ID: nht94-8.15

DATE: February 14, 1994

FROM: Lawrence A. Beyer, Esq.

TO: Z. Taylor Vinson, Esq. -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA/DOT

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/11/94 from John Womack to Lawrence A. Beyer (A42; Part 591; Part 592)

TEXT:

This letter requests an opinion latter from your office concerning a determination made my OVSC regarding the importation of vehicles from Canada.

OVSC has allowed the importation of vehicles which conform to Canadian safety standards, and U.S. safety standards with the exception of "minor labeling requirements." These vehicles must be for the owner's personal use.

OVSC has interpreted "personal use" to exclude importations of vehicles by corporations for their corporation's personal use. For example, an individual moving to the U.S. would be allowed to import a vehicle, provided he had a statement from the manufacturer that the vehicle complied with all FMVSS with the exception of labeling. However, a company moving to the U.S. with the identical vehicle and letter would be required to import the vehicle through the R.I. program, under bond, etc.

I agree that if the company was importing the vehicle for resale, the R.I. program is necessitated. I do not understand the distinction OVSC makes between individual personal use and corporate personal use.

Please provide me with an interpretation to settle this issue.

ATTACHMENT

PERMANENT IMPORTATION OF CANADIAN VEHICLES

PERSONAL USE (Not included - vehicles owned by business or used in commerce)

If an individual has a letter from the manufacturer stating that a Canadian vehicle was manufactured to comply with the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety, bumper and theft prevention standards (FMVSS), except minor labeling:

a. A letter is provided by our agency that it is satisfactory to import the vehicle under the Box 2 category on the declaration statement (Form HS 7).

b. The HS-7 form must be completed with Box 2 checked and a copy of the manufacturers letter and our correspondence must be attached.

c. If a manufacturers letter isn't available - a registered importer must be used.

FOR SALE

Such vehicles have to be imported by a registered importer (The RI is not necessarily the owner. If the vehicle manufacturer provides a letter that the vehicles comply except for minor labelling, we will require:

a. An HS-7 form indicating the registered importer (RI) as the importer of records. A Box 3 entry will be required.

b. A compliance package showing any modifications that were required including photos of the speedometer and Canadian certification label, DOT bond, and payment of appropriate fees.

c. Warranty Insurance Policy

MANUFACTURERS LETTERS

Since we have previously made a determination about Canadian vehicles that was published in the Federal Register, if a manufacturers letter is not available, the process also falls into a Box 3 category. We will require all of the items listed above. If a Canadian vehicle was built on or after September 1, 1989, if it is not on our approved-eligible vehicle list, and if the MANUFACTURER DOES NOT INCLUDE AUTOMATIC RESTRAINTS THAT COMPLY WITH STANDARD NO. 208, or any other crash survivability standard, a petition will be required and it will have to be entered as a Box 3 (formerly allowed for determination under Box 7).

HOWEVER

If the vehicle is equipped with the necessary automatic restraints and other modifications required to meet U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards but the manufacturers letter is not available, the RI DOES NOT have to petition if it can verify identicality with a car certified by its original manufacturer to meet the U.S. Standards by part numbers, drawings etc.

ID: nht74-4.32

DATE: 07/03/74

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

TO: Alfred Teves GMBH

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your May 10, 1974, request for permission to stamp label information on hose assemblies in place of banding, and to reduce S9.2.5 burst pressure from 350 to 100 psi, and your further request for an interpretation of the status of an in-line check valve as part of a vacuum brake hose.

The in-line check valve is not subject to Standard No. 106, Brake hoses, as a brake hose and fitting. In this configuration, the couplers depicted in your drawing are the clamps, and the check valve is a separate component to which the hose assemblies are attached.

The issue of stamping instead of banding will be answered in our upcoming Notice 11 in response to petitions for reconsideration of the brake hose standard.

Your petition for a reduction in the burst strength requirement for vacuum hoses is denied. The minimum burst pressure of 350 psi was established by the Society of Automotive Engineers in 1942, taking into consideration the effects of backfire pressure and the severe underhood environment to which vacuum hose may be exposed. Hoses with this burst pressure have provided excellent reliability and durability. We have no data to justify a reduction in burst strength in view of the two hazards just cited.

MAY 10, 1974

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration US Department of Transportation

Subject: Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106

(Docket no. 1-5, Notice 10

According to Notice 10 the designation of fittings was dropped due to objections raised by various manufactures because of insufficient clearness. For years we successfully used to emboss the date of manufacture on to the fittings (after the swaging process). We therefore ask you to extend item S 5.2.4 to the effect that in case of two-piece end fittings, which are attached by crimping or swaging, embossing of the designation on to the fittings will also be allowed instead of using a band.

The present standard according to which only a band will be allowed would be connected with a high degree of capital expenditure (reconstruction of entire assembly machinery) for the manufacturing department of Alfred Teves GmbH.

As far as vacuum brake hoses (see item S 9.2.5) are concerned, we think that a 350 psi burst strength is too high. The maximum operating pressure amounts to a vacuum of 0,80 bar, so that the required 350 psi would mean a 27-fold safety.

For this field of application a burst strength of 100 psi is sufficient. We therefore ask you to amend item S 9.2.5 to the effect that in the case of vacuum brake tubes the burst strength will be reduced to 100 psi.

Our production programm also comprises a vacuum check valve, which 1st mounted between two vacuum brake tubes, according to the attached sketch. We kindly ask you to inform us whether in the case of vacuum check valves the same requirements as are applicable for complete brake tubes regarding a burst strength of 350 psi (item S 9.2.5) and a minimum cross-section of 70% (item S 9.2.1) will be made.

Considering the near effective date of FMVSS, we would like to receive your answer concerning the three items mentioned above as soon as possible.

Yours sincerely

ALFRED TEVES GMBH

ppa.

i.V.

BELLER

Attachment

1 sketch

Ruckschiagventil

Schlauchhalter

Vakuumschiauch

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht75-3.42

DATE: 10/10/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Kelsey-Hayes Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Kelsey-Hayes Company's July 28, 1975, question asking whether the requirements of S5.1.6 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, that specify a warning signal "in the event of a total electrical failure of the antilock system" would permit installation on a vehicle of an antilock-equipped axle that has no capability to signal electrical failure of its antilock system. You state that the vehicle would be equipped with antilock systems on other axles that would provide a warning signal in the event of their electrical failure.

The answer to your question is yes. As you noted in your letter, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has interpreted the specifications of S5.1.6 to require a signal only in cases where electrical failure within the antilock electrical system circuitry causes loss of antilock control of every wheel on the vehicle. In the design you describe, the signal which activates upon loss of antilock control at one or more wheels on the vehicle would fulfill this requirement, because it would always activate by the time antilock control had been lost at every wheel on the vehicle. Under our interpretation of S5.1.6, a failure of antilock only on the axle described by you would not constitute "loss of antilock control of every wheel on the vehicle" and would not be required to be signaled.

SINCERELY,

KELSEY-HAYES COMPANY

July 28, 1975

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

ATTN: James Schultz Chief Counsel

RE: Request for Interpretation FMVSS-121: Air Brake Systems 5.1.6, Antilock Warning Signal

Kelsey-Hayes Company, a domestic manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment including antilock systems, requests an interpretation of the above referenced section of Standard 121 as it relates to tag axles, liftable axles and removable dollies.

Interpretations on this section of the standard issued by your staff in the past, specifically one to Wagner Electric on May 26, 1972 and another to the Eaton Corporation dated December 26, 1974 state that the phrase "total electrical failure" means any electrical failure within the antilock electrical system circuitry which would cause loss of antilock control of every wheel on the vehicle.

Since an antilock system failure on one axle need not actuate the warning signal, we ask whether it is consistent with these interpretations to equip an axle on a vehicle, specifically a tag axle, liftable axle, or removable dolly, with an antilock system that does not have the capability to activate the warning signal in the event of an electrical failure. Electrical failures which would disable the antilock system on the wheels of the other axles would activate the warning signal such that the "total electrical failure" situation would be complied with. In other words, the total electrical failure situation cannot occur unless the antilock systems on the other axles are disabled and, if they are, the warning signal will be activated.

We have been advised by installers of tag axles that it is burdensome to match the antilock system of the tag axle with the same make as those originally equipped on the other axles of the vehicle and that making the necessary electrical connections to the failure detection circuits on the other axles creates unacceptable liability risks. The most practical means to mitigate this condition would be to use trailer type antilock system components, which do not have electrical failure detection capability, for tag axles and other axles customarily added by body builders, etc.

Your prompt attention to this request for interpretation will be appreciated.

John F. McCuer

ID: nht94-1.57

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: February 14, 1994

FROM: Lawrence A. Beyer, Esq.

TO: Z. Taylor Vinson, Esq. -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA/DOT

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/11/94 from John Womack to Lawrence A. Beyer (A42; Part 591; Part 592)

TEXT:

This letter requests an opinion latter from your office concerning a determination made my OVSC regarding the importation of vehicles from Canada.

OVSC has allowed the importation of vehicles which conform to Canadian safety standards, and U.S. safety standards with the exception of "minor labeling requirements." These vehicles must be for the owner's personal use.

OVSC has interpreted "personal use" to exclude importations of vehicles by corporations for their corporation's personal use. For example, an individual moving to the U.S. would be allowed to import a vehicle, provided he had a statement from the manufa cturer that the vehicle complied with all FMVSS with the exception of labeling. However, a company moving to the U.S. with the identical vehicle and letter would be required to import the vehicle through the R.I. program, under bond, etc.

I agree that if the company was importing the vehicle for resale, the R.I. program is necessitated. I do not understand the distinction OVSC makes between individual personal use and corporate personal use.

Please provide me with an interpretation to settle this issue.

ATTACHMENT

PERMANENT IMPORTATION OF CANADIAN VEHICLES PERSONAL USE (Not included - vehicles owned by business or used in commerce)

If an individual has a letter from the manufacturer stating that a Canadian vehicle was manufactured to comply with the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety, bumper and theft prevention standards (FMVSS), except minor labeling:

a. A letter is provided by our agency that it is satisfactory to import the vehicle under the Box 2 category on the declaration statement (Form HS 7). b. The HS-7 form must be completed with Box 2 checked and a copy of the manufacturers letter and our correspondence must be attached. c. If a manufacturers letter isn't available - a registered importer must be used. FOR SALE

Such vehicles have to be imported by a registered importer (The RI is not necessarily the owner. If the vehicle manufacturer provides a letter that the vehicles comply except for minor labelling, we will require:

a. An HS-7 form indicating the registered importer (RI) as the importer of records. A Box 3 entry will be required. b. A compliance package showing any modifications that were required including photos of the speedometer and Canadian certification label, DOT bond, and payment of appropriate fees. c. Warranty Insurance Policy

MANUFACTURERS LETTERS

Since we have previously made a determination about Canadian vehicles that was published in the Federal Register, if a manufacturers letter is not available, the process also falls into a Box 3 category. We will require all of the items listed above. I f a Canadian vehicle was built on or after September 1, 1989, if it is not on our approved-eligible vehicle list, and if the MANUFACTURER DOES NOT INCLUDE AUTOMATIC RESTRAINTS THAT COMPLY WITH STANDARD NO. 208, or any other crash survivability standard, a petition will be required and it will have to be entered as a Box 3 (formerly allowed for determination under Box 7).

HOWEVER If the vehicle is equipped with the necessary automatic restraints and other modifications required to meet U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards but the manufacturers letter is not available, the RI DOES NOT have to petition if it can verify ident icality with a car certified by its original manufacturer to meet the U.S. Standards by part numbers, drawings etc.

ID: nht95-4.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 25, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Charles Holmes

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 7/15/95 LETTER FROM CHARLES HOLMES TO NHTSA OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNCIL (OCC 11084)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Holmes:

This responds to your letter asking about Federal requirements for door locks and handles on a 1989 truck with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 33,000 pounds. You state that you rented the truck from a rental company.

In your letter, you described an accident you had with the rented truck. You stated that your son fell out of the vehicle when one of its doors opened as you rounded a curve. You are sure that you had locked the door. (You also said you buckled your s on in a seat belt, but believe that he had unbuckled the belt.) After the accident, your son told you he had his hand "over the door handle . . . [and] was tring [sic] to hold on and the door came open."

You ask several questions relating to requirements for "a safety lock" for the door of the truck. As explained below, our safety standards do not require trucks to have "safety locks."

Let me begin with some background information about our safety requirements. Federal law authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and ne w items of motor vehicle equipment. One such standard is Safety Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components (copy attached). Standard No. 206 established certain requirements for door latches, hinges, and locks for new passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles, and new trucks of all weight ratings. Each new truck must meet Standard No. 206 when the vehicle is first sold at retail. With regard to the truck in question, this means that the truck had to meet the applicable door lock requirements of Standard No. 206 when it was sold "new" to the rental company.

Your first question asks whether we required the truck to have a "safety lock." Standard No. 206 requires each door on a new truck to be equipped with a lock, but without the features we believe you have in mind. When engaged, the lock has to disable th e outside door handle, but not the inside handle. Some manufacturers of passenger vehicles voluntarily install "child safety locks" on some doors, which when engaged, makes the inside door handle inoperative even when the lock is in the "unlocked" posit ion. Child safety locks are not required by NHTSA.

Your next question asked whether the truck in question would be considered a passenger vehicle, since it is a "rental vehicle." The answer is no. A vehicle that is designed primarily for transporting property is a "truck" under our regulations, regardle ss of whether it is a rental vehicle.

Your third question asked what Federal case laws reverse or overrule our regulations. Although some of our regulations have been overruled or modified pursuant to court order, FMVSS No. 206 has not been affected by court action.

Your final question asked for the names and addresses of people injured in accidents similar to yours. We are unable to provide that information. Our data do not include instances in which occupants fall out of moving vehicles where there was no accide nt and where there were no fatalities or injuries.

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

Enclosure (COPY OF REGULATION IS OMITTED.)

ID: nht95-7.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 25, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Charles Holmes

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 7/15/95 LETTER FROM CHARLES HOLMES TO NHTSA OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNCIL (OCC 11084)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Holmes:

This responds to your letter asking about Federal requirements for door locks and handles on a 1989 truck with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 33,000 pounds. You state that you rented the truck from a rental company.

In your letter, you described an accident you had with the rented truck. You stated that your son fell out of the vehicle when one of its doors opened as you rounded a curve. You are sure that you had locked the door. (You also said you buckled your son in a seat belt, but believe that he had unbuckled the belt.) After the accident, your son told you he had his hand "over the door handle . . . [and] was tring [sic] to hold on and the door came open."

You ask several questions relating to requirements for "a safety lock" for the door of the truck. As explained below, our safety standards do not require trucks to have "safety locks."

Let me begin with some background information about our safety requirements. Federal law authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. One such standard is Safety Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components (copy attached). Standard No. 206 established certain requirements for door latches, hinges, and locks for new passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles, and new trucks of all weight ratings. Each new truck must meet Standard No. 206 when the vehicle is first sold at retail. With regard to the truck in question, this means that the truck had to meet the applicable door lock requirements of Standard No. 206 when it was sold "new" to the rental company.

Your first question asks whether we required the truck to have a "safety lock." Standard No. 206 requires each door on a new truck to be equipped with a lock, but without the features we believe you have in mind. When engaged, the lock has to disable the outside door handle, but not the inside handle. Some manufacturers of passenger vehicles voluntarily install "child safety locks" on some doors, which when engaged, makes the inside door handle inoperative even when the lock is in the "unlocked" position. Child safety locks are not required by NHTSA.

Your next question asked whether the truck in question would be considered a passenger vehicle, since it is a "rental vehicle." The answer is no. A vehicle that is designed primarily for transporting property is a "truck" under our regulations, regardless of whether it is a rental vehicle.

Your third question asked what Federal case laws reverse or overrule our regulations. Although some of our regulations have been overruled or modified pursuant to court order, FMVSS No. 206 has not been affected by court action.

Your final question asked for the names and addresses of people injured in accidents similar to yours. We are unable to provide that information. Our data do not include instances in which occupants fall out of moving vehicles where there was no accident and where there were no fatalities or injuries.

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

Enclosure (COPY OF REGULATION IS OMITTED.)

ID: 16959-1.pja

Mr. Kenneth Mannen
Hesse, Inc.
6700 Saint John Avenue
Kansas City, MO 64123

Dear Mr. Mannen:

This responds to your facsimile requesting an interpretation of whether the beverage delivery trailers your company manufactures are excluded from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) rear impact protection (underride guard) regulations. As explained below, two of these trailer designs are excluded, but one design is not. An underride guard complying with our regulations would have to be supplied for that one design.

From the drawings you sent, it appears that all three types of beverage delivery trailers are segmented, with 40-52 inch wide doors on the sides that slide up and down, providing access to the stacked beverages. They differ mainly at the rear. Thank you for clarifying certain aspects of your trailer construction during a June 11, 1998 telephone conversation with Paul Atelsek of my staff. The different trailer designs are addressed separately, below.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 224, Rear impact protection, requires most trailers and semitrailers weighing over 10,000 pounds to be fitted at the rear with a rear impact (underride) guard meeting the requirements of Standard No. 223, Rear impact guards (49 CFR 571.223 and 571.224, published on January 24, 1996 at 61 FR 2004). However, certain kinds of vehicles are excluded. The only excluded categories that are relevant for the purposes of this letter are wheels-back vehicles, special purpose vehicles, and low chassis vehicles.

Single Axle Beverage Delivery Trailer

The single axle trailer has the rearmost surface of its rear wheel currently located 12 to 13 inches forward of the rear of the rearmost point on the trailer bumper. You believe that this design is excluded if you assure that the rear wheel is 12 inches or less forward of the bumper by reducing the depth of the rear bumper or by moving the axle back. However you ask if it is necessary to alter your design to comply. Because the distance between the front of the bumper assembly and the rear tire is only 5 inches, you reason that the bumper could move forward only that distance before contacting the rear wheel and stopping.

Wheels-back vehicles, excluded by S3 of FMVSS No. 224, are defined in S4 as a "trailer or semitrailer whose rearmost axle is permanently fixed and is located such that the rearmost surface of [the tire] on that axle is not more than 305 mm forward of the transverse vertical plane tangent to the rear extremity of the vehicle." One relevant issue is whether the rear wheels are permanently fixed. The axles on your trailer do appear to be fixed, because the beverage bay located a few inches in front of the trailer cannot be moved. Another question is whether the rear surface of the rear wheels is within 305 mm (12 inches) of the trailer rear extremity. In your drawing, the rear wheels are within 12 inches of the rear of the bumper, so we assume these are excluded as wheels-back vehicles. However, your letter mentions that some of your trailers have rear wheels more than 12 inches forward of the trailer rear extremity ("distance from the rear of the tire to the back of the bumper of between 12 & 13 inches"). These vehicles would not be excluded as wheels-back, and a compliant guard would have to be provided.

The fact that the bumper could move only 5 inches forward during a crash does not change this analysis. While it is true, in the event of a crash, your trailers have the bumper mounting assembly between the colliding vehicle and the rear tires, the language of the standard does not create an exception for this situation. The exclusions in Standard No. 224 are generally designed for trailers for which guards are either unnecessary or impractical. Most wheels-back vehicles do not have the full-width, low bumper-type assembly that you provide. As you observe in your letter, you could relocate the axle rearward slightly, or decrease slightly the depth of the bumper and these vehicles would then be considered wheels-back. Another option is to certify your existing bumper, which appears to meet the configuration requirements of Standard Nos. 223 and 224, as a compliant guard, after assuring yourself that it also meets the other requirements of those standards.

Tandem axle beverage delivery trailer

This trailer has a beverage storage bay behind the rear tandems. The rear bumper on this trailer is mounted to the back of the rear storage bay at a height of 15 to 17 inches above the ground. There is a horizontal structural member made of extruded aluminum 2.5 by 6.5 inches in thickness running longitudinally on each side of the trailer at the bottom of the rear storage bay. There is also a horizontal structural crossmember of the same stock that connects, across the back of the trailer, the rear of these longitudinal structural members. This transverse structural member is supported in the center by a cross member extending diagonally down and to the rear, between the main frame rails of the trailer and the rear bumper/bulkhead. It is also supported by gussets attached to the main frame rails. The bottom of this transverse structural member is also 15 to 17 inches above the ground. You believe that this design is excluded because it meets the definition of a low chassis vehicle.

Low chassis vehicles are defined in S4 of Standard No. 224 as "a trailer or semitrailer having a chassis that extends behind the rearmost point of the rearmost tires and a lower rear surface that meets the configuration requirements of S5.1.1 through 5.1.3 of this section." In other words, the chassis itself must satisfy the configuration requirements applicable to a guard when the vehicle is outfitted for transit. The only part of your trailer that may meet these configuration requirements is the transverse structural member under the floor of the rear storage bay. Therefore, the question becomes whether this structural member is considered to be part of the "chassis" of the vehicle. Chassis is defined in S4 as "the load supporting frame structure of a motor vehicle." There are two elements to this definition that must be satisfied: "load supporting" and "frame structure."

To be considered "load supporting," the frame structure has to support load when the trailer is performing its function. Generally, this means that the structure would have to contribute to supporting the cargo load when the trailer is in transit.

To be considered part of the frame structure, a structural member must be either an integral part of the overall frame structure, or be connected with other frame structural members in a way that is necessary to the structural integrity of the trailer. One factor the agency considers in deciding whether a structural member is part of the frame is its size and strength. Frame structural components often are the major structures defining the shape of the trailer. Although frame structure is not limited to the largest frame components (i.e., the frame rails for most trailers), generally frame components are substantial and have strength similar to other frame components. Moveable components may "lock" into the frame structure sufficiently that they are integral with other frame members-in this situation NHTSA may consider the combined components to be one frame unit. However, the agency also looks at the purpose and function of the structural member in supporting the trailer and its load.

Applying these principles to the transverse structural member at the bottom of your rear storage bay, we conclude that it is part of the chassis. The member underlies the rear storage bay and supports the beverages in that bay, so it is considered load supporting. It is also frame structure. The member is similar in size, and presumably in strength, with the other frame members. The member conforms with and helps to define the outline of the trailer. It is connected to the other frame members at least as strongly as the other storage bays, and likely more strongly, considering the diagonal member and the gussets. Therefore, we conclude that the member is part of the chassis, and the trailer is a low chassis vehicle, excluded from the underride guard requirements.

Tandem axle convertible beverage delivery trailer

This trailer is similar to the tandem axle trailer, with one major difference being that the rear bay loads from the rear instead of from the side. Another difference is that the rear compartment also does not extend downward as far on this design as it does on the tandem axle trailer. The bottom of the rear compartment is at the level of the frame rails, a few feet above the ground, instead of extending down to the 15 to 17 inch level. There are vertical structural members made of 6 inch channel in the rear corners of the trailer, forming the rear outside edges of the rear compartment. These channel members, as well as two vertical supports of rectangular tubing located farther inboard, extend downward below the bottom of the rear compartment, to within 14 to 20 inches of the ground. All of these vertical structural members are connected at the bottom across the back of the trailer by a transverse horizontal member composed of 5 inch high by 2.5 inch deep extruded aluminum tubing. This tubing resembles the horizontal member of a conventional underride guard. You state that you are not sure if this design is excluded.

Applying the same analysis as we applied to the tandem axle trailer, we conclude that this trailer is not a low chassis vehicle. The only part of the vehicle that meets the configuration requirements of S5.1.1 through S5.1.3 is the transverse horizontal member, so that would have to be considered to be part of the chassis for the vehicle to be excluded. This member hangs down from the rear of the trailer and forms no part of the rear compartment. Therefore, it fails the load supporting aspect of the definition. Consequently, it is not part of the chassis and the tandem convertible trailer is not excluded as a low chassis vehicle.

You asked if the addition of a "rail lift gate" to the rear of the convertible trailer would affect the compliance status of this trailer design. We assume you are asking this because you think the liftgate might result in the vehicle meeting the definition of an excluded "special purpose vehicle." A special purpose vehicle is defined in S4 of FMVSS No. 224 as "a trailer or semitrailer having work-performing equipment that, while the vehicle is in transit, resides in or moves through the area that could be occupied by the horizontal member of the rear underride guard, as defined by S5.1.1 through S5.1.3."⁽¹⁾ The liftgate meets the agency's definition of work performing equipment. However, it is our understanding that most rail-type liftgates stow high on the vehicle's rear end and move entirely rearward of the rear extremity. If this is the case, the liftgate would not occupy the area designated for the guard, at least not during transit. Therefore, even if equipped with a rail-type liftgate, the vehicle would not meet the definition of a special purpose vehicle. Because no other exclusions apply, this trailer would need to be equipped with a compliant rear underride guard.

We cannot provide a specific opinion on how your trailer might be redesigned to accommodate a guard. We note, however, that the transverse piece of rectangular tubing already appears to meet the configurational requirements for an underride guard. If it does not currently meet the strength and energy absorption requirements, you might be able to reinforce or otherwise modify the vertical supports sufficiently so that it would pass these requirements. If you can do this, the transverse horizontal member itself could be labeled and certified as a guard under Standard No. 223, Rear impact guards. Perhaps this solution would work for you. However, we emphasize that it is you, as the vehicle manufacturer, who is responsible for the vehicle's compliance with the standard.

If you have difficulty meeting these requirements, the agency would consider a petition for temporary exemption from Standard No. 224. Under one of our regulations (49 CFR Part 555), vehicle manufacturers may apply for a temporary exemption from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Under Sec. 555.6(a), a manufacturer whose yearly production is not more than 10,000 units may ask for an exemption of up to three years on the basis that compliance would cause it substantial economic hardship and that it has attempted in good faith to comply with the standard from which it has asked to be excused. We have enclosed a copy of Part 555 for your information. We have also enclosed a copy of our regulations relating to the protection of confidential business information. Most of the trailer manufacturers submitting petitions for temporary exemption have requested that their financial information remain confidential.

Please note that Part 555 requires the agency to publish a notice in the Federal Register seeking public comment on each exemption petition before a decision can be made on such a request, and then publish a second notice either granting or denying the petition. This process normally takes three to four months from the date of submittal.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:224
d.8/24/98

1. Note that this definition, as quoted, reflects an amendment made in response to petitions for reconsideration of the final rule. An unnecessary reference to pipe equipment containing hazardous materials was eliminated. See 63 F.R. 3654 (January 26, 1998).

ID: 18019.ogm

Mr. Christopher J. Roberts
Leoci & Meisenberg, P.A.
2256 Heitman Street
Fort Myers, FL 33901-3744

Dear Mr. Roberts:

This is in response to your letter requesting information about standards for motorcycle helmets, particularly those manufactured after 1980. In addition to information relating to standards for motorcycle helmets, you have also asked if the agency maintains records of helmets that have been recalled and how you might obtain copies of these records.

By delegation from the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), NHTSA is the Federal Government agency responsible for improving safety on our Nation's highways. As part of our efforts to achieve that goal, we are authorized, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30111, to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). These standards require minimum levels of performance for new vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Pursuant to this authority, NHTSA has promulgated FMVSS No. 218, "Motorcycle Helmets," which applies to all helmets designed for highway use by motorcyclists. Pursuant to 30012(a) of Title 49, it is unlawful to manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce or deliver for introduction into interstate commerce, or import into the United States any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that does not comply with all applicable safety standards, including Standard 218.

I have enclosed a copy of the current version of Standard 218 for your use. The Standard is also available in Volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations at 49 CFR 571.218. If you have access to the World Wide Web, the Code of Federal Regulations can be found at http://www.nara.gov.

Standard 218 was first promulgated in 1973 and amended in 1974, 1980, and 1988.

The performance requirements of Standard 218 remained unchanged from 1973 until 1988. The original version of the Standard applied to all helmets designed for highway use by motorcyclists. However, through a final rule published in the Federal Register on January 28, 1974 (39 FR 3554), the Standard was amended to restrict its application only to helmets that fit on a specific headform, known as the size "C" headform. This amendment was necessitated by difficulties in developing appropriate different sized headforms for testing. However, as these difficulties continued, the agency concluded that a precise fit was not as critical for testing purposes as had previously been thought and the "C" headform could be used more widely. Therefore, Standard 218 was again amended on March 10, 1980 (45 FR 151181) to apply to all helmets that could be placed on the "C" headform even if the helmet did not precisely fit that headform. After other difficulties with test headforms were finally resolved, the Standard was amended again on April 6, 1988 (53 FR 11280) to apply to all helmets designed for highway use by motorcyclists. The 1988 amendments also modified the performance requirements of Standard 218 in regard to the areas of the helmet subject to penetration and impact testing, temperature conditioning prior to testing and the properties of the test devices used to perform testing. Copies of each of the notices implementing these amendments are enclosed.

Information related to helmet recalls may be obtained from NHTSA's office of Technical Information Services (TIS). You may contact TIS at this address:

Technical Information Services (NAD-40)
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
400 7^th Street S.W., Room 5110
Washington, D.C. 20590

The telephone number for TIS is: (800-445-0197); this number is answered between 1:00 and 3:00 P.M. Monday through Friday, by TIS staff in order to provide general assistance; however, reference requests must be made in writing. The FAX number, (202-493-2833), may be used to submit requests to TIS, however TIS will respond by mail or courier service (at the requestor's expense).

Information about the services offered by TIS is also available on the World Wide Web at: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/trd/.

I hope that this responsive to your inquiry. If you have any questions, please contact Otto Matheke of my staff at (202) 366-5253.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:218
d.12/1/98

ID: 12157-3.pja

Mr. Kenneth D. MacArthur
Farm Bed Manufacturing, Inc.
Box A, Eisenman Road
Boise, Idaho 83705

Dear Mr. MacArthur:

This responds to your letter requesting that your vehicle be excluded from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) rear impact protection (underride guard) regulations. I apologize for the delay in responding. As explained below, your vehicle is not excluded from the regulation.

Your company manufactures self-unloading bulk trailers that have small conveyer belts at the lower rear of the trailer to unload potatoes and other agricultural products. The rear shaft mount for the conveyor belt protrudes 24 inches from the rear of the trailer in order to drop the potatoes onto another conveyer belt (called a piler) that resides at the unloading site. You believe that the small conveyor belt should be considered "work performing equipment," thus making the trailer a "special purpose vehicle" that is excluded from the requirement to have an underride guard.

After January 1998, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 224, Rear impact protection, will require most trailers and semitrailers weighing over 10,000 pounds to be fitted at the rear with an underride guard. An excluded category of vehicle is special purpose vehicles. A special purpose vehicle is defined in S4 of FMVSS No. 224 as "a trailer or semitrailer having work-performing equipment . . . that, while the vehicle is in transit, resides in or moves through the area that could be occupied by the horizontal member of the rear underride guard . . . ." (Emphasis added.)

Your vehicle does not meet the definition of a special purpose vehicle. The small conveyor belt at no time passes through the area where the horizontal member of the underride guard would be located, and it certainly does not do so while the vehicle is in transit. Therefore, your trailers are not excluded from the standard as special purpose vehicles.

As you pointed out in your letter, NHTSA addressed this issue in the January 20, 1996 final rule on underride (61 FR 2004). The National Potato Council commented that an underride guard would impair the function of the conveyor, without explaining how. NHTSA responded that, if this were true, the vehicle would probably be a special purpose vehicle (61 FR at 2022). However, it now appears that the conveyor function would not be impaired in a manner that would exclude it under the rule as written (i.e., the conveyor does not reside in or move through the guard area while the vehicle is moving).

This letter merely applies the existing regulatory language to the question you posed, and does not constitute a judgment that your trailers could operate with a conventional underride guard in place. There may be engineering solutions that you have not yet explored that would meet the requirements of the standard without compromising the function of your vehicle.

If there are solutions that you would not be able to implement before the January 26, 1998 effective date of the rule, you can apply for a temporary exemption. Under one of our regulations (49 CFR Part 555), vehicle manufacturers may apply for a temporary exemption from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Under Sec. 555.6(a), a manufacturer whose yearly production is not more than 10,000 units may ask for an exemption of up to three years on the basis that compliance would cause it substantial economic hardship and that it has attempted in good faith to comply with the standard from which it has asked to be excused. I have enclosed a copy of Part 555 for your information. Please note that it takes three to four months from the date of submittal before a decision can be made on such an application because it has to be submitted for public comment. You may also submit a petition for rulemaking (see 49 CFR Part 552, copy enclosed) requesting that NHTSA amend the standard to exclude these vehicles.

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

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:224
d.8/22/97

ID: 23491ogm

Mr. Michael Crocker
President
JB Enterprises
P.O. Box 21
Grover, NC 28073





Dear Mr. Crocker:

This responds to your letter concerning a device for which your company has acquired "patent pending" status known as the "Safety Belt Latch." Although your letter does not describe the "Safety Belt Latch," you have indicated in telephone conversations with Otto Matheke of my staff that the "Safety Belt Latch" is intended to relocate the shoulder portion of a lap and shoulder seat belt and position this portion of the belt so it does not contact the neck or collarbone of vehicle occupants. Your letter indicates that the "Safety Belt Latch" will be marketed as an aftermarket product and will therefore not be installed on new vehicles. You request that this agency confirm your understanding that Federal safety standards do not apply to an aftermarket product such as the "Safety Belt Latch."

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The agency does not approve, certify or endorse any vehicles or equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts you provided.

Your belief that no current Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) applies to your product is correct. At this time, NHTSA does not have a standard or regulation for seat belt positioners. However, in a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published in the Federal Register on August 13, 1999 (64 FR 44164) (copy enclosed), we proposed to adopt a consumer information regulation for seat belt positioners. In the NPRM, we proposed to define "seat belt positioner" as "a device, other than a belt-positioning seat, that is manufactured to alter the positioning of Type I and/or Type II belt systems in motor vehicles." Among other things, the NPRM proposed to require the devices to be labeled as not suitable for children of a certain age, e.g., under 6 years old, or a certain height.

It appears that the "Safety Belt Latch" would be considered a seat belt positioner under the proposed definition. If we issue a final rule adopting a consumer information regulation in this area, the rule's definition of "seat belt positioner" could be the same as the definition in the NPRM or a logical outgrowth of the proposed definition. We anticipate announcing a final decision on the NPRM in the near future.

While no FMVSS currently applies to your product, your device is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment are subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30118-30121 concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those and other manufacturer responsibilities. In the event the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. We encourage you to undertake a complete evaluation of your product to determine if its use would degrade the performance of safety belts.

In addition, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to 49 U.S.C. section 30122, which prohibits them from installing the device if the installation "makes inoperative" the vehicle's compliance with any safety standard. It appears unlikely from the nature of your product that it would be placed in vehicles by commercial businesses instead of consumers. If your product were to be installed by a commercial business, the business must ensure that its installation does not compromise the safety protection provided by the vehicle belt system. The prohibition of section 30122 does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Otto Matheke of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-5253.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:208
d.10/25/01