ID: nht89-1.70

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/13/89

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: MABEL Y. BULLOCK -- ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER FROM MABEL Y. BULLOCK AND LACY H. THORNBURG TO SUSAN SCHRUTH -- NHTSA RE WINDOW TINTING, FEDERAL PRE-EMPTION OF STATE REGULATIONS, OCC 2142; NORTH CAROLINA STATUTE REGULATING WINDOW TINTING; LETTER DATED 12/18/87 FROM LACY H. THORNBURG A ND MABEL Y. BULLOCK, SUBJECT MOTOR VEHICLES REGULATIONS OF DARK SHADED WINDOWS; PREEMPTION; LETTER DATED 05/06/88 FROM DAIRL BRAGG TO WILLIAM S. HIATT; LETTER DATED 10/28/82 FROM FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA TO LAWRENCE T. HIROHATA, NOA-30; LETTER DATED 04/04/8 5 FROM JEFFREY R. MILLER TO ARMOND CARDARELLI; REGULATIONS DATED 07/01/85 EST, FEDERAL AUTO SAFETY LAWS AND MOTOR VEHICLE WINDOW TINTING.

TEXT: Dear Ms. Bullock:

Thank you for your letter to Ms. Susan Schruth of my staff, regarding North Carolina General Statute 20-127, Windshields must be unobstructed. I regret the delay in responding. You enclosed a copy of the statute, the regulations implementing it, a copy of a December 18, 1987 legal memorandum prepared by your department concluding that a State statute or regulation allowing 35% light transmittance through windows in motor vehicles would be preempted by current Federal safety laws and standards regulati ng this same subject matter, and a copy of a May 6, 1988 letter from the Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA) to Mr. William S. Hiatt, the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles for North Carolina, asserting that the North Carolina statute was no t preempted by Federal laws and regulations. You asked for my opinion as to whether the North Carolina statute conflicts with any provision of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1381 et seq.) or with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (49 CFR 571.1 et seq.).

Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. As you are aware, our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehic les and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. One of the standards that we have issued under this authority is Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR @ 571.205), which applies to all new vehicles and all new glazing materials for use in motor v ehicles. Among the requirements set forth in Standard No. 205 are specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70 percent light transmittance in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) specifies that, "No person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or

import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard . . ." Because of this statutory requirement, any manufacturer, importer, or dealer that installs solar films or other sun screen devices on new glazing materials or the glazing installed in new vehicles must certify that the vehicle continues to comply with th e light transmittance and other requirements of Standard No. 205.

The requirement that a car comply with all applicable safety standards applies only until the car is first sold to a consumer. See section 108(b)(1) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1)). Both before and after a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, any modifications to the vehicle's windows, including tinting, are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from "rendering inoperative " any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with any safety standard. In the case of windows in a passenger car, this means that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business could install a sun screen device or win dow tinting that would result in a light transmittance of less than 70 percent for any window of the car, or otherwise cause the car to no longer comply with the other requirements of Standard No. 205. Violations of this "render inoperative" prohibition can result in Federal civil penalties to the manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business of up to $ 1000 for each noncomplying installation.

Please note that Federal law does not affect vehicle owners. Vehicle owners may alter their own vehicles and operate them on the highways as they please, even if the vehicle's windows no longer comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205. Hence, n o provision of a Federal statute or this agency's regulations prevents individual vehicle owners themselves from tinting the windows on their vehicles.

The authority of States to regulate glazing is affected by section 103(d) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1392(d)). This section provides that:

[whenever] a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established under this title is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or ite m of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed as preventing any State from en forcing any safety standard which is identical to a Federal safety standard.

The effect of this provision of the Safety Act, with respect to the light transmittance requirements of Standard No. 205, is to expressly prohibit any State from specifying some level of light transmittance other than than 70 percent specified in Standar d No. 205 for new motor vehicles and

new glazing for the use in motor vehicles. Each of the individual States has authority to enforce identical standards (i.e., a minimum of 70 percent light transmittance) for new motor vehicles and new glazing for use in motor vehicles. Additionally, eac h of the individual States has the authority to regulate the modifications that may be made to vehicles by their owners and to establish requirements for vehicles to be registered in that State.

Having provided this background, we want to turn now to the results of our review of the North Carolina statute and regulations, along with your office's memorandum concluding that the statue is preempted by Federal law.

1. New vehicles and new glazing for use in vehicles. We concur with the conclusions in your memorandum that the North Carolina statute would be preempted if it specifies any requirements other than the requirements of Standard No. 205 (minimum of 70 per cent light transmittance) for new vehicles or few new glazing for use in motor vehicles. Section 108(a)(1) of the Safety Act and Standard No. 205 require all new vehicles and new glazing for use in motor vehicles to be delivered to the first purchaser w ith a light transmittance of at least 70 percent. Section 103(d) of the Safety Act expressly preempts any non-identical State standard on the subject of window tinting. Section 20-127(d) of the North Carolina statute appears to permit a single applicat ion of tinted film with a light transmittance of as little as 35 percent to be applied to vehicle glazing after factory delivery, but before sale to the public. This provision is preempted by Federal law, as is any other provision of North Carolina law which specifies that new glazing and glazing in new vehicles shall have some level of light transmittance other than the 70 percent minimum light transmittance requirement specified in Standard No. 205.

2. Modifications to vehicles and glazing by manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses after the first purchase of the vehicle or glazing in good faith for purposes other than resale. We concur with the conclusions in your memorandum tha t the North Carolina statute would be preempted by Federal law if it permits the commercial installation of sunscreen materials so that the combination of the sunscreen material and the existing glazing no longer meet the 70 percent light transmittance r equirement specified in Standard No. 205. This conclusion is based on the conflict between the North Carolina statute and the "render inoperative" provision of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That provision prohibits any manufacturer, distributor , dealer, or repair business from rendering inoperative the compliance of a vehicle or an item of glazing with any of the requirements of Standard No. 205, including the minimum 70 percent light transmittance requirement.

Apart from the issue of preemption, I want to note that the provisions of State law cannot alter the effect of the "render inoperative" prohibition in Federal law. Regardless of how North Carolina law treats the combination of the glazing and the tintin g, if it results in less than 70

percent light transmittance, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business that installed such tinting on a vehicle would be liable for the Federal civil penalty discussed above.

3. Modifications to vehicles and glazing by individual owners themselves after the first purchase of the vehicle or glazing in good faith for purposes other than resale. As noted above, Federal law does not regulate modifications that individual owners themselves make to their vehicles or glazing after the first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale, even if those modifications result in the vehicles or glazing on longer complying with the requirements of Standard No. 205, including the requirement for at least 70 percent light transmittance. The State of North Carolina is free to establish whatever restrictions, if any, it deems appropriate on individual owner modifications, without regard to the requirements of Standard No. 205. To the extent that the North Carolina statute seeks to address these individual owner modifications, it would not be preempted by Federal law.

$4. Requirements for vehicles to be registered in the State of North Carolina. An individual State is free to establish whatever requirements it deems appropriate for vehicles to be registered in the State, provided that those State requirements would n ot prohibit the registration of vehicles that complied with the requirements of the Federal safety standards. Thus, the State of North Carolina is free to permit vehicles that do not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205 to be registered in N orth Carolina. To the extent that the North Carolina window tinting statute seeks to establish requirements for vehicles to be registered in the State, it would not be preempted by Federal law.

We have also reviewed the May 6, 1988 letter from MEMA to Mr. Hiatt, in which MEMA discusses why it believes North Carolina's statute would not be preempted by Federal law. The MEMA discussion does not address the "render inoperative" provision in secti on 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which prohibits commercial businesses from adversely affecting the compliance of elements of design installed in a vehicle or item of equipment in compliance with a safety standards, regardless of whether the vehicle is new or used. As was previously stated, Federal law prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from ever installing window tinting material for the owner of a car if the combination of the original glazing and the tinting materi al results in less than 70 percent light transmittance through any window of the car.

To summarize, the North Carolina statute would be preempted to the extent that it seeks to permit some level of light transmittance other than that specified in Standard No. 205 for glazing in vehicles prior to the first purchase of the vehicles in good faith for purposes other than resale. Similarly, the statute would be preempted to the extent it seeks to permit the commercial installation of sunscreen materials with the result that the combination of the sunscreen material and the existing glazing n o longer complies with the requirements of Standard No. 205. However, the North Carolina statute would not be preempted to the extent that it seeks to regulate the modifications that owners themselves can make to

their vehicles or to the extent that it seeks to establish requirements for vehicles to be registered in the State, even if those requirements differ from those specified in Standard No. 205.

Sincerely,

ID: 16-000745 Twisted Restorations revised

ID: aiam4591

"Dear Ms. Bullock: Thank you for your letter to Ms. Susan Schruth of m staff, regarding North Carolina General Statute 20-127, Windshields must be unobstructed. I regret the delay in responding. You enclosed a copy of the statute, the regulations implementing it, a copy of a December 18, l987 legal memorandum prepared by your department concluding that a State statute or regulation allowing 35% light transmittance through windows in motor vehicles would be preempted by current Federal safety laws and standards regulating this same subject matter, and a copy of a May 6, 1988 letter from the Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA) to Mr. William S. Hiatt, the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles for North Carolina, asserting that the North Carolina statute was not preempted by Federal laws and regulations. You asked for my opinion as to whether the North Carolina statute conflicts with any provision of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. /1381 et seq.) or with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (49 CFR 571.1 et seq.). Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. As you are aware, our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. One of the standards that we have issued under this authority is Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR /571.205), which applies to all new vehicles and all new glazing materials for use in motor vehicles. Among the requirements set forth in Standard No. 205 are specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70 percent light transmittance in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars). Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) specifies that, 'No person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard ...' Because of this statutory requirement, any manufacturer, importer, or dealer that installs solar films or other sun screen devices on new glazing materials or the glazing installed in new vehicles must certify that the vehicle continues to comply with the light transmittance and other requirements of Standard No. 205. The requirement that a car comply with all applicable safety standards applies only until the car is first sold to a consumer. See section 108(b)(1) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1)). Both before and after a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, any modifications to the vehicle's windows, including tinting, are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from 'rendering inoperative' any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with any safety standard. In the case of windows in a passenger car, this means that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business could install a sun screen device or window tinting that would result in a light transmittance of less than 70 percent for any window of the car, or otherwise cause the car to no longer comply with the other requirements of Standard No. 205. Violations of this 'render inoperative' prohibition can result in Federal civil penalties to the manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business of up to $1000 for each noncomplying installation. Please note that Federal law does not affect vehicle owners. Vehicle owners may alter their own vehicles and operate them on the highways as they please, even if the vehicle's windows no longer comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205. Hence, no provision of a Federal statute or this agency's regulations prevents individual vehicle owners themselves from tinting the windows on their vehicles. The authority of States to regulate glazing is affected by section 103(d) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. /1392(d)). This section provides that: w henever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established under this title is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed as preventing any State from enforcing any safety standard which is identical to a Federal safety standard. The effect of this provision of the Safety Act, with respect to the light transmittance requirements of Standard No. 205, is to expressly prohibit any State from specifying some level of light transmittance other than the 70 percent specified in Standard No. 205 for new motor vehicles and new glazing for use in motor vehicles. Each of the individual States has authority to enforce identical standards (i.e., a minimum of 70 percent light transmittance) for new motor vehicles and new glazing for use in motor vehicles. Additionally, each of the individual States has the authority to regulate the modifications that may be made to vehicles by their owners and to establish requirements for vehicles to be registered in that State. Having provided this background, we want to turn now to the results of our review of the North Carolina statute and regulations, along with your office's memorandum concluding that the statute is preempted by Federal law. 1. New vehicles and new glazing for use in vehicles. We concur with the conclusions in your memorandum that the North Carolina statute would be preempted if it specifies any requirements other than the requirements of Standard No. 205 (minimum of 70 percent light transmittance) for new vehicles or for new glazing for use in motor vehicles. Section 108(a)(1) of the Safety Act and Standard No. 205 require all new vehicles and new glazing for use in motor vehicles to be delivered to the first purchaser with a light transmittance of at least 70 percent. Section 103(d) of the Safety Act expressly preempts any non-identical State standard on the subject of window tinting. Section 20-127(d) of the North Carolina statute appears to permit a single application of tinted film with a light transmittance of as little as 35 percent to be applied to vehicle glazing after factory delivery, but before sale to the public. This provision is preempted by Federal law, as is any other provision of North Carolina law which specifies that new glazing and glazing in new vehicles shall have some level of light transmittance other than the 70 percent minimum light transmittance requirement specified in Standard No. 205. 2. Modifications to vehicles and glazing by manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses after the first purchase of the vehicle or glazing in good faith for purposes other than resale. We concur with the conclusions in your memorandum that the North Carolina statute would be preempted by Federal law if it permits the commercial installation of sunscreen materials so that the combination of the sunscreen material and the existing glazing no longer meet the 70 percent light transmittance requirement specified in Standard No. 205. This conclusion is based on the conflict between the North Carolina statute and the 'render inoperative' provision of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That provision prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from rendering inoperative the compliance of a vehicle or an item of glazing with any of the requirements of Standard No. 205, including the minimum 70 percent light transmittance requirement. Apart from the issue of preemption, I want to note that the provisions of State law cannot alter the effect of the 'render inoperative' prohibition in Federal law. Regardless of how North Carolina law treats the combination of the glazing and the tinting, if it results in less than 70 percent light transmittance, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business that installed such tinting on a vehicle would be liable for the Federal civil penalty discussed above. 3. Modifications to vehicles and glazing by individual owners themselves after the first purchase of the vehicle or glazing in good faith for purposes other than resale. As noted above, Federal law does not regulate modifications that individual owners themselves make to their vehicles or glazing after the first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale, even if those modifications result in the vehicles or glazing no longer complying with the requirements of Standard No. 205, including the requirement for at least 70 percent light transmittance. The State of North Carolina is free to establish whatever restrictions, if any, it deems appropriate on individual owner modifications, without regard to the requirements of Standard No. 205. To the extent that the North Carolina statute seeks to address these individual owner modifications, it would not be preempted by Federal law. 4. Requirements for vehicles to be registered in the State of North Carolina. An individual State is free to establish whatever requirements it deems appropriate for vehicles to be registered in the State, provided that those State requirements would not prohibit the registration of vehicles that complied with the requirements of the Federal safety standards. Thus, the State of North Carolina is free to permit vehicles that do not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205 to be registered in North Carolina. To the extent that the North Carolina window tinting statute seeks to establish requirements for vehicles to be registered in the State, it would not be preempted by Federal law. We have also reviewed the May 6, 1988 letter from MEMA to Mr. Hiatt, in which MEMA discusses why it believes North Carolina's statute would not be preempted by Federal law. The MEMA discussion does not address the 'render inoperative' provision in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which prohibits commercial businesses from adversely affecting the compliance of elements of design installed in a vehicle or item of equipment in compliance with a safety standard, regardless of whether the vehicle is new or used. As was previously stated, Federal law prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from ever installing window tinting material for the owner of a car if the combination of the original glazing and the tinting material results in less than 70 percent light transmittance through any window of the car. To summarize, the North Carolina statute would be preempted to the extent that it seeks to permit some level of light transmittance other than that specified in Standard No. 205 for glazing in vehicles prior to the first purchase of the vehicles in good faith for purposes other than resale. Similarly, the statute would be preempted to the extent it seeks to permit the commercial installation of sunscreen materials with the result that the combination of the sunscreen material and the existing glazing no longer complies with the requirements of Standard No. 205. However, the North Carolina statute would not be preempted to the extent that it seeks to regulate the modifications that owners themselves can make to their vehicles or to the extent that it seeks to establish requirements for vehicles to be registered in the State, even if those requirements differ from those specified in Standard No. 205. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel";

ID: 1982-1.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/05/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: BMW of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking several questions about the use of informational readout displays in relation to FMVSS 101-80, Controls and Displays; 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems; and 208, Occupant Crash Protection.

Each of your questions assumes the use of informational readout displays as telltales. The light intensity requirements of Standard No. 101-80 currently prevent informational readout displays from being used as telltales. Section 5.3.3 of the standard requires that informational readout displays must have at least two light intensity values, a relatively high one for daytime use and a relatively low one for nighttime use. The same section requires that the light intensity of telltales shall not be variable. Since it is not possible for an informational readout display to simultaneously meet both requirements, such a display cannot be used as a telltale.

The agency has recently issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that would permit informational readout displays to be used as telltales. We have enclosed a copy of that notice.

I would like to point out the following statement in the NPRM:

Various amendments may be necessary to Standard No. 101-80, as well as to several other safety standards which include requirements for warning indicators, to permit fuller use of informational readout displays. The amendments proposed by this notice are a first step in that direction.

We would welcome any comments that you might have on this matter to assist us in future rulemaking. You may also wish to consider submitting a petition for rulemaking on any changes that you believe should be made.

The following discussion explains the effect that the proposal would have on your questions.

Question 1

Your first question asks whether the words "Fasten Seat Belts" may be used in an informational readout display instead of the seat belt warning symbol under FMVSS 101-80 and 208. The answer would be yes under the proposal. The NPRM states:

Sections S4.5.3.3(b) and S7.3 of @ 571.208 would be amended to permit the words "Fasten Belts" or "Fasten Seat Belts" as an alternative to the seat belt warning symbol in informational readout displays.

Question 2 Your second question concerns the possibility of allowing cancellation of telltales by voluntary action on the part of the driver. The question asks whether it is permissible to provide a push button that enables drivers to cancel telltales. The answer to this question, which is not dealt with in the NPRM, is no.

While the question is asked separately for the seat belt telltale and telltales not required by any safety standard in the first place, the answer is not dependent on that distinction. Section S5.3.3 of Standard No. 101-80 requires that the light intensity of each telltale shall not be variable and shall be such that, when activated, that telltale and its identification are visible to the driver under all daytime and nighttime conditions. We interpret this section to mean that a telltale cannot be cancellable. If it were cancellable, the telltale would not meet the requirements that it not be variable and that it be visible to the driver under all daytime and nighttime conditions.

We note that the activation requirements for the seat belt telltale depend on whether it is for a manual belt or automatic belt. For a manual belt, section S7.3 of Standard No. 208 states that the seat belt assembly provided at the driver's seating position must be equipped with a warning system that activates for a period of not less than 4 seconds and not more than 8 seconds a continuous or flashing light. Thus, while a manufacturer has the discretion to provide an activation time of between 4 and 8 seconds, the telltale still may not be cancellable.

Section S4.5.3.3 requires a different type of warning system for automatic belts. While the audible signal must be activated for a period of not less than 4 seconds and not more than 8 seconds, the visual warning light must be activated for as long as the belt is not fastened.

Question 3

Your third question asks whether it is permissible to use an informational readout display to meet the visual brake warning system requirements of Standard No. 105. The answer would be yes under the proposal.

Section S5.3.5 of Standard No. 105 states:

Each indicator lamp shall have a lens labeled in letters not less than 1/8-inch high, which shall be legible to the driver in daylight when lighted. The lens and letters shall have contrasting colors, one of which is red . . . .

It is our interpretation that the illuminated pattern of letters and glazing of an informational readout display would constitute a "lens labeled in letters." This interpretation leaves unanswered other questions about whether a particular informational readout display would meet other requirements of Standard No. 105, such as the color requirement of section S5.3.5.

Question 4

Your fourth question asks whether an informational readout display specifying specific brake problems constitutes separate indicator lamps under the language of Standard No. 105, if a brake warning lamp is present which separately fulfills the requirements of S5.3.5 of Standard No. 105. The answer is no.

Section S3 of Standard No. 105 specifies various performance requirements for brake system indicator lamps. Under section S3.5, a manufacturer may meet the requirements either by a single common indicator or by separate indicator lamps.

It is our interpretation that if a manufacturer separately meets the requirements of section S3 by a single common indicator lamp, additional indicator lamps that are added voluntarily by the manufacturer are not subject to Standard No. 105's requirements.

Question 5

Your fifth question asks about the requirements for an informational readout display which is a telltale. The NPRM proposes the following language:

S5.3.3.2 Telltales and gauges incorporated into informational readout displays --

(a) Shall have not less than two levels of light intensity, a higher one for day and a lower one for nighttime conditions.

(b) In the case of telltales and gauges not equipped with a variable light intensity control, shall have a light intensity at the higher level provided under paragraph (a) of this section whenever the headlamps are not illuminated.

(c) In the case of telltales and gauges equipped with a variable light intensity control, shall be visible to the driver under all daytime and nighttime conditions when the illumination level is set to its lowest level.

The agency does find the system that you are considering developing very interesting. If you do submit a petition for rulemaking, there is one issue that we would appreciate your addressing. Our initial reaction to the idea of permitting drivers to cancel telltales is one of concern, since drivers might either cancel a telltale inadvertently or simply forget that they have done so. An informational readout display which flashed its warnings in sequence might answer those concerns. We would appreciate your addressing the safety consequences of those and any other alternatives that you might be considering.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.

March 19, 1981

Frank Berndt -- Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation

RE: Request for Interpretation Informational Readout Displays

Dear Mr. Berndt

This letter seeks confirmation of interpretations we discussed with Mr. Carson in our meeting with him on December 18, 1980. The questions we have relate to the use of Informational Readout Displays under FMVSS 101, 208, 105.

To better understand our questions, we are enclosing a description of the display system to which our questions apply.

Question 1

This question relates to the use of the words "Fasten Seat Belts" in the case of an informational readout display.

FMVSS 101-80, S5.2.3 permits informational readout displays to use the word or abbreviation shown in Table 2, Column 3 instead of the seat belt warning symbol. Column 3, however, provides no word or abbreviation, but instead refers to FMVSS 208. FMVSS 208, S7.3. only permits the use of words before September 1, 1980.

We believe this was an oversight when identification requirements of FMVSS 101 and 208 were consolidated in 45FR47151. In 43FR27541, it is made clear that NHTSA intends to further the development of readout displays by permitting optional use of symbols or words.

We request comment on our interpretation that the words FASTEN BELTS or FASTEN SEAT BELTS can be used in a readout display instead of a symbol to comply with the visual seat belt-warning requirements of FMVSS 101-80 and 208.

Question 2

This question relates to the activation or deactivation of displays by a voluntary manual action by the driver (pressing a push button control).

a. FMVSS 208, S7.3 requires a visual seat belt warning system that, triggered by the ignition, activates from 4 to 8 seconds. If a multi-message informational readout display is used as the visual seat belt warning (as described in Question 1), would it be permitted to provide a push button that cancels the seat belt warning by a voluntary manual action of the driver in favor of a readout for a malfunction or other warning. Would the above be permitted if a symbol in the readout went on for the duration of the 4 to 8 seconds?

b. FMVSS 101 by itself does not require that the displays listed in Table 2 be provided.

Basically the same question as 2a. applies to the other displays listed in Table 2, for which no requirement for activation in a reference standard exists.

If a multi-message informational readout display is used for any of those displays, would it be permitted to provide a push button that cancels such displays by a voluntary manual action of the driver.

Question 3

This question relates to the use of light emitting diodes or light emitting crystals to display the word "BRAKE" as required by FMVSS 105.

FMVSS 105, S5.3.5 requires a visual brake warning system using an indicator lamp with a lens labeled in letters. Would it be permissible to use an informational readout display for this purpose, considering the illuminated pattern of letters and its glazing as a "lens labeled in letters?"

Question 4

This question relates to the display of clarifying words in addition to the display "BRAKE."

FMVSS 105, S5.3.5 permits the use of a single brake warning indicator lamp, but requires that if separate indicator lamps are used for the various functions of S5.3.1(a)-(d), then each indicator must be separately and appropriately labeled. However, FMVSS 101-80, S5.2.3 in addition to the required words of Table 2, Column 3, permits the use of clarifying words at the manufacturer's discretion. If a separate, single brake warning indicator lamp, which by itself fulfills the requirements of FMVSS 105, is supplemented by an informational readout specifying the particular brake problem, would the readout be considered clarifying words or separate indicator lamp? The importance of this question is that, in the event of function checking (S5.3.2) or multi-malfunction (S5.3.5), while the BRAKE warning light would illuminate, the readout display could only illuminate one message at a time relative to the S5.3.1(a)-(d) functions.

We request comment on our interpretation that the readout constitutes clarifying words rather than separate indicator lamps because the brake warning lamp separately fulfills the requirements of S5.3.5.

Question 5

This question relates to the light intensity of informational readout displays.

FMVSS 101 S5.3.3.b requires: ". . . light intensities for informational readout systems shall have at least two values . . ." and ". . . The light intensity of each telltale shall not be variable and shall be . . . . visible to the driver under all daytime and nighttime conditions."

What are the requirements for an informational readout display if it displays a message which, by definition of FMVSS 101, S4, qualifies as a telltale?

We would appreciate your giving these questions your earliest possible attention.

Very truly yours

Karl-Heinz Ziwica, Manager -- Safety & Emission Control Engineering

Enclosures

DESCRIPTION OF SYSTEM

Display fields above speedometer, immediately in front of driver.

(Graphics omitted)

Display I

This display uses light emitting diodes or light emitting crystals to display words.

It displays the word "BRAKE" whenever required by FMVSS 105. Specific brake information will simultaneously appear on Display II.

Display II

This display uses light emitting diodes or light emitting crystals to display words.

This information readout display (multi-message) informs the driver of malfunctions or provides warnings.

Messages displayed are some of those listed in FMVSS 101-80, Table 2:

- Fasten seat belts

- Fuel level

- Oil pressure

- Coolant temperature

- Electrical charge

and in addition terms such as

- Brake wear

- Headlamp or taillamp

- Fluid levels (engine oil, transmission oil, coolant, washer)

In the event of a multi-malfunction, a computer chooses the message to be displayed on the basis of priority. The symbol to the right of the message field informs the driver of the existence of a multi-malfunction.

Display III

A warning light (lens and bulb) calls for the driver's attention and informs him of the importance of the message by either a blinking (high priority) or steady illumination (low priority).

Selector Control

With this push button control the driver can manually activate or deactivate the message on Display II (multi-message display).

In the case of a double malfunction, the first malfunction is indicated; after pressing the push button, the display indicates the second malfunction.

Example of the sequence of displays which are illuminated in case of a double malfunction: (Graphics omitted)

DRIVER PRESSES THE SELECTOR CONTROL.

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht76-5.27

DATE: 11/24/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Messrs. Patton; Boggs & Blow

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 19, 1976, to the Administrator with respect to the Ryan tote-trailer manufactured by your client, Outboard Marine Corporation. You have asked whether the tote-trailer is a "motor vehicle" as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1391(3); if the answer is affirmative you have asked whether the tote trailer is a "pole trailer" as defined in 49 CFR 571.3(b); if the answer is negative, you have asked that any failure to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and other regulations be deemed inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.

In our opinion the tote-trailer is a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of @ 1391(3). Although the equipment that it carries is intended for off-road use, the tote trailer with load is hauled from place to place by motor vehicles, as depicted in the sales literature, that operate on the public roads. It has been our continuing opinion that vehicles which use the highway on a necessary and recurring basis to move between work sites are motor vehicles. As your letter indicates, the trailer is purchased by rental agencies and "is likely to be towed on the public roads and highways." We therefore have concluded that the tote trailer is "manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways" and falls within the coverage of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966.

It is also our conclusion that the tote trailer is not a "pole trailer" as defined by 49 CFR 571.3(b). The tote trailer is attached to the towing vehicle by a conventional tongue and not "by means of a reach or pole, or by being boomed or otherwise secured to the towing vehicle." In addition, the load does not appear capable of sustaining itself as a beam between the supporting connections.

Therefore, it appears from your letter that all tote trailers manufactured since January 1, 1969, have not been equipped with lighting devices required by 49 CFR 571.108, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, that those manufactured since January 1, 1972, have not been provided with GAWR and GVWR figures on the certification labels required by 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, and that those manufactured since September 1, 1976, may have not been equipped with tires required by 49 CFR 571.120, Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.

If your client wishes to submit a petition for inconsequentiality we request that it follow the format in proposed 49 CFR Part 556, copy enclosed. You may refer any questions on this matter to Mr. Vinson of my staff.

SINCERELY,

PATTON, BOGGS & BLOW October 19, 1976

John W. Snow Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

Re: Request for Interpretation and, if Necessary, for Exemption from Requirements as to a Failure to Comply with a Motor Vehicle Safety Standard

Outboard Marine Corporation ("OMC") 100 Sea-Horse Drive, Waukegan, Illinois 60085, by its counsel, hereby requests: (i) a determination whether the vehicle described herein, manufactured under the trade name "Ryan" is a motor vehicle as that term is defined in @ 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (the "Act"); (ii) if so, a ruling as to the proper classification of the vehicle for purposes of the regulations and standards of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA"); and (iii) if such standards are applicable, a determination that any failure to comply therewith is "inconsequential" within the meaning of @ 157 of the Act and an exemption from any requirement with respect to such failure to comply. In support of this request, the following information is provided.

A. Description

This request relates to a vehicle known as a "tote trailer," which is manufactured as a complement to the turf care equipment line manufactured by OMC under the trade-name "Ryan." Turf care equipment includes a variety of machines specially designed for use in the growth and maintenance of turf grasses. While some items of Ryan equipment are designed for residential use, such as lawnowners and edgers, the principal employment of Ryan equipment is in the maintenance and care of the turf grasses on golf courses, athletic fields, parks, sod farms, and similar locations. The equipment includes power rakes, thatchers, spreaders, golf green aerators, tractor drawn aerators, sod cutters, and levelers. The attached brochure (Annex A) describes the Ryan equipment line and provides illustrations of typical usage.

The principal plant facility for the manufacture of the Ryan equipment line is in Minnesota. For some years this plant has manufactured a small, inexpensive "tote trailer" designed exclusively for the carriage of certain Ryan machines. The tote trailer is sold in three versions, each designed solely for a specific machine. For example, the junior sod cutter tote trailer is designed to carry only that machine (the junior sod cutter) and could not be conveniently used for any other kind of equipment (see Annex A, page 13).

The trailer is very simple: it consists of a triangular frame, two upright bars, an axle and two wheels. The trailer does not have a deck and is configured solely to accommodate the specific item of Ryan equipment for which it is designed. The trailer has always been considered an accessory to the equipment it is designed to carry. In fact, the only purpose of the trailer is to permit convenient transportation of bulky and heavy equipment. In these circumstances, the trailer can be logically considered as an accessory of the equipment it is designed to carry rather than a discrete item.

The basic function of the tote trailer is to transport the specific item of Ryan equipment for which it is designed from one location to another. The transportation may be on private lanes within a golf course or park not involving public roads and highways. However, the tote trailer is also purchased by rental agencies that lease the Ryan equipment including the tote trailer to the public. In this circumstance, the tote trailer and the Ryan equipment for which it is designed is likely to be towed on the public roads and highways.

The tote trailer has been sold without lights, license plate holder, fenders, or any of the other usual indicia of an on-road vehicle. The hitch arrangement is equally adaptable to towing behind a tractor as behind an automobile, although the arrangement is fully compatible with automotive hitches. In the past, an optional fender and light unit has been offered but there has been little interest in this option and few kits have been sold. OMC has now, however, taken the decision that the tote trailer will in the future be manufactured as a motor vehicle in the trailer class and units manufactured after December 1, 1976, will be in compliance with all regulations and standards applicable to trailers.

B. The Tote Trailer is not a Motor Vehicle in the Usual Sense

Since the tote trailer is designed to carry only one item of equipment, it is essentially an accessory to that piece of equipment. As a general rule, the tote trailer would not be purchased or utilized other than in association with a specific item of Ryan equipment. All such equipment is designed and intended for use on lawns, golf courses, etc., and while generally self propelled on wheels, is obviously not in the category of motor vehicle as defined in the Act. Because of these characteristics of the basic equipment, it was not unreasonable for petitioner's manufacturing and sales personnel - who are not routinely engaged in motor vehicle manufacture - to consider the tote trailer as being other than a motor vehicle for purposes of the Act.

Petitioners do not have specific knowledge of the ultimate usage of the tote trailer in all cases. However, it is known that some of the units in use are utlized on golf courses or other similar locations and seldom, if ever, appear on public roads. Other tote trailers are owned by rental companies that rent the trailer in conjunction with the Ryan equipment for which it is designed. This group of trailers probably do appear on public roads since their ordinary function is to transport the equipment from the rental office to the residence of the user.

Under the NHTSA regulations and interpretations, the determination as to whether an item of equipment is a "motor vehicle" as that term is defined in the Act is based, in part, on the use of the vehicle. Because the tote trailer is an accessory to a specific piece of equipment, it would not be illogical to conclude that the trailer plus the equipment constitute the "vehicle" and that the primary use of the unit as a whole is in off road situations. Put another way, the unit as a whole is occasionally used on public roads, but primarily is not. In these circumstances, OMC requests that the Administrator determine that to date, the tote trailer was not "manufactured primarily for use on the public streets . . ." and, therefore, has not been a motor vehicle as that term is defined in @ 102(3) of the Act.

C. Classification In the event the Administrator concludes that the tote trailer is a motor vehicle, we urge that it be classified as a "pole trailer" as defined in @ 571.3(b). A pole trailer is:

"a motor vehicle without motive power designed to be drawn by another motor vehicle and attached to the towing vehicle by means of a reach or pole, or by being boomed or otherwise secured to the towing vehicle, for transporting long or irregularly shaped loads such as poles, pipes, or structural members capable generally of sustaining themselves as beams between the supporting connections."

As will be shown below, the tote trailer has each of the characteristics of a pole trailer as so defined.

First, the tote trailer is designed for transporting irregularly shaped loads. As the illustrations on pages 13 and 15 of Annex A clearly show, the Ryan equipment that is carried on the tote trailer is obviously bulky and irregularly shaped. Second, since the tote trailer is simply a frame without a deck, it is clear that the load (i.e., a piece of Ryan equipment) is capable of sustaining itself between the supporting connections. Third, the trailer is secured to the towing vehicle by a hitch attached to the frame members that in turn support the load. Thus, each of the criteria for a pole trailer classification are met by the tote trailer and it should be so classified.

While there has not, to our knowledge, been developed a body of precedent as to classifications under the Act and NHTSA Regulations, there has developed such case law in the area of Customs administration where classifications are routinely made as to imported merchandise. Under the Customs precedents, the principle has always been that where an article falls within both a general and specific class, it is always classified in the latter. That is, the more specific definition prevails. See, e.g., Broderick & Bascom Rope Co. v. United States, 59 C.C.P.A. 130, 460 F.2d 1070 (1972). This principle of construction seems equally appropriate for the NHTSA regulations where there is a general class, trailers, and a number of more specific classes, namely: the pole trailer, the boat trailer and the trailer converter dolly. Following the Customs law rationale, the Ryan tote trailer which fits both the general trailer and more specific pole trailer definitions, logically should be classified as the latter.

Accordingly, in the event the Administrator determines that the Ryan tote trailer is a motor vehicle, then we submit it should be classified as a pole trailer at least with respect to those units produced to date. While pole trailers are subject to certain requirements under the NHTSA regulations, they are excluded from compliance with Standard 108 (see @ 571.108, S2). Because of this exclusion from the principal standard applicable to trailers, the failure to comply with the certification and manufacturer identification requirements is obviously inconsequential. Accordingly, the Administrator, should, pursuant to @ 157 of the Act, exempt petitioner from any compliance with the requirements of notification and remedy in Part B of the Act.

D. Even if the Tote Trailer is Classified Other than a Pole Trailer, then Any Failure to Comply is Inconsequential

Without in any way compromising our position that the tote trailer, if a motor vehicle, is properly classified as a pole trailer, we would urge that even if classified as a regular trailer, any failure to comply with the motor vehicle safety standards is inconsequential. Accordingly, the Administrator would be justified in exempting the petitioner from any requirement as to notice or remedy under part B of the Act.

Petitioner has manufactured the tote trailer for some years as an accessory to a product line wholly unrelated to the motor vehicle industry. It has been manufactured for a specific class of customers that have not requested lighting (Standard 108) or a title certificate. To petitioner's knowledge, there has never been a product liability case or, for that matter, accident involving the tote trailer. And, as noted, above, the petitioner has now determined to establish a classification of the tote trailer as a trailer (general class) and to manufacture it in compliance with the applicable regulations.

E. Conclusion

OMC submits that it would not be unreasonable for the Administrator to issue a determination that the tote trailer was either not a motor vehicle or, if so, was a pole trailer for the reasons stated herein. In the event such a determination would require additional information or discussion, a conference is hereby requested. Kindly contact the undersigned if there are any questions in connection with the foregoing.

Charles O. Verrill, Jr.

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: aiam4336

Dear Mr.: Thank your for your letter requesting an interpretation of how Standar No. 205, *Glazing Materials*, would apply to your proposed 'head-up display.' You described your head-up display as a system consisting of components located in the instrument panel and windshield that are capable of optically projecting instrument readings so that they appear forward of the lower part of the windshield. You stated that having the readings projected in this manner places them closer to the driver's line of sight and thus allows the driver to view the information more readily and clearly than if the driver had to look for the information on the instrument panel. As discussed below, the agency has conclude that the standard does not prohibit the use of your proposed display.; Before discussing the substantive question you asked, I want to addres your request that the agency not publicly release two types of information contained in your letter. First, you requested the agency to provide confidential treatment to the detailed description of the technology used in your head-up display. Second, you requested that the agency not disclose the name of your company. You explained in your letter requesting confidential treatment that while the device has been installed on a car displayed at a public automobile show, the technical details of the device are not a matter of public knowledge. You subsequently provided the agency with a copy of your letter in which the proprietary technical details have been deleted. Because the technical details of your proprietary device have not been publicly disclosed, we will treat the technical details as confidential. In addition, we will not disclose the name of your company. However, since all for the agency's interpretations are a matter of pubic record, we will place a copy of your letter, which has been purged of the confidential information and your company name, and our response in the agency's public interpretation file.; In the copy of your letter that has been purged of confidentia information, you explain that your head-up display uses a small membrane that is attached to the windshield to reflect certain information from the instrument panel. You explained that the area of the windshield on which the membrane is attached can meet all of the applicable requirements of Standard No. 205 set for glazing materials used in a windshield, except the requirement that the light transmittance through the glazing material be at least 70 percent. You further explained that the membrane is not opaque, but does have a light transmittance that is less than 70 percent.; Based on your analysis of the requirements of Standard No. 205 and th requirements of the American National Standard 'Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways,' (ANS Z26) incorporated by reference in Standard No. 205, you stated that the 70 percent transmittance requirement does not apply to all window areas. You noted that ANS Z26, a manufacturer can place a shade band on the upper edge of a windshield that has a light transmittance of less than 70 percent. You further noted that Standard No. 205 and ANS Z26 do not define the boundaries of the shadeband or set a minimum light transmittance level for the glazing materials used in the shadeband. Futhermore, you pointed out that Standard No. 205 and ANS Z26 do not specifically define what areas of the glazing are requisite for driving visibility.; In support of your position that the area of the windshield affected b your head-up display is not requisite for driving visibility, you noted that the membrane used in the display system covers a small area of the glazing that is located toward the lower left edge of the windshield. To demonstrate that the membrane is not within an area requisite for driving visibility, you examined the effect of the membrane's location on the ability of the car to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 103, *Windshield Defrosting and Defogging*, and 104, *Windshield Wiping and Washing*. Standards No. 103 and 104 define three different areas on the windshield and require the wiping system and the defrosting/defogging system of a car to wipe or defrost/defog a prescribed minimum percentage of each of the three areas. Based on your evaluation of a windshield that has a head-up display membrane, you demonstrated that the area of the windshield covered by the membrane represent only a minimal portion of the three areas of the windshield that are required by those standards to be wiped or defrosted/defogged. You further demonstrated that a car could comply with the requirements of Standard Nos. 1-3 and 104 even though the membrane slightly projects into the areas regulated by those standards.; In further support of your position that the head-up display is no located in an area requisite for driving visibility, you provided a comparison of the effects of the head- up display versus the effects of a vehicle's hood design or unretracted head lamp on a driver's forward and downward visibility. In this comparison, you presented information that measure, from the driver's eyepoint, the locations and amount of the driver's forward visibility that would be obstructed by portions of the hood design and by an unretracted head lamp. You then compared the obstruction caused by those design features with the effects of the head-up display on the driver's visibility. The information you provided shows that a vehicle's hood design or an unretracted head lamp can extend as far up in the driver's field of view as the head-up display and provide more obstruction to a driver's forward visibility than the head- up display.; You are correct that while Standard No. 205 and ANS Z26 apply a 7 percent light transmittance requirement to areas of the glazing that are 'requisite for driving visibility,' neither Standard No. 205 nor ANS Z26 specifically defines what areas of the glazing are requisite for driving visibility. In fact, as you pointed out in your letter ANS Z26 specifically defines what areas of the glazing are requisite for driving visibility. In fact, as you pointed out in your letter, ANS Z26 specifically provides, in a footnote to S4.2 of ANS Z26, an exception to the 70 percent light transmittance requirement. The footnote explains that a manufacturer can provide an area on the glazing, such as a shade band, that has a light transmittance of less than 70 percent as long as the areas requisite for driving visibility have a light transmittance of 70 percent. In interpreting the requisite for driving visibility requirement, the agency has not specified a minimum area of the windshield that is requisite for driving visibility. Instead, the agency has said, such as in a letter of February 15, 1974, to Mr. George Nield, that in determining what areas are requisite for driving visibility, the agency will use an approach of determining those areas by reference to vertical heights in relation to the driver's eyes.; (I believe it is important to note that the agency's decision, in th context of shade bands, not to adopt proposed specific size limits on areas of the windshield which could have less than 70 percent transmittance, was based on the conclusion that such a requirement was not necessary because of the voluntary practices of the industry. Thus, although the agency has not adopted a specific requirement, it has been relying on the good faith adherence of the industry to that voluntary practice on shade bands. The agency first proposed a limit on the size and light transmittance of shade bands in a notice published in November 1978(43 FR 51677). In commenting on the notice, several vehicle manufacturers said that such a requirement was not needed since the industry was voluntarily following a Society of Automotive Engineers Recommended Practice (SAE J100, 'Passenger Car Glazing Shade Bands') that established boundaries for shade bands used on glazed surfaces in passenger cars. As NHTSA explained in a notice published in January 1981 (46 FR 40), the agency decided to defer further action on the proposed shade band limit until it gathered additional data on the adequacy of the voluntary industry practice.); After reviewing the information you have submitted, the agency ha concluded that the membrane used in your system is located in an area of the glazing that is not requisite for driving visibility. The agency reached this conclusion based on the specific fact of your particular design and the following considerations. The membrane used in your system is small in size, is located near the bottom edge of the glazing area and toward the corner of the glazing area, and although the membrane has a light transmittance that is less than 70 percent, it is not opaque.; In determining that your head-up display is not located in an are requisite for driving visibility, the agency also considered the effect of the display on a car's ability to meet the requirements of Standard Nos. 103 and 104. Although Standard Nos. 103 and 104 do not define the limits of what areas are requisite for driving visibility, the areas of the windshield covered by the performance requirement of those standards do indicate the agency's concern that, at a minimum, specified portions of those areas of the windshield be clear during inclement weather inclement weather to provide the driver with a view of the road. The information provided with your letter shows that a small portion of the head-up display in your vehicle partially falls within the defined areas, but the vehicle still meets the performance requirements of the standards.; Another factor in the agency's decision was the information in you letter showing a comparison of the effects of the membrane versus the effects of a vehicle's hood design or unretracted head lamp on a driver's forward visibility. The information you provided shows that a vehicle's hood design or an unretracted head lamp can intrude as far up into the driver's field of view as the head-up display and provide more obstruction to a driver's forward visibility than head-up display. This information is an additional indication that the head-up display is not located within an area that is requisite for driving visibility.; Although the agency has concluded that in your particular case you head-up display is not in an area requisite for driving visibility, the agency believes that with the advent of new glazing and other technologies using the windshield, such as the head-up display, it is appropriate to again re-examine the issue for whether to specify the size of the area of the windshield that are requisite for driving visibility. It is apparent that there will be a number of new technologies using the windshield. For example, the March 30, 1987 issue of *Automotive News* carried a news article announcing the development, by PPG Industries and Flight Dynamics, of a 6 inch square holographic display on the windshield.; NHTSA believes that the issues associated with these devices should b addressed in a comprehensive manner. In particular, the agency believes that it needs further information on such issues as whether the areas on the windshield used by these display devices need to have a lower light transmittance value and, if so, what that value should be, where on the windshield the devices can be located, and what limitations should be placed on their size. Addressing these issues in a comprehensive manner by setting general performance requirements applicable to all such devices, regardless of the technology used, will avoid the inconsistencies and possible design specific limitations that might arise if the agency attempts to provide case-by-case interpretations for each specific design. For all these reasons, NHTSA has concluded that it will address these issues through a comprehensive rulemaking action.; You raised one final issue in your letter. You asked that if the agenc concluded that your head-up display does not comply with Standard No. 205, it should regard the noncompliance as a technical one which does not warrant enforcement. Since the agency has concluded that your head-up display does not violate the requirements of Standard No. 205, it should regard the noncompliance as a technical one which does not warrant enforcement. Since the agency has concluded that your head-up display does not violate the requirements of Standard No. 205, the issue is moot.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: 16-004482-Weight Distribution Truck Camper Trailer-Roy

ID: 15-004254 WayRay Glazing_sb_3

ID: nht89-3.35

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: November 7, 1989

FROM: S. Kadoya -- Manager, Safety and Technology, Mazda Research & Development of North America, Inc.

TO: Stephen P. Wood -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA; George Parker -- Assoc. Administrator-Enforcement, NHTSA

TITLE: Re Request for Interpretation of 49 CFR Parts 571 and 581 with respect to active suspension systems.

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-2-90 from P.J. Rice to S. Kadoya (A36; Std. 108; Std. 111; Std. 209; Std. 208; Std. 212; Std. 219; Std. 301; Part 581

TEXT:

The purpose of this letter is to request NHTSA's interpretation of the requirements and test conditions of the following Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS); as they apply to active suspension systems:

S108, "Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment" S111, "Rearview mirrors" S204, "Steering control rearward displacement" S208, "Occupant crash protection" S212, "Windshield mounting" S219, "Windshield zone intrusion of S301, "Fuel system integrity"

In addition, Mazda also requests an interpretation of the requirements of Part 581, "Bumper Standard," as they apply to active suspensions. Because this interpretation request covers several safety standards and because each standard may involve a parti cular person that is assigned to it, Mazda's questions regarding these individual standards have been presented in separate appendices to this letter. Each appendix addresses only one safety standard. Mazda hopes that this method will facilitate distri bution of this document to the appropriate NHTSA personnel. Mazda is writing to you both because the questions raised concern not only the interpretation of a given standard but enforcement issues as well.

Mazda is currently developing an active suspension system for possible use in future vehicle programs. The benefits of such a system have been, by now, well documented and, therefore, will not be repeated here. More importantly, Mazda is now working to establish a compliance testing protocol to the requirements of 49 CFR Parts 571 and 581. In attempting to establish this testing protocol numerous questions have arisen regarding the applicability, test conditions, and testing logistics of these Parts as they pertain to active suspension systems. In formulating this request, Mazda has reviewed past NHTSA interpretations for similar types of suspension systems. This request covers those questions that Mazda feels were not answered by previous interpr etations.

In order to obtain a meaningful interpretation of the requirements of the above listed safety standards, Mazda would like to stipulate an assumed active suspension system. For the purposes of this interpretation request the assumed system is actuated by hydraulic fluid or compressed air. An

electronic controller with feedback control regulates vehicle attitude to programmed design positions based on such inputs as:

1. vehicle speed 2. lateral acceleration 3. steering angle, and 4. suspension height

The primary sensed parameter for feedback control is suspension height. This system maintains a level vehicle body attitude, controls body pitch and roll, and effects a more aerodynamic vehicle profile at highway speeds. At vehicle speeds in excess of " Z" mph, where Z is greater than 35 mph, the suspension height is lowered by "x" mm. Control pressure is developed by a hydraulic pump or air compressor driven off the engine. Consequently, the active suspension system is only operational when the vehicl e's engine is operating. If the engine/vehicle should remain unused for a period of, say, days pressure in the control system will fall such that the suspension height may be lowered by as much as "y" mm, where "y" is greater than "x". The suspension h eight is returned to its nominal or design position for vehicle operation after such an extended period of inoperation almost immediately after starting the vehicle's engine. For convenience, let's call this assumed system, the ACS system.

Mazda is concerned about the protocol of compliance testing of vehicles equipped with an active suspension system. These concerns arise because many of the safety standards, primarily those listed above, do not specify a suspension height that is to be used during compliance testing. This has not been necessary with conventional suspension systems, and it may not be necessary with vehicles equipped with active suspension systems, if it is assumed for the purposes of compliance testing that the vehicle 's ignition switch is in the "on" position, i.e., the engine is operational and, thus, so is the system's hydraulic pump/air compressor. If this is indeed the case, the system is able to determine automatically a specified suspension height given a vehi cle speed and vehicle loading condition; just as a conventional shock absorber/spring system would determine mechanically a suspension height for these same given conditions. Unfortunately, the above listed standards do not specify explicitly the status of the vehicle's ignition switch. In most instances it is obvious that the ignition switch must be "on" for the vehicle to be able to fulfill its intended purpose. However, Mazda seeks a definitive interpretation of the status of a vehicle's ignition s witch, as well as the applicability of these standards as a function of the status of the ignition switch.

Furthermore, Mazda is concerned about the logistics of compliance testing. This is because the assumed active suspension system derives its power from the vehicle's engine when it is running, i.e., the system's ability to maintain and regulate suspension height is only possible during engine operation. For reasons of practicality and safety, a vehicle's engine is not actually operational during compliance testing. Therefore, Mazda is seeking from NHTSA guidelines by which Mazda may be able to establis h a means to maintain the intended suspension height for compliance testing purposes in the absence of engine operation. Mazda is reluctant to establish these means without such guidelines from NHTSA because it is

concerned that NHTSA may consider tests conducted in this manner to be in violation of the requirements of 49 CFR Parts 571 and 581 and, thus, invalid.

Mazda sincerely appreciates the opportunity for NHTSA's review of the issues raised in this letter and the attached appendices. Furthermore, Mazda would appreciate any further insight that NHTSA may wish to offer regarding these issues. NHTSA may also wish to consider how NCAP test procedures may be affected by the issues raised. Should NHTSA require further information or clarification of the issues raised in this letter and its attachments, please do not hesitate to contact either myself or Mr. R. Strassburger of my staff.

FMVSS No. 108, "Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment"

Prologue: NHTSA has previously issued an interpretation of the requirements of FMVSS No. 108; at the request of a confidential applicant and dated February 12, 1985, with respect to active suspension equipped vehicles. This interpretation stated that th e requirements of FMVSS No. 108 must be meet,"...at any time in which...",lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment are to be,"...operated for its intended purpose." Consequently, headlamps, tailamps, stoplamps, the license plate lamp, and side marker lamps, must comply with the location requirements of FMVSS No. 108 when ever the vehicle's ignition is in the "on" position. Conversely, reflex reflectors, and turn signal lamps that also function as hazard warning signal flashers must comply wi th the location requirements when the vehicle's ignition is in either the "on" or "off" position. However, it is Mazda's interpretation that hazard warning flashers are not intended to be operational for a period of days, but rather for a period of hour s, at maximum, only.

Question A1: Is Mazda's understanding of the subject NHTSA interpretation accurate?

Question A2: Is Mazda's interpretation of the maximum intended operating duration of hazard warning signal flashers correct?

APPENDIX B: FMVSS No. 111, "Rearview mirrors"

Prologue: Section S5 of this standard describes the requirements for passenger cars. Section S5.1.1 establishes the requirements for,"Field of view." The location of the driver's eye reference points are established pursuant to the guidelines of FMVSS No. 104," Windshield wiping and washing systems." Safety standard no. 104 references SAE recommended practice J941," Motor vehicle driver's eye range,"; which describes a procedure for locating a locus of points representative of the eye locations for 9 0th, 95th, and 99th percentile distributions of a population mix of primarily US licensed drivers. Because the location requirements of J941 are made referenced to points within the vehicles cabin, it is not anticipated that the ACS system will perturb or otherwise interfere with these measurements. However, S5.1.1 requires further that the field of view,"...with an included horizontal angle measured from the projected eye point of at least 20 degrees, and sufficient vertical angle to provide a view o f a level road surface extending to the horizon

beginning at a point not greater than 200 feet to the rear of the vehicle..." As was stated in the cover letter to this appendix, the ACS system suspension height may fall by "y" mm if the vehicle is not used for a period of days. In a previous NHTSA i nterpretation of FMVSS No. 108, at the request of a confidential applicant and dated February 12, 1985, NHTSA stated that,"...the minimum height requirement should be met for any lamp at any time in which it is operated for its intended purpose." Using this "intended purpose" argument Mazda's interpretation of FMVSS No. 111 is that the requirements of this standard are to be met when the vehicle's ignition is in the "on" position as rearview mirrors are not intended to be used when the vehicle's engine is not operating.

Question Bl: Is Mazda's interpretation of the requirements FMVSS No. 111 with respect to the state of the vehicle's ignition switch correct?

Question B2: For the purposes of compliance testing to the requirements of FMVSS No. 111, what means of maintaining the intended suspension height for a given vehicle speed and operating condition would be satisfactory to NHTSA?

Appendix C: FMVSS No. 204, "Steering control rearward displacement"

Prologue: Section S4 of this standard specifies the compliance parameter for this standard. Section S5 specifies the testing conditions to determine compliance with this standard. Section S5.1 specifies that the vehicle be loaded to its unloaded vehicl e weight. Section S5.5 specifies that the vehicles fuel tank be filled with Stoddard solvent to any capacity between 90 and 95 percent of the total capacity of the tank. Mazda's interpretation of the requirements of this standard is that they are to be met when the vehicle's ignition switch is in the "on" position only. Furthermore, Mazda interprets the vehicles suspension height pursuant to S5.1 and S5.5 to be the intended suspension height for the vehicle given the conditions of S4, i.e., 30 mph veh icle speed and steered wheels are positioned straight ahead.

Question C1: Is Mazda's interpretation of the requirements of FMVSS No. 204 correct?

Question C2: For the purposes of compliance testing to the requirements of FMVSS No. 204, what means of maintaining the intended suspension height for a given vehicle speed and operating condition would be satisfactory to NHTSA?

Appendix D: FMVSS No. 208, "Occupant Crash Protection"

Prologue: This standard establishes performance criteria for the protection of vehicle occupants involved in crashes. Section S5 of this standard establishes occupant crash protection requirements for a range of crash scenarios. Section S8 of this stan dard specifies the testing conditions to be used for frontal, lateral, and rollover compliance testing. Section S8.1.1(d), "Vehicle test attitude," specifies the procedure for determining the vehicle test attitude that is to be used for testing. Specif ically, this section requires that the vehicle's pretest attitude,"...shall be equal to either the as delivered or fully loaded

attitude or between the as delivered and fully loaded attitude." The as delivered attitude is defined by S8.1.1(d) as being,"...the distance between a level surface and a standard reference point on the test vehicle's body, directly above each wheel ope ning, when the vehicle is in its "as delivered" condition. The "as delivered" condition is the vehicle as received at the test site..." Because it is highly likely that the test vehicle will not have been operated for a period of days prior to arriving at the test site, the suspension height may have fallen by "y" mm. The fully loaded attitude is defined as the attitude of the vehicle when loaded in accordance with S8.1.1(a) or (b) and a determination of the height of the suspension at the fully load ed condition is made from the same level surface, using the same standard reference points, as were used to determine the "as delivered" condition. The definition of the "as delivered" condition is quite clear. However, Mazda interprets the "fully load ed condition" of the vehicle to be the condition when the vehicle's ignition is "on". In this instance it is likely that the height of the standard reference points on the vehicles body when in the "fully loaded condition" relative to the level surface will be greater than for the "as delivered" condition. Conversely, conventional vehicle suspension systems will like have an "as delivered" height greater than the "fully loaded" height. However, this fact is of no importance as S8.1.1(d) states that t he pretest vehicle attitude may be,"...between the as delivered and the fully loaded attitude." With respect to the injury criteria specified by section S6 of this standard, Mazda's interpretation is that these criteria must be met with the vehicle's ig nition in the "on" position only.

Section S8.2.7 specifies additional test conditions to be used for lateral moving barrier crash testing. Section S8.2.7(a) states that the vehicle,"...is at rest in its normal attitude." Mazda interprets the meaning of "normal attitude" to be that vehi cle attitude which is intend when the vehicle's ignition is in the "on" condition, with the vehicle loaded pursuant to S8.1.1(a) or (b), and while the vehicle is at rest.

Appendix D (con't): FMVSS No. 208, "Occupant crash protection" Question D1: Is Mazda's interpretation of the definition of the "fully loaded condition" correct with respect to the condition of the ignition switch?

Question D2: Is Mazda's interpretation of the irrelevance of the relative relationship between the "as delivered" and "fully loaded" conditions correct?

Question D3: Is Mazda's interpretation of the meaning of "between the as delivered and the fully loaded attitude" correct?

Question D4: For the purposes of compliance testing to the requirements of FMVSS No. 208, what means of maintaining the intend suspension height for a given vehicle speed and operating condition would be satisfactory to NHTSA? Question D5: Is Mazda's interpretation of the meaning of "normal attitude" correct?

Appendix E: FMVSS No. 212, "Windshield mounting"

Prologue: Customarily, compliance testing to the requirements of this standard is conducted concurrently with compliance testing to the frontal crash requirements of FMVSS No. 208. Therefore, many of the test protocol issues that might be raised in thi s instance have already been raised in Appendix D. Moreover, NHTSA has previously issued an interpretation of this standard with respect to adjustable height suspension systems at the request of Mazda. This interpretation was issued on August 10, 1982. The central premise of NHTSA's interpretation was that the subject vehicle could possibly be operated at two distinct suspension heights at any given vehicle speed. In that instance such a situation was possible because the suspension height was manua lly determined, i.e., established by the operator, thereby justify compliance testing with the vehicle's suspension height adjusted to any position possible or at minimum to the worst case position. However, the ACS system described in the cover letter to these appendices states that the vehicle's suspension height is determined by an on-board electronic controller and not by the vehicle operator. Consequently, only one unique set of suspension height parameters is possible for a given vehicle speed an d loading condition as is the case with conventional suspension systems. Therefore, because it is possible to determine exactly what the intended suspension height should be for a given situation, it is Mazda's opinion that the test vehicle should be te sted at the intended suspension height given the statutory speed and loading requirements. Lastly, the final issue is whether the requirements of FMVSS No. 212 must be met with the vehicles ignition in the "on" or "off" condition, or both. Using a "int ended purpose" argument, Mazda concludes that the requirements of FMVSS No. 212 are to met whenever the vehicle's ignition is in the "on" condition only.

Question E1: Is Mazda's interpretation that NHTSA previously issued interpretation of this standard with respect to adjustable height suspension systems not applicable in this instance given the facts presented?

Question E2: Is Mazda's interpretation of the requirements of FMVSS No. 212 with respect to the state of the vehicle ignition switch correct?

Appendix F: FMVSS No. 219, "Windshield zone intrusion"

Prologue: Customarily, compliance testing to the requirements of this standard is conducted concurrently with compliance testing to the frontal crash requirements of FMVSS No. 208. Therefore, many of the test protocol issues that might be raised in this instance have already been raised in Appendix D. Moreover, NHTSA has previously issued an interpretation of this standard with respect to adjustable height suspension systems at the request of Mazda. This interpretation was issued on August 10, 1982. The central premise of NHTSA's interpretation was that the subject vehicle could possibly be operated at two distinct suspension heights at any given vehicle speed. In that instance such a situation was possible because the suspension height was manual ly determined, i.e., established by the operator, thereby justify compliance testing with the vehicle's suspension height adjusted to any position possible or at minimum to the worst case position. However, the ACS system described in the cover letter t o these appendices states that the vehicle's suspension height is determined by an

on-board electronic controller and not by the vehicle operator. Consequently, only one unique set of suspension height parameters is possible for a given vehicle speed and loading condition as is the case with conventional suspension systems. Therefore, because it is possible to determine exactly what the intended suspension height should be for a given situation, it is Mazda's opinion that the test vehicle should be tested at the intended suspension height given the statutory speed and loading require ments. Lastly, the final issue is whether the requirements of FMVSS No. 219 must be met with the vehicles ignition in the "on" or "off" condition, or both. Using a "intended purpose" argument, Mazda concludes that the requirements of FMVSS No. 219 are to met whenever the vehicle's ignition is in the "on" condition only.

Question F1: Is Mazda's interpretation that NHTSA previously issued interpretation of this standard with respect to adjustable height suspension systems not applicable in this instance given the facts presented?

Question F2: Is Mazda's interpretation of the requirements of FMVSS No. 219 with respect to the state of the vehicle ignition switch correct?

Appendix G: FMVSS No. 301, "Fuel system integrity" Prologue: Customarily, compliance testing to the requirements of this standard is conducted concurrently with compliance testing to the frontal crash and lateral requirements of FMVSS No. 208. Therefore, many of the test protocol issues that might be ra ised in this instance have already been raised in Appendix D. Moreover, NHTSA has previously issued an interpretation of this standard with respect to adjustable height suspension systems at the request of Mazda. This interpretation was issued on Augus t 10, 1982. The central premise of NHTSA's interpretation was that the subject vehicle could possibly be operated at two distinct suspension heights at any given vehicle speed. In that instance such a situation was possible because the suspension heigh t was manually determined, i.e., established by the operator, thereby justify compliance testing with the vehicle's suspension height adjusted to any position possible or at minimum to the worst case position. However, the ACS system described in the co ver letter to these appendices states that the vehicle's suspension height is determined by an on-board electronic controller and not by the vehicle operator. Consequently, only one unique set of suspension height parameters is possible for a given vehi cle speed and loading condition as is the case with conventional suspension systems. Therefore, because it is possible to determine exactly what the intended suspension height should be for a given situation, it is Mazda's opinion that the test vehicle s hould be tested at the intended suspension height given the statutory speed and loading requirements. Lastly, the final issue is whether the requirements of FMVSS No. 301 must be met with the vehicles ignition in the "on" or "off" condition, or both. U sing a "intended purpose" argument, Mazda concludes that the requirements of FMVSS No. 301 are to met whenever the vehicle's ignition is in the "on" condition only.

Section S7.3 of this standard specifies that the test conditions that are to be used during rear moving barrier crash testing are those specified by

section S8.2 of FMVSS No. 208. The issues that might be raised regarding S7.3, therefore, have already been raised in Appendix D.

Question G1: Is Mazda's interpretation that NHTSA previously issued interpretation of this standard with respect to adjustable height suspension systems not applicable in this instance given the facts presented?

Question G2: Is Mazda's interpretation of the requirements of FMVSS No. 301 with respect to the state of the vehicle ignition switch correct?

Appendix H: 49 CFR Part 581, "Bumper Standards" Prologue: The stated scope and purpose of this standard is, "...to reduce physical damage to the front and rear ends of passenger motor vehicles from low speed collisions." NHTSA has previously issued an interpretation of this standard with respect to a djustable height suspension systems. One of these interpretations was issued by NHTSA on February 12, 1985 at the request of a confidential applicant. Another interpretation was issued May 16, 1986 at the request of Subaru of America. In the interpreta tion issued on February 12, 1985, NHTSA states,"...the vehicle is required to meet the pendulum test (581.6(b)) of Part 581 in any vehicle use scenario in which the system operates, and the barrier test (581.6(c)) of Part 581 when the engine is idling." In the subsequent interpretation of 581.6, issued on May 16, 1986, NHTSA states, "Given the absence of a specific test condition concerning suspension height, it is our interpretation that a vehicle must be capable of meeting the standard's damage crite ria at any height position to which the suspension can be adjusted." Consequently, with respect to 581.6(c) these interpretations appear to be in conflict when applying the regulations of Part 581 to the ACS system in that the 1985 interpretation states that the damage criteria must be met at IDLE while the 1986 interpretation states that the damage criteria must be met at ANY height position to which the system can be adjusted. Moreover, the 1985 interpretation infers that the damage criteria for 581 .6(c) must be met when the vehicle's ignition switch is in the "on" condition only. Furthermore, the 1985, with respect to 581.6(b), and 1986 interpretations seem to be in conflict with this standards stated purpose to reduce physical damage to motor ve hicles in LOW speed collisions by requiring bumpers to meet the damage criteria of 581.5 at,"...any vehicle use scenario in which the system operates..."

Question H1: Could NHTSA please provide an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 581 with respect to the ACS system?