ID: 17799-2.pja

Mr. Michael E. Kastner
Director of Government Relations
National Truck Equipment Association (NTEA)
1350 New York Avenue, NW
Suite 800
Washington, DC 20005-4797

Dear Mr. Kastner:

This responds to your letter requesting a meeting on the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) rear impact protection (underride guard) regulations. In a subsequent telephone conversation with Paul Atelsek on my staff, you stated that your intention was to get an interpretation of the underride standards, and that a meeting was not necessary. Specifically, you would like an explanation of the definition of the area that could be occupied by the horizontal member of the underride guard for purposes of determining whether a trailer meets the definition of an excluded special purpose vehicle. The issues you raise are addressed below.

A brief review of the rule and the salient points of your letter is appropriate to set the background for our reply. As you know, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 224, Rear impact protection, requires most trailers and semitrailers weighing over 10,000 pounds to be fitted at the rear with a rear impact (underride) guard meeting the requirements of Standard No. 223, Rear impact guards (49 CFR 571.223 and 571.224, published on January 24, 1996 at 61 FR 2004). You state that trailer manufacturers and end users, such as fleet managers, have interpreted our regulations as requiring underride guards on trailers and semitrailers equipped with equipment such as liftgates that is incompatible with the underride guards. End-users have reported to NTEA members a concern that underride guards could create work-related safety hazards in the form of "pinch points" between the guard and the equipment.

Concerns about certain incompatible equipment led NHTSA to exclude "special purpose vehicles" from the requirements of the standard. The main problem you cite with the exclusion of special purpose vehicles is confusion regarding the definition of these vehicles. A special purpose vehicle is defined in S4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 224 as "a trailer or semitrailer having work-performing equipment that, while the vehicle is in transit, resides in or moves through the area that could be occupied by the horizontal member of the rear underride guard, as defined by S5.1.1 through S5.1.3."⁽¹⁾ You observe that "the area that could be occupied by the horizontal member of the rear underride guard," (the "guard zone") determines the area within which the work-performing equipment would have to be located to be considered a special purpose vehicle. The remainder of your letter attempts to derive the boundaries of the guard zone. You conclude that the guard zone may be as high as the bottom of the vehicle body, as low as the ground, as wide laterally as the vehicle, and as deep, longitudinally (your letter refers to this dimension as width), as 12 inches forward from the rear extremity, plus the longitudinal width of the guard itself. You further conclude that if any work-performing equipment is mounted in the guard zone, the vehicle is excluded regardless of when and how the equipment is used.

Your understanding is generally correct regarding the boundaries of the guard zone. S5.1.2 of Standard No. 224 requires that the bottom edge of the guard be "no more than" 255 mm from the ground. The preamble to the January 1996 final rule explicitly stated that NHTSA was not setting a minimum guard height: "guards may be mounted with less than the maximum allowable ground clearance" (61 FR 2018. See also 63 FR 3657-58, denying a petition for reconsideration to set a lower limit on guard height). Therefore, the bottom of the horizontal member could theoretically be as low as the ground, although as a practical matter, such a guard would strike the ground every time the trailer hit a bump. S5.1 of Standard No. 223 requires the horizontal member of the guard to have a vertical height of "at least" 100 mm, or 4 inches. The agency in the final rule also explicitly stated "that 100 mm (4 in) is only a minimum height" (61 FR 2012). Since there is no maximum height, the top of the horizontal member could extend upward to the trailer bed. S5.1.1 of Standard No. 224 specifies a maximum lateral extension of the horizontal member as the side extremities of the vehicle. So the side extremities, as they are defined in S4 of Standard No. 224, constitute the outermost boundaries of the guard zone.

As you suggested in your letter, we interpret the rearward boundary of the guard zone to be the transverse vertical plane tangent to the rear extremity of the vehicle, and the forward boundary of the guard zone to be the transverse vertical plane 305 mm (12 inches) forward of that plane. You are correct in saying that the horizontal member of the guard must have some longitudinal thickness in order to meet the strength requirements of the standard, and that this thickness might in some installed guard designs project forward of the plane 305 mm forward of the rear extremity if the rear face of the guard is positioned tangent to that plane. You conclude that the forwardmost edge of the guard zone is equal to the 12 inches forward of the rear extremity, plus some undefined guard thickness. However, NHTSA intended to have the forward boundary of the guard zone at the plane 305 mm forward from the rear extremity, "as defined by" the configuration requirements, rather than at some undefined point in front of that. Although the regulation could be clearer, that is the most reasonable interpretation. The guard zone, as explained in this letter, should result in most tuckunder liftgate designs being excluded. The flexibility to locate a guard up to a foot forward of the rear extremity can also be used to avoid creating the pinch zones that some trailer operators are concerned about.

Your understanding is incorrect regarding when the work-performing equipment has to be in the guard zone and how the equipment is used. When you quoted the definition of special purpose vehicle, you omitted the qualifying words "while in transit," and concluded that work-performing equipment in the guard zone makes a vehicle excluded "regardless of when and how that equipment is used." NHTSA has made it clear in a number of its past interpretations that the work-performing equipment has to reside in or pass through the guard zone (though not necessarily perform its function) while the vehicle is in transit. See, e.g., May 22, 1998 interpretation to Ms. Jeanne Isbill of Tarasport Trailers. Moreover, not all equipment is considered work-performing equipment. These same interpretations make clear that NHTSA interprets the words "work-performing" to mean that the equipment must actively perform its function, and that the function must involve exerting force or moving something else. Liftgates of all kinds are considered work-performing equipment.

The agency wants to be flexible about guard positioning, consistent with safety. NHTSA specified limited parameters of the configuration of the guard, because every additional requirement ultimately restricts the design capabilities of manufacturers. This flexibility was provided in order to help manufacturers that are actually installing guards. We have seen manufacturers use this flexibility to engineer innovative guard designs to adjust for their special requirements. Some manufacturers have even gone beyond what is required. For example, some manufacturers of trailers that are excluded due to tuckunder liftgates have begun to voluntarily integrate structural members into their liftgates which they test and certify as underride guards.

NHTSA has received a petition for rulemaking from Thieman Tailgates, Inc., to amend the standard to address issues similar to those raised in your letter. The petition asks the agency to change the definition of special purpose vehicle to clarify the boundaries of the guard zone. It also asks NHTSA to exclude vehicles with rear mounted liftgates that reside in or pass through the guard zone, without regard to whether the vehicle is in transit. The issues you raised in your letter, as well as any subsequent comments you make on such a rulemaking, would be considered in any rulemaking that we might undertake in response to the petition.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
d.9/9/98
ref:223#224

1. Note that this definition, as quoted, reflects an amendment made in response to petitions for reconsideration of the final rule. See 63 F.R. 3654 (January 26, 1998).

ID: 1985-01.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/28/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Verne L. Freeland

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Verne L. Freeland P.O. Box 693652 Miami, FL 33269

This responds to your letter to Mr. Radovich of the Rulemaking division of this agency, requesting an interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 213, Child restraint systems (49 CFR S571.213). Specifically, you stated that you had developed a child restraint system which was built into the vehicle seat, and asked how to proceed to have this child restraint certified as complying with Standard No. 213. As currently written, Standard No. 213 does not accommodate your type of restraint.

A manufacturer of a child restraint system is required to certify that each child restraint system manufactured by it complies with all of the requirements of Standard No. 213, and adding a statement to that effect to the label required by section S5.5 of the Standard. This certification need not be based on actual test results; NHTSA only requires that the certification be made with the exercise of due care on the part of the manufacturer. It is up to the individual manufacturer to determine what test results, engineering analysis, or other data would be sufficient to enable it to meet the due care requirement in certifying that its child restraints comply with the standard. Certainly, we would recommend that a manufacturer marketing a new child restraint design test that restraint in accordance with the test procedures specified in the standard.

As you will see from the enclosed copy of Standard No. 213, Section S5.3.1 of the standard requires each child restraint system to be capable of being restrained by a type 1 seat belt system. In addition, the test procedures in section S6 specify that the child restraint is to be tested by attaching it to a standard vehicle seat solely by the vehicle seat's lap belts. Your design, which incorporates the restraint into a vehicle seat, could not be attached to a standard vehicle seat by means of lap belts.

Standard No. 213 would have to be amended in order for you to be able to certify that your child restraint satisfies all the requirements of that standard. 49 CFR Part 552, Petitions for Rulemaking, Defect, and Noncompliance Orders (copy enclosed) gives interested persons the right to petition this agency for amendments a safety standard, and sets forth the required contents of the petition, the address to which it should be sent, and the procedures which will be followed by the agency in evaluating the petition. If you wish, you may file such a petition. Should such a petition be granted, this agency would follow its normal rulemaking procedures to amend Standard No. 213.

If you have some further questions or need further information on this subject, please contact Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosures

Verna L. Freeland PO Box 693652 Miami, Florida 33269 Tel(305)653-1882

July 4, 1984

Val Radovich, Safety Standards Engineer, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 7th Street, S.W., Room 5316 NRM 12, Washington, D.C., 20590

Re: Obtaining certification of "Built-In Childs Safety Seat" to U.S. Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 213-80 - Child Seating Systems

Dear Mr. Radovich,

I am the inventor of a built-in childs safety seat as described and depicted in the attached copy of my pending application for U.S. Letters Patent as/also the attached illustrative pictures of miniature model of same.

In April, 1984, I submitted a copy of the patent application and pictures, together with a sales pitch, entitled 'comment' (copy attached) to each of the 19 directors of Chrysler corporation in hopes of having Chrysler manufacture and incorporate the depicted child's safety seat in their vehicles.

On May 8th 1984, as a result of the submission of such material to Chrysler, I received, signed and delivered to Chrysler a 'Suggestion Agreement' as a prerequisite which, I believed, would expedite the consideration and implementation of the invention by Chrysler. (copy attached).

On May 29, 1984, I was advised by Chrysler that the built-in childs safety seat must be certified by NHTSA to meet the requirements of U.S. Motor Vehicle Standard No. 213-80 - Child Seating Systems, before the seat could be evaluated by Chrysler. This May 29th letter from Chrysler further advised me to obtain information as to such certification by contacting NHTSA at 400 7th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C., attention: Secretary Dole. (a copy of such letter is attached).

On June 4, 1984, I sent a letter to NHTSA at the address and to the attention of Secretary Dole, as advised by the letter from Chrysler. (copy of June 4th letter attached).

On July 3, 1984, having received no response to my letter of June 4th, I began telephoning to seek the requested information, commencing with first telephone call to Secretary Dole's offices, which referred me to another telephone number, which referred me to another telephone number, etc., etc., etc., which finally resulted in my being advised that you (or a member of your staff) would ultimately respond to my June 4th letter when the same had finally filtered down through the chain of command from Secretary Dole's office. (a procedure which was estimated as a 'month or two').

In view of the foregoing information, and seeking to expedite the matter, I telephoned your office and was advised to send a new letter directly to you. During such telephone conversation I attempted to describe my invention in order to secure some telephonic information as to the procedure, criteria, and time element involved in obtaining the desired certification and was advised that since my proposed seat is bolted to the regular auto seat (as a built-in integral part thereof) it did not have the required 'tether belting' necessary to meet the specifications of Standard 213-80 and hence, would probably require petition for variance or for an exemption from such requirement of the act.

Now then, Mr. Radovich, having given you all of the background information, with supporting documents, I ask for your assistance in obtaining the requested certification as expeditiously as is possible including but not limited to:

(a) Advising me as to the procedure or procedures necessary to effect certification of the depicted built-in childs safety seat.

(b) Advising me as to the necessity and, if so, the procedure for obtaining variance and/or exemption from the 'tether belt' requirement of 213-80.

(c) Advising me as to whether or not I must construct and furnish you with a full scale working model of the depicted built-in childs safety seat and, if so, where and when?

(e) Advising me as to the anticipated costs and expenses involved in obtaining certification, and

(f) Such other and further advice as you may be so kind as to suggest in order to obtain the requested certification as expeditiously as is possible.

In regard to the ultimate certification, I understand that the present certification requires that child seat safety equipment meet safety standards of a thirty (30) mile per hour impact test. It is my belief that the depicted built-in childs safety seat will meet much higher safety standards of 55 miles per hour impact, and higher. This, coupled with the elimination of injuries caused by improperly attached equipment, etc., (as suggested in the patent application and comments) may well give rise to further decreasing injuries to children in vehicles and, consequently, I am anxious to have the built-in childs safety seat tested to its maximum safety certification instead of the normal and minimal 30 miles per hour standards.

I apologize for the length of this letter but I sincerely believe that the depicted seat constitutes such a substantial improvement of the existing childs safety seats now on the market as to warrant consideration of getting it certified and on the market as soon as humanly possible.

Yours very truly,

Verne L. Freeland

xerox copy *to: R.E. Springer, Outside Suggestion Dept., Chrysler Corporation, CIMS 418-05-30, P. O. Box 1118 Detroit, Michigan, 48288

* without attachments

&: WIGMAN & COHEN, P.C., Suite 200, Crystal Square 3, 1735 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia, 22202 Serial No. 584, 402 Ref: 1589-A

ID: nht88-4.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/01/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: M. IWASE -- TECHNICAL ADMINISTRATION DEPT. - KOITO MFG. CO. LTD.

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: This is to provide you with a clarification of my letter to you dated March 16, 1988. Your second question was whether the minimum edge to edge separation distance between turn signal lamps and tail/stop lamps is required on a rear lighting array for mo torcycles. I responded that "The answer is yes, and the separation distance you have depicted in your drawings appears to comply with this requirement."

In actuality, the agency has required this separation only where a single motorcycle stoplamp/taillamp is mounted on the vertical centerline, and not when dual lamps are mounted on either side of the vertical centerline, the configuration depicted in you r letter of January 25, 1988. Therefore, I am advising you that there is no legal requirement that the 4-inch separation distance be maintained in the configurations you depicted, and that we appreciate your continuing efforts to understand and comply w ith Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

I enclose a copy of a letter from this Office dated November 21, 1984, which explains our views on motorcycle rear lighting configurations in more detail.

Enclosure

ID: nht94-3.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 27, 1994

FROM: Keith E. Smith -- Piper & Marbury

TO: John G. Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attachment dated 8/18/94: Letter from John Womack to Keith E. Smith (VSA 102(4))

TEXT: As I discussed yesterday with Ken Weinstein of your office, by this letter I seek a declaratory statement, in the form of a letter from the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration ("NHTSA"), that automotive and/or motorcycle braking systems are considered by NHTSA to be "safety devices". I do not desire, nor do I expect NHTSA to make any declaration regarding the safety of a particular braking system.

It is my understanding that the primary purpose of the National Highway Transportation Safety Act (the "Act") is to promote public safety by establishing motor vehicle safety standards. Such standards, as provided in the regulations promulgated under the Act at 49 CFR @@ 571.105 and 571.122, provide minimum safety guidelines by which braking systems are evaluated. Therefore, by implication, it would seem that automotive and/or mortorcycle braking systems must be considered by NHTSA to be "safety de vices".

If the above representations are correct, I would appreciate a letter confirming so. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

ID: 9792

Eric T. Stewart, Engineering Manager
Mid Bus
3555 St. Johns Road
P.O. Box 1985
Lima, OH 45802-1985

Dear Mr. Stewart:

This responds to your letter of March 17, 1994, regarding a final rule published November 2, 1992 (57 FR 49413) amending Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release. You requested clarification of the width requirement in S5.5.3(c) for retroreflective tape.

You are correct that there was a discrepancy concerning the size of the tape caused by the metric conversion in the final rule. Enclosed is a copy of a July 7, 1993 letter to Mr. Thomas D. Turner of the Blue Bird Body Company which discusses this issue. As explained in that letter, we plan to issue a correction notice of the November 2, 1992 rule that would specify a minimum size of 2.5 cm for the tape. Until the correction is issued, we will not take enforcement measures regarding tape size against a manufacturer who uses 1 inch wide retroreflective tape.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:217 d:4/l/94

ID: nht70-2.54

DATE: 10/28/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Rodolfo A. Diaz; NHTSA

TO: TVR Engineering Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of October 14, 1970, to the Director of the National Highway Safety Bureau forwarding information sheets on the TVR Vixen. I am enclosing copies of the Bureau's Consumer Information Regulations (49 CFR Part 575). The substantive provisions, @ 575.101 on vehicle stopping distance, @ 575.102 on tire reserve load, and @ 575.106 on acceleration and passing ability, require the furnishing of specific information in a format which is in the form set out in the regulations. The information sheets which you have provided fall short of these requirements in both form and substance. For example, @ 575.101 requires furnishing information on the minimum stopping distance, expressed in feet, for the particular vehicle, from a particular speed, at specified loads, with the braking system in a specified condition. The information provided by you in this regard is incomplete, and is not in the form specified. In addition, the regulations require the information to describe and be valid for each of the vehicles with which it is provided.

Please study the enclosed regulations carefully and forward to us complying consumer information within the near future. Let us know if you need further assistance.

ENCLOSURES

ID: nht71-3.10

DATE: 05/27/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Ideal Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of May 4, 1971, to Francis Armstrong you request permission to conduct testing of turn signal and hazard warning signal flashers pursuant to SAE Standard J823b, "Flasher Test Equipment," April 1963.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 incorporates by reference SAE Standard J590b, "Automotive Turn Signal Flashers," October 1965, and SAE Recommended Practice J945, "Vehicular Hazard Warning Signal Flasher," February 1966, both of which specify test circuitry and equipment according to "SAE J823." It is my understanding that the major difference between J823 and J823b, which becomes the appropriate sub-referenced standard on January 1, 1972, is the specification in the latter that "The required voltage tests [for variable-load flashers] with maximum bulb load shall be conducted without readjusting each corresponding power supply voltage, previously set with minimum bulb load." It appears that J823 was written before variable load flashers were in general use and that this is the reason for omission of this specification from J823. Since J823b includes all the requirements of the presently referenced SAE standard, you may proceed to implement it immediately.

ID: 3235o

Mr. M. Iwase
Technical Administration Dept.
Koito Mfg. Co. Ltd.
Shizuoka Works
500, Kitawaki
Shimuzi--shi, Shizuoka-ken
JAPAN

Dear Mr. Iwase:

This is to provide you with a clarification of my letter to you dated March l6, l988. Your second question was whether the minimum edge to edge separation distance between turn signal lamps and tail/stop lamps is required on a rear lighting array for motorcycles. I responded that "The answer is yes, and the separation distance you have depicted in your drawings appears to comply with this requirement."

In actuality, the agency has required this separation only where a single motorcycle stoplamp/taillamp is mounted on the vertical centerline, and not when dual lamps are mounted on either side of the vertical centerline, the configuration depicted in your letter of January 25, 1988. Therefore, I am advising you that there is no legal requirement that the 4-inch separation distance be maintained in the configurations you depicted, and that we appreciate your continuing efforts to understand and comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08.

I enclose a copy of a letter from this Office dated November 2l, l984, which explains our views on motorcycle rear lighting configurations in more detail.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure Ref:l08 d:l2/l/88

ID: nht90-3.47

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 2, 1990

FROM: Samuel Kimmelman -- Engineering Product Manager, IDEAL Division, EPICOR Industries, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-31-90 from P.J. Rice to S. Kimmelman (A36; Std. 108)

TEXT:

When a new car, light truck or van is purchased and delivered to the buyer with a dealer installed trailer hitch and associated wiring, it is our understanding that at the time of delivery the vehicle must comply with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

We further interpret the Standards to require the following:

1. The turn signal flasher must be certified as meeting the FMVSS-108 requirements of a variable load turn signal flasher, over a minimum load equal to that of the vehicle turn signal load and a maximum load equal to that of the vehicle plus the trailer .

2. The hazard warning flasher must be certified as meeting the require- ments of FMVSS-108 over a load range of 2 lamps to the combined hazard warning loads of the vehicle plus the trailer.

3. The requirement to provide turn signal outage indication is voided due to the trailer towing capability of the vehicle.

Please inform us if the interpretations noted above agree with those of the Department of Transportation.

ID: nht92-9.38

DATE: January 24, 1992

FROM: Larry J. French -- President and CEO, Magnascreen

TO: Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Reference: 49 CFR, Part 571, Docket No. 91-11, Notice 2, RIN2127-AD81, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Rearview Mirrors - Reflectance

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/26/92 from Paul J. Rice to Larry J. French (A39; Std. 111)

TEXT:

Magnascreen is presently developing electronically controlled dimmable (day/night) rearview mirror products for motor vehicles.

Magnascreen has reviewed the revised Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, 571.111, standard number 111, for motor vehicle rearview mirror requirements referenced above. Upon review, we are requesting that the NHTSA comment on the validity of Magnascreen's interpretation which follows:

"When a multiple reflectance level mirror is not powered by the vehicle power source, the reflectance of the mirror can be returned to a minimum of 35% reflectance (either automatically or by driver operated controls) USING AN ALTERNATE POWER SOURCE." (A power source other than the one intended to (illegible) the mirror.)

This interpretation allows multiple reflectance mirror designs to use an alternate power source to achieve the specified failsafe operation called out in CFR 49, 579.111, para. S11, Rearview Mirrors.

Your timely response will be appreciated, as this interpretation impacts Magnascreen's mirror product designs.