ID: nht94-3.10

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: May 31, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Mike Parker -- House of Representatives

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/18/94 from Mike Parker to Christopher Hart, letter dated 1/31/94 from Steve Williams to William Moss, and letter dated 1/28/94 from Steve Williams to Terry L. Voy

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. George Duke of the Jones County School District, concerning your constituent's desire to install television monitors in school buses to air "drug-free videos." You asked whether the installatio n would be consistent with our school bus regulations.

I am pleased to explain our school bus regulations. By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Safety Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety s tandards (FMVSS) for new motor vehicles, including school buses. Under the authority of the Safety Act, NHTSA issued FMVSS No. 222, "School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection." The standard has head impact protection requirements that require the area around a school bus passenger to be free of surfaces that could injure the child in a crash. All new school buses must be certified as complying with FMVSS No. 222.

Our regulations do not prohibit Jones County from installing the video equipment in their school buses. Since the FMVSS only apply to new school buses, we do not require existing school buses to continue to meet FMVSS No. 222. Further, NHTSA does not reg ulate in any manner how individual owners choose to modify their own vehicles. Thus, the Jones County School District may install the television monitors in its school buses without regard to whether the head impact protection requirements of FMVSS No. 2 22 are maintained. However, we would urge Jones County to install the television monitors safely. Standard No. 222 requires large school buses to provide passenger crash protection through a concept called "compartmentalization." Compartmentalization ent ails improving the interior of the school bus with protective seat backs, additional seat padding, and better seat spacing and performance. These interior features are intended to keep occupants in their seating area and to ensure that the seating area i s free from harmful structures. To protect school bus passengers, we suggest to Jones County that any video equipment installed on a school bus should be outside of an area that a school bus passenger might impact in a crash. Further, the equipment shoul d be installed so that it does not become unsecured, especially during a crash where any projectile can be very dangerous to the vehicle occupants.

We also note that the Safety Act limits how certain commercial businesses may modify new or existing school buses. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor

vehicle repair businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative any safety device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of equipment in compliance with any FMVSS. If any of these parties installed the video equipment in a manner that rendered inoperative the compliance of the school bus with FMVSS No. 222, a possible violation of S108 (a) (2) (A) could result.

The "render inoperative" provision of section 108 (a) (2) (A) does not apply to owners modifying their own vehicles. Thus, the Jones County School District, the owner of the school buses, could install the equipment itself in its own shops without violat ing this or any other provision of the Safety Act. As mentioned above, NHTSA urges the school district to ensure that the equipment does not degrade the safety of the school buses, particularly with regard to the head impact protection provided by the bu ses.

I hope this information will be helpful to you in responding to your constituent. If you or your constituent have any further questions, please feel free to contact John Womack, Acting Chief Counsel, at this address or at (202) 366-9511.

ID: nht94-3.100

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 16, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: David Huff -- Co-Chairperson, Special Transportation, Central Missouri State University

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attachment dated 4/11/94: Letter from David Huff to Charles Holt (OCC-9936)

TEXT: This responds to your letter to Mr. Charles Hott of this agency asking about the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.222), for wheelchair securement devices. I apologize for the delay in responding.

You ask about the need to increase Standard 222's strength requirements for wheelchair securement devices that are part of an integrated system. In an integrated system, the occupant restraint system (lap and shoulder belts) is anchored to the wheelchai r securement device. You suggest that a wheelchair securement device that is part of an integrated system should be required to withstand twice the load that is required for a securement device that is not integrated with the occupant restraint system.

While we share your belief that wheelchair securement devices should be sufficiently strong, we do not believe there is a need to increase Standard 222's present requirements for securement devices that are part of an integrated system. Rather, we belie ve a securement device that meets the standard's present requirements is capable of withstanding the forces imposed on that device in a crash, even when the device is part of an integrated system such as the one you described.

As you point out in your letter, S5.4.1.3 of Standard 222 provides for increasing the load requirement for a wheelchair securement anchorage when that anchorage is used by more than one wheelchair securement device. Moreover, S5.4.3.2(e) of the standard specifies that

When a wheelchair securement device and an occupant restraint share a common anchorage, including occupant restraint designs that attach the occupant restraint to the securement device or the wheelchair, the loads specified by S5.4.1.3 [13,344 Newtons] a nd S5.4.3.2 [13,344 Newtons] shall be applied simultaneously . . .

Stated differently, the floor anchorage used for an integrated system must withstand a load of 26,688 Newtons, which is the sum of the load specified for the wheelchair securement device and the load specified for the occupant restraint.

However, Standard 222 does not require increasing the load for a wheelchair securement device that is part of an integrated system, and there is valid reason for the different approach. Under S5.4.2(a) of Standard 222, wheelchair securement devices that incorporate webbing or a strap must comply with the requirements for Type I safety belt systems specified in FMVSS No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. Type I systems are lap belts, and are required by S4.2(b) of FMVSS 209 to have a breaking strength of not l ess than "6,000 pounds or 2,720 kilograms." The 6,000 pound (2,720 kg.) requirement is equivalent to the 26,688 Newton requirement for an anchorage used for an integrated system. Thus, Standard 222 requires wheelchair securement devices to be as strong as an anchorage that secures both the wheelchair and the occupant restraint. Requiring the wheelchair securement device to be stronger than the anchorage cannot be justified by a safety need.

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

ID: nht94-3.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 31, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

TEXT: Dear

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 123, Motorcycle controls and displays. You asked whether footnote 4 of Table 3 of the standard applies to a motorcycle speedometer using a digital display. As explained below, the answer is no.

In your letter, you requested that information identifying your company be kept confidential. As explained in the March 25, 1994 letter to you from Heidi L. Coleman, Acting Assistant Chief Counsel for General Law, when confidential treatment is claimed for material submitted to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), our confidentiality regulation, 49 C.F.R. @ 512, requires the submission of a certification stating that the submitter has made a diligent inquiry to ascertain that the information submitted has not been disclosed, or otherwise made public (49 C.F.R. @ 512.4(e)) and other supporting information (49 C.F.R. @ 512.4(b)). However, in order to expedite our response to you, I will waive the requirement of the certification contained in 49 C.F.R. @ 512.

Under S5.2.3 of Standard No. 123, if a speedometer is provided, the item shall be identified by "wording shown in both Column 2 and Column 4" of Table 3 of the standard. Column 4 of Table 3 specifies that a speedometer shall be identified by "M.P.H." Yo u believe your speedometer meets this requirement. However, you ask whether footnote 4 of Column 4 applies to a digital display speedometer. Footnote 4 states:

M.P.H. increase in a clockwise direction. Major graduations and numerals appear at 10 mph intervals, minor graduations at the 5 mph intervals.

The answer to your question is no. Digital displays were not common in 1972, when the footnote 4 specifications were

2

published. The original Standard No. 123 drafters had in mind only dial display speedometers. For these reasons, we interpret the specifications in footnote 4 of Column 4 not to apply to digital display speedometers on motorcycles that provide a readin g of numeric vehicle speed.

I hope that this information is useful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ID: nht94-3.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 31, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: J. L. Steffy -- Triumph Designs Ltd.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached T o Letter Dated 5/5/94 From J. L. Steffy To Taylor Vinson (OCC-9948)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Steffy:

This responds to your FAX of May 5, 1994, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, requesting an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You describe a motorcycle lamp "which comprises a headlight with high and low beams and 2 symmetrically (sic) flanking front auxillary (sic) lamps possessing low beam (sic) that augment the headlight." You ask for our comments.

Paragraph S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108 permits auxiliary lighting equipment provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that is required by Standard No. 108. The vehicle manufacturer's certification of compliance with Stan dard No. 108 includes certification to S5.1.3 and represents its determination that the supplementary equipment does not impair the effectiveness of other lighting equipment. Unless that determination appears clearly erroneous, NHTSA will not question i t.

Your letter contains too little information for us to comment further. For example, we do not know whether the candela of the auxiliary lower beam lamps is higher, lower, or the same as the main lower beam of the headlamp. Nor does the letter indicate whether the supplementary lower beam lamps are extinguished when the upper beam is activated.

If you have further questions, we shall be pleased to answer them.

Sincerely,

ID: nht94-3.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 31, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Allan Garman -- M.F. Bank & Co., Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 1/21/94 From Allan Garman To Walt Myers

TEXT: Dear Mr. Garman:

This responds to your letter and telephone call asking several questions about the responsibilities of various parties after child restraint systems have been involved in a collision and fire during transit from the manufacturer (Gerry Products) to a ret ail outlet (Toys R Us). I apologize for the delay in responding.

You indicate in your letter that the child restraint manufacturer, Gerry Baby Products, has determined that the DOT certification on the child restraints is no longer valid because the restraints were subjected to potential stress by the impact of the tr uck accident. We understand from your letter that M.F. Bank is storing the child restraint systems damaged in transit, and is prepared to liquidate the stock if directed to do so by the insurer of the transit company. However, the insurer has asked that M.F. Bank ask this agency whether the child restraint systems involved in the loss can be sold as salvage to the public. You state your belief that the systems are salvagable because they did not experience structural damage in the incident.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. sections 1381 et seq.) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new m otor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Under that authority, NHTSA issued FMVSS No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems" (49 CFR @ 571.213) to reduce the number of children killed or injured in motor vehicle crashes and in aircraft. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing for sale or selling any new item of equipment that does not conform to all applicable FMVSSs or is not covered by a certification of compliance with the applicable FMVSSs. Thus, each new child restraint system must comply with FMVSS No. 213 and must be certified as complying with that standard when it is sold.

2

You first ask whether Federal law would prohibit the sale of the child restraint systems as salvage. The answer is yes, since according to your letter and telephone call, Gerry has indicated that its certification is no longer valid, and has thereby wit hdrawn the certification. If the child seats are not certified, selling them would violate @ 108(a)(1)(A). Section 109 of the Act provides any violation of Section 108 is punishable by civil penalties of up to $ 1,000 per violation, up to a maximum of $ 800,000 for a series of related violations.

You ask in your telephone call whether Federal law prohibits Gerry from concluding that the certification remains valid. If your question is whether the Safety Act or our regulations require Gerry to withdraw the certification simply because the seats w ere involved in an incident, the answer is no. However, @ 108(a)(1)(C) of the Safety Act prohibits any person from certifying that a child restraint system complies with Standard 213 if that person, in the exercise of due care, has reason to know that th e certificate is false or misleading in a material respect. Gerry is therefore required by the Safety Act to withdraw the certification of the unsold seats if it believes the certification is invalid. If a manufacturer determines, for any reason, that the unsold seats do not comply, NHTSA will not second guess the decision to withdraw the certification.

Finally, you ask if it would be possible for NHTSA to send someone to your warehouse to inspect the child restraint systems to determine whether the systems comply with FMVSS No. 213. The answer is no; NHTSA does not inspect products for compliance outs ide the context of its enforcement activities. The Safety Act establishes a self-certification system under which child restraint manufacturers are responsible for ensuring that their products comply with FMVSS No. 213. NHTSA does not approve, endorse, or give assurances of compliance of any product.

I hope this information answers your questions. If you need further information, please feel free to contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ID: nht94-3.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 31, 1994

FROM: Scott R. Dennison -- Consultant, Excalibur Automobile Corporation

TO: Administrator -- US Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/20/94 from John Womack to Scott R. Dennison (A42; PART 555)

TEXT: Please find enclosed, three copies of the application for exemption on behalf of the Excalibur Automobile Corporation for the standard entitled, Petition For Exemption From The Requirements of FMVSS 208 Paragraph S4.1.4 Automatic Protection Systems.

The petition is written according to the guidelines set forth in 49CFR, part 555 entitled, Temporary Exemption From Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

I trust that you will find the petition acceptable, however, should you have any questions or require any further clarification, I may be reached at 414-771-7171 or by fax a 414-771-8941.

4

PETITION OF TEMPORARY EXEMPTION FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF F.M.V.S.S. 208 PARAGRAPH S4.1.4 AUTOMATIC PROTECTION SYSTEMS

Prepared by: Scott R. Dennison

Consultant to: Excalibur Automobile Corporation 1735 S. 106th Street Milwaukee, WI 53214 414-771-7171 Fax: 414-771-8941

5

This petition is made according to the guidelines set down in 49CFR, Part 555, entitled 'Temporary Exemption From Motor Vehicle Safety Standards'.

555.5 PETITION FOR EXEMPTION

This petition for temporary exemption from the requirements of FMVSS 208 is based on the inability of the low volume manufacturer, Excalibur Automobile Corporation, to obtain safety components necessary to produce a compliant vehicle.

555.5.(3)

Applicant: Excalibur Automobile Corporation 1735 S. 106th Street Milwaukee, WI 53214

Telephone: 414-771-7171 Telefax: 414-771-8941 Organization: Corporation

State: Wisconsin

555.5.(4)

Standard from which exemption is sought: FMVSS 208, paragraph S4.1.4 requiring an automatic vehicle protection system.

Desired length of exemption: One year from date of approval

Model for which exemption is sought: Excalibur Cobra 427

6

The basis for this petition for temporary exemption from FMVSS 208 on behalf of Excalibur Automobile Corporation and its model, the Cobra 427, is founded in the fact that Excalibur is unable to design, purchase, joint venture, contract for, or otherwise obtain the necessary components to fit air bag restraint systems in this vehicle.

Since the inception of this replica of the classic Shelby Cobra 427, Excalibur has tried to find a source for the necessary air bag components in order to fit them to the vehicle. A firm in Arizona was contacted in December of 1993 as they had claimed t o have an air bag system designed to retro-fit to older vehicles as well as limited production vehicles. The company, BST of Phoenix Arizona even had displayed the system at the 1993 SEMA show in Las Vegas.

Excalibur was continually advised that the system existed, had been sold in great quantity to a major airline and would be available within weeks. Groundwork for a joint development program was discussed with Excalibur to be the first small manufacturer to use the bags as OE on their Cobra. The system has never been released to Excalibur nor to anyone Excalibur is aware of to date.

In parallel to the ongoing negotiations with BST regarding air bag systems, Breed Technologies was contacted to develop a program for the creation of a system for Excalibur. Months of telephone contact yielded no results. To the extreme that eventually , project leaders at Breed refused to even take time to quote a development project as the ultimate volumes possible would not be worthwhile to Breed to justify such a project. No other sources of air bag technology have been found as alternatives for E xcalibur.

Equivalent Safety

Excalibur's Cobra 427 has a Type II manual seat belt system in place which meets all standards for such type systems. Model year 1994 offers three convertible vehicles which do not have air bag systems but offer passive belt systems and therefore are fo und to be compliant. These vehicles are the Dodge Viper, the Nissan 240 SX, and the Plymouth Sunbird. Although these systems meet the letter of the law, all require long belts which remain attached to the door when opened requiring the driver and passe nger to slide under the belts in order for them to be "passive". All real world experience has shown these type systems to be awkward and undesirable to the consumer when used in convertible model vehicles. The ability to "dis-able" these systems be me rely unbuckling the belt has virtually converted these systems to conventional Type II seat belt systems.

7

It is based on this logic that Excalibur Automobile Corporation maintains that their Cobra 427 provides a level of safety equivalent to these three compliant model vehicles.

Exceptional Safety Features

Excalibur Automobile Corporation offers a high strength roll over bar as standard equipment on the Cobra 427 to enhance the over level of safety for the general public in the event of a roll over type crash.

In addition, the materials used in the construction of the Cobra frame and steel components far exceeds any used in conventional automobile manufacturing. For instance, the door hinge system incorporated in the Excalibur Cobra has been tested to exceed the FMVSS by over four times the required strength.

Substantiation

There is no claim by Excalibur that the vehicle would be unsalable by compliance with the standard but merely that Excalibur does not posses the technology and to date, cannot purchase the technology required to comply with this standard.

Excalibur Automobile Corporation fully intends to comply with this standard at the end of the exemption period for one of either of two reasons. They are currently developing a passive belt system for implementation as soon as possible. In addition, it is believed that generic air bag technology from either the U.S. manufacturers or those abroad will become available to manufacturers such as Excalibur within the allotted exemption period thus enabling them to fit air bags to the vehicles.

Excalibur Automobile Corporation will produce less than 100 vehicles for sale in the world-wide market during the 12 months this exemption is in place.

ID: nht94-3.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 31, 1994

FROM: Jerry Miller -- Director of Operations, Associated Leasing Handicapable Vans

TO: Chief Console -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attachment dated 8/19/94 Letter from John Womack to Jerry Miller (Std. 222)

TEXT:

Associated Leasing Handicapable Vans is a builder of conversion vehicles for the transportation of handicapable individuals, both private and commercial. We are embarking on the manufacture of associated equipment to go into these vehicles. One such pie ce of equipment is a wheelchair tie down.

After conversations with Mark Levine, NHTSA, trying to obtain rules and regulations on this type of equipment and at the suggestion of Charles Hott, NHTSA Rulemaking Office. I am writing your office requesting information on or an official letter statin g there are no rules or regulations on wheelchair tie downs for vehicles other then school buses

I am looking for regulation and legal requirements for transporting persons in vehicles with wheelchair securement devices and occupant restraints, both private and commercial, other then school buses. It is my understanding NHTSA standard No. 57 CFR Pa rt 571.222 "School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection" only applies to school buses and does not apply to any other vehicles.

I need to know specifically what the legal specified performance requirements are for the wheelchair securement devices. 1. What are the minimum strength requirements for the securement devices and systems themselves? 2. What are the minimum strength r equirements for the anchorage of those devices and systems to the vehicle?

I appreciate your cooperation and quick response in advising us on NHTSA's rules and regulations on wheelchair tie downs used for transporting the handicapable person in a vehicle other then a school bus.

ID: nht94-3.16

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: June 1, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Donald W. Vierimaa -- Vice President - Engineering, Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/9/93 from Donald W. Vierimaa to John Womack, letter dated 5/12/89 from Donald W. Vierimaa to Billy Mohr, and letter dated 5/16/89 from Billy Mohr to Donald W. Vierimaa

TEXT:

This responds to your letter concerning whether a section of the Michigan Motor Vehicle Code is preempted by Federal law. I apologize for the delay in our response.

This issue apparently arose in correspondence between you and the Michigan Department of State Police in May 1989. Under Section 719(8)(c) of the Michigan Code, a "semitrailer" whose overall length is more than 50 feet is required to be equipped with "tw o clearance lamps, 1 on each side of the semitrailer, located at 1/2 the distance from the front to the rear and as near to the top of the semitrailer as practicable." In your letter of May 12, 1989, to the State Police you stated your assumption that th e "two clearance lamps" are the "intermediate side marker lamps" specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 10*8, and, if Michigan is requiring two additional intermediate side marker lamps "then it would appear that your requirement is inval id as FMVSS 108 preempts State regulations which substantially differ." In support of your views, you provided Michigan with copies of relevant NHTSA interpretations.

Michigan replied on May 16, 1989, that NHTSA had not notified it that "the requirement of an additional 'clearance lamp' as near as to the top of the semitrailer as practicable is preempted by section 103(d)", and that "the lamp is not a marker lamp as m entioned in 1.7 of the DOT interpretations." You indicate that this is a reference to our letter of December 10, 1974, to the California Highway Patrol. You ask for our concurrence in your conclusion that Michigan is preempted from enforcing its requirem ents.

The Federal motor vehicle safety standard on motor vehicle lighting is 49 CFR 571.108 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT. Table II of Standard No. 108 applies, in pertinent part, to trailers of 80 or more inches overall width, and requires them to be equipped with front and rear side marker lamps as far to the front and to the rear as practicable, and with "intermediate side marker lamps", amber in color, "located at or near the midpoint between the front and rear side marker lamps." All side marker lamps are to be mounted not less than 15 inches above the road surface. However, paragraph S5.1.1.3 states that intermediate side marker devices are not required on vehicles less than 30 feet in overall length.

Section 1O3 (d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) states that whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in effect, no State "shall have any authority either to

establish or continue in effect with respect to any motor vehicle . . . any safety standard APPLICABLE TO THE SAME ASPECT OF PERFORMANCE OF SUCH VEHICLE. . . which is not identical to the Federal standard" (emphasis added). In our opinion, the "aspect of performance" covered by Section 719 (8) (c) of the Michigan Code is the side conspicuity of extra long trailers, the same "aspect of performance" that is addressed by the requirements of Table II that I have discussed in the preceding paragraph.

Because Standard No. 108 specifically addresses what lamps must be provided on trailers more than 50 feet in length for purposes of side conspicuity, any State requirement that such trailers be equipped with a supplementary set of lamps for purposes of s ide conspicuity is preempted by Federal law. The fact that Michigan calls the lamp a "clearance" lamp rather than a "marker" lamp does not affect this conclusion, since the relevant aspect of performance addressed by the lamps in question is side conspic uity. The purpose of the preemption clause is to relieve the burden on interstate commerce that would result from a manufacturer having to meet more than one set of safety requirements to address the same safety concern. It does not affect the right of a State to establish its own safety requirements in areas where there are no Federal ones.

The interpretation provided the California Highway Patrol is consistent with this one. There we advised that to the extent that California law prohibited multiple marker lamps or prescribed different mounting requirements other than as permitted by Stand ard No. 108 those laws were preempted by section 103(d).

ID: nht94-3.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 1, 1994

FROM: Donald W. Vierimaa -- Vice President-Engineering Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to a letter dated 7/14/94 from John Womack to Donald W. Vierimaa (A42; STD 108)

TEXT: We request an interpretation of S5.7.1.4.1(c) of FMVSS 108 which requires "A strip of sheeting in alternating colors across the full width of the horizontal member of the rear underride protection device. Grade DOT C2 material not less than 38 mm wide m ay be used." and S5.7.1.4.1 which states in part, "Element 3 is not required for trailers without underride protection devices."

NHTSA has not issued a final rule on rear impact guards and protection (rear underride guards) and even when it is issued, it is not likely to become effective until two years later. However, in the meantime, we published on April 1, 1994 TTMA Recomm ended Practice No. 92, "Rear Impact Guard and Protection," which closely resembles the NHTSA proposed rule. Does the term "underride protection device" as you have used it in FMVSS 108 only include the device yet to be required by NHTSA or would it incl ude the device described in TTMA RP No. 92?

2

TTMA RP No. 92 recommends in section 5.1.4 that "The vertical dimension of the guard's horizontal member shall not be less than 4 inches (101.5 mm)." Some trailer manufacturers are installing on refuse and chip trailers guards with round cross section s and square at 45 degrees (diamond) cross sections (see sketch) to shed any debris which may fall on the guard. In addition, some trailers are restrained by a curved hook which grabs and holds the round cross section guard while trash is loaded into th e trailer. If a 38 mm retroreflective strip of sheeting is applied to these guards, will such installations comply with FMVSS 108?

ID: nht94-3.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 2, 1994

FROM: Forbes Howard -- Chairman, Goodlife Motors Corporation

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. DOT

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 1/4/95 letter from Philip R. Recht to Forbes Howard (A43; VSA 102(3))

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

About a year ago, we talked with two of your attorneys about the super golf car we were developing. Our "Runabout" is now ready to go into limited production. We need to get the letter from you confirming that our vehicles are not required to meet the c urrent national safety standards for automobiles.

We assume the 23,000 plus golf cars now registered in Arizona, many of which go 25 mph, have not been required to meet these standards.

Our cars are safer than golf cars by being wider, longer, and they include doors, seat belts, wipers, etc. and will have a top speed of 29 mph.

The enclosed photographs and specifications will familiarize you with one model of our vehicles. Please call me at my North Carolina office if you have any questions. Thank you for your prompt attention to our need.

Very truly yours,

Enclosures

(Photos and specifications omitted.)