ID: nht93-8.10

DATE: November 15, 1993

FROM: Richard L. Plath --Selecto-Flash, Inc.

TO: Taylor Vinson -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/30/93 from John Womack to Richard L. Plath (A41; Std. 108)

TEXT:

I know that Jim Peepas from our company has contacted you concerning the conspicuity program. I am responsible for sales for Selecto Flash and thought I would share with you some of the concerns of the various manufacturer's.

In our discussions with the trailer and container manufacturer's who supply this equipment, there seems to be differences of opinion as to the actual requirements. For this reason I will outline the procedure as we understand it and will further ask for confirmation on several issues set forth within this letter.

1) A chassis for purposes of the conspicuity requirement shall be considered to be a trailer.

2) That the total length of the chassis shall be used in computing the 50 per cent coverage of high intensity reflective for each individual side.

3) In the case of a forty eight foot chassis, the law will thus require a minimum of 24 feet of the approved reflective sheeting to be applied to each side. Further, there shall not be more than 18 inches of either red or silver reflective in a continuous strip and that there shall not be an allowed void of more than 48 inches between modules.

4) It shall be recognized that a chassis may travel both with and without a container. In the case of a gooseneck chassis, the gooseneck portion is not visible when the chassis is loaded with a container. The gooseneck portion is generally about 8 feet in length. When the chassis is not loaded with a container, the application of 24 feet per side of a 48 foot chassis of evenly spaced reflective modules would comply with the law as we understand it. It would identify the extreme front and rear portions of the chassis.

The confusion is the treatment of the same gooseneck chassis that is loaded with a container. It is our understanding that the requirements now are for the entire 24 feet (50 per cent of length) to be applied behind the gooseneck. In general this would mean that the rear 40 foot portion of the chassis would contain the 24 feet of reflective modules. Further, we understand that the 50 per cent requirement would be satisfied and that additional modules would not have to be applied to the gooseneck.

If our interpretation is correct, then the gooseneck chassis illustrated above would be in violation if traveling without benefit of a container.

The eight foot gooseneck would be dangerously unmarked creating a hazard and would violate the requirement stating that a void of no more than four

feet is allowable. It is our feeling that since the chassis travels both loaded and unloaded, if the reflective modules were applied evenly spaced along the total length, that the spirit of the law would be realized. Is there a benefit in applying the additional 4 feet of reflective within the rear 40 foot portion of the chassis? If a chassis is considered to be a trailer for purposes of the conspicuity law, then the evenly spaced treatment would seem to be more consistent.

We would appreciate a confirmation from your office indicating the legal application of the law as it pertains to gooseneck chassis.

1) Will we need to apply 24 feet of stripping on a forty eight foot chassis behind the gooseneck plus an additional 4 feet on the gooseneck?

2) Since a chassis is considered to be treated as a trailer, shouldn't we apply the 24 feet evenly spaced from the extreme rear and front portions of the chassis?

3) Is a tire considered a legal obstruction? If so, can we deduct the distance behind the tire from the 50 per cent coverage?

4) We anticipate that the slide mechanism on an extendable chassis will scrape the reflective film from off the chassis. Is the operator then subject to penalties? How will the operator be able to avoid these penalties since they have no control over this process?

We hope that you can respond to these questions well in advance of the December 1st deadline. The application process has already begun and the manufacturer's need to finalize the process.

ID: nht93-8.11

DATE: November 15, 1993

FROM: Amar Chhabra -- Project Manager, Procedair Industries

TO: To Whom It May Concern

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated January 26, 1994 from John Womack to Ramin Bogzaran (A42; VSA 102(3)); Also attached to letter dated 12/1/93 from Ramin Bogzaran to John Womack; Also attached to fax dated 12/15/93 from Ramin Bogzaran to Marvin Shaw; Also attached to letter dated 11/30/93 from Lynn White to Jeff Boraston

TEXT:

This letter is to certify that the equipment stored at CES 401 Slater Street, New Westminister, BC V3H 3Y1 was fabricated by IMF INC. located in Greenville, Tennessee, USA.

The above mentioned equipment mainly consists of two (2) trailers complete with Air Pollution Control equipment and accessories.

ID: nht93-8.12

DATE: November 15, 1993

FROM: Thomas D. Turner -- Manager, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Council, NHTSA

COPYEE: Ben Newberry; Jim Swift

TITLE: Request for Interpretation; REF: 49 CFR Part 571 - Docket No. 90-05; Notice 4, FMVSS 222, Final Rule on Wheelchair Securement Devices and Occupant Restraint Systems

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/25/94 from John Womack to Thomas D. Turner (A42; Std. 222)

TEXT:

Section S5.4.3.2 of the referenced final rule requires that each wheelchair location have at least one anchorage for the upper torso restraint and at least two floor anchorages for pelvic and upper torso restraint.

Section S5.4.3.2 of the rule states:

"Each wheelchair occupant restraint floor anchorage shall be capable of withstanding a force of 13,344 Newtons applied as specified in paragraphs (a) through (d). When more than one wheelchair occupant restraint share a common anchorage, the anchorage shall be capable of withstanding a force of 13,344 Newtons multiplied by the number of occupant restraints sharing that anchorage."

It is our understanding that the phrase, "When more than one wheelchair occupant restraint share a common anchorage, . . . ." is intended to address the possible situation where restraints from two different wheelchair occupant restraint systems share a common anchorage. It is not intended to address the common situation where the lower end of an upper torso restraint joins the pelvic restraint and goes to one of the rear floor anchorages of a single occupant's restraint system.

If the phrase was intended to apply to the latter, common situation, then rear floor anchorage could be required to be capable of withstanding a force of 13,344 newtons for the upper torso restraint plus 13,344 for the pelvic restraint for a total of 26,688 Newtons (6000 lbs). If the floor anchorage was also as one of the wheelchair securement anchorages, as is typically the case, Section S5.4.3.2(e) would require that the anchorage be capable of withstanding 3 x 13,344 Newtons (9000 lbs) total.

Blue Bird believes that the phrase referenced above was not intended to require double loading of an anchorage if the anchorage is intended to secure only one occupant. Referring to the attached drawings of two typical systems, we believe the following force capability requirements apply to the floor anchorages:

Left front floor anchorage - 13,344 Newtons (3000 lbs) because only one wheelchair securement device is attached.

Right front floor anchorage - 13,344 Newtons (3000 lbs) because only one wheelchair securement device is attached.

Left rear floor anchorage - 2 x 13,344 Newtons (6000 lbs) because both the left side of the pelvic restraint and the left rear wheelchair securement device are attached:

a. For Figure 1 through separate belts.

b. For Figure 2 through a common belt.

Right rear floor anchorage - 2 x 13,344 Newtons (6000 lbs) because the right side of the pelvic restraint and the lower end of the upper torso restraint are for only one occupant and along with the right rear wheelchair securement device are attached:

a. For Figure 1 through separate belts.

b. For Figure 2 through a common belt.

It is our understanding that the intent of Sections S5.4.3.2 and S5.4.3.2(e) of the standard, for single occupant systems as illustrated in figures 1 and 2, is for the rear anchorages to be capable of withstanding 2 x 13,344 Newtons (6000 lbs) rather than 3 x 13,344 newtons (9000 lbs).

Blue Bird is in the final stages of certification testing of several systems and must complete our work immediately in order to meet the January 17, 1994 effective date. We, therefore, request urgent attention be given to this matter and that confirmation of our understanding, as stated above, be provided by FAX or telephone in the next few days. A formal written interpretation can be provided at a later date, but we need the answer immediately.

Thank you for your consideration of this urgent request.

ATTACHMENTS

Figure 1 - Typical wheelchair securement and occupant restraint system (separate belts to floor anchorage)

Figure 2 - Typical wheelchair securement and occupant restraint system (single belts to floor anchorage)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht93-8.13

DATE: November 16, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Donald E. Schmitz -- Engineering Manager, Featherlite Mfg., Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/7/93 from Donald E. Schmitz to Howard M. Smolkin (OCC-9204)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of October 7, 1993, to Acting Administrator Smolkin which "addresses the TTMA, September 8, 1993, Recommended Practice of Trailer Conspicuity Systems." You inform us that you "will begin applying the conspicuity tape to the trailer's bottom as shown" in the TTMA sketches, and "will assume our interpretation is correct . . . unless we receive a response from your office within ten days."

If you wish an interpretation of the TTMA drawings, you should consult that organization. This agency provides interpretations of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. With respect to paragraph S5.7, which establishes conspicuity system requirements for large trailers, effective December 1, 1993, the agency published an amendment on October 6, the day before your letter, which modified the mounting height requirements adopted in December 1992. The original requirement of "as close as practicable to 1.25 m above the road surface" has been changed to a range that is "as close as practicable to not less than 375 mm and not more than 1525 mm above the road surface...." I enclose a copy of the amendment for your information. See paragraph S5.7.1.4.2(a) for the change.

ID: nht93-8.14

DATE: November 16, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ray Paradis -- Manufacturing Manager, Dakota Mfg. Co., Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/31/93 from Ray Paradis to Pat Boyd (OCC-9151)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of August 31, 1993, to Pat Boyd of this agency with respect to the trailer conspicuity requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You have enclosed literature and photos of several of your trailers, and ask for our comments in several areas.

Your first remark is "Deck heights are from 22" to 39 1/2"." We understand this to ask whether these are acceptable heights for mounting conspicuity treatments. Standard No. 108 was amended on October 6, 1993, to specify a mounting range as close to 375 to 1525 mm as practicable, i.e. approximately 15 to 60 inches. Your "deck heights" are within this range.

Your second remark is "(t)he rear design does not allow for continuous tape all models." Standard No. 108 requires a horizontal strip of retroreflective sheeting across the full width of the trailer. Paragraph S5.7.1.3(b) anticipates that the length of the color segments may have to be modified to facilitate using material near rear lamps. In the worst cases of trailers with rear surfaces no wider than the minimum required for lamps, breaks in the rear treatment are unavoidable to clear the lamps. But NHTSA expects the manufacturer to minimize the breaks by using red material adjacent to red lamps.

Your third remark is (t)he side extension model has fold-up sides #2." We understand this to ask whether striping must be applied so as to be visible only when the extension is folded, or whether striping must also be visible when the extension is in use, i.e., whether striping must be applied to both surfaces of the extension so that it is visible regardless of the position of the extension. Although Standard No. 108 does not directly address this question, we believe that motor vehicle safety requires visibility of conspicuity treatment at all times. The standard does require that striping not be obscured by other motor vehicle equipment or trailer cargo, reflecting the agency's intent that striping be visible when the trailer is performing its intended work-related functions. This means that side extension model trailers should be equipped with conspicuity treatment that is visible both when the extensions are folded and unfolded.

Your final remark is "((d)oes the front require any stripe." Under the assumption that you refer to the front side of a trailer and not the front that is hidden behind the towing vehicle, the answer is yes. Standard No. 108, in pertinent part, requires conspicuity treatment to be applied as close to the front of a trailer as practicable. Goosenecks and tongues are part of the trailer front and are portions of a trailer requiring conspicuity treatment if practicable.

I hope that this answers your questions.

ID: nht93-8.15

DATE: November 16, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Larry Grabsky -- VML and Colonna Corp.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/01/93 Est. from Larry Grabsky to John Wilman

TEXT:

This is reply to your recent letter asking our views on the use of decorative neon lamps, or of oscillating or revolving ones.

This agency establishes the Federal motor vehicle safety standards which must be met from the time a motor vehicle is manufactured up until its sale to its first purchaser for purposes other than resale. The new car dealer is responsible for ensuring that any lighting equipment that it adds before the sale of the vehicle does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment that is required by the standard. The determination of whether an impairment exists is made by the person responsible for adding the equipment. If this determination appears clearly erroneous, NHTSA will question it. In addition, all lighting equipment added before the vehicle's first sale must be steady burning when it is used.

If the lighting equipment is added after the vehicle's sale by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business, it is subject to the restriction that it not "render inoperative, in whole or in part" any lamp that has been installed in accordance with Standard No. 108.

Supplementary motor vehicle lighting equipment, whether added before or after initial sale of the vehicle, is subject to the laws of States in which the vehicle is operated, even if the equipment is not prohibited under Federal law.

With respect to neon lights, we are aware of aftermarket installations on the underside of vehicles that illuminate the pavement below. If such lamps create glare that distracts another motorist from perceiving, for example, the turn signals in use we would consider that an impairment and a partially rendering inoperative within the meaning of those terms. We are unable to advise you on State laws regarding the use of neon lights on vehicles, and suggest that you write for an opinion to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

We are unsure what you mean by "oscillating" but Standard No. 108, in general, requires lamps added before a vehicle's initial sale to be steady burning in use, unless otherwise permitted (such as turn signals and hazard warning signals, and automatic flashing of headlamps for signalling purposes). Installation of a non steady burning lamp by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business after initial sale could be viewed as a rendering inoperative depending upon the circumstances. Standard No. 108 does allow a motorcycle to be equipped with a modulating headlamp for daytime use. The modulation permitted is 240 +/- 40 cycles per minute. When NHTSA proposed to allow the modulating headlamp, some commenters were concerned that the flashing might trigger a photic reaction

akin to an attack of epilepsy, in onlookers. We believe that the reaction is most likely to occur at a frequency of 10 hz against a very dark background. Thus, care should be taken in the use of supplementary lamps that are not steady burning.

As for revolving lamps, we believe that these are generally found on police and emergency vehicles such as ambulances and tow trucks. Whether it is permissible to equip a vehicle with these lamps and to use them is a question to be answered under State law.

ID: nht93-8.16

DATE: November 16, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Dennis G. Moore -- President, Sierra Products Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/29/93 from Dennis G. Moore to John Womack

TEXT:

We have received Your letter of September 29, 1993, with reference to the location requirements of Standard No. 108 for identification (i.d.) lamps.

Table II of the standard in pertinent part specifies the following location for i.d. lamps: "On the rear - 3 lamps as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle at the same height, as close as practicable to the vertical centerline...." You reference at least two instances in the past 20 years or longer in which "NHTSA has allowed the slight misalignment of I.D. lights because of 'Practical' circumstances," and have asked for copies of these interpretations.

We are unaware of these interpretations. In their absence, you have asked for an interpretation of the phrase "at the same height" that would permit the mounting height of the center lamp to deviate slightly from the height of the two lamps that flank it, as shown in your letter. You depict two other possible configurations in which the three lamps are mounted at identical heights. In one configuration, the lower edges of the outboard lamps hang below the frame "making them vulnerable to being damaged or knocked off" in your opinion. In the second configuration, the lamps are raised and protected, but the center lamp is somewhat obscured by the "typical roller or protective pad." You deem these configurations undesirable for safety reasons.

The question to be answered is whether the configuration you prefer is "as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle at the same height" (note the absence of a comma between "vehicle" and "at"). The determination of practicability is initially that of the manufacturer. Unless it is clearly erroneous, NHTSA will not question it. In the absence of a superstructure, the frame location may be regarded as being "as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle..." Because "at the same height" is part of the same phrase, practicability also governs placement of the lamps at the same height. A manufacturer may determine that, for the sake of practicability, i.d. lamps may be mounted at a height sufficient to protect them from breakage (the outboard lamps) and to ensure compliance with photometric requirements (the center lamp). The configuration you depict is sufficiently close to the literal reading of the phrase "at the same height" that NHTSA would not question the manufacturer's determination of practicability with respect to the mounting height of the center i.d. lamp.

ID: nht93-8.17

DATE: November 16, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: James E. Walker -- Manager, LSI Laboratories, Lighting Sciences, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/4/93 from James E. Walker to John Womack

TEXT:

We are replying to your letter of October 4, 1993, with respect to the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 for taillamps.

You believe that a discrepancy exists because paragraph S5.1.1 "requires equipment to be designed to Tables I, II (you mean III), and S7, which references SAE J585e for the Tail lamp," whereas paragraph S5.1.1.11 "requires Table 1 of this specification to be substituted for the values achieved by Figures 1a and 1b, and in addition, to substitute Table 1 of SAE J585e by the values achieved by multiplying the percentages of Figure 1a by Table 1 and 3 of SAE J588 NOV84 Turn Signal Lamps."

You assume that the photometric requirements are those of Figure 1a, 1b, and 1c. Your assumption is correct. However, there is no discrepancy in the standard. The requirements for motor vehicle lighting equipment are set forth in section S5. Paragraph S5.1.1 requires lighting equipment to comply with the SAE materials contained in the tables, except as may be provided in succeeding paragraphs of Paragraph S5.1.1. Tables I and III incorporate by reference SAE Standard J585e, Tail Lamps, September 1977. However, on March 3, 1993, NHTSA redesignated Paragraph S5.1.1.11 (with references to Figures 1a and 1b) as S5.1.1.6, and revised it to include, among other things, the reference in paragraph S5.1.1.12 to Figure 1c. The same notice removed paragraph S5.1.1.12 from the standard. New Paragraph S5.1.1.6 states that instead of the photometric values specified in Table 1 of SAE J585e, taillamps shall comply with those of Figures 1a, 1b, and 1c.

I enclose a copy of the amendment for your information, and hope that this answers your question.

ID: nht93-8.18

DATE: November 16, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Dennis G. Moore -- President, Sierra Products, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/12/93 from Dennis G. Moore to John Womack (OCC-8992)

TEXT:

We have received your letter of August 12, 1993, "requesting a legal clarification detailing where FMVSS 108 requires a Clearance Light to be mounted." It is clear from your letter that it is the lateral spacing of clearance lamps that concerns you as you believe that it is not uncommon to see them mounted as much as 6 to 8 inches "'inside' the side extremities of huge vehicles."

With respect to lateral spacing, Table II of Standard No. 108 requires clearance lamps to be mounted "to indicate the overall width of the vehicle...." The standard does not require the lamps to be mounted at the widest point of the vehicle, nor does it require them to be mounted as far apart as practicable. We believe that manufacturers generally try to mount clearance lamps to "indicate" the overall width of the vehicle, but we recognize that there may be certain circumstances and/or configurations that require mounting of the lamps at something less than the widest point.

ID: nht93-8.19

DATE: November 16, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Michinori Hachiya -- Director and General Manager, Nissan Research and Development, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/12/93 from Michinori Hachiya to John Womack (OCC-9190)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of October 12, 1993, asking several questions concerning the labeling requirements of the recent final rule mandating the installation of air bags in passenger cars and light trucks (58 FR 46551, September 2, 1993). Your questions concern the labeling requirements in this final rule.

As you may know, NHTSA has received two petitions for reconsideration of the September 2 final rule. The petitions raise issues concerning the labeling requirements. We will address your first, second, and fourth questions in the notice responding to the petitions for reconsideration.

Your other questions and the response to each follow.

The mandatory air bag rule establishes type size and format requirements for the air bag maintenance label (section 4.5.1(a)), but no similar requirements for the air bag warning label in section 4.5.1(b). Are we correct in understanding that the lettering of the warning label may be of any size or format, so long as the letters are legible? May different type size and formats be used if the two labels are combined?

You are correct that there are not any size requirements for the air bag warning label. Therefore, so long as the information on the label is legible, the lettering may be of any size. It is unclear what you mean by format, but the warning label must contain the exact words, in the exact order, as specified in section 4.5.1(b). The issue of combining warning and maintenance labels will be addressed in the notice responding to the petitions for reconsideration.

It is our understanding that warning labels that do not refer to air bags or seat belts may continue to be placed on the side of the sun visor opposite from the air bag warning label. Nissan currently places a label on the sun visor of a convertible model which provides instructions regarding the use of the convertible top. May this type of label continue to be placed on the sun visor, so long as it is on the side of the visor opposite from the air bag warning label?

Section S4.5.1(b)(2) specifies (1) that no other information shall be on the same side of the sun visor as the air bag warning label, and (2) that no other information concerning air bags or seat belts shall appear anywhere on the sun visor. Therefore, you are correct that information concerning the operation of a convertible top could be placed on the side of the sun visor opposite the side with the air bag warning label.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.