ID: nht88-1.93

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/12/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Sheila Broderick -- Baker & Botts

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Ms. Sheila Broderick Baker & Botts 555 13th Street/ NW Suite 500 East Washington, DC 20004-1109

This responds to your letter asking for information on some provisions of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR @571.208). You posed two questions, as follows:

1. How many States have safety belt use laws in effect at this time? RESPONSE: As of March 14, 1988 (the date of your letter), 32 States and the District of Columbia had safety belt use jaws in effect. 2. Which States, if any, meet the criteria set forth in Standard No. 208?

RESPONSE: The Department has already stated that the belt use laws in California and the District of Columbia cannot be counted towards rescission of the automatic restraint requirements, according to the terms of those particular laws. Beyond that, Secr etary Burnley has explained that he does not want to risk impeding the national trend toward enactment of State safety belt laws by premature rulings of whether or not particular State laws meet or do not meet the criteria set forth in the Standard. Secr etary Burnley has also stated that when and if it becomes apparent that we may be approaching the point where two-thirds of the population is covered by laws that may meet the criteria, he will rule on the individual State laws. That currently is not the case.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

March 14, 1988 Mrs. Erika Jones Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. 20540

Dear Mrs. Jones:

I was referred to you by Judith Kaplan-Weiner of the Occupational Protection Division. She explained that you may be able to provide some written information on questions I have regarding safety belt laws:

1) How many states have safety belt laws in effect at this time? 2) Which states, if any, meet the criteria set forth in safety standard No. 208?

Any information you can provide on these questions will be very helpful. Due to the urgency of this request, I would appreciate it if you call me at 639-7936 upon completion of your response. I will arrange to have it picked up by messenger.

Sincerely,

Sheila Broderick

ID: 12374-3.pja

Mr. Jean-François Thomas
Manager of Industrial Property
Glaverbel -- Center R&D
Rue de L'Aurore, 2
B-6040 Jumet, Belgium

Dear Mr. Thomas:

This responds to your August 14, 1996, letter asking nine questions about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 111, Rearview mirrors. (49 CFR 571.111). Your questions focus on S11 of FMVSS No. 111, which states

[a] multiple reflectance mirror shall either be equipped with a means for the driver to adjust the mirror to a reflectance level of at least 35 percent in the event of an electrical failure, or achieve such reflectance level automatically in the event of electrical failure. (Emphasis added).

For the sake of convenience, this letter refers to this passage as "the phrase." Our response is based on our understanding of the facts set forth in your letter. We assume that these questions refer to multiple reflectance mirrors that require power to maintain their reflectance levels above the 35 percent level.

A. Other sections of Standard 111, such as S5, differentiate between, or address specifically, different types of mirrors, such as outside rear view mirrors, or inside rearview mirrors. In contrast, S11 only refers to a "multi reflectance mirror." Please confirm that S11 applies to both inside and outside rearview mirrors.

Yes. Section S11 states that the "average reflectance of any mirror shall be determined in accordance with" a Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) recommended practice. (Emphasis added) Moreover, there is no limiting language in S11. Therefore, S11 applies to both inside and outside rearview mirrors.

B. We note that the Phrase does not specify the time frame within which the driver must adjust the mirror to the 35% level. Please indicate whether a time frame has been contemplated, and what it is.

While NHTSA did not contemplate a specific time frame, it intended that the adjustment could be done mechanically, in much the same way as a conventional selective prismatic mirror can be adjusted. See 56 FR 58575 (November 20, 1991). This is because the electrical failure could turn the mirror dark at any time, including situations where the driver could not pull over to repair the mirror but would need to brighten the mirror quickly (e.g., while in a tunnel or maneuvering in heavy traffic). NHTSA interprets the phrase to mean that the adjustment would have to be done quickly while driving.

C. Can the Phrase be interpreted to mean that the case of the mirror may contain an attachment that can be removed in the event of an electrical failure, so that, after the removal of such attachment, the portion of the mirror that remains installed in the vehicle achieves the 35% reflectance?

Yes. We are not entirely sure what you mean by "the case of the mirror," but as long as the removal of the attachment could be done quickly by the driver alone, while driving (e.g., pulling off a faceplate), the removal of an attachment could be considered a "means to adjust."

D. Can the Phrase be interpreted to mean that the case of the mirror may contain an additional or replacement components that can be affixed to the mirror in the event of an electrical failure, so that after the driver has added, affixed, or installed such an additional or replacement component onto the mirror, the mirror achieves the 35% reflectance?

No. NHTSA stated in the 1991 final rule that "the rulemaking's overriding focus must be to ensure that mirrors are capable of providing adequate rearview vision at all times during the vehicle's operation." (emphasis added) It is doubtful that this arrangement could provide adequate rearview vision at all times during the vehicle's operation. The driver would have to open the case, remove an item, and affix it. This is a three step process that should not be performed while driving. In contrast, NHTSA envisions a simple action -- such as flipping a lever, turning a knob, or pulling or sliding a panel -- that can be quickly accomplished while driving. An important distinction between the situation here and the situation in question C is that the attachment in question C can always be removed, resulting in a compliant mirror, but a missing attachment cannot be affixed to restore the mirror's reflectance.

E. Can the Phrase be interpreted to include, as a "means to adjust," the removal of a portion of the existing mirror or the addition of a component on top of an existing mirror?

As discussed in our response to question C, the removal of a portion of the existing mirror could be considered a "means to adjust." As discussed in question D, the addition of a component on top of an existing mirror, would not meet this definition. The intent here is to allow for adequate vision at all times during the vehicle's operation.

F. Can the words "be equipped with a means . . . to adjust" be interpreted to allow the driver to stop the vehicle and complete such adjustment within a short time after the occurrence of the electrical failure, using spare parts or tools available within the mirror case? Within the glove compartment, within the trunk?

No. As explained above, such scenarios would be impermissible because they could not be done at all times while the vehicle is in operation.

G. Assuming that Section 11 applies to both inside and outside mirrors, does the "means to adjust the mirror have to be within the drivers reach within the vehicle, i.e., without opening the window to reach the mirror, or without stopping the car and getting out of the car to adjust the mirror. Or, can the Phrase be interpreted to mean that in the case of outside mirrors, which are less accessible than [the] internal mirror, the driver may have the ability to stop the vehicle to adjust the mirror to the appropriate reflectance level.

Yes, the means to adjust the mirror have to be within the driver's reach, but the driver may roll down the driver's side window in order to reach the outside mirrors on that side. The driver would have to be able to accomplish the adjustment quickly, alone, and without stopping the vehicle. Because the driver could not safely reach the passenger side outside rear view mirror, there would have to be some remote means to adjust that mirror to 35 percent reflectance in the event of an electrical failure.

H. Can the Phrase be interpreted to allow the use of a battery, as an alternative source of power? And if yes, does the battery have to be incorporated within the mirror, or is it sufficient if it is provided to the purchasers of the vehicle (and is affixed to the vehicle's trunk or glove compartment), or is it sufficient if the battery is generally available in commerce?

No. Battery backup would not be a "means . . . to adjust." Batteries merely address temporarily certain kinds of electrical failure caused by loss of primary power. The regulatory requirement is meant to address the term "electrical failure" from any cause. For example, if the electrical failure occurred in the contacts to the mirror, the battery power would not maintain mirror reflectance at 35 percent. Moreover, over time the battery would discharge, eventually becoming unavailable for backup.

I. Modern vehicles contain numerous components that can operate only with electricity. Among them, for example, windshield wipers, electrical windows, ABS brakes or airbags. Although the probability is extremely small, electrical failures do at times occur. Since no product can achieve 100 % reliability, we assume that there must be some threshold level of failure. Can Standard 111/11 be interpreted or, has this or any other safety standard been interpreted to allow a "de minimis level" of non compliance? Please provide examples of failure levels that are acceptable.

The probability of failure is irrelevant in this case. The requirement states "in the event of electrical failure . . . " Therefore, no matter how rare it would be in the real world, an electrical failure is an event that the standard specifically addresses. Therefore, when NHTSA tests a multiple reflectance mirror for compliance with S11, the agency will cause an electical failure. NHTSA's current test procedure (TP-111-05, May 9, 1995) states "[i]f [testing] a multiple reflectance mirror remove all electrical power and adjust [the mirror] manually to day mode position, if so equipped." (Emphasis added). If there is a battery backup, NHTSA will disable that, too.

In answer to your second question, our regulations do not allow a "de minimis" level of noncompliance. The standards are written in terms of objective criteria such that a vehicle or a regulated item of equipment passes only if it meets the stated requirements. Except for minor labeling violations or failures that, in NHTSA's judgment, are aberrations rather than systematic problems, most test failures are subject to follow up actions which are directed at obtaining a recall.

In addition to our responses to your specific questions, we have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes a manufacturer's responsibilities to recall and remedy motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment with safety related defects and how this agency's standards apply to such products motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:111

d.11/21/96

ID: nht88-1.97

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/15/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Don Montgomery

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

The Honorable Don Montgomery Senator, Twenty-First District 1218 Main Sabetha, Kansas 66534-1835

Dear Mr. Montgomery:

Senator Kassebaum has asked me to respond to your February 12, 1988 letter to her. In your letter, you expressed concerns about a problem that has arisen in connection with using "van type buses designed to carry 10 or less passengers, without meeting al l the requirements of a school bus." You state that there is a problem with using these vehicles to transport students because "federal law classifies the vans by weight and calls them twelve passenger vehicles, which calls for the pan to meet all school bus regulations." As a solution, you suggest a change in Federal law might be appropriate to exempt the vehicles you describe "from the height classification in determining how many passengers they would be capable of carrying."

As I understand your letter, there appears to be a misunderstanding about how Federal law operates with respect to school buses. There may also be a misunderstanding about whether it is a Federal or state definition that determines which vehicles may be used to transport school children in Kansas.

Under Federal regulations, there is no vehicle classification called "van." Instead, a passenger van is classified as either a "multipurpose passenger vehicle" (MPV) or a "bus" depending primarily upon its seating capacity. An MPV is a motor vehicle desi gned to carry a driver and 9 or fewer passengers, and either constructed on a truck chassis or equipped with features for off-road operation. A bus is a motor vehicle designed to carry a driver and 10 or more passengers.

Given these definitions, a van with 9 or fewer designated seating positions for passengers cannot, regardless of its weight or gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR), be a bus within the meaning of Federal law and regulation. (GVWR is the manufacturer's dete rmination of a vehicle 's loaded weight, i.e., the weight of the vehicle plus its designed capacity to carry people and cargo.) On the other hand, if a van is manufactured with 12 or 15 designated seating positions as you stated, then the vehicle is a bus. The number of passengers that such a van may actually carry on any given trip does not affect its classification as a bus.

If that vehicle is manufactured and sold to carry school children, then the vehicle is not just a bus, but a school bus. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and regulations issued thereunder define a school bus in terms of (1) the vehicle's designed capacity for carrying people, and (2) the vehicle' s intended use. More specifically, a school bus is a motor vehicle designed for carrying a driver and 10 or more passengers, and sold for transporting students to and from school or school-rela ted events.

Gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) is used in some safety standards to differentiate between smaller and larger school buses in the application of those standards. For example, Safety Standard No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection, s pecifies one set of requirements for school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less and another for those with a GVWR of greater than 10,000 pounds.

NHTSA's definition of school bus is used by the agency in regulating the manufacture and sale of new vehicles. New vehicles which are classified as school buses must meet the FMVSSs for school buses. A school bus manufacturer must certify that its vehicl es meet all applicable Federal safety standards, and a commercial seller must sell only a complying vehicle as a school bus. Thus, a dealer who has a 12 or 15 passenger van that has not been certified as complying with the Federal school bus safety stand ards and sells that vehicle to a school district has, in all likelihood, violated the statutory prohibition against the sale of a noncomplying vehicle. (Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 571 contains the Federal safety standards appl icable to school buses and other vehicles.)

However, this agency can not regulate the purchase or use of a vehicle, and consequently can not require a school district to purchase or use only those vehicles that comply with the Federal school bus safety standards. A State may do so by adopting appr opriate vehicle definitions and requirements. To determine whether a local Kansas school district may purchase or use a noncomplying vehicle as a school bus, you must look to the laws of the State of Kansas, not the Federal laws and regulations.

On the other hand, I must emphasize NHTSA's position that a vehicle meeting Federal school bus regulations is the safest way to transport students, and encourage you to give this your most careful consideration.

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

cc: The Honorable Nancy Landon Kassebaum United States Senator Washington, DC 20515

Re: The Honorable Don Montgomery Senator, Twenty-First District 1218 Main Sabetha, Kansas 66534-1835

Respectfully referred to:

Ms. Nancy F. Miller Director of Congressional Affairs Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Because of the desire of this office to be responsive to all inquiries and communications, your consideration of the attached is requested. Please respond directly to the constituent with a copy to my office. Your findings and views will be appreciated b y

Nancy Landon Kassebaum United States Senator

Attention: Guy Clough

The Honorable Nancy Kassebaum United States Senate P. O. Box 51 Topeka, KS. 66683

Dear Senator Kassebaum:

I am enclosing copies of two letters I received concerning the use of van type buses designed to carry 10 or less passengers, without meeting all the requirements of a school bus. The problem comes about because the federal law classifies the vans by wei ght and calls them twelve passenger vehicles, which calls for the van to meet all school bus regulations.

A change in the federal law to allow van type vehicles designed to carry up to ten passengers may be exempt from the weight classification in determining how many passengers they would be capable of carrying. Many of these types of vans are presently own ed by school districts and can't be used because of the federal law determination that they can carry so many passengers, because of the weight classification when in reality there aren't that many passenger seats.

I would be happy to furnish any information available to me that might be of assistance to you in trying to help solve this problem.

Sincerely,

Don Montgomery Senator, Twenty-First District

DM:lm

CC: Doris Hupe, USD 343 James Shepherd, Supt. USD 343 Rep. Robin Leach Rep. John Solbach

January 5, 1988

Dear Board of Education Members:

The Board of Education U.S.D. #343 Perry, Kansas is asking for your support in passage of legislation which would clarify and make more workable K.S.A. 8-126 and amendments thereto. K.S.A- 8-126 defines/describes motor vehicles, specifically those design ed for transporting 10 passengers or less.

Enclosed you will find a letter addressed to Representative John Solbach concerning the problem of classification of motor vehicles as related to the transportation of students. It is the belief of the Board of Education U.S.D. #343 that many districts i n the State of Kansas are affected by K.S.A. 8-326 at great expense to the taxpayers.

We are asking that you support the development of legislation which would allow Districts that own vehicles classified to carry 12 to 15 passengers to continue using these vehicles as long as they adhere to the 10-passenger rule. We ask that you contact your State Legislators and ask their support of such legislation.

Respectfully

Board of Education, U.S.D. #343 Doris Hupe, President

November 13, 1987

Mr. John H. Solbach Rt. 1 Lawrence, Kansas 66044

Dear Mr. Solbach:

I am writing this letter to inform you of a problem experienced by Unified School Districts in the State of Kansas, concerning the use of vans for student transportation, and to ask your support in solving this problem.

Over the years many school districts within our state have purchased vans to be used in the transportation of special education students, for shuttles to bus pickup points, for students activities, and for kindergarten. The saving on this type of vehicle over a standard bus for a small number of students is quite large. Our problem lies on the fact that state law requires that only ten students at a time may be transported on such a vehicle, and that said vehicle must be classified for ten or fewer pass engers at a time.

School districts have understood and complied with the ten passenger rule. Where our problem lies is in the classification of the vehicle. First it is almost impossible to purchase a van with a classification of ten passengers. Second, most school distri cts have in their possession vehicles classified to carry 12 or 15 passengers.

Due to the present interpretation of the law these vehicles are now useless and must be sold and new ones purchased at great expense to the school districts and State of Kansas.

At this writing it is my understanding that Representative Robin Leach is planning to introduce legislation concerning this problem. It would be our hope that you might support such legislation or entertain the possibility of your own bill. I would be mo st happy to discuss our concern with you at your convenience.

Respectfully,

James R. Shephard, Ed. D. Superintendent of Schools

ID: 0437

Mr. Bryan J Williams
Director, International Operations
Red Spot Paint & Varnish Co Inc.
1111 East Louisiana Street
Evansville, IN 47711

FAX 812-467-2388

Dear Mr. Williams:

This is in reply to your FAX of October 24, 1994, to Taylor Vinson of this Office requesting an interpretation regarding the relationship of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to an AAMVA list.

Your company manufactures UV coatings for polycarbonate headlamp lenses. These "provide abrasion resistance properties as well as protecting the plastic lens from the deleterious effects of outdoor exposure." One of these coatings, UVT200, is used by Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler on headlamp lenses. However, "UVT200 does not appear on the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) 'Listing of Acceptable Plastics for Optical Lenses and Reflectors Used on Motor Vehicles.'" You inform us that some overseas headlamp manufacturers believe that appearance on the list is required by Federal law and is a prerequisite to certification. The question you ask is:

Must a coating for plastic (polycarbonate) headlamp lenses appear on the AAMVA "Listing . . ." in order to meet the requirements of FMVSS 108?

The answer is no. Paragraph S5.1.2 of Standard No. 108 requires that plastic materials used in lenses (which include headlamp lenses) conform to SAE Recommended Practice J576c, Plastic Materials for Use in Optical Parts, Such as Lenses and Reflectors of Motor Vehicle Lighting Devices, May 1970. Under SAE J576c's outdoor exposure test, the luminous transmittance of the material must not change by more than 25% from its performance before the test. In appearance, the headlamp lens material must not show surface deterioration, crazing, dimensional changes, or delamination. Also, under paragraph S5.1.2(b), after the outdoor exposure test, the haze and surface luster of the material must not be greater than 30

percent haze, as measured by ASTM D-1003-61. Manufacturers have found that a coating is required for the plastics used in headlamp lenses to meet Standard No. 108's outdoor exposure requirements. However, neither SAE J576c or Standard No. 108 require the coating, let alone specify what coating is acceptable. The decision to coat, and the choice of coating, is that of the manufacturer in determining compliance with and certification to Standard No. 108. Therefore, the AAMVA list has no legal relationship to Standard No. 108 and it is immaterial to NHTSA whether the coating used is or is not on the AAMVA list.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:108 d:12/7/94

ID: 1982-3.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/30/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Hogan & Hartson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in further response to your letter concerning the application of several Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards to mopeds. You asked whether Standard No. 108 and Standard No. 127 would preempt State statutes or regulations on the same subjects.

Your specific question on Standard No. 127 was whether section 3 of the standard, which excluded mopeds from the coverage of the standard, would preempt State laws that require all motor vehicles operated on the highways to be equipped with a speedometer. Subsequent to your letter, the agency rescinded Standard No. 127 (47 FR 7250). In rescinding the standard, the agency stated that it recognized that there is a nexus between having a speedometer and motor vehicle safety. Based on available information, however, the agency concluded that the specific requirements of the standard concerning the markings on a speedometer, such as the highlighting of the numeral "55", were not yielding and could not be expected to yield significant safety benefits. Because the marking requirements were not yielding safety benefits, the agency stated that it intended that other levels of government be preempted from establishing similar requirements. In preempting States from establishing marking requirements, the agency did not intend to preempt States from enforcing laws or regulations which only require the presence of a speedometer and do not set marking requirements for the speedometer.

Your final question concerned section 4.1.1.26 of Standard No. 108, which exempts motor-driven cycles whose speed attainable in one mile is 30 mph or less from the requirement that motor vehicles be equipped with turn signal lamps. You asked if that provision preempts State laws to the extent they require all motor vehicles to be equipped with turn signal lamps. The answer is yes.

In adopting section 4.1.1.26, the agency specifically addressed the issue of what turn signal requirements are necessary and appropriate for mopeds. The agency determined that the speed and weight characteristics of mopeds made the problems associated with hand signaling less significant than they are for larger motorcycles. The agency concluded that exempting mopeds from the turn signal requirement would ease the burden of compliance for moped manufacturers without jeopardizing safety. Since Standard No. 108 specifically addresses the issue of what turn signal requirements are applicable to mopeds, States are preempted from establishing or enforcing a safety standard on that aspect of performance that is not identical to the Federal standard.

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

ID: 1983-1.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/04/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Boschung Company, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

MAY 4 1983 NOA-30

Mr. James E. Benson Sales Manager Boschung Company, Inc. 530 Armory Drive South Holland, Illinois 60473

Dear Mr. Benson:

This is in reply to your letter of March 23, 1983, asking whether a stop lamp is required on a Boschung vehicle which has a top speed of 16 mph. You also asked for a copy of the "Rules for Manufacturer Standard Specs."

The agency does not consider a vehicle, which cannot exceed 20 mph and has an abnormal configuration, to be a motor vehicle. These vehicles, typically, are highway maintenance and construction equipment, lane stripers, self-propelled pavers, sod handler, fork lift, and other similar vehicles. It would not appear, therefore, that the low-speed Boschung is a "motor vehicle." The question of whether it is required to have a stop lamp, therefore, is dependent upon the laws of the municipality in which it is operated.

I assume the "Rules" you wish are the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You should write the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402, enclosing a check for $8, and ask for "Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 400 to 999." The safety standards are at Part 571, and you will find all other regulations in the 500 series which apply to motor vehicles and their manufacturers.

If you have any further questions, we shall be happy to answer them.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel March 23, 1983

National Highway Traffic Safety Admin. U. S. Dept. of Transportation Legal Council (Mr. Taylor Vinson) Rm. 5219 400 7th Street Southwest Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear sir:

I would appreciate some information, regarding The Boschung vehicle, (literature enclosed). This unit is basically used off-road, however, at certain times it would be on the street. One that travels 16 mph does not have a stop light on it, but the faster vehicle (24 mph) does. My question is this, "Is a stop light required on the slower moving vehicle?"

I will also appreciate your sending me a copy of the "Rules for Manufacturer Standard Specs".

We look forward to hearing from you, regarding the stop light, and thank you, for your help.

Sincerely, BOSCHUNG COMPANY, INC.

James E. Benson Sales Manager

JEB/dd Enclosure

ID: 1983-2.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/13/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Diane K. Steed; NHTSA

TO: Ford Motor Company -- Roger E. Maugh, Director, Automotive Safety Office

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Roger E. Maugh Director, Automotive Safety Office Ford Motor Company The American Road Dearborn, Michigan 48121

Dear Mr. Maugh:

This responds to your letter of June 2, 1983, regarding Ford's desire to equip 2,500 of its vehicles with Securiflex windshields to obtain field data regarding glass-plastic glazing. You state that such a test fleet would provide Ford with information regarding concerns it has about in-plant handling, vehicle assembly, mirror attachment, haze, scratching, delamination, durability, and performance in accidents.

As you are probably aware, General Motors made a similar request regarding a test fleet of Securiflex windshields last fall. We can give Ford the same assurances that were given to General Motors in response to their request. Under the limited and special circumstances of the field test described in your letter, the agency can firmly state that it would not enforce the abrasion requirement of Safety Standard No. 205 as it now stands since it does not appear to be appropriate for technology like the Securiflex windshield (Securiflex apparently cannot pass the existing abrasion requirements). That technology was developed after the standard was originally issued, and the standard did not contemplate asymmetrical glazing of this type. Equally important, the agency notes that all current information indicates that glass-plastic glazing does have a great potential for reducing lacerative injuries in accidents. The experimental use which you propose should provide valuable information regarding injury reduction and some of the remaining problems which do appear to exist with regards to this type windshield. We also note your statement that the Securiflex windshield you plan to install on the test fleet would comply with the proposed requirements for glass-plastic glazing issued by the agency March 10, 1983 (48 FR 10097).

In light of the agency's policy decision to foster the use of new safety technology by permitting the field test you propose, the agency expects your company to monitor closely the test fleet and to rectify any problems that may develop. Ford would, of course, remain responsible for meeting its obligation under the Vehicle Safety Act regarding any safety related defects. The agency also expects to be apprised of all information that Ford obtains from this field test.

Sincerely, Diane K. Steed Acting Administrator

ID: 1985-01.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/04/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Brian Gill -- Senior Manager, Certification Dept., American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Brian Gill Senior Manager Certification Department American Honda Motor Co., Inc. P.O. Box 50 Gardena, California 90247

This is in response to your letter of May 25, 1984, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Table IV specifies that the minimum horizontal separation distance "(centerline to centerline of lamp)" for rear turn signal lamps on motorcycles is 9 inches. You have asked whether the "centerline" refers to the distance between the lens centers, between the centers of the effective projected luminous areas, or between the bulb centers.

You asked for confirmation of your belief that the proper interpretation is found in the referenced SAE Standard, J588e, which contains the language "Optical axes (filament centers)," implying that the correct distance is that between the "bulb centers" as you term it.

We find no direct correlation between the phrases "centerline to centerline of lamps" and "optical axis (filament center) ." The lamp is a device emitting light whereas "optical axis (filament center)" does not refer to the lamp but only to a portion of its light-producing component. As that phrase is used in SAE J588e, it defines the method of measuring distances between bulbs in multi-compartment lamps for the purpose of testing for photometric requirements (paragraph 3.1), or in measuring the separation of the turn signal from the headlamp (paragraph 4.2, where, incidentally, it is expressed as the distance between filament and a lamp component, the retaining ring).

Taken literally, "centerline to centerline of lamps" in our view means the distance between lens centers. In the response to petitions for reconsideration of the center high-mounted stoplamp amendment (May 17, 1984), the question was asked whether the "center" of the lamp was its geometric center, its optical center, or the center of the bulb filament. The agency replied that the center of the lamp is the geometric center. Since the purpose of the minimum separation requirement is to insure that the turn signal is perceived as such, we believe that the correct interpretation of "centerline to centerline" is a measurement from the geometric center of one lamp to the geometric center of the other lamp. The geometric center would be anonymous with the term "geometric centroid of lens" as used in SAE J1221 Headlamp-Turn Signal Spacing. Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: 1985-02.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/22/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Carl R. Ball

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of February 20, 1985, asking whether Safety Standards Nos. 212 and 219 prohibit the mounting of police spotlights on the door post of a vehicle. None of our standards prohibit such a mounting; however, the mounting must be done in a manner that the vehicle still complies with our safety standards. The following discussion more fully explains the effect of the agency's standards on spotlight mounting.

If the spotlight is mounted on a new vehicle before its first purchase, for purposes other than resale, the person installing the spotlight would have to certify that the vehicle, as altered, continues to comply with all of the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Since the A pillar of the vehicle would have to be altered to install the spotlight, the installation could affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 212, Windshield Retention, as well as Standard No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance. If the spotlight is mounted away from the windshield, it does not appear that the installation would affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion.

If the alteration is made after a vehicle's first purchase, then section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act may apply. That section provides that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair shop may knowingly render inoperative an element of design installed in compliance with our safety standards. Thus, if any of those persons install a spotlight they must ensure that they have not rendered inoperative the vehicle's compliance with our standards.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners. However, the agency urges owners that alter their vehicles not to defeat safety equipment installed in the vehicle.

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

Sincerely,

The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company

Police Department

February 20, 1985

239

Diane K. Steed Administrator The National Highway Safety Administration Attn: Chief Counsel

Dear Ms. Steed:

We have reviewed Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 212-76 and 219, regarding windshield mounting and windshield zone intrusion, respectively and we are requesting you opinion with respect to the application of these standards to police vehicles. Specifically, do one or both of these standards prohibit the mounting of standard police spotlights on the door post of the vehicle on either side?

Carl R. Ball Chief of Police

ID: 1985-02.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/18/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Victor Felice

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

June 18, 1985 Mr. Victor Felice President Eurospec, Inc. 109 Treetops Circle Nanuet, New York 10954 Dear Mr. Felice: This responds to your letter of March 29, 1985, concerning two aftermarket products you intend to import. The products, which you call the "Super Klip" and the "Klumk Klip" safety belt comfort devices, consist of plastic devices which attach to the upper torso belt anchorage. The belt webbing through a wedge attached to your device. A belt user can then pull the webbing through the open wedge and close the wedge to introduce slack into the shoulder portion of the belt. You asked for the agency to review the devices and inform you of any comments or objections. As background information, let me explain that the agency does not have the authority to approve items of motor vehicle equipment, such as your devices. We do have the authority to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of vehicles or equipment covered by our standards must certify that their product complies with all of the applicable standards. Your particular aftermarket products are not covered by any of our safety belt or other standards. However, as a manufacturer of an item of motor vehicle equipment, you do have certain responsibilities concerning possible safety-related defects you or the agency discover in your products. Those responsibilities are set out in sections 151-160 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, a copy of which is enclosed. The agency is concerned that a belted occupant could use your product to reduce the effectiveness of the upper torso belt by moving the belt so close to the edge of the shoulder that the occupant could rotate out of the upper torso belt in a crash. Likewise, your product could be used to introduce excessive slack in the upper torso belt, which would also reduce its effectiveness. The instructions you provide with the "Klunk Klip" do include information about how much slack to introduce into the belt and warns users not to introduce excessive slack. The instructions for the Super Klip contain no information or warnings on belt slack. We urge you to include a warning in both your instructions to advise belt users about the consequences of introducing too much slack in the belt. I am returning the samples of your products that you enclosed with your letter. If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Original Signed By Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosures