ID: 1982-1.15

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: February 16, 1982

FROM: Frank Berndt -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Brian Gill -- Manager, Certification Department, American Honda Motor Company

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-24-90 to Stanley S. Zinner from Paul Jackson Rice (A37; Std. 123); Also attached to letter dated 12-4-90 to Paul Jackson Rice from Stanley S. Zinner (OCC 5479); Also attached to letter dated 10-26-73 to Brian Gill from Richard B. Dyson

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of December 11, 1981, asking for confirmation of your interpretation of paragraph S5.2.5 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 123, Motorcycle Controls and Displays.

Paragraph S5.2.5 requires that "Each footrest for a passenger other than an operator shall fold rearward and upward when not in use." Honda would like to use a "footboard" instead of a "footrest". In folding, the footboard folds upward in a clockwise manner and rearward and Honda believes that this meets Standard No. 123. We consider that the purpose of S5.2.5 is to prevent accidents caused by rigid footrests contacting the ground in a banking turn. The outer edge of the footboard in plan view lies inboard of wider parts of the vehicle such as the engine guard pipe and side bumper. This means that these portions of the motorcycle would contact the ground in an extreme banking turn before the proposed footboard.

The standard specifies no direction of upward motion of the footrest. We believe your design complies with the intent of Standard No. 123.

ID: 1982-1.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/17/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Indiana Mills & Manufacturing, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

FEB 17 1982

NOA-30

Mr. William E. Lawler Specifications Manager Indiana Mills & Manufacturing, Inc. 120 West Main Street Carmel, Indiana 46032

Dear Mr. Lawler:

This responds to your recent letter asking whether the requirements of paragraph S7.1.1.3 of Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, apply to motor homes and school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. It is your assumption that only those vehicle applications which must have seat belt assemblies meeting S7.1 generally are required to have emergency locking retractors on lap belts.

Your interpretation is incorrect. It is true that belt assemblies installed pursuant to S4.2.1.2 are not required to comply with paragraph S7.1.1 of Standard No. 208, since that paragraph states that it is applicable to lap belts installed pursuant to S4.1.1 and S4.1.2. However, paragraph S7.1.1.3 is not so limited. It states that:

A lap belt installed at any front outboard designated seating position in a vehicle manufactured on or after September 1, 1982, shall meet the requirements of this section by means of an emergency-locking retractor that conforms to Standard No. 209.

This means that S7.1.1.3 applies to all lap belts installed in any vehicle in compliance with the standard, including belts installed under S4.2.1.2. Therefore, both motor homes and school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less would have to comply with the requirement.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

November 25, 1981

Mr. Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street S.W., Room 5219 Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sir:

The Federal Register dated January 8, 1981, carried a final rule amending Standard No. 208 (49-CFR 571.208) which becomes effective September 1, 1982. According to the final rule, the amendment applies to "seat belt assemblies installed in all vehicles with GVWR of 10,000 lbs. or less." The amendment pertains to section 7.1 of the standard.

Most trucks and multi-purpose passenger vehicles covered by S4.2.2 must comply with one of the sections under S4.1.2, each of which refers to S7.1. However, there are several exceptions listed which may meet the requirements of S4.2.1.2.; the later contains no reference to S7.1.

It is our interpretation that it is only those vehicle applications which require seat belt assemblies meeting S7.1. that are required to have an emergency-locking retractor on a lap belt installed in the front outboard designated seating positions.

Please send us your written explanation of the intent of S7.1.1.3. of Standard No. 208, and specifically it's application to motor homes and school buses with a "GVWR of 10,000 lbs. or less."

Thank you for your help.

Yours very truly,

William E. Lawler Specifications Manager

WEL:ld

ID: 1982-1.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/18/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Consumer and Technical Affairs, Woodhill Permatex

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter concerning a product you manufacture which is used to repair breaks in automobile windshields. You ask whether such a repair product would conflict with any present motor vehicle safety standards.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing materials used on motor vehicles (copy enclosed). This standard would not apply to a repair product such as you describe, however. There is no Federal regulation which would prohibit the use of such a product or process in the repair of windshields which have previously been installed in vehicles and damaged in use. Using such a material or process in a new windshield which may require repair as a result of damage sustained, for example, in shipment could cause the windshield to fail to meet the performance requirements of Safety Standard No. 205, which would be the responsibility of the person selling the windshield. Therefore, we do not recommend use of windshield repair kits prior to the first purchase of a new windshield by a consumer.

Please contact Hugh Oates of my staff if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

January 26, 1982

Legal Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sir:

We are manufacturers and marketers of maintenance, service and repair products for the professional and the do-it-yourselfer for use around the home and in the repair of vehicles.

It has come to our attention that there exists a need to develop a product to repair stone damaged and bulls eye breaks in automobile windshields.

My question is whether or not such a repair product would conflict with any present motor vehicle safety standards.

Your prompt counsel would be appreciated since we are beginning to formulate plans for our next fiscal year.

Very truly yours, Robert J. Carter -- Director, Consumer and Technical Affairs, WOODHILL PERMATEX

ID: 1982-1.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/25/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood for F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Indiana Mills & Manufacturing, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter asking whether paragraph S4.2.2 of Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, is applicable to school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less.

The answer to your question is yes. Safety Standard No. 222 specifies in paragraph S5(b) that all seats, other than the driver's seat, in school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 or less shall meet the requirements of Safety Standard No. 208 as they apply to multipurpose passenger vehicles. The requirements for multipurpose passenger vehicles in Standard No. 208 are found in paragraph S4.2.2 for vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 1976. There is no exception in S4.2.2 which allows school buses to comply with S4.2.1.2 of Standard No. 208.

School buses are not specifically mentioned in paragraph S4.2.2 of Standard 208, because that standard includes separate requirements for buses (including school buses) in paragraph S4.4. Under the general bus requirements of Standard 208, only the driver's position must be equipped with a seat belt. These requirements are supplemented by the more specific provision in Standard No. 222 which, as noted earlier, requires small school buses to meet the requirements of Standard 208 as they apply to multipurpose passenger vehicles.

I hope this has clarified your understanding of the requirements of these two standards. Please contact Hugh Oates of my staff if you have any additional questions (202-426-2992).

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

December 1, 1981

Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sir:

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 222, "School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection" requires school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 lbs. or less to meet the requirements of FMVSS 208 for multi-purpose passenger vehicles at all seating positions other than the driver's seat.

Section 4.2.2 of FMVSS 208 does not specifically refer to school buses. It is our understanding that they are considered an exception under S4.2.2, and may instead meet the requirements of S4.2.1.2.

Please send us your official written opinion regarding the applicability of S4.2.2 of Standard No. 208 to school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 lbs. or less.

We appreciate your assistance.

Yours very truly, William E. Lawler -- Specifications Manager, INDIANA MILLS & MANUFACTURING, INC.

ID: 1982-1.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/26/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Malcolm J. McCalmon -- International Sales Manager, CENTRA Leichtmetall - Rader GmbH

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff concerning the Federal requirements for vehicle wheels that are to be imported into the United States. You noted in your letter that the wheels would be for "original equipment on passenger vehicles and non-passenger vehicles (recreation vehicles)." There are two Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards which apply to wheel rims. There are no standards applicable to the rest of the wheel assembly, however.

The two applicable standards are No. 110, Tire selection and rims - passenger cars, and No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars. I have enclosed copies of both standards, along with Standards Nos. 109 and No. 119, which are applicable to tires. For those passenger car rims you manufacture there are two requirements, specified in section S4.4 of Standard No. 110. First, the rim must be constructed to the dimensions of one of the rims that is listed under the definition of a test rim in Standard No. 109. This means that the rim must comply with the dimensional specifications shown for that rim size in the current publications of specified standardization organizations, such as the Tire & Rim Association, the European Tyre and Rim Technical Organization, or the Deutsches Institut fur Normung. Second, in the event of a rapid loss of inflation pressure with the vehicle travelling in a straight line at 60 miles per hour, the rim must retain the deflated tire until the vehicle can be stopped with a controlled braking application.

For those rims you manufacture for use on vehicles other than passenger cars, Standard No. 120 also specifies two requirements. The first requirement, set forth in section S5.1.1, is that the rims on a vehicle must correspond with the size tire on the vehicle, i.e., be listed as suitable by the tire manufacturer, pursuant to either Standard No. 109 or No. 119. This would be done in the publications of the standardization organizations, as explainted above. This requirement is the responsibility of the vehicle manufacturer, since only it knows what size tires will actually be on the vehicle. The second requirement, set forth in section S5.2, is that the rim must be marked with certain specified information.

When a rim manufacturer determines that its rims comply with the requirements outlined above, it may certify the rims and sell them in the United States. In your letter, you inaccurately stated that there is no a specific DOT certification for rims. While there is no specific DOT certification number, as required by some other standards for items of equipment other than rims, a manufacturer must always certify that each item of motor vehicle equipment complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, pursuant to section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1403) (copy enclosed). That section specifies that the certification for items of motor vehicle safety equipment, including rims, may be in the form of a label or tag on the item, or on the outside of a container in which the item is delivered. All of your rims to be sold in this country must contain such a certification.

The United States does not use a certification process similar to the EEC, in which the manufacturer delivers the item to be certified to the governmental entity, and that entity tests the item to determine if it can be certified. Instead, in the United States, the individual manufacturer must certify that the product complies with all applicable standards. Further, this agency does not require that a certification be based on actual tests of the equipment; we only require that the certification be made with the exercise of due care on the part of the manufacturer. It is up to the individual manufacturer to determine in the first instance exactly what data or information it needs to allow it to certify that the equipment meets all applicable Federal standards. Obviously, with respect to the requirements for rims, a manufacturer is not expected to test if the rims have the necessary markings or if the rim size is listed in one of the publications of a standardization organization.

Should you have any further questions about these standards, feel free to contact me. If you need further information about the actual process of importing the rims into the United States or the form for the certification, you can contact the U.S. Customs Service Duty Assessment Division at 1301 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20229.

SINCERELY,

ATTACH.

STEVEN KRATZKE -- Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Safety Adm

JANUARY 25, 1982

Dear Mr. Kratzke,

We are a wheel manufacturing corporation in West Germany and we wish to insure that our wheels also comply with the U.S. D.O.T. requirements, specifically for original equipment on passenger vehicles and non-passenger vehicles (recreation vehicles).

In a phone conversation with Mr. Art Casanova from the N.H.S.A. I found out that there is not a specific D.O.T. certification, there is only a specific marking requirement, as written in Article No. 571-120. Mr. Casanova stated that as long as we marked our wheels as required, we comply with D.O.T. standards, he suggested that I write to you to get an official letter stating the same.

If there are more rigid requirements please let me know exactly what is required and send me instructions on how to accomplish what ever needs to be done.

Thanking you in advance I remain

Sincerely Yours,

Malcolm J. Mc Calmon -- Intern Sales Manager, CENTRA GMBH

ID: 1982-1.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/06/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Rogers Ferraro & Cody, P.C.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 2, 1981, to Dr. Robert L. Henderson of this agency asking for an opinion regarding the legality of a warning system devised by your client, David Stepkin.

Mr. Stepkin's system "flashes the rear brake lights continuously when either brake is applied on a motorcycle." With respect to Federal regulation of motorcycle lighting systems, I refer you to 49 CFR 571.108, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, a copy of which is enclosed. Paragraph S4.6(b) in essence requires that brake lamps (or stop lamps as we call them) be steady burning. This requirement would appear to preclude use of your system.

In addition, the substitution of a flashing signal for the steady one to which the public is accustomed might create confusion, thereby impairing the effectiveness of the stop lamp. You will note also that paragraph S4.1.3 prohibits the installation of motor vehicle equipment that impairs effectiveness of required lighting equipment.

ENC.

ROGERS FERRARO & CODY, P. C.

December 2, 1981

Dr. Robert L. Henderson c/o NHTSA Driver and Pedestrian Research Department of Transportation

Re: Motorcycle-Pulsating and/or Modulating Rear Lights

Dear Dr. Henderson:

I am an attorney who practices in the State of New York and I represent the interests of one, David Stepkin. Mr. Stepkin has devised a warning system which basically flashes the rear brake lights continuously when either brake is applied on a motorcycle. Of course, the purpose of the item is to create rear visability and therefore to prevent the driver of another vehicle travelling behind a motorcycle, from striking the motorcycle due to poor visability.

I am sure you are aware of the fact that motorcyclists are one of the highest prospective candidates for injuries on our roads. Mr. Stepkin, and I as his attorney, feel that this particular item would certainly help to reduce that statistic.

The item in question is a small unit which is attached by splicing the wire between the brake light switch and the rear brake light. The unit is then attached and is ready for operation. Mr. Stepkin, of course, considered attaching the unit to the rear of the bike but has found that this approach is impractical since many bikes will not accommodate an additional auxilliary light. Experience has shown that this is the most effective and practical method. It also, of course, saves energy because no additional lights are needed.

It has come to our attention that there may be certain restrictions in the use of these particular lights. However, we feel that this particular mechanism should not be in conflict with any such regulations because the filament of the bulb is always on.

I am not aware of any specific regulation outlawing such items on the Federal level and certainly, we have been able to ascertain that no such regulation outlawing such lights exists on the State level.

Therefore, I would appreciate it if you would take the time to drop us a short letter advising us whether any regulations concerning this particular item exist and, if you have a copy of those regulations, we would appreicate receiving same. If you feel that the matter should be handled by another department, please advise and we will forward it promptly.

I wish to thank you in advance for your time and courtesy in this matter.

THOMAS J. CODY

ID: 1982-1.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/02/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Indiana Mills & Manufacturing, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

MAR 2 1982

NOA-30

Mr. William E. Lawler Specifications Manager Indiana Mills & Manufacturing, Inc. 120 West Main Street Carmel, Indiana 46032

Dear Mr. Lawler:

This responds to your recent letter requesting an interpretation concerning paragraph S4.3(c)(1) of Safety Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. You ask for clarification of the cases in which a 5,000-pound attachment bolt may be used in lieu of a 9,000-pound bolt.

Paragraph S4.3(c)(1) of Standard No. 209 specifies that attachment bolts used to secure the pelvic restraint of a seat belt assembly to a motor vehicle shall withstand a force of 9,000 pounds, except that "attachment bolts of a seat belt assembly designed for installation in specific models of motor vehicles in which the ends of two or more seat belt assemblies cannot be attached to the vehicle by a single bolt shall have a breaking strength of not less than 5,000 pounds." The intent of the requirement in S4.3(c)(1) is to assure that inadequate attachment bolts will not be used to attach seat belt assemblies to a vehicle. A 5,000-pound bolt may be used only if the belt assembly is designed for use in specific models of vehicles in which only one end of a belt assembly can be attached by a single bolt.

In answer to your question, the agency does not "have in mind" certain brands or models of vehicles which would qualify under this exception, and the exception is not limited to single-seat vehicles. Further, the requirement does not mean that a seat belt assembly that can be used in more than one application must be installed with a 9,000-pound bolt. If a particular assembly is designed for use in several different models in all of which only one end of the belt assembly can be attached by a single bolt, then a 5,000-pound bolt is sufficient. The distinction is that an aftermarket belt for universal application must be accompanied with a 9,000-pound bolt, because in some vehicle models it would be possible to mount two ends of seat belt assemblies with a single bolt.

You should note that paragraph S4.1(k) of Standard No. 209 requires the manufacturer of seat belt assemblies for aftermarket use to furnish an instruction sheet stating whether the assembly is for universal installation or for installation only in specifically stated motor vehicles. If you - provide 5,000-pound bolts for any of your assemblies, the instruction sheet required by S4.1(k) should specify that the assemblies are to be used only in the vehicle models you list.

I hope this has answered all your questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

January 26, 1982

Mr. Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street S.W., Room 5219 Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sir:

Paragraph S4.3(c)(1) of Standard No. 209 (49 CFR 571.209) requires a 9,000 lb. breaking strength attachment bolt "...except that..." 5,000 lb. breaking strength attachment bolts may be used under certain conditions.

We are uncertain about the intent of two phrases in Paragraph S4.3(c)(1):

1. "...designed for installation in specific models of motor vehicles...", and

2. "...ends of two or more seat belt assemblies cannot be attached to the vehicle by a single bolt...."

With regard to the first phrase, does the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration have in mind certain brands, models, or types of vehicles? Does the phrase mean that a given seat belt assembly must be designed for a given application in order to attach it (in that application) by 5,000 lb. breaking strength bolts? Conversely, does the phrase mean that a seat belt assembly that may be used in more than one application must be installed using 9,000 lb. breaking strength bolts?

Phrase two raises questions, also. Does it mean that the 5,000 lb. breaking strength bolt may be used only with single seat vehicles? If a vehicle has more than one seat, must the seats be situated so that it is physically impossible to mount (for example) the right end of the left seat belt assembly and the left end of the right seat belt assembly to the same bolt? If the attachment hardware is designed to accomodate one and only one attachment bracket on a single attachment bolt, may a 5,000 lb. breaking strength bolt be used?

We would appreciate receiving from you an official written explanation of the intent of S4.3(c)(1) of Standard No. 209.

Thank you for your assistance.

Yours very truly,

William E. Lawler Specifications Manager

WEL:ld

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: 1982-1.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/08/82

FROM: SENATE

TITLE: SENATE BILL NO 1317; AMENDED IN SENATE 03/08/82

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/28/89 FROM STEPHEN P WOOD -- NHTSA TO WILLIAM E ALKIRE -- BRAKELIGHT ENHANCER, REDBOOK A34, STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 08/24/89 FROM WILLIAM E. ALKIRE -- BRAKELIGHT ENHANCER, TO TAYLOR VINSON -- NHTSA, RE BRAKELIGHT ENHANCER; OCC 3876; SENATE BILL NO 684, CHAPTER 410; APPROVED 07/27/83

TEXT: AMENDED IN SENATE MARCH 8, 1982

SENATE BILL

No. 1317

Introduced by Senator Johnson

January 7, 1982

An act to amend Section 25251.5 of the Vehicle Code, relating to vehicles.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

SB 1317, as amended, Johnson. Vehicles.

Existing law permits a motor vehicle to be equipped with a system in which an amber light is mounted on the rear of a vehicle to communicate a component of deceleration.

This bill would authorize a motor vehicle to be equipped with 2 amber lamps which may be operated after deceleration as specified either separately or in combination with another lamp system.

Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no. State-mandated local program: no.

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

ID: 12414.ZTV

Mr. Art Maison
Purchasing Manager
Redneck, Inc.
2100 N. West By-Pass
Springfield, MO 66803

Dear Mr. Maison:

This replies to your letter of August 30, 1996, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking for an interpretation of the conspicuity requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You write that "the by-laws read that DOT-C is for the vehicles and trailers under 25,999 pounds require for that class. We would like to use these reflectors also for the DOT- C2, for the use on vehicles and trailers over 26,000 pounds."

We do not know the "by-law" to which you refer. Paragraph S5.7 of Standard No. 108 applies to all trailers of 80 or more inches overall width, and with a GVWR over 10,000 pounds. It does not distinguish between those over and under 26,000 pounds. Therefore, a trailer with a GVWR of 26,000 pounds must meet the same requirements of paragraph S5.7 as a trailer with a GVWR of 10,001 pounds.

We understand that you have discussed your problem with Pat Boyd, one of this agency's rulemaking engineers, and that your questions are: "What is the difference between DOT-C and DOT C-2" and "Does a reflex reflector have to be 2 inches wide, like reflective tape?"

Paragraph S5.7 permits a manufacturer to choose either reflex reflectors or reflective tape as the way to conform to the conspicuity requirements of Standard No. 108. "DOT-C" is the marking required for reflex reflectors, and is the reflector manufacturer's certification that the reflectors meet Standard No. 108 (Paragraph S5.7.2.3). "DOT- C2" is the marking required for reflective tape which has a width of not less than 50 mm (2 inches) and is the reflective tape manufacturer's certification that the tape meets Standard No. 108 (Paragraphs S5.7.1.3(d) and S5.7.1.5). Standard No. 108 does not require that reflex reflectors have a minimum width. Reflex reflectors are rated by the total light return per reflector, but reflective tape is rated by the light return per unit area. Standard No. 108 requires that one reflex reflector, meeting the DOT-C specification, have the same total light return as 100 mm of reflective tape meeting the DOT-C2 specification. We have seen reflex reflector bars 300 mm long certified to meet the DOT-C specification for each 100 mm segment. Standard No. 108 permits the use of these products even though they are only about 1 inch wide because they provide the same photometric performance as 300 mm of DOT -C2 reflective tape. I enclose a copy of the recent final rule which extended these requirements to truck tractors, and have circled language on p. 41357 which mentions this point.

I hope that this is responsive to your request. If you have any further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson at 202-366-5263.

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:108

d:9/25/96