ID: 1982-1.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/09/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: United Sidecar Association, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 9, 1981, asking several questions about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You have asked for a clarification of our position on pulsating headlamps and stoplamps commenting that several States have expressed a concern "that a light of variable intensity may be confused by the citizen as an emergency vehicle which is allowed to have flashing headlights."

As you have indicated, paragraph S4.6(a) of Standard No. 108 requires turn signal lamps, hazard warning signal lamps, and school bus warning lamps to flash when activated, while S4.6(b) requires all other lamps to be steady burning. By "steady burning," the standard means a light that is essentially unvarying in intensity. There is, however, an exception in S4.6(b) to the "steady burning" requirement. Means may be provided "to flash headlamps and side marker lamps for signalling purposes." Paragraph S3 of the standard defines "flash" as meaning "a cycle of activation and deactivation of a lamp by automatic means. . . ." In our view, a lamp whose intensity varies from a higher output to a lower output would not be "steady burning" or "flash" within the meaning of those terms and hence would be prohibited. But if complete deactivation occurs, then the lamp "flashes." Installation of flashing lamps under the S4.6(b) exception is not restricted to emergency vehicles. It is permissible under the standard for a motorcycle to have a device which gives the motorcyclist the option of causing the motorcycle headlamp to operate automatically through cycles of activation and deactivation instead of burning steadily.

On the other hand, stop lamps that either flash or are of variable intensity are not allowed by S4.6(b) of Standard No. 108 since they are not steady-burning while in use.

I hope this answers your questions.

SINCERELY,

United Sidecar Association, Inc.

September 9, 1981

Office of the Chief Counsel NHTSA

Gentlemen:

We are quite perplexed regarding the legality or otherwise of certain devices used in lighting circuits of motorcycles. Specifically, we refer to devices to flash or modulate or pulsate the light intensity, whether for headlights, or for stop lights.

As we understand FMVSS 108, all lights installed on a motor vehicle must be STEADY BURNING with the sole exception being turn signal lamps, hazard warning signal lamps, school bus warning lamps and various lamps used by police and emergency vehicles.

It is also our understanding that steady is equivalent to uniform, stable, not shaky, regular, continuous, uniform and constant. In other words, a steady light is one that does not flash, pulsate, or is otherwise discontinuous or variable in intensity.

Many devices are now offered for sale that cause the headlight to vary in intensity. Others are available to pulsate or blink the stop light. The purported purpose of these devices is to attract more attention to the light. And, if so, the user is alleged to be safer. However, several Departments of Public Safety have expressed a concern that a light of variable intensity may be confused by the citizen as an emergency vehicle which is allowed to have flashing headlights.

The citizen will not readily recognize the subtle difference between a pulsating headlight or a modulating headlight or a flashing headlight. When he sees a flashing headlight will he respond as if it were an emergency vehicle or as just another motorcycle?

AS we understand from verbal communications with NHTSA officials, a pulsating headlight is a steady light but a pulsating stop light is not a steady stop light.

This is indeed most perplexing and confusing.

If the pulsating headlight is steady, then it would not appear to require State legislation for its use. If it is not steady then it is prohibited under FMVSS 108. If the pulsating headlight is steady, then it can be used for any application. If not, it can be used for none.

We are anxious to promote the safety and well being of our members. However, we cannot and will not promote any device that appears to be illegal and in contravention to State or Federal regulations.

We urge, with utmost expediency, a full and complete definition of exactly what is and what is not a steady, burning light. Also, what type of devices, if any, have been approved by NHTSA and by the appropriate regulatory bodies for varying the intensity of the headlight and the stop light.

If a device that varies the intensity of the headlight at 3 to 5 Hz is legal, then is a device that varies the headlight at 0.75 to 1.5 Hz legal if some voltage is always applied to the light bulb? Also, what criteria is legal for variable intensity stoplights?

H. A. Kendall, Ph.D.

ID: 1983-2.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/01/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: MMC Services Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Masakatsu Kano Executive Vice President MMC Services Inc. 3000 Town Center, Suite 1960 Southfield, Michigan 48075

Dear Mr. Kano:

This responds to your letter of April 20, 1983, asking several questions concerning the requirements for armrests in Safety Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact. That standard requires, as one optional means of compliance (S3.5.1(c)), that each armrest have at least 2 inches of coverage withing the pelvic impact area, when measured vertically in side elevation. You ask whether this 2-inch measurement may be made from the outermost points of the base of the armrest as it fits against the door inner trim, or whether the measurement must be made from the inboard portion of the armrest that would actually contact a vehicle occupant. You also ask if the standard permits an armrest surface that would contact an occupant to be tilted at a 15 degree angle from the vertical, and whether it permits that surface to have "low moles" or "shallow bezels" (i.e., minor protrusions or indentations).

With reference to the drawing included in your letter, Standard No. 201 would require the specified 2-inch measurement to be taken at the "H1" parameters, rather than the "HO". The purpose of the requirement is to ensure that there is at least 2 inches of coverage within the pelvic impact area. For this requirement to be meaningful, the covered surface must be contactable by the vehicle occupant. The vehicle occupant would not contact the base of the armrest illustrated in your drawing, regardless of its vertical length.

Paragraph S3.5.1(c) does not preclude "moles" or "bezels" in the armrest, since there are no limitations on radius of curvature. A "mole" which projected only moderately into the vehicle interior would be included in the calculation to determine compliance with the requirement for 2 inches of covered surface. If a mole projected so far into the vehicle interior that it would prevent pelvic contact with the rest of the armrest, however, only the mole would be included in the calculation.

By the same token, while a "bezel" is not precluded, it is not included in the calculation if it is so deep that it cannot be contacted.

Paragraph S3.5.1(c) does not specify any particular angle at which an armrest must be set with relation to the door inner trim. Therefore, it is permissible for the inboard surface of the armrest illustrated in your drawing to make an angle of 15 degrees from the vertical.

Finally, I would point out that paragraph S3.5.1(c) is one of three optional means of compliance for manufacturers who install armrests. A manufacturer may also satisfy the requirements of Standard No. 201 by complying with either S3.5.1(a) or S3.5.1(b), in which case it is not necessary to provide 2 inches of coverage within the pelvic impact area.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington D.C. 20590

Subject: Interpretation of FMVSS 201: Occupant Protection In Interior Impact

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This is to ask your interpretation of FMVSS 201; S 3.5.1 (C) (armrests) which states, "Along not less than 2 continuous inches of its length, the armrest shall, when measured vertically in side elevation, provide at least 2 inches of coverage within the pelvic impact area" is not clear about the measuring method, therefore, the following is our own interpretation. (Reference to the figure of attachment);

We interpret the "at least 2 inches" length "HO" which is measured vertically in side elevation.

If your interpretation is not "HO" but "H1",

i) Is it acceptable that the lean of the armrest side- surface is 15 degrees (0=15) or less?

ii) Is it allowable that the armrest side-surface has the low mole or the shallow bezel, with the following dimensions:

-- Width of mole or bezel "W1" or "W2" is equal to or less than 0.5 inch.

-- Height of mole "D2" and depth of bezel "D1" are equal to or less than 0.2 inch, respectively.

Very truly yours,

Masakatsu Kano Executive Vice President

ID: 1984-3.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/16/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHSTA

TO: Mr. Noel M. Torres

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Noel M. Torres 2521-C3 W. Sunflower Santa Ana, California 92704

Dear Mr. Torres:

This is in response to your letter of September 25, 1984 asking questions about the relationship of your "Panic-Stop Detection Brake-Lite System" Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

The photographs you enclosed show a segmented lamp mounted on the centerline of a passenger car directly below the rear window. Another picture shows the lamp installed on the rear of a motorcycle above the license plate. These pictures contain the notation "The harder you brake the faster the lite sweeping motion." Your questions are:

"(1) If I install this as a retrofit on a 1986 car which will have a third brake lite, will it qualify legally as a tail/stop lite if it meets the photometric requirements of SAE-J186A and FMVSS 108?"

Section 108(a)(2) ((A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act forbids manufacturers, dealers, distributors, and motor vehicle repair businesses from rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, any device, or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. This would appear to preclude removal of the mandated center high-mounted stop lamp on cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985, and replacement of it with your lamp.

"(2) Is it legally all right to use it now on cars and motorcycles?"

Standard No. 108 was recently amended to permit manufacturers to install the center high-mounted lamp on passenger cars manufactured on or after August 1, 1984, and General Motors is already equipping some of its 1985 models with it. Thus, a center high-mounted stoplamp already installed on a passenger car in accordance with Standard No. 108 would be subject to the prohibition in Section 108(a) (2) (A) discussed above.

As for other passenger cars, we assume that you wish to make your lamp available as an aftermarket device. In this circumstance, where it is installed on a vehicle in use, its permissibility is to be determined under local law; Federal law does not apply.

Finally, as to motorcycles, your photograph, by depicting your lamp mounted above the license plate, indicates that it substitutes for the original equipment stop/taillamp. Inasmuch as the stop/taillamp was installed in accordance with Standard No. 108, the prohibitions of Section 108(a)(2)(A) apply to it as well.

We are returning your tape to you and appreciate your interest in safety.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosure

2521-C3 W. Sunflower Santa Ana, Ca 92704 September 25, 1984

Madam Diane K. Steed NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMIN. 400 7th Street S.W. Washington D.C. 20590

Dear Madam Steed:

I hope you don't mind my taking the liberty of sending you this letter together with a 10-minute videotape of a brake-lite system for cars and motorcycles which I thought you might want to review and evaluate, if you have the time.

I have been thinking for a while now that it is amazing in this day and age of space shuttles, maze of freeways and fast driving, our cars are still equipped with the most out-dated brake-lite system that have been in use for hundreds of years, and when driving on the road, there's no way of telling if a car braking in front of you is trying to make a panic stop.

An idea came to mind which I developed. I call it "PANIC-STOP DETECTION BRAKE-LITE SYSTEM", applicable for cars and motorcycles. I honestly believe it is a very effective system that would reduce more than 90% of rear-end collisions. You'll see what I mean when you view the videotape enclosed.

I would appreciate it if you could clarify two things for me: 1) If I install this as a retrofit on a 1986 car which will have a third brake lite, will it qualify legally as a tail/stop lite if it meets the photometric requirements of SAE-J186A and FMVSS 108? 2) Is it legally alright to use it now on cars and motorcycles?

Thank you so much for your kind consideration and I hope to hear from you.

Yours truly,

Noel M. Torres

P.S. If you think you might want to see the prototype samples, I'll be more than happy to ship them to you.

Encls./ 3-photos, 1-videotape

ID: nht87-2.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/09/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ms. Dianne Black

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Dianne Black Engineering Manager, Legislation, Compliance, and Product Development Jaguar Cars, Inc. 600 Willow Tree Road Leonia, NJ 07650

Dear Ms. Black:

Your letter to Barry Felrice concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114 has been referred to me for response. This response is based on your letter, and a telephone conversation of March 17, 1987, between Mr. Edward Stumpkey of Jaguar and M r. Kenneth Rutland of this agency clarifying certain matters raised in your letter. I regret the delay in this response.

Standard 114, Theft Protection, requires that each vehicle subject to must have a key-locking system which must prevent not only normal engine activation, but also either steering or forward self-mobility or both when the key is removed.

You mention a system intended to meet the standard, but indicate that "for security reasons," you are reluctant to supply specific details on that system. Without reference to specific data, you state that your system meets paragraph S4.2(a) of Standard 114, that is, removing the key from the ignition prevents normal engine activation.

You go on to say that the microprocessing systems that control vehicle operations will not function when the driver removes the ignition key. Therefore, you state, you meet one of the conditions in S4.2(b) of the Standard, that is, removing the key must prevent forward self-mobility of the vehicle.

Based on the information you supplied, NHTSA can not agree that your key-locking system meets either requirement of S4.2(b). As I understand your description of Jaguar's system, deactivating the engine is the means by which you assert you prevent vehicle forward self-mobility. If a manufacturer could comply with the S4.2(b) with respect to preventing forward self-mobility by preventing normal engine activation under S4.2(a), S4.2(b) would be redundant. Paragraph S4.2(b) requires an added safeguard with respect to forward self-mobility, such as a transmission lock or other means, to prevent a vehicle from moving under its own power should the engine somehow be activated without inserting the key.

Therefore, preventing normal engine activation under S4.2(a) will not meet the condition in S4.2(b) of preventing vehicle forward self-mobility. If jaguar has some means other than deactivating the engine to prevent forward self-nobility, its system may be acceptable. Otherwise, Jaguar must add some means to meet at least one of the conditions in S4.2(b).

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Mr. Barry Felrice National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, D. C. 20590

RE: FMVSS 114

Dear Mr. Felrice:

At the NHTSA Industry meeting last Wednesday, I promised to call you the following day to discuss the difficulty we had encountered with FMVSS 114 as it relates to new technology.

I did not call, obviously, because it appeared that I needed same more detail from the engineering development and design staff in England. That detail has now arrived and to allow you the opportunity to look at the problem, I have opted to write. Once y ou have had an opportunity to look over the text, perhaps we can discuss either by telephone or in person.

Our difficulty appears to be with S4.2 and S4.3 of the relevant standard. Summary of S4.2 Each vehicle shall have a key locking system that whenever the key is removed, will prevent:

a) normal activation of the vehicles engine or other main source of native power.

b) either steering or forward self mobility of the vehicle or both.

Summary of S4.3 The prime means of deactivating the vehicles engine or other main source of motive power shall not activate the deterent required by S4.2(b).

For security reasons, I will not go into specific details of the system other than to say that by taking the key out of the ignition, we would meet paragraph (a) of S4.2. In other words, without the ignition key the vehicle cannot be activated. Without t he insertion of the ignition key activated, thus rendering the fueling and ignition maps inactive. This meets one of the condition in paragraph (b) of S4.2, in that with the processors inactive the engine will not run therefore the vehicle cannot move un der it; own forward mobility.

Perhaps we have overinterpreted the standard 114 to require steering column locks but your comment and thoughts would be appreciated. In further discussion, I can provide more detail of the system for you.

Sincerely yours,

Dianne Black Engineering Manager, Legislation, Compliance and Product Development

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: 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: 21871.ztv

Mr. Thomas C. Bliss
3M Traffic Control Materials Division
3M Center
St. Paul, MN 55144-1000





Dear Mr. Bliss:

This is in reply to your letter of June 30, 2000, asking for interpretations of S5.7, Retroreflective Sheeting, of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

Several of your customers would like "to incorporate their company logo directly into the conspicuity markings used on their vehicles." You understand that "our customer is permitted to use their logo on markings placed on the vehicle in excess of the amount required to satisfy the minimum coverage stated in the regulation," and you ask that we confirm that interpretation.

S5.7.1.4.2(a) requires that a strip of retroreflective sheeting, "originating and terminating as close to the front and rear as practicable," be applied to the side of trailers, but that "the strip need not be continuous as long as not less than half of the length of the trailer is covered. . . ." This exception is intended to accommodate different trailer configurations by allowing breaks in the conspicuity material where the features of the trailer are such that it may not be feasible to install continuous sheeting. A manufacturer must comply when half the trailer length is covered, but if it wishes to add more conspicuity material to the portion of the trailer length that is not covered, the material must comply with S5.7. We view the installation of nonconforming material on the side as subject to the prohibition in S5.1.3 that no additional reflective material or other motor vehicle equipment shall be added that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. For this reason, the appropriate question is, as you have asked in your first question, "do conspicuity markings that incorporate a logo conform to FMVSS 108?"

First, because the standard requires conspicuity markings to be either red or white, the introduction of a third color (or white on a red section and vice versa) would not conform to Standard No. 108. Thus, any logo must be red or white. Assuming the logo is red or white, the answer is similar to that which we have provided inquirers as to whether logos are acceptable on the lens of the center high-mounted stop lamp. Both the lamp and retroreflective sheeting must meet the color and photometric requirements that are specified for each. If the sheeting meets the color, photometric, and all other requirements with the logo in place, then retroreflective sheeting incorporating a logo would comply with Standard No. 108. This, of course, would permit a logo that straddles red and white segments of retroreflective sheeting as well as a logo that is contained entirely within either a red or white segment. However, because the standard requires segments of red and white, a red logo could not appear in a white segment and vice versa. A logo (or portion of a logo) in a red segment could, however, be shown in a different shade of red, and a logo (or portion) in a white segment could be shown in a different shade of white, provided that both shades of red and both shades of white complied with the red and white color specifications of SAE J578c.

Your next question is whether conspicuity markings that incorporate a logo would "qualify as conspicuity markings under FMVSS 108." S5.7 prescribes dimensions for the width of the sheeting and the length of the individual segments. As noted above, a logo could be inserted in otherwise conforming sheeting if the sheeting meets the photometric, color, and all other requirements with the logo in place.

You have also asked whether "conspicuity markings that incorporate a logo [are] taken into account when assessing conformance to FMVSS standard 108." The coefficients for retroreflection of each segment of red and white sheeting must be not less than the minimum values specified in Fig. 29 of Standard No. 108. In determining conformance with S5.7, if a logo prevented a segment of sheeting from complying with the photometric or any other requirement, we would consider that the segment failed to comply with Standard No. 108. Thus, the answer to this question is yes.

Finally, you have asked whether "a 48mm (2 inch) wide marking with a logo [which] conforms to the performance requirements necessary for DOT -C2, can . . . be considered DOT-C2 marking." The answer is no. S5.7.1.3(d) requires DOT -C2 sheeting to have a width of not less than 50mm. The sheeting in your question is 2mm too narrow to be DOT-C2, even if it meets the photometric requirements for DOT -C2 sheeting with the logo in place.

If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).





Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.10/6/00

ID: nht80-3.38

DATE: 08/25/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Renault USA

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

FMVSS INTERPRETATION August 25, 1980

Mr. Francois Louis Head of Governmental Affairs Renault USA 14250 Plymouth Road Detroit, Michigan 48232

Dear Mr. Louis:

This responds to your letter of July 14, 1980, seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 101-80, Controls and Displays. You asked whether an engine stop control mounted on the engine cover of a cab-over-engine truck must be illuminated. The answer is no, it need not be illuminated.

Section S5.3.1 of the standard provides that except for "foot-operated controls or hand-operated controls mounted upon the floor, floor console or steering column, " any control listed in column 1 of Table 1 and accompanied by the word "yes" in column 4 shall be capable of illumination whenever the headlights are activated. Since the engine stop control is listed in column 1 of Table 1 and accompanied by the word "yes" in column 4, it must be illuminated, unless it falls within one of the exceptions of S5.3.1.

In the case of the engine stop control in your truck, the control is located on the engine cover. Because the engine cover is separate from the instrument panel and mounted on the floor between the two front seats, the agency considers it a floor console. Thus, the engine stop control located on the cover does not have to be illuminated.

I would like to emphasize that oral interpretations by agency staff are only unofficial opinions. Therefore, if you have questions in the future, they should be directed at the outset in writing to this office.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

July 14, 1980

Mr. Frank Berndt

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street S.W. Washington D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This letter is to seek NHTSA's confirmation of the following interpreration given to us orally, by Mr. John Carson of the Rulemaking Staff:

"The engine cover of a cab-over-engine truck depicted on the attached drawing constitutes a floor console, and, therefore, under the provisions of paragraph S5.3.1 of FMVSS 101, the engine stop control mounted thereon need not be illuminated."

We would appreciate confirmation at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely.

Mr. Francois Louis Head of Governmental Affairs

Mr. Francois Louis Head of Governmental Affairs Renault USA 14250 Plymouth Road Detroit, Michigan 48232

Dear Mr. Louis:

This responds to your letters of July 14, 1980 seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 101-80, Controls and Displays. You asked whether an engine truck must be on the engine cover of a cab-over-engine truck must be illuminated. The answer is no, it need not be illuminated.

Section S5.3.1 of the standard provided that except for "foot-operated controls or hand-operated controls mounted upon the floor, floor console or steering column," any control listed in column 1 of Table 1 and accompanied by the word "yes" in column 4 shall be capable of illumination whenever the headlights are activated. Since the engine stop control is listed in column 1 of Table 1 and accompanied by the word "yes" in column 4, it must be illuminated, unless it falls within one of the exceptions of S5.3.1.

In the case of the engine stop control in your truck, the control is located on the engine cover. Because the engine cover is separate from the instrument panel and mounted on the floor between the two front seats, the agency considers it a floor console. Thus, the engine stop control located on the cover does not have to be illuminated.

** I would like to emphasize that oral interpretations by agency staff are only unofficial opinions. Therefore, if you have questions in the future, they should be directed at the outset in writing to this office.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerly,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

NOA-30:SLOesch:pfp:8/6/80 cc: N)A-30 Subj/Chron, NOA-30 Mr. Oesch NEF-30, NRM-10, Interps: Std Redbook: (3) cc-963 1a

**NOTE: During the phone call Mr. Louis was advised that any remarks or opinions by the engineer were purely personal and that he must write to the Office of Chief Counsel for an official interpretation. This is standard procedure whenever anyone calls about an interpretation of a standard

ID: nht81-2.11

DATE: 03/30/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: BMW of North America

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

MAR 30 1981

NOA-30

Mr. Karl-Heinz Ziwica Manager Safety & Emission Control Engineering BMW of North America, Inc. Montvale, NJ 07645

Dear Mr. Ziwica:

This responds to your letter of February 13, 1981, requesting an interpretation of Safety Standard No. 127, Speedometers and Odometers. The odometer/speedometer assembly that BMW wishes to use in its vehicles is built to comply with S4.2.5.2, the encapsulation requirements. The encapsulation consists of plastic "box" having the speedometer/odometer face and lens as its front. The front, top, bottom, and sides of the box are all one piece. The back of the unit is a metal plate to which the speedometer/odometer assembly is attached. The plate is attached to the rest of the unit with six screws. You ask whether the screws must be encapsulated if the unit is to comply with S4.2.5.2. You also ask whether a seal that would have to be cut or torn in order to remove the plates and gain access to the odometer can be used.

Paragraph S4.2.5.2(b) of Standard No. 127 requires that a tamperer not be able to contact the odometer wheels by use of a straight rod .5mm or more in diameter. Such contact is permissible if the contact results when the rod is inserted essentially parallel to the odometer shaft, or if it is necessary either to penetrate the encapsulation or to damage the encapsulation or other odometer components to make that contact. Since your odometer/speedometer assembly is attached to the back plate, the odometer wheels can be easily reached from all angles without damaging the encapsulation when the plate is removed. Thus the screws must be encapsulated if the odometer is to comply with S4.2.5.2(b). If the screws are encapsulated in some fashion, it would be necessary to penetrate this encapsulation in order to remove the screws and the back plate, and the requirements of paragraph S4.2.5.2(b) would be satisfied.

Paragraph S4.2.5.2(d) sets forth the requirements for the encapsulation material. The rule specifies requirements for thickness and resistance to deflection, penetration, fracture, and impacts. The agency is not concerned about the form of the encapsulation as long as these requirements are met.

We hope you find this information helpful. Please contact this office if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

February 13, 1981

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington DC 20590

RE: Request for Interpretation FMVSS 127 Speedometers and Odometers

Dear Mr. Berndt

This letter requests interpretation regarding compliance of an odometer which is part of a combination instrument unit and which BMW intends to use to meet the requirements of FMVSS 127, Speedometers and Odometers, as amended June 16, 1980, 45FR40585.

At a meeting with Messrs. Oesch, Parker and Carson on January 29, 1981, we showed subject unit and it was agreed that the odometer is totally encapsulated and falls under the requirements of S4.2.5.2(a)(1), (b), (c) and (d). The final closure technique, however, was subject to question.

As shown in the attachments 1, 2 and 3, the entire speedometer/odometer is a one-piece lens-top-bottom-sides unit, and plates are held on to the rear via screws. Based on our discussion, we request interpretation of the following questions:

1. At the meeting we showed a closure technique in which all six screws holding the rear plates are encapsulated with plastic caps, which must be broken to gain access to the screw heads (for demonstration purposes, see attached pictures showing only one screw encapsulated by the plastic cap). Accordingly, do the screws themselves holding the rear plates to the rest of the unit have to be encapsulated, such as with devices like these plastic caps?

2. In the event question 1 is answered affirmatively, we wish to know if it would be acceptable to use a seal, instead of the plastic caps discussed under question 1 (e.g. a self-destructing label) affixed to both the unit and the rear plates, in such a manner that the labels would have to be cut or torn in order to remove the plates to gain access to the odometer unit itself (see attachment 3).

Very truly yours

Karl-Heinz Ziwica, Manager Safety & Emission Control Engineering

KHZ/jps

Attachments

ID: nht79-1.19

DATE: 10/25/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

October 25, 1979

Mr. Hisakazu Murakami Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. Suite 707 1919 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. P.O. Box 57105 Washington, D.C. 20037

Dear Mr. Murakami:

This is in confirmation of the discussion with Mr. Schwartz of my office when you met with him on September 10, 1979, as well as further confirmation of the telephone conversation between you and Mr. Schwartz in response to the letter from Mr. Maeda of your company dated February 9, 1979. As you may remember, the questions raised in this letter were substantially answered in the Agency's response of February 13, 1979, to a previous letter from your firm. In addition, I have enclosed a copy of the Agency's letter to Volvo on the same subject as requested.

Section 4.5.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115 (Vehicle Identification Number) states that the second section of the vehicle identification number for passenger cars shall be decipherable into the vehicle's line, series, body type, engine type, and restraint system type. "Line" is defined as "a name which a manufacturer applies to a family of vehicles which have a degree of commonality in construction, such as body, chassis or cab type." "Series" is defined as "a name which a manufacturer applies to a subdivision of 'line', denoting price, size, or weight identification, and which is utilized by the manufacturer for marketing purposes."

Your particular concern relates to the division of a particular Datsun model into several series based on the amount and type of optional equipment with which it is sold.

Based on the facts presented, it is apparent that Datsun models with different optional equipment packages could each be designated a "series" if Nissan desired. Nonetheless, the definition of "series" makes clear that the responsibility for applying and utilizing the "series" designation rests initially with the manufacturer. If the differences between the potential series are superficial and a manufacturer chooses not to designate separate series for marketing reasons because of the superficiality, the agency will not require such a designation.

Examples of series include Chrysler Plymouth Fury I, Fury and Fury III.

You also wish to know which types of restraint systems need to be distinguished within the VIN. Active belts, passive belts, and air bags must each be separately designated. Please note that if all the vehicles of a particular model utilize one restraint system type, that type must be reported to the Agency, but need not be directly encoded in the VIN itself.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

February 9, 1979

Mr. Joseph J. Levin Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION D.O.T. 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Levin:

We would like to take this time to ask for your interpretation concerning FMVSS No. 115 - VIN.

In our Datsun 210 series, there are two 2-Door Sedans (the ordinary 2-Door Sedan and the Deluxe 2-Door Sedan). These 2-Door Sedans have the same "Body Type", "Engine Type" and "Line".

However, the Deluxe 2-Door Sedan costs $450 more than the ordinary 2-Door Sedan due to the different equipment.(See Attachment Nos. 1 and 2)

It is my understanding that these two types of 2-Door Sedans do not have to be distinguished between in the "Series" even though there is a difference in equipment. (Refer to Attachment 2) I would like to know the answers to the following questions, if possible.

1) Would it be required or just requested to distinguish in the "Series" between these two 2-Door Sedans (Refer to Attachment Nos. 1 and 2)

2) What is the reason for the answer to Question No. 1?

3) Regarding Question No. 1, if it is not required to distinguish between these two 2-Door Sedans in the "Series", would it be OK for the Manufacturers to voluntarily distinguish between them even though it is not required in FMVSS No. 115-VIN?

4) Using the current models of GM, Ford or Chrysler, please show us some examples of "Series".

Thank you for your cooperation with regard to the above questions.

We would appreciate receiving the answers to the above questions as soon as possible.

We would also like to ask that you treat Attachment No. 2 "Confidential".

Should any questions arise with regard to the above mentioned matters, please feel free to contact Mr. Hisakazu Murakami, a member of my Staff, at 201-871-3555.

Very truly yours,

NISSAN MOTOR CO.,LTD.

Teruo Maeda General Manager

TM:mh Attachments