ID: 12259.drn

Mr. Andreas Geis
Robert Bosch GmbH
Automotive Division
K4/EVR5
Postfach 1163
D-77813 Bühl
Germany

Dear Mr. Geis:

Thank you for your letter about Standard No. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems. You note several typographical errors in your version of the standard that you would like us to correct.

The version of the standard to which you refer is not the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's version. The official version of Standard No. 104 is set forth in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 400 to 999, dated October 1, 1995 (copy enclosed). This version does not contain the errors you found.

Please note that English system measurements in Standard No. 104 have been converted to the metric system. The metric measurements took effect on March 14, 1996. The conversions are not intended to change the stringency of Standard No. 104.

If you have further questions or need additional information, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Our fax number is (202) 366-5820.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:104
d:8/26/96

ID: 12261GM.fix

Mr. Milford R. Bennett
Director, Safety Affairs & Regulations
General Motors Corporation (GM)
Mail Code 480-111-S56, Box 9010
Engineering Building 1-11
30200 Mound Rd.
Warren, MI 48090-9010

Dear Mr. Bennett:

This responds to a question you had in a petition for rulemaking concerning a "uniform child restraint anchorage" (UCRA) system that your company developed for attaching add-on child seats in vehicles. You ask whether the UCRA system may be installed prior to completion of the requested rulemaking. The answer is yes.

The UCRA system consists of two lower anchorages near the intersection of the vehicle seat back and cushion (the "bight" line), and an upper tether anchorage. The lower anchorages are each equipped with a latchplate that is smaller than and incompatible with the latchplate provided in seat belt systems for adult passengers. Child seats would be manufactured to have equipment that is compatible with the UCRA system, such as small buckles and a tether to attach to the small latches at the vehicle seat bite line and top tether anchorage.

Your company, as a member of the American Automobile Manufacturers Association, along with specified companies of the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers and the Juvenile Products Manufacturer's Association, petitioned the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to require vehicle manufacturers to provide a UCRA system in their vehicles, and require child restraint manufacturers to provide child seats that are "compatible with both the UCRA system (used alone) and the existing vehicle seat belt systems (used alone)."

Among other things, the petition asks whether "1) the proposed UCRA system can be incorporated into future vehicles, and 2) compatible CRSs can be offered for sale, provided the CRS and vehicle belt systems continue to comply with current Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) requirements." From various conversations between Jack Havelin and Dick Humphrey of GM and George Mouchahoir and Deirdre Fujita of NHTSA, we understand you to ask whether the UCRA system may be installed on

vehicles, and compatible componentry installed on child seats, before completion of the requested rulemaking on UCRAs, if the vehicles and child seats meet the standards currently applying to them.

Our answer is the UCRA may be installed. The preamble for the 1979 final rule adopting dynamic test requirements in Standard 213 (44 FR 72131) addressed the issue of "vehicle specific" child restraints, i.e., "systems uniquely designed for installation in a particular make and model which do not utilize vehicle seat belts for anchorages." 44 FR at 72136. The agency emphasized in the preamble that standardizing all child restraints, including vehicle specific ones, by requiring them to be capable of being secured to a vehicle seat by a lap belt is an important way to prevent misuse. However, the agency also stated:

[S]ince vehicle specific child restraints can provide adequate levels of protection when installed correctly, NHTSA is not prohibiting the manufacture of these devices. The new standard requires them to meet the performance requirements of the standard when secured by a vehicle lap belt. As long as child restraints can pass the performance requirements of the standard secured only by a lap belt, a manufacturer is free to specify other 'vehicle specific' installation conditions." 44 FR 72131, 72136; December 13, 1979.

We believe that the system you describe is a "vehicle specific" system similar to that discussed in the preamble. While the discussion quoted above pertained to vehicle specific child seats, by implication the child seat could be attached to the vehicle in a way other than by use of a lap belt. Generally speaking, our standards do not prohibit manufacturers from voluntarily installing items and features on their vehicles or equipment that are not regulated by the safety standards. The only limit is that the vehicle or equipment must meet applicable safety standards when equipped with the voluntary items and features, and must contain no safety-related defect.

Thus, the UCRA system you wish to voluntarily install would be permitted, provided that the vehicle meets all standards currently applying to the vehicle, e.g., standards for seat belt assemblies and anchorages, occupant crash protection and seat strength. Components may be voluntarily installed on a child seat to make the seat compatible with a UCRA, provided that the child seat can pass all requirements of the standard, including the requirement that the seat meet the dynamic test requirements when secured only by a lap belt.

However, please note the following concerns. First, under S5.6 of Standard 213, child seat manufacturers are required to provide step-by-step instructions for securing the child restraint in vehicle-specific applications, as well as providing such instructions for securing the child restraint when it is used in vehicles for which no vehicle-specific installation is recommended.

Second, under NHTSA's defect authority, manufacturers must ensure that their design and production of the UCRA system does not result in unsafe attachments between vehicle and child seats.

Third, assuming that NHTSA issues a rule specifying requirements for a universal child restraint attachment system, such a rule could have requirements that differ from those suggested in your petition. Manufacturers would be responsible for ensuring that UCRA systems installed on vehicles and child seats on or after the effective date of the rule comply with the adopted requirements.

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Ms. Fujita at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:213
d:8/27/96

ID: 12262.jeg

Erika Z. Jones, Esq.
Mayer, Brown & Platt
2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20006-1882

Dear Ms. Jones:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 583, Automobile Parts Content Labeling. You noted that the regulation specifies that the U.S./Canadian content of components is defaulted to zero when outside suppliers fail to respond to a manufacturer's or allied supplier's request for content information. You requested clarification concerning how a manufacturer should treat the value and content of such defaulted components for purposes of determining the "major foreign sources of passenger motor vehicle equipment."

More specifically, you suggested two alternative general rules regarding the treatment of defaulted components:

A review of the regulation prescribing the manner of determining the "major foreign sources" suggests at least two ways that this question could be answered. . . .

One possibility is that the value of the defaulted components would be excluded entirely from the "major foreign source" calculation, since the origin of the defaulted components is undocumented and therefore not reasonably assumed to be either foreign or non-foreign for purposes of Line Two of the label.

Another possibility is that the value of the defaulted components would be included in the total value computation under 583.7(d)(1), but excluded from any country-specific value calculation under 583.7(d)(2).

As discussed below, it is difficult to provide generalizations that apply in all instances. We disagree with the first of the

two suggested rules. We agree with the first portion of the second suggested rule, but not necessarily with the second portion of that rule.

Section 583.7 specifies the procedure for determining major foreign sources of passenger motor vehicle equipment. One of the steps in that procedure, set forth at 583.7(d)(1), reads as follows:

Adding up the total value of all of the passenger motor vehicle equipment (regardless of country of origin) expected to be installed in that carline during the next model year.

While the U.S./Canadian content of components is defaulted to zero when suppliers fail to respond to a manufacturer's or allied supplier's request for content information (583.6(c)(5)⁽¹⁾), the components do not cease to be passenger motor vehicle equipment. Therefore, the value of those components is included as part of the "total value of all of the passenger motor vehicle equipment" expected to be installed in a carline, as you suggest in the first portion of your second suggested rule. I also note that 583.7(d)(1) makes it clear that all such equipment is included "regardless of country of origin."

The second portion of your second suggested rule provides that the value of defaulted components would be excluded from any country-specific value calculation under 583.7(d)(2). While this would often be the case, it would not be a necessary result. While Part 583 provides that the U.S./Canadian content of components is defaulted to zero when suppliers fail to respond to a manufacturer's or allied supplier's request for content information, it does not address whether the origin could be determined to be from another country.

As we discussed in our September 15, 1995 notice, manufacturers may possess the information necessary to make origin determinations for equipment that was manufactured in countries other than the U.S. or Canada and then imported into the U.S. or Canada. See 60 FR at 47893. In such instances, manufacturers may use any available information to make determinations of zero U.S./Canadian content, country of manufacture, and purchase price, as an alternative to relying on supplier certifications.

If a manufacturer in such instances requested, but did not receive a certificate from a supplier, the manufacturer might nonetheless be able to make a determination of origin for a country other than the U.S./Canada.

If you have further questions about this subject, please call Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:583

d:9/13/96

1. Please note that NHTSA recently made a limited, temporary amendment to this section to provide vehicle manufacturers added flexibility in making content determinations where outside suppliers have not responded to requests for content information. This added flexibility affects the application of the "default-to-zero" provision.

ID: 12292.drn

The Honorable Ernest F. Hollings
United States Senate
1835 Assembly Street
Columbia, S.C. 29201

Dear Senator Hollings:

Thank you for your letter to Mr. John Horsley, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs, at the U.S. Department of Transportation. Since you request an interpretation of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) regulations, Mr. Horsley has asked me to respond.

Your letter informs us that your constituent, Mr. Pritchard, wishes to disable a "dashboard warning light" on his motor vehicle. Mr. Wyeth Ruthven of your Columbia office has informed my staff that Mr. Pritchard owns a model year 1992 Chrysler Town and Country minivan. After the vehicle is driven 60,000 miles, a light actuates on the front dashboard, as a reminder that the vehicle should undergo a maintenance inspection. Mr. Pritchard apparently wishes to disable the maintenance inspection reminder display light.

NHTSA has issued a number of safety standards that apply to new motor vehicles. None of our standards, however, regulates a maintenance inspection reminder display. Thus, our requirements do not restrict anyone from disabling the display or arranging with a commercial business to disable it. We would like to note, however, that certain other displays, such as an air bag readiness indicator, are required by our safety standards and thus could not be disabled by a commercial business. In addition, state laws may restrict the changes a vehicle owner may make to his or her vehicle. Mr. Pritchard might want to contact South Carolina state officials for information on that issue.

I hope this information is helpful. If you need any other information, please let me know.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:101
d:8/29/96

ID: 12311.ztv

Mr. Craig Homberg
Engineer
Aquatech, Inc.
1777 Miller Parkway
Streetsboro, OH 44241

Dear Mr. Homberg:

This responds to your letter of August 2, 1996, to the former Chief Counsel, Samuel Dubbin, asking for suggestions as to where Aquatech might locate the rear identification lamps on a vehicle that it manufactures. These lamps "are obstructed by a vacuum boom." The lamps cannot be mounted on the boom because it "articulates side to side and extends and retracts." You have enclosed a two-dimensional drawing showing the vehicle from the rear.

Table II of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 requires rear identification lamps to be "3 lamps as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle, as close as practicable to the vertical centerline, with lamp centers spaced not less than 6 inches or more than 12 inches apart." Table II does not establish either a minimum or maximum mounting height for these lamps.

The agency realizes that, with some vehicle configurations, the highest practicable location may be approximately the same level as stop and taillamps, such as the frame rail, and the agency has accepted this. Some manufacturers have also added equipment to the vehicle at this level to accommodate identification lamps. The two-dimensional drawing you enclosed shows a horizontal structure below the boom and above the rear axle, where it might be possible to add identification lamps. However, the drawing is two-dimensional and it is not possible for us to assess the dimensional relationship between the horizontal structure and the vertical piece that, in the picture, bisects the lower half of the horizontal structure.

If it is not practicable to add identification lamps on the horizontal structure below the boom and above the rear axle, we would be pleased to advise you further if you would send us a photograph or drawing of the rear that shows the dimensional relationships of the equipment already located there. If you have any further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108

d:9/6/96

ID: 12328.ztv

Julius Fisher, Esq.
McAulay Fisher Nissen Goldberg & Kiel, LLP
261 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016-2391

Re: U.S. Patent No. 5,389,913

Warning System for Vehicles

Your file Jodee P-8A

Dear Mr. Fisher:

This is in reply to your letter of August 6, 1996, to the former Chief Counsel, Samuel Dubbin, with respect to whether a warning system for motor vehicles which you describe would be permitted by paragraph S5.1.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment (49 CFR 571.108).

As you describe it, the system "provides a visual indication of a warning situation through use of the parking lamps, high beam headlamps, and back-up lamps." The system operates as follows: "when the horn is sounded, electrical circuits are energized . . . which cause the high beam of the headlamps to flash on and off, in synchronism with the flasher. If the high beams or back-up lamps are already in their 'on' state, they will change to a 'flashing' state." In addition, the parking lamps are activated in a steady-burning state when the horn is sounded (no change takes place if the parking lamps are already on). If the lower beams are on when the horn is sounded, there is no change either; only the upper beams begin to flash.

We note from reading the patent that the system incorporates an "off relay delay" which "is set for a predetermined time during which it stays in its on state after being energized. This predetermined time might be for five seconds." We note also that the system may be extended to other lamps but that the inventors have not chosen to do so because "such might produce confusion and/or an inappropriate response." Finally, we note that the flash rate is unspecified but can be changed. A range of from a quarter of a second to a second is mentioned.

Standard No. 108 establishes lighting requirements that a motor vehicle must meet up to the time it is first purchased in good faith other than for resale. When a vehicle has been manufactured to conform with Standard No. 108, a dealer must not add optional equipment that creates a noncompliance.

The principal provision of Standard No. 108 that affects the warning system is paragraph S5.5.10 which prescribes wiring requirements for lighting equipment in use. Under paragraph S5.5.10(b) "Headlamps and side marker lamps may be wired to flash for signaling purposes". However, under paragraph S5.5.10(d), "All other lamps shall be wired to be steady-burning." This means that it is permissible under paragraph S5.5.10(b) for the upper beam headlamps to flash, but the warning system would create a noncompliance with paragraph S5.5.10(d) when the back-up lamps flashed.

The acceptability of optional lighting equipment is also dependent upon paragraph S5.1.3 which forbids the addition of any equipment "that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard." The warning system's activation of the parking lamps would not appear to have an impairing effect on the front lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. Nor can we conclude that a flashing of the upper beam when the lower beam is on would have an impairing effect.

Under Federal law, the acceptability of the warning system as an item of equipment sold in the aftermarket is determinable by 49 U.S.C. 30122. This section prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses from "making inoperative" any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal safety standard. As we have discussed, the system would create a noncompliance in the operation of the back-up lamp, which, in our opinion, is the same as making it inoperative. However, this prohibition does not apply to an owner who installs the warning system. Nevertheless, the warning system would remain subject to acceptability under local laws. We are unable to advise you on these and suggest that you consult local officials in areas where the inventors would like to sell their warning system.

We appreciate the concern shown in the patent that the system not create confusion and/or an inappropriate response from other drivers. But we believe it more likely than not that a driver ahead of a vehicle equipped with the warning system will indeed be confused when confronted with the sounding of a horn and the sudden presence of flashing upper beam headlamps in the rear view mirrors, and will not understand the "message" that is being conveyed. How this might impact safety is speculative. But with the increasing trend towards aggressive drivers on the roads, a system of this nature could be subject to abuse, even if its flash rate and duration were standardized and immutable.

If you have further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108#VSA
d:8/30/96

ID: 12339.ZTV

Mr. Paul J. M. Angrisano, III
Marketing, A.P.S.
762 S. Rampart St.
New Orleans, LA 70113

FAX: 504-558-0969

Dear Mr. Angrisano:

On August 29, 1996, we responded to your letter which we received on August 14, 1996, with respect to whether it is permissible to alter daytime running lamps without violating a Federal regulation. I would now like to clarify a statement in that letter.

You asked for confirmation that "no installer or individual who disconnects or alters existing Daytime Running Lights on a 1997 vehicle is in violation of any federal law. Alteration of Daytime Running lights is completely legal at the owners discretion."

We confirmed your statement, and replied that, while Standard No. 108 contains specifications for daytime running lamps (DRLs), it does not require manufacturers to provide them. Although there is a statutory prohibition (Title 49, United States Code Sec. 30122) that manufacturers, distributors, dealers and motor vehicle repair businesses may not make inoperative any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, this prohibition does not apply to DRLs because a motor vehicle need not be equipped with DRLs in order to comply with Standard No. 108.

Although a manufacturer is not required to provide DRLs, Standard No. 108 specifies performance requirements that DRLs must meet if a vehicle is equipped with them. The clarification I wish to provide is that manufacturers, distributors, dealers and motor vehicle repair businesses, while free to disconnect DRLs or provide on-off switches, may not alter the performance specifications of DRLs in a manner that would make them not comply with the performance requirements specified for DRLs in the standard. The specified performance requirements exist specifically to prevent impairment of the performance of other lighting equipment, such as turn signals, from performing the function for which they are intended, or impairment of rearview mirrors through the creation of glare. We would regard these

circumstances as a "making inoperative" within the meaning of the statutory phrase. If a dealer or distributor performed such a modification before the initial sale of a vehicle, we could view this as a noncompliance with Paragraph S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108.

If you have any further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108

d:9/30/96

ID: 12341.jeg

Mr. Guy Monagas
123 Birch Trail
Kennesaw, Georgia 30152

Dear Mr. Monagas:

This responds to your letter asking what DOT standards would apply to a seat belt system you have designed. I apologize for the delay in our response.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. The agency does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards.

NHTSA has issued four safety standards concerning safety belt systems. The first is Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208), which sets forth requirements for occupant protection at the various seating positions in vehicles. The second is Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR 571.209), which sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies. The third is Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages (49 CFR 571.210), which establishes strength and location requirements for seat belt anchorages. The fourth is Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CFR 571.302), which specifies burn resistance requirements for materials used in the occupant compartment of motor vehicles. I regret that we are not able to provide an analysis of the requirements of the standards in light of your specific design.

Enclosed is an information sheet we have prepared to provide general information for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Also enclosed is a copy of an information sheet explaining how to obtain copies of our standards.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please feel free to call Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:208
d:11/5/96

ID: 12371-2.pja

Mr. Thomas M. Joyce
Executive Vice President
Landoll Corporation
1900 North St.
Marysville, Kansas 66508

Dear Mr. Joyce:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation on whether the tilt bed trailers your company manufactures would be excluded from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) recent rear impact protection (underride guard) regulations. As shown in the product literature and videotape you enclosed with your letter, your trailers are equipped with hydraulic traveling rear axles. These axles move fore and aft under the frame rails of the vehicle in conjunction with hydraulic pistons at the front of the bed to tip the bed of the trailer down in the rear until it contacts the ground. Once tipped, containers, construction equipment, and wrecks can be driven or pulled by a hoist cable on and off the bed.

Based on your product literature and videos, it appears that your factory mounts this equipment on new truck and trailer chassis prior to first sale. You believe that these trailers are excluded due to their "special design." We assume you mean that you believe the vehicles are excluded as "special purpose vehicles," because mounting underride guards on the rear underside of the rails which would prevent them from being fully lowered. The short answer to your question is that your trailers are not excluded.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 224, Rear impact protection, requires most trailers and semitrailers

weighing over 10,000 pounds to be fitted at the rear with a rear impact (underride) guard meeting the requirements of FMVSS No. 223, Rear impact guards (49 CFR 571.223 and 571.224, published on January 24, 1996 at 61 FR 2004). The only excluded category of vehicle that is relevant for the purposes of this letter is special purpose vehicles.

A special purpose vehicle is defined in S4 of FMVSS No. 224 as being "a trailer or semitrailer having work-performing equipment . . . that, while the vehicle is in transit, resides in or moves through the area that could be occupied by the horizontal member of the rear underride guard . . . (emphasis added)." Your tilt bed trailer is not excluded, because it does not meet the definition of a special purpose vehicle. Although NHTSA considers the rails to be work performing equipment that, as the frame is tilted, passes through the area where the horizontal member of the underride guard would be located, they do not do so while the vehicle is in transit.

NHTSA addressed the issue of roll off hoist trailers in the final rule. The National Solid Wastes Management Association (NSWMA), a trade group that we believe represents many of your customers, requested special consideration for roll-off hoist vehicles. However, NSWMA's main objection was requiring guards on the containers themselves, which is not your concern. NSWMA stated in their comment that:

[t]he most common type of roll-off tilt frame used is the 'outside rail' design . . . In these cases the rear underride [guard] required by [23 CFR] 393.86 will contact the ground at a frame tilt angle of approximate [sic] 40 degrees. Since this causes instability if the ground is uneven, a number of manufacturers have resorted to a retractable underride [guard] design, where a strut attached to the rear chassis frame will cause the underride [guard] to move forward and out of the interference area as the frame is tilted.

NHTSA assumed by this comment that a design solution had been found to address the problem of the guard hitting the ground. Therefore, NHTSA believed it was only necessary to respond to NSWMA that guards were not required on the container, only the trailer that carries it.

We note that your current design already is nearly compliant with the configuration aspects of the rule. The drawing you sent us shows that the guard is mounted to the back of the traveling rear axle and extends rearward from the axle. One drawing shows the rear surface of the guard's horizontal member within two inches of the required zone. Perhaps extending the mounting struts rearward another two inches would produce a compliant guard. Alternatively, you could contact NSWMA to explore the possibility of using the retractable guard design that it discussed.

If you believe your trailers should be excluded from Standard No. 224, you may submit a petition for rulemaking (see 49 CFR Part 552, which I have enclosed for your convenience) requesting that NHTSA amend the standard. 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.

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:224

d.12/10/96

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