ID: 11189

Mr. Thomas K. O'Connor
Chief of Maintenance and Operations
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District
of Greater Chicago
100 East Erie Street
Chicago, Illinois 60611

Dear Mr. O'Connor:

This responds to your letter asking about seat belt requirements for a step van with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds. You asked whether lap belts versus lap/shoulder belts are needed for compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. As discussed below, either lap belts or lap/shoulder belts may be used for this type of vehicle.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's safety belt installation requirements are set forth in Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. I note that this standard specifies requirements based on vehicle type and seating position within the vehicle. Different requirements also apply depending on the GVWR of the vehicle.

The requirements for trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or more are set forth in S4.3.2 of Standard No. 208. That section provides vehicle manufacturers a choice of two options for providing occupant crash protection. Option 1, dealing with automatic crash protection, is not relevant to your inquiry. Option 2, set forth in S4.3.2.2, requires vehicle manufacturers to install Type 1 (lap) or Type 2 (lap/shoulder) belts at every seating position. Thus, either lap or lap/shoulder belts may be used to meet S4.3.2.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:208 d:10/11/95

ID: 11208

Mr. Jim Schroeder
Graco Inc.
P.O. Box 1441
Minneapolis, MN 55440

Dear Mr. Schroeder:

This responds to your inquiry about the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) with which your trailer must comply. You state that your company plans to manufacture a trailer mounted striper that applies reflective paint stripes to roadways. In a telephone conversation with Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff, you stated that your trailer will spend a significant amount of time traveling on public roads between job sites. Please note that we are returning the photographs attached to your letter that were marked Aconfidential.@

As way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) interprets and enforces the laws under which the FMVSSs are promulgated. The statute defines the term Amotor vehicle@ as follows:

AAny vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.@

Whether the agency considers your trailer to be a motor vehicle depends on its use. Based on the available information, it appears that your trailer is a Amotor vehicle@ within the meaning of the statutory definition. This conclusion is based on statements in your letter and telephone conversation that the trailer spends extended periods of time on the public roads moving between job sites. Thus, the agency would consider the use of your device on the public roads to be its primary purpose.

The following Federal safety standards apply to trailers: Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, which address conspicuity, Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Numbers, and Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. The content requirements for the vehicle identification number are found at 49 CFR Part 565. In addition, while your vehicle is not required to be equipped with brakes, if it is equipped with hydraulic brakes, then you need to use brake hoses and brake fluids that comply with Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses and Standard No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids.

In addition as a manufacturer of motor vehicles, you would be required to submit identification information to this agency in accordance with 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification. You would also be required to certify that each trailer complies with all applicable Federal safety standards. This certification procedure is set out in 49 CFR Part 567.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA=s safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:VSA d:11/17/95

ID: 1121-2

Mr. T.J. Sommer
President
White Bear Sales, Inc.
P.O. Box 16718
Milwaukee, WI 53216

Dear Mr. Sommer:

This is in reply to your FAX of July 28, 1995, to Taylor Vinson of this Office.

You report that Chicago's police department is using four- wheeled all terrain vehicles (ATVs) for patrol work in the downtown area, and that they have been licensed by Illinois for on-road use. You believe that the vehicles are illegal to use on the streets and that city employees are at risk. You have been asked by the director of Chicago's fleet "to compile all federal definitions and statutes which apply to the quad runners, regarding classification, certification, and compliance for street use." You have asked for our assistance.

I note first that while Federal law regulates the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, the individual States establish their own requirements for the licensing of motor vehicles. Therefore, the question of whether the ATVs may legally be used on the road is a matter of Illinois law rather than Federal law.

Your letter does, however, raise the issue of whether the manufacture and/or sale of the ATVs was consistent with Federal law. We do not have specific information about the ATVs at issue; however, I can provide general information about how Federal law applies in this area.

By way of background information, Chapter 301 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code authorizes NHTSA to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. All motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards set forth in 49 CFR Part 571.

The issue of whether the ATVs were required to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards is dependent on whether they are considered "motor vehicles." I have enclosed several interpretation letters which address the criteria which NHTSA applies in determining whether a vehicle with on and off-road capability is a motor vehicle (addressed to Mr. Matthew Plache, dated December 3, 1991; Mr. Hiroshi Kato, dated October 31, 1988; Mr. Wayne Kirby, dated February 8, 1983; and Mr. Leonard Fink, dated March 25, 1982). If an ATV is a motor vehicle, it must be certified to comply with all applicable safety standards.

If, after reviewing this information, you believe that a violation of Federal law may have occurred, you may wish to contact Mr. Luke Loy of NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance at (202) 366-5288. If you have further questions about the applicability of our standards, please feel free to contact Mr. Taylor Vinson of my staff (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:VSA d:9/19/95

ID: 11210

Fred H. Pritzker, Esq.
Pritzker & Meyer, P.A.
Suite 1275 Peavey Building
730 Second Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402

Dear Mr. Pritzker:

This concerns your August 29, 1995 letter about the replacement of a rear seat in a 1993 GEO Tracker with a speaker box. In response to your request that we speak with you about the issues raised in that letter, Mr. Edward Glancy of my staff spoke with you by telephone. In that conversation, you requested a written opinion. Our opinion is set forth below.

According to your letter, the son of the Tracker owner took the vehicle to the local outlet of a national electronics "super store" to upgrade the vehicle's automobile stereo equipment. An employee of that store removed the rear seat and replaced it with a speaker box. As part of this process, the female portion of the seat belt buckle was removed. You stated that the speaker box has a ledge not unlike a bench-type seat, the speaker box was strong enough for a person to sit on, and was carpeted.

You represent a person who was sitting on this speaker box when the vehicle was involved in a serious collision, and believe that the electronics company violated the "make inoperative" provision of Federal law, 49 U.S.C. 30122(b).

As Mr. Glancy explained to you by telephone, NHTSA cannot make a determination as to whether a company violated the "make inoperative" provision outside a compliance proceeding. I can, however, provide general information on how this provision applies in such a situation.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to establish Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208), which specifies performance requirements for the protection of vehicle occupants in crashes. Standard No. 208 required model year 1993 passenger cars and other light vehicles to have a Type 2 (lap/shoulder) seat belt assembly at each forward- facing rear outboard designated seating position, and either a Type 1 (lap) or Type 2 seat belt assembly at all other rear designated seating positions.

NHTSA's safety standards apply only to new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. However, section 30122(b) applies in the case of used as well as new vehicles. That section reads as follows:

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable safety standard prescribed under this chapter unless the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business reasonably believes the vehicle or equipment will not be used (except for testing or a similar purpose during maintenance or repair) when the device or element is inoperative.

I can offer the following thoughts concerning how section 30122(b) would apply in the context of a manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business removing rear seat belts. First, electronics companies which install stereo equipment in motor vehicles are subject to section 30122(b), given the broad language "manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business."

Second, some specific examples will illustrate how answering the question of whether a particular action Amakes inoperative@ a device installed in compliance with a Federal safety standard depends on the underlying factual circumstances. As noted above, under Standard No. 208, seat belts were required to be installed at the rear designated seating positions in the Tracker. The definition of "designated seating position," set forth in 49 CFR 571.3, reads as follows:

Designated seating position means any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile female, if the overall seat configuration and design and vehicle design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats. . . .

The simple removal of rear seat belts from designated seating positions, without other modifications to a vehicle, would obviously make inoperative a device, i.e., seat belts, installed in compliance with Standard No. 208. Similarly, the removal of rear seat belts, coupled with replacing the rear seat with another rear seat, would make the seat belts inoperative (assuming the rear seat belts were not replaced). However, if rear seat belts were removed as part of permanently converting a passenger van to a cargo van by removing the rear seat, the removal of the seat belts would not make inoperative a device installed in compliance with a safety standard. This is because Standard No. 208 would not have required rear seat belts in the absence of rear designated seating positions.

Your letter raises the question of whether a speaker box of the type installed by the electronics company would be considered to provide designated seating positions. I have enclosed a copy of the final rule establishing the designated seating position definition (44 FR 23229, April 19, 1979). As discussed in that notice, any position likely to be used while the vehicle is in motion will be considered a designated seating position. The notice includes several discussions which are relevant to the issue of whether a position is likely to be used while the vehicle is in motion. Included is a discussion that a manufacturer would not be responsible for abusive or unorthodox use of a particular position.

If you have further questions, please feel free to call Mr. Glancy at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:208#VSA d:12/22/95

ID: 1122

Mr. Bryan Couch
Systems Zone Leader
Motor Coach Industries
Door 10
475 Clarence Avenue
Winnipeg, Manitoba R3T IT5
Canada

Dear Mr. Couch:

This responds to your FAX of August 8, 1995, asking for our comments on a "preliminary drawing showing our proposed location for the front marker lamp and supplementary front marker lamp." The front marker lamp will meet all photometry requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 and, in your opinion, will be placed as far forward as practicable on the vehicle. The supplementary lamp will not meet the 45 degree rearward photometry requirement.

We have only a couple of comments. The first is that initially the determination of practicability of the location of the front side marker lamps is that of the vehicle manufacturer who certifies compliance with Standard No. 108, and NHTSA will not question that determination unless it appears clearly erroneous. In this instance, we see no reason to question your opinion.

Our second comment is that a supplementary side marker lamp need not meet any of the requirements for side marker lamps; it must not, however, as provided in paragraph S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108, impair the effectiveness of any lighting equipment installed to meet the requirements of Standard No. 108. Given the small size and candela output of side marker lamps, we do not believe that your supplementary side marker lamp would have this effect.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:108 d:8/28/95

ID: 11221

Mr. Orlando Ferreira
Orion Bus Industries Ltd.
5395 Maingate Drive
Mississauga, Ontario L4W 1G6
Canada

Dear Mr. Ferreira:

This responds to your FAX message to Mr. Jere Medlin of this agency, asking whether your "master switch" on a transit bus must be illuminated pursuant to Standard No. 101, Controls and displays. Your master switch has four controls, "engine stop," "run," "lights," and "park." In a telephone conversation with Mr. Medlin, you explained that your "run" control functions as an "engine start" control, and your "park" control functions as a "clearance lamps systems" control.

As explained below, Standard No. 101 specifies illumination for the "engine stop" and "park" controls, but not for the "run" and "light" controls. In addition, there are identification requirements for those controls.

Your drawing of the master switch shows that the switch resembles a tuning knob on a radio. Like a knob, the switch can be turned to each of the above four positions, one position at a time. Because turning the master switch knob to each position activates the described function, we would consider each position to be a separate control.

You write that the master switch will be placed on a "driver's side control panel," a location that subjects controls to Standard No. 101's illumination requirements. S5.3.1 of Standard No. 101 (referencing Tables 1 and 1(a) Identification and Illumination of Controls), specifies that if:

C a control is provided, C is listed in column 1 of either Table 1 or 1(a), C and is accompanied by the word "yes" in the corresponding space in column 4, Illumination, of the table,

the "identification ... of any control" shall be capable of being illuminated whenever the headlights are activated.

"Engine stop" control The identification of the "engine stop" control must be capable of being illuminated whenever the headlights are activated. This is because in Tables 1 and 1(a), the "engine stop" control is specified in column 1, and accompanied by "yes" in the corresponding space in column 4 of each table.

"Park" control Two issues are raised by your "park" control. The first relates to Standard No. 101's requirements for identifying controls. Under the standard, the control that regulates the parking lights is the "clearance lamps system" control, rather than the "park" control. Since your control regulates the parking lights, it must be identified as "Marker Lamps", "MK Lps" or (as you propose) with the symbol specified in column 3 of Table 1. Labeling the control as "park" could confuse some persons into thinking "park" is a transmission park position.

The second issue is the illumination requirement. The identification of the control must be capable of being illuminated whenever the headlights are activated. As noted above, your park control has to be identified as "Marker Lamps" or "MK Lps". In Table 1, the control is specified in column 1, and accompanied by "yes" in the corresponding space in column 4. Thus, the control must be illuminated.

"Run" control The same two issues discussed in our answer directly above, pertain to this control. First is Standard No. 101's requirements for identifying controls. Under the standard the control that will start the engine must be identified as "engine start" (rather than "run") as described in both Tables 1 and 1(a), when it is separate from the key locking system (as is yours).

The control need not be illuminated. In both Tables 1 and 1(a), the "engine start" control (which is the correct identification of the control) is specified in column 1, without a corresponding "yes" for illumination in column 4 of either table.

"Lights" control The same two issues discussed above are relevant here. The illustration you enclosed with your letter shows that you use both the word "Lights" and an identifying symbol to identify your Lights control. We are not sure that you are correctly using the symbol. The symbol you use is listed in Table 1 of Standard No. 101 as that for the master lighting switch. A master lighting switch regulates all exterior vehicle lights. If your "lights" control only regulates headlamps and taillamps, and not all exterior vehicle lights, please designate the headlamps and taillamps as specified in column 3 of Table 1.

The "lights" control need not be illuminated. In both Tables 1 and 1(a), the "lights" control is specified in column 2, without a corresponding "yes" for illumination in column 4 of either table.

I hope this information is helpful. If you need any further information, please contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Our FAX number is (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:101 d:10/25/96

ID: 1123

Mr. Dennis G. Moore
President
Sierra Products, Inc.
1113 Greenville Road
Livermore, CA 94550

Dear Mr. Moore:

This responds to your letter of July 31, 1995, on the subject of "optical combination" as that term is used in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You enclosed a copy of a letter sent to you from this Office on March 4, 1977, and refer to a "Rider" in "a proposed change [around 1990] that had no relevance to this subject, whereas the Rulemakers added the expression, `NOT TO SHARE THE SAME HOUSING.'" You ask how "[u]sing the Scientific Argument and discussions I submitted back in 1975, 1976, and 1977, and the Re- Interpretation letter sent me, how can NHTSA support the SAME HOUSING definition they currently support."

You are talking of events of 18 to 20 years ago that are no longer relevant today. The definition that NHTSA supports contains no reference to lamp housings. Standard No. 108 was amended four years ago, in 1991, to clarify that the term "optical combination" is to be interpreted as defined by SAE Information Report J387 Terminology - Motor Vehicle Lighting NOV87. Under the SAE definition, optical combination results when a lamp "has two or more separate light sources, or a single light source that operates in different ways (e.g., a two-filament bulb)", and when "its optically functional lens area is wholly or partially common to two or more lamp functions." It is immaterial to this definition whether the light sources are in the same or different housings. I enclose a copy of a rulemaking proposal and final rules dealing with this issue that were published on November 6 and 8, 1990, and June 7 and November 7, 1991.

If you have further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office by FAX (202-366-3820).

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:108 d:9/25/95

ID: 11233

Mr. James J. Gregorio
6704 Forsythia St.
Springfield, VA 22150

Dear Mr. Gregorio:

This responds to your letter of September 23, 1995, requesting "authorization to modify the car seat in my 1992 Plymouth Acclaim." Your letter states:

Presently, my car is equipped with hand controls which alleviates a condition of chronic tendinitis in my right ankle. Unfortunately, there is practically no room between the hand controls and my knees. My knees constantly bang up against the hand controls. The resulting consequence is that I now have tendinitis in both knees. Modifying the car seat will allow me to push the car seat back far enough to give space to my injured knees.

You enclosed a letter from your physician stating that recovery could take several years.

In summary, our answer is that you may have your vehicle modified. NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that modifies the seat on your vehicle to accommodate your condition. A more detailed answer to your letter is provided below.

I would like to begin by noting that repair businesses are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to certain regulatory limits on the type of modifications they may make. In certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our requirements to provide some allowances to a repair business which cannot conform to our requirements when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities. Since your situation is among those given special consideration by NHTSA, this letter should provide you with the relief you seek.

Our agency is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) that set performance requirements for new motor

vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition would require repair businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil fines up to $1,000 per violation.

Moving a seat, and presumably moving the seat belts for the seat, could affect compliance with four safety standards: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. Your letter does not provide any information regarding why the modification to your seat cannot be done in a way that would not violate the make inoperative prohibition.

However, in situations such as yours where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider any violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition a purely technical one justified by public need. As I have already noted above, NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that modifies the seat on your vehicle to accommodate your condition.

We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made to the seat, and the person making the modifications should consider the possible safety consequences of the modifications. For example, in moving a seat, it is critical that the modifier ensure that the seat is solidly anchored in its new location. You should also be aware that an occupant of a seat which has been moved rearward may have less protection in a crash if the seat is too far rearward relative to the anchorages of the safety belts for that seat. Finally, if you sell your vehicle, we encourage you to advise the purchaser of the modifications.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions or need some additional information in this area, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref:VSA#207#208 d:11/7/95

ID: 11239-1PJA

Mr. Hai Tee Young
10313 Lower Azusa Road
Temple City, CA 91780

Dear Mr. Young:

This responds to your letter telling us of several types of outside rear-view mirror designs you have invented, and asking for funding, or assistance in obtaining funding, for you to develop and patent these inventions. I apologize for the delay in responding. Your purpose is to provide a wider view of the road behind the vehicle, and eliminate blind spots. Each of your mirrors consists of either a composite of two flat mirrors that are joined at an angle or a single convex mirror. Each is depicted as being mounted substantially in front of the driver.

I would like to begin by noting that, in a December 11, 1995 letter to you, this office told you about the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) NHTSA has issued on a number of aspects of motor vehicle safety. Manufacturers of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment must certify that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs.

FMVSS No. 111, Rearview mirrors (I have enclosed a copy for your convenience), has a number of requirements that you should be aware of before you finalize plans for your invention. Based on your letter, you appear to intend to market these mirrors for buses, vans, and passenger cars. FMVSS No. 111 has different requirements for different classes of vehicles, such as passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, buses, trucks, and schoolbuses. You should review S5 through S10 of the standard to determine what requirements apply to the specific vehicles for which you intend to market your mirror.

We have identified four instances, described below, where your mirrors may fail to meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 111. These are not meant to be exhaustive. A manufacturer that uses your system is responsible for ensuring that all the requirements of FMVSS No. 111 are met.

1. The requirements for passenger cars (in S5.2 of FMVSS No. 111) basically require a horizontal field of view, extending 8 feet out from the side of the car at a point 35 feet behind the driver. This field of view must be provided by a "unit magnification" (flat) mirror. Therefore, your convex mirror design (Devices D-3, D-4 in your illustrations) alone would not comply with the standard. Your composite flat mirror design (Devices D-3, D-5, D-6, and D-7 in your illustrations) would comply only if the required field of view were provided by a single flat surface of the mirror. Any extra field of view, beyond what is required, could be provided by other pieces of mirror.

2. Some of your mirrors extend the mirror from the vehicle only at certain times, by having the mirror fold out or slide out of a housing. The caption for Device D-4 describes an electrical switch with which the driver would manually deploy the mirror. The caption for Device D-5 says that the mirrors would be deployed only when the driver signals for a turn, and only on the side that has the turn signal on.

These designs would not be allowed under FMVSS No. 111. S5.2.1 of FMVSS No. 111 specifies the field of view that must be provided by the mirror at all times the vehicle is being operated. When your mirrors are not deployed, the requisite field of view would not be provided.

3. To deploy both mirrors simultaneously, you suggest that the driver would activate the emergency lights. The emergency lights are designed for emergencies. S5.1.3 of FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment, prohibits installing motor vehicle equipment (including mirrors) that impair the effectiveness of the emergency flashers. We would consider a mirror system that requires non-emergency use of the emergency lights to impair the effectiveness of the lights, because other vehicles would not know whether there was an emergency or if the driver just wanted to deploy both mirrors to look around.

4. We also note a concern with Illustrations F and G. These depict the mirror position in the front left and right corners of the vehicle. We note that a mirror of unit magnification so far in front of the driver would have to be fairly large (possibly obscuring the driver's forward view of the road) in order to provide the required field of view. It would also have the potential to inflict injuries on pedestrians, being larger and at the front.

I would like to reiterate some of the information contained in our December 11, 1995 letter, because it also applies to your mirror inventions. The manufacturer of these mirrors would be subject to the requirements in sections 30118-30122 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Other legal requirements would apply depending on how your product would be marketed. Since your mirrors would not comply with FMVSS No. 111, they could not be installed on new vehicles to meet the standard=s requirements for mirrors. Similarly, a manufacturer, dealer, distributor or repair business could not install your mirror on used vehicles to replace the original mirrors. While we do not prohibit individual vehicle owners from modifying their own vehicles in any manner, we encourage owners not to degrade any safety device or system installed in their vehicles. In addition, since individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their vehicles, you might wish to consult State regulations to see whether your mirrors would be permitted.

Regarding your request for funds, NHTSA's Office of Crash Avoidance Research does not have a grant or contract program to help inventors develop or market their inventions. Our vehicle research efforts are primarily directed toward obtaining technical data to support the development of motor vehicle standards. Your submission has been reviewed by the staff in that office and there are no funds available from this agency for development of your mirror inventions.

Since you have given so much thought to mirror-related safety, you may be interested in knowing about an upcoming public meeting on the subject of mirrors. It will be on March 13, 1996, in Detroit, and I have enclosed a copy of the meeting notice in case you want to go. Even if you cannot attend the meeting, there will be a public docket where you can send your written comments.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:111#108 d:3/6/96

ID: 1124

Mr. Dennis G. Moore
President
Sierra Products, Inc.
1113 Greenville Road
Livermore, CA 94550

Dear Mr. Moore:

This responds to your letter of July 31, 1995, with respect to lens area requirements of amber turn signal lenses.

You believe that "by reducing the minimal area of the Amber Turn Signal light lens from 12 square inches to approximately 8 square inches or 6 square inches the U.S. would have more practical rules for U.S. Exports at no expense to Safety. You ask that, "If NHTSA's Legal Council feels this error should be corrected through the Petitioning Process, I ask that this writing be considered a `Petition for Change of FMVSS #108 Request'".

Standard No. 108 contains two relevant regulations, one applicable to vehicles whose overall width is less than 80 inches, and one to those whose overall width is 80 inches or more.

Under paragraph S5.1.1.26(a), the functional lighted lens area of a single turn signal lamp of either red or amber on a vehicle whose overall width is less than 80 inches shall be not less than 50 square centimeters. This is approximately 8 square inches. Therefore, no rulemaking is required to implement your recommendation.

The standard that applies to turn signal lamps on vehicles whose overall width is 80 inches or more is SAE Standard J1395 APR85, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. Under its paragraph 5.3.2, the functional lighted lens area of a single turn signal lamp shall be at least 75 square centimeters, or approximately 12 square inches. Therefore, rulemaking is required to implement your recommendation.

We are transmitting your letter to our Office of Safety Performance Standards for consideration as a petition for rulemaking to change the minimum lens area requirement for

turn signal lamps on large vehicles from 75 to 50 square centimeters. On September 4, 1995, I determined that your letter met our procedural requirements for a petition. Accordingly, the Office of Safety Performance Standards will inform you not later than January 1, 1996, whether your petition has been granted.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:108 d:9/20/95