ID: 18165.135

Mr. Peter Böhm
Manager Regulations
ITT Automotive Europe GmbH
Postfach 90 01 20
60441 Frankfurt am Main
Hausadresse: Guerickstraße 7
60488 Frankfurt am Main, Germany

Dear Mr. Böhm:

Please pardon the delay in responding to your letter to this office in which you asked whether parking brake systems your company is developing comply with the requirements of paragraph S5.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (Standard) No. 135, Light vehicle brake systems.

You stated that ITT is developing parking brake systems that are activated electrically. One version consists of an electrically-activated disc brake. You stated that when the vehicle is locked in a parking position by a friction-type brake, an interlock device is actuated to lock the wheels or the gearbox. Then, when the interlock has reached its locking position, the friction brake is released. You stated, therefore, that the parking brake is of a friction type and the vehicle is held with solely mechanical means. You also stated that it is the interlock device and not the friction brake that holds the vehicle stationary. You further stated that unlike ECE R-13 and 72/320 EEC, Standard No. 135 has only static requirements for the parking brake. You commented, however, that the requirement to use a friction brake as a parking brake might be something like a dynamic requirement because it makes activation of the parking brake possible while the vehicle is still moving. Also, you stated that if this was the intention to require a friction brake for the parking brake, the interlock device should be allowed to hold the vehicle stationary provided that dynamic application is ensured by other means. You then asked whether such a system meets the requirements of S5.2, Standard No. 135. The answer is no.

As you probably know, Standard No. 135 is a new standard. Compliance will become mandatory for passenger cars manufactured on and after September 1, 2000, and for multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with gross vehicle weight ratings of 3,500 kilograms (7,716 pounds) or less manufactured on and after September 1, 2002. Until those dates, vehicle manufacturers have the option of complying either with Standard No. 135 or Standard No. 105, Hydraulic brake systems.

Paragraph S5.2 of Standard No. 135 was patterned after paragraph S5.2 of Standard No. 105 and provides that "Each vehicle shall be equipped with a parking brake system of a friction type with solely mechanical means to retain engagement." The term "parking brake" is defined in 49 Code of Federal Regulations 571.3 as "a mechanism designed to prevent the movement of a stationary motor vehicle." Thus, with respect to paragraph S5.2 of Standard No. 135, the parking brake must prevent the movement of a stationary motor vehicle by means of friction. Your design, however, would prevent movement of a stationary vehicle by means of the interlock device rather than by friction. I also note that, under S5.2, the parking brake system must have a "solely mechanical means to retain engagement," meaning that although the parking brake may be applied and released by non-mechanical means, it must be held by solely mechanical means. It cannot be held by non-mechanical means such as fluid, air, or electricity.

With respect to your comment that the requirement for a friction brake resembles a dynamic requirement because it makes activation possible while the vehicle is still moving, NHTSA has addressed that issue. In our Notice of Proposed Rulemaking of May 10, 1985 (50 Federal Register (FR) 19744), and again in our Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking of January 14, 1987 (52 FR 1474), the agency proposed a dynamic test intended to ensure that a driver could use the parking brake to stop a moving vehicle in emergency situations. Several commenters opposed that proposal, arguing that the purpose of parking brakes is to statically hold a vehicle in place, not to decelerate a moving vehicle. They stated that it could be dangerous for drivers to apply parking brakes in dynamic situations because of the difficulty of modulating the application force, which could lead to uncontrollable rear wheel lockup and loss of vehicle control. NHTSA was persuaded by those comments and in the final rule of February 2, 1995 (60 FR 6411), withdrew the proposal to require a parking brake dynamic test.

You stated that your system uses a friction-type brake until the interlock device has reached its locking position, after which the friction brake is released. Whether or not the interlock device is a mechanical means, Standard No. 135 requires the parking brake to be of a friction type. Therefore, if the interlock device disengages the friction brake, the system does not comply with Standard No. 135.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992, or fax at (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:105#135
d.12/22/98

ID: 11537.WKM

Mr. Francis R. Laux
Manager, Safety Standards
Safety Affairs & Regulations
General Motors Corporation
1660 L Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036

Dear Mr. Laux:

This responds to your letter to me in which you ask whether the back door glazing on two models of General Motors vehicles would be excluded from the definition of "back door" in the September 28, 1995 amendments to Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door locks and door retention components. The answer is yes as to the glazing half of both door designs.

The agency published a final rule on September 28, 1995, (60 FR 50124) extending the requirements of FMVSS No. 206 to the back doors of passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV), if so equipped, with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less. Exclusions from the definition of "back door," however, include:

[A] door or window composed entirely of glazing material whose latches and/or hinges are attached directly onto the glazing material (emphasis added).

Your questions address the meaning of the emphasized words as applied to the two MPV models in question.

Both MPV models you refer to are equipped with 2-part back doors. The top halves of the doors are composed of glazing that swings outward and upward. The bottom halves are all-metal tailgates that swing outward and downward. On one model the hinges are attached to the glazing by use of mechanical fasteners that are separated from actual contact with the glazing by a washer. The upper part of the door on the other model is composed of glazing, but the hinges are imbedded in the glazing, then covered by a decorative composite material that you refer to as ARIM@ (reaction injection molding). This door is also equipped with a high- mounted stop lamp centered at the top of the door.

You ask whether both windows would be deemed composed "entirely" of glazing material when both contain electric defroster elements and as pointed out above, one contains decorative surround and a high-mounted stop lamp. You suggest that "the agency's intent is to exempt those doors or windows whose latches and/or hinges are attached to glazing material which is the principal structural component of the door or window, rather than to mandate compliance of doors and windows that are not `composed entirely of glazing material'" (emphasis in original).

In excluding doors and windows "composed entirely of glazing material," the agency was referring to the very type doors you describe, that is, where the entire door itself is glazing as opposed to window glazing that is mounted in and framed by a metal door. As explained in the preamble to the final rule, a door composed only of glazing, be it glass, plastic, or glass/plastic, could be expected to fail in a crash before the latches or hinges would fail. In that case, it would be meaningless to require the latches and hinges to comply with the standard. It is immaterial that the glazing might contain defrosting elements, decorative material, or a high-mounted stop lamp, since those components do not strengthen the glazing. Thus, as you correctly pointed out in your letter, the agency intended to exclude from the requirements of the standard those doors and windows where glazing is the "principal structural component of the door or window."

Your other concern was whether the hinges on your upper door halves were attached "directly onto" the glazing. With respect to the model on which the door half is attached by mechanical fasteners separated from the glazing by a washer, the agency would still consider those hinges attached "directly onto" the glazing. It could reasonably be expected that the bare metal of the hinge would be separated from the bare glazing of the door or window by a washer, gasket, or some other cushioning material. The same consideration would apply to the model in which the hinge is embedded into the glazing and covered with decorative material for aesthetic purposes. Either way, the hinges are mounted directly to the glazing, as opposed to being attached to the metal frame into which the glazing is mounted. Accordingly, the agency considers the upper halves of both door designs as being composed entirely of glazing, and the hinges of both are mounted directly onto the glazing. Both doors, therefore, are excluded from the requirements of the standard.

The above discussion does not apply to the bottom halves of the doors in question. Since those doors are metal doors, the latches and hinges on them must comply with the requirements of the standard.

If you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref:206 d:5/6/96

ID: 1983-2.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/04/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Safety Alert Co., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

AUG 4 1983 NOA-30

Mr. Chuck Howard President Safety Alert Co., Inc. 1667 9th Street Santa Monica, California 90404

Dear Mr. Howard:

This is in reply to your letter of June 28, 1983, occasioned by what you believe is our misconception of the way your "Safety Alert" system operates. In my letter of June 17 I stated that "Safety Alert", which was intended to flash a yellow bulb installed in the backup lamp system, would create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108 which requires backup lamps to be white in color and steady burning when in use. You now bring to our attention that your system does not alter the normal operation of the backup lamps which are steady burning when a vehicle is in reverse, even when "Safety Alert" is installed.

We understood this when we advised you that you could use "Safety Alert" through any rear lighting system which Standard No. 108 allows to flash for signalling purposes such as the hazard warning or turn signal systems. The converse of this is that "Safety Alert" cannot be used through any rear lighting system that Standard No. 108 requires to be steady-burning when in use, such as the backup lamp system, even though when used as a backup lamp it is steady burning. I am sorry this was not clear to you.

We are unaware that any foreign manufacturer is failing to comply with Standard No. 108 by installing a backup lamp system that "reflects amber" as you have told us.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

JUNE 28TH, 1983

MR. FRANK BERNDT CHIEF COUNCIL N.H.T.S.A. 400 SEVENTH STREET, S.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590

DEAR MR. BERNDT:

I AM IN RECEIPT OF YOUR LETTER DATED JUNE 17TH 1983. I WOULD LIKE TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION THAT OUR SYSTEM DOES NOT OPERATE AS YOU INDICATE IN PARAGRAPH TWO OF THAT LETTER.

OUR SYSTEM, SAFETY ALERT, WAS INVENTED TO SERVE THE PUBLIC AS A CAUTION LIGHT THAT WOULD FLASH FOUR TIMES IN FOUR SECONDS, INDICATING SPEED REDUCTION. ALSO IN PARAGRAPH TWO, YOU MENTION THAT THE BACK-UP LIGHTS BE STEADY BURNING IN USE. WE BELIEVE THAT SAFETY ALERT IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THIS RULING.

SAFETY ALERT DOES NOT ALTER THE NORMAL FUNCTION OF THE BACK-UP LIGHTS. WHEN THE VEHICLE IS IN REVERSE, THE BACK-UP LAMPS ARE STEADY BURNING, NOT FLASHING.

DR. CARL CLARK, INVENTOR CONTACT, HAS ONE OF OUR DEMONSTRATION UNIT WHICH WILL SHOW THAT THE BACK-UP LIGHTS IN REVERSE ARE STEADY BURNING. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OUR SYSTEM AND THE FEDERAL REGULATION IS THAT IN REVERSE OUR-BACK-UP LIGHT LAMPS HAVE A TINT OF AMBER INSTEAD OF PURE WHITE.

WE HAVE SPENT HOURS IN PARKING LOTS, LOOKING AT THE BACK-UP LIGHTS AND THEIR COLOR. THE MAJORITY OF FOREIGN CARS ARE NOW FACTORY EQUIPPED WITH BACK-UP LIGHTS THAT REFLECT AMBER WHEN IN THE REVERSE POSITION, CONSEQUENTLY IT APPEARS REASONABLE THAT THE PUBLIC AT LARGE IS ALREADY ACCUSTOMED TO THIS COLOR IN THE BACK-UP LIGHT AREA.

ALTHOUGH WE ARE PLEASED TO KNOW THAT OUR DEVICE HAS BEEN APPROVED FOR USE ON THE HAZARD LIGHTS AND TURN SIGNALS, WE STILL BELIEVE THAT THE ISSUE OF SAFETY IS BEST SERVED WHEN SAFETY ALERT IS PUT ON THE BACK-UP LIGHTS, THUS AVOIDING ANY MISUNDERSTANDING ABOUT SUDDEN STOPS.

WE SINCERELY ARE TRYING TO HELP THE REAR-END COLLISION PROBLEM AND WE KNOW THAT OUR ORIGINAL PREMISE IS BEST SUITED TO DO THIS WITHOUT CAUSING ANY MORE CONFUSION ON THE HIGHWAYS, I AM HOPING WITH ALL MY HEART YOU WILL AGAIN TAKE A FEW MOMENTS TO LOOK AT OUR DEMO KIT TO SEE THAT WHAT I AM SAYING IS SO.

MR. BERNDT, IF MY ONLY INTEREST WAS TO GET MY PRODUCT ON THE STORE SHELVES, YOUR LETTER OF JUNE 17, 1983 WOULD SUFFICE. I AM, HOWEVER, CONCERNED ABOUT THE DRIVING SAFETY OF OTHERS AND I'M NOT CONVINCED THAT INSTALLING SAFETY ALERT ON TO THE HAZARD LIGHTS AND OR THE TURN SIGNALS MIGHT NOT CREATE MORE PROBLEMS THAN THEY CURE.

NEEDLESS TO SAY, I WILL BE ANXIOUSLY AWAITING YOUR REPLY TO THIS LETTER.

VERY TRULY YOURS,

CHUCK HOWARD, PRESIDENT SAFETY ALERT CO., INC.

CH:MM CC: DR. CARL CLARK

ID: 86-5.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/31/86

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: DON PANZER -- SPRAY RIDER INC

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 07/28/86 FROM DON PANZER TO NHTSA, OCC 1115

TEXT: Dear Mr. Panzer:

This is in reply to your letter of July 28, 1986, describing a supplemental hazard warning system you have developed which is designed to be incorporated as part of the external rear-view mirror assembly. You have asked about its relationship to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 108 and 111.

The information you enclosed depicts the lamp mounted above the outside rear-view mirror in the same housing. According to your description it may face in the same direction as the mirror, or "exposed to the front, back, and side of the vehicle or in any combination of these directions." It will flash synchronously with the front and rear hazard warning lamps, and "can also perform as a directional signal."

Standard No. 108 deals only indirectly with lighting systems other than those which it requires. Supplemental lighting equipment and other motor vehicle equipment are permissible under Paragraph S4.1.3 as long as they do not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. We believe that a possibility of impairment of the turn signal system might exist if your lamp-mirror were to operate in this fashion, and only one such device were installed on a vehicle. This suggests that lamps providing a turn-signal function be packaged and sold in pairs and conversely that lamps sold singly not provide a turn-signal function. On the basis of the facts as you have presented them to us, we cannot say that impairment otherwise would exist, or that the device would not be acceptable as original equipment. However, because of the dual nature of the American legal system the fact that an accessory is not prohibited by Federal law does not mean that it is permissible under the laws of the individual States. We are not able to advise you as to these laws but you may wish to check with the Motor Vehicle Administrators of the States where you intend to sell your device.

2

As you surmised, there is also a relationship of Standard No. 111 to your device as an item of original equipment. Further, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act itself bears upon its permissibility as an aftermarket item. Standard No. 111 requires each passenger car to be equipped with an outside rear-view mirror on the driver's side; under paragraph S5.2.2 ". . . neither the mirror nor the mounting shall protrude farther than the widest part of the vehicle body except to the extent necessary to produce a field of view meeting or exceeding the requirements of S5.2.1." You have not provided us with the dimensions of this device and while the photograph you enclosed showing it mounted on a Vauxhall car is inconclusive, it at least suggests that you examine this design with S5.2.2 in mind. This prohibition does not extend to an exterior-mounted mirror on the passenger side. You should also be aware that the same restriction applies to driver-side mirrors on multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses other than schoolbuses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less that are equipped with mirrors that comply with the requirements of paragraph S5, an option permitted by paragraph S6.1(a) of the standard.

Although the safety standards do not apply once a vehicle is sold, the Traffic Safety Act prohibits persons other than a vehicle owner from "rendering inoperative in whole or in part" safety equipment installed on a vehicle to achieve compliance with the safety standards. The agency is concerned that a light incorporated with a rear view mirror could create glare to the driver, thus rendering the mirror partially "inoperative" within the meaning of the standard, even if the replacement mirror otherwise complies with Standard No. 111.

You should also be aware of the other performance and location requirements for rearview mirrors on passenger cars in Standard No. 111. The outside rearview mirror on the driver's side must be of unit magnification and must comply with field of view requirements, as well as the mounting requirements referred to above. Regarding the passenger's side, an outside rearview mirror is required only if the inside rearview mirror fails to meet the field of view requirements. This outside rearview mirror may be either plane or convex and must comply with the mounting and adjustability requirements in paragraph S5.3. If this outside rearview mirror is convex, it must meet the requirements for convex mirrors in paragraph S5.4.

I hope that this clarifies the relationship of the Federal standards to your device, and if there are any further questions I would be pleased to answer them.

Sincerely

ID: nht88-4.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/29/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: DONALD SMITH -- CHIEF INVENTOR NEW INNOVATIVE SYSTEMS

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Smith:

This is in reply to your recent undated letter regarding the "Highway Automatic Communications Indicator (HACI)", as supplemented by a telephone conversation between you and Stephen Wood of my staff on December 20, 1988. You have asked for approval of y our device.

The HACI "will display, via a transparent display screen mounted in the rear window, pre-programmed distress messages, activated only when with the automobile is at a complete standstill." The diagram of the display alert indicates that the message would appear in the middle of the rear window, rather than at the bottom of the window where the lamp would be. When not activated, the device would be transparent. It would be activated by a special switch, not by the brake pedal. It is our understanding that the HACI would be activated only when the vehicle is stationary, and is not wired into the brake light or hazard light system.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has no authority to approve or disapprove individual inventions or devices. We can, however, advise you as to the relationship of the HACI to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act under the authority of which the standards are issued. These standards must be met at the time a vehicle is sold to its first purchaser, and persons other than the purchaser may not modify a vehicle after its sale in a manner that, in essence, renders it noncompliant with any standard.

There are three standards potentially affected by the HACI. The first is the lighting standard, Standard No. 108. Since the HACI's display screen is mounted in the rear window, a problem could arise if the center high mounted stop lamp required by Stan dard No. 108 is also mounted in that area. The HACI is permissible as original vehicle equipment as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of the high mounted lamp, or any other lamp required by Standard No. 108. While this determination is the r esponsibility of the vehicle manufacturer (or dealer, if the HACI is installed after vehicle manufacture but before sale to its first purchaser)

in the first instance, it appears to us that the effectiveness of the high mounted lamp would not be impaired. We base this conclusion on our understanding that the message would appear in the middle of the rear window, instead of at the bottom of the w indow where the lamp would be and that it would apparently be activated only when the vehicle was stationary, such as parked on the side of the road.

The second standard potentially affected is Standard No. 111, relating to rearview mirrors. This standard specifies a field of view to be met by the inside rearview mirror; if the mirror does not provide this field of view, an outside mirror on the fron t seat passenger side must be provided. Since your device is reportedly transparent when not activated, and would be activated only when the vehicle is stationary, it may well be that there is no necessity for the addition of an outside mirror. However , we do not have sufficient information to determine whether the HACI would impede the field of view under all conditions.

The third standard potentially affected is Standard No. 205, relating to glazing. This requires, in part, that all glazing in passenger cars have at least 70 percent light transmittance. To the extent that the display screen reduces light transmittance , it could create a noncompliance with this standard. However, because you have indicated that your display screen is transparent, it does not appear likely that any reduction in light transmittance would fall below the specified minimum.

With this guidance and your knowledge of the HACI, you should be able to judge whether installation of the HACI either before or after the initial sale of a passenger car might be regarded as creating a noncompliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety s tandard, or otherwise be in violation of the Act. An official judgment regarding noncompliance or violation is made by the agency only in the context of an enforcement proceeding.

In addition, you should be aware that the HACI remains subject to the laws of the individual States. We cannot advise you of its legality under these laws. To obtain an opinion on this matter, you may wish to consult the American Association of Motor Ve hicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Va. 22203.

Sincerely,

ID: nht90-3.89

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 10, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Steve Pickering -- Valley Sales Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to undated letter from S.W.A. Pickering to S.R. Kratzke (OCC 4846); Also attached to photos (graphics omitted); Also attached to Report on Test of Sofa Bar according to FMVSS No. 210, submitted by Kenneth Lauer, P.E., April 1986 (text omitted); Also attached to Test Report Number 096441-89 dated 12-15-89 (Text omitted, test results are available in the file)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to Steve Kratzke of my staff, asking how our safety standards would affect a product you are seeking to patent. This planned product is a molded plastic insert intended to be installed on the cargo bed of pickup trucks near the cab, and consists of two rear-facing seats. Throughout the rest of this letter, I will refer to this product as a "crossbed seat." You asked this agency to comment on the extent to which this crossbed seat would comply with several safety standards . I am pleased to have this opportunity to do so.

Before addressing your specific questions, some background information might be helpful. This agency has no authority to approve, endorse, or offer assurances of compliance for any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) establishes a process under which this agency is authorized to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Every manufacturer must then certify that each of its motor vehicles and each item of motor vehicle equipment complies with all applicable safety standards.

Since your product would be used as a seating position in a motor vehicle while the vehicle is in motion, each occupant position on the crossbed seat would be considered a "designated seating position" within the meaning of S571.3. Thus, if your product were to be installed as an item of original equipment on a pickup before its first sale to a retail purchaser, the designated seating positions on your product would have to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 207, Seating Systems; Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection; Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. You indicated in your letter that you plan to install Type 1 (lap-only) safety belts at these seating positions to comply with Standard No. 208. This would be consistent with the requirements of Standard No. 208, which permits these designated seating positions to be equipped with either Type 1 or Type 2 (lap/shoulder) safety belts.

Your letter did not indicate that you had considered Standard No. 207 in your examination of the relevant safety standards. If you have not already done so, you should consider whether the seating positions on your planned crossbed seat would comply wit h the requirements of this standard.

You also identified two standards that you had considered with respect to your crossbed seat. The first of these was Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors. S6 of Standard No. 111 provides that pickup trucks may either meet the rearward visibility requirem ents applicable to passenger cars or have outside mirrors on both sides of the vehicle that provide visibility to the rear along both sides of the vehicle. These requirements would not necessarily preclude the installation of your crossbed seat in new p ickups.

The second standard you identified was Standard No. 202, Head Restraints. S4.3 of Standard No. 202 requires each "outboard front designated seating position" to be equipped with head restraints that meet the specified performance criteria. The seating p ositions on your crossbed seat are rear seating positions. Since Standard No. 202 does not require rear seating positions to be equipped with head restraints, you are free to choose whetber or not to install head restraints for your crossbed seats.

You should note that you would be considered a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment if you begin to manufacture these crossbed seats. As such, the Safety Act would make you responsible for conducting a notification and remedy campaign if you or the a gency were to determine that this product contains a defect related to motor vehicle safety or fails to comply with an applicable safety standard. A copy of an information sheet briefly describing these responsiblities and explaining how to obtain copie s of our regulations is enclosed.

If you have any further questions or need some additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht90-4.12

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 18, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Satoshi Nishibori -- Vice President, Industry-Government Affairs, Nissan Research & Development, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-28-90 from S. Nishibori to P.J. Rice (OCC 4943); Attached to drawing (graphics omitted)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter dated June 28, 1990 requesting an interpretation of how the requirements of FMVSS 101, Controls and Displays, would apply to two vehicle systems Nissan is considering using.

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 th e 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, and during a discussion between Kazuo Iwasaki of your staff and Mary V ersailles of my staff in our offices on July 13th.

I. Car Phone

Nissan is considering introducing a car phone in certain passenger cars which has five illuminated displays. The first display shows the number being dialed. The display is illuminated whether or not the phone is in use, and the number dialed continues to be displayed while the phone is in use.

The second display illuminates the push buttons. The display becomes illuminated when the first button is pushed, and remains illuminated for 10 seconds.

The remainder of the car phone displays are LED indicators. The first indicator (IU) is illuminated when the phone is "in use". The second indicator (NS) is illuminated when cellular phone service is not available. The third indicator (RM) is illumina ted when outside the system's local operating area if the system is able to lock onto an available phone line. It is our understanding that there will be times when none of these three LED's will be illuminated and times when more than one of the LEDS c ould be illuminated (for example, both the IU and RM indicators).

None of the car phone displays can be turned off while the ignition switch is in the "ON" position. The illumination is not variable in any display.

You asked whether the car phone displays are "telltales" or other "sources of illumination," within the meaning of section S5.3.5, and whether the system is consistent with the requirements of FMVSS 101.

Based upon our understanding of their functioning, the three LED indicators (IU, NS, and RM) would appear to be telltales. Both the IU and RM displays "indicate the actuation of a device", while the NS display indicates "a failure to function". Because the displays are not listed in the standard, and because they are exempt from the requirements of section S5.3.5 because they are telltales, they are not subject to any illumination requirements.

The other displays are not telltales. The functions of both the first display ("number dialed") and the second display ("push button") are not among those listed in the definition of a telltale. The "number dialed" display provides information in much the same way as a fuel gauge. The illumination of the push buttons functions to facilitate dialing.

Because these displays are not among those listed in Standard No. 101, and because they are not telltales, they are subject to the requirements of section S5.3.5. Therefore, these displays must "have either (1) light intensity which is manually or autom atically adjustable to provide at least two levels of brightness, (2) a single intensity that is barely discernible to a driver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions, or (3) a means of being turned off." Based upon your description, none of these requirements are currently met.

II. Air-conditioning Indicator Light

In certain vehicles, Nissan uses an indicator light that is illuminated only if both the air-conditioning operating switch and the ignition switch are in the "ON" position. You indicate that you believe the indicator is a telltale, and that if it is a t elltale "it would appear to meet the requirements of section 5.3.4, since the display is bright enough to be visible in all ambient lighting conditions."

Because the indicator light indicates actuation of a device, i.e., the air conditioner, you are correct that it is a telltale. NHTSA would like to clarify that, with the exception of the requirements of section S5.3.5, FMVSS 101 regulates only controls and displays listed in the standard. Since the air-conditioning indicator light you describe is not listed in the standard, and because telltales are exempt from the requirements of section S5.3.5, there are no illumination requirements.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht90-4.41

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: October 12, 1990

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

TO: C.D. Black -- Manager, Product Legislation and Compliance, Jaguar Cars Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to copy of 49 CFR Part 571.114 and May 30, 1990 final rule (55 FR 21868) (text omitted); Also attached to letter dated 7-23-90 from C.D. Black to NHTSA Administrator (OCC 501)

TEXT:

This concerns your July 23, 1990 petition requesting "reconsideration of an interpretation" of Standard No. 114, Theft Protection (49 CFR 571.114), as amended by a May 30, 1990 final rule (55 FR 21868). You requested that the agency consider interpretin g the amendment to permit a mechanical override device that would allow shifting the transmission lever through the use of a separate tool, other than the key.

We note that while your petition requests an "interpretation," it appears to be seeking an amendment to the standard. Moreover, it appears that you consider your submission to be a petition for reconsideration. However, your petition was submitted to t he agency after the June 30, 1990 deadline for submitting petitions for reconsideration. Under 49 CFR 553.35, NHTSA considers a late-filed petition for reconsideration as a petition filed under Part 552, i.e., as a petition for rulemaking. In the case of your petition, the agency received timely petitions for reconsideration which addressed the same issues. NHTSA therefore plans to address the issues raised by your petition at the same as we respond to those petitions.

In addition, in this letter, we will address your questions in the context of Standard No. 114's current requirements, as amended in the May 30, 1990 final rule. As discussed below, your proposed system would not appear to comply with the requirements o f section S4.2, as amended.

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, ("Vehicle Safety Act," 15 USC 1381 et seq.) requires every new motor vehicle sold in the United States to be certified as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The Vehicle Safety Act specifies that the manufacturer must certify that each of its vehicles complies with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture. Because of this statutory requirement, this agency does not app rove any manufacturer's vehicles or offer assurances that the vehicles comply with the safety standards. Any person violating the Vehicle Safety Act by manufacturing or selling new noncomplying vehicles may be liable for potential penalties of $1,000 pe r violation up to $800,000.

Under the revised requirements, section S4.2 provides that:

Each vehicle shall have a key-locking system that, whenever the key is removed, prevents: (a) the normal activation of the vehicle's engine or motor; and (b) either steering or forward self-mobility of the vehicle or both.

For a vehicle equipped with an automatic transmission with a "park" position, the key-locking system shall prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in "park" or becomes locked in "park" as the direct result of removing the key."

You explained that you plan to equip your vehicles with an electrical interlock that allows the transmission shift lever to be moved by producing an electrical signal to disengage the interlock. In case of battery or electrical failure, the electrical i nterlock does not work and thus the transmission shift lever cannot be moved. Therefore, you plan to install a spring-activated mechanical emergency release that is activated by using a tool in one hand and simultaneously moving the transmission shift w ith the other hand. You believe that your system would adequately prevent against theft through the steering lock and "rollaway" accidents though the device just described, and there is no need to require the vehicle's key to activate the override.

We do not believe your suggested device would comply with Standard No. 114, as amended. Under S4.2(b), the key-locking system must prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in "park" or becomes locked in "pa rk" as the direct result of removing the key. Assuming that the mechanical emergency release operates independent of the ignition key, it does not appear that the transmission or transmission shift lever would ever be "locked" in park, since it could be released without regard to the key used to operate the vehicle's key-locking system. It is irrelevant that your emergency release could only be operable by using a tool and both hands, because this requirement would not affect one's ability to release the transmission shift lever without regard to the key used to operate the vehicle's key-locking system.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions.

ID: 2661y

Satoshi Nishibori, Vice President
Industry-Government Affairs
Nissan Research & Development, Inc.
750 17th Street NW
Suite 902
Washington, DC 20006

Dear Mr. Nishibori:

This responds to your letter dated June 28, 1990 requesting an interpretation of how the requirements of FMVSS 101, Controls and Displays, would apply to two vehicle systems Nissan is considering using.

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 and during a discussion between Kazuo Iwasaki of your staff and Mary Versailles of my staff in our offices on July 13th.

I. Car Phone

Nissan is considering introducing a car phone in certain passenger cars which has five illuminated displays. The first display shows the number being dialed. The display is illuminated whether or not the phone is in use, and the number dialed continues to be displayed while the phone is in use.

The second display illuminates the push buttons. The display becomes illuminated when the first button is pushed, and remains illuminated for 10 seconds.

The remainder of the car phone displays are LED indicators. The first indicator (IU) is illuminated when the phone is "in use". The second indicator (NS) is illuminated when cellular phone service is not available. The third indicator (RM) is illuminated when outside the system's local operating area if the system is able to lock onto an available phone line. It is our understanding that there will be times when none of these three LED's will be illuminated and times when more than one of the LEDs could be illuminated (for example, both the IU and RM indicators).

None of the car phone displays can be turned off while the ignition switch is in the "ON" position. The illumination is not variable in any display.

You asked whether the car phone displays are "telltales" or other "sources of illumination," within the meaning of section S5.3.5, and whether the system is consistent with the requirements of FMVSS 101.

Based upon our understanding of their functioning, the three LED indicators (IU, NS, and RM) would appear to be telltales. Both the IU and RM displays "indicate the actuation of a device", while the NS display indicates "a failure to function". Because the displays are not listed in the standard, and because they are exempt from the requirements of section S5.3.5 because they are telltales, they are not subject to any illumination requirements.

The other displays are not telltales. The functions of both the first display ("number dialed") and the second display ("push button") are not among those listed in the definition of a telltale. The "number dialed" display provides information in much the same way as a fuel gauge. The illumination of the push buttons functions to facilitate dialing.

Because these displays are not among those listed in Standard No. 101, and because they are not telltales, they are subject to the requirements of section S5.3.5. Therefore, these displays must "have either (1) light intensity which is manually or automatically adjustable to provide at least two levels of brightness, (2) a single intensity that is barely discernible to a driver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions, or (3) a means of being turned off." Based upon your description, none of these requirements are currently met.

II. Air-conditioning Indicator Light

In certain vehicles, Nissan uses an indicator light that is illuminated only if both the air-conditioning operating switch and the ignition switch are in the "ON" position. You indicate that you believe the indicator is a telltale, and that if it is a telltale "it would appear to meet the requirements of section 5.3.4, since the display is bright enough to be visible in all ambient lighting conditions."

Because the indicator light indicates actuation of a device, i.e., the air conditioner, you are correct that it is a telltale. NHTSA would like to clarify that, with the exception of the requirements of section S5.3.5, FMVSS 101 regulates only controls and displays listed in the standard. Since the air-conditioning indicator light you describe is not listed in the standard, and because telltales are exempt from the requirements of section S5.3.5, there are no illumination requirements.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel /ref:101 d:9/l8/90

ID: 2704y

Ms. C. D. Black
Manager, Product Legislation and Compliance
Jaguar Cars Inc.
555 MacArthur Blvd.
Mahwah, New Jersey 07430-2327

Dear Ms. Black:

This concerns your July 23, 1990 petition requesting "reconsideration of an interpretation" of Standard No. 114, Theft Protection (49 CFR 571.114), as amended by a May 30, 1990 final rule (55 FR 21868). You requested that the agency consider interpreting the amendment to permit a mechanical override device that would allow shifting the transmission lever through the use of a separate tool, other than the key.

We note that while your petition requests an "interpretation," it appears to be seeking an amendment to the standard. Moreover, it appears that you consider your submission to be a petition for reconsideration. However, your petition was submitted to the agency after the June 30, 1990 deadline for submitting petitions for reconsideration. Under 49 CFR 553.35, NHTSA considers a late-filed petition for reconsideration as a petition filed under Part 552, i.e., as a petition for rulemaking. In the case of your petition, the agency received timely petitions for reconsideration which addressed the same issues. NHTSA therefore plans to address the issues raised by your petition at the same as we respond to those petitions.

In addition, in this letter, we will address your questions in the context of Standard No. ll4's current requirements, as amended in the May 30, l990 final rule. As discussed below, your proposed system would not appear to comply with the requirements of section S4.2, as amended.

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, ("Vehicle Safety Act," 15 USC 1381 et seq.) requires every new motor vehicle sold in the United States to be certified as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The Vehicle Safety Act specifies that the manufacturer must certify that each of its vehicles complies with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture. Because of this statutory requirement, this agency does not approve any manufacturer's vehicles or offer assurances that the vehicles comply with the safety standards. Any person violating the Vehicle Safety Act by manufacturing or selling new noncomplying vehicles may be liable for potential penalties of $1,000 per violation up to $800,000.

Under the revised requirements, section S4.2 provides that:

"Each vehicle shall have a key-locking system that, whenever the key is removed, prevents: (a) the normal activation of the vehicle's engine or motor; and (b) either steering or forward self-mobility of the vehicle or both. For a vehicle equipped with an automatic transmission with a "park" position, the key-locking system shall prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in "park" or becomes locked in "park" as the direct result of removing the key."

You explained that you plan to equip your vehicles with an electrical interlock that allows the transmission shift lever to be moved by producing an electrical signal to disengage the interlock. In case of battery or electrical failure, the electrical interlock does not work and thus the transmission shift lever cannot be moved. Therefore, you plan to install a spring-activated mechanical emergency release that is activated by using a tool in one hand and simultaneously moving the transmission shift with the other hand. You believe that your system would adequately prevent against theft through the steering lock and "rollaway" accidents though the device just described, and there is no need to require the vehicle's key to activate the override.

We do not believe your suggested device would comply with Standard No. ll4, as amended. Under S4.2(b), the key-locking system must prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in "park" or becomes locked in "park" as the direct result of removing the key. Assuming that the mechanical emergency release operates independent of the ignition key, it does not appear that the transmission or transmission shift lever would ever be "locked" in park, since it could be released without regard to the key used to operate the vehicle's key-locking system. It is irrelevant that your emergency release could only be operable by using a tool and both hands, because this requirement would not affect one's ability to release the transmission shift lever without regard to the key used to operate the vehicle's key-locking system.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:ll4 d:l0/l2/90