ID: 2791y

Mr. Dean J. Long
Design Engineer
VDO-YAZAKI Corporation
l773 Star-Batt Drive
Rochester Hills, MI 48309

Dear Mr. Long:

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. l0l, 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. l05, Hydraulic Brake Systems, include requirements relating to vehicle displays.

Standards No. l0l and No. l05 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. l0l and section S5.3.5(a) of Standard No. l05.

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. l0l and No. l05 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. l0l (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 48l05

Air Resources Board Certification Section 9528 Telstar Avenue El Monte, California 9l73l

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel /Enclosures ref:l01#105 d:12/17/90

ID: 2792o

Mrs. Alice Collins
703 Cohassett Ave.
Lake Wales, FL 33853

Dear Mrs. Collins:

This is a response to your letter of January 15, 1988. I apologize for the delay in responding to your letter. In your letter, you described yourself as a parent of school-age children, and as a volunteer who drives children to school-related activities in your 1986 Plymouth Voyager mini-van. You stated that in the 1986-1987 school year, the U.S. Department of Transportation decided that Voyager Mini-Vans were "unsafe." You go on to say that "the classification of M.P.V. was used on all mini-vans," and suggest that it is a mistake to characterize your Voyager as a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV) because it is more like a passenger car than a truck. You concluded by asking us to change the decision that the Plymouth Voyager mini-van is unsafe. You raised other concerns in telephone conversations with Joan Tilghman, a member of my staff. First, I will address the request in your letter that the Department change what you believe is a decision concerning the safety of your vehicle. Then, I will address the matters you raised in conversations with Ms. Tilghman.

Let me begin by assuring you that the agency has never stated that the Plymouth Voyager is "unsafe." Except in the context of a specific enforcement proceeding, NHTSA does not make blanket determinations that vehicles are "safe" or "unsafe." Instead, we establish safety standards, and manufacturers must certify that each of their vehicles complies with all applicable standards. If we determine that a group of vehicles fails to comply with an applicable standard, or that a group of vehicles contains a defect related to motor vehicle safety, we order the manufacturer to recall the vehicles. Again, we make these determinations only in the context of an enforcement proceeding. There has been no such proceeding with respect to the 1986 Plymouth Voyager.

With respect to your suggestion that it was a mistake to classify the Voyager as an MPV, it is the manufacturer's responsibility to determine, in the first instance, what a vehicle's classification should be. Chyrsler has classified the Voyager as an MPV, and so must certify that the Voyager meets all Federal safety standards applicable to that vehicle class. We have no information which suggests that Chrysler's classification of the Voyager is incorrect under our classification criteria.

In your conversations with Ms. Tilghman, you explained that the Tallahassee, Florida school district will not permit parents to transport school children to school-sponsored or school-related events in MPVs, such as the Voyager. However, you stated that the district will permit parents to transport children to school-sponsored or school-related events in passenger cars. You said that the school district is following a recommendation by this agency that Florida school districts not condone transporting children to school-related events in buses other than certified school buses. Your understanding is that NHTSA made this recommendation to the State of Florida in an April 25, 1986 letter to Mr.Arnold Spencer, and repeated the recommendation in an August 7, 1986 letter to Mr. Larry McEntire. I have enclosed copies of both letters for your information.

As you see, NHTSA made no such recommendation in either letter. Instead, we explained that we do not regulate the use of vehicles by owners, nor do we require the use of particular vehicles for particular purposes. There is no Federal prohibition against vehicle owners using their own vehicles to transport school children to school-related events. We also noted that the individual States have authority to establish any such regulations, in accordance with the principles of federalism set out in our Constitution. The State of Florida had already made its own decision to adopt and implement this policy before we were contacted by either Mr.Spencer or Mr. McEntire on this subject. Any changes to that policy would also reflect a decision by the State of Florida, not the Federal government.

In the letter to Mr. Spencer, we made the observation that Florida's policy that school boards not condone transporting school children in vehicles that are not certified as complying with our school bus safety standards, "is consistent with our belief that school buses certified to our school bus safety standards are the safest means of transportation for school children." This was not a recommendation to the State of Florida, but a statement of our belief about the superior safety afforded to school children by buses that are certified as complying with our school bus standards. That belief continues to be supported by data showing that school buses continue to have one of the lowest fatality rates for any class of motor vehicle. Large school buses are the safest form of ground transportation in the United States because the passenger seats are "compartmentalized" (special seat padding and spacing, and high seat backs); and because of the vehicle's size and weight (which generally reduce an occupant's exposure to injury-threatening crash forces), the drivers' training and experience, and the extra care other motorists usually take when they are near a school bus.

I am sending you information on the agency's New Car Assessment Program (NCAP). NCAP is an experimental program in which we test light-duty vehicles, MPVs among them, to see how well they perform in a high-speed crash. You will find test results for vehicles that NHTSA has tested over the past few years, including results for the 1984 and 1987 Plymouth Voyager. Also, you will find the agency's April, 1988 report to Congress titled, "Safety Programs for Light Trucks and Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles."

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Joan F. Tilghman, of my staff, at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:VSA#571 d:8/1/88

ID: 2792y

Ms. Mary Rees
D.C. (USA) Inc.
1249 Route 22 East
Mountainside, NJ 07092

Dear Ms. Rees:

This responds to your letter of October 9, 1990. In your letter you ask the following questions concerning testing and certification.

(1) If a manufacturer has developed an item that he feels does meet all federal safety regulations, and it is ready to be tested, how would he get it tested? Are there any forms to be filed?

First, please be aware that the United States does not have an approval process. In the United States, a manufacturer of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment must certify that its products will comply with all applicable safety standards. Each of this agency's safety standards specifies the test conditions and procedures that this agency will use to evaluate the performance of the vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) precisely follows each of the specified test procedures and conditions when conducting its compliance testing. However, the Safety Act does not require a manufacturer to test its products only in the manner specified in the relevant safety standard, or even to test the products at all. A manufacturer may choose any means of evaluating its products to determine whether the vehicle or item of equipment complies with the requirements of the safety standards, provided, however, that the manufacturer assures that the vehicle or equipment will comply with the safety standards when tested by the agency according to the procedures specified in the standard. The requirements concerning certification may be found at 49 CFR Part 567.

If the agency testing shows an apparent noncompliance exists with a vehicle or item of equipment, the manufacturer is asked to show the basis for its certification that the vehicle or equipment complies with the relevant safety standard or standards. If in fact there is a noncompliance, the manufacturer is subject to civil penalties under the Safety Act unless it can establish that it exercised "due care" in the design and manufacture of the product and in the evaluation (through actual testing, computer simulation, engineering analyses, or other means) to ensure compliance, but nevertheless did not have reason to know that the vehicle or item of equipment did not in fact comply with the safety standards. While an element of "due care" could be the use of appropriate testing laboratories, there is no explicit requirement that testing laboratories meet specific standards. In addition, NHTSA does not approve independent testing facilities, nor will it recommend any particular testing center be utilized.

Finally, manufacturers are not required to file any forms beyond the requirements of 49 CFR Part 566. This regulation requires a manufacturer to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the items of equipment it manufactures, there is no requirement to submit test data or any other forms to support certification. However, manufacturers would be well advised to retain such data as evidence of their due care in certifying compliance with the safety standards.

(2) We propose to manufacture an automobile seat frame. Since this is only a component of the actual seat, does the firm who puts together the finished seat apply for approval and testing?

As explained previously, neither you nor the firm who puts together the finished seat has to apply for approval and testing. However, your question indicates some confusion regarding the party who is responsible for certifying that the seat complies with federal standards. The answer will vary depending upon the situation in which the seat is installed in a vehicle.

Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, is considered a vehicle standard, because it applies only to new vehicles. Therefore, if a seat which incorporates your seat frame is installed in a vehicle during manufacture, the vehicle manufacturer is responsible for certifying that the completed vehicle complies with all applicable standards, including Standard No. 207. If the seat is added to a new, previously certified, motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer. An alterer is required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration.

Finally, if the seat is sold as aftermarket equipment to be installed in a used motor vehicle, the seat, as a piece of equipment, does not have to comply with any federal standards. However, 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act provides, in pertinent part:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard...

Therefore, none of these entities could install a seat containing your seat frame if it caused the vehicle to no longer comply with Standard No. 207 or any other standard.

In all of these situations, you, as the manufacturer of the seat frame, have no certification requirements. However, the manufacturer of the seat or the vehicle it is to be installed in will probably require information from you in order to make the necessary certification.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel /ref: Part 567, Std. 207 ref:l2/l8/90

ID: 2793o

Mr. Ward W. Reeser
Project Engineer
Electrical Systems
Caterpillar Tractor Co.
100 N. E. Adams St.
Peoria, Illinois 61629

Dear Mr. Reeser:

I am writing in response to your December 4, 1987 letter in which you described Caterpillar Inc.'s worldwide program to review lighting used on Caterpillar product lines in order to standardize the devices. You specifically asked if any of Caterpillar's lighting devices were covered by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 108. You enclosed descriptive literature on the Caterpillar product line. I regret the delay in responding to your question.

It must be noted at the outset that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues safety standards for "motor vehicles." Therefore, Standard 108 and all of our other regulations apply to a vehicle and its manufacturer only if the vehicle qualifies as a "motor vehicle" under the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.). Section 102(3) of the Act defines "motor vehicle" as:

any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

We have interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Agricultural equipment, such as tractors, are not motor vehicles because Congress clearly did not intend to include them in its coverage. Further, vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., Airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel.

On the other hand, vehicles that use the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, utility vehicles like the Jeep are plainly motor vehicles, even though they are equipped with special features to permit off-road operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, NHTSA has interpreted the vehicle to be a "motor vehicle." Further, if a vehicle is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, NHTSA has found the vehicle to be a motor vehicle. This finding was made with respect to dune buggies and regardless of the manufacturer's stated intent regarding the terrain on which the vehicles were to be operated.

As noted above, this agency has consistently interpreted "motor vehicle" to exclude vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel. Therefore, the track-type tractors, excavators, track-type loaders, tracked pavement profilers PR-450, PR-750B and PR-1000, concrete slipform pavers & auxiliary equipment, finegraders, front shovels, swing machines, tracked skidders D4H and D5H are not considered to be "motor vehicles."

In your letter, you described the Caterpillar line of construction and industrial equipment as basically for off-highway use: "There are occasional uses on the highway for such equipment as motor graders, but obviously none of this equipment is designed for normal highway use or for the transportation of people." Despite their use of the highway, some vehicles are excepted from the motor vehicle classification. Highway maintenance and construction equipment, lane stripers, self-propelled asphalt pavers, and other vehicles whose maximum speed does not exceed 20 miles per hour and whose abnormal configuration distinguishes them from the traffic flow are not considered "motor vehicles."

Although many items in the Caterpillar product line have an abnormal configuration that readily distinguishes them from other vehicles, the product literature enclosed with your letter did not provide sufficient information on the maximum speed capabilities or intended uses (i.e., strictly off highway or occasional on-highway use) of the motor graders, off-highway tractors, articulated dump trucks, wheel tractors, compactors, landfill compactors, wheel loaders, integrated toolcarriers, backhoe loaders, pavement profilers PR-75, PR-105 and PR-275, asphalt pavers & auxiliary equipment, compaction equipment, skidders, pipelayers, scrapers, and off-highway trucks to enable me to make a determination whether these would be considered "motor vehicles." However, I believe that the guidelines for classifying vehicles that are set forth above will allow you to determine if these are "motor vehicles." If they are, they must comply with safety standards, including Standard 108, applicable to trucks.

The lighting devices and other features of "motor vehicles" would be required to comply with the FMVSS (49 CFR Part 571). As you are aware, Standard No. 108; Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment (49 CFR 571.108) specifies requirements for original and replacement lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment necessary for signaling and for the safe operation of motor vehicles during darkness and other conditions of reduced visibility.

Finally, the product literature included several items which did not appear to be self-propelling, including the asphalt drum mixers, aggregate bins, and compaction equipment items TSF-54 and TSM-54. These products fall within NHTSA's jurisdiction if they are "trailers" as that term is defined at 49 CFR 571.3. That section defines "trailer" as "a motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle."

Based on the depiction in the brochure, the equipment appear to be designed for carrying property (drum mixers, aggregate bins, and compaction equipment) and for being drawn by another vehicle. Therefore, whether the equipment are trailers depends on whether they are "motor vehicles" within the meaning of the Safety Act and on whether the vehicles the equipment are designed to be drawn by are "motor vehicles."

Specific information has not been provided about the intended uses of the equipment. If they make frequent use of the highways, and stay at one particular job site for a limited amount of time, the items mentioned above would be motor vehicles, and would fall within the definition of "trailers." Trailers are subject to Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. If, on the other hand, the equipment are intended to be drawn by vehicles that are not motor vehicles, or the equipment stays at a job site for extended periods of time and it travels on the highways only to move to another job site for an extended stay, the equipment would not be considered motor vehicles.

It is important to note that NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse commercial products. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self certification" process under which each manufacturer is required to certify that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits the manufacture or sale of a noncomplying product.

I hope the information provided above will be useful to you and to Caterpillar, Inc. If there are any further questions or if you need further information, please do not hesitate to write to me.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:VSA d:8/8/88

ID: 2794o

Mr. Koji Tokunaga
Manager, Engineering
Isuzu Motors America, Inc.
21415 Civic Center Drive
Southfield, MI 48076-3969

Dear Mr. Tokunaga:

This letter responds to your inquiry in which you ask a number of questions concerning Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) 124, Accelerator Control Systems. I apologize for the delay in this response. In your letter, you describe a new accelerator control system that operates through electrical rather than mechanical signals.

You state that the moving components of this system are the accelerator pedal, stepping motor arm, linkage, and the throttle lever. When a driver depresses the accelerator pedal, a pedal sensor converts the displacement into a proportional electric signal. The signal goes through a control unit to a position switch, and then to a stepping motor. This stepping motor works to move the motor's arm and linkage, and they in turn work the throttle lever. Therefore, you say, the engine speed is controlled in proportion to the amount of accelerator pedal displacement.

You further inform us that Isuzu already has distributed vehicles equipped with this system in Japan, and that the company would like to market this kind of vehicle in the United States. You present three questions and a diagram of the system components, and request an agency response.

First, please be aware that in issuing this interpretation, NHTSA is neither approving, certifying, nor endorsing your new accelerator control system. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, each manufacturer must certify that its product meets agency safety standards, or other applicable standards. However, based on the information you supplied in your letter, I have the following responses.

Question I: In this vehicle, Isuzu considers the battery that drives the stepping motor to be one of the energy sources under S5.1, and the return springs (accelerator pedal and throttle lever return springs) the other sources. Is this interpretation correct? We do not have enough information to state whether the battery that drives the stepping motor, or the return springs would be considered energy sources under S5.1. Section S5.1 of Standard 124 requires, among other things, that there be a minimum of two energy sources capable of returning the throttle to idle whenever the driver removes the opposing actuating force, or if there is a single severance or disconnection in the accelerator control system.

With respect to the battery, if all system elements are operating properly, then it would appear that removing the actuating force will cause the electrical circuit from accelerator pedal sensor to stepping motor to return the throttle to idle. On the other hand, if there is a failure caused by a severance or disconnection in the accelerator control system between the pedal and the stepping motor, it is not clear to me whether the stepping motor will return to zero, and bring the throttle springs back to idle; or lock the arm and linkage in an "open-throttle" position.

Similarly, it is not clear to me that the accelerator pedal and throttle return springs are capable of returning the throttle to idle in the event of a failure caused by an ACS severance or disconnection. (While you include the throttle lever in your description of the accelerator control system, the agency considers it as part of the fuel metering device. However, as NHTSA explained in the preamble to 124, an energy source under the Standard may be attached to the fuel metering device. [37 FR 20033, September 23, 1972.]) Ordinarily, the agency would have no difficulty in finding that either of the throttle return springs is an energy source capable of returning the throttle to idle. But I cannot tell from your description and diagram whether a severance or disconnection in the electrical system would cause the throttle to lock in a position other than idle.

I would make the same observation with respect to the accelerator pedal. I can not tell from the information you supplied what impact a severance or disconnection failure would have on the pedal. For example, it is not apparent whether some element in the electrical system senses a severance or disconnection in the accelerator control system, so that a sensor transmits a signal to the appropriate energy sources that the throttle should return to idle. If the pedal and return springs can operate mechanically and in concert to return the throttle to idle in the event of a failure in the accelerator control system caused by a severance or disconnection, then together they may be an energy source under the Standard.

Question 2a: Is a severance in electric wires in this system a severance or disconnection within the meaning of S5.2? Isuzu considers negative because electric wires are not a moving part.

A severance or disconnection of the electric wires in this system would be a severance or disconnection within the meaning of S5.2 of Standard 124.

Section S4.1 of Standard 124 defines a "driver-operated accelerator control system" as "all vehicle components, except the fuel metering device, that regulate engine speed in direct response to movement of the driver-operated control and that return the throttle to the idle position upon release of the actuating force."

You stated in your letter that, in this new system, when the driver depresses the accelerator pedal, the mechanical displacement is converted into electrical signals. These electrical signals are transmitted by wires to a control unit that regulates engine speed in direct response to pressure on the accelerator pedal, again by means of wires that connect the control unit's electrical signal to the appropriate components. Thus, the control unit, all of the components to which it is connected, and the wires that make those connections are "vehicle components ... that regulate engine speed in direct response to movement of the driver-operated control and that return the throttle to the idle position upon release of the actuating force." Under S4.1, then, the control unit, the components to which it is connected, and the wires that make the connection are components of the driver-operated accelerator control system.

Section S5.2 of Standard 124 requires that the throttle return to idle "from any accelerator position or any speed...whenever any one component of the accelerator control system is disconnected or severed at a single point." Please note that this language does not limit the requirement to disconnections or severances of components that are moving parts. Thus, all severances or disconnections of any component of the accelerator control system are within the ambit of the standard. In this case, since the wires are a component of the accelerator control system, the throttle must return to idle whenever a wire is disconnected or severed.

Question 2b: If a severance in electric wires were a severance or disconnection under S5.2, what about a short-circuiting that may result from such a severance? Does the Standard require that the throttle returns to the idle position even in such a condition?

Yes. Section S5.2 of Standard 124 requires the throttle to return to the idle position whenever any component of the accelerator control system is disconnected or severed at a single point, regardless of the other consequences of the disconnection or severance. In the case of this system, this language requires the throttle to return to idle when any wire is severed, even if the severance results in a short circuit.

Question 2c: Our understanding is that a failure (other than severance or disconnection) of a system component itself (i.e. a failure in the accelerator pedal sensor with pedal position switches, control unit, throttle valve position switch, or stepping motor) is not subject to the throttle return requirement under the Standard. Is this correct?

Your understanding is partially correct. Standard 124 addresses those circumstances where (1) the driver removes the opposing actuating force; and (2) a severance or disconnection in the ACS causes a failure. Therefore, you are correct that Standard 124 addresses only those failures resulting from a severance or disconnection within the system. However, for electrical systems, shorted or open circuits are the consequence of a change in one or more of the electrical components in the system. The agency would consider such a change a disconnection or severance in the context of this Standard.

Question 3: It is our interpretation that the battery and the electric wires from the battery to the control unit are not a part of the accelerator control system under this definition. (That is, the definition of "driver-operated accelerator control system.") Is this interpretation correct?

No, your interpretation is incorrect. We have set out the definition of "driver-operated accelerator control system" in section S4.1 above, in response to your Question 2a. With respect to your electrical accelerator control system, the electrical impulse that travels between the vehicle battery and the control unit is a direct consequence of the driver's applying an actuating force to the accelerator pedal. Given this aspect of your system's design, both the vehicle battery and the electric wires from the battery to the control unit fall within the definition of "driver-operated accelerator control system."

I hope you find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:124 d:8/8/88

ID: 2795o

Mr. Louis F. Klusmeyer
Senior Research Scientist
Vehicle Research and Development
P.O. Drawer 28510
San Antonio, TX 78284

Dear Mr. Klusmeyer:

This is in reply to your letter of July 11, l988, to Mr. Vinson of this office with reference to a "deceleration" or "pre-braking" concept.

As you presently envision the implementation of this concept, an amber lamp would be activated when the driver's foot is removed from the accelerator pedal, and would be extinguished automatically when the driver reapplies pressure to the accelerator pedal. You believe that the optimum location appears to be immediately adjacent to the center highmounted stoplamp. You believe further that this location has already been considered by NHTSA for this purpose, and ask whether it is precluded by Standard No. l08.

Your belief is based upon the Federal Register notice of October l983 adopting the center highmounted stoplamp, which stated that "Other types of lamps or added functions such as deceleration signals may be desirable and should be investigated." However, this was in the context of alternatives to adoption of the center lamp, and relates to the agency's statement in the same paragraph that "with additional research, more nearly optimum specifications for stoplamp configurations may be developed." Indeed, the agency made it quite clear in prohibiting combining the center lamp with any other lamp or reflector (paragraph S4.4) that no added functions were contemplated or desirable.

Under paragraph S4.4 therefore, a deceleration lamp and the center stop lamp could not be combined. S4.4 would not prohibit an amber lamp adjacent to the center lamp. However, paragraph S4.1.3 prohibits optional lighting equipment if it would impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. l08. Your letter indicates that the deceleration signal is deactivated by renewed pressure on the accelerator pedal (and not by pressure on the brake pedal) so that a following driver would be presented with both amber and red signals, creating the possibility of confusion, and hence impairment. You have not indicated whether the deceleration lamp would be steady-burning or flashing, but we believe the possibility of confusion would increase were the lamp flashing. However, were the lamp to be extinguished when the brake pedal is applied (which activates the stop lamps), then the possibility of confusion would be substantially lessened. With respect to deceleration warning systems, last year the Flxible Corporation determined that a system installed on its buses created an impairment, and hence a noncompliance with paragraph S4.l.3. The company then conducted a notification and remedy campaign (87V-089) as required by statute. The company concluded that its flashing amber deceleration lamps could create confusion when activated simultaneously with the red steady burning stoplamps.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Ref: 108 d:8/l5/88

ID: 2796o

Mr. Scott A. Snyder
117 South Keesey Street
York, PA 17402

Dear Mr. Snyder:

This is in reply to your letter of March l0, l988, to the Department's regional office in Philadelphia, asking for a response concerning "ornamental lighting." In your opinion "a few extra lights on the side and rear of a vehicle would help other people see you better while driving at night."

The agency is interested in the role that vehicle conspicuity plays in accidents and accident avoidance. With reference to motorcycles, we have amended our motor vehicle lighting standard to prescribe performance characteristics for headlamp modulation. We were prepared to amend the standard to require the activation of motorcycle headlamps when the ignition was turned on (but did not do so when we learned that almost all motorcycles were being wired to operate in that fashion). Some time ago we asked the public to comment on ways of increasing the conspicuity of large vehicles as our research had indicated that reflective tape applied to the side and rear of wide trucks and trailers might lessen crashes and crash severity, and our research still continues in this area. Most importantly we adopted the center highmounted stop lamp for passenger cars because of the ability it demonstrated in test fleets to reduce the frequency of rear end impacts.

The type of lights of which you speak are referred to as "presence" lamps (as contrasted with "signal" lamps), and the agency over the years has acted with respect to all motor vehicles by requiring them to be equipped with side marker lamps, and by increasing the lens area for stop lamps. As the Federal safety standards are by statutory definition "minimum" safety standards, the requirement that there be two taillamps, for example, does not mean that a manufacturer may not add two more if it wishes, or any lighting device not covered by the standard. The sole restriction is that lighting devices added by the manufacturer or dealer that are in excess of the minimum must not impair the effectiveness of the equipment required by the standard. This could happen, for example, if a fog lamp (not covered by the standard) was of an intensity and located so that it masked an adjacent front turn signal. With respect to nighttime operation, the critical issue would appear to be that additional lighting devices not create glare to oncoming and following drivers.

The owner of the vehicle is not under a similar Federal restriction, and may personally add such additional lighting devices as seems desirable, subject to the laws of the States where the vehicle is registered and/or driven. However, the owner may not have these devices installed by a motor vehicle dealer or repair business if the result is to render wholly or partially inoperative any of the vehicle's original lamps or reflectors.

We appreciate your suggestion for improving motor vehicle safety.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:8/ll/88

ID: 2797o

Mr. Kent B. Robinson
18230 Kingsdale Ave., Apt. D
Redondo Beach, CA 90278

Dear Mr. Robinson:

This is in reply to your letters of December 3, l987, January 19, 1988, and April 4, l988 (to Taylor Vinson of this Office), asking whether a device of your invention complies with all applicable Federal regulations. You have also requested information on how to petition for adoption of this device as mandated equipment on new motor vehicles. We regret the delay in responding to your letter.

You have requested confidentiality of this matter to the extent permissible. As Mr. Donaldson of this Office explained to you by phone on January 14, our practice is to make available for public perusal copies of all agency interpretations, but not necessarily the correspondence that occasioned the interpretation, and, upon request, to delete from the interpretation the name and address and other data that might identify the person requesting the interpretation. You have assented to the withholding of your name and address in your letter of January 19. In that letter you requested withholding the drawings you enclosed on December 3. We shall not attach them to the copy of this letter made publicly available (although they will be subject to review by agency personnel who review this letter before I have signed it, and may be subject to eventual disclosure under a Freedom of Information Act request). However, the device must be described to the extent necessary to allow a reader to understand just what the opinion covers.

Your device is a horizontal bar of lamps mounted inside the rear window of a passenger car consisting of the center highmounted stop lamp in the center, flanked by back up lamps, which are themselves flanked by left and right turn signal lamps. Each of the five lamps would have a lens area approximately 6" wide and 1 1/2 inches high.

The applicable Federal law and regulation is the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. With respect to acceptability of your device as an item of original equipment, for purposes of this interpretation we assume that the device is intended to replace the standard center highmounted stoplamp, but only to supplement the backup and turn signal lamps. Your device appears permissible as an item of original equipment under Standard No. l08 provided that all requirements for the center highmounted stoplamp continue to be met. We call your specific attention to the fact that means must be provided to minimize reflections from the center lamp upon the rear window glazing that might be visible to the driver, either directly or indirectly in the rearview mirror. Supplementary original lighting equipment is permissible under Standard No. l08 as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. The certification by a manufacturer that its vehicle complies with Standard No. l08 would encompass a certification that there is no impairment by any supplemental lighting equipment. The vehicle manufacturer must also consider whether any device installed in a rear window affects compliance with the interior rearview mirror field of view requirements specified by Standard No. lll Rearview Mirrors, and if affirmative to provide a passenger side exterior mirror.

The Vehicle Safety Act covers safety related defects as well as motor vehicle safety standards, requiring notification of purchasers and remedy of safety related defects when they occur. Spillage of light upon the rear glazing could be considered as a safety related defect, and, for this reason, means should be provided to minimize reflections upon the rear glazing from all lamps in the array, and not just the center lamp.

The applicable Federal law for aftermarket equipment is also the Vehicle Safety Act. It prohibits modifications by manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses to vehicles if those modifications render inoperative in whole or in part equipment installed in accordance with a safety standard. Center highmounted lamps have been required as original equipment on new cars manufactured on or after September l, l985. Because of the potential for interfering with the effectiveness of the center lamp, we would regard removal of an original equipment center lamp and substitution of your device including its center lamp as rendering the center lamp partially inoperative within the meaning of the prohibition. However, if the modification is such that it can be done by the vehicle owner, the Act does not prohibit an owner from it. Further, the Act would not prohibit in any way the installation of your device on passenger cars manufactured before September l, 1985. However, supplementary lighting devices sold in the aftermarket are regulated by each State in which the device would be sold and used. Although we are not conversant with those laws, you may consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203 for an opinion.

You have also asked how this device could be mandated as original equipment on new passenger cars. Any interested person may petition the Administrator for an amendment of Standard No. l08. However, the Vehicle Safety Act requires the safety standards to be standards for motor vehicle performance, and, to the extent possible, the agency attempts to minimize standards expressed in terms of design. For the same reason, the agency does not normally propose adoption of proprietary designs. As one of the requirements of a petition for rulemaking is that it contain the name and address of the petitioner, it might not be possible to afford the same degree of confidentiality to a petition that it is to a request for an interpretation.

Your letter of April 4 asks a slightly different question on the subject of what is allowed to be viewed by other motorists in or around the rear window, with specific reference to turn signals, backup lamps, and hazard warning signals. The relevant portions of Standard No. l08 are those relating to mounting height. The maximum mounting height of 83 inches allowed for turn signals (which commonly also serve as hazard warning signals) is unlikely to be exceeded by turn signals mounted in the rear window area. There is no maximum restriction on the mounting height of backup lamps but we do have performance criteria which must be met in order to ensure that they can satisfy their intended function of providing illumination behind the vehicle. Finally, you should realize that it is incorrect to refer to your device as a "third tail light assembly." A taillamp is a specific rear lamp required by Standard No. l08, and one which you have not incorporated into your assembly.

I hope that this answers your questions. As you requested in a phone call to Taylor Vinson the other day, we are returning the originals of your correspondence.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:552#108 d:8/l2/88

ID: 2798o

Mr. Peter Cameron-Nott
90 Horace Street
Stratford, CT 06497

Dear Mr. Cameron-Nott:

This is in reply to your letter of June 1, 1988, with reference to importation of motor vehicle equipment included in an incomplete vehicle.

You have stated that the kit will include brake hoses, brake fluid, and glazing, and that these items will conform with Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 106, 116, and 205 respectively, and that they will all carry the DOT symbol certifying compliance. You ask whether these items may be entered under Box 2 on the HS-7 importation form.

The answer is yes. Box 2 (implementing l9 C.F.R. 12.80(b)(l)(ii)) allows importation without bond of motor vehicles and equipment manufactured to conform with, and certified as conforming to, all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:MIS d:8/l0/88

ID: 2799o

Mr. Amnon Shomlo
President, A.A.S.
3364 Catamaran Way
Jacksonville, FL 32217

Dear Mr. Shomlo:

This is in reply to your letter of March 25, 1988, enclosing a "Peace" decal designed to be affixed to the center highmounted stop lamp. The letters and design are in white, printed on transparent plastic, "in an effort to preserve the basic requirements for an effective projected luminous area of the lens and the specified candela." You have asked what "Federal/Legal authorizations we need to obtain, stating that we comply with all the regulations and the requirements regarding this product."

There are no regulations that apply directly to the decal, nor any Federal restrictions on its sale. Thus you cannot state in any sales materials that the product meets Federal requirements, for there are none. If a center highmounted brake lamp would continue to meet all applicable requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08 after installation of your decal, there are no restrictions on its use.

Although you intend the product to preserve the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08, it is not certain that this will occur. The decal has the potential of obscuring light from some of the l3 test points at distances where candela photometrics must be measured and the specified minima met. However, its actual effect can be determined only through laboratory tests on lamps of different sizes and lens and reflector designs. Although you have no liability under Federal law for selling this decal, a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act will result if the decal creates a noncompliance and if it is applied by a manufacturer, distributor, or dealer before the first sale of the vehicle. A violation will also occur if the decal creates a noncompliance and if it is applied after the vehicle's first sale by any of these persons or by a motor vehicle repair business. There is no violation of Federal law if the decal is applied by a person other than those named above, such as the vehicle owner. In the absence of a violation of Federal law there may nonetheless be State statutes restricting the application of the decal under any circumstances. We are unable to advise you on State laws.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:8/l0/88