ID: nht79-3.31

DATE: 09/11/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joan Claybrook; NHTSA

TO: Hon. T. F. Eagleton - U.S. Senate

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your August 23, 1979, letter asking whether brakes installed in vehicles in compliance with Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, can be modified or disconnected.

Your question asks whether these brake systems can be rendered inoperative. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) states that --

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 an item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. . . .

Whether a portion of the air brake system can be rendered inoperative depends, therefore, upon whether that part of the brake system was installed in or on the vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has concluded that portions of the braking systems installed in compliance with the sections of Standard No. 121 that were invalidated by the court were not installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard. Accordingly, these devices can be disconnected by a commercial facility. In general, this means that the antilock devices installed on trucks and trailers may be disconnected or removed. However, other components of the braking system that were installed in compliance with the remaining applicable sections of the standard may not be rendered inoperative by a commercial facility. Therefore, entire braking systems cannot be removed from trucks and trailers. The NHTSA recommends that any modification of the braking systems be undertaken only after consulting with the manufacturer about the safest configuration of the particular vehicle.

In a related question, you ask who will bear the cost of disconnecting the braking systems, the manufacturer or the purchaser. We believe that the cost of modifying the braking system, depending on the circumstances, is a matter that may be negotiated between the parties.

SINCERELY,

United States Senate COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

August 23, 1979.

Joan Claybrook Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Admin. Department of Transportation

Dear Ms. Claybrook: A constituent of mine has written inquiring as to the guidelines for dealing with operative 121 brake systems in view of the recission of the regulation. He is concerned that continued operation of the brakes could be hazardous, but understandably he is reluctant to disconnect the brakes without some assurance he would not be libel.

A related question has to do with the cost of disconnecting and modifying 121 brakes. Does the manufacturer bear this responsibility or is it left to the purchaser of the vehicle?

I'd appreciate having your comments on these questions at the earliest time.

Thomas F. Eagleton United States Senator

ID: nht79-1.21

DATE: 08/31/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Vesely Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

August 31, 1979 NOA-30

Mr. David Gibbard Vesely Company 2101 N. Lapeer Road Lapeer, Michigan 48446

Dear Mr. Gibbard:

This is in confirmation of your telephone conversation with Mr. Schwartz of my office on August 6, 1979, and the previous telephone conversations between Mr. Schwartz and Mr. Arnold, formerly of your company, and Mr. Erickson of our Office of Rulemaking and Mr. Arnold. It also serves to supplement the letter from Michael Finkelstein, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, to the president of your company, Mr. McCollough.

Barring an order of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, we anticipate no changes in the rule beyond those made in Notice 8. Further, the contract with the Society of Automotive Engineers to act as the NHTSA's agent in distributing manufacturer identifiers, which Mr. Arnold was advised the agency was negotiating, has been entered into. We are therefore able to confirm the answer to your company's remaining questions with certainty. The technical questions you raised will be answered first, as we understand you would prefer to have these answers in writing also.

1. You have asked whether Vesely can use the first two characters of the sequential number (the 12th and 13th characters of the VIN if one includes the check digit) for internal company purposes as the number of vehicles produced is more than 500, but never exceeds 9,999 of a particular model annually. There is nothing in the standard which precludes utilizing the 12th and 13th characters for internal purposes so long as the agency is advised which characters are to be used and that they are to be disregarded.

2. You have also advised us that Vesely desires to use several manufacturer identifier the codes beginning with the letter V. When the NHTSA published its rule establishing the manufacturer identifier system on August 17, 1978, the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) immediately submitted a list of approximately 500 identifiers on behalf of vehicle manufacturers. These identifiers had been previously assigned to manufacturers by the SAE in their role as assigner of world manufacturer identifiers on behalf of the International Standards Organization. Unfortunately, the configuration Vesely proposed was reserved by the SAE at that time.

Because of the substantial experience the SAE has had in this area, the NHTSA has contracted with them to assign the remaining manufacturer identifiers. If you would write to the SAE at the address given below, advising them of the types of vehicles you are now producing or intend to produce, they will assign your manufacturer identifiers at no charge. Please write to:

Society of Automotive Engineers 400 Commonwealth Avenue Warendale, Pennsylvania 15096 Attention: Leo Ziegler

I trust this information answers the questions you have concerning the VIN. Please contact us if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

March 28, 1979

Mr. Frederic Schwartz, Jr. Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Schwartz:

With issuance of Docket No. 1-22; Notice 8, relating to Vehicle Identification Numbers I must assume the NHTSA is getting closer to "finalizing" FMVSS No. 115 notwithstanding the VIN litigation upcoming in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. As such, and in follow-up to my several letters and telephone conversation with you on January 9, 1979 I am again requesting official NHTSA written replies to these as soon as possible to enable our small company to try and comply with the Federal requirements.

To date, I have not received approval of our requested first three digit assignments (letter of October 30, 1978) as required by the standard and I have not received written permission to utilize digits 12 and 13 for our own in-house use (letter of December 11, 1978). Further, I have never received an official answer to my letter to President Carter other than a post card from Secretary Adams saying he will be replying.

All in all, not much action to help our company comply with these Federal mandates. If our company is going to be able to meet the effective date of September 1, 1980 we must have some answers now! Docket No. 1-22; Notice 8 has done nothing to alleviate or reduce this company's burden as I interpret the impact of it. Since we not only manufacture motor homes (MPV's) but recreational trailers as well, we must institute this 17 digit system even though the chassis manufacturer would assign his VIN. We cannot stay with our current VIN system for one product and change to a completely different VIN system for our other products.

Your replies will be anxiously awaited to enable us to continue the necessary work to comply with FMVSS 115 as it now stands by the effective date of September 1, 1980.

Very truly yours,

D. J. Arnold Director of Product Development

th

ID: 3264o

Mr. Wayne Ivie
Manager, Vehicle Support Service Section
Oregon Department of Transportation
1905 Lana Avenue NE
Salem, OR 97314

Dear Mr. Ivie:

This responds to your letter seeking information about the labeling requirements in Standard No. 218, Motorcycle Helmets (49 CFR 571.218). You noted that Oregon recently enacted a mandatory helmet use law which adopted Standard No. 218 as the minimum standard for helmets. You correctly noted that section S5.6.1 of Standard No. 218 requires subject motorcycle helmets to be permanently and legibly labeled with specified information, including the symbol "DOT" as a certification that the helmet complies with Standard No. 218. However, you stated that you have received reports that the labeling required by Standard No. 218 is not present on many helmets, either because it has fallen off or been removed by someone. You said that there is often no other identification of the manufacturer or brand name on the helmet. Accordingly, it is not possible for the owner of a helmet without the Standard 218 label present to contact a dealer or manufacturer for information about the helmet. You then asked several questions about the labeling requirements set forth in Standard No. 218.

Before answering your specific questions, I would like to provide some general background information on Standard No. 218. Prior to October 3, 1988, Standard No. 218 applied only to helmets that could be placed on the size C headform. The helmet manufacturers estimated that approximately 90 percent of all motorcycle helmets were subject to Standard No. 218, because they could be placed on the size C headform. However, helmets manufactured before October 3, 1988 that could not be placed on the size C headform (these were typically smaller sizes of helmets) were not subject to Standard No. 218. Hence, manufacturers of helmets that could not be placed on the size C headform were not required by Standard No. 218 or any of our other regulations to label any information on these helmets. In fact, manufacturers could not label the DOT certification symbol on those helmets that were not subject to Standard No. 218. See the enclosed December 4, 1987 letter to Mr. Hoppe for more information on this subject.

We published a final rule on April 6, 1988 that extended the requirements of Standard No. 218 to all motorcycle helmet sizes (53 FR 11280). This rule became effective on October 3, 1988. Accordingly, all motorcycle helmets manufactured on or after October 3, 1988 are subject to Standard No. 218 and must be labeled in accordance with the requirements of S5.6 of that standard.

With this background, your question can be answered as follows. For the approximately 10 percent of helmets manufactured before October 3, 1988 that could not be placed on the size C headform, Standard No. 218 did not apply to them, so there was no requirement for any information to be labeled on these helmets. Any such helmets would not display a "DOT sticker" because they were not required or permitted to display such a sticker when they were new, not because the sticker "fell off" or was removed.

However, Standard No. 218 applied to approximately 90 percent of all helmets manufactured before October 3, 1988 and applies to every motorcycle helmet manufactured on or after that date. For those helmets, S5.6.1 of Standard No. 218 requires that: "Each helmet shall be permanently and legibly labeled . . ." with the manufacturers name or identification, the precise model designation, the size, the month and year of manufacture, the DOT certification mark, and warning instructions. (emphasis added) In an October 16, 1973 letter to the Cycraft Co., NHTSA stated that the requirement that helmets be permanently labeled prohibits the use of labels that can be removed easily by hand without tools or chemicals.

You stated that you have heard of two reasons why helmets that originally had a DOT certification label would no longer have such a label. One of the reasons was that the affixed label was a "sticker" and it "fell off." Standard No. 218 permits manufacturers to label the required information on the helmet by means of a "sticker," provided that the label is permanent and legible and contains all the information required by S5.6. A "sticker" that falls off the helmet would not appear to be permanent within the meaning of Standard No. 218, so this would be an apparent noncompliance with the standard. If you have any evidence that "stickers" are falling off helmets, please forward that information to our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance at this address, and we will take appropriate actions.

The second reason that you have heard for helmets no longer having the labeling required by Standard No. 218 is that someone removed the label to paint the helmet and failed to put the label back on the helmet. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C 1397(a)(2)(A)) prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from "knowingly render[ing] 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 Federal motor vehicle safety standard." In this case, the label on motorcycle helmets is a device or element of design installed on the helmet in compliance with Standard No. 218. If a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business removed that label and failed to put it back on the helmet, then those entities would be rendering the label inoperative, in violation of Federal law. Again, if you have any evidence that violations of Federal law have occurred in your State, please forward that evidence to our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance and we will take appropriate actions.

Please note that Federal law does not prohibit the helmet's owner or any other person that is not a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from removing the label from motorcycle helmets. Thus, the owner of a motorcycle helmet is permitted to remove the label from his or her helmet for any reason without violating any provision of Federal law. The individual States are free to establish requirements for motorcycle helmets used in their State, and could prohibit an owner from removing the label.

You suggested that the problem of missing labels could be solved if this agency were to require that the DOT symbol be embossed on or in the helmet. NHTSA considered and rejected this suggestion 15 years ago when it established Standard No. 218. In the August 20, 1973 preamble to the final rule that established FMVSS 218, we said:

With respect to providing important safety information in the form of labeling, one comment recommended that, due to possible label deterioration, both the manufacturer's identification and the helmet model designation should be permanently marked by etching, branding, stamping, embossing, or molding on the exterior of the helmet shell or on a permanently attached component so as to be visible when the helmet is in use. The NHTSA has determined that the practical effect of this recommendation is accomplished by requiring each helmet to be permanently and legibly labeled. The method to be used to permanently and legibly affix a label for each helmet is therefore left to the discretion of the manufacturer. (38 FR 22391)

You finally asked if other jurisdictions have informed NHTSA of similar problems and sought suggestions on methods to resolve the situation where an apparently undamaged helmet would be in compliance with the standard except that it is not properly labeled. As noted above, approximately 10 percent of the motorcycle helmets manufactured before October 3, 1988 were not subject to Standard No. 218 and were not required to be labeled. To my knowledge, no other jurisdictions have informed this agency of problems akin to those raised in your letter aside from more general questions about labeling. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some more information on this subject, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address, or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:VSA#218 d:l2/8/88

ID: 3315o

Mr. Wayne Ivie
Manager, Vehicle Support Service Section
Oregon Department of Transportation
1905 Lana Avenue NE
Salem, OR 97314

Dear Mr. Ivie:

This responds to your letter seeking information about the labeling requirements in Standard No. 218, Motorcycle Helmets (49 CFR 571.218). You noted that Oregon recently enacted a mandatory helmet use law which adopted Standard No. 218 as the minimum standard for helmets. You correctly noted that section S5.6.1 of Standard No. 218 requires subject motorcycle helmets to be permanently and legibly labeled with specified information, including the symbol "DOT" as a certification that the helmet complies with Standard No. 218. However, you stated that you have received reports that the labeling required by Standard No. 218 is not present on many helmets, either because it has fallen off or been removed by someone. You said that there is often no other identification of the manufacturer or brand name on the helmet. Accordingly, it is not possible for the owner of a helmet without the Standard 218 label present to contact a dealer or manufacturer for information about the helmet. You then asked several questions about the labeling requirements set forth in Standard No. 218.

Before answering your specific questions, I would like to provide some general background information on Standard No. 218. Prior to October 3, 1988, Standard No. 218 applied only to helmets that could be placed on the size C headform. The helmet manufacturers estimated that approximately 90 percent of all motorcycle helmets were subject to Standard No. 218, because they could be placed on the size C headform. However, helmets manufactured before October 3, 1988 that could not be placed on the size C headform (these were typically smaller sizes of helmets) were not subject to Standard No. 218. Hence, manufacturers of helmets that could not be placed on the size C headform were not required by Standard No. 218 or any of our other regulations to label any information on these helmets. In fact, manufacturers could not label the DOT certification symbol on those helmets that were not subject to Standard No. 218. See the enclosed December 4, 1987 letter to Mr. Hoppe for more information on this subject.

We published a final rule on April 6, 1988 that extended the requirements of Standard No. 218 to all motorcycle helmet sizes (53 FR 11280). This rule became effective on October 3, 1988. Accordingly, all motorcycle helmets manufactured on or after October 3, 1988 are subject to Standard No. 218 and must be labeled in accordance with the requirements of S5.6 of that standard.

With this background, your question can be answered as follows. For the approximately 10 percent of helmets manufactured before October 3, 1988 that could not be placed on the size C headform, Standard No. 218 did not apply to them, so there was no requirement for any information to be labeled on these helmets. Any such helmets would not display a "DOT sticker" because they were not required or permitted to display such a sticker when they were new, not because the sticker "fell off" or was removed.

However, Standard No. 218 applied to approximately 90 percent of all helmets manufactured before October 3, 1988 and applies to every motorcycle helmet manufactured on or after that date. For those helmets, S5.6.1 of Standard No. 218 requires that: "Each helmet shall be permanently and legibly labeled . . ." with the manufacturers name or identification, the precise model designation, the size, the month and year of manufacture, the DOT certification mark, and warning instructions. (emphasis added) In an October 16, 1973 letter to the Cycraft Co., NHTSA stated that the requirement that helmets be permanently labeled prohibits the use of labels that can be removed easily by hand without tools or chemicals.

You stated that you have heard of two reasons why helmets that originally had a DOT certification label would no longer have such a label. One of the reasons was that the affixed label was a "sticker" and it "fell off." Standard No. 218 permits manufacturers to label the required information on the helmet by means of a "sticker," provided that the label is permanent and legible and contains all the information required by S5.6. A "sticker" that falls off the helmet would not appear to be permanent within the meaning of Standard No. 218, so this would be an apparent noncompliance with the standard. If you have any evidence that "stickers" are falling off helmets, please forward that information to our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance at this address, and we will take appropriate actions.

The second reason that you have heard for helmets no longer having the labeling required by Standard No. 218 is that someone removed the label to paint the helmet and failed to put the label back on the helmet. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C 1397(a)(2)(A)) prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from "knowingly render[ing] 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 Federal motor vehicle safety standard." In this case, the label on motorcycle helmets is a device or element of design installed on the helmet in compliance with Standard No. 218. If a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business removed that label and failed to put it back on the helmet, then those entities would be rendering the label inoperative, in violation of Federal law. Again, if you have any evidence that violations of Federal law have occurred in your State, please forward that evidence to our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance and we will take appropriate actions.

Please note that Federal law does not prohibit the helmet's owner or any other person that is not a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from removing the label from motorcycle helmets. Thus, the owner of a motorcycle helmet is permitted to remove the label from his or her helmet for any reason without violating any provision of Federal law. The individual States are free to establish requirements for motorcycle helmets used in their State, and could prohibit an owner from removing the label.

You suggested that the problem of missing labels could be solved if this agency were to require that the DOT symbol be embossed on or in the helmet. NHTSA considered and rejected this suggestion 15 years ago when it established Standard No. 218. In the August 20, 1973 preamble to the final rule that established FMVSS 218, we said:

With respect to providing important safety information in the form of labeling, one comment recommended that, due to possible label deterioration, both the manufacturer's identification and the helmet model designation should be permanently marked by etching, branding, stamping, embossing, or molding on the exterior of the helmet shell or on a permanently attached component so as to be visible when the helmet is in use. The NHTSA has determined that the practical effect of this recommendation is accomplished by requiring each helmet to be permanently and legibly labeled. The method to be used to permanently and legibly affix a label for each helmet is therefore left to the discretion of the manufacturer. (38 FR 22391)

You finally asked if other jurisdictions have informed NHTSA of similar problems and sought suggestions on methods to resolve the situation where an apparently undamaged helmet would be in compliance with the standard except that it is not properly labeled. As noted above, approximately 10 percent of the motorcycle helmets manufactured before October 3, 1988 were not subject to Standard No. 218 and were not required to be labeled. To my knowledge, no other jurisdictions have informed this agency of problems akin to those raised in your letter aside from more general questions about labeling. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some more information on this subject, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address, or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure /ref:VSA#218 d:12/8/88

ID: Will_ltr

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





Dear Mr. Will:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:111
d.8/22/01

ID: nht76-2.5

DATE: 02/09/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Jeep Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Jeep Corporation's October 16, 1975, petition to initiate rulemaking to amend the present definition of "Unloaded vehicle weight" (49 CFR @ 571.3) which reads:

"Unloaded vehicle weight" means the weight of a vehicle with maximum capacity of all fluids necessary for operation of the vehicle, but without cargo or occupants.

Jeep requests that the definition be amended to "indicate that the unloaded vehicle [weight] does not include work-performing accessories which may be available as original equipment accessories." The Jeep petition argues that the impracticality of conducting some dynamic testing with "work-performing accessories" in place may force the discontinuance of some factory-installed accessories although factory installation may be more safe than a subsequent aftermarket installation.

The Jeep Corporation petition is denied. As a general matter, the NHTSA has established that a vehicle which is designed to accept an optional component must be capable of meeting all applicable standards with the component installed. The NHTSA has evaluated the potential problems of dynamic testing with heavy or protruding accessories in place and concludes that a decision on the practicality and wisdom of so doing should be made on a "standard-by-standard" basis. As you noted, the NHTSA has provided for removal of work-performing accessories in conducting compliance tests under Standard No. 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion. If Jeep considers dynamic testing in other standards to be unjustifiably burdensome because of the necessity of testing with all accessories in place, it would be appropriate to petition for rulemaking to amend the standard in question.

SINCERELY,

Jeep Corporation

October 16, 1975

Dr. James B. Gregory Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U. S. Department of Transportation

RE: Petition For Rulemaking 49 CFR Part 571.3 - Definitions

Pursuant to Section 124 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, Jeep Corporation petitions the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to undertake rulemaking to amend the definition of "unloaded vehicle weight" contained in Federal Regulation 49 CFR Part 571.3.

Currently, unloaded vehicle weight means the weight of the vehicle to be loaded with its maximum capacity of all fluids necessary for normal operation, but without occupants or cargo. This is the base vehicle condition used throughout the safety standards when vehicle dynamic performance is being evaluated. Jeep Corporation requests that this definition be revised to clearly indicate that the unloaded vehicle does not include work-performing accessories which may be available as original equipment accessories. Currently, it is unclear whether a vehicle being subjected to a dynamic test should include such items.

Jeep Corporation offers a full range of work-performing accessories ranging from snow plows and push plates to power winches and wrecker assemblies. Such accessories are highly desirable to customers who want to more fully utilize the multi-purpose features of their Jeep vehicles or who want to utilize the capabilities of any class of vehicle for recreational or work purposes.

These accessories, which are marketed as "Jeep Special Equipment", are specifically designed to be compatible with Jeep vehicles, thereby requiring a minimum of vehicle modification, and are offered either as factory installed or dealer add-on equipment. Aftermarket universal-type accessories may not be so readily adaptable to Jeep vehicles resulting in major vehicle modification which may compromise the safety performance of the original vehicle. Thus, it would be in the best interests of safety to allow Jeep Corporation to continue to provide approved special equipment.

This will not be possible, however, if future dynamic testing procedures in several safety standards require vehicles tested to be equipped with all types of special equipment accessories. To assure compliance to any Federal Standards with all possible vehicle equipment combinations would create a financial and testing burden which Jeep Corporation could not bear. The end result would be the withdrawal from the marketplace of certain original equipment, manufacturer-installed accessories or dealer-installed, manufacturer-approved accessories which, as noted earlier, may not be in the best interest of public safety.

The NHTSA has, in the past, recognized the influence of certain work-performing equipment on vehicle dynamic performance. In Docket No. 73-29; Notice 1, published in 38 FR 33501, the NHTSA proposed the exemption of original equipment snow plows from vehicles being tested to the braking requirements of Standard (Illegible Word)

The concept of eliminating the effects of "work-performing accessories" from the unloaded vehicle weight was further confirmed by the NHTSA in its recent promulgation of Standard 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion. In this standard, it is stated that, "(F)or the purpose of this section, unloaded vehicle weight does not include the weight of work-performing accessories."

In recognition of the above arguments, Jeep Corporation requests the Administrator amend the definition of "unloaded vehicle weight" (49 CFR Part 571.3) such that the unloaded vehicle does not include work-performing accessories.

Jeep Corporation submits that for the reason stated above, such rulemaking is both in the public interest and in the best interest of vehicle safety.

Stuart R. Perkins Director Vehicle Safety

ID: 9280

Mr. Darryl Cobb
Route 2 Box 685
Abbeville, GA 31001

Dear Mr. Cobb:

This responds to your inquiry about how Federal regulations would affect the sale of an aftermarket rearview mirror you plan to import into the United States. You stated that this mirror system would be installed on the driver's side of a passenger car. A brochure accompanying your letter indicated that the mirror system contains both a portion that is a flat mirror of unit magnification and a portion along the outer edge that is convex. I regret the delay in responding.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act), it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

NHTSA issued performance requirements for new vehicle mirrors in Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors (49 CFR 571.111, copy enclosed). Standard No. 111 establishes performance and location requirements for the rearview mirrors in each new motor vehicle. Vehicle manufacturers must certify that each of their new vehicles complies with the applicable requirements in Standard No. 111. Vehicle manufacturers may install mirror systems that combine flat and convex mirrors on their new vehicles, provided that the flat mirror portion by itself complies with the requirements in Standard No. 111 that are applicable to the vehicle type on which the mirror system is installed. Assuming that the flat mirror portion of your mirror system complies with the requirements of Standard No. 111 for the vehicle type on which it is to be installed, this new mirror system can legally be installed on new vehicles of that type.

Please note that since Standard No. 111 applies to the completed new vehicle, it does not apply to mirrors sold and installed as aftermarket equipment. However, there are other Federal requirements that indirectly affect an aftermarket mirror system. Under the Safety Act, the mirror is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment are subject to the requirements in 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

In addition, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which states: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render 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 Federal motor vehicle safety standard ...." If the installation of an aftermarket mirror system resulted in a vehicle no longer complying with Standard No. 111, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business that replaced a complying mirror with a noncomplying system would have rendered inoperative a device (the mirror system) installed in the vehicle in compliance with Standard No. 111. Section 109 of the Safety Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1000 for each violation of the render inoperative provision.

The Safety Act does not establish any limitation on an individual vehicle owner's ability to modify his or her own vehicle. Under Federal law, individual owners can install any mirror system they desire on their own vehicles, regardless of whether that mirror renders inoperative the vehicle's compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 111. However, NHTSA urges vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of any system or device on their vehicles, including the safety of their rearview mirrors.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:111 d:4/7/94

ID: nht89-3.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/01/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: ROBERT N. LEVIN -- HUDOCK & LEVIN

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 06/06/89 FROM ROBERT N. LEVIN -- HUDOCK AND LEVIN TO NHTSA, RE SUN ROOFS; OCC 3625

TEXT: Dear Mr. Levin:

This responds to your letter on behalf of one of your clients, seeking information on how our law and agency regulations might affect the installation of sun roofs in vehicles. You stated that your client is an automobile repair facility. According to your letter, you recently discovered this agency's regulation (49 CFR @ 567.7) requiring vehicle alterers to affix to the vehicles they alter a label certifying that the vehicle as altered continues to comply with all applicable safety standards. You as ked whether such certification labels must be affixed by your client to those vehicles on which it installs a sun roof. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain the requirements of our laws and regulations for you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Two of those safety standards could be relevant to a r epair shop's installation of sun roofs on motor vehicles. Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, (49 CFR @ 571.205) sets performance requirements for glazing materials installed in new motor vehicles and for new glazing materials for use in motor vehicles . Any glazing incorporated in a vehicle's sun roof would have to conform to the applicable performance requirements set forth in Standard No. 205. In addition, installation of a sun roof could affect a vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 216, Roof C rush Resistance - Passenger Cars, (49 CFR 571.216), which sets forth strength requirements for roofs of passenger cars.

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) specifies that, "No person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor veh icle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor

vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard . . ." Because of this statutory requirement, any person or business that installs sun roofs in new motor vehicles must certify that the vehicle continues to comply with the requirements of all applicable safety standards, including Standards No. 205 and 216.

The form and contents for this certification are set forth in 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. Any manufacturer that installs a sun roof on a new motor vehicle is required by @ 567.4 or @ 567.5 to certify that the vehicle conforms to the requirements of a ll applicable safety standards. Any person or business that adds a sun roof to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first sale for purposes other than resale would be required to certify the vehicle's continuing compliance with all appl icable safety standards, in accordance with @ 567.7. Such a person or entity is an "alterer" for the purposes of Part 567. (Persons or entities that modify vehicles by using a "readily attachable component" or performing a "minor finishing operation" ar e not considered "alterers." Modifications involving a readily attachable component or a minor finishing operation are instead subject to the requirements of 49 CFR @ 567.6. However, NHTSA does not consider a sun roof to be a "readily attachable componen t" nor is the installation of a sun roof a "minor finishing operation." Hence, this exception is not relevant to your client's activities.).

In addition to these certification requirements, an "alterer" is considered a "manufacturer" for the purposes of the Safety Act. Among other things, this means an alterer is responsible for notification and remedy of defects related to motor vehicle saf ety and noncompliances with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards arising from the alterations, as specified in sections 151-160 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C 1411-1420). I have enclosed a general information sheet for new manufacturers that g enerally describes our statutory and regulatory requirements, and explains how to obtain copies of those statutes and regulations.

The certification and labeling requirements set forth in section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) and in Part 567 apply to vehicles only until the first sale of the vehicle for purposes other than resale. Thus, once a vehicle has been purchased by a consumer, persons that modify that vehicle for its owner (e.g., by installing a sun roof) are not required to certify or label the vehicle by this agency's statutes or regulations. A different statutory provision applies to modifications made by a re pair shop to vehicles after the first purchase. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) provides that, "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in pa rt, 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, . . ."

To comply with the obligations imposed by this "render inoperative" provision, your client should examine the sun roofs it installs and the means of installation for those sun roofs, and compare those with the

requirements of Standards No. 205 and 216. After such an examination and comparison, your client should be able to decide if the sun roof installations it performs result in any apparent violations of the "render inoperative" provision of the Safety Act . If your client decides there is no apparent "render inoperative" violation, Federal law does not require any additional actions, such as labeling or certification, on your client's part in connection with the installation of sun roofs in vehicles afte r the first purchase of those vehicles. You should be aware that NHTSA may reexamine your client's decision and make its own determination of whether your client's sun roof installations may have violated the "render inoperative" provision in the Safety Act in the context of an enforcement proceeding.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ENCLOSURES

Sincerely,

ID: 11508ZTV

Mr. Chris Jorheim
New Flyer Industries Ltd
600 Pandora Avenue West
Winnipeg, Manitoba
Canada R2C 3T4

Dear Mr. Jorheim:

This is in reply to your letter of January 23, 1996, asking for an interpretation of the requirements of U.S. Federal Motor Safety Standard No. 108 as it applies to intermediate side reflex reflectors on your 40-foot bus.

You are currently installing them "at or near the midpoint between front and rear marker lamps" in accordance with the standard, but some of your buses are delivered with an advertising frame on each side. The problem is that "[t]he left side reflector is unobstructed when the bus is delivered but once the owner places an advertisement in the frame the reflector is covered." You have asked whether you comply with Standard No. 108 by having the reflector location as is even though it will be covered with advertising after the bus is delivered to the purchaser.

Under 49 U.S.C. Sec. 30122, "a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device . . . installed on . . . a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard . . . ." Although your bus technically complies with Standard No. 108 when it is delivered to the owner, you would have manufactured the bus with the knowledge that the owner intends to create a noncompliance, and with the hardware installed to enable it to do so. In this situation, we would regard both the bus manufacturer and the owner as creators of a noncompliance with Standard No. 108. However,

the liability would be yours alone, because the persons prohibited by Sec. 30122 from making safety equipment inoperative do not include the owner. Further, when a noncompliance occurs attributable to the manufacturer, the manufacturer must notify and remedy according to statutory procedures.

You have suggested several options, and ask which, if any, would assure compliance with Standard No. 108 and provide a proper safety level for the bus. The first is to move the reflector to the rear of the ad frame, where it would be 5 to 6 feet from the midpoint of the vehicle. The second would be to add two reflectors, one to the front of the frame and the other to the rear, where each would still be 5 to 6 feet from the midpoint. The third would be to move the reflector above the frame at a height of 45 to 50 inches above the ground, where it would be near, but not at, the midpoint. This third option would comply with the requirements of the standard that intermediate reflex reflectors be located at or near the midpoint of the bus. The other two options would not comply.

We appreciate your willingness to explore options which will ensure the continued conformance of your product after the modifications performed on it by its purchaser.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Ref:108 d:3/26/96

ID: nht95-7.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 16, 1995

FROM: Kenneth W. Easterling -- Plan B Engineering, Inc.

TO: Taylor Vinson -- NHTSA; Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Collision Avoidance Technology

ATTACHMT: 12/22/95 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Kenneth Easterling (A43; Std. 108); 7/30/93 letter from John Womack to Wayne Ferguson

TEXT: THANK YOU FOR TAKING TIME TO DISCUSS THE DEVELOPMENTS MADE RECENTLY OUR COLLISION AVOIDANCE DEVICE NOW IN THE FINAL DESIGN STAGES. AS PER YOUR DIRECTIVE. I HAVE ATTACHED A BRIEF SYNOPSIS OF THE SUBJECT DEVICE FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AND OPINION.

IF I CAN PROVIDE ANYTHING FURTHER IN TERMS OF PRODUCT ILLUSTRATION OR EXPLANATION, PLEASE GIVE ME A CALL.

WE SINCERELY THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR PERSONAL COMMENTARY AND SUBMISSION TO MR. DUBBIN'S OFFICE FOR INSPECTION.

VERY BEST REGARDS, KENNETH W. EASTERLING

Attachment

Mr. Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel NHTSA, Room 5219

Subject: Rear End Collision Avoidance Re: Proportional Deceleration Indicator Lamps (aka) G-Lamps

Dear Mr. Dubbin:

In recognition of the significant work and contributions to highway safety, I submit for your consideration and opinion, the concept and justification for G-Lamps.

To be specific, an inertial driven, proportional deceleration indicator lamp as an intended enhancement to existing single filament, on/off style incandescent brake lamps. We have recently entered final design stages on the device and initial tests have revealed some startling results in decreased driver reaction times when compared to the industry standard products.

Building on my work experience within the California Highway Patrol, I recognized the need for motorists to be aware of not only when a vehicle ahead of you was braking, but to what degree the deceleration was be made. Tests have shown reaction times were cut in half when a motorist was visually appraised of increasing, hard braking activity instead of having to judge the rate of diminishing distance between his/her vehicle and the braking motorist (as is the case with on/off style brake lamps). In the case of freeway speeds, these reaction times and distances are accumulated from one vehicle to the next (rear) until ultimately (at freeway speeds) a rear end collision is imminent.

G-Lamps was developed to provide motorists to the rear, visual reference to the degree of braking activity on a real-time basis. Valuable distance is directly proportionate to time lost in reacting to sudden stops or increasingly harder braking. As we all know, there exists a tendency to "ride" our brakes when anticipating slow-downs or stops. This has effectively eliminated the benefits of standard brake lamps. From the time of activation, the degree of braking activity is anyone's guess. To motorists to the rear it may very well end up in excessive vehicle damage and injury liabilities.

For your inspection, explanation of the device is delivered on the following pages. I have tried to be as informative as possible without laboring you with manufacturing details that would rival a sales pitch.

I thank you in advance for your input and contributions to this effort.

Kenneth Easterling, President, Plan B Engineering Inc.

Intent and Purpose

The device was conceived to counter the hazards of hard braking while in traffic at highway speeds. It is intended to enhance existing brake indicator lamp systems and not to deviate from customary and expected visual queues during motor vehicle operation with one important exception.

Specifically, braking activity in excess of normal deceleration (defined as an appreciable decay of forward momentum of the vehicle) would activate decelerometer circuitry housed within the lamp bulb itself and be viewed from the rear as proportionately faster flashing light equating to the degree of deceleration. Normal braking would display customary visual queues as a steady burn of the brake lamp.

It is well established through independent studies and government testing, driver reaction times are severely compromised as the distance between vehicles decrease under various breaking conditions. This scenario is aggravated by the need to visually judge the rate of deceleration of the stopping vehicle and a following driver to respond accordingly.

The device proposed will deliver visual feed-back to following motorists of greater than normal braking activity. The ergonomics of the device are geared to normal reflex actions of potential and proportion. The greater the rate of deceleration of the vehicle the faster the cycles per second of the inertial lamp. Therefore, the following vehicle's response will be to react with potentially greater braking activity much sooner than normal. Thus capturing valuable stopping distance that would otherwise be lost. This problem is further exaggerated by less than desirable visual acuity present in more than three quarters of the motoring public.

Abstract of Device (i.e. form, fit and function) While the form and fit of the device mimic the present day designs for incandescent, filament style lamps, the similarity must end there. Unlike it's predecessor, the inertia lamp is mechanically dynamic in function. To operate the device must be subjected to substantial negative G-forces which can only be generated by the sudden and rapid deceleration the vehicle in which it is mounted. Without these influences, the bulb assembly acts as any other lamp bulb, in terms of constant steady burn associated with normal deceleration rate, when the brake system is activated.

By nature of design, the inertia bulb will activate in concert with the steady burning "normal" brake lamp. Once energized, the inertia flash filament portion of the lamp will increase the flash rate by cycles per second (Hz) proportionate to the rate of declaration. This is a desired means of attaining a quantification of braking magnitude.

Microelectronics technology allows the timing circuitry to be housed within a standard "bayonet" style socket with no modification to the manufacturer's electrical or molded lens structures. State of the art manufacturing techniques allow the device to be fabricated in cost ranges considered to be competitive with existing high performance lamps. The solid state design and minimal parts involved insure long life and serviceability.

Summary

In conclusion, our studies indicate this device to be the most straight forward, technically viable and ergonomically effective means of reducing the single most prolific cause of vehicular collisions today, "the rear-ender". Billions of dollars annually are paid out by insurance companies for damages and bodily injury claims directly related to these types of collisions. Considering the enormous loss in work time, productivity in the economy and personal pain and suffering, the numbers are staggering.

Recently a precedence was set by General Motors with the introduction of the Daytime Running Lamp. Recognizing a simple but highly effective means of vehicular illumination, a major, profit oriented corporation was willing to make a billion dollar investment to highway safety. The motoring public as well as the companies that insure their financial responsibility, have come to expect a product that is as safe as technically and morally possible.