Interpretation ID: nht76-2.43

DATE: 07/15/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Department of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 22, 1976, asking for interpretations of Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 108 and 205.

Paragraph S4.3.1 of Standard No. 108 requires, as you noted, that lamps and reflective devices be securely mounted on a rigid part of the vehicle. You asked "whether or not flexible mount clearance and sidemarker lamps should be permitted for use on motor vehicles." Your question appears directed towards replacement equipment. The answer is that California may regulate mounts for replacement lighting equipment in the manner it deems appropriate. S4.3.1 applies to the mounting of lighting equipment on new motor vehicles, and does not establish a specification for replacement equipment mounts. The replacement clearance and sidemarker lamps themselves are, of course, subject to Standard No. 108.

You also asked whether there was a provision in Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, that would exempt "Item 3" [AS 3] glazing (to be used for glass partitions and rear side windows of van-type vehicles) from the requirements of ANS Z26 Tests Nos. 1 and 18.

The answer to your question is no. Paragraph S5.1.1 of Standard No. 205 specifies that glazing materials for use in motor vehicles shall conform to the requirements of ANS Z26. The ANS Z26 specifications require "Item 3" glazing materials to comply with Test No. 1, "Light Stability," and Test No. 18, "Abrasion Resistance," regardless of where the "Item 3" glazing is to be used in the vehicle. Thus, there is no provision by which manufacturers of such glazing may be exempted from the test requirements.

SINCERELY,

DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL

June 22, 1976

File No.: 61.A2781.A3107

James C. Schultz Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

We would appreciate your interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 108 and 205 with regard to the following situations:

1. FMVSS No. 108, Section S4.3.1 requires, in part, that lamps and reflective devices be securely mounted on a rigid part of the vehicle. For several years, clearance or sidemarker lamps have been available which have a rubber strap between the mounting plate and the lamp housing that allows the lamp great freedom of movement when attached to "a rigid part of the vehicle".

Each of the lamps we have examined has a small degree of rotation between the mounting plate and the lamp. In addition, when the mounting plate is held against an appropriate mounting surface, the lamp axis is neither parallel nor perpendicular to the planes normally associated with lamp orientation. When a truck with this type of lamp installed is in motion, the wind currents cause the orientation of the clearance lamps to be further distorted and the ones used for the sidemarker function are in constant motion.

We assume that the intent of the regulation is to ensure that the device will maintain a fixed orientation. Since this lamp cannot comply with that requirement, we request your opinion as to whether or not flexible-mount clearance and sidemarker lamps should be permitted to be sold for use on motor vehicles.

2. Due to the increasing popularity of glass partitions in van-type vehicles, we have received many requests for our approval of AS-3 glazing manufactured with one or both sides textured to render it translucent or with designs etched or sand-blasted upon it. This glazing is also used in the rear side windows of vans and bathroom windows in buses and recreation vehicles. Several of the manufacturers have asked to have this type of glazing exempted from ANSI Test Number 18, Abrasion Resistance, because such resistance has no safety value in this application.

Since the purpose of the abrasion test is to ensure that the driver will have an undisturbed view in the areas requisite for driving visibility, it appears unreasonable to require Tests Nos. 1 and 18 to be performed on glazing that is not used for driving visibility. We would like to know if there is a provision which would allow these manufacturers to be exempt from these tests for this type of glazing.

WARREN M. HEATH Commander Engineering Section

CC: AAMVA; VESC