ID: 16262-1.pja

Mr. Dale Dierks
Engineering Manager
Trail-Eze
1909 S. Rowley
Mitchell, SD 57301

Dear Mr. Dierks:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of whether several different trailers your company manufactures would be excluded from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) rear impact protection (underride guard) regulations. In a May 14, 1998, telephone conversation with Paul Atelsek, one of our attorneys, you explained that you had changed the designs of your trailer line so that you are confident that all but one of the trailers now comply with the rule. You asked Mr. Atelsek to address only the Model DHT Series Hydraulic Tail trailers. As explained below, this trailer is an excluded low chassis vehicle, to which our underride guard regulations do not apply.

These trailers are essentially a flatbed design, with an eight foot long, full width tail section extending rearward behind the rear tires. The rear edge of the tail section can be raised or lowered using hydraulic cylinders located beneath the front part of the tail. The tail section tilts down to permit loading of wheeled vehicles. At the rear of the tail section is a four foot long, full width approach plate. During loading, the approach plate extends farther rearward (12 feet total length from the front edge of the tail section) and downward, bridging the gap between the tail section and the ground. Its purpose is to allow construction equipment to transition across its triangular cross section from the ground up onto the bed without encountering the "bump" of the edge of the tailpiece.

During transit, this approach plate folds under the tail section and stows against the bottom of the tail section. You added further detail in a March 27, 1998, telephone conversation with Mr. Atelsek. Although the tail section can be tilted up and down, it is designed so that it can not be transported in any position other than the horizontal position, and that the tail section and the approach plate both lock into that position. In this position, you state that the combined rear surface of the tail section and the approach plate meets the configuration requirements our regulations. However, without counting the tucked-under approach plate, the lower rear of the tail section does not meet the configuration requirements because it is too far above the ground. The approach plate is attached by a large full-width piano-type hinge, fits into an indentation on the bottom of the tail section, and locks in place there during transit.

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 category that is relevant for the purposes of this letter is low chassis vehicles.

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 folded approach plate itself, so the question becomes whether the approach plate 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 approach plate, we conclude that it is part of the chassis. The folded approach plate conforms with the outline of the underside of the trailer bed, maintaining a constant bed thickness and helping to define the outline of the bed. Your approach plate is hinged along the entire rear of the trailer and, when folded, locks at its forward edge into a place fitted for it on the underside of the chassis. NHTSA considers the approach plate on your trailer to be "locked" into the frame of the vehicle sufficiently that it is considered integral with it, as one unit, and therefore a part of the frame structure. By contributing to the structural integrity of these frame members, NHTSA considers the approach plate to be supporting load. Therefore, the approach plate is part of the chassis, and the trailer is a low chassis vehicle, excluded from the underride guard requirements.

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

ID: 16264.ogm

Mr. Gary Gawura
Program Manager
Track Corporation
1091 Centre Drive
Suite 210
Auburn Hills, MI 48236

Dear Mr. Gawura:

This responds to your letter concerning Standard No. 207, Seating Systems and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages as they apply to a seat design having an upper seat belt anchorage integrated into the seat and lower seat belt anchorages integrated into the adjuster. I apologize for the delay in responding.

You ask several questions regarding the proper test procedures for designs such as yours where the seat belt assembly anchorages are integrated into the seat rather than attached to the vehicle itself. Your letter contains a description and diagram of the current test procedure used by your company to test seats and seat belt anchorages. You indicate that in order to test the belt anchorages, a 3000 pound load is applied to the shoulder and the lap belts as specified in S5.2 of Standard No. 210. You also indicate that a "C.G. force at 20 times the weight of the seat is applied to the seatback and another C.G. force a t 20 times the weight of the pedestal is applied to the pedestal. These loads are held for ten (10) seconds."

The first question you ask is whether it is necessary, under your current test procedure as described above, to apply a load to the pedestal because, as a seat manufacturer, you are not certifying the attachment of the seat to the vehicle.

Depending on the standard involved, Federal motor vehicle safety standards may apply to a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, to a vehicle manufacturer or to both. S2 of Standard No. 209 specifies that the standard applies "to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses. Therefore, the manufacturer of the vehicle is responsible for ensuring that the product meets the requirements of Standard No. 209. Given the fact that Standard No. 209 requires that the seat be installed in a vehicle when compliance testing is performed, it may not be possible for your company to perform such testing.

If, as your diagram indicates, the load being applied to the pedestal portion of the seat is intended to be the load which must be applied to cg₂, the center of gravity of the portion of the seat below the adjuster, as required by S5.1.1(c), a vehicle manufacturer would be required to ensure that the seat assembly met those requirements. As a seat manufacturer, your company is not obligated to do so.

You also ask that the agency comment on a proposed test procedure which your company believes would be more appropriate for testing seats with integrated seat belt anchorages for both lap and shoulder belts. As depicted in a diagram in your letter, this test applies a 3000 pound load to the lap and shoulder belt anchorages and a 20g load to the seat back and the seat "pan."

Your diagram refers to the load applied to the seat back as the upper CG load and the load applied to the seat "pan" as the lower CG load. As the seat "pan" in the seat depicted in your diagram is above the adjuster, the lower CG load shown in this diagram is presumably not the actual lower CG load but rather represents your nomenclature for the load that would be applied to cg₂ under S5.1.1(c).

The test that your company proposes clearly does not meet the current requirements of Standard No. 207. It is not clear from your letter if this test is performed with the seat attached to the vehicle. If it is not, the test would obviously not test the strength of the attachment of the seat to the vehicle. Secondly, it is not possible to evaluate your proposed test from the information contained in your letter. However, it appears that the test you propose would place greater loads on the seat frame and adjuster than the current requirements of S5.1.

Finally, you ask for a complete set of standards and rulings related to the testing of integrated adjusters and seats. The requirements for seat belt anchorages are found in S5 of Standard No. 210. As you are aware, the requirements for seats are found in S5.1 of Standard No. 207. Copies of these standards are enclosed as well as the accompanying test procedures.

NHTSA is currently studying possible changes to Standard No. 207 as well as an October 28, 1997 petition for rulemaking submitted by Bornemann Products, Inc. requesting that the agency initiate rulemaking to modify Standard No. 207 in regard to the testing of integrated seats.

I hope that this is responsive to your inquiry.

If you have any questions, please contact Otto Matheke of my staff at (202) 366-5253.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:207
d.4/1/98

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

ID: 16305.ztv

Mr. Vann H. Wilber
Director
Vehicle Safety & International Department
American Automobile Manufacturers Association
1401 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005

Re: Definition of Optical Axis of a Headlamp

Dear Mr. Wilber:

This is in reply to the letter of October 23, 1997, that you and Jeff Erion wrote pointing out a possible inconsistency in the interpretation we provided Steve Law on June 16, 1997, and "the conclusions of the Regulatory Negotiation (Reg Neg) on this subject." Mr. Law had asked whether certain marking configurations met the requirements of paragraph S7.8.5.3(f)(1) of Standard No. 108.

In brief, we advised Mr. Law that markings at the center of each of the four sides of a rectangular headlamp were insufficient to denote the optical axis, which runs directly through the center of the headlamp at 90 degrees to the lens face. However, the final rule and its preamble are silent as to the type of mark that must denote the optical axis. You say that the Reg Neg Committee determined that "marks on the periphery of the lens which could be converged to the center of the lens" would be acceptable, and that Mr. Law's Option C meets this requirement.

The marks on Option C are located at the center of each of the four sides, oriented at 90 degrees from the side. If lines are drawn between opposing sides, they will converge at the center of the headlamp, at the optical axis. We agree that this is a sufficient indication of the optical axis to meet the requirements of paragraph S7.8.5.3(f)(1), and that Mr. Law's Option C is acceptable. This reverses our opinion on Option C that we provided Mr. Law on June 16, 1997.

However, the marks on Option B, located on each side, are parallel to the side. This means that lines drawn between opposing sides will not necessarily intersect on the optical axis unless they are drawn from the center of each line, which is not marked. Option B thus remains unacceptable because lines cannot be converged to the center of the lens from any point on the marks located at the sides of the headlamp.

We are providing Mr. Law and Mr. Erion with a copy of this letter.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
cc: Steve Law
Jeff Erion
d.12/22/97
ref:108

ID: 16336a.drn

Mr. Bob Presley
Truck Manager
Harreld Chevrolet Company
P.O. Box 413
Canton, MS 39046

Dear Mr. Presley:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether a vehicle (with a seating capacity of 11 or more including the driver) used by a taxi service to transport school children from school to non-school activities must meet the Federal school bus safety standards. In answering your question, we have considered whether the vehicle will "significantly" be used to transport the school children from school. Under the facts you presented, we believe that the vehicle will not be "significantly" used to transport school children, and that you therefore need not sell a school bus to the taxi service. However, you should bear in mind that State law might affect the type of vehicle sold or used to carry school children.

In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you explained that a local taxi service wishes to purchase a new vehicle from your dealership, and you wish to know whether you must sell a school bus. The taxi service would in part use the van to pick the students up from their schools and take the students to after-school activities designated by the students' parents. The taxi service is arranged by the parents and not by the school. During the day, the same vehicle will be used for other taxi services, such as transporting older persons on errands or to appointments, or pilots from the airport to hotels. The vehicle may also be rented out to churches for church-related transportation.

You further explained to Ms. Nakama that the taxi service has just a total of 8 to 10 vehicles in its fleet. You believe that 4 of the taxi vehicles are 15-passenger vans and the other vehicles are designed to carry 8 to 10 persons. No particular vehicle in the fleet is used only to transport the students, and you believe the taxi service intends multiple uses for the vehicle it intends to buy, not just transportation for students. You also believe that 90 percent of the time, the vehicles in the taxi fleet are used for purposes other than picking up students from school.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by Congress to issue and enforce the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Under Federal law, a vehicle, including a van designed for carrying 11 or more persons, is a bus. A bus is a school bus if the vehicle "is likely to be used significantly to transport preprimary, primary, and secondary school students to or from school or an event related to school." (Emphasis added.) 49 U.S.C. 30125(a)(1).

Under the facts that you discussed with Ms. Nakama, the buses would be used to transport students "from school." The question is whether the buses are "likely to be used significantly" to transport the students from school. (Emphasis added). This question is one that the agency finds appropriate to resolve case-by-case, focusing on the intended use of the vehicle.

In view of the small percentage of time that any vehicle in the taxi fleet will be used to transport students, I have concluded that the vehicles in the taxi fleet are not "significantly" used to transport students from school. Accordingly, if a dealer were to sell a new bus (van) to the taxi service, it would not need to sell a new school bus.

Please note that Federal law and NHTSA's safety standards directly regulate only the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, not their use. Each State is free to impose its own standards regarding use of motor vehicles, including school buses. For information on Mississippi's requirements on transportation of school children, please contact Mississippi's State Director of Pupil Transportation:

Ms. Regina Ginn
Director of Transportation
Mississippi Department of Education
P.O. Box 771
Jackson, MS 39205

Ms. Ginn's telephone number is: (601) 359-1028.

Finally, it is NHTSA's position that vehicles meeting Federal school bus safety standards have proven to be the safest way to transport school children. Use of buses that do not meet the school bus standards to transport students could result in increased liability in the event of a crash. Since liability would likely be determined by State law, you may wish to consult with your attorneys and insurance carriers for advice on this issue.

I hope this information is helpful. I have enclosed a question-and-answer sheet on "Dealers' Questions About Federal School Bus Safety Requirements." If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:VSA#571.3
d.2/19/98

ID: 16337.drn

Mr. E. Hunter Stone, II
P. O. Box 61419
Denver, CO 80206-8419

Dear Mr. Stone:

This responds to your request for a "written corporate endorsement" of your invention the "Signal Square," which you describe as a "location marker for safety and emergency purposes" that can be temporarily attached to a motor vehicle. The invention is a bright orange rectangular piece of plastic approximately 41" by 40" plus two 6" long flat white magnets. As explained below, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) cannot endorse or otherwise "approve" your product. Since the product is "motor vehicle equipment," the manufacturer of your product may be subject to NHTSA's laws as described below.

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Unlike the practice in many countries, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards.

Your product is "motor vehicle equipment" for the following reasons. Our statute (at 49 USC 30102(a)(7)) defines the term "motor vehicle equipment" as:

(A) any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured;

(B) any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of a system, part, or component, or as any accessory or addition to a motor vehicle; or

(C) any device or an article or apparel ... that is not a system, part, or component of a motor vehicle and is manufactured, sold, delivered, offered, or intended to be used only to safeguard motor vehicles and highway users against risk of accident, injury, or death. (Emphasis added.)

The agency uses two criteria in determining whether a device is an "accessory." The first criterion is whether a substantial portion of the expected use of the item is related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. We determine a product's expected use by considering product advertising, product labeling, and the type of store that retails the product, as well as available information about the actual use of the product. The second criterion is whether the product is purchased or otherwise acquired, and principally used, by ordinary users of motor vehicles. If a product satisfies both criteria, then the product would be an "accessory."

Applying these criteria to the "Signal Square," we conclude that it is an accessory to a motor vehicle. The product labeling describes the "Signal Square" as an "air and ground vehicle location marker." The label also describes how to place the "Signal Square" on the "steel, hood, top, flatbed and/or side of vehicle," and provides specific instructions on how to place the product on smaller vehicles.

Although we have no information about how the product will be advertised, from the product's labeling, we conclude that its expected use is related to the operation of a motor vehicle. Because of the detailed instructions provided in the label, we conclude that the product is intended to be purchased and principally used by ordinary users of motor vehicles.

Please note that NHTSA has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 125, Warning devices. Standard No. 125 establishes requirements for devices, without self-contained energy sources, that are designed to be carried in motor vehicles and used to warn approaching traffic of the presence of a stopped vehicle, except for devices designed to be permanently affixed to the vehicle. The application section (S3) states that: "the standard applies to devices, without self-contained energy sources, that are designed to be carried in buses and trucks that have a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 10,000 pounds."

If sold for use with buses and trucks with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds, the "Signal Square" must meet Standard No. 125's detailed specifications for a warning device. However, if the "Signal Square" is sold for use with vehicles with a GVWR under 10,000 pounds, Standard No. 125 would not apply.

Even if sold for use with vehicles with a GVWR under 10,000 pounds, and no safety standard applies, other NHTSA laws may apply to your product. As an accessory to a motor vehicle, the "Signal Square" is an item of "motor vehicle equipment." You (or whoever is the manufacturer of the "Signal Square") would be subject to Title 49 of the U.S. Code, sections 30118-30122, concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. If the manufacturer or NHTSA determined that the 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.

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

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
d.12/29/97
ref:125#VSA

ID: 16359.drn

Mr. Peter K. Welch
Director of Government and Legal Affairs
California Motor Car Dealers Association
915 L Street, Suite 1480
Sacramento, CA 95814

Dear Mr. Welch:

This responds to your October 28, 1997, request for an interpretation about a new vehicle (with a seating capacity of 11 or more, including the driver), sold by a dealer to a private family. You wish to know whether, if the dealer knows the family will use the vehicle to transport school children to and from school, the dealer must sell a vehicle that meets the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to school buses. As explained below, the answer is no.

Your letter posed two questions. The first question is :

1. Does a van which has a capacity of carrying 11 persons or more qualify under the federal law as a school bus if purchased by an individual for personal and family purposes and the individual periodically uses the van to transport his or her own children and/or other children to school or school-related activities pursuant to a non-monetary carpooling arrangement?

The answer is no, the van would not be considered a "school bus." The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has addressed this issue in an interpretation letter of April 25, 1986, to Mr. Arnold Spencer (copy enclosed). In that letter, NHTSA stated that it does not consider privately-owned family vehicles used by parents to carry their children to or from school to be subject to our school bus safety standards.

In 1974 Congress amended NHTSA's statutory authority by passing the School Bus and Motor Vehicle Safety Amendments (P.L. 93-492). The school bus amendments directed NHTSA to issue standards on specific aspects of school bus safety. The House Committee Report on the school bus amendments stated that "(p)rivate motor vehicles used to carry members of the owner's household or other students in a carpool arrangement" were among the types of motor vehicles not meant to come within the scope of the amendments. (House Report 93-1191, page 42.) Therefore, persons selling new buses or any other type of vehicle for family use are not required to sell complying school buses.

Please note that Federal law and NHTSA's safety standards directly regulate only the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, not their use. Each State may impose its own standards regarding what requirements must be met for vehicles to be sold, licensed and operated in the state. For information on what requirements, if any, California has regarding the sale of vehicles such as the van you describe, please contact California's State Director of Pupil Transportation at the following address:

Mr. Ron Kinney, Supervisor
School Transportation
California Department of Education
560 J Street, Suite 170
Sacramento, CA 95814

Mr. Kinney's telephone number is: (916) 322-4879.

The second question is:

2. If the answer to question No. 1 is yes, what duty does a new car dealer have to question a prospective new van purchaser relative to issues involving carpooling arrangements and what liability does a dealer face if the purchaser advises the dealer that the van will not be used to carpool students but subsequently uses the van for school-related carpooling?

For purposes of NHTSA's laws, since the answer to our first question is no, our answer to the second question is moot. California law should be consulted to see whether there are relevant duties or responsibilities under the laws of your state.

I hope this information is helpful. I have enclosed a question-and-answer sheet on "Dealers' Questions About Federal School Bus Safety Requirements." If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:VSA#571.3
d.12/8/97

ID: 16360-2.pja

Harry W. Hanson, Esq.
Waller, Leonard, Chambers, and Hanson
Suite 206 Peoples National Bank Building
P.O. Box 469
Washington, Indiana 47501-0469

Dear Mr. Hanson:

This responds to your letter on behalf of Cornelius Manufacturing, Inc., a company that produces a flatbed trailer that can be converted to a dovetail configuration. We apologize for the delay in responding. You wrote asking whether this particular trailer design was excluded from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) rear impact protection (underride guard) regulations. As explained below, these vehicles are not 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 an underride guard. These regulations were issued to prevent the many fatalities that have resulted from crashes in which a passenger vehicle striking the rear end of a trailer or semitrailer penetrates so far underneath that the rear end of the heavy vehicle enters the passenger compartment.

Certain trailers are excluded from these requirements. You appear to be asking whether your vehicle is an excluded "low chassis vehicle." This is defined in section S4 of Standard No. 224 as a vehicle "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 S5.1.3 of this section." S5.1.2 contains a requirement that the bottom edge must be no more than 560 mm (about 22 inches) from the ground.

The flatbed vehicle that Cornelius Manufacturing produces has a variable ground clearance. You note in the product literature that the lower rear surface of the vehicle is 16.5 inches when the dovetail is in the down position, and 28.75 inches when the vehicle is configured as a flatbed. The product literature refers to this vehicle as a "flatbed with the adjustable dovetail (optional)." We understand from this, from the illustrations showing it being used in the flatbed configuration, and from your statement that it is "quite possible that . . . it might never be in compliance," that it can be operated on the road in its flatbed configuration. In the flatbed configuration, the 28.75 inch bed height is over six inches too high to be considered low chassis, and would not provide adequate rear impact protection. In this configuration, these vehicles do not meet the definition of a low chassis vehicle, nor do they meet the definition of any other excluded category.

A vehicle would have to meet the definition of the excluded category in every position in which it can be operated on the road in order to be excluded. Since in the flatbed mode the vehicle would not meet the definition of any excluded vehicle type, and is capable of transport in that mode, it would not qualify for any exclusion. The vehicle would have to be equipped with an underride guard meeting the requirements of 49 CFR 571.223 in order to be certified.

Section S6.2(a) of Standard No. 223 allows the manufacturer to designate whether the agency should test for compliance on a rigid test fixture or on a trailer. On a rigid test fixture, the question of bed height is not an issue. However, if testing on the trailer there is a question of in which configurations, in the range of flatbed to dovetail, NHTSA will test the guard. Standard No. 223 does not specify in which configuration (flatbed, dovetail, or in between) the agency should test for compliance if there is a choice. When a standard does not specify a particular test condition, we begin with a presumption that the requirements must be met in every test condition in which the vehicle can be operated. See, for example, NHTSA's October 2, 1990 letter to Mr. S. Kadoya of Mazda. It is not practical to specify every possible test condition in Standard No. 223 because of the wide variety of trailer configurations. Changeable configurations like Cornelius Manufacturing's trailers are a good illustration of the difficulty.

Starting from this presumption, we look to the language of the standard and its purposes for guidance to decide whether some limitation on the test condition should be implied. The language excluding low chassis trailers from the standard's requirements is one indication that the trailer should not be subject to the requirements in the dovetail configuration. No language would imply a limitation as to configurations that would not qualify for an exclusion. As to the purposes, with the trailer configured in the flatbed mode with its rear end at a height above 560 mm, a colliding vehicle would likely underride the trailer. This safety concern is one that the agency considered extensively in the January 24, 1996 final rule (see 61 FR 2016-18), and it is this kind of situation the regulation was intended to prevent. However, in the dovetail configuration and at rear bed heights of 22 inches or less the vehicle would be excluded if it were fixed in that position, and the bed of the vehicle would probably prevent a colliding vehicle from underriding it.

In this case, we find an implied limitation on the test condition based on the standard's language and purposes. Therefore, NHTSA could test a vehicle with an adjustable rear end for compliance with the rule in all non-excluded configurations in which it can be operated on the highway. In the case of the Cornelius Manufacturing flatbed, this means NHTSA could test whenever the rear bed is positioned between a height between 22 inches and the flatbed height of 28.75 inches. At lower heights the guard would not have to be present for the vehicle to comply.

We cannot provide a specific opinions on how your trailer might be redesigned to accommodate a guard. We note, however, that manufacturers of tilt bed trailers have told us that they have found engineering solutions that would meet the requirements of the standard without compromising the function of their vehicles. Some of them are using guard designs that deploy when in the flatbed configuration and automatically retract when in the tilted configuration. Perhaps some of these solutions may also work for you. However, we emphasize that NHTSA is not responsible for vehicle design.

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 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. NHTSA would try to handle a request from Cornelius Manufacturing expeditiously.

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: 49 CFR Part 512

cc: Congressman John N. Hostettler
Senator Richard G. Lugar
ref:224
d.1/28/98

ID: 16362.ztv

Mr. Nick Tysoe
Development Engineer
Britax Vega Ltd.
Kingswood Road
Hampton Lovett Ind. Est.
Droitwich
Worcestershire
WR9 0QH
England

FAX 9-011-44-1905-796046

Dear Mr. Tysoe:

This is in reply to your fax of October 30, 1997, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency. As the Office of Chief Counsel provides the written interpretations of the agency's regulations, please send future requests for interpretations directly to us.

You discuss the design of the rear of a vehicle which has one taillamp installed on the fender and another taillamp adjacent to it on the rear decklid. A distance of four inches separates the two lamps. Each of the lamps conforms to SAE J585 as a single lamp. You regard the fender-mounted lamp as the lamp required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, and the lamp mounted on the decklid as an additional lamp that does not impair the effectiveness of the required taillamp. But if the two lamps are regarded as a two-compartment lamp, "their combined photometric performance will exceed by a small amount the 20cd maximum for such lamps."

You ask whether your interpretation is valid, or whether such an installation would be regarded as a multi-compartment lamp.

We are pleased to confirm your interpretation. A multiple compartment lamp is a lamp that shares a common housing and lens. Your design encompasses lamps with separate housings and lenses, and is not a multiple compartment lamp.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.12/3/97

ID: 16386.df

Mr. Eric Goldwasser
993 Barbery Rd.
Yorktown, NY 10598

Dear Mr. Goldwasser:

This responds to your letter requesting a waiver that would permit you to have your 1996 car modified in two ways. You would like to add a bar to the outside of the driver's door to protect you in a side impact from a light truck whose bumper is higher than the existing beams. You would also like to add a second bumper to the front of the car "so that in a front-end collision there will be more distance between [you] and the first thing to make contact with whatever the car is colliding with."

It might be helpful to begin with some background information. All new vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States must be certified by their manufacturer as complying with this agency's Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including the standards for side impact protection (Standard 214), and occupant protection (Standard 208). If a vehicle were modified prior to its first retail sale, the manufacturer or dealer would have had to certify that the vehicle, as altered, continued to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

After a vehicle is sold at retail, Federal law limits the modifications made to it by manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses. These entities are prohibited under our statute from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard (49 U.S.C. 30122). In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition would require a business which modifies motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil penalties of up to $1,100 per violation.

A commercial business of the type specified in 30122 would be prohibited from adding the side door bar to your vehicle if installation of the bar would make inoperative the features of the door that enable the vehicle to meet Standard 214's side impact protection requirements. It is possible that installation of the bar could affect how crash forces are directed towards the occupant compartment. For example, a bar that is mounted above the existing side door beams could in some crashes result in more injurious forces directed at the occupant. Similarly, depending on where and how the second bumper is mounted, its installation could affect the compliance of a vehicle with Standard 208's automatic crash protection requirements. For example, the added bumper could affect the ability of an air bag to deploy as originally designed and provide the necessary crash protection. The "make inoperative" provision would prohibit a commercial business from installing the bumper in a manner that would negatively affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard 208.

You indicate that the manufacturer of your vehicle has been unwilling to modify the vehicle in the manner you seek. I note that your modifications raise complex engineering issues concerning the crash performance of the vehicle and its continued compliance with the safety standards. NHTSA has no provision to grant waivers from the "make inoperative" requirement for manufacturers and repair businesses for the modifications you have in mind.

Finally, I note that state laws may cover the installation of additional bumpers and side door bars on motor vehicles. You should contact the Department of Motor Vehicles in your state for information about such laws.

I hope that this is information is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:214
d.3/4/98