ID: 11815.ZTV

Mr. Tom Barron
320 Putnam
Springdale, Arkansas 72764

Dear Mr. Barron:

Thank you for your letter mailed April 10, 1996, telling the Department of Transportation of your "Saf-T-Lit" invention. This consists of a two-lamp unit containing a stop lamp and a turn signal lamp. These lamps would be mounted on each side of a semi trailer, at the top. In your view, they are needed because the original equipment lamps mounted at the bottom of a trailer may be obscured by intervening traffic, or by snow or fog.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is the agency within the Department that establishes the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture of vehicles, including trailers. The Federal Highway Administration is the agency that establishes similar standards for the operation of commercial motor vehicles, including trailers, in interstate commerce.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment , is the safety standard that applies to original equipment lighting for vehicles, including trailers. Under Standard No. 108, a trailer manufacturer may locate rear turn signal lamps at any point it chooses between 15 and 83 inches above the road surface, and stop lamps between 15 and 72 inches.

Under Standard No. 108, your invention is regarded as supplementary lighting equipment, and it is permissible as original equipment if it does not "impair the effectiveness" of the other lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. We regard original equipment as including equipment that a dealer may install after receiving a new vehicle from the factory and before the sale of the vehicle to its first purchaser. In your case, we do not believe that your invention , as you have described it to us, would impair the effectiveness of any other rear lighting equipment. However, your diagram shows your lamps in the location generally occupied by clearance lamps. Standard No. 108 requires that trailers whose overall width is 80 inches or more have a pair of clearance lamps to indicate the overall width of the vehicle and located as near the top as practicable. Thus, your invention could not be installed to replace these lamps without creating a noncompliance with Standard No. 108. We assume that your invention would therefore be mounted below these lamps.

With respect to the aftermarket, there is no Federal restriction on the sale of supplementary lamps but the question under Federal law is whether their installation by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business (this does not include the owner's own service facilities if restricted to its own vehicles) would "make inoperative" any of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. Generally, we interpret "make inoperative" to equate to "impair the effectiveness". We have previously concluded that your invention is not likely to impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment if installed before the initial sale of a trailer, and, for this reason, we do not believe that your invention would have an inoperative effect on other rear lighting equipment when installed after the initial sale of the vehicle, keeping in mind my previous comment about the clearance lamps. The Office of Motor Carriers of the Federal Highway Administration has advised that operation of semi trailers with your invention installed would be permissible under its regulations, provided that the installation does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108.

Please bear in mind that the sale and use of supplementary lighting equipment, though permissible under Federal law, is also subject to the laws of the individual states. We are unable to advise you on state law but an interpretation can be provided by the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

We appreciate your writing us of your concerns and your efforts to improve safety on our nation's highways. If you have any questions, Taylor Vinson of this Office will be pleased to answer them. His phone number is 202-366-5263.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref:108 d:5/16/96

ID: 11842.ZTV

Mr. John D. Higinbothom
John S. Connor, Inc.
The World Trade Center
401 E. Pratt Street
Suite 700
Baltimore, MD 21202
Ref. 554761
Dear Mr. Higinbothom:

This is in reply to your letter of April 18, 1996, with respect to scrappage of a 1993 Toyota Starlet that does not conform to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You stated that the vehicle is currently in a bonded warehouse, and the importer has decided to destroy the car rather than spend the money necessary to bring it into conformity with Federal standards. You have asked "whether any of the parts on the car can be used on other vehicles".

The brake hoses, lamps and reflectors, tires, glazing, and seat belt assemblies may be permanently imported if they are marked with a DOT symbol. This constitutes the equipment manufacturer's certification of compliance that the equipment complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and it is permissible to import DOT-marked equipment even if the vehicle from which it is taken has not been certified by the vehicle manufacturer as meeting Federal standards. However, the remainder of the vehicle (or the entire vehicle, if none of the parts listed above) must be exported.

If you have any questions, please call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref:591#VSA d:5/23/96

ID: 11843.ZTV

Mr. Mark J. Bernten
59 Westover St.
West Roxbury, MA 02132-1317

Dear Mr. Bernten:

This is in reply to your letter of April 15, 1996, asking how "special purpose vehicles are classified", such as military four-wheel drive ambulances. You have also asked whether such vehicles may "be imported to be used as search and rescue vehicles in remote areas" of the United States."

Vehicles "manufactured for and sold to the Armed Forces of the United States, in conformity with contractual specifications" are exempt from compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (49 CFR 571.7(b)). However, this exclusion does not extend to military vehicles of countries other than the United States. Such vehicles are imported in the same manner as other vehicles not originally manufactured to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, that is to say, through the procedures established by 49 CFR Parts 591- 94, which you tell us you have read. In brief, the manufacturer of the vehicle or a registered importer acting on your behalf, must file a petition for an eligibility determination pursuant to 49 CFR Part 593. If the petition is granted, the registered importer may import the vehicle under bond in order to bring it into conformance with the standards and provide this agency with compliance data. If the submission is satisfactory, we release the bond and the car.

If the military ambulance is a vehicle which is "designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation," it is a "multipurpose passenger vehicle" as defined by 49 CFR 571.3(b). We deem it probable that a military ambulance is a vehicle that is manufactured on a truck chassis. Four-wheel drive is considered a "special feature" allowing use for off-road operations such as search and rescue. However, in the absence of more information about the vehicle, we cannot conclusively advise you that it is a "multipurpose passenger vehicle."

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:591 d:5/10/96

ID: 11846.ZTV

Mr. John Misumi
Operations Officer
Vision Industries
2338 Walgrove Avenue
Mar Vista, CA 90066

Dear Mr. Misumi:

This replies to your letter of April 22, 1996, to Enid Rubenstein of this Office asking for information on the applicability of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards to a limited-production vehicle you intend to manufacture in the near future. You have the following specific questions:

1. "Which FMVSS tests are applicable to us as an automobile manufacturer?"

Every manufacturer must meet all Federal motor vehicle safety standards, regardless of the size of its production, unless otherwise exempted by this agency pursuant to the procedures of 49 CFR Part 555. I enclose a copy of this regulation for your information.

2. "What are the estimated fees and costs of applicable FMVSS tests?"

I am sorry, but we have no information of the fees and costs that the various test laboratories charge private concerns.

3. "What is the time frame pertaining to the administration and completion of applicable FMVSS tests, relative to the vehicle production and sales cycle, (i.e., are tests to be administered and completed before any production vehicles "roll off" the production line, or can certification be completed after vehicles roll off the production line?)?"

Title 49 United States Code Chapter 301 - Motor Vehicle Safety does not require a manufacturer to conduct "tests", but it does require the manufacturer to produce motor vehicles that comply, and are certified as complying, with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. We advise manufacturers that, although the soundest way to assure compliance and the veracity of its associated certification is to test according to the procedures set forth in the standards, it may certify on the basis of computer simulations, engineering studies, mathematical calculations and

other reasonable substitutes for physical testing. Furthermore, it should retain the data in its files upon which its certification was based, in the event NHTSA ever asks the manufacturer to substantiate its certification.

Under 49 U.S.C. 30115 Certification of compliance, a manufacturer is required to "certify [compliance] to the distributor or dealer at delivery", and it "may not issue the certificate if, in exercising reasonable care, the [manufacturer] has reason to know the certificate is false or misleading in a material respect." Thus, a manufacturer should assure itself before applying the certification label that its vehicle fully conforms. This suggests that all test or other substantiating data be at hand at the time the first vehicle is certified. However, if a test laboratory has informed the manufacturer on an informal basis that it has tested a vehicle and found it to meet the performance requirements of a standard, the manufacturer could reasonably certify compliance before receiving the official test report.

The question you have asked is really best answered by the individual manufacturer based upon its best judgment and the legal considerations discussed above.

4. "What agencies or business entities administer FMVSS tests in the Los Angeles area?"

I enclose a list of test laboratories in the United States that NHTSA used in fiscal year 1995 to conduct its compliance testing. There may be additional testing labs that perform these services, and you may wish to consult other sources.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:567#VSA d:5/24/96

ID: 11856-2.PJA

Mr. R. Karbowski
Ford Motor Company
Fairlane Plaza South, Ste. 500
330 Town Center Drive
Dearborn, MI 48124

Dear Mr. Karbowski:

This responds to your May 3, 1996, facsimile asking whether New York=s proposed law requiring blind spot mirrors would be Aprohibited@ by our statute. Our answer is that the proposed State requirement would be preempted.

According to your letter, New York=s proposed law (9376--A, March 5, 1996) states, in relevant part:

[e]very motor vehicle sold after September first . . . shall be equipped with a blind spot mirror which is a convex mirror, circular in shape and 1.25 to 2.5 inches in diameter, that attaches directly on the standard side view mirror for cars, or of circular or rectangular shape, four inches to six inches in diameter or four inches by six inches, and is installed for trucks.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, Rearview mirrors (49 CFR 571.111), prescribes performance requirements for side view mirrors on new cars and trucks. S5.2.1 of the standard specifies field of view requirements for the driver=s outside mirror on passenger cars and also specifies that the mirror shall be of Aunit magnification@ (i.e., flat). S5.3 provides the option of using a convex mirror in certain circumstances on the passenger side of a vehicle, and S5.4 specifies radius of curvature and other requirements for the convex mirror. S6, S7, and S8 specify requirements for truck rear view mirrors, including size. These sections require mirrors to be of unit magnification (with the exception of an option in S6 for mirrors complying with S5).

Section 30103(b) of 49 U.S.C. ''30101 et seq. (formerly '103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act) states:

when a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a State . . . may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter.

New York=s Ablind spot mirror@ requirement appears to be preempted by Federal law. New York would be regulating the same aspect of performance (rear/side field of view) regulated by Standard No. 111. The state requirement would not be identical to the requirements of Standard 111. You state that complying with New York=s law would take some vehicles out of compliance with Standard No. 111. To the extent that New York=s requirement is inconsistent, it would be preempted.

It should be noted that NHTSA was petitioned to require convex rear view mirrors on the side mirrors, but denied this request. I have enclosed a copy of the denial for your information. (53 FR 45128)

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

Enclosure

cc: Keith Cuddy Assembly Programming Counsel Rm. 513, The Capitol Albany, NY 12248

NCC-20:PAtelsek:6-2992:OCC# 11856:5/17/96 ref: FMVSS 111 cc: NCC-20 Subj/Chron, NCC-20 PJA, NPS-01, NSA-01 Interp.: 111, Redbook (2)

2

U:\NCC20\INTERP\111\11856-2.PJA

ID: 11857-1.PJA

Mr. William Shapiro
Manager, Regulatory Compliance
and Environmental Affairs
Volvo Cars of North America
Rockleigh, NJ 07647-0913

Dear Mr. Shapiro:

This responds to your May 6, 1996, letter asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, Rearview mirrors (49 CFR 571.111). You asked what position should be used to determine the driver's field of view for purposes of the standard's outside rearview mirror requirements, the rearmost seating position or the seating reference point. Your question arose from an inconsistency that you have identified in our standards. As discussed below, we plan to resolve this inconsistency in rulemaking. In the meantime, we will consider vehicles as being in compliance with the standard's outside rearview mirror requirements if they meet those requirements with the field of view determined at either the rearmost seating position or the seating reference point.

S5.2.1 of Standard No. 111 states that the driver=s side rearview mirror shall provide the required view Awith the seat in the rearmost position.@ (Emphasis added.) That section goes on to state that "the location of the driver's eye reference points shall be those established in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 104 ('571.104) or a nominal location appropriate for any 95th percentile male driver." As you noted in your letter, Standard No. 104 specifies use of the seating reference point to establish the driver's eye reference points. The seating reference point establishes the "rearmost normal design driving or riding position," and not necessarily the absolute rearmost position. Since the rearmost seating position and the seating reference points may differ, fields of view based on these positions may differ.

As noted by your letter, this inconsistency was created as a result of recent rulemakings amending the definition of seating reference point and Standard No. 104. As a result of those rulemakings, the eye reference points in Standard No. 104 are no longer necessarily determined with the seat in the rearmost position. These rulemakings inadvertently created an inconsistency in Standard No. 111, since that standard retains the reference to rearmost position.

We plan to resolve this inconsistency in rulemaking. In the meantime, we will consider vehicles as being in compliance with the requirements of S5.2.1 of Standard No. 111 if they meet the performance requirements of that section with the field of view determined at either the rearmost seating position or the seating reference point.

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

ref:111#104 d:6/18/96

The definition of seating reference point was amended by a final rule published on August 12, 1991 (56 FR 38084). Standard No. 104 was amended by a final rule published on March 9, 1993 (58 FR 13021). 2

A:\11857-1.PJA

ID: 11859.ZTV

Mr. Gerald Feldman
606 Victoria Avenue
Apt. 512
Saskatoon, Canada S7N 0Z1

Dear Mr. Feldman:

This responds to your e-mail to John Womack of this Office regarding your wish to import your 1991 Toyota Tercel passenger car into the United States later this year for use in the Washington, D.C. area. You have asked "what must be done or what papers must be obtained in order for me to properly register my vehicle in the U.S." You state that your vehicle has "a decal on the driver's doorpost clearly stating that the car DOES CONFORM to all federal safety and bumper standards in effect on the date of manufacture."

Because at the time in question Canada's certification wording requirements were identical to those of the Department of Transportation, the certification label on your car is ambiguous and can be read as a statement applicable to Canadian standards only, or to those of both Canada and the United States. For this reason, the U.S. Customs Service will allow entry of a privately-owned vehicle by the owner if the entry is accompanied by a letter from a vehicle's manufacturer attesting that the vehicle was manufactured in compliance with the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards, except for minor labeling variances (if that is the case). If the Tercel was manufactured in Canada, you should obtain a letter from Toyota's Canadian office. If the car came from Japan, a letter from either Toyota USA or Toyota Canada would suffice. If Toyota will not provide you with such a letter -- and we understand that this may be its policy -- you may import the vehicle through the registered-importer process described below.

However, even if it is willing to provide a letter regarding vehicles that conform except for minor labeling variances, Toyota cannot provide such a letter to you if the Tercel does not have either automatic restraints at each front outboard passenger seat, or, alternatively, an air bag at the driver's seating position. These are requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 that were in effect in the U.S. for the 1991 model year, but not in Canada. You can judge whether the vehicle was manufactured to meet these requirements by examining your car. In the event that it does not conform, you must contract with a "registered importer" (RI) to petition the agency for a determination that the Tercel is capable of being conformed to meet Standard No. 208, and to contract with the RI to conform the vehicle after entry if the petition is granted. The agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance will provide you, upon your request, with the names of RIs in your area.

We are unable to advise you on the requirements of vehicle registration in the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia, and advise you to contact the Department of Motor Vehicles where you wish to register the Toyota.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref:591 d:5/23/96

ID: 11876.jeg

Mr. Dietmar K. Haenchen
Process Leader
Safety Affairs and Vehicle Testing
Volkswagen
Vehicle Regulations
Mail Code 4F02
3800 Hamlin Road
Auburn Hills, MI 48326

Dear Mr. Haenchen:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 208's sun visor labeling requirements. As noted by your letter, S4.5.1(b) requires a sun visor label with specific wording regarding certain cautions to avoid serious injury from possible air bag interactions with front seat vehicle occupants. You asked whether it is permissible to add to the sun visor label statements or references concerning side impact air bags for vehicles equipped with these devices. As discussed below, the answer is no.

You state in your letter that, in the interest of safety, Volkswagen believes it would be appropriate and desirable to add reference to side air bags to the sun visor label of vehicles equipped with these devices. You suggest adding a statement in the form of a heading, either above or below the phrase "Caution to Avoid Serious Injury," such as "This vehicle is equipped with front and side impact air bags." You also suggest adding the phrase "Front and Side Impact Air Bags" to the side of the sun visor with the air bag alert label.

Standard No. 208 specifically addresses the question of whether information in addition to the required cautions may be provided on the sun visor. S4.5.1(b)(2) provides that "(e)xcept for the information on an air bag maintenance label placed on the visor pursuant to S4.5.1(a) of this standard, no other information shall appear on the same side of the sun

visor to which the label is affixed." (Emphasis added.) That section also provides that "(e)xcept for the information in an air bag alert label placed on the visor pursuant to S4.5.1(c) of this standard, or in a utility vehicle label that contains the language required by 49 CFR 575.105(c)(1), no other information about air bags or the need to wear seat belts shall appear anywhere on the sun visor." (Emphasis added.)

You suggest in your letter that identifying phrases about side impact air bags are not really "other information" in general or "other information about air bags." However, the regulation's terms are sufficiently broad to include any references or statements about side impact air bags. I can only conclude that the highlighted language above prohibits adding to the sun visor label any references or statements about side impact air bags. I note that you can, of course, include such references or statements in locations other than the sun visor.

We believe it is appropriate, however, to consider whether particular statements on the sun visor should be permitted or required for vehicles with new kinds of air bags, such as air bags for side impact protection. In our newly issued notice of proposed rulemaking to reduce the adverse effects of air bags to children, we have specifically requested comments on that question. We would encourage you to address this issue in your comments.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin

Chief Counsel

ref:208

d:8/12/96

ID: 11877.WKM

Mr. Joseph S. Kunowski
660 Crestwood Drive
Bloomsburg, PA 17815

Dear Mr. Kunowski:

This responds to your April 3, 1996, letter to Mr. J. P. McGowan, Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania, which was forwarded to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for reply. You express safety concerns about the small space-saver spare tires with which new passenger motor vehicles are commonly equipped.

NHTSA=s Director of Intergovernmental Affairs recently responded to a letter on your behalf from Congressman Paul E. Kanjorski, U.S. House of Representatives. As explained in that May 13, 1996, letter, although these spare tires are smaller than regular tires, they are nevertheless required to meet our tire performance standards. We have enclosed a copy of the letter for your convenience, as well as a copy of a January 11, 1993 letter to Senator Bob Graham about these tires.

Should you have any further questions, feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992, or FAX (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosures

cc: Mr. J. P. McGowan

ref:109 d:6/6/96

ID: 11879B.jeg

Joseph W. Phebus, Esq.
Phebus, Winkelmann, Wong & Bramfeld
136 West Main Street
P.O. Box 1008
Urbana, Illinois 61801-9008

Dear Mr. Phebus:

This responds to your letter of May 7, asking about warning requirements for the lap belts provided with "motorized passive seat belts, such as utilized by Ford Motor Company." We assume that you are referring to a seating position equipped with both a motorized automatic shoulder belt certified to the automatic protection requirements of Standard No. 208, and with a separate manual lap belt. You ask whether certain warnings about fastening the lap belt were (a) required, (b) permitted, or (c) prohibited.

The lap belt for such a seating position was not required by the Federal motor vehicle safety standards but was instead voluntarily provided by the vehicle manufacturer to provide additional occupant protection. While automatic belts are required to have a special warning system (see S4.5.3.3 of Standard No. 208), no warning requirement applied to the voluntarily provided lap belt.

While none of the warnings you ask about were required, there is an issue, discussed further below, of whether they were permitted. Manufacturers may provide features in addition to those required by a standard, as long as the standard's requirements are met.

The specific warnings you ask about are as follows:

1. "That the chime that sounds when the lap belt is not buckled should be repeated at least twice at intervals of approximately one minute if the belt is not buckled."

Such a warning would not be permitted. S4.5.3.3 requires a warning system for automatic belts that, among other things, "activates a continuous or intermittent audible signal for a period of not less than 4 seconds and not more than 8 seconds and that activates a continuous or flashing warning light visible to the driver for not less than 60 seconds," to warn that the belt is not in use. Since the purpose of the audible signal is to

remind the driver to buckle up, it would be permissible to use the same signal to warn that the voluntarily provided lap belt is not in use. However, since the audible signal could not be activated for a period of more than 8 seconds, the system you describe would not be permitted.

I also note that NHTSA is limited by its authorizing statute as to what types of audible signals it may require, or permit as a means of compliance, to indicate that a safety belt is not in use. Under 49 U.S.C. 30124, a motor vehicle safety standard "may not require or allow a manufacturer to comply with the standard by using ... a buzzer designed to indicate a safety belt is not in use, except a buzzer that operates only during the 8-second period after the ignition is turned to the "start" or "on" position." (Emphasis added.)

2. "The seat belt symbol light should remain on for at least one minute after the ignition is turned on and then flash off and on at 0.5 CPS for about 30 seconds and then remain lighted if the lap belt is not buckled. Further, the brightness of the signal should be increased when the dashboard lights are not on."

Assuming that the seat belt symbol light is only activated if the seat belts are not in use, such a system would be permissible. Since the purpose of the warning light for automatic belts is to remind the driver to buckle up, it would be permissible to use the same warning light to indicate that the voluntarily provided lap belt is not in use. Unlike the time period specified for audible signals, S4.5.3.3 specifies a minimum but not a maximum time for activation of the warning light. Therefore, the warning light could remain activated to indicate that a lap belt is not buckled.

3. "There should be an express instruction "fasten lap belt" which is located so as to be easily observed by both the driver and the occupant of the right front seat."

The Federal motor vehicle safety standards would not prohibit such a message.

4. "That sun visor warnings other than those used by Ford may be used which would employ colors and signal words and would communicate the nature of the hazards and potential consequences associated with not wearing the lap belts."

The sun visor warnings provided by Ford were provided voluntarily, and the Federal motor vehicle safety standards would not prohibit different messages. We have assumed that the vehicle does not have air bags. Standard No. 208 requires

specific sun visor warnings for vehicles equipped with air bags and restricts any additional information on the visor. See S4.5.1(b).

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin

Chief Counsel

ref:208

d:8/7/96