ID: 18747.ztv

The Honorable Sam Farr
House of Representatives
701 Ocean Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95060

Dear Mr. Farr:

We are replying to your recent letter to the Department on behalf of your constituent, Ed Krumwiede of Aptos. Mr. Krumwiede has asked several questions regarding DOT regulation of imported car accessories.

Specifically, he would like to import three types of accessories for the Jeep Cherokee and asks whether they are regulated by the Department. The three types are:

"1) An exterior carrier for the spare tire, which would bolt onto the undercarriage of the vehicle;

"2) A metal guard for the vehicle's front grille to protect it from flying rocks or other hazards; and

"3) Similar guards for the vehicle's taillights."

This equipment is "regulated" but we have no requirements directly applicable to any of the items and which would affect the ability of Mr. Krumwiede to import and sell them.

More specifically, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is the agency within the Department of Transportation which is authorized to regulate the safety aspects of motor vehicle equipment, such as the accessories that Mr. Krumwiede would like to import. However, NHTSA has issued no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that applies to any of the three items of equipment listed above. Nevertheless, if Mr. Krumwiede imports motor vehicle equipment for resale, he becomes its "manufacturer" under our laws, and is responsible for notification and recalling the equipment if either he or NHTSA determines that the equipment contains a defect related to motor vehicle safety.

Mr. Krumwiede has a further responsibility if he intends to install the equipment on Jeep Cherokees. As a dealer in motor vehicle equipment, he must ensure that the equipment, as installed, does not result in the Jeep becoming noncompliant with any of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards to which it has been certified as complying. Specific concerns that

Mr. Krumweide should consider are whether the exterior tire carrier might obscure the center highmounted stop lamp, whether the grille guards in some manner might be placed in front of the headlamps and other front and front-side lamps as well, and whether the taillamp guards might prevent these lamps (and other rear and side lighting functions that may be housed in the same lamp) from complying with the full range of photometric and visibility requirements specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. This standard specifically prohibits grilles and covers over headlamps when they are in use. A final concern is whether the grille guard might affect the operation of air bags. I have enclosed copies of two letters addressing lamp guards and grille guards, one dated October 27, 1994 addressed to Thomas L. Wright, and the other dated July 3, 1997, addressed to Steve Brookmire. The obligation under Federal law to ensure continued conformance applies only to manufacturers, dealers, distributors, and motor vehicle repair businesses, and does not extend to a vehicle owner personally installing the equipment. However, we urge vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles.

The vehicle owner is also subject to state laws regarding the safe function and use of vehicles. Many states refer to Standard No. 108 and may not permit grille guards even if the owner personally installs them. We are not conversant with state laws and Mr. Krumweide should seek a clarification from the Department of Motor Vehicles in the states where he intends to sell the grille guards

For interpretations of Federal regulations, Mr. Krumweide may telephone Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). For information on the procedures to be followed in importing the equipment, he should call George Entwistle, Equipment and Imports Division, Office of Safety Assurance (202-366-5306).

I hope that this information is helpful to your constituent.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:591
d.10/15/98

ID: 18756.ztv

Mr. Hardy Huber
President
DiBlasi of America, Inc.
2633 Lantana Road, Suite 19
Lantana, FL 33462

Dear Mr. Huber

This is in reply to your letter of September 9, 1998, to the agency asking "whether mopeds are required to have a speedometer, and, if the answer is yes, does the speedometer [have] to be lighted."

The agency has not adopted the term "moped" in regulating two-wheeled motor vehicles. However, a motorcycle with 5 horsepower or less is called a "motor driven cycle," and we believe that this definition encompasses mopeds. The many Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to "motorcycles" will also apply to "motor driven cycles" unless an exception is specifically made within the text of the standard.

However, this distinction is not important in terms of your questions. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 123, Motorcycle Controls and Displays, does not require motorcycles of any sort to be equipped with a speedometer. However, if a manufacturer chooses to provide a speedometer, Standard No. 123 requires that it be illuminated whenever the headlamp is activated. It also requires that the speedometer be marked "m.p.h," increasing in a clockwise direction. The standard further requires that major graduations and numerals to appear at 10 mph intervals and minor graduations at 5 mph intervals.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:123
d/11/20/98

ID: 18764-1.pja

Mr. Paul Irby
President
Innovative Trailers, Inc.
714 Falvey
Texarkana, TX 75501

Dear Mr. Irby:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of whether the chip trailers your company manufactures would be excluded from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) rear impact protection (underride guard) regulations. Although your letter was labeled and written as a petition for rulemaking, in a telephone conversation you told Mr. Michael Huntley in our Office of Safety Performance Standards that your intention was to get an interpretation of whether your trailers meet the definition of an excluded special purpose vehicle. Accordingly, your letter was forwarded to this office for a legal interpretation. As explained below, these trailers are not excluded as special purpose vehicles, so an underride guard complying with our regulations would have to be supplied.

These trailers are essentially van-type trailers that carry wood chips. They are unloaded by driving the tractor and trailer onto a long platform that is then hydraulically tilted at an angle of about 60 degrees so that the wood chips slide out the rear of the trailer. In order to support the great weight of the trailer, its load, and the tractor in the tilted position, all of your trailers have a very rigid rear guard which you state mates with some sort of handling equipment on the platform. The guard's horizontal member is suspended below the rear of the trailer by two pieces of heavy steel plate welded perpendicularly to the back of the trailer. These plates are located a few feet outboard of the trailer centerline and oriented in a vertical plane parallel to the trailer sides. The vertical rear surface of the plates forms the rear extremity of the trailer and project's a few inches rearward of the guard. You explain that most of your trailers are excluded wheels-back vehicles, but that a small number (5%) of your trailers have moveable undercarriages, and therefore cannot qualify as wheels-back vehicles. You state that you do not know how to design a guard that meets the energy absorption requirements of S5.2.2 of Standard No. 223, while providing sufficient rigidity to meet the handling requirements of the offloading ramps.

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 special purpose vehicles.

The analysis in your letter is correct regarding the wheels-back status of your trailers. 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." The threshold issue is whether the rear wheels are permanently fixed. If the rear surface of the rear wheels is within 305 mm of the trailer rear extremity, you are correct in assuming that most of your trailers with fixed rear wheels are excluded. However, your trailers with rear tandems that are not permanently fixed are not excluded as wheels-back.

We turn to the question of whether the wood chip trailers with adjustable undercarriages are excluded as special purpose vehicles. A special purpose vehicle is defined in S4 of FMVSS No. 224 as "a trailer or semitrailer having work-performing equipment that, while the vehicle is in transit, resides in or moves through the area that could be occupied by the horizontal member of the rear underride guard, as defined by S5.1.1 through S5.1.3."⁽¹⁾ The guard is the only part of your trailer that, while the vehicle is in transit, resides in the area that could be occupied by the rear underride guard. Therefore, it would have to be considered work-performing equipment for the trailer to be excluded.

There is no definition in the standard for "work-performing equipment." In determining the meaning of regulatory language, the first place the agency looks is the plain meaning of the words. In the context which is relevant to this safety standard, "work" is defined as "the transfer of energy from one physical system to another; especially, the transfer of energy to a body by the application of force . . ." "Perform" is defined as "to begin and carry through to completion; do." American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 1971. Taken together, NHTSA interprets the words "work-performing" to mean that the equipment must actively perform its function, and that the function must involve exerting force or moving something else. The guard on your chip trailers does not perform work in this sense. Its function is to connect to the unloading equipment and possibly to support the tilted trailer while unloading. Therefore, the guard is not work-performing equipment, and the bottom dump trailer does not meet the definition of a special purpose vehicle. An underride guard would have to be provided on this vehicle.

We cannot provide a specific opinion on how your trailer should be redesigned to accommodate a guard. We note, however, that the standard specifies only the guard's horizontal member position, and therefore there is a great deal of flexibility in how you attach the guard to the trailer, so long as the strength and energy absorption requirements are met. There is no requirement that the guard be integrated with or suspended from the plates at the rear. We noticed in your photos that the plates comprise the rear extremity of the trailer (and therefore would comprise the lower extremity when the trailer is tilted). We also noticed that the rear edge of the plates show more wear than the guard. These two observations cause us to wonder whether it is actually the guard, or the plates that the guard is suspended from, that support the trailer when it is tilted. If it is the plates themselves that support the vehicle, you might be able to keep the rigid plates and still have a compliant guard if you mount the guard so that it acts independently from the rigid plates. If necessary, you could mount the guard up to 305 mm forward of the rear edge of the plates. These observations are for your consideration, and are not intended as an endorsement of a particular solution. It is you, as the vehicle manufacturer, who is responsible for the vehicle's compliance with the standard.

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
d.7/17/98
ref:224

1. Note that this definition, as quoted, reflects an amendment made in response to petitions for reconsideration of the final rule. See 63 F.R. 3654 (January 26, 1998).

ID: 18773.ztv

Mr. Paul Grundy
General Manager
Safelite
12027 Hesperia Road
Suite D
Herperia, CA 92345

Dear Mr. Grundy:

This is in reply to your letter of August 31, 1998, asking for our opinion on your planned modification to the center high-mounted stop lamp which is Federally-required equipment on passenger cars, light trucks, and vans.

You write that you are familiar with the requirement that the center high-mounted stop lamp must be steady burning in use, but you believe that you have designed your device to comply with this requirement. You inform us that when the brake is applied, your device "will not diminish the Center High-Mounted Stop Lamp (CHMSL) and pulse off and on, but instead will pulse brighter from the continuous burning nature of the CHMSL, twice a second for approximately six seconds, then return to the solid light output of the CHMSL." In our opinion, a pulse that results in either an on/off operation or that varies or modulates the intensity of the light, results in a lamp that is not steady burning in use within the prohibition imposed by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You have also informed us that you believe you are "adhering to the spirits of the requirements of Standard 108," referencing a July 1989 letter to Robert Knauff which you interpret as opining "that an enhancement feature combining a pulse lamp with a stop lamp is not forbidden under the standard 'as an after-market device . . . if it does not violate the rendering inoperative provision."

The Knauff letter of July 24, 1989, clearly stated that aftermarket equipment intended to replace original equipment must comply with the requirements for original equipment including the specification that stop lamps be steady burning in use. The statement you quote is correct only insofar as it is restricted to aftermarket center high-mounted stop lamps manufactured for use on vehicles that Federal law never required to have them (e.g., passenger cars manufactured before September 1, 1985, and light trucks and vans manufactured before September 1, 1993).

We also would like to confirm that the opinions in the Knauff letter regarding "rendering inoperative" and the applicability of state laws remain in effect today.

If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:108
d.11/12/98

ID: 1877o

Mr. Jay V. Wright
Page Avjet Corp.
2230 W. Southcross Blvd.
PO Drawer Z
San Antonio, TX 78211

Dear Mr. Wright:

This is in response to your letter of April 21, 1988, asking whether a vehicle produced by your company is a motor vehicle subject to the requirements of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This vehicle, referred to as a hydrant truck, consists of a chassis-cab with an equipment platform mounted on its rear. According to your letter, the platform would be equipped with accessories that allow the vehicle to be used to filter and meter aircraft fuels as fuel is pumped from airport storage tanks into aircraft.

Section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)) defines a "motor vehicle" as

any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

We have interpreted this language as follows. On the one hand, vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Agricultural equipment, such as tractors, are not motor vehicles. In addition, vehicles intended and sold solely for off-road use are not motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Examples include airport runway vehicles.

On the other hand, vehicles that use the public roads on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, jeep-type utility vehicles are plainly motor vehicles, even though they are equipped with special features to permit off-road operation. We have found vehicles to be motor vehicles if their on-road use is substantial, even though these vehicles' predominant intended use is off-road. Further, if a vehicle is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of vehicle owners, NHTSA has found that the vehicle is a "motor vehicle." This finding was made in the case of dune buggies, regardless of the manufacturers' stated intent that the vehicles were to be used off-road only.

You stated in your letter that this vehicle is not "perceived as being moved over public roads or from airport to airport in its daily use." It appears that this vehicle is intended and sold solely for off-road use, even though the vehicle appears operationally capable of highway travel. Based on the information provided in your letter, we conclude that your company's "Hydrant Truck" does not appear to be a motor vehicle. However, we will reexamine this conclusion if we learn that, for example, the vehicle is regularly being used on the public roads.

We note that if your vehicle ever came to be regarded as a motor vehicle, there are probably few changes that would have to be made to bring it into compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). NHTSA encourages (but cannot require) you to make these changes. The chassis-cab used to produce the hydrant truck already has been certified by its manufacturer as an incomplete vehicle. Therefore, in order to achieve compliance, it is likely that few standards would require any changes by your company. One such standard is FMVSS 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. Additional changes might also be required if the weight added by the equipment platform exceeds any weight maxima specified by the chassis-cab manufacturer in making his certification.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:VSA d:8/ll/88

ID: 18780.ztv

Mr. Henry S. Winokur
6613 Elgin Lane
Bethesda, MD 20817-5443

Dear Mr. Winokur:

This is in reply to your e-mail of September 22, 1998, to Rich Van Iderstine of this agency. You report having sent two prior e-mails to this Office with no response. I am not sure to whom they were addressed, but Taylor Vinson, the attorney who handles lighting matters, did not receive them. I am sorry that we have not been able to respond until now, but questions of Federal preemption are complicated and not easily resolved. Further, all opinions from this Office are coordinated with other Offices of the agency to ensure accuracy and consistency, and this process necessarily takes a little time.

You report that the State of Maryland regards modulating motorcycle headlamps as lights that flash, thereby violating state laws reserving use of flashing lights for emergency vehicles. You wish to see this situation corrected by the agency's application of the Federal preemption provision. Mr. Van Iderstine has provided you with copies of two interpretations which he believed indicate that Maryland's law is not valid. These letters are those of February 1, 1990, to Tracey Powell of the American Motorcyclist Association (AMA), and the letter of September 11, 1997, to Walter Jakobowski of Signal Dynamics Corporation.

We have reviewed the Maryland Vehicle Law. Section 22-218 Audible and visual signals on vehicles, states in pertinent part:

(c) oscillating, blinking, etc. lights on certain vehicles. A person may not drive . . . on any highway . . . any vehicle. . . that is equipped with or displays any light . . . designed to emit an oscillating, rotating, blinking, or other type of emission of light, unless designated and authorized by the [Maryland Motor Vehicle] Administrator as indicated in paragraphs (1) through (9) of this subsection.

Our review shows that the exceptions of paragraphs (1) through (9) deal with fire, police, ambulance, state, and service vehicles, and not with motorcycles driven by ordinary citizens.

On the other hand, S7.9.4 Motorcycle headlamp modulation, of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, 49 CFR 571.108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, specifies that a headlamp on a motorcycle may be wired to modulate, provided that it does so in accordance with the requirements prescribed in S7.9.4. I am enclosing a copy of S7.9.4 per your request to Mr. Vinson. We understand that a modulating headlamp is activated automatically when the ignition switch is turned on, and that a motorcycle operator cannot deactivate the modulation feature except by turning off the engine.

With respect to Federal preemption of state laws, 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)provides in pertinent part that:

b) PREEMPTION - (1) When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter.

This means that, under 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1), a State may have its own standard which allows a motorcycle headlamp to be wired to modulate in the same manner as prescribed under S7.9.4. However, since the Federal standard specifically allows a modulation of motorcycle headlamps, a State may not establish or continue in effect a standard prohibiting a headlamp that modulates in accordance with S7.9.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. As our letter to AMA notes, we distinguish between a flashing lamp (one that goes from either the upper or lower beam to off) and a modulating lamp (one that goes from a higher to a lower intensity within either the upper or lower beam). However, the Maryland prohibition against lamps that oscillate or feature any "other type of emission of light" could be interpreted to include any lamp whose light is not steady-burning when the lamp is activated, whether or not it is intended to apply to a motorcycle's modulating headlamp.

Mr. Vinson has discussed the motorcycle headlamp modulation provisions of Standard No. 108 with Jon Acton of the Office of the Attorney General, Maryland, as well as your unsuccessful attempt to contact the Motor Vehicle Administrator. Mr. Acton seems willing to accommodate your request for a favorable interpretation of Maryland law, to indicate that it was not intended to prohibit a modulating headlamp on motorcycles. He surmises that you tried to communicate by e-mail, and remarked that such a message would be forwarded to him for reply, but that he had not received it. He invites you to communicate with him, either by letter (Office of Attorney General, Room 200, Motor Vehicle Administration, 6601 Ritchie Highway, N.E., Glen Burnie, MD 21062) or by e-mail:

(vaja2@mdot.state.md.us).

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
cc: Jon Acton

ID: 18795.ztv

Mr. Tadashi Suzuki
Manager, Automotive Equipment
Legal & Homologation Sect.
Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.
2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku
Tokyo 153-8636
Japan

Re: Motorcycle Headlamp

Dear Mr. Suzuki:

This is in reply to your letter of September 10, 1998, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it applies to a motorcycle headlamp design that your company is considering.

You have asked whether the design depicted in your letter is permitted by the amendment to motorcycle headlamp specifications published in the Federal Register on August 10, 1998 (63 FR 42582). As you have explained it:

"This headlamp system consists of two headlamps disposed symmetrically about the vertical centerline of the motor-cycle. Each headlamp has two single filament bulbs. The lower beam is provided by the inner light sources, on the other hand the upper beam is provided by both of the light sources. In other words, the vehicle provides the lower beam by two light sources, and provides the upper beam by four light sources. The distance of the effective projected luminous lens area of the two headlamps is not greater than 200mm."

You believe that this design complies with new paragraph S7.9.6.2(b) which states:

"If the system consists of two headlamps, each of which provides both an upper and lower beam, the headlamps shall be mounted either at the same height and symmetrically disposed about the vertical centerline or mounted on the vertical centerline. If the headlamps are horizontally disposed about the vertical centerline, the distance between the closest edges of their effective projected luminous lens areas shall not be greater than 200mm (8 in.)."

We confirm that your headlamp system complies with the requirements of S7.9.6.2(b).

We would like to take this opportunity to clarify this new paragraph. S7.9.6.2 covers three types of headlighting systems. Subparagraph (a) applies to a single-headlamp system. Subparagraph (b) applies to a system of two headlamps, each of which provides both an upper and lower beam. Subparagraph (c) applies to a system of two headlamps, one of which provides an upper beam and one of which provides a lower beam. In the systems covered by subparagraphs (a) and (c), the upper beam is not permitted to be higher than the lower beam. But subparagraph (b) is silent as to beam location. The preamble to the August 10 amendment makes clear our intent to prohibit the upper beam from being higher than the lower beam on all motor vehicle headlighting systems, because the higher mounting height gives longer seeing distance to the lower beam, providing a safety advantage to drivers. However, when both beams are provided within a single motorcycle headlamp, there is no discernable safety benefit in requiring that the lower beam be uppermost. Thus, Stanley's design in which the upper beam is provided by both higher and lower light sources is permitted by subparagraph(b).

We also want to clarify that each of the three types of headlamp systems are intended to provide the same safety performance, namely a single complying beam pattern. Regardless of whether a two-headlamp or a one-headlamp system is used, and regardless of whether the upper and lower beam functions of a two-headlamp system are segregated or distributed, the light output and distribution of the system must conform to the requirements of S7.9.1. A system of the type described in subparagraph (b) of S7.9.6.2 is not intended to have twice the light output of systems described in S7.9.6.2(a) or S7.9.6.2(c).

You have also asked for confirmation of your interpretation that "when a headlamp has a single lens, it should be regarded [as] a single headlamp irrespective of the number of the light sources and reflectors within the lamp body." The example you depict shows two light sources and their respective reflectors in a single housing consisting of a single chamber, covered by a single lens. We confirm your interpretation that this is a single headlamp, but not because it has a single lens. The fact that the lamp has a single lens is not the determinant. It is possible to design a headlamp with a single lens but with separate housings and chambers; this type of design would effectively create two headlamps.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.2/22/99

ID: 18805.drn

Ms. Barbara Goodman
Associate Director, Pupil Transportation
Commonwealth of Virginia
Department of Education
P.O. Box 2120
Richmond, VA 23218-2120

Dear Ms. Goodman:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of school bus seat back height requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection. I regret the delay in this response.

I understand that you explained to Mr. Charles Hott of our agency that the C. E. White Company manufactures school bus seats that are integrated with child restraints, and which have 711 millimeter (28 inch) high seat backs. While you are interested in having some of these seats installed in school buses along with standard school bus seats with 508 millimeters (20 inch) high seat backs, you ask about Standard 222's requirements that apply to a 711 millimeter (28 inch) high seat back. You pose five questions, which we answer below.

1. "If a C. E. White or similar type seat, with a 39 inch seat cushion width and a 28 inch seat back height is installed in a school bus, what is the federal requirement for the seat back/barrier immediately in front of the [tall] C. E. White seat?"

We believe you are asking whether the height of the seat back or barrier in front of the tall seat has to be at least 508 millimeters (20 inches) or at least 711 millimeters (28 inches). As explained below, assuming the width of the seat bench in front of the C.E. White type seat is 990 millimeters (39 inches), the seat back or restraining barrier in front of the C.E. White type seat has to be at least 508 millimeters (20 inches), not 711 millimeters (28 inches).

Seat back height. The minimum height required of seat backs is specified in S5.1.2 of Standard 222. S5.1.2 states: "Each school bus passenger seat shall be equipped with a seat back that, in the front projected view, has a front surface area above the horizontal plane that passes through the seating reference point, and below the horizontal plane 508 mm [20 inches] above the seating reference point, of not less than 90 percent of the seat bench width in millimeters multiplied by 508." Simply stated, this section requires seat back heights of at least 508 millimeters (20 inches) above the seating reference point.⁽¹⁾ Standard 222 does not require the seat back to be taller if it is in front of a school bus seat that has a 711 millimeter (28 inch) high seat back.

Restraining barrier height. Paragraph S5.2 of Standard 222 requires each vehicle to be equipped with a restraining barrier forward of any designated seating position that does not have the rear surface of another school bus passenger seat within 610 mm (24 inches) of its seating reference point.

The minimum height for restraining barriers is specified in S5.2.2 of Standard 222. That section states: "The position and rear surface area of the restraining barrier shall be such that, in a front projected view of the bus, each point of the barrier's perimeter coincides with or lies outside of the perimeter of the seat back of the seat for which it is required."

In an interpretation letter of April 8, 1977, to Wayne Corporation (copy provided), this agency interpreted the restraining barrier requirement to mean that a restraining barrier must only coincide with or lie outside of the seat back surface required by S5.1.2. Thus, in a front projected view of the bus, each point of the barrier's perimeter would have to coincide with or lie outside of the perimeter of a seat back with a height of 508 millimeters (20 inches) (assuming the width of the bench seat for which the seat back is required is 990 millimeters (39 inches)).

2. "If a C. E. White or similar seat, with a 28 inch seat back height, is installed as the rear seat of a sixty four passenger school bus, will each of the seat backs in front of each seat require a 'New York-type' seat back (28 inch height)."

As answered above, the seat backs in front of the tall C.E. White type seat do not have to be 711 millimeters (28 inches) in height simply because they are positioned in front of a seat that has a 711 millimeter (28 inch) seat back. The size of a seat back depends on the width of the seat for which it provides a back.

3. "Can a school bus body be configured with different heights of seat backs installed in a single unit."

By "in a single unit," I will assume you mean "in one school bus." Alternatively, you might mean "in one row of seats." Our answer is that nothing in Standard 222 specifies that in a school bus or row of seats, each seat back must be of the same height. However, each passenger seating position must have a seat back that meets S5.1.2 and have in front of it a seat back that meets S5.1.2, or a restraining barrier that meets S5.2.2.

4. "Can seat back heights exceed the federal requirement, and if so, how does this impact other seats within the same unit?"

As previously stated, the area and height of any seat back depends on the width of the seat bench for which it provides a back, not on the height of other seat backs. Each passenger seating position must have a seat back that meets S5.1.2, and must be faced with a seat back or a restraining barrier.⁽²⁾

5. "If the first seat has a short (30 inch width) seat cushion, what is the federal requirement for both the barrier height and width and the seat back height and width."

You explained to Dorothy Nakama of my staff that this question asks about the situation where the first row of seats has a 762 millimeter (30 inch) width and the second row directly behind the first row has a 990 millimeter (39 inch) width. There is a restraining barrier in front of the first row. You are concerned about how a child sitting in the second row in the 228 millimeter (9 inch) section not faced by a seat back is to be protected.

The child sitting in the 228 millimeter (9 inch) section in the second row must be protected in part by a restraining barrier. Referring again to the letter of April 8, 1977 to Wayne Corporation, the combination of the restraining barrier and the seat back of the first row seat must coincide with or lie outside of the perimeter of the second row's required seat back surface.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:222
d.4/26/99

1. For a 990 millimeter (39 inch) bench seat, the seat back must have a front surface area at least .9(990) multiplied by 508, or 452,628 square millimeters (702 square inches).

2. An issue that may be implicit in your question is whether States may require a seat back height greater than 508 millimeters (20 inches). Our position is that any State requirement relating to seat back height, other than one identical to the Federal formula that establishes a minimum height of 508 millimeters (20 inches), is preempted under 49 USC 30103(b) of our statute. However, our statute does not prevent governmental entities from specifying additional safety features in vehicles purchased for their own use. Thus, for public school buses, a State may specify a seat back higher than 508 millimeters (20 inches). See March 23, 1976 to Mr. Martin V. Chauvin, copy enclosed.

ID: 18811.DRN

Mr. Chun Jo
102 Paladin Place
Cary, NC 27513

Dear Mr. Jo:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether Hyundai mobile construction cranes you wish to import into the United States are "motor vehicles". I regret the delay in this response. This letter confirms that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not consider the mobile construction cranes to be "motor vehicles."

You have enclosed photographs of the cranes, Hyundai Hydraulic Truck Crane Operator's manuals (for a 25 ton and for a 50 ton crane), other Hyundai materials describing the cranes and a Mitsubishi Motors Crane Carrier Owner's Handbook.

By way of background information, NHTSA interprets and enforces the laws under which the Federal motor vehicle safety standards are promulgated. NHTSA's statute at 49 U.S.C. Section 30102(a)(6) defines the term "motor vehicle" as follows:

"a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line."

In the past, we have concluded that this statutory definition does not encompass mobile construction equipment, such as cranes and scrapers, which use the highway only to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site. In such cases, the on-highway use of the vehicle is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured.

We have carefully reviewed the photographs and other information you have provided. It is clear that the equipment you wish to import are mobile cranes and therefore are not "motor vehicles" within the meaning of NHTSA's statutory definition. Since construction equipment such as mobile cranes are not motor vehicles, they would not be subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Please note that since a State may require an off-road vehicle to be registered, you may wish to contact the Department of Motor Vehicles in any state in which your products will be sold or used about requirements for the use of the vehicles.

I hope this information is helpful. I am returning the materials describing the mobile cranes (except the photographs) back to you under separate cover. 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,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:VSA
d.3/11/99

ID: 18820.jeg

Robert C. Sanders, Esq.
Director and General Counsel
Parents for Safer Air Bags
Suite 300, 1250 24th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20037

Dear Mr. Sanders:

This responds to your letter of September 23, 1998 requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. You asked about the labeling requirements for air-bag equipped vehicles which were established in a final rule published in the Federal Register (58 FR 46551) on September 2, 1993. These requirements applied to vehicles manufactured from September 1, 1994 until the present sun visor labeling requirements became effective on February 25, 1997.⁽¹⁾ The question you ask is responded to below.

By way of background information, the September 2, 1993 final rule required a warning label bearing specified information about safe conduct around air bags to be located on both sun visors. (S4.5.1(b)(1).) The rule provided further that "(n)o other information shall appear on the same side of the sun visor to which the label is affixed," and that "(e)xcept for an air bag alert label placed on the visor pursuant to S4.5.1(c) of this standard, no other information about air bags or the need to wear seat belts shall appear anywhere on the sun visor." (S4.5.1(b)(2).)

You asked whether this final rule⁽²⁾ precluded automobile manufacturers from placing air bag information labels elsewhere in the vehicle (i.e., other than on the sun visor) with a text different than that of the sun visor label.

The answer is no. S4.5.1(b)(1) of Standard No. 208 specified the precise information concerning air bags that was required to be placed on the sun visor, and S4.5.1(b)(2) specified that "no other information concerning air bags or seat belts shall appear anywhere on the sun visor." (Emphasis added.) The standard did not prohibit vehicle manufacturers from placing other accurate information concerning air bags or seat belts in locations in the vehicle other than the sun visor.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:208
d.11/12/98

1. The final rule establishing the current labeling requirements was published in the Federal Register (61 FR 60206) on November 27, 1996. The rule applied to vehicles manufactured on or after February 25, 1997. It provided that manufacturers were permitted to voluntarily substitute the new labels for the earlier labels prior to that date.

2. The agency later made minor amendments to S4.5.1(b), prior to the final rule establishing the current labeling requirements. However, these amendments do not affect the answer to your question.