ID: 1983-2.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/01/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Grumman Flxible Corporation -- Charles R. Sidner, Product Safety Engineer

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Charles R. Sidner, CPSM Product Safety Engineer Grumman Flxible Corporation 970 Pittsburgh Drive Delaware, Ohio 43015

Dear Mr. Sidner:

This responds to your March 31, 1983, letter asking about the lo-air pressure warning device that is required by Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. In particular you ask whether the requirement must be met with two switches, one on the primary and one on the secondary air tank, or whether one switch on the supply tank would be sufficient.

S5.l.5 of the standard states that a warning signal shall be provided to give a continuous warning of a loss of pressure in the service reservoir system below 60 p.s.i. The intent of the section clearly is to provide a warning to a driver of any instance that results in a loss of pressure in either the primary or secondary service reservoir system.

Dependinq upon the design of any individual brake system, it might be necessary for more than one switch to ensure that the driver will be alerted to such an air loss. For example, a single switch on the supply tank might be inadequate to signal a loss of pressure in the primary or secondary service reservoir system if the action of the compressor masks such loss of pressure. It is up to the manufacturer to determine whether its system is designed in a way that requires more than one switch.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

March 31, 1983

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Reference: (a) FMVSS No. 121, Air Brake Systems S5.l.5 Warning Signal

Dear Sirs:

Your assistance is requested with respect to an official interpretation/ clarification of reference (a) above as it relates to the installation of lo-air pressure switches on our Flxible-METRO transit coach.

In accordance with S5.l.5, as we interpret the standard, when the ignition is in the "on" or "run" position and the pressure in the service reservoir system is below 60 ps, there shall be a signal either visible....or both audible or visible.

In order to attain this signal, we have positioned a lo-air pressure switch, electrically operated at both the primary and secondary air tank (service reservoir system).

The issue for interpretation is whether the two lo-air switches on both the primary and secondary tanks are necessary to meet the requirement, or if one lo-air switch on the supply tank only to activate the warning signal is adequate to meet the requirements of S5.1.5.

We shall continue to locate a lo-air switch on both the primary and secondary tanks until we are advised otherwise.

Sincerely,

GRUMMAN FLXIBLE CORPORATION

Charles R. Sidner, CPSM Product Safety Engineer

cc: E. Kravitz J. Bolton L. Musser T. Schubach

ID: nht87-1.72

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 27, 1987

FROM: KOJI TOKUNAGA -- MANAGER, ISUZU MOTORS

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSS 124 - ACCELERATOR CONTROL SYSTEMS

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO MEMO DATED 8-8-88, TO KOJI TOKUNAGA, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, STD. 124

TEXT: The purpose of this letter is to seek your agency's interpretation of some requirements of FMVSS 124 - Accelerator Control Systems in the specific context of a new system to be used for our vehicles.

This system features electric control. The system's outline is explained below and illustrated on the attached sheet.

As the accelerator pedal is depressed by the driver, the amount of pedal displacement is converted into proportional electric signals by the accelerator pedal sensor which is in fact a potentiometer equipped with two accelerator pedal position switches. These signals are fed into the control unit where position switch, and then fed into the stepping motor. The stepping motor works to move the throttle lever through the motor's arm and linkage. Thus, the engine speed is controlled in proportion to the amount of accelerator pedal displacement.

The moving components in this system are the accelerator pedal, stepping motor arm, linkage and throttle lever. I would like to receive your answer to the following questions regarding the interpretation of the requirements:

1. Energy sources (S5. 1)

In this vehicle, Isuzu considers the battery that drives the stepping motor to be one of the energy sources under S5. 1, and the return springs (accelerator pedal and throttle lever return springs) the other sources. Is this interpretation correct?

2. Disconnection or severance (S5. 2)

a. Is a severance in electric wires in this system a severance or disconnection within the meaning of S5.2? Isuzu considers negative because electric wires are not a moving part.

b. If a severance in electric wires were a severance or disconnection under S5.2, what about a short-circuiting that may result from such a severance? Does the Standard require that the throttle returns to the idle position even in such a condition?

c. Our understanding is that a failure (other than severance or disconnection) of a system component itself (i.e. a failure in the accelerator pedal sensor with pedal position switches, control unit, throttle valve position switch, or stepping motor) is not subject to the throttle return requirement under the Standard. Is this correct?

3. Definition of "driver-operated accelerator control system"

It is our interpretation that the battery and the electric wires from the battery to the control unit are not a part of the accelerator control system under this definition. Is this interpretation correct?

Vehicles equipped with this control system are already distributed in Japan, and we would like to introduce such vehicles to our U.S. customers as soon as possible. Therefore, your prompt review of, and answer to, these questions would be greatly apprec iated.

I am looking forward to hearing from you on this subject.

Attached sheet

Battery

Throttle valve position switch

Accelerator pedal sensor with accelerator pedal position switches

Arm

Throttle lever

Linkage

Return springs

Stepping motor

Accelerator pedal

Return spring

Control unit

Electric wire

Accelerator Control System

ID: nht90-3.59

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 16, 1990

FROM: Edward R. Heussner -- Consultant, Comp U Tence

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re Interpretation of Requirements for FMVSS 219 - Windshield Intrusion Zone

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-4-91 to Edward R. Heussner from Paul Jackson Rice (A37; Std. 219; VSA 108(b)(2)

TEXT:

I am working on the compliance documentation for an automobile manufacturer.

In the process of studying the data, charts and films of the impact tests I noted the windshield wiper would pass thru the "protected zone" on some tests. I called your office on Friday August 10 and talked with Dorthy Nakama. My initial question of he r was is the windshield wiper considered to be a component . . . "normally in contact with the windshield" . . . as per the standard. She assured me that the wiper fits that definition and thus is not a problem.

We then discussed the next phrase regarding "penetration." The standard states that in the area immediately below the protected zone ... no such part of the vehicle shall penetrate the inner surface of that portion of the windshield, within the DLO, bel ow the protected zone.

My question revolves around what constitutes penetration? Specifically does penetration occur when the windshield is deformed in the region . . . or does some vehicle component have to actually protrude thru and puncture the "glass-plastic" in the area in question? I used the analogy of a bowling ball being dropped on a windshield. The dimple so created would certainly protrude inward yet I would not have considered it to have penetrated. Thus, in order for penetration to have occurred does some veh icle component have to go thru the windshield or is "obscuring" of the glass sufficient to demonstrate failure in this instance?

I have one other question regarding the test procedure for FMVSS 219. The standard defines a protected zone, degree of penetration and method of measurement. It is my understanding that many organizations test vehicles for several standards simultaneou sly (i.e. 208, 212, 219 & 301) and consequently considerable data is lost when the protected zone styrofoam template is glued to the windshield. Thus it is quite common to use the results of this multi-standard test to prove compliance to 219 under a NH TSA approved deviation to the stated approach.

Is engineering judgement acceptable to the agency in this instance. That is to say that analysis of the films could easily show nothing came near the protected zone. However, if some vehicle component did in fact "approach" the zone would another test, just for 219, be required.

Film analysis is quite advanced today, but tracing the path of an object to within 1/4" of an "imaginary surface" is probably expecting too much. Your comments on this issue would be welcome. If in fact the practice is to not

use the styrofoam template, perhaps the standard should be revised to reflect this. The alternative is very costly. Full vehicle barrier tests cost in excess of $100,000. At a nominal $1000 profit per sale, this translates into 100 sales just for that test. I would suspect that $100,000 plus dollars could be better spent towards a safer vehicle.

Thank you for your consideration of these questions, your prompt reply would be greatly appreciated. Keep smiling and have a super day.

ID: 1985-04.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/25/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Barry Felrice; NHTSA

TO: Karl-Heinz Faber -- Vice President, Product Compliance and Service, Mercedes Benz of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Karl-Heinz Faber Vice President, Product Compliance and Service Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. One Mercedes Drive Montvale, NH 07645

I am writing in response to your letters about the headlamp cleaning systems you intend to install on certain 1986 model year vehicles. Your letters provide information about these systems and their performance. My staff has carefully reviewed the information and how it relates to Standard No. 108. "Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment."

Our finding is that headlamp cleaning systems as proposed would be governed by paragraphs S4.1.1.36(b)(3), S4.1.3. and S4.3.1.1. The intent of the requirements in these paragraphs is 1) to assure mechanical aimability of the lamp as installed in the vehicle, and 2) to assure that all photometric performance requirements are met with and without installation of auxiliary vehicle parts or accessories, (and if performance degradation must occur, to assure that an auxiliary lighting device is provided). Additionally, the "fail safe" requirements of Standard 112, "Headlamp Concealment Devices" provides a precedent for a requirement that a headlamp should meet all photometric performances requirements, should a wiper fail.

In viewing your company's systems relative to the requirements, it appears possible to design a replaceable bulb headlamp for a specific vehicle application which includes a wiper type headlamp cleaning system, that meets the intent of the law. This could occur if the headlamp system and cleaning system were designed to meet the requirements together: i.e., the photometric performance requirements of FMVSS No. 108 could be met with the wipers in any achievable position and with any standardized replaceable light source. The system would also have to provide for the wiper to accommodate mechanical aiming. The information presented by you appears to show that the design of your system has taken these needs into account. NHTSA would anticipate that any replaceable bulb headlamp system in such an application would be certified by the vehicle manufacturer to meet the performance requirements using a standardized replaceable light source which has minimum lumen output and which has the filament at the maximum out of position tolerance, any replacement headlamp, and any headlamp cleaning system parts. This would be necessary to ensure that the vehicle would remain in compliance when replacement parts are used.

In consideration of the above, NHTSA believes that replaceable bulb headlamp systems with wiper type cleaning systems designed to be compatible and designed to conform to Standard 108 are permissible under the present Standard.

In summary, NHTSA views the use of the wiper type headlamp cleaning system in conjunction with replaceable bulb headlamps as permissible so long as due care is taken to ensure that the systems are designed to conform together, and can remain in compliance in the event of parts replacement.

Sincerely, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking

ID: 86-5.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/12/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Davis Thekkanath

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

SEP 12 86

Mr. Davis Thekkanath Oshkosh Truck Corporation P.O. Box 2566 2307 Oregon St. Oshkosh, WI 54903-2564

Dear Mr. Thekkanath:

This responds to your letter dated May 9, 1984, regarding the placement of the vehicle identification number (VIN) on heavy duty vehicles. You asked whether a heavy duty truck must have a VIN that meets the location requirement of S4.6 of the standard or whether the VIN for such a vehicle can be located on the vehicle certification plate. As discussed below, the VIN for a truck with a gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or more can be located on the vehicle certification plate.

Standard No. 115. Vehicle Identification Number - Basic Requirements, requires passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, incomplete vehicles, and motorcycles to have a VIN. S4.5 of the standard requires the VIN to appear indelibly on a part of the vehicle which is not designed to be removed except for repair or upon a separate plate which is permanently affixed to the vehicle. S4.6 of the standard specifies the location of the VIN inside the passenger compartment for passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and trucks of 10,000 pounds or less GVWR. However, the VIN location requirement of S4.6 does not apply to vehicles with a GVWR over 10,000 pounds.

As you correctly noted, Part 567, Certification, requires the VIN to be located on the certification label of motor vehicles. Since S567.4(b) requires the certification label to be permanently affixed to the vehicle, the agency considers providing the VIN in this location as complying with the requirement of S4.5 of Standard No. 115.

I hope this information is helpful to you.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

May 9, 1986

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th St. S.W. Washington. D.C. 20590

Subject: Placement of Vehicle Identification Number

Gentlemen:

We are manufacturers of heavy duty vehicles of GVWR of over 10,000 lbs. In our effort to find the exact federal requirement of the placement of the vehicle identification number, we scanned through FMVSS 115 for an answer. It specifically addresses in paragraph 4.6. vehicles of GVWR 10,000 lbs or less. Does this requirement apply for us also?

We currently have the certification label of which "VIN" is a part, placed inside the cab per 49 CFR 567 paragraph 4. Does this satisfy the "VIN" placement requirement? Does the regulation require that "VIN" be placed on any other part of the vehicle in addition to that on the certification label placed inside the cab?

We would appreciate your responding in writing to us as soon as possible.

Sincerely, OSHKOSH TRUCK CORPORATION

Davis Thekkanath Sr. Supervising Engineer

DT:ks

ID: 8125a

W.C. Burke, Captain
Department of California Highway Patrol
P.O. Box 942898
Sacramento, CA 94298-0001

Dear Mr. Burke:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of FMVSS No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205). This interpretation is based on my understanding of the statements in your letter as well as statements made by Mr. Greg Bragg of the California Highway Patrol (CHP) in a telephone conversation with Mr. Clarke Harper of this agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Standards and Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff.

You ask about the marking responsibilities of glass installers who put replacement glass in school buses. CHP personnel have found school buses with replacement glass that is not marked. You ask whether an installer who cuts sections of glass from a larger, marked section is required by S6.4 of FMVSS No. 205 to mark each individual smaller section (if not already marked) prior to installing them as replacement windows. As explained below, the answer to your question is yes.

The person who cuts a section of glazing to size for installation in a motor vehicle is considered a manufacturer of the glazing. This is because the item of glazing is not considered manufactured until it is in the form that it will actually be sold for installation into a motor vehicle. This position that the person cutting the glazing is a manufacturer was stated early in the history of Standard No. 205, in a letter to Donald Counihan (May 9, 1968). The agency has stated frequently since then that persons cutting sections of glazing are manufacturers, most notably in a preamble for a 1972 rule on Standard No. 205 adopting the requirements of S6.4. (37 FR 24035, November 11, 1972) NHTSA stated that S6.4 requires "persons who cut glazing" to include the markings required by Standard No. 205 "on each cut piece."

S6.4 requires each person who cuts glazing to mark the piece with the markings required by section 6 of American National Standard (ANS) Z26. Section 6, ANS Z26 requires the following information: (1) the words "American National Standard" or the characters "AS," (2) a number identifying the item of glazing, (3) a model number assigned by the manufacturer that identifies the type of construction of the glazing material, and (4) the manufacturer's distinctive designation or trademark. Section S6.5 of Standard No. 205 also requires that person to certify the material in accordance with section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

While your letter refers to persons cutting sections of glazing from larger sections, we note that it is possible that an item of replacement glazing was designed for a specific vehicle by a "prime glazing material manufacturer" (i.e., "one who fabricates, laminates, or tempers the glazing material," see S6.1 of Standard No. 205). If the item was so designed by such a manufacturer, the item must be marked and certified in accordance with S6.1 and 6.2 of Standard No. 205. A person other than a prime glazing material manufacturer installing the glazing without cutting it would have no marking requirement under Standard No. 205.

I hope that you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mr. Shaw at (202) 366- 2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:205 d:3/31/93

ID: 1984-1.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/21/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mazda (North America) Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. H. Nakaya Office Manager Mazda (North America), Inc. Detroit Office 23777 Greenfield Road Suite 462 Southfie1d, MI 48075

Dear Mr. Nakaya:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars (49 CFRS571.120). Specifically, you noted that section S5.2 of that standard required that certain information be labeled on the "weather side" of each rim or wheel disc. You then offered your interpretation of the term "weather side", and asked for my comments on that interpretation. My comment is that Standard No. 120 explicitly defines "weather side", and that the definition of the term in Standard No. 120 is somewhat broader than your interpretation of the term.

Section S4 of Standard No. 120 contains the following definition: "Weather side" means the surface area of the rim not covered by the inflated tire. The interpretation you offered in your letter was consistent with this definition, because it would require that the information not be labeled in an area where it would be obscured by the inflated tire. However, your interpretation would also require that the information not be labeled in an area where it would be obscured by any axle mounting components, and this requirement is not contained in the definition set forth in Standard No. 120. You are free to use your narrower interpretation for your own purposes since it is consistent with the definition in the Standard, but the definition set forth in the Standard would be used to determine whether a rim complies with the requirements of the Standard.

Please feel free to contact me should you have any further questions or need more information on the requirements of Standard No. 120.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

January 13, 1984

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

RE: Interpretation of FMVSS 120; Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars

Dear Mr. Berndt:

The above Standard provides guidelines regarding the nature and display of tire and rim specifications. Within these guidelines, reference is made in Section 5.2 that the specifications, placed on the rim or wheel disc, " . . . shall appear on the weather side".

Mazda believes that this terminology refers to the surface of the rim or wheel disc that is not obscured by the mounted tire or any axle mounting components. This would result in ready accessibility of all specifications to personnel as the tire is mounted to the rim and avoid the obliterating effects that often occur between mating surfaces.

Please clarify the above terminology and comment on Mazda's interpretation of this requirement.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

H. Nakaya Office Manager

HN/ab

ID: nht81-3.14

DATE: 09/04/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mid Bud Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30 SEP 4 1981

Mr. Fred S. Barrington Vice-President Engineering Mid Bus Inc. 710 East Wayne Street P.O. Box 1985 Lima, Ohio 45802

Dear Mr. Barrington:

This responds to your July 28; 1981, letter asking whether a portion of your school bus would be considered part of the sidewall or roof for purposes of complying with Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection.

Paragraph S5.3.1.1 defines the head impact zone in which the head protection requirements apply. The bus sidewall, windows and doors are exempted from complying with the requirements for head impact protection even if they fall within the head impact zone. The bus roof, on the other hand, must comply with the requirements if it falls within the zone. In the bus to which you refer in your letter, the bus wall and roof structure are not distinctly separated. You ask, therefore, where the roof stops and the sidewall begins.

The agency has stated by interpretation that the roof begins where the radius of curvature of the interior structure decreases sharply. From the sketch that you enclosed with your letter, it appears that the roof would begin at the point marked "B". Assuming that your diagram is correct, the side of the bus below point "B" would be considered part of the bus sidewall and would not be required to comply with the head impact requirements.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

July 28, 1981

Mr. Roger Tilton National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of Chief Counsel, Room 5219 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Tilton:

Mid Bus Inc. builds a van type school bus under 10,000 lbs. GVWR. In this type unit there is a considerable amount of slant or tumble home in the sides. The enclosed sketch shows a typical side of our bus.

FMVSS 222 paragraph S 5.3.1.1 states that the head protection zones are spaces in front of each school bus passenger seat which are not occupied by bus side wall, window or door structure.....etc.

Refer to the enclosed sketch and note that Point "A" is where the side wall intersects the head protection zone. The wall extends upward and inward from that point. The shaded area on the sketch is that portion of the bus that falls in the head protection zone.

On September 28, 1977 NHTSA (NOA-30) made an interpreation for Ward Body Company that the side wall ended and the roof began at a point where the radios of curvature of the interior structure decreases sharply. Can we assume that this same point which is shown on the enclosed sketch as Point "B" is above the head impact zone and anything below Point "B" does not have to meet the head impact requirements?

Thank you for considering this matter.

Cordially,

Fred S. Barrington Vice-President Engineering

FSB:pas

Enclosure

ID: nht87-1.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/12/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Phil Rounds

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Phil Rounds, Esq. Rhodes, Hieronymus, Jones, Tucker & Gable 2800 Fourth National Bank Building 15 West Sixth Street Tulsa, OK 74119

Dear Mr. Rounds:

Thank you for your letter of October 22, 1986, requesting an interpretation of how the requirements of Standard No. 20B, Occupant Crash Protection, would apply to a model year 1982 vehicle. The answers to your two specific questions are discussed below.

You first asked about the requirements of S4.1.2.3 of the standard. You asked whether a manufacturer that has chosen to meet that provision of the standard by installing a Type 2 safety belt at each front outboard designated seating position is required to crash test those safety belts. As explained below, S4.1.2.3 does not require the Type 2 safety belts installed in accordance with that requirement to be subjected to a crash test.

S4.1.2 of the standard sets forth the requirements for passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1973, and before September 1, 1986. Thus, those requirements would apply to a model year 1982 passenger car. S4.1.2 provides that a manufacturer s hall meet the requirements of either S4.1.2.1, S4.2.2.2, or S4.1.2.3. Under S4.1.2.3, a manufacturer has the option of installing "a Type 2 seat belt assembly with a nondetachable shoulder belt that conforms to Standard No. 209" at each front outboard de signated seating position. Although Standard No. 209 establishes performance requirements for a safety belt, it does not require the crash testing of the belt.

You also asked whether lap belts installed in accordance with the requirements of S4.1.2.3 in a vehicle's rear seat must be crash tested. The answer is no, rear seat safety belts installed in accordance with S4.1.2.3 do not have to be crash tested. S4.1. 2.3 (c) sets the requirements for rear seats. It provides that a manufacturer may install either a "Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly that conforms to Standard No. 209. . . ." As explained above, Standard No. 209 does not require crash testing for safe ty belts.

As you requested, we are providing you with a certified copy of this letter. If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Erika Z. Jones NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel, Room 5219 400 Seventh Street SW Washington DC 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

Re: Interpretation Letter 49 CFR

Section 571.208 5.4.1.2.3

We are writing to request a certified copy of a letter of interpretation regarding conformity with FMVSS 208 as it applies to 1982 MY vehicles.

Specifically, please confirm that where a manufacturer of a 1982 MY vehicle has elected the third option (S.4.1.2.3) and employed type 2 seatbelts (i.e., three point belts), at each front outboard designated seating position, a dynamic crash test is not required. Further, that a 49 CFR Section 571.208 S 5.1 test is also not required with regard to lap belts in the rear designated seating positions where type 2 seatbelts are employed at each front outboard designated seating position.

Your immediate attention to this matter would be most appreciated. Enclosed is a check in the amount of $3.00 to cover administrative expenses.

Yours truly,

PHIL ROUNDS PLR/bv Enclosure

ID: nht80-3.6

DATE: 06/20/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Thomas Built Buses - James Tydings, Specifications Engineer

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 8/26/88 letter from Erika Jones to Frank Reynolds (Std. 111; A32)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of April 28, 1980, concerning Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors. Your letter refers to section 9.1 of the standard, but the questions themselves are concerned with section 9.2 of the standard.

You asked whether the standard requires the use of more than one outside crossview convex mirror on a schoolbus. Section 9.2 provides, in part, "Each schoolbus, except those that are forward control vehicles, shall have a convex mirror . . . ." The use of the singular noun "mirror" means that only one convex mirror can be used to meet the requirements of section 9.2.

You also asked the agency to define the word, "view" as that word is used in the portion of section 9.2 that requires the outside crossview convex mirror to be "mounted so as to provide the driver a view of the front bumper. . . ." As explained in the notice proposing the use of crossview mirrors, the purpose of the requirement is to "address special problems of driver visibility associated with pupil transportation." The agency explained that "to reduce the danger of death or injury to school children it is necessary that the school bus driver have the fullest possible view of all sides of the vehicle, including the front" (40 FR 33829, August 12, 1975). Use of a crossview mirror allows the driver to see the area immediately in front of a stopped bus to be sure there are no children there, before moving the bus.

The agency used the word "view" in its ordinary, dictionary sense to mean within the range of sight. Thus, most, but not literally all, of the front bumper must be visible to the driver by use of the crossview mirror to ensure that he or she can see children standing in front of the bus.

Please note that the agency's November 6, 1978, proposal (43 FR 51657) to upgrade the standard would establish new field of view requirements for the crossview mirror. If you have any further questions, please let me know.

SINCERELY,

April 28, 1980

Chief Counsel Office of Chief Counsel U. S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: FMVSS #111-76 Rearview Mirrors

Dear Mr. Chief Counsel: The subject standard states in Section S9.1 that each school bus shall have a convex mirror.

Since the singular tense is used, a school bus having one (1) convex mirror would be deemed to be in compliance, is this correct?

Further on in this section, the Standard speaks. . . . "And mounted so as to provide the driver a view of the front bumper . . ."

We would appreciate it if you would furnish us a definition of the word "view" as used in this standard.

Thanking you in advance, we remain

THOMAS BUILT BUSES, INC.

James Tydings Specifications Engineer