ID: aiam5586

Dear Mr. Di Vito: This responds to your May 22, 1995, letter requestin an interpretation regarding the testing requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, 'Glazing Materials.' I apologize for the delay in responding. You stated in your letter that you have been requested to manufacture for BMW some type 15A side window security glazing with an internal spall shield coating. Because of the adhesive with which it is applied, this coating cannot pass test number 4 of ANSI Z.26.1-1977 (the boil test). Nevertheless, you urge that test number 5 (the bake test) be used as a substitute for purposes of compliance certification. The boil test and the bake test are not equivalent, and your glazing would have to meet the boil test. Although both tests subject the glazing to the same heat for the same period, the bake test applies the heat using an oven, whereas the boil test applies the heat using boiling water. Section 5 of Z.26 explicitly states that the boil test is to be used for safety glass and that the bake test is only to be used for multiple glazed units. The illustrations that you enclosed with your letter show that your glazing is not a multiple glazed unit. Therefore, it has to meet the boil test to be certified for use on motor vehicles sold in this country. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to write Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or call him at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam2614

Dear Mr. Long: Your letter of May 9, 1977, to the Federal Trade Commission, on behal of Mr. Edward L. Armstrong, Sr., Baltimore, Maryland, expressing his concern that new passenger car manufacturers will discontinue supplying spare tires, has been referred to this office of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation, for additional consideration and reply.; We believe that Mr. Armstrong's concern deals with the recentl approved 'temporary use' spare tire that will be manufactured and used with some of the new 1978 model automobiles. the use of a temporary use spare tire is not a new concept. These tires have been used with compact sport cars, such as Firebird and Camaro, since 1967. The further development of these spare tires has been fostered by the desire if the U.S. automobile manufacturers to produce small, lightweight cars in furtherance of the national energy conservation program. I am sure that you have noticed the new 1977 models by some domestic automobile manufacturers are, in fact, smaller. Of course, the development of these smaller, lightweight, energy-efficient automobiles has resulted in a substantial reduction in usable car trunk space, and therefore, providing a second reason to develop a spare tire which takes less storage space than a conventional tire.; Since this spare tire is designed for use in the nation's highways, i must conform to the minimum performance requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 109, *New Pneumatic Tires - Passenger Cars*, for strength, endurance and high speed performance, For your information, we have enclosed a copy of this standard.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs;

ID: nht78-3.11

DATE: 10/06/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Southwest Research Institute

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 27, 1978, letter concerning the requirements of Safety Standard No. 207 as they would apply to pedestal seat assemblies for use in van vehicles. You ask whether your test methodology is consistent with the requirements of the standard and whether the pedestal base is considered part of the seat assembly.

As you know, the agency does not approve a manufacturer's test methods. A manufacturer must exercise due care to ascertain that his product is in compliance with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards and regulations. While your test methods appear to be reasonable, the agency will test seats in the vehicle rather than on a surrogate test frame. You must exercise due care to assure that your simulated test is a true determination whether the seats would comply with the standard when tested as provided in that standard. (The vehicle manufacturer is, of course, responsible for compliance with Standard 207.)

Regarding your second question, the pedestal base would be considered part of the seat assembly for purposes of Standard 207. This means that the agency would test the entire assembly by applying a force of 20 times the combined weight of the seat and the pedestal, contrary to your simulated test procedure of using only the weight of the seat frame and adjuster, without the pedestal base attached.

Finally, the force requirements of Safety Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, (5,000 pounds) are applied simultaneously with the force requirements in Standard No. 207, if the anchorages are connected to the vehicle seat, to the pedestal, or to the pedestal base.

Please contact this office if you have any further questions, and please excuse the delay in this response.

SINCERELY,

SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE

DEPARTMENT OF STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS AND FIRE TECHNOLOGY

June 27, 1978

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of Chief Counsel

Attention: Chief Counsel

Subject: Interpretation of FMVSS 207/210 Load Application to Van Seating Assemblies Gentlemen:

SwRI is currently performing qualification testing of van seating systems for commercial seat assembly manufacturers. The purpose of these tests has been to provide test data which demonstrates that the seat assembly appears to qualify to the requirements of FMVSS 207. These seat assemblies consist of a seat frame, seat adjuster tracks (if applicable), and pedestal base. Since this entire assembly is manufactured as a separate component for sale to van manufacturers, SwRI performs the tests and reports the results with the understanding that the portion of the assembly above the pedestal base does/does not appear to qualify to the load/time profile requirements of the Standard. In addition, SwRI insures that the test conditions which are not consistent with the requirements of FMVSS 207 are delineated, which are:

1. The assembly is tested on a rigid test frame (not in a vehicle).

2. SwRI utilizes available fasteners to secure the pedestal base to the test fixture (since OEM fasteners are not available).

3. Satisfactory test results are reported which indicate that only the seat structure and fasteners attaching the seat frame to the adjuster track and pedestal base appear to qualify to the requirements of FMVSS 207.

4. The fore/aft CG loads are calculated based on the seat frame and adjuster weight without the pedestal base attached.

SwRI would like an interpretation to determine if this methodology is consistent with the requirements of FMVSS 207.

SwRI has recently received a "barrel" van seat assembly which is constructed as illustrated in the attached sketch. This assembly has seat belt anchorage holes in the gussetted plate. The seat frame is attached to the gussetted plate which is secured to the pedestal base. SwRI would like an interpretation on the correct load application to this assembly by responding to the following:

* Is the load applied as required in FMVSS 207 -- i.e. Forward CG load = 20 x seat assembly weight + 2500 lbs. for each anchorage?

or

* Is the FMVSS 210 load (5000 lbs.) applied separately?

It appears the key question with these seat assemblies is, "Is the pedestal base considered a part of the seat assembly as it applies to the FMVSS 207 requirements?"

Your prompt response to this request will be appreciated as SwRI has a sponsor awaiting test results.

Charles J. Kerr Research Engineer

cc: VINCE QUARLES SEAT STRUCTURE TUBING

FIBERBOARD

PEDESTAL BASE

PEDESTAL ANCHORAGE POINTS

GUSSETTED PLATE

SEAT BELT ANCHORAGE POINTS

"BARREL" VAN SEAT ASSEMBLY

(Graphics omitted)

ID: 12-003091 Giordano (Std. No 120)

ID: nht74-2.36

DATE: 05/06/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Questor Juvenile Products Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 9, 1974, petition to substitute the proposed performance requirements for child harness testing under Standard No. 213, Child seating systems, for the performance requirements of Standard No. 209, Seat belt assemblies, to which Questor's Model 275 child harness is presently subject. As reasons for the substitution, you cite the inappropriateness of attachment hardware requirements (S4.3(c)) and the configuration of the test device (Figure 7) of Standard No. 209 as well as the desirability of testing to dynamic performance requirements which may become a part of Standard No. 213.

The Standard No. 213 dynamic test values which you recommend are only proposals at this time. Interested parties have not had a full opportunity to comment on them and the NHTSA has not, of course, had the opportunity to fully evaluate them. For these reasons your petition to substitute these new dynamic tests for the Standard No. 209 static tests is denied.

You state that testing of the Model 275 to the assembly performance requirements of Standard No. 209 (S4.4(c)) is complicated by the configuration of the test device for Type III harnesses, which is not suited to test a child harness such as the Questor No. 275 that utilizes the adult front lap belts and the rear adult lap belt or the package shelf as attachment points.

Paragraph S5.3(c)(2) of Standard No. 209 directs that in such a case "attachment shall be . . . in accordance with the [manufacturer's] installation instructions". As adherence to Model 275 installation instructions requires a front and rear adult belt installation (and in some cases a package shelf) the use of an actual vehicle bench seat in a passenger car would be an appropriate method to evaluate the assembly under S4.4(c) of Standard No. 209. Moreover, because the 12-inch extension requirement for an assembly tested under S4.4(c) is based on zero deflection of the test device, the actual vehicle seat should be modified to eliminate deflection.

The NHTSA has previously determined that the requirements of S4.3(c) of Standard No. 209 do not apply to bolts used to secure an adult upper torso restraint, other than the continuous loop type. Similarly, we interpret this provision not apply to the child harness upper torso restraint described in your letter. The bolts would be regulated with respect to strength only by the assembly performance requirements of S4.4(c).

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

April 9, 1974

Richard B. Dyson -- Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Dear Mr. Dyson:

Questor Corporation has recently developed a novel child restraint harness that is to be marketed under the brand name "Infanseat Model 275 Child Restraint Harness." This restraint system has been under development for over two years to provide maximum dynamic performance at least possible cost to the consumer.

The Infanseat Model 275 Child Restraint Harness has closely approached the dynamic performance objectives proposed by the DOT to be effective September 1, 1975. When tested with a standard Sierra three-year-old child dummy, this restraint limited head excursion to 18.8 inches in a 30 mph frontal barrier impact test. Additional improvements in design have been made which will further reduce head excursion.

The unique design characteristics of this harness, which provide exceptional dynamic performance, also present difficulties in determining its compliance with FMVSS 209 for Type 3 seat belt assemblies. These problems were discussed with Messrs. R. Jasinski, J. Gilkey, T. Herlihy, and M. Peskoe during a personal visit to Washington on April 4. Mr. Jasinski also reviewed the situation in a phone conversation with Mr. R. Hitchcock. It was suggested after these conversations that this letter be written to you, outlining the areas of concern relative to FMVSS 209.

The design of Infanseat Model 275 Child Restraint Harness departs radically from child harnesses commercially available to date. Current harnesses require mounting to the floor of the automobile to restrain the child and vehicle seat back from movement during impact or load. Inasmuch as this floor anchorage could inadvertently be used by the present automobile owner or subsequent owners for an adult lap belt attachment point, it is understandable that FMVSS 209 would require the strength of this anchorage to be no less than 5,000 pounds, paragraph S4.3 (c) (1).

It is further recognized that currently available child harnesses loop over the adult backrest of automobiles, prior to being themselves anchored to the vehicle floor, and thus largely rely upon the strength of the automobile backrest to reduce movement of the child in an accident situation and/or also restrain the backrest. The assembly performance criteria of FMVSS 209 paragraphs S5.3 (c) (1) through (4) provide some degree of simulating this installation, and yet the force requirement that the complete assembly is required to withstand is 2,000 pounds, 100 per cent greater than the force requirements of FMVSS 213.

The Model 275 Child Harness is shown in accompanying Figures 1 and 2. The significant differences in its installation when compared with existing harnesses are readily apparent.

Firstly, an adult lap belt is used to position the lower portion of the child's harness both laterally and forwardly. Secondly, a back strap, or upper tie-down, connects the child harness at the shoulder strap area to either a rear seat adult lap belt for a front seat installation (Figure 1) in an automobile or to a supplementary anchor installed in the metal portion of the panel between the seat back and the rear window for rear seat installation (Figure 2). Neither the front nor rear seat installations require changes or additions to anchorages at the vehicle floor.

The viability of the upper tie-down attachment has been dynamically demonstrated by a well-known child seating restraint system that not only must restrain the child but also the child seating system itself. The upper tie-down strap most nearly approximates the function of an adult shoulder strap; that is, it keeps the upper torso from pivoting forward in a frontal impact. FMVSS 209 does not specify minimum force requirements for either Type 2, Type 2a, or Type 3 upper torso restraint attachment hardware.

It is suggested, therefore, that the requirements within FMVSS 209 for attachment hardware are neither clear nor appropriate for the Infanseat harness. In addition, the test method for assembly performance does not provide for the recommended installation of this product.

While attempts could be made to modify the simulated seat back shown in Figure 7 of FMVSS 209 to provide for the installation of the Infanseat harness, it is felt that any modification will not adequately reporduce the distribution of forces encountered in real-world situations. Also, any approved simulated static load test of a complete assembly at this time is not felt to be appropriate with dynamic testing of child harnesses soon to be required.

It is respectfully suggested that rather than subject the DOT to possible adverse public criticism by requesting another static test to determine the adequacy of the complete Infanseat harness assembly, it be excluded from the attachment hardware and complete assembly requirements of FMVSS 209. In lieu of these requirements, the Infanseat harness should be required to prevent head excursion of a Sierra three-year-old test device beyond 18 inches in a simulated 30 mph frontal impact test. The Infanseat harness would thus be required to meet the DOT's proposed dynamic performance requirements for child restraints.

Data substantiating the dynamic performance of the Infanseat harness has been independently verified by tests conducted for Consumers Union on prototype harnesses. These tests were not published by CU because the harnesses were not available commercially when their magazine went to press. Additional tests have been conducted to determine the suitability of various materials, installations, and test devices. Significant improvements to the harness are expected to be made, such that it appears likely in the very near future to provide dynamic protection for six-year-old children within the proposed excursion limits desired by the DOT.

As important as the Infanseat harness's dynamic performance is its expected retail selling price. The DOT and child restraint manufacturers are equally concerned that children's restraint devices be affordable by the largest possible segment of the public. It is recognized that the purchase and, therefore, the eventual use of children's restraints are directly related to their cost. The Infanseat harness is expected to be marketed at one-half to one-third of the price of existing restraint systems.

Thank you for your attention to this request for revised interim requirements that would be applicable to the Infanseat harness, and your early response shall be greatly appreciated. It is understood that this product would automatically be required to comply with the proposed revisions to FMVSS 213 when they become effective.

Yours very truly,

QUESTOR JUVENILE PRODUCTS COMPANY;

J. P. Koziatek, P.E. #E-36338 -- Director, Technical Services

Attachments

cc: R. Hitchcock; T. W. Herlihy; M. P. Peskoe; J. C. Gilkey; R. Jasinski

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: 08-001603drn bus driver compartment

ID: glazingquestions23315

Byung-Jae Yoon, President
Dae Kwang Special Glass Co., Ltd.
25-2, Palyong-Dong
Changwon-Si
Kyeong-Nam 641-405, Korea





Dear Mr. Yoon:

Your letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regarding the use of your DOT code has been referred to my office for reply. I apologize for the delay in responding. You ask 1) whether you can mold the DOT code on glass that you manufacture for off-road equipment, 2) whether you must self-certify your products, 3) whether your "coding plan," as provided through an example, is correct, and 4) whether your DOT code needs to be updated every two to three years.

By way of background information, NHTSA has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Federal law establishes a self-certification system under which motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers themselves certify that their products comply with all applicable standards. For that reason, NHTSA does not approve or conduct testing of products prior to their introduction into the retail market. Rather, we enforce compliance with the standards by purchasing vehicles and equipment and testing them. We also investigate safety-related defects.

Pursuant to NHTSA's authority, the agency has established FMVSS No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205). FMVSS No. 205 incorporates by reference the 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 Z26.1a, July 3, 1980 (ANS Z26)." FMVSS No. 205 and ANS Z26 specify performance requirements for various types of glazing (called "items") and specify the locations in vehicles in which each item of glazing may be used.

You first ask whether you may mold your DOT code on your products manufactured for use on off-road equipment. The answer is yes. However, all glazing that is marked with the DOT code must comply with the marking and certification requirements set forth in FMVSS No. 205. S6 of Standard No. 205 establishes marking and certification requirements for manufacturers and distributors of glazing materials. S6.1 requires every "prime glazing material manufacturer" (defined in S6.1 of Standard No. 205 as "one who fabricates, laminates, or tempers the glazing material") to mark all glazing materials it manufactures in accordance with section 6 of ANS Z26. S6.3 requires each prime glazing manufacturer to certify each piece of glazing designed to be cut into components for use in motor vehicles pursuant to the requirements of our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30115. Each manufacturer or distributor who would not be considered a "prime glazing material manufacturer," but who cuts a section of glazing material to which Standard No. 205 applies, must comply with the requirements set forth in S6.4 and S6.5 of Standard No. 205. For sections of glazing that are cut by the manufacturer or distributor, the manufacturer or distributor must mark it in accordance with section 6 of ANS Z26 (S6.4) and certify it in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30115.

Second, you ask whether your own certification showing that your products passed your own test requirements meeting FMVSS No. 205 is "good enough when they require us to issue certification." Each of the FMVSSs specifies the test conditions and procedures that NHTSA will use to evaluate whether a vehicle or equipment item conforms to the standard's performance requirements. However, the agency does not require a manufacturer to crash test vehicles or to evaluate its products only in the manner specified in the safety standards. A manufacturer may choose any means of evaluating a vehicle or equipment item to determine whether it complies with the requirements of the applicable FMVSS, provided that the vehicle or item does comply.

Third, you ask several questions regarding your "coding plan" for your products. As a preliminary matter, the designations AS1 and AS2 are codes required on glazing materials by section 6 of ANS Z26 which describe the locations in which the items of glazing are used. These items of glazing must meet the prescribed tests and locations described in sections 4 and 5 of ANS Z26 and in FMVSS No. 205. A copy of ANS Z26 is enclosed. Based on the information provided in your letter, your coding plan does not appear to be correct as different types of glazing, e.g., laminated and tempered, are typically not combined in the same piece of glazing. Coding as described in your letter (AS1 and AS2 with arrows) typically specifies different items of glazing based on differing levels of transparency. (In your letter you incorrectly refer to Items 1 and 2 as AS1 and AS2.) Further, laminated and tempered glass, depending on various factors such as location in vehicle, use, and transparency, may possibly be characterized as item 3 through item 16 glazing. For this reason, you need to examine each item listed in FMVSS 205 and ANS Z26 to determine how to classify and label your glazing. If, after examining FMVSS No. 205 and ANS Z26, you write us again with more information about a particular item of glazing or a glazing code, we would be happy to provide an interpretation as to whether it is correct.

Fourth, you ask whether your DOT code needs to be renewed every two to three years. The answer is no. Under our current requirements, you may continue to use your manufacturer code mark assigned by DOT indefinitely.

For your further information, I am enclosing a fact sheet we prepared entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment, and Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Nancy Bell of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:205
d.4/1/02

ID: nht90-3.7

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 5, 1990

FROM: Robert H. Jones -- President, Triple J Motors Saipan, Inc.

TO: Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance Enforcement, NHTSA

TITLE: Re REF: 2013-138

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-11-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Robert H. Jones (A37; VSA Sec. 103(8)); Also attached to letter dated 1-22-91 from Robert H. Jones to Clive Van Orden (OCC 5733); Also attached to letter dated 12-11-90 from Robert H. J ones to Clive Van Orden; Also attached to letter dated 10-11-90 from Robert H. Jones to Congressman Ben Blaz; Also attached to letter dated 7-6-89 from Bob Jones to Congressman Ben Blas

TEXT:

I have written letters to you in the past regarding the FMVSS compliance in the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands (CNMI), but have never seen any action.

It is my understanding that the FMVSS apply in full force to the CNMI. As such, I have dutifully refrained from bringing in nonconforming vehicles. Due to the apparent complete failure of any local enforcement (as admitted by local officials--see enclos ed letter), my competitors are not so constrained and are engaging in what seems like unfair competition by bringing in cheap nonconforming vehicles.

Now it is okay with me if you have no interest in "compliance enforcement" in the CNMI. Perhaps it's better for the people? I can get the cheap nonconforming cars too. All I want is a level playing field, and to know the rules. Will I get compliance enforcement? Or should I join the competition and bring in the vehicles that do not comply?

Attachment

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Office of the Governor Capitol Hill, Saipan MP/USA 96950 The Honorable Ben Blaz Phone: (670) 322-5091/2/3 Member of Congress Telefax: (670) 322-5096/99 1130 Longworth House Office Building Telex: 783-622 Gov.NMIWashington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Blaz:

Re: Triple J Motors - Bob Jones - Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) Applicability to the CNMI

We reply to your letter to us of October 5, 1990. You explain that Mr.

Bob Jones, of Triple J Motors, has a problem. It goes like this. Triple J, apparently, makes sure all the vehicles it imports and registers in the Commonwealth are in compliance with the FMVSS. Triple J fears possible federal enforcement action or. po ssibly worse, a customer law suit arising

from an auto accident and grounded on the company's failure to sell cars safety equipped to federal standards.

Compliance with these standards raises Triple J's investment in the automobiles so equipped. This added investment must be taken into consideration when Triple J sets its retail prices. Triple J's competitors in the Commonwealth, by design or accident, don't uniformly follow the federal standards. The competitor's retail prices need not, therefore, include consideration of the added cost of equipping vehicles for compliance with the FMVSS. Because of this, Triple J feels at a competitive disadvantag e in the market place. Triple J seeks a level playing field: It wants all CNMI automobile dealers compelled to follow the federal safety rules or, alternatively, that none of them including itself, be compelled to follow the rules.

Mr. Jones asks you for help. What would he have you do? He wants you to see to it that the CNMI enforces the FMVSS or he wants you to obtain a declaration, preferably from the U.S. Attorney and the Department of Transportation, that the federal safety standards don't apply in the CNMI. Before taking action, you ask for our comments and views. Here they are.

We only enforce laws that apply in the CNMI. Do these federal safety standards apply in the CNMI? By our Covenant with the United States, we were obliged to except federal laws that applied to Guam and the several states as of January 9, 1978. Federal enabling legislation behind the FMVSS has been on the books since 1966. The legislation applied to Guam and the states on January 9, 1979. It looks like we get the law. But this is not the end of the analysis.

We would accept application of the FMVSS here only if such federal law did not deny us our guaranteed right of local self-government with respect to internal affairs. It is my view that automobile safety is an internal affair. It is the subject for sel f-government. The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards do not apply in the CNMI.

These federal safety standards are imposed on the states by virtue of the Commerce clause of the Federal Constitution. The federal Commerce clause does not apply in the CNMI; it cannot carry the FMVSS into our islands. Besides, consider the practicality of the situation. We move slowly on two lanes roads up and down twelve and fourteen mile long islands. Our drivers aren't hooked into a vast system of U.S. interstate highways where uniform safety equipment might be necessary to protect highspeed free ways carrying commerce between the states. We can't even drive to Tinian. We're small, wind-swept islands out here without even a traffic light.

I will say this, however: If I find that our people need the protection of some or all of the motor vehicle safety standards included in the FMVSS program, I'll be the first to move for immediate adoption of those standards ... by local law. Until then , it is our position that the FMVSS does not apply here and will not be enforced by my Administration.

If you address this matter on a national level, Congressman, please take our views into consideration. Thank you so much for consulting us. You

are a true friend of the Northern Marianas.

Sincerely,

LORENZO I. DE LEON GUERRERO Governor

cc: Lt. Governor Resident Representative to the United States Director, Department of Public Safety Director, Department of Finance Triple J Motors

ID: 11239-1PJA

Mr. Hai Tee Young
10313 Lower Azusa Road
Temple City, CA 91780

Dear Mr. Young:

This responds to your letter telling us of several types of outside rear-view mirror designs you have invented, and asking for funding, or assistance in obtaining funding, for you to develop and patent these inventions. I apologize for the delay in responding. Your purpose is to provide a wider view of the road behind the vehicle, and eliminate blind spots. Each of your mirrors consists of either a composite of two flat mirrors that are joined at an angle or a single convex mirror. Each is depicted as being mounted substantially in front of the driver.

I would like to begin by noting that, in a December 11, 1995 letter to you, this office told you about the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) NHTSA has issued on a number of aspects of motor vehicle safety. Manufacturers of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment must certify that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs.

FMVSS No. 111, Rearview mirrors (I have enclosed a copy for your convenience), has a number of requirements that you should be aware of before you finalize plans for your invention. Based on your letter, you appear to intend to market these mirrors for buses, vans, and passenger cars. FMVSS No. 111 has different requirements for different classes of vehicles, such as passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, buses, trucks, and schoolbuses. You should review S5 through S10 of the standard to determine what requirements apply to the specific vehicles for which you intend to market your mirror.

We have identified four instances, described below, where your mirrors may fail to meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 111. These are not meant to be exhaustive. A manufacturer that uses your system is responsible for ensuring that all the requirements of FMVSS No. 111 are met.

1. The requirements for passenger cars (in S5.2 of FMVSS No. 111) basically require a horizontal field of view, extending 8 feet out from the side of the car at a point 35 feet behind the driver. This field of view must be provided by a "unit magnification" (flat) mirror. Therefore, your convex mirror design (Devices D-3, D-4 in your illustrations) alone would not comply with the standard. Your composite flat mirror design (Devices D-3, D-5, D-6, and D-7 in your illustrations) would comply only if the required field of view were provided by a single flat surface of the mirror. Any extra field of view, beyond what is required, could be provided by other pieces of mirror.

2. Some of your mirrors extend the mirror from the vehicle only at certain times, by having the mirror fold out or slide out of a housing. The caption for Device D-4 describes an electrical switch with which the driver would manually deploy the mirror. The caption for Device D-5 says that the mirrors would be deployed only when the driver signals for a turn, and only on the side that has the turn signal on.

These designs would not be allowed under FMVSS No. 111. S5.2.1 of FMVSS No. 111 specifies the field of view that must be provided by the mirror at all times the vehicle is being operated. When your mirrors are not deployed, the requisite field of view would not be provided.

3. To deploy both mirrors simultaneously, you suggest that the driver would activate the emergency lights. The emergency lights are designed for emergencies. S5.1.3 of FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment, prohibits installing motor vehicle equipment (including mirrors) that impair the effectiveness of the emergency flashers. We would consider a mirror system that requires non-emergency use of the emergency lights to impair the effectiveness of the lights, because other vehicles would not know whether there was an emergency or if the driver just wanted to deploy both mirrors to look around.

4. We also note a concern with Illustrations F and G. These depict the mirror position in the front left and right corners of the vehicle. We note that a mirror of unit magnification so far in front of the driver would have to be fairly large (possibly obscuring the driver's forward view of the road) in order to provide the required field of view. It would also have the potential to inflict injuries on pedestrians, being larger and at the front.

I would like to reiterate some of the information contained in our December 11, 1995 letter, because it also applies to your mirror inventions. The manufacturer of these mirrors would be subject to the requirements in sections 30118-30122 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Other legal requirements would apply depending on how your product would be marketed. Since your mirrors would not comply with FMVSS No. 111, they could not be installed on new vehicles to meet the standard=s requirements for mirrors. Similarly, a manufacturer, dealer, distributor or repair business could not install your mirror on used vehicles to replace the original mirrors. While we do not prohibit individual vehicle owners from modifying their own vehicles in any manner, we encourage owners not to degrade any safety device or system installed in their vehicles. In addition, since individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their vehicles, you might wish to consult State regulations to see whether your mirrors would be permitted.

Regarding your request for funds, NHTSA's Office of Crash Avoidance Research does not have a grant or contract program to help inventors develop or market their inventions. Our vehicle research efforts are primarily directed toward obtaining technical data to support the development of motor vehicle standards. Your submission has been reviewed by the staff in that office and there are no funds available from this agency for development of your mirror inventions.

Since you have given so much thought to mirror-related safety, you may be interested in knowing about an upcoming public meeting on the subject of mirrors. It will be on March 13, 1996, in Detroit, and I have enclosed a copy of the meeting notice in case you want to go. Even if you cannot attend the meeting, there will be a public docket where you can send your written comments.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:111#108 d:3/6/96

ID: may 29 571.213--battery dependent installation--Campbell2--13-002509