ID: 571.111 -- Camera Obstruction -- Keller -- 18-0661

Richard A. Keller, III
27795 Oakachoy Loop
Daphne, AL 36526

Dear Mr. Keller:

This responds to your inquiry on behalf of Bruno Independent Living Aids, Inc., concerning the rear backup camera requirement (S6.2) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS)   No. 111, “Rear visibility.”  We apologize for the delay in responding.  You ask several questions on whether installation of the “Bruno ASL-700 Chariot” and “ALS-250 Outsider” by vehicle owners would be permitted under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.  As explained below, our answer is yes.    

In your letter, you state that the two products are “vehicle exterior-located platform lifts which can be temporarily attached to the vehicle.”  You state the products are sold to transport unoccupied personal mobility devices used by vehicle occupants with mobility impairments.  You describe the Bruno ASL-700 Chariot as a “trailer” that conforms to all applicable FMVSS trailer requirements.  You describe the Bruno ASL-250 Outsider as a “cargo carrier” that is supported entirely by a vehicle’s trailer hitch, and that does not touch the ground.  You state that both products are intended to be sold in the aftermarket, and that both would be attached to a vehicle’s trailer hitch by the vehicle’s owner.

You ask the following questions concerning the applicability of NHTSA’s requirements to the ASL-700 Chariot and ALS-250 Outsider.  We have restated your questions below, followed by our answers.  Our answers are based on our understanding of your descriptions of the products.

1.     Since the Bruno ASL-700 Chariot personal mobility device carrier is in compliance with all applicable FMVSS trailer regulations, and is a trailer, it is therefore not subject to the requirements of 49 CFR § 571.111, section S6.2 Rear visibility. As such, it is not required to provide a rear view [sic] camera.  Is that interpretation correct?

The answer is yes.  As set forth in S6.2, the rear visibility requirements apply only to a “multipurpose passenger vehicle, low-speed vehicle, truck, bus, and school bus with a GVWR of 4,536 kg or less.”  If, as you say, the Bruno ASL-700 Chariot is a trailer, it is not subject to FMVSS No. 111.

2.     Since the Bruno ASL-700 Chariot and Bruno ASL-250 Outsider are temporary equipment installed or removed, when needed, by the vehicle owner, the Agency Response to this issue in the Final Rule is that the rule (49 CFR § 571.111, section S6.2 Rear visibility) does not apply. Is that interpretation correct?

Our answer is S6.2 does not apply.[1]  As explained in our answer to question 1, if neither the Bruno ASL-700 Chariot nor the Bruno ASL-250 Outsider is a “multipurpose passenger vehicle, low-speed vehicle, truck, bus, [or a] school bus with a GVWR of 4,536 kg or less,” they are not subject to S6.2.  This answer is the same as “the Agency Response…in the Final Rule” to which you refer.  

(Please note that the installation of “temporary” products “by the vehicle owner” is not particularly germane to question 2 (which concerns the applicability of S6.2), but is germane to question 3.  Stated differently, if an FMVSS applies to the Chariot or the ASL-250, the fact that the products are meant to be temporarily installed or removed by the vehicle owner would not change the applicability of that standard to the product.)

3.  Since the Bruno ASL-700 Chariot and Bruno ASL-250 Outsider personal mobility device carriers are temporary equipment attached to the vehicle at the Class l, II, or III receiver hitch by the vehicle owner, and while they may when attached and loaded block the rearview camera, they are not making inoperative the OEM rearview camera under 49 USC § 30122 — Making safety devices and elements inoperative, as discussed in the Public Law 110-189 — 110th Congress and NHTSA-2010-0162-0256 Final Rule, since that prohibition is directed at a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, [rental company] or motor vehicle repair business modifying the vehicle.  Is that interpretation correct?

The Safety Act’s “make inoperative” prohibition (49 U.S.C. 30122) states:

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, rental company, 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 or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable [FMVSS] unless the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, rental company, or repair business reasonably believes the vehicle or equipment will not be used (except for testing or a similar purpose during maintenance or repair) when the device or element is inoperative.

Our answer is the vehicle owner installing the Bruno ASL-700 Chariot or Bruno ASL-250 Outsider on his or her own vehicle is not subject to the “make inoperative” prohibition.[2]  We assume that the vehicle owner to whom you refer is not a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, rental company, or motor vehicle repair business.  In addition, because States have the authority to regulate the use of vehicles, you should check with State officials to see if State law would allow motorists to block the view of the camera of the primary vehicle.

In closing, we note that you have petitioned NHTSA to amend 49 CFR Part 595 (“Make inoperative exemptions”), Subpart C (“Vehicle modifications to accommodate people with disabilities”) to include the FMVSS No. 111 backup camera requirements, and that NHTSA informed you that the agency has granted your petition in a letter sent on November 5, 2018.  NHTSA is addressing your petition in the context of a rulemaking proceeding. 

We hope this answers your questions. 

Sincerely,

Jonathan C. Morrison
Chief Counsel

Dated: 5/3/19

Ref: FMVSS No. 111

[1] We would like to clarify that if the Bruno ASL-700 Chariot is a trailer, as you say, it is a “motor vehicle” under our regulations, and not “temporary equipment.” 

[2] Note also footnote 1, supra.  In addition, please be aware that the make inoperative provision also applies to rental companies. 

ID: aiam3166

Dear Mr. Henderson: #This is in response to your October 29, 1979 request for an interpretation of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You asked whether vehicles equipped with space-saver spare tires must be tested for compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards with that spare tire actually used as one of the four tires mounted on the vehicle during the tests. Our interpretation is that the spare tire need not be used during those tests. #This agency does not currently require that a motor vehicle be equipped with a spare tire. If a spare tire is included with the vehicle, it must, of course, comply with all standards applicable to tires. #Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam5365

"Dear Mr. Pyles: This responds to your letter of April 5, 1994, to th Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. You would like to import into the United States 'a kit for a compact custom truck bed'. You ask what Federal laws and regulations govern the importation, sale, and installation of wooden pickup bed kits. You also ask what you must do, initially, to import a trial sample bed into the United States. You have described the kit as consisting of plans and instructions in English, wooden and plywood parts of the bed, unspecified 'metal parts,' fastenings, wiring and 'lights.' As a general rule, all motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment must conform (and be certified by their manufacturer to conform) to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards issued by this agency in order to be imported into the United States and sold here. The only motor vehicle equipment in your kit that is covered by a Federal standard is 'lights.' They are subject to our Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment (49 CFR 571.108), and, thus, must conform and be certified as conforming in order to be imported into the United States. Certification is indicated either by a DOT symbol on the equipment, or by a statement of compliance attached to the equipment or on the container in which it is shipped. If the lighting equipment does not conform, or if you are unsure whether it does, you are permitted by 49 CFR 591.5(j) to import one or more sample beds or kits for 'research, investigations, studies, or demonstrations' for a period of up to three years after first obtaining written approval from the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. If the lighting equipment does conform, there is no limitation upon the number of items you may import. You have also written that the truck bed will be offered to the general public as a replacement for existing truck beds, and to 'manufacturers who place specialized beds (campershells, utility company boxes, etc.) on pick-up frames that they buy new without factory installed beds.' Although you have no responsibility under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act for compliance of a vehicle with the Federal safety standards when the conversion work is completed, we should like to apprise you of the obligations of a converter, since the converter will look to you to provide it with complying lighting equipment. With respect to the general public, under section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)), the removal of the old truck bed and lights and installation of the new truck bed kit by a 'manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business' must not 'knowingly render inoperative in whole or in part any device or element of design installed in accordance with' a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. For example, one of the named parties would violate the Act if it removed the old bed with complying lamps and installed a new bed with noncompliant lamps if that person knew that the lamps did not comply. Similarly, if the bed in some manner obscured the center highmounted lamp which is now required for pickups manufactured after September 1, 1993, that could be a violation of the Act. If a manufacturer is installing the truck bed on a new chassis, it becomes responsible for ensuring that the completed vehicle fully meets the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and for certifying its compliance. Finally, as the importer of the kit, you become its 'manufacturer' under our laws and may have some responsibility for notification and remedy of safety related defects or noncompliances that are discovered in the kit either before or after its installation on motor vehicles. I enclose an information sheet for your information, and hope that this letter has been helpful to you. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: aiam2154

Dear Mr. Hanna: This is in further response to your letter of November 12, 1975, askin whether this agency considers Standard 105-75 on hydraulic braking systems to be preemptive of State regulations concerning brake wear warning devices. You asked the question in light of the proposed uniform State regulation requiring such devices recently adopted by the Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission.; There are presently no requirements in the Federal motor vehicle safet standards dealing directly with the subject of brake wear indicators or warning devices. The question, therefore, becomes whether the Federal safety standards on braking performance were intended generally to cover this aspect of performance, analogously o the situation in which Standard 108 was held to be preemptive in *Motorcycle industry Council v. Younger*, No. CIV S74-126 (E.D. cal. 1974). The guiding rule, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in *Florida Lime & Avocado Growers v. Paul*, 373 U.S. 132, 141-142 (1963), is 'whether both regulations can be enforced without impairing federal superintendence of the field.' Under the accepted doctrines as set forth in cases such as *Thorpe v. Housing Authority of Durham*, 393 U.S. 268 (1969), and *Chrysler v. Tofany*, 419 F.2d 499, %11-12 (2d Cir. 1969), the interpretation of this question by the administering agency is 'of controlling weight unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation.'; the NHTSA has determined that the issuing of requirements for brak wear indicators by the States does not conflict with or otherwise impair our present regulation of braking systems, and that brake wear indicators are not within the intended scope of the present Federal safety standards. We therefore conclude that the existing standards are not preemptive of such State regulations. You should be aware that the agency is actively proceeding with rulemaking development work in this area, and may within the next year issue requirements that would alter these legal relationships.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0726

Dear Mr. Cavanna: This is in reply to your letter of May 17, 1972, concerning problem you are having establishing gross axle weight ratings on vehicles you manufacture. You indicate that the problem occurs because brake drums which you use do not come with manufacturer's ratings, but are merely recommended for use with certain axles. You also ask whether a motor vehicle safety standard will require a 40-foot stopping distance from 20 mph.; Your understanding that brake drum capability does not have to b considered in determining gross axle weight rating is not entirely correct. The gross axle weight rating, which is the load carrying capacity of a single axle system (49 CFR 571.3), is a measure of the safe load-carrying capacity of the entire axle system. Manufacturers should include components in their vehicles that are designed to handle loads up to these ratings. Normally an assembler can rely on the specifications or the advice of a reputable supplier as to the capacity of the supplier's components. We expect manufacturers to exercise due care in ensuring that purchased components are adequate and safe for the vehicles they are used on, in accordance with careful business practices. These do not necessarily have to take the form of formal 'ratings.'; With reference to your question regarding stopping distance, Standar No. 121, Air Brake Systems, effective September 1, 1974 (not July 1, 1972) will, among other things, require a vehicle to stop from 20 mph in 33 and 54 feet on surfaces with skid numbers of 75 and 30 respectively.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0728

Dear Mr. Cavanna: This is in reply to your letter of May 17, 1972, concerning problem you are having establishing gross axle weight ratings on vehicles you manufacture. You indicate that the problem occurs because brake drums which you use do not come with manufacturer's ratings, but are merely recommended for use with certain axles. You also ask whether a motor vehicle safety standard will require a 40-foot stopping distance from 20 mph.; Your understanding that brake drum capability does not have to b considered in determining gross axle weight rating is not entirely correct. The gross axle weight rating, which is the load carrying capacity of a single axle system (49 CFR 571.3), is a measure of the safe load-carrying capacity of the entire axle system. Manufacturers should include components in their vehicles that are designed to handle loads up to these ratings. Normally an assembler can rely on the specifications or the advice of a reputable supplier as to the capacity of the supplier's components. We expect manufacturers to exercise due care in ensuring that purchased components are adequate and safe for the vehicles they are used on, in accordance with careful business practices. These do not necessarily have to take the form of formal 'ratings.'; With reference to your question regarding stopping distance, Standar No. 121, Air Brake Systems, effective September 1, 1974 (not July 1, 1972) will, among other things, require a vehicle to stop from 20 mph in 33 and 54 feet on surfaces with skid numbers of 75 and 30 respectively.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3112

Dear Mr. Ohmura: This responds to your recent letter asking whether a bus bar extensio on rear-window passenger car glazing would comply with Safety Standard No. 205. I assume from your letter that the bus bar is a defrosting template that is embedded in the glazing material.; Safety Standard No. 205, through the ANS Z26 standard that i incorporated by reference, requires glazing materials requisite for driving visibility in passenger cars to have a luminous transmittance of at least 70 percent (Test No. 2 in ANS Z26). This requirement would be applicable to rear- window glazing for passenger cars, since these windows are necessary for driving visibility. Rear-window glazing that contains a bus bar extension and electrical template wires would still have to comply with the 70-percent luminous transmittance requirement, when tested in accordance with Test No. 2. The .67- inch bus bar extension would not preclude compliance with this requirement, although it obviously has no luminous transmittance, if the remaining parts of the glazing meet the 70-percent requirement. However, if the electrical wires of the template are so numerous or located so near each other that a tested section of the glazing would not have a luminous transmittance of at least 70 percent, the rear window would not be in compliance with Safety Standard No. 205.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4770

Dear Mr. Kimmelman: This is in reply to your letter of August 2, l990 with respect to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. It is your understanding that, when a vehicle is delivered to its purchaser with dealer-installed trailer hitch and associated wiring, it must conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You interpret the standards as requiring three specific aspects of performance, and you ask whether we agree with those interpretations. These aspects are: 'l. The turn signal flasher must be certified as meeting the FMVSS-108 requirements of a variable load turn signal flasher, over a minimum load equal to that of the vehicle turn signal load and a maximum load equal to that of the vehicle plus the trailer.' This is essentially correct. However, it is not the flasher that is certified but the vehicle in which the flasher is installed, Standard No. 108 does not require certification of original equipment lighting items, only replacement equipment items. Standard No. 108's requirements for turn signal flashers are those of SAE Standard J590b, Automotive Turn Signal Flasher, October l965, which are incorporated by reference. Under the Standard's Scope, the flashers 'are intended to operate at the design load for the turn signal system as stated by the manufacturer.' If a vehicle is designed for towing purposes, and its manufacturer offers an optional trailer hitch and associated wiring, then that manufacturer must equip the vehicle with a flasher capable of meeting a minimum load equal to that of the vehicle turn signal load, and a maximum load equal to that of the vehicle plus the trailer. That will be a variable load turn signal flasher. The manufacturer of the vehicle is the person responsible for ensuring that the flasher meets the vehicle's design load requirements, and that the vehicle is certified as conforming to Standard No. 108. '2. The hazard warning signal flasher must be certified as meeting the requirements of FMVSS-108 over a load range of 2 lamps to the combined hazard warning loads of the vehicle plus the trailer.' This is also essentially correct, and our comments are similar. Standard No. 108's requirements for hazard warning signal flashers are those of SAE Recommended Practice J945 Vehicular Hazard Warning Signal Flasher, February l966, which are incorporated by reference. The Practice's Scope specifies that the flashers 'are required to operate from two signal lamps to the maximum design load . . . as stated by the manufacturer.' Thus, in order for the vehicle manufacturer to certify compliance with Standard No. 108, it must equip the vehic1e with a flasher that operates over a load range of two lamps to the total hazard warning system load of the vehicle plus the trailer. '3. The requirement to provide turn signal outage is voided due to the trailer towing capability of the vehicle.' This is correct. Under section S5.5.6 of Standard No. 108, any vehicle equipped to tow trailers and which uses a variable-load turn signal flasher is exempted from the failure indication requirements of the SAE standards on turn signals. I hope that this answers your questions. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam4976

Dear Mr. O'Connor: This responds to your letters of December 26, 1991 and February 25, 1992, with respect to various interpretive letters of this office on the Commander and Voyager Electronic Brake Control ('Control'). The Control is manufactured by your subsidiary, Tekonsha Engineering Company. For the reasons enunciated in your December letter, you have asked us to 'rule that all three of your letters i.e., the November 22 and May 23, 1991, letters to Mr. Lewandoski and your letter of September 10, 1990, to Mr. Henneberger are all void from the beginning.' We are replying on the basis of information presented by representatives of Tekonsha, Mr. Henneberger, and yourself in a meeting with representatives of NHTSA on March 18, 1992, rather than on the basis of your December letter. This meeting brought forth facts, previously unknown to us, and which did not, therefore, form a basis for the three previous letters on this subject mentioned above. We now understand that the Control is motor vehicle equipment which is added to the towing vehicle by the seller of the towed vehicle, at a time subsequent to the first purchase of the towed vehicle for purposes other than resale. The Control has no effect upon the stop lamp system of the towing vehicle. The Control in ordinary operation has no effect upon the stop lamp system of the towed vehicle. When hand-activated in an emergency mode, the Control applies a modulated pressure to the service brakes of the towed vehicle, without activating the stop lamps on the towed vehicle. It is theoretically possible that the Control will never be operated during the life of the towing vehicle. It is our opinion that the applicable Federal law in this situation is that which pertains to the operation of vehicles in use, rather than the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to motor vehicles before their first purchase for purpose other than resale. This means that we do not view this as a question of compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 or a matter concerning the preemption of State statues by Standard No. 108. Under the statues and regulations we administer, the applicable law is 15 U.S.C. Section 1397 (a) (2) (A). This Section states in pertinent part: 'No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ....' The question therefore is whether the installation of the Control on the towing vehicle by the dealer of the towed vehicle renders the stop lamps (installed on the towed vehicle in compliance with Standard No. 108) inoperative in whole or in part within the meaning of Section 1397 (a) (2) (A). We note that the installation per se of the Control has no effect of any sort n the stop lamps of the vehicle on which it is installed, or on the vehicle that is towed. Therefore, the dealer has not rendered any stop lamps inoperative by the act of installing the Control. It is the use of the Control that may have an effect upon the stop lamps. In ordinary use, the Control has no effect upon the stop lamps of either the towing or the towed vehicle. However, when the hand control of the device is activated in the emergency mode on the towing vehicle, to slow the swaying of the towed vehicle through application of the only set of brakes on the towed vehicle (its service brakes), the stop lamps will not be activated. In the conscious act of activating the emergency feature, the operator has knowingly rendered the stop lamps on the towed vehicle inoperative for the duration of such activation (unless or until the operator applies the service brake of the towing vehicle). However, Section 1397 (a) (2) (A) does not apply to operators, thus the activation and use of the Control is not prohibited under our Statues and regulations. On the basis of the facts presented in the meeting on March 18, it now appears that the sale of the Control is not in violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel cc:Larry Henneberger Bill Lewandoski California Highway Patrol;

ID: aiam4646

Dear Mr. Coz: This is in reply to your letter of April 28, l989, wit respect to the legality under Standard No. 108 of supplemental lighting devices that North American Van Lines has installed on some of its trailers. To assist us in answering your question, you have enclosed a photograph of a trailer retrofitted with the supplemental devices, and a videocassette. However, the 'Final Specs' sheets referenced in your letter were not enclosed. The lamps in question are stop lamps/turn signal lamps which are mounted above the maximum mounting heights specified in Standard No. 108. You believe that this is permissible because they are supplemental to the original equipment stop and turn signal lamps which are mounted within the limits specified in the standard. However, the Department of California Highway Patrol has informed you that this agency does not differentiate between original and supplemental equipment, and requires that both original and supplemental lighting equipment must conform to the mounting requirements. We are not aware of the basis of the California opinion. The only requirement of Standard No. 108 for supplemental lighting equipment on vehicles prior to their first purchase for purposes other than resale is the restraint of paragraph S5.l.3 that they not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by the standard. Retrofit by North American Van Lines itself of its own vehicles after the first purchase for purposes other than resale is permissible under Federal law. However, if the retrofit were performed by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business, the operation would be subject to the restraint of Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (l5 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) that it not render inoperative, in whole or in part, lighting equipment installed in accordance with Standard No. 108. Subject to these constraints, a mounting height that exceeds the maximum specified by Standard No. 108 is permissible for supplemental lighting equipment. We interpret 'partially inoperative' as also meaning 'partially ineffective'. The location of your lamps as shown in the photograph you enclosed does not appear to 'render inoperative' any other lighting device or affect its effectiveness. We note that the retrofitted trailer in the videocassette does not appear to be equipped with the identification lamps required by Standard No. 108. Further, unless the clearance lamps are combined with the supplemental stop/turn signals in both the videocassette and the photograph you enclosed, they too appear to be missing. If the clearance lamps are combined with the supplementary lamps, care should be taken that the supplementary lamps do not 'render inoperative' the clearance lamps. Although, as noted above, the Act permits an owner to modify his vehicle in a nonconforming manner, the operation of your interstate highway trailer is subject to the regulations of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, Federal Highway Administration, which require that identification and clearance lamps be provided for these trailers. We are returning your videocassette. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure;