ID: nht95-3.77

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 4, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jim Burgess -- Engineering Manager, Independent Mobility Systems, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/18/95 LETTER FROM JIM BURGESS TO WALTER MYERS (OCC 10931)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Burgess:

This responds to your letter of May 18, 1995 to this office and your telephone conversations with Walter Myers of my staff on June 14 and 27, 1995, concerning an exclusion in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door locks and door rete ntion components. The standard excludes from its requirements doors equipped with wheelchair lifts and either a visual or audible alarm system.

You state that your company converts minivans into wheelchair accessible vehicles by lowering the floor and adding a wheelchair ramp to the right rear side sliding door area, with an audible and/or visual alarm. The issue you raise is whether FMVSS No. 206's exclusion of wheelchair-equipped doors also excludes a ramp-equipped door. The answer is no.

FMVSS No. 206 requires that side doors leading directly into a compartment containing one or more seating positions must conform to the standard. However, paragraph S4 of the standard states:

Side doors equipped with wheelchair lifts and which are linked to an alarm system consisting of either a flashing visual signal located in the driver's compartment or an alarm audible to the driver which is activated when the door is open, need not confo rm to this standard.

FMVSS No. 206 was amended to add the wheelchair lift exception by final rule dated March 27, 1985 (50 FR 12029, copy enclosed). The agency's rationale was that when not in use, wheelchair lifts are stowed in a vertical position parallel to and in close proximity to the interior surface of the vehicle door, thus providing a barrier to occupant ejection if the door opened while the vehicle was in motion or in the event of a crash. The alarm requirement was intended to alert the driver to a door that was open on a vehicle that was in motion.

While the information you provided us showed that your wheelchair ramp is also stowed in a vertical position parallel to and in close proximity to the door and that you install audible and/or visual alarms for the driver, wheelchair lifts and wheelchair ramps are distinctly different components. Although they serve the same purpose and are similarly configured when in the stowed position, this agency cannot by interpretation say that "lift" includes "ramp." In order to amend the standard to exclude whe elchair ramps as well as lifts, rulemaking action would be required. You may petition this agency to do rulemaking, under 49 CFR Part 552 (copy enclosed). This agency will entertain your petition and decide whether a rulemaking proceeding is appropriat e.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 77-3.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/03/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Michelin Tire Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 7, 1977, letter asking who must mark a rim in accordance with the requirements of Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, in those cases where the rim is manufactured by one manufacturer and then supplied to a wheel manufacturer who welds the rim to a disc making a completed wheel.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has determined that the rim marking must be undertaken by the rim manufacturer. The rim manufacturer is best able to supply the required rim information and undertake the certification required by S5.2 of the standard. The subsequent addition of the disc to the rim should not alter the information marked on the rim.

SINCERELY,

JUNE 7, 1977

Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation

Re: FMVSS 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles other than Passenger Cars

We are writing to request an interpretation of the rim marking requirement of FMVSS 120 Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicle other than Passenger Cars.

We are interested in the case where a rim manufacturer supplies rims to a wheel manufacturer who then welds these rims to discs thus producing wheels. In such a situation, is the rim manufacturer or the wheel manufacturer responsible for the markings required by FMVSS 120?

Your prompt reply to this inquiry would be appreciated.

MICHELIN TIRE CORPORATION Technical Group

John B. White Engineering Manager Technical Information Dept.

TELEGRAPHIC MESSAGE

NAME OF AGENCY:

Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Adm. PRECEDENCE Action P (Illegible Word) DATE PREPARED: 8/16/77

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

TYPE OF (Illegible Word): [x] (Illegible Word) [] BOOK [] MULTIPLE-ADDRESS

NAME: Fred Koch PHONE NUMBER: 202-426-2800

THIS SPACE FOR USE OF COMMUNICATION UNIT: #26417

TO: ROBERT STEVENSON TECHNICAL SALES MANAGER, WHEEL DIVISION GKN SANKEY, LIMITED

PURSUANT TO YOUR TELEPHONE CALL OF AUGUST 15, 1977, TO FRED KOCH REGARDING FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 120, OUR ANSWERS TO YOUR TWO QUESTIONS FOLLOW.

1. REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF MOLDED LETTERING ON RIM SURFACES IDENTIFYING MILL SOURCE OF MATERIAL NOT SPECIFIED IN THE STANDARD, THERE IS NO OBJECTION TO SUCH MARKING APPEARING ON THE FINISHED RIM PROVIDED IT DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH UNDERSTANDING AND CLARITY OF SEPARATE MARKINGS REQUIRED BY THE STANDARD.

2. REGARDING THE SPACING OF NUMBERS ON THE RIM REPRESENTING DATE OF MANUFACTURER, THE INTENT IS TO MINIMIZE AREA OCCUPIED AND TO AVOID IRREGULAR OR INCONSISTENT SPACING AND OPENINGS IN WHICH INFORMATION MIGHT BE LOST OR UNDETECTED. HOWEVER, THE USE OF VERY SHORT SPACING BETWEEN MONTH, DAY, AND YEAR IS NOT PROHIBITED BY THE STANDARD.

E. T. DRIVER, DIRECTOR OFFICE OF CRASH AVOIDANCE MOTOR VEHICLE PROGRAMS NMV-30 PAGE NO.: 2 NO. OF PGS.: 2

ID: nht75-6.15

DATE: 10/29/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John G. Haviland; NHTSA

TO: Laird E. Johnston -- General Motors Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Free Sliding Latch With Tension Relieving Feature

Laird E. Johnston ASE - Engineering Staff

The following comments are in reference to your question concerning whether existing safety standards allow a shoulder belt tension relieving feature on a single loop three point belt system having a free sliding (non-cinching) latch.

GM Legal Staff has been consulted concerning interpretation of the present wording in MVSS 203, Section S7.1.1 (Attachment 1) and proposed amendment Docket 74-32 Notice 1 (Attachment 2). Legal Staff and ASE agree that:

a) The current MVSS 203 does not clearly prohibit the use of a free-sliding latch plate with a shoulder belt tension relieving device but the NHTSA interprets MVSS 208 as prohibiting such a system (see Attachment 3), and

b) A proposed amendment to MVSS 208 Docket 74-32 Notice 1, does clearly limit the use of comfort devices to the upper portion of the seat belt assembly - the lap belt portion must remain individually adjustable (i.e. introducing slack into the shoulder belt should not affect the lap portion of the assembly).

In our response to Docket 74-32 Notice 1 (Attachment 4), General Motors agreed that devices to relieve tension should not be used on systems permitting inadvertent misadjustment.

ASE also has reservations about the impact performance of such a system both for adult occupants and when used in conjunction with child seats. Although limited sled tests of one such system resulted in no submarining with up to three inches of slack in the lap belt, there is no assurance that occupants would wear these systems correctly or that all similar belt configurations would perform in this manner. Additionally, GM only recommends the use of the child seat in 1968-1975 domestic made vehicles. All of these vehicles have a lap belt that permits lap belt tension independent of the shoulder belt. Present thoughts are that a separate lap belt tension holding clip will have to be supplied with the child seat if GM were to recommend its usage with a free-sliding latch single loop system.

One compromise you may wish to consider is the use of a friction device on the free sliding latch that would allow free belt transfer from the lap belt to the shoulder but hold minimal lap belt tension, possibly five to ten pounds. This should satisfy the NHTSA but would still pose some problem with improper child seat usage. Another solution, which you are aware of, is providing low shoulder belt tension thus reducing the need for a tension relieving device. A one-way cinching latch is the ideal solution to the performance and compliance questions.

If we can be of any further assistance, please let us know.

(original signed by) John G. Haviland Collision Protection/Restraints Automotive Safety Engineering JGH/rk

Attachments (4)

cc: G. F. Ball E. E. Conner T. G. Wingblad

ID: nht75-2.46

DATE: 06/09/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. C. Schultz; NHTSA

TO: Wesbar Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 13, 1975, requesting an interpretation of paragraph S4.4.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it applies to a described lamp design.

In pertinent part, S4.4.1 states that "no clearance lamp may be combined optically with any taillamp." The lamp design that interests you has separate compartments for the taillamp and for the clearance lamp. You are concerned that at a distance it will be difficult to distinguish the two lamps, and you feel that this violates the spirit of S4.4.1.

We have no objection to the design of this lamp. Since the clearance lamp and taillamp are in separate compartments and not optically combined, and since Standard No. 108 does not specify a minimum separation distance between the two lamps, the lamp design does not violate S4.4.1.

SINCERELY,

(Graphics omitted) See illustration on original

May 13, 1975

Richard B. Dyson, Active Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Wesbar Corporation is a manufacturer of lights, primarily used on boat trallers and utility trallers. We have received from a number of our customers an inquiry as to the possibility of making a tall light similar to the attached sketch, which would serve then as a tall light, stop light, turn signal, reflex reflector, and clearance light.

We have taken the position that a light of this type would not meet the spirit of DOT 108, paragraph S 4.4.1, which states, "Two or more lamps, reflective devices, or items of associated equipment may be combined if the requirements for each lamp, reflective device, and item of associated equipment are met, except that no clearance lamp may be combined optically with any tall lamp or identification lamp."

A light of the design we indicate on the enclosed drawing would include a separate compartment for the tall, stop and turn light and a separate compartment for the clearance lamp. However, at a distance of 30 or 40 feet to the rear of the vehicle, it would be very difficult to make a distinction between the tall light and the clearance lamp, except possibly by doing some design work on having a different configuration to the lens on the clearance lamp.

We do not wish to be in the position of second guessing your department's interpretation of S 4.4.1 and would therefore appreciate your comments and interpretation of that section. On receipt of same, we will send a copy of this interpretation to the manufacturers who have made these inquires of us.

Your early attention in this matter will be very much appreciated.

WESBAR CORPORATION

Bernard R. Weber Executive Vice President

SINGLE HOUSING WITH SEPARATE COMPARTMENTS FOR EACH LIGHT

TAIL, STOP & TURN SIGNAL LIGHT

CLEARANCE LIGHT

CLASS "A" REFLEX REFLECTOR

1/8" APPROX. BETWEEN ALL LENSES

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht73-1.39

DATE: 06/19/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Bendix Automotive Aftermarket

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 30, 1973 and confirms the telephone conversation with Mr. Vinson of my staff on June 14, 1973.

The amendments to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 116 published on May 17, 1973 modified container labelling requirements only for silicone-based brake fluid and hydraulic system mineral oil (paragraph S5.2.2.3) and did not affect the requirements for conventional DOT 3 and DOT 4 fluids (paragraph S5.2.2.2) as you assumed. Therefore you appear to have no problem, and it is not necessary to consider your letter as a petition for reconsideration.

Sincerely,

Bendix

Automotive Aftermarket

May 30, 1973

Department of Transportation

Attention: Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel

Reference: Phone conversation with Mr. Taylor Vincent on 5/14/73

Dear Mr. Schneider:

The revision to the FMVSS #116 Standard, as published May 17, 1973, has an effective date for label changes of July 1, 1973, but does not specifically authorize the sellers of Brake Fluid to exhaust existing container stock.

The label changes are minor, as follows:

Existing Safety Warnings:

1. FOLLOW VEHICLE MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS WHEN ADDING BRAKE FLUID.

2. KEEP BRAKE FLUID CLEAN AND DRY. Contamination with dirt, water, petroleum products or other materials may result in brake failure or costly repairs.

3. STORE BRAKE FLUID ONLY IN ITS ORIGINAL CONTAINER. KEEP CONTAINER CLEAN AND TIGHTLY CLOSED TO PREVENT ABSORPTION OF MOISTURE.

4. CAUTION: DO NOT REFILL CONTAINER, AND DO NOT USE FOR OTHER LIQUIDS.

* New Safety Warnings:

1. FOLLOW VEHICLE MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS WHEN ADDING BRAKE FLUID.

2. KEEP BRAKE FLUID CLEAN. Contamination with dirt or other materials may result in brake failure or costly repairs.

3. CAUTION: STORE BRAKE FLUID ONLY IN ITS ORIGINAL CONTAINER. KEEP CONTAINER CLEAN AND TIGHTLY CLOSED. DO NOT REFILL CONTAINER OR USE OTHER LIQUIDS.

* We have corrected the labeling as to the use of upper and lower case letters per the instructions of Mr. Taylor Vincent.

The current safety warning label requirements are not inadequate for the conventional Brake Fluids. Bendix labeling for DOT 3 Brake Fluid conforms to the existing standard for safety warnings.

This letter is a request for permission to exhaust container stock purchased prior to the July 1, 1973, effective date. Existing Bendix container stock is in the form of lithographed containers both filled and unfilled. A minimum of 60 - 90 days is required to modify lithography plates. If permission is not granted, this letter is to be considered a petition to amend the Docket No. 71-13, Notice 4, published May 17, 1973. Please amend this docket to give the conventional Brake Fluid sellers the right to exhaust stock purchased prior to the July 1, 1973, effective date.

Very truly yours,

Cam Brame --

Quality Assurance Analyst

cc: M. J. Stepanek; B. Stubbs; R. Hasnerl; J. Howard

ID: 8073-1

Mr. Ron Marion
Sales Engineer
Thomas Built Buses, Inc.
P.O. Box 2450
1408 Courtesy Road
High Point, NC 27261

Dear Mr. Marion:

This responds to your letter asking whether there has been any consideration given to excluding "non-route-type" school buses from Standard No. 131's requirement that school buses be equipped with a stop signal arm. You stated that, as a manufacturer of school bus bodies, you are getting numerous questions regarding the installation of stop arms on school buses not used on route service. According to your letter, a number of schools across the U.S. purchase school buses, paint them a color other than yellow, and use them exclusively for athletic trips. You stated that these buses pick up at the school and travel to another school to unload, and do not make stops for loading or unloading along the way and in no way attempt to control traffic. You stated that the purchasers of these school buses are concerned about paying for stop arms which are never used.

As you know, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 131, School Bus Pedestrian Safety Devices, is a new Federal motor vehicle safety standard which requires all new school buses to be equipped with a stop signal arm. The purpose of the requirement is to reduce deaths and injuries by minimizing the likelihood of vehicles passing a stopped school bus and striking pedestrians in the vicinity of the bus.

To answer your specific question, this agency has not considered whether "non-route-type" school buses should be excluded from Standard No. 131's requirement for a stop signal arm. I note that this issue was not raised in the comments on our notice of proposed rulemaking.

We do appreciate the concern of a purchaser about paying for safety equipment that he or she believes will never be used. However, the limited information provided in your letter does not provide a basis for concluding that we should consider changing the standard.

We do not know how many school buses are used exclusively or primarily for "non-route-type" service, although we assume the number is small. Further, it would appear that there would be occasion to use stop signal arms for some school buses used for such service. For example, these safety devices might be used while loading and unloading students when the school bus is parked on a school driveway or a road near a school, if the school bus is used to transport students to activities at locations other than schools, or if the school bus is sometimes used as a replacement for out-of-service regular route school buses. I also note that, assuming that there is occasion to use stop signal arms for some school buses which are primarily used for non-route service, it is not clear how the agency would distinguish, for purposes of a regulation, which school buses should be excluded from the requirement for stop arms.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Barry Felrice Associate Administrator for Rulemaking

ref:131 d:3/3/93

ID: 86-1.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/06/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Leon E. Panetta

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

This responds to your request that we review the concerns expressed by one of your constituents, Mr. Joseph Loschiavo, about certain van seats. According to Mr. Loschiavo, the Monterey County Van Program for senior citizens uses vans with seats that are very low and close together, making it difficult for persons to get up out of the seats. He suggested that either the seats be raised about eight inches or that special seats be provided for persons who have problems with the present seats.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues motor vehicle safety standards. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, establishes requirements to minimize the possibility of seat failure during vehicle collisions. However, NHTSA does not have any standards concerning the height or spacing of van seats.

The Monterey County Van Program has several options in obtaining vans with appropriate seating. In purchasing new vans, the program may either select from among the variety of vans offered by the major vehicle manufacturers, or go to one of a number of companies that customize vans to purchasers' specifications. A number of companies also modify used vehicles.

We note that new vans, including vans which are modified prior to first sale, are required to be certified to comply with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The specific certification requirements are set forth at 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. If a used vehicle is modified by a business such as a garage, the business is not required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard. This is required by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Thus, if a business replaced a van's existing seats with higher seats, it would need to make sure that it was not rendering inoperative the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 207 or any other Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Jones Chief Counsel

TO: Mr. Joseph A. LaSala Office of Congressional Affairs Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Room 10506 Washington, D.C. 20590

ENCLOSURES FROM:

Mr. Joseph Loschiavo

RE: Would you please review the attached and provide me with a written report addressing the concerns this constituent has expressed?

Thank you for your assistance.

I would appreciate your attention to the attached correspondence. Please direct your reply to the address below.

Thank you very much for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

LEON E. PANETTA Member of Congress

Please respond to:

380 Alvarado Street Monterey, California 93940 (408)649-3555

Attention: Ken Christopher; (408) 429-1976

ID: 8838

Mr. Ron Marion
Sales Engineer
Thomas Built Buses, Inc.
P.O. Box 2450
1408 Courtesy Road
High Point, N.C. 27261

Dear Mr. Marion:

This responds to your inquiry about the applicability of Standard No. 131, School Bus Pedestrian Safety Devices, to school buses you wish to sell to a customer in the United States Virgin Islands. You stated that these buses will be built as right hand drive vehicles with the entrance door located on the left side, since vehicles are driven on the left side of the road in this jurisdiction. You asked whether you can install, on the right side of the bus, the stop signal arm that is required by FMVSS 131. The answer is yes.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381, "Safety Act") requires new school buses sold in this country and in the U.S. Virgin Islands to comply with all applicable Federal school bus safety standards. (See, 15 U.S.C. 1391(8) for reference to the Virgin Islands.) Standard No. 131 requires school buses to be equipped with a stop signal arm "on the left side of the bus." (S5.4) The purpose of this standard is "to reduce deaths and injuries by minimizing the likelihood of vehicles passing a stopped school bus and striking pedestrians in the vicinity of the school bus." (S2)

When NHTSA specified that the stop arm must be placed on "the left side of the bus," the agency meant the driver's side. Comments to the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) and preamble of NHTSA's final rule all assumed that the left side of the bus meant the driver's side. (56 FR 20363, 20367). For example, while endorsing the proposed requirement for the stop arm, several commenters stated that an arm is needed near the driver's window. Moreover, S5.4.1(b) states that, for locating the arm, "the top edge of the stop signal arm is parallel to and not more than 6 inches from a horizontal plane tangent to the lower edge of the frame of the passenger window immediately behind the driver's window." (Emphasis added). This provision indicates that the agency assumed that the "left" side is the driver's side. Further, a stop arm would not be needed on the non-traffic side of the vehicle.

Since the left side is not the driver's side for the school buses in question, the agency's general assumption was incorrect. In light of your letter, we will issue a technical amendment of Standard 131 so that S5.4 will require the stop signal arm on the driver's side of the bus. Until the amendment is issued, we will not take enforcement action regarding a manufacturer's locating a right hand drive school bus with a stop signal arm on the bus's driver's side.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:131 d:8/l6/93

ID: nht70-1.43

DATE: 02/25/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. C. Turner; NHTSA

TO: FWD Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: RE: PETITION FOR RULEMAKING

This is in reply to your letter of October 16, 1969, requesting an exception from Paragraph S3.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 ("Glazing Materials - Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Motorcycles, Trucks and Buses"), to allow the use of Lemen and Plexiglas in certain specified locations in twenty-one (21) fire fighting vehicles to be delivered to the city of New York.

You state the purpose of your request is to provide better protection for occupants of these fire fighting vehicles from objects thrown at them when, for example, the vehicles are enroute to a fire. Further, you state the use of these materials would eliminate replacing safety glass, which can be broken when hit by small objects. Because you are requesting a change in an existing standard your letter has been treated as a petition for rulemaking to amend Standard No. 205, pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR @@ 353.31, 353.33. For the reasons stated below, your petition is denied.

It is not completely clear from your letter and the enclosed drawing where the interior or canopy partitions in which you wish to use Lexen and Plexiglas are located. Standard No. 205 presently permits the use of rigid plastics in interior partitions of fire fighting vehicles if these materials meet the requirements for plastics designated AS4 and AS5 (the latter can only be used when not requisite for driving visibility) in American Standards Association Test Z26.1-1966, July 15, 1966. We understand that Plexiglas meets these requirements and may therefore be used in this location. We also understand, however, that Lexen does not, failing specifically to meet certain chemical and abrasion resistance requirements applicable to AS4 and AS5 rigid plastics under the Standard. If our understanding regarding Lexen is correct, we believe its failure to meet these minimum requirements renders its unsuitable for use in areas of motor vehicles where a possible loss of transparency may affect the safe operation of the vehicle.

With reference to glazing in side and door windows of fire fighting vehicles, Standard No. 205 allows the use of glazing specified AS1, AS2, and AS10 in ASA Test-226.1-1966 and also allows the use of AS11 and AS3 glazing at levels not requisite for driving visibility. This glazing may be either laminated, tempered, or bullet resistant safety glass meeting the applicable requirements. Plastics meeting AS4 and AS5 requirements, while appropriate for certain locations such as partitions, are not considered appropriate for use in side and door windows as they do not possess chemical and abrasion resistance qualities necessary for exterior glazing and which the types of safety glass specified above possess. The occupant protection which you desire can be provided by using AS10 (and AS11 where appropriate) bullet resistant glass which contains both structural advantages over normally used safety glazing and satisfactory chemical and abrasion resistance for use in side and door windows.

ID: GF006472

Mr. Jim Haigh
Vice President
Transpec Worldwide
7205 Sterling Ponds Ct.
Sterling Heights, MI 48312




Dear Mr. Haigh:

This responds to your e-mail regarding installation of certain auxiliary lighting on school buses. Specifically, you ask whether installing a "Driver Alert Device" on school buses, which you state has been mandated by the State of Alabama, conflicts with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices and associated equipment.

Your e-mail and your web site (www.transpecworldwide.com/products/driver_alert.htm) explain that the "Driver Alert Device" is an LED message board mounted on the school bus emergency door that is wired to flash the word "Caution" when the school bus is backing up. The device is also wired into the eight-lamp school bus warning lamp system. When the amber lamps of the system are activated, the LED sign alternately flashes "Caution-Stopping". When the red lamps of the system are activated, the sign flashes "Stop" or "Do not Pass".

First, S5.5.10 of FMVSS No. 108 generally requires that all lamps, including auxiliary lighting, must be steady burning, unless otherwise specifically permitted. Your message board does not fall under any exception enumerated in S5.5.10.

Second, S5.1.3 of FMVSS No. 108 prohibits additional lighting devices that impair the effectiveness of lamps required by FMVSS No. 108. The agency interprets the standard as generally prohibiting electronic message boards because they have the potential of impairing the effectiveness of required lighting (see August 4, 1997 letter to Mr. Alan Robinson).

However, with respect to school buses equipped with flashing electronic message boards, we do not prohibit them because we believe that under certain local conditions, an electronic message board could enhance the safety of school bus passengers. That is, we defer to the States with respect to the narrow issue of prescribing or prohibiting electronic message boards on school buses.

We caution that this interpretation is limited to electronic message boards on school buses. For example, the agency recently explained that our standards would prohibit a flashing red lamp located on the roof of a school bus, because it had the potential of impairing the effectiveness of the required lighting (see 5/22/03 letter to J. Adam Krugh IV). Further, electronic message boards must be located far enough away from the required lighting so as to minimize any potential impairment.

If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

2 Enclosures

NCC-112:Gfeygin:mar:11/2/05:62992:OCC 006472
Cc: NCC-110 Subj/Chron, Docket Std. 108
S:\INTERP\108\GF006472.doc