ID: nht88-1.65

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/07/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Phoenix Transit System

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. Robert W. Hocken General Manager Phoenix Transit System P.O. Box 4275 Phoenix, AZ 85030

Dear Mr. Hocken:

This is in reply to your letter of December 16, 1987 to Mr. Vinson of this office requesting an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You have received a "Service Information Safety Related letter" from Flxible Corporation stating that deceleration warning lights installed on your buses do not comply with Standard No. 108. You have also asked how you may file for "Special Exception" if your buses are not in compliance.

This will confirm that Flxible Corporation, pursuant to applicable Federal regulations, has determined that certain buses produced by it, including the 67 units furnished Phoenix, do not comply with Standard No. 108, and has initiated a notification and remedy campaign (Campaign 87V-089). The basis of this determination was the manufacturer's conclusion that flashing amber deceleration warning lamps could create confusion when activated simultaneously with the red steady burning stop lamps. The company has advised you of the corrective action to be taken, that is, to remove the deceleration flasher. Although the agency encourages owners of campaigned vehicles to remedy noncompliances, the decision whether to do so rests with the vehicle owner. There is no Federal requirement that an owner correct a noncompliance that exists in his vehicle, and no penalty for his failure to do so. Thus, no "Special Exception" is either needed or available for an owner who wishes to continue operating a vehicle in a non compliant state.

We are interested in your comment that you experienced a 44 percent reduction in accidents in 1985, the first full year that the system was installed on all your buses, compared with 1984. This report compares favorably with the accident reduction experi enced in our test fleets of passenger cars equipped with center highmounted stop lamps, which has the basis for eventual adoption of that requirement. The agency is engaged in research pertaining to the conspicuity of large vehicles, and would find it he lpful to have a copy of the data upon which you based your comment. It should be sent to Michael Finkelstein, Associate Administrator for Research and Development, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, s.w., Washington, D.C. 20590. We appreciate your interest in sa fety.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

December 16, 1987 Taylor Vinson, Legal Counsel Rm 5219 NATHA U S Department of Transportation 400 7th St SW Washington DC 20590

Dear Mr. Vinson:

We request an official interpretation of rule FMVSS 108. We have received a Service Information Safety Related letter from the Flxible Corporation that states that our deceleration lights do not comply with the requirements of FMVSS 108, "lamps, reflecti ve devices and associated equipment."

In the spring of 1982, we began an experiment with 10 buses with DAS (Deceleration Alert System) to see if we could reduce our rear end accidents. The 18 months with the DAS was so successful that we had our entire fleet fitted with the lights. The year of 1985 was the first full year that lights were installed on all our buses. There was a 44 percent reduction in accidents over the previous year (1984).

You can see why we need an official interpretation. If we are not in compliance with FMVSS 108, we need to know how we can file for "Special Exception."

We will need the required forms; who we need to contact; and to whom the forms need to be sent to in order to achieve this Special Exception.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Robert W. Hocken General Manager

pk

ID: nht88-1.66

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/07/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

TITLE: ACTION: ACCEPTABILITY OF ADVANCED BRAKE LIGHT DEVICE AS AN AFTERMARKET UNIT

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 04/01/88 EST, TO CARL KALPAN, FROM MICHAEL M. FINKELSTEIN, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 11/30/81 TO KENNETH G MOYER FROM FRANK BERNDT; LETTER DATED 05/02/84 TO LAWRENCE F. HENNEBERGER FROM FRANK BERNDT

TEXT: This is in reply to your memorandum of February 19, 1988, with respect to an advanced brake light device developed by ATAT Technology of Israel. You have described the device as one which activates "the stoplamps of a vehicle upon release of the acceler ator and before actual application of the service brake". You attached a draft of a letter to ATAT for our comment, and you have asked for our opinion of the acceptability of the device for aftermarket installation.

We have made minor changes to the draft. As you know, Standard No. 108 contains no requirements directly applicable to vehicles in use, and the sole prohibition of the Vehicle Safety Act directed to vehicles in use is that no manufacturer, dealer, or v ehicle repair business may render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed in accordance with a safety standard. As the device in question appears to involve the wiring of lighting equipment, it does not appear to be a modification of a nature easily done by a vehicle owner.

The threshold question for the aftermarket is, does a modification of this nature render inoperative in whole or in part a device or element of design installed in accordance with Standard No. 108. We equate "in accordance with" to mean "necessary for c ompliance with". From your description, we know only one thing about the device: the stoplamps are activated upon release of the accelerator, or conversely, the stoplamps are activated by means other than application of the service brakes.

Both Standard No. 108 and agency interpretations indicate that the device would create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108, and hence be unacceptable as either original or aftermarket equipment. Paragraph S4.5.4 of Standard No. 108 states:

"The stoplamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes. The high-mounted stoplamp on each passenger car shall be activated only upon application of the service brakes."

We assume that all stoplamps on new passenger cars are wired to activate simultaneously. Because activation of the center lamp may only be accomplished by activation of the service brakes, and the Israeli device would activate the lamp without brake app lication, its use would create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108. Although the first sentence of S4.5.4 in contrast with the second does not expressly prohibit application of the lower mounted stoplamps by means other than brake application, the age ncy has taken the position that all stoplamps on a vehicle must be activated simultaneously (Letter of Oct. 21, 1985 to Kenneth Deane opining that a 35 millisecond delay would be considered "simultaneous"). This means that the vehicle could not be wired so that the lower mounted stoplamps would activate upon release of the accelerator but the center lamp would not. For vehicles equipped with the center high-mounted stop lamp, the Israeli device would create a noncompliance with new vehicle requirement s, and, for the aftermarket, result in a wiring and use of lamps noncompliant with new vehicle requirements, hence rendering that system partially ineffective within the meaning of the statute.

With respect to aftermarket installation on vehicles not equipped with center high-mounted lamps, different considerations obtain. In 1981 Kenneth Moyer wrote us about an "alert device which automatically turns on the stop lamps of the vehicle when the accelerator is released". We responded on November 30, 1981, citing paragraph 2.1 of SAE Standard J586d, Stop Lamps, which defines the lamp as one whose operation indicates "the intention of the operator of a vehicle to stop or diminish speed by braking ". Because Mr. Moyer's device would activate the stop lamp under a condition indicating an intent other than the above, we informed him that his device would create an "impairment" and a lack of effectivity as well, and that it would be prohibited. I a ttach a copy of this letter for your information, as it appears directly on point with the ATAT system, and because some of the agency's comments about the inventor's assumptions appear to remain relevant.

In contrast is the agency's opinion regarding use of the Jacobs brake retarder system, in which the stoplamps are activated when the retarder is in use (see letter of May 2, 1984, to Lawrence Henneberger). The manufacturer argued that use of the stoplam ps when the retarder was activated would indicate "that the vehicle is diminishing its speed by braking...." In Mr. Henneberger's view two 1974 agency interpretations allowing combination of retarder controls with foundation brake controls impliedly requ ire activation of the stoplamps when supplementary braking devices are used. The agency agreed with both these arguments.

I hope that this information is useful to you.

ATTACHMENTS

ID: nht88-1.67

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/10/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Rusty Mitchell -- A-Z Bus Sales, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Rusty Mitchell A-Z Bus Sales, Inc. P.O. Box 9389 5555 W. Mission Blvd. Ontario, CA 91762

This is a response to your letter of November 11, 1987, in which you asked for information on the "application of seat belts in school buses." I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for developing safety standards applicable to all new motor vehicles, including school buses. In 1977, we issued a set of motor vehicle safety standards regulating various aspects of school bus performance. Among those standards is Standard 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. Standard 222 requires large school buses (those with a gross vehicle weight rating over 10,000 pounds) to afford passe or crash protectio n by means of "compartmentalization."

Compartmentalization requires large school buses to incorporate certain protective elements into the vehicles interior construction, thereby reducing the risk of injury to school bus passengers without the need for safety belts. These elements include hi gh seats with heavily padded backs and improved seat spacing and performance.

Our regulations require a safety belt for the school bus driver because the driver's position is not compartmentalized. Further, because small school buses (10,000 pounds or less GVWR) experience greater force levels in a crash, Standard 222 requires the added protection of safety belts at each passenger position in a small school bus.

School buses continue to have one of the lowest fatality rates for any class of motor vehicle. Large school buses are among the safest motor vehicles because of their size and weight (which generally reduce an occupant's exposure to injury-threatening cr ash forces), the drivers' training and experience, and the extra care other motorists usually take when they are near a school bus. For these reasons, our regulations do not require safety belts for passengers in large school buses.

I enclose a copy of a June 1985 NHTSA publication titled "Safety Belts in School Buses," which discusses many of the issues relative to this subject.

You also asked whether there is an order form listing available data for safety belts in school buses. This agency does not publish "order forms" for any data. For further information on this subject, you may wish to contact individual school bus manufac turers to ask for data about safety belts in their buses. I hope you find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

November 11, 1987

Ms. Erika Z. Jones National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street S.W. Washington. D.C. 20590

Ms. Jones:

We need information regarding the application of seat belts in school buses.

Is there an order form with a listing or all data available if so, who do we contact, and can we order several copies of each?

Ms. Jones, any information you can send us would be greatly appreciated.

Thank You,

Rusty Mitchell Sales Representative

RM/df

ID: nht88-1.68

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/10/88

FROM: SCOTT A. SNYDER

TO: NHTSA-REGION 3

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 8-11-88, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, TO SCOTT A. SNYDER, STD 108

TEXT: I am writing to you with regards to ornamental lighting. I am interested to know why you can not have extra lights on your vehicle as long as you keep amber lights on the front and sides and red lights in the rear of the vehicle. I think that a few ext ra lights on the side and rear of a vehicle would help other people see you better while driving at night.

I would appreciate it very much if I could have your response concerning ornamental lighting.

ID: nht88-1.69

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/14/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Karl-Heinz Faber Vice President Product Compliance and Service Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. P.O. box 350 Montvale, NJ 07645

Dear Mr. Faber:

Thank you for your letter concerning the requirements of Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. In particular, you asked for an interpretation of the provisions of S4.3 of the standard. I regret the delay in answering your questions.

S4.3 of Standard No. 210 provides, in part, that "Anchorages for automatic and for dynamically tested seat belt assemblies that meet the frontal crash protection requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208 (49 CFR Part 571.208) are exempt from the location requirements of this section." (Emphasis added.) You first asked the agency to confirm that anchorages to be used with automatic and dynamically tested safety belts that meet the requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208 are exempt from all of the anchora ge location requirements of S4.3. You are correct that S4.3 of Standard No. 210 provides that such anchorages are exempt from all the location requirements.

The amendment to exempt anchorages of dynamically tested seat belt assemblies from the anchorage location requirements of Standard No. 210 became effective on May 5, 1986, well in advance of the September 1, 1989 effective date for dynamic testing of man ual belts. This effective date indicates that the agency did not intend to limit the exemption from the anchorage location requirements to manual safety belts that were required to be dynamically tested. Additionally, the exemption applies to dynamically tested seat belt assemblies that "meet" the frontal crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208, rather than to vehicles "subject to" the frontal crash protection requirements of that Standard. This language indicates that NHTSA intended to allow manufacturers to take advantage of the exemption from the anchorage location requirements for dynamically tested safety belts before the dynamic testing requirements were applicable to such belts. Accordingly, if a vehicle is equipped with a manual safet y belt at either or both front outboard seating positions, and the anchorage or anchorages for those belts do not comply with the anchorage location requirements set forth in S4.3 of Standard No. 210, the manufacturer must certify that the belts attached at any such anchorage points comply with 55.1 of Standard No. 208.

In your second question, you asked the following:

We also understand that such dynamic testing may be combined with other compliance testing, and the vehicle or vehicles used may be equipped "as delivered" for sale to a consumer. Accordingly, the vehicle structure with built-in energy management feature s, seats with designed-in anti-submarining construction, energy absorbing instrument panel, collapsible steering column, driver and/or passenger airbag(s), anti-lacerative windshield glass, emergency tensioning retractors, etc. may be installed and funct ional, where applicable, during the compliance crash test.

During its compliance testing, NHTSA combines a test of the occupant crash protection capabilities of automatic or manual safety belts with testing done to determine compliance with other standards. The agency tests vehicles to the frontal barrier crash requirements of Standard Nos. 208, 212, 219, and 301 in a single barrier impact. In conducting these compliance tests, NHTSA tests vehicles in their "as delivered" form with all items of standard equipment present in the vehicle. Thus, if a vehicle has d evices, such as an air bag system or pre-tensioning devices for the belts, installed in the vehicle as items of standard equipment, NHTSA's compliance testing is conducted with those items in place and fully functioning. If our compliance testing shows t hat a vehicle tested with a manual safety belt at one or both front outboard seating positions complies with the occupant crash protection requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208, then the anchorages for the belt or belts would not be subject to the anc horage location requirements of S4.3 of Standard No. 210.

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

April 20, 1987

Ms. Erica Z. Jones, Chief Counsel Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC. 20590

Subject: Request for Interpretation Concerning FMVSS-210

Dear Ms. Jones: Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.(MBNA) requests an interpretation of FMVSS-2IC "Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages-Passenger Cars, Multi-Purpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks, and Buses". Paragraph S4.3 Location states, "Anchorages for automatic and for dyna mically tested seat belt assemblies that meet the frontal crash protection requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208 (49 CFR Part 571.208) are exempt from the location requirements of this section."

MBNA interprets the foregoing provision to mean that all of the anchorage location requirements under paragraph S4.3 (i.e. S 4.3.1, S 4.3.1.1, S 4.3.1.2, S 4.3.1.3, S 4.3.1.4, and S 4.3.2) are not applicable to seat belt assemblies which have been dynami cally tested via a vehicle crash test and meet the occupant protection criteria described in S5.1 of Standard No. 208. We also understand that such dynamic testing may be combined with other compliance testing, and the vehicle or vehicles used may be equ ipped "as delivered" for sale to a consumer. Accordingly, the vehicle structure with built-in energy management features, seats with designed-in anti-submarining construction, energy absorbing instrument panel, collapsible steering column, driver and/or passenger airbag(s), anti-lacerative windshield glass: emergency tensioning retractors , etc. may be installed and functional, where applicable, during the compliance crash test.

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Request for Interpretation Concerning FMVSS-210

The basis for our interpretation is set forth in the Agency's preamble comments to MVSS-208 (Part 571; S208-PRE28B) concerning mandatory dynamic testing where the preamble provides that ". . . the (dynamic testing) standard will assure that the vehicle's structure, safety belts, steering column, etc., perform as a unit to protect occupants, as it is only in such a test that the synergistic and combination effects of these vehicle components can be measured". This factor when coupled with the Agency's st atement that the best way to measure the performance of the safety belt/vehicle combination is through a vehicle crash test" fully supports our interpretation.

Accordingly, we would request that you confirm our interpretation that, during dynamic testing of seat belts, the vehicle should be equipped and functional as closely as possible to a new vehicle which would be sold to the consumer, and that such testing supplants the requirements of 54.3

Thank you in advance for your response.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-1.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/01/88 (EST)

FROM: PAUL RENEAU

TO: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/26/88 TO PAUL A. RENEAU FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 118

TEXT: Dear Engineer:

Would you please review the following information and inform me as to whether the design of the power-operated window system described and specified meets rule no. 118, titled "Power-Operated Window Systems" as amended in 1983.

SPECIFICATION: As per rule no. 118, S1 in the schematic corresponds to the ignition key switch. S1 is closed in the "ON" or "ACCESSORY" position. Closing S1 activates transistor Q1 which deactivates transistor Q2. Q2 supplies voltage/current to transi stors Q3 and Q4. Q3 drives power relay K1 and Q4 drives power relay K2. Both relays have normally open contacts which supply voltage to drive electric window and/or partition motors. With S1 in the "ON" or "ACCESSORY" position, normal power window and /or partition function exists. When the key that controls S1 is returned to the "OFF" position, Q1 is deactivated after capacitor C1 discharges through resistor R1 for a time period determined by RC timing circuit; D1, C1, R1 and Q1. Q2 is activated upo n deactivation of Q1 and supplies voltage/current to Q3 and Q4. Q3 is driven by RC timing circuit; C2, R3 for a time period determined by the values of C2 and R3. Q3, as stated, drives normally-open relay K1 which in turn drives electric motor M1. Q4 operates in a similar manner driving motor M2. Upon deactivation of Q3 and Q4, relays K1 and K2, and consequently, motors M1 and M2 are deactivated. With R3 and R4 as potentiometers, the corresponding motor activation can be adjusted for only as long a s required to close the said window and/or partition. S2 is closed when either front door is opened. This switch (es) corresponds to switches currently used on vehicle door posts to activate interior/courtesy lights and the door-ajar indicator. These switches are widely used and proven reliable in the industry. Opening either front door closes switch S2 and short circuits the RC timing circuits driving K1 and K2 thus instantaneously stopping motors M1 and M2. The said circuits are reactivated ONLY by closing S1 which requires that the key be in the ignition and in the "ON" or "ACCESSORY" position. This insures that the driver would almost certainly have to be in the vehicle.

2

SPECIFICATION cont.

In the event that a door is opened while the ignition key is in the "ON" or "ACCESSORY" position, the RC timing circuit supplying Q3 and Q4 are shorted. If both front doors are not closed prior to returning the ignition key to the "OFF" position, the sy stem remains totally deactivated. It should be noted that in addition to the requirements of the NHTSA, this system also employs an "OFF/ON" switch which is easily accessible to the driver. This switch is not shown on the schematic, however, it supplie s ground to the system, and must be in the "ON" position prior to turning the ignition key from the "ON" or "ACCESSORY" position to "OFF" in order to activate the system. This switch allows the system to be turned off when it is not needed (cold weather ) or if the ignition key switch is not used to deactivate the system.

It is understood that component electrical ratings must be maintained as in any electrical device.

If you have any questions or require further information, please contact me.

Thank you for you time and promptness in reviewing this matter.

ENCLOSURE

(DIAGRAM OMITTED)

ID: nht88-1.70

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: MARCH 15, 1988

FROM: CARL C. CLARK -- INVENTOR CONTACT, NHTSA

TO: CLAIRE HAVEN--QUADWEST, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 11-22-88 TO CLAIRE HAVEN, QUADWEST, FROM ERICKA Z. JONES, NHTSA; REDBOOK A33; STDS. 209, 208, 302; VSA108 (A)(2)

TEXT: Thank you for sending your "Joyride" Seatbelt Pad, which you propose to sell as a comfort rather than a safety feature. This nylon covered foam pad device fits inside of the shoulder belt and is attached to the shoulder belt by nylon babs running the le ngth of the pad (about 16 inches) with velcro along the entire length. You have asked for my comments on its design prior to your writing to Ms. Erika Jones, Chief Counsel of this agency, for a formal letter as to whether the device would be expected to take a shoulder belt out of compliance with any applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard.

The pad has a thickness of about one inch of moderately soft foam, sufficient to spread the load of the retractor force over its width of about 3.5 inches but not sufficient to spread the load under crash conditions, which would require a much stiffer pa d. In the model sent to me, the nylon tabs were closer together than the one and seven eights inches width of the belt, and so did not wrap around the belt to allow complete overlapping of the velcro. You advised me that this was an early model and lat er models had the proper clearance for the belt. Once the pad is in place from the shoulder across the chest, it does make the belt a little more comfortable, particularly if the retractor has a continuous pull, without the "windowshade" feature.

On getting out of the car, the pad must either be removed from the belt or slid toward the latch plate, or it prevents the retractor from reeling up the belt completely or in part, so that the belt may become tangled and less easy to use on the next entr y. We have tried the pad with an automatic motorized passive belt, which has a motor that moves the belt along a track around the door when the door is closed, automatically positioning the shoulder belt across the body; since the retractor is near the center of the car, the pad simply slid along the belt and caused no jamming.

When the pad is in place, it does introduce a slight amount of additional shoulder belt length, but within the one inch or so of acceptable slack, expectedly similar to wearing a coat under a belt.

We do not provide certification tests for showing compliance with standards, nor do we endorse products. A manufacturer, in selling an automotive product, is by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act "self-certifying" that the product meets a ll aplicable federal safety standards. Your product is used in association with the belts, covered under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 208 and 209, but such a product is not specifically mentioned in these standards. Your device, if left on th e shoulder belt, retards or inhibits retraction, and so may inhibit subsequent belt use if the belt becomes tangled. But for those troubled by the slight retractor load on the shoulder (in some car models), the pad would expectedly increase the comfort o f using the belt. And for short people for whom the shoulder belt may rest flat on the neck, your pad may provide sufficient stiffness to hold the shoulder belt on the shoulder rather than on the neck, a potential safety benefit.

I see no technical safety objection to its use, but you should also request the formal review by the Chief Counsel as to whether there is any implication of interference of your device with an applicable standard.

ID: nht88-1.71

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/16/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Koito Mfg. Co. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. M. Iwase Technical Administration Dept. Roito Mfg. Co. Ltd. Shizuoka Works 500, Ritawaki Shimuzi--shi, Shizuoka-ken JAPAN

Dear Mr. Iwase:

This is in reply to your letter of January 25, 1988, with respect to photometric values for stop lamps and taillamps on motorcycles, and the spacing required between them and turn signal lamps.

You have asked two questions with respect to two types of motorcycle rear lighting devices, which you call "Structure 1" and "Structure 2". Although a single lamp located on the vertical centerline may be used to fulfill rear lighting requirements on mot orcycles, each of your Structures features two bulbs, symmetrically placed on each side of the vertical centerline. Each Structure is a single lighting device, featuring a turn signal bulb at each extremity. In Structure 1 a chamber containing a tail/sto p lamp bulb is directly inboard of the chamber containing a turn signal bulb. The two chambers on each side are separated by a central portion of the device which is decorative in nature. Unlike Structure 1, Structure 2 is a three-chamber device, with se parate chambers at each end for the turn signal bulbs, and a central chamber incorporating two tail/stop lamp bulbs.

With respect to each Structure and Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 you have asked:

"(a) When tail & stop lamp on either side is lighted individually, it shall be satisfied with the photometric values of lighted section "1" which are specified in Figure 1b of S4.1.1.11.

(b) When tail & stop lamp on both sides are lighted together, it shall be satisfied with the photometric values of lighted section "2" which are specified in figure 1b of S4.1.1.11." Figure 1b specifies the minimum and maximum allowable candlepower values for lighting devices with one, two, and three lighted sections. However, the number of lighted sections is calculated with respect to each lamp, not the total number of lighted sect ions used for a specific purpose, or lit at a given time. We consider Structure 1 to comprise two separate tail/stop lamps, each consisting of a single chamber. Similarly, Structure 2 incorporates a single tail/stop lamp consisting of a single chamber in which two bulbs are used. Therefore, for both Structures and for both (a) and (b) the lamp should be designed so that the single chambers meet the photometric values for single compartment lamps.

Your second question for each Structure is whether the specified minimum edge to edge separation distance between turn signals and tail/stop lamps is required. The answer is yes, and the separation distance you have depicted in your drawings appears to c omply with this requirement.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Air-Mail

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Admin. 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Subject: Tail & Stop Lamp for Motorcycle (1) photometric values (2) Spacing with Turn Signal Lamp

Dear Ms. Erika Z. Jones:

The photometric values which are required for tail & stop lamp for motorcycle are specified in S. 4.1.1.11 of FMVSS No. 108, and minimum spacing between the lamp and turn signal lamp is specified in Table IV.

We would like to ask you the following questions concerning photometric values of tail g stop lamp for motorcycle and minimum spacing between the lamp and turn signal lamp in the cases of Structure-(1) and -(2) which are shown in the attached drawing.

Question-1:

In Structure-(1) and -(2), which of the following cases shall be applied for the photometric values required for tail & stop lamp?

(a) When tail & stop lamp on either side is lighted individually, it shall be satisfied with the photometric values of lighted section "1" which are specified in Figure lb of S. 4.1.1.11.

(b) When tail & stop lamps on both sides are lighted together, it shall be satisfied with the photo-metric values of lighted section "2" which are specified in figure 1b of S. 4.1.1.11.

Attn: Ms. Erika Z. Jones Date: Jan. 25, 1988

Question-2; For each case of Structure-(1) and-(2) as illustrated in the attached sheet, shall the specification of 4 inch minimum spacing between tail & stop lamp and turn signal lamp be required or not:

Upon your review, your prompt reply to this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours,

Mr. Iwase Manager Technical Administration Dept. Koito Mfg. Co., Ltd. Shizuoka Works

(SEE ATTACHMENT...)

ID: nht88-1.72

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/16/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: C.I. Nielsen -- Vice President, General Sales Manager, Wesbar Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. C. I. Nielsen Vice President General Sales Manager Wesbar Corporation P.O. BOX 577 West Bend, WI 53095

This is in reply to your letter of February 17, 1988, asking for an interpretation of paragraph S4.1.1.7 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, which applies to turn signal lamps. In pertinent part this section requires turn signal lamps for vehicles whose overall width is 80 inches or more to "have an effective projected luminous area not less than 12 square inches." Your design has a lens area of 12 square inches incorporating an integral Class A reflex reflector, and you have asked whether you may include the "illuminated (by the turn signal bulb) reflex reflector portion of the turn signal lens" in your calculation.

We assume from your letter that the light shines through the reflector when the turn signal is activated, and that the reflector is not opaque. In this instance, the reflector area may be included as part of "the effective projected luminous area" within the meaning of S4.1.1.7.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

February 17, 1988

Ms. Erika Jones, Chief Counsel-DOT Room 5219 NASSIf Building 400 7th Street, Southwest Washington, DC 20590

SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR COMPLIANCE INTERPRETATION 54.1.1.7

Dear Ms. Jones:

We are writing to you for clarification of 54.1.1.7 of FMVSS 108. Our request involves turn signal lamps on trailers 80-inches or more in width and, practically speaking, centers around the wording "shall have an effective project luminous area not less than 12 square inches".

Our design calls for a multifunction lens of 12 square inches, which incorporates an integral Class A reflex reflector. QUESTION: When the turn lamp is activated, may we include, for the square inch calculation, the illuminated (by the turn signal bulb) reflex reflector portion of the turn signal lens: We know we are allowed to optically combine two, or more, functions (except for the tail light with the clearance light function), therefore, we don't see this concept as the hurdle. Instead, we find the question lying with the definition of "effective projected luminous area".

Thank you for looking into this matter, Ms. Jones, and we look forward to receiving your written interpretation on the "effective projected luminous area".

Respectfully,

WESBAR CORPORATION

C.I. NIELSON III Vice President General Sales Manager

CIN:mm cc: J. Karrenbauer S. Johnston A. Cunningham DOT

(SEE ATTACHMENT...)

ID: nht88-1.74

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/16/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: MORRIS EAST -- ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, LOUISIANA BUREAU OF SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: JULY 7, 1987 LETTER FROM EAST TO JONES IS ATTACHED

TEXT: This letter responds to your request for an interpretation of certain Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to school buses. I apologize for the delay in this response. In your letter, you state that one of your local school systems intends to remove a bus body from "an existing chassis, and place that body onto a new chassis." You state further that the system's school bus maintenance shop would perform the work. You ask a number of questions which I shall answer in order. My answers as sume that, at a minimum, the engine, drive axles, and transmission of the new chassis are new components.

Question 1: Is it permissible under the (Vehicle Safety Act as amended) for a local school board to remove the body from one school bus chassis and place that body on another school bus chassis?

The answer to this question is "yes." The Act does not prohibit a vehicle owner from altering, modifying, or manufacturing a vehicle; nor has NHTSA established such a prohibition in its regulations.

Question 2: Would this action (in Question 1) violate bus body integrity requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) (specifically FMVSS 208, 220, 221)?

The act of removing a school bus body from one chassis and placing that body on a different chassis does not violate any Federal safety standard. However, when a person uses a new body and mixed new and used chassis components in refurbishing a vehicle, the question arises whether the vehicle is new. In past interpretations, NHTSA has applied @ 571.7(e) to school buses that combine a new body and either (1) mixed new and used chassis components, or (2) used chassis components from different vehicles. If a school bus is considered "new" under the criteria set out in this provision, then the person who refurbishes the vehicle must

certify that the school bus meets all applicable safety standards in effect on the date the chassis was manufactured - including Standards 208, 220, and 221 if they apply - and affix a certification label under 49 CFR Part 567.

On the other hand, if an old bus body is placed on a chassis that is completely new, a different provision applies. In this case, the chassis is an incomplete vehicle. "Incomplete vehicle" is defined in 49 CFR @ 568.3 as: an assemblage 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 operations, other than the ad dition 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 meets this description, a subsequent person who adds a body - even an old body - is a final-stage manufacturer, and must certify the completed vehicle as conforming to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards as of a d ate no earlier than the manufacturing date of the incomplete vehicle (the new chassis). (49 CFR @ 567.5, Requirements for Manufacturers of Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages.)

Neither @ 571.7(e) nor Part 568 would require a person to recertify a school bus when the body and all other vehicle components are not new.

Question 3: If permitted, can the work described in (Question) 1. above be performed in the school board's maintenance shop? Can it be contracted to an automobile dealer capable of performing such work? Can the work be contracted to other motor vehi cle repair shops such as body dealers or private motor vehicle repair shops?

The answer to each of these statements is "yes." Remember, though, that if the refurbished buses are considered new under the criteria discussed in Question 2, they must meet all applicable school bus safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture , and a certification label must be affixed to each refurbished vehicle to that effect.

If the refurbished buses are not "new" under these same criteria, then there is no obligation to recertify the vehicles. However, if a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business works on your buses, then there is restriction on what these commercial businesses can do - even if the vehicle is used. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act prohibits these persons from "knowingly rendering inoperative" any device or element of design incorporated into the vehicle in complia nce with an applicable Federal safety standard. Note that this restriction does not apply when the vehicle owner (e.g., a local school system) makes a modification, or if a repair facility that does not hold itself out to the public as being in the busi ness of motor vehicle repair (e.g., a maintenance shop that works only for the school board) makes the modification.

Question 4: If the changeover is allowed, must the new unit (new chassis with used body) be re-certified to meet FMVSS requirements? If it must be re-certified, who may provide the inspection and re-certification?

As I stated in my answers to Questions 2 and 3, under certain circumstances, the vehicle must be recertified by the refurbisher. The refurbisher is responsible for the vehicle's compliance status just as any vehicle manufacturer, and must be able to sho w that he exercised due care in certifying the vehicle. The agency examines issues of due care on a case-by-case basis evaluating all relevant facts. This evaluation would include assessing technological limitations, availability of test equipment, the market position of the manufacturer, and most importantly, the degree of manufacturer diligence.

I hope you find this information helpful.