ID: nht73-6.10

DATE: 12/04/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Explorer Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your recent undated letter asking for Federal "safety specifications" that would apply to your three-wheeled motorcycle when it is licensed for use on the public roads.

The Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to motorcycles and their effective dates are: No. 103, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (January 1, 1969); No. 122, Motorcycle Brake Systems (January 1, 1974); and No. 123, Motorcycle Controls and Displays (September 1, 1974). These standards are found in Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 571. Under Part 567 a manufacturer of motor vehicles must affix a certification label to each product stating, among other things, that it meets all applicable Federal standards. This is the "sticker" to which you refer. As a manufacturer, Explorer is also subject to other regulations. I enclose an information sheet telling where you may obtain all these regulations.

I do not know the "Pace Setter III" that you refer to, but the Department does not "approve" vehicles for licensing. All that is legally required is that a manufacturer build and certify vehicles that conform to all applicable Federal safety standards. No Federal approval is necessary or given.

We have recently adopted a redefinition of "motorcycle" effective September 1, 1974. Three-wheeled motor vehicles that do not have both "a handlebar for steering and a seat that is straddled by

2 the driver" will no longer be classified as "motorcycles" effective September 1, 1974. Since the Explorer has both handlebars and a seat that is, in our view, straddled by the driver when his feet are on the foot rests, it remains a motorcycle under the new definition.

ENC.

EXPLORER, INC.

Gentlemen:

We are in the process of trying to get our three-wheel motorcycle licensed for the road. It seems that each state requires that they pass federal safety specifications. We would like to know how to find out what they are and have it tested at your convenience to prove that it does meet federal standards.

I understand that when a three-wheel motorcycle can be licensed, a sticker must be attached stating that it is designed for the road and meets all federal safety standards.

The EXPLORER 800R model recently has been licensed for the road in the state of Michigan. As you can see by the enclosed pictures, it has brakes on all three wheels, headlamp with high and low beam indicator light, turn signals, electric horn, brake and tail lamp, rear view mirror, and is powered by a 12 volt battery.

I understand that you recently approved the "PACE SETTER III" to be licensed for the road. We feel that the EXPLORER more than meets the safety requirements needed, and would like to prove this to you as soon as possible.

Any help you can give us to expedite this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Paul Marenda, Vice-President

P.S. Please send a copy of the federal requirements to EXPLORER ILLINOIS CORPORATION. 106 W. St. Paul St., Spring Valley, Illinois 61362

ID: nht79-2.50

DATE: 01/23/79

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

TO: Esley Development Corporation

COPYEE: Don Morrison -- BMCS

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 21, 1978, asking about your responsibilities, as the manufacturer of a snow plow headlamp holder, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Under the Act a truck, with or without snow plow attachment, is a "motor vehicle" and the plow itself and any associated equipment is considered "motor vehicle equipment" since it is an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle. But Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, contains no requirements either for snow plow or accessory lighting, and your sealbeam holder therefore is not subject to regulation under the standard. However, as a manufacturer of "motor vehicle equipment," you are responsible for notification of purchasers and dealers, and remedy of any safety-related defects that may occur in your product. (Sec. 151 et seq. of the Act)

As to "what legal burden rests" with you as a "manufacturer of the sealbeam holder as to the possible misuse" of your units once they leave your plant, we are uncertain what you mean by "misuse." If you mean that the holder is used in a way that you did not intend, then the question would appear to be one not answerable under Federal law. If the "misuse" is attributable to a defect in the sealbeam holder, then the question would arise whether the defect is safety-related. If the answer is affirmative, then you would be subject to the notification and remedy provisions of the Act mentioned in the preceding paragraph.

We are forwarding a copy of your letter to the Federal Highway Administration, Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, for a reply to your question as to what Federal requirements must be met for use of your units "on inter and intra state highways."

Enclosed is a copy of Standard No. 108 as you requested, as well as a copy of the Act.

SINCERELY,

ESLEY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

December 21, 1978

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Gentlemen:

We are manufacturers of an all rubber heavy duty auxiliary lighthousing used in off road mining, construction and logging. We are looking into manufacturing a snow-plow headlight with a turn signal attachment out of the same heavy duty rubber. It will be similar to the Yankee snow plow light and the Dietz snow plow light. It will be designed to hold a standard PAR 56 sealbeam of the 6014 or 6015 series as manufactured by G.E., Wagner Tung-Sol, and Westinghouse which are the standard sealbeams being used as OEM in autos and trucks for their primary headlights. Since we are not manufacturers of the sealbeams but just the holder of the sealbeam we would like your determination and response to the following questions:

-- Is a snow plow or truck using a snowplow attachment considered a motorized vehicle?

-- What legal burden rests with us as a manufacturer of the sealbeam holder as to the possible misuse of our units once they leave our plant?

-- What federal requirements or regulations must be met for use of our units on inter and intra state highways? $-- Please send us a copy of Federal Standard 108.

Gentlemen, it takes 6 to 8 months to develope a product such as this prior to going into production. We are aiming at the 79-80 winter season and would therefore appreciate receiving your reply and any other advise you care to pass along as soon as possible.

Stephen E. Hall President

ID: nht81-1.3

DATE: 01/13/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: MMC Services Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of October 14, 1980, regarding the warning devices required by Safety Standard No. 114, Theft Protection, and Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. You ask whether the sound of a voice repeating the phrase "please pull out the ignition key" or "please fasten seat belt" at 2-3 second intervals could be used to satisfy the requirements of Standard No. 114 and Standard No. 208. You also ask whether a buzzer or chime that signals an unfastened seat belt or the presence of the key in the ignition could also be used to give the driver other warnings, such as turning off the headlights.

Standard No. 114 does not specify the nature of the warning that must be given to the driver in the event that the ignition key is left in the locking system. Thus the system you describe would comply with the rule. Note that the signal must be activated whenever the key has been left in the ignition and the driver's door is opened.

Standard No. 208 requires that the driver's seating position be equipped with a warning system that activates a continuous or intermittent audible signal for a period of not less than four (4) seconds and not more than eight (8) seconds. The signal must begin when the vehicle's ignition switch is in the "on" or "start" position and the driver's belt is not in use. If the system you have devised stops the warning only when the belt has been fastened, it would not comply with this rule. The signal must end within eight (8) seconds, irregardless of whether the driver's belt has been fastened. Regarding your specific question, an audible "voice" signal would be permitted under the standard.

The buzzers or chimes that are installed in accordance with Standard No. 214 or Standard No. 208 may also be used to warn the driver of other conditions.

We hope you find this information helpful. Please contact this office if you have any other questions.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

MITSUBISHI MOTORS CORPORATION

October 14, 1980

Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sir;

Subject: Warning Device for FMVSS 114 and 208

This letter is for getting your interpretation to the following questions concerning the warning devices required by FMVSS 114 and 208.

1. Is it considered as complying with the requirements to use the voice sound such as "please pull out ignition key" or "please fasten seat belt" which is activated repeatedly with 2 or 3 seconds pause?

In order to avoid customers' unpleasant impression due to abrupt cut-off of the voice when the instruction is followed, these warning voices would be ceased after completing the phrase.

2. In case when adopting buzzer or chime sound as the warning of FMVSS 114 or 208, could the same sound be utilized as other additional warnings such as the headlamp turning-off?

For any questions regarding this letter, please contact with the following representative of ours in the U.S.A. and mail your response to him.

T. Shimada -- Senior Technical Manager, MMC Services Inc.; 3000 TOWN CENTER; SUITE 1960; SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN 48075; TELEPHONE NUMBER: 313/353-5444

Your early response would be highly appreciated.

Very truly yours,

Hidemi Ohya, Manager -- Homologation & Technical Liaison Section, Technical Administration Department

ID: 007713

Mr. Robert Strassburger
Vice President, Safety And Harmonization
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
1401 H Street, NW
Suite 900
Washington, DC 20005

Dear Mr. Strassburger:

This responds to your request that we reconsider a May 2, 2003, letter of interpretation we issued to Hyundai concluding that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) no. 108 does not preempt a California statute regulating the distance between front turn signal lamps and fog lamps. As discussed below, after carefully reconsidering our interpretation, we conclude that FMVSS No. 108 preempts State laws regarding the distance between front turn signal lamps and fog lamps. This letter withdraws and supersedes our May 2, 2003, interpretation.

We note that, in a letter dated July 1, 2003, Hyundai requested that we reconsider our May 2, 2003, interpretation. However, the California Highway Patrol subsequently informed Hyundai that it recognized that the lamp spacing requirements in its regulations are not identical to those contained in FMVSS 108, and that the provisions of FMVSS No. 108 covering the same aspect of performance prevailed over the State regulation. Therefore, in a letter dated August 12, 2003, we advised Hyundai that we considered its July 1, 2003, request as mooted. you expressed concern, however, that other States may nonetheless rely on the May 2, 2003, interpretation letter, and asked that we clarify our position on this issue.

The California law at issue provided that fog lamps must be mounted so that the inner edge of the lens retaining ring is no closer than 10 cm (4 in.) to the optical center of the front turn signal lamp. FMVSS No. 108 provides, by means of incorporation by reference of SAE Recommended Practice J588, that if the lighted edge of "the low beam headlamp or any additional lamp used to supplement or used in lieu of the lower beam, such as an auxiliary low beam or fog lamp" is closer than 100 mm (4 in.) to the geometric centroid of the front turn signal functional lighted area, the luminous intensity of the turn signal lamp is required to be higher than it would be if the spacing between the turn signal and other lamp were 100 mm or greater. Thus, the standard expressly contemplates the placement of fog lamps in an area that would be prohibited under the California law.

Under 49 u.s.c. 30103(b), preemption, a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard "applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle only if the standard is identical to" a federal motor vehicle safety standard that is in effect. Thus, the relevant issue is whether the California law addresses the same aspect of performance as one addressed by FMVSS No. 108.

In our August 12, 2003, letter to Hyundai, we summarized our May 2, 2003, interpretation as follows:

In brief, fog lamps are not required items of lighting equipment under FMVSS No. 108. thus, if California were to preclude fog lamps, FMVSS No. 108 would not preempt such an action. similarly, California can address the spacing between fog lamps and turn signal lamps. However, California could not regulate fog lamps in a manner that would be inconsistent with the functioning of front turn signal lamps, which we do regulate.

We note that, in our May 2, 2003, interpretation, we stated that we believed the thrust of J588 was to regulate performance of turn signal lamps, and that the reference to fog lamps was illustrative.

We have reconsidered our May 2, 2003, interpretation. As noted above, the relevant issue is whether the California law and FMVSS No. 108 address the same aspect of performance.

On reconsideration, we believe that both FMVSS No. 108 and the California law seek to prevent obscuration of the turn signals. FMVSS No. 108 requires that if a fog lamp is closer than four inches to the turn signal lamp, the turn signal lamp must be brighter. The California law requires that fog lamps not be any closer than four inches to turn signal lamps. Since the California law addresses the same aspect of performance as FMVSS No. 108 and is not identical, it is preempted.

We note that you Stated in your letter that the alliance agrees that a State law prohibiting fog lamps would not be preempted, and we are not changing our view on that issue.

I hope this clarification is helpful. If you have any questions, you may call Edward Glancy of this Office (202-366-2992).

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.4/1/04

ID: nht88-4.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/23/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: ANDREW E. WOOLNER -- GENERAL MANAGER AUST IN ROVER U.S. LIAISON OFFICE

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 10/07/87 FROM ANDREW E WOOLNER TO ERIKA JONES; RE INTERPRETATION OF FMVSS NO. 101, CONTROLS AND DISPLAYS, SECTION S 5.3.5

TEXT: Dear Mr. Woolner:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. You asked about the illumination requirements applicable to a trip computer display. According to your letter, the trip c omputer display is provided in addition to a fuel gauge and a speedometer/odometer. The trip computer is able, among other functions, to display supplemental information concerning fuel consumption, fuel used, average speed, trip distance and distance t o arrival. As discussed below, this letter confirms your understanding that illumination is not required for the trip computer display, but, if illumination is provided, it is subject to the requirements of section S5.3.5 of the standard. This letter a lso addresses the illumination requirements applicable to a vehicle condition monitor.

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

Standard No. 101 requires that vehicles with any display listed in the standard must meet specified requirements for the location, identification and illumination of such display. See section S5. Among the displays listed in Standard No. 101 are the fu el level telltale, fuel level gauge, speedometer and odometer. See section S5.1 and column 1 of Table 2.

It is our opinion that a trip computer provided in addition to a fuel gauge and speedometer/odometer is not considered a fuel level guage,

speedometer or odometer within the meaning of Standard No. 101. Moreover, a trip computer is not otherwise included among the displays listed in the standard. Since Standard No. 101's illumination requirements other than those of section S5.3.5 onl y apply to displays listed in the standard, they are not applicable to the trip computer.

As you suggest in your letter, if illumination is provided for the trip computer display, the illumination is subject to the requirements of section S5.3.5. That section specifies requirements for any source of illumination within the passenger compartme nt which is forward of a transverse vertical plane 4.35 inch rearward of the manikin "H" point with the driver's seat in its rearmost driving position, which is not used for the controls and displays regulated by the standard, which is not a telltale, an d which is capable of being illuminated while the vehicle is in motion.

In a telephone conversation with Edward Glancy of my staff, Mr. Marx Elliott advised that you are also interested in what illumination requirements may be applicable to a vehicle condition monitor. According to the information provided with your letter, the vehicle condition monitor indicates the following: door or trunk lid not shut, low outside air temperature, lamp failure, low washer fluid, and low engine coolant.

Each of the displays included in the vehicle condition monitor is a telltale. However, none of the telltales are among the displays listed in the standard. We note that the information provided with your letter indicates that the vehicle condition monito r illustrates, using a vehicle map, the operation of several lamps. If a lamp fails, the vehicle condition monitor causes the appropriate segment in the vehicle map to extinguish. While the headlamp high beam is among the lamps for which the vehicle co ndition monitor provides information, Mr. Elliott has advised us that this information is supplemental to the traditional high beam telltale provided on the instrument panel. It is our opinion based on these facts, that such a supplemental display is no t considered a high beam telltale within the meaning of Standard No. 101.

The telltales included in the vehicle condition monitor are not subject to any illumination requirements. Since none of the telltales included on the vehicle condition monitor are listed in Standard No. 101, they need not meet the illumination requireme nts specified by that standard for telltales. Moreover, as indicated by the language of section S5.3.5, quoted above, the illumination requirements of that section do not apply to telltales.

ID: 3236o

Mr. Andrew E. Woolner
General Manager
Austin Rover
U.S. Liaison Office
8953 N.W. 23 Street
Miami, Florida 33l72

Dear Mr. Woolner:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l0l, Controls and Displays. You asked about the illumination requirements applicable to a trip computer display. According to your letter, the trip computer display is provided in addition to a fuel gauge and a speedometer/odometer. The trip computer is able, among other functions, to display supplemental information concerning fuel consumption, fuel used, average speed, trip distance and distance to arrival. As discussed below, this letter confirms your understanding that illumination is not required for the trip computer display, but, if illumination is provided, it is subject to the requirements of section S5.3.5 of the standard. This letter also addresses the illumination requirements applicable to a vehicle condition monitor.

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

Standard No. l0l requires that vehicles with any display listed in the standard must meet specified requirements for the location, identification and illumination of such display. See section S5. Among the displays listed in Standard No. l0l are the fuel level telltale, fuel level gauge, speedometer and odometer. See section S5.l and column l of Table 2.

It is our opinion that a trip computer provided in addition to a fuel gauge and speedometer/odometer is not considered a fuel level gauge, speedometer or odometer within the meaning of Standard No. l0l. Moreover, a trip computer is not otherwise included among the displays listed in the standard. Since Standard No. l0l's illumination requirements other than those of section S5.3.5 only apply to displays listed in the standard, they are not applicable to the trip computer.

As you suggest in your letter, if illumination is provided for the trip computer display, the illumination is subject to the requirements of section S5.3.5. That section specifies requirements for any source of illumination within the passenger compartment which is forward of a transverse vertical plane 4.35 inch rearward of the manikin "H" point with the driver's seat in its rearmost driving position, which is not used for the controls and displays regulated by the standard, which is not a telltale, and which is capable of being illuminated while the vehicle is in motion.

In a telephone conversation with Edward Glancy of my staff, Mr. Marx Elliott advised that you are also interested in what illumination requirements may be applicable to a vehicle condition monitor. According to the information provided with your letter, the vehicle condition monitor indicates the following: door or trunk lid not shut, low outside air temperature, lamp failure, low washer fluid, and low engine coolant.

Each of the displays included in the vehicle condition monitor is a telltale. However, none of the telltales are among the displays listed in the standard. We note that the information provided with your letter indicates that the vehicle condition monitor illustrates, using a vehicle map, the operation of several lamps. If a lamp fails, the vehicle condition monitor causes the appropriate segment in the vehicle map to extinguish. While the headlamp high beam is among the lamps for which the vehicle condition monitor provides information, Mr. Elliott has advised us that this information is supplemental to the traditional high beam telltale provided on the instrument panel. It is our opinion, based on these facts, that such a supplemental display is not considered a high beam telltale within the meaning of Standard No. l0l.

The telltales included in the vehicle condition monitor are not subject to any illumination requirements. Since none of the telltales included on the vehicle condition monitor are listed in Standard No. l0l, they need not meet the illumination requirements specified by that standard for telltales. Moreover, as indicated by the language of section S5.3.5, quoted above, the illumination requirements of that section do not apply to telltales.

Sincerely

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

/ref:101 d:ll/23/88

ID: 1982-1.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/05/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: BMW of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking several questions about the use of informational readout displays in relation to FMVSS 101-80, Controls and Displays; 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems; and 208, Occupant Crash Protection.

Each of your questions assumes the use of informational readout displays as telltales. The light intensity requirements of Standard No. 101-80 currently prevent informational readout displays from being used as telltales. Section 5.3.3 of the standard requires that informational readout displays must have at least two light intensity values, a relatively high one for daytime use and a relatively low one for nighttime use. The same section requires that the light intensity of telltales shall not be variable. Since it is not possible for an informational readout display to simultaneously meet both requirements, such a display cannot be used as a telltale.

The agency has recently issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that would permit informational readout displays to be used as telltales. We have enclosed a copy of that notice.

I would like to point out the following statement in the NPRM:

Various amendments may be necessary to Standard No. 101-80, as well as to several other safety standards which include requirements for warning indicators, to permit fuller use of informational readout displays. The amendments proposed by this notice are a first step in that direction.

We would welcome any comments that you might have on this matter to assist us in future rulemaking. You may also wish to consider submitting a petition for rulemaking on any changes that you believe should be made.

The following discussion explains the effect that the proposal would have on your questions.

Question 1

Your first question asks whether the words "Fasten Seat Belts" may be used in an informational readout display instead of the seat belt warning symbol under FMVSS 101-80 and 208. The answer would be yes under the proposal. The NPRM states:

Sections S4.5.3.3(b) and S7.3 of @ 571.208 would be amended to permit the words "Fasten Belts" or "Fasten Seat Belts" as an alternative to the seat belt warning symbol in informational readout displays.

Question 2 Your second question concerns the possibility of allowing cancellation of telltales by voluntary action on the part of the driver. The question asks whether it is permissible to provide a push button that enables drivers to cancel telltales. The answer to this question, which is not dealt with in the NPRM, is no.

While the question is asked separately for the seat belt telltale and telltales not required by any safety standard in the first place, the answer is not dependent on that distinction. Section S5.3.3 of Standard No. 101-80 requires that 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. We interpret this section to mean that a telltale cannot be cancellable. If it were cancellable, the telltale would not meet the requirements that it not be variable and that it be visible to the driver under all daytime and nighttime conditions.

We note that the activation requirements for the seat belt telltale depend on whether it is for a manual belt or automatic belt. For a manual belt, section S7.3 of Standard No. 208 states that the seat belt assembly provided at the driver's seating position must be equipped with a warning system that activates for a period of not less than 4 seconds and not more than 8 seconds a continuous or flashing light. Thus, while a manufacturer has the discretion to provide an activation time of between 4 and 8 seconds, the telltale still may not be cancellable.

Section S4.5.3.3 requires a different type of warning system for automatic belts. While the audible signal must be activated for a period of not less than 4 seconds and not more than 8 seconds, the visual warning light must be activated for as long as the belt is not fastened.

Question 3

Your third question asks whether it is permissible to use an informational readout display to meet the visual brake warning system requirements of Standard No. 105. The answer would be yes under the proposal.

Section S5.3.5 of Standard No. 105 states:

Each indicator lamp shall have a lens labeled in letters not less than 1/8-inch high, which shall be legible to the driver in daylight when lighted. The lens and letters shall have contrasting colors, one of which is red . . . .

It is our interpretation that the illuminated pattern of letters and glazing of an informational readout display would constitute a "lens labeled in letters." This interpretation leaves unanswered other questions about whether a particular informational readout display would meet other requirements of Standard No. 105, such as the color requirement of section S5.3.5.

Question 4

Your fourth question asks whether an informational readout display specifying specific brake problems constitutes separate indicator lamps under the language of Standard No. 105, if a brake warning lamp is present which separately fulfills the requirements of S5.3.5 of Standard No. 105. The answer is no.

Section S3 of Standard No. 105 specifies various performance requirements for brake system indicator lamps. Under section S3.5, a manufacturer may meet the requirements either by a single common indicator or by separate indicator lamps.

It is our interpretation that if a manufacturer separately meets the requirements of section S3 by a single common indicator lamp, additional indicator lamps that are added voluntarily by the manufacturer are not subject to Standard No. 105's requirements.

Question 5

Your fifth question asks about the requirements for an informational readout display which is a telltale. The NPRM proposes the following language:

S5.3.3.2 Telltales and gauges incorporated into informational readout displays --

(a) Shall have not less than two levels of light intensity, a higher one for day and a lower one for nighttime conditions.

(b) In the case of telltales and gauges not equipped with a variable light intensity control, shall have a light intensity at the higher level provided under paragraph (a) of this section whenever the headlamps are not illuminated.

(c) In the case of telltales and gauges equipped with a variable light intensity control, shall be visible to the driver under all daytime and nighttime conditions when the illumination level is set to its lowest level.

The agency does find the system that you are considering developing very interesting. If you do submit a petition for rulemaking, there is one issue that we would appreciate your addressing. Our initial reaction to the idea of permitting drivers to cancel telltales is one of concern, since drivers might either cancel a telltale inadvertently or simply forget that they have done so. An informational readout display which flashed its warnings in sequence might answer those concerns. We would appreciate your addressing the safety consequences of those and any other alternatives that you might be considering.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.

March 19, 1981

Frank Berndt -- Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation

RE: Request for Interpretation Informational Readout Displays

Dear Mr. Berndt

This letter seeks confirmation of interpretations we discussed with Mr. Carson in our meeting with him on December 18, 1980. The questions we have relate to the use of Informational Readout Displays under FMVSS 101, 208, 105.

To better understand our questions, we are enclosing a description of the display system to which our questions apply.

Question 1

This question relates to the use of the words "Fasten Seat Belts" in the case of an informational readout display.

FMVSS 101-80, S5.2.3 permits informational readout displays to use the word or abbreviation shown in Table 2, Column 3 instead of the seat belt warning symbol. Column 3, however, provides no word or abbreviation, but instead refers to FMVSS 208. FMVSS 208, S7.3. only permits the use of words before September 1, 1980.

We believe this was an oversight when identification requirements of FMVSS 101 and 208 were consolidated in 45FR47151. In 43FR27541, it is made clear that NHTSA intends to further the development of readout displays by permitting optional use of symbols or words.

We request comment on our interpretation that the words FASTEN BELTS or FASTEN SEAT BELTS can be used in a readout display instead of a symbol to comply with the visual seat belt-warning requirements of FMVSS 101-80 and 208.

Question 2

This question relates to the activation or deactivation of displays by a voluntary manual action by the driver (pressing a push button control).

a. FMVSS 208, S7.3 requires a visual seat belt warning system that, triggered by the ignition, activates from 4 to 8 seconds. If a multi-message informational readout display is used as the visual seat belt warning (as described in Question 1), would it be permitted to provide a push button that cancels the seat belt warning by a voluntary manual action of the driver in favor of a readout for a malfunction or other warning. Would the above be permitted if a symbol in the readout went on for the duration of the 4 to 8 seconds?

b. FMVSS 101 by itself does not require that the displays listed in Table 2 be provided.

Basically the same question as 2a. applies to the other displays listed in Table 2, for which no requirement for activation in a reference standard exists.

If a multi-message informational readout display is used for any of those displays, would it be permitted to provide a push button that cancels such displays by a voluntary manual action of the driver.

Question 3

This question relates to the use of light emitting diodes or light emitting crystals to display the word "BRAKE" as required by FMVSS 105.

FMVSS 105, S5.3.5 requires a visual brake warning system using an indicator lamp with a lens labeled in letters. Would it be permissible to use an informational readout display for this purpose, considering the illuminated pattern of letters and its glazing as a "lens labeled in letters?"

Question 4

This question relates to the display of clarifying words in addition to the display "BRAKE."

FMVSS 105, S5.3.5 permits the use of a single brake warning indicator lamp, but requires that if separate indicator lamps are used for the various functions of S5.3.1(a)-(d), then each indicator must be separately and appropriately labeled. However, FMVSS 101-80, S5.2.3 in addition to the required words of Table 2, Column 3, permits the use of clarifying words at the manufacturer's discretion. If a separate, single brake warning indicator lamp, which by itself fulfills the requirements of FMVSS 105, is supplemented by an informational readout specifying the particular brake problem, would the readout be considered clarifying words or separate indicator lamp? The importance of this question is that, in the event of function checking (S5.3.2) or multi-malfunction (S5.3.5), while the BRAKE warning light would illuminate, the readout display could only illuminate one message at a time relative to the S5.3.1(a)-(d) functions.

We request comment on our interpretation that the readout constitutes clarifying words rather than separate indicator lamps because the brake warning lamp separately fulfills the requirements of S5.3.5.

Question 5

This question relates to the light intensity of informational readout displays.

FMVSS 101 S5.3.3.b requires: ". . . light intensities for informational readout systems shall have at least two values . . ." and ". . . The light intensity of each telltale shall not be variable and shall be . . . . visible to the driver under all daytime and nighttime conditions."

What are the requirements for an informational readout display if it displays a message which, by definition of FMVSS 101, S4, qualifies as a telltale?

We would appreciate your giving these questions your earliest possible attention.

Very truly yours

Karl-Heinz Ziwica, Manager -- Safety & Emission Control Engineering

Enclosures

DESCRIPTION OF SYSTEM

Display fields above speedometer, immediately in front of driver.

(Graphics omitted)

Display I

This display uses light emitting diodes or light emitting crystals to display words.

It displays the word "BRAKE" whenever required by FMVSS 105. Specific brake information will simultaneously appear on Display II.

Display II

This display uses light emitting diodes or light emitting crystals to display words.

This information readout display (multi-message) informs the driver of malfunctions or provides warnings.

Messages displayed are some of those listed in FMVSS 101-80, Table 2:

- Fasten seat belts

- Fuel level

- Oil pressure

- Coolant temperature

- Electrical charge

and in addition terms such as

- Brake wear

- Headlamp or taillamp

- Fluid levels (engine oil, transmission oil, coolant, washer)

In the event of a multi-malfunction, a computer chooses the message to be displayed on the basis of priority. The symbol to the right of the message field informs the driver of the existence of a multi-malfunction.

Display III

A warning light (lens and bulb) calls for the driver's attention and informs him of the importance of the message by either a blinking (high priority) or steady illumination (low priority).

Selector Control

With this push button control the driver can manually activate or deactivate the message on Display II (multi-message display).

In the case of a double malfunction, the first malfunction is indicated; after pressing the push button, the display indicates the second malfunction.

Example of the sequence of displays which are illuminated in case of a double malfunction: (Graphics omitted)

DRIVER PRESSES THE SELECTOR CONTROL.

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht87-1.91

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/04/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Paul Utans

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Paul Utans Vice President Government Affairs Subaru of America P.O. Box 6000 Cherry Hill, NJ 08034-6000

Dear Mr. Utans:

This responds to your letter of April 21, 1987, concerning the Pact 581 Bumper Standard. You asked whether a vehicle equipped with a suspension system whose height is adjustable by the driver is tested at the manufacturer's engine-on and engine-off nominal design height.

On May 6, 1986, I responded to a similar request that you made for an interpretation. My letter (copy enclosed) stated that it is our interpretation that a vehicle must be capable of meeting the standard" damage criteria at any height position to wh ich the suspension can be adjusted.

Your current request for an interpretation does not provide new arguments which indicate that our earlier interpretation was incorrect. Therefore, I must reaffirm that earlier opinion.

As we indicated in the May 6, 1986 letter, we appreciate your concern that the very reason that thy adjustable height is provided (increased ground clearance and ramp angle for special operations) is partially negated by requiring bumpers to extend lo w enough to provide Part 581 protection at the elevated settings. The letter stated, however, that if the agency were to consider establishing special provisions in Part 581 for vehicles with adjustable suspension height control systems, it would need to be done in rulemaking. See section 102(c)(1) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act.

I would also note that in a meeting in March of this year, a member of my staff advised your representatives Chat your company could submit a petition for rulemaking requesting an amendment to Pact 581. The procedures for submitting a petition for rulema king are set forth at 49 CFR Pact 552. If You should submit a petition, the agency would decide whether to grant it in accordance with statutory criteria.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure

April 21, 1987 Erika Z. Jones, Esquire Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Interpretation of 49 CFR Part 581, Bumper Standard

Dear Ms. Jones:

Subaru of America, Inc. (SOA) requests an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 581, Bumper Standard, with respect to the test conditions applicable to passenger motor vehicles other than multipurpose passenger vehicles that have a suspension system whose height is driver-controllable under certain limited operating conditions.

SOA would like confirmation of its interpretation that, because height of an adjustable suspension system is not specified as one of the conditions in S581.6, compliance with the Bumper Standard is demonstrated at the manufacturer'; engine-on and engine- off nominal design height.

The Subaru air suspension system (fitted only to top-of-the-line, four-wheel-drive vehicles) maintains constant ground clearance regardless of vehicle load by adjusting the volume in each of four air springs in accordance with a signal from a vehicle hei ght sensor installed in each air spring. For driving on poor or snow-covered roads, with four wheel drive engaged, the driver may activate a switch to select a "High" suspension position offering increased ground clearance. This "High" setting is intende d for use only in special circumstances where-extra ground clearance is desirable. Having to meet the Part 581 pendulum requirements at such setting would partially negate the increased clearance intended to be provided, particularly ramp angle. When the ignition is switched to the "off" position, the suspension returns to "normal" for parking to ensure that the bumpers provide proper protection. When the ignition is switched to the "on" position, "High" ground clearance must be reselected, if desired.

SOA has no indications that its present air suspension system vehicles are being operated in the "High" position under conditions other than those intended and recommended by Subaru. (Demographics of the owners of these vehicles show more of them to be m arried, older, better educated and affluent than those of competing vehicles.)

Although the standard does not take into account load variances that can result in changes in bumper height (and therefore the level of protection provided) the Subaru system is load-compensating and therefore offers the same protection at various condit ions of vehicle loading, as well as preserves headlamp aim.

Subaru is currently studying the feasibility of certifying its MPV's as passenger cars. However, testing at the "High" ground clearance position would make it literally impossible for four wheel drive MPV's with variable height air suspension systems to meet passenger car bumper standards, in spite of the 5 mph systems new for the 1987 model year.

Should you need further information about this request, please contact Mr. Alfred Gloddeck in SOA's Washington office, telephone (202) 295-4994.

Sincerely, SUBARU OF AMERICA INC. Paul Utans Vice President Government Affairs

ID: 07-004355as

ID: nht94-5.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 23, 1994

FROM: Deborah K. Nowak-Vanderhoef -- Attorney, GM

TO: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Alternative To 9005 & 9006 Bulbs:

ATTACHMT: Attached to 1/27/95 letter from Philip R. Recht to Deborah K. Nowak-Vanderhoef (A43; Std. 108)

TEXT: General Motors Corporation (GM), in conjunction with Osram Sylvania Inc., has developed alternatives to two existing HB3 and HB4 (9005 and 9006) bulbs approved for automotive use in FMVSS 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. The alt ernative bulbs have a different base configuration than the currently approved bulbs, but in all other ways are identical. The alternative configuration would allow packaging flexibility while still maintaining all photometric/output characteristics of the currently approved 9005-6 bulbs.

Since the alternative bulbs improve packaging flexibility without affecting the output of the lamps, GM would like the alternative bulbs to be interchangeable with the currently approved 9005-6 bulbs. We request your Office's guidance as to the most app ropriate method for seeking approval of the alternative bulb configurations.

BACKGROUND

The currently approved 9005-6 bulbs have bases that form right angles (see attachment 1). This configuration provided the most appropriate means of meeting automotive packaging considerations when these bulbs were originally approved.

Since then, however, aerodynamics and styling have dramatically affected the construction of the front of vehicles. In some instances it has become very difficult to package the currently approved 9005-6 bulbs. In addition, the bulbs can be difficult t o access for replacement.

It occurred to GM and Osram Sylvania that the situation could be improved with a simple modification to the existing 9005-6 bulbs. By straightening the base of these bulbs (see attachment 2), while keeping all other design criteria the same, the packagi ng could be improved without affecting any performance characteristics of the bulbs.

Since the new configurations are identical with the currently approved bulbs in all ways other than the bases, GM believes it appropriate to allow them to be interchangeable with the existing 9005-6 bulbs. This would further enhance packaging flexibilit y by allowing alternative configurations which might be better suited to late program design changes.

The alternative bulbs will have little or no affect on the consumer. A vehicle will come equipped with one of the bulb configurations, and the operator's manual will reference the appropriate configuration. If the alternative bulb is inadvertently purc hased for replacement, it could be used in all cases except in the highly unlikely circumstance that the vehicle packaging is so restrictive as to prevent the bulb from being inserted. Once inserted it is designed to perform identically to the bulb that has been replaced, regardless of the configuration of the base. In the unlikely case that the bulb could not be inserted because of restrictive packaging, the owner would need only to return the inappropriate bulb for the bulb approved for his or her v ehicle - a situation that exists today.

To further minimize any confusion on the part of the consumer, we would recommend that the alternative bulbs have a unique identifier to distinguish them from the current bulbs. This could easily be accomplished by adding a character to the codes of the existing bulb. For example, HB3S and HB4S could be used to identify the alternative bulb configurations of HB3 and HB4.

APPROVAL PROCESS

GM believes there are three possible methods that could be used for seeking approval of the 9005-6 bulb alternative configurations. They are

1. Seek approval of the alternative configuration through 49 CFR Part 564.

The language of Part 564 suggest that we would be unable to maintain interchangeability between alternative configurations and the currently approved 9005-6 bulbs. We understand these provisions were adopted to prevent interchangeability between bulb s with different photometric output, since such interchangeability could have drastic effects on headlamp beam patterns. This, however, is not the case with the alternative bulbs GM proposes. Except for the bases, they are identical in all respects to the currently approved 9005-6 bulbs. Therefore, there is no photometric difference between the two sets of bulbs, and hence, no safety concern.

Still, the wording in Part 564 would suggest that the alternative bulbs we developed would require a new or different connector than 9005-6. We do not believe that this is appropriate in this instance, and seek clarification of whether Part 564 direc tly applies to this circumstance.

2. Petition for FMVSS 108 rulemaking to allow new bulb configurations as alternatives to the currently approved 9005-6 bulbs.

While this appears to be a valid method for obtaining approval of the proposed configurations, it is our understanding that NHTSA is planning to transfer all bulb specifications from the body of FMVSS 108 into Part 564. Therefore, we believe that the agency may not welcome a petition to amend FMVSS 108 to comprehend additional bulbs (or new bulb configurations).

3. Request that the currently approved 9005-6 bulbs be placed in Part 564 with the alternative configurations included on the drawing. Attachment 3 contains a draft of what the drawings might look like.

Please confirm which method the agency believes is most appropriate for seeking approval of the new alternative bulbs which, as described above, except for their bases perform identically to the currently approved 9005-6 bulbs.

Sincerely,