ID: nht92-7.8

DATE: May 11, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Eileen Mathews -- Industry Manager, Hose and Tubing, General Electric Company

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/18/91 from Eileen Mathews to James Scapellato (OCC 7034)

TEXT:

This concerns your letter to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) asking about FHWA's regulation 393.45 (49 CFR S393.45) and NHTSA's Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses. FHWA provided us a copy of its March 6, 1992 response on regulation 393.45. This letter answers your question about Standard 106.

You ask about S7.3.6, 7.3.10 and 7.3.11 of the standard. Those sections set forth performance requirements for limiting the amount a hose may change in length under specified conditions (S7.3.6), for the tensile strength of a hose assembly (S7.3.10), and for the tensile strength of an assembly after immersion in water (S7.3.11). Each of these sections excludes certain items from the requirement.

Your question relates to those exclusions. S7.3.6 excludes coiled nylon tubes for use in assemblies that meet the FHWA requirements of S393.45. S7.3.10 excludes coiled nylon tube assemblies that meet S393.45. S7.3.11 excludes coiled tube assemblies that meet S393.45.

You ask whether those exclusions in S7.3.6, 7.3.10 and 7.3.11 "require compliance with 393.45." The answer is no. Standard 106 does not require tubing to meet 393.45. Instead, compliance with 393.45 is a condition for excluding the item from S7.3.6, 7.3.10 or 7.3.11.

The other condition, relevant for S7.3.6 and 7.3.10, is that the brake hose be coiled NYLON tubing. According to your letter, the brake hose (tubing) of your concern would be made from a material other than nylon. Since the second condition would not be satisfied, such hose would not qualify for the S7.3.6 exception, and an assembly made from such hose would not qualify for the 7.3.10 exception, regardless of whether the hose meets regulation 393.45. Thus, S7.3.6 and 7.3.10 would apply to hose and assemblies made from your product, without exception.

S7.3.11 does not specify that the coiled tubing must be nylon to qualify for the exception. While NHTSA intended to specify nylon (see, preamble to rule adopting the exclusion, 39 FR 28436; August 7, 1974) as adopted, S7.3.11 excludes a "coiled tube assembly" that meets regulation 393.45 from its requirements.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-7.9

DATE: May 8, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Gonshiro Miyoshi -- Manager, Design Administration Dept., Technical Division Ichikoh Industries, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/6/92 from Gonshiro Miyoshi to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7196)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of April 6, 1992, asking for an interpretation of Standard No. 108. With respect to headlamp system consisting of two lamps, each containing two light sources, you have asked "Is it permissible to have the bulb center of the lower beam lower than that of the upper beam (maximum height difference is 10mm) if they are arranged horizontally?"

Paragraph S7.5(d)(2) specifies the manner in which "the lower and upper beams of a headlamp system consisting of two lamps, each containing either one or two light sources, shall be provided . . ." In such headlamps where each light source provides a beam, the lower beam is provided "by the outboard light source (or upper one if arranged vertically)," and the upper beam is provided "by the inboard light source (or the lower one if arranged vertically)."

Although the standard could be presumed to contemplate that two light sources within a headlamp would be located on the same horizontal or vertical plane, there is no specific requirement for light source placement. Because the difference in the horizontal mounting planes for bulb centers in your design is only 10mm, this difference is not sufficient to conclude that the light sources are vertically arranged, thus requiring that the lower beam bulb center be the "upper" one, or on a plane that is higher. However, for your design to be permissible, the lower beam in this essentially horizontal array must be provided by the outboard light source in the headlamps as specified in S7.5(d)(2).

ID: nht92-8.1

DATE: April 3, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Charles W. O'Conner, Esq. -- Assistant Secretary, Echlin Inc.

COPYEE: Larry Henneberger; Bill Lewandoski; California Highway Patrol

TITLE: None

TEXT:

This responds to your letters of December 26, 1991, and February 25, 1992, with respect to various interpretive letters of this Office on the Commander and Voyager Electronic Brake Control ("Control"). The Control is manufactured by your subsidiary, Tekonsha Engineering Company. For the reasons enunciated in your December letter, you have asked us to "rule that all three of your letters i.e., the November 22 and May 23, 1991, letters to Mr. Lewandoski and your letter of September 10, 1990, to Mr. Henneberger are all void from the beginning."

We are replying on the basis of information presented by representatives of Tekonsha, Mr. Henneberger, and yourself in a meeting with representatives of NHTSA on March 18, 1992, rather than on the basis of your December letter. This meeting brought forth facts, previously unknown to us, and which did not, therefore, form a basis for the three previous letters on this subject mentioned above.

We now understand that the Control is motor vehicle equipment which is added to the towing vehicle by the seller of the towed vehicle, at a time subsequent to the first purchase of the towed vehicle for purposes other than resale. The Control has no effect upon the stop lamp system of the towing vehicle. The Control in ordinary operation has no effect upon the stop lamp system of the towed vehicle. When hand-activated in an emergency mode, the Control applies a modulated pressure to the service brakes of the towed vehicle, without activating the stop lamps on the towed vehicle. It is theoretically possible that the Control will never be operated during the life of the towing vehicle.

It is our opinion that the applicable Federal law in this situation is that which pertains to the operation of vehicles in use, rather than the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to motor vehicles before their first purchase for purposes other than resale. This means that we do not view this as a question of compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 or a matter concerning the preemption of State statutes by Standard No. 108.

Under the statutes and regulations we administer, the applicable law is 15 U.S.C. Section 1397 (a)(2)(A) . This Section states in pertinent part:

"No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . ." The question therefore is whether the installation of the Control on the towing vehicle by the dealer of the towed vehicle renders the stop lamps (installed on the towed vehicle in compliance with Standard No. 108) inoperative in whole or in part within the meaning of Section 1397 (a)(2)(A).

We note that the installation PER SE of the Control has no effect of any sort on the stop lamps of the vehicle on which it is installed, or on the vehicle that is towed. Therefore, the dealer has not rendered any stop lamps inoperative by the act of installing the Control. It is the use of the Control that may have an effect upon the stop lamps. In ordinary use, the Control has no effect upon the stop lamps of either the towing or towed vehicle. However, when the hand control of the device is activated in the emergency mode on the towing vehicle, to slow the swaying of the towed vehicle through application of the only set of brakes on the towed vehicle (its service brakes), the stop lamps will not be activated. In the conscious act of activating the emergency feature, the operator has knowingly rendered the stop lamps on the towed vehicle inoperative for the duration of such activation (unless or until the operator applies the service brake of the towing vehicle). However, Section 13 97 (a)(2)(A) does not apply to operators, thus the activation and use of the Control is not prohibited under our Statutes and regulations.

On the basis of the facts presented in the meeting on March 18, it now appears that the sale of the Control is not in violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

ID: nht92-8.10

DATE: March 30, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Robert S. McLean, Esq. -- King & Spalding

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/9/92 Robert S. McLean to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7058)

TEXT:

This responds to your March 9, 1992 letter, seeking an interpretation of Standards No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection and No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR S571.208 and S571.209, respectively). More specifically, you were interested in how certain provisions of these standards apply to a seating position equipped with an automatic shoulder belt certified as complying with the occupant protection requirements of Standard No. 208 and a separate manual lap belt. Your letter indicated you were particularly interested in whether the automatic belt is considered a Type 2a shoulder belt, as that term is defined in S3 of Standard No. 209, and whether the automatic belt must provide the warning instructions required for Type 2a shoulder belts by S4.1(1) of Standard No. 209. The answer to both these questions is no.

NHTSA has consistently recognized a distinction between automatic safety belts and the manual safety belts defined in S3 of Standard No. 209 (Type 1, Type 2, and Type 2a belts). The origins and application of this distinction is explained at length in this agency's April 14, 1986 interpretation letter to Mr. David Martin, a copy of which was enclosed in your letter to me. Thus, automatic belts are not treated as Type 1, Type 2, or Type 2a belts for the purposes of Standard No. 209, and are not generally subject to the provisions of Standard No. 209 that apply to each of those types of belts. Since automatic belts are not Type 2a belts, automatic belts are not required to include any warnings required for Type 2a belts.

Instead, S4.5.3 of Standard No. 208 defines the term "automatic belt" and sets forth special provisions for such safety belts. S4.5.3.3 specifies that an automatic belt shall conform to S7.1 of Standard No. 208 (the belt adjustment requirements) and have a single emergency release mechanism, and be equipped with a special warning system in place of the warning system required for manual belts. In addition, S4.5.3.4 specifies that any automatic belts that are not subject to the crash testing requirements for occupant protection under Standard No. 208 must comply with the requirements of S4.2, S4.3, and S4.4 of Standard No. 209 (webbing, attachment hardware, and belt assembly performance requirements, respectively).

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information on the requirements applicable to automatic belts, feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-8.11

DATE: March 30, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: D.E. Dawkins -- Acting Director, Automotive Safety Planning and Compliance, Product Strategy and Regulatory Affairs Office, Chrysler Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/30/91 from W.R. Kittle to Jerry R. Curry

TEXT:

This responds to the petition dated September 30, 1991, that Mr. Kittle submitted on behalf of Chrysler corporation seeking temporary exemption for the TEVan from several Federal motor vehicle safety standards on the basis that the exemption would facilitate the development and field evaluation of low e mission motor vehicles.

The petition indicates (page 4) that exemption is sought for four 1989 Dodge Caravans, converted to electric power, that "were manufactured for test and evaluation". We understand that this conversion occurred after completion of the manufacture of the vans, and that the conversion was performed by a subsidiary of Chrysler. If an exemption is granted, the petition states that "one or more of the vehicles will be titled and sold for ongoing endurance evaluation." Finally, we understand that the TEvans are currently in the possession of the Electric Power Research Institute in California for evaluation, and that presumably they are being driven on the public roads.

We regret the delay in responding to Mr. Kittle's letter. The petition represents a rare instance in which a manufacturer has petitioned for an exemption for a vehicle whose manufacture has been completed, and which has been in use. The purpose of an exemption is to allow a manufacturer to engage in conduct that would otherwise be prohibited by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, specifically, the manufacture for sale, sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction, or importation into the United States of a motor vehicle that does not conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and which does not bear a certification of compliance with those standards.

With respect to the four TEVans for which petition has been made, it appears that they have already been introduced into interstate commerce without a certification of compliance (or, if bearing the certification of the original vehicle, a certification that is false and misleading in a material respect, a further violation of the Act). Any exemption by the Administrator could not cover conduct violative of the Act that has already occurred. However, we have concluded that the Administrator may grant an exemption to vehicles, which would apply to conduct that would violate the Act, but which has not occurred. As Chrysler seeks an exemption in order to sell the TEVans, or to offer them for sale, the Administrator's exemption authority may be exercised to permit Chrysler to do so, after the procedural requirements have been followed.

The petition meets our requirements for form and content, and a notice requesting public comment is being prepared for publication in the Federal

Register. We shall notify you when the Administrator has reached a decision.

If you have any questions, you may discuss them with Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

ID: nht92-8.12

DATE: March 30, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Carl J. Clement -- Clement Associates

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/28/92 from Carl J. Clement to Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 6949)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of January 28, 1992 requesting information on any Federal regulations that may affect a new product you are developing. The product is an electronically-operated automotive sun visor that would automatically detect the direction of sunlight or glare and reposition itself to shield the driver. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

By way of background information, S 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards. In addition, the Safety Act requires manufacturers to recall and remedy any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that contains a safety-related defect.

NHTSA has issued two safety standards that apply to sun visors: Standard No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact, and Standard No. 302, Flammability of interior materials. These standards are called vehicle standards, because they apply to new vehicles, not to individual pieces of equipment. The Safety Act specifies that vehicles must conform with all applicable safety standards up until the first purchase for purposes other than resale.

Therefore, if your sun visor were installed as original equipment by a manufacturer of a new motor vehicle, the visor would have to comply with the requirements of these two standards. Standard No. 201 requires that the visor be "constructed of or covered with energy-absorbing material" and that the visor's mounting must "present no material edge radius of less than 0.125 inch that is statically contactable by a spherical 6.5-inch diameter head form." The purpose of that requirement is to reduce the injuries that occur when unrestrained occupants strike the visor or its mounting with their heads. Standard No. 302 requires sun visors to meet the flammability resistance requirements of the standard. The standard specifies that the material used on the visor must not burn at a rate of more than four inches per minute.

If a new vehicle is altered by the installation of your product prior to the vehicle's first sale to a consumer, the person making the installation is considered an "alterer" and is required by 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, to certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards affected

by the alteration. In addition to Standards No. 201 and 302, the installation of your product might affect the compliance of a vehicle with a number of other safety standards, including Standard No. 111, Rearview mirrors, and Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection.

After the first sale to a consumer, a vehicle is no longer required by Federal law to conform to all safety standards. However, S108 (a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act provides as follows:

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...

In order to avoid violating this provision, a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business which installed your sun visor would have to ensure that such installation enables the vehicle to continue to comply with all applicable safety standards. Violations of S108 (a)(2)(A) are punishable by civil fines of up to $1,000 per violation. I note that S108 (a)(2)(A) does not affect modifications made by vehicle owners to their own vehicles.

Finally, under the Safety Act, your sun visor would be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment. If your sun visor will be sold as an item of equipment to be installed by the vehicle owner, there is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that applies. However, even if there is no safety standard applicable to the item of motor vehicle equipment, the manufacturer is subject to the requirements in SS 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety defects. In the event that NHTSA or a manufacturer determines that a manufacturer's product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Additionally, a company making your product would be considered a manufacturer. A manufacturer is required by 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification, to submit information identifying itself and its products to NHTSA not later than 30 days after it begins manufacture. I have enclosed an information sheet for new manufacturers which summarizes NHTSA's regulations and explains where to obtain copies of Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

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

Attachments

NHTSA information sheet, dated September, 1985 entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment.

NHTSA information sheet, dated September, 1985 entitled Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations.

(Text of attachments omitted.)

ID: nht92-8.13

DATE: March 30, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Arthur J. Kuminski -- Design Engineer, Eberhard Manufacturing Co.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/3/92 from Arthur J. Kuminski to Paul J. Rice (OCC 6952)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of February 3, 1992 concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components. You asked about the standard's test requirements for sliding doors on cargo vans (sections S4.3 and S5.3). Your three questions and the response to each follow.

1. I will need specifications on how to perform this test on a test fixture using the striker assembly and the door latch only.

Standard No. 206 "specifies requirements for side door locks and side door retention components including latches, hinges, and other supporting means, to minimize the likelihood of occupants being thrown from the vehicle as a result of impact." The standard's requirements for sliding doors are set forth in sections S4.3 and S5.3.

Section S4.3 specifies that the track and slide combination or other supporting means for each sliding door shall not separate when a total transverse load of 4,000 pounds is applied, with the door in the closed position. Section S5.3 states, "(c)ompliance with S4.3 shall be demonstrated by applying an outward transverse load of 2,000 pounds to the load bearing members at the opposite edges of the door (4,000 pounds total). The demonstration may be performed either in the vehicle or with the door retention components in a bench test fixture."

Under section S5.3, the same basic procedure is conducted whether the test is conducted in a vehicle or with the door retention components in a bench test fixture, i.e., an outward transverse load of 2,000 pounds is applied to the load bearing members at the opposite edges of the door (4,000 pounds total). The details of the procedure using a bench test fixture will necessarily vary for different designs of sliding doors, since the door retention components themselves vary. The test should be conducted in such a manner that the same loads are applied to the door retention components as would occur in a vehicle test.

You specifically asked about how to perform the test on a test fixture using the striker assembly and door latch only. I note that since the requirement in section S4.3 applies to the "track and slide combination or other supporting means" for a sliding door, the striker assembly and door latch of a sliding door are tested only if they are part of the supporting means for the door. I also note that the entire supporting means for a sliding door is tested under section S5.3 and not merely one part.

I have enclosed for your information a copy of a May 13, 1975 interpretation letter to Toyota (including the incoming letter) which discusses various demonstration test fixtures which might be used to test sliding doors under Standard No. 206.

2. What load must the system withstand in the primary locked position to pass the test?

3. Is there a load requirement that the system must withstand in the secondary locked position to pass the test?

Section S4.1.1 of Standard No. 206 requires hinged doors, other than cargo-type doors to have both a fully latched position and a secondary latched position. There is not a similar requirement for sliding doors. Section S4.3 requires only one test, with a total load of 4,000 pounds, for sliding doors. This test would be performed with the door latched.

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

ID: nht92-8.14

DATE: March 30, 1992

FROM: Gerald A. Guertin

TO: Samuel Skinner -- Secretary of Transportation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/27/92 from Paul J. Rice to Gerald A. Guertin (A39; Part 571.3)

TEXT:

The purpose of this letter is to inquire as to the likely hood of a response to the attached letter which I wrote eight months ago. I am a school teacher and coach, and continue to wonder why vans are prohibited in Florida for the transport of school children. I am told that it has someting to do with safety.

The kindness of a reply from you would be appreciated.

Attachment

To: National Highway Traffic & Safety Assoc.

400 Seventh St., S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20590

July 26, 1991

Dear Folks:

I am a school teacher in FLorida. The purpose of this letter is request that you verify or modify what I believe to be the reasons we cannot use 9- to 15-passenger vans in the transport of school children.

Background:

a. Presently, 7-person rifle teams, 8-person cheerleader squads, 11-person science clubs, etc. are prohibited from van transport (as are all Florida school children), forcing them to be transported in gas-guzzling, 37-passenger school busses at a gas-consumption rate of 4 miles per gallon. These clubs have to raise their own gas money through fund raising. Naturally, we'd get more trips for the buck if we were travelling in more economical vans.

b. Lore has it that seven years ago a van tipped over in southern Florida, killing a cheerleader. Prior to that, we travelled in vnas. Apparently, van roof standards were not what they should be. Your office then came forward with the need for "acceptability of crash-worthy tests" for vans, but the cost of developing and performing such tests were placed on the MANUFACTURER. (Seems strange to me).

GMC, Ford, Chrysler, as van manufacturers, decIded that they were already selling enough vans to the private consumer sector, and didn't need the school van business - at least not enough to fund heretofore unneeded tests.

c. What is holding up progress, the, is not a determination that school vans are unsafe, but rather that there are no standards to say that they ARE safe.

Question:

Does that pretty well describe the status quo? I want to push for the return of school vans, but want to be sure of the background before I begin. Please write me an explanation of events to date so I may more accurately begin my quest. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Gerald A. Guertin 6800 Kitty Hawk Dr. Pensacola, FL 32506

ID: nht92-8.15

DATE: March 29, 1992

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: R. H. Munson -- Director, Automotive Safety Office, Environmental and Safety Engineering Staff, Ford Motor Company

TITLE: None

TEXT: I enclose an order of the Acting Administrator that grants much of Ford's petition for temporary exemption of its Ecostar van from compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. The order, however, denies the petition with respect to Standard No. 106 and S7.3 of Standard No. 208.

Even though Ford does not intend to sell the Ecostars but only to lease them, 49 CFR Part 567 nevertheless requires that every motor vehicle bear its manufacturer's certification of compliance. Therefore, in accordance with 49 CFR 555.9(a), we ask that Ford provide the agency with a sample of the vehicles. The windshield label required by section 555.9(b) may be removed when the lessee takes possession of the vehicle.

ID: nht92-8.16

DATE: March 26, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Larry J. French -- President and CEO, Magnascreen

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/24/92 from Larry J. French to Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 6921)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter inquiring about a recent amendment to Safety Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors. (49 CFR S571.111) You explained that your company is developing electronically controlled dimmable (day/night) rearview mirrors for motor vehicles and requested that the agency assess your reading of section S11 of the standard. We are pleased to have this opportunity to interpret our standard for you.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approval of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards. The following letter represents our opinion based on the facts presented in your letter.

Safety Standard No. 111 specifies requirements for the performance and location of rearview mirrors. Section S11, which was recently amended to better address new mirror designs, specifies requirements for mirror construction. (See 56 FR 58513, November 20, 1991.) The section states in relevant part that:

All single reflectance mirrors shall have an average reflectance of at least 35 percent. If a mirror is capable of multiple reflectance levels, the minimum reflectance level in the day mode shall be at least 35 percent and the minimum reflectance level in the night mode shall be at least 4 percent. 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 electrical failure or achieve such reflectance level automatically in the event of electrical failure.

You asked whether an alternate power source can be used to achieve the specified fail-safe operation (i.e., adjusting the mirror to a reflectance level of at least 35 percent in the event of electrical failure). While your letter did not specify what you meant by "alternate power source," we assume that it means an electrical power source other than the one intended to normally operate the mirror. Examples of an alternate electrical power source include solar energy or a self-contained battery system.

We interpret the term "electrical failure," as used in section S11 of Standard No. 111, to include any type of electrical failure. This would include electrical failure related to an alternate power source as well as electrical failure related to the primary power source. Therefore, unless adjustment of

the mirror to a reflectance level of at least 35 percent occurred even in situations where there was electrical failure related to the alternate power source, the alternate electrical source could not be used to provide the fail-safe operation required by section S11.

The preamble to the final rule amending Standard No. 111 explained that the agency wanted to assure that multiple reflectance mirrors are capable of providing adequate images at all times during this vehicle's operation, including electrical failure situations where the mirror is unpowered. The agency noted that situations can occur where the mirror would be unpowered even though the vehicle could be operational, citing connector faults and circuit board faults. See 56 FR 58515.

To comply with section S11 in situations where a mirror is unpowered as a result of electrical failure, a mirror would either have to default automatically to the high reflectance mode (as in the case of an opposite polarity fail-safe liquid crystal mirror described in the preamble) or be capable of being manually adjusted to the high reflectance mode. We do not have enough information about your proposed mirror to determine whether it would comply with the amendments in the case of electrical failure related to the alternate power source.

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.