ID: 11465JEG

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510-1501

Dear Senator Grassley:

Thank you for your December 20, 1995, letter, addressed to the Federal Highway Administration, concerning a request from your constituent, Dr. D. Jean Arnold. Dr. Arnold is disabled and would like to have the air bag legally removed from her car. You asked for any information pertaining to this matter. As discussed below, Dr. Arnold previously contacted this agency about this matter and, on December 11, 1995, we sent her a letter which we believe will resolve her concern.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to establish Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208), which specifies performance requirements for the protection of vehicle occupants in crashes. Air bags are installed in cars as a means of complying with this standard.

The removal or deactivation of an air bag by a vehicle dealer or repair business is governed by a provision of Federal law, 49 U.S.C. '30122. The section provides that:

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard.

However, in certain limited situations in which a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a person with a particular disability or a person's special medical needs, NHTSA has stated that it would consider violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition as purely technical ones justified by public need, and that it would not institute enforcement proceedings.

In our December 11, 1995, letter to Dr. Arnold, we advised that, given her disability, we would not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that disconnects an air bag on her vehicle to accommodate her condition. I have enclosed a copy of that letter for your information. We hope that this letter will resolve Dr. Arnold=s concern.

I hope this information is helpful. If you or Dr. Arnold have any further questions about this matter, please feel free to contact me at (202) 366-2105.

Sincerely,

Carol Stroebel Director of Intergovernmental Affairs

Enclosure ref:208 d:1/25/96

ID: 11474AWKM

Mr. Dietmar K. Haenchen
Manager, Vehicle Regulations
Volkswagen of America, Inc.
3800 Hamlin Road
Auburn Hills, MI 48326

Dear Mr. Haenchen:

This responds to your letter asking for interpretation of the September 28, 1995 amendments to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door locks and door retention components (60 FR 50124). These amendments extended the requirements of FMVSS No. 206 to the back doors of passenger cars and MPVs so equipped. Your questions referred to the applicability of paragraphs S4.4.1 and S4.4.2 of the standard, as amended, to various back door configurations.

As amended, S4.4.1 provides that each back door system shall be equipped with at least one primary latch and striker assembly. A "primary latch" is defined in the amended standard as one that is equipped with both the fully latched position and a secondary latched position.

As amended, S4.4.2 provides:

Door Locks. Each back door system equipped with interior door handles or that leads directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommodations shall be equipped with a locking mechanism with operating means in both the interior and exterior of the vehicle. When the locking mechanism is engaged, both the inside and outside door handles or other latch release controls shall be inoperative.

Your seven questions are stated below, followed by our responses.

QUESTION 1. Do S4.4.1 and S4.4.2 apply to a trunk lid in a sedan type passenger car which has rear seats that can be folded down to enable the user to carry a larger cargo?

ANSWER: S4.4.1 and S4.4.2 do not apply. The rule in question did not extend the requirements of FMVSS No. 206 to trunk lids of passenger cars. Section S3, Definitions, of the amended standard defined "back door" to exclude Athe trunk lid of a passenger car whose trunk is separated from the passenger compartment by a partition." NHTSA will clarify this issue in response to petitions for reconsideration of the rule by redefining Atrunk lid.@

QUESTION 2. Do S4.4.1 and S4.4.2 apply to a back door (tail gate) of a stationwagon in which there is no seating position in the rear cargo area behind the second row and no partition between the rearmost forward-facing seats and the back door?

ANSWER: S4.4.1 applies, S4.4.2 does not. Section S3, Definitions, of the rule defines "back door" as Aa door or door system on the back end of a vehicle through which passengers can enter or depart the vehicle, or cargo can be loaded or unloaded@ (with exceptions not relevant here, such as trunk lids).

The back door (tail gate) described in this question clearly falls within the above definition of "back door." Therefore, its primary latch assembly is required by S4.4.1 to have both a fully latched and a secondary latched position. This is so because even though there may not be seating positions in the area contiguous to the back door, back seat passengers can nevertheless be ejected through the back door (tail gate) in a crash.

On the other hand, assuming that this back door does not have an interior door handle and that it does not lead directly into a compartment containing one or more seating positions, a door locking mechanism would not be required under S4.4.2.

QUESTION 3. Do S4.4.1 and S4.4.2 apply to a back door (tail gate) of a stationwagon in which there is a rearward-facing seating position behind the second row of forward- facing seats?

ANSWER: Yes. S4.4.1 applies to this back door for the reasons discussed in question 2 above. S4.4.2 also applies because the door opens directly into a compartment containing passenger seating accommodations.

QUESTION 4. Do S4.4.1 and S4.4.2 apply to a hatchback passenger car where the back door is hinged above the rear glass and in which the rear seats are fixed and in which there is a removable partition behind the rear seats and over the cargo area?

ANSWER: The definition of Aback door@ excludes Aa door or window composed entirely of glazing material whose latches and/or hinges are attached directly onto the glazing material.@ However, we understand you to be asking about a door that is hinged on the metal part of the door and not directly on the glazing. That door would not qualify for the glazing exception. S4.4.1 would apply, therefore, for the reasons discussed in question 2 above. S4.4.2 would not apply because this door does not open directly into a passenger seating compartment and presumably is not otherwise equipped with an interior door handle.

QUESTION 4A. What is the answer for such a car where the rear seats can be folded down to expand the cargo area?

ANSWER: The answer would be the same for this door, whether or not the rear seatback folded down.

QUESTION 5. Do S4.4.1 and S4.4.2 apply to a van equipped with only a driver and front passenger seat?

ANSWER: S4.4.1 would apply to the back door, unless the door is excepted from the definition of Aback door.@ S4.4.2 would not apply since this is a cargo vehicle in which the back door does not open directly into a passenger seating compartment.

QUESTION 5A. Do S4.4.1 and S4.4.2 apply to a van equipped with multiple rows of seats such that an aisle-way is provided directly to the back door area allowing for possible passenger exit?

ANSWER: Again, S4.4.1 would apply to the back door unless the door is excepted from the definition of Aback door.@

The mere presence of an aisle leading from the front or side door of a vehicle to the back door area would not necessarily mean that the door would have to meet S4.4.2. The sole test in the standard is whether the back door opens directly into a compartment that contains passenger seating accommodations. Nevertheless, if an aisle provides access to the back door and the door is equipped with an interior handle to allow occupant egress, the door would have to comply with S4.4.2 whether or not it opened directly into a passenger seating compartment.

QUESTION 6. Do S4.4.1 and S4.4.2 apply to a van with multiple rows of seats such that the last row of seats is fixed and covers the entire width of the interior of the vehicle so that the only way to exit from the back door would be to climb over the fixed seat?

ANSWER: S4.4.1 applies, S4.4.2 does not. The reasons are the same as those for question 2.

QUESTION 7. Do S4.4.1 and S4.4.2 apply to a van with multiple rows of seats in which the last row nearest the back door is removable at the option of the user, thus leaving free access between the forward seating area and the back door?

ANSWER: Assuming the rearmost seating row faces forward, this answer is similar to that of question No. 5. Presumably, the user would normally remove the rearmost seat not to install more passenger seats but to expand the size of the cargo compartment. Thus, assuming the door was not excepted from the back door definition, it would have to comply with S4.4.1. Further, since the door does not open directly into a passenger seating compartment, with or without the rearmost seating row, it would not have to comply with S4.4.2, unless otherwise equipped with an interior door handle.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Ref:206 d:3/21/96

ID: 11475DRN

Edwin J. Kirschner, Ph.D.
President
Space Coast Writers Guild, Inc.
P. O. Box 804
Melbourne, FL 32902-0804

Dear Dr. Kirschner:

This responds to your question whether school buses are authorized to load or unload school children on highways with posted speed limits in excess of 40 miles per hour. The conditions for loading and unloading zones for school children on school bus routes are not regulated by this agency. The are governed by State laws, so your question is one the State must answer.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration establishes minimum safety standards for the manufacture of new motor vehicles, including school buses. The agency has, however, issued guidelines for State Highway Safety Programs. Guideline 17, "Pupil Transportation Safety" notes recommendations for State pupil transportation safety programs. We have enclosed a copy of Guideline 17 for your information. I direct your attention in particular to paragraphs C.2.a., C.2.b., and E.6., which relate to school buses stopping on public highways.

Nevertheless, each state determines how school buses will be operated in that state. Guideline 17 will affect the operation of school buses in your area only to the extent it has been adopted by state officials. For information on Florida's procedures for safe conduct in school bus loading and unloading zones, you may contact:

Mr. Charles F. Hood Administrator, School Transportation Department of Education Florida Education Center, Suite 824 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400

Mr. Hood's telephone number is: (904) 488-4405.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:VSA#571.3 D:4/5/96

ID: 11476DRN

Lawrence F. Henneberger, Esq.
Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn
1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20036-5339

Dear Mr. Henneberger:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of the production sequence numbering requirements in 49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number - Content Requirements. You asked whether a manufacturer must begin at 000001 when assigning production sequence numbers to vehicles in a given model year (MY). The answer is no. The production sequence numbering may begin at any six-digit number. However, when the manufacturer decides on a beginning number for a model year, it must assign numbers to the vehicles in sequence following that beginning number.

You stated in your letter that you believe that Section 565.4(d)(3) does not preclude a manufacturer from beginning, in any model year, its numbering sequence at any number, provided that the numbers assigned following the beginning number are sequential for the whole model year. You provided a hypothetical example of a manufacturer wishing, for a particular model year, to begin its production sequence numbering with 300001, and to continue to assign numbers sequentially (after 300001) for the rest of that model year.

Section 565.4(d)(3) does not specify that a manufacturer must begin its production sequence numbering from number one, but instead provides only that the numbers assigned in a given model year must be in sequence. As noted by your letter, the issue you raised was addressed in an August 17, 1978 (43 FR 36448) final rule amending Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number (which at the time, included VIN content requirements). In the preamble to the 1978 final rule, NHTSA addressed a concern raised by the Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association (TTMA) that some members might wish to keep secret the actual numbers of vehicles they manufacture annually. The agency stated, "Since a manufacturer may begin his sequence at any number . . ., so long as the order thereafter is maintained in sequence, the actual number of vehicles produced can be kept secret." (See 43 FR 36448, at 36451)

Therefore, in the hypothetical example you provide, the manufacturer may begin the production sequence numbering from 300001, as long as for the rest of the model year, the vehicles are assigned numbers in sequence following 300001.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref:565 d:3/14/96

ID: 11477MLS

Mr. Martin J. Beckenbach
President
PVC Molding Technologies, Inc
181 West Shore Blvd.
Newark, NY 14513

Dear Mr. Beckenbach:

This responds to your inquiry about whether there are any existing or planned standards or requirements that apply to automotive floormats. In particular, you asked whether any local, state, or Federal standard addresses an automotive floormat=s Askid resistancy@; its backing texture or grain; its thickness, weight or profile; its flammability resistance; or any other characteristic.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, Congress has established a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests new vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards.

As for existing Federal standards, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, (copy enclosed) applies to materials, such as floor mats, used in the occupant compartment of new motor vehicles. Standard No. 302 specifies burn resistance requirements for materials used in the occupant compartment of new motor vehicles. Section S4.1 lists the components in vehicle occupant compartments that the vehicle manufacturer must certify as complying with the flammability resistance requirements of paragraph S4.3. One of the components listed is floor coverings. Because Standard No. 302 is a vehicle standard, the manufacturer of the vehicle, and not the manufacturer of the individual component, is responsible for certifying compliance with Standard No. 302. The standard does not apply to individual components sold separately from a vehicle, such as floormats sold in the aftermarket.

There are no other Federal standards that apply to the other characteristics of floor mats about which you asked. Even though there are no other such Federal standards, you should be

aware that under 49 U.S.C. ''30118-30121, the manufacturer of the floormat is responsible for ensuring that the floormat is free of safety-related defects. (This responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer where the mats are installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.) If the floormat (or vehicle) manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a safety related defect exists, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective vehicle or equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

With regard to state or local requirements, you should contact state or local authorities for information about any applicable standards. The Automotive Manufacturers Equipment Compliance Agency, Inc. may have helpful information on whether any such authority has requirements for floormats. That organization can be reached at 1090 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Suite 1200, Washington, D.C. 20005, telephone (202) 898-0145.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref: 302 d:3/25/96

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

ID: 16425-2.ogm

Mr. Todd W. Loescher
Sales/Marketing Manager
Cliff Keyes Mfg. & Supply Co.
2015 West First
Newton, KS 67114

Dear Mr. Loescher:

This responds to your letter regarding aisle facing or side facing seats in commercial buses and multipurpose vehicles. Specifically, you ask whether there is a code of federal regulations for such seats, whether a seating manufacturer can provide attachment points on a seat or seat pedestal for seat belts intended for use on such vehicles and whether a seating manufacturer can attach seat belts on a seat or a seat pedestal for intended for use on such vehicles. In the latter two instances, you ask what code of federal regulations, if any, applies.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under Title 49, Chapter 301 of the U.S. Code to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Chapter 301 prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. The Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) are published as separate subsections within section 571 of volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).

NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish five safety standards that may be relevant to your questions. The first is Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, which sets forth strength requirements for all "occupant seats". The second is Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, which sets forth requirements for occupant protection at the various seating positions in vehicles. The third is Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, which sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies. The fourth is Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, which establishes strength and location requirements for seat belt anchorages. The final relevant safety standard is Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. This standard specifies burn resistance requirements for materials used in the occupant compartment of motor vehicles.

Your first question relates to regulations applicable to side facing seats in buses and multipurpose vehicles. Standard No. 207, Seating systems, establishes performance requirements for "occupant seats" in passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses. In particular, S4.1 requires vehicles to have an occupant seat for the driver, S4.2 specifies general performance requirements relating to strength, S4.3 specifies requirements for restraining devices for hinged or folding seats or seat backs, and S4.4 specifies labeling requirements for seats not designated for occupancy while the vehicle is in motion. I note, however, that the seats you ask about are excluded from some, but not all, of the standard's requirements. The requirements of S4.2 do not apply to side-facing seats and the requirements of S4.2 and S4.3 do not apply to passenger seats in buses.

Your second and third questions concern whether a seat manufacturer can provide attachment points for seat belts, and seat belts, on seats and seat pedestals intended for use on side facing seats in buses and multipurpose vehicles and, if so, which regulations apply.

A seat manufacturer may provide seat belt attachment points on seats or seat pedestals and attach seat belts to those attachment points. I note that it would be the vehicle manufacturer, rather than the seat manufacturer, that would be required to certify the vehicle (with the seat installed) to the applicable safety standards.

Standard No. 208 establishes requirements for safety belts in cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses. The type of belt required depends on the class of vehicle and location of the seating position within the vehicle. Buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 10,000 pounds are not required to have safety belts at any location other than the driver's seat.

Standard No. 210 requires the installation of anchorages at any location where a safety belt is required by Standard No. 208.

Standard No. 210 excludes side-facing seats from its strength requirements specified in S4.2, but all other requirements of the standard apply to side-facing seats. We strongly recommend that belt anchorages for side-facing seats be of at least equivalent strength to anchorages for forward and rearward facing seats, since the strength specifications are only minimum performance requirements.

In addition to meeting the requirements of Standard No. 209, any fabric or trim provided with the seat belts themselves would have to meet the requirements of Standard No. 302, Flammability of interior materials.

I hope that this is responsive to your inquiry. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Otto Matheke at (202) 366-5263.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:208
d.3/13/98

ID: 16430.ztv

Mr. Lawrence J. Fetter
Athey Products Corporation
1839 South Main
Wake Forest, NC 27587

Dear Mr. Fetter:

This is in reply to your fax of November 10, 1997, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. You have asked how your Mobile Street Sweeper with speed capability of 25 mph or less is treated under both our current regulations and interpretations, and under the Federal motor vehicle safety standard that has been proposed for low-speed vehicles.

I am sorry that we have taken so long to reply. This delay was occasioned in part by your description of the street sweeper as one with three wheels, and in part by our desire to answer your question in terms of the final rule on low-speed vehicles, rather than on the basis of the proposal. The Administrator issued the final rule on June 9, 1998, and we are able to respond. We understand from your telephone conversation with Taylor Vinson of this Office in April that your sweeper in fact has four wheels, with two small ones twelve inches apart. We understand, also, that the maximum speed of the Sweeper is between 20 and 25 miles per hour.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regulates "motor vehicles." A "motor vehicle" is defined in part as one which is "manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways." Thus, a street sweeper is a "motor vehicle" under this definition because it is manufactured for the purpose of cleaning city streets and its entire functional life is spent on the public streets.

Having determined that a street sweeper is a "motor vehicle," the next question to be answered is the manner in which NHTSA has classified it for purposes of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. All three-wheeled vehicles, regardless of their nature, are "motorcycles" as that term is defined under 49 CFR 571.3(b). A "truck" is defined as a "motor vehicle . . . designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment." We consider the brushes to be "special purpose equipment." This means that your Mobile Street Sweeper with a speed capability of 20 to 25 miles per hour has been considered a "truck" for Federal motor vehicle safety regulatory purposes before and during the rulemaking on low-speed vehicles.

The proposal has been finalized as Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 500 Low-speed vehicles. Under the final rule, a low-speed vehicle is defined as a "4-wheeled motor vehicle, other than a truck," whose maximum speed is between 20 and 25 miles per hour. This represents the agency's decision to continue to regulate non-passenger carrying vehicles as trucks, even if their maximum speed capability is low. This means that the final rule makes no change in the previous classification of your Mobile Street Sweeper as a truck.

If you have further questions you may refer them to Taylor Vinson (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:571
d.6/24/98

ID: 16437-1.pja

Mr. James Jacobsen
Reinke Manufacturing Company, Inc.
P.O. Box 566
Dreshler, NE 68340

Dear Mr. Jacobsen:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of whether a proposed trailer configuration would be excluded from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) rear impact protection (underride guard) regulations. Your proposed design is a flatbed trailer with a piece of four inch square steel tubing welded to the bottom of the chassis I-beam flanges. Without the tubing, the bottom of the flange would be 25 inches above ground level. With the flange, the bottom of the flange would be 21 inches off the ground. You state that the piece of tubing would meet the dimensional requirements of the rule. You ask if NHTSA would consider the tube to be a part of the chassis and, if so, whether the vehicle would be excluded from our regulations as a low chassis vehicle. As explained below, this proposed trailer design would not be excluded as a low chassis vehicle, and a compliant underride guard would need to be provided.

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 piece of steel tubing welded to the bottom of the frame rail flanges, so the question becomes whether the tubing 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 welded-on piece of steel tubing, the agency concludes that it is not part of the chassis. The tubing does not meet the "load supporting" aspect of the chassis definition because it does not contribute to supporting cargo load. The tubing is also not part of the frame structure of the trailer. It does not define the outline, but projects down from beneath the frame structure. It is not locked into the structure strongly enough to be considered as one unit with a frame structural component. In consideration of these factors, we conclude that the approach plate is not part of the frame structure. NHTSA considers the tubing to be an attachment. Therefore, the proposed trailer design would not be considered a low chassis vehicle, and it would have to have a compliant underride guard attached.

We note, however, that the tubing already appears to fulfill the configurational requirements of a horizontal member of an underride guard. You would only need to assure that it meets the strength and energy absorption requirements in Standard No. 223 to be able to certify this vehicle design to our 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

ID: 16441.ztv

Mr. Norbert Westerhujis
Aleidastraat 1
7555 TH Hengelo Ov
The Netherlands

Dear Mr. Westerhuis:

This is in reply to your fax to Taylor Vinson of this Office which we received on November 13, 1997. You have asked "Is it allowed to have fog lighting (front and/or rear) on your car in the United States."

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment does not prescribe specifications for fog lamps, either as mandatory or optional equipment on new motor vehicles. This means that the individual states have the authority to regulate the performance of fog lamps, and even to forbid them. I am sorry that we cannot advise you on the laws of the individual states. You will have to contact the Department of Motor Vehicles in each state for an answer.

Standard No. 108 prohibits supplementary original equipment such as fog lamps if they impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. We would regard as an impairment, for example, a fog lamp whose intensity masked the operation of a turn signal or stop lamp. Additionally, front fog lamps must be located either greater than 100 mm from a front turn signal lamp, or the turn signal must be up to 2.5 times more intense than otherwise required, depending on its distance from the fog lamp. See paragraph 5.1.5.4 and Table 2 of SAE Standard J588 NOV84 Turn Signal Lamps for use on Motor Vehicles Less than 2032 MM in Overall Width,incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108.

I hope that this information is helpful.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.12/8/97