ID: 2797o

Mr. Kent B. Robinson
18230 Kingsdale Ave., Apt. D
Redondo Beach, CA 90278

Dear Mr. Robinson:

This is in reply to your letters of December 3, l987, January 19, 1988, and April 4, l988 (to Taylor Vinson of this Office), asking whether a device of your invention complies with all applicable Federal regulations. You have also requested information on how to petition for adoption of this device as mandated equipment on new motor vehicles. We regret the delay in responding to your letter.

You have requested confidentiality of this matter to the extent permissible. As Mr. Donaldson of this Office explained to you by phone on January 14, our practice is to make available for public perusal copies of all agency interpretations, but not necessarily the correspondence that occasioned the interpretation, and, upon request, to delete from the interpretation the name and address and other data that might identify the person requesting the interpretation. You have assented to the withholding of your name and address in your letter of January 19. In that letter you requested withholding the drawings you enclosed on December 3. We shall not attach them to the copy of this letter made publicly available (although they will be subject to review by agency personnel who review this letter before I have signed it, and may be subject to eventual disclosure under a Freedom of Information Act request). However, the device must be described to the extent necessary to allow a reader to understand just what the opinion covers.

Your device is a horizontal bar of lamps mounted inside the rear window of a passenger car consisting of the center highmounted stop lamp in the center, flanked by back up lamps, which are themselves flanked by left and right turn signal lamps. Each of the five lamps would have a lens area approximately 6" wide and 1 1/2 inches high.

The applicable Federal law and regulation is the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. With respect to acceptability of your device as an item of original equipment, for purposes of this interpretation we assume that the device is intended to replace the standard center highmounted stoplamp, but only to supplement the backup and turn signal lamps. Your device appears permissible as an item of original equipment under Standard No. l08 provided that all requirements for the center highmounted stoplamp continue to be met. We call your specific attention to the fact that means must be provided to minimize reflections from the center lamp upon the rear window glazing that might be visible to the driver, either directly or indirectly in the rearview mirror. Supplementary original lighting equipment is permissible under Standard No. l08 as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. The certification by a manufacturer that its vehicle complies with Standard No. l08 would encompass a certification that there is no impairment by any supplemental lighting equipment. The vehicle manufacturer must also consider whether any device installed in a rear window affects compliance with the interior rearview mirror field of view requirements specified by Standard No. lll Rearview Mirrors, and if affirmative to provide a passenger side exterior mirror.

The Vehicle Safety Act covers safety related defects as well as motor vehicle safety standards, requiring notification of purchasers and remedy of safety related defects when they occur. Spillage of light upon the rear glazing could be considered as a safety related defect, and, for this reason, means should be provided to minimize reflections upon the rear glazing from all lamps in the array, and not just the center lamp.

The applicable Federal law for aftermarket equipment is also the Vehicle Safety Act. It prohibits modifications by manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses to vehicles if those modifications render inoperative in whole or in part equipment installed in accordance with a safety standard. Center highmounted lamps have been required as original equipment on new cars manufactured on or after September l, l985. Because of the potential for interfering with the effectiveness of the center lamp, we would regard removal of an original equipment center lamp and substitution of your device including its center lamp as rendering the center lamp partially inoperative within the meaning of the prohibition. However, if the modification is such that it can be done by the vehicle owner, the Act does not prohibit an owner from it. Further, the Act would not prohibit in any way the installation of your device on passenger cars manufactured before September l, 1985. However, supplementary lighting devices sold in the aftermarket are regulated by each State in which the device would be sold and used. Although we are not conversant with those laws, you may consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203 for an opinion.

You have also asked how this device could be mandated as original equipment on new passenger cars. Any interested person may petition the Administrator for an amendment of Standard No. l08. However, the Vehicle Safety Act requires the safety standards to be standards for motor vehicle performance, and, to the extent possible, the agency attempts to minimize standards expressed in terms of design. For the same reason, the agency does not normally propose adoption of proprietary designs. As one of the requirements of a petition for rulemaking is that it contain the name and address of the petitioner, it might not be possible to afford the same degree of confidentiality to a petition that it is to a request for an interpretation.

Your letter of April 4 asks a slightly different question on the subject of what is allowed to be viewed by other motorists in or around the rear window, with specific reference to turn signals, backup lamps, and hazard warning signals. The relevant portions of Standard No. l08 are those relating to mounting height. The maximum mounting height of 83 inches allowed for turn signals (which commonly also serve as hazard warning signals) is unlikely to be exceeded by turn signals mounted in the rear window area. There is no maximum restriction on the mounting height of backup lamps but we do have performance criteria which must be met in order to ensure that they can satisfy their intended function of providing illumination behind the vehicle. Finally, you should realize that it is incorrect to refer to your device as a "third tail light assembly." A taillamp is a specific rear lamp required by Standard No. l08, and one which you have not incorporated into your assembly.

I hope that this answers your questions. As you requested in a phone call to Taylor Vinson the other day, we are returning the originals of your correspondence.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:552#108 d:8/l2/88

ID: 77-3.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/11/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Timpte Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your May 6, 1977, letter asking whether your tire information label complies with the requirements of Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, and Part 567, Certification. Further, you request that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) expedite treatment of Docket No. 73-31; Notice 1, which, if implemented would simplify the certification and information labels.

Concerning Docket 73-31, the NHTSA published on June 20, 1977, a notice (42 FR 31161) implementing Notice 1 which proposed the use of the designation "all axles" rather than listing each axle individually on the certification label. The implementation of this regulation should resolve many of your problems.

Regarding the sample information label you submitted with your letter, the NHTSA does not give advance approvals of compliance with Federal safety regulations or standards. We will, however, give an informal opinion of whether your label appears to comply with the requirements. The label you submitted does not appear to comply with the requirements of Part 567 or Standard No. 120. I have enclosed copies of both of these regulations for your information.

Your certification label should use the designation "all axles" not "each axle." The tire and rim information should follow that designation stated in the form presented in the examples in Standard No. 120 and Part 567.

SINCERELY,

TIMPTE, INC.

MAY 6, 1977

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

ATTENTION: JOAN CLAYBROOK, ADMINISTRATOR

WE ARE A MANUFACTURER OF SEMI-TRAILERS, BASICALLY REFRIGERATED VAN TYPE TRAILERS AS WELL AS GRAIN HAULING TRAILERS OF SEVERAL TYPES. THESE ARE HIGHWAY OPERATED UNITS AND ARE NON-EXEMPT FROM ANY FEDERAL STANDARDS INCLUDING 121. THE 60 M.P.H. RATING IS STANDARD ON ALL OF THEM AND IN THIS CONTEXT, WE WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT OUR PROBLEM AND ASK FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE IN EXPEDITING ACTION AS WELL AS ADVISING OF YOUR CONCURRENCE OR NOT WITH OUR INTERPRETATION OF PART 567, AS WELL AS STANDARD 120. AS YOU KNOW, IT IS NECESSARY THAT WE AS MANUFACTURERS, CHANGE OUR CERTIFICATION PLATES AND TIME IS NOW OF THE ESSENCE OF OBTAINING DELIVERY SO THAT IN ORDER TO BE IN COMPLIANCE, IT BECOMES NECESSARY FOR US TO ACT RATHER QUICKLY.

PERTINENT TO THIS IS THE FACT THAT DOCKET #73-31; NOTICE #1 CLOSED COMMENT ON JANUARY 7, 1974 AND NO RESPONSE FROM NHTSA HAS BEEN FORTHCOMING, IN SPITE OF WHAT WAS APPARENTLY FAVORABLE POSITIVE COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED RULE-MAKING. THE AMENDMENTS PROPOSED TO PART 567.4 AND 567.5 WOULD GREATLY SIMPLIFY THE LABEL ITSELF AND YET NOT DETRACT FROM THE INFORMATION THEREON. SINCE NEARLY ALL OF THE HIGHWAY TYPE SEMI-TRAILERS MANUFACTURED HAVE IDENTICAL AXLES AND TIRES AND HENCE, GAWR RATINGS, IT SEEMS ONLY APPROPRIATE THAT A SINGLE GAWR RATING BE ALLOWED INDICATING THAT THAT IS FOR EACH AXLE OR ALL AXLES ON THE TRAILER. COMPARE THIS TO THE NECESSITY OF HAVING TO LIST FRONT, INTERMEDIATE, AND REAR AXLE GAWRS INDIVIDUALLY WHEN, IN FACT, NEARLY 100% OF THE TIME THEY ARE THE SAME. ON THOSE OCCASIONS WHEN THERE MIGHT BE A DIFFERENCE, THEN GAWR FOR THE DIFFERENT RATED AXLES WOULD BE REQUIRED. FURTHER, THIS NEED NOT MODIFY THE CONTEXT OF STANDARD 120 SINCE IN S5.3 (A) THE REFERENCE IS TO CERTIFICATION LABEL AS REQUIRED BY PART 567.4 OR 567.5.

ACCORDING TO OUR INTERPRETATION OF 120 AND WITH THE AMENDMENT AS PROPOSED IN DOCKET #73-31; NOTICE #1, OUR CERTIFICATION PLATE WOULD COMPLY AS SHOWN IN THE ATTACHED DRAWING 044-027A. S5.3.1 AND S5.3.2 CLEARLY ALLOW TIRE AND RIM DESIGNATIONS NOT NECESSARILY THOSE ON THE VEHICLE, BUT SUBSTANTIVE OF THE GAWR SHOWN. S5.1.2 IS COMPLIED WITH IN THAT 10:00X20F, RIMS 7.5 AT 75 P.S.I. COLD DUAL, IS THE MINIMUM TIRE THAT WILL GIVE THE GAWR OF 19,000 LBS. WHICH AGAIN IS THE MOST COMMON ONE IN USE TODAY DUE TO OTHER LIMITING FACTORS OF THE SUSPENSION, AXLE, WHEEL AND BRAKE SYSTEMS. OF COURSE, THE NEXT TO THE LAST SENTENCE WOULD BE COMPLIED WITH AND DOES ALLOW FOR TIRES FITTED TO THE AXLE NOT APPEARING ON THE CERTIFICATION LABEL. IN ALL CASES, THESE TIRES WOULD BE IN EXCESSIVE RATINGS OF THOSE WE WOULD HAVE PRINTED ON THE LABEL. FROM A PRACTICAL STANDPOINT, MANY OF OUR TRAILERS BEING SOLD THROUGH DISTRIBUTORS AND/OR DEALERS ARE EQUIPPED WITH TIRES OF A CERTAIN SIZE LEAVING OUR PLANT; HOWEVER AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY, WHEN HE DISTRIBUTOR OR DEALER IS SELLING THESE TRAILERS FROM STOCK, THEY MAY BE EQUIPPED WITH A DIFFERENT SIZE TIRE, YET ADEQUATE TO SUSTAIN THE GAWR.

THERE ARE TWO MORE POINTS IN REGARD TO THAT CERTIFICATION TAG AND ONE OF THEM IS POSSIBLE ELIMINATION OF THE ABBREVIATION OF THE WORD MINIMUM PRECEEDING TIRES. WHILE IT IS FACTUAL, IT IS NOT INDICATED IN THE STANDARD. THAT CAN EASILY BE ELIMINATED IF IT WAS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THE STANDARD. THE OTHER ITEM THAT WE FEEL MIGHT BE DESIRABLE TO DO IS HAVE IN PLACE OF THE BLANK IN WHICH WE MUST STAMP NUMBERS OPPOSITE GAWR EACH AXLE, TO HAVE THAT PRINTED IN AT THE TIME OF THE MANUFACTURE OF THE LABEL IN THE SAME MANNER THAT WE WOULD THE TIRES AS SHOWN PRINTED IN. THE NUMBER WOULD BE 19,000 LBS. AS MENTIONED, THIS IS THE NEAR UNIVERSAL STANDARD RATING ON AXLES IN REGARDS TO VARIOUS OTHER LIMITING STANDARDS. THIS OF COURSE, LEAVES A MINIMUM OF ITEMS TO BE STAMPED IN ON THE PLATE AND STILL GIVES THE TOTAL INFORMATION REQUIRED. BUT FOR ANY POSSIBLE EXCEPTIONS THAT MIGHT OCCUR, WE WOULD PROPOSE USING A PLATE SIMILAR TO 044-027, THEREIN WE WOULD BE STAMPING ALL OF THE INFORMATION AND WE WOULD SUSPECT THAT THIS WOULD ONLY BE USED POSSIBLY 5% OF THE TIME.

I WOULD LIKE TO EMPHASIZE ONCE AGAIN THE URGENCY FROM A STANDPOINT OF TIME AND REQUIREMENTS FOR ORDERING, MANUFACTURING AND DELIVERY OF THE CERTIFICATION PLATES TO US. EXPEDITED FAVORABLE ACTION ON DOCKET #73-31; NOTICE #1 WILL GREATLY CLARIFY THINGS FOR OUR ENTIRE INDUSTRY AND WHILE IN THE INTERPRETATION AREA, WE ARE SPEAKING OF OUR OWN PLATE, THIS TOO, WOULD BE CLARIFIED BY AN OPINION FROM YOUR OFFICE. THANK YOU.

JACK GROMER VICE PRESIDENT - TECHNICAL OPERATIONS

CC: TTMA

ID: 10-001391 217

ID: nht76-2.46

DATE: 01/14/76

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

TO: Department of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

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

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

You have asked:

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

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

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

The answer is yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

December 8, 1975

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

Dear Mr. Berndt:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Very truly yours,

WARREN M. HEATH -- Commander, Enforcement Services Division

Enclosure

cc: Lou Owen, NHTSA; Francis Armstrong, NHTSA

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht87-1.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/20/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Bruce Torrey -- Product Performance Specialist, General Electric Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Bruce Torrey Product Performance Specialist General Electric Company One Plastics Avenue Pittsfield, MA 01201

Thank you for your letters of August 13, and 26, 1986, concerning how the requirements of Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, apply to glazing materials installed in the side windows of some New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) buses. As explained be low, the information you provided in your letters and in your phone conversations with Stephen Oesch of my staff and the information provided by NYCTA in a June 19, 1986 letter to the agency indicates the glazing materials installed in the NYCTA buses do not comply with the marking requirements of the standard.

You explained in your letter that the glazing material used in the side and standee windows in the buses is Lexan sheet, which is a plastic material manufactured by General Electric. According to your letter, the Lexan glazing material used in these wind ows can meet all of the performance requirements set in Standard No. 205 for "AS-5" glazing materials. However, the material apparently was not marked as "AS-5" material, but may have instead been marked "AS-4/6." (Information provided to the agency by t he NYCTA in June 1986 indicates that the windows did not contain any "AS" number. At the time of your phone conversation with Mr. Oesch, you had not been able to confirm what markings, if any, had been placed on the glazing material by General Electric).

Standard No. 205 specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in new vehicles and glazing sold as replacement equipment. (The various types of glazing are designated as "items" in the standard): Plastic glazing materials, such as Lexa n, can be used in a number of different locations in a bus depending on which performance requirements the glazing meets. If the plastic glazing meets the requirements set for AS-5 glazing materials, it can be used in any window in a bus, except for the windshield, windows to the immediate right and left of the driver and the rearmost windows if used for driving visibility.

In addition to setting performance requirements for different items of glazing, the standard requires glazing materials to contain certain markings. The marking requirements of S6 of the standard vary depending on the intended use of the glazing and the person that is marking the glazing. At a minimum, the standard requires the glazing to be marked pith the AS number (which indicates that the material meets the performance requirements set for that "item" of glazing material), a model number and the man ufacturer's logo. The information the agency has received about the markings on the glazing installed in the NYCTA buses indicates that the glazing does not have an AS number marked on it.

Any glazing sold for use in a motor vehicle must conform to the applicable requirements of Standard No. 205. Since there appears to be an apparent noncompliance, General Electric is required by Part 573 of our regulations to file a report with the agency providing additional details about the noncompliance and General Electric's plans to remedy the noncompliance. As you requested of Mr. Oesch, I am also enclosing a copy of the agency's regulation concerning the filing of a petition for a determination t hat a noncompliance is inconsequential.

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures

August 26, 1986

Office of the Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Letter from General Electric Company - August 13, 1986

Gentlemen:

In reference to my letter dated August 13, 1986 concerning the incorrect marking of glazing materials a matter of some urgency has come to my attention. It seems that the New York City Transit Authority is exercising exceptional prudence with regard to t his matter. If this situation continues hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of perfectly good material will be excluded from use.

It would be greatly appreciated if you could respond to the following.

Mr. William Wallace New York City Transit Authority 25 Jamaica Avenue Brooklyn, NY 11207

Mr. R.J. Watters Commercial Plastics & Supply Company Transportation Division 1620 Woodhaven Drive Cornwells Heights, PA 19020

If you have any questions or concerns please feel free to contact me. I can be reached at (413)448-7629. I thank you in advance for you cooperation.

Regards,

Bruce M. Torrey Product Performance Specialist

August 13, 1986

Office of the Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Incorrect Glazing Marking

Gentlemen:

In order to satisfy the Department of Transportation in New York City I need an official statement concerning the following matter.

Lexan sheet, manufactured by General Electric Company is a plastic (polycarbonate) material typically used for bus side windows and standee glazings. These products are tested per ANSI Z26.1 standards on a regular basis and submitted to AAMVA for verific ation and certification.

During this process our Lexan@ MR-5000 Bronze tinted material was assigned an AS 4/6 designation, as it appears on the Notice of Equipment Compliance from AAMVA. Apparently a misinterpretation of ANSI Z26.1 test NO. 2 which requires minimum light-transmi ssion value of 70%. (1/4" Bronze Lexan@ MR5000 has a value of 53%).

Instead of being appropriately marked, AS-5, they received the AS 4/6 marking.

The following, details pertinent information.

Material Distributor:

Commercial Plastics & Supply Corp. Transportation Division 1620 Woodhaven Drive Cornwells Heights, PA 19020

Bus Manufacturer:

Blitz Bus & Truck 4525 W. 26th Street Chicago, IL 60623

This particular situation involves some 3,000 side windows and another 390 standee windows.

Enclosed you will find supporting test data and a copy of our original Notice of Equipment Compliance.

If you have any questions please feel free to contact me. I can be reached at (413)448-7629.

Regards,

Bruce M. Torrey

Enclosures Omitted.

ID: nht88-3.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/12/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: Anonymous (Confidential)

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: This is in reply to your letters of December 3, 1987, January 19, 1988, and April 4, 1988 (to Taylor Vinson of this Office), asking whether a device of your invention complies with all applicable Federal regulations. You have also requested information on how to petition for adoption of this device as mandated equipment on new motor vehicles. We regret the delay in responding to your letter.

You have requested confidentiality of this matter to the extent permissible. As Mr. Donaldson of this Office explained to you by phone on January 14, our practice is to make available for public perusal copies of all agency interpretations, but not nece ssarily the correspondence that occasioned the interpretation, and, upon request, to delete from the interpretation the name and address and other data that might identify the person requesting the interpretation. You have assented to the withholding of your name and address in your letter of January 19. In that letter you requested withholding the drawings you enclosed on December 3. We shall not attach them to the copy of this letter made publicly available (although they will be subject to review by agency personnel who review this letter before I have signed it, and may be subject to eventual disclosure under a Freedom of Information Act request). However, the device must be described to the extent necessary to allow a reader to understand just what the opinion covers.

Your device is a horizontal bar of lamps mounted inside the rear window of a passenger car consisting of the center highmounted stop lamp in the center, flanked by back up lamps, which are themselves flanked by left and right turn lamps. Each of the fiv e lamps would have a lens area approximately 6" wide and 1 1/2 inches high.

The applicable Federal law and regulation is the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. With respect to acceptability of your device as an ite m of original equipment, for purposes of this interpretation we assume that the device is intended to replace the standard center highmounted stoplamp, but only to supplement

2 the backup and turn signal lamps. Your device appears permissible as an item of original equipment under Standard No. 108 provided that all requirements for the center highmounted stoplamp continue to be met. We call your specific attention to the fa ct that means must be provided to minimize reflections from the center lamp upon the rear window glazing that might be visible to the driver, either directly or indirectly in the rearview mirror. Supplementary original lighting equipment is permissible under Standard No. 108 as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. The certification by a manufacturer that its vehicle complies with Standard No. 108 would encompass a certification that there is no i mpairment by any supplemental lighting equipment. The vehicle manufacturer must also consider whether any device installed in a rear window affects compliance with the interior rearview mirror field of view requirements specified by Standard No. 111 Rea rview Mirrors, and if affirmative to provide a passenger side exterior mirror.

The Vehicle Safety Act covers safety related defects as well as motor vehicle safety standards, requiring notification of purchasers and remedy of safety related defects when they occur. Spillage of light upon the rear glazing could be considered as a s afety related defect, and, for this reason, means should be provided to minimize reflections upon the rear glazing from all lamps in the array, and not just the center lamp.

The applicable Federal law for aftermarket equipment is also the Vehicle Safety Act. It prohibits modifications by manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses to vehicle if those modifications render inoperative in whole or in part equipment installed in accordance with a safety standard. Center highmounted lamps have been required as original equipment on new cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985. Because of the potential for interfering with the effectiveness of the center lamp, we would regard removal of an original equipment center lamp and substitution of your device including its center lamp as rendering the center lamp partially inoperative within the meaning of the prohibition. However, if the modific ation is such that it can be done by the vehicle owner, the Act does not prohibit an owner from it. Further, the Act would not prohibit in any way the installation of your device on passenger cars manufactured before September 1, 1985. However, supplem entary lighting devices sold in the aftermarket are regulated by each State in which the device would be sold and used. Although we are not conversant with those laws, you may consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203 for an opinion.

You have also asked how this device could be mandated as original equipment on new passenger cars. Any interested person may petition the Administrator for an amendment of Standard No. 108. However, the Vehicle Safety Act requires the safety standards to be standards for motor vehicle performance, and, to the extent possible, the agency attempts to minimize standards expressed in terms of design. For the same reason, the agency does not normally propose adoption of proprietary designs. As one of the requirements of a petition for rulemaking is that it contain the name and address of the petitioner, it might not be possible

3 to afford the same degree of confidentiality to a petition that it is to a request for an interpretation.

Your letter of April 4 asks a slightly different question on the subject of what is allowed to be viewed by other motorists in or around the rear window, with specific reference to turn signals, backup lamps, and hazard warning signals. The relevant port ions of Standard No. 108 are those relating to mounting height. The maximum mounting height of 83 inches allowed for turn signals (which commonly also serve as hazard warning signals) is unlikely to be exceeded by turn signals mounted in the rear window area. There is no maximum restriction on the mounting height of backup lamps but we do have performance criteria which must be met in order to ensure that they can satisfy their intended function of providing illumination behind the vehicle. Finally, y ou should realize that it is incorrect to refer to your device as a "third tail light assembly." A taillamp is a specific rear lamp required by Standard No. 108, and one which you have not incorporated into your assembly.

I hope that this answers your questions. As you requested in a phone call to Taylor Vinson the other day, we are returning the originals of your correspondence.

Enclosures

Sincerely,

ID: nht94-8.28

DATE: February 7, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

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

TITLE: None

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

TEXT:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ID: 8816

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

Dear Mr. McBay:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We hope that these interpretations are helpful.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:7/14/93

ID: 9050

Mr. Donald W. Vierimaa
Vice President - Engineering
Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association
1020 Princess Street
Alexandria, VA 223l4

Dear Mr. Vierimaa:

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

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

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

We would also like to correct a misimpression indicated in your letter. You have placed a single asterisk by certain metric values reflecting your assumption that these are minimum values. This is incorrect; the standard expresses these values as fixed values rather than minimum ones. However, you are correct in your identification as minimum of those values that are not designated by an asterisk. Your second question concerns the location of rear and side sheeting. You point out that cargo tank trailers may have a "vertical surface" only at their "belt line" which may be as high as 2.3 m above the ground. You ask whether retroreflective sheeting may be located higher than 1.25 m if there is no vertical surface lower than this height "without installing structure just for the sheeting." As adopted, Standard No. 108 specified a mounting height as close as practicable to 1.25 m. However, in a notice published on October 6, 1993, NHTSA amended the requirement to "as close as practicable to not less than 375 mm and not more than 1525 mm above the road surface". The practicability qualification allows manufacturers to choose a location for conspicuity treatment that is outside the specified range to avoid body modifications that might otherwise be required to mount the material within the specified range.

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

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

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

Figures 3 and 4 present alternative conspicuity treatments for liquid tank trailers where the body is curved rather than rectangular. In Figure 3, two strips 300 mm in length intersect at an angle greater than 90 degrees. In Figure 4, a curved strip 600 mm in length follows the contour of the body. Paragraph S5.7.1.4.1(b) of Standard No. 108 requires marking the upper outer contours of the body with strips "applied horizontally and vertically to the right and left upper contours of the body . . . ." However, the rear contours of a tank body are rounded rather than vertical and horizontal. In view of this fact, the agency accepts the treatment shown in your Figure 3 as meeting the requirement for horizontal and vertical application. The design of Figure 4 does not differ in any significant way, and we consider that it is equivalent.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:108 d.2/7/94

ID: Wheelchair_ramp

Mr. Paul Collett
Liberty Motor Company Inc.
2390 South Service Road West
Oakville, Ontario
Canada, L6L 5M9




Dear Mr. Collett:

This responds to your letter and phone inquiry in which you asked several questions concerning the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door locks and door retention components, to the modification of a vehicle to accommodate a wheelchair ramp. You first asked if a door latch assembly you described would comply with FMVSS No. 206. You then asked a series of questions based on a comparison of the door system you described and other door assembly designs. I have addressed your questions below.

In a conversation with Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff you stated that your company, Liberty Motor Company Inc. (Liberty), installs wheelchair ramps onto the back doors of minivans. Prior to installation of a ramp, you stated that the minivans typically have a "rear tailgate door with hinges at the top" and a single latch system located at the center of the bottom edge of the door. You explained that the installation requires lowering of the vehicle floor and the attachment of a folding ramp. As described in your letter, when the ramp is stowed it acts to "seal the door opening between the bottom of the closed tailgate door and the lowered floor".You further explained that the latch and striker of the original vehicle is removed and reinstalled onto the ramp so that when the back door is closed it latches to the stowed ramp.

You raised a variety of issues related to this type of modification. We have read your letter as requesting a response on two main issues: (1) is such a modification compliant with FMVSS No. 206, and (2) would such a modification result in a door system analogous to a cargo-door or "double side door" for purposes of the standard?

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not approve or certify any motor vehicle or modification of a motor vehicle. Instead, 49 U.S.C. 30115 establishes a "self- certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable FMVSSs. Generally, FMVSSs apply to motor vehicles up to their first sale for purposes other than resale (first retail sale). See 49 CFR 30112. After the first retail sale of a vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard (49 U.S.C. 30122; "make inoperative" provision).

1. Compliance with FMVSS No. 206

In equipping a vehicle with a wheelchair ramp your company would have to ensure that the modification did not take the vehicle out of compliance with all applicable FMVSSs, including FMVSS No. 206. S4.4 of FMVSS No. 206 specifies the requirements for hinged back doors. Each hinged back door system must be equipped with at least one primary latch and striker assembly as defined by the standard. The primary latch and striker assembly must not separate when subjected to the specified forces applied in the specified directions.

Another important standard to consider is FMVSS No. 214, Side impact protection. FMVSS No. 214 specifies safety requirements for vehicles subjected to impact by a moving deformable barrier at 33.5 mph. S5.3.2 of that standard specifies that any door (including a rear hatchback or tailgate), which is not struck by the barrier must not disengage from the latched position, must not have its latch separate from the striker, and must not have hinged components separate from each other or from their attachment to the vehicle. The latches and hinge systems of unstruck doors must not pull out of their anchorages.

The primary latch and striker provided by the original manufacturer must continue to meet these requirements as re-installed. However, nothing in our standards would expressly prohibit a design such as you described.

We note that on December 15, 2004, NHTSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking to update requirements and test procedures specified in the standard (69 FR 75021). If adopted, the proposal would add requirements and test procedures for sliding doors, add secondary latch position requirements for doors other than hinged side doors and back doors, provide a new test procedure for assessing inertial forces, and extend the application of the standard to buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of less than 10,000 pounds.

2. Similar Door Systems

You asked a series of questions based on the premise that the back door as modified would be analogous to a cargo-type door or a "[double] side door as found on some extended cab pick-up trucks. " We do not agree that the rear door / ramp system you described would be analogous to either of these door systems for the purposes of FMVSS No. 206.

FMVSS No. 206 defines a cargo-type door as:

[A] door designed primarily to accommodate cargo loading including, but not limited to, a two-part door that latches to itself.

Cargo-type doors are subject to more abbreviated standards than hinged back doors.

Contrary to the definition of "cargo-type doors", your door system is designed primarily to permit wheelchair occupants to enter and exit a vehicle. Further, in extending FMVSS No. 206 to hinged back doors, we rejected the idea of treating hinged back doors as cargo-type doors (60 FR 50124; September 28, 1995). The intent of S4.4 is to prevent the back door ejection of occupants by ensuring the integrity of latch/striker and hinge systems of back doors to reduce the incidence of unintended back door opening (60 FR at 50128).

The "double side door" systems described in your letter are located on the side of a vehicle and are therefore subject to the requirements applicable to hinged side doors. The door / ramp system described in your letter is located at the back of a vehicle and is therefore subject to the hinged back door requirements.

FMVSS No. 206 defines "back door" in part as:

[A] door or door system on the back end of a motor vehicle through which passengers can enter or depart the vehicle, or cargo can be loaded or unloaded[.] (Emphasis added. )

The portion of the ramp that acts to secure the back opening would be considered part of the back door system. Therefore, the system described in your letter would be a "hinged back door" for the purpose of FMVSS No. 206.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:206
d.2/24/05