ID: 10-01396_Bruno_drn.doc

ID: usedchas

Dennis T. Snyder, Esquire
7600 Red Road
Suite 200
South Miami, FL 33143

Dear Mr. Snyder:

This is in response to your letter of May 11, 1995, asking whether a client of yours is a "final stage manufacturer" within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and implementing regulations on manufacturer identification and vehicle certification found in 49 CFR Parts 566, 567, and 568. You have described this client as being engaged in the manufacture of completed heavy duty dump trucks, vans, and road tractors from used chassis-cabs.

The term "manufacturer" is defined in 49 U.S.C. ' 30102(a)(5) (formerly section 102(5) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act) as "a person- (A) manufacturing or assembling motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment . . . " (emphasis added). Based on your description of your client as being engaged in the assembly of completed motor vehicles, it would appear to meet this definition. Because the manufacturer identification requirements of 49 CFR Part 566 apply to "all manufacturers of motor vehicles," as stated in section 566.3 of that Part, your client would be required to submit to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) the identifying information specified in 49 CFR 566.5.

The term "final stage manufacturer" is defined at 49 CFR 568.3 as "a person who performs such manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle that it becomes a completed vehicle." An "incomplete vehicle" is defined in that section as "an assemblage consisting, at a minimum, of frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system . . . that requires further manufacturing operations . . . to become a completed vehicle." The term "completed vehicle" is in turn defined in section 568.3 as "a vehicle that requires no further manufacturing operations to perform its intended function . . . ." Based on your description of your client as being engaged in the manufacture of completed heavy duty dump trucks, vans, and road tractors from chassis-cabs, it would qualify as a final stage manufacturer, as that term is defined in section 568.3.

Requirements for final stage manufacturers are specified at 49 CFR 568.6. This section provides that a final stage manufacturer shall complete each vehicle "in such a manner that it conforms to the [Federal motor vehicle safety] standards in effect on the date of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle, the date of final completion, or a date between those two dates," and shall affix a label to the vehicle attesting to that conformance in accordance with 49 CFR 567.5, which specifies certification requirements for vehicles manufactured in two or more stages. These certification requirements are in implementation of 49 U.S.C. ' 30115, which requires the manufacturer of a new motor vehicle to certify to the dealer or distributor at delivery that the vehicle complies with applicable motor vehicle safety standards. NHTSA has long taken the position, however, that a vehicle is used if it is assembled by adding a new body to the chassis of a vehicle previously registered for use on the public roads. As a consequence, your client would not be required to certify the vehicles that it manufactures in this fashion.

Your client would nevertheless be subject to 49 U.S.C. ' 30122(b), which provides that "[a] manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative 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 . . . ." NHTSA has interpreted this provision as requiring any of the specified entities that remove an old body from a vehicle in order to install a new one to ensure that the newly completed vehicle meets the standards that the vehicle was originally required to meet. For example, a vehicle consisting of a body manufactured in 1995 mounted on a used 1989 chassis must meet all standards that applied to 1989 vehicles. Your client would be liable for any violation of this requirement on vehicles that it manufactures, regardless of whether it removed the body from the old vehicle itself, or directed another entity to do so.

Additionally, as a vehicle manufacturer, your client would be required under 49 U.S.C. ' 30118 to furnish owners with notification of, and a remedy for, any safety-related defect or any noncompliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard that is found to exist in a vehicle that it assembles.

If you have any further questions regarding this matter, feel free to contact Coleman Sachs of my staff at the above address, or by telephone at (202) 366- 5238.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:566#VSA d:6/13/95

ID: nht95-3.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 14, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Dennis T. Snyder, Esquire

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/11/95 LETTER FROM DENNIS T. SNYDER TO DAVID COLEMAN (OCC 10926)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Snyder:

This is in response to your letter of May 11, 1995, asking whether a client of yours is a "final stage manufacturer" within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and implementing regulations on manufacturer identification and v ehicle certification found in 49 CFR Parts 566, 567, and 568. You have described this client as being engaged in the manufacture of completed heavy duty dump trucks, vans, and road tractors from used chassis-cabs.

The term "manufacturer" is defined in 49 U.S.C. @ 30102(a)(5) (formerly section 102(5) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act) as "a person- (A) manufacturing or assembling motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment . . . " (emphasis added). Based on your description of your client as being engaged in the assembly of completed motor vehicles, it would appear to meet this definition. Because the manufacturer identification requirements of 49 CFR Part 566 apply to "all manufacturers of moto r vehicles," as stated in section 566.3 of that Part, your client would be required to submit to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) the identifying information specified in 49 CFR 566.5.

The term "final stage manufacturer" is defined at 49 CFR 568.3 as "a person who performs such manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle that it becomes a completed vehicle." An "incomplete vehicle" is defined in that section as "an assemblage con sisting, at a minimum, of frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system . . . that requires further manufacturing operations . . . to become a completed vehicle." The term "completed vehicle" is in turn defined in section 568.3 as "a vehicle that requires no further manufacturing operations to perform its intended function . . ." Based on your description of your client as being engaged in the manufacture of completed heavy duty dump trucks, vans, and r oad tractors from chassis-cabs, it would qualify as a final stage manufacturer, as that term is defined in section 568.3.

Requirements for final stage manufacturers are specified at 49 CFR 568.6. This section provides that a final stage manufacturer shall complete each vehicle "in such a manner that it conforms to the [Federal motor vehicle safety] standards in effect on t he date of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle, the date of final completion, or a date between those two dates," and shall affix a label to the vehicle attesting to that conformance in accordance with 49 CFR 567.5, which specifies certification requir ements for vehicles manufactured in two or more stages. These certification requirements are in implementation of 49 U.S.C. @ 30115, which requires the manufacturer of a new motor vehicle to certify to the dealer or distributor at delivery that the vehi cle complies with applicable motor vehicle safety standards. NHTSA has long taken the position, however, that a vehicle is used if it is assembled by adding a new body to the chassis of a vehicle previously registered for use on the public roads. As a consequence, your client would not be required to certify the vehicles that it manufactures in this fashion.

Your client would nevertheless be subject to 49 U.S.C. @ 30122(b), which provides that "[a] manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or i n a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard . . ." NHTSA has interpreted this provision as requiring any of the specified entities that remove an old body from a vehicle in order to install a new one to ensure t hat the newly completed vehicle meets the standards that the vehicle was originally required to meet. For example, a vehicle consisting of a body manufactured in 1995 mounted on a used 1989 chassis must meet all standards that applied to 1989 vehicles. Your client would be liable for any violation of this requirement on vehicles that it manufactures, regardless of whether it removed the body from the old vehicle itself, or directed another entity to do so.

Additionally, as a vehicle manufacturer, your client would be required under 49 U.S.C. @ 30118 to furnish owners with notification of, and a remedy for, any safety-related defect or any noncompliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standa rd that is found to exist in a vehicle that it assembles.

If you have any further questions regarding this matter, feel free to contact Coleman Sachs of my staff at the above address, or by telephone at (202) 366-5238.

ID: nht92-3.3

DATE: 10/28/92

FROM: WOLFGANG W. KLAMP

TO: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, DOT

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-16-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO WOLFGANG W. KLAMP (A40; PART 591)

TEXT: I was referred to you as the result of a conversation with Mr. Ken Weinstein of your office.

My wife and I are both U.S. citizens working in Vancouver, Canada on Temporary Work Permits issued by Canada Immigration. My wife works as a Branch Manager for Crawford & Co., responsible for providing medical case management services for her company in British Columbia and Alberta. When my wife was hired we temporarily resided in Canada moving back to the U.S. during the past month. Crawford & Co., a registered Canadian company provides my wife with a company car, in fact, the company requires that she drive a company owned vehicle because of the nature of her work and the fact that she does not go directly to her office on a daily basis. The company issued her a Canadian made 1992 Ford Tempo which is licensed and insured in British Columbia. The company pays for all insurance, registration and license fees. When and if she leaves the company's employ, the car would remain in Canada.

The issue is that several times now we have been stopped and she was most recently detained by Customs officials at the Douglas (Peace Arch) Border Crossing to be told that the Tempo did not meet DOT requirements and therefore could not be "imported" to the U.S. and that the next time we attempted to cross the border in this vehicle we would not be allowed to enter the U.S. with it. Customs officials stated that the vehicle would have to go through a formal entry process which would include; posting a bond of 1 1/2 times the value of the vehicle (approximately US$ 20,000 - US$ 25,000); the vehicle would have to be sent to a conversion facility in Concord, California (at a cost of approximately US$ 4,000 to US$ 5,000 plus transportation charges to and from the conversion facility) to be brought up to DOT and EPA standards for "imported" vehicles, all because we are U.S. nationals who choose to live in the U.S.

It is our contention that; since my wife has no ownership interest in the vehicle; the vehicle will remain the property of Crawford & Co. and will never be sold or transferred to a resident of the U.S.; and the fact that the vehicle is not used for business purposes at any time in the U.S., and while we clearly understand that U.S. customs has a responsibility to carry-out DOT regulations, we feel that the ruling based on their interpretation of DOT regulations is patently unfair and arbitrary. Other Canadian owned vehicles freely enter the U.S. and are not subject to the same restrictions placed on this vehicle, including those Canadians who reside in the U.S. six months out of each year.

We are not trying to circumvent DOT or Customs regulations, but, we are hopeful that good judgement and fairness will be considered in this appeal to you. We respectfully request your determination on our unusual circumstance, and further, should you decide in our favor that a letter be directed to: Mr. Art Morgan, district Director, U.S. Customs Service, 1000 - 2nd Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104 advising him of your determination.

Your expeditious reply would be appreciated since this whole situation has serious implications with regards to my wife's employment situation. Should you have any questions, please call me at the numbers above. Thanking you in advance for your kind consideration, I remain,

ID: 9613

Mr. Luis Carricaburu
South Steering Specialists
18310 S. Dixie Hwy
Miami, FL 33157

Dear Mr. Carricaburu:

This responds to your letter asking whether it is legal to buy or sell a salvaged air bag which would be used to repair an automobile with a deployed air bag. Your letter explained that the salvaged air bag would be taken from an automobile sent to a recycling yard with its air bag intact.

I am enclosing two letters that explain legal obligations to replace air bags which have been deployed. The first letter, dated January, 19, 1990, is to Ms. Linda L. Conrad. The second letter, dated March 4, 1993, is to Mr. Robert A. Ernst. As explained in those letters, Federal law does not require replacement of a deployed air bag in a used vehicle. In addition, there is no Federal law that prohibits selling a used vehicle with an air bag that is inoperable because of a previous deployment. However, our agency strongly encourages dealers and repair businesses to replace deployed air bags whenever vehicles are repaired or resold, to ensure that the vehicles will continue to provide maximum crash protection for occupants. Moreover, a dealer or repair business may be required by state law to replace a deployed air bag, or be liable for failure to do so.

Your letter asks the additional question of whether, if a deployed air bag is replaced, Federal law prohibits use of a salvaged air bag as the replacement air bag. The answer to your question is no. As explained in the enclosed letters, the Safety Act does not require a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business to return a vehicle to compliance with a standard if a device or element of design has been "rendered inoperative" by another agent, such as a crash. Thus, Federal law does not regulate the manner in which a deployed air bag is replaced. However, state law may regulate the manner in which a deployed air bag is replaced.

I would like to emphasize that in order for a replacement air bag to provide protection to vehicle occupants, it is essential that the replacement be properly completed. For example, the entire air bag must be replaced, including such things as the crash sensors, the inflation mechanism, and other electronic parts. Moreover, since air bags are designed for specific vehicles, taking into consideration such factors as the seats, steering column crush stroke force resistance, gauge array and location on instrument panel, location and nature of knee bolsters, and compartment acceleration responses in frontal crashes, only air bags which are designed for the vehicle in question should be used. After the air bags are replaced, it is important that the air bag readiness indicator be in good working order to alert the occupants of any future malfunction of the air bag system.

While great care must be taken in any air bag replacement, the use of a salvaged air bag raises additional safety issues. An air bag may have been rendered inoperable, for example, by damage in a low-speed crash, even if it has not been deployed. We would urge you to contact the vehicle or air bag manufacturer to determine whether and how a salvaged air bag could be inspected and/or tested to ensure that it is fully operable.

Finally, you may wish to consult a private attorney concerning the state law implications of using salvaged air bags for repairing automobiles, including possible tort liability.

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,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:VSA#208 d:5/5/94

ID: nht94-6.3

DATE: May 5, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Luis Carricaburu -- South Steering Specialists

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter dated 1/1/94 EST From Luis Carricaburu to Mary Versailles (OCC-9613)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Carricaburu:

This responds to your letter asking whether it is legal to buy or sell a salvaged air bag which would be used to repair an automobile with a deployed air bag. Your letter explained that the salvaged air bag would be taken from an automobile sent to a recycling yard with its air bag intact.

I am enclosing two letters that explain legal obligations to replace air bags which have been deployed. The first letter, dated January, 19, 1990, is to Ms. Linda L. Conrad. The second letter, dated March 4, 1993, is to Mr. Robert A. Ernst. As explained in those letters, Federal law does not require replacement of a deployed air bag in a used vehicle. In addition, there is no Federal law that prohibits selling a used vehicle with an air bag that is inoperable because of a previous deployment. However, our agency strongly encourages dealers and repair businesses to replace deployed air bags whenever vehicles are repaired or resold, to ensure that the vehicles will continue to provide maximum crash protection for occupants. Moreover, a dealer or repair business may be required by state law to replace a deployed air bag, or be liable for failure to do so.

Your letter asks the additional question of whether, if a deployed air bag is replaced, Federal law prohibits use of a salvaged air bag as the replacement air bag. The answer to your question is no. As explained in the enclosed letters, the Safety Act does not require a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business to return a vehicle to compliance with a standard if a device or element of design has been "rendered inoperative" by another agent, such as a crash. Thus, Federal law does not regulate the manner in which a deployed air bag is replaced. However, state law may regulate the manner in which a deployed air bag is replaced.

I would like to emphasize that in order for a replacement air bag to provide protection to vehicle occupants, it is essential that the replacement be properly completed. For example, the entire air bag must be replaced, including such things as the crash

2

sensors, the inflation mechanism, and other electronic parts. Moreover, since air bags are designed for specific vehicles, taking into consideration such factors as the seats, steering column crush stroke force resistance, gauge array and location on instrument panel, location and nature of knee bolsters, and compartment acceleration responses in frontal crashes, only air bags which are designed for the vehicle in question should be used. After the air bags are replaced, it is important that the air bag readiness indicator be in good working order to alert the occupants of any future malfunction of the air bag system.

While great care must be taken in any air bag replacement, the use of a salvaged air bag raises additional safety issues. An air bag may have been rendered inoperable, for example, by damage in a low-speed crash, even if it has not been deployed. We would urge you to contact the vehicle or air bag manufacturer to determine whether and how a salvaged air bag could be inspected and/or tested to ensure that it is fully operable.

Finally, you may wish to consult a private attorney concerning the state law implications of using salvaged air bags for repairing automobiles, including possible tort liability.

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,

Enclosures

ID: nht88-1.56

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/26/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Federal Bureau of Investigation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Federal Bureau of Investigation P.O. BOX 709 Portland, OR 97207

Dear Mr. Bendig:

This responds to your letter, as supplemented by the information you provided in a November 19 telephone conversation with Deirdre Hom of my staff, requesting this agency to approve the Bureau's acquisition of one M-151 series vehicle for occasional off- road surveillance work. I regret the delay in responding. We continue to recommend against the sale of M-151 vehicles to civilians.

As you might know, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) was first contacted by Department of Defense (DOD) personnel in May 1971, for comments and recommendations concerning sale of M-151 series vehicles to the public. After a serie s of meetings between DOD and NHTSA staff, NHTSA recommended against the sale of these vehicles to the public under any circumstances. This recommendation, in fact, followed DOD policy which only allowed persons to drive these vehicles after a specialize d training program.

The reason for the DOD policy and NHTSA recommendation concerning the M-151 series is the definite tendency of these vehicles to turn over without warning when operating limits are exceeded. This tendency results from the unique independent rear suspensi on system of the military design, coupled with the vehicle's short wheelbase, narrow tread width, and high center of gravity. Accident statistics maintained by the Department of the Army after the 1971 recommendation, for the period of july 1972 through December 1977, indicate that the M-151 series vehicles were involved in 1,703 rollovers, 105 fatalities and 1,546 disabling injuries to D.S. Army personnel. Over 80 percent of these rollovers reportedly occurred due to driver error despite the required i ntensive driver training program.

NHTSA believes that the M-151 series vehicles present a clear safety hazard if not driven within specific operating limits. Control of such vehicles, once sold to the public even for "off road" use, appears to pose unique hazards. NHTSA is concerned for the safety of Bureau personnel who would operate M-151 series vehicles if we were to recommend that the Bureau be permitted to acquire such a vehicle, and we are concerned also for the safety of other motorists who would share the road with these vehicle s. NHTSA continues to recommend against disposal of the vehicles to the public until the DOD can provide evidence that the M-151 series is safe.

Thank you for your inquiry. If you have further questions, please let us know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Department of Transportation Chief Council 400 7TH ST. S.W., N.O.A.-20 Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sirs,

Our office is requesting four (4) Military Jeeps model A1 from surplus. These vehicles will be used for surveillance work only in dense wooded areas.

In the past we have been using our own BUCARS, which have received damages, costing the bureau not just monies, but also vehicle down time.

The vehicles will be used in Bend, Coos Bay, and Eugene, Or. the forth one will be used in our Seattle Wa. field office.

The only time these vehicles would be on main roads and/or highways, would be the time required to get from the office to the sight.

If approved please send a copy of the letter to DRMO-Ogden 500 W. 12TH ST. Ogden, Ut. 84407-5001 Attn: Jim Marsh (Ph.# 801-399-7033)

Raymond E. Bendig

Property Clerk Portland Office

ID: aiam0697

Dear Mr. Meisner: This is in reply to your letter of April 4, 1972, in which you aske whether it is permissible for the engine starting system of a vehicle conforming to the interlock requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 to be operable when there are no occupants in the front seats by reaching through an open door or window to turn the ignition key.; Our reply is that the standard does not prohibit a system that operate in this way. Such a system is therefore permissible.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: 1984-3.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/29/84

FROM: FRED W. BOWDITCH -- MVMA TECHNICAL AFFAIRS DIVISION

TO: DIANE K. STEED -- ADMINISTRATOR NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/14/85 EST, FROM BARRY FELRICE TO FRED W. BOWDITCH, REDBOOK A27, STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Miss Steed:

The Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of the United States, Inc. (MVMA) * files this petition under 49 CFR Part 552 requesting amendment of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

* MVMA members are AM General Corporation, American Motors Corporation, Chrysler Corporation, Ford Motor Company, General Motors Corporation, International Harvester Company, M.A.N. Truck and Bus Corporation, PACCAR Inc., Volkswagen of America, Inc. and Volvo North America Corporation.

MVMA requests removal from section 4.1.1.36(a)(2) of the limitation requiring the three aiming pads to be located on the exterior face of the headlamp lens. So long as the aiming pads are accessible to the adjustable legs of the aimer locating plates described in Figure 9, there is no motor vehicle safety need to limit pad placement to the face of the lens. Adoption of this requested amendment would remove an unwarranted design restriction. By allowing the aiming pads to be located on a part of the headlamp other than the lens, e.g., the mounting flange at the lens-reflector joint, such amendment would facilitate, for example, the design of lower profile replaceable bulb headlamps. Use of such headlamps could enhance the aerodynamic properties of future vehicle designs. Accordingly, we request substitution of the following text for the current section 4.1.1.36(a)(2):

"S4.1.1.36(a)(2) Each replaceable bulb headlamp shall have three pads on the front surface of the lamp which form an aiming plane for mechanically adjusting and inspecting headlamp aim. In the front view of the lamp taken in a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle, the three pads shall be positioned to match corresponding locations, for either Group I or Group II, that are specified in Figure 9 (front view) for the adjustable legs of the locating plate. The pads shall be designed to permit use of a mechanical aimer conforming to SAE Standard J602 October 1980 "Headlamp Aiming Device for Mechanically Aimable Sealed Beam Headlamp Units", together with an adjustable locating plate described in Figure 9, to check the aim of the Headlamp. Group I aiming pad locations are those prescribed for the 2B1 sealed beam headlamp unit and Group II aiming pad locations are those prescribed for 1A1/2A1 sealed beam headlamp units. Each lens face shall have molded into it the settings, appropriate for that headlamp, of the lengths of the three legs of the adjustable locating plate. Each setting is to be located adjacent to the aiming pad to which it applies. The molded characters specifying the settings shall have a minimum height of 4mm".

If you would like to discuss this petition further, please call on us.

Very truly yours,

ID: 18164.ztv

Mr. Ian Goldstein
Safe Passage Technologies
85 Marcus Boulevard
Hauppauge, NY 11788

Dear Mr. Goldstein:

This is in reply to your letter of June 4, 1998, with respect to whether new lighting technologies that you describe are allowed by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. You have asked us to advise you "as to the best approach to gaining the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's full acceptance and support."

You should understand that our agency does not "accept" or "support" a particular product. We do advise correspondents, as in this instance, as to whether a specific invention or device may or may not be permissible under the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

The first of the technologies that you mention is "gradational" daytime running lamps (DRLs). This technology would modulate the intensity of DRLs according to ambient light conditions. On the basis of the limited information you have provided, we see no impediment under Standard No. 108 to the incorporation of this feature into DRL systems that comply with S5.5.11 of Standard No. 108. A DRL with a gradational feature would continue to provide the steady-burning light that is required for DRLs. The standard does not prohibit changes in intensity, which we presume will be within the parameters of the minimum and maximum values of candela specified .

We note your statement that "The State of California has independently determined to mandate DRL effective January 1, 1998." We do not know the basis for this remark. Unless and until DRLs are mandated by Standard No. 108, a state cannot require that new vehicles be equipped with them. A state can require that a driver operate a vehicle's existing headlamps on the lower beam during daylight hours to serve as a DRL, but we have not heard that California has enacted such a requirement.

The second technology would address lamp failure detection and correction. This technology would indicate to or warn the driver that a lamp had failed, "and temporarily use an alternative lamp, possibly at an alternate brightness," to substitute for the failed one. Under Standard No. 108, only the failure of the turn signal lamps is required to be communicated to the driver. We are aware that, through fiber optics, some manufacturers provide a warning when other lamps fail. We see nothing in Standard No. 108 or any other Federal motor vehicle safety standard that would preclude a vehicle manufacturer from offering such a detection system.

The question of substitution for failed lamps is not so easily answered. We have recently advised Ford Motor Company that automatic activation of a lower beam filament in a two-headlamp system when the upper beam filament fails is not prohibited by S5.5.9 which states that only the upper beam light sources shall be activated when the headlamp switch is in the upper beam position. In our view, this requirement of Standard No. 108 does not apply in a failure condition, and the substitution of an alternate light source is permissible. The reverse situation is not quite the same. Because headlamps are primarily operated on the lower beam, activation of an upper beam light source when a lower beam source fails raises considerations of glare. As you note, the upper beam in this instance ideally should be activated at a markedly reduced intensity such that it does not impair the effectiveness of required lighting devices (S5.1.3), or, more specifically, that, as a lower beam substitute. it does not compromise turn signal visibility.

You also present the case in which the hazard warning lamps could be activated in the event of total failure of a light source and its alternative. There is nothing in Standard No. 108 that would preclude wiring the hazard warning lamps to flash in the event of such a failure. We note that vehicle operators can manually activate the hazard warning system in such an emergency.

The third technology is called a "severe braking alert." This technology would flash the stop lamps to indicate rapid deceleration. Standard No. 108 does not allow this system because stop lamps are required to be wired to be steady burning (S5.5.10(d)). The agency has established a docket to receive comments from the public on Advance Brake Warning Systems (Docket No. 96-41) such as your "severe braking alert.". I enclose a copy of two notices, published in December 1996 and October 1997, that discuss the subject in detail.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:108
d.7/21/98