ID: 08-004151drn

ID: 10536bun

Ms. Lori A. Hawker
20 Begonia St.
Casper, WY 82604

Dear Ms. Hawker:

This responds to your letter asking about safety regulations for a product you wish to manufacture. You describe the product as "bunting" that fits inside an infant-only car seat. (An infant-only seat is lightweight and is easily used as an infant carrier to carry an infant to and from the car.) The bunting is intended as a substitute for a blanket. You state that the bunting has slots through which the harness on the car seat is threaded and the buckle of the harness is attached to the car seat. You believe that, when properly installed, "the bunting in no way interferes with the adjustment or function of the safety straps or buckle mechanism."

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle 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. The following represents our opinion based on the information in your letter.

There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) that directly applies to your product. Our standard for "child restraint systems," FMVSS 213, applies to "any device except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 50 pounds or less." (S4 of FMVSS 213) The standard does not apply to child seat accessories that are sold separately from the child seats, such as car seat pillows, pads and bunting.

While no FMVSS applies to the bunting, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. ''30118-30121 concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those and other manufacturer responsibilities. In the event you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-

related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

In addition, while it is unlikely that the bunting would be installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, 49 U.S.C. '30122 prohibits those businesses from installing the device if the installation "makes inoperative" compliance with any safety standard. Standard 213 specifies flammability resistance requirements for infant seats. Any person listed in '30122 who installs the bunting must ensure that the product does not vitiate the seat's compliance with those flammability resistance requirements.

The prohibition of '30122 does not apply to individual owners who install equipment in their own vehicles. Thus, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles.

I would like to close with the following remarks. It is crucial for the safety of an infant that the straps of its infant seat retain the baby's torso in a crash. Excessive slack in the straps due to the straps binding up on a fabric liner in the seat (such as bunting material), or because of excessive compression of the liner, can cause shoulder straps to move off an infant's shoulders. As a consequence, the infant can be ejected from the seat. We know that you recognize the importance of the straps in a crash, and that you believe that the bunting will not interfere with their adjustment or function. We underscore the importance of this feature. Bunting material that degrades the ability of an infant seat to restrain its occupant would be an obvious safety problem.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions, please feel free to contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:213 d:2/2/95

ID: 1984-4.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/19/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: American Honda Motor Co., Inc. -- Brian Gill, Manager, Certification Dept.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Brian Gill Manager, Certification Department American Honda Motor Co., Inc. P.O. Box 50 Gardena, California 90247

This is in reply to your letters of October 8 and 26, 1984, with respect to a proposed motorcycle headlighting system. In this design, two bulbs, each with its own reflector, are combined in a single housing. You have informed us that both bulbs are illuminated when the headlamp is on and together provide "the proper photometric output for low and high beams." Further, each reflector is adjustable individually, horizontally and vertically. The lamp has been designed to comply with the requirements of SAE J584.

Your contemplated design is acceptable for motorcycles; SAE J584 refers to a "light source or sources" ( see "At-Focus Tests") . However, a two-bulb design in a single housing would have to be designed to meet J584's requirements for a single headlamp including maximum output of 75,000 cd. Further, Standard No. 108 permits independently aimable reflectors, or aim by moving the entire assembly whichever you prefer. All that is required is that the unit meet SAE J566 Headlamp Mountings, January 1960.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

October 26, 1984

Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Sir:

This is in regard to the motorcycle headlight system which I described in my letter of October 8th.

Since that time I have met with Mr. Richard Van Iderstine, Safety Standards Engineer in the Office of Vehicle Safety Standards to discuss this headlight. The following information is provided as a result of that discussion:

1. The device in question is a single motorcycle headlight.

2. The headlight complies with SAE J584, April 1984 as specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Stadard (FMVSS) number 108.

We would appreciate your cooperation in reviewing this material and your confirmation that the headlight complies with FMVSS 108 requirements. Please call me at (213) 327-8280, extension 2198 if you have any questions or comments.

Yours truly,

AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO. , INC.

Brian Gill Manager Certification Department BG/jb

October 8, 1984

Office of the General Council NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION Department of Trasportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591

Dear Sir:

Enclosed are drawings of a headlight system designed for use on certain 1985 model year motorcycles. We would like to confirm that this design complies with the requirements of FMVSS 108.

Both bulbs are illuminated ay time that the headlight is switched on and together provide the proper photometric output for low and high beams. Each reflector is adjustable individually both horizontally and vertically.

Mr. Medlin of the Crash Avoidance Division of NHTSA told me on October 5th that you are currently considering a similar device but with some significant differences, and that I should bring our motorcycle headlight system to your attention as soon as possible.

I will try to contact Mr. Vincent by telephone on October 10th to discuss this matter further.

Yours truly,

AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR., INC.

Brian Gill Manager Certification Department BG:lw Enclosure Insert,two charts

ID: GFES04-2-000636

The Honorable John J. Duncan, Jr.
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515-4202

Dear Congressman Duncan:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Jon Schaffer.
Mr. Schaffer is interested in marketing a new product and asks whether the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) permit flashing stop lamps. As discussed below, the answer is no.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is authorized to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motors and new motor vehicle equipment, in order to reduce the number of fatalities and injuries that result from motor vehicle crashes.

The Federal standard applicable to lighting equipment is FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment.The relevant section of that standard 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" [emphasis added].

In short, S5.5.10(d) of FMVSS No. 108 mandates that all lamps be steady burning, unless otherwise permitted. In the present case, stop lamps do not fall under any exception enumerated in S5.5.10 (a) through (c). Accordingly, stop lamps must be steady burning and cannot be flashing.

We believe that motor vehicle safety is best promoted by standardization of lighting signals. The information currently provided by signal lamps, such as stop lamps, is well understood by the driving public, is instantly recognized and unambiguously informative.

While we recognize that a new idea for the operation of signal lighting might improve safety, we have taken the position that, given the safety benefits associated with the standardized operation and meaning of required lighting, the burden is on the proponents of a new signaling idea to demonstrate that the use of the new idea would yield a positive safety benefit large enough to more than offset the adverse safety effects of giving up the standardized operation and meaning of signal lights. We have enclosed a copy of a November 4, 1998, Federal Register notice which fully explains our policies concerning evaluating new signal lighting ideas.

In his letter to your office, Mr. Schaffer mentioned a Tennessee law permitting flashing stop lamps on motorcycles.For your reference, enclosed please find our January 14, 2004, letter to the manager of City of Memphis Motor Vehicle Inspection Bureau, in which we inform him that FMVSS No. 108 does not permit flashing stop lamps on motorcycles.

With respect to Mr. Schaffers question about Federal preemption of State laws, 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1) provides in pertinent part:

"Preemption. When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter."

This means that, under 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1), a State cannot authorize flashing stop lamps since the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard prohibits such lighting devices.

We further note that installation of a non-steady burning lamp by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business after the initial sale is subject to the restrictions of 49 U.S.C. 30122, which prohibits "making inoperative, in whole or in part" any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. Depending on the circumstances, installation of a non-steady burning lamp after the initial sale of a vehicle could be viewed as a violation of this "make inoperative" provision.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact Stephen Wood, Assistant Chief Counsel for Vehicle Safety Standards and Harmonization,at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:108
d.2/6/04

ID: 1984-1.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/19/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Leslie R. Ablondi

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Leslie R. Ablondi Pleasant Valley Corporate Center Suite 800 2024 Arkansas Valley Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 7221 2-4237

Dear Mr. Ablondi:

This responds to your March 16, 1984 letter regarding the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 111 to an aftermarket rearview mirror which one of your clients proposes to market. This mirror would be attached to the original equipment inside mirror stalk in such a way that the view through the OEM mirror is unimpaired. Your client's mirror would permit the driver to view children in the rear seat of the vehicle.

FMVSS 111 ( see 49 C.F.R. 571.111, copy enclosed) is directly applicable to new motor vehicles only. However, that standard may apply indirectly to aftermarket mirrors through the operation of 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A). The latter provision prohibits any motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from rendering inoperative any "device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle...in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard...." Thus, the installation of a replacement or even a supplemental rearview mirror in a motor vehicle could be unlawful if that installation resulted in a mirror system which did not comply with the requirements of FMVSS 111.

Based on your description of your client's mirror, it does not appear that the aftermarket installation of that mirror would be prohibited under 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A), since the operation of the OEM mirror system is unaffected by the addition of the aftermarket mirror.

If you have any further questions on this matter, please contact us.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

March 16, 1984

Mr. Roger Fairchild, Legal Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Dept. of Transportation 400 7th Street SW Washington D.C. 20509

RE: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No.

Mr. Fairchild,

By this letter I am requesting a formal opinion as regards to an after market mirror which a client proposes to market. The mirror will attach to the OEM mirror stalk in the center of the windshield and will enable a driver to view children in the rear seat without turning their head. The mirror does not in any way restrict or interfere with the view of the OEM mirror.

In checking with the Dept. of Transportation Rule Making Division, I spoke with a Mr. Kevin Cavey, who advised me the applicable federal standard was Number 111. At that time I requested that Mr. Cavey send me a copy of the standard. To date I have not received any correspondence from Mr. Cavey or anyone else. As Mr. Cavey explained it there are no federal safety standards which relate to aftermarket mirrors being attached to automobiles.

My question is, "are there any restrictions which would prohibit the production, distribution and sale of the proposed mirror?"

If you have available to you would you please send a copy of standard number 111 and any others which are applicable to this case.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration in this matter, I shall await your reply. Should you require further information or have questions that I may answer, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely Yours,

Leslie R. Ablondi c: files d/38/fairchil

ID: nht80-1.29

DATE: 03/10/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: The Bendix Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your January 22, 1980, letter asking whether sections S6.1.8.1 and S6.2.6 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, permit the adjustment, after burnishing, of brakes that are equipped with automatic brake adjusters. The answer to your question is no.

On April 28, 1977, the agency responded to a similar request that you made for an interpretation of these sections to permit brake adjustment for brakes equipped with automatic adjusters. At that time, the agency stated that the provisions of Standard No. 121 do not permit the type of a brake adjustment that you request. However, the agency noted that it would accept a petition for rulemaking to modify the standard in the manner you suggest if such a petition were supported with sufficient technical data.

In your current request for an interpretation, you merely restate your 1977 letter without offering the necessary supporting data and without petitioning the agency to amend the standard. Accordingly, we must restate the agency's interpretation that the standard does not permit the type of adjustment that you request.

SINCERELY,

Heavy Vehicle Systems Group

The Bendix Corporation

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

January 22, 1980

Subject: Request for Interpretation - Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 121

Gentlemen:

The Bendix Corporation, Heavy Vehicle Systems Group (Bendix) respectfully requests an interpretation from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) on the application of Section S6.1.8.1 and S6.2.6 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 121 - Air Brake Systems (FMVSS 121) with respect to brakes equipped with automatic adjusters. These sections cover the brake burnish procedures for road and dynamometer testing and specify that after burnishing, the brakes are to be adjusted as recommended by the manufacturer. Specifically, Bendix requests concurrence from the NHTSA that FMVSS 121 Section S6.1.8.1 and S6.2.6 permits manual adjustment, after burnishing, of brakes equipped with automatic adjustment.

In considering this request, your attention is directed to the fact that on March 29, 1977 Bendix submitted a similar request, however the NHTSA's response of April 28, 1977 addressed the issue of disconnect and overadjustment, not the issue of manual adjustment.

Now, due to increased customer activity, and current governmental interest in fostering the use of automatic adjustment of brakes, Bendix again submits its request for an interpretation permitting adjustment, after burnishing, of brakes equipped with automatic adjuster. Such interpretation would allow all brakes, with or without automatic adjustment to be tested by using the same procedures.

Bendix supports the need to improve in-service brake performance and stability, which improvement can be achieved through the use of brakes equipped with automatic adjustment mechanisms, and as such Bendix feels that clarity in the applicable Standards are necessary to assure compliance. It should be noted that automatic adjusters maintain a good level of brake performance, however not to the original level of the manual adjustment of the brake. But this difference, in our estimation, is not detrimental because the total procedure of controlled conditioning of the brakes is to achieve optimum performance and repeatability, and is not necessarily representative of actual operating conditions. Under actual operating conditions, the use of automatic adjustment mechanisms insures continued good brake performance.

Bendix hereby respectfully requests concurrence of NHTSA in Bendix' interpretation that FMVSS 121 Section S6.1.8 and S6.2.6 permits the manual adjustment of brakes with or without automatic adjusters after the burnish procedures. Bendix believes that such an interpretation would greatly accelerate the voluntary usage by vehicle manufacturers of automatic adjusting brakes on air braked vehicles and alleviate the need for amended or new rulemaking in the area of brake adjustment.

We would be pleased to discuss this matter further at your convenience.

R. W. Hildebrandt Group Director Engineering

ID: nht93-2.19

DATE: March 18, 1993

FROM: Philip Trupiano -- Auto Enterprises, Inc.

TO: Taylor Vinson -- Office of Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-31-93 from John Womack to Philip Trupiano (A41; Part 592)

TEXT: Pursuant to our phone conversation of this date, I now write to you seeking a interpretation of Sec S92.6 and 7 and the application of those sections to a proposed vehicle entry under the Registered Importer (RI) program. The facts for the proposed importation are as follows:

1. The vehicle is a 1984 Ford 9000 heavy duty truck. A current Canadian safety certification obtained from the required annual safety inspection exists. Ford Motor Company has already supplied verbal notice and a written letter stating the compliance of this truck with the U.S. FMVSS. Because this is obviously a commercial vehicle, NHTSA's policy does not allow entry under the personal use program; an RI is necessary.

2. The owner of the vehicle, a farming and trucking operation, is in North Dakota. The vehicle is currently in Manitoba, just above the North Dakota border. The proposed port of entry would be on the North Dakota/Canadian border, at least 2000 (driving) miles away from Detroit, Michigan where we are located.

3. Because of the distance involved, we propose to facilitate the entry my mailing the previously prepared (by Auto Enterprises) RI Certification Label to our customs broker (and authorized agent who already has our Power of Attorney) at the port of entry so that he can affix the label and take the appropriate photographs. The same customs broker is also acting on our behalf in filing the necessary Customs documents. The photographs would then be returned to us for subsequent inclusion with our Statement of Conformity and request for bond release which will be sent to NHTSA. We now ask your interpretation of the regulations to determine whether we, as the RI, using this arrangement, satisfy the requirement of 692.6(d).

4. The language in our present contract with the Importer (owner) states that the Importer "agrees not to sell, lease, title or register the vehicle or operate the vehicle on public roads prior to the issuance of DOT bond release".

Due to the logistics of the distances involved, the holding area and available inspection site for this proposed entry would be the Importer's company lot. The Importer would physically be unable to license or title the truck (due to lack of the necessary Customs Form 7501 or DOT release which must be supplied to the State licensing bureau) prior to actual DOT release or the expiration of the proscribed 30 day period. Since only Auto Enterprises has access to the Customs Form 7501 (Commercial Entry), our ability to withhold this important document would preclude licensing or titling (and, thus the ability to operate the truck) in any State. In view of these facts, we now ask your interpretation of the regulations to determine whether we, as the RI, using this proposed entry arrangement, satisfy the requirement of 591.8(d)(3) and

592.8(a).

To this date, Auto Enterprises has not made any entries with circumstances similar to those above. However, the party described above is waiting on a determination of these issues so that we may enter his truck as immediately as circumstances permit. We believe that a determination which is unfavorable would create an unnecessary economic hardship on the Importer as he would have to drive or transport the truck an additional 4000 miles for entry and storage in Detroit. Further, as the original manufacturer, Ford Motor Company, has already issued a letter stating compliance, this vehicle would otherwise be eligible for importation without an RI if this were a personal use basis. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (313) 589-3600. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. We await your reply.

Attached to letter dated 9-17-92 from Holt M. Johnston, Ford Motor Company, to Peter Fehr, Flexi-Coil Limited, re: FMVSS 108 and FMVSS 121. Also attached to Louisville Truck Centre Work Order re: FMVSS 121.

(Text omitted.)

ID: nht72-2.3

DATE: 07/24/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Weirich Associates

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of July 11, 1972, inquiring about the use of plastic for an automatically closing fuel cap for automobiles.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the responsibility for promulgating standards that improve the safety performance of new motor vehicles to minimize injuries and fatalities associated with the use of motor vehicles. Among the standards that have been issued is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 301, which specifies performance requirements for the fuel tank, fuel tank filler pipe, and fuel tank connections. Like other Federal Standards issued by the NHTSA, this standard is performance oriented and does not specify design requirements. This standard will shortly be amended to specify additional performance requirements including rear-end collisions and rollover. In addition, other proposals will also be issued to considerably improve fuel containment to minimize the possibility of fuel spillage resulting from additional vehicle impacts. The essential requirements pertain to demonstrations of safe fuel containment as the result of standardized vehicle crash tests. How the results are to be achieved, what materials can or cannot be used, or other design features, are left to the discretion of the motor vehicle manufacturer in order that there should be the maximum freedom for innovation and inventiveness to meet the specified safety performance. We have no restrictions in the use of plastics or other materials that meet a specified safety performance requirement.

In view of present rulemaking action to amend FMVSS No. 301, there has been much information assembled, which is part of the public record, concerning comments from manufacturers, the interested public, and from suppliers of components. Your components, including a self-closing fuel cap and a seal within the filler pipe are interesting developments having possible contribution to improved safety. We would be pleased to have more information concerning these developments and with your permission, we would like to have copies of descriptive information to put into our public record, Docket No. 70-20, for the public and for the motor vehicle industry to see.

We should mention also that the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, which regulates interstate commercial transportation of passengers and cargo, has regulations which include fuel caps. You may want to contact this organization for their current requirements. Their location is at the same address of NHTSA.

Relative to pollution, the current requirements for fuel evaporative emission controls have resulted in motor vehicles being equipped with fuel caps that either have no vents or which vent only after certain stress develops from positive or negative internal tank pressure. You may want to contact the Environmental Protection Agency concerning their regulations. The address is 1626 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

We are enclosing a copy of FMVSS No. 301, a copy of a notice proposing additional requirements, and a copy of Public Law 89-563.

We appreciate your interest in motor vehicle safety.

SINCERELY,

WEIRICH ASSOCIATES

July 11, 1972

Department of Transporation

Bureau of Motor Vehicles

Gentlemen:

We have developed a closure for the gasoline tanks for automobiles that automatically closes after filling thereby preventing spillage in the event the present day cap is not replaced properly, or in some instances not put back in place.

The piece can also be made to include a seal inside the fill pipe which effectively closes in case of collision damage.

Our question is to inquire regarding the use of plastics in the manufacture of this type of closure. Does the government have any regulations in this regard?

We do believe the new closure will contribute to some degree in the prevention of pollution, and to a greater measure as a safety device.

May we please have your early reply?

Paul Weirich General Manager

ID: postalvehicles.rbm

L.W. Camp
Director
Automotive Safety Office
Environmental and Safety Engineering
Ford Motor Company
330 Town Center Drive
Dearborn, MI 48126

Dear Mr. Camp:

This letter responds to your request for a legal interpretation of paragraph S4.5.1(b)(3) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Specifically, you want to know if Ford Motor Company may place a label other than the air bag label required by S4.5.1(b)(i) on a sun visor if the applicable seating position is legally built without an air bag. I apologize for the delay in our response.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. The following represents our opinion based on the facts set forth in your letter.

You stated in your letter that you are supplying the U.S. Postal Service with right hand drive vehicles over a period of two years. The Postal Service has requested that the vehicles be built without air bags as allowed by S4.2.2 of FMVSS No. 208. You also stated that Ford would like to place a label on the sun visor over the front outboard seating position informing the driver that the vehicle is not equipped with air bags and that he or she should always wear both lap and shoulder belts. You are concerned that paragraph S2.5.1(b)(3) could be read as preventing Ford from placing such a label on the sun visor.

Paragraph S4.5.1(b)(3), FMVSS No. 208 provides:

Except for information on an air bag maintenance label placed on the visor pursuant to S4.5.1(a) of this standard, or on a utility vehicle warning label placed on the visor that conforms in content, form, and sequence to the label shown in Figure 1 of 49 CFR 575.105, no other information shall appear on the same side of the sun visor to which the sun visor air bag warning label is affixed. Except for the information in an air bag alert label placed on the visor pursuant to S4.5.1(c) of this standard, or on a utility vehicle warning label placed on the visor that conforms in content, form, and sequence to the label shown in Figure 1 of 49 CFR 575.105, no other information about air bags or the need to wear seat belts shall appear anywhere on the sun visor.

Paragraph S4.5.1(b)(1)(i), FMVSS No. 208 provides, in part:

Each front outboard seating position that provides an inflatable restraint shall have a label permanently affixed to the sun visor for that seating position on either side of the sun visor, at the manufacturer's option....

The requirements of S4.5.1(b)(3) are limited by the requirements of S4.5.1(b)(1). This is because there is no need to place an air bag label over a seating position for which there is no air bag. Likewise, there is no need to restrict the content of a label that is voluntarily placed on a sun visor when no label is required. The reason that NHTSA has specified a particular air bag label is because we believe this is an area where uniformity in message and design furthers the interest of motor vehicle safety. If no label is required, there is no need to prevent another label that provides an important safety message. Accordingly, we have no objection to Ford placing a label on the sun visor notifying occupants that there is no air bag and that they should use the available restraint system.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or desire additional information, please feel free to contact Rebecca MacPherson of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:208
d.4/21/2000

ID: Will_ltr

Mr. Kent Will
Project Engineer
Oshkosh Truck Corporation
2307 Oregon Street
P.O. Box 2566
Oshkosh, WI 54903-2566





Dear Mr. Will:

This is in reply to your letter asking two questions regarding the rearview mirror requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 111, Rearview mirrors.

You have stated that you have selected a mirror to be installed as an outside, rearview mirror on a truck weighing between 7,575 and 15,773 kilograms (kg). You indicate that the mirror has a radius of curvature of 2,200 millimeters and that it provides a reflective surface area of 526.6 square centimeters. You ask whether this mirror would be considered a convex mirror and, if so, whether it would be subject to the labeling and radius of curvature requirements for convex mirrors contained in Paragraphs S5.4.2 and S5.4.3 of FMVSS No. 111.

The term "convex mirror" is defined as "a mirror having a curved reflective surface whose shape is the same as that of the exterior surface of a section of a sphere." 49 CFR 571.111 (S4. Definitions). You have described your mirror as having both a "radius of curvature" and a "reflective surface." Therefore, assuming that the shape of your mirror is spherical, it would be considered a convex mirror as defined in FMVSS No. 111. The next question to be addressed is which set of performance requirements applies to the mirror in question. The answer to that question depends on the type and weight of the vehicle receiving the mirror.

You have indicated that the mirror in question will be installed on a truck. FMVSS No. 111's performance requirements for rearview mirrors installed on trucks vary according to the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of the particular truck involved. Given that you intend to install the mirror on a truck with a GVWR between 7,575 kg and 15,773 kg, the applicable performance requirements are found in Paragraphs S7 and S8. The requirements in Paragraph S7 apply to trucks with a GVWR between 4,536 kg and 11,340 kg and the requirements in Paragraph S8 apply to trucks with a GVWR of 11,340 kg or more. Considering that the rearview mirror performance requirements in these two paragraphs are identical, though, it is not necessary for the purposes of this interpretation to differentiate between trucks with a GVWR between 7,575 kg and 11,340 kg and those with a GVWR between 11,340 kg and 15,773 kg.

Both paragraphs require trucks to "have outside mirrors of unit magnification, each with not less than 323 [square centimeters] of reflective surface, installed with stable supports on both sides of the vehicle." Both paragraphs also indicate that the mirrors must "be located to provide the driver a view to the rear along both sides of the vehicle and [must] be adjustable both in the horizontal and vertical directions to view the rearward scene." 49 CFR 571.111.

A "unit magnification mirror" is defined, in relevant part, as a "plane or flat mirror with a reflective surface through which the angular height and width of the image of an object is equal to the angular height and width of the object when viewed directly at the same distance." 49 CFR 571.111 (S4. Definitions.) Considering that your mirror appears to be a convex mirror, it would not be not flat enough to qualify as a mirror of unit magnification. Accordingly, installing such a mirror as an outside, rearview mirror on a truck with a GVWR between 7,575 kg and 15,773 kg would fail to satisfy the requirements of S7/S8 unless it was a supplemental mirror, installed in addition to a complying mirror.

I note that, in your letter, you ask about the labeling and radius of curvature requirements for convex mirrors found in paragraphs S5.4.2 and S5.4.3. These requirements are only relevant to passenger cars and trucks with a GVWR of 4,536 kg or less. If you have any questions, you may contact Robert Knop of this Office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:111
d.8/22/01