ID: 11499ZTV

Mr. Bernard Caire
DBM Reflex Enterprises, Inc.
1620 boul. Dagenais ouest
Laval, Quebec H7L 5C7
Canada

Dear Mr. Caire:

This is in reply to your FAX of January 25, 1996, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking for two interpretations of paragraph S5.3.1.7 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as they relate to your specific lighting array, for which you enclosed two drawings. These depict a housing containing a "turn signal" and a "daytime running light." You clarified your request in a telephone conversation with Rich VanIderstine of this agency on February 23, 1996.

Paragraph S5.3.1.7 modifies luminous intensity requirements for turn signal lamps "on a motor vehicle on which the front turn signal lamp is less than 100mm from the lighted edge of a lower beam headlamp, as measured from the optical center of the turn signal lamp." You ask, with respect to each of your drawings, whether the optical center of the turn signal is the same as the filament position. You note that there will be a higher light intensity in front of the bulb location.

Your first question appears to relate to turn signal/headlamp spacing, but we believe that your true concern is with the spacing relationship between a turn signal and a daytime running lamp (DRL). Because your DRL is a dedicated lamp serving only the DRL function, paragraph S5.3.1.7 does not apply.

The correct reference regarding the spacing between DRLs and turn signal lamps is paragraph S5.5.11(a)(4). This, in pertinent part, places the DRL "so that the distance from its lighted edge to the optical center of the nearest turn signal

lamp is not less than 100 mm . . . ." To determine the optical center of the turn signal lamp, we must refer for an answer to SAE J588 NOV84 Turn Signal Lamps For Use on Motor Vehicles Less Than 2032 MM in Overall Width. The answer depends on the design of the turn signal lamp. If the lamp primarily employs a reflector (for example, one of parabolic section) in conjunction with a lens, spacing is measured from the geometric centroid of the front turn signal functional lighted area to the lighted edge of the lower beam headlamp (paragraph 5.1.5.4.2, SAE J588 NOV84). The "geometric centroid" is the "optical center" for purposes of Standard No. 108. If the front turn signal is a direct light source type design, that is a lamp primarily employing a lens and not a reflector to meet photometric requirements, spacing is measured from the light source to the lighted edge of the DRL. The filament center of the light source is the "optical center" for purposes of Standard No. 108. If the distance is less than 100 mm, the requirements of S5.3.1.7 apply and the minimum intensity of the turn signal must be at least 2.5 times that normally required.

If you have any further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref:108 d:3/14/96

ID: nht78-1.44

DATE: 09/21/78

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

TO: West Seneca Central School District

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your May 4, 1978, letter asking whether you can modify several buses that you have purchased by adding stanchion bars near the front door to facilitate the loading of smaller school children.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not prohibit the use of stanchion bars in school buses. Some manufacturers, however, have discontinued putting them in buses because it is difficult to pad them sufficiently such that they comply with the head impact zone requirements when the bars fall within the head impact zone.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Act) prohibits modification of vehicles by repair businesses, dealers, or manufacturers that would render inoperative compliance with safety standards (section 108(a)(2)(A)). Therefore, if a dealer, repair business, or manufacturer were to install stanchion bars in your school buses, it would be required to ensure that the installation does not render inoperative compliance with the head impact zone requirements. The Act does not prohibit, however, modifications by individuals of their vehicles even when such modification would not comply with Federal safety standards. Accordingly, a school district could itself install stanchion bars that do not comply with the head impact zone requirements.

SINCERELY,

May 4, 1978

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Reference: Code of Federal Regulation, Part 571.222 School Bus Passenger Seating & Crash Protection

Gentlemen,

Recently we purchased 20 65-passenger buses. These buses, according to your regulations, had crash pads near the entrance way but the stanchion bars for help in boarding and leaving the buses were removed. Our Board of Education is not objecting to the crash pads but there is a strong feeling that some protection has been removed in the process of getting on and off the buses, particularly for small children.

We checked this matter out with the New York State Department of Transportation and this agency suggested that we write to you to see if we could get your approval. The question is this; may we install one or two stanchion bars at the entrance steps on the recently purchased 20 buses. If this meets your approval please write us a letter accordingly. It certainly would not be our intent to remove the pad.

Thank you for your early attention to this matter.

J. W. Yarbrough Assistant Superintendent for Business

ID: 9448

Mr. J. Hulshof
Nedap N.V.
P.O. Box 6
7140 AA Groenlo
The Netherlands

Dear Mr. Hulshof:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Patrick Boyd requesting a written interpretation concerning whether your sunroof would meet the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 118, "Power-Operated Window, Partition, and Roof Panel Systems." I apologize for the delay in responding.

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a self-certification system under which manufacturers are responsible for ensuring that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs. We do not approve, endorse, or gives assurances of compliance of any product. In response to manufacturers' requests for interpretations of the FMVSS's, we try, to the extent possible, to provide information that will help them make their determinations of compliance. However, these responses are based on information provided by the manufacturer, and are subject to the findings of actual compliance testing by the agency. Should the agency, in the future, examine your product and detect an apparent noncompliance or defect, those results will control.

You explain in your letter that your power-operated sunroof (which is a power operated "roof panel system" under Standard 118) can be closed only in four circumstances. In three of these, the ignition key must be activated. In the fourth, the sunroof can be closed when there is "Continuous operation of Central close mechanism, not capable [sic] closing the roof panel from a distance of more than 6 meters from the vehicle."

Standard 118 requires sunroofs other than those that have an automatic reversing feature to close only in certain circumstances. One of those (S4(a)) is when the key controlling the vehicle's engine is in the activated (i.e. "on", "start" or "accessory") position. The three circumstances you described where the ignition key must be activated to operate the sunroof appear to satisfy S4(a).

With regard to the fourth circumstance, Standard 118 also permits sunroofs to close "Upon continuous activation of a remote actuation device, provided that the...device shall be incapable of closing the [sunroof] from a distance of more than 6 meters from the vehicle" (S4(d)). The circumstance you described appears to satisfy S4(d). Your sunroof will close only upon continuous operation of a "Central close mechanism," and the mechanism is incapable of closing the sunroof from a distance of more than 6 meters from the vehicle.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. David Elias of my office at the above address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:118 d:4/12/94

ID: nht94-6.39

DATE: April 12, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: J. Hulshof -- Nedap N.V. (The Netherlands)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter/fax dated 12/14/93 from J. Hulshof to Patrick Boyd (OCC 9448)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Patrick Boyd requesting a written interpretation concerning whether your sunroof would meet the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 118, "Power-Operated Window, Partition, and Roof Panel systems." I apologize for the delay in responding.

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a self-certification system under which manufacturers are responsible for ensuring that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs. We do not approve, endorse, or gives assurances of compliance of any product. In response to manufacturers' requests for interpretations of the FMVSS's, we try, to the extent possible, to provide information that will help them make their determinations of compliance. However, these responses are based on information provided by the manufacturer, and are subject to the findings of actual compliance testing by the agency. Should the agency, in the future, examine your product and detect an apparent noncompliance or defect, those results will control.

You explain in your letter that your power-operated sunroof (which is a power operated "roof panel system" under Standard 118) can be closed only in four circumstances. In three of these, the ignition key must be activated. In the fourth, the sunroof can be closed when there is "Continuous operation of Central close mechanism, not capable (sic) closing the roof panel from a distance of more than 6 meters from the vehicle."

Standard 118 requires sunroofs other than those that have an automatic reversing feature to close only in certain circumstances. One of those (S4(a)) is when the key controlling the vehicle's engine is in the activated (i.e. "on", "start" or "accessory") position. The three circumstances you described where the ignition key must be activated to operate the sunroof appear to satisfy S4(a).

With regard to the fourth circumstance, Standard 118 also permits sunroofs to close "Upon continuous activation of a remote actuation device, provided that the...device shall be incapable of closing the (sunroof) from a distance of more than 6 meters from the vehicle" (S4(d)). The circumstance you described appears to satisfy S4(d). Your sunroof will close only upon continuous operation of a "Central close mechanism," and the mechanism is incapable of closing the sunroof from a distance of more than 6 meters from the vehicle.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. David Elias of my office at the above address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht79-1.41

DATE: 08/09/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Porshe

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of May 25, 1979, requesting clarification of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101-80, Controls and Displays. You asked whether the rear window defogger switch, which emits a dim light for control location and a brighter light upon activation, is considered a control or a telltale.

Although the switch might be regarded as a control, telltale, or both, it is regulated as a control insofar as its illumination is concerned. Therefore, its illumination must be continuously variable as specified in S5.3.3 of the standard.

S5.3.3 provides that

Each passenger car . . . manufactured with any control listed in S5.1 or in column 1 of Table 1, and each passenger car . . . with any display listed in S5.1 or in column 1 of Table 2, shall meet the requirements of this standard for the location, identification, and illumination of such control or display.

The rear window defrosting and defogging system appears in the control list of S5.1 and in Table 1, but not in the display list of S5.1 or in Table 2. Therefore, the control illumination requirements of S5 apply to the defogging switch and the display illumination requirements do not.

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to write.

SINCERELY,

UNITED STATES COMPLIANCE OFFICE

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION Office of the Chief Counsel

May 25, 1979

Subject: PART 571, FMVSS 101-80, Docket 1-18, Notice 13 Control Location, Identification and Illumination

Dear Sirs:

In Table 1 of the above docket, the rear window defrosting and defogging system control shall be illuminated.

S 5.3.3 reads: "Light intensities for controls etc. and their identification shall be continously variable. . ."

In the same paragraph it reads: "The light intensity of each telltale shall not be variable and shall be such that, when activated, that telltale and its identification are visible to the driver under all daytime and nighttime conditions."

In one of our cars, the Porsche 928, the dashboard illumination and a dim light inside the rear window defogger switch are activated when the ignition is turned on. The dim light within the defogger switch is meant to help to locate this control. Upon activation of this switch the light intensity of the defogger switch is increased to show that the rear window defogger switch is in the "on" position. Both light intensities, dim to locate the control, and brighter for activation, are not variable.

Please clarify if w should consider the light in the rear window defogger switch a "telltale" or a "Control" and if we are in compliance with the 2 different light intensities.

We enclose 2 pictures from the owner's manual to show the location and activation of the switch.

Thank you in advance for your clarification.

Gerhard C. Waizmann

Enclosures omitted.

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.

ID: 2849o

Mr. Bruce Niebrugge
Vice President/General Manager
Mid America Design, Inc.
U.S. Route 45 North
One Mid America Place
Effingham, IL 62401

Dear Mr. Niebrugge:

The Customs Service has asked me to respond directly to your letter complaining about the Customs Service seizure of some spinner hubcaps that your company tried to import into the United States. I understand that Mid America Design, Inc. attempted to import a shipment of "spinner hubcaps" from Taiwan. These spinner hubcaps were seized by the U.S. Customs Service for failing to conform with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 211, Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs, and Hubcaps (49 CFR 571.211). You asked why our agency said that your company's imported "spinner hubcaps" do not comply with Standard No. 211, when comparable domestically produced items are permitted to be sold. For the last 20 years, it has been illegal to sell spinner hubcaps in the United States, regardless of where the spinner hubcaps were manufactured.

I have enclosed copies of my May 13, 1987 letter to the Honorable William E. Dannemeyer and my November 13, 1987 letter to Mr. William J. Maloney, your counsel in this matter. In these letters, I reaffirmed our interpretations from the past 20 years stating that spinner hub caps do not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 211, and have not complied with that Standard since it became effective on January 1, 1968. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act [15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)] makes it illegal to "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States" any hub caps that do not comply with Standard No. 211 (Emphasis added). Therefore, the U.S. Customs Service was enforcing the law properly when it seized the spinner hubcaps your company sought to import.

You also stated in your letter that spinner hubcaps are currently available in the United States, and enclosed some advertisements offering spinner hubcaps for sale. I would like to thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. We have referred this information to our enforcement staff for appropriate action.

If you have any further questions or need more information on the subject of spinner hubcaps and Standard No. 211, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

cc: Mr. Daniel C. Holland District Director of the Customs Service 909 First Avenue Seattle, Washington 98174

ref:211 d:3/18/88

ID: aiam0420

Dear Mr. Godfrey: This is in reply to your letter of July 30, 1971, to Mr. Ed. Leysath o this office concerning the mounting location of side marker and taillights on your boat trailers.; The mounting requirements for lamps and reflectors are specified i Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 (copy enclosed). It appears as if devices mounted as indicated on your drawing would meet the requirements. If, however, severe problems would be encountered in mounting the devices as indicated or the devices would be subjected to damage during normal use, other mountings may be appropriate and still meet the 'as far apart as practicable' or 'as far to the rear as practicable' requirements.; If water damage is the only problem when lamps and reflectors ar mounted in the indicated positions, special waterproof devices are available and could be used.; Sincerely, E. T. Driver, Director, Office of Operating Systems, Moto Vehicle Programs;

ID: 1985-01.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/16/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. William Shaw

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. William Shaw Sales Manager Shinn Fu Co. of America, Inc. 1004 Andover Park East Seattle Washington 98188

Dear Mr. Shaw:

This in in reply to your letter of December 5, 1984, with respect to the permissibility under Federal regulations of a "Supplemental Eye-Level Rear Stop Light" which provides functions additional to a stop signal.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment specifies requirements only for center high-mounted stop lamps as original equipment on passenger cars, and for equipment that replaces original equipment center high mounted stop lamps.

If you offer this device to new car dealers for installation on new cars before their sale, the dealer bears the responsibility for insuring that the car he sells complies with the center high mounted stop lamp requirements for new motor vehicles. On vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1986, equipped with the center lamp, that lamp may flash with the hazard warning lamp, but it cannot be combined with other lighting functions such as turn signals.

However, the device you wish to offer appears intended as an aftermarket device and not intended as original equipment for passenger cars. If this assumption is correct, there is no Federal standard that applies to it, and its legality must be determined according to the law of each State where it will be in use.

We hope that this information has been helpful. Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel U. S. Dept of Transportation Dec. 5, 1984 Office of Chief Counsel NHTSA 400 7th St. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 Dear Sir,

We're a manufacturer of Supplemental Eye-Level Rear Stop Light and we understand it must meet the requirement of Federal Standard if we want to marketing this product.

Now, our question is: If we design it with multi functions, will it be O.K br D.O.T? That means it is designed with not only the stop light function, but also is designed with the hazard flashing light function for emergency use and with the automatic warning flashing light function if this supplemental light catches the high-beam bright lighting from the rear vehicle which approaches closely behind you in a short, unsafe distance. The designed is patented and is definitely helpful for highway safety.

Please help us by confirming this letter as soon as possible or advising us otherwise. Thank you in advance for your great help. Shinn Fu Co. of America Inc. William Shaw Sales Manager WS/ny Encl.

ID: nht88-1.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/01/88 EST

FROM: BRIAN HALL -- VS TECHNOLOGY PRESIDENT

TO: VINSON

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/03/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO BRIAN HALL, REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Mr. Vinson:

I'm sending this letter to you to find out how to get an approval from the U.S. D.O.T. on a apparatus that I believe will be a useful tool for the safety of a motorcycle, scooter, ATV, etc. driver.

This apparatus will be a high level visibility red light that will be worn on the upper back of the driver or passenger on the above mentioned vehicles.

The apparatus is a 2" strap that is worn by putting the arms through the holes so the straps are resting on the shoulders, such as a shoulder harness. There is a square piece of velcro that is sewed to the strap that will be positioned about 3 to 4 in ches above the center of the back. The shoulder harness, as I will call it, is comfortable to wear. The velcro square on the back will be where a red brake light will be attached. The brake light will be made of plastic with the back of the light havi ng a flat surface that will be velcroed to the square velcro patch on the shoulder harness. Coming from the brake light will be two wires that will be plugged to a pigtail connector that will be safety fastened to the existing brake light wires. The sa fety fastner will be included with the package. Instructions on how to locate the right wires will also be in the package "with instructions on were it is best to put the safety fastner pigtail. The brake light connector will be plugged into the pigtai l connector so when the brakes levers are applied the high visability brake light will come on at the same time so surrounding vehicle drivers will have a better chance of seeing the motorcycle driver.

I hope that this brief description of what I'm writing to you about is enough for you to understand what I'm trying to do and why I'm seeking for a U.S. D.O.T. approval on this apparatus.

I have talked to the Arizona D.O.T. about this and they referred me to the U.S. D.O.T. in Washington D.C., which I called, to have the information sent to me on the requirements and specifications needed for such a apparatus.

My intentions are to put this on the market as after market products for those persons who are concerned for their safety as motorcycle, scooter, ATV, etc. driver. Also I'm talking to the military about this for on-base requirement for motorcycle, et c. drivers.

Sincerely,