ID: nht93-7.19

DATE: October 12, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Thomas Dougherty -- C.A.P.S. Inc

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/9/93 from Thomas Dougherty to John Womack (OCC 8995)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking about how this agency's regulations might apply to your product, the "E.A.R.S." system. You state that your product contains an LED light and an 82 decibel tone and serves to alert hearing impaired drivers of approaching emergency vehicles. You further state that the part of the system that alerts drivers plugs into the cigarette lighter, while a microphone is placed outside the vehicle. (You did not explain how or where the microphone is placed or whether a hole is drilled through the windshield.)

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations. I am also enclosing a copy of a fact sheet titled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment."

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the "Safety Act") defines, in relevant part, the term "motor vehicle equipment" as:

any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component OR AS ANY ACCESSORY, or addition to the motor vehicle ... (emphasis added).

In determining whether an item of equipment is considered an accessory, NHTSA applies two criteria. The first criterion is whether a substantial portion of the expected use of the item is related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. We determine a product's expected use by considering product advertising, product labeling, and the type of store that retails the product, as well as available information about the actual use of the product. The second criterion is whether the product is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles. If the product satisfies both criteria, then the product is considered to be an "accessory" and thus is subject to the provisions of the Safety Act.

Applying these criteria to the E.A.R.S. system, it appears that this product would be an accessory and thus an item of motor vehicle equipment under the Safety Act. Based on our understanding of the product, it appears that the entire portion of the expected use of the E.A.R.S system relates to motor vehicle operation. That is, the system is intended to alert the vehicle driver about an oncoming emergency vehicle. Also, it appears that the product would typically be used by ordinary users of motor vehicles, in particular, hearing impaired drivers.

While it appears that the E.A.R.S. system is an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA has not issued any standards for such a device. Nevertheless, there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect the manufacture and sale of your product. You as the product's manufacturer are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

A commercial business that installs the E.A.R.S. system would also be subject to provisions of the Safety Act that affect modifications of new or used vehicles. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

This means that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business must not install your device if the system renders inoperative the vehicle's compliance with the FMVSS's. For instance, compliance with Standard No. 205 might be degraded if it were necessary to drill a hole through the windshield. Any violation of this "render inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation.

Please note also that the render inoperative prohibition does not apply to modifications that vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners install the E.A.R.S. system in their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade any safety device or system installed in their vehicles. In addition, individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their vehicles, so you might wish to consult State regulations to see whether your device would be permitted.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht93-7.2

DATE: September 30, 1993 Est.

FROM: Randolph Schwarz

TO: John Messera -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/5/94 from John Womack to Randolph Schwarz (A42; Std. 116)

TEXT:

I would appreciate your help in getting a few short questions answered regarding DOT 5 silicone brake fluid. I had called the NHTSA Hotline and was advised that, as the Engineer for FMVSS 116, you are currently the appropriate person to contact.

My basic question is that when retrofitting a vehicle with DOT 5 silicone brake fluid, does one have to be concerned with the compatibility of this fluid's seal swelling additives with various elastomers that may be used in past and present brake systems, such as SBR, EP, EPDM, neoprene, etc?.

Would the fact that a DOT 5 brake fluid meets Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 116 insure such elastomer compatibility?

With regard to elastomers, does FMVSS 116 only address SBR compatibility (SBR cup tests)?

If FMVSS 116 only mentions SBR, would it be advisable to add other elastomers to the specification or have an advisory note on the product container regarding elastomer compatibility/incompatibility?

Product information from Dow Corning and Union Carbide differ in FMVSS 116 DOT 5 requirement for maximum viscosity at -40 F (900 cSt vs. 1,500 cSt respectively). What should the correct specification be?

If it would help expedite matters, feel free to write your responses directly on this letter. Thank you for your help, and I look forward to hearing from you shortly.

ID: nht93-7.20

DATE: October 12, 1993

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

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/16/93 from John Womack to Michinori Hachiya (A41; Std. 208)

TEXT:

This letter requests your opinion regarding several aspects of the labeling requirements in the recent mandatory air bag rule. Our specific questions are set forth below.

1. Section 4.5.1(b)(2) of FMVSS 208, as amended in the recent final rule, states with regard to the information placed on the air bag warning label on the sun visor that "No other information shall appear on the same side of the sun visor to which the label is affixed." May the same information appear on the visor in French, immediately following the English text? Permitting the addition of a French translation would facilitate harmonization with Canadian requirements for dual language labels. The French translation would add no information that contributes to "information overload," in our opinion, nor is it likely to cause confusion.

2. Section 4.5.1(a) states that the air bag maintenance label may be combined with the air bag warning label, but section 4.5.1(b) generally prohibits the addition of information to the warning label. We assume that the more specific statement in section 4.5.1(a) is controlling, and the two labels may be combined on the same side of the sun visor. If this assumption is correct, are there restrictions on the manner in which the two labels may be combined? For example, may the air bag maintenance information be inserted into the warning label information immediately prior to the words "see owner's manual for further information and explanations"? This sequence would avoid the necessity of referring twice to the owner's manual for further information.

3. 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?

4. NHTSA's Consumer Information Regulations provide that a utility vehicle rollover warning label may be affixed to the driver's side sun visor, and the label must include language urging the use of seat belts at all times. See 49 CFR 575.105(c)(1). However, the mandatory air bag rule prohibits placing (1) any additional information on the same side of the sun visor as the air bag warning label and (2) any other information about the need to wear seat belts anywhere on the sun visor. 49 CFR 571.208, section 4.5.1(b)(2). The mandatory air bag rule did not explicitly amend the consumer information provision to prohibit the sun visor location of the rollover warning label. Since part 575 continues to explicitly authorize

the sun visor location for the rollover label, we believe that these requirements can be reconciled by interpreting them to permit the rollover label to be placed on the opposite side of the sun visor from the air bag warning label. Do you agree with this interpretation? We understand that GM and Ford have filed petitions to reconsider section 4.5.1(b)(2) which raises the same issue.

5. 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?

We request NHTSA to promptly consider these issues due to our lead time requirements. If you have any questions on this matter, please contact Mr. Toshio Horiuchi of my staff at (202) 466-5284.

ID: nht93-7.21

DATE: October 12, 1993

FROM: Kathy Rose -- Account Executive, FitzGerald Corporation

TO: Glen Beck -- U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Office of Motor Carriers

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/21/94 from John Womack to Kathy Rose (A42; Std. 108)

TEXT:

I called your office today and spoke to Bill Poole. I have a question regarding the "trailer conspicuity" ruling, enclosed is a copy of the first and last page of this ruling.

The FitzGerald Corporation is producing a "trailer skirting" aerodynamic product for van trailers (please see the enclosed literature piece for this product). In regards to the conspicuity ruling, we often have questions from our customers regarding whether it is legal to have the retroreflective tape that is regulated to be applied to the length of the trailer be placed below the trailer, on the trailer skirting (please see drawing enclosed on last page).

We appreciate your help on this and look forward to hearing from you.

Attachments: (Federal Register and Aero Flair brochure omitted.)

- - - -

11/8/93 letter from Joseph N. Cindrich (NHTSA) to Kathy Rose:

Your letter dated October 12, 1993 regarding Final Rule, Docket No. 80-9 associated with 49 CFR Part 571, Standard No. 108 was referred to us by Federal Highway Administration.

By copy of this letter, your request has been forwarded to our Washington Office of Enforcement (NEF-01), NHTSA Headquarters, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C., 20590. You should be hearing directly from them regarding any further contact.

We suggest you call our Auto Safety Hotline to get additional information on specific defects, crash tests, recalls, tire quality grading, odometer complaints, and other auto safety questions. (See enclosed pamphlet) The toll-free number is 1-800-424-9393.

Sincerely,

Craig Miller for Joseph N. Cindrich, Regional Administrator, NHTSA

- - - -

10/15/93 letter from Glenn R. Beck (Federal Highway Administration) to Joseph Cindrich:

The attached correspondence was received at our division office from the FitzGerald Corporation who is seeking an interpretation of your Final Rule, Docket No. 80-9 associated with 49 CFR Part 571, Standard No. 108. It is being forwarded to your office for whatever action you deem appropriate.

Thank you for your interest in motor carrier and highway safety.

Sincerely,

Robert Frank for Glenn R. Beck, State Director, U.S. DOT, Federal Highway Administration, Region Nine

ID: nht93-7.22

DATE: October 12, 1993

FROM: Saburo Inui -- Vice President, Toyota Motor Corporate Services of North America, Inc.

TO: Robert F. Hellmuth -- Director Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA

TITLE: Test Procedure for FMVSS 214

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/28/94 from John G. Womack to Saburo Inui (A42; STD 214)

TEXT: We request confirmation of our interpretation of the means to establish vehicle attitude during the testing for compliance with FMVSS 214, Side Impact Protection, as well as clarification of certain ambiguities in the test procedure.

S6.1, Test Weight, provides that "[e]ach passenger car is loaded to its unloaded vehicle weight, plus its rated cargo and luggage capacity . . . plus the weight of the necessary anthropomorphic test dummies. Any added test equipment is located away from impact areas in secure places in the vehicle."

S6.2, Vehicle test attitude, defines "fully loaded condition" as the "test vehicle loaded in accordance with S6.1."

The term, "fully loaded attitude," used in S6.2, is not defined.

Toyota assumes that the "test weight" described in S6.1 includes the weight of one front seat and one rear seat dummy, but it is not clear whether the "added test equipment" is added to the "test weight" or whether parts of the vehicle (weighing the same as the "added test equipment") are to be removed to keep the vehicle weight at the "test weight." It is also unclear whether the "as delivered" left-to-right attitude must be maintained when adding test equipment.

2

We also assume that the term, "fully loaded attitude," describes the attitude of the vehicle in the "fully loaded condition" defined in S6.1 (subject to the requested clarifications). Toyota requests confirmation of that interpretation.

Since these issues can affect compliance with the Standard, we request that NHTSA amend the Test Procedure to ensure that all manufacturers and laboratories employ exactly the procedures in conducting compliance testing.

If you have any questions about this matter, please contact Mr. Soichiro "Chuck" Okudaira of my staff at (202) 775-1707 or our counsel, Donald M. Schwentker, at (703) 799-7447.

ID: nht93-7.23

DATE: October 13, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Frau Margret Schmock von Ohr -- Robert Bosch GmbH

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/9/93 from Margret Schmock von Ohr to Taylor Vinson (OCC-8841)

TEXT:

This responds to your FAX of July 9, 1993, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking for a further interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it relates to reflex reflectors.

In your earlier FAX, you asked whether it is permissible to have an amber painted reflex reflector lens, and the conditions under which it is permissible to have it painted. We informed you that the amber painted reflex reflector lens is permissible provided that the front reflex reflector assembly meets all requirements of Standard No. 108 including the referenced SAE J594f.

You ask now whether "the combination plastic + paint" has to meet SAE J576c, pointing out that the outdoor exposure test requires a period of three years. You also ask whether it is sufficient to have only the plastic material (without paint) tested, and if it is not sufficient, the means by which you may get an exemption from the rule.

S5.1.2(c) of Standard No. 108 requires that, after the outdoor exposure test, plastic materials used for reflex reflectors shall meet the appearance requirements of paragraph 4.2.2 of SAE J576c. Paragraph 3.1 of SAE J576c indicates that the plastic materials are to be tested with the colors that will be employed in their end use. We understand that Bosch is not the manufacturer of the plastic materials but is simply the entity that fabricates the reflex reflectors from the plastic materials. Your customer, in turn, will install these reflectors until December 1993 as original equipment on its motor vehicles. We have found, under Standard No. 108, that the manufacturer of the plastic materials advises the lamp manufacturer that, if used in the manner specified by the materials manufacturer, the plastic materials supplied to be incorporated into lamps will perform in accordance with the requirements of SAE J576c for plastic materials. The manufacturer of the materials should provide Bosch with such assurances of compliance with SAE J576c as Bosch deems suitable to support its own assurances in turn to the vehicle manufacturer, enabling the vehicle manufacturer to certify . that it meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. There is no legal requirement that the plastics manufacturer conduct an actual 3-year test in order to provide Bosch with these assurances.

Because our temporary exemption procedures involve a process of three to four months duration, and are not retroactive in applicability, there appears to be no feasible way to consider an exemption.

You have asked that this request be treated "as a confidential business

information." We are unable to do so in this instance because our interpretations are a matter of public record, and the matters discussed herein cannot be separated from our earlier interpretation which has been made available to the public. However, we have removed your name from the copy of this letter that will be publicly available. Furthermore, Taylor Vinson has removed the name of your customer from the publicly available copy of the earlier interpretation, in accordance with the concern you expressed to him in a phone call, and we believe that this meets the intent of your request.

ID: nht93-7.24

DATE: October 14, 1993

FROM: Amantha L. Barbee -- Sales Coordinator, Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/23/93 from John Womack to Amantha L. Barbee (A41; Std. 102; Part 571), letter dated 1/26/93 from John Womack to Paul David Wellstone, letter dated 8/21/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Chuck Anderson, and letter dated 9/27/85 from Jeffrey R. Miller to Charles Pekow

TEXT:

I am writing you in search of information pertaining to the van versus school bus issue. I am the Head Start Sales Coordinator for Thomas Built Buses, Inc. I have found many Head Start Agencies to be using vans to transport students to and from the program. When I have asked the directors of the agencies why they are not using FMVSS as a guide for transportation. The answer across the board is, "because we have not been told otherwise."

If I understand the ruling correctly, this practice should be illegal. I am asking your help in clarifying this issue for me. If indeed this is unlawful, what can be done within the organization to rectify the situation?

I would appreciate any assistance you could offer. I can be reached at the above address or at (919) 841-5794.

ID: nht93-7.25

DATE: October 15, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Michael F. Hecker -- Micho Industries

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/8/93 from Michael F. Hecker to John Womack (OCC-8882)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter concerning our June 29, 1993, letter to your associate, Mr. Michael Dunn, about the R-Bar Passenger Restraint System (R-Bar). The R-Bar, an item of motor vehicle equipment, is a padded restraining device designed to be mounted on the seat backs of school buses to fold down to restrain the passengers in the next rearward seats. You have further questions about the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) and NHTSA regulations, as applied to R-Bars.

In our letter to Mr. Dunn, we addressed several statements that we believed were potentially misleading that Micho made to school officials. These statements include, among other things, that NHTSA has "approved" R-Bars and that R-Bars are certified as complying with Federal safety standards. We noted that, while Micho indicated that it would refrain from suggesting that NHTSA has approved the R-Bars, we sought assurances that Micho would not continue to represent that it can "certify" the compliance of R-Bars.

You ask for clarification of that letter. You state that there "appears to be some confusion" resulting from past correspondence with this agency regarding certification of compliance with applicable FMVSSs. You believe, based on previous correspondence, that the R-Bar must comply with FMVSSs that apply to the school bus seat and "the general safety of school buses," such as school bus exits and flammability resistance. Accordingly, you believe that Micho can properly "certify" the R-Bar to these school bus FMVSSs.

I appreciate this opportunity to clarify our requirements. By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. S1381 et seq. (Safety Act), authorizes this agency to issue FMVSSs for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act establishes a self-certification system whereby the manufacturer of the vehicle or item of equipment is responsible for exercising due care in certifying that the product will, if tested as specified in the applicable FMVSSs, meet the safety requirements in the standards applicable to the product. What constitutes "due care" in a particular case depends on all relevant facts, including such things as the limitations of current technology, the availability of test equipment, the size of the manufacturer, and above all, the diligence of the manufacturer.

Because of the self-certification system established by law, NHTSA can neither approve, disapprove, endorse, nor offer assurances of compliance for any product in advance of the manufacturer's certification of the product. Rather, this agency enforces the standards after the fact by purchasing a vehicle or item of equipment in the retail market and conducting the compliance tests specified in the pertinent standards. The

agency also investigates safety-related defects. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a noncompliance or safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of its product and remedying the problem free of charge. The recall responsibility for noncomplying or defective vehicles is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which a product is installed on a new vehicle by that vehicle manufacturer.

As stated in our previous letters to your company, there are no FMVSSs specifically applicable to R-Bars. Our school bus FMVSSs apply to whole vehicles, rather than to individual items of school bus equipment. If R- Bars are installed as original equipment on a new school bus, the vehicle manufacturer is required by the Safety Act to certify that, with the devices installed, the vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards, including Standard 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection (49 CFR S571.222); Standard 217, Bus Window retention and Release (S571.217); Standard 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (S571.302); and, with regard to small school buses, the pertinent provisions of Standard 208, occupant Crash Protection (S571.208). 15 U.S.C. S1397(a)(1), 15 U.S.C. S1403, and 49 CFR Part 567. Because these FMVSSs apply to the vehicle there are no standards to which Micho can, or must, certify compliance.

If the R-Bars are added to a previously-certified new school bus prior to its first sale to a customer, the person who so modifies the vehicle would be an "alterer" of a previously certified new vehicle. As an alterer, the person would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continued to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. 49 CFR S567.7.

The vehicle manufacturer or alterer that installs an R-Bar may, in order to meet its duty to exercise due care, in part rely on information from you concerning the R-Bar's performance characteristics, to the extent such reliance is reasonable. Since compliance with Standard 222 appears to be a significant concern with respect to the installation of R-Bars, you might wish to test a bus or buses equipped with an R-Bar, using the test procedures set out in Standard 222. The results of such tests might be useful to a school bus manufacturer in determining whether it could certify a school bus equipped with R-Bars as complying with standard 222.

If R-Bars were installed on a used school bus, the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business would be required to ensure that by installing the R-Bars, the installer did not knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in the vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. See 15 U.S.C. S1397(a)(2)(A). In this case, the installer would be responsible for ensuring that the R-Bars did not cause the school bus to fail to comply with any safety standards, including but not limited to the standards enumerated above.

This agency has addressed various compliance issues and other safety concerns applicable to R-Bars and similar devices on a number of occasions in the past. As we stated in a letter to Mr. Kenneth A. Gallo dated

February 19, 1993, (copy enclosed) the agency believes that the concept of using "safety bars" as occupant restraining devices in school buses raises significant safety concerns, including whether the bar could result in excessive loads (e.g., abdominal, leg, or chest) on occupants during a crash, as a result of contact between the bar and the occupants. We explained in a July 14, 1992, letter to you (copy enclosed) that the vehicle in which R-Bars are installed must meet the requirements of Standard 222 with the device in any position in which it may be placed. We have said that if a padded restraining device similar to the R-Bar is attached to the seat back, it becomes part of the seat and the device, as folded into its position, must not intrude into the leg protection zone described in S5.3.2 of Standard 222 (NHTSA letter of January 31, 1991, to Mr. Scott Hiler, enclosed). Also enclosed are NHTSA letters of March 10, 1989, and November 3, 1988, to Mr. Joseph Nikoll, which discuss issues concerning installation of "safety bars" in small school buses in addition to or in lieu of the seat belts required by Standard 208.

You asked for our comments on two statements you intend to make to your customers. The first statement is that there are no FMVSSs directly applicable to R-Bars. As discussed above, that statement is correct. The second statement is that, when properly installed, R-Bars will not violate any standard or regulation or render inoperative any safety feature on a school bus. NHTSA lacks information on which to assess the accuracy of that statement. However, it appears unlikely that you could provide such assurances for school buses in general, since the question of whether adding R-Bars would result in a school bus no longer complying with safety standards is likely to depend, at least in part, on factors specific to a particular school bus, such as the seats, floor, etc. Accordingly, absent data to substantiate this statement for all bus configurations and potential installation procedures, we believe that it would not be proper for you to make such a statement.

I hope this resolves the issues raised in your letter.

ID: nht93-7.26

DATE: October 18, 1993

FROM: J. C. DeLaney -- Manager, Technical Programs, Motorcycle Industry Council, Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Request for FMVSS 123 Interpretation

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/23/93 from John Womack to J. C. DeLaney (A41; Std. 123)

TEXT:

The Motorcycle Industry Council (MIC) is a nonprofit national trade association representing manufacturers and distributors of motorcycles, motorcycle parts and accessories, and members of allied trades.

On behalf of its membership, MIC requests an interpretation of FMVSS 123 as it relates to motorcycle side stand retraction.

FMVSS 123, S5.2.4, states that "a stand shall fold rearward and upward if it contacts the ground when the motorcycle is moving forward.", but makes no reference to any compliance test criteria or procedure.

The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) has published two recommended procedures related to side stand retraction testing - SAE J1578 "Motorcycle Side Stand Retraction Test Procedure"; and SAE J1579 "Motorcycle Side Stand Retraction Performance Requirements." A third SAE Recommended Practice, J1846, establishes characteristics for the test surface used for testing in accordance with J1578 and J1579. Copies of these SAE documents are enclosed.

MIC's question is: Does a motorcycle side stand comply with FMVSS 123 if it passes the SAE J1578 test procedure?

MIC would appreciate your earliest possible response to the above request. Please contact me if there are any questions or if additional information is required.

ID: nht93-7.27

DATE: October 19, 1993

FROM: Jason Backs -- Engineering Department, Travis Body and Trailer, Inc.

TO: Taylor Vinson

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/18/93 from John Womack to Jason Backs (A41; Std. 108)

TEXT: Recently, I spoke with Patrick Boyd (Room 5307) concerning the conspicuity law and how it will affect the business at which I work. Mr. Boyd suggested that I direct my question to you. Allow me to fill you in on the details. I am an engineer at Travis Body & Trailer in Houston, TX. We manufacture aluminum and steel end dump trailers. We will be required to meet the trailer conspicuity law which becomes effective December 1. The law is very detailed about most aspects of its implementation. However, I would like to be sure that my suggested installation is indeed conforming to the law. The rubrail is the obvious placement for the reflective tape on a dump trailer. However, since our present extrusions have raised ridges on the outer surface, it is not convenient to apply the reflective tape to the rubrail. As the final alternative, we could order three new extrusion dies. This would be quite expensive. Presently, I propose that we apply fifteen separate 18" lengths of the tape (11" red, 7" white, made by 3M) to the side sheet directly above the rubrail and in between each side stake. Using these lengths yields 58% coverage of a 39' trailer. This installation places the tape in full view from a point normal to the side of the trailer. At approximately 30 degrees from normal to the side of the trailer, the edge of the tape begins to be obstructed by the side stake. At 45 degrees from normal to the side of the trailer, 1 1/2" (8.33%) of each 18" section of tape is obstructed by the side stake. At 60 degrees from normal to the side of the trailer, 4" (22.22%) of each 18" section of tape is obstructed by the side stake. At 60 degrees from the normal to the side of the trailer, the tailgate reflective tape is in view. This placement of the tape in a slightly recessed position on the trailer which causes obstruction at large angles from normal to the trailer side is why I question that it conforms to the law. We can comply to the application of the reflective tape on the full width of the tailgate (rear of the tailer) with no question. I would like from you in writing that this specific installation of the reflective tape is in fact in compliance to the law in every respect. This would be helpful to have on file in the future should any of our trailer's conformity to the conspicuity law ever arise. Should any of the drawings depicting the placement of the stickers be unclear, feel free to call me. If you deem that this installation is not in compliance to the full extent of the conspicuity law, please contact me to further discuss our options.