ID: 3237yy

Mr. William J. Lewandoski
National Accounts Manager
Wheels/RV Products
Kelsey Parts Business
38481 Huron River Drive
Romulus, MI 48174

Dear Mr. Lewandoski:

This responds to your letter of July 9, l99l, to Robert Hellmuth of this agency, regarding an apparent conflict between an interpretation furnished you by this Office on May 23 of this year, and a Memorandum of the California Highway Patrol (CHP) dated May 30, 1991. The subject is whether the Tekonsha Voyager and Commander electronic brake controls ("the Brake Control") are permitted under Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

The Brake Control incorporates a "manual override" slide bar that activates the trailer brakes without a corresponding activation of the trailer stop lamps. On May 23, we responded to your question whether activation of "the trailer brakes and non-activation of the tow vehicle/trailer stop lamps comply" with Standard No. 108. We informed you that Standard No. l08 does not so permit, and that, because the Brake Control "applies the service brakes to diminish vehicle speed," the stop lamps are required by Standard No. 108 to be activated.

However, on May 30, CHP issued Management Memorandum No. 91-80 stating that this agency had issued a ruling that the Brake Control was "legal" under the preemption authority of l5 U.S.C. 1392(d), and that CHP personnel should consider the device to be in compliance with State requirements. You have asked for a clarification of the apparent conflict between our May 23, 1991 interpretation and the CHP memorandum.

The Patrol informs us that its Memorandum was based upon an interpretation that this office furnished on September 10, l990, to Lawrence F. Henneberger. Describing the Tekonsha Commander as a device which would allow the driver of a tractor-trailer combination "to use the hand control to override the trailer brakes in an emergency mode to control swaying," Mr. Henneberger had stated last year that California had taken the position that the vehicle's stop lamps must be activated when the Brake Control is used, "even though the service brakes are not applied at the time." It appeared to us from Mr. Henneberger's statements that the purpose of the Brake Control was "to control trailer sway and not 'to stop or diminish speed by braking.'" The basis for California's position was its interpretation of Section 24603(f) of the California Vehicle Code which states, in pertinent part, that stoplamps shall be activated upon application of the hand control head for electric brakes. We responded to Mr. Henneberger in our September 1990 letter that the California requirement conflicted with the requirement in Standard No. l08 that stop lamps be activated upon application of the service brakes, and that therefore, under the preemption clause of l5 U.S.C. 1392(d), Section 24603(f) was preempted "to the extent that it may be read as requiring stop lamps to be activated on motor vehicles equipped with the Commander Electronic Brake Control, when the Control is hand activated in an emergency mode to provide sway control."

We have reviewed the interpretations of September 10, 1990, and May 23, l991, as you have requested, and we have concluded that our interpretation letter to Mr. Henneberger was in error. Although Mr. Henneberger informed us that the Brake Control "does not involve application of the vehicle's service brakes" (Henneberger letter, June 22, l990, page 2; there are also three similar representations on page 4), the Tekonsha product literature that you supplied us clearly states that "The Voyager will not apply the trailer brakes unless the manual override slide bar is applied." (Item 5 under "Important Facts to Remember"), demonstrating that application of the Brake Control results in application of the trailer's service brakes. We have talked with Sergeant Cox of the California Highway Patrol about the operation of the Brake Control. We understand that operation of the Brake Control sends an electric impulse to the trailer brakes without going through the main tractor/trailer brake actuation system. The activation of the trailer brakes without a simultaneous activation of the tractor brakes allows the tractor to proceed with undiminished speed in order to take the slack out of the connector by increasing the distance between it and the trailer, which has slowed due to the activity of the electronic brake control, and thereby reduce the sway of the trailer.

This information about the Brake Control is the basis for our reconsideration of the interpretation of September 10, 1990. Although use of the Brake Control does not involve application of the "vehicle's service brakes" through the service brake control, it nevertheless does "apply the trailer brakes" as that phrase is used by Tekonsha in its product literature. Although the immediate intent of the driver may be to control sway, that intent is realized by creating a differential in speeds between towing and towed vehicles. That differential is created, not by increasing the speed of the towing vehicle, but by diminishing the speed of the towed vehicle through braking. As we noted in the September l0 letter, a stop lamp is defined in part as a lamp that indicates the intent of the driver to diminish speed by braking. We therefore find that Standard No. l08 and 15 U.S.C. 1392(d) do not preempt Section 24603(f) of the California Vehicle Code. We confirm our interpretation of May 23, that installation of the Tekonsha systems, under the conditions and by the persons therein described, appear to violate Standard No. 108 and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Device.

Our letters to both you and Mr. Henneberger may have left the impression that operation of the Brake Control on the brakes of the towed vehicle also requires activation of the stop lamps of the towing vehicle. Sgt. Cox has clarified that the Brake Control activates only the brakes of the towed vehicle, not the towing one. Consequently, Standard No. l08 would not require activation of the towing vehicle's stop lamps when the Brake Control alone is used to apply the brakes of the towed vehicle to diminish sway.

A copy of this letter is being provided the Department of California Highway Patrol, and Lawrence Henneberger, attorney for Tekonsha.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

cc: Lawrence F. Henneberger, Esq. Sgt. Larry Cox, CHP

/ref:l08#VSA d:ll/22/9l

ID: nht91-7.17

DATE: November 22, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: William J. Lewandoski (Lewandowski) -- National Accounts Manager, Wheels/RV Products, Kelsey Parts Business

COPYEE: Lawrence F. Henneberger; Larry Cox -- CHP

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-9-91 from William J. Lewandowski to Robert Helluth (OCC 6245); Also attached to letter dated 5-23-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Bill Lewandoski; Also attached to letter dated 4-30-91 from Bill Lewandowski to Taylor Vinson

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of July 9, 1991, to Robert Hellmuth of this agency, regarding an apparent conflict between an interpretation furnished you by this Office on May 23 of this year, and a Memorandum of the California Highway Patrol (CHP) dated May 30, 1991. The subject is whether the Tekonsha Voyager and Commander electronic brake controls ("the Brake Control") are permitted under Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

The Brake Control incorporates a "manual override" slide bar that activates the trailer brakes without a corresponding activation of the trailer stop lamps. On May 23, we responded to your question whether activation of "the trailer BRAKES and nonactivation of the tow vehicle/trailer stop lamps comply" with Standard No. 108. We informed you that Standard No. 108 does not so permit, and that, because the Brake Control "applies the service brakes to diminish vehicle speed," the stop lamps are required by Standard No. 108 to be activated.

However, on May 30, CHP issued Management Memorandum No. 91-80 stating that this agency had issued a ruling that the Brake Control was "legal" under the preemption authority of 15 U.S.C. 1392(d), and that CHP personnel should consider the device to be in compliance with State requirements. You have asked for a clarification of the apparent conflict between our May 23, 1991 interpretation and the CHP memorandum.

The Patrol informs us that its Memorandum was based upon an interpretation that this office furnished on September 10, 1990, to Lawrence F. Henneberger. Describing the Tekonsha Commander as a device which would allow the driver of a tractor-trailer combination "to use the hand control to override the trailer brakes in an emergency mode to control swaying," Mr. Henneberger had stated last year that California had taken the position that the vehicle's stop lamps must be activated when the Brake Control is used, "even though the service brakes are not applied at the time." It appeared to us from Mr. Henneberger's statements that the purpose of the Brake Control was "to control trailer sway and NOT 'to stop or diminish speed by braking.'" The basis for California's position was its interpretation of Section 24603(f) of the California Vehicle Code which states, in pertinent part, that stoplamps shall be activated upon application of the hand control head for electric brakes. We responded to Mr. Henneberger in our September 1990 letter that the California requirement conflicted with the requirement in Standard No. 108 that stop

lamps be activated upon application of the service brakes, and that therefore, under the preemption clause of 15 U.S.C. 1392(d), Section 24603(f) was preempted "to the extent that it may be read as requiring stop lamps to be activated on motor vehicles equipped with the Commander Electronic Brake Control, when the Control is hand activated in an emergency mode to provide sway control."

We have reviewed the interpretations of September 10, 1990, and May 23, 1991, as you have requested, and we have concluded that our interpretation letter to Mr. Henneberger was in error. Although Mr. Henneberger informed us that the Brake Control "does not involve application of the vehicle's service brakes" (Henneberger letter, June 22, 1990, page 2; there are also three similar representations on page 4), the Tekonsha product literature that you supplied us clearly states that "The Voyager will not apply the trailer brakes unless the manual override slide bar is applied." (Item 5 under "Important Facts to Remember"), demonstrating that application of the Brake Control results in application of the trailer's service brakes. We have talked with Sergeant Cox of the California Highway Patrol about the operation of the Brake Control. We understand that operation of the Brake Control sends an electric impulse to the trailer brakes without going through the main tractor/trailer brake actuation system. The activation of the trailer brakes witnout a simultaneous activation of the tractor brakes allows the tractor to proceed with undiminished speed in order to take the slack out of the connector by increasing the distance between it and the trailer, which has slowed due to the activity of the electronic brake control, and thereby reduce the sway of the trailer.

This information about the Brake Control is the basis for our reconsideration of the interpretation of September 10, 1990. Although use of the Brake Control does not involve application of the "vehicle's service brakes" through the service brake control, it nevertheless does "apply the trailer brakes" as that phrase is used by Tekonsha in its product literature. Although the immediate intent of the driver may be to control sway, that intent is realized by creating a differential in speeds between towing and towed vehicles. That differential is created, not by increasing the speed of the towing vehicle, but by diminishing the speed of the towed vehicle through braking. As we noted in the September 10 letter, a stop lamp is defined in part as a lamp that indicates the intent of the driver to diminish speed by braking. We therefore find that Standard No. 108 and 15 U.S.C. 1392(d) do not preempt Section 24603(f) of the California Vehicle Code. We confirm our interpretation of May 23, that installation of the Tekonsha systems, under the conditions and by the persons therein described, appear to violate Standard No. 108 and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Device.

Our letters to both you and Mr. Henneberger may have left the impression that operation of the Brake Control on the brakes of the towed vehicle also requires activation of the stop lamps of the towing vehicle. Sgt. Cox has clarified that the Brake Control activates only the brakes of the towed vehicle, not the towing one. Consequently, Standard No. 108 would not require activation of the towing vehicle's stop lamps when the Brake Control alone is used to apply the brakes of the towed vehicle to diminish sway.

A copy of this letter is being provided the Department of California Highway Patrol, and Lawrence Henneberger, attorney for Tekonsha.

ID: aiam5197

"Dear Mr. McBay: We have received your letter of June 13, 1993, askin that this Office review the two drawings you enclosed 'for compliance with the upcoming conspicuity requirement', and 'ask that our installation have your approval.' Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act the manufacturer has the responsibility of determining whether its product conforms and then certifies its compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The Act does not provide authority for the agency to 'approve' or 'disapprove' any specific solution to methods of conformance. For this reason, we are unable to advise you in the manner you seek. However, the agency does provide interpretations when specific questions are asked with respect to the requirements of the standard, and we are pleased to respond accordingly to your inquiries. You have raised four issues for our comment. 1. You have called to our attention that the 'outside post' design of the trailers is configured so that the spacing of the posts along the length of the trailers is not the same. The retroreflective material will be evenly spaced in most areas, but breaks between material vary. You have asked whether this will 'suffice for evenly distributed.' Under S5.7.1.4.2(a) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, retroreflective sheeting applied to each side of a trailer need not be continuous 'as long as not less than half of the length of the trailer is covered and the spaces are distributed as evenly as practicable.' As we have advised many times, under Standard No. 108 the determination of practicability is to be made by the manufacturer in fulfillment of its obligation to certify that its product conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. NHTSA believes that, as a general rule, a manufacturer is in the best position to determine what is practicable for its particular design. However, if that determination appears erroneous on its face, NHTSA will question it. Were you to manufacture trailers with the side conspicuity treatment spacings depicted on your drawings, NHTSA would not question your determination of practicability. 2. You have asked 'if an area exists where a minimum 12' strip will not fit, can we install smaller material or must this area stay blank?' As noted above, under S5.7.1.4.2, a strip of retroreflective material need not be continuous 'as long as not less than half of the length of the trailer is covered.' Therefore, if exclusion of the area in question would not result in less than half of the length of the trailer being covered, the area may be left blank. If additional sheeting is required for a trailer to meet the length requirement, or if a manufacturer simply wishes to add it, it need not be 'a minimum 12' strip.' S5.7.1.3(d) of Standard No. 108 specifies that each segment of retroreflective sheeting shall have a length of 300 mm (i.e., 12 inches) +/- 150 mm. Therefore, a segment of sheeting as short in length as 150 mm (6 inches) could be applied to the area in question in compliance with the standard. An even shorter segment is permitted if necessary 'to clear obstructions' if that should be the reason in your instance where a strip of 300 mm will not fit. If the length of the area in question is smaller than 150 mm and its coverage is required for the conspicuity treatment on the trailer to meet the length requirement, then any length of material is acceptable. 3. You have asked us to note that the white strips in the upper rear corners do not meet. You have asked 'Must white be touching or can there be a gap between the strips?' Figure 30 'Typical Trailer Conspicuity Treatments' depicts two configurations in which the white strips of retroreflective material intersect at right angles in the upper rear corners. The requirement that Figure 30 illustrates is set forth in S5.7.1.4.1(b), which specifies, in pertinent part, 'two pairs of white strips of sheeting, each pair . . . applied horizontally and vertically to the right and left upper contours of the body . . . as close to the top of the trailer and as far apart as practicable.' There is no explicit requirement in this paragraph that the horizontal and vertical strips intersect or touch. There is an implicit requirement in the specification that the strips be 'as close to the top and as far apart as practicable', but the requirement is subject to the manufacturer's determination of practicability. In other words, if the manufacturer's determination of practicability results in a gap between the strips, NHTSA will not question this determination unless it appears clearly erroneous. 4. You represent that your design makes it impossible 'to make a nice continuous square corner', and that ' i nstallation of the white corners is also closer than 3' from red top rail lights.' You ask whether there is 'any tolerance on the 3' dimensions? There is no tolerance on this requirement. S5.7.1.4(b) states that 'The edge of white sheeting shall not be located closer than 75 mm to the edge of the luminous lens area of any lamp that is required by this standard.' The diagrams you enclose depict the horizontal white strip directly below the clearance lamps, which are required by Standard No. 108, so that each design does not accord with Standard No. 108. We have some comments on each design. On 'Model 80MP6-DD' it appears to us that, under a determination of practicability, the white strips could be lowered until the required minimum spacing between it and the clearance lamp was achieved. There is no prohibition against placing the material on the roll-up door. The trailer identified as 'GNXS-207' raises a more difficult problem because there appears to be no place where the strips could be relocated. Consideration must be given, therefore, to relocation of the clearance lamps. Under Table II of Standard No. 108, clearance lamps are intended to 'indicate the overall width of the trailer'. Although clearance lamps should be 'as near the top . . . as practicable', they need not be ' w hen the rear identification lamps are mounted at the extreme height of a vehicle' (S5.3.1.4). The rear identification lamps on GNXS-207 are mounted at the extreme height of the vehicle. The clearance lamps could be relocated to the fender where the stop, turn, and taillamps are presently installed. In that location, the clearance lamps would also be better able to fulfill the intent that they indicate the overall width of the trailer, which appears to occur at the fender rather than at the upper part of the body. We hope that these interpretations are helpful. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam4821

"Dear Ms. Otjen: This responds to your request for an opinion whethe Oregon's specifications for Hazardous Material Emergency Response Vehicles are consistent with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Based on the information provided in your letter and telephone conversations with Steve Kratzke of this office, there is no inconsistency betweens Oregon's specifications and the Federal safety standards. The Emergency Response Vehicles in question have a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) of more than 10,000 pounds. Oregon's specifications call for the vehicle to include a manual safety belt at each seating position. One of the parties bidding on the contract for these vehicles suggested that these specifications were inadequate to comply with the requirements of the Federal safety standards, because, according to the bidder, the Federal standards require a crash test to measure the occupant protection afforded in these vehicles. The bidder's assertion is inaccurate. The occupant protection requirements applicable to these Emergency Response Vehicles are set forth in S4.3.2 of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). That section requires that trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR in excess of 10,000 pounds provide occupant protection at every designated seating position, but gives manufacturers two alternative means of providing the necessary protection. The first option for manufacturers of these vehicles, as set forth in S4.3.2.1, is to provide automatic crash protection (e.g., air bags or automatic safety belts) for occupants. If this option were chosen, the vehicle would be subject to crash testing by NHTSA during its compliance evaluations. To date, no manufacturer of heavy vehicles has ever chosen this option. Instead, they have chosen the second option. The second option, as set forth in S4.3.2.2, is to provide manual safety belts at every designated seating position. No vehicle crash testing is conducted under this option. Instead, compliance evaluations are based on a series of static tests of the safety belt assembly and the anchorage for that assembly. Accordingly, there is nothing in the Oregon specifications for these Emergency Response Vehicles that conflicts with the requirements of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: nht79-4.38

DATE: 09/26/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Toyo Kogyo USA Office

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

SEP 26 1979

NOA-30

Mr. M. Ogata Toyo Kogyo U.S.A. Office Detroit Branch 23777 Greenfield Road Southfield, Michigan 48075

Dear Mr. Ogata:

This responds to your recent letter concerning the labeling requirements of Safety Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. You ask whether the brand name of your vehicles, "Mazda", may be dropped from the label on your seat belts.

The answer to your question is yes. Paragraph S4.1(k) of Safety Standard No. 209 requires the seat belt label to include year of manufacture of the assembly, model name or number of the assembly, and trade-mark of manufacturer or distributor. The name of the vehicle on which the assembly will be installed is not required to be on the seat belt assembly label.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

August 6, 1979

Chief Counsel NHTSA 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear sir,

RE: Request for Interpretation of MVSS 209

Enclosed please find a copy of our seat belt label that we manufacture according to MVSS 209, 4.1 (k). As can be seen on the label, we show the year of manufacture, the model and the name or trademark of manufacture as follows:

MFD. DATE: 1977 MODEL NO: NSB5YB10 MFD. BY NSK-WARNER K.K. FOR TOYO KOGYO CO., LTD.

We have shown the brand name of our vehicles, "MAZDA" on the top of the label for many years.

Presently, we are thinking about deleting the word "MAZDA". Is this possible?

Your earliest response would be appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

M. Ogata Branch Manager Toyo Kogyo U.S.A. Office

Enclosure

ID: nht88-1.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: JANUARY 12, 1988

FROM: ROBIN C. GELBURD -- MORRISON & FOERSTER

TO: ERIKA C. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL-NHTSA

TITLE: COMPLIANCE WITH 49 C.F.R. @ 571.213 "CHILD RESTRAINT SYSTEMS"

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO MAY 31, 1988 LETTER FROM JONES TO GELBURD

TEXT: We represent Hasbro, Inc. and seek an opinion from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("the Agency") about whether a proposed Hasbro product would, in any way, contravene or compromise regulations promulgated by the Agency pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act -- specifically 49 C.F.R. @ 571.213, the regulation pertaining to Child Restraint Systems.

The product, which we have enclosed for your convenience and evaluation, is intended, inter alia, to be used in conjunction with a car seat restraint; it would be inserted inside the seat to cushion and insulate the child. It should be noted that the product, as finally marketed, will have two additional features:

1. A pocket will be added below the word "Playskool" which will contain a squeaking teddy bear made of 100% spun polyester; and

2. A set of plastic keys on a key ring, detachable with velcro, will be added on the end of the yellow tether. Each key will be 2-1/8 inches long and will have rounded edges.

Please advise me if any further information is necessary to determine whether the product complies with relevant statutes and regulations within your jurisdiction.

We appreciate your prompt consideration of this matter.

Enclosure

ID: nht95-4.53

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 11, 1995

FROM: A.D. Fisher

TO: John Womack, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 11/21/95 LETTER FROM Samuel J. Dubbin to A.D. Fisher (A43; Std. 108)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

Enclosed are two documents covering the operation, features and highway safety attributes of a modified, rear, third signal light for private and commercial vehicles.

We have been advised by Mr. Blane Laubis, of NHTSA, to forward this to you for your evaluation. Please furnish us with your interpretation and comments about this product, including its use application, as applied to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standar d (FVMSS) #108.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Enclosures

THE ENLIGHTNER

Update May 31, 1995

"The Enlightner" replaces the third, center, high-mounted brake light as used in most modern day vehicles.

The light (or lens) has two colors, Red and Amber. The top half of the lens is Amber and the bottom half is Red.

Amber signals "Caution" and the Red signals "Stop" to the driver of the vehicle following a vehicle equipped with "the Enlightner".

Functions of "The Enlightner":

1. The Red portion is lighted when the brake pedal is applied, with the ignition "ON" or "OFF". This function overrides all other functions.

2. The Amber portion is lighted when the transmission selector lever is in any forward position with the accelerator pedal and the brake pedal not depressed. When the brake or accelerator pedals are depressed, the Amber light is "OFF".

When the transmission lever is in Reverse position, the Amber light flashes constantly at the rate of 90 flashes per minute. The flashing is continuous regardless of accelerator pedal and brake pedal positions as long as the transmission selector lev er is in Reverse position. This give a warning to everyone behind the vehicle that it is in Reverse and it about to back up or is backing up.

When the accelerator pedal is released ("OFF"), the Amber portion comes "ON", giving a "Caution" signal to the driver of the vehicle behind the vehicle equipped with "The Enlightner" that deceleration is taking place. When the accelerator and brake are not in use, the Amber portion is lighted. When power is reapplied by depressing the accelerator, the Amber light goes "OFF". When deceleration is taking place, Amber is "ON". When the brakes are applied, Amber goes "OFF" and Red comes "ON".

The advantages of "The Enlightener" over similar products is that it keeps the driver following behind totally informed (enlightened) as to the functions of the vehicle ahead. "The Enlightener" will reduce rear-end collisions (one of the most common acc idents) and reduce highway traffic injuries and fatalities.

Signed by Alfred D. Fisher Date June 1, 1995

Witnessed by Debra A. Thompson Date June 1, 1995

"The Enlightener"

According to U.S. Government statistics, there are over 10,000,000 highway accidents annually costing Americans $98,100,000,000 with an average cost per accident of over $9,800. Of the 10 million accidents, 25.3%, or approximately 2 1/2 million, are re ar-end collisions.

The average reaction time, from the instant the brake signal on a vehicle is seen until the brakes on the vehicle following it are applied, is 3/4 of a second. At 60 miles per hour, a vehicle travels 66 feet in 3/4 of a second. After the brakes are appl ied, the stopping distance for a car travelling at 60 MPH is a minimum of 146 feet. Therefore, the total distance from seeing the brake signal to a full stop is at least 212 feet.

Introducing "The Enlightener".........

featuring a Deceleration Caution Signal (DCS) in addition to the traditional third brake light. The instant the vehicle accelerator pedal is released and before the brake is applied, "The Enlightener" signals deceleration or a change of vehicle operatio n. It is estimated that the use of "The Enlightener" will reduce rear-end collisions over 41% and prevent thousands of highway injuries and fatalities. The reduction in costs to Americans would exceed $10.1 Billion annually.

In addition to the Deceleration Caution Signal (DCS), other features of "The Enlightener" include the DCS being illuminated when the vehicle is in any mode other than stopping or normal forward motion, and a flashing caution light when the vehicle transm ission selector lever is in reverse position.

"The Enlightener" is truly a unique innovation for improving highway safety that will save hundreds of lives, prevent thousands of injuries and save Americans billions of dollars annually.

ID: nht95-7.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 11, 1995

FROM: A.D. Fisher

TO: John Womack, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 11/21/95 LETTER FROM Samuel J. Dubbin to A.D. Fisher (A43; Std. 108)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

Enclosed are two documents covering the operation, features and highway safety attributes of a modified, rear, third signal light for private and commercial vehicles.

We have been advised by Mr. Blane Laubis, of NHTSA, to forward this to you for your evaluation. Please furnish us with your interpretation and comments about this product, including its use application, as applied to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FVMSS) #108.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Enclosures

THE ENLIGHTNER

Update May 31, 1995

"The Enlightner" replaces the third, center, high-mounted brake light as used in most modern day vehicles.

The light (or lens) has two colors, Red and Amber. The top half of the lens is Amber and the bottom half is Red.

Amber signals "Caution" and the Red signals "Stop" to the driver of the vehicle following a vehicle equipped with "the Enlightner".

Functions of "The Enlightner":

1. The Red portion is lighted when the brake pedal is applied, with the ignition "ON" or "OFF". This function overrides all other functions.

2. The Amber portion is lighted when the transmission selector lever is in any forward position with the accelerator pedal and the brake pedal not depressed. When the brake or accelerator pedals are depressed, the Amber light is "OFF".

When the transmission lever is in Reverse position, the Amber light flashes constantly at the rate of 90 flashes per minute. The flashing is continuous regardless of accelerator pedal and brake pedal positions as long as the transmission selector lever is in Reverse position. This give a warning to everyone behind the vehicle that it is in Reverse and it about to back up or is backing up.

When the accelerator pedal is released ("OFF"), the Amber portion comes "ON", giving a "Caution" signal to the driver of the vehicle behind the vehicle equipped with "The Enlightner" that deceleration is taking place. When the accelerator and brake are not in use, the Amber portion is lighted. When power is reapplied by depressing the accelerator, the Amber light goes "OFF". When deceleration is taking place, Amber is "ON". When the brakes are applied, Amber goes "OFF" and Red comes "ON".

The advantages of "The Enlightener" over similar products is that it keeps the driver following behind totally informed (enlightened) as to the functions of the vehicle ahead. "The Enlightener" will reduce rear-end collisions (one of the most common accidents) and reduce highway traffic injuries and fatalities.

Signed by Alfred D. Fisher Date June 1, 1995

Witnessed by Debra A. Thompson Date June 1, 1995

"The Enlightener"

According to U.S. Government statistics, there are over 10,000,000 highway accidents annually costing Americans $98,100,000,000 with an average cost per accident of over $9,800. Of the 10 million accidents, 25.3%, or approximately 2 1/2 million, are rear-end collisions.

The average reaction time, from the instant the brake signal on a vehicle is seen until the brakes on the vehicle following it are applied, is 3/4 of a second. At 60 miles per hour, a vehicle travels 66 feet in 3/4 of a second. After the brakes are applied, the stopping distance for a car travelling at 60 MPH is a minimum of 146 feet. Therefore, the total distance from seeing the brake signal to a full stop is at least 212 feet.

Introducing "The Enlightener".........

featuring a Deceleration Caution Signal (DCS) in addition to the traditional third brake light. The instant the vehicle accelerator pedal is released and before the brake is applied, "The Enlightener" signals deceleration or a change of vehicle operation. It is estimated that the use of "The Enlightener" will reduce rear-end collisions over 41% and prevent thousands of highway injuries and fatalities. The reduction in costs to Americans would exceed $10.1 Billion annually.

In addition to the Deceleration Caution Signal (DCS), other features of "The Enlightener" include the DCS being illuminated when the vehicle is in any mode other than stopping or normal forward motion, and a flashing caution light when the vehicle transmission selector lever is in reverse position.

"The Enlightener" is truly a unique innovation for improving highway safety that will save hundreds of lives, prevent thousands of injuries and save Americans billions of dollars annually.

ID: aiam5344

"Dear Mr. Williams: This responds to your letter requesting informatio about Federal requirements related to a product that 'sets the brakes on an air brake vehicle when the driver exits the cab.' I apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that your 'device does not hook into the brake system but pops the parking button out if the driver is off the seat and the door is open. The brake then must be manually disengaged.' You requested confirmation that the agency will neither support nor oppose the aftermarket installation of such a device. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. I am also enclosing a copy of a fact sheet entitled 'Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment.' By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. NHTSA does not have any specific regulations about a product such as your device. However, since this device is related to a vehicle's air brake system, it could affect a vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. That standard applies to almost all new trucks, buses, and trailers equipped with air brake systems. If your system is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 121. (See 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1) and 49 CFR Part 567). If the device is added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first consumer purchase, then the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. 49 CFR 567.7. If the device is installed on a used vehicle by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, then the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A). In particular, these entities should ensure that the installation of your device does not render inoperative the vehicle's compliance with the parking brake requirements set forth in S5.6. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: 2870o

Ms. Deborah M. Bakker
Assistant Manager, Regulatory Affairs
MMC Services, Inc.
3000 Town Center
Suite 1960
Southfield, MI 48075

Dear Ms. Bakker:

This letter is in response to your request for an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard. Specifically, you asked about a situation in which a car line (the Mitsubishi Galant) was designated as a high theft line beginning in the 1987 model year, pursuant to the procedures set forth in Part 542. Mitsubishi applied for and received an exemption from the marking requirements of the theft prevention standard because of a standard equipment antitheft device to be installed in the Galant. This exemption, issued pursuant to Part 543, applied beginning in the 1987 model year.

For the 1988 model year, the body style of the Galant was redesigned and a new nameplate was assigned to the line. It is now called the Galant Sigma. Additionally, Mitsubishi plans to introduce a new car line in the 1989 model year called the Galant. This line is, according to your letter, completely redesigned from the 1987 line that was called the Galant, bears no resemblance to the Galant Sigma, and will cost less than either the Galant Sigma or the 1987 line called Galant.

You posed the following questions:

1. Should a new theft determination be made for both the Galant Sigma and the redesigned Galant?

ANSWER: No. Based on the information enclosed with your letter, we conclude that the redesigned Galant is a continuation of the 1987 Galant line and the Galant Sigma is a new model within the Galant line.

As a general matter, section 601(2) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 2021(2)) defines the term "line" as "a name which a manufacturer applies to a group of motor vehicle models of the same make which have the same body or chassis, or otherwise are similar in construction or design." As noted in your letter, the agency uses the same language to define the term "line" in 541.4. This language treats groups of motor vehicles as a continuation of an existing line if the groups have the same name and are similar in construction or design. We have applied this language in the following manner.

With respect to the redesigned Galant, I addressed such a question in my March 6, 1987 letter to Mr. Jeffrey Link (copy enclosed) as follows:

The agency has in several instances determined that groups of vehicles using the same name as previous groups of vehicles were continuations of the previous line, even though the new vehicles used all new sheet metal and drivetrains as compared with the previous group of vehicles. This determination was based on the fact that the vehicles were still similar in construction or design to the older vehicles they replaced. On the other hand, NHTSA has also determined that groups of vehicles using the same name as previous groups of vehicles were nevertheless new lines, because of significant changes in the construction or design of the vehicle. For instance, when a vehicle is redesigned to be front wheel drive, it is not treated as the same line as the predecessor rear wheel drive line, even if the newly designed vehicle has the same name as the older vehicles.

The redesigned Galant obviously has the same name as the 1987 model year Galant. Additionally, the redesigned Galant is similar in construction and design to the 1987 Galant, notwithstanding the new sheet metal and different drivetrains. Accordingly, we believe that the redesigned Galant is a continuation of the 1987 Galant line. This means that the redesigned Galant is subject to the previous high theft determination for the Galant line.

With respect to the Galant Sigma, we conclude that this is a new model within the Galant line, not a new line. In our preamble to the insurer reporting requirements in 49 CFR Part 544, we discussed the application of the terms "model, make, and line" as follows:

"Make" refers to the general name used by the vehicle manufacturer. For example, Dodge, Ford, and Pontiac are makes of vehicles. "Line" refers to the nameplate assigned by the manufacturer to a group of vehicle models of the same make. For example, Dodge Charger, Ford Thunderbird, and Pontiac 6000 are lines of vehicles. "Model" refers to a specific grouping of similar vehicles within a line. For example, the Dodge Charger 2.2 2-door, Ford Thunderbird Turbo Coupe, and Pontiac 6000 LE 4-door are models. 52 FR 59, at 65; January 2, 1987.

In general, if a manufacturer calls a group of vehicles by the same general name as it applies to another group, but adds a further description to that name (e.g., Honda Civic CRX, Volkswagen Golf GTI, and Porsche 911 Carrera), we presume that the further description indicates a unique model within that line. This presumption can be overcome only if the vehicle with the further description in its name is not "similar in construction or design." Thus, we have determined, for example, that the Honda Civic CRX is simply a model within the Civic line, notwithstanding the fact that its driveline and body styling are different from all other Honda Civic models. It is similar in construction or design (all are front-wheel drive passenger cars) and bears the same name as other Civics.

On the other hand, the Colt/Mirage Station Wagon is not considered a model within your Colt/Mirage line. The Station Wagon bears the same name as other Colt/Mirage models. However, the Colt/Mirage Station Wagon is classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle, while the other Colt/Mirage models are passenger cars. This difference is substantial enough that the vehicles are not "similar" in construction or design.

In the case of the Galant Sigma, we agree that it is not identical in construction or design to the other redesigned Galant models. However, it is similar in construction and design to the other Galant models, since all are front-wheel drive passenger cars. Hence, the Galant Sigma is simply a model within the Galant line.

2. If a new high theft determination should not be made for the redesigned Galant and the Galant Sigma, which of the vehicles is designated as high theft and for which car line could the exemption granted for the old Galant be used?

ANSWER: As explained above, the Galant Sigma is not a separate car line, but is simply a model within the Galant line. The redesigned Galant line is a continuation of the older Galant line. Thus, the previous high theft determination applies to all models in the redesigned Galant line, including the Galant Sigma.

The exemption that was granted to the older Galant line can be used for the redesigned Galant line if the antitheft device that was the subject of the previous petition is installed as standard equipment in all cars in the redesigned Galant line, including the Galant Sigma. If the antitheft device that was the subject of the previous petition is not installed as standard equipment in all cars in the redesigned Galant line, you would be required to mark all cars in the redesigned Galant line to conform to Part 541.

3. If one or both the redesigned Galant and the Galant Sigma are newly designated as high theft lines, can the exemption granted for the Galant in the 1987 model year be used for either or both car lines, or would the exemption be invalidated because of the change in body style?

ANSWER: Because the redesigned Galant is a continuation of the 1987 Galant line and the Galant Sigma is just a model within the redesigned Galant line, as explained above, the exemption granted under Part 543 to the 1987 Galant line continues in full effect for the redesigned Galant line. Your company has the option of installing anti-theft devices as standard equipment in all vehicles in the redesigned Galant line, including the Galant Sigma, in accordance with the 1987 exemption, or marking all major parts in all vehicles in the redesigned Galant line, in accordance with Part 541. 4. If an exemption is granted but a manufacturer continues to mark parts in accordance with Part 541, can installation of the anti-theft device be discontinued at any time?

ANSWER: Yes. Exemptions are granted only, among other things, after a determination has been made that the line in question is a high theft line that should be listed in Appendix A of Part 541. Section 541.3 states that the parts marking requirements of Part 541 apply to all lines listed in Appendix A. Section 541.5 requires each major part that is original equipment on a line designated as high theft to be marked with certain information. Section 541.6 requires each replacement major part for high theft lines to be marked with certain information. Thus, each line listed in Appendix A must comply with the requirements of sections 541.5 and 541.6.

There is a single exception to this requirement. Part 543 sets forth procedures by which a line that has been determined to be a high theft line can be exempted from the marking requirements of Part 541. To be eligible for an exemption under Part 543, an antitheft device must be installed as standard equipment in all cars in the line. The lines that have been granted exemptions under Part 543 are listed in a special subset of Appendix A, Appendix A-I. When a manufacturer gets an exemption for a line under Part 543, it is given two options to comply with the requirements of Part 541. First, the manufacturer can install the antitheft device that was the subject of the exemption proceeding under Part 543 as standard equipment on all cars in that line, in accordance with the terms of the exemption. However, the manufacturer is not required by Part 543 or any other provision to install standard equipment antitheft devices in that line. If the manufacturer chooses not to use the antitheft device exemption for that line, the manufacturer must choose the second option -- that is, marking the major parts of every car in the line, in accordance with 541.5, and marking the replacement major parts for that line, in accordance with 541.6. If a manufacturer has complied with both of these options in a particular model year, by marking every vehicle and every covered major replacement part for a line and by installing an antitheft device that was the subject of a Part 543 exemption proceeding in every marked vehicle, as posited in your example, the manufacturer is free to discontinue either, but not both, of the courses of action at any point during the model year. When the manufacturer chooses to discontinue either course of action for even a single vehicle in the high theft line, it is then required to follow the other course of action until the end of the model year in question.

Please note that this choice exists only if the manufacturer has complied fully with the requirements of Part 541.5 and Part 541.6 and with the terms of the exemption granted under Part 543. If some vehicles in a line or some of the replacement major parts were not marked in accordance with Part 541, the manufacturer must install the antitheft device that was the subject of the Part 543 proceeding in all vehicles in that line for the rest of the model year. When the next model year for the subject line begins, the manufacturer is permitted to discontinue the installation of the antitheft device and to comply with the requirements of Part 541 for that line in the new model year. However, for any particular model year, each of a manufacturer's lines must fully comply with either the requirements of Part 541 or the exemption granted under Part 543.

Please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff if you have any further questions or need more information on this subject.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:54l#542#543 d:5/4/88