ID: nht92-5.21

DATE: July 13, 1992

FROM: Carrie Minna

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Consulate, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/31/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Carrie Minna (A39; VSA 102(3))

TEXT:

After making an initial inquiry to the D.O.T regarding my questions, I was referred to you for additional information.

I would like to know if I could import the enclosed vehicles into the U.S. to use in certain communities for transportation. The communities that I would be interested in using these vehicles for would be small guarded gate communities such as Golf resorts, small island communities and possible elderly communities. These communities already utilize golf carts as a means of transportation along with a usual modes of transportation. They would not be used for the main highways although they have the capability of moving at 80KMS per hour. I was also interested in them as a mode of transportation for the island of Santa Catalina off the Southern California coast. This island for many years only had electric vehicles. I believe this vehicle would be an excellent means of transportation for this particular island community.

I have supplied you with some information regarding these vehicles. I am contacting the company that manufactures the engine to see if it meets with the E.P.A. standards for the U.S.

Any information you can provide me would be most helpful.

I await your response.

(Brochure omitted)

ID: nht92-5.22

DATE: July 10, 1992

FROM: David H. Milligan; Thomas H. Milligan; Alisa A. Milligan -- Millco Mfg.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/22/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to David H. Milligan (A39; Std. 213)

TEXT:

We would first like to acknowledge the assistance of your department up to this point and thank them for the advice and direction they have given to us. Jeff Michael has proved invaluable, as well as Dee Fujita and Joanne Murianka who have also given us much help.

As you can see from the enclosed sample, it is the result of many inquiries and needs of the consumer. Our product will take the place of the many home remedies for the existing problem (ie. Blocks of wood, rolled up towels, PVC pipe, etc.) which can prove dangerous if not deadly.

We've taken many precautions already with this project such as flame retardancy, soft yet dense foam, and liability insurance.

What we would like to ask of you is a letter stating that "The Car Seat Support" manufactured by Millco Mfg. for distribution by Rumble Tuff Mfg. does not infringe upon any existing regulations for car seat accessories.

Your immediate attention will be greatly appreciated.

ID: nht92-5.23

DATE: July 9, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Hank Hessey -- Hebco Products, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/21/92 from Hank Hessey to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7242)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking for our opinion on the "requirements and testing responsibilities" that apply to air brake hose manufacturers under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 106, Brake Hoses. After receiving your letter, Ms. Fujita of my staff telephoned you to clarify our understanding of your question.

You explained in the telephone conversation that your concern relates to the certification responsibilities of a brake hose manufacturer versus those of a brake hose assembly manufacturer. You are particularly interested in the standard's burst strength (S7.3.9) and tensile strength requirements (7.3.10). You ask whether it is the hose manufacturer or the assembly manufacturer, or both, who must certify to those requirements.

Standard 106 places the responsibility for certifying to S7.3.9 and 7.3.10 on the assembly manufacturer, not the hose manufacturer. Both S7.3.9 and 7.3.10 apply, by their terms, to the "assembly." S7.3.9 states: "An air brake hose assembly shall not rupture when exposed to hydrostatic pressure of 800 psi...." Similarly, S7.3.10 states: "An air brake hose assembly" shall meet the tensile strength requirement. Thus, neither S7.3.9 nor 7.3.10 apply to the hose."

The wording of the test procedures for S7.3.9 and 7.3.10 reflect the fact that those sections apply to the assembly only. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration follows the procedures described in the Federal motor vehicle safety standards when conducting compliance tests. The procedures for both sections refer to a test of the "assembly," not the "hose." The burst strength procedure, specified in S8.8 of Standard 106, expressly states: "Utilize an air brake hose assembly." Similarly, the tensile strength procedure, specified in S8.9, expressly states: "Attach an air brake hose assembly to the testing machine...." Neither of these procedures specify testing of the "hose" apart from the assembly.

Because S7.2.9 and 7.3.10 apply to the assembly, the assembly manufacturer is responsible for a failure to comply with S7.3.9 and 7.3.10, even if the failure is due to a deficiency with the hose. It is the responsibility of the assembly manufacturer to ensure that the products used in the manufacture of the assembly will enable it to meet all applicable requirements of Standard 106.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have other questions, please contact Ms. Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-5.24

DATE: July 9, 1992

FROM: Tilman (Tilghman) Spingler -- Robert Bosch GmbH

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA Administration

TITLE: Request for Interpretation

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/3/92 from Paul J. Rice to Tilghman (Tilman) Spingler (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

FMVSS 108 requires for Replaceable Bulb Headlamps a vertical aim range of > +/- 4 degrees and a horizontal aim range of > +/- 2.3 degrees. Does this mean that a headlamp has to meet both ranges in addition, i.e. 2.5 degrees horizontal at a full range of 4 degrees vertical and vice-versa? Would it be possible to give me a "quick" answer by fax?

ID: nht92-5.25

DATE: July 9, 1992

FROM: Mark V. Schwartz -- Account Executive, Entran Devices, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Section 572.36G Clarification Request

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/29/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Mark V. Schwartz (A40; Part 572)

TEXT:

I am writing this letter on behalf of Entran Devices, pursuant to discussions that I have had with Bob Krause and Steve Kratzke. Among the products manufactured by Entran Devices are accelerometers utilized by the Automotive Industry for safety testing.

We had run into a roadblock in attempting to serve the accelerometer requirements for the Hybrid III dummy. Section 572.36G and Figures 23 and 24 in this section call out the use of an accelerometer "that shall have dimensions and characteristics of Endevco 7231C or equivalent".

We feel that Entran's EGE-72C-750 meets all the relevant criteria. I am requesting a clarification of the regulation that I believe will confirm our position. Attached you will find a list of parameters that define the EGE-72C-750. I have also enclosed our published data sheet that covers the entire EGE-72 family.

I will look forward to your response on this issue. If there should be any questions or requirements for additional information, please do not hesitate to call me at 800-635-0650.

(Enclosures omitted)

ID: nht92-5.26

DATE: July 8, 1992

FROM: Andrew H. Card, Jr. -- NHTSA Secretary of Transportation

TO: Matthew G. Martinez -- U.S. House of Representatives

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/11/92 from Matthew G. Martinez to Andrew Card (OCC 7386)

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter regarding Philatron International.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) closely examined Philatron's request and determined that the requested relief cannot be provided. The reasons underlying this conclusion are fully explained in a May 26, 1992, letter from NHTSA Chief Counsel Paul Jackson Rice to Anthony D. Padgett, counsel for Philatron.

In his letter, the Chief Counsel explained that Philatron, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, is not eligible to be considered for an exemption from compliance with the motor vehicle safety standards under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The Chief Counsel also concluded that a proceeding resulting from Philatron's rulemaking petition must include a full notice and comment procedure. A copy of the letter is enclosed.

Let me assure you that the Department of Transportation supports and implements President Bush's deregulatory policies and initiatives. However, the President has emphasized that deregulation should not compromise safety. With respect to the issue at hand, interested parties have raised serious questions as to whether the oil resistance requirement of the standard should be eliminated and, if so, whether other requirements should be substituted. It is this concern for safety that compels NHTSA not to eliminate summarily the regulatory requirement in question.

Attachment

Letter dated 5/26/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Anthony D. Padgett, Esq., Thelen, Marrin, Johnson & Bridges, regarding Philatron. Text of letter follows.

Dear Mr. Padgett:

General Curry has asked me to respond to your letter of April 24, 1992, in which you requested the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") to grant an "immediate temporary exemption" from the oil resistance requirements of section S7.3.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard ("FMVSS") No. 106 to Philatron International, Inc. The purpose of such an exemption would be to permit Philatron to manufacture and sell its coiled brake hose products, which do not comply with S7.3.4, during the pendency of the rulemaking proceeding that NHTSA has commenced in response to Philatron's petition for rulemaking to amend that provision.

Section 123 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Act"), 15 U.S.C. S 1410, provides NHTSA with the authority to grant exemptions from safety standards under limited circumstances. However, we have concluded that Philatron would not be eligible to receive an exemption under that section. First, section 123 only authorizes exemptions to manufacturers of "motor vehicles," not to manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as Philatron. You have suggested that "it would strain logical reasoning" to allow exemptions to be granted to manufacturers of complete vehicles but not to manufacturers of individual components. However, this is a distinction that Congress may make and has made. As you are aware, section 157 of the Act, 15 U.S.C. S 1417, authorizes NHTSA to grant to all manufacturers, including manufacturers of equipment items, an exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of sections 151-154 of the Act if the agency determines that a noncompliance or defect is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. Congress did not provide similar authority in section 123 regarding exemptions from section 108 of the Act, which precludes the manufacture and sale of motor vehicle equipment that does not comply with applicable safety standards.

Second, even if NHTSA could exempt equipment items under section 123, the number of hose assemblies manufactured by Philatron would disqualify it due to the numerical restrictions established by section 123(d). Moreover, although you have not indicated which specific subsection of section 123 you believe would be applicable to Philatron, it is questionable whether the company could satisfy any of the substantive bases for an exemption under that section.

I should also point out that, pursuant to section 123(a), NHTSA must provide notice and an opportunity for public comment before it may grant an exemption. Since Philatron's sole reason for requesting an exemption is to enable it to continue to manufacture and sell its products during the pendency of the ongoing rulemaking proceeding, commencing a separate notice and comment proceeding to consider whether to grant a temporary exemption would not provide any real benefit to the company.

It is also clear that, notwithstanding your reference to cases involving other agencies, NHTSA does not have authority to grant exemptions except as provided under section 123. In the early years of the Safety Act, the agency claimed that it had inherent authority to grant to a single manufacturer (Checker Motors Corporation) an extension of the effective date for complying with a standard. On review, the courts held that such an extension was equivalent to an exemption from a safety standard and that NHTSA did not have authority to grant any exemptions except as provided under section 123.

As the District Court stated in Nader v. Volpe, 320 F. Supp. 266, 269 (D.D.C. 1970):

The Court notes that when the Act was originally adopted, Section 1410 did not exist. At first, the Department of Transportation did not feel that it had the statutory authority to grant single manufacturer extensions, but due to the hardship felt by some small manufacturers of specialty cars, the Congress enacted Section 1410. This section, however, is specifically limited to manufacturers who annually produce five hundred cars or less.

Thus, when there was an awareness on the part of Congress that special provisions should be made for single manufacturers, such provisions were restricted. Congress did not provide extensions for single car manufacturers across the board. In fact, from the action it did take, it is logical to presume that it never intended to have a single manufacturer extension for producers who exceeded the five hundred vehicle limit, and the Court so holds.

Although Congress subsequently amended section 123 to broaden the circumstances under which exemptions could be granted, the foregoing legal principle was affirmed by the D.C. Circuit. Nader v. Volpe, 475 F.2d 916, 918 (D.C. Cir. 1973):

And we think it clear, both under the version of Section 1410 initially before us and under Section 1410 as amended by Public Law No. 91-548, that the Secretary's sole authority to exempt a manufacturer from a safety standard, even if that exemption takes the form of a postponement of the effective date of the safety standard for a single manufacturer, derives from Section 1410. THERE IS NO IMPLIED AUTHORITY TO GRANT EXEMPTIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS IN SITUATIONS NOT ENCOMPASSED BY THAT SECTION (emphasis supplied).

Although your April 24 letter focussed on Philatron's request for a temporary exemption, you have also suggested that the agency could amend FMVSS No. 106 "without resort to the full (notice and comment) rulemaking procedure," citing 49 CFR S 553.13. Contrary to the implication of your letter, the fact that NHTSA has granted Philatron's petition for a determination of inconsequentiality with respect to the hose assemblies that were manufactured and sold before the company's determination of noncompliance does not automatically mean that it is appropriate to amend the standard prospectively without prior notice and comment. Moreover, even if the agency had decided that an amendment was appropriate, it would still need to determine the precise form and content of the amendment. For example, we must ensure that the amendment goes no further than is consistent with safety. Identifying where and how to achieve that balancing is precisely the sort of decision that notice and comment was intended to help agencies analyze and resolve.

Under section 553.13 and section 553(b)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. S 551(b)(B), NHTSA must provide notice of and an opportunity to comment on proposed rules unless the Administrator, "for good cause, finds that notice is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest ...." We are unable to make such a finding in this rulemaking proceeding. Courts have upheld agency actions bypassing the notice-and-comment requirement only under circumstances that are far more compelling than those which confront NHTSA and Philatron in this rulemaking.

The term "impracticable" is narrowly construed by the courts. The legislative history of the APA emphasizes that narrowness: "'Impracticable' means a situation in which the due and required execution of the agency functions would be unavoidably prevented by its undertaking public rulemaking procedures." S. Rep. No. 752, 79th Cong., 1st Sess. 16 (1945). The difficulty of showing impracticability is demonstrated by the fact that the existence of a near- term statutory or judicial deadline is not, by itself, sufficient to establish impracticability. U. S. Steel Corp. v. Environmental Protection Agency, 595

F.2d 207, 213 (5th Cir. 1979). An agency faced with such a deadline must go further and show that even had it acted diligently, there was insufficient time available to obtain public comment. The extent of the necessary showing is suggested in a case involving a different type of deadline. In that case, an agency was upheld after it adopted a last-minute temporary delay in the implementation of a new requirement without providing notice and comment. The agency was able to demonstrate that, despite its diligence in attempting to implement the requirement, it was forced to conclude shortly before the requirement's effective date that compliance by industry in general with the requirement was not yet feasible. Council of the Southern Mountains, Inc., v. Donovan, 653 F.2d 573 (D.C. Cir. 1981).

In the present situation, there is no showing that notice and comment would be impracticable. The oil resistance requirement has been a part of FMVSS No. 106 for many years. Pre-production testing by Philatron of its hose to determine whether there was sufficient basis to certify compliance with all applicable requirements should have revealed that there would be a compliance problem, and should have led Philatron to seek an amendment to the standard at that time.

"Unnecessary," as used in section 553, is confined to those situations in which the administrative rule is "a routine determination, "insignificant in nature and impact," and inconsequential "to the industry and to the public." Texaco, Inc. v. Federal Power Commission, 412 F.2d 740 (3rd Cir. 1969). It is clear that Philatron's requested amendment to FMVSS No. 106 is a significant matter that is important to the brake hose and motor vehicle industry. As you are aware, Philatron's petition for an inconsequentiality determination elicited a large and contentious response. Further, the issues in a rulemaking to amend the oil resistance requirement would not be limited, as they were in the inconsequentiality proceeding, to the safety significance of the failure of the hoses previously manufactured by Philatron to comply with that requirement. The agency would also have to address such issues as which applications of brake hose should be excluded from the oil resistance requirement, whether hoses so excluded should be subjected to a labelling requirement, and whether other requirements should be adopted in lieu of the oil resistance test. Therefore, we cannot conclude that notice and comment is "unnecessary."

Further, we cannot conclude that notice and comment would be "contrary to the public interest." According to the legislative history of the APA, "'Public interest' supplements the terms 'impracticable' or 'unnecessary;' it requires that public ride-making procedures shall not prevent an agency from operating, and that, on the other hand, lack of public interest in rule-making warrants an agency to dispense with public procedure." S. Rep. No. 752 at 16. The public interest exception only applies when the delay caused by notice and comment would cause real harm to the public, not mere inconvenience to the agency or members of the public.

NHTSA is aware of Philatron's assertion that if the standard is not amended promptly, the company will have to lay off workers. It is also aware of Philatron's claim about the performance of its hoses relative to the hoses of its competitors. However, the benefits and safety consequences of Philatron's hoses are not universally accepted. Based on the public response to the petition for an inconsequentiality determination, it is highly likely that there would be a similar outpouring of comments in response to a proposal to amend the oil resistance requirements as Philatron has suggested. Accordingly,

the agency is unable to conclude on the basis of the present record that the public interest warrants an immediate amendment of the standard.

In view of the foregoing, NHTSA will seek public comment on its impending proposal to amend FMVSS No. 106. Please be assured that the agency will take appropriate steps to complete this proceeding as quickly as possible.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel, NHTSA

ID: nht92-5.27

DATE: July 7, 1992

FROM: Frederick H. Grubbe -- Acting Administrator, NHTSA

TO: Jim Sasser -- United States Senate

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/9/92 from Jim Sasser to Jerry R. Curry (OCC 7409); Also attached to letter dated 5/29/92 from Jerry R. Curry to John J. Duncan, Jr.

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter to former Administrator Jerry Ralph Curry, regarding a Federal law governing the use of vehicles designed to carry 11 or more persons.

You stated in your letter that you have been contacted by several Tennesseans expressing their concern over such a law, and enclosed a letter from Mr. Robert High, Athletic Director, Brainerd High School, Chattanooga, TN as a sample. That letter cited memos from the Tennessee Department of Education, which referred to a 1970s law concerning the use of vehicles with a capacity of 11 or more persons. Mr. High stated that schools throughout the state have used 12 and 15-passenger vans to transport athletic teams to and from events but that several systems have been required to stop using those vehicles because of the law in question.

I appreciate this opportunity to clarify for you the Federal law and our implementing regulations regarding the safety requirements for school buses. Under the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. SS1381 to 1431 (hereinafter Safety Act), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards. In 1974 the Congress enacted the Schoolbus Safety Amendments to the Safety Act, which directed the agency to issue motor vehicle safety standards on specific aspects of school bus safety. NHTSA issued those standards, effective April 1, 1977, which may be found at 49 CFR Part 571.

Under Federal law a vehicle, including a van, designed for carrying 11 or more persons is classified as a bus. A bus is further classified as a school bus if it is used or intended for use in transporting students to and from school or school-related activities. The Safety Act requires each person selling a new school bus to ensure that the vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards. Thus, a person may sell a new bus, including a van designed to carry 11 or more persons, to a school or school district only if the vehicle is certified as complying with all applicable Federal safety standards. The onus is on the seller to ascertain the intended use of the bus, and the seller risks substantial penalties if he or she knowingly sells a vehicle for use as a school bus if the vehicle is not properly certified as such.

Please note that Federal law and NHTSA implementing regulations directly regulate only the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, not their subsequent use. Therefore, schools are not prohibited by Federal law from using vans of any size to transport school children, whether or not such vans meet Federal school bus safety standards. Individual states, however, are free to impose their own standards on the USE of motor vehicles, including school

buses. Accordingly, the State of Tennessee may regulate the use of vehicles by schools for pupil transportation to the extent that it deems appropriate.

Although not specifically required by Federal law, it is this agency's strongly held position that vehicles meeting Federal school bus safety standards are the safest way to transport school children. We should also note that the use of vehicles other than school buses to transport students could result in increased liability in the event of an accident. School districts should consult their attorneys and insurance carriers for advice on that issue.

We hope that this information is helpful.

ID: nht92-5.28

DATE: July 7, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Michael Love -- Manager, Compliance Porsche Cars North America, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/10/92 from Michael Love to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7401)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of June 10,1992, requesting concurrence by this Office in your interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 108 for the location of center highmounted stop lamps (CHMSL). Your letter was occasioned by mine of April 27, 1992, with respect to the design presented in your letter of April 3.

To summarize our earlier correspondence, Porsche wishes to install a CHMSL on the movable spoiler of its 911 Carrera, a configuration previously approved by this Office providing that all photometric and visibility requirements are met. However, S5.3.1.8 of Standard No. 108 requires that "If the lamp is mounted below the rear window, no portion of the lens shall be lower than 6 inches below the rear window on convertibles, or 3 inches on other passenger cars." Although Porsche's intended CHMSL meets this requirement with the spoiler in the extended position (when the car reaches 45 to 55 mph and slows to 9 to 12 mph), at other times, when the spoiler is lowered, the center lamp would be 7.5 inches below the window on the coupe, and 9.5 inches for the convertible. Because the CHMSL on the Carerra would not meet the locational requirements from a state of rest up to a minimum of 45 mph, we informed you that this design would not conform to Standard No. 108.

In your latest letter, you present the possibility of equipping the Porsche with two separate CHMSLs. The CHMSL discussed in your April letter, located at the trailing edge of the spoiler, would be activated when the spoiler had risen 35% from its at-rest position, and be deactivated at the time the spoiler lowers to 35%, from the at-rest position. The second CHMSL, located on the spoiler where it abuts the vehicle body and mounted at a complying height, would be activated when the vehicle is at rest, and when the spoiler is at heights less than 35% from the at-rest position, generally at times that the other CHMSL is deactivated. You expect that all photometric and height requirements of Standard No. 108 will be met in switching from one lamp to another while the spoiler is moving, though it might be necessary to have both lamps functioning together for a short period of time in order to fulfill photometric requirements.

A manufacturer's certification of compliance to the CHMSL requirements of Standard No. 108 is based upon the normal operation of motor vehicle equipment. The additional CHMSL you posit would appear to fulfill these requirements when the vehicle is at rest, and in low speed operation. Thus, for certification purposes, we regard this CHMSL as the one for which certification is supplied.

However, it appears that the spoiler in rising may affect the photometric conformance of the certification CHMSL. Under S5.3.1.1, when a part of a vehicle prevents a stop lamp from meeting its photometric output at any

applicable group of test points, any auxiliary stop lamp that meets these requirements may be provided. We interpret this as allowing the non-certification CHMSL to perform as a surrogate to the certification CHMSL at the point that conformance of the certification CHMSL is affected.

You have raised the possibility that it will be necessary to have both CHMSLs operating simultaneously for a short period of time in order to fulfill photometric requirements. While the meaning of this statement is not exactly clear, for purposes of this interpretation, it would appear to mean that simultaneous operation of both lamps might occur briefly when the rising spoiler masks the certification CHMSL at the same time the non-certification CHMSL is operating at a height below the minimum specified by Standard No. 108. Although in the past we have encouraged disabling of interior mounted CHMSLs when new ones are added to fixed spoilers, so that a vehicle will not be equipped with two permanent simultaneously operating CHMSLs, the situation here appears to differ. Under the circumstances outlined above, it does not appear that a noncompliance with Standard No. 108 would be created.

If our understanding is not correct, we would be willing to discuss the matter further.

ID: nht92-5.29

DATE: July 7, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Guy Dorleans -- International Regulatory Affairs Manager, Valeo

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/25/92 from Guy Dorleans to Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of May 25, 1992, asking for confirmation that your interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 is correct.

As you state, "Standard No. 108 specifies different levels of photometric requirements for signal lamps, depending on the number of lighted sections which they have", whether there are one, two, or three such sections (see Figure 1b). You further state that "the use of light-emitting diodes does not permit to distinguish at a glance several distinct lighted sections." Thus, when a single diode fails, "a variation will be easy to identify." Where "light-emitting diodes . . . are used in quantities bigger than three, we consider that the provision for 'lamps with three lighted sections' applies a fortiori, because its severeness will keep the user on the safe side, even though the standard does not specifically address the problems raised by the multiple light sources."

Standard No. 108 incorporates by reference two different SAE standards for turn signal lamps, J1395 APR85 for vehicles 2032mm or more in overall width, and J584 NOV84 for narrower vehicles. SAE J1395 establishes luminous intensity minima and maxima photometric requirements without reference to either compartments or lighted sections, and all that is required is for the lamp to comply at the individual test points specified. Section S5.1.1.31 clarifies that measurements of a multiple compartment turn signal lamps on vehicles to which SAE J1395 APR85 applies are to be made for the entire lamp and not for the individual compartments.

However, SAE J584 NOV84 continues to specify different minimum photometric requirements for one, two, and three "lighted sections." Because the SAE does not prescribe photometric requirements for more than three lighted sections, we have concluded that any device that contains more than three lighted sections need only comply with the requirements prescribed for three lighted sections.

ID: nht92-5.3

DATE: August 1, 1992 EST

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Trevor Buttle -- Project P4

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/22/92 from Trevor J. Buttle to Office of Chief Council, US DOT (OCC 7418)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 102, Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect. You requested clarification of the standard's requirement that certain information be displayed "in view of the driver." You also asked whether the display must be permanently illuminated. Your questions are responded to below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 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 or equipment comply with applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

For vehicles with automatic transmissions, standard No. 102 requires that identification of shift lever positions, including the positions in relation to each other and the position selected, must be displayed "in view of the driver" at specified times. See S3.1.4 through S3.1.4.4. For vehicles with manual transmissions, the standard requires that identification of the shift lever pattern of manual transmissions, except three forward speed manual transmissions having the standard "H" pattern, must be displayed "in view of the driver" at specified times. See S3.2.

You stated that you believe that the requirement for certain information to be displayed "in view of the driver" relates to the 95 percent eye range contour, hence requiring a display on or near to the "instrument binacle." You asked whether this is correct, or whether floor shift identification is sufficient.

NHTSA has previously addressed Standard No. 102's requirement that certain information be displayed "in view of the driver" in connection with a request for interpretation concerning the identification of the shift lever pattern of manual transmissions. The agency concluded that the pattern "is deemed to be 'displayed in view of the driver' if part of it may be seen from the driver's normal eye position and a reasonable amount of movement of the driver allows him to gain full view of the pattern." (Letter to Daimler-Benz of North America, February 27, 1967.) Thus, the information required by Standard No. 102 to be displayed in view of the driver may be displayed on the instrument panel, floor console, or other locations, so long as these criteria are satisfied.

Your second question asked whether the information required to be displayed by Standard No. 102 must be permanently illuminated for night usage. You stated that some auto makers have made this facility switchable.

NHTSA's requirements concerning the illumination of motor vehicle controls and displays are set forth in Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. S5.3.1 of the standard requires that if a gauge is listed in column 1 of Table 2 and accompanied by the word "yes" in column 5, then the gauge and its identification must be illuminated whenever the ignition switch and/or the headlamps are activated. The last gauge listed in Table 2 is "automatic gear position," and the word "yes" appears in column 5. Therefore, automatic gear position gauges, i.e., the gauges which provide the information required by Standard No. 102 to be displayed for automatic transmission vehicles, are subject to Standard No. 101's illumination requirement.

Under S5.3.3 of Standard No. 101, an automatic gear position gauge may have levels of brightness at which the gauge and its identification are not visible. It is common, for example, for manufacturers to provide a variable light intensity control that enables the driver to turn the illumination for conventional automatic gear position gauges down to off.

It is important, however, to distinguish between turning the illumination off i.e., no illunimation, but display still visible, and adjusting the gauge itself in a way that it no longer displays the required information. As indicated above, Standard No. 102 requires that certain gear position information be displayed in view of the driver at specified times. This requirement would not be met if it were possible for the driver to adjust the automatic gear position gauge in a way that it no longer displayed the required information during the specified times. An example of this would be an electronic gauge using light emitting diodes, where the driver, while driving, could turn the electronic display down to the off level. In this instance, the gauge would not be displaying the required information.

I hope this responds to your concerns. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.