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: aiam4670

"Dear Mr. Rickert: Thank you for your letter seeking this agency' opinion as to whether the State of Maryland may amend its motor vehicle regulations to permit the installation of aftermarket tinting on motor vehicle windows, for individuals who may desire this for medical reasons. I am pleased to have this opportunity to describe the legal principles that relate to your question. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ('NHTSA') is responsible for issuing Federal motor vehicle safety standards that impose requirements for specific levels of safety performance for new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205), which has been in effect since 1968, imposes a minimum level of light transmittance of 70 percent in all areas requisite for driving visibility (which includes all windows on passenger cars). The purpose of this requirement is to ensure adequate visibility through the windows, thereby reducing the risk of a motor vehicle crash. Although Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply directly only to new vehicles and equipment, Federal law also imposes limits on the addition of tinting materials to motor vehicle glazing after vehicles have been purchased by consumers. Pursuant to section 108(a)(2) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2), manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses may not 'render inoperative' any equipment or element of design installed in compliance with a Federal safety standard. Thus, those businesses may not install tinting that reduces the light transmittance of windows covered by Standard 205 to a level below the Federal requirement of 70 percent, since that would make the windows 'inoperative' within the meaning of Standard 205. This Federal prohibition is similar to that imposed by section 22-104 of the Maryland Vehicle Law, which provides: A person may not willfully or intentionally remove or alter any safety device or equipment that has been placed on any motor vehicle . . . in compliance with any law, rule, regulation, or requirement of . . . the United States or of this State . . . unless the removal or alteration is permitted by rule or regulation adopted by the Maryland Motor Vehicle Administrator. The 'render inoperative' provision of Federal law does not apply to actions by individual vehicle owners. Therefore, each State may regulate the extent to which aftermarket tinting may be applied by vehicle owners to their own vehicles. Thus, although section 22-104 appears to preclude aftermarket tinting by any person if the result would be to reduce the level of light transmittance below 70 percent, Maryland may amend its rules or regulations to permit such tinting by individuals, for medical or any other reasons deemed valid by the State. However, Maryland has no authority to grant any exemptions, including medical exemptions, from the 'render inoperative' prohibition of Federal law that applies to commercial entities. Hence, regardless of any provisions of Maryland law, no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may legally install window tinting film on a vehicle, unless the vehicle continues to comply with the Federal light transmittance requirements. In adopting Standard 205, NHTSA determined that a minimum light transmittance of 70 percent is necessary to meet the need for motor vehicle safety. This is the same level of light transmittance contained in the Safety Code of the American National Standards Institute. If, as your letter suggests, Maryland is considering permitting vehicle owners to modify their vehicles such that their windows will have a lower level of light transmittance, we would urge you to carefully consider the safety consequences of such an exemption. Please let me know if you need any further information on this subject. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: 10-001800drn_risner

ID: 22044

Mr. Matthias Friedrich
Managing Director
Van Riesen GmbH+CoKG
IndustriestraBe 10
D-32130 Enger
Denmark





Dear Mr. Friedrich:

This is in response to your letter asking whether the buckle release on your child restraint system meets the area requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems." The answer is no.

S5.4.3.5(c) of Standard No. 213 requires any buckle in a child restraint system to "[m]eet the requirements of S4.3(d)(2) of FMVSS No. 209 ( 571.209), except that the minimum surface area for child restraint buckles designed for push button application shall be 0.6 square inch." You state that your buckle release design would meet this requirement if we add the "press" area (0.39 square inch) of the release button to the bottom area (0.23 square inch) of the release button.

We do not consider your buckle release to be designed for push button application because a sliding action activates the buckle release. In fact, it is apparent from your letter that you concur that the buckle release is not of a push button type. You state in your letter: "The button is not a push-button as described in the FMVSS-standard, [sic] it is as [sic] slide action release button . . . ." Since your buckle release is not designed for push button application, the 0.6 square inch minimum surface area requirement in S5.4.3.5(c) does not apply.

S4.3(d)(2) of Standard No. 209 reads:

A buckle designed for pushbutton application of buckle release force shall have a minimum of 452 mm with a minimum linear dimension of 10 mm for applying the release force, or a buckle designed for lever application of buckle release force shall permit the insertion of a cylinder 10 mm in diameter and 38 mm in length to at least the midpoint of the cylinder along the cylinder's entire length in the actuation portion of the buckle release. A buckle having other design for release shall have adequate access for two or more fingers to actuate release.

(Emphasis added.)

Because your buckle release is designed for slide application rather than push button or lever application, your buckle release falls under the "other design for release" category. Under the last sentence of S4.3(d)(2), it must have adequate access for two or more fingers to actuate release. None of our staff working on this response was able to place two fingers into your slide action release button to actuate release, and you do not claim otherwise. Thus, we do not agree that your buckle release meets the requirement of S4.3(d)(2).

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Dion Casey of this office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:213#209
d.2/6/01

ID: 1982-1.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/25/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Sure-View, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mar 25, 1982

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

Dear Mr. Urban:

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

February 8, 1982

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

Dear Mr. Berndt:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

SURE VIEW, INC.

M. W. Urban

MWU/h1 Encl.

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

February 4, 1982

Reference: 070-36-1D

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

Gentlemen:

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

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

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

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

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

Yours truly,

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

DM/dh cc: Max Walton

ID: nht79-4.29

DATE: 08/15/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of July 3, 1979, asking several questions concerning the definition of "designated seating position" (49 CFR 571.3), as that term was recently amended (44 FR 23229, April 19, 1979).

In your first question, you ask for confirmation that any bench or split-bench seat with less than 50 inches of hip room may never be required to have three or more than three designated seating positions, notwithstanding the capability of accomodating a person at least as large as fifth percentile adult female. Your assumption is incorrect. As noted in the (Illegible Word) to the recent amendment, the 50-inch specification does not mean that some vehicle seats with less than 50 inches of hip room should not also have more than two designated seating positions, if the vehicle and seat design is such that three positions would likely be used (44 FR 23232). The specification is nerely the amount of space the agency will consider as conclusive evidence that there should be at least three designated seating positions. The 50-inch caveat was included in the definition to simplify determinations of proper seating capacity by both manufacturers and the agency.

Your second question involves technical aspects of the amended definition of "designated seating position". The definition specifies that "hip room" is to be measured in accordance with SAE J1100(a). That standard defines "hip room" as,

"the minimum dimension measured laterally between the trimmed surfaces on the 'x' plane through the (Illegible Word) front Vithin 1.0 in. (25mm) below and 3.0 in. (76mm) above the SqRP-front and 3.0 in. (76mm) force and aft of the SqRP-front." (Area A in your diagrams.)

Your question includes diagrams and asks whether various portions of vehicle seats or other components would be considered "trimmed surfaces" within SAE Standard J1100(a).

Specifically, you ask whether slightly soft surfaces such as arm rests, seat back contours or other raised portions of the seat cushion would be considered "trimmed surfaces", for purposes of determining the minimum hip room dimension. The answer to your question is yes. The agency would probably consider all of the surfaces illustrated in your letter "trimmed surfaces" and, strictly speaking, within the meaning of the SAE procedure. This interpretation must be qualified, however. The procedure specifies that "hip room" is the minimum dimension "between trimmed surfaces". If a particular bench seat has distinct sections, the total dimension must be determined by adding the minimum dimensions of each section. For example, your Figure 5 illustrates a bench seat that includes a slightly raised center surface on the tunnel (in the center of the seat over the driveshaft). The lowest portion of Area A as defined in SAE J1100(a) would strike the side of this elevated center section, even though the top portion of Area A would be above the elevation. In such case, there would be three distinct portions of the seat (the driver's seat, the passenger seat, and the center seat position) that should be measured separately and then added together to get the total dimension. Otherwise, only the portion of the seat on the driver's side of the center elevation would be measured under the strict wording of the SAE procedure--an absurd result.

Regarding these questions about the measurement procedure, I must make several candid remarks. The agency will not allow manufacturers to avoid the obvious intent of the definition of "designated seating position" by finding loopholes in the measurement procedure. Further, as noted above, even if the hip room as measured in accordance with SAE J1100(a) is less than 50 inches, a manufacturer may still be required to designate three seating positions. If the measured dimension is less than 50 inches only because of slight elevations or contours on the outside seat cushion, a manufacturer must designate at least three positions if these elevation or contours are not real impediments to three persons occupying the seat.

Determinations of designated seating capacity under the amended definition should not cause manufacturers any real problems. If a manufacturer truly only intends to market a particular bench or split-bench seat for two occupants, he can and should make this obvious by the seat design, regardless of whether the total seat dimension is more than 50 inches or less than 50 inches. One simple way to do this is to install a permanent arm rest or console in the center portion of the seat.

I hope this response has clarified our position and will alleviate any problems you might have in making future determinations of proper designated seating capacity.

SINCERELY,

NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.

ENGINEERING OFFICE OF NORTH AMERICA

July 3, 1979

Frank A. Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I am writing this letter to you to ask you for your interpretation concerning the 49 CFR Part 571, "Designated Seating Position," final rule in the April 19, 1979 Federal Register, Vol. 44, No. 77. Your earliest reply to the attached questions would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Hisakauz Murakami Staff Safety

cc: RALPH HITCHOCK; GUY HUNTER

Question 2.1 (a) General

Generally speaking, would the so-called trimmed surfaces within Area A in SAE J1100(a) include the slightly soft surface (for example, seat cushion surface, seat back surface and arm rest surface) which changes its form somewhat when an occupant is sitting?

Question 2.1 (b)

If your answer is "no" in Question 2.1 (a), please show me the detailed definitions of the trimmed surfaces (for example, body panel).

Question 2.2

Surface of the Arm-Rest

Would the surface of the arm rest be considered the trimmed surfaces within the Area A when the hip-room will be measured?

Arm Rest

Figure 2

(Graphics omitted)

Question 2.3

Surface of the Seat-Back

Would the surface of the seat-back on the wheel-house portion be considered the trimmed surfaces within Area A?

Portion of the seat-back

Figure 3

(Graphics omitted)

Question 2.4

Surface of the Outside Seat-Cushion Side

Would the surface of the outside seat-cushion side be considered the trimmed surfaces within Area A?

Outside seat-cushion side

Figure 4 Question 2.5

Surface of the Inside Seat-Cushion Side

Would the surface of the inside cushion side on the tunnel be considered the trimmed surfaces within Area A?

Inside seat-cushion side

Figure 5

(Graphics omitted)

NISSAN MOTOR CO. LTD. ENGINEERING OFFICE OF NORTH AMERICA

May 10, 1979

Guy Hunter Crashworthiness Division Office of Vehicle Safety Standards NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

Dear Mr. Hunter:

During my May 4th visit to your office, I requested your interpretation concerning the measurement procedure of the "Hip Room" with regard to SAE J 1100a, which was adopted in the 49 CFR Part 571, "Designated Seating Position". The final rule was issued in the April 19, 1979 Federal Register, Vol. 44, No. 77.

At that time, you suggested that I submit my questions, along with a letter, to your office for response.

I would, therefore, like to take this time to submit my questions to you and ask for your interpretation.

Thank you for your fine cooperation with regard to this particular matter. We look forward to hearing your interpretations in the near future.

Should any questions arise, please feel free to contact me at (201) 871-3555.

NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.

Hisakazu Murakami Staff, Safety

Q-1 The "X" plane through the SgRP

SAE J 1100a states the following as the definitions of the Three-Dimensional Reference System and the Hip-room:

ZERO "Y" PLANE - (Centerline body zero plane) is a vertical plane which passes through the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle.

ZERO "X" PLANE - Vertical body zero plane is a plane normal to the "Y" plane.

ZERO "Z" PLANE - Horizontal body zero plane is a plane normal to the "X" and "Y" planes.

W5-HIP ROOM-FRONT - The minimum dimension measured laterally between the trimmed surfaces on the "X" plane through the SgRP-front within 1.0 in (25 mm) below and 3.0 in (76 mm) above the SgRP-front and 3.0 in (76 mm) fore and aft of the SgRP-front.

W6-HIP ROOM-SECOND - Measured in the same matter as W5

The above-mentioned definitions are identical to those in SAE J 182a as shown in Fig. 1.

It is my understanding that the "X" plane through the SgRP (I think we should call this "X" plane the "Y-Z" plane through the SgRP, mathematically speaking) in W5 or W6 of SAE J 1100a is the one as shown in Fig. 2. Is my understanding correct?

Q-2 The measurement procedure of "Hip-room

Assuming that your answer to Q-1 is "yes", it would then be my understanding that there can be two (2) different ways of interpreting the measurement of W5 (or W6) as shown below.

(a) The case of emphasizing "the "X" plane through the SgRP"

In this case, W5 will be defined as follows, and the words of "and 3.0 in (76mm) fore and aft of the SgRP-front"will not be significant as shown in Fig. 3.

W5-HIP-ROOM - The minimum dimension measured laterally between the trimmed surfaces on the "X" plane through the SgRP-front within 1.0 in (25mm) below and 3.0 in (76mm) above the SgRP-front.

(b) The case of emphasizing "within 1.0 in . . . . aft of the SgRP-front"

In this case, W5 will be defined as follows, and the words of "through the SgRP-front" will not be significant as shown in Fig. 4.

W5-HIP-ROOM - The minimum dimension measured laterally between the trimmed surfaces on the "X" plane within 1.0 in (25mm) below and 3.0 in (76mm) above the SgRP-front and 3.0 in (76mm) fore and aft of the SgRP-front.

Which is correct, (a) or (b)?

FIG. 1

(Graphics omitted) FIG. 2

"X" plane through the SgRP

FIG. 3

FIG. 4 (Graphics omitted)

ID: 21419.drn

Mr. Mac Yousry
Global Vehicle Services, Corp.
1238 West Grove Avenue
Orange, CA 92865





Dear Mr. Yousry:





This responds to your request for an interpretation of wiped or cleared areas specified in Standard No. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems. You asked two questions, which are answered below.

Your letter concerns S4.1.2 of Standard No. 104, which establishes three windshield areas, designated as "A," "B," and "C," for passenger cars. Each area is required to have a certain percentage of the windshield area wiped as indicated in Figures 1 and 2 of SAE Recommended Practice J903a (May 1966), using the angles specified in Tables I, II, III and IV of Standard No. 104. The standard also provides that the percentage of each area required to be cleared must also be within the area bounded by a perimeter line on the glazing surface one inch from the edge of the daylight opening.

You note that Standard No. 104 does not specify whether Areas A, B and C must fall inside the boundaries of the daylight opening of the windshield. You state that new passenger car designs may utilize smaller windshields, even though the overall width of the vehicle may not be any narrower than typical passenger cars. You believe that on such smaller windshields, parts of Areas A, B, and C may fall outside the daylight opening or even outside the area bounded by the windshield frame.

Your first question asks "Must all of the area of windshield areas A, B and C fall inside the area of the windshield bounded by a perimeter line on the glazing surface one inch from the edge of the daylight opening?"

The answer is no. In an interpretation letter of May 6, 1997, to Mr. Jiri Misik (copy enclosed), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration stated that Area A is that portion of the total area bounded by the angles in Tables I through IV of Standard No. 104 that is also within a perimeter 25 mm within the daylight opening of the windshield frame. The agency noted that it is not necessary that the windshield be large enough to contain the whole area bounded by angles (of which 16 to 18 is the left border).

Although the answer to Mr. Misik addressed only Area A, the analysis also applies to Areas B and C.

Your second question asks:

(a)  Should the percentage of the areas A, B and C, which must be wiped, be calculated utilizing the full areas of A, B, and C even if parts thereof are outside the daylight opening of the windshield?

(b)  Or, should the percentages of areas A, B and C, which must be wiped, be calculated utilizing only parts of areas A, B and C that actually fall inside the area of the windshield bounded by a perimeter line on the glazing surface one inch from the edge of the daylight opening?

As explained below, the answer to the second question is (b). In Standard No. 104, S4.1.2 states the following:

Wiped area. When tested wet in accordance with SAE Recommended Practice J903a, May 1966, each passenger car windshield wiping system shall wipe the percentage of Areas A, B, and C of the windshield (established in accordance with S4.1.2.1) that (1) is specified in column 2 of the applicable table following subparagraph S4.1.2.1 and (2) is within the area bounded by a perimeter line on the glazing surface 25 millimeters from the edge of the daylight opening.

The description and control of the minimum windshield area to be wiped is described at S3.1 of SAE Standard J903a (copy enclosed). S3.1.2.1 states in part:

The minimum windshield area that shall be wiped is described by the use of three specific areas on the windshield glazing surface. The three areas are identified in Table 1 as areas A, B, and C. Each area has been established using the angles of Table 1 applied as shown in Figs. 1 and 2. In Fig. 1 (side view), the upper and lower boundary of the area is established by the intersection of two planes, tangent to the upper and lower sides of the eye range contour, with the windshield glazing surface. The planes are fixed by angles above and below the glazing surface reference line. In Fig. 2 (plan view), the left and right boundaries of the area are established by the intersection of two planes tangent to the left and right sides of the eye range contour. The planes are fixed by angles to the left and right of the plan view reference line. ...

S3.1.2.1's description means that Areas A, B and C are not fixed, predetermined areas for all windshields, but are areas that vary from windshield to windshield. The variables are the angle of measurement and the width of the car. S4.1.2 of Standard No. 104 adds another variable by describing Areas A, B and C as within the area bounded by a perimeter line on the glazing surface 25 millimeters from the edge of the daylight opening.

Please note that in Standard No. 104, Tables I, II, III, and IV all specify that after the test is conducted, a minimum of 80% of Area A must be wiped, a minimum of 94% of Area B must be wiped, and a minimum of 99% of Area C must be wiped.

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





Sincerely,





Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:104
d.8/11/00

ID: 1984-2.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/03/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Wesbar Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. C. I. Nielsen III Vice President - Marketing Wesbar Corporation Box 577 West Bend, Wisconsin 53095

Dear Mr. Nielsen:

This is in reply to your letter of May 16, 1984, to Mr. Vinson of this office seeking an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You wish to know whether the minimum effective projected luminous lens area for stop lamps and turn signal lamps on trailers whose overall width is 80 inches or greater is 8 square inches or 12 square inches. You cite an apparent conflict between paragraph S4.1.1.6 and SAE Standard J586d, and paragraph S4.1.1.7 and SAE Standard J588f. You have asked for an interpretation so that Wesbar may properly design a "combination tail lamp."

First, we will confirm the advice provided by "D.O.T. staff people" that the latest SAE revisions, J586d and J588f, have not been adopted.

You do not state the intended use of your proposed lamp, so we will assume that it will be sold to trailer manufacturers as original equipment, and to the aftermarket as replacement equipment. As original equipment, it must comply with the requirements specified in Table I of Standard No. 108, SAE J586c for stop lamps and SAE J588e for turn signal lamps. Paragraph 3.2 of each standard specifies a minimum effective projected luminous lens area of 8 square inches.

Paragraphs S4.1.1.6 and S4.1.1.7 become relevant, however, if Wesbar intends the lamp as replacement equipment on trailers manufactured before September 1, 1978, and after January 1, 1972 (turn signal lamps) and January 1, 1973 ( stop lamps). Under paragraphs S4.1.1.6 and S4.1.1.7 replacement stop and turn signal lamps for trailers manufactured within the 1972-1978 time frame may meet either J586b or J586c, and either J588d or J588e. We note that neither J586b nor paragraph S4.1.1.6 establish a minimum luminous lens area for stop lamps. However, a manufacturer who chooses to comply with paragraph S4.1.1.7 rather than J588e would have to provide the minimum specified luminous lens area of 12 square inches for turn signal lamps of trailers whose overall width was 80 inches or more, the requirement specified in J588d for Class A turn signal lamps. We view this interpretation as one of historical interest than current relevance.

In summary, if Wesbar designs its lamp to the 8-inch requirement, it would appear to meet specifications for application either as original or replacement equipment.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

May 16, 1984

Department of Transportation 400 - 7th Street SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Attention: Mr. Taylor Vincent, Legal Counsel

Dear Mr. Vincent:

Re: Request for D.O.T. 108 Interpretation

Wesbar is a lamp manufacturer currently designing a new submersible boat trailer lamp, which we would like to introduce this fall at the national trade show. The reason we are writing you at this time is that we find we have a need for a written interpretation clarifying a section of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 regarding the lamps used on trailers over 80 inches wide.

The need for the interpretation arrives from several sources, which include the latest SAE Engineering Handbook, several D.O.T. staff, and the marketplace. The area needing clarification is the number of square inches actually needed (of effective projected luminous area) for a STOP LAMP (D.O.T.-108, S4.1.1.6 vs. SAE J586d) and a TURN LAMP (D.O.T.-108, S4.1.1.7 vs SAE J588f). The current SAE Handbook calls out 8 square inches of "effective projected luminous lens" area as the minimum for either a turn or stop lamp used on a trailer 80 inches or more in width. We followed this up by questioning several D.O.T. staff people. They stated the latest SAE standards revisions had not been adopted by D.O.T. and therefore the 12 square inch requirement (of effective projected luminous lens area) must still be met when the light is used on trailers 80 inches or more in width. This was consistent until one staff member learned of Peterson Manufacturing's (Anderson Marine Division) #450 series "8-in-one", which is promoted for use on over 80 inch wide trailers, that has only 8 square inches of lens -- then we were told 8 square inches would be sufficient.

As you are probably well aware, the U.S. marketplace is more price competitive and quality conscious than ever before. Therefore, while we, as a lamp manufacturer, sincerely wish to meet every letter of the law, we also need to be as up-to-date and cost competitive as possible, and this is why we have been directed to you. Is the old standard still current or is a new generation of tail lights, such as Peterson's #450 series submersible tail light, now acceptable to meet the standard?

Thank you in advance for your time and consideration in reviewing this matter. It is important that we receive your written interpretation as soon as possible for it will have great impact on the design and cost of our new proposed combination tail light, as well as keep us "on schedule" for its introduction.

Sincerely,

WESBAR CORPORATION

C. I. Nielsen III Vice President - Marketing

CIN:mk

ID: 8680

Mr. Thomas D. Turner
Manager, Engineering Services
Blue Bird Body Company
P.O. Box 937
Fort Valley, GA 31030

Dear Mr. Turner:

This responds to your letter of May 17, 1993, regarding a final rule published November 2, 1992 (57 FR 49413) amending Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release. Both questions relate to S5.5.3(c) of Standard No. 217, which was added by the final rule to read as follows:

Each opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter with a minimum 3 centimeters wide retroreflective tape, either red, white or yellow in color that when tested under the conditions specified in S6.1 of 571.131, meets the criteria specified in Table 1.

Your two questions and the answer to each follows.

1. The March 15, 1991 NPRM of Docket No. 88-21; Notice No. 2 proposed the use of "one inch wide" retro- reflective tape and item 10 of the Supplementary Information section of the final rule discussed the final rule requirement of a "minimum 1 inch wide strip of retro-reflective tape." The conversion to metric units in the final wording resulted in requirement for a "minimum 3 centimeters wide retro-reflective tape." Since the logic and rationale for the requirement is based on the use of one inch wide tape and because retro- reflective tape is currently not commercially available in metric widths, Blue Bird requests an interpretation or a change in the rule to require the tape be 1 inch or 2.5 centimeters wide rather than 3 centimeters wide.

Based on your description, the conversion of 1 inch in S5.5.3(c) to 3 centimeters (cm) resulted in a .46 cm increase in the minimum size retroreflective tape which must be used. You also note that 3 cm retroreflective tape is not commercially available.

You are correct that there is a discrepancy between the NPRM and the final rule about the size of the tape. Pursuant to Executive Order 12770 (56 FR 35801; July 29, 1991), the agency converted U.S. units of weights and measurements to "metric equivalents" in the November 2, 1992 final rule (57 FR 49413, 49422). The term "metric equivalents" was used by the agency because the metric conversion was not intended to result in a substantive change of the final requirements. The .46 cm increase in the tape size was thus inadvertent. In light of the issues raised by your letter, we plan to issue a correction notice of the November 2, 1992 rule that would specify a minimum size of 2.5 cm for the tape. Until the correction is issued, we will not take enforcement measures regarding tape size against a manufacturer who uses 1 inch wide retroreflective tape.

2. Blue Bird is in the process of developing exit marking designs to conform to the requirement that "each opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter....." The retro-reflective tape commercially available for this application is stiff and will not conform to rivet heads, curved surfaces, and other discontinuities. It must be located to avoid rivets, rubrails, hinges or curved surfaces and/or must have relief holes punched in it to allow installation over rivet heads. Attached are photographs of various emergency exits with tape installed around their perimeters. The photographs are labeled to illustrate the problem areas encountered and the discontinuities required to install the tape. Blue Bird requests interpretations that the tape outlining the perimeter of the exit shall be installed such that the edge of the tape closest to the emergency exit opening is not greater than 6 inches from the edge of the opening and that splits, interruptions, discontinuities and holes in the tape are allowed to avoid and/or accommodate rivets, rubrails, hinges, handle, curved surfaces, and other function components located around the exit opening.

In a June 22, 1993 phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff, you explained that applying the retroreflective tape over rivets, rubrails, hinges, and other irregular surfaces would result in raised areas of the tape. You believe these raised areas would allow dirt and moisture to get under the tape, and eventually result in the lifting of all or most of the tape. You also explained that you believed it was preferable to place the retroreflective tape adjacent to rivets (as is seen in the photographs you enclosed of the roof exit viewed from the front of the bus), rather than punching holes in the tape to accommodate the rivets (as in the pictures of the rear push out window or rear door), for two reasons. First, you explained that the tape is placed on the bus as one of the last steps in manufacturing a bus. If the tape must be placed over rivets, holes must be punched in the tape and the tape positioned over the rivets, which results in a very labor intensive process. Second, you explained that the edges of the tape are sealed to prevent raveling. Since holes punched into the tape for the rivets are not sealed, these holes make it easier for the tape to wear and peel off.

NHTSA interprets S5.5.3(c) to allow interruptions in the tape necessary to avoid and/or accommodate curved surfaces and functional components, such as rivets, rubrails, hinges and handles, provided, however, that the following requisites are met. In the November 2, 1992 final rule, NHTSA indicated that the purpose of the retroreflective tape would be to identify the location of emergency exits to rescuers and increase the on-the-road conspicuity of the bus. Accordingly, the retroreflective tape may have interruptions if they satisfy both of these purposes. The occasional breaks in the tape you described would not appear to negatively affect a rescuer's ability to locate the exits, or reduce the conspicuity of the bus. However, the tape should be applied as near as possible to the exit perimeter. While we do not anticipate the nearest possible location for the tape to be further than your suggested distance of six inches from the exit, it seems that for most exits, the nearest possible location would be far less than six inches. When rivets are present, NHTSA will defer to a manufacturer's decision to apply the retroreflective tape immediately adjacent to the rivets, rather than over the rivets, if the manufacturer decides that this will increase the durability of the tape.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:217 d:7/7/93

ID: Braun_0001630v2

Barry E. Wolff, Director of Risk Management
The Braun Corporation
631 West 11^th Street
P.O. Box 310
Winamac, IN 46996

Dear Mr. Wolff:

This responds to your request for the agency to refrain from taking enforcement action on account of vehicle alterations your company intends to make. You stated that certain alterations to accommodate individuals with disabilities would result in a non-compliance under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 225, Child restraint anchorage systems. As explained below, we have decided against providing the requested relief.

Under the Federal motor vehicle certification requirements, a business that modifies fully certified vehicles prior to first sale for purposes other than resale is classified as an alterer (49 CFR 567.7, Requirements for persons who alter certified vehicles). An alterer must identify all of the safety standards affected by an alteration and certify that, as altered, each vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards affected.

In your letter you explained that Braun, as a vehicle alterer, converts new, fully certified motor vehicles to accommodate wheelchairs and then sells the newly-certified motor vehicles. You explained that a minivan conversion to provide for wheelchair access typically eliminates the second row of seating, including the compliant child restraint anchorage systems (LATCH systems) installed in that row. Under FMVSS No. 225, vehicles with three or more forward-facing rear designated seating positions must have in the rear seating positions a minimum of two LATCH systems and an additional tether anchorage. To bring the vehicle back into compliance with FMVSS No. 225, you stated that two LATCH systems are added to what was originally the third row of seating.

As explained by your letter and in a subsequent telephone conversation with Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff, one version of the model year 2005 Chrysler minivan is presenting a problem. This is because the new "Stow and Go" seat installed in the third row of the more expensive version of the minivan utilizes a 60/40 split bench seat design. The larger portion of the seat is already equipped with a compliant LATCH system. However, according to your letter, the smaller portion of this split bench seat is too narrow to permit installation of an aftermarket LATCH system that meets the requirements of FMVSS No. 225. Thus, Braun would be unable to certify compliance with FMVSS No. 225 using the existing "Stow and Go" seat. Additionally, simply replacing that seat with another seat is difficult because the "Stow and Go" seat folds into the floor pan of the vehicle.

NHTSA has established a limited exemption from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards in order to accommodate individuals with disabilities (49 CFR 595 Subpart C, Vehicle Modifications To Accommodate People With Disabilities). The exemption is only available to motor vehicle repair businesses making certain vehicle modifications after first sale for purposes other than resale (first retail sale). Under limited circumstances, a vehicle manufacturer, including an alterer, can qualify for the exemption as a motor vehicle repair business. However, it appears from your letter that this exemption would not be available to Braun as the vehicle modifications your company makes are completed prior to first retail sale. Accordingly, we are unable to provide the relief you request regarding this vehicle.

If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Calamita at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:225
d.6/18/04