ID: aiam3066

Dear Mr. Arneson: This is in reply to your letter of June 27, 1979, which inquire whether there are any regulations governing the installation of a propane-fueled engine, or the conversion of a gasoline-fueled engine to a propane-fueled engine, in vehicles registered for use on Federal, State, and local highways.; To date, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) ha not exercised its authority pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1974 (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq*.) (the Act), to issue a safety standard applicable to propane-powered vehicles. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75, *Fuel System Integrity*, applies only to vehicles which use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F., and propane has a boiling point well below this temperature. Despite the absence of safety standards specifically applicable to propane-powered engines, however, an installer of these systems may be subject to other Federal requirements.; Under NHTSA safety regulations, a person who alters a new vehicle prio to its first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale is required to attach an additional label to the vehicle certifying that, as altered, the vehicle remains in compliance with all applicable safety standards (49 CFR 567.7). This requirement would apply to a person who alters a new vehicle to install a propane fuel system. (See the enclosed pamphlet listing the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and an information sheet explaining where to obtain copies of the standards.) Additionally, should a noncompliance or safety-related defect be discovered in such a vehicle, as a result of the modification, the alterer could be liable for a civil penalty unless he or she could establish that he or she did not have actual knowledge of the noncompliance and that he or she did not have reason to know in the exercise of due care that the vehicle did not comply. (Section 108(b)(2)) Defects in the propane-fueled engines or in components used for converting a gasoline-fueled engine would be the responsibility of their manufacturers, regardless of whether they were installed in new or used vehicles. Upon discovery of a safety-related defect by either the Secretary of Transportation, the NHTSA Administrator or the manufacturer himself, the manufacturer would be required to notify vehicle owners, purchasers, and dealers and provide a remedy for the defect.; A person who installs a propane- fueled engine or converts th gasoline-fueled engine in a used vehicle is not required to affix an alterer's label. However, if that person is a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, he must not in the course of installing the propane components knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design originally installed in the vehicle in compliance with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. (Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act); I hope that you will find this response helpful and have not bee inconvenienced by our delay in sending it to you.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: nht78-2.25

DATE: 03/20/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: General Cable Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 3, 1978, concerning placement of the rear identification lamps on a truck. Because the truck has a mast assembly located on the longitudinal axis of the vehicle and center of the rear axle, you have asked whether the lamps should be mounted "on the mast as high as possible or on the rear face of the rear floor decking."

Table II of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 requires rear identification lamps to be mounted "as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle. . . ." If placement on the mast interferes with the operation of the lift, or if the lamp would be easily damaged in that location, that location would not appear to be "practicable" within the meaning of Standard No. 108, and the deck location would fulfill the practicability requirements.

You have also asked which is more important in locating identification lamps: "(1) . . . as high as possible on a stationary surface and face the lights toward the rear, or (2) to locate to the most rearward surface and then as high as possible on that surface". Your first choice is the correct one. The purpose of the three lamp cluster is to identify large and frequently slow moving vehicles under conditions of reduced visibility. Therefore, it is more important for the lamps to be located high than it is for them to be at the rear end of the vehicle, for example, on the cab rather than at the deck end. However, the decision as to what is "practicable" is initially that of the manufacturer and we have generally found those decisions to be correct.

SINCERELY,

General Cable

February 3, 1978

Department of Transportation c/o Bradley E. Marks

Dear Mr. Marks:

We, at General Cable, primarily design and manufacture vehicles with aerial lifts for personnel to service electrical utilities. For this type of equipment, we seem to have a problem truly defining a section of F.M.V.S.S.108 for our application.

The particular section in question is the location of the rear identification lights.

Since we design a lift whose mast assembly is located approximately on the longitudinal axis of the truck and centerline of the rear axle, should we mount the cluster of lamps on the mast as high as possible, or on the rear face of the rear floor decking? The definition of the exact location is rather vague for our industry.

Also, Mr. Marks, we have a secondary problem. Standardization of the lighting location. This mast assembly may, at some time in the future, be located further forward, just behind the truck cab. This would require the turret, boom, boom rest and basket to be positioned towards the rear of the vehicle.

The way I've interpreted the law for this particular configuration would have us locating the cluster of lights on the rear face of the rear floor decking. This due in part to the photometric interference from the basket and/or boom and boom rest assemblies.

At this point in time I must now ask, which is more important in locating these lights: (1) to locate as high as possible on a stationary surface and face the lights towards the rear? or (2) to locate to the most rearward surface and then as high as possible on that surface?

We would like a ruling on this matter as soon as possible as production of this unit is scheduled within the coming weeks.

Thank you very much, Mr. Marks, for your co-operation in this matter. Any response to this problem may be addressed either to myself or my superior, Mr. Bill Hensley, Chief Engineer.

Garry Williams Body Designer Telsta Group

cc: Bill Hensley; Van Walbridge

ID: aiam5506

"Dear Major Gramse: It has been brought to our attention by Mr. R.C Rost of Minnesota Body and Equipment that there is a question regarding Minnesota's law concerning buses used for Head Start programs. According to Mr. Rost, Minnesota prohibits these buses from being equipped with flashing lights and stop signal arms. He requested the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to clarify any inconsistencies between the Federal and State law. As explained below, to the extent there is a conflict between Federal and State law, Federal law would prevail in this matter. All manufacturers and sellers of new school buses must comply with the Federal law by manufacturing and selling vehicles that are equipped with school bus lights and stop signal arms. By way of background, Congress has directed this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards, which apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. NHTSA has issued a number of FMVSSs for school buses, including ones requiring these buses to have warning lights and stop arms. The Federal law requires that each person selling a new bus (defined in our regulations as a vehicle designed for 11 or more persons) to a primary, preprimary, or secondary school must sell a bus that is certified to the FMVSSs for school buses. State law cannot change this requirement. NHTSA's longstanding position is that Head Start programs are primarily educational in focus rather than custodial, and are therefore 'schools' under NHTSA's statute. Accordingly, buses transporting students to and from Head Start facilities are defined as school buses under Federal law and are therefore subject to the Federal school bus safety standards. Any manufacturer that omits the warning lamp system required by paragraph S5.1.4 of Standard No. 108 or the stop signal arm required by paragraph S5 of Standard No. 131 (or that delivers a bus with these devices inoperative), is in violation of Federal law, and subject to recall provisions and civil penalties. The effect of the statute's preemption provision is that a State may not adopt or enforce a standard or requirement that regulates the same aspect of safety performance as one of the Federal standards unless that State standard or requirement is identical to the Federal one. While the statute also permits a State to establish a higher standard of performance for vehicles procured for its own use, we would not view an exemption from the warning light or stop arm requirements as a higher standard of performance. Thus, regardless of how a State defines 'School bus,' a State cannot prohibit a van, with seating capacity large enough to be defined as a school bus under Federal law, from being equipped with warning lights or stop arms. Although each State has the authority to establish laws for the use of vehicles on its roads (including the equipment on the vehicles), those State laws may not override Federal laws for what type of safety equipment must be installed on new vehicles. I hope this information will be useful. If you have any further questions or desire any further information, please feel free to contact Mr. Walt Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel";

ID: 5-6-02Corlltr

Ms. Mary L. Corl
217 S. West Boulevard
Elkhart, IN 46514

Dear Ms. Corl:

This responds to your May 1, 2002, electronic mail message to Mr. Tewabe Asebe of the Office of Safety Performance Standards at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Your inquiry was referred to my office for reply. You ask about the Federal requirements that apply to the modification of a used van. You are particularly interested in the replacement of the vehicles "seats, seat belts, pedestals, carpet, blinds, leather-wrapped steering wheels, floor mats, windows, dash kits and wood overhead and floor console."

By way of background, 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq., authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. 30112, each person selling a new vehicle must ensure that the vehicle is certified as complying with all applicable FMVSS in effect at the time the vehicle was manufactured. Generally speaking, once a motor vehicle is sold to its first retail purchaser, its use and any modifications made to it become a matter of State, rather than Federal, interest. Thus, owners of used vehicles may personally make any modifications or alterations they want to their vehicles without regard to the FMVSSs, subject only to applicable State requirements.

There is, however, a limit on modifications of used vehicles by commercial entities. You indicated in your letter that a "company" is planning to replace the items you identified. Section 30122 of our statute prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses from making inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or equipment in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Violations of 30122 can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $5,000 for each violation, up to a maximum penalty of $15,000,000 for a series of related violations. 49 U.S.C. 30165. Yet, the "make inoperative" prohibition and associated civil penalty provision do not apply to situations where some items of motor vehicle equipment are only being replaced because they are broken. If you have questions about how NHTSAs requirements would apply to a specific part that you or the company are planning to install, please feel free to contact us with information about the modification.

For your general information, NHTSA has the following FMVSSs that might be relevant to the modification you described:

We believe that safety is best assured if the performance of the original safety systems is maintained on vehicles on the road. NHTSA urges vehicle owners not to degrade the performance of the safety systems on their vehicles.

I hope this information is helpful. Enclosed is a fact sheet explaining how to obtain copies of all FMVSS. If you have additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact Robert Knop of this office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Jaqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:misc.
d.6/11/02

ID: nht94-4.10

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 26, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Irene M. Thomas (Aurora, CO)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/20/94 from Irene M. Thomas to Dee Fujita (OCC 10151)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking about safety regulations for a device you call a "CarMobile." The CarMobile is a type of strap to which three rings are sewn. The CarMobile attaches by "velcro" straps to the handrails located at the top of the inter ior rear car doors. You state that "Toys would be hung from the rings, so that babies and toddlers can play with them as they dangle in front of their carseats."

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any veh icles or items of equipment. Instead, each manufacturer is responsible for "self-certifying" that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards.

In response to your question, there is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) that directly applies to the product you wish to manufacture. However, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufactu rer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. SS30118-30121 concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. (1) In the event you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

In addition, while it is unlikely that the CarMobile would be installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, 49 U.S.C. S30122 prohibits those businesses from installing the device if the installation "makes inoperative " compliance with any safety standard. NHTSA's safety standard for built-in child restraint systems (Standard 213) specifies requirements that ensure that the area surrounding a child in a built-in restraint is free from objects that could injure a chil d's head in a crash. If the CarMobile's cord and rings cause the vehicle with the built-in restraint to no longer comply with Standard 213, any of the aforementioned parties installing the CarMobile may have violated S30122.

The prohibition of S30122 does not apply to individual owners who install equipment in their own vehicles. Thus, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety s tandards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles, and would discourage them from hanging toys or other objects in front of a seated child that could injure the child in a crash. We also wish to point out th at any kind of ribbon or line that can

wrap around the neck of a child in a crash poses a potential risk of strangulation in a crash. You should consider these and any other relevant safety concerns when designing the CarMobile and when instructing consumers how t use the device.

I hope this is helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at this address or by phone at (202 366-2992.

---------------

(1) Please note that the "National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act" and "Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act" to which the information sheet refers have recently been recodified in Title 49 of the United States Code. This means that the citations used in the information sheet are outdated; however, the substantive requirements described in the sheet have not changed.

ID: 571.108--NCC-230201-001 LED Headlights_ M. Baker

February 13, 2024

Mr. Mark Baker, B.S.E.E. Soft Lights

9450 SW Gemini Drive PMB 44671

Beaverton, OR 97008

mbaker@softlights.org

Dear Mr. Baker:

This responds to your letter and email dated June 27, 2021 and October 31, 2021, respectively, regarding the legal status and safety of motor vehicle headlamps that use light-emitting diode (LED) technology as the light source. Please note that our answer below is based on our understanding of the specific information provided in your letter and email.

You ask about the “legality of LED headlights.” You state your belief that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108 does not regulate “peak luminance, absolute spectral power distribution or flicker” and that the standard “only applies to spherical emitters such as tungsten- filament and gas-discharge and is not applicable to non-uniform luminance flat-source emitters such as LED chips.” You ask whether it is “NHTSA’s position that FMVSS No. 108 is only applicable to uniform luminance emitters which can be regulated by setting maximums for luminous intensity without the need of setting peak luminance maximums” and whether “NHTSA [has] approved the use of spatially heterogeneous visible radiation for use as the light source used in vehicle headlights.” You state your concerns about adverse health impacts due to the performance characteristics of LEDs, such as high peak luminance, high-color temperature, high-energy blue wavelength light, and flicker. You request NHTSA’s opinion about the “sufficiency” of FMVSS No. 108 regarding these health concerns.

We understand you to use “uniform luminance emitters” to refer to filament (halogen/tungsten) and high-intensity discharge (HID) light sources, and “non-uniform” or “heterogenous emitter” to refer to LED light sources. We therefore understand you to be asking whether LEDs are legal as a light source in motor vehicle headlamps under FMVSS No. 108, and, if they are legal, what is NHTSA’s position on the safety of LED light sources in headlamps with respect to “eye safety, mental safety, and visual performance.”

Background

NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) to issue FMVSS that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act requires manufacturers to self-certify that their vehicles and equipment conform to all applicable FMVSS in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects.

FMVSS No. 108, “Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment,” applies to “[p]assenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers (except pole trailers and trailer converter dollies), and motorcycles” and covers, among other things, “original and replacement lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment” for motor vehicles. The standard specifies performance requirements for headlamps. The most common types of headlamps are integral beam (S10.14) and replaceable bulb (S10.15, S11) headlamps.

NHTSA has stated that LED light sources are permitted as part of an integral beam headlamp if they are wired in series such that a failure of one LED would cause all the LEDs to cease functioning, and they otherwise comply with all relevant FMVSS.1 Paragraph S4 of FMVSS

No. 108 defines an integral beam headlamp as “a headlamp … comprising an integral and indivisible optical assembly including lens, reflector, and light source, except that a headlamp conforming to paragraph S10.18.8 or paragraph S10.18.9 may have a lens designed to be replaceable.” The standard does not contain performance requirements for a light source that is part of an integral beam headlamp, but instead specifies performance requirements for the complete headlamp. These include (among other things) photometry, through minimum and maximum candela at specified test points,2 color, which must remain within specified boundaries,3 and that the headlamp be steady burning.4

While LED light sources that are part of an integral beam headlamp are permitted as noted above, no LED light source is currently permitted to be used in a replaceable bulb headlamp. FMVSS No. 108 contains specific requirements for the replaceable light sources (i.e., bulbs) used in replaceable bulb headlamps. These requirements are intended to support light source interchangeability. Paragraph S11 of the standard requires that “[e]ach replaceable light source must be designed to conform to the dimensions and electrical specifications furnished with respect to it pursuant to part 564 of this chapter[.]”5 Part 564 requires that replaceable bulb manufacturers submit to NHTSA for review and acceptance various design specifications for the bulb. If accepted, this design information is then placed in a publicly available docket to facilitate the manufacture and use of those light sources. As of the date of this letter, no submission that includes LEDs as the light source for a replaceable bulb headlamp has been listed in the docket. Therefore, no LED replaceable light source may be used in a replaceable bulb headlamp.

Discussion

Pursuant to FMVSS No. 108, paragraphs S4 and S10.14, LEDs are allowed to be used as a light source in integral beam headlamps as long as the headlamp conforms to all applicable headlamp requirements in FMVSS No. 108. However, LEDs are not currently permitted in a replaceable bulb headlamp. Nevertheless, illegal LED headlamp replaceable light sources may be available for purchase on the internet, and although these lights do not conform to the requirements of FMVSS No. 108, some consumers purchase and install these LED light sources in their replaceable bulb headlamps. While NHTSA regulates the manufacture and sale of light sources, it generally does not regulate the modifications individuals make to their own vehicles. It is therefore left to State law to address installation of an LED replaceable light source in a headlamp.

FMVSS No. 108 does not directly regulate what you describe as peak luminance as measured in nits or the spectral power distribution of the headlamp light source. However, this is indirectly regulated through the headlamp performance requirements, such as the photometry and chromaticity requirements. Additionally, flicker is regulated through the requirement that lower beam headlamps be steady burning. We also note that, although FMVSS No. 108 requires that the light emitted by headlamps be white, the permissible boundary of white includes colors that may be perceived by the human eye as white with a yellow tint and white with a blue tint.6

In your communications, you raise concerns about the health impacts of LED headlamps. We are aware of concerns raised about possible adverse effects of certain LED devices, particularly as used in street lighting that emits excess blue light.7 NHTSA’s focus is on automotive safety, but the agency recognizes that separate expertise resides in sister agencies that are health-focused, such as the Food and Drug Administration.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Eli Wachtel of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
 

John Donaldson
Acting Chief Counsel

1 Letter from Stephen Wood, Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA, to Takayuki Amma, Manager, Koito Manufacturing Co. (Dec. 21, 2005). Letter from O. Kevin Vincent, Chief Counsel, NHTSA, to Junichi Hasegawa, Stanley Electric Co. (Apr. 8, 2013). Interpretation letters are available on NHTSA’s online interpretations database at https://www.nhtsa.gov/nhtsa-interpretation-file-search.

2 Photometry requirements for headlamp systems can be found in FMVSS No. 108, Tables XVIII and XIX.

3 See FMVSS No. 108, Table I-a (headlamp color). Chromaticity requirements are pursuant to FMVSS No. 108 S14.4.

4See FMVSS No. 108 Tables I-(a and c). NHTSA has stated that “steady burning” means “light that is essentially unvarying in intensity.” See Letter from Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel, NHTSA, to United Sidecar Association, Inc. (Feb. 9, 1982). A device may fail to meet this requirement where the driver “would not see a signal that was consistent or reliable in its meaning.” See Letter from Paul Jackson Rice, Chief Counsel, NHTSA, to Bob Abernathy, Idea’s Inc. (Sept. 7, 1990) (applying steady burning in a taillamps context). In the context of a modulating motorcycle headlamp, we have stated that “there is no failure to conform if the modulating light from the lamp is perceived to be a steady beam.” Letter from John Womack, Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA, to Joe De Sousa (March 10, 1994).

5 See Letter from John Womack, Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA, to Nancy Tavarez, Beitrix Industries (Aug. 30, 1995) (clarifying application of Part 564 to replaceable headlamp bulbs).

6 Letter from Frank Seales, Jr., Chief Counsel, NHTSA, to Richard Hodson, (July 4, 2000) (stating that “SAE J578c defines white by blue, yellow, green, red, and purple boundaries within a chromaticity diagram. Thus, it is possible to design a headlamp that emits a light that approaches the blue boundary and is perceived as having a blue tint but which nevertheless remains within the boundaries that define "white." These headlamps would comply with the color requirements of Standard No. 108.”).

7 See “AMA adopts guidance to reduce harm from high intensity street lights,” American Medical Association, June 14, 2016, available at https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/ama-adopts-guidance-reduce-harm-high- intensity-street-lights.

ID: aiam3815

Dear Mr. Nakaya: This responds to your letter of January 20, 1984, requesting a interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 102, *Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect*. You asked whether Mazda may modify the display of shift lever positions for vehicles equipped with automatic transmissions to delete the gear lever indicator. As explained below, FMVSS No. 102 does not permit the deletion of the gear position indicator.; You should be aware that the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration (NHTSA) does not pass approval on the compliance of any vehicle or equipment with a safety standard before the actual events that underlie certification. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, it is the manufacturer's responsibility to determine whether its vehicles and equipment comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations, and to certify its products in accordance with that determination. Therefore, the following statements only represents the agency's opinion based on the information provided in your letter.; Your letter states that Mazda automobiles with automatic transmission currently display the gear lever sequence and identify the shift lever position of the automobile. Based on the information in your letter, the agency understands that you propose to modify the display in such a way that '[t]he actual gear selection would not be indicated (as is the case of current manual transmissions).' The pattern of the gear positions would be embossed either on the instrument panel or on the shift lever handle.; Paragraph S3.2. of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 102 stat that the '[i]dentification of shift lever *positions* of automatic transmissions...shall be permanently displayed in view of the driver.' [Emphasis added.] 49 CFR S571.102. NHTSA interprets 'position' to mean the position of the gears in relation to each other *and* the position that the driver has selected at the time of selection. Therefore, the display of a gear lever sequence and a gear position indicator is required for automobiles equipped with automatic transmissions.; You should note that FMVSS No. 101, *Controls and Displays,* als applies to the display of automatic gar positions. Paragraph S5 of the standard requires that, inter alia, each passenger car, multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck or bus less than 10,000 pounds GVWR with any display listed in S5.1 or in column 1 of Table 2 of the standard shall meet the requirements for the location, identification, and illumination of such display. Since 'gear position' is listed under S5.1, and 'Automatic Gear Position' is listed under Table 2, the requirements of FMVSS No. 101 apply to the display of shift lever positions in vehicles equipped with automatic transmissions.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5007

"Dear Mr. Selander: This responds to your request for an interpretatio of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114, Theft Protection, in connection with an electronic locking ignition system that you are developing. You asked whether an electronic code, which would be entered into the locking system by the vehicle operator to permit operation of the system, would be included within the standard's definition of 'key.' As discussed below, the answer to your question is yes. 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. You described the operation of your planned locking ignition system as follows. When an electronic code is entered into the locking system by the operator, a match is made with an electronic code stored in the system's memory. When the correct match occurs, the operator may move the locking system out of the 'lock' position to other positions such as 'accessory', 'off,' 'on', or 'start', in order to activate the vehicle's engine, motor, or accessories. You also stated that, with the locking system out of the 'lock' position, the transmission can be shifted out of the 'park' position in order to operate the vehicle. The transmission shift lever must be returned to the 'park' position before the locking system may be put back into the 'lock' position. Placement of the locking system back into the 'lock' position would automatically cause removal of the electronic code from the system. At that time, re-entry of the electronic code would be necessary to operate the vehicle. Section S4.2 of Standard No. 114 requires each vehicle to have a key-locking system that, whenever the key is removed, will prevent-- (a) normal activation of the vehicle's engine or other main source of motive power, and (b) either steering, or forward self-mobility, or both. The term 'key' is defined in S3 of the standard to include 'any other device designed and constructed to provide a method for operating a locking system which is designed and constructed to be operated by that device.' We agree that an electronic code which is entered into a locking ignition system by the vehicle operator to permit operation of the system comes within this definition. For GM's planned system, removal of the key would occur when the locking system is placed back into the 'lock' position by the operator, since the electronic code is automatically removed from the system at that time and the vehicle will not operate unless the code is re-entered. Therefore, under section S4.2, placement of the locking system back into the 'lock' position (i.e., removal of the key) must prevent normal activation of the vehicle's engine and either steering, or forward self-mobility, or both. We note that section S4.5 of Standard No. 114 requires (except under limited specified circumstances) a warning to the driver to be activated whenever the key required by section S4.2 has been left in the locking system and the driver's door is opened. For GM's planned system, activation of the warning would be required (other than under the limited specified circumstances) if a driver opened the door without placing the locking system back into the 'lock' position, since the electronic code (key) would remain in the locking system in that situation. Standard No. 114 also has several other requirements related to keys. Of particular note is one set forth in a new section S4.2.1, which takes effect on September 1, 1992. Under that section, the key-locking system required by S4.2 in each vehicle which has an automatic transmission with a 'park' position must (except under limited specified circumstances) 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. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any additional questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: nht95-3.90

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 14, 1995

FROM: Hai Tee Young

TO: Secretary of Transportation, DOT

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 12/15/95 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Hai Tee Young (A43; Std. 205)

TEXT: I invented and designed slats for passenger transportations (see my disclosure document to Patent and Trade Mark Commisioner), but my patent lawyer thought this is "almost certainly going to be objected to as being hazardous . . . safety regulations prev enting this" (see his letter dated August 11, 1995)

But I don't see why this will be objected by law or safety regulation, this is not only no hazardous, on contrary, eliminate hazards. Firstly, if the slats are made of fine and thin materials, those slats will appear as fine lines in driver's and pas sengers' eyes, it does not hinder driver's sight and vision, Secondly, if the edges of slats are also soft, in a case of car collision, the driver or passengers either sit on front or back seats without fastening belt, their heads and hands hit the glass es, these slats will not make cuts on them, on contrary, will slow down the speed of their bodies to finally hit the glasses, thus reduce the degree of injury. We can even design double glasses and install those slats between the double glasses adjustab le by either manually or electric automatic control. There will be no any reason to oppose such a device.

Will Your Honor tell me whether my patent attorney's guess is true that there may exist any law and safety regulation against such kind of device? If there really exist such law and regulation, as my analyses point out above, since my this device make s every good thing without side effects, there shall have no reason to be opposed, but such law and regulation shall be revised.

Please help me with Your Honor's best. This is my beginning inventions, not my ending ones. If I can succeed on those beginning ones, I shall march forward from here toward greater and greatest inventions which will give human being great help. So I bessech you to give me your best help in order to encourage my future real great inventions which can help all mankind greatly.

Looking forward your prompt respond and help,

(Brochure and graphics omitted.)

Enclosure

August 11, 1995

Hai Tee Young 10313 Lower Azusa Road Temple City, CA 91780

Re: SUNSHINE SHELTERS FOR ALL PASSENGERS TRANSPORTATION

Dear Mr. Young:

I am in receipt of your disclosure entitled as above and relating to the use of conventional multiple-slat blinds on windows of automobiles, aircraft, trains, or the like.

Use of blinds or slats on a front window of an automobile or aircraft is almost certainly going to be objected to as being hazardous. If you check, I am sure you will find that there are safety regulations preventing this.

If you find that this is permitted by law, details of the slats' construction, how they are mounted, and, if adjustable, how adjustment is made should be determined before filing a patent application. As I view your disclosure materials, they pertain to a broad "idea" and not to a specific piece of equipment.

I do not take an interest in an invention as payment for patenting services.

Very truly yours, GEORGE J. NETTER, ESQ

ID: nht92-4.40

DATE: 08/12/92

FROM: DENNIS T. JOHNSTON -- ENGINEERING PLANNING AND LIAISON MANAGER, ROVER GROUP NORTH AMERICAN ENGINEERING OFFICE

TO: ADMINISTRATOR -- NHTSA

COPYEE: GREG DANA -- AIAM

TITLE: SUBJECT: PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION - FMVSS 214 - SIDE IMPACT PROTECTION; LIGHT TRUCKS, BUSES AND MULTIPURPOSE PASSENGER VEHICLES; FINAL RULE

REFERENCE: DOCKET NO. 88-06, NOTICE 19, FMVSS 214 - FINAL RULE: RESPONSE TO PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION DATED JULY 13, 1992 FR VOL. 57, NO. 134 PP 30917-23

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-10-92 FROM BARRY FELRICE TO DENNIS T. JOHNSTON (A40; STD. 214)

TEXT: Rover Group Ltd., the British manufacturer of the Range Rover Multipurpose Passenger Vehicle (MPV), submits the following in response to the referenced Final Rule amending FMVSS No. 214, 'Side Impact Protection; Light Trucks, Buses and Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles'.

The July 13, 1992 Final Rule introduces a concept that had not been previously addressed in the June 14, 1991 Final Rule or the NPRM dated January 15, 1992. That is the classification of contoured doors by the ratio of the width of the lowest portion of the door to the width of the door at its widest point ("ratio"). This classification is not specifically mentioned in the preamble (except obliquely as ". . . certain contoured doors . . ."), but rather, appears directly in the rule in Section 3(e)(7).

Specifically, the July 13, 1992 Final Rule treats contoured doors with a ratio of greater than 0.5 differently than those whose ratio is 0.5 or less. It is Rover Group's understanding following the final rule that a contoured door on a multipurpose passenger vehicle whose width of the lowest portion of the door, for example, measured 41 centimeters and whose widest portion measured 80 centimeters would be required to meet the current quasi-static door strength procedures contained in FMVSS 214 for passenger cars beginning with vehicles produced after September 1, 1993. Multipurpose passenger vehicles (trucks and buses, as well) with contoured doors whose ratio was 0.5 or less (whose lower most width was 40 centimeters or less in the above example) would not be required to have these contoured doors meet quasi-static requirements until September 1, 1994, with the inference that a newly proscribed test procedure would be promulgated for these doors far enough in advance to allow manufacturers to meet this requirement.

However, in conversation with NHTSA staff since the release of the July 13, 1992 Final Rule it appears that NHTSA is considering another discriminator other than the 0.5 ratio to determine which contoured doors for multipurpose vehicles will need to conform to the current quasi-static test or to the not as yet promulgated test.

The current Range Rover has contoured read doors. These doors have a ratio greater than 0.5 (though not significantly greater), and under our interpretation of the July 13, 1992 Final Rule would be required to meet current FMVSS 214 quasi static door strength requirements beginning September 1, 1993. We have developed a design that will meet the current requirements, and have begun to purchase tooling to ensure that production after September 1, 1993 will comply. Any significant change in the test procedure for these doors (along the lines of that proposed in the January 15, 1992 NPRM, for example) would render this tooling obsolete. Thus Rover Group would be required to scrap this tooling at significant cost, and embark on an additional development program. (For details on the design changes necessitated by the test procedure quoted in the January 15, 1992 NPRM please see Rover Group's response dated March 16, 1992.)

Futhermore, based on our side impact test data, we believe that the positioning of door strengtheners that result using the currently specified test procedure in FMVSS 214 is more appropriate than the test procedure in the January 15, 1992 NPRM to offer the passengers of Range Rover vehicles with enhanced side impact protection.

If the Final Rule is to be interpreted as Rover Group has related above (in the third paragraph), please consider this document as a request for interpretation. If, however, NHTSA believes another interpretation is appropriate, please consider this as a petition for reconsideration to align the rule with that contained in this document.

If you have any questions regarding this matter please feel free to contact me on (301) 731-8709 at your earliest convenience.