ID: nht90-3.94

TYPE: Interpretation--NHTSA

DATE: September 10, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Edward Kultgen -- Secretary, Bird-Kultgen Ford-Volkswagen

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-29-90 from E. Kultgen to S.P. Wood (OCC 4843); Also attached to letter dated 5-10-82 from F. Berndt (Signature by S.P. Wood) to M.V. Chauvin; Also attached to letter dated 3-27-78 from J.J. Levin, Jr. to B. Nanninga ( VSA 102(14)); Also attached to letter dated 8-3-77 from J.J. Levin, Jr. to J.L. O'Connell (VSA 102(14)); Also attached to letter dated 7-12-77 from J.J. Levin, Jr. to J. Thomason (VSA 102(14))

TEXT:

This is in response to your letter to Stephen Wood of this office concerning the applicability of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to the sale of used vehicles used to transport students. Specifically, you asked whether sec tion 108(b)(1), or any other section of the Safety Act, applies to the retail sale of used vehicles. As an example, you gave a small, church-related school seeking to buy a used 15 passenger van for purposes that included the transportation of students. You also requested a definition of "student" as that term is used in determining the applicability of Federal requirements relating to school buses.

For purposes of this discussion, it is helpful to distinguish between two separate sets of regulations which may be applicable to school buses. The first set consists of the motor vehicle safety standards we issued under the Safety Act, and which apply t o the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. Under the Safety Act, manufacturers are required to certify that their new vehicles meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and sellers and lessors of new motor vehicles are required to sell or lease only complying vehicles.

Since NHTSA's standards do not apply to used motor vehicles-- i.e., motor vehicles that have been purchased for the first time in good faith for purposes other than resale--or to the use of motor vehicles, sales transactions involving used school buses a re not covered by Safety Act requirements. Thus, the used vans you asked about are not required by federal law to comply with the FMVSS when they are sold to subsequent purchasers.

The second set of regulations which may be applicable to school buses are a set of guidelines issued by this agency for State highway safety programs under the authority of the Highway Safety Act of 1966. These guidelines, called Highway Safety Program G uidelines, cover a wide range of subjects. Individual States have chosen to adopt some or all of these guidelines as their own policies governing their highway safety programs. In particular, Guideline No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, could affect t he use of used vehicles to transport students. A review of state law would determine which of the Guideline's recommendations have been adopted by Texas as a part of its highway safety program.

Your second question asked whether students enrolled in an MHMR developmental learning program, community college, church youth groups or after-school or summer day camps would be considered "students" in determining the applicability of the Federal stan dards. Although I cannot address the first example without knowing the nature of a "MHMR children's developmental learning program," I believe the remaining examples are discussed in the enclosed letters of interpretation issued by this office, includin g the May 10, 1982 letter to Martin Chauvin, the March 27, 1978 letter to Bill Nanninga, the August 3, 1977 letter to John O'Connell, and the July 12, 1977 letter to Jim Thomason.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact David Greenburg of my staff, at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht90-3.95

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 10, 1990

FROM: Donald W. Vierimaa -- Vice President-Engineering, Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-3-90 from P.J. Rice to D.W. Vierimaa (A36; Std. 115, Part 565)

TEXT:

The attached TTMA Recommended Practice Number 56, "Trailer Vehicle Identification Number," is being submitted to our Board of Directors for Publication approval on September 28, 1990. We would appreciate your review of this publication and assurance tha t it is consistent with your regulations and interpretations. Please advise us if it is consistent or requires any changes to be consistent with your regulations and interpretations.

ID: nht90-3.96

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 12, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: M. Guy Dorleans -- Manager, Regulatory Affairs Department Division Elairage-France, Valeo

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-19-90 from G. Dorleans to P.J. Rice (OCC 503); Also attached to a study entitled Aiming Concept for Headlamps, Solution 3; Also attached to drawing (graphics omitted)

TEXT:

This is in further reply to the letter you and Monsieur Ravier sent on July 19, 1990, with respect to the acceptability of "Aiming concept for headlamps. Solution 3" under Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Ms. DeMeter informed Monsieur Ravier on A ugust 8, 1990, that your request for confidentiality of the drawing enclosed had been granted. You did not make a similar request for treatment of your two-page description of Solution 3, and accordingly we are incorporating it by reference in this lett er, and it will be made a part of all public copies of this interpretation.

Section S7.7.5 of Standard No. 108 states that "When a headlamp system is installed on a motor vehicle, it shall be aimable with either an externally applied aiming device, or on-vehicle headlighting aiming devices installed by the vehicle manufacturer." Section S7.7.5.1 sets forth the requirements for external aiming, and section S7.7.5.2 those for on-vehicle aiming. Solution 3 features a lamp which has three aiming pads on the lens, for use with a mechanical aiming device in accordance with SAE requ irements. However, the lamp also has a movable reflector and various horizontal and vertical aim features that appear to be related to on-vehicle aiming. The horizontal and vertical aiming screws, while having markings of angles similar to that require d for on-vehicle aiming devices, are used exclusively in conjunction with the SAE mechanical aiming device. Therefore, we would consider Solution 3 to be a lamp system intended to be aimable by external means, as provided in section S7.7.5.1.

Since this system departs from the procedure normally used with the SAE mechanical aimers, we commend you in your intent to provide appropriate aiming instructions for such headlighting systems with the vehicles operator's manual, even though it is not r equired by Standard No. 108.

I hope that this is responsive to your question.

ID: nht90-3.97

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 13, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Robert Erhardt -- Senior Project Engineer, Advance Transformer Co.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-8-90 from R. Erhardt to P.J. Rice (OCC 5113)

TEXT:

This is in response to your letter of August 8, 1990, received on the 21st. Although the ZIP code was correct, the address was not. For your future use, the agency's address is 400 7th Street SW.

You wish to road test engineering samples of a new type of headlamp system by equipping one to 10 private and/or company vehicles with them. The test would continue indefinitely for lifetime and reliability evaluation. You would like to be advised of th e laws concerning such an undertaking.

We assume that the experimental headlamp system is presently outside the coverage of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, the Federal vehicle standard on lighting, and that the existing headlamp system that meets Standard No. 108 would be removed so th at the new one could be installed. Modifications to vehicles in use are directly addressed by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). Under this section, "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle" pursuant to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. A "motor vehicle repair business" is defi ned by that section as any person who holds himself out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation. The prohibition, you will note, does not extend to the vehicle owner.

With respect to your planned test procedure, removal of the vehicle's original headlamp system would render it inoperative within the meaning of the statutory language. However, if the vehicles concerned were owned by the company, and if the headlamp re moval were performed in a company garage by company personnel, the prohibition would not apply. In addition, if the vehicles were privately owned and either the owner or the company garage removed the headlamps, the prohibition also would not apply (ass uming that the company garage does not repair non-company vehicles for compensation).

The question of the legality of use of the experimental system after its installation is determinable under the laws of the States where the vehicles are registered and will be operated. Thus, we suggest that you contact the Department of Motor Vehicles in Springfield for an interpretation under local law. If the modified vehicles will be operated in States other than Illinois, we recommend that you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

Given your wish to begin the program as early as August 27, you may telephone Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263) should you have any further questions.

ID: nht90-3.98

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 5, 1990

FROM: Roger C. Fairchild -- Esq., Shutler and Low

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-26-90 from P.J. Rice to R.C. Fairchild (A36; Std. 109; Std. 110; Std. 119; Std. 120)

TEXT:

Our firm advises a number of motor vehicle industry clients regarding their obligations under various Federal statutes and regulations. On behalf of a client, we request your opinion regarding the proper interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 110 and 120 (49 C.F.R. 571.110 and 571.120), as they relate to certain recommendations for tire selection and pressure/load determinations contained in publications of the Tire and Rim Association ("TRA").

Background

The TRA Year Book is one of the tire industry standardization publications that are listed in section 4.4.1(b) of FMVSS 109 and in section 5.1(b) of FMVSS 119. Under section 4.2.1(c) of FMVSS 109 and section 6.6 of FMVSS 119, tires must have maximum load ratings (molded on the sidewall in accordance with section 4.3(c) of FMVSS 109 and section 6.5(d) of FMVSS 119) that are not less than the lowest of any specified values printed in the listed publications, for tires of that size designation. Under section 4.2.1 of FMVSS 110, the vehicle maximum load on a tire may not be greater than the maximum load rating on the tire sidewall. In addition, section 4.3.1(c) of FMVSS 110 provides that, if a tire pressure other than the maximum pressure is specified on a passenger car tire placard, the vehicle loading condition for that pressure must be specified, and that pressure must be one that will support the vehicle load on the applicable tire, as specified in the listed publications or in a separate submittal by the tire manufacturer. Moreover, it is our understanding that NHTSA has interpreted FMVSS 120 to require that, for vehicles other than passenger cars, the vehicle load on each tire (at the recommended inflation pressure) must not exceed the tire's load rating at that pressure, as specified in the listed publications.

Thus, NHTSA generally requires that the tire selection process and tire information labels must reflect pressure/load relationships that are determined by reference to publications such as the TRA Year Book. However, NHTSA standards do not specify the exact part of each of these publications that is to be used in determining compliance with NHTSA standards. In fact, the publications include some "advisory" requirements that do not appear to be used in determining compliance with the FMVSS.

Examples of TRA criteria that are not clearly referred to in NHTSA standards are those criteria relating to vehicle speed capability.

Although FMVSS 109 and 119 include tire high speed tests, we understand that, in general, no separate provision is made in the FMVSS to account for vehicle high speed capability.

Questions

We request that you inform us as to whether the following three TRA criteria are used in determining compliance with FMVSS:

1. Vehicle Load Adjustment for Speed (Passenger Cars)

The 1990 edition of the TRA Year Book provides that "for applications above 210 km/h (130 mph), both vehicle normal load and vehicle maximum load shall be multiplied by a factor" that is based on the vehicle's maximum speed capability (see Enclosure 1). The Year Book goes on to state that "the resultant vehicle normal load must not exceed 88 percent of the tire maximum load and the resultant vehicle maximum load must not exceed the tire maximum load. In addition, the resultant vehicle maximum load as determined above must not exceed the tire load corresponding to the inflation pressure specified by the vehicle manufacturer."

It is our understanding that the adjustment factor described above is not used in determining compliance with FMVSS 110 or 120. As with the TRA provisions, section 4.2 of FMVSS 110 requires that the vehicle normal load on a tire must not exceed 88 percent of the tire's maximum load rating and the vehicle maximum load on a tire must not exceed the maximum load rating (as marked on the tire sidewall). However, unlike the TRA provisions, the terms "vehicle normal load" and "vehicle maximum load" are defined in section 3 of FMVSS 110 without reference to the speed capability of the vehicle. No explicit reference to the above described adjustment factor appears anywhere in the Federal standards. Therefore, we conclude that the vehicle speed adjustment factor is not applicable under the Federal standards.

2. Vehicle Speed Adjustment for Inflation Pressure (Passenger Cars)

The TRA Year Book also requires that the "speed category of the tire must match or exceed the theoretical maximum speed of the vehicle." The theoretical maximum speed of the vehicle is defined by TRA as the actual maximum speed, as adjusted for tire inflation pressure using another factor specified by TRA. (See Enclosure 2.) TRA also recommends minimum inflation pressures for vehicles of high maximum speed capability. We are aware of no reference anywhere in NHTSA regulations to tire speed categories. Therefore, it is our understanding that the TRA provisions set forth in Enclosure 2 are not used in determining compliance with Federal safety standards.

3. Load Limits at Various Speeds for Diagonal and Radial Ply Truck Tires

TRA also provides for adjustments in recommended tire inflation pressure and "service load" for tires used on trucks and buses, depending on the maximum speed capability of the vehicle (see Enclosure 3).

FMVSS 120 does not explicitly define the required tire pressure/load relationships for trucks and buses. However, section 5.1.2 of that standard provides that the sum of the maximum load ratings of the tires

fitted to an axle must not be less than the applicable GAWR. The maximum load ratings of truck tires are determined under section 6.6 of FMVSS 119 without reference to the vehicle application. The only explicit reference in FMVSS 120 to vehicle maximum speed capability is an exclusion from the requirements of section 5.1.2 for vehicles whose maximum speed attainable in 2 miles is 50 mph or less. Thus, we do not see a basis for using the TRA standard set forth in Enclosure 3 to determine compliance with Federal standards.

Conclusion

In our opinion, the TRA Standards described above should not be used in determining compliance with Federal safety standards. In general, using such private standards would have the effect of delegating to several distinct organizations the power to amend Federal standards in ways that are potentially inconsistent. Moreover, TRA standards are typically made effective on publication, so no advance lead-time would be provided to vehicle manufacturers with respect to new TRA standards. (If NHTSA determines that the above mentioned "advisory" requirements of the TRA standards must be used in determining compliance with the FMVSS, please inform us how NHTSA would deal with this lead-time concern, consistent with section 103(e) of the Safety Act.)

If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at 818-1320 (local number).

Enclosures

Selection of Tires for Passenger Cars and Station Wagons (Source: The Tire and Rim Association 1990 Year Book) (text omitted.)

Vehicle Speed Adjustment (for inflation pressure) (text omitted).

Load Limits at Various Speeds for Diagonal and Radial Ply Truck Tires Used on Improved Surfaces (text omitted).

ID: nht90-3.99

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 25, 1990

FROM: Satoshi Nishibori -- Vice President, Industry-Government Affairs, Nissan Research and Development, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-26-90 from P.J. Rice to S. Nishibori (A36; Std. 114); Also attached to Federal Register, Vol. 55, No. 104, 5-30-90 Edition), pages 21868-21876 (text omitted)

TEXT:

On June 29, 1990, Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. ("Nissan"), submitted to NHTSA petition for reconsideration regarding the May 30 amendments to FMVSS 114. In that petition, Nissan requested that NHTSA amend FMVSS 114 insofar as necessary to permit the continued use of three systems on vehicles that are equipped with automatic transmissions. These systems, as described in the petition, are a transmission shift lock override, an emergency key release, and a transmission park lock system.

Nissan filed its petition within 30 days of the issuance of the final rule, as required under 49 CFR 553.35, in order to preserve its right to request reconsideration of the rule. However, based on our review of the final rule and after demonstrating the Nissan systems to agency staff on July 13, it appears that the determination of whether these systems comply with the amended rule is not entirely clear. Therefore, we request your opinion as to whether the these systems are consistent with the requirements established in the May 30 notice.

Shift Lock Emergency Override

The shift lock emergency override system is operable by depressing a button on the lower, rear portion (as viewed by the driver) of the shift lever. By depressing the button, the transmission may be shifted out of "park," independent of the ignition key position or whether the key is in the ignition switch. Nissan considers this system to be necessary to necessary to permit the towing of a vehicle having an inoperative electrical system (e.g., with a battery that failed overnight). Without the device, the electrically powered transmission could not be shifted out of "PARK," thereby complicating the process of towing of the vehicle to a repair facility.

The compliance concern with respect to this system involves the new requirement that the "key-locking system shall prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in 'park' or becomes locked in 'park' as the direct result of removing the key." See section 4.2(b).

The Nissan system prevents removal of the key whenever the transmission is in a position other than "park," consistent with this provision; the key may be removed only when the transmission has been shifted into "park" (except when using the emergency key release, described below). When the transmission is shifted into "park" and the key is removed, the transmission remains locked in "park" until it is unlocked, either by

turning the ignition key to the "on" position and depressing the brake pedal or by operating the emergency shift release override. Thus, the Nissan system appears to be consistent with the language of section 4.2(b).

Please inform us whether this system complies with the recent amendments to FMVSS 114.

In our petition for reconsideration (section 1(b)), we described an alternative shift lock system, in which the manual override would be operable only after removing a cover over the override lever. We believe that this system would also comply with the amended rule, for the reasons set forth above, with respect to our current system. It should be noted that the alternative system would prevent shifting the transmission out of the "park" position when the ignition key has been removed, so long as the vehicle is in its normal (fully assembled) operating mode. Only after the cover over the override lever has been removed and the lever has been activated can the shift lever be moved in this situation. Please inform us as to whether this alternative system would comply with the amended rule.

Emergency Key Release

The second Nissan system facilitates removal of the ignition key in the event of an electrical system failure. In that event, the ignition key lock system would prevent removal of the key. Moving the transmission shift lever to the "park" position, if the failure occurs when the transmission is in a position other than "park," would not de-activate the electrically operated key-lock, due to the absence of electrical power. Nissan's emergency key release system permits overriding the ignition key lock in this situation, so that the ignition key can be removed from the vehicle and the driver can lock the vehicle and leave to seek assistance.

In the normal vehicle operating mode, the Nissan system clearly complies with section 4.2(b), since it prevents ignition key removal unless the transmission lever is in the "park" position. The emergency key release system permits key removal only after some disassembly and manipulation of the key lock have been performed. The emergency key release override is activated by first removing a cover over the ignition switch, by using a screw driver or similar tool. Next, a hidden lever that is located inside the exposed ignition switch compartment in the steering column must be manipulated, again using an object such as a screw driver.

We believe that the emergency key release system presents no safety or theft protection concerns. For example, it would be extremely difficult to activate the emergency override while the vehicle is in motion. Similarly, we believe that it is extremely unlikely that the override would encourage drivers to leave their ignition keys in their vehicles and thereby risk vehicle theft. The relative difficulty of the override process makes either of these circumstances quite unlikely.

It should be noted that virtually any key locking system can be overriden through some form of lock disassembly and associated procedures. Thus, the Nissan system differs from others in this regard at most as a matter

of degree.

We request your opinion as to whether the Nissan emergency key release system complies with FMVSS 114.

Park Lock System

Nissan's park lock system prevents drivers from inadvertently depressing the accelerator pedal rather than the brake pedal when shifting a vehicle out of "park." The transmission shift lever can be moved from the "park" position only if two conditions are met:

1) the ignition key is in the "on" position; and

2) the brake pedal is depressed.

If the transmission is placed in "park," the shift lever locks in that position when the ignition key is turned to the "off" position.

Nissan was initially concerned that this system might not comply with section 4.3 of FMVSS 114 since, as noted above, the ignition key activates the transmission shift lock. However, under the wording adopted in NHTSA's final rule, it is only the "key-locking system described in section 4.2(b)" that may not be activated by turning "off" the ignition key. Section 4.2(b) now appears to apply only to the steering column lock and the key removal lock features (which are not activated by turning "off" the ignition), not the transmission shift lock. Therefore, we now believe that the park lock system complies with section 4.3.

It is our understanding that the agency's intent in establishing section 4.3 was to prevent the potentially dangerous situation that could result if the ignition key of a moving vehicle were turned to the "off" position and the steering column then became locked. In that situation, it would be impossible to steer the vehicle. The Nissan park lock system presents no concern of this sort.

Please inform us whether our current understanding on this matter is correct.

To the extent that you conclude that the three Nissan systems comply with the FMVSS 114 amendments, the requests made in our petition for reconsideration would become moot. For any of these systems that you determine to comply with the standard, as amended, please consider the relevant portion of our petition to be withdrawn. If you determine that any of the systems do not comply, Nissan requests that you consider the applicable portions of the petition and amend the standard to permit the use of the systems.

If you have any questions on this matter, please contact Mr. Kazuo Iwasaki of my staff, at 466-5284.

ID: nht90-4.1

ID: nht90-4.10

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 17, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Samson Helfgott -- Esq., Helfgott & Karas, P.C.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-11-90 from S. Helfgott to S.P. Wood (OCC 4890)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of June 11, 1990 (Your file CAIN 8877), with respect to the permissibility under Standard No. 108 of the use of amber lamps on the rear of motor vehicles.

You have referenced our letter to you of March 30, 1989, on the use of a single amber lamp adjacent to, but separate from, the center highmounted stop lamp. Your client wishes to utilize the amber center lamp in conjunction with rear amber turn signal l amps to provide an amber triangular array on the rear. The array would be activated when the ignition is turned on, and remain activated except when the stop lamps were activated (which, with the red center lamp, provide a red triangular array). With r espect to the triangular amber lamp array you have asked the following four questions:

"1. The possibility of utilizing the amber turn signals as tail lights, instead of the red tail lamps. This is the same as is now in effect on the front of all vehicles."

Standard No. 108 requires that the color of taillamps be red. Therefore amber turn signal lamps could not serve as substitutes for taillamps. Your comment about frontal lighting is not exactly in point. A turn signal lamp may be combined with a parking lamp (provided the requirements for each are met) but Standard No. 108 requires that both be amber in color.

"2. The possibility of supplementing existing tail lamps with the presence of the amber lamps."

We do not regard this as a true supplement because the color of the array differs from that of the taillamps required by Standard No. 108. However, like taillamps, the array is intended to indicate the presence of a vehicle. The question is, whether an array of three amber lamps would impair the effectiveness of the required two red taillamps. As we advised in our letter of March 30, 1989, additional lighting equipment is permissible as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equ ipment that the standard requires. We cautioned that you should consider whether steady-burning amber lamps might confuse following drivers, who would probably be unused to seeing steady burning amber lamps on the rear of a vehicle. Because you have no t informed us as to the intended candela of the array, we cannot advise with any assurance whether the amber array would impair the effectiveness of the required red taillamps. Certainly if the candela of the triple amber arrray exceeded that of the red taillamps a basis would appear to exist for a judgment of impairment.

"3. The possibility of using the amber lamps as daytime running lamps on the rear of a vehicle.

Under this scenario, the amber array would function as daytime presence lamps, a function not provided by any rear lighting system required by Standard No. 108. The question therefore is whether such a system would impair the effectiveness of the signal lamps required by Standard No. 108. These are hazard warning signals, turn signals, and stop lamps.

With respect to the hazard warning signals, these operate through the turn signal lamps, and, although operable when the vehicle is in motion, they are designed to operate when the ignition is not on (i.e., when the triple array would be deactivated). T herefore, we do not believe that the triple array would impair the effectiveness of the hazard warning signals.

As for impairment of the turn signals, we must distinguish between those that are amber and those that are red. Again, we raise the possibility that confusion could exist if the candela of the triple array exceeds that of an amber turn signal system. I t is imperative that following drivers understand without hesitation the signals provided by other vehicles in front of them. Confusion may be less likely to exist if the required signal lamp and the triple array differ in color.

Concerning the stop lamps, you have informed us that the triple array is deactivated when the stop lamps come on. In this event, there would be appear to be no impairment of the stop signals.

"4. The possibility of utilizing the 'amber triangular array' as described above."

In our view, no specific Federal rulemaking appears required for your client to offer its system for installation on motor vehicles, subject to the constraints expressed in this letter and the letter of March 30, 1989. As the earlier letter explains, the determination of whether there is impairment is initially made by a manufacturer who wishes to offer the system as new vehicle equipment. In the aftermarket, installation of the system must not, in effect, result in impairment of required lighting equi pment, but nevertheless the system is subject to State and local lighting laws.

We have forwarded a copy of your letter and our response to the agency's Office of Research and Development for their information. We appreciate your client's interest in motor vehicle safety.

ID: nht90-4.100

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: December 17, 1990

FROM: Paul Rice Jackson -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Dean J. Long -- Design Engineer, VDO-YAZAKI Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-8-90 from Dean J. Long (OCC 5100)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking about requirements concerning two proposed automotive instrument panel telltale warnings. I apologize for the delay in this response.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 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 motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Your first proposed telltale design is for "4 wheel antilock brake application." The design would include a picture of a skidding car and the letters "4W ABS." You asked whether this telltale would fulfill applicable requirements or whether the ISO "ABS" symbol must be used.

Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays, requires that new vehicles with any display listed in the standard must meet specified requirements for the location, identification and illumination of such display. In addition, certain other standards, including Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, include requirements relating to vehicle displays.

Standards No. 101 and No. 105 include several requirements for telltales indicating malfunction in an antilock brake system. Copies of these standards are enclosed for your convenience. Among other things, these standards specify the following identifying words or abbreviation for an antilock malfunction telltale: "Antilock, Anti-lock or ABS." The standards also permit additional words or symbols to be used for the purpose of clarity. See section S5.2.3 of Standard No. 101 and section S5.3.5(a) of Standard No. 105.

It is unclear from your letter whether your proposed telltale would indicate "malfunction" in an antilock brake system, since you describe it as indicating "4 wheel antilock brake application." If the telltale is for antilock malfunction, it would appear to meet the requirements specified in Standards No. 101 and No. 105 for identifying words or symbols, since it includes the abbreviation "ABS," and the other words/symbols can be considered to be for the purpose of clarity. Of course, the telltale would also need to meet the other requirements specified in those standards, e.g., size of letters, color, etc.

If the telltale does not indicate antilock malfunction, e.g., it only indicates when the antilock system is activated during braking, no requirements would apply to the telltale. Unless a particular telltale is

listed in Standard No. 101 (or is covered by another standard), no requirements apply to such telltale. If the telltale does not indicate antilock malfunction, however, I would suggest that you consider whether drivers would confuse the telltale with the required telltale for antilock malfunction.

Your second proposed telltale is for warning against hazardous emissions from the vehicle. Your design would include an outline of an engine and the word "CHECK." You asked whether the word "CHECK" is necessary, and whether the engine outline is an approved ISO symbol.

NHTSA does not have any requirements for a telltale warning against hazardous emissions from the vehicle. However, we suggest that you check with the Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board as to whether they have any requirements (or are developing requirements) concerning such a telltale. You may contact those agencies at the following addresses:

Environmental Protection Agency Office of Mobile Sources Certification Branch 2565 Plymouth Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105

Air Resources Board Certification Section 9528 Telstar Avenue El Monte, California 91731

I hope this information is helpful.

ID: nht90-4.11

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 17, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: William T. Mullen -- Undersheriff of McHenry County, Illinois

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-25-89 from S.P. Wood to H. Reid; Also attached to letter dated 7-29-85 from J.R. Miller to F. Browne (Std. 208); Also attached to letter dated 8-7-90 from W.T. Mullen to Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 5082)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking about Federal requirements for safety belts in police cars. Specifically, you asked if your police department could legally remove the automatic belts that are installed and replace them with manual lap/shoulder safet y belts. You stated that the reasons for making such a substitution would be to alleviate two problems your police officers have experienced with the automatic belts that were not present in older models that had manual lap/shoulder belts at the front s eating positions. First, you said that the automatic belts result in a blind spot on the driver's left side. Second, you said that the automatic belts "prevent left arm movements" of your taller officers. I appreciate this opportunity to respond to yo ur concerns.

I have enclosed copies of two previous letters we have written on the subject of removing or replacing occupant protection features from police cars. The first of these is a July 29, 1985 letter to Corporal Frank Browne and the other is a May 25, 1989 l etter to Senator Harry Reid. These letters explain that new vehicles purchased by police departments must be certified as complying with the occupant crash protection standard (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208). All cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1989 must provide automatic crash protection for front seat occupants. To date, manufacturers have provided automatic crash protection either by installing air bags or automatic safety belts. General Motors, the manufacturer of the po lice cars in question, has chosen to comply with the requirement for automatic crash protection by installing automatic safety belts in these cars.

Federal law prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from replacing the automatic belts in these police cars with manual lap/shoulder belts. Thus, none of these commercial entities could make such a replacement o n behalf of the County without violating Federal law. However, Federal law does not prohibit individual vehicle owners from removing safety features from their own vehicles. Thus, McHenry County itself can replace the automatic belts in its own cars wit hout violating any Federal law, just as any resident of McHenry County can remove any safety equipment they like from their own vehicles without violating any Federal laws. Such actions may, however, violate the laws of the State of Illinois.

I recommend that you carefully consider the effects of replacing the automatic belts in your police cars, even though Federal law does not prohibit the County itself from making these modifications to its own vehicles. The automatic belts in these cars help to assure safety belt

use by police officers on the job. Particularly since the McHenry County police officers face the possibility of becoming involved in high speed pursuit situations, we believe it is important that they use safety belts for effective protection in case o f a crash. If you decide to replace the automatic belts in these vehicles with manual lap/shoulder belts, we would urge you to take some actions to assure that the police officers will use the manual lap/shoulder belts every time they ride in the police cars.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information on this subject, please let me know.