ID: 04-006678drn

Mr. Robert Strassburger
Vice President Safety and Harmonization
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
1401 Eye Street, NW, Suite 900
Washington, DC20005

Dear Mr. Strassburger:

This responds to your request of August 26, 2004 that we extend the date at which the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will begin enforcing a May 6, 2003 interpretation letter, addressed to Jaguar Cars, on the meaning of "daylight opening" in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 104, Windshield wiping and washing systems. As explained below, we have decided to grant your request.

In our letter to you of March 31, 2004, in which we denied your request for reconsideration of the May 6, 2003, interpretation, we acknowledged that there has been some confusion in industry regarding the proper interpretation of the term "daylight opening". We stated that we would begin enforcing FMVSS No. 104 consistent with our May 6, 2003 interpretation letter beginning with motor vehicles manufactured on September 1, 2005.

In your letter of August 26, 2004, you stated that "substantial work" will be needed on some vehicle models to meet the May 6, 2003 interpretation letter. You stated that some wiper systems may have to be redesigned to increase the wiped area and that windshield redesign may be required. You indicated "substantial costs can be avoided" if, for those models that need reworking, the wiper system and windshield redesigns can be accomplished at the same time as scheduled platform changes. You asked that the agency provide manufacturers until September 1, 2007, to permit an orderly transition to designs that comply with the interpretation.

Two vehicle manufacturers subsequently submitted additional information in support of your organizations request. They focused on the work that will be needed for some vehicle models to meet FMVSS No. 104s requirement that windshield wiping systems wipe at least 94% of "Area B".

One manufacturer indicated that, taking account of the agencys May 6, 2003 interpretation letter, seven of its vehicles will not meet the 94% requirement. The other manufacturer indicated that five of its vehicles will be below 94% (but at or above 93.2%) for the wiped Area B. That manufacturer stated that it is not easy to increase the 93.2% area because the wiped areas have already been optimized to maximize the wiped surfaces. Even the small increases required to bring the wiped Area B to meet 94% cannot be done with simple changes in the wiper system. The manufacturer stated that some vehicles will require a complete redesign of the wiper geometry, including changes to the sheet metal stampings. Such changes are normally only done when a complete redesign of a model is scheduled because changes to the stamping tools are always expensive.

After carefully considering your request and the additional information provided by the two manufacturers, and to minimize the costs of compliance, we agree to provide the requested additional time. While we believe the original date of September 1, 2005 was sufficient to enable manufacturers to make simple changes in wiper systems, we are persuaded that more significant design changes will be needed for a number of vehicles. Therefore, we will begin enforcing FMVSS No. 104 consistent with our May 6, 2003 interpretation letter beginning with motor vehicles manufactured on September 1, 2007.

If you have any further questions, please contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:104
d.1/7/05

ID: 05-002791drn

Cesar H. Cozzi Gainza, Esq.
Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores
Comercio Internatcional y Culto
Direccion General de Asuntos Jurisdicos
Esmeralda 1212. 4 piso (1007)
Buenos Aires, Argentina

RE: "Miranda Guillermo Jorge y otros c/Centro Naval y otros s/daos y perjuicios" (expte. No. 13.445/02)

Dear Seor Gainza:

This responds to your request for our legal opinion concerning any United States "safety standard or legal, ruling or administrative provisions in force to compel the manufacturers and/or importers of automobiles with manual transmission to include a mechanism to block the ignition and thus avoid accidents".It is our understanding that that there is civil lawsuit before your court resulting from a car crash which is described as follows:

In Olivos, Province of Buenos Aires, on January first, two thousand, when the automobile of the Plaintiff, occupied by a minor child and a dog fell into the River Plate.The Plaintiff states that the cause of the casualty was due to the fact that the vehicle has no ignition blocking system, activated when the vehicles are in a gear, because the automobile which was involved in the accident was activated when the minor child started the ignition while the vehicle was in gear.The Defendant states that it is not compulsory to provide vehicles with said systems, and the lack thereof implies no design error.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs), which apply to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured for sale, sold, offered for sale, introduced or delivered for introduction in interstate commerce or imported into, the United States of America.(See Title 49 of the United States Code Section 30112.)NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment.Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards.

There is nothing in the FMVSSs that require new motor vehicles with manual transmissions to have an "ignition blocking system, activated when the vehicles are in a gear".The FMVSS most relevant to your case is FMVSS No. 102, Transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect, which specifies requirements for the transmission shift lever sequence, a starter interlock, and for a braking effect of automatic transmissions, to reduce the likelihood of shifting errors, starter engagement with vehicle in drive position, and to provide supplemental braking at speeds below 40 kilometers per hour. FMVSS No. 102 applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses. A copy of FMVSS No. 102 is enclosed for your information.

FMVSS No. 102 has only the following requirement for motor vehicles with manual transmissions:

S3.2 Manual transmissions.Identification of the shift lever pattern of manual transmissions, except three forward speed manual transmissions having the standard "H" pattern, shall be displayed in view of the driver at all times when a driver is present in the drivers seating position.

As you can see, S3.2 does not require new motor vehicles with manual transmissions to have an "ignition blocking system, activated when the vehicles are in a gear."

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

Enclosure

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel
Enclosure

ref:102#VSA
d.6/23/05

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

ID: 11497AWKM

Mr. Kenneth W. Obrycki
2433 Arlington Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15209

Dear Mr. Obrycki:

This responds to your January 16, 1996 letter to this agency suggesting that tire safety would be improved if we were to require a yellow line approximately 1/4 of an inch wide across the width of tires at the 3/32 of an inch tread depth level. You stated that such a requirement could enable consumers to tell when tires are unsafe and could enable state police and inspection stations to readily observe dangerous tread levels. You believe that this would enhance passenger safety because worn tires would be replaced sooner.

We have carefully reviewed your letter, but do not agree that the requirement you suggest is warranted at this time. Our decision is explained below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Among other things, such standards must be reasonable, practicable, and appropriate for the particular type of motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment for which they are prescribed. Once a vehicle or item of equipment is sold to the consumer, NHTSA's authority generally terminates and with certain exceptions, use of that vehicle or item of equipment then becomes a matter of state jurisdiction.

NHTSA has issued a number of FMVSSs and related regulations applicable to tires, the pertinent ones here being FMVSS Nos. 109, New pneumatic tires, and 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars. Both standards require that all tires have treadwear indicators molded into the tread at the 2/32 of an inch tread depth level. This level was selected by NHTSA based on early studies that showed that when tread is worn to 2/32 of an inch, a tire rapidly loses its traction characteristics, thereby becoming unsafe. Although states, not NHTSA, have the authority to enforce tire removal when the tread depth becomes worn below a certain level, the agency has issued vehicle in use inspection standards at 49 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 570, for states to use as a guide in establishing their own vehicle inspection requirements.

You stated in your letter that Pennsylvania, and perhaps other states, has established minimum tread depth requirements at 3/32 of an inch. The state has the authority to do that, since it has jurisdiction over the use of vehicles and equipment. NHTSA has retained the 2/32 of an inch requirement for tread depth indicators, however, and recently denied a petition to raise the tread depth indicators to 3/32 of an inch because there was no proven safety need to do so. A copy of the denial notice is enclosed.

Although NHTSA has the authority to require a yellow line across the tire to highlight the tread depth indicators, the agency has no data suggesting a safety need for such action. The tread depth indicators currently required, even though unobtrusive from a distance, have been shown to be effective in alerting motorists, inspection stations, and law enforcement personnel to unsafe tire wear. Accordingly, without further data showing a safety need to do so, NHTSA does not believe that requiring yellow tread wear markings in addition to those already required would be reasonable at this time.

Thank you for your interest in motor vehicle safety.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Ref:109#119 ref:2/22/96

ID: nht94-2.66

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: May 4, 1994

FROM: Richard Kreutziger -- Executive Director, New York State Distributors Ass'n. (OCC-9945)

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/18/94 from John Womack to Richard Kreutziger (A42; Std. 217)

TEXT:

I have today received the preliminary data from one of the members of NYSBDA the following "fax".

As noted in the preliminary data of FMVSS 217 - there are a number of bus body distributors. As also noted these are small business operations and many, many things affect their ability to carry on a successful company profitable operation. Among the " things" is keeping current with the "school bus regulations". In the process of their daily business - the sales and pricing of their vehicles to comply with the requirements of state and federal regulations and standards is very important. I hope you are readily able to realize the point I am trying to make. Quick changes can be very detrimental to that profit factor as well as the individual position of accountability to, not only their customers - but to themselves.

As you can readily view from the following "fax" there are certain "conditions" that are acceptable to the manufacturer.

We have a special position here in New York State - in that the state regulations exceed the minimum 217 requirements (except for placement of left side emergency door). NYS requires added emergency exits, such as push-out windows and roof hatches based upon capacity of the vehicle.

The distributors now are faced here in New York State with a very large unknown factor. To meet the state regulations - for door (L/S/E/D) placement - with folding seat cushion - longer body length - aisle dimension factor at L/S/E/D. Anything that you can furnish and supply to me in a timely fashion - to help my association membership will be greatly appreciated.

Attachment

CARPENTER MANUFACTURING, INC.

BULLETIN NO. 94 - 34 May 3, 1994

TO: All Carpenter Distributors

SUBJECT: EMERGENCY EXIT - DELAYED EFFECTIVE DATE

NHTSA has postponed enactment of certain parts of FMVSS 217 relative to emergency exits; this change was to have taken effect on May 2, 1994. We were notified by fax on May 2nd that the effective date of the "additional emergency exit" requirement "has been delayed until September 1, 1994."

Carpenter will allow its distributors to omit certain options on orders currently in-house at no change order fee, provided the following conditions are met:

1. Order is not on schedule or started at time of receipt of change order; 2. Change order must be received by Friday, 5/13/94; 3. Only options on list below can be deleted or changed; 4. No pre-built orders can be changed; 5. Body length change will require cancellation of current order and resubmission of new order at current pricing.

Approved option deletions are:

1. Side emergency door and related components; 2. Flip seats and 4-logged seats; 3. Heater plumbing and routing; 4. Roof hatches and push-out sash not required by state specs.

Please note that the rear door hold-open device and reflective striping around the rear door opening will still be required and cannot be deleted.

You must keep in mind that orders are being schedule constantly; therefore, it is important to get any change order faxed as soon as possible. You will be notified by Martin Miller as to whether or not your change order can be accepted.

You may cover more than one body order on each change order, but all bodies on a given change order must have identical changes.

Todd Bontrager Asst. Vice President of Sales School Bus Division

ID: nht94-6.4

DATE: May 4, 1994

FROM: Richard Kreutziger -- Executive Director, New York State Distributors Ass'n. (OCC-9945)

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/18/94 from John Womack to Richard Kreutziger (A42; Std. 217)

TEXT:

I have today received the preliminary data from one of the members of NYSBDA the following "fax".

As noted in the preliminary data of FMVSS 217 - there are a number of bus body distributors. As also noted these are small business operations and many, many things affect their ability to carry on a successful company profitable operation. Among the "things" is keeping current with the "school bus regulations". In the process of their daily business - the sales and pricing of their vehicles to comply with the requirements of state and federal regulations and standards is very important. I hope you are readily able to realize the point I am trying to make. Quick changes can be very detrimental to that profit factor as well as the individual position of accountability to, not only their customers - but to themselves.

As you can readily view from the following "fax" there are certain "conditions" that are acceptable to the manufacturer.

We have a special position here in New York State - in that the state regulations exceed the minimum 217 requirements (except for placement of left side emergency door). NYS requires added emergency exits, such as push-out windows and roof hatches based upon capacity of the vehicle.

The distributors now are faced here in New York State with a very large unknown factor. To meet the state regulations - for door (L/S/E/D) placement - with folding seat cushion - longer body length - aisle dimension factor at L/S/E/D. Anything that you can furnish and supply to me in a timely fashion - to help my association membership will be greatly appreciated.

Attachment

CARPENTER MANUFACTURING, INC.

BULLETIN NO. 94 - 34

May 3, 1994 TO: All Carpenter Distributors

SUBJECT: EMERGENCY EXIT - DELAYED EFFECTIVE DATE

NHTSA has postponed enactment of certain parts of FMVSS 217 relative to emergency exits; this change was to have taken effect on May 2, 1994. We were notified by fax on May 2nd that the effective date of the "additional emergency exit" requirement "has been delayed until September 1, 1994."

Carpenter will allow its distributors to omit certain options on orders currently in-house at no change order fee, provided the following conditions are met:

1. Order is not on schedule or started at time of receipt of change order; 2. Change order must be received by Friday, 5/13/94; 3. Only options on list below can be deleted or changed; 4. No pre-built orders can be changed; 5. Body length change will require cancellation of current order and resubmission of new order at current pricing.

Approved option deletions are:

1. Side emergency door and related components; 2. Flip seats and 4-logged seats; 3. Heater plumbing and routing; 4. Roof hatches and push-out sash not required by state specs.

Please note that the rear door hold-open device and reflective striping around the rear door opening will still be required and cannot be deleted.

You must keep in mind that orders are being schedule constantly; therefore, it is important to get any change order faxed as soon as possible. You will be notified by Martin Miller as to whether or not your change order can be accepted.

You may cover more than one body order on each change order, but all bodies on a given change order must have identical changes.

Todd Bontrager Asst. Vice President of Sales School Bus Division

ID: nht95-1.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 5, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Randal Busick -- President, Vehicle Science Corporation

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 10/14/94 letter from Randal Busick to Mary Versailles

TEXT: Dear Mr. Busick:

This responds to your letter of October 14, 1994, concerning whether a belt design would comply with S7.1.2 of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, as amended in a final rule published on August 3, 1994 and effective on September 1, 1997 (59 FR 3 9472). As described in your letter, for this belt design, "the inboard lower FMVSS 210 anchorage is located on the seat frame and thus, as the seat moves fore and aft, the system allows a minimum of two seat belt adjustment positions and the distance be tween the two extreme adjustment positions of the system is more than 5 cm."

The August 3 final rule amended Standard No. 208 to improve the fit and increase the comfort of safety belts for a variety of different sized occupants. After the effective date, S7.1.2 will, in pertinent part, read as follows:

. . . for each Type 2 seat belt assembly which is required by Standard No. 208 (49 CFR 571.208), the upper anchorage, or the lower anchorage nearest the intersection of the torso belt and the lap belt, shall include a movable component which has a min imum of two adjustment positions. The distance between the geometric center of the movable component at the two extreme adjustment positions shall be not less than five centimeters, measured linearly.

As illustrated in the drawing provided with your letter, the inboard anchorage on your seat design is the "the lower anchorage nearest the intersection of the torso belt and the lap belt."

It would appear that, under the definition of "seat belt anchorage" in Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Anchorages, the seat would be considered part of the anchorage for your design. Standard No. 210 defines a "seat belt anchorage" as any component, other t han the webbing or straps, involved in transferring seat belt loads to the vehicle structure, including, but not limited to, the attachment hardware, seat frames, seat pedestals, the vehicle structure itself, and any part of the vehicle whose failure cau ses separation of the belt from the vehicle structure.

If the seat is part of the anchorage, and if the seat can be adjusted more than 5 cm, measured linearly, it appears that your design will meet the requirement of S7.1.2.

While not directly relevant to your question, agency technical staff raised concerns about a device in the drawing enclosed with your letter. The drawing of the system shows a device labeled "Slider Bar" to which the outboard lower end of the seat belt anchorage is attached. While no detail is provided on this device, agency staff are concerned that the device (which appears to function as the lower outboard anchorage) allows the seat belt webbing attachment to slide freely fore and aft longitudinally . If our interpretation of the drawing is correct, this device may prevent the belt system from meeting the occupant protection requirements of Standard No. 208, as well as prevent the anchorage from meeting the anchorage location requirements of S4.3 o f Standard No. 210. Finally, the device may introduce slack in the belt system, preventing the belt from adequately securing a child safety restraint in the seat or providing complete protection to an adult.

I hope this information has been 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,

ID: nht93-9.3

DATE: December 4, 1993

FROM: David Fabrycky

TO: Chief Counsel -- US DOT, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 5/12/94 From John Womack To David Fabrycky (A42; Std. 213; VSA 108(a)(2)(A)

TEXT: Dear Sir,

I and my associates are currently involved in the development of a child safety device that is intended to prevent the inadvertent and curiosty based opening of the safety buckle by a one to six year old. Although there have been many studies done on the value of such a device the Code of Federal Regulations contains many relevant statements regarding the testing and operation of child restraint systems.

I am writing you for the purpose of gaining your insight and opinion as to the relationship between the type of device we have developed and the standards articulated in the Code of Federal Regulations.

Our device is and after-market item purchased by the parent or gaurdian. The device covers the safety buckle and prevents the child from gaining access to the pushbutton. The adult or gaurdian is presumed to possess sufficient mannual dexterity and cognitive skills to easily remove the cover and release the safety belt. The device is also transparent so that the objective is visible.

Regarding the following sections, what is your opinion of the installation of such a device on a child's seat belt buckle in conjuction with other approved devices?

Please find several references to the Code of Federal Regulations followed by specific issues/questions in boldface.

CFR 571.214

S5.4.3.5 Buckle Release. Any buckle in a child restraint system belt assembly designed to restrain a child using the system shall: (a) When tested in accordance with S6.2.1 prior to the dynamic test of S6.1, not release when a force of less than 9 pounds is applied and shall release when a force of not more than 14 pounds is applied:

The device requires that a latch be accuated and the cover pivoted away from the buckle so that the pushbutton can be depressed. If none of the forces required to accomplish these tasks exceed the limits specified, would the device be acceptable.

The device requires the manual dexterity to exert the forces in many directions simulateously. Does this comply with the foregoing requirement?

(b) After the dynamic test S6.1, when tested in accordance with S6.2.3, release when a force of not more than 16 pounds is applied;

2

The device does not bear the restraining force of any test and is designed to operate after any stress as when first installed.

(c) Meet the requirements of S4.3(d)(2) of FMVSS No. 209 (CFR 571.209), except that the minimum surface area for child restraint buckles designed for pushbutton application shall be 0.6 square inch;

The device covers the pushbutton during use. The parent or gaurdian is required to remove the device in order to access the pushbutton.

S6 Test Conditions and procedures.

This section describes in detail the procedures required for child restraint system. How would the addition of the device relate to the objectives of the tests?

S6.2 Buckle Release Test procedure.

This section describes in detail the procedures required for buckle of child restraint systems. How would the addition of the device relate to the objectives of the tests?

What other Regulations seem relevant to the development of our device and do you have other observations or opinions that relate to public policy that I have not mentioned?

Thank you in advance for your prompt response.

Sincerly

ID: GF001071

Mr. David Regan
Trecan Combustion Limited
4049 St Margarets Bay Road
Hubley, Nova Scotia B3Z1C2
Canada

Dear Mr. Regan:

This responds to your February 10, 2004, letter and phone conversation with George Feygin of my staff. You ask whether snow melting machines manufactured by your company would be classified as "motor vehicles." You manufacture three different machines with the primary function of melting large quantities of snow. In order to move from location to location, these machines are equipped with wheels and function much like a trailer. As explained below, based on the information you provided us, we would not consider these machines to be motor vehicles for the purposes of our regulations.

Title 49 U.S.C Chapter 301 authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to prescribe Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 30102(a)(6) 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."

NHTSA has issued several interpretations of this language. We have stated that vehicles equipped with tracks, agricultural equipment, and other vehicles incapable of highway travel are not motor vehicles. We have also determined that certain vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not motor vehicles, even if they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Finally, we have concluded that items of mobile construction equipment that use the highways only to move between job sites and that typically spend extended periods of time at a single site are not motor vehicles. However, we do consider vehicles that use the public roads on a necessary and recurring basis to be motor vehicles.

In the present case, your letter states that your snow melting machines are designed primarily for use by airports and other large facilities, such as parking garages. While these machines are capable of highways travel, you state that in all likelihood such travel will be limited to reaching permanent or semi-permanent job sites (i.e specific locations where large snow piles are continuously accumulated). Based on this information, it appears that these machines are akin to airport runway vehicles or items of mobile construction equipment that do not travel on highways on a recurring basis. Accordingly, we find that the snow melting machines described in your letter are not "motor vehicles." Because these machines are not motor vehicles, they are not subject to our regulations and requirements, including the requirement to meet all applicable FMVSSs.

We note that our finding is limited specifically to the equipment described in your letter, and is largely based on your representation of its intended use. In your correspondence, you state that some snow melting machines may be sold to large cities, but you do not elaborate further. We presume that snow melting machines purchased by large cities would also remain mostly at some single location designated for snow melting activities. However, we wish to caution that our finding does not apply to snow melting equipment that is intended to be used extensively on public roads on a recurring basis.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions please contact Mr. George Feygin at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:571
d.3/12/04

ID: GF006103

Larry C. Dickinson, Ph.D.
Manager, Engineering & Technology
Martin Marietta Composites
PO Box 30013
Raleigh, NC 27622

Dear Mr. Dickinson:

This responds to your phone conversation with George Feygin of my staff and subsequent e-mail asking whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 223, Rear impact guards (FMVSS No. 223), S5.2.2 allows for "elastic deformation" as opposed to plastic deformation. Specifically, you ask whether the requirement that the energy absorption be accomplished by plastic deformation would preclude a material that returns to its original shape (i.e., elastic material).

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements. The issues raised by your letter are addressed below.

FMVSS No. 223 requires that underride guards fitted to new trailers and semitrailers provide a certain amount of energy absorption to lessen the crash forces on a passenger vehicle colliding from the rear. In creating FMVSS No. 223, the agency sought to balance concerns associated with rear impact guards being overly rigid and non-yielding in rear impact crashes against those associated with the guards being insufficiently rigid to prevent intrusion of a trailer into a vehicle occupant compartment. Accordingly, the standard requires that a certain minimum amount of force be absorbed through "permanent yielding" or plastic deformation of the guard. [1] S5.2.2 of the standard states:

" [a] guard  . . .shall absorb by plastic deformation within the first 125 mm of deflection at least 5,650 J of energy at each test location P3."
(emphasis added).

The standards energy absorption requirement cannot be met by elastic deformation for two reasons. First, the language of the standard calls for plastic deformation. Second, the prescribed method of measuring the required energy absorption greatly restricts any elastic qualities of the rear impact guard. Specifically, any energy that the guard returns to the force application device when the load is removed (i.e., the elastic component of the deformation) is subtracted from the total energy absorption for purposes of meeting the requirement.

The requirement that guards absorb energy by plastic deformation was to ensure that the guard did not subsequently return the absorbed energy to the colliding vehicle, because that energy return could increase the chance of death or injury to the occupants. Any immediate rebound occurring after the crash event could pose a threat to passenger vehicle occupants.

In an August 4, 1998, letter to Mr. Toms of Power Brace (copy enclosed), NHTSA stated that the plastic deformation requirement of S5.2.2 does not preclude use of certain elastic materials that return to their original shape very slowly (approximately 24 hours). Based on your conversation with Mr. Feygin, it is our understanding that your question concerned materials that returned to their original shape immediately after impact.

I hope this information is helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:223
d.10/21/03





---

[1] See Preamble to the Final Rule, January 24, 1996 (61 FR 2004 at 2011).