ID: nht89-2.84

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: AUGUST 28, 1989

FROM: DENNIS D. FURR

TO: DIANE STEED -- ADMINISTRATOR, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 4-2-90 TO DENNIS D. FURR FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD, NHTSA; A35; STD. 222; HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAM GUIDELINE 17

TEXT:

The following is to serve as a petition to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and in regards to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 222, S4.1, and its lack of enforcement on the school bus manufacturers by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for new school buses as a condition of sale.

The following is also to serve as a petition to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and in regards to Highway Safety Program Standard 17, (3) Vehicle Operation, (6) d, Seating, which directs the States to use the passive restraint system/ bench seat by a seating position that is less than the 15 inch seating position required in Standard 222, S4.1 as directed by the National Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

If this is not the correct format, and or procedure, please advise me of the correct format, and or procedure.

The reason for this petition stems from the fact that school bus manufacturers are rating some, but not all school buses for 150 percent of the designed capacity of the passive restraint system/bench seat, and in doing so has nullified the safety feature s of the passive restraint system, and by their rating of the school bus has placed one third of the school buses rated capacity outside of the head, and leg impact zones of the passive restraint system.

The rating of some, but not all school buses for 150 percent of the designed capacity of the passive restraint system/bench seat by the school bus manufacturers has also encouraged the States/school districts to order school buses from the manufacturers that are not in compliance to the Federal Standards for the passive restraint system as a condition of sale when following Safety Standard 222, S4.1, and the National Motor Vehicle Safety Act, a violation of the National Motor Vehicle Safety Act for the States/school districts.

Understanding that in order for the occupant to be protected by the protective compartment of the passive restraint system, the occupant must be seated inside of the impact zones of the head, and legs, and the rated capacity of the school bus has to be a reflection of the designed capacity of the passive restraint system/bench seat.

In considering this petition two things has been kept in mind.

The first is the Standard for the passive restraint system is the minimum specifications.

The second is Section 103 (d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle

Safety Act (15 U.S.C. : 1392 (f);

Safety Standard 222, S4.1; "The number of seating positions considered to be in a bench seat is expressed by the Symbol "W" and calculated as the bench width in inches divided by 15 and rounded to the nearest whole number."

National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, Section 103 (d); "Whenever a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard under this subchapter is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a state shall have any authority either to establish, or to continu e in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any Safety Standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal Standard. Nothing in this secti on shall be construed to prevent the Federal Government or the government of any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard of performance than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable standard."

The school buses that are rated at 150 percent of the designed capacity of the passive restraint system/bench seat is those school buses equipped with bench seats that when divided by the figure 15 in S4.1, ends in a decimal of point five or more, and is carried to the next whole number.

As an example, the 39 inch bench seat is being rated for 3 passengers, but when following S4.1, and the National Traffic Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the 39 inch bench seat is designed for only 2 passengers.

By the school bus manufacturers rating the 39 inch bench seat for 3 passengers, this gives each passenger a 13 inch seating position.

The number of seating positions in S4.1 is considered by the figure 15, and not by the figure 13.

It is quite true that the figure "15" in S4.1, FMVSS 222 is not defined as a seating width, minimum or otherwise.

It is my understanding that the specifications in FMVSS 222 is minimum specifications by direction of the National Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and following the instructions in S4.1, there should not be any doubt what the figure "15" is.

"The number of seating positions considered to be in a bench seat is expressed by the Symbol "W".

The symbol "W" is the product of division, and the answer to the two part formula.

"And calculated as the bench width in inches."

The bench width in inches is the first part of a two part formula, and is a variable.

"Divided by 15" is the instructions to divide, and the figure "15" is the second part to the two part formula, and is the only known fact.

Since the purpose of the formula is to find the number of "seating positions", it is obvious that the only known fact which is the figure "15" has to be the width of "a" seating position.

"And rounded to the nearest whole number" is additional instructions to ensure that any seating position less than 15 inches is not included in the product of the formula.

It is common practice to carry any decimal 5 tenths and over to the next whole number.

However the instructions in S4.1 says "and rounded to the nearest whole number.", and for the 39 inch bench seat, I understand that to mean 2, understanding that any decimal is not a whole number.

Also understanding that S4.1 does not say rounded to the "next" whole number, which would have included the decimal.

To be sure that a decimal part of the figure "15" can not be rounded to the "next" whole number as a condition of sale, you only have to understand the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, Section 103 (d);

"Whenever a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard under this subchapter is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a sate shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor v ehicle equipment any Safety Standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal Safety Standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the Federal Government or the government of any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard of performance than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable standard ."

Understanding the decimal part in the product of the formula is not identical to the figure "15: in S4.1, and can not be considered as "a" seating position, but is currently being counted as a whole seating position when rating some, but not all of the p assive restraint systems as a condition of sale by the school bus manufacturers.

Again, the purpose of the formula is to find the number of "seating positions", and the figure "15" is the specification in S4.1 The number of seating positions is a variable, dependent upon the length of the individual passive restraint system/bench sea t, and is not a specification.

As a result, the number of seating positions in a bench seat as a condition of sale must reflect the number of 15 inch seating position, or the number of seating positions that is greater than the 15 inch seating position that

is in the individual bench seat, and the rated capacity of the school bus must reflect that number.

I have been told the use of the figure "15" in the FMVSS 222 formula results in a minimum seating position width of 12.67 inches (for a 38 inch wide seat.), and for a 39 inch wide seat, the single position width is 13 inches, which is slightly larger tha n the hip width of a 5th percentile adult female.

(Refer to your letter to Congressman Wolpe, dated February 23, 1989.)

In order to get the figure "15" in S4.1 to produce a minimum seating position of 13 inches in a 39 inch bench seat you would have to divide the 39 inch bench seat by 15, round the 2.6 to the next whole number to get 3. Then divide the 39 inch bench seat again by the 3 to get the 13 inch seating position.

I do not see that formula in S4.1, and do not understand the provisions in the National Motor Vehicle Safety Act to permit the NHTSA, or the school bus manufacturers to reword S4.1 to obtain the exceeded number of seating positions in a bench seat for ra ting the school bus as a condition of sale.

Understanding that the NHTSA can exceed the number of designed seating positions in the 39 inch bench seat for testing, (their use), and can provide their own formula for doing so.

However, as a condition of sale, FMVSS 222, S4.1, and the National Motor Vehicle Safety Act has to be followed.

For the NHTSA to permit the school bus manufacturers to rate the school bus by the NHTSA's formula for testing the bench seat, and as a condition of sale, is a deliberate distortion of FMVSS 222. S4.1, and the National Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

By the manufacturers of the passive restraint system borrowing the 3 to the 39 inch bench seat that the NHTSA has used for testing, the manufacturers have not followed, or complied by FMVSS 222, S4.1 as a condition of sale.

I have also been told that the 13 inch seating position in the 39 inch bench seat is consistent with HSPG 17 which provides that seating positions shall be at least large enough for a 5th percentile female.

HSPG means Highway Safety Program Guideline, and its recommendations is to the states for operating their school buses, and is not enforceable by the NHTSA because it is only a guideline, recommended, and directed to the States, and is not a Safety Stand ard that the manufacturers have to comply to.

FMVSS means Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard, and is requirements for the school bus manufacturers to follow, and be in compliance with, before the school bus can be sold to the public, and is enforceable by the NHTSA.

If anything is to be consistent, Highway Safety Program Guideline 17 should be consistent with Safety Standard 222, S4.1, and not vice versa.

Any seating position less than the 15 inch seating position in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 222, S4.1 is pre-empted under the provisions of the National Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

The NHTSA has in an elective guideline given directions to the States to use a seating position that is less than required in the enforceable FMVSS 222 when following the National Motor Vehicle Safety Act when the National Motor Vehicle Safety Act clearl y states;

Whenever a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard under this subchapter is in effect, (no State or political subdivision of a state) shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any Safety Standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal Standard.

Understanding if a State did elect HSPG 17 either by law, or history of use by the 13 inch seating position by the school districts, the States/school districts has established a safety standard that is not identical to the applicable Federal Standard, a violation of the National Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Also understanding that if a State requested a school bus manufacturer to deliver a school bus with a rated capacity based on the 13 inch seating position, and the school bus manufacturer complied to the State, the school bus manufacturer has not complie d to the applicable Standard as a condition of sale.

To understand that only a seating position greater than, or equal to the 15 inch seating position can be specified either as a states specification, recommended in another Safety Standard, or used for rating a new school bus you only have to follow the s ame logic in the Preamble to Amendment to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 222, Docket No. 73-3; Notice 6.

You can also see that the seating position of the 5th percentile adult female in HSPG 17 is a contradiction to the NHTSA's own opinion for the requirements of a states specification.

Understanding that the seating position of the 5th percentile adult female does not meet, or exceed the requirements in FMVSS 222, S4.1.

The Physicians for Automotive Safety (PAS), requested that the seat back height be raised from the 20 inch level specified by Safety Standard 222 to a 24 inch level. While PAS's request was denied, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration gave this opinion, in part;

"Standard No. 222 specifies a minimum seat back height (S5.1.2) which manufacturers many exceed as long as their product conforms to all other requirements of the standards applicable to school buses. It is the National Highway Traffic Safety Administra tion's opinion that any State standard of general applicability concerning seat back height of school

bus seating would also have to specify a minimum height identical to the Federal requirement.

Following this same logic for the minimum seating position, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's opinion "would have read".

Standard No. 222 specifies a minimum seating position (S4.1) which manufacturers may exceed as long as their product conforms to all other requirements of the standards applicable to school buses. It is the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 's opinion that any State standard of general applicability concerning a seating position width of school bus seating would also have to specify a minimum seating position identical to the Federal requirement.

In consideration of the above, I respectfully request the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to amend Highway Safety Program Standard 17, (3) Vehicle Operation, (6) d, Seating, to reflect the 15 inch seating position as required in Federal Mo tor Vehicle Safety Standard 222, S4.1, and as directed in the National Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

I also respectfully request the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to require the school bus manufacturers to rate their school buses by the actual number of 15 inch seating positions in the individual passive restraint system/bench seat that is on the school bus as a condition of sale, and as required in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 222, S4.1, and as directed in the National Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

I also respectfully request the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to provide me with the formula that was developed that provided the pounds of force/inch-pounds of energy in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 222 that is indicated by the Symbol "W" being the force of 700W pounds in S5.1.3.2, the 350W pounds in S5.1.3.3, the 4,000W inch-pounds in S5.1.3.4, the 2,200 pounds of force in S5.1.4 (a), the 50 pounds of force in S5.1.4, (b), and the 2,800W inch pounds in S5.1.4.1.

Since there is a relationship between the symbol "W" and the pounds of force, and or the inch pounds of energy applied to the passive restraint system in testing, what percentile is the pounds of force/inch pounds designed to protect?

I would also like to know the source of the data for the percentiles listed in S7.1.3 in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208.

ID: nht93-4.38

DATE: June 18, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA; Signature by Ken Weinstein

TO: Bob Jones -- Director of Engineering, Independent Mobility Systems, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-29-93 from Bob Jones to Mary Versailles.

TEXT: This responds to your letter of April 29 1993, addressed to Mary Versailles of this office, requesting information on the proper testing of your raised-roof minivan for compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 220, SCHOOL BUS ROLLOVER PROTECTION.

You correctly stated in your letter that the school bus rollover protection requirements of FMVSS 220 do not apply to minivans. You explained, however, that many states and/or localities require compliance with FMVSS 220 for vehicles equipped to transport the handicapped, and you asked how properly to test your raised-roof minivan for compliance with FMVSS 220.

Since the requirements you referred to are state or local requirements, this agency cannot comment on them. You should contact the states or localities concerned to find out what their expectations are in that regard.

I hope this information will be of assistance to you.

ID: aiam4597

"Dear Mr. Panetta: This letter responds to your inquiry on behalf o your constituent, Mr. Botelho. You asked whether Federal regulations require mirrors to be placed on the right side of vehicles and whether such mirrors must be convex in nature. Mr. Botelho expressed his objection to requiring convex mirrors, because he believes convex mirrors distort images and cause objects to appear further away than they actually are. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain this requirement and its background for you. Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors (49 CFR /571.111, copy enclosed)) establishes performance and location requirements for the rearview mirrors installed in new vehicles. Specifically, a passenger car whose inside rearview mirror does not meet the field of view requirements of section S5.1.1 must have an outside mirror on the passenger side of either unit magnification or a convex mirror. In a September 2, 1982 final rule amending Standard No. 111, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) explained that convex mirrors offer safety benefits by providing an expanded field of view to the rear, thereby reducing the need for the driver to turn around to view the rear directly. On the other hand, some users of convex mirrors that were used to the images shown by conventional plane mirrors incorrectly perceived that the object shown in the convex mirror was further to the rear than it actually was. Additionally, some users of convex mirrors experienced double vision, eyestrain, and nausea. After considering these potential advantages and disadvantages, NHTSA amended Standard No. 111 so that it does not require any vehicle to be equipped with convex mirrors, but it permits the use of convex mirrors on the passenger side of cars and light trucks, provided that the convex mirror meets certain additional requirements. The additional requirements applicable to convex mirrors on the passenger side of cars and light trucks are: 1. A maximum radius of curvature for the convex mirror. This limits the range of convexities to which drivers will be exposed. It also ensures that the field of view will be noticeably greater than for a plane mirror. 2. A minimum radius of curvature for the convex mirror. This ensures that the image size in the convex mirror will be adequate and distortion will not be excessive. 3. A stringent maximum permissible variation in the radius of curvature over the surface of the convex mirror. This requirement, which is more stringent than the European requirement in this area, also ensures that convex mirrors will have low distortion. 4. A warning etched on the convex mirror that objects shown in the mirror are closer than they appear. This requirement ensures that the driver who may not be familiar with convex mirrors will not be misled by the image size of the convex mirror and the apparent distance to the object. Hence, we agree with Mr. Botelho that the areas he has identified are potential problems unique to convex mirrors. However, our standard includes special requirements for convex mirrors to minimize the potential problems identified by Mr. Botelho and other potential problems that were identified in research studies of convex mirrors. We are not aware of any data showing that convex mirrors that comply with those special requirements present any unacceptable problems for drivers. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need any additional information on this subject, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: aiam2976

Dear Mr. Knight:#This responds to your letters of July 11, 1978, an January 18, 1979, concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 101-80, *Controls and Displays*. I regret the delay in responding to your inquiry. The answers to your questions are as follows:#1. The turn signal control lever used by Rolls-Royce is mounted on the steering column and is positioned horizontally. To operate the turn signals, the lever must rotated either clock-wise or anti-clock-wise. To label the control lever and to indicate the manner of operation, Rolls- Royce is considering placing the arrows of the turn signal symbol so that they point up and down. You ask whether the standard permits that orientation of the arrows.#The answer is no. Section 5.2.1 requires that the turn signal symbol appear perceptually upright to the driver. The upright position of a symbol is determined by referring to column 3 of Table 1 of the standard. That table shows that the upright position for the turn signal symbol is with the arrows pointing horizontally. Thus, the arrows must point essentially horizontally in the motor vehicle. Complying with the perceptually upright requirement instead of reorienting the symbol to serve other purposes will aid in ensuring quick and accurate identification of the turn signal control. We wish to observe that essentially the same result as that sought by RollsRoyce (sic) in reorienting the turn signal symbol could be achieved by placing curved, thinner arrows next to the symbol to indicate mode of operation.#2. (i) You noted that differing display identification requirements for safety belts appear in FMVSS 101-80 and FMVSS 208. FMVSS 101-80 does not supersede or preempt FMVSS 208 in this area. However, the agency will soon issue a notice that will provide for use of the safety belt symbol in Table 2 of FMVSS 101-80 for the purposes of both standards.#(ii) You are correct in assuming that column 3 of Table 2 should include a reference to FMVSS 105-75 for brake system malfunction displays and a reference to FMVSS 121 for brake air pressure displays. These inadvertent omissions will be corrected in the notice mentioned above. You are also correct in assuming that the options in section 5.3.5 of FMVSS 105-75 are still available.#3. You referred to the statement in the final rule preamble that the visibility requirements of 101- 80 would be deemed satisfied even if minimal movements by the driver were necessary and suggested that this interpretation be incorporated in section 6, conditions, and amplified. The agency does not believe that this step is necessary. The agency does, however, believe it appropriate to amplify its earlier interpretation. By minimal movement, the agency meant head movement of not more than a few inches. By a 'few' inches, we mean up to approximately three inches. As to your suggestion for specifying the size of the driver to be used in determining compliance with the visibility requirements, the agency will consider this suggestion and address it at a future date.#4. You should comply with the speedometer scale requirements in FMVSS 101-80 since the labelling requirements in FMVSS 127 were deleted in the response to reconsideration petitions that was published July 27, 1978 (43 FR 32421).#Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam1032

Dear Mr. Herr: This is in reply to your letter of January 19, 1973, concerning th Federal requirements governing safety belt length.; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Cras Protection, regulates the length of safety belts installed in cars made after January 1, 1972. There are two safety belt length requirements of this Standard that may enter into the case enclosed with your letter. The first requires that the manufacturers provide, as a minimum, sufficient safety belt length to fit at least a 95th percentile adult male with the seat in any (i.e., all) adjusted positions. A 95th percentile adult male weighs 215 pounds and has a 42.5 inch waist with 47.2 inch hips (sitting dimensions).; The second requirement concerns the length of the inboard end of th safety belt. In this case, the Standard requires that the intersection of the shoulder belt with the lap belt shall be at least 6 inches from the front vertical centerline of the average-size occupant, with the seat in the rearmost adjusted position. While this may result in an inboard belt length that may be somewhat more difficult to fasten than in some previous model cars, it significantly reduces the possibility that the shoulder belt could pull the lap belt up off the pelvis into the abdomen in a crash, possibly causing abdominal injuries.; With regard to the particular case at hand, our experience has bee that the vehicle manufacturers are usually willing to provide longer belts to fit very large new car buyers. With respect to inboard belt length, our experience has been that belts which approach the permissible 6 inch dimension mentioned above are usually satisfactory in terms of convenience. However, shorter inboard belt lengths, exceeding the minimum safety requirements of the standard, are permissible. In these cases, the customers may want to seek adjustment by the dealer or vehicle manufacturer.; In regard to the allegation made in the case that the belts cannot b changed, there is no Federal law or regulation that would prevent the dealer from modifying the safety belts. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act grants us the authority to regulate the safety of new motor vehicles. Although a dealer may not sell a new vehicle that does not conform to the standards, once the vehicle is sold and delivered the customer may have it modified by the dealer. In such a case, the dealer would not violate Federal law.; The dealer in question may well have had reasons for declining t modify the safety belts. He may be unsure of his ability to do a proper job and may fear incurring civil liability to the customer if someone should be injured as a result of his work. We would not encourage modification of a vehicle's mandatory safety features unless it is done with expert advice, or according to the manufacturer's recommendations.; Please contact this office if you desire any further discussion of thi matter.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4512

Dear Mr. Rose: This responds to your letter, addressed to the Directo of the Office of the Federal Register, concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is the Federal agency which issued and administers that standard. Your questions are addressed below. By way of background information, NHTSA issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, l5 U.S.C. l38l et seq. The term 'motor vehicle safety standard' is defined by the Act as 'a minimum standard for motor vehicle performance, or motor vehicle equipment performance, which is practicable, which meets the need for motor vehicle safety and which provides objective criteria' (section l02(2)). NHTSA does not grant approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, section ll4 of the Act requires manufacturers to certify compliance of each motor vehicle and item of equipment with all applicable standards. The Act requires that manufacturers exercise 'due care' to ensure that their products conform to each applicable standard (section 108(b)(l)). I will address your first two questions together. The questions are: l. In the clause dealing with Test Sample, why are the batch size and sample size not mentioned? 2. Why does the standard make no reference to the frequency of testing. As indicated above, Standard No. 109 is a minimum performance standard. All tires must be capable of meeting the standard's requirements. The purpose of the test sample paragraph (S4.2.2.l) in Standard No. 109 is to indicate that a test set for a compliance test consists of three tires. One tire is checked for physical dimensions and is then subjected to resistance to bead unseating and strength, in sequence. The second tire is subjected to the endurance test, and the third tire is subjected to the high speed test. Paragraph S4.2.2.l is not intended to address the question of how many sets of tires a manufacturer should test as a surveillance procedure during production or what batch size the test sets should be drawn from. A manufacturer is not required to conduct any particular frequency of testing or even to run the actual tests specified by Standard No. 109. Instead, a manufacturer must take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that each of its tires, if tested according to the requirements of the standard, would meet those requirements. (For test purposes, however, any one given tire would only be subjected to one of the three test sequences discussed above.) Since Standard No. 109 includes a number of specific test requirements, it is likely that a manufacturer would find it necessary to do some testing in order to ensure that a tire complied with the standard. For enforcement purposes, NHTSA would test a tire according to the specific test requirements of Standard No. 109. Your third question is as follows: 3. Why does the standard make no reference to tolerances for tyre concentricity? NHTSA's standards cover aspects of performance for which the agency has determined there is a safety need. To date, NHTSA has not determined that there is a need for requirements covering tire concentricity tolerances. We note that tire concentricity appears to be primarily an issue of occupant comfort rather than safety. I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam5489

Dear Mr. Taylor: This responds to your letter asking about th requirements applicable to multiple reflectance mirrors in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 111, Rear View Mirrors. You stated that your mirror can change its reflectivity either by mechanically rotating a shaft or by actuating an electrical motor. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, each manufacturer is responsible for 'self-certifying' that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards. FMVSS No. 111 specifies requirements for the performance and location of rearview mirrors. Section S11, which specifies requirements for mirror construction, provides in relevant part that All single reflectance mirrors shall have an average reflectance of at least 35 percent. If a mirror is capable of multiple reflectance levels, the minimum reflectance level in the day mode shall be at least 35 percent and the minimum reflectance level in the night mode shall be at least 4 percent. A multiple reflectance mirror shall either be equipped with a means for the driver to adjust the mirror to a reflectance level of at least 35 percent in the event of electrical failure, or achieve such reflectance automatically in the event of electrical failure. You asked several questions about the requirement for adjusting the mirror in the event of electrical failure. You first asked if a manual override knob could be removable. You then asked whether a removable manual override could be supplied by the car manufacturer along with the car keys or with the owner's manual for insertion into the mirror and use only in the event of an electrical failure. You also asked about whether 'west coast' mirrors and mirrors on trailer trucks could have a removable manual override. The answer to each of your questions is that a removable manual override knob would not be permitted. In the preamble to the final rule amending the mirror construction requirements in FMVSS No. 111, NHTSA stated that the agency's goal is to assure that multiple reflectance mirrors are capable of providing adequate images at all times during the vehicle's operation, including electrical failure situations where the mirror is unpowered. (see 56 FR 58513, November 20, 1991) The manual override knob you discuss would serve as the means for the driver to adjust the mirror's reflectance level. However, a removable manual override knob would not always serve this purpose, since it would not necessarily always be with the mirror. We are concerned that a removable override device may become lost or otherwise not available when a mirror's reflectance needs to be adjusted. Accordingly, since the agency's goal of providing adequate images at all times during the vehicle's operation would only be achieved by requiring this device to be permanent, a removable override would not be permitted. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam4770

Dear Mr. Kimmelman: This is in reply to your letter of August 2, l990 with respect to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. It is your understanding that, when a vehicle is delivered to its purchaser with dealer-installed trailer hitch and associated wiring, it must conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You interpret the standards as requiring three specific aspects of performance, and you ask whether we agree with those interpretations. These aspects are: 'l. The turn signal flasher must be certified as meeting the FMVSS-108 requirements of a variable load turn signal flasher, over a minimum load equal to that of the vehicle turn signal load and a maximum load equal to that of the vehicle plus the trailer.' This is essentially correct. However, it is not the flasher that is certified but the vehicle in which the flasher is installed, Standard No. 108 does not require certification of original equipment lighting items, only replacement equipment items. Standard No. 108's requirements for turn signal flashers are those of SAE Standard J590b, Automotive Turn Signal Flasher, October l965, which are incorporated by reference. Under the Standard's Scope, the flashers 'are intended to operate at the design load for the turn signal system as stated by the manufacturer.' If a vehicle is designed for towing purposes, and its manufacturer offers an optional trailer hitch and associated wiring, then that manufacturer must equip the vehicle with a flasher capable of meeting a minimum load equal to that of the vehicle turn signal load, and a maximum load equal to that of the vehicle plus the trailer. That will be a variable load turn signal flasher. The manufacturer of the vehicle is the person responsible for ensuring that the flasher meets the vehicle's design load requirements, and that the vehicle is certified as conforming to Standard No. 108. '2. The hazard warning signal flasher must be certified as meeting the requirements of FMVSS-108 over a load range of 2 lamps to the combined hazard warning loads of the vehicle plus the trailer.' This is also essentially correct, and our comments are similar. Standard No. 108's requirements for hazard warning signal flashers are those of SAE Recommended Practice J945 Vehicular Hazard Warning Signal Flasher, February l966, which are incorporated by reference. The Practice's Scope specifies that the flashers 'are required to operate from two signal lamps to the maximum design load . . . as stated by the manufacturer.' Thus, in order for the vehicle manufacturer to certify compliance with Standard No. 108, it must equip the vehic1e with a flasher that operates over a load range of two lamps to the total hazard warning system load of the vehicle plus the trailer. '3. The requirement to provide turn signal outage is voided due to the trailer towing capability of the vehicle.' This is correct. Under section S5.5.6 of Standard No. 108, any vehicle equipped to tow trailers and which uses a variable-load turn signal flasher is exempted from the failure indication requirements of the SAE standards on turn signals. I hope that this answers your questions. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam2975

Dear Mr. Knight:#This responds to your letters of July 11, 1978, an January 18, 1979, concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 101-80, *Controls and Displays*. I regret the delay in responding to your inquiry. The answers to your questions are as follows:#1. The turn signal control lever used by Rolls-Royce is mounted on the steering column and is positioned horizontally. To operate the turn signals, the lever must rotated either clock-wise or anti-clock-wise. To label the control lever and to indicate the manner of operation, Rolls-Royce is considering placing the arrows of the turn signal symbol so that they point up and down. You ask whether the standard permits that orientation of the arrows.#The answer is no. Section 5.2.1 requires that the turn signal symbol appear perceptually upright to the driver. The upright position of a symbol is determined by referring to column 3 of Table 1 of the standard. That table shows that the upright position for the turn signal symbol is with the arrows pointing horizontally. Thus, the arrows must point essentially horizontally in the motor vehicle. Complying with the perceptually upright requirement instead of reorienting the symbol to serve other purposes will aid in ensuring quick and accurate identification of the turn signal control. We wish to observe that essentially the same result as that sought by RollsRoyce (sic) in reorienting the turn signal symbol could be achieved by placing curved, thinner arrows next to the symbol to indicate mode of operation.#2. (i) You noted that differing display identification requirements for safety belts appear in FMVSS 101-80 and FMVSS 208. FMVSS 101-80 does not supersede or preempt FMVSS 208 in this area. However, the agency will soon issue a notice that will provide for use of the safety belt symbol in Table 2 of FMVSS 101-80 for the purposes of both standards.#(ii) You are correct in assuming that column 3 of Table 2 should include a reference to FMVSS 105-75 for brake system malfunction displays and a reference to FMVSS 121 for brake air pressure displays. These inadvertent omissions will be corrected in the notice mentioned above. You are also correct in assuming that the options in section 5.3.5 of FMVSS 105-75 are still available.#3. You referred to the statement in the final rule preamble that the visibility requirements of 101-80 would be deemed satisfied even if minimal movements by the driver were necessary and suggested that this interpretation be incorporated in section 6, conditions, and amplified. The agency does not believe that this step is necessary. The agency does, however, believe it appropriate to amplify its earlier interpretation. By minimal movement, the agency meant head movement of not more than a few inches. By a 'few' inches, we mean up to approximately three inches. As to your suggestion for specifying the size of the driver to be used in determining compliance with the visibility requirements, the agency will consider this suggestion and address it at a future date.#4. You should comply with the speedometer scale requirements in FMVSS 101-80 since the labelling requirements in FMVSS 127 were deleted in the response to reconsideration petitions that was published July 27, 1978 (43 FR 32421).#Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam4593

"Dear Mr. Panetta: This letter responds to your inquiry on behalf o your constituent, Mr. Botelho. You asked whether Federal regulations require mirrors to be placed on the right side of vehicles and whether such mirrors must be convex in nature. Mr. Botelho expressed his objection to requiring convex mirrors, because he believes convex mirrors distort images and cause objects to appear further away than they actually are. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain this requirement and its background for you. Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors (49 CFR /571.111, copy enclosed)) establishes performance and location requirements for the rearview mirrors installed in new vehicles. Specifically, a passenger car whose inside rearview mirror does not meet the field of view requirements of section S5.1.1 must have an outside mirror on the passenger side of either unit magnification or a convex mirror. In a September 2, 1982 final rule amending Standard No. 111, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) explained that convex mirrors offer safety benefits by providing an expanded field of view to the rear, thereby reducing the need for the driver to turn around to view the rear directly. On the other hand, some users of convex mirrors that were used to the images shown by conventional plane mirrors incorrectly perceived that the object shown in the convex mirror was further to the rear than it actually was. Additionally, some users of convex mirrors experienced double vision, eyestrain, and nausea. After considering these potential advantages and disadvantages, NHTSA amended Standard No. 111 so that it does not require any vehicle to be equipped with convex mirrors, but it permits the use of convex mirrors on the passenger side of cars and light trucks, provided that the convex mirror meets certain additional requirements. The additional requirements applicable to convex mirrors on the passenger side of cars and light trucks are: 1. A maximum radius of curvature for the convex mirror. This limits the range of convexities to which drivers will be exposed. It also ensures that the field of view will be noticeably greater than for a plane mirror. 2. A minimum radius of curvature for the convex mirror. This ensures that the image size in the convex mirror will be adequate and distortion will not be excessive. 3. A stringent maximum permissible variation in the radius of curvature over the surface of the convex mirror. This requirement, which is more stringent than the European requirement in this area, also ensures that convex mirrors will have low distortion. 4. A warning etched on the convex mirror that objects shown in the mirror are closer than they appear. This requirement ensures that the driver who may not be familiar with convex mirrors will not be misled by the image size of the convex mirror and the apparent distance to the object. Hence, we agree with Mr. Botelho that the areas he has identified are potential problems unique to convex mirrors. However, our standard includes special requirements for convex mirrors to minimize the potential problems identified by Mr. Botelho and other potential problems that were identified in research studies of convex mirrors. We are not aware of any data showing that convex mirrors that comply with those special requirements present any unacceptable problems for drivers. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need any additional information on this subject, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure";