Interpretation 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