ID: nht68-2.33

DATE: 12/18/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; William Haddon, Jr., M.D.; NHTSA

TO: Consumers Union

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am writing in response to your several letters and the one from Mr. Posin in which an interest was expressed in learning about action planned by the National Highway Safety Bureau on a number of items which you have brought to our attention.

Your letters included a request for information that four named imported passenger cars comply with Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 203 and 204, and your letter of September 13, 1963, and invited comment on several cases of alleged violation of the Standards that had been published in Consumer Reports.

I am unable to comply with your request for information by model about conformance with specific standards. To do so might cause damage to the National Highway Safety Bureau's enforcement program. As Consumer Reports has noted on many occasione, the Burcau lacks the funds and facilition to test every model of every make of motor vehicle sold in the United States to determine whether all such vehicles comply with applicable Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. This deficiency has hampered both the speed and extensiveness of the compliance program.

Consequently, we have been compelled, in our present enforcement program, to subject some makes and models to compliance testing and to omit others from the tests. Furthermore, the Bureau's resources do not permit it to test each vehicles selected for compliance testing to determine whether it complies with every Standard. The viability of this program of "spot checking" depends on secrecy as to which makes and models have been selected for testing and the exact tests each will undergo. The intentive for all manufacturers to comply with every Standard might be compromised if the manufacturers knew which vehicles(Illegible Line) must(illegible line).

Therefore, we cannot comply with your request for disclosure of the results of the Bureau's tests of four imported cars for compliance with Standards 203 and 204. When our present testing cycle is completed, we may be able to release the information you seek, if you care to renew your request at that time.

There are several specific points in your September 13 letter on which I am able to comment. My views on each of those points are as follows:

1. According to our information, the Dodge Polara mentioned in your letter was manufactured prior to January 1, 1968, the effective date of Standard No. 107. If you have information to the contrary, please supply it to us.

2. We are now studying the problem raised by the fact that, on some models of passenger care, the rear seat belts do not cross the "H" point at an angle(Illegible Word) near 45 degrees from the horizontal. Inquiries to one manufacturer and a limited amount of testing have indicated that the belt does make an angle close to 45 degrees when it is tested dynamically. From a safety viewpoint, of course, the important thing is that the proper angle exists during dynamic performance. For this reason, we are planning additional research with a view towards modification of Standard No. 210.

3. There of your comments deal with seat belts which are allegedly too long for snug adjustment. Standard No. 209 requires seat bolt assemblies to comply with the standards for seat belts promulgated by the National Bureau of Standards (31 F.R. 11528). Section 9.3(g) of the MBS standards requires each Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly to be "capable of snug adjustment by the occupant..." It does not specify the anthropometric dimensions of the hypothetical occupant. The seat belt assembly in common use today cannot be manufactured so that it can be snugly adjusted to fit the entire range of human body types, from the small thin child to the large obese adult. We are, therefore, planning further research to enable us to specify(Illegible Word) adjustment range which will be practicable and at the same time will cover as many body sizes and types as possible. I will appreciate it if you will assist us by sending the Bureau(Illegible Words) the individuals on whom you tested the belts referred to in your letter.

4. Our investigation of both the Peugeot outside mirror and the outside mirror mount on the Datsun has indicated that both comply with Standard No. 111. If you have any data which show that the contrary is true, please send them to us so that, if warranted, we can reopen our investigatory file on each of these mirrors.

5. Since the Peugeot headlamp control is not mounted on the instrument panel, Standard No. 111 does not require that it be identified to permit recognition.

6. As you probably know, Toyota has initialed a defect motification campaign in reference to the throttle following publication of this item in the September 1968 issue of Consumer Reports.

7. Your letter also asks me to comment on a report that a dealer has refused to alter an original-equipment seat belt on the ground that to do so would subject him to a $1,000 fine. Although the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act does not provide for fines, it does permit the imposition of civil penaltics of up to $1,000 for viclation on certain of its provisions. There are cases in which a dealer might be subject to civil penalty if he altered a motor vehicle or item of equipment so that it did not conform to applicable Standards. Whether, and in what circumstances, a dealer would run the risk of having a civil penalty imposed on him is a complex legal question. I cannot answer this question on the basis of the information you have supplied.

The remaining matters mentioned in your September 13 letter are currently under investigation by the Bureau. Consequently, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on them at this time.

The information which you supply to us and which you print in Consumer Reports is particularly valuable in that it suggests areas where we should consider concentrating our limited resources. Wherever there is an indication of a defect or violation of standards which is brought to our attention, such as the items you mention, we attempt to accomodate our testing and review planning to include consideration of these items.

I think it might be valuable for us if you would be able to find the time to visit here with some of our staff and talk with Mr. H. M. Jacklin and his staff in the Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service. I think it would be very valuable for them and perhaps out of this could come some ideas for areas in which information available to you and available to us can be made mutually beneficial.

Thank you for your efforts to date. My apologies for the long delay in responding.

ID: nht69-1.14

DATE: 03/03/69

FROM: DEAN F. NIEDERNHOFER FOR CLUE D. FERGUSON -- NHTSA

TO: Splintex Belge

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letters of January 16, 1969, and February 3, 1969, concerning safety glazing in motor vehicles.

Referring to your request to use marking as described in the second paragraph of your letter, I believe you have confused the two-digit manufacturer's code number specified in Docket 23 with the model number specified in Section 6 of USASI Standard 226.1-1965.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials incorporates USASI Standard 226.1-1955 by reference. Marking of the glazing materials must comply with Section 6, Marking of Safety Glazing Materials. Included in this marking is the requirement for a model number related to a detailed description of a specific glazing material. The example,(Illegible Word), is a model number assigned by you in accordance with foot note #24 at the bottom of page 29 of(Illegible Word) Standard 226.1-1986.

The two-digit manufacturer's code number that follows the "LOT" symbol is used, at the option of the glass manufacturer, as an alternative method of complying with that certification requirements specified in Standard No. 205. This "DOT" symbol followed by a two-digit manufacturer's code number should be added to the marking you should in your letter.

Following are my answers to the questions asked in your letters

Question (1) Must we add the symbol "DOT" somewhere in the above marking"?

Question (2) Can you agree with the proposed marking without taking into consideration that our clear laminated M.I.B glass has been approved, or are was compelled to submit our coloured glass to a laboratory and ask for a new approval?

Question (3) If you extend our AS.1-M.11 approval to the said AS3-26 type, as we hope, is this extension valid for all the American States, including those affiliated to the A.A.M.V.A.? If so, do you advise all the States of this extension or shall we do it?

Answer to Question (1) Only if you wish to avail yourself of the alternative method of certification specified in Standard No. 205 Amendment (33 P2 14152).

Answer to Questions (2) and (3) The approval of glazing materials to which you refer is a State approval independent of the U.S. Federal government. Those questions should be directed to the individual States or A.A.N.V.A. for answer.

I am taking the liberty of assigning a two-digit manufacturer's code number to your company on the assumption that you wish to avail yourself of the alternative method of certification.

Splintex Balge S.A. is assigned number 24. This number should appear after the characters "DOT" when you certify your glazing materials by the alternative means published in the Federal Register, Vol. 33, No. 183 - Thursday, September 19, 1968, (enclosed).

I am sorry for the delay in answering your initial letter.

Sincerely,

Enclosure

SPLINTEX BELGE

Societe Anonyme

January 16, 1969

Director of the National Highway Safety Bureau.

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

Department of Transportation.

Gentlemen,

We are manufacturers of safety glass, namely for the automobile industry, and have had several safety glass types approved, the last ones being:

1/4" mm thick H.I. laminated: Splintex Gilly HI/AS1-M11.

7/32" mm thick H.I. laminated: Splintex Gilly HI/AS1-M12.

We supply a constructor of busses with laminated glass pieces placed along edges of the roof, as shown on the attached picture. This laminated glass is 1/4" thick and is composed of a H.I. interlayer but also two coloured ones with finally just 2 light transmittance. We have in hand information you sent to our customer (Title 23 - Chapter II/Dockets n degree 23 and 29 - Notice(Illegible Word) May we beg you, on this ground, if we may use, for the described glass, an AS3-28 marking with a two digit code number, for example M15; if so, our marking would be

SPLINTEX Height in accordance with U.S.A.S.I.

GILLY Height in accordance with U.S.A.S.I.

AS.3-26-M.15 requirements.

LAMINATED

Our other questions are:

1) Must we add the symbol "DOT" somewhere in the above marking?

2) Can you agree with the proposed marking without more, taking in consideration that our clear laminated H.I. 1/4" glass has been approved, or are we compelled to submit our coloured glass to a laboratory and ask for a new approval?

3) If you extend our AS.1-M.11 approval to the said AS3-26 type, as we hope, is this extension valid for all the American States including those affiliated to the A.A.M.V.A.? If so, do you advise all the States of this extension or shall we do it?

As this is a very important and urgent question, we beg you for a prompt air-mail answer and hope you will give us full details about the other steps we should have to undertake.

Awaiting your kind news and thanking you beforehand for all your help, we remain, Gentlemen,

Very truly yours.

LINTEX BELGE

Societe Anonyme

Director of the National Highway Safety Bureau,

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

Department of Transportation.

Gentlemen,

We beg to remind you our letter dated 16th. January concerning the marks we should put on safety glasses for roof of busses and an eventual approval of this glass material.

As we have an order from a customer, bus constructor who exports vehicles to the U.S.A., it is of the utmost urgency for us to be able to answer our client's questions and requirements.

We apologize for our insistance but hope you will understand our trouble and answer us promptly.

We thank you again and remain, Gentlemen,

Very truly yours.

ID: nht69-1.17

DATE: 04/18/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: Auto Test Division, Consumers Union of U.S., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letters of March 17, 1969, and March 26, 1969, pertaining to certain child restraint devices and whether or not they are covered by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209. Your specific questions and our corresponding answers are as follows:

Question No. 1: Which of the commercially available devices must comply with the Type 3 requirements of Standard No. 209, which must not?

Answer No. 1: Child restraint devices must comply with the Type 3 requirements of Standard No. 209 if, by visual examination of the design and the advertising thereof, they are sold as being a Type 3 seat belt assembly. By definition, a Type 3 seat belt assembly is a combination pelvic and upper torso restraint for persons weighing not more than 50 pounds or 23 kilograms and capable of sitting upright by themselves, that is children in the approximate age range of 8 months to 6 years.

Question No. 2: How does one tell whether a given device is covered or not?

Answer No. 2: If the manifested purpose of any belt, strap, webbing or similar device is to secure a person in a motor vehicle in order to mitigate the results of any accident, then the belt has to comply with the applicable portions of Standard No. 209. There is a distinct difference between a "child seating system" and a seat belt used to restrain a child. "Child seating system" means an item of motor vehicle equipment for seating and restraining a child being transported in a passenger car. This child seating system is not covered by Standard No. 209, but will be covered by a future standard No. 209, but will be covered by a future standard.

Question No. 3: Is the criterion (that a given device must comply) whether or not the maker claims that the device offers protection against impact injury?

Answer No. 3: Whether or not the maker of a child restraining belt claims that the device offers protection against impact injury is not the criterion upon which the compliance interpretation is based. (Reference Answer No. 2.)

Further investigation is needed before we can provide an answer to your question pertaining to which specific manufacturers of the belts that you tested are in violation.

To assist you in your project on child restraint devices, we are enclosing the latest copy of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209 and the copy of the Notice of Proposed Rule Making on child restraint systems.

We trust that we have been of assistance to you.

Sincerely,

Enclosures: F-38 and 49 C.F.R. Part 371, Docket No. 2-15, Notice No. 2

March 17, 1969

Frank Armstrong Office of Performance Analysis National Highway Safety Bureau U.S. Department of Transportation

Dear Frank:

Consumers Union has under way a project on child restraint devices. As I told you briefly on the phone a couple of weeks ago, the question has come up, which of the commercially available devices must comply with the Type 3 requirements of Standard 209, which must not? How does one tell whether a given device is covered or not? Is the criterion whether or not the maker claims that the device offers protection against impact injury? I talked to Joe O'Gorman about this problem at some length, but he was not able to provide an answer.

I hope that you, or someone in your office, can throw some light on this question for us.

Sincerely yours,

CONSUMERS UNION OF U.S. INC.

Auto Test Division--

Joseph N. Ulman Jr.

Automotive Safety Engineer

cc: Morris Kaplan

March 26, 1969

Frank Armstrong Office of Performance Analysis National Highway Safety Bureau U.S. Department of Transportation

Dear Frank:

On March 21, I received a phone call from Joe O'Gorman in response to my letter of March 17 to you requesting advice on how to tell whether any given child restraint device is governed by the Type 3 requirements in Standard 209. I believe Joe now has a clear understanding of our question, and he is trying to obtain an answer.

In the meantime, we would like to amplify for you the information on child restraint devices that appeared on pages 169 and 170 of our April issue. The 15 devices listed as failing to meet the 2000-pound load requirement were sold with safety claims as follows: DEVICES WITHDISCLAIMER:

Penney's No. 0858

Sears No. 1507

Tommee Tippee WP 207

Tommee Tippee WP 205 SP

DEVICES MAKING NO SPECIFIC SAFETY CLAIM:

Auto Babe

Ward's No. 6053 "Tiny World Safety Belt"

Wizard No. 5480 "All Purpose Safety Strap. . ."

DEVICES MAKING SOME CLAIMS:

Hollywood 495 C

497 C "1000-lb. test." "Secures against sudden stops." ". . .allows for. . .with perfect safety."

Kiddie King KKB-1 "Child's Auto Safety Belt." "Protects your child against sudden stops."

Kiddie King KKB-2 "Child's Safety Harness and Belt." "Protection. . .in Autos. . ." ". . .Maximum of safety."

Safety Guard B 12 "Auto Safety Strap." "For protection, comfort, safety." "Will protect children on short stops."

Safety Guard B 112 "Child's Auto Safety Strap." "Exceeds SAE Safety Specifications." "Protection against short stop danger."

Safety Guard B 1212 "Safety Harness Strap." "Protect your child from short stops." ". . .exceeds S.A.E. Safety Specifications."

Toidey SC-3 "Auto Harness." "Keeps little explorers safe." ". . .webbing withstands over 2000 pounds pull."

Our question: Which of these devices are Type 3 restraints; and thus which of them are, according to our static tests, in violation of Standard 209?

We shall appreciate any information you can supply us.

Sincerely yours,

CONSUMERS UNION OF U.S. INC.

Auto Test Division-- Joseph N. Ulman Jr.

Automotive Safety Engineer

cc. Morris Kaplan

David Tallman

ID: nht72-1.44

DATE: 10/16/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Douglas W. Toms; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Heinrich von Wimmersperg, Development Engineer

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of October 2, 1972, concerning the Ford "Tot-Guard" and your child restraint patents.

The consumer complaints that we have received on the Ford Tot-Guard have been complaints focussing on the fit of the device for minimum recommended size children. The comments relate both to the case with which small children may climb out of the device and slide under it, as well as to the vision restriction problem for the small child.

The Tot-Guard has proven to perform well in 30 mph frontal impacts with the three-year-old child dummy in our research programs, but can be improved in lateral protection capability and in performance with the 50-pound child dummy.

We have just completed a research program to develop new concepts in child restraints and will very shortly be making these designs available for any manufacturer who chooses to produce one of these advanced design restraints.

A copy of your letter will be placed in the public docket along with plans for the restraints developed on our child restraint development contract.

We are interested in reviewing and placing in the public docket copies of your designs for the infant car bed, which you mention, in hopes of stimulating the production of a crashworthy design for such a device.

We appreciate your letter and are looking forward to hearing from you in the near future.

SINCERELY,

HEINRICH VON WIMMERSPERG DEVELOPMENT ENGINEER

OCTOBER 2, 1972

Douglas W. Toms Director National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

An article by John Thorner in the WASHINGTON POST on 20 July 1972, relative to the Consumers Union's report on children's car safety restraint systems, quoted you as stating that your agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, had found that children did not like the FORD "TOT-GUARD" and that therefore it would be difficult to get parents to use this restraint system.

As the owner of the basic patent used in the "TOT-GUARD", (Patent #3,232,665), I am naturally interested in your comments.

It is my impression that you are referring to the fact that the "TOT-GUARD" does have an extended front piece, covered by FORD's patent #3,424,497, which does interfere somewhat with the child's ability to see forward and may thus cause some children to object to being placed in the seat.

However from all dynamic tests about which I have heard, the FORD "TOT-GUARD" does provide maximum safety for children weighing up to 50 pounds in simulated crash conditions.

An editorial in the WASHINGTON POST of 6 July 1972, copy of which I am enclosing, did pose the question: "If some manufacturers can meet safety testing, why can't all of them?"

It is with this thought in mind that I would like to call your attention to the fact that FORD has a NON-EXCLUSIVE license on my patent and that I would be willing to license other manufacturers to avail themselves of its features on terms generally equivalent to the FORD agreement, involving a very nominal royalty.

I do feel that the small royalty should not deter them from using my patent to make their devices safer.

I have already noted that some attempts have been made to copy my system, but the endeavor to avoid infringement of my patent has not resulted in making their devices as safe as they would be if they had used my patent.

I realize that the NHTSA is not in a position to act as a "sales agent" for my patent but, in the mutual interest of promoting safety for children riding in cars, I do think it would be perfectly proper for you to at least call attention of manufacturers of child car restraint systems to the fact that my basic patent is available on a non-exclusive basis to any manufacturer for a very nominal royalty.

For your ready reference, I am enclosing a copy of U.S. Patent #3,232,665 issued on 1 February 1966.

I am presently in the process of developing a new version of a children's seat based on my Patent #3,232,665, for children up to 50 pounds weight, having no restricted frontal vision, conveniently adaptable to different sizes of children and collapsible for easy storage and transportation.

Recently a patent was allowed to me which probably will be issued in January 1973. This is for a Safety Seat for Infants (old enough to be seated).

Further, I have just filed a Patent Application for a CAR BED for infants too young to be seated. It is based on a completely new principle, which provides maximum possible protection, equally safe for short trips or for longer traveling.

These three developments thus cover the complete range from the newborn baby to the 50 pound child.

Having had over 30 years background in the development of automotic firearms, covered by over 60 patents, I have, since 1955, been interested in the difficult problem of decelerating fast moving vehicle occupants in crashes without injury, a problem very similar to the problems to be solved in the design of ornaments. This work has resulted in my obtaining patents for an Automotive Safety Belt and for a shock absorbing Sun Vison, automatically covering the impact area of the windshield.

I would be happy to give you additional information regarding any of the above-mentioned matters if you are interested.

I know that you primary interest is in promoting, SAFETY for all people riding in cars and airplanes. It is my sincere belief that I have contributed something to this cause, and I got particular satisfaction from seeing a display of photos on the fifth Floor of the NASSIF Building in Washington showing a little girl sitting in a "TOT-GUARD" and also the car in which she was riding when it was rolled over in a side-impact collision, without injuring the girl. I presume you have seen this display. If not, I am enclosing a copy of the display.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Heinrich von Wimmersperg

[Enclosures Omitted]

1) Copy of U.S. Patent #3,232,665

ID: nht73-3.4

DATE: 11/26/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Paul R. Hodgson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 26, 1973, requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, Paragraph S3.2.1.2 (Mounting).

Paragraph S3.2.1.2 requires, in part, that the outside mirror on the driver's side be capable of adjustment from the driver's seated position. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that any necessary adjustment of the mirror can be readily accomplished without affecting the continued safe operation of the vehicle in motion. If for some reason the position of the outside mirror were altered so as to obstruct the clear view of the driver to the rear, he would be compelled to leave the highway and remove himself from the vehicle in order to make an adjustment. This possibility defeats one of the purposes of paragraph S3.2.1.2.

Paragraph S3.2.1.2 also provides that the mirror shall not be obscured by the unwiped portion of the windshield. As you stated in your letter, the curvature of the Traveco windshield will not afford an unobscured view of the mirror in that the mirror only retains about 80% of its visibility in the rain and snow. Visibility of 80% does not satisfy the requirements of Standard No. 111.

In summary, the mounting you have suggested for rearview mirrors on the Traveco motor homes is not in conformity with the requirements set out in Paragraph S3.2.1.2 of Standard No. 111. However, pursuant to section 108 (b) (1) of the Vehicle Safety Act, the nonconforming mirrors you have described may be installed if the installation is accomplished after the first purchase of the vehicle for purposes other than resale. You should also be

2 aware that a revision of the standard is presently under consideration which may have an effect on the future compliance of the mirrors.

We appreciate your inquiry.

Yours Truly,

PAUL R. HODGSON

ATTORNEY AT LAW TULSA, OKLAHOMA

October 26, 1973

Dr. James B. Gregory, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

We are writing for an interpretation of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, Section S3.2.1.2 (Mounting, which states: "The mounting shall provide a staole support for the mirror and neither the mirror nor the mounting shall protrude further than the widest part of the vehicle body, except to the extent necessary to produce a field of view meeting or exceeding the requirements of S3.2.1.1. The mirror shall not be obscured by the unwiped portion of the windshield, and shall be adjustable from the driver's seated position. The mirror and mounting shall be free of sharp points or edges that could contribute to pedestrain injury. (32 F.R. 5495 -- April 4, 1967))".

Marion W. Loveless, 1150 South Joplin, Tulsa, Oklahoma, manufacturers rear view mirrors for mobile homes. Traveco Corp. manufacturers mobile homes with wrap around front windshields. Traveco likes Marion's mirrors and would like very much to have them installed on their mobile homes as standard equipment. Traveco wants to be assured that these mirrors are in compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111.

Marion owns a Traveco mobile home and designed these mirrors for his own use. The most important feature of these mirrors, is: You can see both without taking your eyes off the road, even for an instant. The mirrors are mounted and adjusted in such a manner that a clear and full view to the rear is provided

2 regardless of the height of the individual driving or the place (forward or back) in which the seat is placed (to adjust for leg length. There are no blind spots since you can look over the top of the mirror rather than around it.

We have enclosed pictures for your assistance in visualizing the appearance, location, and effectiveness of these mirrors. Picture #1 gives you the location on the vehicle and the way it is mounted. Picture #2 gives you a view of the left mounted mirror from the driver's eye position. The doors are 10 x 12 feet and the mirror is approximately 100 feet from the doors. Please note that, looking directly at the mirror, one can still see the area in front of the vehicle. Picture #3 is a view from the driver's eye position looking straight down the road. Please note that one can, at the same time, see clearly the rear view from the mirror. Picture #4 shows a view from the driver's eye position. It clearly shows another mobile home in the rear view mirror (left). Picture #5 shows the view, from the driver's eye position, of the right rear view mirror. This clearly shows that the mirror is located in a position where the passenger cannot obstruct the view of the mirror. Picture #6 shows the mirror with the windshield wiper in its furthest left position in relation to the left mirror.

Although the mirror cannot be adjusted from the driver's position, it is mounted and adjusted, when installed, so that it is effective from all positions of the driver in the seat and his height. Marion has driven his for 2 years and never adjusted it since installation. Although the mirror is not within the windshield wiper area, experience has shown its location is such that, driving in the rain and with road dirt and oil, the mirror still retains better than 80% visibility. This is due to the fact the windshield curves and the wind coming around the curve blows the rain, dirt, snow, etc. off the glass through which you look to see the mirror. These mirrors were designed specifically for Traveco and those other mobile homes having a wrap around windshield and a small post. There is a defroster blower mounted inside the windshield which prevents

3 frost, ice, and snow from obstructing a view of the mirror.

We respectfully request an interpretation that the mirrors described above are in full and adequate compliance with Standard No. 111. Your prompt response will be appreciated.

Paul K. Hodgson Attorney for Marion W. Loveless

I have read the above and foregoing request for interpretation and the facts stated therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Marion W. Loveless

cc: Bud K. Smith, Traveco Corp. Charles Kaehn

ID: nht73-5.15

DATE: 05/18/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James E. Wilson; NHTSA

TO: Hon. M. J. Rinaldo - H.O.R.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 30, 1973, concerning the requirement of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air brake systems, that air-braked vehicles be capable of stopping in a specified distance without locking their wheels.

Standard No. 121 was originally proposed in notices of proposed rulemaking published June 25 and 26, 1970. A public meeting was held on October 20, 1970, at which representatives from all interested members of industry and government reviewed the proposal. The standard was issued as a final rule on February 27, 1971, with an effective date of September 1, 1974. Following issuance of the rule, a number of petitions for administrative reconsideration were received, and after lengthy consideration of these petitions the agency responded by amending the standard in a notice published February 24, 1972. This amendment also prompted petitions for reconsideration, which were answered by further amendments on June 24, 1972. The standard has not been further amended since that time.

The antilock requirement to which you refer was a feature of the initial proposal and has remained, with minor adjustments, in all succeeding versions of the standard. it is the third of three performance criteria that a truck or bus must meet in a stop under actual road conditions. The first requirement is that the vehicle must be capable of stopping in specified distances from 60 mph and 20 mph on high and low friction surfaces. The second requirement is that the

2 stops must be made without leaving a straight 12-foot wide lane. The third is that the vehicle must stop without lockup of any wheel at speeds over 10 mph, except for lockup of a wheel controlled by an antilock system.

The aim of each of these requirements is reasonably clear. The stopping distances specified represent a significant improvement in the stopping capability of most air-braked vehicles. The stay-in-the-lane requirement is an important measure of brake balance. The antilock requirement is intended to upgrade the maneuverability of air-braked vehicles in nonlinear braking situations, where locked wheels would result in a partial or complete loss of directional control.

It should be noted that the standard does not require an "antilock system". It requires that a vehicle be capable of stopping without lockup, but it does not require a specific system to accomplish this result. As a practical matter, most manufacturers appear to have chosen antilock systems as the means of meeting the standard, although consideration has been given to other systems such as proportional braking systems in some vehicle applications.

A good deal of attention was focused on the antilock requirements during the rule making process. The agency's conclusion was that, if controlled braking was to remain as a goal of the standard, there was no satisfactory means to achieve this goal except by preventing the wheels from locking. Having chosen to require antilock braking, the agency cannot amend the requirement except through a full rulemaking procedure. If presented with a petition for rulemaking that appeared to have merit, the agency would propose the amendment by issuing a notice in the Federal Register. It would then allow time for public comment before deciding whether to adopt the proposed amendment. At this time we have no petitions under consideration on the subject of antilock braking.

In the rulemaking process followed to develop Standard No. 121, as well as in any rule making to amend it, the other Federal agencies are invited to participate on the same basis as other interested persons. We do not

3 routinely follow special procedures with other Federal agencies, except for the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, whose regulations interact closely with ours. As a matter of record, no Federal agency other than BMCS submitted comments during the rule making on Standard No. 121.

The(Illegible Word) has limited research funds and has, partly for that reason, conducted very few tests of specific product designs. The agency is directed under the terms of its legislative authority to issue performance standards, rather than design standards, and such testing as it has done relates to the feasibility of achieving a certain level of performance rather than to the characteristics of a particular product. The agency's staff has reviewed the results of testing done by manufacturers that bears on Standard No. 121, but has not conducted tests itself.

The cost of a typical antilock system is difficult to determine accurately. For competitive reasons, cost data is closely held by the manufacturers, particularly in the period before the systems are actually in production. We have estimated that some systems will be selling in the range of 100 dollars per axle, but there are a great many variables to be considered and we do not know if that figure will prove to be representative of actual prices.

ENCS.

April 30, 1973

James E. Wilson Acting Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

I would greatly appreciate your cooperation in furnishing me with background information concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121 which, as I understand it, requires the installation of a computerized anti-wheel lock device on trucks and tractor-trailers. Specifically, I would appreciate the following information:

1. A brief statement of the requirements of the standard.

2. The dates on which the standard was adopted and becomes effective.

3. What, if any, alternative devices were studied to accomplish the same objectives prior to the adoption of the standard?

4. What administrative procedures were followed in the consideration and adoption of the standard?

5. What procedures would be required in the event of an amendment or addition to the standard prior to its effective date?

6. Are any such amendments or additions to the standard presently under active consideration?

7. What is the estimated cost per unit of equipping trucks and tractor-trailers with the computerized

2 anti-wheel lock device?

8. To what extent were the needs and experience of other Federal agencies which utilize or operate trucks and tractor-trailers considered in the course of adopting the standard?

9. In adopting standards of this kind, are such Federal agencies regularly consulted?

10. In cases where proposed standards may involve a requirement for the installation of a specific safety device, are such devices and alternative designs ordinarily tested by NHTSA?

11. Under what conditions would NHTSA consider it necessary or useful to conduct tests on newly developed safety devices?

Thank you very much for providing me with this information.

Matthew J. Rinaldo Member of Congress

ID: nht88-2.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/26/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Parnell Webb -- General Manager, River Road Dodge (TN)

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. Parnell Webb General Manager River Road Dodge Rt.3 Ripley, TN 38063

This responds to your letter asking whether the original equipment bed on a half-ton pick-up truck can be taken off and replaced by a local government with a utility body and/or bed. I apologize for the delay in responding. The answer to your question if different, depending on the specific facts of the situation.

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seg.) prohibits the sale or introduction into interstate commerce of any new vehicle or stem of motor vehicle equipment that does not conform to all applica ble Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The Safety ct authorizes NHTSA to issue these safety standards (found in 49 CFR Chapter V), and each manufacturer is required to certify that its product(s) meet all applicable safety standards. Its not clear f rom your letter whether your dealership is proposing to make the modifi- cations for the local government agency or whether the local government agency will itself perform the modifications.

The local government agency can perform whatever modifications it desires to its own vehicles without violating any Federal laws or regulations. This is because neither the Safety Act nor any of our standards and regulations apply to modifications indivi dual vehicle owners make to their own vehicles.

However, if your dealership were to make these modifications, you would be responsible for complying with various providing of the Safety Act and applicable regulations. The provisions with which you would have to comply would depend on whether you modif y the vehicle before it is sold for the first time to the consumer (a new vehicle), or if you make the modifica- tions after it has been sold for the first time to a consumer (a used vehicle). I will address each of these situations separately.

If your dealership intends to perform the described modifications to new vehicles, you would be subject to the following requirements. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits the sale of any new vehicle that does not comply with all applicable s afety standards. This means that any vehicle that is modified before being sold for the first time to a consumer must continue to comply with all applicable safety standards after its modifications. In addition to these statutory considerations for modi fiers, this agency's certification regulations, set forth in 49 CFR Part 567, apply to any person who changes previously certified vehicles by means other than the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components or minor finishing ope rations or in such a manner that the weight ratings designed to the vehicle are no longer valid. Such a person is considered an 'alterer' for the purposes of Part 567 (copy enclosed). We consider the removal of a pickup bed and replacement with a utilit y body and/or bed to be something more than the substitution of readily attachable components or minor finishing operations. Therefore, a person making such a substitution on a new vehicle would be an alterer under Part 567.

In this case, S567.7 requires that:

(1) The alterer supplement the existing manufacturer certification label by affixing an additional label stating that the vehicle as altered conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards as well as stating the firm or individual name of the alterer and the month and the year in which the alterations Here completed (see S567.7(a));

(2) The modified values for the vehicle be provided as specified in S567.4(g)(3) and (5), if the gross vehicle weight ratings or any of the gross axle weight ratings of the vehicle as altered are different from those shown on the original certification l abel (see S567.7(b)); and

(3) The type classification be provided, if the vehicle as altered has a different type of classification from that shown on the original certi- fication.

In addition to these certification requirements, an alterer is considered a 'manufacturer' for the purposes of notification and remedy of defects or noncompliances under the Safety not and if subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Non compliance Reports.

On the other hand, if your dealership proposes to modify used vehicles (already purchased by the consumer), different requirements would apply. Specifically, section 108(a)(2)(n) of the Safety Act prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business from "knowingly rendering inoperative' any equipment or element of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with our safety standards. In other words, no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business can modify used ve hicles by removing or defeating any of the systems or devices that were installed on the vehicle to comply with an applicable safety standard. The modifier in the first instance must determine if the modifications constitute a prohibited 'rendering inope rative' violation. However, the agency can reexamine the modifier's determination

in the context of an enforcement proceeding. Part 567 does not require modifiers of used vehicles to provide a separate certification label for the modified vehicle.

To help you determine which standards may apply to the modified vehicles and whether the proposed modifications would result in a prohibited 'rendering inoperative' violation, I am enclosing a publication entitled 'Federal Vehicle Safety Standards and Pr ocedures.' This pamphlet indicates which standards apply to which vehicle types. I am also enclosing a general information sheet for new manufacturers that gives a general description of the applicable regulations, and explains how to get copies of those regulations. I hope this information proves helpful. Please contact this agency again if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counselor NHSTA 400 7th St. S. West Room 5219 Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Erika Jones,

Can the original equipment bed on a 1/2 ton pick-up truck be taken off and replaced by a local government agency with a utility body and/or bed? Please send this information to:

River Road Dodge Rt. 3 Ripley, TN 38063

Thank you,

Parnell Webb General Manager

&assistance.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: nht88-1.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/04/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Art Look -- Marketing Executive, Burke Communication Industries

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Art Look, Marketing Executive Burke Communication Industries 1165 North Clark Street Chicago, IL 60610

Your letter of October 30, 1987, addressed to Administrator Diane Steed, was referred to me for reply. You are apparently seeking this Department's approval of your product which you describe as a new warning device for stopped motor vehicles. As explain ed below, we do not provide approvals for products.

Your product is made of inflatable plastic material that you describe as "flexible and extremely durable." When a user inflates your device, the product takes the shape of a cone standing about 18" high. The pictures you enclose indicate that the inflata ble part of the cone has three broad alternating stripes. Two of the stripes are orange, and a 6" "reflective" white stripe is sandwiched between them. Your cone sits on a non-inflatable, spherical, black base filled with "approximately" 3 lbs. of sand.

You state that your device has many advantages over the warning device currently specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 125, Warning Devices. Among the advantages you list are that your device is "more visible at night, up to 1,000 ft. away;" that it "(is) not affected by winds up to 50 MPH;" and that if struck, it "will return to an upright position" without damaging the vehicle involved. You state your company's intention to package your device in a corrugated container with three inflatab le cones to a kit, including both a "new-type double-action hand pump" and instructions for proper use of your device.

Let me begin with some general information about this agency. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is an agency of the Department of Transportation, and has authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safe ty Act) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. However, NHTSA does not approve nor certify motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, or endorse any commercial product. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is required to certify that its products meet all applicable safety standards issued by this agency. Periodically, NHTSA conducts tests to issued by this agency. Periodically, NHTSA conducts tests to determine whether vehicles or equipment comply with these standards, and may investigate alleged safety-related product defects.

One of the safety standards issued by this agency is Standard 125, Warning Devices, which sets uniform performance requirements for certain devices that are designed to be carried in a motor vehicle and use when needed to warn approaching traffic when th e vehicle is disabled and stooped in or by the side of the road. The Standard applies to any such device that does not have a self-contained energy source (such as a battery). Your product falls under this Standard. Thus, it must meet the requirements of Standard 125, such as those on configuration, color, and reflectivity. Failure to comply with a standard renders the manufacturer subject to a civil penalty of $1,000 for each violation and a maximum penalty of $800,000 for a series of violations. In ad dition, the Safety Act requires a manufacturer to recall and remedy or replace a noncomplying item of motor vehicle equipment.

As the above discussion suggests, you do not need approval from NHTSA or any other agency in the Department of Transportation to market your product. However, you do need both to ensure that your product meets Standard 125's requirements and to certify c ompliance. Our preliminary review of your product indicates that you may not be able to make that certification. For example, it appears that your product may not comply with the color, reflectivity, configuration, and stability requirements of Standard 125. If your product fails to meet these or other Standard 125 requirements, you cannot legally market it as a warning device.

I hope you find this response helpful.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure - (Copy of Std. 124 and Std. 125 omitted.)

October 30, 1987

Re: Change or addition to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 125 Warning Devices

Dear Ms. Steed,

As you suggested in an earlier telephone conversation, I am sending you all the pertinent information regarding our new warning device. This road safety device was designed to protect and alert motorists to truck and auto highway breakdowns.

We realize it is our responsibility to bring to your attention the physical, mechanical and aesthetic values of the new unit which allows you to judge its uniqueness and safety features. For this reason we have enclosed all the test results performed by Quinn Laboratories here in Chicago. We are intending to use the 18" size device in our Trucker's/Motorist's kits.

As indicated in the enclosed photos and test results the warning device is fabricated from a flexible and extremely durable plastic material which is inflated before use. The device is filled at the bottom with approximately 3 lbs. of sand and has a 6" b and of reflective material 3" from the top. Upon inflation the device takes on the appearance of a cone 18" high.

The inflatable cones have many advantages over the now available devices. They are more visible at night, up to 1,000 ft. away. (Note: you will find specification and technical information on the 3M reflective material to be used at the top of the cone.) The cones are nor affected by winds up to 50 MPH and if struck, will return to an upright position. Most importantly, if struck, the cone will in no way damage the vehicle involved.

The size and colors of the cones meet with M.U.D.T.C.O. specifications.

When not in use the cones can be deflated to fit into a small compact package.

It is our intention to make a kit of three 18" cones and one new-type double-action hand pump, package in a weather proof corrugated container with instruction for filling the cones and placing them in their proper location, printed on the container. It is virtually impossible for these cones to be assembled incorrectly.

Ms. Steed, we are confident that will all the information enclosed you will judge the merits and outstanding possibilities of our new warning device in a positive manner and allow us to take the next step to get the Department of Transportation's approva l of our new road safety device.

Sincerely,

Art Look Marketing Executive Photos and test results omitted.

ID: aiam4721

"Dear Mr. Ambassador: Thank you for your letter of March 16, 1990 expressing the concern of your country about this agency's new regulations on importation of motor vehicles and equipment. Canada is concerned that, under P.L. l00-562, the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of l988, Canadian vehicle brokers, dealers, and private citizens will not, for all practical purposes, be able to export new or used Canadian market vehicles to the United States. It is concerned further that Canadian individuals and firms will be precluded from providing conformance goods and services for vehicles exported to the United States. Canada therefore requests that this agency modify its regulations with respect to Canadian market vehicles, recognizing their near-compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, and accommodating their entry in the least costly and burdensome manner. You have five specific requests, and I shall address each. Preliminarily, I want to note several things. First, my assurance that this agency gave very careful consideration to the concerns of Transport Canada in adopting final regulations under the 1988 Act, as well as those expressed by Canadian companies that commented on the proposed regulations. As we noted in the notices proposing and adopting those regulations, our discretion to make changes in the regulations was narrowly circumscribed in many instances by the detailed language of that Act. On a more technical level, I want to note that your understanding of our new regulations expressed in paragraphs (a) through (g) on page 2 of your letter is essentially correct. However, with respect to your paragraph (d), please note that determinations of vehicle eligibility for importation may also be made by me as Administrator on my own initiative, and need not be pursuant to a petition. Also, as to paragraph (e), I would like to point out that the bond processing fee, proposed to be $125, is only $4.35 (however, under paragraph (f) the bond is not less than l50% of the dutiable value of the vehicle). Your first request is that the agency 'recognize Canadian market vehicles as a special class of non-complying vehicles requiring only minor changes to meet the FMVSS.' The l988 Act was enacted on October 31, l988, and became effective January 31, l990. I regret to say that none of its provisions authorize the agency to directly distinguish between non-complying vehicles of Canadian manufacture and those originating in other countries. However, the eligibility provisions that you reference in paragraph (d) do permit a basis for minimizing some of the burden that the l988 Act imposes. We begin with the premise that if a Canadian vehicle has not been certified by its manufacturer as in conformance with U.S. standards, then it cannot be presumed to conform in all respects to the U.S. standards. Canadian and U.S. safety standards do differ in some ways (e.g., mandatory automatic crash protection for U.S. market passenger cars manufactured on and after September 1, l989). Nevertheless, we believe that enough similarity may exist to support a finding that a Canadian passenger car is 'substantially similar' to a U.S. passenger car, justifying a determination that it is eligible for importation into the United States, and capable of conversion to meet U.S. safety standards. Further, such a finding may be made on our own initiative. I am pleased to inform you that NHTSA is publishing a notice of tentative determination that would cover all passenger cars certified as meeting the Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, and that were manufactured up to September 1, l989. A copy of the notice is enclosed for your reference. After receiving and considering public comment, we will make a final decision on this matter. If we decide to adopt our tentative determination as a final determination, your first request would, in effect, be granted. Your second request is that we 'exempt such vehicles from the fees.' These fees are the ones mentioned in paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) of your letter, the registered importer annual registration fee, the vehicle eligibility petition fee, and the bond processing fee. Each fee is specifically required by the l988 Act, and must be established in advance of the fiscal year in which it is effective. The registered importer fee is required to cover agency costs for administration of the registration program. The vehicle eligibility fee is required to cover the agency's costs in making and publishing eligibility determinations. The bond processing fee is required to reimburse the U.S. Customs Service for its costs in processing the agency's conformance bond that accompanies each nonconforming vehicle. Congress provided no authority to waive these fees, or to modify them during the fiscal year that they are in effect. Thus, the fees that have been established must remain in effect until October 1, l990. When we begin the review that will lead to next year's fees, we shall be happy to consider whether some provision may be made for Canadian market vehicles. In the meantime, I would like to point out that under our notice of tentative determination on eligibility of Canadian vehicles, the fee of $l,560 would cover the blanket determination of all passenger cars, and would not be applied to each individual model and model year of passenger car. This action would effectively moot Canada's second request that Canadian market passenger cars be exempted from the determination fee. Canada's third request is to 'exempt them from the bonding requirement.' The l988 Act requires the importer of a non-conforming vehicle to furnish an appropriate bond to ensure that the vehicle will be brought into compliance, or will be exported or abandoned to the United States. This is not a new requirement, ever since January 1, l968, each nonconforming vehicle, Canadian or otherwise, has been required to be accompanied by a conformance bond upon its entry into the United States. The l988 Act provides us with no authority to exempt Canadian vehicles, and does not distinguish degrees of nonconformity. Therefore, we believe that we are unable to grant Canada's request, absent specific authorization by the U.S. Congress. The fourth request is to 'exempt them from the requirement that they be imported by registered importers, who must be U.S. citizens.' This request raises two issues: whether Canadian market cars may be imported by persons other than registered importers, and whether registered importers must be U.S. citizens. As to the first issue, the l988 Act does allow one alternative to direct importation by a registered importer. That is, a person other than a registered importer may import a nonconforming vehicle if he has a contract with a registered importer to perform conformance work. This would allow a Canadian citizen to import a Canadian market car, without himself becoming a registered importer. The second issue is whether a Canadian company is permitted to be a registered importer. We believe that a registered importer is a person who is physically present in the territory in which importation occurs, as opposed to an exporter, who is outside that territory. While we are not conversant with the laws of the individual States, we believe that a Canadian company could qualify to do business within an individual State, and become a registered importer. Thus, it is not necessary to be a U.S. 'citizen', but it is necessary to be subject to U.S. jurisdiction. The l988 Act requires the registered importer regulation to contain requirements for recordkeeping, and inspection of records and facilities. Since the jurisdiction of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act does not extend beyond the boundaries of the United States, we believe that it would be difficult to enforce our provisions on inspection of premises, documents, etc. in the territory of another country. This brings us to your fifth and final request, that we 'allow modifications to be done in either the United States or Canada.' Under current regulations, conformance work is permitted to be performed outside the United States. However, vehicles modified in this fashion must be admitted under the same procedures as if they had not been modified. This allows the agency to review the documents on pre-importation conversion work, to ensure that it has been satisfactorily accomplished, before the conformance bond is released. Accordingly, we believe that the concern underlying this request has already been accommodated. If, after reviewing this letter, you have further suggestions for reducing the burdens that the new law may have imposed on importations of Canadian-manufactured vehicles, I would be happy to consider them. Sincerely, Jerry Ralph Curry Enclosure";

ID: 16281-1.pja

Mr. Craig Heider
Manager
Jet Co.
1303 North 13^th Street
Humboldt, IA 50548

Dear Mr. Heider:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of whether three different trailers your company manufactures would be excluded from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) rear impact protection (underride guard) regulations. You ask if a grain trailer with fixed rear axles and a rearmost surface of the rearmost tires within 305 mm of the rear extremity of the trailer is excluded as a wheels back vehicle. You also ask if a flatbed/dropdeck trailer with a beavertail and a composite dropdeck trailer are excluded as a low chassis vehicle. On the basis of the information you supplied and certain assumptions discussed below, it appears that all three of these vehicles are excluded.

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 and low chassis vehicles.

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."

You state in your letter that the rear axles of your grain trailer meet both of these criteria. The copy of a photograph you enclosed of the trailer appears consistent with your description, although no dimensions are given. Accepting your assertion that the rear surface of the tires on the fixed axle are within 305 mm of the rear extremity, NHTSA concludes that the vehicle is excluded.

Your flatbed/dropdeck trailer, labeled "53' X 102" Steel Dropdeck" in the literature you enclosed with the letter, is essentially a flatbed design, with a five foot dropdeck (also called a "beavertail") extension angling downward from the rear of the flat portion of the bed. There are two loading ramps that bridge the distance from the lower rear of the beavertail to the ground during loading, allowing vehicles to be driven onto the flatbed. During transit, the loading ramps, which are located on the left and right sides of the beavertail section, pivot on a hinge at the rear of the beavertail and flip over and lie on top of the beavertail section. The literature you enclosed states "ramps make the beavertail flat for more loading area." By this, we assume you mean that the bottom surface of the loading ramps, when sitting on top of the beavertail, forms an extension of the flat portion of the trailer during transit, and that the extension can support cargo load. In a conversation with Mr. Paul Atelsek of my staff, you clarified that the rear surface of the beavertail extends from one side of the trailer to the other and its lower surface is less than 22 inches above the ground.

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 vehicle that may meet these configuration requirements is the rear edge of the beavertail itself, so the question becomes whether the beavertail 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 your beavertail, the agency concludes that it is part of the chassis. The beavertail helps to define the shape of the trailer. It is of a similar size and strength to the other frame components. Your beavertail is attached to the rest of your chassis sufficiently that it is considered integral with it, as one unit, a part of the frame structure. In addition, the beavertail meets the "load supporting" aspect of the chassis definition because it can support cargo load. Therefore, the beavertail is part of the chassis, and the trailer is a low chassis vehicle, excluded from the underride guard requirements..

Your third trailer type, labeled "53' X 102" Composite Dropdeck" is a straight flatbed trailer with the frame rails in the rear of the trailer extending 10 feet behind the rear wheels. The vertical face of the chassis at the rear is 13 inches from top to bottom, and although it is not apparent from your line drawing, we assume that this depth dimension is constant across the back of the trailer. The distance from the ground to the bottom of the chassis is 21 inches when the trailer is unloaded. Because the rear face is at least 4 inches high, extends outward to within 4 inches of the trailer side extremities, and is no more than 22 inches from the ground when the trailer is unloaded, it meets the configurational requirements of S5.1.1 to S5.1.3. The rear face of the trailer connecting to the frame rails is considered to be frame structure. Assuming that the rear of the bed can support load, this structure is part of the chassis. Since this structure meets the configurational requirements of the rule, this vehicle is an excluded low chassis vehicle.

You also asked about the labeling requirements if a vehicle falls in an excluded category. There are no requirements for excluded vehicles in our regulations. 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
ref:224
d.5/22/98