ID: nht93-9.3

DATE: December 4, 1993

FROM: David Fabrycky

TO: Chief Counsel -- US DOT, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 5/12/94 From John Womack To David Fabrycky (A42; Std. 213; VSA 108(a)(2)(A)

TEXT: Dear Sir,

I and my associates are currently involved in the development of a child safety device that is intended to prevent the inadvertent and curiosty based opening of the safety buckle by a one to six year old. Although there have been many studies done on the value of such a device the Code of Federal Regulations contains many relevant statements regarding the testing and operation of child restraint systems.

I am writing you for the purpose of gaining your insight and opinion as to the relationship between the type of device we have developed and the standards articulated in the Code of Federal Regulations.

Our device is and after-market item purchased by the parent or gaurdian. The device covers the safety buckle and prevents the child from gaining access to the pushbutton. The adult or gaurdian is presumed to possess sufficient mannual dexterity and cognitive skills to easily remove the cover and release the safety belt. The device is also transparent so that the objective is visible.

Regarding the following sections, what is your opinion of the installation of such a device on a child's seat belt buckle in conjuction with other approved devices?

Please find several references to the Code of Federal Regulations followed by specific issues/questions in boldface.

CFR 571.214

S5.4.3.5 Buckle Release. Any buckle in a child restraint system belt assembly designed to restrain a child using the system shall: (a) When tested in accordance with S6.2.1 prior to the dynamic test of S6.1, not release when a force of less than 9 pounds is applied and shall release when a force of not more than 14 pounds is applied:

The device requires that a latch be accuated and the cover pivoted away from the buckle so that the pushbutton can be depressed. If none of the forces required to accomplish these tasks exceed the limits specified, would the device be acceptable.

The device requires the manual dexterity to exert the forces in many directions simulateously. Does this comply with the foregoing requirement?

(b) After the dynamic test S6.1, when tested in accordance with S6.2.3, release when a force of not more than 16 pounds is applied;

2

The device does not bear the restraining force of any test and is designed to operate after any stress as when first installed.

(c) Meet the requirements of S4.3(d)(2) of FMVSS No. 209 (CFR 571.209), except that the minimum surface area for child restraint buckles designed for pushbutton application shall be 0.6 square inch;

The device covers the pushbutton during use. The parent or gaurdian is required to remove the device in order to access the pushbutton.

S6 Test Conditions and procedures.

This section describes in detail the procedures required for child restraint system. How would the addition of the device relate to the objectives of the tests?

S6.2 Buckle Release Test procedure.

This section describes in detail the procedures required for buckle of child restraint systems. How would the addition of the device relate to the objectives of the tests?

What other Regulations seem relevant to the development of our device and do you have other observations or opinions that relate to public policy that I have not mentioned?

Thank you in advance for your prompt response.

Sincerly

ID: 22137(2)

Bob Snyder, Vice President
Longacre and Associates, Inc.
424 Fourth Street
Suite C
Annapolis, MD 21403


Dear Mr. Snyder:



This responds to your August 24, 2000, letter asking whether vehicles are allowed to have any size side windows in the front seat occupant compartment. Specifically, you ask about the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing materials (49 CFR 571.205) and FMVSS No. 214, Side door strength (49 CFR 571.214), as applied to a flatbed-type truck with a gross vehicle weight rating of 18,000 pounds. Our answer is that our standards do not directly limit the size of vehicle side windows.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue FMVSSs applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Federal law establishes a self-certification system under which motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers themselves certify that their products comply with all applicable standards. For that reason, NHTSA neither tests, approves, disapproves, nor endorses products prior to their introduction into the retail market. Rather, we enforce compliance with the standards by purchasing new vehicles and equipment and testing them. We also investigate safety-related defects.

Our FMVSSs set forth requirements for safety performance, in terms that minimize design restrictions. Ejection of occupants through glazing (through windshields or the side windows) is a safety concern addressed by several standards, including FMVSS No. 205. FMVSS No. 205 sets performance requirements for glazing materials used in new motor vehicles and glazing materials sold as items of replacement equipment. FMVSS No. 212, Windshield mounting (49 CFR 571.212), establishes windshield retention requirements to reduce the likelihood of ejection of occupants in a crash. FMVSS No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release (49 CFR 571.217), establishes requirements for the retention of windows in buses, to minimize the likelihood of occupants being thrown from the bus.

You also inquire about the requirements of FMVSS No. 214. FMVSS No. 214 specifies vehicle crashworthiness requirements in terms of accelerations measured on anthropomorphic dummies in test crashes and specified strength requirements for side doors. FMVSS No. 214 does not apply to trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating of 18,000 pounds.

At this time, the above-discussed standards do not directly restrict the size of side windows. NHTSA, however, in response to the NHTSA Authorization Act of 1991 and ongoing research into rollover and ejection mitigation, is currently evaluating the potential of advanced glazing systems to reduce occupant ejection. The agency has recently published a report entitled "Ejection Mitigation Using Advanced Glazing: Status Report II" which evaluates the progress of that advanced glazing research. This report is available online at http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/include/nrd10/nrd11/glazing.html or may be ordered through NHTSA's Technical Information Services at 1-800-445-0197.

I note that the Department's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has jurisdiction over interstate motor carriers operating in the United States. FMCSA was established on January 1, 2000, and was formerly a part of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). You may wish to contact the FMCSA at (202) 366-4012 for information concerning the issues discussed in your correspondence.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Nancy Bell of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

ref:205
d.1/3/01

ID: 16854.nhf

Mr. Jurgen Babirad
Rehabilitation Technology Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 540
Kinderhook, NY 12106

Dear Mr. Babirad:

This responds to your letter requesting information regarding the modification of a 1997 Ford E150 van for a driver with quadriplegia secondary to a spinal cord injury. Specifically, you request a waiver of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208, Occupant Crash Protection, as the modifications proposed for this particular vehicle will require replacing the original equipment manufacturer's (OEM) steering wheel with a smaller steering wheel. The new steering wheel would be too small to be fitted with an air bag. You explained that the smaller steering wheel is needed to accommodate the driver's limited range of motion. I regret the delay in my response.

While the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) cannot provide the specific relief you seek, since we are not authorized to grant waivers of safety standards under these circumstances, we can assure you that we will not institute enforcement proceedings against a commercial entity that modifies the steering wheel and column on a vehicle to accommodate the condition you described.

We would like to begin by explaining that NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. After the first sale of a vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition (49 U.S.C. 30122) requires businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil penalties of up to $1,100 per violation.

There is no procedure by which businesses petition for and are granted permission from NHTSA to modify a motor vehicle. Businesses are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to the make inoperative provision of 49 U.S.C. 30122. In certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our requirements to provide some allowances to a business which cannot conform to our requirements when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities.

Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, requires vehicles to be equipped with specific manual and automatic restraint systems (e.g. seat belts and air bags) and to meet specified injury criteria during a test. Removing the original steering wheel and air bag and replacing it with a smaller steering wheel that lacks an air bag would affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208. In situations such as yours where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition to be justified by public need. As I have already noted above, NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a business that modifies the steering wheel and air bag to accommodate the condition you describe.

We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made. In addition, you should consult with the manufacturer to determine how to disarm the air bag. The manufacturer should be able to provide information on how the modification can be safely performed. We are enclosing a warning label stating that the air bag has been deactivated. For the safety of everyone who may ride in the vehicle, we ask that you affix this label on the sun visor above the deactivated air bag. Finally, if the vehicle is sold, we urge the owner to advise the purchaser that the vehicle has been modified and consider reinstalling the removed safety equipment if appropriate.

If you have other questions or require additional information, please contact Nicole Fradette of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
Warning Label
ref:VSA#208
d.5/22/98

ID: 16908.nhf

Ms. Connie L. Stauffer
President
Lift-Aids, Inc.June 2, 1998
2381 Pecan Court
Fort Worth, TX 76117

Dear Ms. Stauffer:

This responds to your request for a letter stating that the agency will not enforce the "make inoperative" provision against you for modifying a Ford Windstar Minivan to accommodate your client who has a disability. I apologize for the delay in my response. In your letter, you stated that you need to replace the vehicle's original steering column and air bag with a horizontal steering column and steering control manufactured by Drive Master Corporation to accommodate your client who suffers from the disability "osteogenesis imperfecta," more commonly known as brittle bone disease. You explained that, due to her disability, your client is very small in stature and has limited mobility.

This letter provides the relief you seek. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will not institute enforcement proceedings against a commercial entity that modifies the steering wheel and column on a vehicle to accommodate the condition you described.

We would like to begin by explaining that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. After the first sale of the vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition (49 U.S.C. 30122) requires businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil penalties of up to $1,100 per violation.

There is no procedure by which businesses petition for and are granted permission from NHTSA to modify a motor vehicle. Businesses are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to the make inoperative provision of 49 U.S.C. 30122. In certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our requirements to provide some allowances to a business which cannot conform to our requirements when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities.

Removing the original steering column and replacing it with a horizontal steering column could affect compliance with three standards: Standard No. 203, Impact protection for the driver from the steering control system, Standard No. 204, Steering control rearward displacement, and Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. For example, Standard No. 208 requires vehicles to be equipped with specific manual and automatic restraint systems (e.g. seat belts and air bags) and to meet specified injury criteria during a test. Removing the steering wheel and the driver's air bag would affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208. In situations such as yours where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition to be justified by public need. As I have already noted above, NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a business that modifies the steering column and air bag to accommodate the condition you describe.

We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made. In addition, you should consult with the manufacturer to determine how to disarm the air bag. The manufacturer should be able to provide information on how the modification can be safely performed. Finally, if the vehicle is sold, we urge the owner to advise the purchaser that the vehicle has been modified and consider reinstalling the removed safety equipment if appropriate.

If you have other questions or require additional information, please contact Nicole Fradette of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:VSA
d.5/22/98

ID: nht93-4.39

DATE: June 19, 1993

FROM: Ray M. Miyamoto

TO: Public Community Strategy, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/29/93 from John Womack to Ray M. Miyamoto (A41; Std. 208)

TEXT:

I would like to know if I can have my own business retrofitting older cars with air bags. I would like to be subject to the same rules and regulations as men who service brakes. I would emphasize in my advertising and all literature that seat belts should also be worn (just as the NHTSA emphasizes).

I would optionally retrofit cars of the same make and model, but would consider others if the retrofitting was not to complex or costly. There should be a way (and I'm sure there is) to pre-test each retrofit by deploying and (restuffing) or refitting the air bag and retrofitted equipment for about 20 to 50 deployments. That is, to trigger the sensors without any damage to the vehicle. Possibly I could test each retrofit by applying the same PSI that it would take to deploy it. (There is body and fender and/or construction equipment that can apply the same PSI as in a crash to test air bags.) Liability should be limited to replacement. Only in cases of poor workmanship, and/or gross incompatibility between the retrofit and the car, and/or negligence should I or any other retrofit serviceman be subject to liability.

Such retrofits would be a boon to the drivers of many older vehicles who don't have the funds or means to afford newer air bag equipped cars.

Also, in regard to testing, the bumper of the newer air bag equipped car could be retrofitted to the older vehicle if this would ease the deployment of the air bag in a normal manner (through the sensors) if the older car's bumper was found to block the sensors in any way or make it more difficult for air bag deployment.

There should be room for some compromise here. I don't think it is technically impossible to retrofit older cars with air bags. (And it is technically feasible.) Moreover, to deny people with older cars the right to have air bags, would mean injury and more needless deaths on our highways.

There should be a way for retrofit business (once government approval is given) to be tested by state or local auto safety inspection stations. It is not technically impossible to refit an air bag after a crash by replacing any or all of the following:

1) the air bag 2) sensors 3) wires and terminals 4) deployment canisters or cylinders 4) steering column 5) bumper 6) any other parts, such as a computer, and/or a motor(s).

If brakes can be tested, why not air bags? If an ABS can be tested, why not air bags? To give approval to retrofit businesses would break the monopoly new car manufacturers have on air bags and would lower prices on air bags, not to mention the thousands of lives saved as a result of the greater availability of air bags.

The opposition I have encountered regarding retrofitting of air bags has been without any logical basis. But I am open to any factual, logical and safe argument.

PS J.C. Whitney has a retrofit kit for anti-lock braking systems. So why not a kit for air bags? (as long as they're tested and inspected the ways I mentioned earlier). Moreover, how do you, the NHTSA and the new car manufacturers know that every air bag installed in a new car is safe? By pre-testing and/or inspecting, right? Retrofitting could be done in the SAME way.

ID: nht80-2.24

DATE: 04/30/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: WOW--Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

APR 30 1980 NOA-30

Mr. Robert Fondiller, President WOW! Corporation 200 West 58th Street New York, New York 10019

Dear Mr. Fondiller:

This responds to your March 18, 1980, letter to this agency in which you posed some questions about a 3-wheeled vehicle your company plans to produce. First, you wanted to know if a 3-wheeled vehicle would be classified as a car, a motorcycle, or some other vehicle. Second, you asked if the vehicle could be licensed for street and/or highway use. Third, you asked if replacing the single rear wheel with a double rear wheel would result in the vehicle being classified as a 3-wheel or 4-wheel vehicle, and what effect, if any, classification as a 4-wheel vehicle would have on the answers given to the first two questions.

This agency classifies all 3-wheeled motor vehicles as motorcycles, pursuant to the definition of "motorcycle" given in 49 CFR S 571.3. The pertinent part of that section reads:

"Motorcycle" means a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground.

We determine the number of wheels on a vehicle simply by counting those wheels. Hence, if you were to replace the single rear wheel with a double rear wheel, the vehicle would then be a 4-wheeler vehicle and could not be classified as a motorcycle. Such a vehicle would be classified as a passenger car.

The classification of a vehicle is important since it affects the Federal motor vehicle safety standards with which the vehicle must comply. If a vehicle is a motorcycle, it must comply with the following safety standards: 108, 111, 112, 115, 120, 122, 123, and 127. If, on the other hand, a vehicle is a passenger car, it must comply with the following standards: 101, 103, 104, 107, 108, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 118, 124, 127, 201, 202, 203, 204, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 214, 216, 219, and 302. As you see, the requirements for passenger cars are more stringent than for motorcycles.

I have enclosed a pamphlet prepared by this agency which gives a brief summary of the requirements of each of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, because of the volume of these standards, we do not provide copies directly. I have also enclosed an information sheet which explains how you can obtain copies of our standards and other regulations.

This agency does not license any vehicles for street or highway use. We specify performance requirements, and any motor vehicle must be certified by its manufacturer as being in compliance with all applicable safety standards as of the date of its manufacture. If the vehicle complies with these requirements, we specify no further steps which must be taken.

If you have any further questions concerning motor vehicle safety or need further information, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosures

March 18, 1980

The Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration United States Department of Transportation Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: 3-Wheeled Vehicle

1. We have designed and are completing the building of a 3-wheeled vehicle--which we plan to manufacture in 3 models: electric, gasoline, and hybrid.

2. Would such a 2-passenger, 600-lb. enclosed vehicle be classified as a car? a motorcycle? or other?

3. Could it be licensed for street use? highway use?

4. If we were to replace the single rear wheel with a double rear wheel, would our vehicle be considered a 3-wheel or 4-wheel vehicle? Would a double rear wheel affect the answers to any of the foregoing questions? Thank you for your prompt reply, as we are nearing the finish line.

Cordially,

Robert Fondiller, President

RF:rp Enc. WOW! Lit.

ID: 20421.nhf

Mr. Jurgen Babirad
Rehabilitation Technology Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 540
Kinderhook, NY 12106

Dear Mr. Babirad:

This responds to your letter requesting information regarding the modification of a new Chrysler Grand Caravan for a driver with quadriplegia as a result of a spinal cord injury. You explain that the driver was evaluated and trained by a driver rehabilitation specialist who prescribed installing zero effort steering, a horizontal steering column and servo hand controls to accommodate the driver's limited range of motion. Specifically, you request permission to remove the original equipment manufacturer's (OEM) steering column and steering wheel so that the vendor may install the high tech steering system to accommodate the driver's restricted strength and range of motion.

This letter provides the relief you seek. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will not institute enforcement proceedings against a commercial entity that modifies the steering wheel and column on a vehicle to accommodate the condition you described.

We would like to begin by explaining that NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. After the first sale of a vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition (49 U.S.C. 30122) requires businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil penalties of up to $1,100 per violation.

There is no procedure by which businesses petition for and are granted permission from NHTSA to modify a motor vehicle. Businesses are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to the make inoperative provision of 49 U.S.C. 30122. In certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our requirements to provide some allowances to a business which cannot conform to our requirements when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities.

Replacing the vehicle's original steering column and steering wheel and removing the driver's air bag could affect compliance with three standards: Standard No. 203, Impact protection for the driver from the steering control system, Standard No. 204, Steering control rearward displacement, and Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. For example, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, requires vehicles to be equipped with specific manual and automatic restraint systems (e.g., seat belts and air bags) and to meet specified injury criteria during a test. Removing the air bag would affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208. However, as noted above, in situations such as this one where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition to be justified by public need. As I have already noted above, NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a business that modifies the steering column, steering wheel, and air bag to accommodate the condition you describe.

We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made. In addition, you should consult with the manufacturer to determine how to disarm the air bag. The manufacturer should be able to provide information on how the modification can be safely performed. We are enclosing a warning label stating that the air bag has been deactivated. For the safety of everyone who may ride in the vehicle, we ask that you affix this label on the sun visor above the deactivated air bag. Finally, if the vehicle is sold, we urge the owner to advise the purchaser that the vehicle has been modified and consider reinstalling the removed safety equipment if appropriate.

If you have other questions or require additional information, please contact Nicole Fradette of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
Warning Label
ref:VSA
d.11/23/99

ID: nht79-3.36

DATE: 03/06/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Lifetime Foam Products, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of February 8, 1979, requesting confirmation of your understanding of an October 7, 1976, letter of interpretation by our office concerning Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems. You are correct in your assumption that the standard applies only to completed vehicles and not to vehicle seats as individual equipment.

SINCERELY,

LIFETIME Foam Products, Inc.

February 8, 1979

Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Gentlemen:

Attached is a copy of our inquiry to your office dated September 10, 1976, and the response from your office dated October 7, 1976.

Although we make every effort to build our merchandise to meet the provisions of Standard No. 207, we have understood your response to mean that our seating pieces did not have to meet the provisions of that standard if the pieces are sold to customers who purchase them out of retailer's catalogs to install in their own vehicles.

I would appreciate your confirming our understanding of your response.

Frank Tedesco PRESIDENT

September 10, 1976

Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Gentlement:

Cortification of Optional Accossory Seats for Recreational Vehicles and Multipurpose Vehicles per FMVSS207

Lifetime Foam Products is proceeding toward the furbrication of custom, recreational vehicle seating accossories which would be marketed to the public through the catalog division of our parent organisation, Sears, Roobuck and Co. The following list of consumer-installed seating accessories is representative of this new product line.

1. Convertible bad/bench/dinette set.

2. Convertible couch/bed.

3. Tower-back seat.

4. Recliner chair.

Because we are entering a new aspect of our operations, we are most eager that the structural designs meet our high standards of quality as well as applicable operational standards. During the preliminary stages of our activitions, I talked with Mr. Robert Gardner of NHTSA on July 29, and he recommended that I contact your office. Therefore, the purpose of this inquiry is to obtain approval from DOT for certification of these seats according to the applicable sections of FMVSS207 using only "bench tests" (out-of-vehicle) which will certify everthing except the seat-to floor attachment. The reason for excluding the seat-to-floor attachment is that these optional accessory seats will eventually be installated by the consumer in many types of recreational vehicles, in numerous configurations and on floors whose structural integrity cannot be predicted (Illegible Word). These certification tests would be conducted in accordance with NHTSA approval "Laboratory Procedured for Seating Systems: Passenger Cars, Trucks, Buses and Multipurpose Vehicles, TP207-06" or subsequent update of the procedure when they (Illegible Word) available.

As a result of this unknown condition of the floor structure in the user's vehicle, we plan to include in the installation instructions a cautionary statement to the following effect:

"Install per instructions using large area washers furnished in the installation kit. Those washers are to be installed on the underneath side of the floor pan between the attachment not and the vehicle floor. The washers will componsate for an (Illegible Word) 10% reduction in floor strength. In the event that the floor has detolorated beyond this point, it is recommended that the owner contact a qualified shop for assistance."

I would appreciate a reply to this request for approval as soon as possible. If approval is granted, we will then proceed with the certification tests as outlined above.

Frank Tedesco

cc: W. J. ANTLEFORD/SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE; L. C. CODKIN; S. A. WELLER/SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO.

ID: nht93-5.23

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 14, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

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

TITLE: None

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

TEXT:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

blank.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We hope that these interpretations are helpful.

ID: 8816

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

Dear Mr. McBay:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We hope that these interpretations are helpful.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:7/14/93