ID: 5927Carraway

Mr. Bruce H. Carraway, Jr.
Carraway Safety Belt Company
14 Kings Bridge
Atlanta, GA 30329

Dear Mr. Carraway:

This responds to your letter in which you follow-up on our earlier correspondence regarding belt minder systems. In your recent letter, you requested that the agency require vehicles to be equipped with a belt minder system which relies on a voice synthesizer to provide an audible alarm. As explained below, the agency does not have authority to require a system as you have described.

In your letter, you requested that the agency require vehicles to be equipped with a belt-minder system developed by your company. You explained that the system would transmit a message through a vehicle’s audio system when a vehicle’s ignition is turned to the “on” position. Additionally, you stated that your system would use a voice synthesizer to state, “Thank you for fastening your seat belt.” You further explained that the duration of the message would be 4 or 5 seconds, and would repeat after a period of approximately 100 seconds. From your letter, it appears that the audible warning would sound regardless of whether the safety belt at the driver’s seat is buckled.

I want first to thank you for your continued interest in motor vehicle safety. As explained in our previous letter to you, Congress has provided the agency with specific direction with respect to certain types of vehicle-based safety belt incentives. 49 U.S.C. § 30124 states that:

A motor vehicle safety standard … may not require or allow a manufacturer to comply with the standard by using a safety belt interlock designed to prevent starting or operating a motor vehicle if an occupant is not using a safety belt or a buzzer designed to indicate a safety belt is not in use, except a buzzer that operates only during the 8-second period after the ignition is turned to the “start” or “on” position. (Emphasis added.)

Under this provision, the agency is prohibited from establishing a standard based on the system you described. Specifically, the agency is prohibited from requiring a belt minder system that sounds after the initial 8-second period. As your system has a second audible alarm 100 seconds after a vehicle’s ignition is turned to the “on” position, a standard mandating your system would not comply with the congressional directive.

While the agency is unable to mandate your system, we continue to encourage vehicle manufacturers to consider voluntarily introducing belt-minder systems and other innovative technologies that could increase seat belt use in ways acceptable to their customers. As explained in our previous letter to you, manufacturers may provide a voluntary audible signal that sounds after the 8-second period specified in S7.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant crash protection, so long as they provide some means for differentiating the voluntarily provided signal from the required signal. Further, i n a previous interpretation letter to MMC Services, we stated that an audible “voice” signal would be permitted under the standard (January 13, 1981; copy enclosed).

However, we have concerns with a system such as you described, in which the audible signal operates regardless of whether an individual is buckled-up. Under your system, an occupant that has not fastened his/her safety belt would still be “thanked” for buckling-up. This may minimize the incentive to buckle-up that a belt-minder system is intended to provide. Further, it could both confuse and aggravate drivers and passengers because an occupant would receive the same signal no matter what action is taken.

If you have any further questions, please contact Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures

fef:208

d.11/12/04

ID: 6319_IN_makeinop

Jennifer H. Woods, Esq.
Indiana Protection
and Advocacy Services
4701 N Keystone Avenue # 222
Indianapolis, IN 46205




Dear Ms. Woods:

This responds to your letter in which you asked us to confirm your understanding of the Federal requirements regarding modifications made to a vehicle after it is first sold for retail sale. As explained below, a motor vehicle repair business must ensure that any such modification does not remove a vehicle from compliance with the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs). However, as you correctly stated, we do not require crash tests to demonstrate continued compliance.

Generally, our standards apply to motor vehicle equipment as manufactured until the point of first retail sale. However, even after first retail sale a manufacturer, a distributor, dealer, or repair business cannot "knowingly make inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard" (49 U.S.C. 30122).

In your letter and in a telephone conversation with Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff, you explained that your client is seeking to have his Chevy Astro Van modified in order to accommodate adaptive driving equipment. In your phone conversation, you clarified that the vehicle to be modified has been purchased by your client at retail. You stated that the contemplated modification involves lowering the vehicle floor, and that you understand that this type of modification could remove the vehicle from compliance with FMVSS No. 301, Fuel system integrity. You then asked the agency to confirm if engineering analysis could be used to demonstrate the vehicles continued compliance with FMVSS No. 301.

You are correct that if any of the businesses listed in 30122 were to perform the modifications to your clients van, it would be prohibited from removing the vehicle from compliance with any applicable FMVSS, including FMVSS No. 301. However, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not prescribe the manner in which a modifier must ensure continued compliance with the applicable FMVSSs.

A modifier may be able to contact the original manufacturer to determine that a particular modification would not violate the "make inoperative" provision. The modifier may also be able to lower the vehicle floorpursuant to a specific protocol based on analysis of testing in accordance with FMVSS No. 301. For example, the modifier may be able to modify the vehicle pursuant to a protocol provided by a trade organization that has performed the necessary analysis. We believe that the National Mobility Equipment Dealers Association (NMEDA) has successfully crash-tested a vehicle with a lowered floor and that it provides an explanation of how to make such a modification without compromising compliance with the FMVSS to its Quality Assurance Program (QAP) members. Also, a modifier may be able to use engineering analysis to determine whether a modification would take a vehicle out of compliance with applicable standards.

I hope this addresses your concerns. I have also included a previous interpretation letter to Mr. Ron Smith (October 22, 1998) that provides further information regarding the issues raised in your inquiry. Please contact Mr. Calamita at (202) 366-2992 should you have any additional questions about this matter.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:301
d.12/30/05

ID: 6320.jeg

Mr. John Lovstedt
Highway Safety Manager
DOT/HWY-V, Room 511
Kapolei, Hawaii 96707

Dear Mr. Lovstedt:

This responds to your letter asking about the relationship between Federal and State laws relating to kit cars. The issues raised by your letter are addressed below.

In your letter, you cited the example of a kit car in which everything except the engine and transmission is new. As you suggest in your letter, this would be considered a new motor vehicle under Federal law. The assembler would be the "manufacturer" of the vehicle. Under Federal law, 49 U.S.C. 30112(a), a person may not manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce in interstate commerce any vehicle that does not comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) in effect at the time of the assembly of the vehicle. The manufacturer would also have to certify compliance with all applicable FMVSS.

You stated, however, that Hawaii State law allows a person to build, register, use, and sell for use on the public roads such a vehicle without certifying compliance with the FMVSS, and asked whether this portion of the law would be in violation of 49 U.S.C. 30103. You also stated that you do not see how a person could ever "legally register" a car like this, yet people seem to be registering them in other states.

While we decline to provide an opinion about the Hawaii law you cite, I will note that the issue of whether a kit car is considered to be a new motor vehicle subject to the FMVSS in effect at the time of the assembly of the vehicle is a matter of Federal law, not State law. Thus, a person who manufactured a kit car that did not comply with the FMVSS and sold it, offered it for sale, or introduced it into interstate commerce would be in violation of Federal law, regardless of any State laws.

The issue of whether the person could legally register the vehicle would be a matter of State law. However, even if the State law did permit such registration, the person would still be in violation of Federal law.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:VSA
d.10/29/03

ID: 6329

Mr. Allan E. McIntyre
Engineering and Product Development
Sprague Devices, Inc.
P. O. Box 389
Michigan City, IN 46360

Dear Mr. McIntyre:

This responds to your letter to the Federal Highway Administration asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 104, Windshield washing and wiping systems. Since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for administering the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) , including Standard No. 104, your letter was referred to my office for reply. I regret the delay in this response.

Your letter concerns a standard issued by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) and referenced in S4.2.2 of Standard No. 104. S4.2.2 specifies that each multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck and bus shall have a windshield washing system that meets the requirements of SAE Recommended Practice J942, November 1965 (as modified). You explain that you chair an SAE subcommittee that developed a new Recommended Practice J1944, "Truck & Bus Multipurpose Vehicle Windshield Washer System," that you believe is more suitable for testing "commercial vehicles." You ask whether NHTSA would "allow for documentation of compliance to FMVSS 104 through use of the new J1944 recommended practice or is it necessary to evaluate per J942 as specifically written."

Your question raises two issues, both of which concern how a test procedure specified in the Federal motor vehicle safety standards may vary in practice from that described in the standard. The first issue is whether a vehicle manufacturer is obligated to test its vehicle only in the manner specified in Standard No. 104, i.e., only by using J942 and not the newly developed J1944. The answer is no. Each of NHTSA's safety standards specifies the test conditions and procedures that this agency will use to evaluate the performance of the vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard. However, NHTSA does not require a manufacturer to test its products only in the manner specified in the safety standards. A manufacturer may choose any means of evaluating its products to determine whether the vehicle or item of equipment complies with the requirements of Standard No. 104, provided, however, that the manufacturer assures that the vehicle will comply with the standard when tested by NHTSA.

If NHTSA's compliance test of Standard No. 104 were to show an apparent noncompliance of a vehicle with the standard, the vehicle manufacturer would be asked to show the basis for its certification that its vehicle complies with the standard. If in fact there is a noncompliance, the manufacturer would be subject to civil penalties unless it can establish that it exercised "reasonable care" in the manufacture of the product and in the checks (through actual testing, computer simulation, engineering analyses, or other means) to ensure compliance.

We cannot tell you at this time whether a manufacturer's use of J1944 to certify a vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 104 would constitute "reasonable care." NHTSA is unable to judge what efforts constitute "reasonable care" outside of the course of a specific enforcement proceeding. What constitutes "reasonable care" in a particular case depends on many factors, including such things as the limitations of current technology, the availability of test equipment, the size of the manufacturer, and above all, the diligence exercised by the manufacturer.

The second issue raised by your question is whether NHTSA is required to use J942 in the agency's compliance tests. The answer is yes, as long as J942 is incorporated into the test procedure of Standard No. 104. When conducting its compliance testing, NHTSA must precisely follow each of the specified test procedures and conditions set forth in the safety standard. If a different procedure or condition is desirable, the agency must undertake rulemaking to amend the standard to incorporate the desired change.

You ask in your letter about the procedure for amending Standard No. 104. NHTSA has a process whereby you can petition for a change to the FMVSS, including Standard No. 104. The petitioning procedure is outlined at 49 CFR part 552 Petitions for rulemaking, defect, and noncompliance orders (copy enclosed). Very briefly, section 552.4 states that a petition should be addressed and submitted to: Administrator, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. Each petition must be written in English, have a heading that includes the word "Petition," set forth facts which it is claimed establish that a change to the regulation is necessary, set forth a brief description of the substance of the revised regulation which it is claimed should be issued, and contain the name and address of the petitioner. After receiving the petition, NHTSA conducts a technical review to determine whether there is a reasonable possibility that the requested regulatory change will be issued at the end of the appropriate rulemaking proceeding.

You state that J1944, the newer SAE standard, is overall a "tougher" document than J942. You should be aware that NHTSA cannot automatically incorporate a "tougher" version of an incorporated document into the FMVSS. Before NHTSA incorporates an upgraded standard, NHTSA examines whether there is a safety need for the newer requirements. In its examination, NHTSA considers data from all sources, including the petitioner. If you decide to submit a petition, you ought to explain the safety need for the new requirements and provide an analysis of the increased costs likely to be associated with the new requirements.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions. please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:104 d:2/3/95 While the exercise of "reasonable care" may relieve a manufacturer of liability for civil penalties for the manufacture and sale of noncomplying vehicles or equipment, it does not relieve a manufacturer of the responsibility to notify purchasers of the noncompliance and remedy the noncompliance free of charge.

ID: 6335

William R. Willen, Esq.
Managing Counsel
American Honda Motor Co., Inc.
1919 Torrance Boulevard
Torrance, CA 90501-2746

Dear Mr. Willen:

We have received your "Petition for Honda Electric Vehicles in accordance with FMVSS '555.6(c)" (correctly, 49 CFR '555.6(c)), dated June 28, 1994.

The petition is incomplete in certain respects. It fails to provide the public interest and traffic safety arguments required by '555.5(b)(7). Section 555.6(c)(2)(iii) requires the submission of "the results of any tests conducted on the vehicle that demonstrate its failure to meet the standard, expressed as comparative performance levels." You have provided this information with respect to your request for exemption from Standard No. 103 but not with respect to the eight interior components that accompany your request for exemption from Standard No. 302. If you have conducted tests on these components, yuou are required to submit them as part of your petition.

In addition, the petition does not state whether the period for which exemption is requested is for one or two years (you may need the latter if the manufacture of the 20 electric vehicles is not completed within a year from the date of grant of the petition).

If the vehicles are manufactured outside the United States, Honda may wish to avail itself of the provisions of 49 CFR 591.5(j) which allows a manufacturer to import noncomplying vehicles for purposes of research, investigation, and studies for a period of up to three years (when the temporary

importation bond must be paid). After payment of the bond, a manufacturer may request NHTSA for an extension if it requires further time to complete its tests and evaluations.

We shall hold your petition in abeyance until we hear further from you.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:555#591 d:7/25/94

ID: 6406

Mr. Scott R. Dennison
Consultant
Excalibur Automobile Corporation
1735 S. 106th Street
Milwaukee, WI 53214

Dear Mr. Dennison:

We have received your letter of May 31, 1994, petitioning for a temporary exemption from paragraph S4.1.4 of Standard No. 208 on behalf of Excalibur Automobile Corporation (the Federal Express Airbill indicates that it was mailed July 9, 1994).

The petition does not, as required by 49 CFR '555.5(b)(7), set forth the reasons why an exemption would be in the public interest and consistent with the objectives of traffic safety.

You make the statement that "the door hinge system incorporated in the Excalibur Cobra has been tested to exceed the FMVSS by over four times the required strength." Please provide a copy of the test report that demonstrates this performance. Under '555.6(d)(1)(iv), a petitioner is required to provide "the results of any tests conducted on the vehicle demonstrating that its overall level of safety exceeds that which is achieved by conformity to the standards."

The second page of the petition references a "Plymouth Sunbird" vehicle for model year 1994. We assume you mean Pontiac, as we are unaware of any Plymouth with this model name.

The timing of your letter raises the inference that Excalibur may presently be manufacturing convertibles equipped with manual Type 2 seat belt assemblies. Please inform us as to the number of Cobras that the company may have produced on or after September 1, 1989, that were equipped with driver and passenger manual Type 2 seat belt assemblies.

Finally, it has been customary for petitions to be signed by an officer of the manufacturer. We have accepted petitions signed by foreign manufacturers but submitted by a person resident in the United States, on the manufacturer's behalf. Your use of Excalibur's letterhead leads to an assumption that you have the authority to make the representations of the

petition, but your title of "Consultant" does not identify you as a corporate officer. We would appreciate an explanation of your relationship to Excalibur, or, alternatively, the signature of a corporate officer on the petition.

We shall hold the petition in abeyance until we have heard further from you.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:555 d:7/20/94

ID: 6845blackout_switch

Matt Walling, Chief of Police
4401 Rowlett Rd.
Rowlett, TX 75088




Dear Chief Walling:

This is in reply to an inquiry from Lieutenant Marvin Gibbs of your department regarding the installation of a "blackout switch," i.e., a switch that disconnects a vehicles stop lamps and back-up lamps, on a patrol vehicle. As explained below, a motor vehicle repair business would be prohibited from installing such a device.

In a telephone conversation with Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff, Lieutenant Gibbs asked about the installation of "blackout switches" in patrol vehicles. Lieutenant Gibbs specifically asked if the switches could be installed by a contracted party.

Generally, our standards apply to motor vehicle equipment as manufactured up until the point of first retail sale. However, even after first retail sale a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business cannot "knowingly make inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard" (49 U.S.C. 30122; "make inoperative" prohibition).

I enclose a letter from this Office dated April 4, 2002, to Lee M. Calkins. In that letter, we pointed out that, under the "make inoperative" prohibition a blackout switch could not be installed by any of the above named businesses. Under Section 30122(a), a motor vehicle repair business means "a person holding itself out to the public to repair for compensation a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment. If the party with which your department contracted were within the definition of "motor vehicle repair business", it would be prohibited from installing such a switch. I note that the "make inoperative" prohibition does not apply to modifications made to a vehicle by its owner.

If you have any questions, you may telephone Mr. Calamita of this Office at (202) 366-5263.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Assistant Chief Counsel
for Vehicle Safety Standards and Harmonization

Enclosure
ref:108
d.9/15/05

ID: 6918

Mr. William H. Spain
Touch Wood
5417 Caldwell Mill Road
Birmingham, AL 35242

Dear Mr. Spain:

This responds to your letter of January 21, 1992, to Taylor Vinson of this office, with reference to your "Auxiliary Lighting Device". I understand that you have also discussed the Device on the phone with Mr. Vinson on March 3, and with Mr. Van Iderstine of the Office of Rulemaking on March 26. You have referenced sections S5.1.3, S5.1.1.11, S5.3.1.1, S5.5.3 and S5.5.10(a) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, and ask for an "initial first impression as to whether or not we might have a problem."

In your experience, "it is not an uncommon occurrence for a tractor/trailer to lose its taillamps due to a circuit or wiring malfunction." When this occurs, you point out that the driver's only choice is to activate his hazard warning system, which is not its intended purpose, and which defeats the normal turn signal circuits. Your Device would permit the operator of the tractor to employ the rear turn signal lamps as surrogate taillamps if the vehicle's standard taillamps were inoperative. Specifically, "a reduced voltage is fed through both right and left rear turn signal circuits to cause both turn signal lamps to illuminate at a reduced brilliance equal to that of a normal tail lamp." The Device has an alternative function. It permits the turn signal lamps to be used at full intensity as fog lamps to increase rear visibility. The activation of the turn signal switch within 1/2 second overrides the Device and allows normal operation of the turn signal lamps. The Device is activated through a toggle switch on the dash, which glows to indicate to the driver that it is engaged.

The applicability of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the "Act") and Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to tractor-trailer combinations is not well defined. Standard No. 108 is, in essence, a manufacturing standard that applies to individual motor vehicles. It ceases to apply at the time of purchase by its first owner (other than the manufacturer or dealer). Once a vehicle is sold, questions of continued compliance with the standards, including Standard No. 108, must be answered with reference to the Act. The question presented by your letter concerns a device added to one vehicle before its first sale that is intended to affect the lighting performance on another vehicle after the sale of the second vehicle (i.e., when it has become a "vehicle in use", to use the statutory term). We recently provided another interpretation of the applicability of Standard No. 108 and the Act to towing and towed vehicle combinations which I would like to discuss, as it provides a basis for our interpretation to you, but is nevertheless distinguishable from it by its facts (letter of April 3, 1992, to Echlin Corp.)

The Echlin Corp. device (the "Control") was intended to control trailer sway by allowing the towing vehicle's driver to apply the towed vehicle's brakes through modulated pressure by use of a hand control in the towing vehicle. The wiring of the Control was such that the trailer stop lamps were not activated when the Control was in use. Standard No. 108 and the laws of some States require that the stop lamps be activated when the service brakes are applied. We informed the manufacturer of the Control that, under the specific facts of the case, the question was not one to be answered under Standard No. 108 as applying to new vehicles, but to be answered under the Act as it affects vehicles in use. The Act contains a general prohibition (l5 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) against knowingly rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design on a vehicle in use that has been installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The prohibition applies to any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business. With respect to the Control, the dealer of the towed vehicle adds the Control to the towing vehicle (a vehicle in use) at the time that the towed vehicle is purchased. In our opinion, the legal question was whether the dealer of the towed vehicle had rendered the stop lamps of the towed vehicle partially inoperative by its installation of the Control on the towed vehicle. In our opinion, it was not the installation of the Control but its use that was critical. The user of the Control, the vehicle operator, is not covered by the prohibition. Therefore, we informed Echlin that the sale and use of the Control does not violate the Act.

This interpretation can also be viewed as stating that "inoperability" as the word is used in the statute must result from a direct act, and not an indirect one. This, however, was not our intent. We do not believe that a person should be excused from responsibility simply because an intervening agency is required to operate a device that that person has manufactured or sold. Although many of the facts concerning the use of the Control and your Device are similar, the fact of importance in this instance is the primary purpose of the equipment in question. The primary purpose of the Control was to control trailer sway, not to affect the operation of the stop lamps. The primary purpose of your Device is to affect vehicle lighting, by serving as surrogate and supplementary lighting equipment.

A further fact in difference is that you envision the Device to be installed as part of the manufacture of the tractor trailer, and not added by the dealer of the trailer to a tractor trailer in use. This raises the question of the certification that the Act requires by the truck tractor manufacturer of compliance with Standard No. 108, specifically S5.1.3. As your letter indicates, you are aware that S5.1.3 prohibits the installation of additional lamps or reflectors "or other motor vehicle equipment that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by" Standard No. 108. It is manifest that installation of the Device has no effect upon the lighting equipment of the vehicle on which it is installed, the truck tractor. The question is whether S5.1.3 can be read as prohibiting the installation of a device on one vehicle that may affect the operation of lighting equipment on another vehicle.

We believe that S5.1.3. can be so read because the term "lighting equipment required by" Standard No. 108 is general in nature, and not restricted to the vehicle on which the additional equipment is installed. Although Standard No. 108 does not establish lighting requirements to be met by combinations of towing and towed vehicles, we interpret S5.1.3 as prohibiting installation of any original equipment on the towing vehicle that could impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108 to be installed on a towed vehicle. The determination of whether impairment exists is initially made by the manufacturer in certifying compliance of the towing vehicle to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If a manufacturer installs as original equipment on one motor vehicle a device whose sole purpose is to affect the lighting performance of another motor vehicle, then that manufacturer must take into account whether that device would impair the effectiveness of the other vehicle's lighting equipment in certifying compliance to S5.1.3. If that decision appears clearly erroneous, NHTSA may make its own determination in order to effect compliance with Standard No. 108.

We turn first to the question of the use of the Device as a surrogate taillamp on a vehicle equipped with red rear turn signal lamps. When used as a taillamp surrogate, the Device would substitute one steady-burning red rear light for another. If, as you indicate, the intensity of the surrogate taillamp is no greater than that of the original taillamp (and thereby maintains the ratio of difference required in combination turn signal- taillamps), there would appear to be no impairment of rear lighting equipment.

When used as a fog lamp on a vehicle equipped with red rear turn signal lamps, the taillamps are not disabled, and the Device activates the turn signal lamps at full intensity in a steady burning mode. Commonly, combination rear lamps on large vehicles also include the stop function as well. Because of the similarity of intensity between the steady burning fog lamp and the stop function provided by the same filament, or the stop function in an adjacent lamp, we believe that the stop signal would be impaired when the Device is used as a fog lamp in a lamp configured as described in this paragraph.

When used on a trailer equipped with the amber turn signal lamps that Standard No. 108 permits, different considerations apply. All lamps that serve as marker lamps on the rear (taillamps, identification lamps, clearance lamps) are required by Standard No. 108 to be red in color. On a trailer equipped with amber rear turn signals, the use of your Device would result in a pair of steady burning amber marker lamps on the trailer rear where, heretofore, the motoring public has not been accustomed to seeing them. Thus, the question arises under S5.1.3 whether the effectiveness of the required red rear lighting equipment is impaired when the Device activates steady burning amber rear lamps.

You are aware of this possibility, but have pointed out to Mr. Vinson that the Device is intended for use when the taillamps are not available. Because taillamps, identification lamps, and clearance lamps share the same wiring, inoperability of the taillamps often means inoperability of the other rear marker lights. Thus, the steady burning amber lamps provided by the Device may be the only operating marker lamps on the rear of the vehicle. You believe that this is preferable to no lights at all. We would agree that, in this circumstance, there would be no impairment of required rear lighting equipment within the meaning of S5.1.3.

However, the Device provides no safeguards against operation of the amber turn signal lamps in the taillamp mode when the taillamps (and other rear marker lamps) remain operative. Further, it permits operation of the amber turn signal lamps in the fog lamp mode regardless of the operability of the other rear marker lamps. Because the Device is intended for use only under conditions of reduced visibility, such as night and fog, when the headlamps are activated, there is a potential for confusion when a motorist is confronted with simultaneously operating steady burning red and amber lamps. In this situation, a conclusion could be drawn that the utilization of the Device to create a steady burning amber lamp could, within the meaning of S5.1.3, impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that is required to be red. You told Mr. Vinson of your willingness to provide a warning with the Device cautioning against its use when the taillamps are operative, and we appreciate your concern with the issue. You may wish to reexamine the efficacy of amber lamps as fog lamps. We understand that the most effective rear fog lamps are red, and that red is the only color permitted in Europe.

You pointed out in your letter that, absent the Device, the tractor operator might choose to employ the flashing hazard warning lights for other than their intended purpose. We believe that today's motorists interpret flashing red or amber hazard lamps on moving vehicles as a signal that the vehicle is moving slower than the stream of traffic, and that caution is advised. Thus, safety may be enhanced when the hazard lamps flash, as they provide a contrast with the steady burning but less intense red rear taillamps.

Finally, even if acceptable under the regulations and statutes administered by this agency, vehicles engaged in the commercial aspects of interstate commerce are subject to the regulations of the Office of Motor Carrier Standards (OMCS) Federal Highway Administration, and to the regulations of the individual States where the trailer is operated. We are not able to advise you of their restrictions, if any. You may write the Director, OMCS, Room 3404, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590 for an interpretation. The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203, may be able to provide you with an interpretation of State laws. Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:108 d:4/27/92

ID: 6921

Dr. Larry J. French
President and CEO
Magnascreen
265 Kappa Drive
Pittsburgh, PA 15238

Dear Dr. French:

This responds to your letter inquiring about a recent amendment to Safety Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors. (49 CFR 571.111) 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 the 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.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure Ref: 111 d:3/26/92

ID: 6949

Mr. Carl J. Clement
Clement Associates
12785 Dianne Drive
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022

Dear Mr. Clement:

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, 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, 108(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 108(a)(2)(A) are punishable by civil fines of up to $1,000 per violation. I note that 108(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 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.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:201#302 d:3/30/92