Interpretation ID: 1982-3.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/14/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Tokai Rika Co. Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. T. Asai Manager Tokai Rika Co., Ltd. New York Office One Harmon Plaza Secaucus, New Jersey 07094

Dear Mr. Asai:

This responds to your letter of October 15, 1982, asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. Your letter concerned the symbols specified by that standard for the windshield defrosting and defogging system control and the rear window defrosting and defogging system control. You asked whether it is permissible to use the symbols specified by EEC Directive 78/316/EEC for those controls, stating that there are only slight differences between the symbols specified by Standard No. 101 and the EEC directive. As explained below, the answer to your question is yes.

The preamble to the final rule establishing current Standard No. 101 explained that minor deviations are allowed from the symbols designated by the standard, as long as the symbol used substantially resembles that specified in the standard. 43 FR 27541, June 26, 1978. (This statement was noted in your letter.)

For the windshield defrosting and defogging system control, both our standard and the EEC directive specify three curving arrows (representing rising air) superimposed on a form representing a windshield. For the rear window defrosting and defogging system control, both documents specify three curving arrows superimposed on a form representing a rear window. The forms representing the windshield and the rear window are the same for both Standard No. 101 and the EEC directive. Further, the three curving arrows are superimposed over the windshield or rear window by both documents in the same manner. The only apparent difference between the symbols specified by the two documents is the number of curves in each of the three arrows. The arrows specified by the EEC directive have the curves each, while the arrows specified by Standard No. 101 have three curves.

In our opinion, the deviation you described falls within the intent of the June 1978 statement to permit symbols that are identical to the pictured ones except in some minor respect. The deviation is indeed minor since one must closely examine the two EEC symbols in question and those specified by Standard No. 101 to determine if there is any difference at all.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

October 15, 1982

Mr. Frank Berndt National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sirs:

We wish to inquire about the identifying symbols of windshield and rear window defrosting and defogging system.

We are presently supplying vehicle manufacturers with defrosting and defogging switches which will be mounted on the vehicles intended for U. S. and European markets. As you may know, however, there are slight differences between the identifying symbol designated in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101 - Controls and Displays and those in EEC Directive 78/316/EEC - Identification of Controls. Tell-Tales and Indicators. The waved arrows on the symbols bear much resemblance, but are not identical, as you can see from the attached copies, which were taken from the standards.

We would like to know if the identifying symbols designated in the above mentioned Directive are acceptable for use in the U.S., although, they vary slightly. In fact , it was stated in an early notice (Docket No. 1-18: Notice 13, 43 FR 27541, June 26, 1978) that "minor deviations are allowed as long as the symbol used substantially resembles that specified in the standard."

If our proposal proves unacceptable, hopefully, in the future steps will be taken to implement the harmonization of both these standards.

Your prompt consideration will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

TOKAI RIKA CO., LTD.

T. Asai Manager

TA:dt Attachment