ID: 2969yy

Ms. Jessie M. Flautt
4405 Lafayette Street
Bellaire, TX 77401

Dear Ms. Flautt

This responds to your letter to Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff, requesting that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) grant permission to a repair business to modify your motor vehicle.

You explained that you are under five feet, two inches and legally blind in one eye. You further explained that, due to the increased size of headrests in recent years, you are unable to locate a 1991 automobile which does not have headrests which impede your field of vision. You wish to arrange to have the size of the headrests in a 1991 automobile reduced. You asked if you could obtain permission from this agency to permit this modification. I hope the following discussion explaining our regulation will be of assistance to you.

I would like to begin by clarifying that there is no procedure by which persons petition for and are granted permission from NHTSA to arrange to have a motor vehicle repair business modify their motor vehicle. Repair businesses are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to certain regulatory limits on the type of modifications they may make. In certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our regulations to provide some allowances to a repair business which cannot conform to our regulations when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities. Since your situation is among those given special consideration by NHTSA, this letter should provide you with the relief you seek.

Our agency is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses modifying certified vehicles are affected by 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. It prohibits those businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative any elements of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with a FMVSS. In general, 108(a)(2)(A) would require repair businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard. Violations of 108(a)(2)(A) are punishable by civil fines up to $1,000 per violation.

In situations such as yours where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider any violation of 108(a)(2)(A) a purely technical one justified by public need. I can assure you that NHTSA would not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that modifies the headrest on your vehicle to accommodate your condition. We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made to the headrest to accommodate your condition and we urge your dealer to modify your vehicle in such a manner that would not degrade from the safety currently provided by your vehicle. Many manufacturers are currently installing headrests in vehicles which exceed the minimum dimensions required by FMVSS No. 202, Head Restraints. I urge you not to have your headrest reduced below these dimensions if it is not necessary for your field of view.

If you have further questions or need some additional information in this area, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

/ref:VSA, 202 d:3/26/9l

ID: 77-3.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/27/77

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

TO: American Seating Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 24, 1977, letter asking for an interpretation of the requirements for knee contact area in Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, which state that, when impacted, "the resisting force of the impacted material shall not exceed 600 pounds and the contact area on the knee form surface shall not be less than 3 square inches." You ask whether this requirement can be interpreted as meaning that, when impacted, the resisting force of the impacted material shall not exceed 200 pounds per square inch rather than 600 pounds over 3 square inches.

The 600 pound maximum force and the 3 square inch minimum contact area are two distinct requirements. The first specifies an upper bound on the load that will be applied to the upper leg while the latter specifies a lower bound on the knee area over which an impact load must be distributed. To combine the two requirements, as you suggest, tends to relax the contact area requirement for a load which is less than 600 pounds. Such an interpretation would not ensure the level of safety the agency demands for knee contact area. The suggested combination of the two requirements may not provide an adequate distribution of forces over the knee. Accordingly, the agency declines to accept the suggested interpretation of the standard.

SINCERELY,

March 24, 1977

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Att: Chief Counsel, Frank A. Berndt

Reference is made to Federal Standard 222, paragraph S5.3.2.2, "When any part on the rear surface of that part of a seat back or restraining barrier within any zone specified S5.3.2.1 is impacted from any direction at 16 feet per second by the knee form specified in S6.7, the resisting force of the impacted material shall not exceed 600 pounds and the contact area on the knee form surface shall not be less than 3 square inches".

We request an interpretation of the requirement for the knee form contact area. The knee recess area of the seat back is the most vulnerable part of the seat not only to vandalism but to hard use by the passenger. This is the area where feet are placed on the back and soles of shoes scuff and damage softer material. Also objects such as briefcases and lunchboxes add to the damage in this area. In fact, in city and inter-city buses this area is normally protected by heavy plastic or stainless steel panels. In the endeavor to provide a more practical surface than the soft vinyl we have been successful in adopting a thin plastic back panel. However, in some areas of the seat back, the resisting force, at 16 feet per second, is only 300 pounds and proportionately the contact area caused by the knee form is about 2 - 2 1/2 square inches.

We question whether the 3 square inches applies to the resisting force of the 600 pound magnitude or if it must extend to the lesser force. If we consider the distribution of the 600 pound force over the 3 square inch area, we are applying 200 pounds per square inch. When we measure the distribution of forces in this manner we meet the 200 pound maximum per square inch.

Under separate cover we are sending you copies of the actual contact areas indicated by the paint imprint. Because your interpretation will have a direct bearing on the construction of the seat as well as performance and economy of maintenance, we would appreciate a response at your earliest convenience.

Chester J. Barecki Vice President - Sales Engineering Transportation Products Division

[Attachments Omitted]

CC: T. HOYT; E. HENEVELD; J. OTT; T. CAMP

ID: 77-3.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/04/77

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

TO: Alderson Research Laboratories Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Alderson Research Laboratory's July 15, 1977, request for confirmation that Part 572, Anthropomorphic Test Dummy (49 CFR 572), neither requires nor prohibits venting of the abdominal insert specified in drawing No. ATD 3250-2. The agency proposed the addition of leak test specifications to the drawing in August 1975 (40 CFR 33462, August 5, 1975) but they were not made final (42 CFR 7148, February 7, 1977).

Your interpretation that Part 572 neither requires nor prohibits venting of the abdominal insert is correct. The language you cite from the preamble to our February 1977 rulemaking is misleading in suggesting the requirement for venting. The agency more clearly described the requirement in its most recent amendment of Part 572 (42 FR 34299, July 5, 1977), stating that the Part does not "specify an abdominal sealing specification." Agency testing demonstrated conforming results both with and without venting (DOT HS-020875) and sees no reason to control this aspect of dummy design.

SINCERELY,

ALDERSON RESEARCH LABORATORIES, INC.

July 15, 1977

Stanley Backaitis National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of Crashworthiness

Subject: Abdominal Inserts, 49CFR Part 572

Notice 04 of Docket 73-8 finalized rulemaking on the Part 572 Anthropomorphic Test Dummy, and, in so doing, retracted an earlier proposed change which would have required the abdominal insert of the dummy to be sealed and leak free. It is our clear understanding that this retraction merely reverted the insert back to its original form, which imposed no rigid requirements for either sealing or venting of this component. Indeed, the original specifications for this insert were virtually universally interpreted as leaving the question of venting or not venting entirely discretionary as long as the Part 572 component calibration tests were satisfied.

In conversation with several of our customers, we are informed that widespread opinion exists that notice 04 now absolutely requires the abdominal insert to be vented, despite the fact that the manufacturing drawing (ATD-3250-2) for this component now, as before, provides no definition for any breathing vent. We think that the reason for this belief is based on the wording of the preamble discussion of Notice 04 which states ". . .the leak test has been removed from the drawings and the vent is retained." We respectfully suggest that the addition of the words " as an option" at the end of this phrase would have reenforced the clarity of the retraction of the proposed sealed only specification. We are, accordingly, requesting from the NHTSA a firm declarative statement as to whether or not the NHTSA's current specifications still permit discretionary venting or sealing of the abdominal insert.

Robert Rubenstein Chief Engineer

HUMANOID SYSTEMS DIVISION OF HUMANETICS, INC.

June 3, 1977

Stanley Backaitis NHTSA

We are in the process of revising our test equipment to take into account the new revision of the Part 572 specifications. In this connection, we want to inquire about the added provision that the neck pendulum "shall not reverse direction until T = 123 ms."

We would presume that this means that the minimum time for reversal should be 123 ms, since otherwise the variability of the honeycomb would make this an impossible standard to meet. Can you confirm our interpretation, or if we are in error, could you give us a tolerance on the 123 ms?

Samuel W. Alderson President

ID: 77-4.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/17/77

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

TO: Crane Carrier Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Crane Carrier Corporation's June 8, 1977, question whether the maximum time limits specified by S5.1.1 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, for build-up of brake system air pressure from 85 to 100 psi includes the time taken to build up air pressure in an accessory reservoir (for an air starter) that is replenished only when the truck is started.

The answer to your question is no. Section S5.1.1 is a performance requirement that assures that repeated use of the brakes during vehicle operation will not deplete the available air supply because of insufficient air compressor capacity. The purpose of this requirement only indirectly relates to the initial air pressure build-up that occurs when the vehicle is first started.

The agency's existing laboratory procedure for compliance testing provides for fully charging the air brake system (and any accessory reservoirs which charge automatically in the process) before the test is begun. The engine is shut off while brake system air pressure is reduced to a level that permits a subsequent build-up for measurement purposes. In order to properly test vehicles with air starters, the agency is modifying its procedure to keep the engine running throughout the test, so that the air starter reservoir remains fully charged throughout the measurement period.

SINCERELY,

HEAVY DUTY TRUCK MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION

June 20, 1977 Frank Berndt Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Pursuant to our telephone conversation last Friday, I am pleased to enclose the inquiry we discussed. You suggested that interpretive rulings should be in writing, and I am pleased to respond.

F. MURRAY CALLAHAN General Counsel

CRANE CARRIER COMPANY

June 8, 1977

Heavy Duty Truck Manufacturers Assoc.

Attention: F. Murray Callahan, General Counsel Subject: Compliance with Section S5.1.1 of MVSS 121, when vehicles are equipped with air starters.

We are seeking an interpretation of Section S5.1.1 due to the following condition occurring on vehicles equipped with air starters. These vehicles require a separate large volume (17,787 C.I.) starter reservoir isolated from the trucks air brake system by means of a pressure protection and check valve which maintains a minimum of 75 psi air pressure in the service brake system. However, after initial start up of truck, which could use up to approximately 50% of starter reservoir capacity, and the truck brake system is built up to 75 psi, the protection valve between the two systems opens, and at this point the total system capacity is equal to the brake reservoir volume plus that of the air start reservoir. When this occurs, it is impossible for us to comply with the time limit specified in Section S5.1.1 due to the extremely large combined volume of the two systems.

What we seek interpretation of is if the standard will allow: (1) air start reservoir to be completely refilled as soon as engine is started, (2) draining of air in the service brake reservoirs and then, (3) replenishing the air in the brake reservoir in the time limit specified. This seems to us to satisfy the standard since the standard is only trying to insure of a large enough air compressor to replenish the service brake reservoirs and once the air start system is filled it will have no effect on the brake system operation.

If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact me.

Ray Sizemore Engineer

cc: KEN LAWRENCE

ID: 77-5.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/29/77

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

TO: Utility Trailer Manufacturing Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Utility Trailer Manufacturing Company's October 6, 1977, request for confirmation that the criteria for a bulk agricultural commodity trailer contained in S5.6 and S5.8 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, can be met by a trailer that does not accommodate "slip-in bottom dump" bulk harvest tubs as well as the "deck type" harvest tubs used for tomatoe harvesting. From your description, it is assumed for the purposes of this interpretation that the trailers in question do conform to the criteria in the standard for maximum length and an air line and reservoir arrangement that minimize field damage.

The criterion of "skeletal construction that accommodates harvest containers" can be met by a design that accommodates mounting of deck type bulk harvest tubs by means of removable flooring, whether or not the removal of flooring also permits the mounting of "slip-in bottom" bulk harvest tubs.

SINCERELY,

UTILITY TRAILER MANUFACTURING CO.

October 6, 1977

National Highway Safety Administration

Attention: Duane Perrin

Attached is a copy of a letter sent to our Utility Dealers who have historically sold the agricultural commodity trailer. The letter tells the story.

Basically, we find that there are many more trailers required in the tomatoe harvest than any other kind. Thus, the operator wants to avoid the cost of accommodating the slip-in containers which adds plenty to the cost and weight of the trailer - - - and, I find that our competitors are following the rules we have now set. A copy of a letter that stated our position to Fruehauf last May is attached. Obviously, we and Fruehauf now have the same rules.

Unless we are off-base, I will assume that you agree with our restrictions.

Paul Bennett Chief Engineer

ATTACH.

To: San Leandro - Bruce Myers Fresno - Lyman Ehrlich Los Angeles - James Pollard Phoenix - Ben Cravens The legal definition of an Agricultural Commodity Trailer with specific exemptions from MVSS 121 is "Trailer designed with a high ground clearance and other special features for use with farm tractors during harvest."

Up to the date of this letter Utility has restricted its manufacture of Agricultural Commodity Trailers to a specially designes combination trailer model FS1WC (Semi) and FF2WC (Pull). We now learn many users do not want or need extra expense of a combination trailer that will accommodate a deck mounted harvest tub (tomatoes) as well as the bottom dump can for slip-in body (grapes and fruit) - - - and, that often, a center frame design is preferred to the wide frame design. As a consequence, the following trailer type order will be accepted for trailers qualified as Agricultural Commodity Trailers:

1. Standard Utility combo trailer Models FS1WC & FF2WC, - or -

2. Utility chassis trailer Models FS1W and FF2W (wide frame) or FS1C and FF2C center frame trailers which consider the following special specification:

A. Booster mountings to be top mounted on the axles to accommodate the high road bed clearance requirement.

B. Omission of all floor material for the purpose of accommodating a customer light weight floor or base support for a deck type harvest tub.

C. Trailer lengths may not exceed 27 ft.

D. A dealer letter is to accompany each order warranting that a sole and primary use will be in-field with farm type tractor. The dealer, obviously, should protect himself with a similar letter at time of sale.

John C. Bennett

CC: NHTSA

ID: 6952

Mr. Arthur J. Kuminski
Design Engineer
Eberhard Manufacturing Co.
21944 Drake Road
Cleveland, Ohio 44136-6697

Dear Mr. Kuminski:

This responds to your letter of February 3, 1992 concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components. You asked about the standard's test requirements for sliding doors on cargo vans (sections S4.3 and S5.3). Your three questions and the response to each follow.

1. I will need specifications on how to perform this test on a test fixture using the striker assembly and the door latch only.

Standard No. 206 "specifies requirements for side door locks and side door retention components including latches, hinges, and other supporting means, to minimize the likelihood of occupants being thrown from the vehicle as a result of impact." The standard's requirements for sliding doors are set forth in sections S4.3 and S5.3.

Section S4.3 specifies that the track and slide combination or other supporting means for each sliding door shall not separate when a total transverse load of 4,000 pounds is applied, with the door in the closed position. Section S5.3 states, "(c)ompliance with S4.3 shall be demonstrated by applying an outward transverse load of 2,000 pounds to the load bearing members at the opposite edges of the door (4,000 pounds total). The demonstration may be performed either in the vehicle or with the door retention components in a bench test fixture."

Under section S5.3, the same basic procedure is conducted whether the test is conducted in a vehicle or with the door retention components in a bench test fixture, i.e., an outward transverse load of 2,000 pounds is applied to the load bearing members at the opposite edges of the door (4,000 pounds total). The details of the procedure using a bench test fixture will necessarily vary for different designs of sliding doors, since the door retention components themselves vary. The test should be conducted in such a manner that the same loads are applied to the door retention components as would occur in a vehicle test.

You specifically asked about how to perform the test on a test fixture using the striker assembly and door latch only. I note that since the requirement in section S4.3 applies to the "track and slide combination or other supporting means" for a sliding door, the striker assembly and door latch of a sliding door are tested only if they are part of the supporting means for the door. I also note that the entire supporting means for a sliding door is tested under section S5.3 and not merely one part.

I have enclosed for your information a copy of a May 13, 1975 interpretation letter to Toyota (including the incoming letter) which discusses various demonstration test fixtures which might be used to test sliding doors under Standard No. 206.

2. What load must the system withstand in the primary locked position to pass the test?

3. Is there a load requirement that the system must withstand in the secondary locked position to pass the test?

Section S4.1.1 of Standard No. 206 requires hinged doors, other than cargo-type doors to have both a fully latched position and a secondary latched position. There is not a similar requirement for sliding doors. Section S4.3 requires only one test, with a total load of 4,000 pounds, for sliding doors. This test would be performed with the door latched.

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:206 d:3/30/92

ID: 1985-03.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/11/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: K. Weight

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. K. Weight 65 E. 200 N. Provo, UT 84601

Thank you for your letter to Secretary Dole concerning black windows in automobiles. Your letter was referred to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration since we are the agency that issues Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). We have issued FMVSS No. 205, Glazing Materials, which sets performance requirements, including light transmittance requirements, for glazing used in motor vehicles. As explained below, FMVSS No. 205 limits the use of darkly tinted windows.

FMVSS No. 205 requires glazing, both tinted and untinted, in a new passenger car to transmit at least 70 percent of the light that falls on it. To give you an idea of what level of tinting is allowed, please consider the following examples. If a window were completely open, the light transmitted through the opening would be 100 percent; clear windows have about 90 percent light transmittance, while factory-equipped tinted windows in new vehicles have about 80 percent light transmittance.

Minimum visibility levels are necessary to allow the average driver to detect other vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists and traffic and road signs under all lighting conditions. Were the light transmittance less than 70 percent, such as found in darkly tinted glazing, visibility would be reduced to the extent that it could pose a safety hazard. From your description, I assume that the light transmittance of the "black window" is less than 70 percent. A situation where the light transmittance is below 70 percent may be in violation of FMVSS No. 205.

No manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install tinting material in new vehicles without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance requirements of the standard. If a dealer, manufacturer, repair business or distributor installs dark tinting material in a used vehicle, then a violation of Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act may result. That section provides that none of these persons may knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. Violation of the "render inoperative" provision can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.

Owners of used vehicles may, themselves, alter their vehicles, so long as the vehicle adheres to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner may in this manner install dark tinting material regardless of whether the installation adversely affects the light transmittance. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from applying dark tinting material on their vehicles.

I hope this information is helpful to you.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

5/4/85

Elizabeth Dole - PERSONAL National Highway Traffic Admin. 400 Seventh St. SW Washington. D. C. 20590

Dear Mrs. Dole:

I wrote you 4/26/85 re several safety questions I had.

I am wondering why black windows are allowed on automobiles now? With kidnappings, and failure for a police officer to see into a car, I am thinking these dark windows should be banned.

If I am writing to the wrong dept. please tell me who to write.

Very truly yours,

K. Weight 65 E 200 N Provo, Utah 84601

ID: 14516.ztv

Mr. Larry C. Lavender
Fleetline Products, Inc.
P.O. Box 298
Springfield, TN 37172

Dear Mr. Lavender:

This is in reply to your letter of March 28, 1997, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You state that you have received "verbal" answers to certain questions from the Office of Safety Performance Standards and need a written confirmation of these answers from the Office of Chief Counsel. You wish to supply parts to "heavy duty truck manufacturers" that meet Standard No. 108, and are concerned with sheeting to be applied to the rear fenders, mud flaps or mud flap support brackets.

My initial comment is that we encourage manufacturers to seek written interpretations directly from the Office of Chief Counsel. Only the written interpretations of the Office of Chief Counsel are binding.

My second comment is to note that the conspicuity requirements of Standard No. 108 apply only to heavy trailers and to truck tractors that are 80 or more inches in overall width. Thus, a manufacturer wishing to add conspicuity sheeting to rear fenders, mud flaps or mud flap brackets of a straight truck need not follow Standard No. 108. Nevertheless, in the belief that standardization enhances safety, we encourage voluntary compliance with the conspicuity requirements for straight trucks as well.

The interpretations for which you seek confirmation are:

"The sheeting must be in a pattern of alternating red and white segments. The individual segments must be 300mm long plus or minus 150mm, i.e. from 150mm to 450mm long."

Yes. The specifications stated in paragraph S5.7.1.3(a) and (b) for the side and rear of trailers and truck tractors apply also to rear fenders, and mud flaps and their support brackets.

"There is no requirement for the color pattern to begin or end in either color. The inboard and outboard segments may be either red or white."

You are correct. The text of Standard No. 108 speaks of "alternating white and red color segments" (S5.7.1.3(a)) while Figure 30-1 through Figure 30-4 show red and white segments installed. However, there is no requirement that the color pattern begin or end with either color, or that inboard and outboard segments be red or white.

"There is no requirement for the tape to be completely free of discontinuities. On the brackets which have a 45 degree angle, the tape does not have to be cut in a miter joint."

Paragraph S5.7.1.4(a) specifies that sheeting "need not be applied to discontinuous surfaces" and provides several examples of these. We assume that this is what you mean by your statement. There is no requirement that tape be cut in a miter joint.

"Minor trimming of the tape to conform to the shape of a bracket is acceptable, provided the length measured on the center line of the tape is a minimum of 600mm. On the drawing included with this memorandum one corner of the tape is trimmed. This is acceptable."

Minor trimming of the tape is acceptable, as shown on your drawing. The length measured on the center line of the sheeting may be any length from 600mm to 900mm. (300mm +/- 150mm x 2).

"The drawing included with this memorandum illustrates a proposed bracket satisfying FMVSS 571.108."

The drawing shows an acceptable solution to mounting conspicuity material on a mud flap bracket.

If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:5/28/97
d:5/28/97

ID: 17341.wkm

Mr. Richard H. Allen
Chief Engineer
Eagle Iron Works
129 Holcomb Avenue
Post Office Box 934
Des Moines, IA 50304-0934

Dear Mr. Allen:

Please pardon the delay in responding to your letter to this office in which you asked whether the processing equipment that your company produces for the aggregate industry is excluded from the antilock brake system (ABS) requirement of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (Standard) No. 121, Air brake systems. The answer is yes.

You stated that some of the equipment that you manufacture is wheel-mounted for ease of transport from the factory to the customer and by the customer between job sites as required. You explained that the equipment is not load-carrying since the equipment is the load. You stated that the equipment was designed to spend its entire life at mining or quarry sites and would probably spend less than one percent of its life on the road. You enclosed brochures depicting and describing the various lines of equipment that you manufacture, specifically alluding to your wheel-mounted portable Sand Washing-Classifying machine, wheel-mounted portable Sand Washer-Classifier-Dehydrator, and your portable wheel-mounted Log Washers.

Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S. Code (hereinafter Safety Act) authorizes this agency to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act defines "motor vehicle" as:

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

49 U.S.Code 30102(a)(6).

In reviewing the information you provided, including your brochures, it is our opinion that the aggregate equipment that you described and as depicted in your brochures are not motor vehicles within the statutory definition. They are obviously designed to be used primarily off-road and although they are portable and therefore capable of being transported on-road from the factory to the customer and by the customer from one job site to another, their on-road use is only incidental and not the primary purpose for which the equipment was manufactured. Not being motor vehicles, therefore, your wheel-mounted items of equipment, such as your Sand Washing-Classifying machines, Sand Washer-Classifier-Dehydrators, and Log Washers are not required to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including Standard No. 121.

Standard No. 121 (copy enclosed), requires trailers, among other vehicles, equipped with air brake systems to be equipped with ABS. Excluded from that requirement, however, is

Any trailer that has an unloaded vehicle weight which is not less than 95 percent of its GVWR.

49 CFR 571.121, paragraph S3(f).

Your information would indicate that the equipment in question would also meet this exclusion since, as mentioned above, the equipment is the load. Accordingly, even if your equipment were considered motor vehicles, they would still be excluded from the ABS requirement under this provision.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992, fax (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:121#VSA
d.6/1/98

ID: 11893.DF

Mr. Simon Clarke
Clarke Safety Products
621 Bayshore Dr.
Tarpon Springs, FL 34689

Dear Mr. Clarke:

This responds to your letter asking several questions about the responsibilities associated with Agrooving windshields.@ We assume you refer to the process of grinding grooves into the lower portion of a windshield. The purpose of the grooves is to improve the efficacy of the windshield wipers.

I have enclosed copies of two letters on this subject, both addressed to Mr. Andrew Kallman, dated March 1, 1985 and October 28, 1988. These letters explain how the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration=s (NHTSA=s) regulations would apply if the grooves are ground into a windshield of a new vehicle, into a windshield sold as an item of replacement equipment, or into a windshield of a used vehicle.

Those letters address the issues you raise, and I will refer to them from time to time in answering your specific questions.

Question 1. Are you able to alter a previously certified item of motor vehicle equipment covered by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 205?

Answer: Our answer is yes, provided that certain requirements are met. As explained in the enclosed March 1985 letter, if the grooves are ground into the windshield of a new vehicle or into a new windshield sold as replacement equipment, the person making the grooves would have to ensure that the glazing continues to comply with all of the requirements of Standard 205. If the grooves are ground into the windshield of a used vehicle, any manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business must not make inoperative the compliance of the vehicle=s glazing with Standard 205. Individual owners may alter their vehicles as they please, as long as they adhere to all State requirements.

Question 2. If you did alter a previously certified item, could you now be construed the manufacturer and should now be perceived a Glazing Manufacturer with an I.D.#?

The answer depends on how the glazing is altered. NHTSA issues a manufacturer=s code mark only to "prime glazing manufacturers," which is defined at S6.1 as Aone who fabricates, laminates, or tempers the glazing material." If your company does not alter glazing in those ways (and merely adding grooves does not), you would not need, and NHTSA would not issue, a manufacturer=s code mark.

Question 3. If one now is to become a Glazing Manufacturer, how does one do so and how does one receive a Glazing I.D.#?

Prime glazing material manufacturers may receive a manufacturer=s code mark by writing NHTSA at the following address: Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA, Room 6111, Washington D.C., 20590 (telephone (202) 366-2832).

Question 4. For me now to proceed and groove windshields, what steps must I take to abide by the law and to hold my liabilities to a minimum and not be deemed negligent?

Our statute does not permit NHTSA to assure any person or entity that its product or processes comply with all applicable requirements or to Aapprove@ some product or process. Instead, our statute requires the manufacturer itself to certify that its products comply with all applicable safety standards, and to ensure they are free of safety-related defects.

The enclosed copies of the Kellman letters discuss your responsibilities for meeting NHTSA=s requirements, including Standard 205. You should also be aware of State requirements. In addition, you may want to check with a private attorney for your responsibilities under State tort law.

Please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:205 d:6/18/96

2