ID: Braun

The Braun Corporation
631 W. 11^th St.
PO Box 310
Winamac, IN 46996

Dear Braun Corporation:

This responds to your letter concerning the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 403, Platform lifts installed for motor vehicles, and No. 404, Platform lift installations in motor vehicles, to lifts manufactured before the effective date. I have addressed your concerns below.

In a December 27, 2002, final rule, the agency established FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 in order to protect individuals that are aided by canes, walkers, wheelchairs, scooters, and other mobility devices and rely on platform lifts to enter/exit a motor vehicle (67 FR 79416; amended 69 FR 58843, October 1, 2004). FMVSS No. 403 is an equipment standard that specifies minimum performance requirements for platform lifts designed for installation on motor vehicles. FMVSS No. 404 requires that certain vehicles that are manufactured with platform lifts comply with a set of minimum requirements. The effective date of these standards has recently been delayed until April 1, 2005 for FMVSS No. 403 and July 1, 2005 for FMVSS No. 404 (69 FR 76865; December 23, 2004).

In your letter, you expressed concern that individuals would not be able to have a lift that was manufactured prior to the effective date installed on a vehicle that was manufactured on or after the effective date. You explained that it is a common practice for lift users to transfer a lift from one vehicle to another. You expressed concern that FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 will prohibit a lift user from having a lift transferred to a vehicle that was manufactured after the effective date of FMVSS No. 404.

Generally, FMVSSs apply to motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment up to their first retail sale. See 49 U.S.C. 30112. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to all applicable FMVSSs before the products can be offered for sale. After the first retail sale of a vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. 49 U.S.C. 30122.

The "make inoperative" provision only applies to standards with which a vehicle is certified as complying. If a vehicle with a manufacture date of July 1, 2005, or later is manufactured with a lift, that vehicle must comply with FMVSS No. 404. However, if after first retail sale a platform lift is added to a vehicle manufactured either before or after July 1, 2005, that was not equipped with a lift at first retail sale, there is no duty for a modifier to bring that vehicle into compliance with FMVSS No. 404; i.e. , there is no requirement to equip the modified vehicle with a lift that complies with FMVSS No. 403. Therefore, in such instances, a lift user would be able to have a non-compliant lift taken from an older vehicle and installed on a vehicle that he or she had previously purchased.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any additional questions please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:403#404
d.1/3/04

ID: 18805.drn

Ms. Barbara Goodman
Associate Director, Pupil Transportation
Commonwealth of Virginia
Department of Education
P.O. Box 2120
Richmond, VA 23218-2120

Dear Ms. Goodman:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of school bus seat back height requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection. I regret the delay in this response.

I understand that you explained to Mr. Charles Hott of our agency that the C. E. White Company manufactures school bus seats that are integrated with child restraints, and which have 711 millimeter (28 inch) high seat backs. While you are interested in having some of these seats installed in school buses along with standard school bus seats with 508 millimeters (20 inch) high seat backs, you ask about Standard 222's requirements that apply to a 711 millimeter (28 inch) high seat back. You pose five questions, which we answer below.

1. "If a C. E. White or similar type seat, with a 39 inch seat cushion width and a 28 inch seat back height is installed in a school bus, what is the federal requirement for the seat back/barrier immediately in front of the [tall] C. E. White seat?"

We believe you are asking whether the height of the seat back or barrier in front of the tall seat has to be at least 508 millimeters (20 inches) or at least 711 millimeters (28 inches). As explained below, assuming the width of the seat bench in front of the C.E. White type seat is 990 millimeters (39 inches), the seat back or restraining barrier in front of the C.E. White type seat has to be at least 508 millimeters (20 inches), not 711 millimeters (28 inches).

Seat back height. The minimum height required of seat backs is specified in S5.1.2 of Standard 222. S5.1.2 states: "Each school bus passenger seat shall be equipped with a seat back that, in the front projected view, has a front surface area above the horizontal plane that passes through the seating reference point, and below the horizontal plane 508 mm [20 inches] above the seating reference point, of not less than 90 percent of the seat bench width in millimeters multiplied by 508." Simply stated, this section requires seat back heights of at least 508 millimeters (20 inches) above the seating reference point.⁽¹⁾ Standard 222 does not require the seat back to be taller if it is in front of a school bus seat that has a 711 millimeter (28 inch) high seat back.

Restraining barrier height. Paragraph S5.2 of Standard 222 requires each vehicle to be equipped with a restraining barrier forward of any designated seating position that does not have the rear surface of another school bus passenger seat within 610 mm (24 inches) of its seating reference point.

The minimum height for restraining barriers is specified in S5.2.2 of Standard 222. That section states: "The position and rear surface area of the restraining barrier shall be such that, in a front projected view of the bus, each point of the barrier's perimeter coincides with or lies outside of the perimeter of the seat back of the seat for which it is required."

In an interpretation letter of April 8, 1977, to Wayne Corporation (copy provided), this agency interpreted the restraining barrier requirement to mean that a restraining barrier must only coincide with or lie outside of the seat back surface required by S5.1.2. Thus, in a front projected view of the bus, each point of the barrier's perimeter would have to coincide with or lie outside of the perimeter of a seat back with a height of 508 millimeters (20 inches) (assuming the width of the bench seat for which the seat back is required is 990 millimeters (39 inches)).

2. "If a C. E. White or similar seat, with a 28 inch seat back height, is installed as the rear seat of a sixty four passenger school bus, will each of the seat backs in front of each seat require a 'New York-type' seat back (28 inch height)."

As answered above, the seat backs in front of the tall C.E. White type seat do not have to be 711 millimeters (28 inches) in height simply because they are positioned in front of a seat that has a 711 millimeter (28 inch) seat back. The size of a seat back depends on the width of the seat for which it provides a back.

3. "Can a school bus body be configured with different heights of seat backs installed in a single unit."

By "in a single unit," I will assume you mean "in one school bus." Alternatively, you might mean "in one row of seats." Our answer is that nothing in Standard 222 specifies that in a school bus or row of seats, each seat back must be of the same height. However, each passenger seating position must have a seat back that meets S5.1.2 and have in front of it a seat back that meets S5.1.2, or a restraining barrier that meets S5.2.2.

4. "Can seat back heights exceed the federal requirement, and if so, how does this impact other seats within the same unit?"

As previously stated, the area and height of any seat back depends on the width of the seat bench for which it provides a back, not on the height of other seat backs. Each passenger seating position must have a seat back that meets S5.1.2, and must be faced with a seat back or a restraining barrier.⁽²⁾

5. "If the first seat has a short (30 inch width) seat cushion, what is the federal requirement for both the barrier height and width and the seat back height and width."

You explained to Dorothy Nakama of my staff that this question asks about the situation where the first row of seats has a 762 millimeter (30 inch) width and the second row directly behind the first row has a 990 millimeter (39 inch) width. There is a restraining barrier in front of the first row. You are concerned about how a child sitting in the second row in the 228 millimeter (9 inch) section not faced by a seat back is to be protected.

The child sitting in the 228 millimeter (9 inch) section in the second row must be protected in part by a restraining barrier. Referring again to the letter of April 8, 1977 to Wayne Corporation, the combination of the restraining barrier and the seat back of the first row seat must coincide with or lie outside of the perimeter of the second row's required seat back surface.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:222
d.4/26/99

1. For a 990 millimeter (39 inch) bench seat, the seat back must have a front surface area at least .9(990) multiplied by 508, or 452,628 square millimeters (702 square inches).

2. An issue that may be implicit in your question is whether States may require a seat back height greater than 508 millimeters (20 inches). Our position is that any State requirement relating to seat back height, other than one identical to the Federal formula that establishes a minimum height of 508 millimeters (20 inches), is preempted under 49 USC 30103(b) of our statute. However, our statute does not prevent governmental entities from specifying additional safety features in vehicles purchased for their own use. Thus, for public school buses, a State may specify a seat back higher than 508 millimeters (20 inches). See March 23, 1976 to Mr. Martin V. Chauvin, copy enclosed.

ID: 0484

Mary M. Mann, Director
Federal Government Regulations
National Marine Manufacturers Association
Washington Harbour
3050 K Street, N.W., Suite 145
Washington, D.C. 20007

Dear Ms. Mann:

This responds to your letter of September 15, 1994, to Patrick Boyd of this agency. As he has told you, we did not receive a copy of it until around November 9. You ask for confirmation of your understanding of the conspicuity requirements of S5.7.1.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as they apply to large boat trailers, based upon a meeting you had with him and Taylor Vinson of this Office earlier in the summer. We have paraphrased your concerns for conciseness in our discussion which follows.

Side treatment

1. Paragraph S5.1.1.9 allows a double-faced clearance lamp to be mounted at or near the midpoint of wide boat trailers to indicate the extreme width. Paragraph S5.7.1.4, in essence, prohibits retroreflective material from being closer than 75 mm to the edge of any required lamp. While the closest edge of the fender-mounted lamp will be further than 75 mm from the body-mounted retroreflective material, when viewed from the side the separation distance vanishes and the material appears next to the lamp. You asked whether this configuration complies with Standard No. 108.

NHTSA regards this configuration as meeting the requirements of Standard No. 108 since the actual physical distance between the closest edge of the lamp and the material is more than 75 mm. But the more important point is that the spacing of side conspicuity material is a consideration only for required side lamps. The amber lamp in question is a front clearance lamp and the proximity of side facing reflectors has no effect on its visibility from the side.

2. Paragraph S5.7.1.4.1(a) requires that the material cover at least half the trailer length and that it be distributed as even as practicable. For purposes of calculating the 50 percent minimum, you asked whether the following two applications are acceptable: a) The sheeting can be on the angled portion of the trailer that is the tongue, regardless of its effect on the reflectivity of the tape when viewed from the side.

NHTSA has traditionally included the trailer tongue in determining the overall length of the vehicle for compliance purposes. Therefore, sheeting applied to the trailer tongue may be used in calculating the 50 percent minimum.

(b) The sheeting need not all be on the same horizontal plane.

This is correct. If a manufacturer applies sheeting to the tongue and fender in fulfilling the 50% minimum obligation, the material need not be at the same height as the other sheeting on the trailer. However, wherever applied, each discrete portion of sheeting must be mounted as horizontal as practicable.

Rear Treatment

1. Paragraph S5.7.1.4.1 specifies the application of three Elements of sheeting to the rear of trailers. However, it excuses container chassis and platform trailers without bulkheads from being equipped with Element 2 treatment, and trailers without underride protection devices from the requirements of Element 3. You asked whether NHTSA would also excuse boat trailers without bulkheads in the same manner as platform trailers, requiring compliance only with Element 1.

This is correct. The configuration of a boat trailer without a bulkhead is essentially that of a platform trailer, and it may also be exempted from providing Element 2 conspicuity treatment. Due to their low heights, boat trailers are not equipped with rear underride devices, and those trailers without underride devices are excluded from the requirement for providing Element 3 treatment.

2. Element 1 retroreflective material is to be applied "across the full width of the trailer" but under paragraph S5.7.1(a) it need not be applied to "items of equipment such as door hinges and lamp bodies." There is a cross member at the rear which will have conspicuity treatment across the full width; however, mounting brackets attached to the cross member obscure portions of the conspicuity treatment. You asked for confirmation that this configuration is in accordance with Standard No. 108.

The exclusionary term "items of equipment" is not limited to the two examples cited in S5.7.1(a), door hinges and lamp bodies. We believe that any equipment to which it is impracticable to apply retroreflective material may be excluded from the requirement. You have not included any pictures of the mounting brackets, but this will confirm that NHTSA regards the mounting brackets as "items of equipment" to which the treatment need not be applied, if it is impracticable to apply material to it. In this event, application of conspicuity treatment across the full width of the cross member meets Standard No. 108 even if the subsequently added mounting brackets without treatment obscure part of it.

3. Does NHTSA interpret "full width of the trailer" to include the rear of the fender assembly, so as to require the application of conspicuity treatment to it? You asked for confirmation that the phrase applies only to the rear of the frame.

NHTSA has defined "overall vehicle width" to exclude flexible fender extensions, but it has not adopted a definition for "full width." We understand from your first question, on the centrally mounted clearance lamp, that boat trailer fenders will be located at or near the center of the trailer rather than at the rear. Under this circumstance, we interpret "full width" to include only the vehicle structure at the rear end of the trailer, including its frame and rear cross members.

4. With respect to the relative location of the edge of retroreflective sheeting to the edge of required lamps, S5.7.1.4(b) prohibits white sheeting from being closer than 75 mm to the edge of any required lamp whether red or amber, while S5.7.1.4(c) prohibits red sheeting from being closer than 75 mm to the edge of any required amber lamp only. You asked for confirmation "that the edge of the red portion of the sheeting may abut a rear identification lamp but that the white portion of the sheeting must be at lease (sic) 3mm (sic) from those lamps." (We believe you mean 3 inches).

This is correct. S5.7.1.4(c) does not prohibit red sheeting from being closer than 75 mm (3 inches) to the red rear identification lamp, and the two may abut. However, S5.7.1.4(b) does not allow the edge of white sheeting to be closer than 75 mm to the edge of the luminous lens area of the identification lamp.

Finally, you have asked for confirmation of your understanding "that it is not acceptable for trailer manufacturers to give rolls of reflexive sheeting tape and instructions to dealers regarding its application. Rather, the sheeting must be installed at the factory."

We confirm your understanding. The manufacturer of the trailer is required to certify compliance of its product with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards upon its completion and before its delivery for introduction into interstate commerce. As this certification includes compliance with S5.7 of Standard No. 108, the conspicuity treatment must be applied as part of the manufacturing process and not delegated to dealers.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:108 d:1/11/95

ID: 06-007875--6 May 09 rewrite--rsy

ID: 8816

Mr. Charlie McBay
Chief Engineer
Barrett Trailers, Inc.
P.O. Box 890670
Oklahoma City, OK 73189-0670

Dear Mr. McBay:

We have received your letter of June 13, 1993, asking that this Office review the two drawings you enclosed "for compliance with the upcoming conspicuity requirement", and "ask that our installation have your approval."

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act the manufacturer has the responsibility of determining whether its product conforms and then certifies its compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The Act does not provide authority for the agency to "approve" or "disapprove" any specific solution to methods of conformance. For this reason, we are unable to advise you in the manner you seek.

However, the agency does provide interpretations when specific questions are asked with respect to the requirements of the standard, and we are pleased to respond accordingly to your inquiries. You have raised four issues for our comment.

1. You have called to our attention that the "outside post" design of the trailers is configured so that the spacing of the posts along the length of the trailers is not the same. The retroreflective material will be evenly spaced in most areas, but breaks between material vary. You have asked whether this will "suffice for evenly distributed."

Under S5.7.1.4.2(a) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, retroreflective sheeting applied to each side of a trailer need not be continuous "as long as not less than half of the length of the trailer is covered and the spaces are distributed as evenly as practicable." As we have advised many times, under Standard No. 108 the determination of practicability is to be made by the manufacturer in fulfillment of its obligation to certify that its product conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. NHTSA believes that, as a general rule, a manufacturer is in the best position to determine what is practicable for its particular design. However, if that determination appears erroneous on its face, NHTSA will question it. Were you to manufacture trailers with the side conspicuity treatment spacings depicted on your drawings, NHTSA would not question your determination of practicability.

2. You have asked "if an area exists where a minimum 12" strip will not fit, can we install smaller material or must this area stay blank?"

As noted above, under S5.7.1.4.2, a strip of retroreflective material need not be continuous "as long as not less than half of the length of the trailer is covered." Therefore, if exclusion of the area in question would not result in less than half of the length of the trailer being covered, the area may be left blank.

If additional sheeting is required for a trailer to meet the length requirement, or if a manufacturer simply wishes to add it, it need not be "a minimum 12" strip." S5.7.1.3(d) of Standard No. 108 specifies that each segment of retroreflective sheeting shall have a length of 300 mm (i.e., 12 inches) +/- 150 mm. Therefore, a segment of sheeting as short in length as 150 mm (6 inches) could be applied to the area in question in compliance with the standard. An even shorter segment is permitted if necessary "to clear obstructions" if that should be the reason in your instance where a strip of 300 mm will not fit.

If the length of the area in question is smaller than 150 mm and its coverage is required for the conspicuity treatment on the trailer to meet the length requirement, then any length of material is acceptable.

3. You have asked us to note that the white strips in the upper rear corners do not meet. You have asked "Must white be touching or can there be a gap between the strips?"

Figure 30 "Typical Trailer Conspicuity Treatments" depicts two configurations in which the white strips of retroreflective material intersect at right angles in the upper rear corners. The requirement that Figure 30 illustrates is set forth in S5.7.1.4.1(b), which specifies, in pertinent part, "two pairs of white strips of sheeting, each pair . . . applied horizontally and vertically to the right and left upper contours of the body . . . as close to the top of the trailer and as far apart as practicable." There is no explicit requirement in this paragraph that the horizontal and vertical strips intersect or touch. There is an implicit requirement in the specification that the strips be "as close to the top and as far apart as practicable", but the requirement is subject to the manufacturer's determination of practicability. In other words, if the manufacturer's determination of practicability results in a gap between the strips, NHTSA will not question this determination unless it appears clearly erroneous.

4. You represent that your design makes it impossible "to make a nice continuous square corner", and that "[i]nstallation of the white corners is also closer than 3" from red top rail lights." You ask whether there is "any tolerance on the 3" dimensions?

There is no tolerance on this requirement. S5.7.1.4(b) states that "The edge of white sheeting shall not be located closer than 75 mm to the edge of the luminous lens area of any lamp that is required by this standard." The diagrams you enclose depict the horizontal white strip directly below the clearance lamps, which are required by Standard No. 108, so that each design does not accord with Standard No. 108.

We have some comments on each design. On "Model 80MP6-DD" it appears to us that, under a determination of practicability, the white strips could be lowered until the required minimum spacing between it and the clearance lamp was achieved. There is no prohibition against placing the material on the roll-up door.

The trailer identified as "GNXS-207" raises a more difficult problem because there appears to be no place where the strips could be relocated. Consideration must be given, therefore, to relocation of the clearance lamps. Under Table II of Standard No. 108, clearance lamps are intended to "indicate the overall width of the trailer". Although clearance lamps should be "as near the top . . . as practicable", they need not be "[w]hen the rear identification lamps are mounted at the extreme height of a vehicle" (S5.3.1.4). The rear identification lamps on GNXS-207 are mounted at the extreme height of the vehicle. The clearance lamps could be relocated to the fender where the stop, turn, and taillamps are presently installed. In that location, the clearance lamps would also be better able to fulfill the intent that they indicate the overall width of the trailer, which appears to occur at the fender rather than at the upper part of the body.

We hope that these interpretations are helpful.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:7/14/93

ID: nht89-2.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: JULY 27, 1989

FROM: LARRY S. SNOWHITE -- MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY AND POPEO

TO: STEPHEN P. WOOD, ESQ. -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED JANUARY 25, 1990 TO LARRY S. SNOWHITE, MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY AND POPEO, FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD, NHTSA; REDBOOK A35; VSA 1397 (A)(2)(A); STD. 108

TEXT: On behalf of our clients, ATAT Technology Ltd. ("ATAT") and CTS Corporation, we respectfully request that you determine that the sale into the aftermarket as well as aftermarket installation of the Advanced Brake Light Device ("ABLD") manufactured by ATAT (or of any other device performing as does the ABLD) would not violate the statutes administered by, or regulations of, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Specifically, we are requesting this determination for a device, the ABLD or a similar device demonstrating comparable performance, that consists of a sensor attached to the accelerator pedal that senses the rate at which the foot releases the acceler ator pedal. This signal is transmitted to a processor unit, which determines whether the brake lights should be turned on, and the duration of the illumination until the brake is applied. The ABLD is set so that the brake light will go off unless the b rake is applied within one second of the ABLD's activation, which based on experimentation and observation provides sufficient time for the brake pedal activation of the stop lights while avoiding misleading signals (if NHTSA considers that a different i nterval is consistent with applicable law and regulations, ATAT is prepared to modify the interval to meet an alternative NHTSA performance standard.)

It is our belief that the ABLD, and any similar device, holds out the promise of avoiding significant numbers of rear-end accidents and of reducing the seriousness of rear-end accidents that do occur. As the ABLD does not compromise,

render inoperative, in whole or in part, or impair the effectiveness of the mandated brake light system, we believe that on neither legal nor public policy grounds should NHTSA object to aftermarket sales of the ABLD.

This question was previously considered in a Memorandum dated March 7, 1988 addressed by Erika Jones to the Associate Administrator for Research and Development. In our view, that Memorandum was based on inadequate information concerning the mandated brake and brake light systems, the ABLD's performance and ABLD's potential contribution to safety -- inadequacies for which ATAT was responsible and which it now seeks to correct. In the intervening months, additional studies have been conducted and AT AT has marshaled relevant research materials. This new information is presented in the enclosed submissions.

The March Memorandum expressed concern that installation of the ABLD could create a noncompliance with Standard 108 and thereby presumptively run afoul of the anti-tampering provisions of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397. In this regard, w e understand that the threshold question is, does the ABLD render inoperative, in whole or in part, a device or element of design installed in compliance with Standard 108. A related determination is whether, under S4.1.3, it "impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required" by Standard 108.

This is a factual determination. And we believe that as a matter of fact the ABLD does not render the brake light system inoperative or impair its effectiveness.

First, the ABLD does not prevent the brake light system (the stoplamp and the CHMSL) from being activated and operating when the brake is applied. The ABLD is consistent with the operation of the brake light system, and arguably enhances it. The ABL D clearly and unambiguously indicates "the intention of the operator of a vehicle to stop or diminish speed by braking." SAE Standard J586d,2.1. Stop Lamps. The brake light is illuminated if the driver releases the accelerator at a rate greater than a predetermined minimum -- a minimum which reflects a very high probability that the release will be followed by an "emergency" brake application. If the brake is applied within one second, the brake light remains illuminated. Certainly this is consisten t with the definition of a Stop Lamp and with the operation of the brake light system.

There will be circumstances in which the brake will not be engaged after the ABLD is activated. In this case, the brake light will remain illuminated only for one second. As the enclosed material documents, this is not a phenomenon unique to, or agg ravated by, the ABLD. Illuminations of the brake lights for one second or less occur frequently during

normal driving without the ABLD. As is described in the enclosed submissions, in everyday driving it is not uncommon for the brake lights to be illuminated briefly even though the service brakes are not activated. The performance of the ABLD adds margi nally to the total number of illuminations of the brake lights for less than one second. Thus, ABLD-caused short-duration illuminations do not convey an intent or signal that is inconsistent or contradictory of the signal sent by the standard brake ligh t system. And they do signal an at least momentary "intention of the operator to stop or diminish speed by braking"

Activation of the ABLD does illuminate the stoplamps by means other than the application of the service brakes. While S4.5.4 prohibits the CHMSL being activated by means other than the application of the service brake, there is no comparable prohibit ion on the stoplamps themselves being activated by means other than the application of the service brakes. The ABLD would activate the stoplamp and CHMSL simultaneously. And it is our understanding that the CHMSL provision is an inadvertent hold-over f rom a rule, S4.5.11(b), that allowed the CHMSL to be activated by the hazard warning system for passenger cars manufactured on or after August 1, 1984 until September 1, 1986. Accordingly, while the installation of the ABLD as OEM technically would be i nconsistent with a literal reading of S4.5.4, this should not be considered an "impairment" such as to bar aftermarket sales and installation of the ABLD.

As previously noted, both the trigger point for the activation of the ABLD and the interval during which the ABLD illuminates the brake lights are subject to adjustment. The trigger and interval chosen reflect ATAT's studied judgment as to what will succeed in order to send a signal in those cases in which a signal is appropriate and minimize the incidence of misleading signals. Part of the basis for this judgment is set out in the attached submissions.

ATAT would appreciate an opportunity to meet with appropriate NHTSA staff in order to discuss this request so as to assure that you are in a position to respond to the request based on the fullest available information. As you will immediately see, t he enclosed submissions are the result of considerable work and ATAT would also welcome the opportunity to respond to questions about them.

As you know, ATAT is an Israeli company. This creates special logistical difficulties in communicating with NHTSA. A representative of ATAT will be in the United States on

August 1-4. We believe that it would be in the mutual interest of ATAT and NHTSA to meet during these dates.

Thank you for your consideration.

Enclosure

ID: nht88-2.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/02/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Durham & Associates, P.C.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Robert R. Keatinge, Esq. Durham & Associates, P.C. Suite 1750 950 17th Street Denver, CO 80202

Dear Mr. Keatinge:

This is a response to your letter of December 1, 1987, making this agency to clarify your understanding of 49 CFR S571.7(e). That section reads in part as follows:

Combining new and used components. When a new cab is used in the assembly of a truck, the truck will be considered newly manufactured ...unless the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) (as a minimum) of the assembled vehicle are not new, and at least two of these components were taken from the same vehicle.

You referred to my August 11, 1987 letter to Mr. Ernest Parmer, and expressed concern that my having discussed only one aspect of S571.7(e) in that letter has led to some confusion. My letter to Mr. Parmer states that 'a modified school bus or truck is n ot considered a 'new' vehicle if, at a minimum, the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) are not new and at least two of these three listed components are taken from the same used vehicle.' You stated that while my statement is 'correct,' my response did not address the first clause of this provision: 'When a new cab is used In the assembly of a truck...' you asserted that, a bus should not be considered 'new' unless a new body is attached to the chassis.' Your assertion is correct with respect to S5 71.7(e), but there is another regulation that specifies a vehicle is 'new' if an old body is combined with a new chassis.

By its own terms, S571.7(e) applies only in situations where a new body is combined with either (1) mixed new and used chassis components, or (2) used components from different vehicles. You were correct, then, in asserting that 5571.7(e) applied only to situations involving a new body. For the purposes of the Parmer letter, it Has understood between Mr. Parmer and a member of my staff that the bus bodies in question were new, so that letter did not purport to address the question of combining an old bu s body with new and or/used chassis Components.

Many of our prior interpretations have stated that a person who adds a new or used body to a new chassis to produce a school bus is considered the manufacturer of a new school bus, and must certify that the new bus conforms with all applicable safety sta ndards, just as every other school bus manufacturer must. In this case, the new chassis is an incomplete vehicle. 'Incomplete vehicle' is defined in 19 CFR 5568.3 as:

an assemblies consisting, as a minimum, of a frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing o perations, other than the addition of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, to become a completed vehicle.

When a new bus chassis is used to produce a vehicle, the person who adds a body - even an old body - is a final-stage manufacturer, within the meaning of 49 CFR 5568.3. Final-Stage manufacturers are required to certify that the completed vehicle conforms with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards in effect on the date of manufacture. The date of manufacture for these buses cannot be earlier than the date on which the chassis manufacturer completed its work on the chassis and cannot be la ter than the date the final-stage manufacturer completed its manufacturing operations. See 49 CFR S567.5, Requirements for Manufacturers of Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages.

Note that neither S571.7(e) nor Part 568 would require a person to certify that a school bus complies with all applicable safety standards, if that person merely rebuilds or replaces an engine, drive axle, or transmission in a bus, or if that person plac es a used bus body on a used chassis.

I hope you find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel December 4, 1987

Erika Z. Jones, Esq. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration United States Department of Transportation 700 Seventh Street Washington, D.C. 20890

Re: Your letter of August 11, 1987 to Ernest Farmer

Dear Ms. Jones:

This letter is to confirm my understanding of 49 CFR S571.7(e) as interpreted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ('NHTSA'). In your letter of August 11, 1987 to Mr. Ernest Farmer, the Director of Pupil Transportation for the Tennessee Department of Education, you twice (at the top of page 2 and in the first paragraph of section 3 on page 3) make reference to the portion of 5571.7(e) which says that a bus will not be considered 'new' if the engine, transmission and drive train are not new and at least two of these components are from the same vehicle.

While this statement is a correct statement of part of the test under 5571.7(e) it does not address the part of the regulation which states that a truck (or, here, a bus) will be considered new only if the cab (or, here, a body? is replaced. The descrip tion of the regulation contained in your letter may have been in response to an Inquiry which assumed the replacement of the bus body (as did FR Docket No. 85-22646).

On Friday, December 4, 1987 I discussed this point with Joan Tilghman of your office. She confirmed what appears to be the clear reading of S571.7(e) to the effect that the replacement of the engine, transmission and/or rear axle only becomes an issue 'W hen a new cab (here, body) is used in the assembly of a truck (here, bus)...". In other words, a bus should not be considered 'new' unless a new body is attached to the chassis.

Unfortunately, there has been some confusion as a result of the letter indicates that the NHTSA is changing the regulation to provide in effect that whenever a new or rebuilt engine, transmission or rear axle is put in a bus the bus must be brought into conformity with current standards regardless of whether the body has been replaced. As discussed above, and as confirmed by Ms. Tilghman, I don't think that was your intention.

If the foregoing accurately describes the NHTSA's position, I would appreciate your confirming this to me so that we can correct the misunderstanding. Until this ambiguity is resolved, my client is in a difficult position inasmuch as the governmental age ncies are unsure how to proceed. Your prompt response would therefore be greatly appreciated.

If there are any questions in this regard or If I am incorrect in my understanding, I would appreciate your contacting me as soon as possible. Thank you for your consideration in this regard.

Sincerely,

Robert R. Keatinge

ID: nht76-2.46

DATE: 01/14/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Department of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of December 8, 1975, asking four questions, the answers to which would provide an interpretation of Standard No. 108 with respect to separation distance of a turn signal lamp from the nearest edge of a Type 2 headlamp.

SAE Standard J588d, Turn Signal Lamps, June 1966, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108, requires in pertinent part that "The optical axis (filament center) of the front turn signal lamp shall be at least 4 inches from the inside diameter of the retaining ring of the headlamp unit providing the lower beam . . . ." We agree with your opinion that the reference to filament center may have been added because of the difficulty of determining the location of the optical axis in certain instances. In the vast majority of cases, however the filament center is on the optical axis, and the addition of the provision assists in determining compliance with the requirement.

You have asked:

"1. Is the filament center always to be taken as the center of the optical axis?"

The answer to this question is no. In some instances the filament center will not be on the optical axis. When this is the case the standard is ambiguous as to whether distance is measured from the optical axis or the filament center. While we prefer the optical axis, under the present wording either must be viewed as legally supportable.

"2. Is the center of the emitted light always to be taken as the center of the optical axis?"

The answer is yes.

"3. If the answers to the above two questions are no, does the vehicle manufacturer have the choice as to which method is most favorable to him?"

Yes, because of the ambiguity the manufacturer may choose either the optical axis or filament center as the point of measurement.

"4. What is the optical axis of a two- or three- compartment lamp?"

The optical axis of a multi-compartment lamp is the center of the light emitted by the array, treated as a single complex light source. The "half-value" method you described in your letter is a valid method of finding the optical axis of a complex light source as well as that of a simple one.

Finally you have asked whether, if we agree with the need for clarification, the letter can be considered a petition for rulemaking or whether a formal petition should be submitted.

We agree that clarification is needed and accordingly plan to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking in the near future.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

December 8, 1975

Frank Berndt -- Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

When inspecting 1976 passenger cars, we discovered a problem in measuring the distance of a front turn signal lamp from the nearest edge of the Type 2 headlamp. Federal Standard No. 108 requires that turn signal lamps meet the 4-inch minimum spacing in SAE J588d. Standard No. 108 also permits lamps to be mounted closer than the 4-inch interval if they emit 2-1/2 times the minimum candlepower otherwise specified.

SAE J588d clearly states that the distance shall be measured from the optical axis of the turn signal lamp to the inside diameter of the retaining ring from the headlamp providing the low beam. It then, unfortunately, makes the requirement ambiguous by a parenthetical reference to the filament center.

The SAE wording was satisfactory when it was adopted a number of years ago, because lamp designs then had the optical axis coincident with the filament. More recent designs have kept the filament 4 inches from the headlamp but have used the ambiguity as a loophole to allow the optical axis to be unreasonably close to the headlamp.

The 4-inch separation was adopted by SAE after a number of complaints about the lack of effectiveness of some turn signals that were snuggled up against the headlamps. The brightness of the adjacent low beam headlamps washed out the turn signals so they would not attract an oncoming driver's attention unless he was looking almost directly at them. The SAE Lighting Committee made nighttime demonstrations of turn signals at various distances from the headlamps in view of a proposal that the edges of the lamps be separated by a minimum distance such as 2 or 2 inches. A jury-type judgment indicated that the present requirement was barely acceptable usually and would allow vehicle manufacturers sufficient design freedom in placing the lamps on vehicles.

The attached drawing illustrates the absurdity of the "filament center" interpretation for modern-day turn signals (and incidentally the skill and ingenuity of lamp designers). Figure I shows a current lamp with a filament center meeting the 4-inch requirement but with an optical center much closer to the headlamp. Figure II illustrates a left-hand version of the same lamp with a filament center that does not meet the 4-inch requirement but with an optical center farther removed from the headlamp. The second lamp provides a more effective signal from an opposing driver's viewpoint, but it would be illegal if measured from the filament center.

The filament center reference apparently was added to the SAE standard because of an assumed difficulty in determining the location of the optical axis. An axis of any object usually passes through a point of symmetry. In the case of a symmetrical light beam meeting turn signal photometric requirements, the optical axis falls in a plane on either side of which is one-half of the total light output. The optical axis is easily located by measuring the intensity of the lamp at HV and then sliding an opaque card with a straight edge across the face of the lens until the photometer reading is one-half the HV value.

In view of the foregoing discussion, we would appreciate your interpretation of Standard No. 108 with respect to the following questions:

1. Is the filament center always to be taken as the center of the optical axis?

2. Is the center of the emitted light always to be taken as the center of the optical axis?

3. If the answers to the above two questions are no, does the vehicle manufacturer have the choice of which method is most favorable to him?

4. What is the optical axis of a two- or three-compartment lamp?

If you agree with the need for clarification, can this letter be considered a basis for your initiating a proposed change in Standard No. 108 or must this Department submit a formal petition for a rulemaking?

Very truly yours,

WARREN M. HEATH -- Commander, Enforcement Services Division

Enclosure

cc: Lou Owen, NHTSA; Francis Armstrong, NHTSA

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht94-8.28

DATE: February 7, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Donald W. Vierimaa -- Vice President - Engineering, Truck Trailer Manufacturing Association

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/2/93 from Donald W. Vierimaa to John Womack (OCC-9050)

TEXT:

We have reviewed your letter of September 2, 1993, asking for three interpretations of S5.7 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, the provisions that relate to heavy trailer conspicuity.

You have set forth the metric dimensions specified in S5.7, together with corresponding values under the headings "English (actual)," and "English (nominal)." The latter is a rounding off of the values of "English (actual)." Your first question is whether you may consider the English (nominal) dimensions equivalent for the purpose of compliance with Standard No. 108.

We assume that you would like to provide measurements in the conventional manner to your members who may not be familiar with the metric system, as a means of assisting them to comply with the conspicuity requirements that become effective December 1, 1993. However, the Federal motor vehicle safety standards are not expressed in equivalents, but in precise values, whether metric or conventional, and there can be no rounded "equivalences" for purposes of compliance with Standard No. 108. SAE J1322 JUN85 "Preferred Conversion Values for Dimensions in Lighting" which you reference has not been incorporated into Standard No. 108. In implementation of Departmental and national policy, NHTSA has begun to specify the requirements of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards using metric system values, and manufacturers are expected to learn and to comply with them.

We would also like to correct a misimpression indicated in your letter. You have placed a single asterisk by certain metric values reflecting your assumption that these are minimum values. This is incorrect; the standard expresses these values as fixed values rather than minimum ones. However, you are correct in your identification as minimum of those values that are not designated by an asterisk.

Your second question concerns the location of rear and side sheeting. You point out that cargo tank trailers may have a "vertical surface" only at their "belt line" which may be as high as 2.3 m above the ground. You ask whether retroreflective sheeting may be located higher that 1.25 m if there is no vertical surface lower than this height "without installing structure just for the sheeting." As adopted, Standard No. 108 specified a mounting height as close as practicable to 1.25 m. However, in a notice published on October 6, 1993, NHTSA amended the requirement to "as close as practicable to not less than 375 mm and not more than 1525 mm above the road surface." The practicability qualification allows manufacturers to choose a location for conspicuity treatment that is outside the specified

range to avoid body modifications that might otherwise be required to mount the material within the specified range.

The manufacturers of conspicuity material certify its performance as mounted on a vehicle in a vertical plane. Trailer manufacturers are expected to mount the material in a vertical plane or as close to a vertical plane as the trailer shape offers. In the case of your hypothetical tank trailer without a suitable vertical surface below the belt line of the tank, reflective material at the belt line, whether 2.3 m or higher, would be considered to have been mounted as close as practicable to the upper specification of the height range (1.525 m). As NHTSA observed when it adopted the original mounting height specification with its practicability provision, flexibility in the vertical location of conspicuity material is necessary for compliance of some tank trailers. However, it should not be overlooked that other types of tank trailers may have vertical surfaces on the frames, fenders, or other equipment well suited for conspicuity material.

Your third question presents five Figures and asks with respect to each whether the vertical and horizontal sheeting for the upper right and left contours, as specified by S5.7.1.4.1(b), may be of the dimensions and locations shown. This section requires application of two pairs of white strips of sheeting, each pair consisting of strips 300 mm long, applied "vertically" and "horizontally" to the contours "as close to the top of the trailer and as far apart as practicable." With respect to Figures 1 and 2 (van trailers), we shall assume that the horizontal strips are mounted as close to the top of the trailer as practicable. Figure 1 depicts two separate strips at right angles to each other, each 300 mm in length. This design is not in accordance with Standard No. 108. The side strip does not appear mounted as close to the top of the trailer as practicable, and the top strips do not appear to be mounted as far apart as practicable. While the presence of door hinges may necessitate designs similar to Figure 1, this design, as drawn on an unobstructed surface, does not comply. To effect compliance, either the side strips should be moved upwards, or the top strips should be moved closer to the outside corners.

Figure 2 depicts two strips joined at the corners to make an inverted "L." Each leg of the "L" is 300 mm in length when measured from the outside, top to bottom, or side to side. This configuration is in accordance with S5.7.1.4.1(b).

Figures 3 and 4 present alternative conspicuity treatments for liquid tank trailers where the body is curved rather than rectangular. In Figure 3, two strips 30 mm in length intersect at an angle greater than 90 degrees. In Figure 4, a curved strip 600 mm in length follows the contour of the body. Paragraph S5.7.1.4.1(b) of Standard No. 108 requires marking the upper outer contours of the body with strips "applied horizontally and vertically to the right and left upper contours of the body ...." However, the rear contours of a tank body are rounded rather than vertical and horizontal. In view of this fact, the agency accepts the treatment shown in your Figure 3 as meeting the requirement for horizontal and vertical application. The design of Figure 4 does not differ in any significant way, and we consider that it is equivalent.

Finally, Figure 5 depicts a dry bulk trailer with a 300 mm strip centered horizontally at the top of a round body, and two strips of the same length placed lower, at an angle slightly off of vertical, but far from the edges of the body contour. We understand that the body of the trailer tapers to a blunt end represented by the circle upon which the horizontal conspicuity treatment is laced. As the approximately vertical strips cannot be placed on the tapering trailer body, they should be located as far apart as practicable, and the depicted location appears to represent that placement. Similarly, if two horizontal strips cannot be placed on the trailer body, NHTSA will not question the compliance of the vehicle based on the provision of a single, center strip of retroreflective material.

ID: nht93-5.23

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 14, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Charlie McBay -- Chief Engineer, Barrett Trailers, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-13-93 from Charlie McBay to NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel (OCC 8816)

TEXT:

We have received your letter of June 13, 1993, asking that this Office review the two drawings you enclosed "for compliance with the upcoming conspicuity requirement", and "ask that our installation have your approval."

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act the manufacturer has the responsibility of determining whether its product conforms and then certifies its compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The Act does not provide authority for the agency to "approve" or "disapprove" any specific solution to methods of conformance. For this reason, we are unable to advise you in the manner you seek.

However, the agency does provide interpretations when specific questions are asked with respect to the requirements of the standard, and we are pleased to respond accordingly to your inquiries. You have raised four issues for our comment.

1. You have called to our attention that the "outside post" design of the trailers is configured so that the spacing of the posts along the length of the trailers is not the same. The retroreflective material will be evenly spaced in most areas, but breaks between material vary. You have asked whether this will "suffice for evenly distributed."

Under S5.7.1.4.2(a) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, retroreflective sheeting applied to each side of a trailer need not be continuous "as long as not less than half of the length of the trailer is covered and the spaces are distributed as evenly as practicable." As we have advised many times, under Standard No. 108 the determination of practicability is to be made by the manufacturer in fulfillment of its obligation to certify that its product conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. NHTSA believes that, as a general rule, a manufacturer is in the best position to determine what is practicable for its particular design. However, if that determination appears erroneous on its face, NHTSA will question it. Were you to manufacture trailers with the side conspicuity treatment spacings depicted on your drawings, NHTSA would not question your determination of practicability.

2. You have asked "if an area exists where a minimum 12" strip will not fit, can we install smaller material or must this area stay blank?"

As noted above, under S5.7.1.4.2, a strip of retroreflective material need not be continuous "as long as not less than half of the length of the trailer is covered." Therefore, if exclusion of the area in question would not result in less than half of the length of the trailer being covered, the area may be left

blank.

If additional sheeting is required for a trailer to meet the length requirement, or if a manufacturer simply wishes to add it, it need not be "a minimum 12" strip." S5.7.1.3(d) of Standard No. 108 specifies that each segment of retroreflective sheeting shall have a length of 300 mm (i.e., 12 inches) +/- 150 mm. Therefore, a segment of sheeting as short in length as 150 mm (6 inches) could be applied to the area in question in compliance with the standard. An even shorter segment is permitted if necessary "to clear obstructions" if that should be the reason in your instance where a strip of 300 mm will not fit.

If the length of the area in question is smaller than 150 mm and its coverage is required for the conspicuity treatment on the trailer to meet the length requirement, then any length of material is acceptable.

3. You have asked us to note that the white strips in the upper rear corners do not meet. You have asked "Must white be touching or can there be a gap between the strips?"

Figure 30 "Typical Trailer Conspicuity Treatments" depicts two configurations in which the white strips of retroreflective material intersect at right angles in the upper rear corners. The requirement that Figure 30 illustrates is set forth in S5.7.1.4.1(b), which specifies, in pertinent part, "two pairs of white strips of sheeting, each pair . . . applied horizontally and vertically to the right and left upper contours of the body . . . as close to the top of the trailer and as far apart as practicable." There is no explicit requirement in this paragraph that the horizontal and vertical strips intersect or touch. There is an implicit requirement in the specification that the strips be "as close to the top and as far apart as practicable", but the requirement is subject to the manufacturer's determination of practicability. In other words, if the manufacturer's determination of practicability results in a gap between the strips, NHTSA will not question this determination unless it appears clearly erroneous.

4. You represent that your design makes it impossible "to make a nice continuous square corner", and that "(i)nstallation of the white corners is also closer than 3" from red top rail lights." You ask whether there is "any tolerance on the 3" dimensions?

There is no tolerance on this requirement. S5.7.1.4(b) states that "The edge of white sheeting shall not be located closer than 75 mm to the edge of the luminous lens area of any lamp that is required by this standard." The diagrams you enclose depict the horizontal white strip directly below the clearance lamps, which are required by Standard No. 108, so that each design does not accord with Standard No. 108.

We have some comments on each design. On "Model 80MP6-DD" it appears to us that, under a determination of practicability, the white strips could be lowered until the required minimum spacing between it and the clearance lamp was achieved. There is no prohibition against placing the material on the roll-up door.

The trailer identified as "GNXS-207" raises a more difficult problem because there appears to be no place where the strips could be relocated. Consideration must be given, therefore, to relocation of the clearance lamps. Under Table II of Standard No. 108, clearance lamps are intended to "indicate the overall width of the trailer". Although clearance lamps should be "as near the top . . . as practicable", they need not be "(w)hen the rear identification lamps are mounted at the extreme height of a vehicle" (S5.3.1.4). The rear identification lamps on GNXS-207 are mounted at the extreme height of the vehicle. The clearance lamps could be relocated to the fender where the stop, turn, and taillamps are presently installed. In that location, the clearance lamps would also be better able to fulfill the intent that they indicate the overall width of the trailer, which appears to occur at the fender rather than at the upper part of the body.

We hope that these interpretations are helpful.