ID: 6921

Dr. Larry J. French
President and CEO
Magnascreen
265 Kappa Drive
Pittsburgh, PA 15238

Dear Dr. French:

This responds to your letter inquiring about a recent amendment to Safety Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors. (49 CFR 571.111) You explained that your company is developing electronically controlled dimmable (day/night) rearview mirrors for motor vehicles and requested that the agency assess your reading of section S11 of the standard. We are pleased to have this opportunity to interpret our standard for you.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approval of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards. The following letter represents our opinion based on the facts presented in your letter.

Safety Standard No. 111 specifies requirements for the performance and location of rearview mirrors. Section S11, which was recently amended to better address new mirror designs, specifies requirements for mirror construction. (See 56 FR 58513, November 20, 1991.) The section states in relevant part that:

All single reflectance mirrors shall have an average reflectance of at least 35 percent. If a mirror is capable of multiple reflectance levels, the minimum reflectance level in the day mode shall be at least 35 percent and the minimum reflectance level in the night mode shall be at least 4 percent. 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 electrical failure, or achieve such reflectance level automatically in the event of electrical failure.

You asked whether an alternate power source can be used to achieve the specified fail-safe operation (i.e., adjusting the mirror to a reflectance level of at least 35 percent in the event of electrical failure). While your letter did not specify what you meant by "alternate power source," we assume that it means an electrical power source other than the one intended to normally operate the mirror. Examples of an alternate electrical power source include solar energy or a self-contained battery system.

We interpret the term "electrical failure," as used in section S11 of Standard No. 111, to include any type of electrical failure. This would include electrical failure related to an alternate power source as well as electrical failure related to the primary power source. Therefore, unless adjustment of the mirror to a reflectance level of at least 35 percent occurred even in situations where there was electrical failure related to the alternate power source, the alternate electrical source could not be used to provide the fail-safe operation required by section S11.

The preamble to the final rule amending Standard No. 111 explained that the agency wanted to assure that multiple reflectance mirrors are capable of providing adequate images at all times during the vehicle's operation, including electrical failure situations where the mirror is unpowered. The agency noted that situations can occur where the mirror would be unpowered even though the vehicle could be operational, citing connector faults and circuit board faults. See 56 FR 58515.

To comply with section S11 in situations where a mirror is unpowered as a result of electrical failure, a mirror would either have to default automatically to the high reflectance mode (as in the case of an opposite polarity fail-safe liquid crystal mirror described in the preamble) or be capable of being manually adjusted to the high reflectance mode. We do not have enough information about your proposed mirror to determine whether it would comply with the amendments in the case of electrical failure related to the alternate power source.

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure Ref: 111 d:3/26/92

ID: 15647.ztv

Mr. Michael J. Rood
Vice President, Engineering
Safe-Lite Mfg. Co.
6230 Gross Point Road
Niles, IL 60714

Dear Mr. Rood:

This is in reply to your letter of July 23, 1997, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. We apologize for the delay in responding, but your letter presented unique questions which took some time to resolve to the agency's satisfaction.

There are three aspects of reflex reflector conspicuity treatment that you wish us to address, to clarify questions asked by owners who wish to retrofit their trailers, as well as by manufacturers of new trailers. Retrofitting of trailers manufactured before December 1, 1993, of course, is not subject to the requirements of Standard No. 108.

As you point out, S5.7.2.2(a) allows the use of reflex reflectors as a conspicuity alternative to S5.7.1.4 "in the same locations and in the same length in which retroreflective sheeting is required. . . ." You believe that because reflex reflectors cannot be trimmed, it is impossible that reflex reflectors can comply in some instances with the literal requirement of S5.7.2.2 that they be applied "in the same length" as retroreflective sheeting to meet conspicuity requirements.

The conspicuity requirements of Standard No. 108, including the provisions referring to practicability, are stated in terms of sheeting material. Each reflex reflector used to fulfill conspicuity requirements must have photometric performance equivalent to that of a 100 mm length of sheeting material, and the conspicuity treatment may then be implemented using reflex reflectors with a center-to-center spacing not greater than 100 mm. Conspicuity treatments using one reflex reflector as an alternative to 100 mm of sheeting material would be equivalent in minimum performance and nearly identical in reflective appearance to a treatment using sheeting material.

The trailer manufacturer has the choice of using either reflex reflectors or sheeting material. However, reflex reflectors could not be used to comply with the standard if they cannot replicate a complying sheeting material installation. For example, S5.7.1.4.2(a) requires the conspicuity treatment to originate and terminate "as close to the front and rear as practicable," and that it need not be continuous as long as "the spaces are distributed as evenly as practicable." If sheeting material would terminate closer to the front or rear than is possible with reflex reflectors on a particular trailer, or if it results in a more even distribution of spaces, then sheeting material must be used to meet the practicability provisions. There may be instances when sheeting material is better than reflex reflectors in taking account of ribs and obstructions on the trailer body in marking the overall length of the vehicle, or when its use would result in lesser gaps in the treatment than use of reflex reflectors.

Similarly, if a trailer manufacturer determines that it may use reflex reflectors as a conspicuity treatment, it must use a single reflector of 100 mm length rather than a bar of reflectors of 300 mm if the single reflector would more closely mark the extreme width or length of the trailer or result in smaller gaps.

Underride Protection Devices

Paragraph S5.7.1.4.1(c) requires a strip of retroreflective sheeting in alternating colors to be installed across the full width of the horizontal member of the rear underride protection device.

You have enclosed sample reflex reflector bars that are 12 inches (approximately 300 mm) in length. You point out that, unlike retroreflective sheeting, reflex reflectors cannot be trimmed in application. Assuming that the underride protection bar is 90 inches (7' 6") in length, you present two options. In the first option, you would center a white reflex reflector on the bar, and work outward with alternating red and white reflectors (seven in all), which would leave 3 inches of uncovered surface at both ends of the underride bar. In the second option, you would work inward from reflectors placed at the end of the underride bar, distributing the 6 inches of uncovered surface evenly between reflectors. We understand that this means that seven reflectors would be provided, with only 1 inch of space between adjacent reflectors.

The standard requires reflex reflectors to be used "in the same locations and in the same length in which retroreflective sheeting is required...with the center of each reflector not more than 100 mm (4 in) from the center of each adjacent reflector." The underride protection device in question would have been treated with 90 inches of sheeting material, and an exact replacement using reflex reflectors would require 22 reflex reflectors with each reflector replacing 4 inches of sheeting material. However, Standard No. 108 does not recognize fractional reflex reflectors because, unlike sheeting material, they are non-homogenous indivisible units. Nor does it assume that there will be sufficient space to apply a greater number of whole reflex reflectors. Therefore, the agency has decided that the "full width" requirement can be met by using the greatest number of whole reflectors (on a basis of one reflector per 4 inches) that will fit in the length required for sheeting material. Since both of the options you propose use 21 rather than 22 reflex reflectors, neither would satisfy the standard. Given the space limitations on an underride guard, you would have to supplement the bars of three reflectors with some double or single reflectors to achieve acceptable coverage. Since the maximum cumulative space between reflectors would always be less than 4 inches per element of the conspicuity treatment, the distribution of spaces would have little practical significance. However, arrangements that mark the actual full width are always preferable to those that only approximate it.

Rear Width of a Trailer

Similarly, the conspicuity treatment specified in S5.7.1.4.1(a) is to be applied "across the full width of the trailer." You ask how a continuous pattern of alternating red and white reflex reflectors are to be applied in multiples of 12-inch segments when there are rear door hardware obstructions that do not allow it.

You suggest that if the linear space between hardware obstructions is between 12 and 24 inches, then one reflex reflector can be centered in this space provided that it is a different color than its two neighbors. If the space is between 24 and 36 inches, two reflex reflectors could be centered, again preserving a pattern of alternating colors. This scheme would apply in successive 12-inch increments with the reflectors applied at both ends of the completed scheme, "positioned as close to each end as practicable."

As in the underride interpretation above, the minimum number of reflex reflectors needed to implement an element of conspicuity treatment is the number of mm (or inches) of sheeting material that would have been used, divided by 100 mm (or 4 inches) and rounded down to the greatest whole number. In general, it would be a matter of chance if the minimum number of reflex reflectors could be arranged in a single line when obstructions are present, especially when the reflectors are combined in bars of three. However, element 1 of the rear trailer conspicuity treatment (S5.7.1.4.1(a)) is not required to be located on the same parallel plane; obstructions can be cleared by mounting some of the reflex reflector bars above or below obstructions to obtain a greater number of reflex reflectors in the treatment. Of course, the treatment must mark the full width of the body in the same manner as a treatment with sheeting material.

Unique Trailer Side Walls and Rub Rails

The required conspicuity treatment for trailer sides is set forth in S5.7.1.4.2(a). It requires that conspicuity treatment originate and terminate as close to the front and rear as practicable, and that a strip of retroreflective sheeting 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.

You bring to our attention the fact that the distance from one outer rib to another on the side of some "plate" trailers could vary from 5 to 42 inches, and that your reflector will not fit into a section narrower than 12 inches. You would provide reflex reflectors in alternate color segments to cover not less than half the trailer length, even though there might be a space between some segments. This treatment would start and finish as close to both ends of the trailer "as practicable," and meet the requirement of S5.7.1.3(c) that neither color in the aggregate exceed two-thirds of the total provided to mark the sides.

As noted above, the practicability requirements for the placement and distribution of the retroreflective material in S5.7.1.4.2(a) were conceived and expressed in terms of a treatment using sheeting. If these requirements are more closely fulfilled using sheeting material, then sheeting material must be used. Although either sheeting material or reflex reflectors could be used on trailers with uninterrupted sills, it may be impossible to use triple reflector bars exclusively as a complying conspicuity treatment on the side of a trailer with ribs. Depending on the distance between the ribs, trailer manufacturers would be expected to use single reflectors or bars of two reflectors (or simply to use sheeting material) for that element of the conspicuity treatment.

If you have further questions, you may phone Taylor Vinson at 202-366-5263.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.5/6/98

ID: nht75-3.49

DATE: 05/27/75

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

TO: Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to the Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association March 28, 1975, request that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) review its position that building a trailer from new materials in combination with the running rear of an existing trailer constitutes the manufacture of a new vehicle subject to applicable safety standards. You also request confirmation that modification of the barrel of a tank trailer to replace compartments or to add to its volume does not constitute manufacture of a new vehicle.

NHTSA has already reconsidered its interpretation of what constitutes the manufacture of a new truck in cases where components from an existing vehicle are used. Based on the high value of the drive train components found in powered vehicles, NHTSA has proposed an amendment of Part 571 that would supplant its earlier interpretation that, to constitute repair, the chassis of the existing vehicle must as a minimum be used in the new vehicle. The proposed amendment would establish that, in the assembly of a truck, a new vehicle is manufactured for purposes of compliance with and certification to applicable safety standards, unless the engine, transmission, and rear drive axles (as a minimum) of the rebuilt vehicle are not new, and at least two of these components were taken from an existing vehicle whose identify is continued in the rebuilt vehicle with respect to model year, vehicle identification number, and any other documentation incident to the vehicle's remanufacture and registration.

Our interpretation of what constitutes manufacture of a new trailer (when use of components from an existing vehicle is involved) parallels our present interpretation of truck rebuilding in this area. We regret any confusion in our use of the term "chassis", but we have made clear that the running gear and main frame of an existing vehicle, must, as a minimum, be used in the rebuilding of a vehicle to be considered a repair. I enclose copies of two letters which establish this point.

NHTSA does not view the manufacture of trucks and trailers as sufficiently similar to justify attempting to apply our newly-proposed position on truck rebuilding to trailer manufacture. The primary consideration of extremely high value of drive train components found in powered vehicles is not applicable to trailer manufacture. NHTSA also concludes that the economic considerations which discourage avoidance of Standard No. 121, Air brake systems, in truck manufacture do not operate in trailer manufacture.

In regard to tank trailer modifications where the tank serves the purpose of and replaces the frame rails, we would not consider replacement of compartments in the tank to be manufacture of a new vehicle. Similarly, the addition of volume in response to the new weight limits would not constitute manufacture of a new vehicle.

SINCERELY,

Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

March 28, 1975

Dr. James B. Gregory Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation

Subject: Petition for Reconsideration of Applicability of Motor Vehicle Safety Standards through Interpretive Letters

(Info copies to: Chief Legal Officer, NHTSA - Docket 49 Part 571)

Reference is made to the letter of interpretation by Mr. Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA, to Robert S. Podlewski of Diamond Reo Trucks, Inc., dated October 7, 1974, NHTSA file No. 40-30(TWH) concerning the use of "glider kits" and to subsequent related actions now understood to be under advisement and study by the staff of the Office of Chief Legal Counsel, NHTSA.

The Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association (TTMA) represent approximately 200 truck trailer and component suppliers who produce more than 90% of the truck trailers built in the United States. Some of our member companies also engage in repairing damaged vehicles and others are engaged in furnishing vehicle components to those organizations that are involved in vehicle repairing activities.

The membership of this Association is concerned over the interpretation understood from the above referenced letter as are some truck manufacturers.

Our membership greatly appreciates cost effectiveness activities. The repairing of a customers' damaged truck trailer is understandably a consumer's cost effectiveness program especially during these trying economic times.

There are many cases where truck trailer bodies, frames or trailer tanks are unserviceable, and, byu repairing (oftentimes including the replacement of damaged or unserviceable assembly or sub-assembly components a most proper and necessary cost effectiveness vehicle repairing program can be and should be accomplished.

In addition, there are cases where truck trailer running gears such as axles, suspensions, and/or frames and stub frames are perfectly safe, serviceable, and suitable for continued road use. Our membership considers the disposal of such serviceable items to be a monetary loss and a national economic waste of durable goods. This waste would not occur except for interpretations of certain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

When a customer-owned trailer is unfortunately involved in an accident and that vehicle owner or his insurance company desires to save the majority of new vehicle replacement costs by repairing that old vehicle for that owner by replacing or installing a new or used body structure, thereon, we do not understand how that repair job can be classified to be the manufacture of a new vehicle for Safety Standards Application purposes.

Accordingly, this Association petitions and requests that the decision resulting from the process whereby the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reconsiders the issues involved in the referenced Diamond Reo -- International Harvester, et al question involving the subject of truck repair versus new vehicle manufacturing, as related to unserviceable used vehicles, that the decision be couched in such language that the interpretation can be directly applied to truck trailers which are constructed of the same or similar types of components as are found in trucks.

Related to the above, it should be noted that auxiliary driving engines have been installed, from time to time, on truck trailers to furnish auxiliary driving power when it was found desirable to enhance the combination vehicles' hill climbing ability or for other reasons.

In arriving at the Administration's re-evaluated interpretation concerned, we should like to advise that the "frame" of a vehicle is not synonymous with "chassis". The "chassis" is generally understood to mean the basic operating motor vehicle including engine, frame, operational controls, and other essential parts but exclusive of a cab, body or accommodations for the operator, passengers, or property. Where a cab or flat face cowl is installed on a chassis, the composite is known and designated as "chassis and cab" or "chassis and cowl", etc. It would therefore be appreciated if the NHTSA interpretations to be rendered, especially on the repair versus new vehicle manufacturing question, give due consideration to the above clarification of "chassis" which NHTSA has previously used in a questionable and perplexing manner.

We do not construe that the use of a new "frame" or the equivalent structure to which is attached the used components of the original vehicle, to replace a damaged, bent, and/or unserviceable "frame" in any way, shape, or form constitutes the construction of a new motor vehicle, considering that the vehicles operating and identifying characteristics remain unchanged.

Again, related to the above, is the processing of a tank trailer where an existing leaking compartment is to be replaced or where the compartment is to be increased in capacity while the remainder of the vehicle is not otherwise changed. We do not consider that these repairing processes constitutes the construction of a new vehicle for Safety Standards Application purposes.

The Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association fully supports the enforcement of appropriate, practical and needed for safety Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. However, we must petition for the reconsideration of what appears to be the unlawful interpretations which, in effect, retroactively require equipment modernization to the most current safety standards promulgated for new vehicles to be applied to used motor vehicles because of normal trade practices of cost effective repairing of damaged or otherwise unserviceable used equipment.

The Association believes that the Podlewski response by NHTSA is a questionable intepretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standards which were promulgated under the Administrative Procedures Act. What appears to have happened, in this case of repair versus new manufacturing question, has the effect of retroactive applicability of Safety Standards by fiat subsequent to the time that the Standards are established. Yet, we do not believe NHTSA or the Congress ever intended to require the retroactive modernization of used vehicles by rule interpreting procedures.

The Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association supports the concept found in the White Motor Company's suggested draft of "Interpretation of Manufacture vs. Repair of Vehicles" contained in the Public Docket.

It is therefore requested that the contents of this presentation be given due consideration in the action now being studied by Legal Counsel of NHTSA on the Diamond Reo-International-White et al reconsideration question of Repair vs. New Manufacturing.

Sumner Meiselman Staff Engineer

ID: aiam4572

"Dear Mr. Wolpe: Thank you for your letter to former Secretary Burnle on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Dennis Furr of Lansing, Michigan. I've been asked to respond to your letter since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for administering Federal programs relating to school bus safety. Mr. Furr is concerned about the potential safety problems that may result if school bus seats are being overloaded. In particular, Mr. Furr asks whether NHTSA's Highway Safety Program Guideline (HSPG) No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety (23 CFR /1204.4), is consistent with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection (49 CFR /571.222), with regard to seating specifications. Mr. Furr is particularly interested in how manufacturers are calculating the number of seating positions on a bench seat. I am pleased to address your constituent's concerns. Before I begin, I want to note that we have answered a number of similar inquiries from Mr. Furr in past years. We have two sets of 'regulations' for school buses. The first, issued under the Vehicle Safety Act, includes our motor vehicle safety standards which apply to the manufacture and sale of new school buses. Compliance with these standards is mandatory for new vehicle manufacturers, and is enforced by this agency with civil penalties. FMVSS No. 222, with which your constituent is concerned, is one such safety standard. The second set of 'regulations,' or guidelines, for school buses was issued under the Highway Safety Act. Guidelines issued under this Act are not mandatory for the states, rather, they are recommended practices. Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, to which Mr. Furr frequently refers in his letter, consists of recommendations to the States for operating their school buses and pertains to Federal funding of State highway safety programs. Both FMVSS No. 222 and Guideline No. 17 contain specifications for school bus seating. Paragraph S4.1 of FMVSS No. 222 states: 'The number of seating positions considered to be in a bench seat is expressed by the symbol W, and calculated as the bench width in inches divided by 15 and rounded to the nearest whole number.' The guideline for seating accommodations in HSPG 17 states: Seating should be provided that will permit each occupant to sit in a seat in a plan view lateral location, intended by the manufacturers to provide seating accommodation for a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, as defined in 49 CFR 571.3. Mr. Furr appears to see a conflict between the formula used in calculating the forces to be applied to the seats of large school buses under FMVSS No. 222, on the one hand, and the use by States and manufacturers of 13-inch seating positions for rating the capacity of a 39-inch seat, on the other hand. I believe that Mr. Furr's belief in the existence of a conflict rests on a misunderstanding. We view Standard No. 222 and HSPG 17 as complementary, not inconsistent. HSPG 17 reflects NHTSA's belief that all school bus passengers should be seated in the interest of safety. To that end, the guideline provides that there should be a seating position for each passenger and that the position should be at least large enough to accommodate a 5th percentile adult female. The hip width (sitting) of a 5th percentile adult female is 12.8 inches. The figure '15' in FMVSS No. 222's compliance formula is not a minimum requirement for the width of a seating position. It is the number which is used to establish the number of designated seating positions and ensures that the forces applied to the seat during compliance tests are reasonable reflections of the crash forces that would be involved in a real-world crash. It is also the number which ensures that the width of the smallest seat is approximately equal to the hip width of the 5th percentile female. That is consistent with HSPG 17 which provides that seating positions shall be at least large enough for a 5th percentile female. Use of the figure '15' in the FMVSS No. 222 formula results in a minimum seating position width of 12.67 inches (for a 38-inch wide seat.) That is only slightly smaller than the 12.8 inch hip width of the 5th percentile female. For a 39-inch wide seat, the single position width is 13 inches, which is slightly larger than the hip width of a 5th percentile female. It should be remembered, however, that the number of seating positions derived from the FMVSS No. 222 formula is not meant to be a measure of the absolute capacity of the bus for all size occupants. We recognize that, in practice, school buses transport a tremendously wide variety of student sizes. For example, a bus that may be capable of easily accommodating 65 preschool or elementary students may be capable of carrying only 43 high school students. When the bus is used to transport students of widely varying ages and sizes, reasonable accommodations may vary between those values. The decision on how many passengers may be comfortably and safely accommodated, therefore, is a decision that must be reached by the bus operator, in light of the ages and sizes of passengers involved. NHTSA does not have the authority under either the Highway Safety Act or Vehicle Safety Act to regulate how States use school buses. Therefore, NHTSA could not preclude a State from carrying more passengers on a bench seat than there are designated seating positions. However, this agency agrees with Mr. Furr that a student should not sit on a seat unless the student can sit fully on the seat instead of sitting only partially on the seat and thus only being partially protected by the compartmentalization. We believe that Mr. Furr's concerns as they apply to public schools would be best addressed by his working with the local school board and state officials. Mr. Furr is also concerned about a reference in our occupant crash protection standard (No. 208) to a 95th-percentile adult male occupant size. He asks why FMVSS No. 222 uses a 15-inch seat dimension, when FMVSS No. 208 references the 95th-percentile adult male occupant size in specifying occupant sizes which safety belts must adjust to fit. Both FMVSS No. 208 and FMVSS No. 222 are directed at providing occupant crash protection. Both of these standards set forth comprehensive requirements that are directed at protecting occupants likely to be inside a vehicle in a crash. With regard to school buses, the agency determined that the crash protection requirements should be developed taking into account the full size range of passengers typically riding on school buses. If we designed the force and deflection (energy-absorbing) characteristics of the seats for the 95th percentile males, the seats may be too stiff for a small child. Finally, Mr. Furr asks whether, when voluntarily installing safety belts on large school buses, States are violating Federal law by using S4.1 of FMVSS No. 222 in determining how many positions (and belts) there are on a bench seat. The answer is no. FMVSS No. 222 requires safety belts only for the passenger positions of small (10,000 pounds or less GVWR) school buses. Under S5 of the standard, belts on a small school bus bench seat are installed at 'W' seating positions, as determined under S4.1. If a State wishes to order belts on its new large school bus and to use the same method for determining the number of belts to be installed, the State may do so. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Diane K. Steed";

ID: aiam5279

Dear Mr. Plath: This is in reply to your letter of November 15, 1993 to Taylor Vinson of this Office on trailer conspicuity. You ask for confirmation of several points. Initially, we would like to comment as follows on the 4-point procedure you have outlined: '1) A chassis for purposes of the conspicuity requirement shall be considered to be a trailer.' This is correct. Because the chassis is designed for carrying property and for being towed by a motor vehicle, it is a 'trailer' as defined for purposes of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. '2) That the total length of the chassis shall be used in computing the 50 percent coverage of high intensity reflective for each individual side.' This is correct. Under S5.7.1.4.2(a) of Standard No. 108, retroreflective tape 'need not be continuous as long as not less than half of the length of the trailer is covered . . . .' '3) In the case of a 48 foot chassis, the law will thus require a minimum of 24 feet of the approved reflective sheeting to be applied to each side. Further, there shall not be more than 18 inches of either red or silver reflective in a continuous strip and that there shall not be an allowed void of more than 48 inches between modules.' This is partially correct. Under S5.7.1.4.2(a), a minimum of 24 feet of reflective material must be applied to the side of a 48-foot trailer. However, S5.7.1.3(a) requires the colors to be red and white, not red and silver. Further, under S5.7.1.3(b), the permissible lengths of the sheeting are expressed as 'each white or red segment shall have a length of 300 mm +/- 150 mm.' We note that 450 mm is slightly less than 18 inches. Finally, Standard No. 108 does not specify any maximum permissible 'void . . . between modules.' Under S5.7.1.4.2(a), the spaces are to be distributed 'as evenly as practicable.' '4) * * * When the chassis is not loaded with a container, the application of 24 feet per side of a 48 foot chassis of evenly spaced reflective modules would comply with the law as we understand it. It would identify the extreme front and rear portions of the chassis. * * *' This is incorrect. Compliance by an unloaded container chassis with the conspicuity requirements is determined as if the container load were in place. S7.5.1.4.2(a) states that 'at the location chosen for conspicuity treatment , the strip shall not be obscured in whole or in part by other motor vehicle equipment or trailer cargo.' Because the container obscures the gooseneck, the conspicuity treatment mandated by Standard No. 108 cannot identify the extreme front portion of the chassis. Its front termination point will be behind the gooseneck, at a point where it is not obscured by the container. You have correctly stated this with respect to a loaded chassis but it applies to the unloaded chassis as manufactured: '. . . the entire 24 feet (50 per cent of length) shall be applied behind the gooseneck. In general this would mean that the rear 40 foot portion of the chassis would contain the 24 feet of reflective modules. Further we understand that the 50 percent requirement would be satisfied and that additional modules would not have to be applied to the gooseneck.' You conclude that a gooseneck chassis traveling without its container would be in violation of Standard No. 108 if its gooseneck were not marked 'creating a hazard and would violate the requirement stating that a void of no more than four feet is allowable.' You also ask ' i s there a benefit in applying the additional 4 feet of reflective within the rear 40 foot portion of the chassis?' As explained previously, Standard No. 108 does not require marking of the gooseneck of a container chassis, and there is no requirement limiting the spacing between segments of retroreflective material. We believe that the desired conspicuity of the trailer will be maintained by requiring the additional 4 feet of sheeting on the chassis behind the gooseneck when the gooseneck itself will be obscured with the container in place. Standard No. 108 does not prohibit a manufacturer from applying conspicuity treatment to the 8-foot gooseneck of a 48 foot trailer if it wishes to do so, however, the manufacturer is still required to apply not less than 24 feet of material in the 40-foot section behind the gooseneck. We shall be pleased to answer the following four questions you have also raised: '1) Will we need to apply 24 feet of stripping on a 48 foot chassis behind the gooseneck plus an additional 4 feet on the gooseneck?' You will have to apply 24 feet of stripping on the portion of a 48-foot chassis that lies behind the gooseneck, but you are not required to mark the gooseneck. '2) Since a chassis is considered to be treated as a trailer, shouldn't we apply the 24 feet evenly spaced from the extreme rear and front portions of the chassis?' As explained previously, the 24 feet of material is to be applied behind the gooseneck. If you wish to apply evenly spaced conspicuity treatment that includes the gooseneck, you may do so, as long as at least 24 feet of it is behind the gooseneck. '3) Is a tire considered a legal obstruction? If so, can we deduct the distance behind the tire from the 50 percent coverage?' Yes, a tire is 'motor vehicle equipment' within the meaning of S5.7.1.4.2(a) forbidding the obscuring of conspicuity treatment. No, you may not deduct the length of the area obscured by the tire from the 50 per cent coverage. You must include it in the 50 per cent computation. Thus, if a tire would obscure 3 feet of conspicuity material on the side of a 48 foot gooseneck trailer, the manufacturer must apply 24 feet of material in the 37 feet that is behind the gooseneck which is not obscured. We note in passing that the prints submitted for our review by J.Z. Peepas of Selecto-Flash depict conspicuity treatment that is above the top of the tire and apparently not obscured by it. '4) We anticipate that the slide mechanism on an extendable chassis will scrape the reflective film off the chassis. Is the operator then subject to penalties? How will the operator be able to avoid these penalties since they have no control over this process?' You are not required to place conspicuity treatment on the extendable portion of the chassis provided that not less than half of the length of the trailer is covered when the conspicuity treatment is placed elsewhere. In the event that conspicuity treatment is placed on the extendable portion and is damaged when the trailer is in use, the operator will not be subject to any penalties of this agency. Federal regulations governing the use of commercial vehicles in interstate commerce are issued by another agency of the Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The FHWA requires that vehicles manufactured on or after March 7, 1989, meet the requirements of Standard No. 108 in effect on the date of manufacture of the vehicle (49 CFR 393.11). Therefore, maintenance of the conspicuity treatment on trailers manufactured on or after December 1, 1993, is required by the FHWA. If you wish to write FHWA on this topic, you may address James E. Scapellato, Director, Office of Motor Carrier Standards, FHWA, Room 3107, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20590. The individual states may have regulations in this area as well. We are unable to advise you on State requirements, and suggest that you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Va. 22203. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam1759

Dear Mr. von Payr: This is in reply to your letter of December 26, 1974 asking question about Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 123, *Motorcycle Controls and Displays*.; Standard No. 123 applies to motorcycles, and the manufacturer of th completed vehicle is responsible for compliance with the standard. The standard does not include items manufactured for the aftermarket. Under an amendment to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 that became effective late in December 1974 a dealer may not 'render inoperative', *e.g.* remove, equipment installed by the manufacturer that has been installed in compliance with a standard. There would be no objection, however, if a dealer removed an originally installed speedometer and replaced it with one that also met the Federal requirements.; The date of applicability of a standard is the date the vehicle wa manufactured, not the date it is sold. Therefore non-complying motorcycles manufactured before the effective date of Standard No. 123 - September 1, 1974 - may be sold after that date. The standard applies to those motorcycles manufactured primarily for use on the public roads, and not to mini-bikes, trail bikes, ATVs, or other non-licensed vehicles intended for off-road use.; Standard No. 123 does not require a specific size for numerals, onl that 'Major graduations and numerals appear at 10 mph intervals, minor graduations of the 5 mph intervals' (Column 3, Table 3). With respect to your paragraphs a) and b) on page 3 of your letter, elimination of any speed indication at the required 10 mph intervals would result in a noncompliance of the cycle on which the speedometer was mounted. Since your enduro and chopper speedometers are marked only at 20 mph intervals they do not meet the requirements of Standard No. 123 for original motorcycle equipment.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1153

Dear Mr. Ford: This is in reply to your letter of May 21, 1973, forwarding to us you second attempt to compose a letter that will conform to Part 577, Defect Notification, for a defect involving the lighting in boat trailers manufactured by V/M Custom Boat Trailers. We responded to an earlier letter from you on May 16, 1973.; Section 577.6 prohibits the making of any statement in the notificatio that either states or implies that the problem discussed is not a defect, or that it does not relate to motor vehicle safety. As we indicated to you in our letter of May 16, we considered your statement, 'The defect on those trailers . . . does not affect the mechanical operation of said trailer except insofar as the lighting is inefficient as installed according to the U.S. Department of Transportation' to be prohibited by section 577.6. The additional phrase, 'This statement is one of fact only and is not intended to be a disclaimer which is prohibited by section 577.6 of the Act', which you have now inserted, does not remedy that deficiency. The regulation states that such a statement may not be made at all, it does not allow it to be made and denied.; Our objection to the statement is with your description of the defec as an 'inefficiency' according to the Department of Transportation. This safety related defect results, rather, from violations of law which require your client's products to meet minimim (sic) safe levels of performance. We recommend that rather than attempt once again to rewrite your statement, and risk violation of the regulation, you delete it entirely, and send the notification to purchasers forthwith.; In other respects your notification appears to conform to Part 577. Sincerely yours, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3909

Dear Mr. Bowditch: On October 29, 1984, the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association file a petition for rulemaking to amend Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment*. The petition requested 'removal from section 4.1.1.36(a)(2) of the limitation requiring the three aiming pads to be located on the exterior face of the headlamp lens.' You have suggested the mounting flange at the lens-reflector joint as an acceptable alternative location for the aiming pads. The language suggested in the petition for amendment of S4.1.1.36(a)(2) would also allow all three legs to be adjustable on the headlamp aimers.; The agency has proposed amendments to Standard No. 108 (49 FR 47880) t delete the final sentence of paragraph S4.1.1.36(a)(2) with reference to aiming locating plates, and to delete Figures 9-1 and 9-2. Thus, this aspect of your petition has already been granted. We have filed your petition as a comment in the docket to be considered in future rulemaking action on this subject. Further, we interpret the words 'The exterior face of each...lens' in paragraph S4.1.1.36(a)(2) to mean all portions of the lens face including the mounting flange which is a molded and indivisible part of the lens. Thus, no rulemaking is considered necessary to implement this item of your petition. Your request also included a suggestion that the minimum height of the lettering for the adjustment of the legs on the aimer adapter should be reduced from 0.25 inch to 4 mm. This is being addressed in pending rulemaking. Therefore, no further action is necessary at this time.; Sincerely, Barry Felrice, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking

ID: aiam1228

Dear Mr. Robb: This is in reply to your letter of June 18, 1973, concerning th conformity of certain designs of type III seat belt assemblies with Standard No. 209.; The first feature which you describe is a restraint consisting of waist band with a single shoulder strap. The shoulder strap is attached to the buckle in front and is looped around the waist band in back. Unless this restraint has more elements than you describe, we have serious questions about its conformity with the requirements for type III seat belts under Standard 209. Section S4.1(c) provides that the assembly must restrain the upper torso without shifting the pelvic restraint into the abdominal region and that the upper torso restraint shall be designed to minimize its vertical forces on the shoulders and spine. It appears doubtful that the described assembly meets either of these requirements.; The second feature you describe is a strap through the harness assembl that passes around the seat back and is anchored to the floor by means of the vehicle's seat belt assembly anchorage. Your question appears to be whether such a restraint is a seat back retainer as required by Section S4.1(h). The attachment you describe would not be a seat back retainer under Section S4.1(h).; The third feature described, a closed loop strap without floo attachment would also violate the requirements of S4.1(h), unless it is designed and labeled for use only in specific models having adequate seat back restraints, as specified in that paragraph.; The fourth feature is the ability of a harness to move freely up an down on the restraint strap. This feature is allowable under Standard 209.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3896

Dear Mr. Moriyoshi: This is in reply to your letter of November 21, 1984, asking for a interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it would apply to a contemplated parking lamp system.; Usually passenger cars are designed with two parking lamps, one on eac side of the vehicle front. Mazda would have two such lamps on each vehicle side, each of the two lamps flanking the headlamp. You have asked whether, in determining the H-V axis, one takes the axis as the center of each lamp, or should one consider the pair a single device and place the H-V axis at the midpoint between them.; Standard No. 108 requires passenger cars to be equipped with a minimu of two parking lamps, located 'as far apart as practicable.' Therefore, the outermost parking lamp, (the one located between the turn signal lamp and the headlamp is the lamp that must meet the parking lamp requirements of Standard No. 108, and the H-V axis for purposes of compliance would be determined at the center of the lens of that lamp. Supplementary lighting equipment is permissible under Standard No. 108 and does not have to meet the Standard's requirements, but it must not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by the standard (paragraph S4.1.3). Because of the difference in candela between parking lamps and headlamps, information available to us does not indicate that your supplementary parking lamp would have this effect, and consequently, the design would be permitted.; I hope that this answers your questions. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel