ID: nht87-3.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/02/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Kenji Shimamura -- Exective Vice President and General Manager, Mazda (North America) Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Kenji Shimamura Executive Vice President and General Manager Mazda (North America) Inc. Research & Development Center 1203 Woodbridge Avenue Ann Arbor, Michigan 58105

This responds to your letter concerning the requirements of Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, for brake indicator lamps. The second sentence of section S5.3.2 of the standard provides that in vehicles equipped with an automatic transmission, the activation of the indicator lamp(s) as a check of lamp function is not required when the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position. You asked if this provision can be interpreted to apply to vehicles equipped with a manual trans mission and fitted with a clutch pedal interlock switch, based on a purported equivalent function of the clutch pedal starter interlock switch to the automatic transmission starter interlock. As discussed below, the answer to your question is no. As requ ested by your letter, we will consider your request as a petition for rulemaking and process it accordingly.

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

Section S5.3.2 of the standard states:

All indicator lamps shall be activated as a check of lamp function either when the ignition (start) switch is turned to the "on" (run) position when the engine is not running, or when the ignition (start) switch is in a position between "on" (run) and "s tart" that is designated by the manufacturer as a check position. However, in vehicles equipped with an automatic transmission, the activation as a check of lamp function is not required when the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position.

Standard No. 105. In adding the sentence, NHTSA stated the following:

Toyota Motor Sales, Inc., has requested confirmation that S5.3.2 of the standard requires a check of the brake system indicator lamp function only when the transmission shift lever is in the "P" (park) or "N" (neutral) position (in the case of vehicles w ith automatic transmission), The literal wording of S5.3.2 requires a check of lamp function without regard to the position of the transmission shift lever, whenever the ignition switch is turned to the "on" position when the engine is not running, or wh en the ignition switch is in a position between "on" and "start" that is designated by the manufacturer as a check position. In the case of vehicles with an automatic transmission, however, this wording does not reflect the NHTSA's intent with respect to check function. To properly reflect this intent, the language of S5.3.2 is hereby modified in accordance with Toyota's request. . . . 40 FR 42872, September 17, 1975.

Thus, except to the extent provided by the second sentence of section S5.3.2, that section requires a check of lamp function without regard to the position of the transmission shift lever, whenever the ignition switch is turned to the "on" position when the engine is not running, or when the ignition switch is in a position between "on" and "start" that is designated by the manufacturer as a check position. Since the second sentence of section S5.3.2 specifically applies only to "vehicles equipped with an automatic transmission," we conclude that the sentence cannot be applied to vehicles equipped with a manual transmission.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Re: Request for Interpretation/Petition for Rulemaking - 49 CPR Part 571.105. Hydraulic Brake Systems

Dear Ms. Jones:

Mazda (North America). Inc., on behalf of Mazda Motor Corporation located in Hiroshima. Japan, (Mazda) requests that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) provide an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 571.105, 55.3. Brake System Indicator Lamp. Further, subject to the stipulations enumerated below. please consider this document a formal petition for rulemaking consistent with 49 CFR Part 552. Petitions for Rulemaking. Defect, and Noncompliance Orders.

49 CFR Part 571.105, 55.3. cites several performance requirements for brake system indicator lamps. Among these are the conditions, as a function of ignition switch position that the indicator lamp must be activated. 49 CPR Part 571.105. 55.3.2. specific ally requires the lamp to be activated whenever the ignition switch is turned to the "on" position or is turned to a position between the "on" and "start" position, dependent on the preference of the manufacturer. It also exempts certain requirements for vehicles equipped with an automatic transmission whenever the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position.

The obvious justification for the above partial exemption is that these vehicles must also comply with the requirements of 49 CFR Part 571.102, S5.3.2. This regulation prohibits engines of vehicles equipped with automatic transmissions from starting when ever the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position. Operation of a vehicle with the transmission shift lever so positioned is therefore not possible. The warning function of the brake system indicator lamp accordingly serves no s afety function for an inoperative vehicle.

Mazda's question relates to the lack of such a safety function on the analogous situation of a vehicle equipped with a manual transmission. such vehicles are often equipped with a clutch pedal starter interlock switch which prevents the engine from start ing (by interruption of the starter motor circuit Page 2 of 3 unless the clutch pedal is fully depressed. This device Protects the vehicle and occupants from inadvertent engine activation when the vehicle transmission is in gear and possible unexpected m ovement of the vehicle The avoidance of such an occurrence is precisely the justification for the adoption of 49 CFR Part 571.102. 53.1.3. for vehicles equipped with automatic transmissions and obviously led to the subsequent partial exemption for vehicl es so equipped from the requirements of 49 CPR Part 571.105, 55.3.2.

Based on the equivalent function of the clutch pedal starter interlock switch to the automatic transmission starter interlock, Mazda has concluded that a vehicle equipped with a manual transmission and fitter with a clutch pedal interlock switch should a lso be exempted from certain brake system indicator lamp requirements of 49 CFR Part 571.105, S5.3.2.. However, a technical interpretation of this regulation clearly does not support Mazda's conclusion to the extent that all risk of a technical non-compl iance can be eliminated.

Therefore. Mazda requests that the Agency review this issue and comment on the appraisal provided above. Mazda is especially interested in the opinion of the NHTSA regarding the ability of a vehicle equipped with a manual transmission fitted with a clutc h pedal interlock switch to apply the brake system indicator lamp activation partial exemption as provided in 49 CFR Part 571.105. S5.3.2. and still comply with all applicable provisions.

Should the NHTSA conclude that the technical language of 49 CFR Part 571.105. S5.3.2. cannot incorporate, as written, manual transmissions fitted with a clutch pedal interlock switch, please consider this document a formal petition consistent with 49 CFR Part 552. Petitions for Rulemaking, Defect, and Noncompliance Orders, and forward it to the Administrator for appropriate consideration.

Based on the discussion provided above. Mazda believes that there is ample cause for the NHTSA to afford manual transmissions equipped with clutch pedal starter interlock switches the same exemptions currently contained in 49 CFR Part 571.105, S5.3.2.. A s noted above. the manual transmission clutch pedal starter interlock switch is equivalent in function to the automatic transmission starter interlock switch currently partially exempted. No safety degradation is expected to occur if manual transmissions are also partially exempted by 49 CFR Part 571.105.5.3.2., providing the empirical and analytical justification for the NHTSA's current, limited exemption of automatic transmission starter interlocks is adequate.

Further, Mazda asserts that overall cost effectiveness and to a lesser degree, safety will actually be enhanced through fewer low speed collisions. The option for a manufacturer to employ a single wiring harness for the brake system indicator lamp circui t for vehicles equipped with both manual and automatic transmissions will be a powerful incentive for manufacturers to provide clutch pedal starter interlock switches for vehicles not currently so equipped. Unexpected motion of the vehicle during engine activation will be reduced as the clutch pedal will be depressed more often in a wider variety of vehicles prior to engine activation.

Currently, Mazda designs, produces and installs two separate brake system indicator lamp wiring harnesses for each model.,the only difference being the activation logic for the brake lamp. In both harnesses, Mazda has designed the brake system indicator lamp to activate between the "on" and "start" ignition switch position. By harmonizing the requirement between vehicles equipped with automatic transmissions and manual transmissions, this unnecessary duplication and its attendant costs will be avoided. The result will be simplification in design, production schedules, inventory controls and assembly procedures. These cost avoidances are substantial and will allow the consumer to obtain and maintain less expensive and possibly safer vehicles.

Therefore, Mazda recommends that 49 CFR Part 571.105. 55.3.2. be amended as follows:

"All indicator lamps shall be activated as a check of lamp function either when the ignition (start) switch is turned to the "on" (run) position when the engine is not running, or when the ignition (start) switch is in a position between "on" (run) and " start" that is designated by the manufacturer as a check position. However, if engine activation is prevented due to the function of any starter of engine inter-lock device, the activation as a check of lamp function is not required".

Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Should you or your staff have any questions regarding either the request for interpretation or the conditional petition for rulemaking, please contact Mr. Sadato Kadoya (313-747- 8881) for assistance.

Sincerely,

Kenji Shimamura Executive Vice President and General Manager

ID: nht87-3.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/03/87

FROM: J. MARK SMITH -- LYNCO PRODUCT

TO: NHTSA

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO MEMO DATED 8-26-88, TO J. MARK SMITH, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, STD 302, STD 201

TEXT: Lynco Products is considering marketing the storage console-armrest for trucks and automobiles as shown in the sketch below. Would this product require D.O.T. approval? If so, does this meet the standards?

STORAGE CONSOLE-ARMREST

* LIGHT-WEIGHT WOOD FRAME CONSTRUCTION (2-3 POUNDS)

* FABRIC COVERED (ENTIRELY)

* 1 1/2" THICK FOAM PADDED TOP

* CONCEALED HINGES

* CONSOLE REMOVABLE, NOT ATTACHED TO SEAT OR FRAME

ID: nht87-3.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/25/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: William R. Pape, Jr.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. William R. Pape, Jr. 8152 Ladoga Drive Jacksonville, FL 32217

This is in reply to your letter of August 22, 1987, to Taylor Vinson of this office, enclosing a copy of your letter to George Walton of AAMVA. In that letter you have asked three questions with reference to the center highmounted stop lamp required by F ederal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, to which you have that we reply.

Your first question is "May one word be introduced on the brake light?" Standard No. 108 prohibits combining the center highmounted stop lamp with any other lamp, or with any reflective device. It does not prohibit the addition of one or more words to th e lens. However, there are basic requirements that the lamp must meet, and the word or words must not prevent the lamp from meeting them. Specifically, the effective projected luminous area of the lens must not be less than 4 1/2 square inches, and the l amp must meet specified candela maxima at 13 discrete test points.

Your second area of interest is the color red. You have asked whether it is a Federal requirement for all brake lamps, whether other colors may be substituted, and whether the color red may be adjusted to a lighter hue. Standard No. 108 requires all stop lamps to be red in color. This color is defined in SAE Standard J578c Color Specification for Electric Signal Lighting Devices, February 1977, expressing chromaticity coordinates according to the CIE (1931) standard colorimetric system. Red is rather na rrowly defined, and falls within the y coordinates, 0.33 (yellow boundary) and 0.98 (purple boundary). Red is not acceptable if it is less saturated (paler), yellower, or bluer than the limit standards. Thus red could not be adjusted beyond the prescribe d limits. In our opinion, the "soft pink" or "hot pink" that you believe is desirable would be beyond those limits. No color other than red is permitted for stop lamps.

Your final area of interest is whether one should consider marketing a lamp with the features you have indicated, and whether there are"hidden directives which would restrict or prohibit such marketing." Under the assumption that your lamp would not com ply with the color requirements of Standard No. 108, we must advise you that a noncomplying lamp could not be sold as original equipment for passenger cars, or as a replacement for center high mounted stop lamps on passenger cars manufactured on or after Sep tember 1, 1985. Federal law would not prohibit its sale for use on vehicles other than these, but the lamp would be subject to the laws of any State in which it would be sold or used.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

8152 Lodoga Drive Jacksonville, FL 32217

August 22, 1987

Mr. Taylor Vincent NHTSA 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Vincent:

Enclosed is a copy of correspondence to Mr. George E. Walton, director, Safety Equipment Services, and a copy of his response, suggesting direct communication with you.

Any assistance you can give with questions 1, 2, and 3 will be greatly appreciated.

Most Gratefully Yours,

William R. Pape, Jr.

WRP:BJ

Encs.

August 14, 1987

Mr. William R. Pape, Jr. 8152 Ladoga Drive Jacksonville, FL 32217

Dear Mr. Pape:

Thank you for your letter of August 6, 1987 in which you have requested information regarding stop lamps on motor vehicles.

The standard for required lighting on motor vehicles is the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108. This standard references a number of SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) standards which to comply with the standard.

For equipment covered by a federal standard, the states are preempted from having any other standard and must, in fact, adopt the very same standard as the federal standard.

For equipment not covered by a federal standard, the states are at liberty individually to adopt any standard they decide to recognize.

The center high mounted stop lamp is a federally regulated lamp.

The FMVSS 108 references SAE J575 for tests and specifically SAE J578d for testing the color. The specific color is shown on the chromaticity diagrams in the standard.

Since your concern is about equipment which is federally regulated, I suggest that the federal agency that administrates the standard for this equipment be contacted directly as follows:

Mr. Taylor Vincent - NHTSA 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, DC 20590 (202) 366-2992

We hope the above information helps you.

Sincerely yours,

George E. Walton, Director Safety Equipment Services

8152 Ladoga Drive Jacksonville, FL 32217

August 6, 1987

Mr. George Walton AAMVA, Suite 910 1201 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20036

Dear Mr. Walton:

As a graduate of the Duke School of Engineering and a certified instructor of Lazanov Learning Method (also known as Superlearning), I am writing to you in the interests of public safety.

The third brake light is now mandatory for American motorized vehicles dating from 1986. I have purchased a brake light to be installed on my 1982 Granada station wagon and have considered a modification which I believe to be a decided improvement. Upon asking local automotive dealers about specific regulations, I was directed to The Book of States in the public library, which lists all safety agencies of the individual United States. To determine the precise regulations, nationally, I sent letters to t he individual state agencies, and the replies indicate that there is not a general regulation covering all states, and many agencies have recommended that I correspond directly to you.

The color red is presently used for all brake lights and for traffic signal lights to indicate "stop". I, personally, find the color red, when suddenly flashed on by a car in front of me in moving traffic, to be annoying and irritating. Psychological res earch has indicated that red induces a response of anger. Red is the color of a matador's cape which enrages a bull to charge into a matador's sword. Red is associated with "fire engine red" with a loud siren with a Pavlov's bell effect of emergency, a f light of fight response and a surge of adrenaline and jangled nerves. In other words, this red light, at eye level, in traffic, contributes to unnecessary and unwanted stress, which Americans are notorious for bringing on themselves in profusion.

Thus, it is desirable to consider what may be done for more calming effects. The Lazanov system for Learning and remembering uses words and phrases which have been tested and proven to have specific physical and key word, or sometimes called a "trigger" word for an immediate calming response is the word "peace." This causes an instantaneous effect of calming both mind and body. Also, by softening the hue of bright red to a "hot pink" or even a soft pink, the same conditioned color response to signal "stop" is retained, but with much less stress and unnecessary tension. It is t he conviction of this writer that these simple alterations will reduce accidents, prevent loss of life and limb, and aid drivers to reach their destinations without having their mental, emotional, and physical energies drained. Research shows that we do everything better when in a relaxed and comfortable state, including responding to emergencies. We think more clearly and with enhanced intuition. Fewer accidents will keep insurance rates down and thereby be beneficial to the overall economy.

The intent of the regulations in regard to brake lights is obviously for public safety, and it is clear that the suggestions cited here are intended to increase public safety. In regard to brake lights, I would like to ask you what one may do and what on e may not do.

1. May one word be introduced on the brake light? This is in no way subliminal persuasion or hypnosis. this should not be confusing when one considers that our vehicles are now adorned with make and dealer names, six letter and/or digit license tags, al l kinds of advertising frequently with seven digit telephone numbers, and bumper stickers and decals. The human brain is capable of millions of on and off switches per second, so one word on a brake light will not complicate matters.

2. Is the color red a requirement by law, nationally, for all brake lights? May other colors be substituted? And may the color red be adjusted to a lighter hue?

3. Should one consider marketing a brake light with the above mentioned enhanced safety features; are there any hidden directives which would restrict or prohibit such marketing?

Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

Most gratefully yours,

William R. Pape, Jr.

WRP:bj

ID: nht87-3.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: NOVEMBER 3, 1987

FROM: HUNT, BILL -- PROJECT ENGINEER, HY-GAIN DIVISION-TELEX COMMUNICATION, INC

TO: ERICA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 12/19/88 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Bill Whiteside (Harris Corp.)

TEXT: I am writing to you concerning the interpretation of CFR 567 and 568 regarding ultimate responsibility for DOT certification.

I have spoken with Joan Tilghmam concerning this. She suggested I write to you explaining the circumstances. Please review the enclosed information. I will call soon to discuss this further.

Thank you.

TELEX COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

The parties:

Telex Communications - Trailer manufacturer

Customer: Company XYZ

Company ABC - Generator Manufacturer & Installer

Customer: Company XYZ

Company DEF - Radio Equipment Manufacturer & Installer

Customer: Company XYZ

Company XYZ - Buyer of trailer & additional installed equipment.

TELEX

ABC

DEF

TELEX COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Lincoln, NE.

Manufactures a trailer with running gear, brakes, lights, VTN, etc.

Total vehicle wt = 8000/9000#

Axle rating - 9000# ea., 18,000# total Telex work is complete.

Telex' Customer, XYZ has permanent components added to trailer by two other sub contractors (after delivery from Telex). These are items such as generators (1) & communications equipment (2).

Telex is aware of general nature and weight and location of added equipment. These factors have been used to determine trailer design.

However, Telex does not have any contractual relationship with the other subcontractors. Telex does not install and is not responsible for the installation of the added equipment.

The problem: Certification of trailer.

Telex' position:

Telex is an incomplete vehicle manufacturer and should provide documentation as stipulated in CFR 568.4a.

XYZ's position:

Telex is an incomplete vehicle manufacturer that assumes legal responsibility as in CFR 568.7a. and is responsible for final vehicle certification per 567.5e.

INTERFACE CONTROL DOCUMENT

FOR

LOS SUBSYSTEM ANTENNA TRAILERS

ESD 21410

APPROVED:

R. B. Strock, LOS Subsystem Mechanical Engineer, DATE 2/11/88;

G. M. Turner, LOS Subsystem Manager, DATE 2/10/88;

B.A. Dougherty, Quality Assurance Engineer, DATE 2/12/88;

R.E. Becerra, LOS Subsystem SPO, DATE 2/12/88

REVISION

REVISION RECORD LEVEL APPROVED ACKNOWLEDGEMENT REVISION DATE BUYER SELLER A SELLER B SELLER CFirst Release 12/11/87 ( Illegible Rev A 2/10/88 Word)

By acknowledging this document, a subcontractor agrees that the document has been reviewed and recognizes that the requirements contained herein have been imposed. TABLE OF CONTENTS Paragraph Title Page 1.0 SCOPE 1 2.0 APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS 1 3.0 REQUIREMENTS 2 3.1 General Requirements 2 3.2 Mechanical Requirements 2 3.2.1 Mechanical Interfaces 2 3.2.1.1 Antenna Trailer - Configuration and Outline Dimensions 2 3.2.1.2 Equipment Mounting Interfaces 2 3.2.1.3 Equipment Envelopes and Mounting Locations 3 3.2.1.4 Fuel Tank Interfaces 5 3.2.1.5 Connector Locations 63.2.1.6 Integrated Antenna Trailer - Weight and Center of Gravity 10 3.3 Electrical Interfaces 12 3.3.1 Contingency Van Configuration 17 3.3.1.1 Mobile Antenna Tower Interfaces 17 3.3.1.2 Contingency Van Interfaces 17 3.3.1.3 Mobile Power Subsystem Interfaces 22 3.3.2 Repeater/RIU Configuration 24 3.3.2.1 Mobile Antenna Tower Interfaces 24 3.3.2.2 Electronics Enclosure Interfaces 25 3.3.2.3 Mobile Power Subsystem 26 Appendix Mechanical Drawings A LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure Title Page 3.2.1.1.1 Antenna Trailer Outline Dimensions Appendix CV Configuration as Delivered from Subcontractor A A 3.2.1.1.2 Antenna Trailer Outline Dimensions Appendix Repeater/RIU Configuration as Delivered from Subcontractor A. A 3.2.1.2.1 Antenna Trailer Frame Appen. A3.2.1.2.2 Mobile Power Subsystem and Electronic Enclosure Mounting Holes Appen. A3.2.1.3.1 Equipment Envelopes and Mounting Locations - CV Configuration Appen. A3.2.1.3.2 Equipment Envelopes and Mounting Locations - Repeater Configuration Appen. A3.2.1.3.3 Equipment Envelopes and Mounting Locations - RIU Configuration Appen. A 3.2.1.4 Fuel Tank Cluster Plate Locations Appen. A3.2.1.5.1 RIU and Repeater Enclosure Power and Signal Entry Panel Locations 8 3.2.1.5.2 Antenna Trailer Power and Control I/O 9 3.3.1 Interconnection Diagram Contingency Van Configuration 14 3.3.2 Interconnection Diagram, Repeater/RIU Configuration 16 LIST OF TABLES Table Title Page 3.2.1.3.1 CV Configuration 3 3.2.1.3.2 Repeater Configuration 3 3.2.1.3.3 RIU Configuration 4 3.2.1.3.4 Ancillary CFE - CV Configuration 5 3.2.1.3.5 Ancillary CFE - Repeater/RIU Configuration 5 3.2.1.5 Power Subsystem Connector Locations 6 3.2.1.6.1 CV Trailer Weight and CG Summary 10 3.2.1.6.2 Repeater Trailer Weight and CG Summary 11 3.2.1.6.3 RIU Trailer Weight and CG Summary 11 3.3.1 Interconnection Cables - Contingency Van Configuration 12 3.3.2 Interconnection Cables - Repeater/RIU Configuration 15 3.3.1.2 Pin Assignments - Remote Control and Monitor 20

(Document omitted here.)

ID: nht87-3.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/05/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Patterson Incorporated

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. Barry Patterson President Patterson Incorporated 1920 Springfield Road Kelowna, B.C. VlY 7R8

Dear Mr. Patterson:

This is in reply to your letter of September 21, 1987, asking for our "acceptance and recommendation" of a safety device "endorsed" by the government of the province of Saskatchewan. This device automatically activates parking lamps, and the lower beams of headlamps "with the touch of the Brake Pedal".

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has no authority to accept, recommend, or endorse any item of motor vehicle equipment. We can, however, discuss the relationship of your device to U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, Lamp Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("the Act") under which the standard was issued. This standard applies to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. A device such as yours is permi ssible as original vehicle equipment as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. There is no indication in your descriptive literature that the effectiveness of packing lamps, headlamps, or the stop lamps would be impaired by the installation and operation of your device. With respect to sale in the aftermarket for vehicles in use, your device is not prohibited under the Act if its installation by a person other than the vehicle owner does not rend er inoperative in whole or in part any lamps installed to comply with Standard No. 108. We see no indication that this would occur. However, such an installer should be aware of the wiring requirement in Standard No. 108 that taillamps, parking lamps, si de marker lamps, and the license plate lamp shall be activated when the headlamps are on. The rules for operation of vehicles in use are established by the individual States, and several of these may have restrictions on the use of headlamps during daylight hours. For further information on this subject you should write the American Associati on of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 1201 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.

This agency has proposed that motor vehicles be equipped with daytime running lights, in a manner similar, though not identical, to the new requirement of the Canadian Ministry of Transport. If this proposal is adopted, the Act would prohibit any State f rom having a different standard than the Federal one. As of the effective date of such an amendment to Standard No. 108 daytime operation of frontal lighting should be permissible in all States. If you have any further questions we will be pleased to answer them.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: nht87-3.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/09/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: D. Burkard; H.T. Ebner -- Alfred Teves GMBH

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. D. Burkard Mr. H. T. Ebner Alfred Teves GMBH Postfach 900120 6000 Frankfurt 90 FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY

Dear Mr. Burkard and Mr. Ebner:

This responds to your letter concerning the brake fluid reservoir labeling requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems. You enclosed a sample and drawing of a new labeling design and asked whether it complies wi th the standard, even if there is no warning on the filler cap. Your labeling consists of a white plastic sleeve which is inserted over the mouth of the reservoir, such that the following lettering, in red, surrounds the filler cap: WARNING--CLEAN FILLER CAP BEFORE REMOVING. USE ONLY DOT 4 BRAKE FLUID FROM A SEALED CONTAINER. The plastic sleeve can be removed undamaged by lifting it over the mouth of the reservoir. You stated that the material is resistant to DOT brake fluid. Your question is addressed below.

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

Section S5.4.3 of Standard No. 105 reads as follows:

S5.4.3 Reservoir labeling--Each vehicle shall have a brake fluid warning statement that reads as follows, in letters at least one-eighth of an inch high: "WARNING, Clean filler cap before removing, Use only fluid from a sealed container". (Inserting the recommended type of brake fluid as specified in 49 CFR 571.116, e.g., "DOT 3"). The lettering shall be--

(a) Permanently affixed, engraved, or embossed;

(b) Located so as to be visible by direct view, either on or within 4 inches of the brake fluid reservoir filler plug or cap; and

(c) Of a color that contrasts with its background, if it is not engraved or embossed.

It is our opinion that your new design would not comply with the requirement in section S5.4.3 that the lettering be permanently affixed, engraved, or embossed. Since the lettering is obviously not engraved or embossed, I will discuss the only remaining option, that the lettering be "permanently affixed." The dictionary defines "affix" as follows: to attach physically (as by nails or glue) . . . ." The word "permanent" is defined as "continuing or enduring (as in the same state, status, place) without f undamental or marked change: not subject to fluctuation or alteration: fixed or intended to be fixed . . . ." (Webster's Third New International Dictionary, unabridged edition.) In light of these definitions, we do not believe that your brake fluid warni ng lettering would be "permanently affixed." Since your design permits the lettering to easily be removed and replaced, its physical attachment cannot be considered to be continuing or enduring and not subject to fluctuation or alteration. However, it ma y be possible for you to attach the lettering to the reservoir in a manner that it would be permanently affixed. One such method would appear to be bonding, although there may be other methods as well.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Ms. Kathleen DeMeter Assistant Chief Counsel for General Law National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transport 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington DC 20 590 U.S.A.

Hauptverwaltung

Your Ref. Our Ref. Extension Date TPV/Eb/ik -2991 07.08.1987

Re.: Brake fluid reservoir labeling Our request for interpretation of FMVSS 105

Dear Ms. DeMeter,

Thank you very much for your letter of July, 1987.

The drawing No. 3-04066-26 concerning reservoir labeling is released for publication.

In anticipation that nothing will stand against further actions in interpretation of our matter,

Sincerely, Alfred Teves GMBH ppa. D. Burkard I.A. H.T. Ebner

ID: nht87-3.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/09/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Karl F. Milde, Jr.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Karl F. Milde, Jr., P.C. Law Office RFD #8, Box 369 Union Valley Road Mahopac, NY 10541

Dear Mr. Milde:

This is in reply to your letter of October 2 1987 with reference to an electronic circuit that would automatically activate a vehicle's hazard warning system when the vehicle is proceeding slowly, or has stopped in the roadway. You have asked whether suc h a system has been proposed before, or field tested, and whether federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 would permit its installation on motor vehicles.

The traffic hazard that concerns you, especially that presented by a vehicle that has stopped in the roadway without activation of either brakes or hazard warning system, is one that is familiar to many motorists. However, it appears that in actuality mo st motorists confronted with this hazard are able to react in time to avoid a rear end collision. Accident data available to the agency indicate that crashes of this nature are relatively rare. As you know, many States require activation of the hazard wa rning system at speeds less than 40 mph on the Interstate system. NHTSA has not proposed a system of this nature, nor has it field tested one. The agency has participated in research with deceleration warning systems, a similar though not identical conce pt, and concluded that safety benefits were insufficient to propose their adoption.

We see no Federal prohibition against installation of a circuit that would activate the hazard warning system at a predetermined low rate of speed. Equipment that is not prescribed by the lighting standard is permissible as original equipment as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of equipment that Standard No. 108 does require. And modifications of vehicles in use by persons other than the vehicle owner are permissible as long as they do not render inoperative, in whole or in part, vehicle equ ipment necessary for compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Not are we aware of any State restrictions on the use of such Q system, though you should consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators for a definitive answ er. Its address is 1201 Connecticut Avenue, M, Washington, DC 20036.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

October 2, 1987 CERTIFIED MAIL, RRR

Erica Z. Jones, Esq. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219 400 7th Street, Southwest Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Automatic Hazard light for motor vehicles Dear Ms. Jones:

Brian O'Neill of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety suggested that I write to you and request your comments on the memorandum.

In particular, I respectfully request your answers to the following two questions:

(1) Has an automatic hazard light been proposed before? If so, has its effectiveness been field tested?

(2) Does the federal Standard 108, as presently formulated, permit the installation of an automatic hazard light on a motor vehicle?

Your comments on any prior experience with this safety device as well as your "interpretation letter" on its legality would be greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours, Karl F. Milde, Jr. Enclosure cc: Mr. Brian O'Neill

MEMORANDUM

TO: N H T S A FROM: Karl F. Milde, Jr. DATE: October 1, 1987 RE: Automatic Hazard Light

I would like to alert you to a traffic hazard that has plagued me personally, many times, and which can be completely eliminated by a simple electronic circuit on a motor vehicle:

Frequently, the vehicle in which a motorist is driving - call it "vehicle 2" - is proceeding down a highway at a normal highway speed: e.g., 30-55 MPH. The vehicle of another motorist - call it "vehicle 1" - is stopped or is proceeding very slowly on the same highway ahead of vehicle 2. (There may be any number of reasons why the vehicle 1 has stopped or proceed slowly: the operator of vehicle 1 may intend to turn left after oncoming cars have passed; there may be traffic congestion ahead of vehicle 1; or vehicle 1 may be disabled with an overheated engine, flat tire or the like.) Normally, the operator of vehicle 1 will have applied the brakes so that the brake lights of vehicle 1 are illuminated, alerting the operator of vehicle 2. Often, however, th e operator of vehicle 1 does not have a need to apply the brakes because vehicle 1 has either stopped or is proceeding slowly at a steady speed. Alternatively, the operator of vehicle 1 can switch on flashing "hazard" lights, but this requires positive a ction on the operator' s part which is frequently forgotten. In the absence of any warning lights, the operator of vehicle 2 may not notice that vehicle 1 has stopped or is proceeding slowly until it is too late to prevent vehicle 2 from colliding with t he rear of vehicle 1.

There is a simple solution to this all-too-frequent traffic hazard: namely, an electronic circuit which will automatically switch on the hazard lights of a motor vehicle when this vehicle is detained (has stopped or proceeds slowly) on a highway.

With such a circuit the hazard lights will warm the drivers of vehicles approaching from the rear, even though the operator of the motor vehicle has forgotten to manually actuate the hazard light switch.

Such a circuit could not possibly cost more than a couple of dollars and, if every vehicle were so equipped, many accidents (and personal injuries) could be avoided.

As an example, I am attaching a newspaper report of a truck driver who failed to notice that traffic had stopped in front of him on the New Jersey Turnpike. The consequence was fatal. Had the cars ahead of him been flashing hazard lights, the truck drive r would surely have brought his vehicle to a safe stop.

ID: nht87-3.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/09/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. T. Chikada Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept. Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku Tokyo 153, Japan

Dear Mr. Chikada:

This is in reply to your letter of September 18, 1987, with respect to a new headlamp design of very low profile. The height of the headlamp is less than that required by dimension A of Figure 4, of Standard No. 108, and you have asked NHTSA: "to make th e height of the headlamp lower than dimension A...on condition that the additional adaptor will be as original equipment".

You are under the impression that our interpretation to you dated March 26, 1987, relating to acceptability of a headlamp lens with a 60 degree angle was an affirmative one conditioned upon the provision of an adaptor as original equipment. In fact, we o nly advised you that such an adaptor should be provided, not that it was required. With respect to your present letter, dimension A is established by Standard No. 108 and cannot be modified except through rulemaking, whether or not an adaptor is provided .

If you wish to submit a petition for rulemaking to amend dimension A of Figure 4 we shall be pleased to consider it. The agency also intends to publish in the near future a notice asking comments on various aspects of vehicle headlamp aim and aiming meth ods which you may wish to consider in relation to your new headlamp design. Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

September 18, 1987

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 U. S. A.

Dear Ms. Jones,

We asked you about use of 60 degrees slanted headlamp by our letter of August 4, 1986. And you replied to us by your letter of March 26, 1987 that our new developed device was permitted to use only when an adaptor is provided as original vehicle equipmen t.

We are now developing a new headlamp which has higher characteristic of aerodynamics than the above headlamp by shortening the height of headlamp. However, we have found it hard to equip the timing pads on the lens because the height of headlamp becomes lower than dimension A required by FMVSS No.108, Figure 4. (See attached drawing.)

So we are asking you following request.

- Request -

We would like to ask you to accept to make the height of headlamp lower than dimension A specified by FMVSS N0.108, Figure 4 on condition that the additional adaptor will be provided as original vehicle equipment.

As mechanical aiming of this lamp can be made only by using additional adaptor, we assure that users will not be given disadvantage even if the height of headlamp becomes lower.

We are looking forward to your reply. Yours Faithfully, Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. T. Chikada Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept. Attachment

ID: nht87-3.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/09/87

FROM: RICHARD J. STROHM

TO: EDWARD JETTNER -- NATIONAL HWY. TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMIN.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 07/31/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO RICHARD J. STROHM. REDBOOK A33; FMVSS 207; VSA 108 [A] [2] [4] LETTER DATED 10/07/87 FROM RICHARD J. STROHM TO CHEVROLET DIVISION; 1987 CHEVROLET CAPRICE, 1G1BL51H0HX163146, 900 0 MILES

TEXT: Gentlemen:

A General Motor's Customer Service representative referred me to your Administration when I requested that they authorize the moving of the front seat in the 1987 Chevrolet Caprice that I drive. The attached letter to Chevrolet explains the problem. Th e Customer Service Representative tells me he cannot, by law, move the seat.

Please tell me how Chevrolet can obtain authorization to move the seat in the 1987 Caprice.

Very truly yours,

Attachment

ID: nht87-3.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/13/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Rode & Qualey

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: William J. Maloney, Esq. Rode & Qualey 295 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10017

Dear Mr. Maloney:

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 211, Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs, and Hub Caps (49 CFR @571.211). Section @3 of this standard states, "Wheel nuts, hub caps, and wheel discs for use on passenger cars and multipurpose pas senger vehicles shall not incorporate winged projections." You asked whether these components are permitted to incorporate winged projections if the winged projections do not extend beyond the wheel rim when mounted. As we have stated several times in th e past, winged projections are prohibited on wheel nuts, hub caps, and wheel discs, regardless of whether the winged projections are recessed below the level of the wheel rim.

This issue was first raised in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking for the initial Federal motor vehicle safety standards, published on December 3, 1966 (31 FR 15212). That notice proposed language for Standard No. 211 that was identical with t hat which was adopted. In response to this proposal, a manufacturer commented that it did not consider its winged wheel nuts a hazard to pedestrians or cyclists, because the winged wheel nuts did not extend beyond the outermost projection of the wheel ri m. The final rule published on February 3, 1967 (32 FR 2408) did not make any change to the proposed language in response to this comment.

In a report issued on March 17, 1967 on the development of the initial Federal motor vehicle safety standards, the agency summarized the comments on the proposed standards and its response to those comments. have enclosed a copy of the summary of Standar d No. 211 for your information. As you will see, this summary recited the manufacturer's comments on winged projections that were located inside the outermost projection of the wheel rim and tire. The summary goes on to say, "The Agency did not agree, an d retained the prohibition of even such recessed winged structures lest the clothes of child pedestrians and others be caught." Hence, arguments about the unobjectionability of recessed winged projections were considered and rejected by the agency more t han twenty years ago. We have repeated this position in our subsequent interpretations of Standard No. 211. I have enclosed copies of an August 26, 1970 letter to Mr. James S. Campbell ("...any winged projection is prohibited, even if recessed."), a November 25, 1975 letter t o Mr. James J. Schardt ("Our interpretation of Standard No. 211 is that @3 prohibits winged projections that do not extend beyond the outer edge of the tire or rim, as well as those that do."), and a January 31, 1980 letter to Mr. Doug Smith ("...the sta ndard prohibits the use of all winged projections regardless of the extent to which they extend from a rim.").

After examining the history of this requirement, we have concluded that the language of the standard itself draws no distinction between winged projections that do not extend beyond the outer edge of the rim and those that do. Instead, section @3 provide s that the identified components "shall not incorporate winged projections." We reaffirm our previous interpretations, which concluded that this language prohibits all winged projections on the identified components, not just those that extend beyond the outer edge of the rim.

You concluded by asking me to state that recessed winged projections may be imported, offered for sale, and sold in the United States. I cannot make such a statement. Since those winged projections are prohibited by Standard No. 211, section 108(a) (1) ( A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1397(a) (1) (A)) makes it illegal to "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United St ates" any wheel discs, wheel nuts, or hub caps that incorporate winged projections. Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a civil penalty of up to $1000 for each violation of section 108(a), and we would consider each sale of wheel dis cs, wheel nuts, or hub caps with winged projections to be a separate violation of section 108(a).

If you have any further questions on this matter, please feel free to contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 Attention: Ms. Erika Jones, Office of Chief Counsel Dear Ms. Jones:

This letter is submitted to request a letter ruling from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concerning any prohibition which may exist with respect to the use of the enclosed articles which are referred to in the automobile accessory trad e as "spinners." On Monday, September 21, 1987, we spoke with Mr. Stephen Kratzke, Senior Attorney for Rule Making, concerning regulations, particularly standard number 211, which may apply to certain wheel accessories. Th rule prohibits the use on passe nger cars and multi-purpose passenger vehicles of certain wheel nuts, hubcaps, and wheel disks which incorporate winged projections.

We respectfully submit that the sample articles enclosed herewith are not subject to the prohibition of rule 211 since they do not project beyond the wheel rim when mounted. Consequently, they do not project beyond the tire or the wheel well of the vehic le. Enclosed are pictures which show a spinner mounted on a correct wheel which is 9 1/2 inches in width. As can be seen from the pictures, the spinner does not project beyond the wheel rim. In light of the fact that the enclosed spinners will not projec t beyond the wheel rim and wheel well, we do not believe that they are the type of article prohibited pursuant to rule number 211. That rule is clearly intended to prohibit certain articles which project beyond the wheel well, or at least beyond the whee l rim, thereby creating a potential hazard to pedestrians. The instant articles, since they do not project beyond the wheel well, could not rationally be considered such a hazard. In order for the pedestrian to come into contact with the spinner, that pe destrian would certainly have to be in an extremely precarious position vis-a-vis certain lethal and dangerous parts of the vehicle. Indeed, it is difficult to perceive how the spinner in the pictures enclosed could be considered a greater "hazard" than the slotted portions of the wheel which clearly is not prohibited.

Furthermore, it is noted that spinners such as those enclosed herewith are readily available at this time in the United States. Enclosed is a brochure of an automobile accessory company which clearly depicts spinners similar to those which we have enclos ed. As with the sample spinners which we have enclosed, the "spinners" depicted in the brochure do not appear to extend beyond the wheel rim when mounted.

For the reasons set forth above, we do not believe that the enclosed spinners pose a hazard when used in passenger vehicles Furthermore, we do not believe that the enclosed spinners fall within the prohibition of rule number 211 since they do not project beyond the wheel rim; therefore, we submit that they may be imported, offered for sale, sold and used in the United States and your ruling to that effect is requested.

If you require additional information, please do not hesitate to call me. We request that the enclosed spinners be returned to us after your review.

Very truly yours,

William J. Maloney

WJM:sr

Enclosures