ID: 11495ZTV

Mr. Anil Anand
Director (Engg.)
Fiem Industries Ltd.
C-171, Mayapuri Industrial Area, Phase II
New Delhi 110 064
India

Dear Mr. Anand:

We have received your letter of December 14, 1995, with respect to obtaining "SAE/DOT approval" for certain items of motorcycle lighting equipment, specifically headlamps, taillamps, and "blinker lamp assy front/rear." By this, we believe you refer to "turn signal lamps." This is the term for them in the U.S. lighting standard, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

Your letter indicates that Fiem Industries will supply lighting equipment to a manufacturer of motorcycles who will install the equipment and export the completed motorcycle to the United States. Under our laws, before a motorcycle is admitted to the U. S., the manufacturer must place on it a label certifying that the motorcycle complies with all applicable U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards (including the lighting standard). Our laws do not require the motorcycle manufacturer to obtain SAE/DOT approval before this label is affixed. Indeed, we are not authorized to test a manufacturer's products and provide approvals.

This self-certification process means that the motorcycle manufacturer must find its own ways of assuring itself that its vehicle complies with the U.S. standards before placing the label on it. It has asked Fiem to obtain SAE/DOT approval. This method is not possible. What is possible is for Fiem to have the lamps tested in India or the U.S. according to the test procedures specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 or the SAE Standards which are incorporated into it. If the lamps pass the tests, Fiem can show the test documentation to the motorcycle manufacturer as an assurance that the lamps have been designed to conform to U.S. requirements. However, because of production tolerances and the chance of human error, Fiem should retest production

lamps from time to time to ensure that the lamps which it provides the motorcycle manufacturer continue to conform to U.S. requirements. Indeed, the motorcycle manufacturer should insist that Fiem do so (or conduct its own occasional verification testing).

We are authorized to enforce the safety standards through our own tests, and if we find that Fiem's lighting equipment on the motorcycle does not conform, the motorcycle manufacturer will be required to recall the machines and repair them. It will also have to pay a civil penalty unless it can assure us that it exercised reasonable care. Thus its relationship with Fiem bears upon the question of whether it has exercised reasonable care.

You also asked for "the procedure and test specifications." The requirements for taillamps are those of SAE J585e, September 1977. The requirements for turn signal lamps are those of SAE J588 NOV84, except that Standard No. 108 (a) allows motorcycle turn signal lamps to meet only one-half the minimum photometric values specified in Table 1 and Table 3 of SAE J588, and (b) requires the turn signal lamp to have an effective projected luminous area of not less than 3 1/2 square inches; for turn signal operating unit, SAE J589, April 1964; for turn signal flasher, SAE J590b, October 1965. The requirements for headlamps are those of SAE J584, April 1964. I am enclosing a copy of each of these, as well as the test procedures incorporated by reference in the SAE materials. However, under Standard No. 108, a motorcycle sold in the U.S. may also be equipped with one half of certain types of passenger car headlighting systems. We are not enclosing copies of passenger car headlighting standards. If the motorcycle manufacturer is intending to equip its vehicles with a headlighting system using a passenger car headlamp, please inform us of the type and we will be pleased to provide you with the appropriate standards.

Although you did not ask about them, Standard No. 108 also requires motorcycles to be equipped with stop lamps, license plate lamps, and red and amber reflex reflectors. If you intend to supply these and have any questions about them or other motorcycle lighting requirements, you may FAX them to us at 202-366-3820, Attention: Taylor Vinson.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:108 d:3/4/96

ID: 11496TENT

Ms. Kristin M. Mortenson
President
Nirin, Inc.
4233 Standish Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55407

Dear Ms. Mortenson:

This responds to your letter asking about safety regulations for a product you wish to manufacture, called the Tiny Tent. You describe the Tiny Tent as a covering for infant car seats. (An infant car seat is lightweight and is easily used as an infant carrier to carry an infant to and from the car.) The Tiny Tent would be used when the infant is carried to and from the car in its infant seat in harsh weather.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. The following represents our opinion based on the information in your letter.

There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that directly applies to your product. Our standard for "child restraint systems," Standard 213, applies to "any device except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 50 pounds or less." (S4 of Standard 213) The standard does not apply to child seat accessories that are sold separately from the child seats, such as aftermarket infant seat covers.

While no Federal safety standard applies to the Tiny Tent, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you

are subject to the requirements of 49 United States Code ''30118-30121 concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those and other manufacturer responsibilities. In the event 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, a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business is prohibited by our statute from installing the Tiny Tent if the installation "makes inoperative" compliance with any safety standard, such as Standard 213.

The Amake inoperative@ prohibition does not apply to individual owners who install equipment in their own vehicles. Thus, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles.

You note in your letter that manufacturers of infant car seats usually advise users to put the car seat handle behind the seat when the restraint is used in the vehicle. You also state that the Tiny Tent Arolls up around the handle and allows this.@ We agree that any material that may prevent the handle from being secured out of the way of the child would be unsafe in a crash. We suggest you include a statement in the instructions for the Tiny Tent that the car seat handle should be stored in the manner recommended by the car seat manufacturer when the restraint is used in the vehicle.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any other questions, please feel free to contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:213 d:3/29/96

ID: 11497AWKM

Mr. Kenneth W. Obrycki
2433 Arlington Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15209

Dear Mr. Obrycki:

This responds to your January 16, 1996 letter to this agency suggesting that tire safety would be improved if we were to require a yellow line approximately 1/4 of an inch wide across the width of tires at the 3/32 of an inch tread depth level. You stated that such a requirement could enable consumers to tell when tires are unsafe and could enable state police and inspection stations to readily observe dangerous tread levels. You believe that this would enhance passenger safety because worn tires would be replaced sooner.

We have carefully reviewed your letter, but do not agree that the requirement you suggest is warranted at this time. Our decision is explained below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Among other things, such standards must be reasonable, practicable, and appropriate for the particular type of motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment for which they are prescribed. Once a vehicle or item of equipment is sold to the consumer, NHTSA's authority generally terminates and with certain exceptions, use of that vehicle or item of equipment then becomes a matter of state jurisdiction.

NHTSA has issued a number of FMVSSs and related regulations applicable to tires, the pertinent ones here being FMVSS Nos. 109, New pneumatic tires, and 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars. Both standards require that all tires have treadwear indicators molded into the tread at the 2/32 of an inch tread depth level. This level was selected by NHTSA based on early studies that showed that when tread is worn to 2/32 of an inch, a tire rapidly loses its traction characteristics, thereby becoming unsafe. Although states, not NHTSA, have the authority to enforce tire removal when the tread depth becomes worn below a certain level, the agency has issued vehicle in use inspection standards at 49 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 570, for states to use as a guide in establishing their own vehicle inspection requirements.

You stated in your letter that Pennsylvania, and perhaps other states, has established minimum tread depth requirements at 3/32 of an inch. The state has the authority to do that, since it has jurisdiction over the use of vehicles and equipment. NHTSA has retained the 2/32 of an inch requirement for tread depth indicators, however, and recently denied a petition to raise the tread depth indicators to 3/32 of an inch because there was no proven safety need to do so. A copy of the denial notice is enclosed.

Although NHTSA has the authority to require a yellow line across the tire to highlight the tread depth indicators, the agency has no data suggesting a safety need for such action. The tread depth indicators currently required, even though unobtrusive from a distance, have been shown to be effective in alerting motorists, inspection stations, and law enforcement personnel to unsafe tire wear. Accordingly, without further data showing a safety need to do so, NHTSA does not believe that requiring yellow tread wear markings in addition to those already required would be reasonable at this time.

Thank you for your interest in motor vehicle safety.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Ref:109#119 ref:2/22/96

ID: 11498DRN

Mr. John Gray
2484 Hyde Road
Grove City, OH 43123-1414

Dear Mr. Gray:

This responds to your request for an interpretation as to whether Aa truck and trailer that passes all highway safety, and federal regulations [may] be joined together legally . . . . @ In telephone conversations with my staff, you explained that you would like to design a type of trailer that a Amodification shop@ would install on new trucks. Our answer is that the regulations of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) permit the joining of the truck and trailer, provided that certain safety requirements are met.

You describe your product as a "trailer" with no articulation, that would lock under the chassis of a truck, and that can be temporarily disconnected in minutes. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you stated that locking your product onto a truck chassis (by means of a "pintle hook") would enable the truck to carry up to 10,000 pounds more of weight.

This agency has the authority under Federal law to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards and related regulations applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve or endorse products. Vehicle and equipment manufacturers are responsible for "self-certifying" that their products comply with all applicable standards. They must also ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects.

None of the safety standards specify how a truck may be joined to a product such as yours. However, since your product is designed to carry property and will be towed by another motor vehicle, NHTSA would consider your product a trailer. When sold to the first purchaser, the trailer must meet all standards applicable to trailers. There are additional NHTSA requirements that the manufacturer of your product must meet. I am enclosing a copy of our fact sheet "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment," that briefly describes these requirements.

A trailer manufacturer must submit certain identifying information to NHTSA in accordance with 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification (copy enclosed). The manufacturer must also meet 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, and place on the trailer a label with information specified in 49 CFR 567.4, including the vehicle's gross axle and gross vehicle weight ratings.

A person or business modifying a new truck (i.e., the Amodification shop@ of your inquiry) to incorporate the trailer would be considered an "alterer" of the truck, and would have certain certification responsibilities. An alterer is a person who modifies a previously certified, new motor vehicle (i.e., before the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale). Under 49 CFR 567.7 if a new vehicle is altered in such a manner that its stated weight ratings are no longer valid, the alterer must allow the original certification label to remain on the vehicle, and affix to the vehicle an additional label with the following information:

(a) The statement: "This vehicle was altered by (individual or corporate name) in (month and year in which alterations were completed) and as altered it conforms to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards affected by the alteration and in effect in (month, year.)"

(b) If the gross vehicle weight rating or any of the gross axle weight ratings of the vehicle as altered are different from those shown on the original certification label, the modified values shall be provided.

We offer no opinion as to whether it is appropriate to simply add the two separate gross vehicle weight ratings in ascertaining the gross vehicle weight rating of a modified truck.

In addition, if the addition of your trailer caused the altered truck to have a defect that relates to motor vehicle safety, the alterer would be required to notify all owners of the defect and to provide a remedy without charge.

You have additional questions regarding the applicability of commercial driver license (CDL) requirements to a modified vehicle. Since CDLs are administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), we are referring your CDL questions to that agency. A copy of your letter and our response is being sent to Mr. James E. Scapellato, Director of the Office of Motor Carrier Research and Standards, FHWA.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure

cc: Mr. James E. Scapellato, Director Office of Motor Carrier Research and Standards Federal Highway Administration

ref:567#vsa102(3) d:4/24/96

ID: 11499ZTV

Mr. Bernard Caire
DBM Reflex Enterprises, Inc.
1620 boul. Dagenais ouest
Laval, Quebec H7L 5C7
Canada

Dear Mr. Caire:

This is in reply to your FAX of January 25, 1996, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking for two interpretations of paragraph S5.3.1.7 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as they relate to your specific lighting array, for which you enclosed two drawings. These depict a housing containing a "turn signal" and a "daytime running light." You clarified your request in a telephone conversation with Rich VanIderstine of this agency on February 23, 1996.

Paragraph S5.3.1.7 modifies luminous intensity requirements for turn signal lamps "on a motor vehicle on which the front turn signal lamp is less than 100mm from the lighted edge of a lower beam headlamp, as measured from the optical center of the turn signal lamp." You ask, with respect to each of your drawings, whether the optical center of the turn signal is the same as the filament position. You note that there will be a higher light intensity in front of the bulb location.

Your first question appears to relate to turn signal/headlamp spacing, but we believe that your true concern is with the spacing relationship between a turn signal and a daytime running lamp (DRL). Because your DRL is a dedicated lamp serving only the DRL function, paragraph S5.3.1.7 does not apply.

The correct reference regarding the spacing between DRLs and turn signal lamps is paragraph S5.5.11(a)(4). This, in pertinent part, places the DRL "so that the distance from its lighted edge to the optical center of the nearest turn signal

lamp is not less than 100 mm . . . ." To determine the optical center of the turn signal lamp, we must refer for an answer to SAE J588 NOV84 Turn Signal Lamps For Use on Motor Vehicles Less Than 2032 MM in Overall Width. The answer depends on the design of the turn signal lamp. If the lamp primarily employs a reflector (for example, one of parabolic section) in conjunction with a lens, spacing is measured from the geometric centroid of the front turn signal functional lighted area to the lighted edge of the lower beam headlamp (paragraph 5.1.5.4.2, SAE J588 NOV84). The "geometric centroid" is the "optical center" for purposes of Standard No. 108. If the front turn signal is a direct light source type design, that is a lamp primarily employing a lens and not a reflector to meet photometric requirements, spacing is measured from the light source to the lighted edge of the DRL. The filament center of the light source is the "optical center" for purposes of Standard No. 108. If the distance is less than 100 mm, the requirements of S5.3.1.7 apply and the minimum intensity of the turn signal must be at least 2.5 times that normally required.

If you have any further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref:108 d:3/14/96

ID: 11501ZTV

Mr. Mark A. Evans
Photometric Engineer
Calcoast - ITL
P.O. Box 8702
Emeryville, CA 94662

Dear Mr. Evans:

This is in reply to your letter of January 11, 1996, in which you ask "what regulations apply to" a rear fog anti-collision laser system. The system consists of a laser diode with a beam diameter of 1 cm, mounted on the rear decklid of a passenger car "near the highmounted stop lamp (where applicable)." The laser would be inclined downward. Its purpose "is to illuminate water vapor present in the air under fog conditions," thereby, as we understand it, improving conspicuity.

The statute that we administer which applies to this device is Title 49 United States Code Chapter 301-Motor Vehicle Safety. Under Chapter 301, the device you describe is considered "motor vehicle equipment." If a defect exists in this product that relates to motor vehicle safety, as determined either by its manufacturer or by this agency, the manufacturer is required to notify purchasers and to remedy the defect. The manufacturer should ensure that its laser does not create a problem that this agency could recognize as a defect in its performance.

There is no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that applies to this device. However, the Federal motor vehicle lighting standard (Standard No. 108, 49 CFR 571.108) prohibits the addition of motor vehicle equipment that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment that Standard No. 108 requires. You mentioned the laser's proximity to the center highmounted stop lamp. This is permissible as long as the laser doesn't impair the effectiveness of the center lamp.

The responsibility for a determination of impairment initially falls upon the installer of the equipment. If the installer is the manufacturer of the vehicle, he must make such a determination in order to certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If the installer is the dealer, the dealer must make the determination in order to ensure that it is delivering a conforming car to its customer. Of course, NHTSA may make its own impairment determination if it disagrees with the views of the manufacturer or dealer.

If the laser is to be sold in the aftermarket, it may be installed by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor or motor vehicle repair business only if it does not "make inoperative" required lighting equipment such as the center lamp. We view making inoperative as the equivalent of impairment under these circumstances.

Even if acceptable under Federal law, use of aftermarket equipment is subject to State laws. We are not in a position to advise you on these and suggest you write for an opinion to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

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:108 d:4/12/96

ID: 11502.DRN

Mr. Burt Jaquith
Tesa Meters, Inc.
Box 21519
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33335

Dear Mr. Jaquith:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of how NHTSA would classify your three wheeled motor vehicle, which is designed for mobility impaired drivers. As explained below, we concur with your opinion that your motor vehicle is a motorcycle.

Your letter explains that you are developing a Aspecialized vehicle for the wheel chair [sic] bound handicapped.@ Because of "the variable medical limitation" of your potential customers, each vehicle must be customized to the driver Aand would be a very limited production.@ The vehicle would have three wheels. Entry into and operation of your vehicle would be from a wheelchair. The vehicle's top speed would be limited to 39 miles per hour.

You informed Dorothy Nakama of my staff that your vehicle would be electrically powered and would not include a seat for the driver (because it is intended to be driven from a wheelchair). You further stated that although the vehicle will have no handlebars, it will be driven by a steering wheel and by a bar that can be manually pushed forward or back to regulate vehicle speed.

By way of background information, this agency has the authority under Federal law to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards and related regulations applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Vehicle and equipment manufacturers are responsible for "self-certifying" that their products comply with all applicable standards. They must also ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects. Once the vehicle or equipment is sold to the first retail customer, the product is no longer subject to the Federal safety standards and instead becomes subject to state law.

For the purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, NHTSA defines "motorcycle" as (49 CFR '571.3):

a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground.

Your vehicle is a motorcycle because it has not more than three wheels. NHTSA considers the wheelchair seat that the driver sits in to be the functional equivalent of the "seat or saddle for the use of the rider."

Your vehicle must meet all safety standards applicable to motorcycles. However, I note that since your vehicle has no handlebars, it need not meet FMVSS No. 123, Motorcycle controls and displays, which applies to motorcycles equipped with handlebars. There are additional NHTSA requirements your company, the motorcycle manufacturer must meet. I am enclosing a copy of our fact sheet "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment," and another sheet that explains how NHTSA's regulations may be ordered.

A new manufacturer must submit certain identifying information to NHTSA in accordance with 49 CFR part 566, Manufacturer Identification (copy enclosed). The manufacturer must also meet 49 CFR part 567, Certification, and place on the motorcycle a label with information specified in 49 CFR section 567.4.

I hope this information is helpful. If you need any further information, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:571.3 "motorcycle" d:5/3/96

ID: 11503WKM

Mr. Jiro Doi
Vice President and General Manager
Mitsubishi Motors America, Inc.
1111 19th Street, NW
Suite 600
Washington, DC 20036

Dear Mr. Doi:

This responds to your letter to me requesting interpretation of paragraph S4.4.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, ADoor locks and door retention components.@ You raised a number of issues that I will discuss below in the order presented.

The latch, hinge, and lock requirements of FMVSS No. 206 were extended to the back doors of passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less, including hatchbacks, station wagons, sport utility vehicles, and passenger vans, by a final rule published in the Federal Register on September 28, 1995 (60 FR 50124) (copy enclosed). S4.4.2 was added to the standard by that final rule and provides:

Each back door system equipped with interior door handles or that leads directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommodations shall be equipped with a locking mechanism with operating means in both the interior and exterior of the vehicle. When the locking mechanism is engaged, both the inside and outside door handles or other latch release controls shall be inoperative.

Question 1.

You first ask about a vehicle with a back door leading directly into a compartment containing seating accommodations. The back door system on such a vehicle must be equipped with a locking mechanism meeting the location and performance requirements of S4.4.2. Under S4.4.2, engagement of the locking mechanism must make the door handles or other latch release controls inoperative.

You ask whether your understanding is correct that an "interior door handle" means "a handle located directly on the door," and not a back door latch release located next to the driver's seat or front passenger's seat. You believe that a back door release next to the driver's seat need not be inoperative when the locking mechanism is engaged.

You are correct that "interior door handle" means a handle attached directly to the interior side of a vehicle door. The door lock and handle requirements were originally imposed on rear side doors to reduce "inadvertent door openings due to impact upon or movement of the inside or outside door handle" (33 FR 6465, April 27, 1968). The agency reasoned that with the door lock engaged - that is, in the locked position - and the door handles thereby "inoperative" - that is, unable to open the door - unintentional door openings would be reduced. The rule was also intended as a child protection device by preventing the opening of the rear door by movement of the inside rear door handle. It is clear, therefore, that in establishing these requirements, the agency envisioned handles mounted directly onto the door. The agency reaffirmed and relied on that rationale in extending S4.4.2 to back doors (60 FR 50124, 50130).

However, with respect to a back door release mechanism located next to the driver's or the front passenger's seat, S4.4.2 provides that when the back door locking mechanism is engaged, the interior and exterior door handles or other latch release controls must be inoperative. Thus, a remote latch release mechanism located in the front of the vehicle, clearly an "other latch release control," must, like the handles mounted on the doors, also be inoperative when the locking mechanism is engaged.

Question Two.

Your next issue, also involving S4.4.2, asks whether back doors "that lead directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommodations" would include vehicles in which a passenger would have to climb over the back of the rear seat in order to reach a designated seating position. You state that "leading directly into a compartment" means that the seats are "easily accessible" and if one must climb over the seat back to reach a seating position, the seating position would not be easily accessible.

Your understanding is correct. The agency qualified the back door lock requirements by providing that, unless equipped with a door handle, only a back door "that leads directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommodations" need comply with S4.4.2. That means a door through which vehicle occupants enter from outside the vehicle directly into a vehicle compartment in which occupant seats are located, or exit the vehicle directly from a compartment in which they have been seated to the outside of the vehicle. That does not include doors leading into a compartment, such as a cargo compartment, in which there are no seating positions and that would require an occupant to climb over the back of a seat in order to reach a seating position.

Question Three. You ask whether a configuration in which half or all of the rear seat is removable would be subject to S4.4.2. Where the seats are removable, as with the vehicle depicted in your enclosed picture, the back door leads into a cargo space and removal of the seats merely extends the cargo space. Thus, unless that back door was equipped with a door handle, it would not need to meet S4.4.2, whether or not the seats were removed.

Question Four. Your final issue refers to the requirement in S4.4.2 that applicable vehicles be equipped with "a locking mechanism with operating means in both the interior and exterior of the vehicle." You believe that a vehicle equipped with an electronic central door lock mechanism operable from the driver's seat or the front passenger seat does not need any other interior door lock operating means. You also believe that an exterior key lock without a handle, such as on a hatchback, suffices as the required exterior operating means.

You are correct on both counts. The requirement in S4.4.1 originates from an identical requirement in S4.1.3, which applies to side door locks. In interpreting S4.1.3, NHTSA stated that a central system that engages all door locks but that is controlled from the front door arm rests constitutes an interior operating means in satisfaction of such requirement (see letter to BMW of North America, Inc., dated October 7, 1993, copy enclosed). Following this interpretation, we conclude that the operating means for the locking mechanism on your vehicle may be operable from the driver=s seat or the front passenger seat. A key-operated lock on the outside of the door would meet the requirement, whether or not equipped with a handle, since all that is required is an "operating means" to engage the lock.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:206 d:4/26/96

ID: 11504ZTV

Mr. Alexander A. Mouzas
5 Beach Street
Saco, Maine 04072

Dear Mr. Mouzas:

We have received your letter of January 17, 1996, asking whether your patented invention "is allowed under current NHTSA standards."

As you have described your invention called "Smartbeams", in its most basic form it activates "lights mounted to the side of a vehicle when either the directional lights are used or when the steering wheel is turned in either direction." From the drawings you enclosed, it appears that the lamps are supplementary equipment like front and rear side mounted cornering lamps used on many vehicles rather than the side marker lamps which are required vehicle lighting equipment, and that both the front and rear side lamps are activated under the conditions described above.

The laws that we administer contain somewhat different requirements depending on whether a vehicle has been delivered to its first purchaser for purposes other than resale. Before that point, a vehicle must be manufactured and sold in compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. We regard Smartbeams as supplementary lighting equipment. If supplementary lighting equipment is furnished with a new vehicle, whether installed by the vehicle's manufacturer or by the new car dealer, it is acceptable under Standard No. 108 provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the Standard.

The question here is whether the side-mounted Smartbeams would impair the effectiveness of other side-mounted vehicle lighting equipment. Given the purpose of Smartbeams to illuminate areas to the sides of vehicles during turns, the device would not have an impairing effect on the only lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108 to be mounted on the sides, the side marker lamps.

Your comment that Smartbeams can be used with "any number or type of light" is too general to comment on in detail, but its acceptability is subject to the impairment criterion. As a general rule, in certifying vehicles for compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, a manufacturer certifies that any supplementary lighting equipment does not impair the effectiveness of any lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. NHTSA will not contest the manufacturer's determination unless it appears clearly erroneous.

You have also told us that Smartbeams can be retrofitted to existing vehicles, and that it can use "any existing off the shelf and already approved lights presently being sold." We assume that you mean lamps bearing their manufacturer's certification of compliance with Standard No. 108. The Federal requirements that apply after the initial sale of a vehicle, simply prohibit modifications to a vehicle (other than by its owner) that "make inoperative" equipment originally installed in accordance with a Federal safety standard. In most instances, we interpret inoperability to mean impairment; thus, if the equipment on a new vehicle will not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment originally required, it is not likely to make that equipment inoperative. Thus, the same considerations apply with respect to the aftermarket acceptability under Federal law of Smartbeams as apply to its use as new vehicle equipment.

However, state laws also apply to the use of aftermarket supplementary lighting equipment. We are unable to advise you as to the acceptability of Smartbeams under the laws of the individual states, and suggest that you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

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

ID: 11508ZTV

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

Dear Mr. Jorheim:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Ref:108 d:3/26/96