ID: 21278tvneb

Mr. Shigeyoshi Aihara
Project Manager, Regulation and Compliance
Engineering Administration Department
Ichikoh Industries, Ltd.
80 Itado Ischara City
Kanagawa - Pref 259-1192
JAPAN

Dear Mr. Aihara:

This responds to your December 23, 1999, letter regarding the acceptability of the Safety Vision Camera Monitor System for use in the North American automotive market.

You stated in your letter that your company produces the Safety Vision Camera Monitor System, which is a camera and display monitor system that provides visibility directly behind a vehicle on which the system is installed. The system you describe is composed of a camera and monitor display. The monitor display, which has two variations (Type A: LCD monitor built into the interior rearview mirror and Type B: 5.8 inch monitor display), is automatically switched on when the ignition switch and the reverse gear are engaged and allows the driver to see the area behind the truck. The intent is to make visible the area behind the vehicle where a "blind spot" typically exists. As you state, the system will be installed in multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses as an aftermarket product. If a vehicle has an inside rearview mirror, you intend the monitor to replace the mirror. Otherwise, the monitor display will be newly installed.

As a preliminary matter, the laws and regulations that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers are applicable only in the United States. You should contact the officials of other North American countries to answer your questions about the acceptability of your system in those countries.

By way of background information, the NHTSA has the statutory authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Federal law establishes a self-certification system under which motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers themselves certify that their products comply withy all applicable standards. For that reason, NHTSA neither tests, approves, disapproves, endorses, nor grants letters of approval of products prior to their introduction into the retail market. Rather, we enforce compliance with the standards by purchasing vehicles and equipment and testing them. We also investigate safety-related defects.

We would classify the Safety Vision Camera Monitor System as an item of motor vehicle equipment regulated by NHTSA. Our statute defines "motor vehicle equipment" in 49 U.S. Code (U.S.C.) 30102(a)(7)(B) in relevant part as any system, part, or component "sold ... as an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle." An item of equipment is an accessory if it meets the following criteria:

a. A substantial portion of its expected uses are related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles; and

b. It is purchased or otherwise acquired, and principally used by ordinary users of motor vehicles.

After reviewing your letter and its enclosed product brochure, we conclude that the Safety Vision Camera Monitor System is an accessory. It was designed with the expectation that a substantial portion of its expected use will be with motor vehicles. Further, the pictures of the Safety Vision Camera Monitor System in the brochure make it clear that the Safety Vision Camera Monitor System is intended to be purchased and principally used by ordinary users of motor vehicles, mostly truck drivers, to monitor the area behind the truck which is typically a "blind spot."

While the Safety Vision Camera Monitor System is a motor vehicle accessory, NHTSA has not issued any FMVSSs establishing performance standards directly applicable to this product. We have ongoing rulemaking considering establishing performance for rear object detection systems (e.g., video, sonic, mirror systems, etc.). We expect to publish an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on this in the near future. However, the manufacturer, whether you or a licensee, is subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30118-30121 (copy enclosed) which set forth the notification and remedy (recall) requirements for products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. Thus, if NHTSA or the manufacturer determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and for remedying the problem free of charge. The installation of the Safety Vision Camera Monitor System by a commercial entity is also subject to certain restrictions, as discussed below.

Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30122 (copy enclosed) provides that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or vehicle repair business may not knowingly "make inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in accordance with any FMVSS. Therefore, the Safety Vision Camera Monitor System could not be installed by any of those entities if such use would adversely affect the compliance of a vehicle with any FMVSS.

NHTSA has issued Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, to establish performance and location requirements for rearview mirrors in each new motor vehicle. "Inside" rearview mirrors are required for "multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses, other than school buses, with GVWR of 4,536 kg or less," under one alternative of the standard (paragraph (a) of S6.1). If a vehicle manufacturer met Standard No. 111's requirements by way of an inside rearview mirror, an entity listed in 49 U.S.C. 30122 could not replace the mirror with your camera monitor system, unless the system continued to meet the performance and scope of view requirements of the standard. Inside rearview mirrors are not required for multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with GVWR greater than 4,536 kg. The installation of your camera monitor system in those vehicles would not interfere with the operation of a required "inside" rearview mirror and thus would be permitted. However, the vehicles will continue to be subject to the rearview mirror requirements of sections S6, S7 and S8 of Standard No. 111 and all other relevant requirements.

Next, I would like to draw your attention to one requirement of Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. Section S5.3.5 of that standard reads as follows:

Any source of illumination within the passenger compartment which is forward of a transverse vertical plane 110 mm rearward of the manikan "H" point with the driver's seat in its rearmost driving position, which is not used for the controls and displays regulated by this standard, which is not a telltale, and which is capable of being illuminated while the vehicle is in motion, shall have either (1) light intensity which is manually or automatically adjustable to provide at least two levels of brightness, (2) a single intensity that is barely discernible to a driver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions, or (3) a means of being turned off. This requirement does not apply to buses that are normally operated with the passenger compartment illuminated.

The purpose of this requirement is to prevent glare visible to the driver. The monitor's glare should be controlled as described in S5.3.5.

Also, I would like to draw your attention to Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, which applies to "....multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses, with a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms or less." You should carefully review this standard to determine whether installation of the Safety Vision Camera Monitor System in vehicles subject to Standard No. 201 would affect a vehicle's compliance with the standard.

The "make inoperative" provision does not apply to equipment attached to or installed on or in a vehicle by the vehicle owner. However, NHTSA urges vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of any system or device on their vehicles, including those required by Standard Nos. 101, 111 and 201, as discussed above.

I note that the Department's Office of Motor Carrier Safety has jurisdiction over interstate motor carriers operating in the U.S. You should contact that office at (202) 366-4012 for information about any requirements that may apply to your product. In addition, states have the authority to regulate the use and licensing of vehicles operating within their jurisdictions and may prohibit monitor displays. Therefore, you should therefore check with the Department of Motor Vehicles in any state in which the equipment will be sold or used.

Also, there is a procedural regulation that you need to meet to import your Safety Vision Camera Monitor System into the United States. 49 CFR Part 551, "Procedural Rules," requires the actual manufacturer of foreign-manufactured motor vehicle equipment to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of process in this country. The designation of the agent for the service of process must contain the following six items in order to be valid under section 551.45:

1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and binding on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made;

2. The full legal name, principal place of business, and mailing address of the manufacturer;

3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of the origin of any of the manufacturer's products which do not bear its name;

4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer;

5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed, which may be an individual, a firm, or a U.S. corporation; and

6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent.

In addition, the designation must be signed by one with authority to appoint the agent, and the signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his or her signature. This designation should be mailed to the address shown in section 551.45(b).

For your further information, I am enclosing a fact sheet we prepared entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment, and Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Nancy Bell of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:111#101#201
d.4/21/2000

ID: 16907-1.pja

Mr. Jason Backs
VP Operations
CPS Trailers
Highway 77, P.O. Drawer K
Oran, MO 63771

Dear Mr. Backs:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of whether the bottom dump trailer that your company manufactures with a large push block at the rear would be excluded from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) rear impact protection (underride guard) regulations. As explained below, your trailer is not excluded but, assuming you are attaching an underride guard to the push block in the location that you drew on your diagram, your vehicle may already comply with our regulations.

Your letter attached a diagram of your bottom dump trailer. Attached to the rear and extending 25 inches behind the rear of the trailer is a push block, used by bulldozers to push the trailer out of soft ground at construction sites. Viewed from above, the push block shaped like a trapezoid with its long side attached to the trailer. It tapers to a width of 28 inches at its rear, which is 28 inches off the ground. Eleven inches forward of its rear a guard-shaped structure, which you refer to as the horizontal member of the push block, is attached to the bottom of the push block. The bottom of the guard-shaped structure is 19 3/4 inches above the ground. Based on a conversation with David Coleman of NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance,⁽¹⁾ you believe that the trailer is excluded from our regulations because it meets the definitions of two classes of excluded vehicles: the low chassis vehicle and the special purpose vehicle.

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 low chassis vehicles and special purpose 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 meets these configuration requirements is the guard-shaped structure attached to the underside of the push block⁽²⁾, so the question becomes whether this is considered to be part of the "chassis" of the vehicles. 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. For most trailers that carry things, this means that the structure would have to contribute to providing underlying support for 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. 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 the horizontal member of your push block, we find that it is not part of the chassis. Although the push block and presumably also the guard-like structure are strongly attached to the chassis, they do not contribute to supporting cargo load. The push block itself is not part of the frame structure of the trailer, it is an attachment. Although you imply that the guard-like structure attached to the bottom of the push block is part of the push block, we consider it to be another attachment (to the push block). It does not define the outline of the trailer, but projects downward from an attachment to the rear of the chassis. Therefore, it is not part of the chassis, and the bottom dump trailer is not a low chassis vehicle.

We turn now to the question of whether the bottom dump trailer is excluded as a special purpose vehicle. 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."⁽³⁾ Again, the guard-like structure on the underside of the push block is the only part of your trailer that, while the vehicle is in transit, resides in the area that could be occupied be 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-like structure does not perform work in this sense. Its function is unclear. Even the push block does not perform work. Its function is to merely transmit the force of the bulldozer blade to the chassis of the trailer. Therefore, the guard like structure 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.

However, your bottom dump trailer may already comply with the rule. You made several correct observations in your letter regarding the determination of the rear and side extremities. The rear extremity is defined in S4 of Standard No. 224 as " the rearmost point on the vehicle . . ." (not the chassis). Therefore, it coincides with the rearmost point on the push block. The side extremity is defined in S4 as "the outermost point on the vehicle's side that is located . . . between a transverse vertical plane tangent to the rear extremity of the vehicle and a transverse vertical plane located 305 mm forward of that plane." Since your push block tapers toward the rear, the side extremity coincides with the outer edges of the push block in a transverse plane one foot forward of the rear extremity. The bottom of the guard-like device extends to the side extremities and the 21 inch ground clearance meets the vertical height requirements of S5.1.2. Assuming the face of the horizontal member of the guard-like structure is at least 100 mm high, as required by S5.1 of Standard No. 223, the guard-like structure would meet all the configuration requirements of an underride guard. If it can pass the strength and energy absorption requirements as well, the guard like structure itself could be labeled and certified as a guard under Standard No. 223.

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,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:224
d.5/22/98

1. We note that the Chief Counsel's Office is the only office in the agency that can issue interpretations of our regulations.

2. The push block itself is too high to meet the maximum height requirement of S5.1.2.

3. Note that this definition, as quoted, reflects an amendment made in response to petitions for reconsideration of the final rule. An unnecessary reference to pipe equipment containing hazardous materials was eliminated. See 63 F.R. 3654 (January 26, 1998).

ID: 7532

Mr. David H. Milligan
7287 S. 300 E.
Midvale, UT 84047

Dear Mr. Milligan:

This responds to your letter asking about the Federal requirements that apply to the "Car Seat Support," an item you manufacture for use with infant restraints.

Background Your device appears to consist of a fabric covered block of foam approximately 18x4x3 inches in size. The marketing material you sent shows that your device is intended to be placed under the bottom rearmost edge of an installed rear-facing infant seat (bottom rearmost edge relative to the vehicle). The device would cause the restraint to tip more toward the front of the car. We understand that the device is intended for use with vehicles that have seat cushions that slant downward toward the seat back, such as in some small cars.

Infant restraints are tested by NHTSA for compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, on an approximately horizontal vehicle seat cushion. (The "standard seat assembly" used to test the restraints is specified in S7.3 of Standard No. 213, copy enclosed.) A downward- slanting vehicle seat cushion might cause an infant restraint to tip toward the rear of the car. This could result in the angle between an infant restraint's back support surface and the vertical to decrease, i.e., the back of the restraint might become more upright. If a restraint's back support surface becomes too upright, it might not be able to provide support to the infant's head and neck.

The purpose of your product is to prop the bottom of a rear-facing infant restraint when the restraint is used with a downward-slanting vehicle seat, to ensure that the restraint bottom is horizontal. You state that consumers currently use items such as "blocks of wood" and "rolled up towels" to serve the same purpose as the Car Seat Support.

NHTSA's Response There is currently no FMVSS that directly applies to the product you wish to manufacture and sell. FMVSS No. 213

applies only to new child restraint systems and not to aftermarket supporting devices.

However, there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect your manufacture and sale of the device. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your device contain a safety- related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

In addition, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to '108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which states: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ...." It appears unlikely from the nature of your product that it would be placed in vehicles by commercial businesses instead of child restraint owners. However, if your product were to be installed by persons in those categories, they should ensure that its installation does not compromise the safety protection provided by a child restraint system. The prohibition of '108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment.

Please note that we are concerned that your device might compromise the safety protection provided by an infant seat if the consumer is not provided clear information about the use of the product. The Car Seat Support you provided came with a label that has a picture of the device positioned under a rear-facing infant seat. There is no other instruction on the label on the use of the product.

In the absence of clear instructions, there is the potential that consumers might misuse the Car Seat Support. For example, a consumer might not know that the restraint is intended for use with only a rear- facing restraint that needs a "support" to keep the bottom of the restraint horizontal when positioned on a vehicle seat. Without proper instructions, a consumer might use the Car Seat Support on an approximately horizontal vehicle seat cushion and thereby inappropriately tilt the restraint so that it does not provide sufficient crash protection. One means of reducing the likelihood of confusion about the proper use of the product would be for you to provide consumer instructions on the use of the Car Seat Support, such as on the purpose of the product, on the type of restraint and vehicle seat for which the device is intended, and on limiting how far rearward the restraint should be permitted to tilt. The picture of the Child Seat Support in use should be consistent with those instructions.

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:213 d:9/27/92

ID: nht92-3.44

DATE: September 22, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: David H. Milligan

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/10/92 from David H. Milligan to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC-7532)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking about the Federal requirements that apply to the "Car Seat Support," an item you manufacture for use with infant restraints.

Background Your device appears to consist of a fabric covered block of foam approximately 18x4x3 inches in size. The marketing material you sent shows that your device is intended to be placed under the bottom rearmost edge of an installed rear-facing infant seat (bottom rearmost edge relative to the vehicle). The device would cause the restraint to tip more toward the front of the car. We understand that the device is intended for use with vehicles that have seat cushions that slant downward toward the seat back, such as in some small cars.

Infant restraints are tested by NHTSA for compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, on an approximately horizontal vehicle seat cushion. (The "standard seat assembly" used to test the restraints is specified in S7.3 of Standard No. 213, copy enclosed.) A downward-slanting vehicle seat cushion might cause an infant restraint to tip toward the rear of the car. This could result in the angle between an infant restraint's back support surface and the vertical to decrease, i.e., the back of the restraint might become more upright. If a restraint's back support surface becomes too upright, it might not be able to provide support to the infant's head and neck.

The purpose of your product is to prop the bottom of a rear-facing infant restraint when the restraint is used with a downward-slanting vehicle seat, to ensure that the restraint bottom is horizontal. You state that consumers currently use items such as "blocks of wood" and "rolled up towels" to serve the same purpose as the Car Seat Support.

NHTSA's Response There is currently no FMVSS that directly applies to the product you wish to manufacture and sell. FMVSS No. 213 applies only to new child restraint systems and not to supporting devices.

However, there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect your manufacture and sale of the device. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects.

I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your

device contain a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

In addition, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to S108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which states: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ...." It appears unlikely from the nature of your product that it would be placed in vehicles by commercial businesses instead of child restraint owners. However, if your product were to be installed by persons in those categories, they should ensure that its installation does not compromise the safety protection provided by a child restraint system. The prohibition of S108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment.

Please note that we are concerned that your device might compromise the safety protection provided by an infant seat if the consumer is not provided clear information about the use of the product. The Car Seat Support you provided came with a label that has a picture of the device positioned under a rear-facing infant seat. There is no other instruction on the label on the use of the product.

In the absence of clear instructions, there is the potential that consumers might misuse the Car Seat Support. For example, a consumer might not know that the restraint is intended for use with only a rear-facing restraint that needs a "support" to keep the bottom of the restraint horizontal when positioned on a vehicle seat. Without proper instructions, a consumer might use the Car Seat Support on an approximately horizontal vehicle seat cushion and thereby inappropriately tilt the restraint so that it does not provide sufficient crash protection. One means of reducing the likelihood of confusion about the proper use of the product would be for you to provide consumer instructions on the use of the Car Seat Support, such as on the purpose of the product, on the type of restraint and vehicle seat for which the device is intended, and on limiting how far rearward the restraint should be permitted to tilt. The picture of the Child Seat Support in use should be consistent with those instructions.

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

ID: GF003147

Kenneth M. Bush, Associate Director
Government Relations
American Suzuki Motor Corporation
3251 East Imperial Highway;
PO Box 1100
Brea, CA 92822-1100




Dear Mr. Bush:

This responds to your letter in which you ask about the procedures the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) would follow for locating "Point 1" described in S10.1(a) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact. You provide an illustration and two different interpretations of these procedures.

By way of background, FMVSS No. 201 requires that vehicles meet certain performance criteria when specific targets in the interior are struck by an instrumented headform representative of a human head. When NHTSA performs compliance testing, it does so in accordance with testing procedures specified in FMVSS No. 201. With respect to targets located on the A-pillar, the agency would perform testing using the target location procedure in S10.1.

In order to locate "Point 1" described in your letter, the agency would follow the following procedure described in S10.1(a):

"On the vehicle exterior, locate a transverse vertical plane (Plane 1) which contacts the rearmost point of the windshield trim. The intersection of Plane 1 and the vehicle exterior surface is Line 1. Measuring along the vehicle exterior surface, locate a point (Point 1) on Line 1 that is 125 mm inboard of the intersection of Line 1 and a vertical plane tangent to the vehicle at the outboardmost point on Line 1 with the vehicle side door open"

NHTSA locates "Point 1" by measuring inboard, along the nominal vehicle exterior surface, 125 mm from the intersection of "Line 1" and the outermost edge of the roof, with the door open. "Line 1" is established by locating a transverse vertical plane (Plane 1) that is perpendicular to the vehicle longitudinal plane, which contacts the rearmost point of the windshield trim. We note that the outermost edge of the roof is determined with the door open and includes uncompressed weather stripping, rain gutter, or other trim components. NHTSA makes linear measurements following the nominal vehicle surface (as opposed to following each convolution of weather stripping, rain gutter or other trim components). See Laboratory Test Procedure for FMVSS No. 201U (TP-201U-01, April 3, 1998, pages 37 and 38 at www.nhtsa.gov), and the enclosed illustration.

In your letter and accompanying illustration, you offer two interpretations for the location of "Point 1." The difference between the two interpretations appears to stem from the location of the outboardmost point on Line 1; i.e., the intersection of Plane 1 and the vehicle exterior surface. As explained above, that intersection is located at the outermost edge of the roof, with the door open. After examining your illustration, we believe that this intersection is marked "point *2."

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact George Feygin of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:201
d.7/14/05

ID: aiam4429

"Dear Mr. Utans: This responds to your request for an interpretation o Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages (49 CFR /571.210). Specifically, you stated that Subaru would like to offer lap/shoulder belts at the rear outboard seating positions on mid-1989 model year station wagons sold in the United States. Standard No. 210 requires these station wagons to be equipped with an anchorage for the upper end of the upper torso portion of a lap/shoulder belt assembly at each forward-facing outboard seating position (S4.1.1) and requires such anchorages to be located within a specified range (S4.3.2). You stated that the subject station wagons would have such an anchorage located in the specified area. However, the upper torso portion of the lap/shoulder belt assemblies would not be attached to the required anchorages in the subject vehicles. Instead, Subaru would provide another anchorage outside of the range specified in Standard No. 210, and the upper torso portion of the rear seat lap/shoulder belt assemblies would be attached to these additional anchorages. You stated your belief that, since Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR /571.208) does not require manufacturers to install lap/shoulder belts in rear seating positions of passenger cars, Subaru's voluntary installation of rear seat lap/shoulder belts and additional anchorages for those belts is not subject to any of this agency's regulations, provided that the voluntarily installed items do not impair the functioning of any devices or elements of design required to be installed in the vehicles. Your belief is correct. The anchorage location requirements in Standard No. 210 apply to all anchorages required by the safety standards, except for those anchorages explicitly exempted by S4.3 of Standard No. 210 (anchorages for automatic and dynamically tested manual belt assemblies that meet the frontal crash protection requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208). The question then becomes whether the upper anchorage to which the rear seat shoulder belts will actually be attached in these vehicles is required by the safety standards. If that upper anchorage were required by the safety standards, it would have to comply with the location requirements set forth in S4.3.2 of Standard No. 210. However, we conclude that that anchorage is not required by any safety standard. If Standard No. 208 required rear outboard seating positions in passenger cars to be equipped with lap/shoulder belts, it would require that the point at which the upper end of the shoulder belt was actually attached to the vehicles comply with the anchorage strength and location requirements set forth in Standard No. 210. This is because S3 of Standard No. 210 defines a 'seat belt anchorage' as 'the provision for transferring seat belt assembly loads to the vehicle structure.' The point at which the upper end of the shoulder belt is attached to the vehicle is necessarily a part of the 'provision' for transferring belt loads to the vehicle structure. Thus, the attachment point of the upper end of the shoulder belt to the vehicle would have to comply with all applicable requirements of Standard No. 210, if the shoulder belt were required to be provided at that seating position by Standard No. 208. However, Standard No. 208 does not currently require rear outboard seating positions in passenger cars to be equipped with lap/shoulder belts. Instead, section S4.1.2.3.1(c) of Standard No. 208 requires that rear seating positions in passenger cars be equipped with either Type 1 (lap belts) or Type 2 (lap/shoulder belts) belt assemblies. Even though Standard No. 208 does not require lap/shoulder belts to be installed at rear outboard seating positions in passenger cars, section S4.1.1 of Standard No. 210 requires shoulder belt anchorages to be installed for each forward-facing rear outboard seating position in passenger cars. When lap belts only are installed at these seating positions, the shoulder belt anchorage required by S4.1.1 is not, strictly speaking, a provision for transferring shoulder belt loads to the vehicle structure, since there are no shoulder belt loads to transfer to the vehicle structure. Accordingly, the requirement of S4.1.1 was interpreted as meaning that an anchorage point capable of transferring shoulder belt loads to the vehicle structure had to be provided for such seating positions, and that anchorage point had to comply with the applicable requirements of Standard No. 210. According to your letter, your station wagons would be equipped with an anchorage point capable of transferring shoulder belt loads to the vehicle structure, and that point would comply with the anchorage strength and location requirements set forth in Standard No. 210. Accepting this as true, we believe that Subaru could satisfy all the requirements of the safety standards by installing lap belts only at the rear outboard seating positions in these cars. Subaru's decision to install lap/shoulder belts at these seating positions and an additional anchorage point for the shoulder belts is a voluntary choice, not a response to any regulatory requirement. NHTSA has long said that systems or components installed in addition to required safety systems are not required to comply with Federal safety standards, provided that the additional systems or components do not destroy the ability of the required safety systems to comply with the safety standards. In a December 1, 1986 letter to Mr. Francois Louis (copy enclosed), I said that manufacturers are permitted to locate the anchorages for voluntarily-installed lap belts outside of the area specified in Standard No. 210 for lap belts required to be installed by Standard No. 208, provided that the voluntarily installed lap belts do not destroy the ability of the required belt systems to comply with the requirements of the safety standards. The same reasoning would apply in this situation. That is, manufacturers are permitted to locate the anchorage for the upper end of voluntarily installed shoulder belts outside of the area specified in S4.3.2 of Standard No. 210, provided that the voluntarily installed anchorages and shoulder belts do not destroy the ability of the required anchorages and lap belts to comply with the requirements of the safety standards. There is no reason to believe that shoulder belts and the additional anchorages would in any way impair the ability of required equipment to comply with the requirements of the safety standards. You are already aware of the fact that NHTSA has initiated a rulemaking to require rear seat lap/shoulder belts, 52 FR 22818, June 16, 1987. You should note that if the agency adopts a final rule requiring rear seat lap/shoulder belts in passenger cars, the shoulder belts that are the subject of this interpretation would no longer be voluntarily installed. If such a final rule were issued, the point at which the upper end of the shoulder belt is attached to the vehicle would have to comply with both the anchorage location requirements of S4.3.2 of Standard No. 210 and the anchorage strength requirements of S4.2.2 of Standard No. 210, as explained above. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: aiam1032

Dear Mr. Herr: This is in reply to your letter of January 19, 1973, concerning th Federal requirements governing safety belt length.; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Cras Protection, regulates the length of safety belts installed in cars made after January 1, 1972. There are two safety belt length requirements of this Standard that may enter into the case enclosed with your letter. The first requires that the manufacturers provide, as a minimum, sufficient safety belt length to fit at least a 95th percentile adult male with the seat in any (i.e., all) adjusted positions. A 95th percentile adult male weighs 215 pounds and has a 42.5 inch waist with 47.2 inch hips (sitting dimensions).; The second requirement concerns the length of the inboard end of th safety belt. In this case, the Standard requires that the intersection of the shoulder belt with the lap belt shall be at least 6 inches from the front vertical centerline of the average-size occupant, with the seat in the rearmost adjusted position. While this may result in an inboard belt length that may be somewhat more difficult to fasten than in some previous model cars, it significantly reduces the possibility that the shoulder belt could pull the lap belt up off the pelvis into the abdomen in a crash, possibly causing abdominal injuries.; With regard to the particular case at hand, our experience has bee that the vehicle manufacturers are usually willing to provide longer belts to fit very large new car buyers. With respect to inboard belt length, our experience has been that belts which approach the permissible 6 inch dimension mentioned above are usually satisfactory in terms of convenience. However, shorter inboard belt lengths, exceeding the minimum safety requirements of the standard, are permissible. In these cases, the customers may want to seek adjustment by the dealer or vehicle manufacturer.; In regard to the allegation made in the case that the belts cannot b changed, there is no Federal law or regulation that would prevent the dealer from modifying the safety belts. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act grants us the authority to regulate the safety of new motor vehicles. Although a dealer may not sell a new vehicle that does not conform to the standards, once the vehicle is sold and delivered the customer may have it modified by the dealer. In such a case, the dealer would not violate Federal law.; The dealer in question may well have had reasons for declining t modify the safety belts. He may be unsure of his ability to do a proper job and may fear incurring civil liability to the customer if someone should be injured as a result of his work. We would not encourage modification of a vehicle's mandatory safety features unless it is done with expert advice, or according to the manufacturer's recommendations.; Please contact this office if you desire any further discussion of thi matter.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel

ID: 16959-1.pja

Mr. Kenneth Mannen
Hesse, Inc.
6700 Saint John Avenue
Kansas City, MO 64123

Dear Mr. Mannen:

This responds to your facsimile requesting an interpretation of whether the beverage delivery trailers your company manufactures are excluded from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) rear impact protection (underride guard) regulations. As explained below, two of these trailer designs are excluded, but one design is not. An underride guard complying with our regulations would have to be supplied for that one design.

From the drawings you sent, it appears that all three types of beverage delivery trailers are segmented, with 40-52 inch wide doors on the sides that slide up and down, providing access to the stacked beverages. They differ mainly at the rear. Thank you for clarifying certain aspects of your trailer construction during a June 11, 1998 telephone conversation with Paul Atelsek of my staff. The different trailer designs are addressed separately, below.

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, special purpose vehicles, and low chassis vehicles.

Single Axle Beverage Delivery Trailer

The single axle trailer has the rearmost surface of its rear wheel currently located 12 to 13 inches forward of the rear of the rearmost point on the trailer bumper. You believe that this design is excluded if you assure that the rear wheel is 12 inches or less forward of the bumper by reducing the depth of the rear bumper or by moving the axle back. However you ask if it is necessary to alter your design to comply. Because the distance between the front of the bumper assembly and the rear tire is only 5 inches, you reason that the bumper could move forward only that distance before contacting the rear wheel and stopping.

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." One relevant issue is whether the rear wheels are permanently fixed. The axles on your trailer do appear to be fixed, because the beverage bay located a few inches in front of the trailer cannot be moved. Another question is whether the rear surface of the rear wheels is within 305 mm (12 inches) of the trailer rear extremity. In your drawing, the rear wheels are within 12 inches of the rear of the bumper, so we assume these are excluded as wheels-back vehicles. However, your letter mentions that some of your trailers have rear wheels more than 12 inches forward of the trailer rear extremity ("distance from the rear of the tire to the back of the bumper of between 12 & 13 inches"). These vehicles would not be excluded as wheels-back, and a compliant guard would have to be provided.

The fact that the bumper could move only 5 inches forward during a crash does not change this analysis. While it is true, in the event of a crash, your trailers have the bumper mounting assembly between the colliding vehicle and the rear tires, the language of the standard does not create an exception for this situation. The exclusions in Standard No. 224 are generally designed for trailers for which guards are either unnecessary or impractical. Most wheels-back vehicles do not have the full-width, low bumper-type assembly that you provide. As you observe in your letter, you could relocate the axle rearward slightly, or decrease slightly the depth of the bumper and these vehicles would then be considered wheels-back. Another option is to certify your existing bumper, which appears to meet the configuration requirements of Standard Nos. 223 and 224, as a compliant guard, after assuring yourself that it also meets the other requirements of those standards.

Tandem axle beverage delivery trailer

This trailer has a beverage storage bay behind the rear tandems. The rear bumper on this trailer is mounted to the back of the rear storage bay at a height of 15 to 17 inches above the ground. There is a horizontal structural member made of extruded aluminum 2.5 by 6.5 inches in thickness running longitudinally on each side of the trailer at the bottom of the rear storage bay. There is also a horizontal structural crossmember of the same stock that connects, across the back of the trailer, the rear of these longitudinal structural members. This transverse structural member is supported in the center by a cross member extending diagonally down and to the rear, between the main frame rails of the trailer and the rear bumper/bulkhead. It is also supported by gussets attached to the main frame rails. The bottom of this transverse structural member is also 15 to 17 inches above the ground. You believe that this design is excluded because it meets the definition of a low chassis vehicle.

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 trailer that may meet these configuration requirements is the transverse structural member under the floor of the rear storage bay. Therefore, the question becomes whether this structural member 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 the transverse structural member at the bottom of your rear storage bay, we conclude that it is part of the chassis. The member underlies the rear storage bay and supports the beverages in that bay, so it is considered load supporting. It is also frame structure. The member is similar in size, and presumably in strength, with the other frame members. The member conforms with and helps to define the outline of the trailer. It is connected to the other frame members at least as strongly as the other storage bays, and likely more strongly, considering the diagonal member and the gussets. Therefore, we conclude that the member is part of the chassis, and the trailer is a low chassis vehicle, excluded from the underride guard requirements.

Tandem axle convertible beverage delivery trailer

This trailer is similar to the tandem axle trailer, with one major difference being that the rear bay loads from the rear instead of from the side. Another difference is that the rear compartment also does not extend downward as far on this design as it does on the tandem axle trailer. The bottom of the rear compartment is at the level of the frame rails, a few feet above the ground, instead of extending down to the 15 to 17 inch level. There are vertical structural members made of 6 inch channel in the rear corners of the trailer, forming the rear outside edges of the rear compartment. These channel members, as well as two vertical supports of rectangular tubing located farther inboard, extend downward below the bottom of the rear compartment, to within 14 to 20 inches of the ground. All of these vertical structural members are connected at the bottom across the back of the trailer by a transverse horizontal member composed of 5 inch high by 2.5 inch deep extruded aluminum tubing. This tubing resembles the horizontal member of a conventional underride guard. You state that you are not sure if this design is excluded.

Applying the same analysis as we applied to the tandem axle trailer, we conclude that this trailer is not a low chassis vehicle. The only part of the vehicle that meets the configuration requirements of S5.1.1 through S5.1.3 is the transverse horizontal member, so that would have to be considered to be part of the chassis for the vehicle to be excluded. This member hangs down from the rear of the trailer and forms no part of the rear compartment. Therefore, it fails the load supporting aspect of the definition. Consequently, it is not part of the chassis and the tandem convertible trailer is not excluded as a low chassis vehicle.

You asked if the addition of a "rail lift gate" to the rear of the convertible trailer would affect the compliance status of this trailer design. We assume you are asking this because you think the liftgate might result in the vehicle meeting the definition of an excluded "special purpose vehicle." 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 liftgate meets the agency's definition of work performing equipment. However, it is our understanding that most rail-type liftgates stow high on the vehicle's rear end and move entirely rearward of the rear extremity. If this is the case, the liftgate would not occupy the area designated for the guard, at least not during transit. Therefore, even if equipped with a rail-type liftgate, the vehicle would not meet the definition of a special purpose vehicle. Because no other exclusions apply, this trailer would need to be equipped with a compliant rear underride guard.

We cannot provide a specific opinion on how your trailer might be redesigned to accommodate a guard. We note, however, that the transverse piece of rectangular tubing already appears to meet the configurational requirements for an underride guard. If it does not currently meet the strength and energy absorption requirements, you might be able to reinforce or otherwise modify the vertical supports sufficiently so that it would pass these requirements. If you can do this, the transverse horizontal member itself could be labeled and certified as a guard under Standard No. 223, Rear impact guards. Perhaps this solution would work for you. However, we emphasize that 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 that 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
ref:224
d.8/24/98

1. Note that this definition, as quoted, reflects an amendment made in response to petitions for reconsideration of the final rule. An unnecessary reference to pipe equipment containing hazardous materials was eliminated. See 63 F.R. 3654 (January 26, 1998).

ID: 9920

Mr. Thomas D. Turner
Manager, Engineering Services
Blue Bird Body Company
P.O. Box 937
Fort Valley, GA 31030

Dear Mr. Turner:

This responds to your letter of May 2, 1994, requesting an interpretation of how the term "daylight opening," as used in a recent amendment of Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release, would apply to various exits (57 FR 49413; November 2, 1992, and 57 FR 57020; December 2, 1992).

Your letter references a March 24, 1994 interpretation letter to Mr. Bob Carver of Wayne Wheeled Vehicles. That letter discussed the term "daylight opening" as follows:

The term "daylight opening" is defined in the Final Rule as "the maximum unobstructed opening of an emergency exit when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the plane of the opening." An obstruction in this context would include any obstacle or object that would block, obscure, or interfere with, in any way, access to that exit when opened. In determining the "maximum unobstructed opening of an emergency exit," we would subtract, from the total area of the opening, the area of any portions of the opening that cannot be used for exit purposes as a result of the obstruction. The area measurements would be taken when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the plane of the opening.

Your letter states that this interpretation

represents a drastic change in what we understood from the wording of the final rule ... and what we were told by Rulemaking. We believed and were told that the definition of daylight opening applied to the exit opening itself and did not involve access to the opening. Access to and obstruction of openings are addressed later in the standard in section S5.4.2 School Bus Emergency Exit Extension.

Before answering your specific questions, I would like to respond to these statements. You are correct that S5.4.2 includes requirements related to access to, and obstruction of, exits in that it specifies the minimum opening and the minimum amount of access required for various exits. However, the issue of minimum opening is separate from the issue, addressed in S5.2.3, of the maximum amount of area credited for any opening. Section S5.2.3 specifies the number and type of exits required on school buses. This section states:

The area in square centimeters of the unobstructed openings for emergency exit shall collectively amount to at least 432 times the number of designated seating positions in the bus. The amount of emergency exit area credited to an emergency exit is based on the daylight opening of the exit opening.

Thus, S5.2.3 specifies the maximum amount of area credited for any opening. An interpretation of the term "daylight opening" that allowed credit for the exit opening, regardless of obstructions, would be contrary to the plain language of the definition of that term. Giving credit for obstructed areas would also be contrary to the intent of the final rule, which is to increase the area on larger buses which is available for exit in an emergency.

With respect to your report of receiving an oral interpretation from agency staff, I would also like to emphasize that, to the extent the public has any questions concerning the meaning of any NHTSA standard or regulation, the only agency interpretations which are authoritative and which therefore can be relied upon by members of the public, such as manufacturers, are those issued in writing by the Chief Counsel. We have reminded agency staff not to make formal, or informal, oral statements that might misinterpreted by manufacturers as official agency guidance on which they may safely rely.

Your letter states that the March 24 interpretation "raises other questions regarding the various school bus emergency exits." Your questions and the response to each follows.

By way of background information, NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Rear Emergency Exit Door

a. Section S5.4.2.1(a)(1) ... requires unobstructed passage of a rectangular parallelepiped 30 centimeters deep. It is our rationale and interpretation that a seat back or other interior component that lies forward of this 30 centimeter deep parallelepiped is not an obstruction to the rear emergency door and would not result in a reduction of the area credited to the rear emergency door. (See figure 1a) Is this interpretation correct?

In the case of a rear emergency exit door, the depth requirement in S5.4.2.1(a)(1) reflects a determination that an interior component outside that limit does not render the exit unusable. Therefore, an interior component outside the area bounded by the transverse vertical plane of the exit opening, the two longitudinal vertical planes tangent to the sides of the exit opening, and the transverse vertical plane parallel to and 30 centimeters away from the plane of the exit opening would not be considered an obstruction for determining the area of "daylight opening."

b. School buses are typically equipped with 39-inch (99 cm) wide seats. At the rear emergency door, one of the rear seats is typically shifted forward to provide the clearance required by S5.4.2.1(a)(1). The other rear seat is typically allowed to be near or against the rear wall of the bus to fully utilize the available seating floor space and to provide maximum knee clearance. When viewed from the rear, this seat protrudes into the door opening; and according to the (March 24) interpretation ..., the area of the obstruction would not be credited to the exit. Following the logic of the interpretation, the area of the seat itself and the area above the seat could not be credited. We disagree with the logic of the interpretation that door exits are only used by movement along the floor. If the bus is on its side or top, the exit must be used from different approaches. It is therefore our logic and interpretation that only the actual area obstructed (i.e. the area of the seat and the area below the seat) cannot be credited to the exit. For the case in question, the area above the seat can be used in many accident scenarios and therefore can be credited as "daylight opening." (See figure 1b) Is this interpretation correct?

You are correct that emergency doors will be used by people moving along an interior surface other than the floor if the vehicle is on its side or roof following an accident. As stated in the March 24 interpretation, in determining the amount of daylight opening, you should not credit any area which "cannot be used for exit purposes." In the case of the seat illustrated in incoming letter from Wayne, the area over the seat is 6.12 inches by 12.5 inches. However, in reviewing that letter in light of your question, we now agree that the area over the seat may be usable in some accident scenarios.

For your exit, neither your letter nor figure 1b provide dimensions of the area over the seat. If the area is large enough to be usable in an accident scenario, that area can be credited towards the daylight opening.

c. The rear emergency door on Blue Bird school buses is hinged on the outside, and the top portion of the door is angled forward when the door is closed. When the door is opened and held in the open position by the device required by S5.4.2.1(a)(3)(i), the door protrudes into the exit opening when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the plane of the opening. It is our understanding, based on the interpretation of reference 3, that the protrusion of the door now constitutes an obstruction and the area of the obstruction cannot be credited to the exit area. (See figure 1c) Is this understanding correct?

This is correct.

Emergency Window Exits

The seat backs of school bus seats can protrude into the lower region of side window exit openings. Side window exits when the bus is upright may be used by climbing over the seats. If the bus is on its side or top, the side window exits may be used from different approaches. Since areas of sufficient size above, in front of, and behind a protruding seat back could be used for different parts of the body, (i.e. head, knees, legs) when crawling out a side window exit in different vehicle orientations, it is our logic and interpretation that only the actual area of the seat back in the side window exit opening and the smallest area bounded by the seat back, a horizontal plane tangent to the top of the seat back, and the edges of the exit opening constitute obstructions and cannot be credited to the exit. (See figure 2) Is this interpretation correct?

In your illustrations, the area obstructed by the seat back protruding into the window opening clearly cannot be credited to the daylight opening. Whether area above or forward or rearward of the seat back can be credited depends on whether the size of the area is sufficient to be used in exiting the vehicle. Any of these areas which permits passage of the ellipsoid proposed in a December 1, 1993 notice of proposed rulemaking indicates that these areas clearly should be credited (58 FR 63321, see proposed S5.4.2.1(c)). NHTSA proposed this because it believed it reflected the minimum size window which could be used as an exit.

If not cut off by obstructions from other unobstructed areas of the daylight opening of the window, as viewed in a plan view, it may be possible that smaller areas should also be credited. In all of the illustrations in figure 2, the seat back extends less than halfway up in the opening. Therefore, it appears that the area above the seat would be credited. We also agree that if the seat protrudes near the front or rear edge of the window opening, it is unlikely that the area between the seat back and the nearest edge of the opening would be usable. However, one of your illustrations shows the seat back protruding near the center of the window opening. In such an instance, it may be possible that the area on each side of the seat back is large enough to be usable. For example, a person might use the window by climbing over the seat, with either their legs straddling the seat, or their head and torso over one side of the seat and their legs over the other.

Side Emergency Exit Doors

Following the logic presented above regarding the use of emergency exits in different vehicle orientations, we disagree with the interpretation that area A2 (an area bounded by a horizontal line tangent to the top of the seat back, a vertical line tangent to the rearmost portion of the top of the seat, the upper edge of the door opening, and the edge of the door forward of the seat) ... is not usable. In fact even when using the side emergency door when the vehicle is upright, a person would likely lean over the seat back and hold on to the seat, thus using area A2. Figure 3 enclosed is drawn more to scale than the illustration used in (the March 24 interpretation). We suggest the Agency review this illustration, conduct field research by using the exits in real buses, and then reconsider the interpretation ... regarding side emergency doors. We recommend that area A2 be credited as "daylight opening" for a side emergency door.

As explained in our response to question b on rear emergency exit doors, the area above some seats may be large enough to be credited toward the daylight opening.

Front Service Door

a. The lower portion of the grab handle on many school bus front service doors protrudes into the exit opening when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the plane of the opening. (See figure 4) Based on the (March 24) interpretation ..., we understand that this protrusion now constitutes an obstruction. Is this understanding correct?

This is correct.

b. The front service door of most school buses leads to a stepwell and steps used to enter the bus. On front engine transit style school buses, the steps are typically angled to the rear and the riser to the first step is just a few inches inboard of the door opening. It is our logic and interpretation that steps in a stepwell do not constitute an obstruction and their presence does not reduce the area credited to the entrance door opening. (See figure 4) Is this interpretation correct?

The steps provide the means of using the door, allowing a person to move between the ground and the floor level of the bus. They do not "block, obscure, or interfere with, in any way, access" of occupants descending to the front service door. Therefore, although they are visible in the doorway when the doorway is viewed in a plan view, the steps are not obstructions within the meaning of the definition of daylight opening.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref: 217 d:8/24/94

ID: aiam2688

Dear Mr. DeWitt: This responds to your July 8, 1977, letter posing several hypothetica questions concerning the responsibility to attach a new label to a vehicle if altered prior to first purchase for purposes other than resale.; Section 108(b)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act 15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1), states that the prohibition against the delivery of a nonconforming vehicle 'shall not apply to the introduction or delivery for introduction in interstate commerce of any motor vehicle.....after the first purchase of it in good faith for purposes other than resale.' You ask at what point in time the 'first purchase' is deemed to have occurred. We have taken the position that the purchase is not complete until the vehicle is delivered to the purchaser.; In general, the issuance of title to which you refer in your letter i irrelevant to a determination of whether there is a need for the manufacturer's representative to attach a new label to an altered vehicle, as required by Part 567.7, *Certification*. Delivery of the vehicle is the point at which the first purchase is complete and the responsibility to attach a new label ceases. We would note that if the issue of vehicle modification is raised and decided upon during the sales conversations we would consider a subsequent modification occurring after the point of delivery to be an event requiring the attachment of a new label.; In particular response to your hypotheticals, paragraphs B and through H represent occasions when vehicle alterations would result in the need to attach a new label in accordance with the requirements of Part 567.7. The reason for this conclusion is that all of the hypotheticals result in the alteration of the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR), or gross axle weight ratings (GAWR) or the attachment or removal of non-readily attachable components. There would be no need, in paragraphs B and D, to attach a new label if the vehicle manufacturer had availed himself of the option of listing alternative GAWR's, with appropriate tire sizes, as long as the newly installed tires were among those listed on the certification label.; Paragraphs A and C do not represent alteration situations in which th GVWR or the GAWR are affected. Although the tires would have a greater load capacity than that rated on the vehicle label, there is no need to change the rating of the vehicle, as is the case when tires are installed that have lower load capacities. Further, the installation of tires constitutes the installation of readily attachable components. Therefore, there is no need to attach a new label in accordance with Part 567.7 in these situations.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel