely appreciates the opportunity for NHTSA's review of the issues raised in this letter and the attached appendices. Furthermore, Mazda would appreciate any further insight that NHTSA may wish to offer regarding these issues. NHTSA may also wish to consider how NCAP test procedures may be affected by the issues raised. Should NHTSA require further information or clarification of the issues raised in this letter and its attachments, please do not hesitate to contact either myself or Mr. R. Strassburger of my staff.

FMVSS No. 108, "Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment"

Prologue: NHTSA has previously issued an interpretation of the requirements of FMVSS No. 108; at the request of a confidential applicant and dated February 12, 1985, with respect to active suspension equipped vehicles. This interpretation stated that th e requirements of FMVSS No. 108 must be meet,"...at any time in which...",lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment are to be,"...operated for its intended purpose." Consequently, headlamps, tailamps, stoplamps, the license plate lamp, and side marker lamps, must comply with the location requirements of FMVSS No. 108 when ever the vehicle's ignition is in the "on" position. Conversely, reflex reflectors, and turn signal lamps that also function as hazard warning signal flashers must comply wi th the location requirements when the vehicle's ignition is in either the "on" or "off" position. However, it is Mazda's interpretation that hazard warning flashers are not intended to be operational for a period of days, but rather for a period of hour s, at maximum, only.

Question A1: Is Mazda's understanding of the subject NHTSA interpretation accurate?

Question A2: Is Mazda's interpretation of the maximum intended operating duration of hazard warning signal flashers correct?

APPENDIX B: FMVSS No. 111, "Rearview mirrors"

Prologue: Section S5 of this standard describes the requirements for passenger cars. Section S5.1.1 establishes the requirements for,"Field of view." The location of the driver's eye reference points are established pursuant to the guidelines of FMVSS No. 104," Windshield wiping and washing systems." Safety standard no. 104 references SAE recommended practice J941," Motor vehicle driver's eye range,"; which describes a procedure for locating a locus of points representative of the eye locations for 9 0th, 95th, and 99th percentile distributions of a population mix of primarily US licensed drivers. Because the location requirements of J941 are made referenced to points within the vehicles cabin, it is not anticipated that the ACS system will perturb or otherwise interfere with these measurements. However, S5.1.1 requires further that the field of view,"...with an included horizontal angle measured from the projected eye point of at least 20 degrees, and sufficient vertical angle to provide a view o f a level road surface extending to the horizon

beginning at a point not greater than 200 feet to the rear of the vehicle..." As was stated in the cover letter to this appendix, the ACS system suspension height may fall by "y" mm if the vehicle is not used for a period of days. In a previous NHTSA i nterpretation of FMVSS No. 108, at the request of a confidential applicant and dated February 12, 1985, NHTSA stated that,"...the minimum height requirement should be met for any lamp at any time in which it is operated for its intended purpose." Using this "intended purpose" argument Mazda's interpretation of FMVSS No. 111 is that the requirements of this standard are to be met when the vehicle's ignition is in the "on" position as rearview mirrors are not intended to be used when the vehicle's engine is not operating.

Question Bl: Is Mazda's interpretation of the requirements FMVSS No. 111 with respect to the state of the vehicle's ignition switch correct?

Question B2: For the purposes of compliance testing to the requirements of FMVSS No. 111, what means of maintaining the intended suspension height for a given vehicle speed and operating condition would be satisfactory to NHTSA?

Appendix C: FMVSS No. 204, "Steering control rearward displacement"

Prologue: Section S4 of this standard specifies the compliance parameter for this standard. Section S5 specifies the testing conditions to determine compliance with this standard. Section S5.1 specifies that the vehicle be loaded to its unloaded vehicl e weight. Section S5.5 specifies that the vehicles fuel tank be filled with Stoddard solvent to any capacity between 90 and 95 percent of the total capacity of the tank. Mazda's interpretation of the requirements of this standard is that they are to be met when the vehicle's ignition switch is in the "on" position only. Furthermore, Mazda interprets the vehicles suspension height pursuant to S5.1 and S5.5 to be the intended suspension height for the vehicle given the conditions of S4, i.e., 30 mph veh icle speed and steered wheels are positioned straight ahead.

Question C1: Is Mazda's interpretation of the requirements of FMVSS No. 204 correct?

Question C2: For the purposes of compliance testing to the requirements of FMVSS No. 204, what means of maintaining the intended suspension height for a given vehicle speed and operating condition would be satisfactory to NHTSA?

Appendix D: FMVSS No. 208, "Occupant Crash Protection"

Prologue: This standard establishes performance criteria for the protection of vehicle occupants involved in crashes. Section S5 of this standard establishes occupant crash protection requirements for a range of crash scenarios. Section S8 of this stan dard specifies the testing conditions to be used for frontal, lateral, and rollover compliance testing. Section S8.1.1(d), "Vehicle test attitude," specifies the procedure for determining the vehicle test attitude that is to be used for testing. Specif ically, this section requires that the vehicle's pretest attitude,"...shall be equal to either the as delivered or fully loaded

attitude or between the as delivered and fully loaded attitude." The as delivered attitude is defined by S8.1.1(d) as being,"...the distance between a level surface and a standard reference point on the test vehicle's body, directly above each wheel ope ning, when the vehicle is in its "as delivered" condition. The "as delivered" condition is the vehicle as received at the test site..." Because it is highly likely that the test vehicle will not have been operated for a period of days prior to arriving at the test site, the suspension height may have fallen by "y" mm. The fully loaded attitude is defined as the attitude of the vehicle when loaded in accordance with S8.1.1(a) or (b) and a determination of the height of the suspension at the fully load ed condition is made from the same level surface, using the same standard reference points, as were used to determine the "as delivered" condition. The definition of the "as delivered" condition is quite clear. However, Mazda interprets the "fully load ed condition" of the vehicle to be the condition when the vehicle's ignition is "on". In this instance it is likely that the height of the standard reference points on the vehicles body when in the "fully loaded condition" relative to the level surface will be greater than for the "as delivered" condition. Conversely, conventional vehicle suspension systems will like have an "as delivered" height greater than the "fully loaded" height. However, this fact is of no importance as S8.1.1(d) states that t he pretest vehicle attitude may be,"...between the as delivered and the fully loaded attitude." With respect to the injury criteria specified by section S6 of this standard, Mazda's interpretation is that these criteria must be met with the vehicle's ig nition in the "on" position only.

Section S8.2.7 specifies additional test conditions to be used for lateral moving barrier crash testing. Section S8.2.7(a) states that the vehicle,"...is at rest in its normal attitude." Mazda interprets the meaning of "normal attitude" to be that vehi cle attitude which is intend when the vehicle's ignition is in the "on" condition, with the vehicle loaded pursuant to S8.1.1(a) or (b), and while the vehicle is at rest.

Appendix D (con't): FMVSS No. 208, "Occupant crash protection" Question D1: Is Mazda's interpretation of the definition of the "fully loaded condition" correct with respect to the condition of the ignition switch?

Question D2: Is Mazda's interpretation of the irrelevance of the relative relationship between the "as delivered" and "fully loaded" conditions correct?

Question D3: Is Mazda's interpretation of the meaning of "between the as delivered and the fully loaded attitude" correct?

Question D4: For the purposes of compliance testing to the requirements of FMVSS No. 208, what means of maintaining the intend suspension height for a given vehicle speed and operating condition would be satisfactory to NHTSA? Question D5: Is Mazda's interpretation of the meaning of "normal attitude" correct?

Appendix E: FMVSS No. 212, "Windshield mounting"

Prologue: Customarily, compliance testing to the requirements of this standard is conducted concurrently with compliance testing to the frontal crash requirements of FMVSS No. 208. Therefore, many of the test protocol issues that might be raised in thi s instance have already been raised in Appendix D. Moreover, NHTSA has previously issued an interpretation of this standard with respect to adjustable height suspension systems at the request of Mazda. This interpretation was issued on August 10, 1982. The central premise of NHTSA's interpretation was that the subject vehicle could possibly be operated at two distinct suspension heights at any given vehicle speed. In that instance such a situation was possible because the suspension height was manua lly determined, i.e., established by the operator, thereby justify compliance testing with the vehicle's suspension height adjusted to any position possible or at minimum to the worst case position. However, the ACS system described in the cover letter to these appendices states that the vehicle's suspension height is determined by an on-board electronic controller and not by the vehicle operator. Consequently, only one unique set of suspension height parameters is possible for a given vehicle speed an d loading condition as is the case with conventional suspension systems. Therefore, because it is possible to determine exactly what the intended suspension height should be for a given situation, it is Mazda's opinion that the test vehicle should be te sted at the intended suspension height given the statutory speed and loading requirements. Lastly, the final issue is whether the requirements of FMVSS No. 212 must be met with the vehicles ignition in the "on" or "off" condition, or both. Using a "int ended purpose" argument, Mazda concludes that the requirements of FMVSS No. 212 are to met whenever the vehicle's ignition is in the "on" condition only.

Question E1: Is Mazda's interpretation that NHTSA previously issued interpretation of this standard with respect to adjustable height suspension systems not applicable in this instance given the facts presented?

Question E2: Is Mazda's interpretation of the requirements of FMVSS No. 212 with respect to the state of the vehicle ignition switch correct?

Appendix F: FMVSS No. 219, "Windshield zone intrusion"

Prologue: Customarily, compliance testing to the requirements of this standard is conducted concurrently with compliance testing to the frontal crash requirements of FMVSS No. 208. Therefore, many of the test protocol issues that might be raised in this instance have already been raised in Appendix D. Moreover, NHTSA has previously issued an interpretation of this standard with respect to adjustable height suspension systems at the request of Mazda. This interpretation was issued on August 10, 1982. The central premise of NHTSA's interpretation was that the subject vehicle could possibly be operated at two distinct suspension heights at any given vehicle speed. In that instance such a situation was possible because the suspension height was manual ly determined, i.e., established by the operator, thereby justify compliance testing with the vehicle's suspension height adjusted to any position possible or at minimum to the worst case position. However, the ACS system described in the cover letter t o these appendices states that the vehicle's suspension height is determined by an

on-board electronic controller and not by the vehicle operator. Consequently, only one unique set of suspension height parameters is possible for a given vehicle speed and loading condition as is the case with conventional suspension systems. Therefore, because it is possible to determine exactly what the intended suspension height should be for a given situation, it is Mazda's opinion that the test vehicle should be tested at the intended suspension height given the statutory speed and loading require ments. Lastly, the final issue is whether the requirements of FMVSS No. 219 must be met with the vehicles ignition in the "on" or "off" condition, or both. Using a "intended purpose" argument, Mazda concludes that the requirements of FMVSS No. 219 are to met whenever the vehicle's ignition is in the "on" condition only.

Question F1: Is Mazda's interpretation that NHTSA previously issued interpretation of this standard with respect to adjustable height suspension systems not applicable in this instance given the facts presented?

Question F2: Is Mazda's interpretation of the requirements of FMVSS No. 219 with respect to the state of the vehicle ignition switch correct?

Appendix G: FMVSS No. 301, "Fuel system integrity" Prologue: Customarily, compliance testing to the requirements of this standard is conducted concurrently with compliance testing to the frontal crash and lateral requirements of FMVSS No. 208. Therefore, many of the test protocol issues that might be ra ised in this instance have already been raised in Appendix D. Moreover, NHTSA has previously issued an interpretation of this standard with respect to adjustable height suspension systems at the request of Mazda. This interpretation was issued on Augus t 10, 1982. The central premise of NHTSA's interpretation was that the subject vehicle could possibly be operated at two distinct suspension heights at any given vehicle speed. In that instance such a situation was possible because the suspension heigh t was manually determined, i.e., established by the operator, thereby justify compliance testing with the vehicle's suspension height adjusted to any position possible or at minimum to the worst case position. However, the ACS system described in the co ver letter to these appendices states that the vehicle's suspension height is determined by an on-board electronic controller and not by the vehicle operator. Consequently, only one unique set of suspension height parameters is possible for a given vehi cle speed and loading condition as is the case with conventional suspension systems. Therefore, because it is possible to determine exactly what the intended suspension height should be for a given situation, it is Mazda's opinion that the test vehicle s hould be tested at the intended suspension height given the statutory speed and loading requirements. Lastly, the final issue is whether the requirements of FMVSS No. 301 must be met with the vehicles ignition in the "on" or "off" condition, or both. U sing a "intended purpose" argument, Mazda concludes that the requirements of FMVSS No. 301 are to met whenever the vehicle's ignition is in the "on" condition only.

Section S7.3 of this standard specifies that the test conditions that are to be used during rear moving barrier crash testing are those specified by

section S8.2 of FMVSS No. 208. The issues that might be raised regarding S7.3, therefore, have already been raised in Appendix D.

Question G1: Is Mazda's interpretation that NHTSA previously issued interpretation of this standard with respect to adjustable height suspension systems not applicable in this instance given the facts presented?

Question G2: Is Mazda's interpretation of the requirements of FMVSS No. 301 with respect to the state of the vehicle ignition switch correct?

Appendix H: 49 CFR Part 581, "Bumper Standards" Prologue: The stated scope and purpose of this standard is, "...to reduce physical damage to the front and rear ends of passenger motor vehicles from low speed collisions." NHTSA has previously issued an interpretation of this standard with respect to a djustable height suspension systems. One of these interpretations was issued by NHTSA on February 12, 1985 at the request of a confidential applicant. Another interpretation was issued May 16, 1986 at the request of Subaru of America. In the interpreta tion issued on February 12, 1985, NHTSA states,"...the vehicle is required to meet the pendulum test (581.6(b)) of Part 581 in any vehicle use scenario in which the system operates, and the barrier test (581.6(c)) of Part 581 when the engine is idling." In the subsequent interpretation of 581.6, issued on May 16, 1986, NHTSA states, "Given the absence of a specific test condition concerning suspension height, it is our interpretation that a vehicle must be capable of meeting the standard's damage crite ria at any height position to which the suspension can be adjusted." Consequently, with respect to 581.6(c) these interpretations appear to be in conflict when applying the regulations of Part 581 to the ACS system in that the 1985 interpretation states that the damage criteria must be met at IDLE while the 1986 interpretation states that the damage criteria must be met at ANY height position to which the system can be adjusted. Moreover, the 1985 interpretation infers that the damage criteria for 581 .6(c) must be met when the vehicle's ignition switch is in the "on" condition only. Furthermore, the 1985, with respect to 581.6(b), and 1986 interpretations seem to be in conflict with this standards stated purpose to reduce physical damage to motor ve hicles in LOW speed collisions by requiring bumpers to meet the damage criteria of 581.5 at,"...any vehicle use scenario in which the system operates..."

Question H1: Could NHTSA please provide an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 581 with respect to the ACS system?