ID: aiam4290

Dear Ms. Black: This responds to your December 11, 1986 to me concerning Federal Moto Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, *Door Locks and Door Retention Components*. I apologize for the delay in responding. You ask whether we interpret Standard No. 206 to permit installation of a particular type of door locking system which you referred to as a 'child safety lock.' The answer to your question is yes.; You explain that a 'child safety lock' is a special locking syste installed in addition to the locking system mandated by Standard No. 206. You state that the required locking system (hereinafter referred to as 'the primary locking system') is operated by a vertical plunger located in the door top trim roll (window sill). The child safety lock (which I will refer to as a 'secondary locking system') consists of a lever that is located in the shut face of the rear door which can only be reached when the door is open. When the lever is set in the 'active' position, it renders the inside rear door handle incapable of opening the door. The outside door handle is operative and can be used to open the door.; The requirements of Standard No. 206 for door locks are as follows: >>>S4.1.3 Door locks. Each door shall be equipped with a lockin mechanism with an operating means in the interior of the vehicle.<<<; >>>S4.1.3.1 Side front door locks. When the locking mechanism i engaged, the outside door handle or other outside latch release control shall be inoperative.<<<; >>>S4.1.3.2 Side rear door locks. In passenger cars and multipurpos passenger vehicles, when the locking mechanism is engaged both the outside and inside door handles or other latch release controls shall be inoperative.<<<; As you know, the standard was amended on April 27, 1968, to include th door lock requirements described above. An objective of the amendment was to ensure retention of occupants within the vehicle during and subsequent to an impact by reducing inadvertent door openings due to impact upon movement of inside or outside door handles. Other objectives were to protect against children opening rear door handles, and to afford occupants of the rear of a vehicle a method of unlocking the rear door from inside the vehicle (i.e., a reasonable means of escape) in the postcrash phase of an accident.; Your inquiry raises the issue of the permissibility under S4.1. through S4.1.3.2 for negating the capability of the interior latch release controls (door handles) to operate the door latches when the door locking mechanism is disengaged. As explained below, based on our review of the purpose of Standard No. 206 and past agency interpretations of the standard, we conclude that the standard prohibits only secondary locking systems which interfere with the *engagement* of the primary locking system. Since your child locking systems do not interfere with the manner in which the primary locking system engages, their installation on the vehicles you manufacturer is permitted.; The answer to your question about the child locking systems i dependent on whether the systems interfere with an aspect of performance required by Standard No. 206. We have determined that the answer is no, because the requirements of S4.1.3.1 and S4.1.3.2 are written in terms of what must occur when the primary system is engaged and impose no requirements regarding the effects of disengaging the system. Thus, the aspect of performance required by S4.1.3 for the interior operating means for the door locks is that it be capable only of *Engaging* the required door locking mechanisms. The aspect of performance required by S4.1.3.2 for door locks on the rear doors is that the inside and outside door handles be inoperative when the locking mechanism is *engaged*. Since we have determined that S4.1.3.1 and S4.1.3.2 do not address the effects of disengaging the required door locks--i.e., S4.1.3.2 does not require that the inside rear door handles be operative (capable of releasing the door latch) when the required locking system is disengaged--a child locking system may be provided on a vehicle if it does not negate the capability of the door lock plunger (the operating means) to engage the door locks.; While the agency stated in its April 1968 notice amending Standard No 206 that one purpose of requiring an interior means of operating door locks was to allow a reasonable means of escape for vehicle occupants, the agency did not go further in facilitating escape by also including a provision to require in all circumstances that door handles be operative when the primary locking system are disengaged. Since the agency could easily have included such a provision to address this reverse situation, but did not do so, the implication is that the agency did not intend to impose requirements regarding that situation. In fact, the notice included a contemporaneous interpretation that the standard permits a secondary locking device which rendered the inside rear door handle inoperative even when the primary locking mechanism was disengaged. This affirms that NHTSA did not even intend to impose a requirement that the handles always be operative when the primary locking mechanism is disengaged.; In determining that the performance requirements of Standard No. 20 address only the effects of engaging the required door locks, we noted that the purpose of the standard is to 'minimize the likelihood of occupants being thrown from the vehicle as a result of impact.' Throughout the rulemaking history of the standard, NHTSA has limited application of the standard's performance requirements only to doors that are provided for the purpose of retaining the driver and passengers in collisions. Because the standard is narrowly focused on occupant retention in a vehicle and specifies no performance requirements of occupant egress, we concluded that there is no requirement in the standard that prohibits a device which negates the capability of the inside operating means for the door locks to disengage the locks, provided that the device does not interferer with the engagement of the required door locking system.; Another issue related to your inquiry is whether the location of th operating means for the child locks is regulated by Standard No. 206. We have determined that the answer is no. Secondary locking mechanisms discussed in the final rule adopting the door lock requirements and in past agency letters all were designed so that the operating means for the secondary mechanism was inaccessible when the door was closed. In none of those documents did the agency take exception to that location of the operating means, much less suggest that those means, like the means for the primary locking mechanism, must be located in the vehicle's interior.; This letter interprets Standard No. 206 in a manner that clarifies pas agency statements concerning issues raised by secondary locking systems such as 'child safety locks.' To the extent that the statements contained herein conflict with interpretations made by NHTSA in the past, the previous interpretations are overruled.; Please contact my office if you have further questions. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: nht92-6.2

DATE: June 22, 1992

FROM: Trevor J. Buttle -- Project P4

TO: Office of Chief Council, U.S. DOT

TITLE: Our Ref 1547; Your Fax No. 0101 202 366 2106; Re: FMVSS 102, Transmission Lever Shift Sequences

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/1/92 (est) from Paul J. Rice to Trevor Buttle (A39; Std. 101; Std. 102)

TEXT:

I am responsible for certification of a passenger vehicle being developed with a view to U.S.A. export in 2-3 years.

Could you please advise on the following concern relating to S3.1.4 of the above standard:

o The (transmission shift lever position) information is to be "displayed in view of the driver". - S3.1.4.1. I believe this relates to the 95% eye range contour, hence requiring a display on or near to the instrument binacle. Is this correct, or (as seems to be the current practice for some auto makers) is the floor shift identification sufficient? This query relates to auto and manual transmission.

o Could you also clarify whether the display should be permanently illuminated for night usage (again, some auto makers have opted to make this facility switchable).

Your assistance with these issues would be greatly appreciated.

ID: aiam3722

Dear Ms. Harsha: This responds to your company's recent letter regarding th applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety regulations to the sale and application of sun control films on motor vehicles. You ask whether our November 10, 1976, letter to your company on this same subject is still applicable, as well as several other questions.; Our November 1976 letter is still current. Solar films themselves ar not considered glazing materials under Safety Standard No. 205. As stated in that letter, however, the application of such films to motor vehicles by certain persons does give rise to responsibilities under Federal law. I am enclosing a copy of a recent letter of interpretation which discusses the pertinent Federal law on this subject.; I am also enclosing a copy of a telegram that we recently sent to th Hawaii Department of Transportation which discusses the preemptive effect of Safety Standard No. 205 over State laws governing the same aspect of motor vehicle performance, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1381, et *seq*. (sic)). The Hawaii legislature has passed a law which attempts to allow dealers and businesses in that State to apply solar films on motor vehicles. Those films are allowed to reduce transmittance down to 35 percent. As pointed out in the enclosed telegram, Safety Standard No. 205 preempts that State statute in certain respects. The letter of interpretation and the telegram should answer all of your questions.; Please note that under Safety Standard No. 205 all windows in passenger car are considered requisite for driving visibility. Thus, all windows in a passenger car must have a light transmittance of at least 70 percent. In vehicles other than passenger cars, typically, only the windshield and front side windows are considered requisite for driving visibility. This means, for example, that a van could have solar films installed on windows behind the driver, since no transmittance requirements are specified for those windows.; I hope this has answered all your questions. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: nht73-2.19

DATE: 08/20/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: American Safety Equipment Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In reference to your August 3, 1973, petition for rule making pertaining to Standard No. 213, we require additional information on your harness release mechanism prior to reaching any decision on this matter.

Specifically, we require data on the amount of force required to open your release mechanism under the following conditions:

1. When the harness system is preloaded with the child body block to 45 pounds (according to the existing procedure in Standard No. 213);

2. When the harness system is preloaded to 45 pounds with a three-year-old Sierra child dummy (by pulling on the arms and legs of the dummy); and

3. When the child seating system with an actual child occupant is suspended upside down and when the harness system is not unloaded (pulling only on the latch mechanism without releasing the load on the harness).

Your cooperation in furnishing us this data will aid in resolving this matter.

ID: 1984-3.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/21/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: U.S. Suzuki Motor Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

U.S. Department of Transportation

Mr. John B. Walsh Head, Regulations & Emissions Laboratory Government Relations Department U.S. Suzuki Motor Corp. 3251 East Imperial Highway Brea, California 92621

Dear Mr. Walsh:

This is in reply to your letter of October 31, 1984, to Mr. Vinson of this office, asking for confirmation of a 1972 agency interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

In pertinent part, Table III of Standard No. 108 requires that, at a minimum, a motorcycle be equipped with one taillamp, one stop lamp, and four turn signal lamps. Table IV directs that the stop lamp and taillamp be placed on the vertical centerline, and that the turn signal lamps be placed on each side of the vertical centerline with a minimum edge to edge separation distance of 4 inches between the turn signal lamp "and tail or stop lamp." Table IV expressly permits dual stop and taillamps "symmetrically disposed about the vertical centerline." No express exception is made to the 4-inch spacing requirement if dual stop or taillamps are installed, raising the question whether the minimum distance must be maintained no matter what the rear lighting configuration may be.

You have called to our attention an interpretation of July 1, 1972, that Motor Vehicle Programs of this agency provided Stanley Electric Company Ltd. In that instance the proposed rear lighting configuration consisted of two combination stop, turn signal, and taillamps placed on either side of the vertical centerline. The agency opined that the minimum separation distance was not applicable to combination lamps when there was "no tail or stop lamp mounted on the vertical centerline." You have asked for confirmation that this remains the agency's view.

As you have pointed out Suzuki's proposed design of a unit combining amber turn signal lamps with red stop and taillamps is similar to current passenger car practice where the minimum distance requirement does not exist. Therefore, this will confirm that the minimum edge to edge separation distance of 4 inches between turn signals and stop and taillamps applies when single stop and taillamps are installed on the vertical centerline, but not when dual stop and taillamps are installed on either side of the centerline.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

U.S. SUZUKI MOTOR CORPORATION

October 31, 1984

Mr. Taylor Vinson Room 5219 Office of Chief Counsel, NOA-30 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 700 Seventh Street, SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Vinson:

Subject: Request for Confirmation of Interpretation -FMVSS 108

As we discussed by telephone on 31 October, this is to request confirmation that a July 1972 interpretation of FMVSS 108 applies to the motorcycle rear lighting configuration described below.

Table IV of FMVSS 108 requires that motorcycle rear turn signals be separated by 9 inches or more (centerline to centerline, and that minimum edge to edge distance from the turn signal to the tail or stop lamp be 4 inches or more. These requirements contemplate the typical motorcycle rear lighting configuration of a centrally located combination tail lamp/stop lamp and separate turn signal lamps on each side of the tail/stop lamp.

For some of today's wider motorcycles, however, we are contemplating a different rear lighting configuration, shown roughly in the enclosed sketch. This configuration would consist of a single lamp unit located near the outer edge of each side of the rear of the motorcycle. The inboard part of the lamp would be a red tail lamp/stop lamp combination, and the outboard part of the lamp would be an amber turn signal lamp. Turn signal lamp separation would typically be more than 24 inches, far exceeding the 9 inch minimum required by FMVSS 108, and providing clear indication of the direction of an intended turning maneuver. In essence, this rear lighting configuration is comparable to current practice in passenger car rear lighting.

In 1972, NHTSA indicated that

the minimum edge to edge separation distance of 4 inches is not applicable when the functions of tail, stop and turn are combined in a single lamp on each noneside of the motorcycle with no tail or stop lamp mounted on the vertical centerline.

A copy of this interpretation is enclosed for your reference. Based on this interpretation, Suzuki has designed a configuration as shown in the sketch. We would ask you to confirm that the 1972 interpretation would apply to the configuration shown, in recognition that it is meaningless to require a 4 inch separation distance where it is impossible because of the combined construction of the rear lamp units.

We would greatly appreciate your prompt attention to this request.

Sincerely,

U.S. SUZUKI MOTOR CORP.

John B. Walsh Head, Regulations & Emissions Laboratory Government Relations Department

JW:ej

Enclosure "SKETCH INSERT HERE"

July 1972 N41-34 Mr. H. Miyazawa Director, Automotive Lighting Engineering Department Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku Tokyo 153, Japan Dear Mr. Miyazawa: This is in reply to your letter of July 5 concerning the requirements for stop and turn signal lamps on motorcycles. The answers to the questions you asked follow -- Question 1.

According to FMVSS 108 Table IV, it says, "minimum edge to edge separation distance between lamp and tail stop lamp is 4 inches." However, in the case of the above sketch where tail lamp, stop lamp and turn signal lamp are combined in one, can we ignore the above requirements of Table IV? The answer is yes; the minimum edge to edge separation distance of 4 inches is not applicable when the functions of tail, stop and turn are combined in a single lamp on each side of the motorcycle with no tail or stop lamp mounted on the vertical centerline. Question 2. Suppose the above lamp arrangement is acceptable, must each stop lamp meet the Class A turn signal lamp (red) -- SAE J575d, Table 1? Or, is complying the said requirements with the total of two lamps acceptable? The two stop lamps cannot be considered as multiple lamps, since it is required that the stop lamp be extinguished on the side when the turn signal is flashing. Each of the stop lamps must therefore meet the Class A photometric values specified in Table 1 of SAE J575d. Sincerely, Charles A. Baker for E. T. Driver, Director Office of Operating Systems, Motor Vehicle Programs

ID: 15117.ztv

Mr. Ben Reginella, P. Eng.
Algonquin Automotive
1 Crescent Road
Huntsville
Ontario P1H 1Z6
Canada

Dear Mr. Reginella

This is in reply to your letter of April 29, 1997, requesting an interpretation of the term "overall width" as the phrase is used in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You have asked whether "the painted flexible flares" you describe qualify as "flexible" and hence may be excluded from the calculation of overall width. You are developing a trim kit for the Dodge T300 Ram Truck which includes painted flexible flares along with running boards, and have enclosed photos of the flare in question..

"Overall Width" is defined in Note 1 to Standard No. 108 as "the nominal design dimension of the widest part of the vehicle, exclusive of signal lamps, marker lamps, outside rearview mirrors, flexible fender extensions, and mud flaps, determined with doors and windows closed and the wheels in the straight-ahead position." We confirm that the "flexible flare" shown in your photographs is a "flexible fender extension" within the meaning of the term as used in Standard No. 108's definition of overall width, and may be excluded from the calculation of the overall width of any vehicle upon which it is installed.

If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-3820).

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d:5/22/97

ID: aiam3379

Dear Mr. Ridgway: This responds to your letter concerning the labeling requirements o Standard No. 105 applicable to a separate indicator lamp concerning reservoir level. Your letter asked whether it is permissible to use words other than 'Brake Fluid' for vehicles which use hydraulic system mineral oil rather than conventional brake fluid. As explained below, the answer is yes.; Section S5.3.5 of Standard No. 105 states in relevant part: >>>...If separate indicator lamps are used for one or more of th various functions described in S5.3.1(a) to S5.3.1(d), the lens shall include the word 'Brake' and appropriate additional labeling (use 'Brake Pressure,' 'Brake Fluid' for S5.3.1(a) and S5.3.1(b) except that if a separate parking indicator lamp is provided, the single word 'Park' may be used....<<<; As your letter pointed out, conventional brake fluid and hydrauli system mineral oil are not compatible. Safety Standard No. 116, *Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids*, differentiates between 'brake fluid' and hydraulic system mineral oil.'; We interpret section S5.3.5 to require the use of the words 'Brak Fluid' only for vehicles which use conventional brake fluid. The section's use of the word 'appropriate, ' prior to its statement that 'Brake Fluid' be used for S5.3.1(b), indicates that the labeling set forth in the parentheses need only be used where it adequately describes the fluid being used. For vehicles which use hydraulic system mineral oil, or other types of non-conventional brake fluid which might be developed in the future, the general requirement for the word 'Brake' and appropriate additional labeling is applicable.; We are concerned, however, about your proposed use of the words BRAK HSMO/LHM, since we doubt that many persons would understand that HSMO/LHM is an abbreviation for hydraulic system mineral oil/liquide hydraulique minerale. We suggest that you consider using the words 'BRAKE MINERAL OIL' or similar language that more persons would understand.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: nht94-7.19

DATE: March 28, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- U.S. DOT, NHTSA

TO: Ray Paradis -- Manufacturing Manager, Dakota Manufacturing Co.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/14/94 from John Womack to Ray Paradis (A42; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Per my discussion with Taylor Vinson, I have enclosed an overall side view of Dakota Manufacturing Companies 24 ton ramp trailer.

The question is whether a center side marker light is required. The overall length is 30'8" including the ramp in transport position.

In reviewing competition, I cannot find any center lights being used.

ATTACHMENT

Drawing of Trail-Eze, model D20R24. (Drawing omitted.)

ID: 15847.ztv

Mr. Mitch L. Williams
President & CEO
Hella, Inc.
P.O. Box 2665
Peachtree City, GA 30269

Dear Mr. Williams:

This is in reply to your letter of August 12, 1997, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency. For your future reference, interpretations of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including Standard No. 108, are properly addressed to the Office of Chief Counsel.

You write that Hella "is currently working with a vehicle manufacturer to provide a fog lamp kit to be initially offered and installed at the car dealer, or vehicle manufacturer zone level, with a possible introduction later for the assembly line." Some of the vehicles will have daytime running lamps (DRL), and on such vehicles, the manufacturer wants to tie the fog lamps into the DRL circuit so that the fog lamps will illuminate when the vehicle is started and be extinguished when the upper beam of the headlamps are activated (if the fog lamp switch is in the "on" position), or when the ignition is turned off. You ask whether we concur with your conclusion that you see no problem with this arrangement.

I regret to say that we cannot concur with your conclusion. Although Standard No. 108 does not regulate fog lamps, it does regulate DRLs. Paragraph S5.5.11 provides that "Any pair of lamps on the front . . ., whether or not required by this standard, other than parking lamps or fog lamps, may be wired [as DRLs]. . . ." Therefore, wiring fog lamps to operate as DRLs is expressly forbidden by Standard No. 108. This means that the fog lamps cannot be tied into the DRL circuit on those vehicles equipped with DRLs.

If you have further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.10/1/97

ID: nht89-2.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/21/89

FROM: WAYNE KRAUSE -- WALTCO TRUCK EQUIPMENT COMPANY

TO: STEVEN T. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 07/24/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO WAYNE KRAUSE -- WALTCO; REDBOOK A33; STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Mr. Wood,

We are asking for comments on whether or not our proposed tail light arrangement complies with FMVSS-108.

The enclosed drawings show our RGL-Series tail gate lift with the platform stored below floor level of a truck or trailer for transmit.

The platform in this position, would of course, block from view any normal tail light arrangement. In order to comply with the 45 degree visibility requirements of FMVSS-108, we propose to use two sets of tail lights (tail, stop and turn lights) as show n on drawings.

Light Set 1 is installed above floor level (not to exceed 72" for ground) and inside of tail gate rails.

Light Set 2 will be installed under the vehicle body, slightly forward of the rear of the body and approximately flush with the side of the vehicle.

Both lights of Set 1 would be visible from the rear of the vehicle and would act as the primary tail lights.

Light Set 2 would act as auxiliary tail lights that would be visible from the side of the vehicle as shown in drawings. We feel this is permissible under FMVSS-108; 49 CFR 571.108 (section 4.3.1.1.1) and SAE J585e.

While we feel this light arrangement meets all of the requirements set forth in FMVSS-108 with respect to location of tail lights, we would like your comments.

We would also appreciate a speedy reply if at all possible.

Sincerely,

Enc.: Drawing 80100693

Drawing 80100694