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

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

ID: 16443.ztv

Mr. Adam Englund
VeloCity
3373 Calle del Sur
Carlsbad, CA 92009-8616

Dear Mr. Englund:

This is in reply to your letter of November 13, 1997. I am sorry that we did not receive your original letter of October 14. Nor did we receive the product brochure that the letter mentions is enclosed. However, we are able to answer your request for an interpretation on the basis of information in your letter.

Your client, the Electric Transportation Company ("ETC"), manufactures an electric power pack, the ETC Express, that is designed for installation on bicycles. You state that the bike must be pedaled to activate the motor and that "the pedal assist system will not operate on its own, in the absence of muscular effort . . . ." You have asked for an interpretation that the ETC Express is not a "motor vehicle" or "motor vehicle equipment" for purposes of the regulations of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

I am pleased to confirm your request. Because of your background in powered bicycles you are well aware that we consider a bicycle with a motor to be a "motor vehicle" if the vehicle is able to travel on level ground propelled solely by the motor, without any muscular input by the operator, for the duration of the battery charge. On the other hand, if the motor only assists the operator, and cannot propel the bicycle without the muscular input of the operator, a bicycle with this type of power assist motor is not considered a "motor vehicle" subject to our jurisdiction. It is a "bicycle," subject to the regulations of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

On the basis of your statement that "the pedal assist system will not operate on its own, in the absence of muscular effort," a bicycle equipped with the ETC Express would not be a "motorvehicle" as we have interpreted the term with respect to motorized bicycles. This means that the ETC Express would not be considered "motor vehicle equipment" either.

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

ID: 16451.drn

Lance Tunick, Esq.
Vehicle Services Consulting, Inc.
P. O. Box 1015
Golden, CO 80402-1015

Dear Mr. Tunick:

This responds to your request for an interpretation as to whether Item 4A Glazing, "Rigid Plastic for Use in Side Windows," specified in Standard No. 205, Glazing materials, is permitted in the rear window that is behind a retractable roll bar in a convertible passenger car. As explained below, the answer is no.

Your letter asks for confirmation that a motor vehicle depicted in three enclosed photographs is a convertible, and asks whether Item 4A Glazing may be used in the rear and side windows of the convertible "if they meet the criteria of S5.1.2.11(a)(2)." The photographs depict a two door vehicle with two seats, space behind the seats, and a raked windshield. One photograph depicts a vehicle with no side glazing or roof. A second photograph shows a closer view of the top half of the vehicle, with a roll bar and an apparently retractable rear window. The rear window curves around the vehicle so that part of it can be seen from the side. The third photograph shows the entire vehicle with the roll bar and the rear window in place.

In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you explained that by "side windows," your letter did not mean the glazing that rolls up and retracts within the driver and passenger side doors, but refers to the part of the rear window that is visible from the side. You explained that the vehicle includes a retractable rear window, retractable roll bar, and has a removable center or roof piece that can be stored in the trunk. You explained that the glazing behind the roll bar at the rear of the vehicle is of one piece. You also stated to Ms. Nakama that the vehicle has four designated seating positions.

We would agree that the vehicle is a convertible. NHTSA interpretations have consistently defined "convertible" as a vehicle whose "A" pillar or windshield peripheral support is not joined with the "B" pillar (or rear roof support rearward of the "B" pillar position) by a fixed, rigid structural member. The vehicle you ask about meets this definition.

The locations in a vehicle where Item 4A Glazing may be used are specified in S5.1.2.11, Test Procedures for Item 4A - Rigid Plastic for Use in Side Windows Rearward of the "C" Pillar. S5.1.2.11 was established in Standard No. 205 in a final rule published on August 12,

1996 (61 FR 41739, effective September 11, 1996). The preamble to the final rule explained that NHTSA decided to adopt an approach that, unlike the proposal, does not refer to any vehicle type. Instead, the approach is based on the relative location of a window in any vehicle and the occupant seats in that vehicle.

Item 4A Glazing is permitted in the following specific vehicle locations (see S5.1.2.11(a)):

(1) All areas in which Item 4 safety glazing may be used. (See S5.1.2.11(a)(1).)

(2) Any side window that meets the criteria in S5.1.2.11(a)(2)(I) and (ii). (See S5.1.2.11(a)(2).)

In reviewing "[A]ll areas in which Item 4 safety glazing may be used," we note that in ANSI Z-26.1a-1980, Item 4 Glazing is permitted in "(h) The rear windows of convertible passenger car tops." Since the vehicle depicted in your photographs is a convertible, the glazing does not meet subparagraph (h) because the glazing in the vehicle is separate from (not of the same piece as) the convertible top, and therefore is not a rear window of a convertible passenger car top.

Item 4A Glazing is also permitted in "[a]ny side window that meets the criteria in S5.1.2.11(a)(2)(I) and (ii)." Based on our observation of the photographs of the retractable glazing behind the roll bar, we would consider the glazing to be a "rear window" only, not a "side window." This is because the retractable glazing is positioned behind the roll bar in the side view, such that the view through it is obstructed by the roll bar. Since the retractable glazing is not considered to be a side window, it is not a location "that meets the criteria in S5.1.2.11(a)(2)(I) and (ii)." Since the location where you wish to place Item 4A Glazing meets neither S5.1.2.11(a)(1) nor (2), Item 4A Glazing may not be placed in the rear window.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any specific questions about this letter, please contact Dorothy Nakama. If you have other questions about Standard No. 205, please contact Paul Atelsek. Both Ms. Nakama and Mr. Atelsek may be reached at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:205
d.3/31/98