ID: 1983-3.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/28/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Grumman Corporation -- William K. Sweeney, Assistant General Counsel

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. William K. Sweeney Assistant General Counsel Grumman Corporation 445 Broad Hollow Road Melville, New York 11747

Dear Mr. Sweeney:

This responds to your letter of November 22, 1983, regarding the application of Safety Standard No. 208 (49 CFR 571.208) to the new Kubvan minivan you intend to manufacture and distribute. You state in your letter that the Kubvan is a minivan designed primarily for delivery and utility service. You ask whether the Kubvan must be equipped with a lap and shoulder belt protection system under S4.2.2.2 of the standard.

You state that Grumman Olson has built both left hand and right hand drive models of the Kubvan. The right hand drive models are intended for use by the United States Postal Service (USPS). You add that Grumman Olson also plans to sell right hand vehicles to any and all interested customers.

Section 4.2.2.2 requires trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less to provide a lap and shoulder belt protection system, except for those "vehicles designed to be exclusively sold to the United States Postal Service." As correctly stated in your letter, all Kubvans sold to customers other than the USPS must be equipped with a lap and shoulder belt assembly. However, based on the, intent of S4.2.2.2 and the unique operating needs of the USPS, right hand Kubvans sold to the USPS need only be equipped with a lap belt system.

Sincerely

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

November 22, 1983 Frank Berndt, Esq. Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Transportation Safety Administration 400 7th Street, SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #208, 49 CFR Section 571.208

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I am writing to you at the suggestion of Mr. Steven Wood of your department.

I represent Grumman Olson, a division of Grumman Allied Industries. Inc., and a manufacturer of aluminum truck bodies. As I indicated to Mr. Wood, Grumman Olson is now embarking on the manufacture and distribution of a new minivan completely built by it at its own facilities. This minivan is called the Kubvan (R), and is designed for delivery and utility service. A specification sheet on the Kubvan minivan is enclosed for your information.

Grumman Olson has built both left hand and right hand drive versions of the Kubvan, the latter for use by the United States Postal Service. A number of other potential customers, including Canada Post Corporation, have expressed interest in the right hand drive Kubvan, and that expression of interest necessitates my writing to you.

Specifically, a question has arisen concerning the interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #208, 49 CFR S 571.208. Paragraph S4.2.2 of the safety standard sets out the basic occupant crash protection required for trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less; namely, a lap and shoulder belt protection system. Certain classes of light trucks are excluded, such as "vehicles designed to be exclusively sold to the United States Postal Service...". Vehicles of the latter type are permitted to carry a lap belt system only.

Grumman Olson is desirous of selling the right hand drive Kubvan to customers other than the United States Postal Service (USPS). As we interpret Paragraph S4.2.2, it basically equates light trucks with passenger cars, in terms of crash protection. USPS vehicles were specifically excluded (and permitted to be equipped with lap belts only) because of their unique operating environment (i.e., generally lower speeds, frequent stops, and the need for the driver to exit and enter the vehicle quickly, and/or reach out of the vehicle to service mail boxes).

Given this interpretation, Grumman Olson would be entitled to sell right hand drive Kubvans to any and all interested customers, provided that all such vehicles are equipped with a full lap and shoulder belt restraint system, except for those sold to the USPS. However, the wording of Paragraph S4.2.2 literally implies that if Grumman Olson were to sell right hand drive Kubvans to parties other than USPS, the vehicle might not technically qualify as one "designed to be exclusively sold to the United States Postal Service". This, in turn, might mean that Grumman Olson (a) would be required to equip all right hand drive Kubvans with lap and shoulder belt restraint systems (including those destined for the United States Postal Service, which would render the vehicle unsuitable for their use), and/or (b) would be required to retrofit any right hand drive Kubvans presently in USPS inventory with lap and shoulder belt systems (such vehicles not having a lap belt system only as permitted by the Paragraph). We feel this end result is inconsistent with the intent of Paragraph S4.2.2.

I have had telephone discussions with Mr. Wood and with Mr. Bob Gardner of NHTSA's engineering staff, relative to interpretation of the Paragraph in question. Both of these individuals felt that our analysis of the Paragraph was consistent with its intent and expressed no difficulty with (1) our selling right hand drive Kubvans (equipped with lap and shoulder belt system) to customers other than the USPS and (2) our continuing to sell right hand drive Kubvans to the USPS, with lap belt system only (and without the need to retrofit any vehicles presently in USPS inventory). I asked Mr. Wood about the possibility of a formal response from NHTSA approving our interpretation of Paragraph S4.2.2, and he suggested that I write to you to request such a response.

I would, therefore, appreciate your discussing this matter with Mr. Wood, and, if you agree, arranging for a letter from your office to me, concurring in our interpretation of Paragraph S4.2.2 and approving sales of right hand Kubvans as set out in the previous paragraph.

Thank you very much for your cooperation.

Very truly yours,

WILLIAM K. SWEENEY Assistant General Counsel

WKS:mz

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: nht94-3.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 28, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Spectrum Engineering Group

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/22/94 from Robin L. Fennimore to NHTSA Office of Chief Council (OCC-9759)

TEXT: This responds to your letter to this office regarding your reconstruction of an accident involving a 16-passenger school bus. I apologize for the delay in responding.

You stated in your letter that the original latch/hinge mechanism of the right front entrance door of the bus in question was disabled by removal of the striker plate and equipped instead with a remote door opening/closing appartus and latching mechanism . The bus was involved in an accident in which the driver was ejected through that door. You then asked a series of questions concerning the classification of the vehicle and the Federal safety standards pertaining to the door in question.

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq. (Safety Act), authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to ne w motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act establishes a self-certification system in which manufacturers are responsible for certifying that the vehicle or equipment complies with all applicable FMVSSs in effect on the da te of manufacture. Once the vehicle or equipment has been sold to the first customer for purposes other than resale, Federal jurisdiction over the manufacture and sale of the vehicle or equipment generally terminates and use of the vehicle or equipment becomes a matter of state jurisdiction.

You first asked, "Would this vehicle be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle, a bus, or a school bus?"

The answer to your question is that each manufacturer classifies its vehicles in accordance with the definitions set

2

forth in the Safety Act and in NHTSA's regulations. The Safety Act defines a "school bus" as

[A] passenger motor vehicle which is designed to carry more than 10 passengers in addition to the driver, and which the Secretary determines is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school stude nts to or from such schools or events related to such schools. 15 U.S.C. 1391(14).

Our regulations define a "bus" as a motor vehicle designed to carry more than 10 persons, and further define a "school bus" as a bus that is sold for purposes that include carrying students to and from school and related activities, but does not include a bus sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation. 49 CFR @ 571.3.

Thus, whether a vehicle is a school bus under our regulations depends on the purpose for which it was originally sold. Although you did not indicate who purchased the bus originally and for what purpose, you referred to the vehicle in your letter as a " mini school bus," you stated that the body was manufactured by Mid Bus, a school bus manufacturer, and the descriptive literature you enclosed with your letter depicts different models of small school buses manufactured by Mid Bus. Accordingly, it appea rs the vehicle in question would have been classified as a school bus under 49 CFR @ 571.3. Our regulations require the vehicle manufacturer to state the vehicle type classification on the vehicle's certification label. The certification label of the v ehicle in question should have that information.

Your second question asks, "Does FMVSS 206 and/or FMVSS 217 apply to the right front entrance door of this vehicle?"

With respect to FMVSS 206, Door locks and door retention components, the answer is no. Standard 206 applies only to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and trucks. The standard does not apply to buses.

With respect to FMVSS 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release, the standard specifies requirements for window retention other than windshields in buses, except buses designed to transport persons under restraint, and establishes operati ng forces, opening dimensions, and markings for emergency exits. The glazing requirements of S5.1 of FMVSS 217 would apply to the right front entrance door, and if the door was also used as an emergency exit, it must also have complied when new with the emergency exit requirements of S5.2.3, S5.3, S5.4.2, and S5.5.3 of the standard.

3

Your third question asked, "Which FMVSS would apply to the right front entrance door (particularly its loading requirements)?"

The answer is that apart from the provisions of FMVSS 217 discussed in our answer to your second question, there was no FMVSS in 1988 that specified performance standards for the right front entrance doors of buses. Effective September 1, 1993, however, the side door strength requirements of FMVSS 214, Side Impact Protection, will apply to 90 percent of the buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less produced after that date, and all buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or le ss produced on and after September 1, 1994, must comply with those requirements.

I would like to make the following observation about the modification of the door in question. Modifications of new and used vehicles by commercial parties are subject to @ 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibit s any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a vehicle in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. In this case, your letter d id not indicate who disabled the original latch mechanism on the vehicle or who installed the remote door latch mechanism. If the work was done by a party listed in @ 108(a)(2)(A), the person modifying the vehicle was responsible for not degrading the p erformance of the door with regard to FMVSS 217.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners. Thus, vehicle owners can modify the vehicle in any manner he/she chooses without violating any Federal requirements.

I hope this information answers your questions. We have enclosed copies of FMVSS 206 and 217 that were effective in 1988, photocopied from the October 1, 1987 edition of the Code of Federal Regulations, as you requested. Should you have other questions , please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Enclosures

ID: nht93-2.34

DATE: March 30, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Marty D. Pope -- President, Wheels "R" Rollin, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2-18-93 from Marty D. Pope to Walter Myers (OCC 8326)

TEXT: This responds to your February 18, 1993 letter to Walter Myers of this office. You stated in your letter and in telephone conversations with Mr. Myers that your firm obtains used wheels from salvage yards, mostly passenger car wheels, refurbishes them by sandblasting and refinishing them, then sells them to manufacturers of utility trailers. You asked how to "bring the wheels manufactured before 1977 up to standards" (referring to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, TIRE SELECTION AND RIMS FOR MOTOR VEHICLES OTHER THAN PASSENGER CARS), and whether it is possible to "stamp the wheels previous to 1977 with a regulation code to approve their usability." "Wheels" refers to the wheel rim and the hub to which the rim is attached.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1381 ET SEQ.) (Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) for new motor vehicles (including trailers) and new items of motor vehicle equipment (including tires and wheels). The purpose of Standard 120 is to provide safe operational performance by ensuring that vehicles to which it applies are equipped with tires of adequate size and load rating and with rims of appropriate size and type designation. The standard applies to new trailers, and to rims manufactured on or after August 1, 1977. Violations of any of the standards are punishable by civil fines of up to $1,000 per violation, with a maximum fine of up to $800,000 for a related series of violations.

You ask about our requirements for the rims of the wheels you refurbish. The answer depends on whether the rim is intended to be installed on a new trailer or intended as a replacement rim for a used trailer.

If the rim is intended for a new trailer, the new trailer manufacturer must certify that the vehicle complies with Standard 120. Standard 120 establishes two requirements for the vehicle. First, S5.1.1 requires that the rims on a new trailer be listed by the manufacturer of the tires mounted on the trailer as suitable for use with those tires. Second, the rims on a new trailer must meet the rim marking requirements of S5.2 of Standard 120. Since the rims you refurbish were originally passenger car rims, they will not have the required markings, regardless of date of manufacture because Standard 120 does not apply to passenger car rims. Therefore, trailer manufacturers may not install passenger car rims on new trailers unless those rims are marked in accordance with Standard 120.

If the rim is intended as a replacement rim on a used trailer, different requirements apply. The rim marking requirements of S5.2 of Standard 120 apply only to NEW rims manufactured on or after August 1, 1977. Refurbished wheels sold for used trailers are considered used wheels instead of new wheels for purposes of Standard 120, and are thus not subject to the rim marking

requirements of the standard. As pointed out above, however, a new or refurbished rim installed on a new trailer must meet the rim selection and marking requirements of Standard 120 (S5.1.1 and S5.2).

Relatedly, you ask about marking a used rim with the information required by Standard 120 for new rims. Any rim, new or used, that is installed on a new vehicle must be marked with the "regulation code" (i.e., the "DOT" symbol constituting the manufacturer's certification of compliance with Standard 120) and the other information required by the standard. However, a rim manufactured prior to August 1, 1977, that is sold as a replacement rim must not be marked with the DOT symbol. NHTSA has long held that manufacturers may not show the DOT certification on items of motor vehicle equipment to which no Federal motor vehicle safety standard applies. The reason for that decision is that such a certification would be false and misleading to NHTSA and to consumers who might assume that the item was subject to and met a Federal safety standard. Thus, since Standard 120 does not apply to rims manufactured prior to August 1, 1977, such rims cannot now be marked with the DOT symbol.

You should also be aware of two other provisions of the Safety Act. The first provision is S108(a)(2)(A), which provides that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a new or used motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. This means that a person in these categories cannot remove the label information required by Standard 120 during the refurbishing process.

Second, under S151-157 of the Safety Act, manufacturers of motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (e.g., wheel rims) are responsible for safety-related defects in their products. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the product and remedy the problem free of charge. (This responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which a defective wheel rim is installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.) A refurbished rim that had been previously damaged (e.g., cracked, bent, or pitted) might not be capable of performing safely while in service.

For your further information, I am enclosing a pamphlet issued by this agency entitled FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS and a fact sheet entitled WHERE TO OBTAIN NHTSA'S SAFETY STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS. The pamphlet briefly summarizes each of our Federal motor vehicle safety standards and the fact sheet advises where to obtain the full text of those standards and our other regulations. You may also find helpful the attached fact sheet entitled INFORMATION FOR NEW MANUFACTURERS OF MOTOR VEHICLES AND MOTOR VEHICLE EQUIPMENT.

We also note that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has a regulation on the refurbishing of damaged rim components. You can contact OSHA at (PHONE NUMBER) for information about that regulation.

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

ID: nht74-4.47

DATE: 01/03/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James B. Gregory; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagen

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your letter of October 30, 1973, raises several questions about the present requirements of Standard 208 and its future course, and you suggest modifications of its vehicle loading and the lateral impact requirements to make the standard "representative of real world conditions." You state that leadtime is critical and this consideration compels you to raise specific questions.

The August 15, 1975, date for fully passive systems under Standard 208 was established March 10, 1971. Manufacturers will have had over four years of leadtime to study and design systems to meet the 208 crash protection requirements, or in the alternative to petition for rulemaking to amend them. While a decision to modify elements of Standard 208 is pending within the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, I can assure you that sufficient additional leadtime would be given to develop systems that conform, if such a course were found necessary.

I would recommend against an attempt to predict the future of Standard 208 from a reading of other proposed standards. While our desire is to reduce the complexity and cost of testing by making simultaneous barrier testing to several standards possible, complications such as you point out make the realization of this goal uncertain. You have suggested specific changes in vehicle loading and lateral crash test requirements of Standard 208. We request that these suggestions be proposed as petitions under 49 CFR Part 553.31 to amend the standard if this is your intent. Your petition to permit use of passive belt systems, for example, has been acted on under this procedure.

Sincerely yours,

The Honorable Administrator Dr. Gregory National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

October 30, 1973

Dear Dr. Gregory:

The preamble to docket 73-8, notice 2 (part 572 - Anthropomorphic Test Dummy, and amendment to MVSS 208) states that:

(a) The specified part 572 test dummy is to be used only for compliance testing of passive restraint systems installed in vehicles manufactured during the time period August 15, 1973, to August 14, 1975.

(b) The question of restraint system requirements to be in effect after August 15, 1975, will be the object of future rulemaking action, and the agency will not make any final decision regarding reinstatement of mandatory passive restraint requirements without further notice and opportunity for comment, and

(c) should the agency propose mandatory passive restraint requirement the question of conformity of a suitable dummy will again be open for comment.

The status of the rulemaking for mandatory passive restraints and a suitable dummy for testing these restraints is of extreme importance to Volkswagen. We must know the direction the NHTSA is taking in this matter so that our development work can address the real future requirements. Since leadtime is critical and we have not yet seen the expected rulemaking, we are compelled to raise the following questions:

1. Will the installation of mandatory passive restraint systems be required as of August 15, 1975, or at some later date?

2. Can you please clarify the inconsistency between the statement in the preamble(Illegible Word) docket 73-8, notice 2, that dummy conformity after August 15, 1975, will again be open for comment, and the statement in docket 73-20, notice 1 (fuel for testing after September 1, 1975? (The preamble to docket 73-20, notice 1, suggests that vehicles would be tested under both MVSS 208 and MVSS 301 simultaneously.)

3. If passive restraints become mandatory, will they be required at all seating positions, or only front seating positions? (Again, noting that the preamble to docket 73-20, notice 1 suggests simultaneous testing for MVSS 208 and MVSS 301, S 6.1 of that notice proposes that test dummies be installed only in each front outboard seating position. This could lead to the conclusion that for future rulemaking for MVSS 208, the injury criteria requirements would only be measured for the front outboard seating positions in frontal impacts, and no passive restraint system would be required for the rear seats. Volkswagen has previously commented on the unfavorable cost/ benefit ratio for rear seat passive restraints due to their infrequent occupancy.)

4. MVSS 208 requires a very high loading of the test vehicle. We feel that these loading conditions are not representative of real world conditions. Typically, an automobile has only one or two passengers, and no luggage in the trunk. Since the future requirements for passive restraints will be the subject of further rulemaking, could the NHTSA re-evaluate the test loading requirements and address this point in the rulemaking proposal?

5. MVSS 208 requires that the moving barrier has to have a vertical, rigid, flat rectangular impact surface 78 inches wide and 60 inches high with its lower edge five inches above the ground surface. Thus, the upper edge is 65 inches above the ground surface which is much higher than the front end of any american or imported passenger car.

In lateral barrier impact tests according to MVSS 208 with our current models, our test engineers observed that the dummies adjacent to the barrier impact surface hit the rigid barrier surface with their heads, obtaining very high injury criteria.

Up to now we have not found means to solve this problem. The use of laminated glass for the side windows, for example, did not show better results, because any available crush distance is already used up by the high barrier when the dummies' head impact the windows. As the recent barrier does not represent the front end of a typical car and the injury criteria depends greatly on the barrier height, we feel that paragraph S 8.2.2 of MVSS 208 is unrealistic. We suggest to specify the barrier face as in SAE J 972a. Other barriers for lateral impact such as the barrier established by ECE have even lower or equal upper edges of the impact surface.

Since this barrier height problem is especially critical to our small vehicles, and "Safety Standards shall take into consideration different classes of vehicles, such as small cars" (as recognized by the sixth circuit court of appeals in the Air Bag case), could the NHTSA re-evaluate the need for such a high barrier face and address this point in future rulemaking on passive restraints?

Your answers to each of our questions would be appreciated as soon as possible, so that we can continue our development work for restraint systems after August 15, 1975, with a clear understanding of NHTSA requirements.

Yours truly,

E. Fiala

ID: nht95-3.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 7, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: K. Howard Sharp, Esq. -- Arnason Law Office

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/12/95 LETTER FROM K. HOWARD SHARP TO JOHN WOMACK

TEXT: Dear Mr. Sharp:

We have received your letter of May 12, 1995, requesting an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 on behalf of your client, NYTAF Industries. You are concerned that installation of a NYTAF lighting system on the rear of trailers might be considered to impair the effectiveness of the required rear lighting equipment within the meaning of paragraph S5.1.3.

The NYTAF Auxiliary Rear Lighting System

NYTAF has developed "an auxiliary signaling system for heavy duty vehicles" which "displays a verbal message appropriate to the particular potential hazard." According to Exhibit A of your letter, a draft information brochure, the specific words displaye d are: "Wide Turn", "Braking", "Wide Load", "Caution", "Help", "Backing", and "Long Load". In addition, right and left facing arrowheads indicate the direction of turning. Drivers cannot alter these messages or program the system to accept personal mes sages. The brochure depicts the message unit "on the rear of the trailer frame directly below the trailer body in the center putting the display panel on approximately the same horizontal plane as the tail lights and brake lights." Words are provided by light-emitting diodes (L.E.D.). According to your letter, the L.E.D. display "is somewhat more intense than existing brake lights, turn and tail lamps."

Exhibit B "Operation Summary" explains how the system operates with respect to each message, e.g., "Braking" is "activated and illuminated in conjunction with brake lights."

Applicable Requirement of Standard No. 108

Paragraph S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108 states that "No additional lamp, reflective device or other motor vehicle equipment shall be installed [before first purchase of a vehicle in good faith for other than resale] that impairs the effectiveness of lightin g equipment required by [Standard No. 108]."

Prior Interpretations of S5.1.3 Relating to Message Boards

In the past, the agency has advised that the determination of impairment is initially made by the manufacturer of the motor vehicle on which the supplementary equipment is installed, when it certifies that the vehicle complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Unless that determination is clearly erroneous, NHTSA will not question it. Thus, NHTSA's interpretations are generally cautionary in tone rather than prohibitive.

I enclose copies of two interpretations relating to message boards intended for the rear parcel shelves of passenger cars. The first is a letter of August 17, 1989, to Alan S. Eldahr ("Eldahr"). The relevant language of Eldahr is that a rear window mes sage board "sending messages unrelated to vehicle stops, could confuse and distract a driver following, and in that sense impair the effectiveness of the center lamp." The second is a letter dated August 13, 1993, to Kenneth E. Ross ("Ross"). The Ross l etter discusses the relation of message boards to the aftermarket, as well as the notification and remedy obligations which would fall upon NYTAF as a manufacturer of automotive accessory equipment.

Relationship of Eldahr to NYTAF

Eldahr indicates that there is less possibility of impairment existing if the message visible to a following driver is related to the lamp function that occurs simultaneously, as happens, for example in the NYTAF system, when stop lamp activation is acco mpanied by the word "Braking." We suggest that vehicle manufacturers installing the NYTAF system follow this guideline in their determinations of whether impairment exists.

NYTAF might also wish to reconsider the intensity of the L.E.D. display which you say is "more" than that of the existing rear lighting equipment, especially as it may affect reaction to the stop signal. The intensity should not be so great as to divert driver attention to the message rather than to the stop signal.

There are several areas of Exhibit B "Operation Summary" which require more specific comment. "Caution" is activated in conjunction with the hazard warning system. Standard No. 108 requires these systems to simultaneously flash all turn signal lamps, a nd not sequentially as Exhibit B states. Exhibit B should be corrected to reflect this if it is to be distributed publicly, as we do not understand that the NYTAF system is intended to create sequential flashing of turn signals when operated in the haza rd signal mode. The sole explanation of "Help" is that it is to be activated manually. In our view, a flashing "Help" while the trailer is in motion would be more likely to impair rear lighting equipment than if it is operable only when the trailer is at rest. In addition, Exhibit B does not indicate whether the "Help" message is overridden by other messages when related lighting systems are activated.

We are unsure of the purpose of "Clearance Marker" which is operated "in conjunction with parking lights." Standard No. 108 does not require truck tractors to be equipped with parking lamps. We believe that you meant taillamps. We do not view this lamp as having an impairing effect upon the taillamps. The name of the lamp is somewhat misleading, as it would be mounted at the center of a vehicle whereas a "clearance lamp" is intended to indicate a vehicle's overall width.

Additionally, on certain trailer designs the three identification lamps are mounted around the vertical centerline in the same location in which you have stated the NYTAF system will be mounted. With respect to the close proximity of the two lighting sy stems, we believe that the brightness of the NYTAF device compared with that of the identification lamps could impair their ability to signal the presence of a large vehicle in the roadway ahead, the intended function of these lamps.

Finally, we note that the color red would indicate a backing function. Although trailers are not required to have backup lamps, Standard No. 108 specifies that the color white shall be used for backup lamps, and we believe that the public has come to as sociate an activated white lamp on the rear of a vehicle as indicating that the vehicle is in reverse gear. Your client may wish to reevaluate this function in light of possible liability concerns.

We hope that these guidelines will be helpful to NYTAF. If you have any further questions, Taylor Vinson will again be happy to answer them (202-366-5263).

ID: nht91-1.23

DATE: January 15, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John K. Roberts -- Vice President, Muth Advanced Technologies

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-29-90 to Richard Van Iderstine from John K. Roberts (OCC-5511)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of November 29, 1990, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency. You are developing a "Stop Turn Mirror" (STM) which you intend to be used "in combination with (or possibly in place of) center high-mounted stop lamps (CHMSL's). The STM is so designed that it appears as a mirror to a vehicle operator, but as a stop and turn signal indication system to the operator of a following vehicle.

You have not provided us with a picture of the STM, and we are unable to tell from your letter and description sheet whether the STM is intended to be mounted as an interior rear view mirror, or as an exterior one. As a surrogate for the CHMSL, it would appear to be intended for installation as an interior rear view mirror. However, as a stop and turn signal system, the STM would appear more appropriate as two exterior mirrors mounted on either side of the vehicle. Nevertheless, we shall try to answer your questions on the basis of the information available to us.

Your first question is:

"(1) If the STM satisfies the current explicit requirements of FMVSS 111 and 108, is there further NHTSA approval we should seek before fielding the device?"

NHTSA does not "approve" or "disapprove" items of motor vehicle equipment such as the STM. It will advise whether the equipment is permitted or not permitted by Federal laws, standards, or other regulations. If the equipment is permitted, then it may be manufactured and sold. However, it is the inquirer's responsibility to determine if there are any State and local restrictions on use of the equipment.

For the reasons expressed below, we have serious reservations whether the STM could meet the requirements of Standard No. 108. There is no requirement that a CHMSL be mounted on the rear of a vehicle or in the rear window. STM theoretically could fulfill the requirements for CHMSL's if combined with an interior rear view mirror conventionally placed in the center of the windshield area. In this location, it would appear to be mounted on the vertical centerline of the vehicle as seen from the rear, as the standard requires. The STM will not be perceived by the driver as anything but a mirror; however it must also fulfill the requirement that light from it falling on the rear glazing not reflect back into the mirror, or, in the words of Standard No. 108 that means have been "provided to minimize reflections from the light of the lamp that might be visible to the driver when viewed directly or indirectly in the rear view mirror." Most importantly, the STM must fulfill the photometric requirements and visibility requirements of center high-mounted stop

lamps. Compliance with these requirements is determined with the lamp mounted on or in the vehicle. Because of the different designs of back windows and adjacent "C" pillars in cars, and the distance of the STM from the back window, we believe that compliance with all applicable requirements would be difficult, if not impossible, to achieve.

Standard No. 108 does prohibit the physical combination of the required CHMSL with any other lamp or reflective device. A mirror is not a "reflective device" for purposes of Standard No. 108. Thus the question would be whether the turn signal functions of the STM are clearly separated from the stop function so that the question does not arise as to whether they are combined.

If the STM iS intended to be mounted as one or both exterior rear view mirrors it would not meet the location requirement, and could not be used as a substitute for the required CHMSL. Under Standard No. 108 it would be permissible as supplementary lighting equipment as long as it did not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment that the standard requires. In this instance, in its role as a supplementary stop/turn signal lamp system, we do not consider that the STM would impair the effectiveness of the original stop/turn signal lamp system.

"(2) Would it be reasonable for us to apply for a variance or to seek a change in FMVSS 108, if the STM doesn't meet the letter of FMVSS 106 in certain applications, but demonstrably meets or exceeds the intent of the standard."

"Variances", or exemptions from one or more requirements of a Federal motor vehicle safety standard are only granted to manufacturers of motor vehicles. We have no authority to exempt an equipment manufacturer.

As for seeking a change in Standard No. 108, while any person may file a petition for rulemaking to change a standard, I have no reason to believe that the agency would look favorably on allowing the CHMSL to be combined with a turn signal lamp, or require use of the STM as standard equipment in place of the present CHMSL.

"(3) Before a pickup truck standard is published, would it be possible to certify the STM as a compliant device and ensure that the wording of the new rule doesn't needlessly prohibit utilization of STM's?"

It is a legal impossibility to certify something as a compliant device before the requirements for that device have been formally adopted, and the effective date established for compliance. We anticipate the "pickup truck standard" as you call it will be published sometime in January 1991. If you find that it prohibits utilization of the STM you may file a petition for reconsideration of the rule with the agency within 30 days after its publication.

" (4) Is it possible that someone at NHTSA would like to see this thing or test it before we go too far in our development and larketing? It may be a useful development in vehicle safety devices with importance to industry and the public. It also may be a ready solution to the difficult issue of requiring CHMSL's on pick-up trucks. We would be happy to support

any such investigative effort by supplying a model, information, etc.

We appreciate but decline your offer. The agency is satisfied that its forthcoming rule achieves a reasonable solution to the issue of CHMSL's on pickup trucks. The agency's resources are limited, and must be deployed in areas where there is a reasonable possibility that a mandatory safety standard may result as a consequence of its investigative efforts. Given the facts that the STM addresses an area of safety that is already covered by the CHMSL, and that any safety benefits of the STM remain speculative while those of the CHMSL are well demonstrated, there is no reasonable possibility that the STM would become a mandatory requirement of this agency.

ID: Wolford.2

Kevin M. Wolford, Executive Director
Automotive Manufacturers
Equipment Compliance Agency, Inc. ,
1101 15^th Street, NW, Suite 607
Washington, DC 20005-5020




Dear Mr. Wolford:

This responds to your letter in which you requested clarification of certain issues pertaining to the requirements for replacement lighting equipment under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Specifically, your letter asked whether a manufacturer designing a lamp with a bulb using an indexed base, but which has a series of LEDs, would need to meet the requirements for a "single compartment" lamp or a "three compartment" lamp (i.e. , whether a bulb with several LEDs has a single light source or multiple light sources). You also asked whether it would be permissible under FMVSS No. 108 to develop a lamp with a red bulb that complies with the Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) standard for bulbs. I am pleased to have the opportunity to explain the relevant provisions of our standard.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. It is the responsibility of manufacturers to certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards before they can be offered for sale (see 49 CFR Part 571).

As you are aware, FMVSS No. 108 specifies requirements for original and replacement lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. The standard applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers (except pole trailers and trailer converter dollies), and motorcycles. Paragraph S5.8.1 of the standard provides, "Except as provided below, each lamp, reflective device, or item of associated equipment manufactured to replace any lamp, reflective device, or item of associated equipment on any vehicle to which this standard applies, shall be designed to conform to this standard."

We would note that the substantive issues raised in your letter, regarding compliance of certain lamp designs with the requirements of Standard No. 108, have largely been addressed in prior interpretations. The first scenario presented in your letter involves a replacement lamp (non-headlamp) that includes a series of LEDs. You stated that the hypothetical replacement lamp is designed with an indexed base conforming to SAE J567, Lamp Bulb Retention System. Your letter, in effect, asked whether the LEDs, taken together, would be considered a single light source when determining photometric compliance with Standard No. 108 (thereby being subject to the requirements for one lighted section), or whether the LEDs would be considered individual light sources (thereby being subject to the requirements for three lighted sections).

As we explained in our December 30, 1992 letter of interpretation to Mr. T. Kouchi, lamps with LEDs are considered to have multiple light sources, with each LED constituting a single source. The letter goes on to state that "any device that contains more than three lighted sections, or LEDs, need only comply with the requirements prescribed for three lighted sections". We note, however, that in our December 21, 2005 letter of interpretation to Mr. Takayuki Amma (see enclosure), we stated that if a number of LEDs is wired such that failure of any one LED would cause the entire array of LEDs to cease functioning, we would consider the array of LEDs to be a single light source. Furthermore, each array of LEDs wired in this manner would be considered one light source for the purposes of determining number of lighted sections in SAE J588e, Turn Signal Lamps, which is incorporated by reference in FMVSS No. 108. For example, a turn signal lamp that is wired with two arrays of LEDs, operating in the manner described above, would be considered a two-lighted-section lamp.

As to the second issue presented in your letter regarding the permissibility of using a red bulb in a taillamp, such a configuration would be permissible under FMVSS No. 108. Under Table I and Table III of FMVSS No. 108 and appropriate SAE standards incorporated by reference, the color of the light from taillamps and stop lamps must be red (without specifying either bulb color or lens color). The color specifications that such lamps must meet in order to comply with FMVSS No. 108 are contained in SAE Standard No. J578c, Color Specifications for Electric Signaling Devices (February 1977), which S5.1.5 of FMVSS No. 108 incorporates by reference. The ECE regulation mentioned in your letter (E/ECE/324/Rev.1/Add.36/Rev.3/Amend.3) is not a substitute for SAE J578c.

On this point, your letter also questioned whether the interpretation as expressed in our October 5, 2000 letter to Senior Trooper W.L. Hill has been changed. It has not. In that letter, it was stated that we were not aware of any manufacturer certifying a taillamp with a red bulb and a clear lens under FMVSS No. 108. However, the response reflected our understanding that a red bulb/clear lens configuration was not economically feasible at that time, not that such a configuration is impermissible under the standard. Since then, we understand that some manufacturers are currently producing lamps with red LED bulbs and clear lenses that do comply with the standard.

Your letter also raised the separate issue of how the above principles apply to aftermarket manufacturers in light of our notice of interpretation published in the Federal Register on October 8, 2004, which interpreted paragraph S5.8.1 of the standard dealing with replacement lighting equipment (69 FR 60464). In response to several requests for reconsideration of that notice of interpretation, the agency published a revised notice of interpretation in the Federal Register on November 1, 2005 (70 FR 65972). We encourage you to read this latest notice of interpretation (see enclosure).

In that second notice, we have decided to adopt a less restrictive interpretation of S5.8.1, which, simply stated, requires that a lamp (or other item of lighting equipment) manufactured to replace a lamp on a vehicle to which Standard No. 108 applies, is permitted so long as the vehicle manufacturer could have certified the vehicle to the standard using the replacement lamp instead of the lamp actually used (including replacement headlamps using different light sources than the original equipment headlamps). In light of our revised interpretation of S5.8.1, we believe that there would not be a significant difference in the treatment accorded to original equipment manufacturers and aftermarket/replacement equipment manufacturers.

If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:108
d.1/5/06

ID: aiam3498

Dear Messrs. Newmayer and Corbett: This responds to your letter of May 26, 1981, regarding Safety Standar No. 205, *Glazing Materials*. Please accept my apologies for the lateness of our response. You request permission to install a 'Ballistic Cube 2000' in 500 motor vehicles over a two-year period for experimental purposes. The 'Ballistic Cube 2000' is a protective cubicle made of Lexgard that is installed inside a vehicle. Lexgard, a bullet-resistant material, does not comply with all the requirements of Standard No. 205. You urge us to grant your request on the basis that the data generated from such an experiment would be relevant to a rulemaking proceeding initiated by General Electric. (General Electric has petitioned NHTSA to amend Standard No. 205 to permit the use of protective bullet- resistant shields in vehicles. The agency granted this petition on November 28, 1980.); Standard No. 205 is an equipment standard which applies to all glazin materials used in passenger cars, buses, trucks, and multipurpose passenger vehicles. all automotive glazing materials, including those used in the Ballistic Cube 2000, must conform to the standard's requirements. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Act) provides in part that no person shall sell or manufacture for sale any item of motor vehicle equipment that does not comply with any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard in effect on the date of the item's manufacture. Thus, if you were to manufacture for sale or sell a Ballistic Cube 2000 made of Lexgard or any other glazing material that does not comply with Standard No. 205, you would be in violation of section 108(a)(1)(A). (Section 108(b)(5) establishes that section 108(a)(1)(A) does not apply when the motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is intended solely for export and is so labeled.) Section 109 imposes a civil penalty up to $1,000 for each violation of Section 108.; We believe that installation of the Ballistic Cube 2000 in moto vehicles could possibly generate test data that could be valuable to the agency in the previously mentioned rulemaking proceeding. Unfortunately, however, NHTSA does not have the legal authority to grant you permission to make such an installation. NHTSA does not have statutory authority to exempt an equipment manufacturer from the requirements of Section 108(a)(1)(A) as it relates to motor vehicle equipment.; Section 123 of the Act authorizes the exemption of motor vehicles fro the safety standards. However, it does not authorize the exemption of motor vehicle equipment from equipment standards. As noted above, Standard No. 205 is an equipment standard applicable to glazing. Consequently, no exemption can be granted under section 123 that would excuse manufacturing, offering for sale or selling noncomplying glazing as part of the vehicles you wish to modify and sell, since you would also be considered an equipment manufacturer.; While the agency cannot grant you an exemption, it is pursuing th request made by G.E. regarding Lexgard. The agency anticipates issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking before the end of this year. If a final rule permitting the use of Lexgard were issued, you could commence manufacturing and installation of the Ballistic Cubes upon the effective date of that rule.; Even if that rule is issued, there may be other standards which must b considered. As we understand your materials, the installation of the Ballistic Cube 2000 in motor vehicles may affect the compliance of those vehicles with FMVSS No. 103, *Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems*, and FMVSS No. 201, *Occupant Protection in Interior Impact.* If you were to install a Ballistic Cube in a new vehicle, i.e., one that had not yet been purchased for purposes other than resale, you would violate section 108(a)(1)(A) if the vehicle no longer complied with one of those standards. Of course, since Standard Nos. 103 and 201 are vehicle standards, you could apply for an exemption from those standards. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act would prohibit you from installing the Ballistic Cube in a used vehicle if such installation would destroy the vehicle's compliance with Standards 103 and 201.; The agency cannot definitively state whether installation of your cub in a motor vehicle would affect the compliance of the vehicle with Standards Nos. 201 or 103. NHTSA does not offer prior approval of compliance of any vehicle or equipment design with any safety standards before the manufacturer's certification of its product. It is the manufacturer's responsibility under the Act to determine whether its vehicle or equipment complies with all applicable safety standards and regulations and to certify its vehicle or equipment in accordance with that determination. The agency is willing to offer an opinion on whether a vehicle or motor vehicle equipment complies with a particular rule. Such an opinion is not binding on the agency or on the manufacturer. However, the information you have provided in your letter does not give us a sufficient basis on which to form an opinion. It would probably be difficult for the agency to offer an opinion concerning your compliance with Standard 203 regardless of the information you supplied, since that standard involves a dynamic performance test.; Apart from the requirements imposed by section 108(a)(1)(A) regardin compliance of safety standards, manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment also have general responsibilities under the Act regarding safety defects. Under sections 151 *et seq*., such manufacturers must notify purchasers about safety-related defects and remedy such defects free of charge. Section 109 imposes a civil penalty of up to $1,000 upon any person who fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect in motor vehicle equipment.; I am sorry we are unable to accommodate you in this matter. However since it is beyond our legal authority to do so, we have no choice but to make the decision set forth in this letter. Please contact this office if you have any questions.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5556

"Dear Mr. Sharp: We have received your letter of May 12, 1995 requesting an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 on behalf of your client, NYTAF Industries. You are concerned that installation of a NYTAF lighting system on the rear of trailers might be considered to impair the effectiveness of the required rear lighting equipment within the meaning of paragraph S5.1.3. The NYTAF Auxiliary Rear Lighting System NYTAF has developed 'an auxiliary signaling system for heavy duty vehicles' which 'displays a verbal message appropriate to the particular potential hazard.' According to Exhibit A of your letter, a draft information brochure, the specific words displayed are: 'Wide Turn', 'Braking', 'Wide Load', 'Caution', 'Help', 'Backing', and 'Long Load'. In addition, right and left facing arrowheads indicate the direction of turning. Drivers cannot alter these messages or program the system to accept personal messages. The brochure depicts the message unit 'on the rear of the trailer frame directly below the trailer body in the center putting the display panel on approximately the same horizontal plane as the tail lights and brake lights.' Words are provided by light-emitting diodes (L.E.D.). According to your letter, the L.E.D. display 'is somewhat more intense than existing brake lights, turn and tail lamps.' Exhibit B 'Operation Summary' explains how the system operates with respect to each message, e.g., 'Braking' is 'activated and illuminated in conjunction with brake lights.' Applicable Requirement of Standard No. 108 Paragraph S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108 states that 'No additional lamp, reflective device or other motor vehicle equipment shall be installed before first purchase of a vehicle in good faith for other than resale that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108 .' Prior Interpretations of S5.1.3 Relating to Message Boards In the past, the agency has advised that the determination of impairment is initially made by the manufacturer of the motor vehicle on which the supplementary equipment is installed, when it certifies that the vehicle complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Unless that determination is clearly erroneous, NHTSA will not question it. Thus, NHTSA's interpretations are generally cautionary in tone rather than prohibitive. I enclose copies of two interpretations relating to message boards intended for the rear parcel shelves of passenger cars. The first is a letter of August 17, 1989, to Alan S. Eldahr ('Eldahr'). The relevant language of Eldahr is that a rear window message board 'sending messages unrelated to vehicle stops, could confuse and distract a driver following, and in that sense impair the effectiveness of the center lamp.' The second is a letter dated August 13, 1993, to Kenneth E. Ross ('Ross'). The Ross letter discusses the relation of message boards to the aftermarket, as well as the notification and remedy obligations which would fall upon NYTAF as a manufacturer of automotive accessory equipment. Relationship of Eldahr to NYTAF Eldahr indicates that there is less possibility of impairment existing if the message visible to a following driver is related to the lamp function that occurs simultaneously, as happens, for example in the NYTAF system, when stop lamp activation is accompanied by the word 'Braking.' We suggest that vehicle manufacturers installing the NYTAF system follow this guideline in their determinations of whether impairment exists. NYTAF might also wish to reconsider the intensity of the L.E.D. display which you say is 'more' than that of the existing rear lighting equipment, especially as it may affect reaction to the stop signal. The intensity should not be so great as to divert driver attention to the message rather than to the stop signal. There are several areas of Exhibit B 'Operation Summary' which require more specific comment. 'Caution' is activated in conjunction with the hazard warning system. Standard No. 108 requires these systems to simultaneously flash all turn signal lamps, and not sequentially as Exhibit B states. Exhibit B should be corrected to reflect this if it is to be distributed publicly, as we do not understand that the NYTAF system is intended to create sequential flashing of turn signals when operated in the hazard signal mode. The sole explanation of 'Help' is that it is to be activated manually. In our view, a flashing 'Help' while the trailer is in motion would be more likely to impair rear lighting equipment than if it is operable only when the trailer is at rest. In addition, Exhibit B does not indicate whether the 'Help' message is overridden by other messages when related lighting systems are activated. We are unsure of the purpose of 'Clearance Marker' which is operated 'in conjunction with parking lights.' Standard No. 108 does not require truck tractors to be equipped with parking lamps. We believe that you meant taillamps. We do not view this lamp as having an impairing effect upon the taillamps. The name of the lamp is somewhat misleading, as it would be mounted at the center of a vehicle whereas a 'clearance lamp' is intended to indicate a vehicle's overall width. Additionally, on certain trailer designs the three identification lamps are mounted around the vertical centerline in the same location in which you have stated the NYTAF system will be mounted. With respect to the close proximity of the two lighting systems, we believe that the brightness of the NYTAF device compared with that of the identification lamps could impair their ability to signal the presence of a large vehicle in the roadway ahead, the intended function of these lamps. Finally, we note that the color red would indicate a backing function. Although trailers are not required to have backup lamps, Standard No. 108 specifies that the color white shall be used for backup lamps, and we believe that the public has come to associate an activated white lamp on the rear of a vehicle as indicating that the vehicle is in reverse gear. Your client may wish to reevaluate this function in light of possible liability concerns. We hope that these guidelines will be helpful to NYTAF. If you have any further questions, Taylor Vinson will again be happy to answer them (202-366- 5263). Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel 2 Enclosures";