ID: nht92-8.36

DATE: March 2, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Paul N. Wagner -- President, Bornemann Products Incorporated

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/22/92 from Paul N. Wagner to NHTSA

TEXT:

This responds to your letter seeking further information about the extension of the dynamic testing requirements in Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection to light trucks and vans. You indicated that you were particularly interested in the application of the dynamic testing requirements to vehicles manufactured in more than one stage.

Your letter stated that throughout 1991 your company was repeatedly led to believe there would be no delay of the September 1, 1991 effective date for the application of the dynamic testing requirements to light trucks and vans. Your letter also indicated that, after proceeding with testing to ensure that your company's van conversions would comply with the dynamic testing requirements, you found additional complications hampering your testing efforts. In response to these complications, your company filed a petition asking that the applicability of the dynamic testing requirements to light trucks and vans manufactured in more than one stage be delayed from the scheduled September 1, 1991 date until April 1, 1992. NHTSA received your petition on August 29, 1991.

This petition was rejected as untimely and you were notified of the rejection in an October 10, 1991 letter from Mr. Barry Felrice, our Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. Your company proceeded with further testing after you learned that NHTSA had not accepted your petition, and have been able to certify that your conversion vans comply with the dynamic testing requirements. Your letter estimated that the total cost of the research and testing performed by your company to certify compliance with the dynamic testing requirements was nearly $200,000.

Then, on January 21, 1992, your company received a memorandum from the trade group Recreational Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA), announcing that representatives of RVIA had met with representatives of this agency on January 14, 1992. You believed that the RVIA memorandum "indicates (a delay of the September 1, 1991 effective date for the dynamic testing requirements) is on the horizon." Your letter suggested that there is now confusion among van converters and other multistage manufacturers about the status of the dynamic testing requirements for vehicles manufactured in more than one stage. You asked us to state whether a delay in the effective date for the dynamic testing requirements as applied to multistage vehicles is now being considered by the agency. The answer is no.

There was a meeting between representatives of this agency and the RVIA on January 14, 1992. From our perspective, the meeting was informative and constructive, and provided us with further insights into the efforts that were needed for van converters to ensure that their vans complied with the new dynamic testing requirements. We hope to maintain such dialogues with RVIA and any other interested multistage manufacturers.

However, our January 14, 1992 meeting did not change some facts. First, the dynamic testing requirements took effect for light trucks and vans on September 1, 1991, including light trucks and vans manufactured in more than one stage. This means that each light truck and van manufactured on or after September 1, 1991 had to be certified by its manufacturer as complying with the dynamic testing requirements. Second, any member of the public can petition the agency to modify any of its standards, including the dynamic testing requirements as they apply generally to light trucks and vans manufactured in more than one stage. If RVIA should submit a petition to modify the dynamic testing requirements, as it suggested it would in the memorandum you received, NHTSA would consider that petition according to the same procedures followed in the case of your company's petition on this subject or any other petition from the public.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further concerns or questions, please let me know.

ID: nht94-1.46

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: February 8, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Honorable Sam Nunn -- Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, U. S. Senate

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated January 11, 1994 from Sam Nunn to Jackie Lowey, letter dated 12/22/94 from Bill Lee to Sam Nunn and letter dated 12/17/93 from Tim Adamson to Bill Lee

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of January 11, 1994, to the Acting Director of Congressional Affairs, DOT, with respect to an inquiry from Georgia State Representative Bill Lee regarding the disposition of surplus HMMMV (Humvee) military vehicles.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is the component within DOT that establishes and enforces the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. In recognition of the fact that compliance with the FMVSS could interfere with the ability of a military vehicle to perform its intended task, we have always exempted from compliance with the FMVSS any motor vehicle that is manufactured for, and sold direct ly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications.

When such a vehicle has reached the end of its useful military life, the question arises as to its proper disposition. NHTSA has no authority over the disposition that any owner wishes to make of his motor vehicle, whether civilian or military in nature , thus the matter is not the subject of any DOT-administered statute or of any NHTSA regulations. From time to time the Department of Defense (DOD) asks our advice on disposal of surplus vehicles; we provide it and DOD appears to follow it. However, in the last analysis, it is DOD's policy that governs the disposal of surplus military motor vehicles.

With respect to the HMMMV, we have advised DOD that we deem it not in the interests of traffic safety to sell for civilian use a motor vehicle that is not in compliance with the FMVSS. We recognize that there is a competing public interest in recovery o f Federal funds to the extent practicable but, in our view, it is outweighed by the interest in safety. Given the fact that HMMMVs are now available that meet the FMVSS, we have further advised DOD to consult with the HMMMV's manufacturer to determine wh ether military vehicles might be retrofitted to comply with the FMVSS. If this can be accomplished, NHTSA would have no objection to the sale of retrofitted military HMMMVs for civilian use.

I hope that this clarifies the matter for Representative Lee.

ID: nht94-8.24

DATE: February 8, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Honorable Sam Nunn -- Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, U. S. Senate

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated January 11, 1994 from Sam Nunn to Jackie Lowey, letter dated 12/22/94 from Bill Lee to Sam Nunn and letter dated 12/17/93 from Tim Adamson to Bill Lee

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of January 11, 1994, to the Acting Director of Congressional Affairs, DOT, with respect to an inquiry from Georgia State Representative Bill Lee regarding the disposition of surplus HMMMV (Humvee) military vehicles.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is the component within DOT that establishes and enforces the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. In recognition of the fact that compliance with the FMVSS could interfere with the ability of a military vehicle to perform its intended task, we have always exempted from compliance with the FMVSS any motor vehicle that is manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications.

When such a vehicle has reached the end of its useful military life, the question arises as to its proper disposition. NHTSA has no authority over the disposition that any owner wishes to make of his motor vehicle, whether civilian or military in nature, thus the matter is not the subject of any DOT-administered statute or of any NHTSA regulations. From time to time the Department of Defense (DOD) asks our advice on disposal of surplus vehicles; we provide it and DOD appears to follow it. However, in the last analysis, it is DOD's policy that governs the disposal of surplus military motor vehicles.

With respect to the HMMMV, we have advised DOD that we deem it not in the interests of traffic safety to sell for civilian use a motor vehicle that is not in compliance with the FMVSS. We recognize that there is a competing public interest in recovery of Federal funds to the extent practicable but, in our view, it is outweighed by the interest in safety. Given the fact that HMMMVs are now available that meet the FMVSS, we have further advised DOD to consult with the HMMMV's manufacturer to determine whether military vehicles might be retrofitted to comply with the FMVSS. If this can be accomplished, NHTSA would have no objection to the sale of retrofitted military HMMMVs for civilian use.

I hope that this clarifies the matter for Representative Lee.

ID: nht93-5.2

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: June 29, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Charles H. Taylor -- U.S. House of Representatives

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-3-93 from Charles H. Taylor to Jackie Lowey (OCC 8735).

TEXT: This responds to your letter of June 3, 1993, to the Acting Secretary for Legislative Affairs, asking the Department of Transportation (DOT) "to reconsider its rules regarding the sale of surplus HMMMV (Humvee) military vehicles to law enforcement organizations." You have enclosed correspondence from your constituent, Sheriff Long of Buncombe County with respect to this matter. Although your letter states that a letter from the Department of Defense to Sheriff Long is also enclosed, we did not receive it.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is the component within DOT that establishes and enforces the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. In recognition of the fact that compliance with the FMVSS could interfere with the ability of a military vehicle to perform its intended task, we have always exempted from compliance with the FMVSS any motor vehicle that is manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications.

When such a vehicle has reached the end of its useful military life, the question arises as to its proper disposition. NHTSA has no authority over the disposition that any owner wishes to make of his motor vehicle, whether civilian or military in nature, thus we have no "rules" to reconsider, as you have requested. The Department of Defense (DOD), however, asks our advice on disposal of surplus vehicles; we provide it and DOD appears to follow it. However, in the last analysis, it is DOD's policy that governs the disposal of surplus military motor vehicles.

With respect to the HMMMV, we have advised DOD that we deem it not in the interests of traffic safety to sell for civilian use a motor vehicle that is not in compliance with the FMVSS. We recognize that there is a competing public interest in recovery of Federal funds to the extent practicable but, in our view, it is outweighed by the interest in safety. Given the fact that HMMMVs are now available that meet the FMVSS, we have further advised DOD to consult with the HMMMV's manufacturer to determine whether military vehicles might be retrofitted to comply with the FMVSS. If this can be accomplished, NHTSA would have no objection to the sale of retrofitted military HMMMVs for civilian use.

I hope that this clarifies the matter for you.

ID: 77-2.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/18/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 29, 1977, asking two questions about the use of strobe lamps on school buses.

Your first question is whether it is "legal to install strobe type warning lamps on school buses?" The answer is yes provided such lamps meet the specific performance requirements in S4.1.4 which incorporates SAE Standard J887 "School Bus Red Signal Lamps."

You also reference "certification from our vendor . . . that his system meets FMVSS if installed according to his instructions." You have asked if this letter from your vendor is "adequate documentation upon which we could certify that a bus with such a system meets FMVSS 108?" In an earlier opinion letter on this subject (to Yankee Metal Products Corporation of April 12, 1976) we opined that an ETL test report submitted by the company plus an opinion by a professional engineer indicating compliance of a strobe lamp design with SAE J887 provided a basis upon which Yankee could certify that its system meets Standard No. 108. Since you did not enclose the letter from your vendor we cannot comment upon it. However the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires that a manufacturer exercise due care in insuring that its certification is not false and misleading in a material respect, and you should exercise the same care in this instance that you do with respect to insuring compliance of other items of lighting devices with which your buses are equipped.

YOURS TRULY,

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

March 29, 1977

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

SUBJECT: FMVSS 108

REFERENCE: 1. New Jersey Register, January 6, 1977

2. Letter, Donald J. Sumple to Mr. Donald Peck dated 3-25-77

"On December 1, 1976, Fred G. Burke, Commissioner of Education and Secretary to the Board of Education, pursuant to authority of N.J.S.A. 18A:39-21 and in accordance with applicable provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, adopted a new rule, to be cited as N.J.A.C. 6:21-19.1, concerning school bus warning lamps (strobe), substantially as proposed in the Notice published October 7, 1976, at 8 N.J.R. 454(a), but with subsequent, substantive changes not detrimental to the public, in the opinion of the Department of Education.

This rule is mandated for school buses manufactured May 1, 1977, and thereafter. This rule is permissive for school buses manufactured prior to May 1, 1977."

The above quote from reference 1 indicates that strobe type warning lamps are required on New Jersey school buses manufactured after May 1, 1977.

We have worked with several vendors to get a system to meet both the New Jersey requirements and FMVSS 108. We have no test facility of our own to determine compliance of such a system with FMVSS 108 and, furthermore, understand that there is some ambiguity of FMVSS 108 with regard to strobe lamps.

We have received certification from our vendor, reference 2, that his system meets FMVSS 108 if installed according to his instructions.

We have these questions:

1. Is it legal to install strobe type warning lamps on school buses?

2. If so, is reference 2 adequate documentation upon which we could certify that a bus with such a system meets FMVSS 108?

Your early response is needed so that we can adequately meet May 1 production requirements for New Jersey.

Thank you.

W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services

C: DON PECK; JIM MOORMAN; JIM SWIFT

ID: nht79-2.45

DATE: 05/09/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood for F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 29, 1979, to Bill Eason with respect to headlamp lens marking. Mr. Eason is no longer associated with the Office of Rulemaking and we regret the delay in writing you.

You have asked for a confirmation of your interpretation that:

"The headlamp designed to conform to J579c shall be provided with the lens marking specified in S4.1.1.21 of FMVSS No. 108 even if the upper beam headlamp maximum output is lower than the conventional maximum restriction of 37,500 cd."

You are correct that S4.1.1.21 permits the new code marking for headlamps designed to conform to SAE Standard J579c even if the upper beam headlamp maximum output is lower than the maximum of 75,000 cd permissible under 579c or the previous maximum of 37,500 cd of J579a. But because the code could be misleading, we are considering proposing an amendment of Standard No. 108 that would delete the new code requirement for all headlamps whose maximum candela does not exceed a certain value, such as 40,000 cd.

SINCERELY,

Bill Eason Office of Rulemaking National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

January 29, 1979

Subject: Headlamp Lens Marking

Reference: Docket No. 78-5; Notice 3 of Federal Register Vol. 43, No. 145 dated July 27, 1978

Dear Sir:

With reference to the headlamp lens marking, the latest S 4.1.1.21 of FMVSS No. 108 as amended in Docket No. 78-5; Notice 3 of FR Vol. 43, No. 145 dated July 27, 1978, provides as follows;

Quoted " S 4.1.1.21 The lens of each headlamp designed to confom to SAE Standard J579c, Sealed Beam Headlamp Units for Motor Vehicles, December 1974, manufactured on or after July 1, 1979, shall be marked with the symbol ------------ -------- ." unquoted

The NHTSA's basic intention of establishing the above lens marking code is to give consummers a means of identification to determine which the photometric and beam pattern design specified in either SAE J579c or SAE J579a does apply to the headlamp and also to enable them to replace original headlamp with headlamp of compatible photometric properties, we believe.

In addition, it can be said that the headlamp designed to conform to SAE J579c is substantially different also in the upper and lower beam patter distribution as well as being different in the upper beam photometric maximum output, when compared with the headlamp of SAE J579a, we think.

KOITO MANUFACTURING CO., LTD.

Attn. Bill Eason Office of Rulemaking National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Dated January 29, 1979

We would hereby ask you to provide us with your definite confirmation and our interpretation is as follows;

The headlamp designed to conform to SAE J579c shall be provided with the lens marking specified in S 4.1.1.21 of FMVSS No. 108 even if the upper beam headlamp maximum output is lower than the conventional maximum restriction of 37,500 cd.

If you have another interpretation of this code to this matter, please kindly let us know soonest possible because we have to change lens moulds to provide our headlamp with the proper marking.

Upon your kind review to this matter, your prompt reply would be greatly appreciated.

M. Iwase Chief, Overseas Technical Section Technical Administration Department Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd. Shizuoka Works

PS: POSTAGE STAMP ENCLOSED FOR YOUR REPLY BY AIR.

ID: 17174.wkm

Mr. Celso G. Longhi
Mr. Alfredo C. Filho
Product Development
SABO
Rua Gino Cesaro 210
Sao Paulo, S.P., Brazil 05038

Dear Messrs. Longhi and Filho:

Please pardon the delay in responding to your letter faxed to Mr. Marvin Shaw, formerly of this office. You state that you are developing a vacuum hose for Ford and that you were advised that you must identify the hose with "DOT" in accordance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (Standard) No. 106, Brake hoses (copy enclosed). You also state that you understand that this symbol identifies your company. You ask us to let you know what is necessary in order to mark your product.

For your general information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority under U. S. law to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The law establishes a self-certification system in which vehicle and equipment manufacturers certify that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs. NHTSA enforces the FMVSSs by purchasing vehicles and equipment and testing them for compliance with applicable standards. NHTSA also investigates defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a noncompliance or a safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of that product and remedy the problem free of charge. (Note that this responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which your hoses are installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer). Any manufacturer that fails to provide notification of or remedy for a noncompliance or defect may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,100 per violation.

Standard No. 106, to which you alluded in your letter, specifies performance and labeling requirements for motor vehicle brake hoses, brake hose assemblies, and brake hose end fittings. With respect to vacuum hoses, please refer to subsection S9, Requirements - vacuum brake hose, brake hose assemblies, and brake hose end fittings beginning on page 216. Subparagraph S9.1.1(a) requires hoses to be marked with the symbol "DOT" to represent the manufacturer's certification that the hoses comply with all applicable FMVSSs. A separate marking identifying the manufacturer is required by S9.1.1(b). The manufacturer's marking may consist of block capital letters, numerals, or a symbol, and must be filed in writing with the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20590.

In addition to the requirements described above, please note that your manufacture of brake hoses may also be affected by NHTSA's longstanding interpretation of our regulation on manufacturer identification (49 CFR Part 566, copy enclosed), if Ford sells vehicles equipped with your brake hoses in this country. This rule requires a manufacturer of equipment to which an FMVSS applies ("covered equipment" - in this case, brake hoses) to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the items of equipment it manufactures to NHTSA separately from the vehicle manufacturer to which the equipment manufacturer supplies its products. NHTSA has interpreted that regulation to require the information from foreign manufacturers of covered equipment supplying their products to a foreign vehicle manufacturer selling its vehicles in the U.S. (see enclosed copy of NHTSA letter to Mr. Virve Airola, dated May 31, 1990; and enclosed Brake Hose Application).

Please note also that under 49 CFR Part 551, Subpart D (copy enclosed), SABO must designate an agent if SABO decides to offer its equipment for importation into the U.S.

Also enclosed for your information are fact sheets entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment, and Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have an questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992, fax (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
Ref:106
d.5/1/98

ID: nht94-2.21

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 7, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Darryl Cobb (Abbeville, GA)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/29/93 from Darryl Cobb to Office of Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation (OCC 9280)

TEXT:

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 respons ibility 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 S571.111, 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 requirem ents 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. Un der 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 SS151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety relat ed 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 defec tive equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

In addition, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to S108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which states: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperati ve ... 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. Se ction 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.

ID: nht94-6.48

DATE: April 7, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Darryl Cobb (Abbeville, GA)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/29/93 from Darryl Cobb to Office of Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation (OCC 9280)

TEXT:

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 S571.111, 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 SS151-159 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 S108(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.

ID: nht90-4.19

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 24, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ricky Bass -- Q.C. Manager, Terminal Service Co.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-1-90 from R. Bass to P.J. Rice (OCC 5072); Also attached to design drawing of lamp (graphics omitted)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of August 1, 1990. You have asked us whether it would be permissible to use a triple lamp cluster, each lamp containing a dual filament bulb, to perform identification and stop lamp functions on cargo tank trucks. The cl uster would be mounted not less than 10 feet 6 inches above the road surface. You believe that with this design, the function of the identification lamp "will be intact."

In telephone conversations with agency personnel on September 11, 1990, you clarified that you would like to have this device installed on all new tank trucks, and installed on vehicles in use when they are returned for extensive repairs. The device is intended to supplement the vehicle's conventional stop lamps.

With respect to new tank trucks, Standard No. 108 permits supplementary lighting equipment provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the Standard. The determination of impairment is to be made initially by the truck manufacturer in its certification of compliance with all applicable standards, and if the decision appears to be clearly erroneous, NHTSA will so inform the manufacturer. In the present case, the required lighting devices that concern us are the i dentification lamps, and the conventional stop lamps. As the triple cluster will continue to be illuminated, though with a somewhat greater intensity in the stop lamp mode, we do not consider that the device would impair the effectiveness of the identifi cation lamps.

As for whether the device would impair the effectiveness of the conventional stop lamps, we note that the triple lamp cluster will be located from 126 inches to 156 inches above the road surface. Under Standard No. 108, the conventional stop lamps canno t be located more than 72 inches from the road surface. We judge from the configuration of the tank truck that, in actuality, the lamps will be mounted substantially lower than 72 inches. We raise the possibility that the activation of the supplementar y lamps, which are located at such a distance from the conventional ones, could create momentary confusion in a driver immediately following a truck equipped with the device.

You also wish to install the device on trucks in use, when they are due for major repairs. The sole Federal restraint upon modifications of this nature is that, when performed by vehicle or equipment manufacturers, distributors, dealers or repair busine sses, they do not render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. As we understand it, your company would perform these modifications on its own vehicles. Th erefore, the prohibition would not come into play. Even

if the modifications were done by, for example, a motor vehicle repair business, it would be substituting one type of identification lamp for another. We see no problem with the substitution by itself. However, to the extent that the supplementary stop lamps might impair the effectiveness of the conventional stop lamps on new trucks, their installation by the repair business could be considered as rendering the conventional stop lamps partially inoperative, within the meaning of the statutory prohibit ion for vehicles in use.

Vehicles in use are also subject to the laws of the States in which they are registered and operated. Since we are not conversant with State laws, we suggest that you contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevar d, Arlington, Va. 22203, for an opinion.