ID: nht89-2.66

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 9, 1989

FROM: Kathleen DeMeter -- Assistant Chief Counsel for General Law, NHTSA

TO: Madeline Flanagan -- Assistant Counsel, First Pennsylvania Bank N.A.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 11/28/95 LETTER FROM Samuel J. Dubbin to Paul Danner (Part 580); Also attached to 8/31/95 letter from Paul Danner to John Womack

TEXT: Dear Mr. Flanagan:

This is in response to your letter of June 22, 1989, regarding the application of the Federal odometer disclosure requirements to various scenarios.

In the first scenario you describe, a leasee reports a theft of the leased vehicle to the lessor, who then sells the vehicle to an insurance company in accordance with a theft policy. Your first question under this scenario involves how the lessee shoul d complete the odometer disclosure statement required before the lessor sells the vehicle to the insurer. The lessee should certify to what the lessee knows; that is, the lessee should give the odometer reading as of that date (rather than the day the l essee completes the statement). Ideally, the lessee should complete the statement as soon after the vehicle has been stolen as is practical.

Your second questions concerned the lessor's disclosure requirements. Specifically, you asked for guidelines in completing the statement. The completion of an odometer disclosure statement involves the exercise of judgment on the part of the person maki ng the disclosure. The lessor may rely on the lessee's mileage statement in completing its disclosure statement, unless the lessor has good reason to doubt the lessee's statement. Whether or not to rely on the lessee's statement, and what to fill in, i f the lessee's information is not relied upon is a matter for the lessor, in the exercise of the lessor's best judgment, to determine. More specific guidance, in our opinion, is neither possible, nor appropriate.

Your second scenario envisions a leasing company that wants to transfer a vehicle that it repossessed. In this case, the leasing company should report the odometer reading as of the date of the transfer, regardless of the date on which the vehicle is lo cated. Thus, for example, if a

P2

vehicle is slated for repossession on August 1, 1989, located on April 1, 1990, and sold on April 6, 1990, the disclosure statement should be filled out in connection with the transfer and should be dated whenever in that period that the vehicle is inspe cted. If the leasing company looks at the odometer on April 1, the reading could be taken then, and the statement filled out accordingly. Alternatively, the leasing company could read the odometer when the vehicle is delivered to the purchaser (i.e., Ap ril 6), and complete the disclosure as of that date. Where the date of discovery of the vehicle is considerably earlier than the date of the sale, the odometer reading should accompany the sale and should be taken around the time of sale. For example, if the vehicle was located on February 1, 1990, but not sold until May 1, 1990, the leasing company should take an odometer reading around the time of sale. To the extent that the leasing company is unaware of whether the odometer reading reflects the a ctual mileage of the vehicle, the company should in this situation, as elsewhere, use its best judgment in filling out the certification and should not routinely certify that the odometer reading does not reflect the actual mileage.

Your third scenario involves the use of powers of attorney in situations in which the lessee purchases the leased vehicles at the termination of the lease period. Specifically, you asked whether Lease it may continue to use a power of attorney to proces s title work to a vehicle where the lessee completes the separate odometer disclosure statement. The short answer is "yes," however some greater detail will be useful. Where a lessee purchases a vehicle from a lessor, two separate disclosures must be m ade, first, the lessee must complete a lessee's disclosure statement to the lessor, and second, the lessor must complete a transferor's disclosure statement to the lessee (transferee). The lessee's statement will always be on a separate form because the lessee is not part of the chain of ownership of the vehicle. The transferor's (leasing company) disclosure statement will either be separate, if the vehicle's title is "non-conforming," or on the title. In either case, use of powers of attorney for pu rposes other than mileage disclosure is not affected by the odometer disclosure requirements. Thus, the leasing company could use the lessee's power of attorney to complete other transfership paperwork. Conversely, whether or not the title conforms, th e leasing company cannot use a power of attorney to acknowledge its mileage disclosure for the lessee. If the title does not conform, no power of attorney is necessary, as there is no reason why each party cannot sign the separate statement on his or he r own behalf. Even where the title conforms, the leasing company cannot use a power of attorney to sign the disclosure statement for the buyer. The State-issued secure power of attorney is to be used in situations in which the transferor does not have his or her title because it is being held by a lienholder and the buyer, usually a dealer, is going to pay off the lien for the seller, usually a consumer. In this situation, the power of attorney obviates the need for the consumer to make a return trip to the dealership to make the disclosure on the title when the title arrives from the bank. This does not apply in the leasing company-as-transferor situation, and, thus, the power of attorney should not be used for purposes of mileage disclosure.

P3

Finally, you asked several questions relating to verification of the information on the odometer disclosure statement. First, you wanted to know what happens when a dealership which is selling a leased car to a bank makes a false certification regarding the mileage. In such a case, the dealership would be in violation of the Federal law, independent of the fact that the bank had acknowledged receipt of the statement and the dealer would be subject to fines and/or imprisonment, in addition to possible private civil liability. As for how the bank might discover the fraud, the bank could send someone to check the vehicle (or check with the lessee). If the disclosure is made directly on the title, the discrepancy could be apparent by comparing the disc losed mileage with the previously reported mileage. Lastly, when the lessee files a disclosure statement with the bank (at the end of the elapse, or before then if the bank is selling the vehicle and lease), the bank would become aware of any discrepanc y between the statement the dealer made and the statement the lessee has made.

You also inquired about the lessee should complete the lessee's disclosure form absent having received a copy of the dealer's disclosure. The lessee does not need the dealers disclosure; the lessee has possession of the vehicle. The lessee would report the odometer reading and would make the certification regarding the mileage relying on his or her best knowledge. If, as you posed, the odometer had been repaired or replaced and reset to zero prior to the sale of the vehicle to the bank, the lessee wo uld still be able to determine this independently because when an odometer has been repaired or replaced and reset to zero, a sticker indicating the date of repair or replacement, and the odometer reading as of that date must be placed in the front left door of the vehicle. Thus, the lessee would know to check the "not the Actual Mileage" box in completing the odometer statement.

Finally, you asked whether the lessee could sign the odometer statement for the bank. Presuming you mean the dealer's (transferor's statement, yes, if the bank agrees to appoin the lessee its agent for the purpose of acknowledging the mileage disclosure . If a bank gives a lessee a power of attorney to sign a disclosure from a dealer for the bank, the lessee should sign the form in such a way as to indicate this (i.e., Joan Smith for National Bank, pao). Further, any such appointment should, naturally , be in writing.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Ms. Mattie Cohan of my staff at (202) 366-1834.

Sincerely,

ID: nht92-9.18

DATE: February 7, 1992

FROM: Barry Felrice -- Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, NHTSA

TO: Robert A. Rogers -- Director, Automotive Safety Engineering, EAS, GENERAL MOTORS

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to USG 2846 Part III dated 11/18/91 from Robert A. Rogers to Barry Felrice; Also attached to NHTSA memorandum dated 12/10/91 from Barry Felrice to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 6741)

TEXT:

This responds to your request that this agency determine that the new antitheft device to be installed on the MY 1992 General Motors Pontiac Bonneville line, represents a de minimis change in the system that was the basis for the agency's previous granting of a theft exemption for the car line beginning in MY 1991, and that therefore the Pontiac Bonneville vehicles containing the new device would be fully covered by that exemption. The agency has reviewed the changes to the system and for the following reasons concludes that the differences between the original system and one installed on the MY 1992 Pontiac Bonneville constitute a de minimis change.

As you are aware, the Pontiac Bonneville car line was granted an exemption, pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543, from antitheft marking because General Motors showed that the antitheft device to be used in lieu of marking on the car line was likely to be as effective as parts marking. This antitheft device is known as the "PASS-KEY" antitheft system. The exemption was issued on April 4, 1991, and appeared in the Federal Register on April 9, 1991 (56 FR 14413).

As was stated in the April 1991 Federal Register notice, the "PASS-KEY" antitheft system utilizes an ignition key, an ignition lock cylinder and a decoder module. Before a vehicle can be started, the electrical resistance of a pellet embedded in the shank of the key must be sensed by elements in the lock cylinder and its value compared to a fixed resistance in the decoder module.

In your letter, it was stated that beginning from MY 1992, two design changes were made in the "PASS-KEY" antitheft device that is standard equipment on the Pontiac Bonneville. The new system on the Bonneville is known as "PASS-KEY II," and differs from "PASS-KEY" as follows. First, in "PASS-KEY II," if a key other than the one with proper resistance for the vehicle is inserted, the decoder module will shut down the fuel injector pulses to the engine for three minutes plus or minus eighteen seconds. In "PASS-KEY," this shut down period is two to four minutes. Second, if, during the time the decoder module has shut down in "PASS-KEY II," trial and error attempts are made to start the engine with various keys, the timer will not reset to zero, as is the case with "PASS-KEY." GM states that this difference in functions will provide a similar level of performance as "PASS-KEY" since the "PASS-KEY II" module, while shut down, will ignore further attempts to start the system by means other than use of a key with the proper resistance pellet. Any further unauthorized attempt after the initial three minute shut down time will result in the module shutting down again.

After reviewing the proposed changes to the componentry and performance of the antitheft device on which the exemption was based, the agency concludes that the changes are de minimis. In addition to providing some aspects of performance not provided by the original device, "PASS-KEY II" also continues to provide the same aspects of performance provided by the original device and relies on essentially the same componentry to provide that performance. Therefore, it is not necessary for General Motors to submit a petition to modify the exemption pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543.9(c)(2).

If General Motors does not implement the new antitheft device as described in your letter for MY 1992, we request that this agency be notified of such decisions.

ID: nht95-4.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 25, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Karey Clock -- Moriden America, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/7/95 LETTER FROM KAREY CLOCK TO JOHN WOMACK (OCC 11120)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Clock:

This responds to your inquiry about testing procedures in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. In particular, you asked whether certain materials, which you list as flat woven, double raschel, tricot, and moq uette, should be tested by using support wires. The short answer is that during NHTSA compliance testing, support wires may be used in testing any specimen that "softens or bends at the flaming end so as to cause erratic burning." However, the agency ca nnot specify, outside of the context of a compliance test, whether a given type of material falls in this category.

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

You ask about Standard No. 302, which specifies requirements for the flammability resistance of materials in the occupant compartment of new vehicles. Along with specified performance requirements, Standard No. 302 sets forth conditions and procedures u nder which NHTSA tests materials for compliance with the standard. Section S5.1.3 of the standard states, in relevant part, that

The test specimen is inserted between two matching U-shaped frames of metal stock 1-inch wide and 3/8 of an inch high. The interior dimensions of the U-shaped frames are 2 inches wide by 13 inches long. A specimen that softens and bends at the flami ng end so as to cause erratic burning is kept horizontal by supports consisting of thin, heat resistant wires, spanning the width of the U-shaped frame under the specimen at 1-inch intervals. A device that may be used for supporting this type of materia l is an additional U-shaped frame, wider than the U-shaped frame containing the specimen, spanned by 1 -- mil wires of heat resistant composition at 1-inch intervals, inserted over the bottom U-shaped frame.

You ask whether certain specific types of materials could be tested using the supplemental wire described in S5.1.3. The agency uses supplemental wires when there is a reasonable expectation that a test specimen will soften and bend while burning. The agency bases its determination about the likelihood of softening and bending on observations made in previously-conducted compliance tests of the specimen, or on the agency's knowledge of or testing experience with components that are highly similar to a test specimen. However, since a decision to use wires is made only in the context of compliance testing, we regret that we cannot tell you at this time whether support wires will be used to test the materials you listed.

Vehicle manufacturers are not required by Standard No. 302 to test the flammability of their vehicles in the manner specified in the standard. The standard only sets the procedure that the agency will use in its compliance testing. Thus, a vehicle manu facturer is not required to use wires only with specimens that are anticipated to soften or bend. However, vehicle manufacturers must exercise due care in certifying that their product will meet Standard No. 302's requirements when tested by NHTSA accor ding to the specified procedures of the standard. Whether a vehicle manufacturer has met that due care standard when using support wires in situations other than those described in Standard No. 302 is a matter that can be determined only in the context of an enforcement proceeding.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-7.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 25, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Karey Clock -- Moriden America, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/7/95 LETTER FROM KAREY CLOCK TO JOHN WOMACK (OCC 11120)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Clock:

This responds to your inquiry about testing procedures in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. In particular, you asked whether certain materials, which you list as flat woven, double raschel, tricot, and moquette, should be tested by using support wires. The short answer is that during NHTSA compliance testing, support wires may be used in testing any specimen that "softens or bends at the flaming end so as to cause erratic burning." However, the agency cannot specify, outside of the context of a compliance test, whether a given type of material falls in this category.

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

You ask about Standard No. 302, which specifies requirements for the flammability resistance of materials in the occupant compartment of new vehicles. Along with specified performance requirements, Standard No. 302 sets forth conditions and procedures under which NHTSA tests materials for compliance with the standard. Section S5.1.3 of the standard states, in relevant part, that

The test specimen is inserted between two matching U-shaped frames of metal stock 1-inch wide and 3/8 of an inch high. The interior dimensions of the U-shaped frames are 2 inches wide by 13 inches long. A specimen that softens and bends at the flaming end so as to cause erratic burning is kept horizontal by supports consisting of thin, heat resistant wires, spanning the width of the U-shaped frame under the specimen at 1-inch intervals. A device that may be used for supporting this type of material is an additional U-shaped frame, wider than the U-shaped frame containing the specimen, spanned by 1 -- mil wires of heat resistant composition at 1-inch intervals, inserted over the bottom U-shaped frame.

You ask whether certain specific types of materials could be tested using the supplemental wire described in S5.1.3. The agency uses supplemental wires when there is a reasonable expectation that a test specimen will soften and bend while burning. The agency bases its determination about the likelihood of softening and bending on observations made in previously-conducted compliance tests of the specimen, or on the agency's knowledge of or testing experience with components that are highly similar to a test specimen. However, since a decision to use wires is made only in the context of compliance testing, we regret that we cannot tell you at this time whether support wires will be used to test the materials you listed.

Vehicle manufacturers are not required by Standard No. 302 to test the flammability of their vehicles in the manner specified in the standard. The standard only sets the procedure that the agency will use in its compliance testing. Thus, a vehicle manufacturer is not required to use wires only with specimens that are anticipated to soften or bend. However, vehicle manufacturers must exercise due care in certifying that their product will meet Standard No. 302's requirements when tested by NHTSA according to the specified procedures of the standard. Whether a vehicle manufacturer has met that due care standard when using support wires in situations other than those described in Standard No. 302 is a matter that can be determined only in the context of an enforcement proceeding.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-9.13

DATE: February 11, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Anonymous

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/14/91 from anonymous to Paul Jackson Rice

TEXT:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114, Theft Protection. You asked whether vehicles that incorporate any of five proposed designs that your company has developed would comply with the standard's new provisions at S4.2.2(b) that permit transmission shift override devices. As you may know, that section of Standard No. 114 was amended by NHTSA after you prepared your letter. See 57 FR 2039, January 17, 1992 (copy enclosed). This letter reflects that amendment. The issues raised by your letter are discussed below.

Before discussing the substantive issues that you raised, I note that you requested confidential treatment of the identity of the source of the material that you submitted. This request was granted by NHTSA in a letter dated December 9, 1991. Accordingly, references to your identity will be deleted from the copies of your incoming letter and our response that are placed in the public docket.

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

Your five proposed designs can be described as follows:

PROPOSAL ONE: An override button would be provided that is covered by a small non-transparent plastic access panel on the horizontal surface of the automatic transmission shift gate. The cover would be held in place by barbed features that are incorporated into the cover and which engage with the walls of the shift gate. In order to remove the cover, one would apply a blade-like device such as a knife or screwdriver to a 2 mm vertical gap between the shift gate and the surface of the horizontal member of the cover, and pry the cover upward. A vertical load of approximately 5 to 10 kg is necessary to remove the cover. Once the cover is removed, the transmission shift lock could be defeated by depressing the override button.

PROPOSAL TWO: This design would be identical to Proposal One, except that the override button is replaced by a threaded screw. Once the cover is removed, the transmission shift lock could be defeated by using a screwdriver to turn the screw.

PROPOSAL THREE: An override device would be provided that is covered by a small non-transparent plastic access panel. The cover would be held in place by a cross recessed counter screw. In order to remove the cover, one would

use a screwdriver to remove the screw. Once the cover is removed, the transmission shift lock could be defeated by inserting a screwdriver or similar tool through the hole created by the removal of the cover screw.

PROPOSAL FOUR: An override device would be provided that is underneath the console finisher panel. A special access panel would not be provided for the override device; instead, the entire finisher panel would be removed to obtain access. The finisher panel would be fabricated from injection molded plastic resin, which has some degree of flexibility. To remove the finisher panel, one would place a screwdriver or similar tool in a 6 mm crease at the surface of the panel to housing interface and apply a prying action. Once the finisher panel is removed, the transmission shift lock could be defeated by depressing the actuation link.

PROPOSAL FIVE: An override button would be provided that is covered by a non-removable cover. The cover would have a slot to permit access to the override device. To actuate the device, a key, screwdriver, or similar tool would be inserted though the slot so that the override button is depressed.

Section S4.2.2(b) of Standard No. 114 reads as follows:

S4.2.2(b)(1) Notwithstanding S4.2.1, each vehicle specified therein may have a device which, when activated, permits moving the transmission shift lever from "park" after the removal of the key provided that steering is prevented when the key is removed.

(2) For vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1993, the means for activating the device shall either be operable by the key, as defined in S3, or by another means which is covered by a non-transparent surface which, when installed, prevents sight of and activation of the device and which is removable only by use of a screwdriver or other similar tool.

Section S4.2.2 (b)(1) becomes effective on September 1, 1992; section S4.2.2 (b)(2) becomes effective on September 1, 1993. Thus, vehicles manufactured between September 1, 1991 and August 30, 1992 may have a transmission shift override device provided that steering is prevented when the key is removed. Therefore, provided that steering is prevented, all five of your proposed override devices would be permitted during that time period.

For vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1993, an additional requirement must be met. For these vehicles, the override device must either be operable by the key defined in S3 or be operable by another means which is covered by a non-transparent surface which, when installed, prevents sight of and activation of the device and which is removable only by use of a screwdriver or other similar tool.

It is our opinion that none of your proposed designs would be operable by the key defined in S3. While the override device described in Proposal 5 could be activated by inserting a screwdriver or any key (including the key defined in S3) through the slot in the access panel, we interpret the term "operable by the key defined in S3" to refer to the normal use of the key and not to using it in place of a screwdriver.

There remains the question for each of your proposed designs of whether the override device would be operable by another means which is covered by a non-transparent surface which, when installed, prevents sight of and activation of the device and which is removable only by use of a screwdriver or other similar tool. As discussed below, it is our opinion that your Proposal 3 design would meet this requirement, your Proposal 5 design would not meet the requirement, and we are uncertain, based on the facts provided in your letter, as to whether your Proposal 1, 2, and 4 designs would meet the requirement.

We believe it is clear that your Proposals 1 through 4 designs would meet the first part of the requirement set forth above, i.e., the override device would be operable by a means which is covered by a non-transparent surface which, when installed, prevents sight of and activation of the device. The second part of the requirement is that the non-transparent surface must be removable "ONLY by use of a screwdriver or other similar tool." (Emphasis added.) It is our opinion that your Proposal 3 design would meet this part of the requirement, since the cover would be held in place by a screw and could be removed only if a person used a screwdriver or similar tool to remove the screw.

While the covers in your Proposal 1, 2 and 4 designs can be removed by using a screwdriver or similar tool to "pry" them off, it is unclear whether the covers are removable "only" by those means. In particular, we are unable to determine whether a person might pry the covers off by using his or her hands or fingernails. Therefore, we are unable to provide an opinion of whether those designs would comply with section S5.2.2(b)(2).

It is our opinion that your Proposal 5 design would not comply with section S5.2.2(b)(2), since the non-transparent surface (cover) would not prevent activation of the override device. Your letter also proposes to identify the transmission shift override device by placing the words "shift lock" in white lettering on the surface that covers the shift lock override mechanism. Nothing in Standard No. 114 or any other standard would prohibit identifying the override device in that manner. However, it might be more helpful to place the words "shift lock override" on the surface as these words more accurately describe the device that is accessible by removing the surface.

I hope this information is helpful to you. If you have any further questions or need any additional information about this topic, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht90-4.100

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: December 17, 1990

FROM: Paul Rice Jackson -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Dean J. Long -- Design Engineer, VDO-YAZAKI Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-8-90 from Dean J. Long (OCC 5100)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking about requirements concerning two proposed automotive instrument panel telltale warnings. I apologize for the delay in this response.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Your first proposed telltale design is for "4 wheel antilock brake application." The design would include a picture of a skidding car and the letters "4W ABS." You asked whether this telltale would fulfill applicable requirements or whether the ISO "ABS" symbol must be used.

Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays, requires that new vehicles with any display listed in the standard must meet specified requirements for the location, identification and illumination of such display. In addition, certain other standards, including Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, include requirements relating to vehicle displays.

Standards No. 101 and No. 105 include several requirements for telltales indicating malfunction in an antilock brake system. Copies of these standards are enclosed for your convenience. Among other things, these standards specify the following identifying words or abbreviation for an antilock malfunction telltale: "Antilock, Anti-lock or ABS." The standards also permit additional words or symbols to be used for the purpose of clarity. See section S5.2.3 of Standard No. 101 and section S5.3.5(a) of Standard No. 105.

It is unclear from your letter whether your proposed telltale would indicate "malfunction" in an antilock brake system, since you describe it as indicating "4 wheel antilock brake application." If the telltale is for antilock malfunction, it would appear to meet the requirements specified in Standards No. 101 and No. 105 for identifying words or symbols, since it includes the abbreviation "ABS," and the other words/symbols can be considered to be for the purpose of clarity. Of course, the telltale would also need to meet the other requirements specified in those standards, e.g., size of letters, color, etc.

If the telltale does not indicate antilock malfunction, e.g., it only indicates when the antilock system is activated during braking, no requirements would apply to the telltale. Unless a particular telltale is

listed in Standard No. 101 (or is covered by another standard), no requirements apply to such telltale. If the telltale does not indicate antilock malfunction, however, I would suggest that you consider whether drivers would confuse the telltale with the required telltale for antilock malfunction.

Your second proposed telltale is for warning against hazardous emissions from the vehicle. Your design would include an outline of an engine and the word "CHECK." You asked whether the word "CHECK" is necessary, and whether the engine outline is an approved ISO symbol.

NHTSA does not have any requirements for a telltale warning against hazardous emissions from the vehicle. However, we suggest that you check with the Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board as to whether they have any requirements (or are developing requirements) concerning such a telltale. You may contact those agencies at the following addresses:

Environmental Protection Agency Office of Mobile Sources Certification Branch 2565 Plymouth Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105

Air Resources Board Certification Section 9528 Telstar Avenue El Monte, California 91731

I hope this information is helpful.

ID: 2791y

Mr. Dean J. Long
Design Engineer
VDO-YAZAKI Corporation
l773 Star-Batt Drive
Rochester Hills, MI 48309

Dear Mr. Long:

This responds to your letter asking about requirements concerning two proposed automotive instrument panel telltale warnings. I apologize for the delay in this response.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Your first proposed telltale design is for "4 wheel antilock brake application." The design would include a picture of a skidding car and the letters "4W ABS." You asked whether this telltale would fulfill applicable requirements or whether the ISO "ABS" symbol must be used.

Standard No. l0l, Controls and Displays, requires that new vehicles with any display listed in the standard must meet specified requirements for the location, identification and illumination of such display. In addition, certain other standards, including Standard No. l05, Hydraulic Brake Systems, include requirements relating to vehicle displays.

Standards No. l0l and No. l05 include several requirements for telltales indicating malfunction in an antilock brake system. Copies of these standards are enclosed for your convenience. Among other things, these standards specify the following identifying words or abbreviation for an antilock malfunction telltale: "Antilock, Anti-lock or ABS." The standards also permit additional words or symbols to be used for the purpose of clarity. See section S5.2.3 of Standard No. l0l and section S5.3.5(a) of Standard No. l05.

It is unclear from your letter whether your proposed telltale would indicate "malfunction" in an antilock brake system, since you describe it as indicating "4 wheel antilock brake application." If the telltale is for antilock malfunction, it would appear to meet the requirements specified in Standards No. l0l and No. l05 for identifying words or symbols, since it includes the abbreviation "ABS," and the other words/symbols can be considered to be for the purpose of clarity. Of course, the telltale would also need to meet the other requirements specified in those standards, e.g., size of letters, color, etc.

If the telltale does not indicate antilock malfunction, e.g., it only indicates when the antilock system is activated during braking, no requirements would apply to the telltale. Unless a particular telltale is listed in Standard No. l0l (or is covered by another standard), no requirements apply to such telltale. If the telltale does not indicate antilock malfunction, however, I would suggest that you consider whether drivers would confuse the telltale with the required telltale for antilock malfunction.

Your second proposed telltale is for warning against hazardous emissions from the vehicle. Your design would include an outline of an engine and the word "CHECK." You asked whether the word "CHECK" is necessary, and whether the engine outline is an approved ISO symbol.

NHTSA does not have any requirements for a telltale warning against hazardous emissions from the vehicle. However, we suggest that you check with the Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board as to whether they have any requirements (or are developing requirements) concerning such a telltale. You may contact those agencies at the following addresses:

Environmental Protection Agency Office of Mobile Sources Certification Branch 2565 Plymouth Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48l05

Air Resources Board Certification Section 9528 Telstar Avenue El Monte, California 9l73l

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel /Enclosures ref:l01#105 d:12/17/90

ID: 1985-04.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/22/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Susan B. House -- House Enterprises

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Susan B. House House Enterprises 1450 Woodscliff Drive Anderson, IN 46011

Thank you for your letter of November 7, 1985, inquiring about the Federal safety standards that apply to two solar glare shading products you have developed. You described the first product as an 8" diameter acrylic dish which is of optical quality and tinted. The second products is a 4" x 4" sheet of opaque plastic. You explained that both products are designed to be attached to a vehicle's windows by suction cups. The following discussion explains how our safety standards apply to your products.

Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, we have issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70% in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).

No manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install solar films and other sun screen devices, such as the ones described in your letter, in new vehicles without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard.

After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to a vehicle are affected ny section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from tampering with safety equipment installed on a vehicle in compliance with our standards. Thus, no dealer, manufacturer, repair business or distributor can install a sun screen device for the owner of the vehicle, if the device would cause the window not to meet the requirements of Standard No 205. Violation of section 108(a)(2)(A) can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not affect vehicle owners, who may may themselves alter their vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner may install sun screening devices regardless of whether the installation adversely affects the light transmittance. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from using sun screens in their vehicles.

If you need further information, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: nht89-1.75

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/17/89

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: LEON E. PANETTA -- HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 02/04/89 FROM LEON E., PANETTA TO ERIKA Z. JONES

TEXT: Dear Mr. Panetta:

This letter responds to your inquiry on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Botelho. You asked whether Federal regulations require mirrors to be placed on the right side of vehicles and whether such mirrors must be convex in nature. Mr. Botelho expressed hi s objection to requiring convex mirrors, because he believes convex mirrors distort images and cause objects to appear further away than they actually are. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain this requirement and its background for you.

Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors (49 CFR @ 571.111, copy enclosed)) establishes performance and location requirements for the rearview mirrors installed in new vehicles. Specifically, a passenger car whose inside rearview mirror does not meet the fiel d of view requirements of section S5.1.1 must have an outside mirror on the passenger side of either unit magnification of a convex mirror. In a September 2, 1982 final rule amending Standard No. 111, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ( NHTSA) explained that convex mirrors offer safety benefits by providing an expanded field of view to the rear, thereby reducing the need for the driver to turn around to view the rear directly. On the other hand, some users of convex mirrors that were u sed to the images shown by conventional plane mirrors incorrectly perceived that the object shown in the convex mirror was further to the rear than it actually was. Additionally, some users of convex mirrors experienced double vision, eyestrain, and naus ea. After considering these potential advantages and disadvantages, NHTSA amended Standard No. 111 so that it does not require any vehicle to be equipped with convex mirrors, but it permits the use of convex mirrors on the passenger side of cars and lig ht trucks, provided that the convex mirror meets certain additional requirements.

The additional requirements applicable to convex mirrors on the passenger side of cars and light trucks are:

1. A maximum radius of curvature for the convex mirror. This limits the range of convexities to which drivers will be exposed. It also

ensures that the field of view will be noticeably greater than for a plane mirror.

2. A minimum radius of curvature for the convex mirror. This ensures that the image size in the convex mirror will be adequate and distortion will not be excessive.

3. A stringent maximum permissible variation in the radius of curvature over the surface of the convex mirror. This requirement, which is more stringent than the European requirement in this area, also ensures that convex mirrors will have low distortio n.

4. A warning etched on the convex mirror that objects shown in the mirror are closer than they appear. This requirement ensures that the driver who may not be familiar with convex mirrors will not be misled by the image size of the convex mirror and the apparent distance to the object.

Hence, we agree with Mr. Botelho that the area he has identified are potential problems unique to convex mirrors. However, our standard includes special requirements for convex mirrors to minimize the potential problems identified by Mr. Botelho and oth er potential problems that were identified in research studies of convex mirrors. We are not aware of any data showing that convex mirrors that comply with those special requirements present any unacceptable problems for drivers.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need any additional information on this subject, please let me know.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE

ID: 1786y

The Honorable Leon E. Panetta
House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Panetta:

This letter responds to your inquiry on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Botelho. You asked whether Federal regulations require mirrors to be placed on the right side of vehicles and whether such mirrors must be convex in nature. Mr. Botelho expressed his objection to requiring convex mirrors, because he believes convex mirrors distort images and cause objects to appear further away than they actually are. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain this requirement and its background for you.

Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors (49 CFR /571.111, copy enclosed)) establishes performance and location requirements for the rearview mirrors installed in new vehicles. Specifically, a passenger car whose inside rearview mirror does not meet the field of view requirements of section S5.1.1 must have an outside mirror on the passenger side of either unit magnification or a convex mirror. In a September 2, 1982 final rule amending Standard No. 111, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) explained that convex mirrors offer safety benefits by providing an expanded field of view to the rear, thereby reducing the need for the driver to turn around to view the rear directly. On the other hand, some users of convex mirrors that were used to the images shown by conventional plane mirrors incorrectly perceived that the object shown in the convex mirror was further to the rear than it actually was. Additionally, some users of convex mirrors experienced double vision, eyestrain, and nausea. After considering these potential advantages and disadvantages, NHTSA amended Standard No. 111 so that it does not require any vehicle to be equipped with convex mirrors, but it permits the use of convex mirrors on the passenger side of cars and light trucks, provided that the convex mirror meets certain additional requirements.

The additional requirements applicable to convex mirrors on the passenger side of cars and light trucks are:

1. A maximum radius of curvature for the convex mirror. This limits the range of convexities to which drivers will be exposed. It also ensures that the field of view will be noticeably greater than for a plane mirror.

2. A minimum radius of curvature for the convex mirror. This ensures that the image size in the convex mirror will be adequate and distortion will not be excessive.

3. A stringent maximum permissible variation in the radius of curvature over the surface of the convex mirror. This requirement, which is more stringent than the European requirement in this area, also ensures that convex mirrors will have low distortion.

4. A warning etched on the convex mirror that objects shown in the mirror are closer than they appear. This requirement ensures that the driver who may not be familiar with convex mirrors will not be misled by the image size of the convex mirror and the apparent distance to the object.

Hence, we agree with Mr. Botelho that the areas he has identified are potential problems unique to convex mirrors. However, our standard includes special requirements for convex mirrors to minimize the potential problems identified by Mr. Botelho and other potential problems that were identified in research studies of convex mirrors. We are not aware of any data showing that convex mirrors that comply with those special requirements present any unacceptable problems for drivers.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need any additional information on this subject, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure /ref:111 d:4/l7/89