ID: nht95-4.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 19, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Milford R. Bennett -- Director, Safety Affairs and Safety & Restraints Center, General Motors Corporation

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/19/95 LETTER FROM MILFORD BENNETT (SIGNED BY F. LAUX) TO JOHN WOMACK

TEXT: Dear Mr. Bennett:

This responds to General Motors' (GM's) May 19, 1995 letter asking whether a sunshade device is permitted under the 70 percent light transmissibility requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing Materials. You describe the device as a screen-like device that is stowed in the back panel shelf area below the rear window and that can be electrically raised and lowered by a driver operated switch. The light transmissibility through the combination of the rear window and t he raised sunshade is less than 70 percent. The short answer to your question is that the device is permitted.

Although you note earlier agency interpretations stating that windows with sunshades must still comply with Standard No. 205, you believe that the standard does not apply to your device. You state that those interpretations were distinguishable because the other shading devices were attached to the window, while your device is not.

You are correct in your assertion that installation of your sunshade would not cause a noncompliance with Standard No. 205. The purpose of the 70 percent light transmissibility requirements in Standard No. 205 is to ensure that the driver can see 70 per cent of the incident light through the windows that are requisite for driving visibility, under all conditions of lighting. However, the test procedures do not incorporate an in-vehicle test. Instead, they contemplate testing only the glazing itself. Your mesh screen sunshade need not comply with the standard (because it does not meet the definition of glazing) or in combination with the rear window (because it is not attached).

Although our standards do not prohibit this device, we have some safety-related concerns with its use in inappropriate situations. NHTSA hopes that GM plans to take steps to minimize the likelihood that the sunshade will be raised in such situations.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 8877

Ken Simons, Esq.
P.O. Box 883
Fairmont, WV 26555

Dear Mr. Simons:

This responds to your letter asking about brake requirements for trailers used in tractor trailer combinations. I apologize for the delay in our response. You asked whether all such trailers are required to be equipped with "maxi" brakes on one or both axles. You state that a "maxi" brake is found on all road tractors and "sets the brakes automatically when the air pressure gets down to a minimum level." Please note that the term "maxi" brakes ordinarily refers to spring brakes used in parking and emergency brake applications. I further note that most, but not all, trailers are equipped with spring brakes. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our requirements.

By way of background information, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act," 15 U.S.C. 1392), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve vehicles or equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles or equipment meet all applicable standards.

Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems (49 CFR 571.121, copy enclosed), specifies performance requirements for trucks, buses and trailers equipped with air brake systems. The purpose of the standard is to insure safe braking performance of vehicles under normal and emergency conditions.

While Standard No. 121 does not require manufacturers to use spring brakes or any other particular type of brake system, many manufacturers use spring brakes to comply with the standard's requirements concerning parking brake performance (trucks, buses and trailers; see S5.6), emergency brake performance (trucks and buses only; see S5.7), and trailer pneumatic system failure performance (see S5.8). I note that while the requirements of S5.6 and S5.8 apply to most air- braked trailers, S3 of Standard No. 121 excludes some trailers from all of the standard's requirements. In addition, S5.6 and S5.8 specify alternative requirements for some trailers.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:121 d:4/25/94

ID: nht68-1.9

DATE: 12/15/68

FROM: LAWRENCE SCHNEIDER FOR ROBERT M. O'MAHONEY--NHTSA

TO: Heath Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of November 13 with regard to the applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards to the GT-18 Trail Bike kit, and the "Boonie-Bike" assembled from it.

I am unable to tell from your letter the exact nature and use of the Boonie-Bike but I will assume that it is an off-the-road special purpose motorcycle designed for recreational use. Such a machine is a "motor vehicle" for purposes of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1955 since, like a multipurpose passenger vehicle, it is equipped with special features for off-road use but is capable of being operated both on and off the public roads. Thus it is not correct to say that trail bikes have not been considered motor vehicles in the past. The interpretation to which you refer, incidentally, if it appears, will be directed toward the so-called "mini-bikes".

Accordingly, it is possible to confirm your understanding that:

". . . for the purposes of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, Heath's responsibility is limited to insuring that any kit item which it supplies to which a Federal Safety Standard is directly applicable (i.e., only glazing materials at the present time) shall meet such Safety Standards, and inasmuch as Heath does not build the kits or perform the actual conversion, it is not a manufacturer of motor vehicles and consequently not responsible for the entire assembled product."

Since a Boonie-Bike is equipped with a "5-broke horse power Briggs and Stratton 4-cycle engine" it is sub-classified as a "motor-driven cycle" which is defined as "a motorcycle with a motor that produces 5-brake horsepower or less".

As you(Illegible Word) Federal Standard(Illegible Word) 103 will apply to motorcycles manufactured or assembled on or after January 1, 1969. Motorcycles are required to be manufactured with one white headlamp in accordance with SAE Standard J584 (Motorcycle and Motor Driven Cycle Headlamps). This SAE Standard allows a motor driven cycle to be assembled with either a single or multiple beam headlamp. Consequently a motor driven cycle assembled with a single beam headlamp is not subject to paragraphs S3.4.1 and S3.4.2 of Federal Standard No. 108 requiring provision of a headlamp beam switch and indicator.

I hope this answers your questions

ID: nht72-1.32

DATE: 02/05/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: Garden Spot Oil Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your inquiry of December 21, 1971, to the Regional Representative of the Secretary of Transportation in Dallas, Texas, and undated letter to the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety concerning the sale of tires branded "Unsafe for Highway Use."

By Notice No. 2, to Docket 70-2 (copy enclosed) the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued an amendment to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 109 specifying the conditions under which tires that failed to pass the minimum performance requirements of FMVSS No. 109 could be sold. This amendment presently permits such tires to be reclassified as "Unsafe for Highway Use," and if properly labeled to be sold for farm wagons or other off-highway uses only. A dealer who sells such tires for passenger car use, or who removes or alters the legend "Unsafe for Highway Use" imprinted on the tire sidewall, in subject to a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 per violation.

It is proposed that on or after March 1, 1972, no tire of a type and size designation specified in FMVSS No. 109, Table 1 of Appendix A, shall be sold, offered for sale, imported, or introduced or delivered for introduction in interstate commerce for any purpose unless it conforms to all the requirements of this standard. If implemented, this proposal will void the authority granted by Notice No. 2 to Docket 70-2 mentioned above.

If the Javelin Tire Company of Dallas, Texas, is representing the tires you have on hand as safe for highway use, we would appreciate any evidence to this effect which you can provide. An invoice or a statement from Javelin claiming these tires as suitable for highway use or an affidavit from you attesting to such claims by the Javelin Tire Company would be useful.

A copy of the proposed rule, published in Notice 3, Docket 70-2, is enclosed for your information. One of the matters being covered in the rulemaking is whether tires reclassified prior to the effective date of the proposed rule may be sold. Copies of your letters have been entered in the official Docket. When the final rule is issued, it will be published in the Federal Register with a definite effective date. Because of your interest in this matter, we will send you a copy of the amendment when finally issued.

Thank you for your interest in highway safety.

ID: nht71-5.55

DATE: 05/13/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Patton; Blow; Verrill; Brand & Boggs

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 3, 1971, requesting an additional interpretation of the Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulation.

If in fact, the vehicle manufactured is not considered a motor vehicle within the meaning of the Act and the mini-bike interpretation (34 F.R. 15416) (copy enclosed), then Part 574, the Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulation, and section 113 (15 U.S.C. 1402) will be inapplicable.

SINCERELY,

PATTON, BLOW, VERRILL, BRAND & BOGGS

May 3, 1971

Lawrence R. Schneider, Esq. Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

Re: Your reference 40-30

Thank you for your letter of April 28th in response to my letter of April 12th which requested confirmation of my interpretation of certain requirements of MVSS Part 574. Your reply raises an additional question which I would appreciate having answered by your office.

Your letter states that "the regulation does not apply to tires manufactured exclusively for the [off-road vehicle]." The underscored words "manufactured exclusively" concern me inasmuch as I pointed out in my April 12 letter that Cushman frequently utilizes DOT coded tires on golf carts and other off-road vehicles -- that is, tires that could also be used on on-road vehicles. The question remains, therefore, whether the record-keeping requirements as well as the requirements of Section 15 U.S.C. @ 1402 apply in the case of tires that could be used for either on-road or off-road vehicles but are in fact utilized on off-road vehicles.

In light of the foregoing, I find it necessary to repeat my request for confirmation of the analysis made in my April 12 letter as follows:

"As I understand it, Cushman is not required to follow the Part 574 record keeping with respect to tires installed

2 on such vehicles [off-road], nor would the other requirements of 15 U.S.C. @ 1402 apply. Further, as I read Part 574, Cushman has no obligation to report to the tire manufacturer any information regarding tires purchased for installation on off-road vehicles."

In the event that you have any questions in connection with the foregoing, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Charles O. Verrill, Jr.

ID: nht91-4.29

DATE: June 25, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Debby Funk

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-4-91 from Debby Funk to The United States Department of Transportation (OCC 6130)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of June 4, 1991, to the Department requesting information regarding regulations on the display of lighted signs in vehicles. If they are not prohibited, you are interested in regulations governing size, placement, color, luminosity, and power source "(i.e. batteries, wire connections to either brake lights or cigarette lighter)."

There are no Federal regulations or restrictions that directly prohibit the use of lighted signs in vehicles. However, there may be State and local laws that do. We are not in a position to advise you as to these laws, but you may write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators for an opinion. The address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

If you are contemplating a commercial venture in supplying lighted signs for use in motor vehicles, there are somewhat different considerations. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, once a vehicle has been sold and in use, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not modify it in any way that would create a noncompliance with any Federal motor vehicle safety standard with which the vehicle originally complied. Thus, installation of a lighted sign by any of the foregoing persons could affect compliance with Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors and Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. If the size of the sign interferes with the field of view in the interior mirror, a mirror must be provided on the exterior of the passenger side (most new cars today come equipped with these mirrors). If the sign is wired to the stop lamps, it must not result in a diminution of power that reduces the light from the lamp below the minimum levels specified in the standard. However, if the device is intended for owner installation, the foregoing discussion does not apply, as the Vehicle Safety Act does not prohibit owners from modifying their vehicles in any manner they choose, even if the modification creates a noncompliance.

Our regulations do prohibit combining the center highmounted stop lamp with any other lamp or device such as a lighted display sign. However, there is no Federal prohibition governing manufacture and sale of these devices. If you have further questions, we shall be pleased to respond.

ID: nht88-2.75

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/18/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: GARY EVANS -- PRESIDENT, WESTEX AUTOMOTIVE CORPORATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 2-26-88, TO NHTSA, FROM GARY EVANS-WESTEX

TEXT: This is a response to your letter of February 26, 1988, where you asked the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) whether a product you wish to import and sell in the United States "complies with any standards which may affect it.". You describe the product as a warning triangle that is designed to be attached to the side window of a car. You tell us that this side-mounted triangle is about 20% smaller than the warning device specified in this agency's regulations in Standard 125, War ning Devices. The answer to your question is that the device you described would not comply with Standard 125.

Standard 125 sets uniform specifications for warning devices. Paragraph S3 of Standard 125 states that the standard "applies to devices, without self-contained energy sources, that are designed to be carried in motor vehicles, and used to warn approachi ng traffic of the presence of a stopped vehicle, except for devices designed to be permanently affixed to the vehicle." By its own terms, then, Standard 125 applies to all warning devices that are not designed to be permanently affixed to the vehicle. Y ou are mistaken in suggesting that because the device attaches to the vehicle, Standard 125 is inapplicable. As I understand your description, the device is not "permanently affixed" to the vehicle. Rather, it is carried in the vehicle, and the vehicle operator may attach or remove the device as necessary. Therefore, this device is subject to the requirements of Standard 125.

According to your letter, this device fails to comply with the minimum size requirements set forth in paragraph S5.2.2 of Standard 125. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) specifies that, " No person shall . . . import into the United States any . . . item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect unless it is in conformity with such standard . . ." Standar d 125 took effect on January 1, 1974. Thus, Federal law prohibits you from importing any of the devices described in your letter that were manufactured on or after January 1, 1974.

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

ID: RECARO_e-registration7970

Mr. Dan Mullins
RECARO North America, Inc.
3275 Lapeer Road West
Auburn Hills, MI 48326




Dear Mr. Mullins:

This replies to your inquiry as to whether the recent amendments to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213 require your company to revise its on-line registration form. As explained below, so long as online registration information is not provided on the paper registration form, your electronic registration form is not subject to the format requirements of the standard.

To improve the effectiveness of manufacturer campaigns recalling child restraint systems (CRSs) that contain a safety defect or fail to conform to FMVSS No. 213, manufacturers are required to provide a registration form (hereafter referred to as a "paper form") with each restraint (S5.8). The paper form must conform in size, content and format to the form depicted in the standard (figures 9a and 9b). To minimize the potential for confusion, no other information is permitted to appear on the paper form except for information that distinguishes a particular restraint from other systems.

In your e-mail you indicate that RECARO provides an electronic registration form on its website and that the internet address for the electronic form is provided in the CRS instruction manuals. You further state that the internet address is not provided on the paper form. You then ask if recent amendments to FMVSS No. 213 would subject RECAROs electronic registration form to the standards format requirements under this scenario.

On September 9, 2005, we amended FMVSS No. 213, in part, to permit the inclusion of an internet address for electronic registration of a CRS on the paper form (70 FR 53569). If a manufacturer chooses to provide such information, the website address must also be provided in the instruction manual (S5.6.1.7 and S5.6.2.2) and the format of the electronic registration form must conform to S5.8.2 (S5.8.1(d)).

However, S5.8.2 is only applicable if a manufacturer voluntarily provides an internet address for electronic registration on the paper form. We noted in the final rule that the amendments did not establish any new requirements for CRS manufacturers. If a manufacturer does not include an internet address on the paper form, then the electronic registration requirements do not apply even if the manufacturer elsewhere provides information on electronic registration.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any additional questions, please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-0536.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:213
d.1/24/06

ID: Webb.1

Mr. Sean P. Webb
6 Oak Hollow Drive
St. Peters, MO 63376

Dear Mr. Webb:

This responds to your May 13, 2004, letter, in which you seek clarification regarding certain provisions of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, related to headlamps. In your letter and in a subsequent phone conversation with Mr. Michael Cole of the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, you described perceived problems with your 2003 vehicle, which was purchased new and unmodified. Specifically, you stated that your vehicles halogen headlamps (high beams and low beams) and fog lamps periodically "flicker off and on" or change intensity when activated.

In your letter, you asked whether FMVSS No. 108 requires headlamps to be steady-burning and whether "flickering" of the headlamps would impair the standards minimum illumination requirements. Our response to your questions follows.

The relevant section of FMVSS No. 108 reads as follows:

S5.5.10 The wiring requirements for lighting equipment in use are:

(a)     Turn signal lamps, hazard warning signal lamps, and school bus warning lamps shall be wired to flash;
(b)    Headlamps and side marker lamps may be wired to flash for signaling purposes;
(c)     A motorcycle headlamp may be wired to allow either its upper beam or its lower beam, but not both, to modulate from a higher intensity to a lower intensity in accordance with section S5.6;
(d)    All other lamps shall be wired to be steady-burning.

In short, S5.5.10(d) of FMVSS No. 108 requires that all lamps must be steady burning, unless otherwise permitted. The situation that you describe does not appear to fall within any of the exceptions to the steady-burning requirement.

We are unable to comment on the compliance of your specific vehicle with FMVSS No. 108 without conducting independent testing. We note, however, that Mr. Cole confirmed the entry of the information that you provided in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations consumer complaints database and provided you with a copy of 49 CFR Part 552, Petitions for Rulemaking, Defect, and Noncompliance Orders, which set forth the procedures for petitioning the agency to examine possible noncompliances or defects in motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment.

I hope you find this information useful. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.6/28/04

ID: 12374-3.pja

Mr. Jean-François Thomas
Manager of Industrial Property
Glaverbel -- Center R&D
Rue de L'Aurore, 2
B-6040 Jumet, Belgium

Dear Mr. Thomas:

This responds to your August 14, 1996, letter asking nine questions about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 111, Rearview mirrors. (49 CFR 571.111). Your questions focus on S11 of FMVSS No. 111, which states

[a] multiple reflectance mirror shall either be equipped with a means for the driver to adjust the mirror to a reflectance level of at least 35 percent in the event of an electrical failure, or achieve such reflectance level automatically in the event of electrical failure. (Emphasis added).

For the sake of convenience, this letter refers to this passage as "the phrase." Our response is based on our understanding of the facts set forth in your letter. We assume that these questions refer to multiple reflectance mirrors that require power to maintain their reflectance levels above the 35 percent level.

A. Other sections of Standard 111, such as S5, differentiate between, or address specifically, different types of mirrors, such as outside rear view mirrors, or inside rearview mirrors. In contrast, S11 only refers to a "multi reflectance mirror." Please confirm that S11 applies to both inside and outside rearview mirrors.

Yes. Section S11 states that the "average reflectance of any mirror shall be determined in accordance with" a Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) recommended practice. (Emphasis added) Moreover, there is no limiting language in S11. Therefore, S11 applies to both inside and outside rearview mirrors.

B. We note that the Phrase does not specify the time frame within which the driver must adjust the mirror to the 35% level. Please indicate whether a time frame has been contemplated, and what it is.

While NHTSA did not contemplate a specific time frame, it intended that the adjustment could be done mechanically, in much the same way as a conventional selective prismatic mirror can be adjusted. See 56 FR 58575 (November 20, 1991). This is because the electrical failure could turn the mirror dark at any time, including situations where the driver could not pull over to repair the mirror but would need to brighten the mirror quickly (e.g., while in a tunnel or maneuvering in heavy traffic). NHTSA interprets the phrase to mean that the adjustment would have to be done quickly while driving.

C. Can the Phrase be interpreted to mean that the case of the mirror may contain an attachment that can be removed in the event of an electrical failure, so that, after the removal of such attachment, the portion of the mirror that remains installed in the vehicle achieves the 35% reflectance?

Yes. We are not entirely sure what you mean by "the case of the mirror," but as long as the removal of the attachment could be done quickly by the driver alone, while driving (e.g., pulling off a faceplate), the removal of an attachment could be considered a "means to adjust."

D. Can the Phrase be interpreted to mean that the case of the mirror may contain an additional or replacement components that can be affixed to the mirror in the event of an electrical failure, so that after the driver has added, affixed, or installed such an additional or replacement component onto the mirror, the mirror achieves the 35% reflectance?

No. NHTSA stated in the 1991 final rule that "the rulemaking's overriding focus must be to ensure that mirrors are capable of providing adequate rearview vision at all times during the vehicle's operation." (emphasis added) It is doubtful that this arrangement could provide adequate rearview vision at all times during the vehicle's operation. The driver would have to open the case, remove an item, and affix it. This is a three step process that should not be performed while driving. In contrast, NHTSA envisions a simple action -- such as flipping a lever, turning a knob, or pulling or sliding a panel -- that can be quickly accomplished while driving. An important distinction between the situation here and the situation in question C is that the attachment in question C can always be removed, resulting in a compliant mirror, but a missing attachment cannot be affixed to restore the mirror's reflectance.

E. Can the Phrase be interpreted to include, as a "means to adjust," the removal of a portion of the existing mirror or the addition of a component on top of an existing mirror?

As discussed in our response to question C, the removal of a portion of the existing mirror could be considered a "means to adjust." As discussed in question D, the addition of a component on top of an existing mirror, would not meet this definition. The intent here is to allow for adequate vision at all times during the vehicle's operation.

F. Can the words "be equipped with a means . . . to adjust" be interpreted to allow the driver to stop the vehicle and complete such adjustment within a short time after the occurrence of the electrical failure, using spare parts or tools available within the mirror case? Within the glove compartment, within the trunk?

No. As explained above, such scenarios would be impermissible because they could not be done at all times while the vehicle is in operation.

G. Assuming that Section 11 applies to both inside and outside mirrors, does the "means to adjust the mirror have to be within the drivers reach within the vehicle, i.e., without opening the window to reach the mirror, or without stopping the car and getting out of the car to adjust the mirror. Or, can the Phrase be interpreted to mean that in the case of outside mirrors, which are less accessible than [the] internal mirror, the driver may have the ability to stop the vehicle to adjust the mirror to the appropriate reflectance level.

Yes, the means to adjust the mirror have to be within the driver's reach, but the driver may roll down the driver's side window in order to reach the outside mirrors on that side. The driver would have to be able to accomplish the adjustment quickly, alone, and without stopping the vehicle. Because the driver could not safely reach the passenger side outside rear view mirror, there would have to be some remote means to adjust that mirror to 35 percent reflectance in the event of an electrical failure.

H. Can the Phrase be interpreted to allow the use of a battery, as an alternative source of power? And if yes, does the battery have to be incorporated within the mirror, or is it sufficient if it is provided to the purchasers of the vehicle (and is affixed to the vehicle's trunk or glove compartment), or is it sufficient if the battery is generally available in commerce?

No. Battery backup would not be a "means . . . to adjust." Batteries merely address temporarily certain kinds of electrical failure caused by loss of primary power. The regulatory requirement is meant to address the term "electrical failure" from any cause. For example, if the electrical failure occurred in the contacts to the mirror, the battery power would not maintain mirror reflectance at 35 percent. Moreover, over time the battery would discharge, eventually becoming unavailable for backup.

I. Modern vehicles contain numerous components that can operate only with electricity. Among them, for example, windshield wipers, electrical windows, ABS brakes or airbags. Although the probability is extremely small, electrical failures do at times occur. Since no product can achieve 100 % reliability, we assume that there must be some threshold level of failure. Can Standard 111/11 be interpreted or, has this or any other safety standard been interpreted to allow a "de minimis level" of non compliance? Please provide examples of failure levels that are acceptable.

The probability of failure is irrelevant in this case. The requirement states "in the event of electrical failure . . . " Therefore, no matter how rare it would be in the real world, an electrical failure is an event that the standard specifically addresses. Therefore, when NHTSA tests a multiple reflectance mirror for compliance with S11, the agency will cause an electical failure. NHTSA's current test procedure (TP-111-05, May 9, 1995) states "[i]f [testing] a multiple reflectance mirror remove all electrical power and adjust [the mirror] manually to day mode position, if so equipped." (Emphasis added). If there is a battery backup, NHTSA will disable that, too.

In answer to your second question, our regulations do not allow a "de minimis" level of noncompliance. The standards are written in terms of objective criteria such that a vehicle or a regulated item of equipment passes only if it meets the stated requirements. Except for minor labeling violations or failures that, in NHTSA's judgment, are aberrations rather than systematic problems, most test failures are subject to follow up actions which are directed at obtaining a recall.

In addition to our responses to your specific questions, we have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes a manufacturer's responsibilities to recall and remedy motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment with safety related defects and how this agency's standards apply to such products motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:111

d.11/21/96