ID: nht72-3.18

DATE: 05/31/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: GO Industries

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 26, 1972, requesting an opinion as to whether "Abcite," a product of the Dupont Company, may be used in campers and "mini-mobile homes."

Whether a particular glazing material may be used in motor vehicles or campers depends upon whether the material meets the requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, "Glazing Materials" (49 CFR 571.205), which incorporates, as you indicate, the American National Standards Institute Standard Z26.1-1966. That standard also specifies the locations in motor vehicles where specific materials may be used.

Standard No. 205 does not apply to trailers. While we are not familiar with the phrase "mini-mobile home," we consider mobile homes to be trailers, and the standard does not apply to them. With respect to campers, Standard No. 205 allows the use of any material meeting the requirements of Z26 in any location except for forward-facing windows. Forward-facing camper windows may not be manufactured of item 6 and item 7 material (AS6, AS7), but may be manufactured of any of the other materials (AS1-AS5, AS8-AS11) that meets the requirements of Z26.

Whether Abcite conforms to the requirements for glazing allowed to be used in campers is a determination that should be made in the first instance by its manufacturer, Dupont. If the manufacturer determines that such use is within the requirements of Standard No. 205, he is required by section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to certify that the material conforms to the requirements of the standard. He is also required by the marking requirements in Section 6 of Z26.1-1966 to indicate on the material its AS designation. Any material that is so certified can be used in the camper locations listed on the standard as appropriate for that designated type.

ID: aiam4203

Dear Mr. Tsujishita: This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of several o our standards. First, I would like to apologize for the delay in this response to your letter. I have set forth the responses in the order you asked the questions in your letter.; 1. Standard No. 105, *Hydraulic Brake Systems*. Paragraph S5.2.1 of this standard provides that the parking brak system on a passenger car and some school buses shall be capable of holding the vehicle stationary *(to the limit of traction on the braked wheels) for 5 minutes in both a forward and reverse direction on a 30 percent grade. You stated that your understanding of this provision was as follows. During the tests to determine compliance with this provision, the axles of the subject vehicle must be locked by the parking brake. Your understanding is that the vehicle is permitted to slide down the 30 percent grade, and would be considered as complying with this provision of Standard No. 105 no matter how it slides as long as the vehicle's axles do not turn. This understanding is correct.; The parenthetical note in section S5.2.1 was included in the standar to address the situation where a particular 30 percent grade might have a low traction coefficient. In this situation, a vehicle might slide down the grade even though its parking brake system had held the vehicle axles locked for the required amount of time. NHTSA did not intend vehicle sliding because of a loss of traction by the tires to be considered a failure of the parking brake system. To make this item clear, section S5.2.1 specifies that the parking brake system must hold the vehicle stationary only 'to the limit of traction on the braked wheels.' This language allows the standard not to specify the traction coefficient for the 30 percent grade. Since no particular traction coefficient is specified, compliance testing may be conducted on *any* 30 percent grade that satisfies the requirement of S6.9. That section requires that the parking brake test surface be clean, dry, smooth Portland cement concrete.; 2. Standard No. 110, *Tire Selection and Rims.* Paragraph S4.3 of this standard specifies that a placard containin certain safety performance indication shall be permanently affixed to 'the glove compartment door or an equally accessible location.' You asked if the door latch post, the inner surface of the glove compartment box, and the inward-facing surface of the driver's side door would be considered 'equally accessible locations.' Each of these locations could be equally accessible locations.; In several past interpretations, we have explained that locations fo the placard would be considered equally accessible if two conditions were met. These were:; >>>1. The alternative location must result in the placard bein positioned so that the vehicle operator can readily refer to it, and; 2. The alternative location must keep the placard relatively free fro exposure to substances that could destroy the placard or render it illegible.<<<; If you position the placard on any of your three alternative location so that the vehicle operator can readily refer to it and where the placard would be protected from substances that could destroy it, we would consider each of those alternative locations as 'equally accessible locations' for the purposes of Standard No. 110.; 3. Standard No. 302, *Flammability of Interior Materials*. Paragraph S4.1 of Standard No. 302 sets forth a listing of th components of vehicle occupant compartments that must be certified as complying with the flammability resistance requirements of paragraph S4.3. You listed nine components not specifically listed in paragraph S4.1 and asked whether those components were required to be certified as meeting the flammability resistance requirements. The answer to your question depend on whether the components are designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash.; paragraph S4.1. represents a complete listing of all components in ne vehicles that must comply with the flammability resistance requirements. Any component not identified in paragraph S4.1 is not subject to the flammability resistance requirements. The only item on that listing that might be applicable to the nine components about which you asked is 'any other interior materials, including padding and crash-deployed elements, that are designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash.' Thus, you must determine which of the nine components you asked about are so designed. We would assume that knee bolsters are designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash. These and any other of the nine components so designed must be certified as complying with the flammability requirements of Standard No. 302. Any of the nine components not designed to absorb energy are to required to comply with the flammability requirements.; 4. Part 575.101, *Consumer Information Regulations, Vehicle Stoppin Distance.*; You noted that S575.101 requires vehicle manufacturers to disseminat information about the minimum stopping distance for groups of passenger cars. Section 575.101(c) requires that each passenger car in the group to which the stopping distance information applies shall be capable of performing at least as well as the information indicates, *under the test conditions and procedures specified in S6 an S7 of Standard No. 105* (emphases added). You noted that those sections of Standard No. 105 specify both pre-burnish and post-burnish tests, and that the braking performance varies considerable for the two tests. You asked whether the consumer information on stopping distance must reflect the pre-burnish stopping distance. It need not reflect pre-burnish stopping distance.; As you noted, S575.101(c) specifies that the stopping distanc information should be measured under the test conditions and procedures specified in sections S6 and S7 of Standard No. 105. This specification was added in an amendment published on January 6, 1976 (41 FR 1066). Before that amendment, S575.101 had specified separate test conditions and procedures for the stopping distance information. Those conditions specified that the vehicle's brakes were to be burnished and then the stopping distance was to be measured. In place of those conditions, S575.101(c) now specifies that the stopping distance information should express the *minimum* stopping distances that can be met or exceeded by each vehicle in the group to which the information applies, using the test conditions and procedures of Standard No. 105. Since stopping distances decrease after burnish, the post- burnish results represent the *minimum* stopping distances that can be met or exceeded by the vehicles. Therefore, the pre-burnish stopping distances need not be reflected in the stopping distance information manufacturers make available to consumers.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: Mills.1

Robert G. Mills, Supervisor, Homologation
Triumph Designs Limited
Normandy Way, Hinckley
Leicestershire LE10 3BZ
United Kingdom




Dear Mr. Mills:

This responds to your March 22, 2005, letter in which you requested clarification regarding the proper method for measuring the required edge-to-edge separation distance between a motorcycles front turn signal lamps and headlamp under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Specifically, your letter asked whether the minimum edge-to-edge separation distance is measured: (1) "In a 2-dimensional plane, viewed directly from the front of the motorcycle, that would only take account of the visible, vertical edge-to-edge distance between the two lamps" or (2) "In a tangential plane that would take account of the upward/downward or forward/rearward separation distance". As discussed below, our interpretation differs from the two you suggest. We interpret Standard No. 108s requirement for the separation distance between a motorcycles front turn signal lamps and headlamp as being the shortest distance between the edges of each lamps effective light-emitting surface as projected onto a two-dimensional vertical plane perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the motorcycle (i.e. , the view that would be perceived by oncoming drivers). This projection is defined within FMVSS No. 108 as the "effective projected luminous lens area".

By way of background, Table IV, Location of Required Equipment, of FMVSS No. 108 requires motorcycle front turn signal lamps to have a minimum edge-to-edge separation distance of four inches between these lamps and the headlamp. Our interpretation that the distance is measured with a two-dimensional frame of reference is consistent with both the purpose of the standards separation requirement and at least one prior interpretation.

Standard No. 108 specifies a minimum separation distance between headlamps and turn signal lamps to minimize the possibility that an observer will not see the turn signal. A motorist approaching the motorcycle in oncoming traffic will perceive the required four-inch edge-to-edge separation distance in a two-dimensional plane. If measurement along a tangential plane were substituted, as in the second method identified in your letter, the perceived separation distance in this scenario may be reduced to less than four inches, as seen by the driver, and a situation could arise in which the conspicuity of the turn signal is masked by the headlamp beam. If the oncoming driver does not perceive the important information provided by the turn signal, traffic safety could be compromised.

The minimum edge-to-edge separation distance is the shortest distance between the edges of the effective projected luminous lens areas of the two lamps. "Effective projected luminous lens area" is defined in S3 of FMVSS No. 108 as "the area of the orthogonal projection of the effective light-emitting surface of a lamp on a plane perpendicular to a defined direction relative to the axis of reference". In this case, the defined direction is the longitudinal axis of the motorcycle.

This same reasoning and result were applied in our interpretation letter of April 23, 1986 to a party whose identity was kept confidential (see enclosure). That letter dealt with the plane of reference for measuring the separation distance between a motorcycles rear turn signals and stop/tail lamp and the view provided to traffic approaching from the rear. However, the principles and reasoning are otherwise identical to the forward-facing situation.

We would also point out an important additional requirement for motorcycle turn signal lamp placement contained in Table IV. That requirement is that the turn signal lamps must not be closer than 16 inches, as measured from their centers.

If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:108
d/5/3/05

ID: 86-2.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/28/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Marshall D. Carter

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 18, 1986, asking two questions with respect to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

With respect to electric vehicles, you have asked "is there a standard regulating the minimum length of time that the hazard light must be able to function at a minimum intensity, on the service battery alone?" There is no such standard. The vehicle must be equipped with a hazard warning signal operating unit designed to conform to SAE J910, January 1966, and a hazard warning signal flasher designed to conform to SAE J945, February 1966, but there is no requirement in the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on vehicle lighting, Standard No. 108, that the hazard warning signal flashers perform for a minimum specified period of time in service.

You have also asked "Is there a requirement that the vehicle be equipped with an illuminated display, indicating gear selection?" We are unable to confirm your conclusion that there is no such requirement under Standard No. 101. Paragraph S3.2 of Standard No. 102 requires that identification of shift lever positions or patterns be permanently displayed in front of the driver. Paragraph S5.3.1 of Standard No. 101 requires illumination of the "gauges" listed in Column 1 of Table 2 that are accompanied by the word "Yes" in Column 5. The last "gauge" listed is "Automatic gear position", and the word "Yes" appears in Column 5. The automatic gear position is a "gauge" as defined by paragraph S4 of Standard No. 101, "a display that is listed in . . . Table 2 and is not a telltale". Thus the Federal standards do require illumination of the gear positions of automatic transmissions, but not of manual ones.

I hope that this responds to your questions.

SINCERELY,

Whisper Electric Car AS National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Att: Erika Jones, Office of the Chief Counsel

Dear Ms. Jones,

I am writing to obtain confirmation that the FMVSS do not regulate certain specifications and parameters of automobile performance and design.

First, I should explain that our vehicle is exclusively battery powered, with 12 X 6-volt traction batteries, plus a service battery for the auxilliary functions (lights, windshield wipers, etc.). The service battery is charged at the same time as the traction batteries. In addition, the service battery is charged while driving through a converter between the 72-volt system (traction batteries) and the 12-volt system (service battery).

Now comes an engineer with the following hypothetical: The vehicle is unable to drive because of mechanical breakdown, therefore the converter between the 72-volt and 12-volt systems cannot recharge the service battery. There is no supply of electricity nearby to recharge through the main charger. The hazard lights are engaged, running only on the service battery. The characteristics of the hazard light design and intensity aside, is there a standard regulating the minimum length of time that the hazard light must be able to function at a minimum intensity, on the service battery alone?

In the absence of NHTSA direct regulation or past practice with respect to this situation, may we suggest that fulfilling the European standard is this regard also be sufficient to the U.S. market.

A second question involves illumination within the passenger cabin. Is there a requirement that the vehicle be equipped with an illuminated display, indicating gear selection? I do not see that SN 101 requires either a display or illumination, but we request your comments.

SINCERELY,

Marshall D. Carter

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

MARCH 18, 1986

Dear Ms Jones,

I am also enclosing some guidelines which one of our people found by chance. I understand these to be requirements for the electric vehicles for which the Fed. Gov. has granted funding or subsidies and requirements for vehicles which the Fed. Gov. might purchase, but, while useful guide-lines, not requirements which apply generally to electrical vehicles. I would ask you to please confirm this interpretation.

WHISPER ELECTRIC CAR A/S

Marshall D. Carter

encl.: FR Part 475

Whisper Electric Car AS

ID: nht92-7.5

DATE: May 14, 1992 EST

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John Faist -- DAS Fleet Services Division, City of Seattle

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/4/92 from Chris Kuczynski to Manager, NHTSA (OCC 6983)

TEXT:

This responds to the letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) from Chris Kuczynski of your Division, asking how the provisions of 49 CFR Parts 554-557, 565-568, 571, 573, 576, 577, and 579 pertain to "a municipal government agency that transfers, modifies and/or fabricates custom vehicle bodies for use by its own departments." In a telephone conversation with Walter Myers of this office, you stated that the operations referred to in the letter involve only trucks, both light and heavy; that you combine both new and used bodies with both new and used chassis, endeavoring to retain the old engines, power axles, and transmissions to the extent possible; that such operations include mounting equipment on truck chassis to create such specific-purpose vehicles as dump trucks, cranes, and the like; and that some of the operations are done in your own shops while others are contracted out to local body shops. The issues raised in your letter are addressed below.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et sec.; Safety Act) authorizes this agency to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Under the Safety Act, manufacturers are required to certify that their products meet all applicable safety standards.

NHTSA's safety standards are set forth at 49 CFR Part 571. The agency has also established a number of other regulations in carrying out its responsibilities under the Safety Act, including ones related to certification. All of the regulations cited in your letter apply to manufacturers of motor vehicles and/or motor vehicle equipment.

The Safety Act also prohibits commercial establishments such as repair businesses from "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed in or on a vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. This provision does not apply to the situation of vehicle owners modifying their own used vehicles.

The issue of whether NHTSA's safety standards and other regulations would apply to your agency with respect to the operations it performs on a particular vehicle is dependent on the answers to two questions: (1) whether the vehicle in question is considered a "motor vehicle" under the Safety Act, and (2) whether the operations are of such a nature that your agency is considered a "manufacturer" of the vehicle under the Safety Act.

With respect to the first of these questions, NHTSA has jurisdiction over "motor vehicles" as that term is defined by the Safety Act. I note that some vehicles which may be operated by a municipal agency are not considered motor

vehicles. These include airport runway vehicles and certain, but not all, construction and maintenance equipment. NHTSA's safety standards and related regulations do not have any applicability with respect to vehicles that are not considered motor vehicles. I have enclosed copies of two previous letters which should enable you to determine which of the vehicles you perform operations on are considered motor vehicles under the Safety Act (August 8, 1988 letter to Caterpillar Tractor Co. and February 25, 1986 letter to Richard F. Hahn, Esq.).

While NHTSA's safety standards and other regulations do not generally apply to modifications made by vehicle owners to their used vehicles, it is possible for such modifications to be so substantial that the resulting vehicle is considered a new vehicle instead of just a modified used vehicle. In this case, the new vehicle is required to meet all applicable safety standards in effect on its date of manufacture, just like every other new vehicle. This date would be the date such substantial modifications are completed.

In order to enable vehicle modifiers to determine when the modifications are so substantial that the vehicle is considered a new vehicle, NHTSA established specific criteria at 49 CFR Part 571.7(e), Combining new and used components. That section reads as follows:

When a new cab is used in the assembly of a truck, the truck will be considered newly manufactured . . . unless the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) (as a minimum) of the assembled vehicle are not new, and at least two of these components were taken from the same vehicle.

NHTSA has consistently interpreted that provision to mean that, by its terms, it applies only to new bodies and not to old ones, and that placing a new body on an old chassis does not produce a new vehicle so long as the engine, transmission, and drive axles, as a minimum, are not new AND at least two of these three listed components were taken from the same vehicle. Conversely, a new vehicle would result by placing a new body on an old chassis utilizing new, a combination of new and used, or used engine, transmission, and drive axles no two of which were taken from the same vehicle.

A new vehicle would also result by placing a body, new or used, on a new chassis. In that case the new chassis is an incomplete vehicle which is defined at 49 CFR Part 568.3 as:

(A)n assemblage consisting, as a minimum, of frame and chassis structure, powertrain, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations, other than the addition of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, to become a completed vehicle.

By adding a body to the new chassis, your agency would become a final-stage manufacturer, defined in Part 568.3 as "a person who performs such manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle that it becomes a completed vehicle." Final-stage manufacturers are required to certify that the completed vehicle conforms with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle, the date of final

completion, or a date between those two dates.

I hope this information is helpful. For your additional information, I am enclosing a NHTSA fact sheet entitled "INFORMATION FOR NEW MANUFACTURERS OF MOTOR VEHICLES AND MOTOR VEHICLE EQUIPMENT." If you have any further questions with regard to this matter, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht90-3.92

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 10, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: David G. Dick Acts Testing Labs, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2-20-90 from D.G. Dick to NHTSA (OCC 4452)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking about the head impact protection requirements set forth in paragraph S5.2.3.2(a) of Standard 213, Child restraint systems. I regret the delay in responding.

Paragraph S5.2.3.2(a) states that certain energy absorbing material used to cover child seat surfaces must have a 25 percent compression-deflection resistance of not less than 0.5 and not more than 10 pounds per square inch (psi). You ask whether a valu e slightly less than 0.5 (such as the 0.47 psi example you provided) would be rounded to 0.5 psi. If rounding were permitted, you point out that the rounded value would meet the 0.5 psi requirement of S5.2.3.2(a).

The answer to your question is no, NHTSA would not round the value to 0.5 psi when testing the child seat. Rounding is generally not used in the safety standards. The standards expressly specify when rounding is appropriate. Standard 222, School bus p assenger seating and crash protection, specifies that the number of seating positions in a school bus bench seat (S4.1) is determined by rounding. In view of the express reference to rounding in some safety standards, and since S5.2.3.2(a) does not expr essly state rounding is appropriate, the value for the compression-deflection resistance would not be rounded.

You also ask whether there is any situation in which a value of less than 0.5 psi would be acceptable. The answer is "no." The minimum of 0.5 psi is required by S5.2.3.2(a) for restraints (other than a harness) recommended for children weighing less th an 20 pounds. Any value less than the minimum required value is a noncompliance.

Your last question asks about the reasons for the 0.5 psi minimum. In the agency's notice adopting the compression-deflection requirements, the agency indicated that those requirements would allow the use of a wide range of materials which should enable manufacturers to provide protective padding without cost increases. A copy of that notice is enclosed for your information.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you have further questions.

ID: 10715

Mr. Mark Warlick
Four Winds International Corporation
791 C.R. 15 P.O. Box 1486
Elkhart, IN 46515-1486

Dear Mr. Warlick:

This responds to your fax asking about the meaning of "designated seating position" for purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You noted that the RVIA Handbook, dated April 23, 1991, states that "it is the NHTSA's position that, as a minimum, there must be as many [designated seating positions] as there are sleeping accommodations." You asked whether this statement is still in effect, and, if so, where you can find it in the Code of Federal Regulations. You also asked what defined area makes up one sleeping position.

This will confirm that it continues to be NHTSA's position that, as a minimum, there must be as many designated seating positions as there are sleeping accommodations. This position is based on the definition of "designated seating position," which is set forth at 49 CFR 571.3. Under that definition, the question of whether a position in a vehicle constitutes a designated seating position is dependent in part on whether the position "is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion." If a manufacturer designs a vehicle to sleep a particular number of persons, e.g., six persons, it is logical to assume that those six persons will ride in the vehicle to their sleeping destination. Therefore, there must be at least six designated seating positions in the vehicle. A more complete discussion of this issue is presented on p. 23234 of the enclosed Federal Register notice (Final rule amending the definition of "designated seating position," April 19, 1979).

We do not have a definition of what area makes up one sleeping position. NHTSA would consider all available information to determine the number of sleeping positions in a vehicle. This would include the size of the sleeping accommodations, e.g., whether an area is large enough to accommodate more than one person, and advertising by the manufacturer and dealers.

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

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:571 d:4/24/95

ID: 1982-1.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/25/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Sure-View, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mar 25, 1982

Mr. M. W. Urban Sure-View, Inc. 1337 N. Meridan Street Wichita, KA 67203

Dear Mr. Urban:

This responds to your letter of February 8, 1982, concerning compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, in particular compliance with Safety Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors.

You are correct that section 102(2) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392(2)) defines; in part, a motor vehicle safety standard as "a minimum standard for motor vehicle performance...." Thus, each of the agency's safety standards sets a minimum level of performance which must be met by every manufacturer. Manufacturers are free to utilize designs that exceeds the minimum level of performance set by a standard as long as their products still comply with the standard. Thus, in the case of schoolbus rearview mirrors, a manufacturer must at least comply with the requirements of section 9.1 of Standard No. 111 regarding mirror size, and may voluntarily provide a mirror of a larger size. As explained in the enclosed letter, the Vehicle Safety Act authorizes the agency to regulate aspect of design, such as mirror size.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

February 8, 1982

Mr. Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This is to direct your attention to the enclosed copy of a letter from the State of Texas.

It is my opinion and belief standards established by the NHTSA are minimum and should not probibit the use of an item that is Superior in Safety Performance.

This Design Standard requires 50 square inches of flat glass mounted firmly on each side of a Van Type vehicle in such a manner that if any portion of each mirror is visible to the driver, it meets the requirement of the NHTSA.

In the interest of Safety, the mirror system should minimize the obstruction of the forward view to the driver--NO more than you need and NO less than you need. The driver and children riding scbool buses should not be subjected to the hazards involved with separately adjustable flat and convex mirrors and/or mirrors reflection rearward that may reflect false and/or mis-leading information to the driver.

I cannot agree this Design Standard is in accord with the intent of The Congress. I believe it was the intent of The Congress to make a contribution to the Prevention of Accidents as clearly defined in Section 102(2) of the Transportation Act.

Please advise the position of the NHTSA as to permitting the use of items Superior in Safety Performance when a Design Standard of this type has been issued.

Sincerely,

SURE VIEW, INC.

M. W. Urban

MWU/h1 Encl.

cc: Congressman Dan Glickman 1507 Longworth Bldg., Washington, D.C. 20515

February 4, 1982

Reference: 070-36-1D

M. W. Urban Sure-View, Inc. 1337 North Meridian Street Wichita, Kansas 67203

Gentlemen:

This is in response to your letter of February 1, 1982 about rearview mirrors and Your sample mirror model number 3004.

We are familiar with the revision of section 393.80 issued on April 13, 1979 and published in the Federal Register May 1, 1979. This revision amends the Motor Carrier Safety Regulations and not FMVSS 111. In addition, this revision speaks to the number of rearview mirrors required and not their dimensions. The language in section 393.80 clearly requires conformance with FMVSS 111.

Section S9.1 of FMVSS 111 requires rearview mirrors on both sides of all school buses and these mirrors must contain 50 square inches of flat reflective surface.

He are therefore required to withdraw approval of your 3000 series mirrors for use on Texas buses.

Please advise what disposition you wish made of the sample mirror you sent.

Yours truly,

Don Miller, Specification Technician Specification Section (512)475-2231

DM/dh cc: Max Walton

ID: nht69-1.23

DATE: 08/20/69

FROM: WARREN M. HEATH

COMMANDER ENGINEERING SECTION

TO: ROBERT BRENNER --

ACTING DIRECTOR NATIONAL HIGHWAY SAFETY BUREAU U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

COPYEE: GEORGE GAUDAEN -- SAE

TITLE: REF: 81.A215.A1575

TEXT: Dear Mr. Brenner:

We have a copy of a letter to Mr. Charles W. Heyer of Electrical Testing Laboratories from Mr. Charles A. Baker regarding photometric test procedures. That letter quite clearly points out the method in which the National Highway Safety Bureau desires multicompartment turn signal lamps to be(Illegible Word). However, it raises additional questions concerning procedures to be used both by a laboratory in determining compliance of a device with the Federal standards and by a manufacturer in designing a lamp to meet these standards.

The photometric requirements in SAE(Illegible Word) were developed several years ago before multicompartment lamps were in common use. These standards reasonably well fulfilled the need in upgrading the performance of single-compartment lamps at that time. Later, experience with some of the original multicompartment lamps and complaints about excessive brightness of the taillamps and stoplamps on vehicles brought about a need for revising the standards.

At that time, each section of a multicompartment lamp was treated in the same manner as an individual lamp, since their performance was little different than that of individual lamps set side by side. Therefore, each compartment of a three-compartment lamp had to meet the(Illegible Words) for a taillamp and the 80 candlepower minimum for a turn signal lamp. In addition, each compartment was allowed to have a maximum intensity of 15 candlepower at or above horizontal for the taillamp and 300 candlepower in red for the turn signal lamp.

The above maximum values were reasonable when only one or two lamps were used on each side of the vehicle. Unfortunately, the first three-compartment lamps were built with such high light output that each compartment barely complied with the

maximum. This meant in some cases that the combined taillamp output on each side of the vehicle was over 45 candlepower and the combined turn signal output was barely below the total maximum of(Illegible Word) candlepower, thereby being annoyingly bright to following drivers.

The manufacturers and the(Illegible Word) Lighting Committee recognized this problem and alter a number of demonstrations of systems and rewriting of proposed crafts developed the multicompartment rear lamp specification in(Illegible Words). The original brightness problem appeares to be quote simple and could have been solved merely by reducing the maximum intensities allowed multicompartment lamps; however, the manufacturers were concerned that they would then be squeezed between a high minimum value for each compartment and a low maximum value which did not allow sufficient(Illegible Word) for normal design and production.

The SAE studies indicated that with the types of multiple compartment lamps(Illegible Word) were in use about three years ago, the values in SAE(Illegible Word) applying to the total light output of the multicompartment lamp were reasonable. This standard did not cover every combination of brightness and lens area that might be involved in providing anytime effectiveness while limiting nighttime brightness to reduce annoyance, but it was a first step in this direction.

Manufacturers who have attempted to comply with both(Illegible Words) and SAE(Illegible Word) have differences in interpretation of your requirements. We would like to have the following points clarified so we do not cause the manufacturers unnecessary difficulties when we test devices for compliance with Federal and State standards:

1. Section(Illegible Words) specifies in part that the photometric requirements "shall be provided by one or a combination of the compartments or lamps".

(a) Does this mean that if one compartment or lamp meets the minimum and maximum requirements, the other compartments or lamps can have photometric output either below the minimums required or above the maximum permitted?

(b) Does this mean that one lamp may be used to meet the minimum requirements with the others adding stray light, provided the maximum requirement of 15 candlepower in the case of taillamps and(Illegible Word) candlepower in the case of turn signal lamps is not exceeded when all lamps or compartments are lighted simultaneously?

(c) Does the manufacturer have the choice in interpreting this section as to which method is most favorable to him for his particular design?

2. Mr. Baker's letter of May 12 states that "The sums of the measured candlepowers at the test points of separately photometered lamps or compartments of a combination shall not be acceptable", whereby implying that all lamps or compartments shall be photometered simultaneously.

(a) What was the purpose of stating in Section 3.1.1.7 that photometric requirements shall be provided by "one" or a combination of compartments if individual tests are not permitted to determine whether one compartment actually does comply?

(b) If it is the intent that the compartments shall be measured simultaneously, should not the above section be(Illegible Word) to eliminate the implied alternative of having only one of the lamps comply?

3. FMVSS No. 198 makes no mention of the method of testing multicompartment and multilamp taillamps and steplamps, as Section 3.1.1.7 applies only to turn signals.

(a) Do the standards require each compartment of a taillamp or steplamp to be tested separately to show compliance with(Illegible Word), or are they to be tested simultaneously as required of turn signals?

(b) Must each separate lamp or individual compartment meet the taillamp-to-steplamp ratio, or is it sufficient that the compartments when lighted together meet the ratio even though a particular lamp or compartment does not comply individually.

4. The California Vehicle Code contains a Section(Illegible Word) which prohibits a motor vehicle from being equipped with any lamp or illuminating device not specifically required or permitted by the Code. The manufacturers would like to interpret Section(Illegible Words) as permitting any number of additional taillamps and stoplamps on each side, provided only the lamp meets the requirements of J575c. The only limitation they propose is that all of the lamps taken together do not exceed the maximum candlepower requirements(Illegible Words), as an example of nonimpairment of the effectiveness of the single required lamp. They would also use photometric data showing that the total stoplamp to total taillamp output complies with the ratio requirements of J575c; again, to prove nonimpairment.

(a) Do the Federal standards preempts states from enforcing present requirements that each rear lamp on a vehicle must perform a specific function and to approved for that function?

(b) Are all of the separate lamps in the multiple rear lamp arrangement considered by the Bureau as comprising one lamp and(Illegible Word) to be taken as such by the states in enforcing identical standards?

(c) Does the Federal standard merely require the minimum of one stoplamp and taillamp on each side of the vehicle to meet the requirements of(Illegible Word), with the additional optional lamps to be provided at the manufacturers discretion regardless of whatever standards the states may have for any such supplemental lamps?

5. Some modern designs of multicompartment lamps have three compartment configurations where the large(Illegible Word) compartment is a backup lamp and on each side of it is a taillamp-stoplamp combination. Other configurations include a three compartment lamp centered on the rear of the vehicle where the middle compartment as a taillamp-stoplamp combination and the compartments on each side of it perform only taillamp functions.

(a) Where one rear lamp compartments are separated by a backup lamp compartment, as the entire lamp to be tested as a single unit as though the rear lamp sections were adjacent to each other?

(b) With respect to the device where a taillamp is on each side of a center-mounted stoplamp, are the taillamps considered a part of the physically integral three-compartment center lamp for the purposes of determining compliance with minimum and maximum specifications and ratio requirements? Or, is the taillamp on each side of the stoplamp to be tested simultaneously with the other taillamps on that particular side of the vehicle for the purposes of determining compliance?

The manufacturers have been quite ingenius in developing different variations of multiple lamps and multicompartment lamps and each has his own interpretation as to how his particular arrangement might be considered as complying with a specific Federal or SAE standard. We have been asked a number of questions such as those above as a result of our program of purchasing and testing devices for conformance to the standards.

We would very much appreciate your giving consideration to this problem and providing us with specific information that we can use in answering inquiries from foreign and American manufacturers and on using the correct test procedure for determining compliance of a specific device with the requirements.

Very truly yours,

ID: nht88-3.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: SEPTEMBER 14, 1988

FROM: RICHARD W. WARD -- VICE PRESIDENT; K-D LAMP COMPANY

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED NOV. 3, 1988 TO RICHARD W. WARD, V. P., K-D LAMP CO., FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TEXT: This is in reference to your letter of Aug. 19, 1988 to Paul Scully regarding the exclusion of reflex reflector area when calculating minimum square inch lens area. Apparently your letter has caused a future customer of KD Lamp Co. to reconsider and rej ect the use of a Turn Signal Lamp of ours which has a lens area of 8 square inches. The following information and enclosed documentation is offered for your evaluation, and I respectfully request your reply to clarify the requirement of minimum square i nch lens area for Turn Signal and Stop Lamps.

In S1. of Purpose & scope FMVSS 108 the standard covers requirements for original and replacement lamps. When a new lamp is designed the requirements of 108 in effect at that time are naturally incorporated into the design. The present requirements of 108 shown in Table #1 for vehicles 80 or more inches wide indicates the applicable SAE standard is J-588e Sept. 1970 for Turn Signal Lamps and J-586c Aug. 1970 for Stop Lamps. Both of these SAE standards in section 3.2 require a minimum lens area of 8 s quare inches (rear lamps) for a single compartment lamp. The device in question meet the J-588e and J-586c, however, our customer has interpreted your letter that 12 square inch minimum lens area is the requirement. Their conclusion is based on the 2nd paragraph of your letter wherein you make reference to S4.1.1.7 of FMVSS 108 and 12 square inch lens area.

It is our position that S4.1.1.7 and S4.1.1.6 of FMVSS 108 is not the present requirements but rather an exception or a permissable use of an old SAE J-588d June 1966 and J-586b June 1966 for lamps used on vehicles manufactured between 1973 and 1978 (ref . page 28238 Fed. Reg. Aug. 6, 1986). If the full context of S4.1.1.7 and S4.1.1.6 is taken into consideration it is apparent the intent, particularly the words "may also be designed", of these sections is to cover vehicles of older manufacture.

After your review of the above and attachments, I would appreciate your comments so the immediate problem as well as any future questions in this regard can be resolved.

Thank You.