ID: nht93-4.28

DATE: June 8, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Shawn Shieh -- Ventures International USA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-13-93 EST from Shawn Shieh to NHTSA (OCC 8640); Also attached to letter dated 8-17-89 from Stephen P. Wood to Alan S. Eldahr (Std. 108)

TEXT: This replies to your undated letter to the Office of Enforcement, NHTSA, asking questions about an emergency communication product intended to be permanently mounted in the back window of an automobile. The product uses light emitting diodes to form messages for the drivers of following cars to read.

I enclose a copy of a letter dated August 17, 1989, that the agency sent to Alan S. Eldahr who asked for our comments on a similar device. The same advice applies to your product. As you will see, our opinion is that the product is of doubtful legality under Federal law when used on passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985, which are equipped with center highmounted stoplamps.

In addition, the product must not create a noncompliance with the Federal field of view requirements for interior rear view mirrors. Thus, we cannot answer your question about the maximum size of a permanent structure to be installed in an automobile because that will vary from car to car. With respect to your other questions, there are no Federal specifications for the material of the base support. The "restriction" on the product's wiring is that it must not interfere with the functioning of any Federally required lamp on the vehicle. This agency is the only government agency you have to consult on the product.

ID: aiam5369

"Dear Mr. Love: This responds to your request for an interpretation o Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) No. 101, Controls and displays and No. 102, Transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect. I apologize for the delay in our response. You asked about the standards in connection with three options your company is considering for changing its 'Tiptronic' automatic transmission system. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles meet applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. The current Tiptronic automatic transmission system can be described as follows: The shift lever is located in the middle console, where it can be moved along either of two slots which are located essentially parallel to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle. The left slot (automatic function) is essentially the same as a conventional automatic transmission gear shift lever, with the following positions (in order): P R N D 3 2 1. At the D position (only) of the left slot, the gear shift lever can be transferred to the M (manual) position of the right slot (manual function). The right slot consists of the following positions (in order): + M -. When the gear shift lever is in the right slot, the driver can select a higher gear (+) or lower gear (-) by tapping the shift lever. The shift lever always returns to the 'M' position after being tapped. There are two gear position displays, one on the middle console and the other on the instrument panel. The middle console display, which is not illuminated, shows each of the 10 positions where the shift lever may be placed. It also shows the position which is selected. The display on the instrument panel, which is illuminated, has two columns which correspond to the slots on the middle console. However, while the left column (corresponding to the left slot or automatic function) shows the positions P R N D 3 2 1, the right column (corresponding to the right slot or manual function) shows the positions 4 3 2 1. In other words, the right column portion of the display shows the available gears and the actual gear selected rather than + M -. For both columns, the selected position or gear is indicated by an illuminated arrow. In your letter to NHTSA, you indicate that Porsche is considering the following three options for modifying its system: Option 1. The first proposed modification would eliminate the 3, 2 and 1 positions on the left (automatic) slot. Option 2a. The second proposed modification would eliminate the 3, 2 and 1 positions on the left (automatic) slot and the + and - positions on the right (manual) slot. Gear selection in the manual mode would be accomplished not by the shift lever but by shift rocker switches on the steering wheel. Option 2b) The third proposed modification would provide only one slot with the following positions (in order): P R N D M D. In the M position, gear selection would be accomplished by shift rocker switches on the steering wheel. For each of the proposed modifications, the shift lever positions would be labeled on the middle console, in the same manner as the current system. Similarly, the middle console would not be illuminated. The instrument panel display would not change for any of the options. You ask a number of questions concerning whether the Tiptronic system, as modified under options 1, 2a and 2b, would comply with Standards No. 101 and 102. The issues raised by your letter are addressed below. I will begin by identifying the requirements of Standards No. 101 and No. 102 which are relevant to your questions. Section S3.1.4.1 of Standard No. 102 states: Except as specified in S3.1.4.3, if the transmission shift lever sequence includes a park position, identification of shift lever positions, including the positions in relation to each other and the position selected, shall be displayed in view of the driver whenever any of the following conditions exist: (a) The ignition is in a position where the transmission can be shifted. (b) The transmission is not in park. S3.1.4.4 states: Effective September 23, 1991, all of the information required to be displayed by S3.1.4.1 or S3.1.4.2 shall be displayed in view of the driver in a single location. At the option of the manufacturer, redundant displays providing some or all of the information may be provided. Standard No. 101 specifies requirements for the location, identification and illumination of automatic gear position indicators. Section S5.1 requires that gear position display must be visible to the driver under the conditions of S6. Section S5.3.1 and Table 2 of the standard together require that automatic gear position displays be illuminated whenever the ignition switch and/or the headlamps are activated. The entry in Table 2 concerning the automatic gear position display references Standard No. 102. In a April 2, 1989 letter to Porsche concerning the Tiptronic system, we concluded that, given the reference in Standard No. 101 to Standard No. 102, where multiple gear position displays are provided and one complies with Standard No. 102 and the others do not, the requirements of Standard No. 101 must be met for the display which complies with Standard No. 102. With this background in mind, I will discuss the existing Tiptronic system and the three possible modifications. For the reasons discussed above and in our April 2, 1989 letter, while multiple gear position displays are permitted, one such display must comply with all of the relevant requirements of Standards No. 101 and No. 102. Since your console display is not illuminated, it would obviously not comply with Standard No. 101. I will therefore address your letter in the context of whether the instrument panel display meets the requirements of the two standards. I assume that the instrument panel is activated during the times specified by Standard No. 102. Under section S3.1.4.1 of Standard No. 102, there must be a display of all of the shift lever positions in relation to each other, and there must be an indication of the position that the driver has selected. In our April 2, 1989 letter, we stated that your design has the following ten shift lever positions: P R N D 3 2 1 + M -. We noted that the right column of the alternative instrument panel displays identified in your letter showed either 4 3 2 1 or 4 3 M 2 1 instead of + M -. We concluded that if the instrument panel display was to be used to meet the requirements of Standard No. 102, it would be necessary for the display to show the 10 actual shift lever positions, including + M -. Porsche evidently did not follow the opinion provided in that letter, since Porsche neither provided illumination for the console display nor showed the 10 actual shift lever positions, identified in our letter, on the instrument panel display. While we do not understand the reason for this decision by Porsche, we believe that one could reasonably argue that the + and - locations are not really shift lever 'positions,' since the shift lever cannot be left in those locations. Under this view, + M - could be seen as 'one' shift lever position, which is represented on the instrument panel by 4 3 2 1. We would accept this as an alternative way of characterizing the current Tiptronic system, and are therefore not aware of any compliance problems. I will now turn to the three possible modifications. Once again, since the non-illuminated console display would not meet the requirements of Standard No. 101, the relevant question is whether the instrument panel display meets the relevant requirements of Standards No. 101 and No. 102. A common problem for all three options would be that the instrument panel display retained from the original Tiptronic system would not correspond to the shift lever positions of the modified designs. This could be corrected for options 1 and 2a simply by deleting the 3 2 1 portion of the left column. A more complicated correction would be needed for option 2a, since the display would need to show the following positions in relation to each other: P R N D M D. I have several other comments on your letter. You stated that for all three options, Porsche believes that it is not necessary to have the shift lever positions 3, 2 and 1, or to necessarily display those positions if selected automatically in the D position, as long as they as displayed when selected manually by use of the shift lever (in option 1) or shift rocker switch(es) (in options 2a and 2b). Porsche is correct that it is unnecessary to provide shift lever positions 3, 2 and 1. Moreover, to the extent that such shift lever positions are not provided but the gears are instead selected automatically in the D position or manually in the M position by tapping the shift lever or shift rocker switch, it is unnecessary to display the gears. You also stated the following: Porsche believes that under options 2a and 2b, both the shift lever and the shift rocker switch(es) would be considered as 'shift levers' during the period when they are capable of changing the transmission position. The 'shift lever position' would then be defined as the transmission position, or mode of operation, that was selected by manipulation of any combination of 'shift levers.' It follows then that identification of 'shift lever position' would entail identifying the distinct transmission operating modes, in relation to each other and the specific mode selected. . . . For options 2a and 2b, Porsche believes it is not necessary to illuminate the shift rocker switches, just as it is not necessary to illuminate the shift lever, under the provisions of FMVSS 101, as long as the display in the speedometer showing transmission position is illuminated. We would not view the shift rocker switch(es) as shift levers under any circumstances. Instead, for the vehicle designs at issue, the lever provided on the middle console would be the only shift lever. When the shift lever is in the 'M' position, the shift rocker switch(es) simply permit manual shifting that is akin to the automatic shifting that occurs when the shift lever is in the 'D' position. The rocker switch(es) could not be used to shift the transmission to P, R or N. Under these circumstances, we view the rocker switch(es) as a control which is auxiliary to the shift lever and unregulated by Standard No. 102. I note that we might take a different position if the rocker switch(es) permitted the transmission to be shifted to P, R or N, since Standard No. 102 includes requirements to prevent shifting errors. I also note that Standard No. 101 does not require transmission shift levers or controls which are auxiliary to shift levers to be illuminated. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ";

ID: 1984-2.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/19/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Forrest L. Bettis, Project Director, Traders International

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Subject: Approval for automotive Testing of Two Non-Conforming Vehicles

Reference: 22157-30.4.84

Dear Mr. Berndt:

We are an automotive marketing research firm located in the Los Angeles area. Recently, we were contracted by a Japanese auto manufacturer to test U.S. acceptance of their new car. The importation is for Daihatsu Motor Co., manufacturer not presently selling vehicles in the U.S.

We urgently need the approval of NHTSA to import these vehicles for testing. These vehicles are to be used for engineering evaluation, emissions testing and marketing evaluations. Following testing, they will be returned to Japan.

Enclosed is a letter from Daihatsu Motor Company requesting a waiver from the California Air Resources Board and listing specs of vehicles.

We are under severe time constraints. These cars are scheduled to arrive in San Pedro/Long Beach no later than July 25. If possible, your approval for importation and testing would be appreciated prior to July 2O, 1984.

If you need any additional information, call us collect (818)768-8573.

Sincerely,

Forrest L. Bettis Project Director

Mr. Forrest L. Bettis Project Director Traders International 10553 Alskog St.

Sun Valley, CA 91352

Dear Mr. Bettis:

This is in response to your letter of July 7, 1984, asking for the agency's "approval for importation and testing" of two small Japanese cars.

No "approval" is necessary for importation for the purposes you specify. Pursuant to Title 19 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 12.80(b)(1)(vii), a motor vehicle which does not comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards may nonetheless be imported for purposes of test or experiment. If the vehicle is to be operated on the public roads, it may be so tested for a period of up to one year after importation, provided that a statement is attached to the entry form giving the purpose of the test or experiment, the estimated amount of time that the vehicle will spend on the public roads, and the disposition to be made of it at the end of the test period. The letter to the California Air Resources Board, which you attached, appears sufficient for this purpose.

The entry form I mentioned in the preceding paragraph is Form HS-7 which is required to be executed when the vehicles enter the country. The proper declaration to check for purposes of test and experiment is Box 7.

Should your client require more than one year's evaluation, you may ask the agency for an additional year, and later, a third year if required.

If you have any further questions we shall be happy to answer them.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Ref. No. 47041 Date July 4, 1984

Mr. K.D. Drachand, Chief Mobile Source Division California Air Resources Board 9528 Telstar Avenue El Monte, California 91731 U.S.A.

RE : Application for two experimental permits

We are a Japanese automobile manufacturing company currently investigating the introduction of a new car to the U.S. market. To test our product in the U.S., we must import two nonconforming vehicles. These are different from the vehicles which marketing department of our company applied on May 23. Now, we need the experimental permits to operate these vehicles on public roadways in California. Following testing, they will be returned to Japan. These vehicles are to be used for engineering evaluation and marketing evaluations.

Vehicle specs are as follows :

Manufacturer : Daihatsu Motor Company Ltd. Vehicle models : 1. Daihatsu Charade 2 door (G11 Micro-mini FF passenger car) 2. Daihatsu Rocky (F7OLV Wagon type 4x4) Length : 3,550 mm 3,715 mm Width : 1,550 mm 1,580 mm Height : 1,395 mm 1,840 mm Weight : 690 kg 1,365 kg Dates : July 24 - Oct. 24 VIN numbers : Charade 2 door JDA 000G1100737951 Rocky JDA 000F7000600408

These two cars will be shipped from Kobe. Japan to Los Angeles, California. In California, they will be evaluated and test driven by several people. After this test, they will undergo a series of additional tests. Within one year of importation, these vehicles will be returned to Japan.

Sincerely yours,

Tetsuo Iwakura; Project Manager Product Planning Dept. Daihatsu Motor Company Ltd.

ID: 1985-02.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/13/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Robert L. Hart

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 11, 1985, to former Chief Counsel Frank Berndt asking for an interpretation that a combination stop lamp-rear view mirror you have intended would be permissible under paragraph S4.4.1 of Standard No. 108.

That paragraph precludes combining a center high-mounted stop lamp with any other lamp or reflective device. You have concluded that the prohibition applies only to passenger cars manufactured after September 1, 1985, "and does not prohibit application of my device to vehicles manufactured prior to the effective date of the mandate."

Actually, S4.4.1 does not apply to your device at all. The lamp established by the standard is one that is mounted on the vertical centerline of the vehicle, at or near the rear window with no relationship to the forward left side of the vehicle where your combination lamp-mirror would be located. Standard No. 108 does contain in paragraph S4.1.3 a prohibition against additional lighting devices that impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by the standard. But on the basis of the facts as you have presented them to us, we cannot say that impairment would exist. We therefore conclude that your device is not prohibited by Standard No. 108 as either original or replacement equipment on any motor vehicle.

However, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, does relate to your device. Passenger cars are required to be equipped with an outside rear view mirror on the driver's side; under paragraph S5.2.2 ". . . neither the mirror nor the mounting shall protrude farther than the widest part of the vehicle body except to the extent necessary to produce a field of view meeting or exceeding the requirements of S5.2.1." Some of your designs show the lamp portion at the left end of the device's housing resulting in a wider unit than one incorporating a mirror alone. We recommend that you re-examine these designs with paragraph S5.2.2 in mind, relocating the lamp to the area either above or below that of the mirror surface if you conclude that the combination mounting would not comply with Standard No. 111.

There is no similar mounting requirement for driver's side mirrors on vehicles other than passenger cars, and your designs for mirrors on these vehicles would appear permissible under Standard No. 111.

Sincerely,

February 11, 1985

Frank Berndt Office of the Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: Petition for Rulemaking

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This letter is to request an amendment to FMVSS No. 108: Lamps, reflective devices and associated equipment. I reference specifically, S4.4.1 of 571.108, pp243 of the Federal Register, 1984: . . . and no high mounted stop lamp shall be combined with any other lamp or reflective device.

The purpose of my petition is to obtain clearance to pursue technical and commercial development of my invention - Side Mounted Rear View Mirror with Brake Light/Wide Vue Brake Light - (on which I have a patent pending) for OEM as well as aftermarket merchandising. My interpretation of the new standard is that the high mounted lamp relates specifically to new passenger vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1985, and does not prohibit application of my device to vehicles manufactured prior to the effective date of the mandate.

Although functional testing of the Wide Vue Brake Light has not been concluded, my instincts and observations, and those of consultants who are assisting me, give rise to the belief that my device will be more effective than (and an auxilliary to) the high mounted lamp in terms of reducing rear end collisions, especially in highway traffic patterns where chain reaction collisions are most likely to occur.

My invention is designed to be applicable to all roadway motorized vehicles, and is, therefore, more effective than the high mounted stop lamp which is applicable only to passenger vehicles. A most important design feature of my device is that the light is recessed and, therefore, is not within view of the primary driver; i.e., it can be seen by trailing drivers only and cannot distract the primary driver.

The attached materials, including technical drawing and illustrations and a narrative research summary by Invention Marketing, Inc., present reasons why the Wide Vue Brake Light is more effective.

I should appreciate your favorable review of my petition and removal/revision of the restriction encompassed in S4.4.1 of 571.108, in order that I may approach vehicle manufacturers relative to possible inclusion of my invention in new vehicles after the 1986 model year.

Please contact me for clarifications or answers to questions regarding my invention.

Rxobert L. Hart

Enclosures Omitted.

ID: 3010yy

Mr. Norman H. Dankert
221 Decatur Street
Michigan City, IN 46360

Dear Mr. Dankert:

This responds to your letter of May 14, l99l, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08 as it relates to your patent. We appreciate that you included a copy of the patent so that we might have a better understanding of your invention.

As you have explained it, "a sensor that responds to the movement of the accelerator pedal serves to maintain the activation initiated by the brake pedal until the accelerator pedal is depressed, regardless of any speed." In short, when the center highmounted stop lamp is activated by application of the brake pedal, your device ensures that the lamp remains activated when the foot is removed from the brake pedal until such time as the accelerator is again depressed.

The Summary of the Invention in the patent indicates that the basic kit includes a logic circuit unit connecting the accelerator, high mounted stop lamp, and back up lamp (so that when the vehicle is placed in reverse gear, the center lamp, if on, remains on). Optionally, the unit can connect the right and left turn signal lamps (which the Operation of the System in the patent indicates "flashes that 'third' light when either turn signal is operated . . . ."

You believe that your system complies with Standard No. l08, specifically, paragraph S4.5.4 (now S5.5.4) which states "The high-mounted stop lamp on a passenger car shall be activated only upon application of the service brakes." I regret that we must disagree with you. The "only" activation of the center lamp permitted by Standard No. l08 is "upon application of the service brakes." If the service brakes ceased to be applied, the lamp must be deactivated. To allow the center lamp to remain activated when the service brakes are no longer applied would be to allow its activation under conditions other than the application of the service brakes. The stop lamps on the vehicle serve a clearly defined purpose: to indicate the intention of the driver to stop the vehicle, or to diminish its speed, through braking. Paragraph S5.5.4 ensures that the stop lamps will not be used at times other than braking. While use of the stop lamp to indicate a vehicle stopped by the road may be an intuitively attractive idea, we note that there is already a safety system on a vehicle, the hazard warning flasher system, that is specifically intended to be used for this purpose.

We also note that the invention would appear to be prohibited by paragraph S5.1.3 (formerly S4.1.3) of Standard No. l08. This prohibits the installation of any item of motor vehicle equipment that may impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. We deem effectiveness impaired when the intended function of a lamp is lessened, either by outright interference with the lamp's performance, or by the introduction of factors that may create confusion as to the meaning of the signal sent by the lamp. We appreciate the fact that you believe your invention will contribute to motor vehicle safety by indicating the presence of a car that has been put into reverse gear. However, we believe that your invention would impair the effectiveness of the backup lamp. In the reverse mode, the simultaneous activation of the center stop lamp and the backup lamp could create at least momentary confusion as to whether the driver was braking, had braked, or was reversing direction.

The option of the invention that flashes the center lamps with the turn signal lamps is prohibited by paragraph S5.5.10(d) which, in essence, requires all stop lamps to be steady burning in use.

For the foregoing reasons, Standard No. l08 does not allow your invention to be used as original equipment on passenger cars. Nor could it be retrofitted on passenger cars already in use that are equipped with the center lamp. Federal law, in essence, prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, from rendering a safety system wholly or partially noncompliant. As noted above, your invention would have this effect on the center lamp or the backup lamp.

We would also caution against use of your device in conjunction with aftermarket high-mounted stop lamps intended for retrofit on vehicles that were not required by Standard No. l08 to be equipped with them (i.e., passenger cars manufactured before September 1, l985, and multipurpose passenger vehicles, light trucks, and vans manufactured before September 1, l992). In our opinion, the reasons expressed in the last two sentences of the preceding paragraph would continue to apply to the backup lamp system.

Even if permitted under Federal law, the laws of the individual States where an invention is sold may prohibit such a device. We are not in a position to advise on the acceptability of inventions under States laws, and suggest that you write for an opinion to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:VSA#l08 d:6/3/9l

ID: nht79-1.44

DATE: 04/06/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; M. M. Finkelstein; NHTSA

TO: Leyland Cars

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I regret the delay in responding to your July 17, 1978, letter petitioning for reconsideration of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 101-80, Controls and Displays. You requested that the standard be amended to add three ISO symbols so that British Leyland could adopt common specifications in satisfaction of both FMVSS 101-80 and EEC directive 78/316. Your petition is in effect granted in part and is denied in part.

You asked that the ISO symbol (an illuminated light bulb) for the Master Lighting Switch be either substituted for Headlamp and Tail Lamp symbol (an illuminated headlamp) specified in Table 1 of FMVSS 101-80 or added as an option to that specified symbol. This aspect of your petition is denied. If a vehicle contains a master lighting control in addition to a headlamp and tail lamp control, the Master Lighting Switch symbol may be used for the master lighting control. We recognize, however, that most vehicles presently sold in this country have one control that operates all lights, including the headlamps and tail lamps. On vehicles having one control for all lights, the control must be identified by the Headlamp and Tail Lamp symbol. We believe that this is appropriate since the headlamps and tail lamps are the most important lights controlled by a master light control. Further, we believe that the Headlamp and Tail Lamp symbol is more easily recognized than the Master Lighting Switch symbol.

You also asked that the ISO symbol for the Manual Choke be added to Table 1 and the ISO symbol for the Brake System be added to Table 2. No amendment of the standard is necessary to permit your use of these two symbols since FMVSS 101-80 does not specify any requirements regarding symbols for those item. Amendment of the standard to require the use of those symbols would require a new proposal to be issued since such an amendment would be beyond the scope of the October 12, 1976, proposal which led to the June 26, 1978 final rule. Treating this part of your petition as a petition for rulemaking instead of a petition for reconsideration, we grant it. It should be understood that granting the petition does not necessarily mean that an amendment will ultimately be adopted.

SINCERELY,

Engineering and Product Planning Division

British Leyland UK Limited

The Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

JULY 17, 1978 Dear Madam,

PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION CONTROLS AND DISPLAYS FMVSS 101-80

B.L.Cars Ltd., manufacturers of Jaguar, Triumph, Rover, M.G., Austin and Morris passenger cars and Land Rover and Range Rover M.P.V.'s petitions for reconsideration of FMVSS 101-80 - Controls and Displays under CFR 553.35.

We wish to adopt common specifications to satisfy the requirements of FMVSS 101-80 and EEC Directive 78/316 for the identification of controls and displays, and we find this is not possible with the two Regulations as currently written. We therefore request that FMVSS 101-80 be amended in the following respects to enable common specifications to be arrived at.

1. Amend Table 1, Column 3 by substituting for symbol shown in the line titled "Headlamps and Tail lamps" the symbol shown in ISO 2575/111-1975 for Master Lighting Switch, namely

if Separate Switch (Illegible Words)

Alternatively add the ISO symbol as an option.

2. Amend Table 1, Column 3 by adding in the line titled "Manual Choke" the symbol shown in ISO 2575/11-1975 for Choke.

3. Amend Table 2, Column 3 by adding in the line titled "Brake System" the symbol shown in ISO 2575/DAD 2 for Brake Failure.

These three amendments would be a step towards the accomplishment of the objective of the Notice published on 21st October, 1976 to identify these controls and displays with specified symbols which

(Graphics omitted) are internationally standardised. It is anticipated that the Brake System symbol will be adopted by ISO before the effective date of FMVSS 101-80; it has already been adopted by EEC and is under consideration by ECE.

An additional advantage would be to remove the anomaly present in FMVSS 101-80 which specifies the same symbol for two different functions namely Headlamps and Tail lamps control and High Beam telltale.

The preamble to FMVSS 101-80 says that some existing ISO symbols are not included in the final rule due to the fact that additional data are needed on their recognisability. The symbols we have requested to be adopted were produced by ISO in working parties in which representatives from the U.S.A. were engaged and these were the symbols which were considered by these working parties to be the most suitable for the purpose. We believe that there is now no better way to obtain universal recognition of these symbols than their adoption on vehicles in use in the U.S.A. and the rest of the world.

We request that this Petition be given urgent consideration because we have to act quickly to achieve the requirements by the effective date.

(Graphics omitted)

C. J. Goode Chief Engineer Vehicle Safety.

ID: nht91-4.11

DATE: June 3, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Norman H. Dankert

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-14-91 from Norman H. Dankert to Taylor Vinson (OCC 6047)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of May 14, 1991, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it relates to your patent. We appreciate that you included a copy of the patent so that we might have a better understanding of your invention.

As you have explained it, "a sensor that responds to the movement of the accelerator pedal serves to maintain the activation initiated by the brake pedal until the accelerator pedal is depressed, regardless of any speed." In short, when the center highmounted stop lamp is activated by application of the brake pedal, your device ensures that the lamp remains activated when the foot is removed from the brake pedal until such time as the accelerator is again depressed.

The Summary of the Invention in the patent indicates that the basic kit includes a logic circuit unit connecting the accelerator, high mounted stop lamp, and back up lamp (so that when the vehicle is placed in reverse gear, the center lamp, if on, remains on). Optionally, the unit can connect the right and left turn signal lamps (which the Operation of the System in the patent indicates "flashes that 'third' light when either turn signal is operated . . . ."

You believe that your system complies with Standard No. 108, specifically, paragraph S4.5.4 (now S5.5.4) which states "The high-mounted stop lamp on a passenger car shall be activated only upon application of the service brakes." I regret that we must disagree with you. The "only" activation of the center lamp permitted by Standard No. 108 is "upon application of the service brakes." If the service brakes ceased to be applied, the lamp must be deactivated. To allow the center lamp to remain activated when the service brakes are no longer applied would be to allow its activation under conditions other than the application of the service brakes. The stop lamps on the vehicle serve a clearly defined purpose: to indicate the intention of the driver to stop the vehicle, or to diminish its speed, through braking. Paragraph S5.5.4 ensures that the stop lamps will not be used at times other than braking. While use of the stop lamp to indicate a vehicle stopped by the road may be an intuitively attractive idea, we note that there is already a safety system on a vehicle, the hazard warning flasher system, that is specifically intended to be used for this purpose.

We also note that the invention would appear to be prohibited by paragraph S5.1.3 (formerly S4.1.3) of Standard No. 108. This prohibits the installation of any item of motor vehicle equipment that may impair the

effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. We deem effectiveness impaired when the intended function of a lamp is lessened, either by outright interference with the lamp's performance, or by the introduction of factors that may create confusion as to the meaning of the signal sent by the lamp. We appreciate the fact that you believe your invention will contribute to motor vehicle safety by indicating the presence of a car that has been put into reverse gear. However, we believe that your invention would impair the effectiveness of the backup lamp. In the reverse mode, the simultaneous activation of the center stop lamp and the backup lamp could create at least momentary confusion as to whether the driver was braking, had braked, or was reversing direction.

The option of the invention that flashes the center lamps with the turn signal lamps is prohibited by paragraph S5.5.10(d) which, in essence, requires all stop lamps to be steady burning in use.

For the foregoing reasons, Standard No. 108 does not allow your invention to be used as original equipment on passenger cars. Nor could it be retrofitted on passenger cars already in use that are equipped with the center lamp. Federal law, in essence, prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, from rendering a safety system wholly or partially noncompliant. As noted above, your invention would have this effect on the center lamp or the backup lamp.

We would also caution against use of your device in conjunction with aftermarket high-mounted stop lamps intended for retrofit on vehicles that were not required by Standard No. 108 to be equipped with them (i.e., passenger cars manufactured before September 1, 1985, and multipurpose passenger vehicles, light trucks, and vans manufactured before September 1, 1992). In our opinion, the reasons expressed in the last two sentences of the preceding paragraph would continue to apply to the backup lamp system.

Even if permitted under Federal law, the laws of the individual States where an invention is sold may prohibit such a device. We are not in a position to advise on the acceptability of inventions under States laws, and suggest that you write for an opinion to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

ID: vastatepat.ztv

Col. W. Gerald Massengill
Superintendent
Department of State Police
Commonwealth of Virginia
P.O. Box 27472
Richmond, VA 23261-7472





Dear Col. Massengill:

This is in reply to your letter of April 19, 2001, to Taylor Vinson of this Office regarding undercover or "hide-a-way" lights on Virginia state police patrol vehicles. You would like to equip unmarked patrol cars with a certain lighting system for use on Interstate highways within the Commonwealth if the lights comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You have asked two specific questions.

For the reasons discussed below, our answer is that you may equip your vehicles with this system without violating Federal law.

You write that "Ford Motor Company engaged a consulting firm, Crown North America, to install the Whelan lights in the taillight, four side marker lights, and possibly the parking lights of a new Crown Victoria for evaluation." The "Whelan lights" are apparently strobe lights. These appear to be part of a "Police Prep and Visibility Package" which forms the basis of a "Police Interceptor Police Package" marketed by Ford Motor Company. Under Ford's "Visibility Package," a strobe power supply is installed in the trunk of a vehicle "capable of controlling all strobe light heads."

You have asked:

"First, is whether the modification of the tail and marker lights to allow insertion of the strobe unit impairs the effectiveness of the equipment required by FMVSS 108, renders the equipment non-compliant or compromises the integrity of the original lighting devices?"

With respect to new vehicles, Standard No. 108 requires parking lamps, side marker lamps, and optional lighting to be steady burning in use (S5.5.10(d)). When parking lamps and side marker lamps are flashed by the strobe device, a noncompliance with Standard No. 108 would occur. Standard No. 108 also prohibits the installation of "other motor vehicle equipment . . . that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard" (S5.1.3). Strobe lights are "other motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of this phrase. We read the term "installation" to include use of the other vehicle equipment. Impairment of parking and side marker lamps will result if they are activated for a purpose other than to serve as parking and side marker lamps.

Traditionally, we defer to the judgment of States as to the installation and use of emergency lighting devices on its vehicles. In this instance, the strobe lights will be used on unmarked Ford Crown Victoria passenger cars, virtually identical to Ford Crown Victoria passenger cars available to the general public. We want to allow States to install and use strobe lights on unmarked vehicles yet we do not think it in the interest of safety to allow the general public to do the same on virtually identical vehicles.

We would distinguish police and private vehicles in this manner. The drivers that operate police vehicles will be instructed to use the strobe equipment only when it is required to alert a motorist to pull to the side of the road and thereafter to alert other motorists of the presence of stopped vehicles and law enforcement personnel at the side of the road. In all other circumstances, the parking lamps and side marker lamps will operate as they normally do. Thus, the noncompliance and impairment are temporary in nature and are necessary for the missions of the State police. We believe, then, that the strobe equipment is permissible because of the circumstances which are unique to law enforcement. This would not be the case for vehicles that are not specified by state or local laws to be emergency vehicles that may be required to have special, additional lighting.

"Second, once installed, if the strobes are removed and the hole plugged prior to auctioning the vehicle, would these modifications render the light noncompliant with FMVSS 108?"

We assume that you mean the tail and marker lamps to which you referred in your first question. If the strobes are removed from the tail and side marker lamps, and those lamps continue to perform as they originally did when the vehicle was certified by Ford Motor Company, then the removal of the strobes would not of themselves appear to render the light noncompliant with Standard No. 108. Care should be taken in plugging the holes to minimize the chance of environmental degradation (e.g., dust, moisture) of lighting performance.

Under Federal law (49 U.S.C. 30122), the State, as the owner of a vehicle, may itself modify the vehicle after its purchase even if this modification results in a noncompliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Further, there is no Federal requirement that the owner return the vehicle to compliance before selling it. However, we ask that the State Patrol ensure that lamps on vehicles it sells at auctions are properly wired and have the proper bulbs if these were affected by the installation or removal of the lamps used in undercover lighting schemes.

If you have further questions you may call Mr. Vinson (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.7/3/01

ID: aiam1032

Dear Mr. Herr: This is in reply to your letter of January 19, 1973, concerning th Federal requirements governing safety belt length.; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Cras Protection, regulates the length of safety belts installed in cars made after January 1, 1972. There are two safety belt length requirements of this Standard that may enter into the case enclosed with your letter. The first requires that the manufacturers provide, as a minimum, sufficient safety belt length to fit at least a 95th percentile adult male with the seat in any (i.e., all) adjusted positions. A 95th percentile adult male weighs 215 pounds and has a 42.5 inch waist with 47.2 inch hips (sitting dimensions).; The second requirement concerns the length of the inboard end of th safety belt. In this case, the Standard requires that the intersection of the shoulder belt with the lap belt shall be at least 6 inches from the front vertical centerline of the average-size occupant, with the seat in the rearmost adjusted position. While this may result in an inboard belt length that may be somewhat more difficult to fasten than in some previous model cars, it significantly reduces the possibility that the shoulder belt could pull the lap belt up off the pelvis into the abdomen in a crash, possibly causing abdominal injuries.; With regard to the particular case at hand, our experience has bee that the vehicle manufacturers are usually willing to provide longer belts to fit very large new car buyers. With respect to inboard belt length, our experience has been that belts which approach the permissible 6 inch dimension mentioned above are usually satisfactory in terms of convenience. However, shorter inboard belt lengths, exceeding the minimum safety requirements of the standard, are permissible. In these cases, the customers may want to seek adjustment by the dealer or vehicle manufacturer.; In regard to the allegation made in the case that the belts cannot b changed, there is no Federal law or regulation that would prevent the dealer from modifying the safety belts. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act grants us the authority to regulate the safety of new motor vehicles. Although a dealer may not sell a new vehicle that does not conform to the standards, once the vehicle is sold and delivered the customer may have it modified by the dealer. In such a case, the dealer would not violate Federal law.; The dealer in question may well have had reasons for declining t modify the safety belts. He may be unsure of his ability to do a proper job and may fear incurring civil liability to the customer if someone should be injured as a result of his work. We would not encourage modification of a vehicle's mandatory safety features unless it is done with expert advice, or according to the manufacturer's recommendations.; Please contact this office if you desire any further discussion of thi matter.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4799

"Dear Mr. Rogers: We have received the (unsigned) petition of SportsCa America, Inc., for a temporary exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, on grounds of substantial economic hardship, and are returning all copies to you for the reasons stated below. SportsCar America wishes to undertake the importation and sale of passenger cars produced in Brazil. Pursuant to an 'Exclusive Distribution Agreement' ('the Agreement') with Alfa Metais Veiculos Ltda. of Brazil, which you enclosed, it has imported a prototype vehicle for study, with reference to its status of conformance with the U.S. vehicle safety and emission standards. The proper petitioner for this exemption is Alfa Metais Veiculos Ltda., identified in the Agreement that you attached as the 'Manufacturer.' Under Section l of the Agreement, SportsCar America is to return the prototype to the Manufacturer with 'those modifications necessary in order to meet the emission and safety standards necessary for the importation' of the cars, and the Manufacturer will then use it as a model for the production of vehicles for sale in the United States. Under 49 CFR Part 567, the Manufacturer must also attach its certification of compliance to the completed vehicle before its shipment to the United States. Part 555 restricts petitions for temporary exemptions to Manufacturers of motor vehicles. Although you identify SportsCar America as the 'distribution agent', we have no record that the Manufacturer has filed the designation of agent pursuant to 49 CFR 551.45 that is required of Manufacturers offering their products for importation and sale in the United States. Presumably Alfa Metais would wish to appoint SportsCar America as its agent. Once it has done so, SportsCar America may submit the petition on behalf of the Manufacturer. The production and financial data (in dollars, please) must be those of the Manufacturer. However, we regard as relevant to conformance arguments the efforts that SportsCar America intends to make during the time a possible exemption is in effect, as outlined in your petition. Noting your requests for confidential treatment of information, we are returning all copies of your petition, with our comments. Generally, the agency does not like to accord confidential treatment to all financial data submitted. At a minimum, it would like to include in its notice asking comments from the public a dollar amount of the cumulative net profit or loss experienced by the Manufacturer in the three years preceding the filing of the petition. Similarly, it would like to publish a dollar figure in discussing the effects of a denial of the petition on the petitioner. The purpose of this is our policy that if the public is to make an informed comment on the issue of whether compliance would cause a Manufacturer substantial economic hardship, the public should have access to much the same data as is available to the agency in its determination. If you would like clarification of any of these matters, Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263) will be happy to provide them. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosures";