Mr. Chris Tinto

Vice President Technical and Regulatory Affairs

Toyota Motor North America, Inc.

601 13^th Street, NW

Suite 910 South

Washington, DC 20005

Dear Mr. Tinto:

This responds to your letter asking about positioning the front passenger seat under crash test conditions of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) Nos. 208 and 214, Occupant Crash Protection and Side Impact Protection, respectively. Specifically, you asked whether we would consider a non-seating forward position of the front passenger seat the forwardmost position for purposes of positioning the seat in the crash tests of FMVSS No. 208 (S8.1.2 and S16.2.10.3.2), as well as FMVSS No. 214 (S6.3). As explained below, because there are design features in the vehicle that make it unlikely that an occupant would be seated in the forward position when the vehicle is in use, our answer is no, we would not consider the position to be the forwardmost or full forward position for purposes of positioning the seat for the respective crash tests of the 5^th and 50^th percentile crash test dummies.

In your letter, you describe an extended seat slide system for the front passenger seat planned for your new vehicles. When this seat is unoccupied, the occupant classification system recognizes that there is no occupant and will allow the seat to be adjusted to a non-seating position forwardmost location. This feature is intended to provide extended legroom for the rear passenger when the front passenger seat is unoccupied. When the front passenger door is opened and if the seat is forward of the forwardmost seating position location, the seat will automatically move backward to the forwardmost seating position.

Your question relates to positioning the seat to accommodate the test dummies used in the two standards. FMVSS No. 208 paragraph S8.1.2., which concerns the positioning of the seat in the adjustment position to prepare for a crash test using the 50^th percentile adult male dummy, reads: Adjustable seats are in the adjustment position midway between the forwardmost and rearmost positions, and if separately adjustable in a vertical direction, are at the lowest position.

S16.2.10.3.2 of FMVSS No. 208 states that when testing with the 5^th percentile adult female test dummy the full forward seating position is used.

S6.3 of FMVSS No. 214 specifies that when testing with the 50^th percentile adult male dummy, adjustable seats are placed in the adjustment position midway between the forward most and rearmost positions.

You ask if the forwardmost, forward most, and full forward positions referenced in these standards would be the non-seating position forwardmost location you are considering incorporating into the new design. You believe that the answer is no, believing that the provisions for adjusting the seat refer to adjustment positions that are available for seating to the passenger. You point out that if the seat were in the non-seating position forwardmost location, the seat will automatically adjust to the forwardmost seating position, and not the extended forward non-seating position, when the door is opened.

We agree with your view on this matter.

In an October 2, 1990, letter to Mazda, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) discussed the issue of how compliance is determined in situations in which a standard does not specify a particular test condition.[1] In that letter, NHTSA stated:

In cases where a standard does not specify a particular test condition, we believe there are several relevant factors to consider in interpreting the standard. First, in the absence of a specification of a particular test condition, we believe there is a presumption that the requirements need to be met regardless of such test condition, since the standard does not include any language which specifically limits applicability of its requirements to such test condition. For example, where a standard does not specify suspension height, its requirements may need to be met at all heights to which the suspension can be adjusted. Before reaching such a conclusion, however, we also consider the language of the standard as a whole and its purposes. [T]he language of the standard or its purposes may indicate limitations on such test condition. Finally, in situations where a limitation on a particular test condition may appear to be appropriate, we also must consider whether the limitation is sufficiently clear, both with respect to justification and specificity, to be appropriate for interpretation[or whether] such a decision should be reached in rulemaking.

In the case you present, we considered the purpose of the seat positioning requirements, which is to assess the vehicles protection of passengers in various seat positions. This purpose indicates that the test conditions should be limited to only those in which there would be a person occupying the seat. Based on your letter to us and subsequent email communication, we are aware that you have incorporated various design features into the vehicle to eliminate unreasonable risk that the seat would be in the non-seating position forwardmost location in a crash. These safety precautions include using the occupant classification sensor, door switch, and seat belt sensor to determine if the front passenger seat is occupied. Because these precautions eliminate unreasonable risk that the non-seating position would be occupied in a crash, we agree that safety considerations are not served by considering the forward non-seating position to be the forwardmost, full forward, or forward most positions for purposes of S8.1.2 and S16.2.10.3.2 of FMVSS Nos. 208 and S6.3 of FMVSS No. 214.

You note in your letter that you are not asking for an interpretation related to positioning the seat for the FMVSS No. 208 out-of-position tests with child test dummies. You acknowledge that tests with the child dummies should be conducted with the seat in the non-seating position forwardmost location, since a child could enter the vehicle through a vehicle door other than the one triggering automatic movement of the seat, and could climb over a seat to occupy the front passenger seat. In such a scenario, the front passenger seat could be occupied in the non-seating position forwardmost location by an out-of-position child. We agree that todays interpretation is limited to positioning the seats relative to the standards crash tests with the adult dummies, and that different circumstances and considerations arise relative to the out-of-position tests with the child test dummies.

If you have any further questions, please contact Ari Scott of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

ref:208

d.3/30/07

Adam Schumann, Engineer

Thoroughbred Motorsports

P. O. Box 369

22661 FM15

Troup, TX 75789

Dear Mr. Schumann:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 122, Motorcycle Brake Systems. You wish to know whether a prototype brake system design for a three-wheeled motorcycle would meet FMVSS No. 122. Based on the information you provided to the agency and the analysis below, Ive concluded that because the product would not meet the requirement at S5.1.2.1 that each reservoir filler opening have its own cover, seal, and cover retention device, it would fail to meet FMVSS No. 122.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment (See 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their vehicles and equipment conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. FMVSS No. 122 specifies performance requirements for motorcycle brake systems.

In your letter you describe your product as a three-wheeled motorcycle with approximately 143 horsepower. Unlike many motorcycles, your product will have a steering wheel instead of handle bars, a foot throttle operated by the drivers right foot, and a brake pedal operated by the drivers left foot. You state that the brake system will use a standard Ford Ranger dual master cylinder with a split reservoir with a single cap. The brake system and the brake foot pedal will actuate both front and rear systems simultaneously. You note that FMVSS No. 122 states at S5.1.2.1:

S5.1.2.1 Each master cylinder will have a separate reservoir for each brake circuit, with each reservoir filler opening having its own cover, seal, and cover retention device.

You asked whether NHTSA will accept the use of this standard passenger vehicle master cylinder on the motorcycle if it does not have two individual caps for each of the reservoirs.

Since your product would be classified as a motorcycle, it must meet the FMVSSs that apply to motorcycles, including FMVSS No. 122. As you are aware, although it would have a master cylinder with split reservoirs, front/rear, your design would have only one filler cover and seal. Each reservoir filler opening would not have its own cover, seal and cover retention device, as specified in S5.1.2.1. Your motorcycle would therefore not meet S5.1.2.1 of FMVSS No. 122.

You also seek confirmation that your product need not meet FMVSS No.123, Motorcycle controls and displays. The application section (S3.) of FMVSS No. 123 states: This standard applies to motorcycles equipped with handlebars As indicated above, you state in your letter that your motorcycle will incorporate a steering wheel instead of handle bars. Therefore, FMVSS No. 123 would not apply to your motorcycle.

* * *

With respect to FMVSS No. 122 above, our research on this issue revealed that the requirement for a separate reservoir for each brake circuit, with each reservoir filler opening having its own cover, seal and cover retention device, was proposed in a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) of March 24, 1971 (57 FR 5516), to establish the safety standard on motorcycle brake systems. The NPRM did not discuss the reason for the requirement that each reservoir filler opening have its own cover, seal and cover retention device. The proposed language was made final (see 47 FR 5033, March 9, 1972), took effect on September 1, 1973, and has not been changed since.

In light of the design of your product, and history of the relevant rule, I would like to indicate in closing that this agency provides a procedure through which parties may petition to change regulations where safe and functional alternatives to existing rules are identified and can be demonstrated. In the event you believe your design can be supported in this way, please consider the procedure that is explained at NHTSAs regulation at 49 CFR Part 552, Petitions for rulemaking, defect, and noncompliance orders.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

ref:122

NCC-112:DNakama:62992:mar:dec/08/06:OCC#06-005825

Final 1/18/07; Dot rewrote per TC 2/2/07

[U:\NCC20\INTERP\122\06-005825drn.doc]

cc:NCC-112, subj/chron, Docket Std. 122, DN, NVS-100, NVS-200

Kim D. Mann, Esq.

Scopelitis, Garvin, Light & Hanson

1850 M Street, NW

Washington, DC 20036

Dear Mr. Mann:

This responds to your letter asking about the permissibility of certain auxiliary lighting equipment under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. You asked about this in connection with a product of one of your clients. Specifically, your letter requested our opinion as to the permissibility of a row of eleven lamps that function as identification lamps, stop lamps, supplemental stop lamps, and turn signals. Based on the information about the product that you provided and the analysis below, it is our opinion that the auxiliary stop lamps and turn signal lamps would impair the effectiveness of the identification lamps, and thus be impermissible under the standard.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA does not provide approval of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. FMVSS No. 108 specifies requirements for original and replacement lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. NHTSA selects a sampling of new vehicles and equipment each year to determine their compliance with applicable FMVSSs. If our testing or examination reveals an apparent noncompliance, we may require the manufacturer to remedy the noncompliance, and may initiate an enforcement proceeding if necessary to ensure that the manufacturer takes appropriate action.

Paragraph S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108 specifies that no additional lamp, reflective device or other motor vehicle equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard. As you are aware, identification lamps are required
equipment on trailers (as specified in Table II, which states that identification lamps on trailers should be located on the rear 3 lamps as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle at the same height). It is our opinion that the product you ask about would impair the effectiveness of the identification lamps by obscuring the three-lamp cluster pattern required by the Standard, rendering it unrecognizable by turning it into an eleven-lamp cluster.

You present a variety of arguments that you believe support the permissibility of your clients product, and we will address them here. In your first argument, you state that NHTSA issued an interpretation in 1999[1] stating that a set of brake lights, functioning as supplemental stop lights when brakes are applied, may be installed adjacent to compliant three-lamp cluster rear identification lamps. [emphasis added] This reading is somewhat inaccurate. In that letter, the product addressed was a light bar which contained the required cluster of three identification lamps. Those same three bulbs also acted as supplemental stop lamps by increasing in intensity when the brakes were applied. In addressing the increased brightness, we stated that the effectiveness of [the identification lamps] would not be impaired by an increase in the intensity of the lamps when the brake pedal is applied. [emphasis added] The distinguishing difference between this product and the one you ask about is that the product addressed in the 1999 letter maintained the characteristic three-lamp cluster indicative of identification lamps even when acting as a supplemental stop lamp, whereas the additional eight lamps of your clients design would effectively mask the three-lamp cluster, turning it into an eleven-lamp cluster. Table II of Standard No. 108, which lays out in detail the location and many characteristics of required lighting equipment for truck trailers, is specific that three lamps are to be used, as well as to their required configuration.

In your second argument, you noted a letter sent by this agency in 2005,[2] which stated that auxiliary lamps should be located sufficiently distant from the three-lamp ID cluster so as not to impair its effectiveness. You then proceed to state that:

It is not the precise number of lights, three, that indicates the presence of a large vehicle in the roadway. It is the presence of a series of high-mounted lights across the rear of the trailer.

This logic deviates from the logic that NHTSA has used for some time in creating a standardized system for lighting symbols on the highways. In a 1999 letter of interpretation, we summarized our position as follows:

Intuitively, it may seem to you that providing additional stop lamp, turn signal, and taillamp functions can only enhance motor vehicle safety. However, we are convinced that our current standardized approach to motor vehicle lighting has positive safety benefits by virtue of its broad public and international acceptance, and that lighting equipment that is required by Standard No. 108 for a specific purpose ought not to be used for a different purpose. A driver, when confronted

with a signal, must not be confused and must react to it as quickly as possible. The use of the outer lamps of the identification lamp cluster as supplementary turn signals, carry the potential for confusion and hence impairment of the lamps[3]

Thus, we believe that the three-lamp cluster, by virtue of the standardization ensured by Standard No. 108, is inherently safer than other, non-conforming patterns of lamps such as an eleven-lamp cluster. This is also why we reject the argument you make that the additional high-mounted turn lights would, when activated, make the trailers presence even more pronounced. While the additional lamps would perhaps make it brighter, the obscuring of the highway-standard three-lamp cluster would outweigh that benefit.

You also argue that with regard to an identification lamp cluster, three bulbs is a minimum according to paragraph S5.1.1. You state that the number of identification lamps may be any number exceeding two (including 11). We disagree that this is a correct interpretation of the language in that paragraph. The relevant language of paragraph S5.1.1 reads:

Each vehicle shall be equipped with at least the number of lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment specified in Tables I and III and S7, as applicable

This language simply indicates that FMVSS No. 108 specifies requirements for a minimum number of lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. We note that it does not permit additional lamps that interfere with the functioning of the required lighting equipment, or alter established lighting systems, contrary to paragraph S5.1.3.

NHTSA has previously stated that the identification lamp system must consist of no more than three lamps. For example, in 2003, NHTSA made the following statement:

[A]n identification lamp system complying with Standard No. 108 cannot have more than three lamps. You have correctly interpreted Standard No. 108 to your prospective customers who have expressed an interest in having an array of more than three such lamps.[4]

Finally, you point to a 1991 letter of interpretation to J.C. Brown,[5] which stated that an auxiliary high mounted stop light and turn signal complied with the requirements of FMVSS No. 108 as lending support to the argument that your clients product would be compliant. The 1991 interpretation concerns an auxiliary center high mounted stop lamp/turn signal that was to be installed on trailers in close proximity to the three-lamp identification cluster. In that letter, the agency concluded that the auxiliary lamps were permitted despite concern that they could mask the light from the identification cluster when activated. The agency reasoned that because of the presence of clearance lamps, which also serve the purpose of identifying the vehicle, the fact that the light from the identification cluster might be temporarily masked did not impair its effectiveness for purposes of section S5.1.3.

In the instant matter, our concern is not that the auxiliary stop and turn signal lamps could mask the light, but rather that they necessarily will obscure the standard three-lamp cluster that NHTSA has determined to be the standard for identification lamps, by turning it into an unrecognizable eleven-lamp cluster. We note that while you stated the eleven-lamp cluster would significantly enhance safety, no engineering data were provided to support this assertion.

If you have any further questions, please contact Ari Scott of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

ref:108

d.4/25/07

Mr.Carl Dietrich

CEO/CTO

Terrafugia, Inc.

25 Mason Street,

Somerville, MA 02144

Dear Mr. Dietrich:

This is in response to your letter of August 29, 2006, in which you asked if the Transition roadable aircraft would be classified as a motor vehicle. As explained below, our answer is yes.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.) to regulate motor vehicle safety. The Safety Act at 30102(a)(6) defines "motor vehicle" as:

A vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.

In your letter, you state that the Transition is an airplane that is capable of folding its wings and driving down the road to the pilots home or destination. In addition, the illustrations you provide with your letter show the Transition driving on a public highway with other traffic. As it is both capable of and intended for use on the public streets, roads and highways (public roads), the Transition would be considered a motor vehicle and subject to the applicable safety regulations.

You indicate in your letter that you believe the Transition should not be considered a motor vehicle because motor vehicles are manufactured primarily for use on public streets, while on the typical trip of 350 miles a Transition would spend only 18% of its time on land, spending the rest of the time in the air. Thus, you claim that the Transition is manufactured primarily for flight and not primarily for use on public roads.

We take a broader interpretation of the word primarily. Whether a vehicle is a motor vehicle under the Vehicle Safety Act depends on its intended or likely use on the public roads, and not on whether use on public roads constitutes a majority of its operating time. The word primarily refers to use on public roadways as a primary purpose of the

vehicle, as opposed to on-road use that is merely incidental. It is clear from the design of the Transition and from your letter that the on-road use of the vehicle is one of the primary functions for which the vehicle was manufactured. As this vehicle will spend a substantial amount of time on public roads, and was manufactured to do so, NHTSA will consider the Transition a motor vehicle.

This vehicle is intended for use in two modes of transportation, i.e. highway and aviation. The statute excludes on those vehicles that are used exclusively on a rail line. When on the ground, the vehicle is driven by mechanical power and, unlike other vehicles capable of flight that are intended to be driven only on runways and taxiways, the primary purpose of this vehicles being driven is for use on public roads.

This interpretation is consistent with others issued by this office in the past. A February 16, 1982, letter to Mr. Roger Olander stated that a three-wheel flying car was a motor vehicle under the Safety Act. Our January 24, 2006, letter to Mr. Paul Larkin stated that an amphibious vehicle was considered a motor vehicle. Copies of these letters are enclosed.

If you have any additional questions, please contact Ari Scott of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

2 Enclosures

ref:571

d.10/26/06

Colin Pewarchuk, Esq.

Vice President, General Counsel

New Flyer of America, Inc.

711 Kernaghan Avenue

Winnipeg, Manitoba R2C 3T4

CANADA

Dear Mr. Pewarchuk:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 101, Controls, telltales and indicators. You advise us that your company manufactures and sells transit buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of more than 10,000 pounds (4,536 kg). Based on the information you provided to the agency and the analysis below, I can confirm your understanding framed in your September 19, 2006 letter that as a result of the August 17, 2005 final rule amending FMVSS No. 101 (70 FR 48295), the standard does not regulate, restrict or otherwise affect the use of foot-operated controls.

In your letter, you advise us that the majority of transit buses manufactured by your company for sale in the United States include foot-operated controls, including the turn signal control and the high beam control. You stated your belief that most other manufacturers in the transit bus industry, and perhaps manufacturers in the over-the-highway bus or coach industry also manufacture their products with similar foot-operated controls.

FMVSS No. 101 specifies that each covered vehicle fitted with a control listed in the standard must meet the requirements of [the] standard for the location, identification, color, and illumination of that control . . . . See S5. In the final rule of August 17, 2005, control was defined at S4 as:

the hand-operated part of a device that enables the driver to change the state or functioning of the vehicle or a vehicle subsystem.[1]

Since the standards revised definition of control is limited to hand-operated controls, foot-operated controls are not regulated by FMVSS No. 101.

We note that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration explained its intent not to continue to regulate foot-operated controls in FMVSS No. 101 in the preamble to the August 17, 2005 final rule. See 70 FR at page 48298. The standards requirements for foot-operated controls had been very limited. Specifically, FMVSS No. 101 had required that certain foot-operated controls (service brake, accelerator, clutch, high beam, windshield wiper, and windshield washer) must be operable by the driver when restrained by his or her seat belt. In the final rule preamble, we explained that we had proposed and, in the final rule were deciding, to limit the term control (and thus FMVSS No. 101 itself) to hand-operated controls because we were unaware of any current vehicles whose high beam, or windshield washer or wiper controls were foot-operated and because we saw no need, as a practical matter, to state as a regulation that service brakes, accelerators, and clutches be located so as to be operable by the driver.

Your letter has made us aware of the continued use in transit buses of foot-operated controls, contrary to the assumption expressed in the recent rulemaking. We note, however, that our rationale for not seeing a need, as a practical matter, to include a requirement that service brakes, accelerators, and clutches be located so as to be operable by the driver also appears applicable to other foot-operated controls needed during driving. That is, we believe it is reasonable to assume that manufacturers that use foot-operated controls necessary for the driving task will locate them such that they are operable by the driver when wearing their seat belt.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

ref:101

d.3/28/07

Bill Loshbough, President

ExecuWest Consultants

P.O. Box 25944

Albuquerque, NM 87125

Dear Mr. Loshbough:

This responds to your letter asking for an interpretation of S5.1.3(e) of Federal Motor Vehicle Standard (FMVSS) No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection. S5.1.3(e) specifies that, when a school bus passenger seat is subjected to the forward application of force, Seat components shall not separate at any attachment point. You wish to know if a school bus seat with a sheer [sic] pin on both sides of the seat that break and separate into two pieces and fall loose from the seat is acceptable and meets the intent of FMVSS 222. Based upon the information you provided to the agency and the analysis below, Ive concluded the seat structure you describe would not fail under FMVSS No. 222.

The answer depends on the location of the shear pin. The term attachment point in S5.1.3(e) refers to attachment points to the vehicle body structure, i.e., the pedestal and school bus side wall. The shear pins that we understand are the subject of your question, are part of the internal seat mechanism and are not attached to the vehicle body structure. These shear pins are designed within the seating system to break in certain accident or belt loading scenarios as part of the functionality and protection of the seating system. The breaking of the shear pins in such a school bus seat design would not be a failure to meet S5.1.3(e) of FMVSS No. 222; however all other provisions of S5.1 of the regulation would still need to be met. (I would also observe that this reasoning is similarly applicable to the identical language of S5.1.4(e) of FMVSS No. 222 concerning the rearward application of force.)

I am, for your information, enclosing a copy of a June 16, 1978 interpretation letter to Blue Bird Body Company addressing the meaning of the phrase seat components shall not separate at any attachment point.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations laws, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref #222

d.12/20/06

Ms. Julie Laplante

Les Entreprises Michel Corbeil, Inc.

830, 12 ime Avenue

Laurentides (Qubec) J5M 2V9

CANADA

Dear Ms. Laplante:

This responds to your letter asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release. You ask for guidance on affixing 1 inch retroreflective tape on the outside perimeter of the rear emergency exit door on your single rear wheel model school bus. You provided photographs showing that the top half of the rear emergency exit door is flanked by two windows, one each to the right and to the left. The windows are placed close to the doors such that there is not enough room for the 1 inch retroreflective tape outlining the rear emergency exit door to lie flat. Under these circumstances, you wish to know how to place the tape so that the bus meets requirements for identifying school bus emergency exits at S5.5.3(c) of FMVSS No. 217.

S5.5.3(c) of Standard No. 217 states:

(c) Each opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter with a retroreflective tape with a minimum width of 2.5 centimeters [one inch] and either red, white or yellow in color, that when tested under the conditions specified in S6.1 of Standard No. 131 (49 CFR 571.131), meets the criteria specified in Table 1 of that section.

The purposes of the retroreflective tape requirement are to identify the location of emergency exits to rescuers, and to increase on-the-road visibility of the bus.

As discussed below, based on our understanding of your letter and the photographs you enclosed, there are ways to apply the 1 inch-width tape to meet FMVSS No. 217. Please note, however, that you based your inquiry on the use of 1 inch tape, stating without further explanation that you are using this width tape to standardise our production. The standard requires tape of a minimum width of 2.5 centimeters (cm) (1 inch). A manufacturer cannot claim it is impracticable to meet the standard using a tape of a width greater than 2.5 cm (1 inch) if it would be practicable to mark the perimeter using 2.5 cm (1-inch) tape.

Your Question. Your photographs show that the windows on each side are so close to the rear emergency exit door that the 1 inches of tape that you use cannot be placed around the outside of the door without overlapping the windows.[1] You state that you cannot move each window one inch away from the door because there is no room to move the windows.

In the photographs on the page labeled #1, you show that the space around the rear emergency exit door is not wide enough to accommodate the tape. You indicate that if you were to put the tape around the outside perimeter of the door, the tape would overlap the frame of the adjacent windows, i.e., only inch of the tape would be on a flat surface on the outside perimeter of the door, and 1 inch of the tapes width would be in a fold in the curved surface of the fixed rear upper windows, resulting in what you describe as bad finishing, tear and dont [sic] stay in place.

Given the close proximity of the rear emergency exit door and the two rear windows to the right and left, you ask about three approaches for outlining the rear emergency exit door. The first approach involves not applying the tape to the perimeter of the door by the rear windows, while another approach involves cutting the tape in that area to a width of -inch. The last approach involves placing the tape on the door itself.

The first two suggestions would not meet the standard. Your first suggestion is to interrupt the portion of the tape (18 inches on each side [of the door]), that is, to not have any retroreflective tape for 18 inches on each side of the door. This approach would not enable the bus to meet the requirement of S5.5.3(c) that the emergency exit opening be outlined around its outside perimeter since a large portion of the perimeter would not be outlined.

Your other suggestion is to cut off the portion of the tape that sticks on the curved surface of the fixed upper windows. (It would leave a width of of an inch for those two 18 inches portion of tape.) This approach would not meet S5.5.3(c) because the two 18-inch portions of the tape would not meet the minimum width requirement of 2.5 centimeters [one inch].

Your last suggestion (slightly revised) would meet the standard. Your last suggestion is to affix the tape of the whole two side perimeters on the door directly. We agree that you may apply the tape to the door itself, as near as possible to the outside perimeter of the door. This is in accordance with an interpretation letter of June 8, 1994 to Van-Con Inc., in which we addressed a situation where there was no room available for placement of retroreflective tape outside of the doors bottom edge. In the Van-Con instance, NHTSA permitted a portion of the retroreflective tape to be on the door itself, stating:

Since not outlining an entire side of an exit might affect a rescuers ability to locate the exit and would reduce the conspicuity of the exit, the bottom side of the door must be marked with the retroreflective tape. In this situation, NHTSA interprets S5.5.3(c) as allowing placement of the retroreflective tape on the door itself, as near as possible to the lower edge of the door.

Accordingly, you may affix the tape for the vertical sides of the exit directly on the door.[2] However, we do not agree that you need not have tape at the door handle, since it appears from photograph #3 that there is sufficient space on the inside perimeter of the door to accommodate a 1 tape width.

NHTSA interprets S5.5.3(c) to allow interruptions in the tape necessary to avoid and/or accommodate curved surfaces and functional components, such as rivets, rubrails, hinges and handles, provided, however, that the following requisites are met. In the November 2, 1992, final rule, NHTSA indicated that the purpose of the retroreflective tape would be to identify the location of emergency exits to rescuers and increase the on-the-road conspicuity of the bus. Accordingly, the retroreflective tape may have interruptions if they satisfy both of these purposes. Occasional breaks in the tape for the hinges shown would not appear to negatively affect a rescuers ability to locate the exits, or reduce the conspicuity of the bus.

If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

#ref:217

d.2/5/07

Mr. Charles I. Sassoon

Panor Corp.

125 Cabot Court

Hauppage, NY 11788

Dear Mr. Sassoon:

This responds to your letter regarding the permissibility of a combination Stop, Turn Signal, Taillamp (STT) and backup lamp under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (FMVSS). Based upon the information you provided the agency and the analysis below, we have concluded that your design incorporating 18 white Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) on the outer perimeter of the STT would not be prohibited under FMVSS No. 108.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. FMVSS No. 108 specifies requirements for original and replacement lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. NHTSA selects a sampling of new vehicles and equipment each year to determine their compliance with applicable FMVSSs. If our testing or examination reveals an apparent noncompliance, we may require the manufacturer to remedy the noncompliance, and may initiate an enforcement proceeding if necessary to ensure that the manufacturer takes appropriate action.

The lamp you have designed consists of two areas, an inner area containing what appear, from your illustrations, to be nine LEDs, and an outer ring containing 18 white, 8 millimeter LEDs, which will serve as a backup lamp. You ask if there is any provision of FMVSS No. 108 which would prohibit this configuration.

The standard does not prohibit this combination lamp, as long as when a specific function is activated, the lamp performs that function in a manner that meets the minimum performance requirements established by Standard No. 108. It is the manufacturers

responsibility to confirm that the lamp meets all FMVSS No. 108 requirements relative to the functions for which the lamp is certified. We note that these issues have been raised in a 1990 letter to Mr. Suichi Watanabe,[1] and a copy of that interpretation has been included for your convenience.

If you have any more questions, please contact Ari Scott of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

Enclosure

d.3/5/07

ref:108

Mr. and Mrs. Samuel Yeager

664 Church Avenue

Nekoosa, WI 54457

Dear Mr. and Mrs. Yeager:

Senator Herb Kohl has requested that we respond to the concerns you expressed to him in an email message about converting your model year (MY) 2004 TrailBlazer and MY 2005 Colorado into dual fuel vehicles capable of running on either gasoline or ethanol. You reported that your dealer said that a Federal law prevents it from making such a conversion.

As background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that specify performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of equipment. NHTSA has used this authority to issue a FMVSS to ensure the fuel system integrity of vehicles powered by gasoline and those powered by an alcohol fuel (e.g., methanol, ethanol). Specifically, FMVSS No. 301, Fuel system integrity, regulates the fuel system integrity of gasoline and alcohol-powered light vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) under 10,000 pounds. FMVSS No. 301 requires each vehicle subject to it not to leak more than a limited amount of fuel after being crash tested. As both the TrailBlazer and the Colorado are light vehicles with GVWRs under 10,000 pounds, they were required to meet that standard when they were manufactured and sold.

This agency does not administer any law or regulation that prohibits the conversion of either of these vehicles into a dual fuel vehicle. However, the laws we administer do require that special care be taken when such a conversion is made by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business.

Section 30122(b), 49 U.S.C., prohibits those entities from removing, disabling or otherwise "making inoperative" any of the safety systems or devices installed on the vehicles to comply with a FMVSS:

(b) Prohibition. A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard . . . unless the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business reasonably believes the vehicle or equipment will not be used (except for testing or a similar purpose during maintenance or repair) when the device or element is inoperative.

Page 2

Mr. and Mrs. Samuel Yeager

If one of the above-named businesses were to modify a gasoline vehicle (after the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith other than for resale) so that it can use either gasoline or ethanol, that business would be required to ensure that it did not knowingly make inoperative, in whole or in part, the compliance of that vehicle to any applicable safety standard, e.g., FMVSS No. 301. Accordingly, since all light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles (which include passenger vans and sport utility vehicles) with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less must meet FMVSS No. 301, any aspect of their conversion to dual fuel vehicles must not make them more vulnerable to fuel leakage or otherwise impair their fuel system integrity.

The make inoperative provision does not apply to individual vehicle owners who convert their own vehicles. Thus, under the laws administered by NHTSA, a vehicle owner may modify his or her own vehicle regardless of the modifications effect on compliance with the FMVSSs. NHTSA, however, encourages vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles. Finally, please also note that individual States may regulate the modifications that affect the emission control systems of used dual fuel vehicles.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me personally or to have your staff contact me at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-9511.

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

cc: The Honorable Herb Kohl

ref:VSA

d.11/15/06

Mr. Eike Krochmann

Schefenacker Vision Systems Germany GmbH

Alfred-Schefenacker-Str. 1

71409 Schwaikheim

Germany

Dear Mr. Krochmann:

This responds to your letter regarding the placement of rear lamps and reflectors under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (FMVSS No. 108). You asked several questions regarding the placement of the rear side reflex reflector and side marker lamp, as well as the necessity of using additional lamps when rear lamps are placed on a tailgate. We are pleased to provide responses to your questions.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment.  Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA selects a sampling of new vehicles and equipment each year to determine their compliance with applicable FMVSSs.  If our testing or examination reveals an apparent noncompliance, we may require the manufacturer to remedy the noncompliance, and may initiate an enforcement proceeding if necessary to ensure that the manufacturer takes appropriate action.

Your first question asked whether it would be in compliance with FMVSS No. 108 to mount a rear red side marker lamp on a tailgate without installing an additional similar lamp on the body of the car. Our answer is that it would be acceptable. Paragraph S5.3 of FMVSS No. 108, Location of required equipment, states that Table IV contains the location for lighting equipment for multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks. Table IV specifies that a red side marker lamp must be located as far to the rear as practicable. Thus, if the tailgate extends to the edge of the vehicle, a side marker lamp located on the tailgate would meet that requirement, and require no additional rear side marker lamp.

Your question also brings up the issue of whether the tailgate constitutes a rigid part of the vehicle, as required by paragraph S5.3. It is our opinion that it does. We would consider the tailgate to be a rigid part of the vehicle, and note that this specification was adopted primarily to forestall installation of rear reflex reflectors on mud flaps.[1]

In your other question, you note that for the same car design, the tailgate covers the complete rear and there is no possibility to mount the rear lamps on the car body. You indicate that the rear lamps meet the requirements of Standard No. 108 when the tailgate is closed, and ask if you are required to install another set of compliant rear lamps for use when the tailgate is open. The answer is that this is not necessary. With regard to tailgates, when we judge whether a vehicle meets the location and visibility requirements of Standard No. 108, we determine compliance of the vehicle in what appears to us to be its normal operating or driving position. The normal driving position of a vehicle with a tailgate is with the tailgate in the closed position, and use of a vehicle with the tailgate not closed is likely to be infrequent compared with its use with the tailgate closed. As long as your lamps are compliant while the tailgate is in the closed position, we would consider that compliant with Standard No. 108.

If you have any further questions, please contact Ari Scott of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:108

d.10/19/07