ID: 1985-01.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/22/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: John Humphrey -- Fleet Maintenance Division, U.S. Postal Service

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. John Humphrey General Manager Fleet Maintenance Division Office of Fleet Management United States Postal Service Delivery services Department 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW Washington, D.C. 20260-7200

This is in response to your letter of January 15, 1985, to Taylor Vinson of this office asking for a waiver of the maximum height requirement so that the Postal Service may install center stop lamps on its new delivery trucks mounted from 75 to 83 inches above the road surface.

You do not need an exemption in order to install the lamp at the height you desire. First, Standard No. 108 requires the installation of a center high mounted stop lamp on passenger cars only, and not on trucks. Secondly, the 72-inch limitation on stop lamp mounting height imposed by Standard No. 108 for stop lamps applies only to the stop lamps that are mounted on either side of the vertical centerline. There is no limitation on the mounting height of the center lamp, when required on a vehicle, or prohibition against mounting it above 72 inches on a vehicle that is not required to have it.

We appreciate the interest of the Postal Service in reducing rear end accidents but would like to point out that the efficacy of the lamp on vehicle other than passenger cars is unknown. Our studies showed that the lamp was most effective at the approximate eye height of the driver in a following vehicle, and also as an alert to the driver behind who saw the highmounted light through the intervening car. Thus, the Postal Service with its lights mounted above the rear door should not expect its vehicles in service necessarily to replicate this agency's test experience.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

January 15, 1985

Mr. Taylor Vinson, Legal Counsel Room 5219 - FMVSS - 108 NHTSA - U.S. Department of Transportation 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Vinson:

The U.S. Postal Service is in the process of testing and procuring a new Long Life Vehicle (LLV). These vehicles are light delivery trucks and will be used primarily for residential mail delivery and collection and will replace the vehicle (Jeep) presently used for this function.

In the interest of safety we have required a high center mounted brake light on these units. Since the units will be slightly larger than the current vehicle the high mounted brake light will exceed the maximum of seventy-two (72) inches from the roadway as required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, Part 511, 108 Table IV Location of Required Equipment.

Due to the configuration of the proposed LLV the center mounted stop lamp will be between 78 and 83 inches from the roadway at curb weight. I have enclosed a photo of the three units we are currently testing, so that you might have a better understanding of the stop lamp location.

We are requesting a waiver to this requirement to permit placement of a center mounted stop lamp on these vehicles. Your assistance will be appreciated.

Sincerely,

Mr. John Humphrey General Manager Fleet Maintenance Division Office of Fleet Management

ID: nht87-1.89

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/04/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Jerry Flynn Tucker -- Attorney at Law

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Jerry Flynn Tucker Attorney at Law P.O. Box 24, Courthouse Square Ashville, Alabama 335953

Your letter to the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) was referred to me for reply. Your letter informs SAE that a second trailer manufacturer, Nix Enterprises, Inc., is using the WMI Code designation SAE assigned to your client, Omni Trailers, Inc. Y ou asked SAE to take whatever action it could to prevent the continued misuse of your client's WMI Code.

Under Federal motor vehicle safety standard 115, 49 CFR 571.115, (Standard 115), a motor vehicle manufacturer must assign a 17-character Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) to each vehicle it manufactures. The first three VIN characters must, among other things, uniquely identify the vehicle manufacturer. Among the primary reasons for the VIN designation are to facilitate vehicle notice and recall campaigns where a vehicle proves to be defective; and to aid persons investigating motor vehicle theft or a ccidents.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), an agency of the United States Department of Transportation, is responsible for motor vehicle safety standards, and contracts wit SAE to coordinate the assignment of manufacturer identifiers. Un der 49 CFR S565.5(b), Reporting Requirements, a manufacturer or its agent must submit its unique identifier to SAE at least 60 days before using its identifier. Apparently, Nix Enterprises fail to follow proper procedures for obtaining the WMI Code desig nation.

NHTSA considers this failure to be the kind of error that can have adverse safety consequences because it could impair both Omni's and Nix's ability to conduct recall campaigns, and further impair the agency's ability to monitor any such campaign. I shal l refer this matter to the NHTSA office of Enforcement for appropriate action.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Society of Automotive Engineers 400 Commonwealth Drive Warrendale, PA 15096

Re: Omni Trailers, Inc., WMI Code 10Z

Dear Sir:

It has been brought to your attention that Omni Trailers, Inc.'s WMI Code 10Z is being improperly used by another company. Enclosed are documents to support this claim. The State of Georgia which issued the title to this trailer, has been placed on notic e of the improper use of Omni's WMI Code, to no avail.

At this time we ask that you take any action, which you are authorized, to prevent the continued use of Omni's WMI Code and remove any trailer which carries an Omni Code from the road, which has been issued by anyone but Omni.

If you cannot act upon this matter, please inform us as to what action this office may take to prevent the same.

Sincerely,

Jerry F. Tucker

December 14, 1983

Mr. Gerald Tucker Omni Trailers, Inc P.O. Box 537 Springville, AL 35146

Dear Mr. Tucker:

This letter confirms our telephone conversation of November 28, 1983 regarding the assignment of a World Manufacturer (Maker) Identifier (WMI) Code. As the agent of the NHTSA for the assignment of manufacture identifiers pursuant to S4.5.1 of FMVSS 115, we hereby confirm the following code:

Omni Trailers, Inc. P. O. Box 537 Springville, AL 35146 United States

ID: nht88-3.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/26/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: GLENN L. DUNCAN, -- THORNE, GRODNIK & RANSEL

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 08/30/79 TO ROBERT J. WAHLS' FROM FRANK A. BERNDT; LETTER DATED 04/28/77 TO GORDON P. CRESS FROM FRANK A. BERNDT, STANDARD 210; LETTER DATED 02/01/88 TO ERICA Z. JONES FROM GLENN L. DUNCAN RE UNITED TOOL AND STAMPING INC FMVSS 207 SEATING SYSTEM; LETTER DATED 11/16/87 TO ERICA Z. JONES FROM GLENN L. DUNN RE FMVSS 207 SEATING SYSTEM OCC - 1278

TEXT: Dear Mr. Duncan:

This responds to your letter concerning situations in which seats tested for compliance with Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, bend or deform when subjected to the required test forces specified in the standard. You asked whether NHTSA would con sider a seat as passing Standard No. 207 if the seat "gives," but does not separate or break free from the floor. I regret the delay in responding.

The requirements with which you are concerned are set forth in section S4.2 of Standard No. 207. That section provides in pertinent part:

S4.2 General performance requirements. When tested in accordance with S5., each occupant seat, other than a side-facing seat or a passenger seat on a bus, shall withstand the following forces.

(a) In any position to which it can be adjusted--20 times the weight on the seat applied in a forward longitudinal direction;

(b) In any position to which it can be adjusted--20 times the weight on the seat applied in a rearward longitudinal direction;

* * * * *

(d) In its rearmost position--a force that produces a 3,300 inch-pound moment about the seating reference point for each designated seating position that the seat provides, applied to the upper cross-member of the seat back or that appear seat back, i n a rearward longitudinal direction for forward facing seats and in a forward longitudinal direction for rearward-facing seats.

The agency answered similar questions in letters dated April 28, 1977 and August 30, 1979 to Mr. Gordon P. Cress and to Mr. Robert Wahls, respectively. (Copies enclosed.) In these letters, the agency stated

2 that NHTSA allows some deformation of the seats during the force test, provided that "structural integrity of the seats is maintained." The structural integrity of a seat is determined by the extent to which permanent deformation or separation of seat components and/or seat to floor attachments result from the applied test forces. Examples of possible noncompliances include the following occurring during the application of a forward or rearward load:

(a) the seat frame releases from its adjusted position;

(b) the seat frame or seat adjusters detach from the test vehicle floorpan;

(c) the seat frame detaches from the seat adjuster mechanism;

(d) the seat adjuster mechanism separates; or,

(e) the hinged seat restraining device disengages, or detaches from the seat frame.

Other examples of possible noncompliances are the rear seat back or cushion frame detaching from the test vehicle structure during the application of the specified load, or the folding seat back restraining device releasing from its preset position durin g application of a forward load.

Further, as stated in the two enclosed letters, it has been the longstanding position of the agency that seats which displace to an extent that NHTSA determines occupant safety is threatened would not be in compliance with Standard No. 207.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if you have further questions.

ENCLOSURES

Sincerely,

ID: nht90-4.68

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: November 30, 1990

FROM: Kotaro Yakushiji -- Vice President, Emissions & Safety Technology, Mazda Research & Development of North America, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: FMVSS No.216, "Roof Crush Resistance-Passenger Cars"; Request for Interpretation.

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-15-91 to Kotaro Yakushiji from Paul Jackson Rice (A37; Std. 216)

TEXT:

Mazda Research and Development of North America, Inc., on behalf of Mazda Motor Corporation of Hiroshima, Japan requests that the Agency render an interpretation of the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 216, "Roof Crush Resistance -Passenger Cars"; considering the conditions herein described.

Specifically, Mazda requests an interpretation of the proper application and orientation of the test block and forces required by paragraphs S6.2 and S6.3 of this standard when testing vehicles equipped, for example, with roof mounted accessories such as luggage racks, sunroof wind deflectors, navigational antennas, etc. Such accessories would neither contribute to or detract from roof strength and would collapse easily and rapidly upon application of the forces required to be sustained. These accesso ries would be easily removed or at least removable for compliance testing purposes. Because these accessories are mounted on the vehicle's roof, each could influence the positioning of the test block as well as distort or render impossible compliance wi th the 5 inch maximum deflection requirement of paragraph S4. Also at issue is how NHTSA would treat such accessories during its compliance testing activities.

Please consider, for instance, the example of the sunroof wind deflector as depicted in Figure 01 of the enclosed attachment. This deflector is constructed of plastic material and is mounted at the wind screen header. For practical purposes this wind de flector is not removable during use but can be removed for testing. Mazda believes that there are three different test conditions which must be considered. These are illustrated in Figure 02 of this same attachment. The specifics of each of these test conditions are as follows.

Condition 1: Test conducted with wind deflector in place. Initial contact point A is at the uppermost point of the deflector. From a practical standpoint, however, contact point B at the vehicle's body is the true contact point.

Condition 2: Test conducted with wind deflector removed. Contact point B established in Condition 1 above is maintained. However, in this instance position B is located at a distance which is greater than (a) 10 inches from the forwardmost point of the longitudinal centerline and, therefore, possibly not in compliance with the positioning requirements of section S6.2(d).

Condition 3: Test conducted with wind deflector removed. Contact point B is identical to conditions 1 and 2. However, the test block is positioned in compliance with section S6.2(d).

Mazda requests the Agency's interpretation of which test condition above, number 1, 2, or 3, is correct and, thus, satisfies the intent of FMVSS No. 216. In the instance that test condition 1 is correct, can the movement of the test block resulting from crushing the wind deflector be deducted from the total test block movement when determining compliance with section S4? Moreover, can the Agency broaden its interpretation in this matter to include other instances involving roof mounted accessories suc h as those listed above?

Mazda thanks the Agency in advance for its kind and prompt consideration of this matter.

Attachment

Figure 1 Sunroof Wind Deflector Figure 2 Possible Test Conditions (Graphics Omitted).

ID: 1985-04.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/15/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: William E. Sandham -- Sales Manager, OEM Division, Velvac, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. William E. Sandham Sales Manager, OEM Division Velvac, Inc. 2900 South 160th Street New Berlin, WI 53151

Thank you for your letter of May 21, 1985, concerning the vertical adjustment of rearview mirrors for trucks. You asked us to clarify whether the standard requires a mirror both to tilt, as shown in your sketch "A," and to move up and down its mounting bracket, as shown in your sketch "B." As discussed below, a truck mirror can meet the adjustment requirement by either tilting or by moving up and down its mounting bracket.

The agency has not specified the means used to provide a vertical adjustment. We would consider a mirror which tilts, as shown in your sketch "A," or which moves up and down on its mounting bracket, as shown in your sketch "B," as meeting the adjustment requirement. You should know that the agency has interpreted this vertical adjustment requirement for trucks to mean that adjustment with tools is allowed. The use of tools is justified because trucks and buses are generally driven for longer periods of time by the same driver and thus the mirror does not have to be continually adjusted.

Please note that S6.1(a) of Standard No. 111 also permits trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less to be equipped with rearview mirrors which meet the performance requirements for passenger cars in section S5, instead of the requirements for trucks in S6.1(b), S7, or S8. If the passenger car specifications ar; chosen, the driver must be able to adjust the inside and outside rearview mirrors in both vertical and horizontal directions by tilting them. The agency has not permitted the use of tools for adjusting passenger car mirrors, since passenger cars are often driven by different drivers who will need to quickly and easily adjust their mirrors. A mirror mounted on a universal ball socket joint, for example, meets this requirement. In this situation, the vertical tilting adjustment shown in your sketch "A" would appear to comply as long as that mirror could also be adjusted horizontally by tilting. The vertical sliding adjustment shown in sketch "B" apparently would not meet this requirement because it appears to require the use of tools to make the adjustment.

A copy of the current version of Standard No. 111 is enclosed. I hope this information is helpful to you.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure

May 21, 1985 Legal Council FMVSS III - Room 5219 National Highway Traf. Safety Adm. U.S. Dept of Transportation 400 7th St. S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Gentlemen:

We are seeking clarification on the wording in MVSS III pertaining to mirror adjustment, particularly the terminology regarding "VERTICAL ADJUSTMENT" of truck mirrors.

Our impression is that this standard refers to the adjustment of the vertical plane of vision on the mirror head as shown on the attached sketch "A".

One of our customers has a question regarding this interpretation and is wondering if the standard is also requiring a vertical adjustment of the mirror head, physically up and down, on the loop or mounting bracketry, as shown in sketch "B".

We would appreciate your comments on this matter and also the latest revision of MVSS III for our records.

Thank you. Yours truly, William E. Sandham Sales Manager OEM Division cc: Mr. R. Brester WES/ds Attachments

ID: 1985-04.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/27/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Lawrence F. Henneberger, Esq. -- Arent, Fox, Kintner, Platkin and Kahn

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Lawrence F. Henneberger, Esq. Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin & Kahn Washington Square 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036-5339

Thank you for your letter of September 16, 1985, concerning the applicability of the requirement in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 for the installation of center high-mounted stop lamps (CHMSL's) to passenger cars manufactured before September 1, 1985. You also asked about the applicability of the CHMSL performance requirements to CHMSL's sold as aftermarket equipment for cars manufactured before that date. I hope the following discussion answers your questions.

You are correct in stating that there is no requirement in Standard No. 108 for installing CHMSL's on new cars manufactured before September 1, 1985. The installation requirement applies only to cars manufactured on or after that date. (48 FR 48235, October 13, 1984.) The only requirements regarding CHMSL's and pre-September 1, 1985 cars are that if a manufacturer voluntarily installs a CHMSL on a car manufactured on or after August 1, 1984, and before September 1, 1985, the installation must be performed in accordance with criteria concerning the location of the CHMSL, and reflections from it. (49 FR 34488, August 31, 1984.)

As to aftermarket CHMSL's for cars manufactured before September 1, 1985, the applicability depends on whether or not the CHMSL is intended to be installed as a replacement for an original equipment CHMSL that was voluntarily installed on a car that was manufactured on or after August 1, 1984, but before September 1, 1985. If the aftermarket CHMSL is intended to be installed in the interior of such a car, then the manufacturer of the CHMSL must comply with the requirement in S3.1.8.4 concerning minimization of reflections. If the CHMSL is intended to be installed on other pre-September 1, 1985 cars, its manufacturer is not subject to any Standard No. 108 requirements for CHMSL's. However, the agency encourages manufacturers of any aftermarket CHMSL to conform as closely as possible to all criteria in the standard for original equipment CHMSL's. We believe that standardization of rear signals minimizes the possibility of creating confusion to following drivers in situations where immediate action is essential to avoid a rear end collision. Further, aftermarket CHMSL's for those other pre-September 1, 1985 cars would be regulated by the applicable law of the State in which they are operated.

I hope this information is of assistance to you. If you have further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel (202) 857-6087

September 16, 1985 Jeffrey R. Miller, Esquire Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Room 5219 Washington, D.C. 20590 Re: Request for Interpretation; FMVSS 108

Dear Mr. Miller:

As we discussed by telephone, I am requesting that you confirm that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108, as it relates to the requirement for installation of a single center, high-mounted stoplamp on passenger cars, does not apply to passenger cars manufactured prior to September 1, 1985, and therefore does not apply to aftermarket center high-mounted stoplamps produced for applications on passenger cars manufactured prior to September 1, 1985.

An expedited response will be very much appreciated.

Sincerely, Lawrence F. Henneberger

ID: 3166yy

Mr. Wayne Trueman
BX-100 International
2550 Appian Way, Suite 211
Pinole, CA 94564

Dear Mr. Trueman:

This responds to your recent inquiry about installing your brake equalizer on new school buses and retrofitting this device on used school buses. A brake equalizer is a valve system that proportions the brake pressure between front and rear brakes. After explaining that California law provides that school bus brake systems may be modified only with the written approval of the school bus chassis manufacturer, you asked whether other states have similar requirements about written authorization. You also asked whether there are any special regulations pertaining to school buses that need to be considered prior to installing or retrofitting your product into school bus air brake systems.

I regret that we are unable to provide information concerning state requirements in this area. However, you may be able to obtain the information you desire by contacting individual state directors of pupil transportation. I have enclosed a list of those state officials, as published in School Bus Fleet magazine in January 199l.

I can, however, explain Federal requirements that are relevant to installing your product in new and used school buses. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Highway Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act), it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

NHTSA does not have any specific regulations about brake equalizers. However, since this device is tied into a vehicle's air brake system, it could affect a vehicle's compliance with FMVSS No. 121, Air Brake Systems. That standard applies to almost all new trucks, buses (including school buses), and trailers equipped with air brake systems.

If your brake equalizer is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable safety standards, including FMVSS No. 121. (see 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1) and 49 CFR Part 567) If the device is added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first consumer sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. (49 CFR 567.7)

If the device is installed on a used vehicle (i.e., retrofitted) by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. (15 U.S.C 1397(a)(2)(A))

You may wish to review the Federal Highway Administration's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, which sets forth inspection and maintenance requirements for commercial motor vehicles, including some school buses. (49 CFR Parts 393 and 396.)

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure /Ref: 121 d:9/l6/9l

ID: 3273yy

Sue Ellen Russell, Esq.
Brand & Lowell
923 Fifteenth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005

Dear Ms. Russell:

This responds to your letter of October 24, 1991, concerning Safety Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. You stated that Glaval Corporation, which you represent, recently notified NHTSA of its intention to conduct a notification and remedy campaign to respond to "an apparent noncompliance with the safety belt anchorage strength requirements as they apply to the rear bench seat in Glaval vans." According to your letter, these seats contain three designated seating positions, and each seat belt anchorage is "mounted on the seat, not the floor." You stated that in the course of evaluating potential remedies, you became aware of an April 9, 1990 interpretation letter sent by this agency to Mr. R.W. Schreyer of Transportation Manufacturing Corporation, in which the agency stated that only floor-mounted anchorages are subject to simultaneous testing. Because the Glaval van bench seat anchorages were tested simultaneously in NHTSA's compliance test, you asked the following questions:

1. Consistent with the Schreyer interpretation, should the seat-mounted anchorages of the Glaval bench seat have been loaded sequentially in NHTSA's test? If so, how does NHTSA's test on the Glaval bench seat, where the loads were applied simultaneously, affect NHTSA's tentative conclusion of noncompliance?

You are correct that, consistent with the Schreyer interpretation, only floor-mounted anchorages are subject to simultaneous testing under current requirements. However, based on our understanding of the Glaval design, and as discussed below, we consider the anchorages in the Glaval van to be floor-mounted. Therefore, the Schreyer interpretation is not relevant to whether the Glaval van is in compliance with Standard No. 210.

Based on photographs included in the Final Report of FMVSS 210 Compliance Testing of 1991 Glaval Van (Report No. 210-GTL-91-003), it appears that the seat belts are attached to a bar which runs along the floor behind the bench seat. The bar is directly mounted to floor brackets which run along each side of the seat.

Section S4.2 of Standard No. 210 specifies that floor-mounted seat belt anchorages for adjacent designated seating positions are simultaneously tested. The term "seat belt anchorage" is defined in section S3 as "the provision for transferring seat belt assembly loads to the vehicle structure."

In the design at issue, the seat belt anchorage, or provision for transferring seat belt assembly loads to the vehicle structure, includes the seat belt bar. Since the seat belt bar is mounted to the floor by means of the two brackets along the sides of the seat, the seat belt anchorage is "floor-mounted."

I note for your information that, on April 30, 1990, the agency published a final rule amending Standard No. 210 to, among other things, require simultaneous loading of all anchorages common to the same occupant seat. This amendment is effective on September 1, 1992.

2. Since Standard 207 requires simultaneous loading of the forces required by Standard 207 along with those required by Standard 210, does the Schreyer interpretation mean that, for a bench seat with seat-mounted anchorages, the proper loading for a test pursuant to FMVSS 207 should be 20 times the seat weight plus the proper load for one designated seating position on the bench seat?

Your understanding of the Standard No. 207 test is correct.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:207, 210 d:1/14/92

ID: 77-2.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/08/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your February 23, 1977, request for an interpretation of paragraph S10.1 of Safety Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, which specifies that motorcycle mirrors shall be adjustable "by tilting in both the horizontal and vertical directions." Your letter describes a newly designed motorcycle mirror used on Honda's and asks whether the mirror meets the adjustment requirement of paragraph S10.1 of the standard.

According to your description the mirror is adjusted horizontally by loosening a locknut, positioning the mounting bracket and retightening the locknut. Vertical adjustment is accomplished by rotating the mounting bracket of the mirror (the rotation is at an angle of 35 degrees to the vertical plane).

Standard No. 111 requires passenger car mirrors and motorcycle mirrors to be adjustable "by tilting". The agency interprets this adjustment requirement to mean that the mirror must be adjustable by the driver without the use of tools (for example, a mirror mounted on a universal ball joint). The adjustment requirement for mirrors on trucks, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and buses only specifies that those mirrors be "adjustable in both the horizontal and vertical directions"; there is no requirement that they be adjustable by "tilting". Therefore, mirror adjustment that requires the use of tools is permitted on trucks, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and buses. The basis for the different adjustment requirement is that trucks, multi-purpose passenger vehicles, and buses are generally driven for longer periods of time by the same driver, than passenger cars and motorcycles.

Since the motorcycle mirror you describe is not adjustable by tilting in both the horizontal and vertical directions without loosening and retightening the locknuts, it does not appear that the mirror would comply with the requirements of Standard No. 111.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.

February 23, 1977

Chief Council -- NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

Dear Sir:

This is to request your official interpretation regarding the compliance of a new design for a motorcycle rear-view mirror with the requirements of section S10.1 of FMVSS 111 which becomes effective on February 26, 1977.

Section S10.1 states in part, "The mirror shall be adjustable by tilting in both the horizontal and vertical directions."

The mirror in question is presently used on our model XL100. I am enclosing a brochure which shows the mirror installed on the machine as well as an engineering drawing of the design.

As you will see, the mounting bracket is threaded into the brake or clutch lever mounting and projects outward at an angle of approximately 35 degrees from the horizontal. The mirror holder slips over the end of the bracket and two screws are tightened sufficiently to hold the mirror in place while still allowing it to be adjusted by rotating around the bracket.

The mirror is able to be adjusted horizontally by loosening the locknut, positioning the mounting bracket and retightening the locknut. Vertical adjustment is performed as described above although the mirror does not rotate exactly in the vertical plane but at an angle of approximately 35 degrees to the vertical.

Your earliest response in this matter will be greatly appreciated. If you have any questions or comments please contact me by telephone at (213) 327-8280 extension 372.

Yours truly,

Brian Gill -- Assistant Manager, Safety & Environmental Activities

Enclosure

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht79-3.33

DATE: 08/07/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: The Institute For Safety Analysis

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of July 9, 1979, concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impacts.

Your research concerning the history of the standard is correct. The first notice of proposed rulemaking on Standard No. 201 (31 F.R. 15212, December 3, 1966) proposed a definition and requirements for the "unrestrained child impact area." When the standard was originally issued in final form (32 FR 2408, February 3, 1967), the unrestrained child impact area definition and requirements were deleted. In the same issue of the Federal Register, the agency issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking stating that it intended to develop requirements to reduce impact hazards for unrestrained children (32 FR 2417). Although the agency did not subsequently publish any additional notices on Standard No. 201 specifically developed for the unrestrained child, the agency continued work on Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and developed Standard No. 213, Child Seating Systems, both of which provide improved protection for children riding in motor vehicles.

The agency is currently studying the potential benefits of built-in interior padding, child restraint devices and other means of making the vehicle rear seat a safe environment for child transportation. This work may provide the basis for future rulemaking.

You are also correct that there were administrative law hearings held on Standard No. 201. The record of those hearings, which were held May 22 and 23, 1967, in Detroit, Michigan, and May 24 and 25, 1967, in Washington, D.C., can be found in Docket 1, microfilm roll number 2. Please contact Ms. Hardee (426-2768) of the agency's docket section to make arrangements to view this material.

I hope this information will be of assistance. If you have any additional questions, please let me know.

SINCERLY,

July 9, 1979

Frank Berndt Deputy Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

The Institute for Safety Analysis (TISA) is a private organization providing assistance in auto safety matters to clients across the country. Our president, Dr. Robert Brenner, was the first Chief Scientist of NHTSA. We are currently working with a Florida law firm which has a case involving General Motors. In that connection, our staff has been reviewing some of the regulatory dockets at the Technical Reference Branch. We have encountered what appear to be some gaps, and we are writing to you for guidance.

During the course of our research of dockets concerning FMVSS 201, "Occupant Protection in Interior Impact -- Passenger Cars," questions have arisen regarding the phrase "unrestrained child impact area." This phrase was included in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making, (Illegible Word) Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards," Docket 3, Notice 1 issued November 30, 1966. On January 31, 1967, in an Advance Notice of Proposed Rule Making Docket 7, Notice 67-1, the phrase was deleted. The Agency noted its intent to develop requirements to reduce impact hazard for the unrestrained child. However, we have been unable to locate in any subsequent dockets any specific reference to the problem of the unrestrained child. We are hoping that you may be able to assist us in determining why later dockets did not identify requirements directed to the unrestrained child.

We also believe there were administrative law hearings on Standard 201. We have not found any materials from these hearings in our docket searches. Perhaps your office could direct us to a record of these proceedings, if they did, in fact, take place.

Thank you for your time and concern. Any assistance you can provide will be greatly appreciated.

Maureen Lindsey Director of Legal Research