ID: 86-5.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/09/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Donald L. Anglin

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of August 7, 1986, concerning the applicability of our regulations to the repair of fuel tanks. You specifically asked whether our regulations prohibit the repair of automotive fuel tanks made of plastic. As explained below, a dealer or motor vehicle repair shop can make repairs to plastic and other types of vehicle fuel tanks.

Manufacturers must certify that their new vehicles comply with all applicable safety standards. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity sets performance requirements for new vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less. Manufacturers of these vehicles are free to use fuel tanks made of any type of material, such as metal or plastic, as long as the fuel system can meet all of the performance requirements of the standard.

Repair of a fuel tank in a new vehicle, which, for example, sustained damage in shipment, would be affected by Standard No. 301. If a fuel tank is repaired prior to a new vehicle being sold for the first time to a consumer, the person making the repairs would be considered a vehicle alterer under our regulation on certification (Part 567, a copy of which is enclosed). As an alterer, the person must certify that the fuel system, as altered, continues to comply with all of the applicable requirements of Standard No. 301.

After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, repairs to a vehicle are potentially affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly tampering with safety equipment installed on a vehicle in compliance with our standards. However, the agency has not applied the prohibition of that section to the repair of a fuel tank which has been previously installed in a vehicle and damaged in use. The agency has considered the event that damaged the fuel tank and not any subsequent action by a person repairing the damaged fuel tank in a used vehicle, as the event which rendered inoperative the compliance of the fuel tank with the standard. Thus, there is no Federal regulation which would prohibit the repair of a fuel tank which has been damaged in use.

In addition, section 108(a)(2)(A) does not affect vehicle owners, who may themselves alter their vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner may repair fuel tanks regardless of whether the repairs adversely affect the fuel system. The agency, however, urges vehicle owners not to take actions that would degrade the performance of required safety features. Please note also that individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners. Therefore, it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from repairing the fuel systems in their vehicles.

If you need further information, please let me know.

ENC.

DONALD L. ANGLIN

CONSULTING EDITOR McGRAW-HILL BOOK COMPANY

Automotive and Technical Writing

August 7, 1986

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Ms. Jones:

Thank you very much for your comprehensive reply of June 18 to my earlier letter requesting information on Federal regulations pertaining to motor vehicle safety equipment.

Recently, we have seen statements in the trade press and in consumer publications that Federal law prohibits the repair of automotive fuel tanks -- specifically, the repair of automotive fuel tanks made of plastic.

If this is true, would you please send me a copy of the appropriate regulations, and any available related materials.

Thank you once again for your interest and assistance.

DONALD L. ANGLIN

ID: 86-5.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/22/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood for Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. J. Leon Conner

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. J. Leon Conner Manager Long & Associates, Inc. P.O. Box 691 San Angelo, TX 76902

Dear Mr. Conner:

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of the requirements of 49 CFR S575.104, Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS). Specifically, you asked wether this regulation requises the treadwear testing for a tire size to be conducted only with vehicles that specify the subject tire size either as the original equipment size or as one of the recommended optional tire sizes. The UTQGS does not contain any such provision.

The conditions and procedures to be followed in grading tires for treadwear under the UTQGS are set forth in S575.104(e). That section specifies tire loading conditions and rim dimensional requirements for the vehicles used in the treadwear testing. However, it does not specify that the vehicles used in the treadwear testing can only be used to test tire sizes recommended as either original equipment or optional tires on the vehicle when new. Accordingly, persons testing tires to determine the treadwear grade may mount the tires on any vehicle, provided that the tire and vehicle satisfy all the requirements of S575.104(e), relating to tire construction, inflation pressure, size designation, vehicle loading, and wheel alignment.

You stated in your letter that the UTQGS compliance test procedures, used by this agency for conducting its enforcement testing for treadwear grades, currently specify that tire sizes must be tested on vehicles that specify that size as either original equipment or recommended optional size. This specification may have been adopted after the following language appeared in a 1975 preamble to a final rule establishing the UTQGS:

Several commenters suggested that the rule specify all vehicles in a given convoy be identical, to reduce variations in projected treadlife...Variations in vehicle type, however, do not appear to produce significant variations in treadwear projections. Nevertheless, to minimize such variations, tires will be tested for compliance only on vehicles for which they are available as original equipment or recommended replacement options. 40 FR 23073, at 23076, May 28, 1975.

As explained above, the UTQGS regulation does not specify that the vehicles used in treadwear testing can only be used to test tire sizes recommended as either original equipment or optional tires on the vehicle. The agency's compliance test procedures are only the methods the agency itself uses to determine the appropriate treadwear grade for a tire. Persons outside the agency are not bound by any testing conditions and methods not set forth in the UTQGS itself. Such persons may, therefore, conduct their own testing in a manner different from that specified in NHTSA's compliance test procedures, provided that their testing satisfies all requirements of S575.104(e).

You also stated that the use of different vehicles for treadwear testing of tires will produce measurably different treadwear grades for the tire, even when all the vehicle factors are closely and properly controlled. As quoted above, NHTSA concluded that vehicle-to-vehicle variations "do not appear to produce significant variations in treadwear projections", when it examined this issue in 1975. However, the agency is currently reexamining the effects of vehicle-to-vehicle variations on treadwear projections, particularly with respect to front-wheel vs. rear-wheel drive vehicles and passenger cars vs. light trucks and vans. If you wish to provide some additional data on this subject, please forward the data to Mr. Barry Felrice, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, at this address. We would be interested in analyzing whatever data form the basis for your belief that our 1975 conclusion was incorrect.

Please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff, at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992, if you have any further questions about our UTQGS.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Ms. Erika Jones, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office Of Chief Counsel, NAO-30 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20500

Subject: Uniform Tire Quality Grading Testing

Dear Ms. Jones:

We are requesting clarification of the UTQG Stnadard relative to selection of test vehicles.

The UTQG Compliance Test Procedure requires that, "the vehicles must specify the tire size to be tested as standard equipment or approved alternate for that vehicle", i.e. government compliance testing will be performed with vehicles selected in this manner. It behooves the tester then to select vehicles in the same manner it would seem.

While outdoor road testing inherently involves a large number of variables it is apparent from our accumulated CMT data that different cars do produce different wear rates for a given set of tires and conditions, even when vehicle factors (wheel alignment, wheel loads, mechanical maintenance) are closely and properly controlled. It is therefore possible to bias the candidate tire grades measurably through selection of the control tire car, the candidate tire car or both. Use of certain larger vehicles produce faster wear of the CMT tires and consequently higher grades for the candidate tire; tested in the same convoy.

If the UTQG Standard allows the tester to choose any car in which he can attain the required wheel loads, manufacturers may seek the tester who can obtain the highest grades.

Hopefully you can clarify the intent of NHTSA on this matter. If we can be of assistance in any way please do not hesitate to call on us.

Sincerely,

J. Leon Conner JLC:bf

ID: 86-5.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/16/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Alan Cranston

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter on behalf of Mr. Raymond Kesler. He asked for this agency's response to a letter from Mr. Robert R. Phillips concerning the bi-focal mirror developed by Mr. Kesler. In his letter, Mr. Phillips asked whether an outside rearview mirror, which has both a planar surface of unit magnification and a convex surface, complies with Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors. I regret the delay in responding to this letter.

As we understand the information supplied by Mr. Phillips, the bi-focal mirror would be installed on the driver's side of motor vehicles to give the driver a wider field of view by combining a convex mirror and a planar mirror as the outside rearview mirror on the driver's side. The convex portion would abut the planar portion and be located to the left of the planar portion. Thus, both normal and wide-angle vision would be provided at the same horizontal viewing level.

By way of background information, this agency does not give approvals of vehicles or their equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (the Act), places the responsibility on the manufacturer to ensure that items of motor vehicle equipment, such as rearview mirrors, comply with any applicable requirements. A manufacturer certifies that its equipment complies with all applicable safety standards.

Mr. Phillips asked this agency to confirm his interpretation that this bi-focal mirror meets the requirements of Standard No. 111 if its planar or unit magnification surface has an area of at least 19.5 square inches, regardless of the existence of the convex portion. The 19.5 square inch requirement is one applicable to multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses (other than schoolbuses) with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. Those types of vehicles are required by S6.1 of the standard either to have a set of inside and outside rearview mirrors that comply with the requirements applicable to passenger cars or to have outside mirrors of unit magnification, each with not less than 19.5 square inches of reflective surface, on both sides of the vehicle. If Mr. Phillips' mirror meets that size requirement, is located on a vehicle so as to provide the required view and is adjustable in the required manner, it complies with S6.1.

There are no minimum size requirements for unit magnification outside rearview mirrors on passenger cars. Mr. Phillips' mirror can be installed on the driver's side of passenger cars if the mirror's unit magnification portion, independently of the convex portion, meets the field of view and mounting requirements specified in S5.2.

In one drawing accompanying Mr. Phillips' letter, there appears to be a warning on the planar portion of his bi-focal mirror stating "Objects Appear Within Markers: Caution." There is no requirement in Standard No. 111 for such a warning. The agency is concerned that the message conveyed by this warning is unclear and could confuse motorists. The warning ("CAUTION When Vehicle Appears Here") in Mr. Phillips' other drawing seems more easily understood. He might consider providing purchasers with written instructions explaining that the purpose of the message is to warn drivers that the appearance of a vehicle in the convex portion of the mirror means that the vehicle is so close that a lane change would be unsafe.

Unit magnification and convex mirrors on other types of vehicles must meet the specific performance and location requirements for those types of vehicles, as set out in the standard. Again, please note that a vehicle manufacturer installing a bi-focal mirror on different types of vehicles must ensure that the unit magnification portion of the mirror meets any applicable requirements of the standard independently of the convex portion.

If Mr. Phillips' mirror meets the requirements of Standard No. 111 for a particular vehicle type, then it may be installed on new vehicles of that type. It may also be installed on used vehicles of that type. Conversely, if the mirror does not meet those requirements, then it may not be installed on new vehicles. Further, manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses would be prohibited from installing it on used vehicles. However, the Act does not establish any limitations on an individual vehicle owner's ability to alter his or her own used vehicle.

Under Federal law, individual vehicle owners can themselves install any product they want on their used vehicles, regardless of whether that product would render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle's rearview mirrors with the performance or location requirements of Standard No. 111.

I hope this information is helpful to you.

SINCERELY

United States Senate

August 19, 1986

To: Congressional Laision Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Enclosure From:

Mr. Ray Kesler

Re: Mr. Kesler would appreciate a letter confirming his bifocal safety mirror conforms to federal safety standards. Is this possible?

I forward the attached for your consideration.

Your report, in duplicate, along with the return of the enclosure will be appreciated.

Alan Cranston

Please address envelope to:

Senator Alan Cranston

August 6, 1986

Dear Senator Cranston,

I am seeking a letter to confirm, yes it does provide the plane flat mirror (unit of manification) on the required amount because it is comformity of the standards. I would expect they would simply state it back to us so I can present it to the S.A,E, (society of automotive engineers) and the automotive industry that they have no question, it does meet the federal safety standards, but that has not happened and would appreciate a answer on this soon. This has held up this project for many monthes. I believe we can start saving lives with the new mirror concept in safety vision soon. I know you will give federal support on this matter. You have been so helpful before and I sincerely thank you.

Ray Kesler

enclosure. Drawings (2)

Instructions on viewing bifocal safety mirror

July 25, 1980

The Honorable Alan Cranston UNITED STATE SENATE

Dear Senator Cranston:

Your concern for public safety is well known to us, and because of your reputation as a strong-willed combatant for causes you believe in, we are soliciting your advice and support for our project.

My client, Mr. Raymond Kesler, has recently developed a bifocal safety mirror for automobiles that has the potential to make a major contribution to the cause or automotive safety. You have previously been kind enough to lend support to Mr. Kesler on this project (i.e. your letter to Diane Steed at NHTSA on Feb. 5, 1985), and we are once again in need of someone to help break what appears to be a bureaucratic logjam.

The enclosed letter was written to Brika Jones, Chief Counsel at NHTSA upon the advice of Dr. Carl Clark, Investor Contact Code NRD-12 in the Office of Vehicle Research. As the letter indicates, we are simply seeking interpretation of the code of federal regulations governing automotive mirrors. Our question is, we believe, specific and clear, yet to date no response from Ms. Jones was received.

If you could assist us in getting some official interpretation as to how the federal regulations affect this bi-focal mirror, we would be most grateful.

Robert R. Phillips Project Manager enclosure: Erika Jones Letter (March 27, 1986)

P.S. We are also enclosing a copy of an article on the mirror that recently appeared in Automotive News.

March 27, 1980

Erika Jones Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AND SAFETY ADMIN.

Dear Ms. Jones:

At the suggestion of Dr. Carl Clark in the Office of Vehicle Research, we are seeking from you some interpretation of existing federal regulations regarding outside rear-view mirrors for automobiles.

In particular, we are concerned about a mirror that was recently developed by Mr. Raymond Kesler, a California inventor. The enclosed article in Automotive News plus the other material provides information on the mirror, but our inquiry is, I believe, specific and clear.

It is our interpretation or the NHTSA regulations that this bi-focal mirror (i.e. a planar surface abutted to a convex mirror of fixed radius) does meet the requirements if its planar (unit magnification) surface has an area of at least 19.5 square inches, regardless of the existence of the convex portion.

We would greatly appreciate your comments on this interpretation prior to final approval of the mirror's specific dimensions.

Thank you for your assistance.

Robert R. Phillips

Automotive News

March 24, 1986

engineering

Mirror wipes out blind spot

An inventor in West Hollywood, Calif., believes car mirrors have been overlooked for too long. He has taken what he calls a revolutionary approach to the subject and has eliminated the pesky -- and dangerous -- passing-car blind spot.

The first auto mirror, patterned after one seen on a carriage in Chicago, was used on the winning car in the first Indianapolis 500 race in 1911. Driver Ray Harroun installed the 8-inch-by-3-inch mirror to avoid using the riding mechanic who usually kept one eye rearward in races of the era.

It would appear that little change has taken place over the years, and 47-year-old inventor Raymond Kesler said his latest work will refocus attention of safety authorities on the mirror.

Others say that attention is overdue. They contend that because the U.S. population is aging, the left-side blind spot is growing as a danger point. (Illegible Word) one's peripheral vision diminishes with age.

Kesler said he has combined the positive characteristics of two different optics -- a planar, or flat, surface connected to a curved surface of fixed radius.

"This achieves a remarkably effective enhancement of the field of view without the distortion associated with variable-curvature convex mirrors," he said.

"The Kesler approach uses the flat surface for 70 percent of the mirror with the remaining 30 percent devoted to the convex portion for wide-angle vision."

On the convex surface, there are what Kesler calls "reflective caution arrows" which warn the driver of traffic approaching from the rear and act as a distance finder for position and size of objects.

"The overall unit is rectangular to fit most 1985/86 original equipment mirror housings," Kesler said, "It also it well-suited for the aftermarket manufacturers who utilize the new rectangular design for their mirrors."

A patent is pending, Kesler said.

The inventor has been interested in automotive accessories and automotive phenomena for many years, said Robert R. Phillips, of the Woodland Hills (Calif.) consulting firm that bears his name. Phillips is handling inquiries about Kesler's device.

In most other attempts at bifocal mirrors, distortion has been the major problem, and NHTSA regulations have kept them off the road. Hopes of other inventors have been shattered by NHTSA investigations.

Small, convex anti-blind-spot mirrors that adhere to flat mirrors are sold by parts stores and are not installed as original equipment. Therefore, their distortion escapes the regulatory eye of NHTSA. Also, such mirrors stand out physically from the flat mirror and it is not likely a driver would confus, images seen in them with images in the flat mirror.

A mirror manufacturer in Michigan said some drivers become nauseated from multiple radius mirrors. The eyes see differing images simultaneously, and the brain becomes confused.

Several mirror makers have petitioned NHTSA for regulation changes. European regulations are reported to be similarly rigid, but Saab in 1982 introduced in Europe a mirror it says eliminates the blind spot.

The Saab mirror, as does Kesler's, shows two fields of view at the same time.

The mirror glass has two surfaces. One is a large plane surface closest to the driver. It is separated from the second, a narrow convex surface, by an etched line.

Together, the two surfaces enable the driver to follow a passing vehicle until it becomes visible in the driver's direct vision, even in the blind spot, Saab said.

Saab said European legislation is very strict regarding the design of side mirrors and requires that the division between the two fields be clearly marked. In Saab's case, this is achieved by the etched line, the company said.

Kesler said the Kesler Bi-Focal Safety Mirror meets federal safety standards. He also said there are no other similarly qualified mirrors that have normal and wide-angle vision at the same horizontal viewing level.

The Kesler Bi-focal Wide Angle Automotive Safety Mirror

(Meets Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111.) D.O.T.

REFLECTIVE CAUTION ARROWS RNS DRIVER OF APPROACHING TRAFFIC

(ACTS AS A DISTANCE FINDER FOR POSITION AND SIZE OF OBJECTS)

PLANAR MIRROR (NORMAL VISION OF STANDARDS) D.O.T.

ABUTTED JUNCTURE TANGENT TO PLANE KESLER PATENT PENDING

(C) 1986 KESLER RESEARCH ENTERPRISES

PICTORIAL CONCEPT OF WIDE ANGLE OPTIC

(Graphics omitted)

Traffic in "BLIND SPOT" Appears Here

CAUTION When Vehicle Appears Here

Traffic Leaves View of Planar Mirror Here

Anti-Blind Spot Mirror

(Graphics omitted)

KESLER RESEARCH ENTERPRISES

"Avoid an Accident at a Glance"

SAFETY ADVANTAGES OF VIEWING BIFOCAL REARVIEW SAFETY MIRROR

1. Plane section of mirror is for normal viewing of traffic with no depth perception loss. This section complies with FMVSS III D.O.T. standards.

2. The constant radius convex section of the mirror provides an extra margin of safety with uniform vision on a horizontal level, allowing extra vision for better view of the far lane, pulling away from curbs, and backing out of driveways.

3. A conventional mirror out of adjustment can cause an accident. The fact is that a convex section of the bi-focal safety mirror provides the extra vision, even when out of adjustment.

4. The reflective caution safety markers on the convex section aid the user for judging distance, position, and size or objects.

5. Both plane and convex mirrors can be viewed to cut glance duration time to a minimum when objects (traffic) appear in the safety markers.

6. Both separate sections can be viewed as one (integrated) mirror when objects meet the transition.

Copyright, 1986 KESLER RESEARCH

ID: 86-5.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/16/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Edward T. Fennell, Jr. -- Amilite Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 5/31/88 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Terry E. Quinn (Std. 205); 9/18/87 letter from Terry Quinn to NHTSA (occ 1128)

TEXT:

Mr. Edward T. Fennell, Jr. Amilite Corporation 666 Old Country Road Garden City, NY 11530

Dear Mr. Fennell:

Thank you for your letter of July 30, 1986, concerning the marking requirements of Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. You explained that your company represents several glazing manufacturers that make windshields. You said that your company sometimes receives orders from other companies asking to have a windshield made for them with their own corporate logo marked on the windshield. You asked if a company can, with the permission of the other company, mark a windshield with the other company's logo and its own DOT identification number. As discussed below, such a practice is permissible.

Section 6 of Standard No. 205 sets forth the certification and marking requirements for glazing materials. Section 6.1 requires a prime glazing manufacturer to mark each item of glazing material in accordance with the section 6 of American National Standard "Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways," Z-26.1-1977, January 26, 1977, as supplemented by Z26.la, July 3, 1980 (ANS Z-26). One of the requirements of S6 of ANS Z-26 is that a manufacturer mark its glazing with its own "distinctive designation or trademark." In addition to those requirements, S6.2 of Standard No. 276 requires a prime glazing manufacturer to mark each item of glazing material designed to be used in a specific vehicle with the symbol "DOT" and a manufacturer code mark assigned by this agency. The standard defines a prime glazing manufacturer as "one who fabricates, laminates, or tempers the glazing material."

One reason for the marking requirements of Standard No. 205 is to aid the agency in identifying the actual manufacturer of the glazing for the purpose of defect and noncompliance recall campaigns. Since, in the situation you described, the prime glazing manufacturer will be placing its own DOT code mark on the glazing, the agency's ability to identify easily and accurately the manufacturer of the glazing will not be impaired. Therefore, we would not consider the use of another manufacturer's logo on the glazing to be a violation of the standard as long as the prime glazing manufacturer has marked the glazing with its own DOT code mark.

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

July 30, 1986 U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of the Chief Counsel 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Sir:

The purpose of this letter is to seek a ruling for the logo on windshields. We represent several factories, and at times we receive orders from other factories to have windshields made for them with their own corporate logo. We realize the fabricating factory must have only its own D.O.T. number in this logo.

Please confirm it is acceptable by your agency to use any logo (as long as permission is granted) with the Manufacturing Factories' Registered D.O.T. number.

I have attached a copy of a Letter of Permission to use a corporate logo on purchased products for your review. Should have any questions, please feel free to call on our toll free number (800) 645-6240. A prompt reply would be appreciated.

Sincerely, AmiLite Corporation

Edward T. Fennell, Jr.

ETF:lam Encs.

Mr. Carmen Mazzocki Amilite Corp.

666 Old Country Road Garden City, New York 11530

Dear Carmen:

Attached is the facsimile of the LOF logos for clear, tinted, and tinted shade windshields. Please note that the letters at the bottom are to be ignored and that ORAN will use their D.O.T. No. (268) and "M" numbers when manufacturing the U.S. domestic truck 1/2-windshields for LOF. For the current order they will only need the tinted (E-Z-EYE) safety float monogram. The position of the logo should be the same position as the OEM manufacturer's logo.

This letter will serve as permission for ORAN PALMACH ZOVA< kibbutz zova 90870, israel to produce our p.o. 2053-6004, and 2053-6002 totaling 3,000 lites using the lof logo oran d.o.t. number. also attached is a copy of letter from indicating us that this practice in accordance with section 6 safety standard 205, glazing materials which incorporates by reference american national "safety code for motor vehicles operating on land highways", z26.6-1966 (ans z26).

If you have any questions, advise.

Richard P. Keim Manager - Inventory Control RK/fb

Attach.

ID: 86-5.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/16/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Terry Woodman -- Orthotist, Winkley Orthopedic Laboratory

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 9/6/88 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Robert Daugherty (Std. 213); 7/31/87 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Richard J. Maher; 2/5/88 letter from Robert Daugherty to Erika Z. Jones

TEXT:

Mr. Terry Woodman Orthotist Winkley Orthopedic Laboratory 740 Douglas Drive North Golden Valley, MN 55422

Dear Mr. Woodman:

This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Steve Oesch of my staff, asking for an interpretation of Standard No. 213, Child Restraint System (49 CFR S571.213). Specifically, you asked whether car seats designed for use by severely physically handicapped children are required to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 213. The answer to your question is yes.

Section S4 of Standard No. 213 defines a child restraint system as "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 ?? pounds or less." No exception is made for restraints designed for use physically handicapped children who weigh 50 pound; or less. Further, section S6.1.2.1.1 of Standard No. 213 includes the following language. "A child harness, booster seat with a top anchorage strap, or a restraint designed for use by physically handicapped children shall be installed the center seating position of the standard seat assembly in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions provided with the system pursuant S5.6." This language makes clear that restraints designed for use by physically handicapped children are subject to the requirements of Standard No. 213.

We discussed this issue in some detail in a February 13, 1986, final to amending Standard No. 213 (51 FR 5335; copy enclosed). NHTSA had published a proposal that would have required all all child restraints except child harnesses to pass the 30 mile per hour (mph) frontal crash test of Standard No. 213 without attaching any tether strap. However, a number of commenters urged the agency to also exempt child restraints design for handicapped children from the proposed requirement to pass the 30 test without attaching any tether strap. These comments are discussed in 51 FR 5338. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) amended the final rule to provide that child restraints for use by physically handicapped children could attach tether straps during the mph test. As noted in the preamble to that final rule, "there is no alternative at present to the use of tether straps to provide the necessary upper torso support for physically handicapped children. Hence, any requirement to eliminate the use of tether straps on restraints for physically handicapped children would lessen the protection available for those children."

NHTSA knows of at least one manufacturer of child restraints for use by physically handicapped children that has incorporated a tether strap and certified that these restraints comply with all requirements of Standard No. 213. Since it is possible to offer these children the safe level of crash protection afforded to all other children, NHTSA believes there is no reason to permit physically handicapped children to be offered a lesser degree of safety protection in the event of a clash.

If you have any further questions or need more information on this topic, please contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

September 4, 1986

Office, Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Att: Steve Oesch NOA--32

Dear Mr. Oesch:

I have been told that I should contact your office regarding a ruling about wheel chair seating systems being used in cars as carseats for infants.

I have enclosed a picture of the system seat belted in the car and also a picture of it in a stroller. The system is designed to be used in a wheel chair or stroller on an independent base. As you can tell, this system is used with very handicapped children who need positioning support whenever sitting.

My question is this: Does adaptive equipment such as this system need to meet federal regulations regarding child seating systems for automobiles?

Could you please inform me of this. It would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Terry Woodman Orthotist Winkley Orthopedic Laboratories

ID: 86-5.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/21/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Herbert Epstein -- Senior Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, Fort Motor Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your request for an interpretation of a portion of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) response to the petitions for reconsideration of the final rule establishing the Federal motor vehicle theft prevention standard (51 FR 8831, at 8835, March 14, 1986).

Specifically, you were concerned about the following language:

A manufacturer is free under this standard and the Theft Act to use a transparent paint mask and to specify in its contracts with its dealers that the dealer must remove the mask before selling vehicles or parts. However, if the dealer does not remove the mask, both the manufacturer and the dealer could be liable for violating section 607(a) of the Cost Saving Act. The manufacturer and dealer might both be liable for selling a vehicle not in compliance with the theft prevention standard (prohibited by section 607(a)(1)) and the manufacturer might be liable for falsely certifying that the vehicle complies with the theft prevention standard (prohibited by section 607(a)(4)(B)). The manufacturer must assume its portion of this risk if it wishes to use a transparent integral paint mask that must be removed by its dealers.

You stated in your letter that this discussion could be read as imposing vicarious liability on the manufacturers for a dealer's failure to remove a paint mask after the dealer had painted over the mask. You then asked whether NHTSA's opinion would be affected if the manufacturer provided the dealer in writing, either by letter or service bulletin, instructions on how to protect the labels during dealer preparation and advice that Federal law required dealers to remove the paint mask after performing the dealer preparation operations. Such a step would affect the agency's opinion as to the manufacturer's liability for the non-removal of a paint mask, as explained below.

The language you quoted from the preamble was intended to alert vehicle and parts manufacturers to their statutory obligations under section 607(a) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 2027(a)). When dealers must take further actions to bring a vehicle into compliance with the theft prevention standard, section 607 of the Cost Savings Act requires the vehicle manufacturer to exercise due care to ensure that the dealers will, in fact, perform such further actions. See sections 607(a)(4)(B) and 607(b) of the Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 2027(a) (4)(B) and 2027(b)). The language quoted above from the agency response to the petitions for reconsideration implicitly acknowledged this due care defense by stating that manufacturers "could" and "might" be liable for violations of section 607(a) if paint masks were not removed by dealers.

It is not possible for us to give a hard and fast rule of what constitutes due care in all circumstances. For example, a manufacturer that learns that its dealers generally are not removing the paint masks must do more to establish that it exercised due care than it did before it learned of such failures by its dealers. As a general proposition, however, NHTSA believes that a manufacturer using transparent paint masks to protect its labels has exercised due care, and therefore is not liable for violations of section 607(a), when it takes the following steps:

1. The manufacturer includes a provision in its contracts with each of its dealers obligating the dealer to remove the transparent paint masks;

2. The manufacturer issues a service bulletin to all of its dealers providing instructions on how to protect the label during painting, rustproofing, etc., and on how and when to remove the transparent paint masks; and

3. The manufacturer reminds the dealers, either in the service bulletin or in a separate letter, of their contractual and statutory obligations to remove transparent paint masks after performing dealer preparation operations, if the label is then obscured by the paint mask.

Absent unusual circumstances, NHTSA would conclude that a manufacturer has exercised due care for the purposes of section 607 of the Cost Savings Act if the manufacturer has taken these three steps.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

June 16, 1986

Erika Z. Jones, Esquire -- Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Ms. Jones:

Request for Interpretation

The agency stated, * in commenting on 49 CFR @ 541.5(d)(1)(ii)(C), that a manufacturer of a vehicle or replacement part covered by the Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard ("Standard") might be vicariously liable for a dealer's failure to remove a transparent paint mask from an identification label after the dealer painted over the mask even though the manufacturer's contract with the dealer required such removal. The comment did not, however, discuss the situation in which the manufacturer, in addition to entering into such a contract, also provided to the dealer a writing (for example, by a letter or a service bulletin) which

(1) provided instructions on how to protect the label during painting, rustproofing, undercoating or like operation;

(2) stated that, in NHTSA's opinion, federal law required the removal of the protective mask after such operation, if the mask then obscured the label; and (3) stated that violators might be subject to a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 per violation.

* Docket No. T84-01; Notice 9, "Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard and Selection of Covered Major Parts; Response to Petitions for Reconsideration", 51 Fed. Reg. 8831, 8835 (1986).

In our view, any dealer who breached his contract in the face of such a writing would not be engaged in "normal" dealer preparation operations within the meaning of @ 541.5(d)(1)(ii)(C); to the contrary, the dealer's actions would be in derogation of his contractual obligations. Moreover, by contracting with the dealer and instructing him in the foregoing manner, the manufacturer would have exercised as high a degree of care to prevent the dealer's non-compliance as is reasonable to expect of it. Therefore, we assume you would agree that if a dealer failed in such circumstances to remove the mask he obscured, the manufacturer would have no reason to know in the exercise of due care that the dealer had put the regulated vehicle or replacement part out of compliance with the Standard (15 U.S.C. @ 2027(b)), and would not be liable for the dealer's failure.

We respectfully request your confirmation of our interpretation. Should you have any questions, please contact me. My telephone number is (313) 322-4397.

Respectfully yours,

Herbert Epstein -- Senior Attorney

cc: Stephen R. Kratzke, Esquire

ID: 86-5.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/24/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. H. Tsujishita

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of July 15, 1986, asking three interpretation questions concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 101, Controls and Displays, and 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. The answers to your questions are provided below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the information provided in your letter.

Your first question concerns the visibility requirements for the upper beam telltale (indicator). As noted by your letter, section S5.3.3 of Standard No. 101 provides that the light intensity of each telltale shall be such that, when activated, that telltale and its identification are visible to the driver under all daytime and nighttime conditions. The upper beam telltale is one of the telltales subject to that requirement. You note, however, that section S4.5.2 of Standard No. 108 requires a high beam indicator that conforms to SAE Recommended Practice J564a (except that the signal color need not be red). J564a provides that the upper beam indicator should be "plainly visible to drivers of all heights under normal driving conditions when headlights are required." Based on this provision, you suggest that the upper beam telltale is not required to be visible to the driver under the daytime conditions when headlamps are not needed. As discussed below, your understanding is incorrect.

The difference between these two requirements is not so great as you suggest. The reference to "normal driving conditions" in J564a includes a variety of non-nighttime conditions (e.g., driving at dusk or dawn, and driving in daytime rainstorms) when headlamp use may be required by the States. To the extent that Standard No. 101 requires the telltale to be visible under daylight driving conditions not covered by Standard No. 108, manufacturers must meet the broader requirement. Manufacturers are required to meet all applicable safety standards. We note that while Standards Nos. 101 and 108 each cover upper beam telltales and specify different requirements, it is possible to meet the requirements of both standards simultaneously.

You stated that under daylight conditions the upper beam cannot dazzle oncoming drivers and that there is therefore no need to inform the driver that the upper beam is on. While there may be less need for this telltale during daylight than at night, Standard No. 101 reflects our belief that there is still a need and requires that the telltale be visible under all daytime and nighttime conditions (if the upper beams are actually on).

Your second question concerns the upper beam telltale minimum area requirement. SAE Recommended Practice J564a, which, as noted above, is referenced by section S4.5.2 of Standard No. 108, provides that the upper beam indicator should consist of a "light, with a minimum area equivalent to that of a 3/16 in. diameter circle." You asked how this requirement would apply to two designs.

In the first design, the outline of the telltale symbol would lighten while the area within and around the telltale symbol would not. You suggested that the framed area, i.e., the area within the telltale that is framed by the outline but not lighted itself, can be counted into the minimum area requirement. As discussed below, that is incorrect. In the second design, the telltale symbol would be superimposed on a rectangle. In this case, the entire area within the rectangle would lighten, except for that covered by the symbol itself. You suggested that the lighted area other than that covered by the symbol can be counted toward the minimum area requirement. As discussed below, that is correct.

In referencing SAE Recommended Practice J564a, Standard No. 108 requires that the upper beam indicator must consist of a light, and also specifies the minimum area for that light. It does not specify the shape of the light. If the light is a simple circle which is lighted in its entirety (with the identification required by Standard No. 101 placed adjacent to the circle), that lighted circle must be at least 3/16 inch in diameter. If the light is some other shape, such as the shape of the upper beam symbol or a rectangle in which only part of the area is lighted, the total area which is lighted must be at least as large as the area of a 3/16 inch circle. Thus, in the case of the first design discussed above, only the outline area (i.e., the blue lighted area) of the upper beam symbol can be counted toward the minimum area requirement. The unlighted interior part (i.e., the black area) of the symbol cannot be counted toward the minimum area requirement. In the case of the second design discussed above, the entire (blue) area within the rectangle that lightens can be counted toward the minimum area requirement. However, that part of the rectangle which does not lighten, i.e., the (white) part covered by the symbol, cannot be counted.

Your third question concerns Standard No. 101's illumination requirements for a side marker lamp control that is incorporated into the master lighting switch. As suggested by your letter and as discussed below, illumination is not required if the identifying symbol for the side marker lamps is marked on the master lighting switch.

While Table 1 of Standard No. 101 requires that side marker lamp controls be identified with the side marker lamp control symbol and that such identification be illuminated, it also provides that separate identification is not required if controlled by the master lighting switch. Thus, for side marker lamp controls that are incorporated into the master lighting switch, use of the side maker lamp control symbol is voluntary. Since such identification is not required by Standard No. 101, it is our opinion that the standard does not require manufacturers to illuminate such identification if they choose to provide it voluntarily.

SINCERELY,

AGENDA 4-b DAIHATSU MOTOR CO., LTD.

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Ms. Jones:

Additionally to the questions which we sent by letter date Feb. 18, 1986, would you please kindly answer the questions with regard to the interpretation of FMVSS Nos. 101 and 108 as described on the following pages?

H. Tsujishita Chief Co-ordinator of Technical Administration Dept. Head Office

ENC.

1. FMVSS Nos. 108 & 101; Highbeam Indicator Visibility requirement

Paragraph S5.3.3 of FMVSS No. 101 provides that each tell-tale and its identification shall be visible to the driver under all daytime and night time conditions. According to this provision, highbeam tell-tale shall be visible even under daytime condition.

On the other hand, paragraph S4.5.2. of FMVSS No. 108 requires a highbeam indicator which conforms to SAE J564a on each vehicle, and SAE J564a provides that the highbeam indicator shall be plainly visible to the driver under normal driving conditions when head lights are required. That means, under daytime conditions whenhead lights are not required, the highbeam indicator is not needed to be plainly visible.

We believe that the purpose of the highbeam indicator is essentially to indicate the driver that the upper beam of the head lamps are on to prevent the opposite driver from being dazzled by passing each other with the upper beam on. Under the daytime condition, as the upper beam can not dazzle the opposite driver any longer, and there is no need to indicate the driver trat the upper beam is on.

Therefore we believe that the high beam indicator (tell-tale) is not required to be visible to the driver under the daytime conditions when head lights are not needed.

Is our understanding right?

2. FMVSS No. 108; Highbeam Indicator Minimum Area Requirement

As stated above, S4.5.2 of FMVSS No. 108 requires a highbeam indicator which conforms to SAE J564a on each vehicle, and SAE J564a provides that the highbeam indicator shall have a minimum area equivalent to that of a 3/16 in. diameter circle.

A. In case that only the frame of the tell-tale will be lighten

We believe the framed area can be counted into the minimum area requirement.

B. In case that the background of the tell-tale will be lighten

We believe the entire shaded area can be counted into the minimum area requirement.

If our understanding is wrong, please explain in the above requirement in detail.

(Graphics omitted)

3. FMVSS No. 101; Side Marker Lamp Control Illumination

Table 1 of FMVSS No. 101 requires that the identification of side marker lamp control shall be illuminated when the head lamps are on, and it also provides in its footnote that separate identification (for the side marker lamp control) are not required if the side marker lamp are controlled by the master lighting switch. In case that the side marker lamps are are controlled by the master lighting switch and the identifing symbol for the side marker lamps is marked on the switch voluntarily by the manufacturer, we believe that the illumination for the side marker lamp control is not required, because the side marker lamp control which is combined into the master lighting switch is easily identifiable.

Is our understanding right?

ID: 86-5.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/24/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z.Jones; NHTSA

TO: Paul Meeker -- Senior Product Designer, Century Products, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 6/3/85 letter from Jeffrey Miller to Frederick Locker (Std. 213)

TEXT:

Mr Paul Meeker Senior Product Designer Century Products, Inc. 1366 Commerce Drive Stow, OH 44224-1793

This responds to your letter to Mr. Vladislav Radovich of our Rulemaking division, seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR S571.213). Specifically, you noted that Collier-Keyworth now sells a child seat with a movable shield that is not spring-loaded. A movable shield that is not spring-loaded will remain in position in front of the child seat occupant, even if the crotch strap attached to the shield is not properly fastened. You stated that your company would like to build a child seat with a movable shield that is not spring-loaded, and stated your opinion that shields need not be spring-loaded to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 213.

Your opinion is correct if read narrowly, because no provision of Standard No. 213 requires or ever has required movable shields on child restraints to be spring-loaded. However, if a child restraint incorporates a movable shield, section S6.1.2.1.2 of Standard No. 213 specifies that the child restraint must be certified as complying with test configuration II. In test configuration II, the child restraints subjected to a 20 mile per hour frontal crash. Section S6.1.2.3.1(c) provides that none of the child restraint must be attached during this test, unless the belts are an integral part of the movable shield. Because of this requirement and the agency's interpretations thereof, child restraints have generally incorporated spring-loaded movable shields. This agency discussed these provisions and their applicability to the Collier-Keyworth non-spring-loaded shields at length in a July 1985, letter to Mr. Frederick Locker. I have enclosed a copy of this letter for your information.

If you have any further questions about this subject after reviewing the letter to Mr. Locker, please contact Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

See 6/3/85 letter from Jeffrey R. Miller to Frederick B. Locker

July 31, 1986

Mr. Val Radovitch DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Thank you for taking time to visit with Barbara Kelleher, Bob Quinlin and me on July 30.

Per our conversation, I am enclosing a copy of the Collier "Classic" Car Seat literature which shows its non-spring-load flip-over shield.

As we discussed, Century would like to build a seat with a similar flip-over shield and is concerned about whether it is necessary to spring-load the shield. Our opinion is that this type of shield meets the standard without spring-loading.

Will you comment?

Best Regards,

Paul Meeker Senior Product Designer

PM/dg enc.

ID: 86-5.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/24/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mrs. Bettie Lou Simcox

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mrs. Bettie Lou Simcox 10 Martin Place Little Falls, NJ 07424-1709

Dear Mrs. Simcox:

This is in reply to your letter of August 28, 1986, to Taylor Vinson of this Office regarding the acceptability of an aftermarket stop lamp intended for installation on motorcycles. The product is a stop lamp that, when the brake is applied, pulses before going into a steady-burning mode. The New Jersey Department of Motor Vehicles has informed you that stop lamps are required by Federal law to be steady-burning. A representative of this agency has told you that such lamp would be acceptable as a supplementary stop lamp, but not as a replacement lamp. You are writing us for confirmation of the Federal requirement.

Your understanding is essentially correct. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment requires most vehicle lamps, including stop lamps, to be steady-burning in use, though signal lamps such as turn signals and hazard warning signals must flash. Further, the replacement of an original equipment steady-burning stop lamp with one that flashes before becoming steady-burning would be considered a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act if performed by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, though not if performed by the owner of the vehicle. As for the acceptability of the device as a supplementary stop lamp, Standard No. 108 really does not contemplate a supplementary stop lamp for motorcycles. Although requiring at least ? stop lamp, the standard allows two provided that they "are symmetrically disposed around the vertical centerline." We interpret this a s meaning that a second stop lamp must be identical in all respects to the first one, for surely a confusing situation would result if stop lamps on either side of the vertical centerline were unequal in size or in method of operation. However, the flashing/steady burning stop lamp mounted the vertical centerline would be permissible as an addition to motorcycle stop lamp systems consisting of two lamps mounted on either side of the vertical centerline. Alternatively, if you wished to add two pulsing stoplamps mounted symmetrically around the vertical centerline in addition to the steady-burning original equipment stoplamp, that also would be permissible.

We appreciate your interest in motorcycle safety, and your taking the time to write us of your concerns.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

BETTIE LOU SIMCOX 10 Martin Place Little Falls, N.J. 07424-1709

August 28, 1986

Mr. Taylor Vinson N.H.T.S.A. - 5219 U.S. Dept. of Transportation 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Vinson,

As an advocate of motorcycling I am writing your office for assistance. My husband and I are members a AMA and GWRRA. Our Chapter of GWRRA is based in Northern, New Jersey.

A new product has appeared on the market and before purchasing same I wanted to check the legality of it. It is a stop light which pulsates then turns to a continuous-on light when the brakes are applied. I called many people but no one could give me any information on the laws governing this particular type of lighting so I called New Jersey division of Motor Vehicles. After speaking to different departments, as no one knew the answer, I finally reached the Engineering Department. The gentleman there stated such product would not be legal as only signal lights and hazard lights were approved to pulsate. He further informed me that this was not a State Regulation but a Federal Statute and that the governing department is D.O.T. I then called washington, D.C. Again, I talked to many different departments before finally reaching the Crash Avoidance Department. The information received from them is ? lighting device such as I described would be legal IF used as ADDITIONAL light source not as a REPLACEMENT stop light. Then the brake light from the factory was intact and operating as continuous-on light, then this additional light could be used.

Naturally we want to operate our vehicles legally, but we also want to operate safely. So upon recommendation, I am writing to your office for legal confirmation of this Statue in writing.

Any device which will call attention to our motorcycles to avoid an accident is necessary as far as we are concerned. Too many people think all motorcyclists as "Hell's Angels" type when in fact they represent a very small percentage of cycling entourage. Most of our Chapter members are in the over 40 age bracket. We purchase expensive motorcycles and"dress" them will. Too we wreak because someone says "Oh I didn't know you were going ? I didn't see your lights" and rear-ends us.

I thank you for taking time from your busy schedule to read my letter. Any information you may be able to supply will be greatly appreciated by many.

Awaiting your reply I remain,

Sincerely yours,

Bettie Lou Simcox

ID: 86-5.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/24/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Heinz Huentemann

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Heinz Huentemann Vice-President Spartan Transit Supply Corp. 325 Fairlane Drive Spartanburg, SC 29302

Dear Mr. Huentemann:

This responds to your letter dated June 17, 1986, asking how our regulations affect a convex outside mirror manufactured by your company. In your letter, you state that this convex mirror has a reflective surface of 92.5 square inches, and would be used on the curb side of a transit bus. You also state that this convex mirror has a radius of curvature of 94.5 inches. You specifically asked whether this mirror could be used on the curb side of a transit bus.

Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, a copy of which is enclosed, sets different requirements for buses depending on whether the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) is above 10,000 pounds. I believe that the GVWR of a transit bus would exceed 10,000 pounds.

Buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds must meet S7.1, which requires buses, other than school buses, to have outside mirrors of unit magnification, each with not less than 50 square inches of reflective surface, installed with stable supports on both sides of the vehicle. These mirrors must also be located so as to provide the driver a view to the rear along both sides of the vehicle and must be adjustable both in the horizontal and vertical directions to view the rearward scene. Although the surface, due to the 94.5-inch radius of curvature, it is not a unit magnification or plane mirror. Therefore, it does not meet the requirements for rearview mirrors on new buses.

A manufacturer of new transit buses could use your convex mirror on the curb side of the bus in addition to a unit magnification mirror which ? all applicable requirements of Standard No. 111. However, a commercial business could not substitute your mirror for a complying mirror. Section 108(a) (2) (A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety ? prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, or dealer of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, or any motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with a safety standard. Thus, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business could not remove a unit magnification rearview mirror, installed as original equipment in compliance with our standard, and replace that mirror with a convex mirror.

The sample of your rearview mirror, #STS-0-253, is being returned to you under separate cover.

I hope this information is helpful to you.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Legal Council - NHPSA - NHTSA Room 5219 US-Department of Transportation 407th Street SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Gentlemen:

Re: Authorization for use of convex outside mirrors with convexity of approximately 94.5" radius for installation on curb side of 130 Transit Buses for SEPTA, Philadelphia, PA

We are supplying the inside- and outside mirrors for a number of 130 AD8? Transit Buses to be built by Neoplan USA Corporation, Lamar, CO for Southeastern Pennsylvania Transport Authority, Philadelphia, PA.

On the curb side, these buses will be equipped with a mirror 14 x 6.6" having a mirror surface of 92.5 sq. inch. The convexity is abt.94.5" in mirror radius.

With this petition we enclose a sample of this mirror, #STS-0.253, and which we please may ask you to return to us after inspection.

Having contacted by phone the National Highway Safety Administration and the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Bureau of Traffic Safety Operations, Harrisburg, PA, we have been advised, that in accordance with FMVSS 1011 and 49 CFR Standard 111 a convex mirror on the curb side can have a convexity between 35" minimum to 65" maximum. Since our mirror has convexity of 94.5" radius it is meeting the required standard.

As this matter is of urgency, may we please, ask to have your written authorization at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely, Spartan Transit Supply Corp.

Heinz Huentemann Vice-President

Encl. - 1 Sample mirror - # STS - 0.253