ID: nht90-2.49

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: May 22, 1990

FROM: Bob Abernethy -- Idea's Inc.

TO: Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-7-90 from P.J. Rice to B. Abernethy (A36; Std. 108)

TEXT:

I realize that a change or deviation from Standard # 108 is like changing the Constitution. However, some technical data could aid in your decision. This may be obtained from the Electrical Testing Laboratory.

I have written a proposed variance in your Standard # 108 in my letter to you dated 3/21/90. However I am not accustomed to a committee response.

Enclosed "REGULATION AT ITS BEST" from Automotive Engineering magazine stating the benefits of high mounted stoplamps. Please think further by changing this to an analog response.

If you need further assistance or information, feel free to write; or call me at my new number.

Enclosure

Editorial "Regulation At It's Best" Regular readers of this page will recall that, on occasion, I have criticized the Federal government's regulation of various aspects of the automobile and the automotive industry. So I think it's only fair to pay a compliment to the regulators in Washin gton when they produce a regulation with a clearly outstanding cost-benefit ratio. I refer to the FMVSS No. 108 amendment which requires new passenger cars to be equipped with a center high-mounted stoplamp beginning on September 1, 1985.

At the first of this summer's crop of long-lead press previews, I made it a point to follow as many cars as possible which were equipped with this center stoplamp. Even in bright sunlight I found it remarkably effective in getting a driver's immediate a ttention, alerting him to the braking of the car in front. Although I didn't get a chance to try it at night, I imagine it's all the more effective then. Some of its effectiveness may be due to the fact that it's brand-new, I admit, but even after the driving public has become accustomed to it there should be a significant net gain.

SAE Paper 851240 by Digges, Nicholson, and Rouse, titled "The Technical Basis for the Center High Mounted Stoplamp," says that "The long run costs of the center stoplamp are estimated at about $4 per car. The property damage reduction for a complete fle et equipped with these lamps is estimated at $434 million per year. Comparison of the long run costs and

the property damage savings produces a net benefit of almost $400 million per year."

The paper goes on to say that "Field tests have shown that the center high mounted stoplamp is about fifty percent effective in reducing relevant accidents. Based upon analysis, NHTSA estimates that on the order of 900,000 accidents per year would be av oided, and 40,000 injuries would be reduced."

Is this an example of Federal regulation at its best? It think it is, and I tip my hat to the people at NHTSA who produced it.

Larry Givens Editor "Automotive Engineering" July 85 Volume 93, Number 7

ID: nht90-4.33

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: October 5, 1990

FROM: Barry Felrice -- Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, NHTSA

TO: Dennis T. Johnston -- Senior Executive Engineer, Product Engineering and Regulatory Affairs, Sterling Motor Cars

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-20-90 from D.T. Johnston to J.R. Curry

TEXT:

This responds to your letter reporting a change in the locking system to be installed on the MY 1991 British Sterling car line. Although your letter does not explicitly request the agency determine that the change is of a de minimis nature and that ther efore the Sterling vehicles containing the change would be fully covered by the previously granted exemption for Sterling vehicles, we are treating the letter as making such a request. The alternative to making such a request is to submit a modification petition under 49 CFR S5 543.9(b) and (c)(2).

As you are aware, the Sterling car line was granted an exemption, pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543, from antitheft marking because Austin Rover showed that the antitheft device to be used in lieu of marking on the car line was likely to be as effective as par ts marking. This exemption was issued on July 16, 1986, and appeared in the Federal Register on July 22, 1986 (51 FR 26332).

In your letter, you stated that beginning with the start of MY 1991, Sterling Motor Cars (Sterling) plans an improvement in the antitheft device that is standard equipment on the Sterling vehicle. The change involves the consequence of opening of the tr unk when the system is armed. Currently, the system, once armed, activates when the trunk is opened, even if it is opened with the key. In order to avoid this, the antitheft device must first be disarmed before the trunk is opened. It is our understand ing that Sterling plans to change the system by allowing the system to be disarmed by opening the trunk with a key and rearmed by closing the trunk lid. However, if the trunk were to be forced open without a key, the alarm would still be activated. Aft er reviewing the planned change to the antitheft device on which the exemption was based, the agency concludes that the change is de minimis. While the change means that opening the trunk with a key will no longer activate the alarm, the agency does not believe that activating the alarm under those circumstances contributes to theft prevention. The agency concludes that the antitheft device, as modified, will continue to provide the same aspects of performance provided by the original device and relie s on essentially the same componentry to provide that performance. Therefore, it is not necessary for Sterling to submit a petition to modify the exemption pursuant to S 543.9(b) and (c)(2).

If Sterling does not implement the new antitheft device as described in your letter, or delays implementation until after MY 1991, we request that Sterling notify the agency of such decisions.

ID: nht93-7.34

DATE: October 22, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John P. Gach -- Marketing Coordinator, North American Lighting, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/1/93 from John P. Gach to Richard Van Iderstein (OCC-9084)

TEXT:

We are replying to your letter of September 1, 1993, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency with respect to the "Blu-Lite." You would like our views on this product "in both OEM and aftermarket applications."

The advertising circular which you enclosed shows Blu-Lite to be a three-compartment stop lamp that is mounted in the center of the parcel shelf adjacent to the rear window. The center compartment contains a blue light "that comes on immediately with heavy brake pressure and flashes quickly and independently from your regular brake lights." The center blue light compartment is flanked by compartments that contain a "red stop light."

It is clear that Blu-Light is intended as a substitute for the center highmounted stop lamp that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 has required to be installed as original equipment on passenger cars manufactured on and after September 1, 1985, (and light trucks and vans since September 1, 1993). Blu-Light does not meet the original equipment specifications of Standard No. 108 because, among other things, it is not a single red lamp mounted on the vertical centerline of the vehicle. Therefore, Blu-Light is impermissible under Federal law as original motor vehicle lighting equipment.

With respect to aftermarket applications, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from "knowingly rendering inoperative in whole or in part" any equipment installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Removal of the original equipment center lamp and replacement with Blu-Light would be a "rendering inoperative" as we interpret that term, and, hence, a prohibited act. However, the prohibition does not extend to persons outside the four named categories, such as the vehicle owner, and installation of Blu-Light by persons not named in the prohibition would not violate any Federal requirement. But the legality of the use of Blu-Light is determinable under the laws of each State in which the device is operated. As you note, many States reserve the color blue for lamps used to indicate emergencies. If you are interested in pursuing this question further, the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203, can advise you whether any State allows the use of blue lamps for other than emergency use.

Further, there is no violation of Federal law involved in installing Blu- Lite on vehicles that were not required by Standard No. 108 to be originally equipped with one, i.e., cars manufactured before September 1, 1985, and

other vehicles manufactured before September 1 of this year. In this instance, too, legality of use is determinable under State law.

I hope that this answers your questions.

ID: 9084

Mr. John P. Gach
Marketing Coordinator
North American Lighting, Inc.
P.O. Box 499
Flora, IL 62839

Dear Mr. Gach:

We are replying to your letter of September 1, 1993, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency with respect to the "Blu- Lite." You would like our views on this product "in both OEM and aftermarket applications."

The advertising circular which you enclosed shows Blu-Lite to be a three-compartment stop lamp that is mounted in the center of the parcel shelf adjacent to the rear window. The center compartment contains a blue light "that comes on immediately with heavy brake pressure and flashes quickly and independently from your regular brake lights." The center blue light compartment is flanked by compartments that contain a "red stop light."

It is clear that Blu-Light is intended as a substitute for the center highmounted stop lamp that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 has required to be installed as original equipment on passenger cars manufactured on and after September 1, 1985, (and light trucks and vans since September 1, 1993). Blu-Light does not meet the original equipment specifications of Standard No. 108 because, among other things, it is not a single red lamp mounted on the vertical centerline of the vehicle. Therefore, Blu-Light is impermissible under Federal law as original motor vehicle lighting equipment.

With respect to aftermarket applications, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from "knowingly rendering inoperative in whole or in part" any equipment installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Removal of the original equipment center lamp and replacement with Blu-Light would be a "rendering inoperative" as we interpret that term, and, hence, a prohibited act. However, the prohibition does not extend to persons outside the four named categories, such as the vehicle owner, and installation of Blu-Light by persons not named in the prohibition would not violate any Federal requirement. But the legality of the use of Blu-Light is determinable under the laws of each State in which the device is operated. As you note, many States reserve the color blue for lamps used to indicate emergencies. If you are interested in pursuing this question further, the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203, can advise you whether any State allows the use of blue lamps for other than emergency use.

Further, there is no violation of Federal law involved in installing Blu-Lite on vehicles that were not required by Standard No. 108 to be originally equipped with one, i.e., cars manufactured before September 1, 1985, and other vehicles manufactured before September 1 of this year. In this instance, too, legality of use is determinable under State law.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:10/22/93

ID: 1920y

Robert Knauff, President
Applied Research & Design, Inc.
Markethouse Suite 405
289 E. 5th St
St. Paul, MN 55l0l

Dear Mr. Knauff:

On April 21, l989, you wrote the agency with respect to the acceptability of your collision avoidance lighting system, as both original and aftermarket lighting equipment, under Federal laws and regulations.

Because the patent application you enclosed was stamped "Confidential", Ms Kathy DeMeter, the Assistant Chief Counsel for General Law, wrote you on May 26 for a clarification of your intent regarding confidential treatment of the material you submitted. We have received your letter of June 8 to Ms DeMeter containing your "permission to use" the confidential information in responding to you. As Ms DeMeter explained, the issue is not whether we may "use" the information, but whether it may be made available to the public, for the agency cannot provide non-public interpretations. Your statement is not a clear waiver of a claim of confidentiality; however, Ms DeMeter states that you told her that you were no longer requesting confidential treatment as the patent application has been filed, and we regard that as a sufficient oral waiver of your request.

Your invention is intended as an advance warning of braking, and consists of "a single pulse of light [lasting] approximately 40 millionths of a second." You wish to know of the acceptability of this device as both original and aftermarket lighting equipment in six different configurations.

First, let me observe that the agency has not performed research with respect to a device such as yours. However, it is concerned with the effects of glare, whether disabling or discomforting in nature. It would be concerned if the after-image left by the pulse of light from your device created a momentary distraction in drivers from their immediate driving task, in this instance, causing them to hesitate rather than to apply the brake pedal. We note the concern expressed by the State of Minnesota in its l987 and l988 letters to you. Under the assumption that a pulse of 40 millionths of a second does not produce this effect, I shall proceed to a discussion of your device with respect to the situations you envision.

The first configuration is as "a high-mount stop light system." A center high-mounted stop lamp has been required for all passenger cars manufactured on and after September l, l985, by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Paragraph S5.4 of Standard No. l08 states that the center stop lamp "shall not be combined with any other lamp or reflective device." This is the only flat prohibition in Standard No. l08 against physical combinations of lighting equipment, and as such, we read it as forbidding use of the collision avoidance pulse. Thus, your device would not be acceptable as original equipment for passenger cars. As for its suitability as original equipment on other types of motor vehicles, it is permissible as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of other lamps that Standard No. l08 requires (paragraph S5.1.3).

With respect to the aftermarket, the pulse could not be incorporated in a center high-mounted stop lamp intended to replace original equipment high-mounted stop lamps, because replacement equipment must conform with original equipment requirements. However, the lamp would be permissible for installation on passenger cars manufactured before September l, l985, and on any other vehicle as well.

Whether or not subject to a standard, all aftermarket equipment is subject to the Federal requirement that its installation not lead to a rendering inoperative (wholly or partially) of equipment installed in accordance with any Federal safety standard. For example, if your light utilized the wiring of stop lamps and somehow diminished the light output, we would regard its installation as rendering the stop lamps partially inoperative within the meaning of the prohibition. This prohibition applies to motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair shops. It does not, however, apply to changes made by a person to his or her own vehicle.

Because the agency has no standards for your device, a State may set its own standard for it, or even prohibit it altogether even though it is not prohibited under Federal Law. This is implied by the State of Minnesota to you in its letter of August l6, l988. We are unable to advise you on State law, and suggest that you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

Your second configuration is as "an enhancement for existing vehicular brake lights." We interpret this as meaning a combination of the pulse lamp with a stop lamp. This is not a forbidden equipment combination for original equipment, but it is subject to the same restriction (paragraph S5.1.3) as all supplementary lighting equipment: that it not impair the effectiveness of required lighting equipment. Similarly, its installation as an aftermarket device is permissible if it does not violate the rendering inoperative prohibition mentioned above.

Your third configuration involves "use in motorcycle taillights". Taillamps are steady burning in nature, activated when the headlamps are on. Today, most motorcycle headlamps are activated when the ignition is turned on, meaning that the taillamp operates at all times that the motorcycle is in motion. Your letter does not indicate the frequency of the pulse, but we must raise the possibility that a pulse from the taillamp might impair the effectiveness of signals from the stop lamp, or from the turn signal lamps. If this possibility occurs, the device could not be incorporated into original equipment or replacement motorcycle taillamps for the reasons discussed in the preceding paragraph.

The fourth configuration you envision involves "use for 8-way lights in school bus systems." This would appear to mean incorporation in the red warning lamps of the red and amber warning lamp system. This system operates automatically when the bus door is opened (paragraph S5.1.4). This appears to enhance the warning purpose of the lamps, and not impair their effectiveness. Nor does it appear to "render inoperative", within the meaning of the aftermarket prohibition. We must advise you, however, that States are particularly sensitive to issues of school bus safety and lighting.

"Ambulance lighting" is your fifth concern. The agency has no specific requirements for warning light systems on ambulances. Such systems, of course, must not impair the effectiveness of original equipment lighting installed in accordance with Standard No. l08. Strobe-type warning lamps on the vehicle top, at front and rear, have been considered permissible.

Finally, you ask about "off-road type vehicles, i.e., snowmobiles, boats, etc." The agency has no jurisdiction over vehicles that are not manufactured primarily for use on the public roads, and thus we cannot answer this question.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:7/24/89

ID: nht76-1.43

DATE: 06/23/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; T. W. Herlihy for S. P. Wood; NHTSA

TO: Little Dude Trailer Company, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your March 26, 1976, letter concerning the certification label requirements in S5.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.

You have pointed out that the example shown in S5.3 presents rim, inflation, and maximum speed information after the Gross Vehicle Weight Ratings (GVWRs) as well as after the Gross Axle Weight Ratings (GAWRs). You have suggested that the text of S5.3 merely requires such information to appear after the GAWRs and urged such an interpretation. It appears that you have misunderstood the text.

In its present form, S5.3 requires each listed GVWR and GAWR to be followed by the information specified in paragraphs S5.3(a) through (d). Paragraph (a) is divided into subparagraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) in order to specify different items to follow GVWR and GAWR, respectively. Paragraphs (b) through (d) (which specify rim, inflation, and maximum speed information) are not subdivided because the same items are intended to follow GVWR and GAWR.

Several petitions for reconsideration of the standard have requested an amendment of S5.3 to eliminate the requirement that tire and rim information appear after the GVWR. Your suggestions on this matter, as well as the other suggestions in your letter, are being considered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in the preparation of its response to those petitions.

Please note that the effective dates of several of the standard's requirements, including that of S5.3, were delayed in a Federal Register notice published on May 6, 1976 (41 FR 18659; Docket No. 71-19, Notice 4). A copy of that notice is enclosed for your convenience.

YOURS TRULY,

little dude TRAILER COMPANY, INC.

March 26, 1976

James B. Gregory Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation

Re: Safety Standard 120

We have some questions and comments regarding the subject standard. On page 3480 (S5.3) you cover the requirements of the certification label. Part (a) (1) states, "After GVWR, the size designation of tires appropriate as a minimum for the GAWR's corresponding to that GVWR." Paragraph (a) (2) then goes into GAWR which is to be followed by (b), (c), and (d) as well as the appropriate tire size. On the surface, it appears that the GVWR is to be followed only by tire size; yet, your example shows it (GVWR) followed by everything, even though it is a duplication, that follows GAWR. Which is correct? If the example is correct, why should rim size, cold inflation, and maximum speed be repeated since they obviously must be the same?

Now, as to your discussion of the comments. On page 3478, 3rd column, 2nd paragraph, you state that the commentors pointing to the large number of possible combinations making the decal too large and confusing are not correct because they fail to fully understand the rule. We have no doubt that this is true on the comprehension part; but we cannot possibly see how rim designation, tire inflation, and maximum speed can be of any possible use to the consumer when the tires on the vehicle need not be listed. We hope that people do not apply this info in servicing, driving, or replacing a larger size tire than appears on the decal. The obvious question is, if these items don't have to apply to the tires on the vehicle, what good are they?

We feel that the comments about the size of and confusion on the decal definitely are pertinent to boat trailers even if not pertinent to cars and trucks. We are limited in size (3" to 5") for vertical decal expansion; consequently, we can only go horizontally to add the new information. Since some decals encompass as many as 4 GVWR's and GAWR's (8 on a tandem) we could very easily have one whole side of the trailer which would require no paint. What you failed to realize in your comment interpretation is that 99% of the changes in tires on boat trailers are made to change capacities; therefore, your answer that the law does not require the listing of more than one tire size is just not applicable to trailers. The changing of tires changes both the GVWR and the GAWR which adds all of your additional information in as much as fourfold for GVWR and up to eightfold on GAWR for a tandem. Some trailer manufacturers even go as far as 3 axles. The only alternative to this horrendous decal that no one could read or understand is a separate one for each capacity trailer. This alternative would be utter chaos for the Marine Industry and any other trailer shipped in a knocked down condition. When the same frame has up to 4 different running gear and load capacity combinations there is no assurance that our assembly people will be able to distinguish which decal goes with which running gear. Needless to say, the people putting trailers together for a dealer will never get them right or even care. The inventory duplication will be impossible for the manufacturer and his customers.

For once, why can't trailers be excepted from the laws governing cars and trucks? They are entirely different both in type and use. Between the lighting, decal, new warranty requirements, and cutting of tire capacities, we are fast protecting the consumer fully. Since all these costs must be passed on, the consumer will soon be unable to afford a trailer; hence, full protection because no one will have one.

No Marine Dealer or consumer that we have talked to knows or cares what GVWR and GAWR means. Furthermore, most trailer manufacturers buy their wheels and tires mounted. The rim information is to be on the wheel, capacity and inflation pressure are on the tires, and the over-the-road speed limit is 55 MPH. Aren't these items enough? They are certainly a safer guide than the decal information which you admit may or may not apply to the tires on the trailer. The only problem would be a disreputable tire or trailer manufacturer mounting a high capacity tire on a lower capacity rim. The trailer manufacturers that would do this aren't legal on lights and decal (some don't even have one) now; so, they won't be affected anyway, and the tire companies simply can't afford to run that kind of risk. This will be just another means of making reputable manufacturers less competitive with our already illegal "backyard" competitors. They never even paid their excise tax and certainly aren't worried about a decal.

Please advise:

1. Whether the example or the language is correct,

2. If we have misinterpreted anything,

3. If there is any way trailers, can be excluded from the new decal requirements.

Richard L. Rogers President

cc: CHUCK VERRILL; JEFF NAPIER

ID: nht89-2.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/24/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: ROBERT KNAUFF -- APPLIED RESEARCH & DESIGN, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 06/08/89 FROM ROBERT J. KNAUFF -- APPLIED RESEARCH AND DESIGN INC TO; KATHLEEN DEMETER -- DOT; LETTER DATED 08/16/88 FROM RICHARD H. SCHULTZ -- AMERICAN PULSE LIGHTS INC TO ROBERT KNAUFF; LETTER DATED 12/07/87 FROM RICHARD H. SCHUL TZ -- AMERICAN PULSE LIGHTS TO ROBERT J. KNAUFF

TEXT: Dear Mr. Knauff:

On April 21, 1989, you wrote the agency with respect to the acceptability of your collision avoidance lighting system, as both original and aftermarket lighting equipment, under Federal laws and regulations.

Because the patent application you enclosed was stamped "Confidential", Ms Kathy DeMeter, the Assistant Chief Counsel for General Law, wrote you on May 26 for a clarification of your intent regarding confidential treatment of the material you submitted. We have received your letter of June 8 to Ms DeMeter containing your "permission to use" the confidential information in responding to you. As Ms DeMeter explained, the issue is not whether we may "use" the information, but whether it may be made avail able to the public, for the agency cannot provide non-public interpretations. Your statement is not a clear waiver of a claim of confidentiality; however, Ms DeMeter states that you told her that you were no longer requesting confidential treatment as t he patent application has been filed, and we regard that as a sufficient oral waiver of your request.

Your invention is intended as an advance warning of braking, and consists of "a single pulse of light [lasting] approximately 40 millionths of a second." You wish to know of the acceptability of this device as both original and aftermarket lighting equip ment in six different configurations.

First, let me observe that the agency has not performed research with respect to a device such as yours. However, it is concerned with the effects of glare, whether disabling or discomforting in nature. It would be concerned if the after-image left by the pulse of light from your device created a momentary distraction in drivers from their immediate driving task, in this instance, causing them to hesitate rather than to apply the brake pedal. We note the concern expressed by the State of Minnesota in its 1987 and 1988 letters to you. Under the assumption that a pulse of 40 millionths of a second does not produce this effect, I

shall proceed to a discussion of your device with respect to the situations you envision.

The first configuration is as "a high-mount stop light system." A center high-mounted stop lamp has been required for all passenger cars manufactured on and after September 1, 1985, by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devic es, and Associated Equipment. Paragraph S5.4 of Standard No. 108 states that the center stop lamp "shall not be combined with any other lamp or reflective device." This is the only flat prohibition in Standard No. 108 against physical combinations of li ghting equipment, and as such, we read it as forbidding use of the collision avoidance pulse. Thus, your device would not be acceptable as original equipment for passenger cars. As for its suitability as original equipment on other types of motor vehic les, it is permissible as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of other lamps that Standard No. 108 requires (paragraph S5.1.3).

With respect to the aftermarket, the pulse could not be incorporated in a center high-mounted stop lamp intended to replace original equipment high-mounted stop lamps, because replacement equipment must conform with original equipment requirements. Howe ver, the lamp would be permissible for installation on passenger cars manufactured before September 1, 1985, and on any other vehicle as well.

Whether or not subject to a standard, all aftermarket equipment is subject to the Federal requirement that its installation not lead to a rendering inoperative (wholly or partially) of equipment installed in accordance with any Federal safety standard. For example, if your light utilized the wiring of stop lamps and somehow diminished the light output, we would regard its installation as rendering the stop lamps partially inoperative within the meaning of the prohibition. This prohibition applies to m otor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair shops. It does not, however, apply to changes made by a person to his or her own vehicle.

Because the agency has no standards for your device, a State may set its own standard for it, or even prohibit it altogether even though it is not prohibited under Federal Law. This is implied by the State of Minnesota to you in its letter of August 16, 1988. We are unable to advise you on State law, and suggest that you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

Your second configuration is as "an enhancement for existing vehicular brake lights." We interpret this as meaning a combination of the pulse lamp with a stop lamp. This is not a forbidden equipment combination for original equipment, but it is subject to the same restriction (paragraph S5.1.3) as all supplementary lighting equipment: that it not impair the effectiveness of required lighting equipment. Similarly, its installation as an aftermarket device is permissible if it does not violate the rende ring inoperative prohibition mentioned above.

Your third configuration involves "use in motorcycle taillights". Taillamps are steady burning in nature, activated when the headlamps are on. Today, most motorcycle headlamps are activated when the ignition is

turned on, meaning that the taillamp operates at all times that the motorcycle is in motion. Your letter does not indicate the frequency of the pulse, but we must raise the possibility that a pulse from the taillamp might impair the effectiveness of sig nals from the stop lamp, or from the turn signal lamps.

If this possibility occurs, the device could not be incorporated into original equipment or replacement motorcycle taillamps for the reasons discussed in the preceding paragraph.

The fourth configuration you envision involves "use for 8-way lights in school bus systems." This would appear to mean incorporation in the red warning lamps of the red and amber warning lamp system. This system operates automatically when the bus door is opened (paragraph S5.1.4). This appears to enhance the warning purpose of the lamps, and not impair their effectiveness. Nor does it appear to "render inoperative", within the meaning of the aftermarket prohibition. We must advise you, however, tha t States are particularly sensitive to issues of school bus safety and lighting.

"Ambulance lighting" is your fifth concern. The agency has no specific requirements for warning light systems on ambulances. Such systems, of course, must not impair the effectiveness of original equipment lighting installed in accordance with Standard No. 108. Strobe-type warning lamps on the vehicle top, at front and rear, have been considered permissible.

Finally, you ask about "off-road type vehicles, i.e., snowmobiles, boats, etc." The agency has no jurisdiction over vehicles that are not manufactured primarily for use on the public roads, and thus we cannot answer this question.

Sincerely,

ID: aiam0200

>>>Re: Request for Interpretations by Suzuki<<< Dear Mr. Petler: This is in reply to your letter of October 13, 1969, requestin confirmation of your interpretation of certain Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and regulations, and further asking whether or not certain other areas of (motor) vehicle performance are presently regulated under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1391 *et seq*.).; In your letter you state that your request results from the fact tha Suzuki is considering the production of a multipurpose passenger vehicle for export into the United States sometime in 1970, and attach a sketch of this vehicle. The vehicle represented by the sketch, however, appears to be a truck, and not a multipurpose passenger vehicle. 'Multipurpose passenger vehicle' is defined in the regulations (49 CFR 371.3(b)) as 'a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation.' 'Truck' is defined to mean (49 CFR 371.3(b)) 'a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or special equipment.' The distinction between a truck and multipurpose passenger vehicle, therefore, is whether the vehicle is designed primarily to carry persons or property. The sketch you enclose is of a vehicle designed to carry property, and for this reason I have answered your questions with reference only to trucks. Your questions are repeated below, with our replies following them:; *Subject No. 1* - Glazing Requirements - Rear Windows 1.>>>'We understand it would be permissible to use a fabric soft to with no rear window if an outside mirror was installed on the right side of the vehicle.'<<<; You are correct in saying you may use a fabric soft top with no rea window. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 specifies glazing materials for use in passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, motorcycles, trucks and buses. It does not require a rear window or the use of glazing material therein. If a rear window is installed, however, the referenced United States of America Standards Institute 'American Standard Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways,' ASA Standard Z26.1-1966, July 15, 1966, specifies the types of material which must be used.; There are no National Highway Safety Bureau requirements for mirrors o trucks.; 2.>>>'We understand it would be permissible to use a fabric soft top with an open section in the back, utilizing no installation of glazing material, but just an open area which would permit viewing to the rear using the inside rear view mirror.'<<<; Your understanding is correct. As stated before, Standard No. 205 doe not require the use of glazing material.; 3.>>>'We understand it would be permissible to use a fabric soft top using a rear window such as found in the tops of convertible automobiles, in which the rear window's composition has utilized a ASA plastic material conforming to Z26.1-1966 regulations.(sic); 'If this is correct we would appreciate being informed which plasti materials can be utilized.'<<<; That is incorrect. The criterion for 'a rear window such as found i convertible automobiles' is inappropriate for trucks. The only plastics which may be used in trucks are AS4 and AS5, rigid plastics, and then only 'where other means to afford visibility of the highway' are provided.; 4.>>>'We understand it would be permissible to use a fabric soft top using a rear window such as found in the tops of convertible automobiles, in which the rear window's composition has utilized a ASA safety glass material conforming to Z26.1- 1966 regulations.(sic); 'If this is correct we would appreciate being informed which safet glass materials can be utilized.'<<<; As indicated in our comment to number 3 above, the criterion for rea window glizing (sic) used in convertible automobiles is inappropriate for trucks. ASA Standard Z26.1-1966 allows the use of Items 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, and 11 glass in the rear window of trucks. Item 3 or 9 glass may only be used, however, 'where other means to afford visibility of the highway' are provided.; *Subject No. 2* - Gross Vehicle Weight >>>'It is our understanding that, at present, there is no requiremen that a manufacturer attach a label to the vehicle stating the gross vehicle weight of . . . [trucks] in the weight category of 2,000 lbs. or less.'<<<; Your understanding is correct. The National Highway Safety Bureau doe not presently have a requirement for gross vehicle weight labeling.; *Subject No. 3* - Fuel Tank Requirements >>>'It is our understanding again that there is no present Federa Motor Vehicle Safety Standard pertaining to gas tanks on . . . [trucks]. I understand that there may be future standards implemented in the near future regarding this subject.'<<<; Your understanding is correct. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standar No. 301, 'Fuel Tanks, Fuel Tank Filler Pipes, and Fuel Tank Connections - Passenger Cars', applies to only passenger cars at this time. Docket No. 3-2 (F.R. 14282), currently under consideration, contemplates extending the requirements of Standard No. 301 to multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses and motorcycles.; *Subject No. 4* - Vehicle Noise Level >>>'It is our understanding that, at the present time, there is n special noise level requirements pertaining to . . . (sic)trucks]. We would appreciate your comments as to any future standard presently under discussion regarding this subject.'<<<; Your understanding is correct. There are no Federal requirements o proposals at present concerning vehicle noise level, (sic) There are states and municipalities, however, that have requirements concerning this subject.; *Subject No. 5* - Speedometer Error >>>'There are several questions we have regarding this subject. 1. Is there a stipulation regarding allowance of percentage o speedometer error.; 2. Would it be considered the manufacturer's responsibility fo speedometer error in case the user or person was to change the tire size.'<<<; There are presently no Federal requirements concerning speedometers. substantial speedometer error resulting from a reasonable tire size change might be considered a safety related defect for which the manufacturer would be responsible.; *Subject No. 6* - Special Label for Non-Conforming Vehicle Entry Int The United States; >>>'I would like to confirm the following information regarding th placement of a special label to be placed on the inside of the vehicle's windshield so that it is readable from the outside of a vehicle being imported into the United States. This would be placed on a vehicle that does not have the required Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard items readily attached in their respective place on the vehicle.(sic); 'It is my understanding, for instance, that if the outside rear vie mirror was not attached to the vehicle, but packaged in a box to prevent damage or pilferage while in transit to the United States, that in such a case a label would be required to be attached to the vehicle stating essentially the following message.; THIS VEHICLE DOES NOT CONFORM TO FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDAR NO. 111 BECAUSE THE OUTSIDE REAR VIEW MIRROR HAS NOT BEEN ATTACHED FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF SHIPMENT. THIS VEHICLE WILL BE BROUGHT INTO CONFORMITY BY ATTACHMENT OF THE OUTSIDE REAR VIEW MIRROR BEFORE IT IS OFFERED FOR SALE TO THE FIRST PURCHASER FOR THE PURPOSE OF RESALE.(sic); 'If we have interpreted this requirement correctly would you pleas advise us of the full requirements for this label. It is also our understanding that at the time of importation of these vehicles the importer would be required to submit in duplicate the Federal Highway Administration Form Number HS-7.'<<<; Your interpretation of the above is correct. A label such as you hav described, used in conjunction with the certification label required in 49 CFR 367, would meet the requirements. Your understanding regarding the HS-7 form is also correct.; We trust this will clarify the situation for you. Sincerely, Francis Armstrong, Director, Office of Performance Analysis Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service;

ID: 17495.drn

Ms. Leigh Morrison
Project Engineer
Irvin Automotive
2500 Takata Drive
Auburn Hills, MI 48326

Dear Ms. Morrison:

This responds to your letter asking whether any Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) apply to vanity mirrors in motor vehicle sun visors. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you explained that Irvin Automotive places vanity mirrors into sun visors, and sells the assemblage to motor vehicle manufacturers that then install the visors into motor vehicles.

Some background information may be helpful. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Unlike the practice in many countries, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards.

Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, applies to "passenger cars and to multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms or less." In an interpretation letter of July 3, 1997 to Daewoo Motor Company (copy enclosed), the agency stated that Daewoo's vanity mirror must be installed in a fashion that assures that the sun visor meets Standard No. 201. The letter to Daewoo referred to a provision, S3.4.2, that applied to sun visors. Effective May 8, 1997, that provision is S5.4.2, and states:

Each sun visor mounting shall present no rigid material edge radius of less than 3.2 mm that is statically contactable by a spherical 165 mm diameter head form.

The letter to Daewoo also stated that Daewoo's vanity mirror would not have to meet Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials.

You ask whether Standard No. 107, Reflecting Surfaces, applies to vanity mirrors. The answer is no. Effective May 6, 1996, NHTSA rescinded Standard No. 107. Even when it was in effect, Standard No. 107 did not apply to vanity mirrors.

NHTSA has established Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors. In an interpretation letter dated October 21, 1971 to Mr. James V. Blethen (copy enclosed), NHTSA stated that Standard No. 111 "does not apply to mirrors per se but specifies requirements that must be met by rearview mirrors mounted in new passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles." Since your vanity mirrors in sun visors are presumably not meant to be used as rearview mirrors, Standard No. 111 would not apply to your product.

NHTSA's statute also addresses defects that are related to motor vehicle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem free of charge. (This responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which your sun visors are installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.) Any manufacturer which fails to provide timely notification of or remedy for a defect may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,100 per violation.

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

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:107#111#201#205
d.4/29/98

ID: nht90-3.27

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 23, 1990

FROM: C.D. Black -- Manager, Product Legislation and Compliance, Jaguar Cars Inc.

TO: Administrator -- NHTSA

TITLE: Re Request for Reconsideration of an Interpretation FMVSS 114 Docket 1-21 Notice 9

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-12-90 from P.J. Rice (Signature by K.M. Weinstein) to C.D. Black (A36; Std. 114); Also attached to a copy of 49 CFR Part 571.114 and 55 FR 21868 (May 30, 1990) (text omitted)

TEXT:

Jaguar Cars Ltd of Coventry, England (herein after referred to as Jaguar) request that NHTSA review their interpretation on pages 21872/73 of the Federal Register of the conditions under which a mechanical emergency release may be installed on a transmis sion shift lever interlock.

Jaguar regards the objective of the amendment as fair and reasonable, however, because Jaguar manufacture vehicles for sale worldwide with either manual or automatic transmission, we will continue to install an anti-theft lock operating on the steering c olumn. Jaguar therefore plan to comply with the amended standard by means of a spring-loaded electrical interlock operating on the console-mounted automatic transmission shift lever together with a revision to the steering column lock to prevent removal of the key unless the shift lever is in 'park'. When the ignition is next switched 'on', operation of the brake pedal produces an electrical signal to disengage the interlock and hence allow the shift lever to be moved.

However, as Honda, Mazda, Nissan, Subaru and Toyota have previously stated in the docket, the use of an electrically operated interlock acting on the shift lever could, in the event of a battery or electrical failure, cause problems unless a mechanical e mergency release is provided. If the vehicle is tightly parked, the shift lever placed in 'park' to remove the key, and the battery subsequently discharged, it might then be necessary to "drag" the vehicle on locked wheels to gain access before a charge d battery or jumper leads could be connected to remove it from its disabled position.

Jaguar had anticipated that a manual emergency release which, when required, must be activated against spring pressure with one hand using a tool, while allowing the shift lever to be moved out of 'park' only by a simultaneous movement of the other hand, would maintain the declared intent of the amendment to prevent "rollaway" accidents. The theft protection of any (Jaguar) vehicle so equipped would not be degraded because the steering column lock and ignition/starter system remain immobilized. With t his or a similar combination of equipment there is no merit in requiring the shift lever interlock emergency release to be operable only by the key used to control the vehicle (emphasis added).

Jaguar request your consideration that the total objectives could be met by an interpretation along the following guidelines:

"In the case of an electrically operated interlock on the transmission shift lever, where the primary theft protection is provided by a steering column lock, the emergency release may be operated by a single action requiring the use of the key used to co ntrol the vehicle. Alternatively, a mechanical emergency release is allowable provided that it requires the use of a separate implement or tool and the simultaneous use of two hands to release the shift lever."

In view of the demanding timescale given by the Agency's interpretation on "mechanical override system's" in the final rule, Jaguar respectfully request the earliest consideration of our petition.