ID: 17570.drn

Mr. Mark Recchia
Liaison Engineer
Fiat Auto R & D U.S.A.
39300 Country Club Drive
Farmington Hills, MI 48331-3473

Dear Mr. Recchia:

This responds to your March 18, 1998, request for an interpretation whether a vehicle identification number (VIN) placed inside a motor vehicle passenger compartment may be divided into two lines. You explain that Maserati "uses this practice in Europe because of space restrictions, and its acceptance in the United States would facilitate the production of U.S.- version Maserati cars." Assuming the VIN meets all other requirements of 49 CFR Part 565 Vehicle Identification Number Requirements, the answer is yes.

In Part 565, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) specifies the format, content, and physical requirements for a VIN system and its installation. General requirements for a VIN system are specified at Section 565.4 General requirements. Although NHTSA is aware only of VINs written in one line, nothing in Section 565.4(f) prohibits a VIN from being written in two lines. Since there is no prohibition against it, Maserati may write the passenger compartment VIN in two lines.

I note that in the example of the VIN you have provided, the first line of the VIN is preceded by a star, followed by the first nine digits of the VIN, then another star. The second line of the VIN begins with a star, followed by the last eight digits of the VIN, then another star. These stars would be considered "dividers" in the VIN. In a letter of November 20, 1978, to Volkswagen of America, Inc. (copy provided), NHTSA stated the following about VIN dividers:

'[d]ividers' which would appear at the beginning and the end of the VIN would not be considered part of the VIN and, therefore, would not be regulated by the standard. Care should be taken, however, to ensure that the dividers are neither alphabetic nor numeric characters which might be mistaken for part of the VIN.

As stated in the letter to Volkswagen, Fiat and Maserati must ensure that any VIN dividers not be in alphabetic or numeric characters which might be mistaken for part of the VIN.

You state that the attached diagram is "from a European application." We cannot determine from your letter whether the VIN location in the diagram meets 49 CFR 565.4(f) which states that the VIN shall be readable "through the vehicle glazing under daylight lighting conditions by an observer having 20/20 vision (Snelling) whose eye-point is located outside the vehicle adjacent to the left windshield pillar." Before being sold in the U.S., the VIN on the passenger car must meet this and all other requirements specified in Part 565.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
d.7/15/98
ref:565

ID: nht78-2.15

DATE: 03/15/78

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

TO: Vetter Fairing Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 1, 1978, on motorcycle headlighting.

You have asked whether the prohibition in SAE J580a Sealed Beam Headlamp against headlamp covers applies to a motorcycle. You have also asked the reason for the prohibition.

SAE J580a Sealed Beam Headlamp is incorporated by reference in Table III of Standard No. 108 as one of the standards applicable to headlamps for use on passenger cars, and on multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses whose overall width is less than 80 inches. One of the SAE standards incorporated by reference for motorcycle headlighting is J584 which, as an option, allows motorcycles to be equipped with headlamps "meeting the requirements of SAE J579" (i.e. passenger car sealed beam headlamps). There is no reference in J579a to J580a, and we therefore do not read the prohibition against headlamp covers as applying to motorcycles equipped with sealed or unsealed headlamps.

The reason for the prohibition is the degradation in Light output that can result from condensation under unsealed glass covers or from obscuration by grilles in front of the lens.

SINCERELY,

Vetter Fairing Company

February 1, 1978

Office of Chief Council Joseph J. Levin, Jr. National Highway Traffic Safety Admin.

Dear Sir:

After reviewing Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations 571.108, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, I find a need to have several points of this regulation, relevant to our business, clarified and interpreted per your office.

Table III, Required Motor Vehicle Lighting Equipment, Item - Headlamps, references the applicable SAE standard or recommende practice for passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses to be, in part, SAE J580a, June 1966. Contained within SAE J580a, sealed beam headlamp, under General Requirements it states "A headlamp, when in use, shall not have any styling or other feature, such as a glass cover or grille in front of the lens."

Is it correct to assume that this prohibition does not apply to a motorcycle or to a motorcycle with attached side car? Also would you please state the reason/s why passenger cars are prohibited from having any styling or other feature, such as a glass cover or grille in front of the lens when a headlamp is in use?

Table III, Required Motor Vehicle Lighting Equipment, Item - Headlamps, references the applicable SAE standard or recommended practice for motorcycles to be, in part, SAE J584, April 1964. Standard SAE J584, motorcycle and motor driven cycle headlamps makes no mention of any prohibition of having any styling or other feature, such as a glass cover or grille in front of the lens when a headlamp is in use.

Is it correct to infer that it is legal and within the scope of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 108, to have styling or other feature, such as a glass cover, or plastic cover or grille in front of the lens when a headlamp is in use on a motorcycle or on a motorcycle with attached side car?

It is in the intent of Vetter Fairing Company as a manufacturer of motorcycle accessories to conceive, research, design, produce, manufacture and market motorcycle accessories which meet or exceed all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation.

Your review of any and all applicable regulations relevant to our business is appreciated and your interpretation of such regulations pertaining to the above questions is requested so that we can meet our obligations, to consumers, to manufacturer motorcycle accessories which are safe and which comply with all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

W. W. Schwartz Technical Engineer Research & Development Dept.

cc: C. VETTER C. PERETHIAN

ID: nht78-2.9

DATE: 06/30/78

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

TO: Christy Electronics, Inc.

COPYEE: AMER. ASSOC. OF MOTOR VEHICLE ADMINISTRATORS

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Our regional office in White Plains has forwarded your letter of May 29, 1978, for reply.

You have requested "approval" of your vehicle lighting system which flashes the stop lamps at a rate three times per second when the brake pedal is depressed.

We do not "approve" lighting devices but we do provide interpretations whether such devices are permissible under Federal lighting requirements. As an item of original vehicle equipment your device would appear to be prohibited by paragraph S4.6 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. This paragraph requires that all lamps be steady - burning in operation except for turn signal lamps, hazard warning, signal lamps, and school bus warning lamps, and it also allows headlamps and side marker lamps to be flashed for signalling purposes.

As an aftermarket device, however, it would be subject to regulation by the individual States. We are forwarding a copy of your letter to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators for an opinion on this point.

We appreciate your interest in safety.

Sincerely,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

June 8, 1978

Frank B. Caristia Christy Electronics, Inc.

Dear Mr. Caristia:

We are forwarding your letter of May 31, 1978 to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Crash Avoidance in Washington D.C. for their review and action.

Irving Rodness Motor Vehicle Program Specialist

CHRISTY ELECTRONICS, INC.

May 29, 1978

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Gentlemen:

We hereby request approval of our new product, for vehicular use, with function as described below:

1. When the brake pedal is depressed the stop lights will flash three times, at a rate of approximately three flashes per second, and then remain lit as long as the brake pedal is held depressed.

2. When the brake pedal is released, the stop lights go off and the circuit resets, ready to flash the stop lights when the brake pedal is again depressed.

This rapid flashing of the stop lights is intended as a means of "waking up" the driver of the vehicle behind you when making stops on highways.

In case of product failure, a by-pass switch can be thrown to restore the vehicles original stop light circuitry.

Please note that many drivers pump their brakes to cause the stop lights to flash, risking an accident because of increased stopping distance.

Frank B. Caristia President

ID: aiam3423

Dear Mr. Coleman: This responds to your March 26, 1981, letter asking for a clarificatio of the certification requirements applicable to vehicles that you manufacture. The units frequently are completed by you, but in some instances, they are shipped to a final manufacturer for completion of the interior work.; Your first question asks whether you should label the vehicle as final-stage manufacturer since your vehicle is road worthy and needs only the addition of an interior finish prior to sale. In order to certify the vehicle as a final-stage manufacturer, the vehicle that you produce must be a completed vehicle (49 CFR Part 568). A completed vehicle is one that is finished and requires no further manufacturing operations to perform its intended functions with the exceptions of minor finishing operations or readily attachable components. If your vehicle is completed in a manner that it can perform its intended functions, you may label the vehicle as a final-stage manufacturer. The person performing alterations on your vehicle may then be required to add an alterer's label.; If the finishing operation that will be made to your vehicle is mor than the attachment of readily attachable components or minor finish work, the person doing the finishing work may label the vehicle as a final-stage manufacturer. In determining whether the installation of a bathroom, kitchen, furniture, beds, appliances, or seats is an installation of readily attachable components, you should consider whether it requires special expertise or tools. If it requires either, it is not the installation of readily attachable components.; Your second question asks whether your vehicle would be considered chassis-cab in those instances where another manufacturer might be attaching a final-stage label. The answer to this question is no. The definition of chassis-cab in part 567, *Certification*, states that it is a vehicle with a completed occupant compartment that needs only the addition of work performing or load carrying components to complete its function. It appears that your vehicle does not have a completed occupant compartment and, therefore, would not be considered a chassis-cab.; Finally, you ask what will happen if you label the vehicle as final-stage manufacturer and a subsequent manufacturer significantly alters the vehicle. You ask whether you could treat the vehicle as an incomplete vehicle and furnish the documentation required by Part 568. If you label the vehicle as a final-stage vehicle, you cannot treat it as an incomplete vehicle. However, you may convey information similar to that conveyed in an incomplete vehicle document to the subsequent manufacturer to ensure that it can comply with all of the standards. In fact, that manufacturer may require such information in order to be able to make the necessary modifications.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3425

Dear Mr. Coleman: This responds to your March 26, 1981, letter asking for a clarificatio of the certification requirements applicable to vehicles that you manufacture. The units frequently are completed by you, but in some instances, they are shipped to a final manufacturer for completion of the interior work.; Your first question asks whether you should label the vehicle as final-stage manufacturer since your vehicle is road worthy and needs only the addition of an interior finish prior to sale. In order to certify the vehicle as a final-stage manufacturer, the vehicle that you produce must be a completed vehicle (49 CFR Part 568). A completed vehicle is one that is finished and requires no further manufacturing operations to perform its intended functions with the exceptions of minor finishing operations or readily attachable components. If your vehicle is completed in a manner that it can perform its intended functions, you may label the vehicle as a final-stage manufacturer. The person performing alterations on your vehicle may then be required to add an alterer's label.; If the finishing operation that will be made to your vehicle is mor than the attachment of readily attachable components or minor finish work, the person doing the finishing work may label the vehicle as a final-stage manufacturer. In determining whether the installation of a bathroom, kitchen, furniture, beds, appliances, or seats is an installation of readily attachable components, you should consider whether it requires special expertise or tools. If it requires either, it is not the installation of readily attachable components.; Your second question asks whether your vehicle would be considered chassis-cab in those instances where another manufacturer might be attaching a final-stage label. The answer to this question is no. The definition of chassis-cab in part 567, *Certification*, states that it is a vehicle with a completed occupant compartment that needs only the addition of work performing or load carrying components to complete its function. It appears that your vehicle does not have a completed occupant compartment and, therefore, would not be considered a chassis-cab.; Finally, you ask what will happen if you label the vehicle as final-stage manufacturer and a subsequent manufacturer significantly alters the vehicle. You ask whether you could treat the vehicle as an incomplete vehicle and furnish the documentation required by Part 568. If you label the vehicle as a final-stage vehicle, you cannot treat it as an incomplete vehicle. However, you may convey information similar to that conveyed in an incomplete vehicle document to the subsequent manufacturer to ensure that it can comply with all of the standards. In fact, that manufacturer may require such information in order to be able to make the necessary modifications.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: 2513y

Mr. J. A. Schurger
Vehicle Improvement Products, Inc.
l5l S. Ram Road
Antioch, IL 60002-l937

Dear Mr. Schurger:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard No. l0l, Controls and Displays. We apologize for the delay in responding to your letter. You described a proposed design for heavy trucks in which a "switch package" would be located in the center of the steering wheel, along the center spokes. The switch package would include controls for the horn, turn signals, cruise control, headlights (master lighting switch), marker lamps, hazard warning signal and high beam. You noted that Standard No. l0l requires the identification of certain controls to be "perceptually upright," and asked whether identifying symbols which rotate along with the steering wheel would be considered to meet this requirement. As discussed below, it is our opinion that such identification would not be considered to be perceptually upright to the driver.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Section S5.2.l of Standard No. l0l requires certain vehicle controls to be identified by specified symbols or words and for the identification to be placed on or adjacent to the control. That section also requires that "(t)he identification shall, under the conditions of S6, be visible to the driver and, except as provided in S5.2.l.l and S5.2.l.2, appear to the driver perceptually upright." The identification of several of the controls that you propose to locate on the steering would be subject to the "perceptually upright" requirement.

Under your proposed design, the identification of controls would rotate along with the steering wheel. The identification would not be perceptually upright to the driver except when the steering wheel is in a centered position. Since rotation of the steering wheel is a necessary and routine part of driving, the identification would often not be perceptually upright to the driver. It is therefore our opinion that identification of controls that rotate with the steering wheel would not be considered perceptually upright to the driver. We note that there is no provision in Standard No. l0l that limits the "perceptually upright" requirement to conditions where the steering wheel is centered.

This interpretation is consistent with past agency practice. In a July l984 notice establishing a requirement to identify the horn control with a specified symbol, NHTSA addressed commenter concerns about how Standard No. l0l's requirement that identification be perceptually upright might apply to horn controls located on the steering wheel. 49 FR 30l9l, 30l94; July 27, l984. The commenters noted that it is impossible for such horn symbols to be perceptually upright at all times. In response to the comments, the agency included a provision that the horn symbol need be perceptually upright only when the vehicle, aligned to the manufacturer's specification, has its wheels positioned for the vehicle to travel straight forward, i.e., when the steering wheel is centered. It would not have been necessary for the agency to establish this special provision for horn symbols if identification of controls located on the steering wheel was considered to be perceptually upright in the absence of such provision. (We note that NHTSA later decided to drop the perceptually upright requirement for the horn symbol. However, that decision does not affect the above analysis.)

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel ref:l0l d:6/6/90

ID: 1984-1.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/19/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Dotech Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Herbert T. Thrower, Jr., P.E. President Dotech, Inc. 306 Clanton Road Charlotte, North Carolina 28210

Dear Mr. Thrower:

This is in response to your letter of February 14, 1984, to Mr. Vinson of my staff asking "is there any reluctance on the part of NHTSA to make a patented device a legal option under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108?"

At present, Standard No. 108 mandates specific items of lighting equipment not optional ones (though "options" as to matters such as size and shape exist among headlamps which are required items). Instead, NHTSA points out that, pursuant to S4.1.3 optional lighting devices (proprietary or not) are allowable, provided that they do not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment the standard requires. When proprietary rights are involved in mandated lighting equipment, manufacturers have been willing to waive their rights.

You have also said that you "presume that other patented automotive devices also must have DOT approval before their optional public use is permissible." I don't know what you have in mind, but under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, no "approval" by DOT is necessary to market "optional" motor vehicle equipment of any sort. Such equipment is subject only to the general requirement that its installation must not affect the compliance of the vehicle with any Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

If you have further questions, please let us know.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

February 14, 1984

Mr. Taylor Vinson Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Admin. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Vinson.

Is there any reluctance on the part of NHTSA to make a patented device a legal option under Federal Motor Vehicle Lighting Code 108?

As you know, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration permit use of various patented drugs for optional public use.

I also presume that other patented automotive devices also must have DOT approval before their optional public use is permissible.

Thank you in advance for your comments.

Very truly yours, Dotech, Inc.

Herbert T. Thrower, Jr., P.E. President

HTT,jr/jhc

ID: aiam5386

"Dear Mr. and Mrs. Sullivan: This responds to your letter to Davi Elias, formerly of this office, requesting an interpretation of the term 'rated cargo load' used in 49 CFR 567.5. I apologize for the delay in responding. You state in your letter that you purchased a 1992 Pace Arrow motor home from Fleetwood Motor Homes of California, Inc. You state that, if this motor home is equipped with 'the identical factory optional HWH hydraulic jacks,' it will exceed its gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) when the available water tanks are filled to capacity. You characterize this as 'seriously inadequate carrying capacity,' and ask if this violates NHTSA's regulations. As explained below, if a vehicle exceeds its GVWR when loaded with its intended cargo, the manufacturer may be subject to civil penalties. By way of background, 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires each motor vehicle manufacturer to certify the compliance of its new vehicles with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. NHTSA issued its vehicle certification regulation (49 CFR Part 567) to implement 114. Section 108(a)(1)(E) of the Safety Act prohibits any person from failing to comply with any regulation issued under 114. Under 109 of the Safety Act, violations of 108(a)(1)(E) are subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. NHTSA's certification regulation specifies the content of the certification label, and requires manufacturers to assign a GVWR to its new vehicles. The term GVWR is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 as 'the value specified by the manufacturer as the loaded weight of a single vehicle.' The GVWR informs vehicle owners how heavily the vehicle may safely be loaded. It also affects the vehicle's loading and other test conditions for the performance tests to ascertain whether the vehicle complies with applicable safety standards. The only express regulatory limitation on the GVWR that manufacturers may assign to their vehicles is set forth in 49 CFR 567.4(g)(3), which provides that the assigned GVWR 'shall not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity.' (Emphasis added.) There is no express definition for the term 'rated cargo load' in Part 567 or elsewhere in NHTSA's regulations. However, NHTSA expects the GVWR (which includes rated cargo load) to reflect a manufacturer's good-faith evaluation of the vehicle's size, weight, load-carrying capacity and intended use. NHTSA is concerned about the potentially adverse effects on safety that might result from assigning too low a GVWR to a vehicle. NHTSA recognizes that vehicle overloading may create a serious safety problem and will take appropriate action against any manufacturer whose vehicle, when operated in its intended manner, exceeds the assigned GVWR. Thank you for bringing this matter about the Pace Arrow to our attention. NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance will be contacting you for more information about your experience with the vehicle. Meanwhile, if you have further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam4079

Dear Mr. Hayashibara: This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of certain term used in Standard No. 110, *Tire selection and rims - passenger cars* (49 CFR S571.110). Specifically, you asked about the definitions of the terms 'curb weight', 'accessory weight', and 'production options weight'. These terms are defined in Standard No. 110 as follows.; The 'curb weight' of a vehicle is calculated by adding the weight o the vehicle with all of its standard equipment, including its maximum capacity of fuel, oil, and coolant to the weights of two optional items of equipment, *if the vehicle is equipped with these optional items*. The items whose weight is included in calculating the curb weight, if present on the vehicle, are air conditioning and the additional weight of an optional engine. No other optional items are included in calculating a vehicle's curb weight, even if the vehicle is equipped with such options.; The 'accessory weight' of a vehicle means the combined weight (i excess of the weight of the standard equipment items that may be replaced) of automatic transmission, power steering, power brakes, power windows, power seats, radio, and heater to the extent that these items are available as factory-installed options on that vehicle, *regardless of whether these options are actually present on the vehicle in question*. No other items of optional equipment are included in calculating the accessory weight, even if the vehicle is equipped with such options.; The 'production options weight' means the combined weight of all item of optional equipment that meet all of the following criteria:; (1) The weight of the item of optional equipment is more than fiv pounds greater than the weight of the item of standard equipment that it replaces,; (2) The optional equipment is present on the vehicle in question, and (3) The weight of the optional equipment has not previously bee considered in either the curb weight or the accessory weight.; Section S3 of Standard No. 110 lists the following examples of items o optional equipment whose weight might be considered when calculating the production options weight: heavy duty brakes, ride levelers, roof rack, heavy duty battery, and special trim. However, any item of optional equipment that meets the three criteria listed above *would* be included in calculating the production options weight, even if that item were not listed in the examples. Therefore, Mazda's understanding is correct that the weight of four-wheel drive components, aerodynamic accessories, special body styling panels, and sunroofs *are* included when calculating the production options weight.; If you have any further questions on this subject, or need mor information, please contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 426- 2992.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: 21171.ztv

Mr. Mark Steele
Steele Enterprises
225 Merrill Place
Goshen, IN 46528

Dear Mr. Steele:

This replies to your letter to me dated January 3, 2000, as well as to your January 3, 2000, letter to Secretary of Transportation Rodney E. Slater. I understand that you also talked with Taylor Vinson of this office on January 24, 2000, and Rich Van Iderstine of the Office of Safety Performance Standards on August 4, 1999. My previous letters to you of October 21, 1999, and December 6, 1999, advised you that we do not regard your invention as permitted under Federal lighting laws.

Your latest letter asks 11 additional questions. My answering these questions is not going to change the fact that we view your invention as not allowed by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Instead, I will proceed to address the one concern that underlines your questions: the steps required in petitioning for rulemaking to amend Standard No. 108 to allow your invention, and the support that we look for.

The requirements for petitioning are set forth in 49 CFR 552.4, and are very simple. The petition must be in the English language, the word "Petition" must be in the heading preceding the text, set forth facts which it is claimed establish that an amendment is necessary, set forth a brief description of the substance of the amendment which it is claimed should be issued, and contain the name and address of the petitioner.

The support for a petition for rulemaking to amend Standard No. 108 with respect to signal lamps is more complex. We believe that motor vehicle safety is best promoted by standardization of lighting signals. As you might imagine, the agency is frequently presented with new lighting ideas intended to enhance safety. Many of these are not allowable under Standard No. 108 because of deviations from the performance of the lighting equipment mandated by the standard. Virtually all these ideas are submitted without proof of their effectiveness. On December 13, 1996, we published a Federal Register notice that articulated the agency's general policy regarding new signal lighting ideas and how that policy would apply in the case of four specific brake signaling ideas (61 FR 65510). In a subsequent notice, published on November 4, 1998 (63 FR 59482), we expressed our intent to participate in efforts to develop an international consensus on how to handle new signaling ideas. We went on to say that, until a new international consensus emerges, we will follow the policy described in the December 1996 notice. I enclose a copy of both the 1996 and 1998 notices.

Of particular interest to you will be the discussion on p. 65517 of the December 1996 notice in which we advised inventors to provide our Office of Research and Development with candidates for future agency research. We summarized our policy thusly:

In summary, a petitioner seeking to persuade the agency to mandate a lighting invention for new vehicles bears the initial burden of establishing its safety value and cost effectiveness. The burden for those inventors seeking to make an invention optional is to convince the agency that the invention will not impair the effectiveness of required lighting equipment through creating ambiguity or negatively affecting standardization of signals.

You mentioned to Mr. Vinson on January 24 that the BMW website indicates that the hazard warning signals on the company's 8 Series model activate automatically in the event of a crash. The 8 Series is no longer sold here and any such feature is unknown to us. SAE Standard J910 "Vehicular Hazard Warning Signal Operating Switch" January 1966, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108, defines hazard signals as "driver actuated." However, we would not view automatic activation of the hazard signals in the event of a crash as a noncompliance with Standard No. 108 since there can be no ambiguity about the signal's meaning at that point.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:108
d.2/25/2000