ID: aiam0441

Dear Mr. Mitoya: This is in response to your letter concerning 'Parts Subject to MVS No. 302,' your reference No. P-71-10, dated June 21, 1971. In paragraph A of your letter you list several vehicle components and ask whether, because the size of the component is small when compared to the specified sample size of S5.2, the component must still meet the requirements of the standard. If so, you ask which components, based upon pictures of the vehicle that you enclosed, are subject to the standard.; The answer to your question is yes. Whether a particular component mus meet the requirements of the standard does not depend upon its size, but upon whether it is included within the language of S4.1. If a particular component is smaller than the sample size specified in S5.2.1, it may be tested using the heat resistant wires described in S5.1.3.; With regard to whether the components you list are subject to th standard, in our answer we have combined those you listed in question A as well as in question B. Our answers are based solely upon the pictures you submitted and not an actual vehicle, and we cannot therefore be specific in all instances. While none of the components you list is specifically referred to in S4.1, some of the components appear to closely resemble or to be merely different descriptions of items that are enumerated. If so, they are subject to the standard. These are the parcel shelf and scarf plate. Seaming welt and seaming rubber should be considered as part of the component to which it is attached and for which it provides a seam.; Whether the other items you list are subject to the standard depend upon whether they are 'other interior materials . . . designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash.' The components that you list that may fall within this category are the head restraint adjuster knob, radio, lighter, choke and other knobs, combination switch knob, steering wheel, transmission control lever knob, door latch release cover, window control knob, seat slide knob, reclining knuckle cover, room lamp, interior rear view mirror, meter case, glove compartment door, decoration plate of radio and clock, steering column cover, console, venitilation (sic) (ducts), transmission control lever boot, heater, steering wheel hub, and air conditioner. Items that we can determine would not be covered under this language would be the pedal pads and the wiring beneath the instrument panel.; If you have additional questions, please write to us. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: 2857o

Mr. Troy C. Martin
Specifications/Inspections Chief
Texas State Purchasing & General Service
Commission
Lyndon Baines Johnson State Office Bldg.
P.O. Box 13047 Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711-3047

Dear Mr. Martin:

This is a response to your letter of last year where you stated your concern respecting the installation of "latches" on the rear doors of a school bus of 10,000 lbs or less GVWR (small school bus), and asked a number of questions on release mechanisms for required rear emergency doors on these small school buses. I regret the delay in this response.

You said that the State of Texas has a school bus specification that requires "the first-closed (left-hand) door)" to have a latching mechanism at the top and bottom. Your supplier tells you that this specification conflicts with provisions of Federal safety standard 217, Bus Window Retention and Release (Standard 217). You go on to express your concern that a single mechanism would hold both doors closed, and that this feature increases the risk of injury from accidental or intentional opening. You believe that where a small school bus has two rear doors, if each door is secured independently, then there is a decreased risk of a student's falling through a door opened inadvertently.

Let me begin my answer with some general information on the requirement for a rear emergency door in a small school bus. As your supplier suggests, there can be instances where independently securing the rear doors on a small school bus would violate Standard 217. Paragraph S5.2.3.1 requires a manufacturer of these buses to install either (1) one rear emergency door, or (2) one emergency door on the vehicle's left side and one push-out rear window. Where a manufacturer chooses to meet this requirement by installing one rear emergency door, the door may be hinged on either side of the vehicle.

When a manufacturer installs more than one rear door exit, the question of whether both exits are "emergency doors" under paragraph S5.2.3.1 of Standard 217 depends upon whether one or both doors must be opened for unobstructed passage of a specified parallelepiped under paragraph S5.4.2.2. The purpose of the school bus emergency exit requirements is to facilitate quick and safe rider exit from the vehicle in the event of an emergency. (44 FR 7961, 7962, February 8, 1979.)

Question 1: Are both of the rear doors on small school buses (with GVWR of 10,000 lbs or less) considered "emergency doors" in the context of Paragraph S5.2.3.1 of FMVSS 217?

If a manufacturer installs more than one rear door on a small school bus, and intends one door to be a rear emergency door under S5.2.3.1 and one to be a regular door for loading and unloading passengers, then the designated rear emergency door is a sufficient rear emergency exit so long as it will permit unobstructed passage of the device specified in paragraph S5.4.2.2 of the Standard. In a case such as this one, the manufacturer must label the emergency door appropriately, and otherwise ensure that the designated rear emergency door meets the performance, accessibility, and release requirements for a rear emergency door on a small school bus.

On the other hand, if the manufacturer installs two rear doors on a small school bus, and if both of those doors must be open to accommodate the parallelepiped, then both doors constitute a rear emergency exit under S5.2.3.1. In this case, the two doors together must meet the applicable provisions of Standard 217.

There is yet another possibility that a manufacturer may install a second rear exit and designate it as an emergency exit. Assuming that at least one exit meets Standard 217's requirements for a rear emergency door exit, NHTSA would not prohibit installing this additional emergency exit. However, as the agency long has held, that "extra" emergency exit must comply with Standard 217 provisions applicable to emergency exits in buses other than school buses.

Question 2: Does Paragraph S5.3.3 require separate, independent operation; that is, must one be able to open the left-hand door without first opening the right-hand door from outside of the passenger compartment?

Again, the answer to this question depends upon whether one door can meet the unobstructed test measurement for a required rear emergency door. Let me begin this answer by explaining the release requirements for a rear emergency door on a small school bus.

Under paragraph S5.3.3, a required small school bus rear emergency door generally must have a release mechanism that allows (1) a single person (2) to operate the door manually (3) from in or outside the vehicle's passenger compartment without the use of remote controls or tools (4) irrespective of whether the vehicle's power system fails. (Paragraph S5.3.3 also sets the maximum permissible magnitude of force and the permissible direction in which a force must be applied to operate the release mechanism.)

In an interpretation of March 17, 1982, this agency stated that the release mechanism is the mechanism that keeps the door from opening. In other words, the release mechanism is what you refer to in your letter as the door "latch." If the test device described in my answer to your first question passes through unobstructed only when both doors are open, then the door release mechanism must be operable for both doors from inside the vehicle passenger compartment irrespective of whether a person outside the vehicle operates the outside release mechanism. Further, this same release mechanism must be operable from outside the vehicle. In this circumstance, a separate release mechanism for each door would not comply with the Standard.

If only one door needs to be open, and the manufacturer has designated the second door as an emergency exit, then this additional emergency door still must be operable from inside the passenger compartment. In this case, independent release mechanisms may be appropriate, but a release mechanism on an additional emergency exit need not be operable from outside the vehicle. (S5.3.2.)

If only one door needs to be open to accommodate the parallelepiped, and the manufacturer neither intends the second door to be an emergency door, nor designates it as an emergency exit, then the second door is a regular door for loading and unloading passengers. Standard 217 would be inapplicable to this second door.

Question 3: Does Paragraph S5.3.3 require a warning system to indicate an opened position of any latch or latches on the left-hand door even though this door cannot be opened until after the right-hand door is opened, provided both doors must be opened to insert the 45" high by 22" wide x 6" deep parallelepiped?

If both doors must be opened for unobstructed passage of the specified parallelepiped, then there must be a single emergency release mechanism (or latch) for both doors. In a case such as this, there must be an audible alarm under S5.3.3 whenever the release mechanism is not closed and the vehicle ignition switch is "on." That alarm should sound if either door is unsecured.

Question 4: Would a warning system be required to indicate opened latch or latches on the left-hand door as in 3 above, provided the parallelepiped could be inserted into the passenger compartment through the opened right-hand door with the left-hand door closed?

In your question, the manufacturer may designate either door as the required S5.2.3.1 emergency exit if the door accommodates the test device. The warning system then must sound when the release mechanism on the designated rear emergency door is open and the vehicle ignition switch is "on." For example, if in your question, the manufacturer designated the right-hand door as the required rear door emergency exit, then the warning system must sound whenever the release mechanism for that door is open and the vehicle ignition position is "on." As I stated in Question 1, the second rear door could be an "additional" emergency exit, or a regular means for loading and unloading passengers; then the additional door would have to meet such other requirements as may apply to these exits.

Question 5: Would a latch or latches be required on the left-hand door if both doors had to be opened to insert this parallelepiped even though the left-hand door is close by the latches of the right-hand door?

In this circumstance, Standard 217 would prohibit installing a separate release mechanism on each door. Recall that S5.2.3.1 requires on a small school bus, "one rear emergency door," or one side door and one push-out window. If the manufacturer chooses to install the rear emergency door, then under S5.4.2.2, the specified parallelepiped must pass through that rear emergency door without obstruction. If both doors must be open to accommodate the test device, then both doors constitute the single, rear emergency door which the Standard requires. Under paragraph S5.3.3, the required rear emergency door must have its own release mechanism.

I hope you find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:217 d:4/29/88

ID: aiam4542

"Dear Mr. Zlotkin: This is in response to your letter seeking a interpretation of Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205). Specifically, your letter stated that your company would like to import some non-laminated windshields into the United States. I apologize for the delay in our response. As explained below, your company is prohibited by Federal law from importing or selling this type of windshield because it does not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205. Standard No. 205 establishes performance and marking requirements for all glazing installed in motor vehicles. The standard incorporates by reference the requirements of Standard ANS Z-26, 'Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways,' of the American National Standard Institute. Standard ANS Z-26 requires that glazing materials for windshields must pass a specified group of test requirements. ANS Z-26 specifies that glazing materials that comply with these test requirements for windshields must be marked AS-1. To date, the only glazing materials that have been marked AS-1 have been laminated safety glass. Unless your non-laminated windshields can meet the requirements for AS-1 glazing and are marked AS-1, they do not comply with the requirements for windshields specified in Standard ANS Z-26 or Standard No. 205. You also should be aware that Standard No. 205 permits glass-plastic glazing. The importation and sale of noncomplying glazing would be a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ('Safety Act'), the statute under which Standard No. 205 was issued. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act provides: No person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard... Your letter set forth two interpretations of the law under which you suggested that your company might be able to import noncomplying windshields. Your first interpretation relied on the fact that these windshields can only be installed in vehicles that were manufactured between 1953 and 1967. Since Standard No. 205's requirements for windshields did not become effective until January 1, 1968, you suggested that the provisions of section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act might not apply, because no safety standards were applicable to these vehicles. This suggestion is incorrect. All windshields manufactured on or after January 1, 1968 must comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205, regardless of the year of manufacture of the vehicle on which the windshield is designed to be installed. In fact, safety standards relating to components such as brake hoses, lighting equipment, tires, glazing materials, seat belt assemblies, and wheel covers are applicable to components manufactured on or after January 1, 1968, even if those components are manufactured for motor vehicles manufactured before that date. In a January 16, 1987 interpretation letter to Mr. Peter Cameron-Nott (copy enclosed), the agency stated that the above listed component parts including glazing materials that were manufactured on or after January 1, 1968, would have to comply to the relevant safety standards (in the case of glazing, Standard No. 205) even though the underlying motor vehicle was a 1965 Jaguar. Assuming that the non-laminated windshields that were the subject of your letter were in fact manufactured after January 1, 1968, Standard No. 205 applies to those windshields. As already noted, Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits your company from importing any windshields that are subject to Standard No. 205 that do not comply with that standard. Your second suggestion is that your company would be willing to place a sticker on these windshields to warn purchasers that the windshields do not comply with Standard No. 205. The Safety Act contains no exception to section 108(a)(1)(A)'s prohibition for noncomplying equipment, even if it were to be labeled as noncomplying. Hence, section 108(a)(1)(A) prohibits the importation of noncomplying windshields without regard to any warning labels on the windshields. I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: nht94-4.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 29, 1994

FROM: Gupta, Rishi, -- Autolite (India) Limited

TO: Van-Iderstine, Richard -- DOT

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached To 10/26/94 Letter From Philip R. Recht To Rishi Gupta (A42; STD. 108)

TEXT: We are developing a 7" round and a 200 x 142 mm rectangular replaceable halogen sealed beams. These replaceable halogen sealed beams use a replaceable halogen bulb (HB2) and are not same as Halogen Sealed Beam.

There is some confusion regarding exact position and type of aiming pads on the lenses on these lights. I am faxing you a copy of the aiming pad positions as per SAE as well as what we propose to develop. Please have a look at these drawings and let us know what we are proposing will conform to DOT specifications.

The aiming pads positions and sizes/types we are proposing are already being sold by Hella, Inc. as conforming to DOT specifications. I have also checked with ETL Testing Laboratories and they had agreed that the aiming pads positions and types we are p roposing conforms to DOT specifications.

Looking forward to hearing from you very soon.

(GRAPHICS OMITTED.)

ID: nht68-1.23

DATE: 11/20/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Clue D. Ferguson; NHTSA

TO: Rolite, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of October 24, 1968, concerning glazing materials in your recreational vehicles.

FHWA Ruling 68-1, published in the Federal Register on March 26, 1969, (33 FR 5020) specified that campers must meet the requirements of Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. Copies of FHWA Ruling 6S-1 and Standard No. 205 are enclosed.

We do not have any provision for exempting certain windows from the requirements of Standard No. 205 because of their foldaway position during transport. It is true, also, that your camper could be transported in the erected condition. Therefore, all glazing materials in the camper must meet the requirements of Standard No. 205.

Travel trailers are not included in the application of Standard No. 205; hence, do not have to meet the safety glazing requirements.

Sincerely,

Enclosures

October 24, 1968

Roy Dennison Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service National Highway Safety Bureau Federal Highway Administration

Dear Mr. Dennison:

I have been in contact with Mr. Walter Peck, Standards Director for the Recreational Vehicle Institute, Inc. and he has recommended that I communicate with you in regards to National Highway Safety Standards on our pick-up camper.

I have enclosed a photograph of one of our trailers and I am sorry, but, we do not have a photograph of our pick-up camper, because this is our first run on a pick-up camper and we do not have our publications ready yet. This, print shows how our trailer collapses into the (down) position. All the windows in our travel trailer are inside and there are no visible outlets when the trailer is down because it was not designed for people to ride in when being towed.

On our pick-up camper the roof also folds to a height of approximately 16 inches over the cab, but we have provided 2 side windows that are of safety glass, which meets the National Highway Safety Bureau standards. The side walls on the camper that fold in have windows and I would like to have an opinion from you as to whether the folding windows, or the windows in the wall that fold in and are encased, would also have to be safety glass.

I realize that ours will be a special consideration, a case that will have to have a special reading from you or someone of your position, connected with the Highway Safety Bureau. I would appreciate any correspondence that you would be willing to offer on this matter. We need something on almost an urgent basis, as you can imagine, so that we comply with all regulations.

I will be waiting for your reply, and if you have any questions, do not hesitate to write.

Sincerely,

ROLITE, INC., Division of Larson Industries, Inc. --

Bob Dahlke Plant Manager

Enclosure

ID: aiam0479

Dear Mr. Bennett: This is in replay to your letter of October 28. We understand your apparent problem in mounting the middl identification lamp on the vertical centerline, near the extreme height of the vehicle. Since it is apparently impracticable to mount the lamps at this height, their relocation to a position under the door opening would appear to meet the requirement that identification lamps to mounted 'as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle' (Table II, Standard No. 108).; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0497

Dear Mr. Eckhold: This is in reply to your letter of November 2, 1971, petitioning t amend Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials,' and offering comments concerning the notice of proposed rulemaking (Docket No. 3-3, Notice 4), published May 26, 1971 (36 F.R. 9565). You petitioned for the substitution of a 12-inch-per-minute burn rate for the 4-inch-per-minute horizontal burn rate presently specified. For the reasons stated below, your petition is hereby denied.; You base your petition on your belief that the expenditure fo materials that will comply with the 4-inch-per-minute burn rate cannot be justified in terms of the safety benefit achievable. In support of this you state that your analysis shows that the incidence of non-fuel fed fires is extremely low and the probability of injury is extremely remote. You further state that the cost necessary to comply with the standard's requirements as presently issued would involve an increase in vehicle cost from $4 to $10 per vehicle, while you presently have materials which you believe can meet a 12-inch-per-minute burn rate.; The Administration does not agree that there is insufficient data o which to justify the necessary expenditure to obtain a 4-inch-per-minute burn rate. There is ample evidence in the docket that the incidence and severity of non-fuel fires present an unreasonable risk to the public. The Administration has determined that in order for occupants to have sufficient time to escape from a vehicle fire, the material within the vehicle must have a horizontal burn rate that does not exceed 4 inches per minute. Ford has submitted no evidence to show that the 4-inch-per-minute burn rate is excessive or unreasonable from a safety standpoint. In addition, the high toxicity of some vehicle interior materials requires that they burn at a rate that is low enough that vehicle occupants will not be overcome by harmful gases before they can escape from the vehicle. We believe, based upon material found in the docket, that a burn rate of not more than 4 inches per minute is necessary to respond adequately to this need.; You argue further that your suppliers maintain that it would b difficult to meet the 4-inch-per-minute burn rate because of inherent variations in materials, and submit data showing that 'two vinyl coated seat fabrics of the same grain and dark colors' exhibited burn rates of .40 inches per minute and 6.25 inches per minute respectively. The NHTSA understands that the burn rate of some materials may vary. This fact will be taken into account, along with the frequency and extent of any test failures, in assessing whether a manufacturer has exercised due care. It would not be appropriate, however, to respond to the problem of variability by relaxing the overall burn rate. Such an action would probably result simply in manufacturers choosing cheaper and less safe materials.; You also argue that based upon your preliminary findings, aging o materials treated with fire retardants tends to nullify the retardant treatment and destroys the appearance of the material. Other data you submit shows a situation in which the flame retardants did not deteriorate, but the treatment caused deterioration of the material. The evidence available to the NHTSA does not, however, indicate that it is necessary to use flame-retardant treatments that display these undesirable characteristics in order to comply with the standard.; Finally, your petition contains no evidence that the 12-inch-per-minut burn rate that you recommend will allow sufficient escape time in the event of a vehicle fire. Based on the Administration's findings, such a rate would not provide the escape time necessary.; With reference to your comments concerning the proposed amendment t the standard of May 26, 1971, these will be considered as far as is practicable in that rulemaking action.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Acting Associate Administrator, Moto Vehicle Programs;

ID: 1985-02.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/01/85 EST

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mrs. Chris Condon

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mrs. Chris Condon 5639 Lightspun Lane Columbia, MD 21045

Thank you for your March 1, 1985 letter to Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning the ignition interlock in your 1980 Volkswagen Rabbit. I regret the delay in our response. You ask whether an automobile dealer may legally disconnect this safety belt interlock.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers and motor vehicle repair businesses from "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The safety belt interlock system in your vehicle is not required by any of our safety standards. In addition, Section 108(a)(2)(C) of the Act expressly allows dealers to disconnect safety belt ignition interlocks. Thus, your dealer may disconnect the ignition interlock system without violating the "render inoperative" provision.

Please note, however, that a dealer who undertakes such a task must not render inoperative any device that is required by a vehicle safety standard. For example, the dealer may not remove the safety belts themselves nor disconnect a belt warning system required by our standards. You state that there is some confusion over the actual effects of disconnecting the interlock system. Before undertaking the procedure, your dealer should determine whether the belt warning system required by our standards would in fact still operate after disconnection of the interlock.

Also, you are correct that you, as an individual vehicle owner, are not subject to the "render inoperative" provision of the Vehicle Safety Act. Although the agency believes that motor vehicle safety devices are important and should not be tampered with, you may alter any safety feature in your car, even if the feature was installed to comply with our regulations.

I hope that I have answered your question. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

5639 Lightspun Lane Columbia. MD 21045 March 1, 1985

Mr. Steven Oesch National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th St., S.W. Room 5219 Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Steve,

As per our phone conversation of February 27. I am writing to request your legal opinion regarding the following:

Our 1980 Rabbit diesel has a passive restraint system which was a manufacturer's standard feature on the car when we purchased it. The seat belts in the front must be engaged or the car cannot be started. You told me that as an individual I could legally, disconnect the system allowing me to use the seat belts but not having the procedure linked to the starting of the car.

My question is - can a car dealer's mechanic at his place of employment disconnect the electrical connection legally? I have been told conflicting statements by two persons who work in Volkswagon service as to whether all belt warning would be eliminated if the belt- starter connection were to be severed. I plan to write to the appropriate person in the company to obtain a written opinion.

Your help is appreciated. Cordially, (Mrs.) Chris Condon

ID: nht70-2.12

DATE: 06/15/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Douglas W. Toms; NHTSA

TO: Montgomery Ward

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of May 19, 1970, concerning the new Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child Seating Systems.

In your letter, you ask whether the Montgomery Ward catalog can contain a statement to the effect that child seats advertised for sale in the catalog have been certified as meeting the requirements of Standard No. 213. There is no law or other prohibition against retailers of products covered by safety standards advertising the fact that the manufacturers have certified the products as conforming to the standards.

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213 has a January 1, 1971, effective date. As a result, manufacturers of child seating systems will be required to certify that they conform to the standard only if the systems are manufactured on or after January 1, 1971. There is, however, to Federal law which prevents a manufacturer from voluntarily certifying that a child seating system manufacturered before the effective date of the standard conforms to the standard's requirements.

If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call upon me.

MONTGOMERY WARD

May 19, 1970

Mr. Douglas W. Toms U. S. Department of Transportation

In the next week we will present to our management selections for our Spring General Catalog for 1971. Included will be our selection of child seating systems. We assume today that the products of the two or three resources under consideration will qualify for certification under Standard 213. We are faced then with a problem of indentication unique to a catalog presentation.

Over a period of years the catalog shopper has had a choice of many seats covering a fairly wide price spectrum. As we see the results of this ruling, the customer will face a shortened selection and higher prices. Essentially the seats will not be visibly different from many previous seats to any substantial degree.

We also believe that there should be a significant amount of publicity attendent to the effective date of this Standard. It should be our responsibility to assure concerned parents that the seat purchased from Montgomery Ward was indeed built in compliance with these regulations. We are very much aware of consumer reaction to some disclosures by the Commission on Product Safety. Simply, we want to answer the question first and assure the consumer.

Therefore, in this Spring 1971 General Catalog can we add to the general copy a statement that "The manufacturer of these car seats had certified that they meet the requirements of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 213, effective January 1, 1971?"

We appreciate your consideration to a problem facing the catalog oriented portion of a chain merchandising organization. We need the help of your office, because we feel we must let people, to whom we can not speak individually, know that we are aware of their concern.

H. W. Wollin, Buyer Furniture Mdse. Office

ID: nht93-6.7

DATE: August 12, 1993

FROM: Dennis G. Moore -- President, Sierra Products Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/16/93 from John Womack to Dennis G. Moore (A41; FMVSS 108)

TEXT:

The International Marine Trade & Conference Show will be held in Chicago September 9 through September 12 and I would like to use this timely opportunity to clarify to its members the meaning of "to represent the width" used in FMVSS #108 to tell Vehicle Manufacturers where to locate Clearance lights. If at all possible, could you please clarify what this term means in time for this Show using terminology that are clear to all concerned.

LEGAL INTERPRETATION REQUEST

In a June 23, 1992 letter I came across in the files at the D.O.T., you recently used the term "as nearly as possible to indicate the overall width" in response to the same question I am posing. I feel answers like this are leading the Vehicle Industry to continue what is already a wide spread problem....misplaced Clearance lights.

Obviously there exists extreme confusion as to the term "to represent the width" when referring to where Clearance lights should be mounted on Vehicles over 80" in width.

Inadvertently, you have encouraged the rear and front mounting surfaces of large vehicles to be used for Clearance lights by using the "near as possible" term, further propagating the misunderstanding of the original intent of this Law.

From SAE and NHTSA archives, the original purpose of Clearance Lights was "to mark the extreme sides of the vehicle" (1947 SAE Handbook, Page 713, copy attached). Old photographs of trucks in this era show Commercial Trucks and Trailer Manufacturers always mounted the lights to indicate at least the extreme width of the vehicle.

Additionally, as you should know, Federal and State laws put into affect many years ago, have made specific allowances for Clearance Lights to protrude up to 20" (10" on each side) beyond the vehicle's maximum width (96" then...102" today).

In times when NHTSA is trying to improve "conspicuousness" of large vehicles to decrease accidents in which these type vehicles are involved, it is preposterous that the present term, "to represent the width" has come to mean....to represent "somewhere near" the width. Simply observing large vehicles, RV's, etc. on any highway clearly demonstrates this misunderstanding. It only takes a fraction of an inch of interference for one vehicle to "sideswipe" another, thereby causing what can result in a catastrophic accident. Yet, it is not uncommon to see Clearance lights

mounted as much as 6" to 8" "inside" the side extremities of huge vehicles.

I have heard of industry "hearsay" arguments that it is best to mount Clearance Lights so that they're protected from being "knocked off." I ask!....wasn't and isn't it the purpose of these lights to get knocked off instead of allowing "sideswiping" which results in hard contact of two vehicles. Isn't the intent of the 10" Government side "stick out" allowance (on each side) to deliberately sacrifice these lights to avoid accidents?

I've also heard of "hearsay" arguments from "Leaders" in the Boat Trailer and Boat Trailer Lighting Industry say that somewhere "it is written in the law that it's allowable to mount Clearance Lights to "split" the protruding area represented by fenders," whereas I know of no such allowances in the law and I don't believe you do either.

I think widespread deviations from the initial intent of the Law has occurred and Clearance Lights have become decorative rather than functional. The detailed Lighting Rules initiated in 1969 required that a Clearance Light cover both "Outboard" and "Inboard" line of sight areas and that the Vehicle couldn't obstruct the Inboard line of sight.

As a result, it became immediately apparent to Vehicle Manufacturers they couldn't continue to mount a Clearance light on the side of a vehicle as they had been doing to this point and still maintain an "inboard" line of sight. Thus, this 1969 "Inboard" requirement started Vehicle Manufacturers mounting Clearance Lights on the Front and Rears of Vehicles because of corner radiuses, etc. Since they couldn't represent the extreme width easily, they started an "in the ballpark" compromise. This was never challenged by NHTSA and has been unchallenged to this day.

Fortunately, in 1974, the "inboard" visual requirement for Clearance lights was rescinded, but unfortunately, the practice of mounting Clearance Lights on the rear and front well inside of the true width still carried on.

Presently, there are a number of lights in the marketplace specifically designed to be mounted on the sides of Large Vehicles. They are designed to represent slightly beyond the extreme width of the vehicle. In many cases, these lights can second as Sidemarker lights as well and were designed to be used to indeed represent the extreme width (and slightly beyond) of a large vehicle. These lights are used by some Large Vehicle Manufacturers but many other Vehicle Manufacturers still avoid their use because of the confusion in the term "to represent the width."

Any of these lights cost only one to three dollars; therefore if they're ruined in "sideswipe contact," little is lost; however, a possible "bounce off," "cross lane" type "multi-vehicle" accident is avoided. This is the type of accident where inherently no one seems to know what started it, so misplaced Clearance Lights are rarely blamed nor reported nor recorded in government files. I feel common sense would indicate these types of accidents are taking place.

I am requesting a legal clarification detailing where FMVSS 108 requires a Clearance Light to be mounted.