ID: nht94-1.34

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 31, 1994

FROM: Marc D. Marutani -- National Truck Sales Manager, ARI

TO: Chief Counsel's Office, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/1/94 from John Womack to Marc D. Marutani (A42; Part 571.3)

TEXT:

As a major national fleet leasing company, ARI has a broad cross section of clients in various industries. Recently, an inquiry was received concerning the use of a Ford Econoline Wagon, and whether or not the specific usage fell within the FMVSS defini tion of a "school bus."

The vehicle in question would be a standard, factory-equipped fifteen passenger full-size van (commonly referred to as a "wagon" due to its primary function as passenger transport), with no after-market modifications. The client requesting the vehicle i s a mental health and substance abuse facility handling adolescents on a full-time on-site basis. There is a school located on the premises, since the children reside at the location. The vehicle's purpose would primarily be used for miscellaneous tran sportation of juvenile patients and facility personnel, both on and off campus, as opposed to providing commuting services to and from home.

Because we interpret the FMVSS regulations regarding school buses as applying to those vehicles whose PRIMARY function is for the transporting of students to and from school and related scholastic events, we do not believe that the use of this wagon fall s within that definition. However, we would appreciate your ruling on the matter for verification, and for future reference on similar transactions. If further discussion on this subject is required, I can be reached at 609-727-6995.

Thank you for your consideration.

ID: nht72-3.43

DATE: 08/02/72

FROM: JAMES E. HOFFERBERTH FOR ROBERT L. CARTER--NHTSA

TO: Peugeot-Renault

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your teletype of July 8, 1972, regarding the question of a manikin's neck. In response to your specific need, and for your general information, I am enclosing a procurement specification for a 50th percentile test dummy recently let out for bid by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. This specification represents our present thinking on some of the desirable aspects of a test dummy. We are also working on the development of a proposed regulation that will define the dummy more precisely than standard No. 208 presently does, and, of course, that regulation may differ from the procurement specification.

In the meantime, as we have stated in the Federal Registar, any dummy that meets the requirements of Standard No. 208 may be used by a manufacturer to test its vehicles.

SINCERELY,

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

U.S. COAST GUARD TELECOMMUNICATIONS CENTER

NO 9499 Nov. 7, 1972 10#05

M. BUREAU PEGLEMFNTATION

A. M. ROBERT L CAPTER ASSOCIATE ASMINISTPATOR NHTSA

FOLLOWING PRESSING QUESTIONS ASKED TO MR TOMS AND YOU AT SAE CONFERENCE OF DETROIT IN MAY CONCERNING FMVSS 208 WE HAVE A VERY POSITIVE FIRST ANSWER IN DOCKET 69-7 NOTICE 19

HOWEVER, WE ARE STILL UNABLE TO COMPLETE OUR CONFIRMATION TESTS ON RESTRAINT SYSTEMS FOR 73 MODELS SINCE WE ARE NOT AWARE OF THE EQUIPMENT TO BE PROPOSED FOR DYNAMIC RESPONSE OF MANIKINS' NECK

CAN YOU ALREADY GIVE US SOME MORE DETAILS ON THESE SPECIFICATIONS SINCE OUR HOMOLOGATION SERVICES CANNOT GO ON WITH THEIR WORK

BEST THANKS

N. BUREAU CHIEF REGULATIONS DEPARTMENT AUTOMOBILES PEUGEOT

ID: nht91-2.18

DATE: March 7, 1991

FROM: Liam J. Moran -- Hagans, Brown, Gibbs & Moran

TO: Steven Kratzke -- NHTSA

TITLE: Re Brey v. Spalding & Evenflo Companies, Inc.; Our File No. : 3571

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-19-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Liam J. Moran (A37; Std. 213)

TEXT:

This letter will serve to confirm our telephone conversation today and constitute a request for a formal interpretation of Paragraph S5.6.3 of FMVSS 213. My inquiry to the Chief Counsel's Office is whether the manufacturer of a child restraint system is deemed in compliance with Paragraph S5.6.3 which requires that instructions affixed to the child restraint system "shall explain the primary consequences of noting (sec) following the warnings required to be labeled on the child restraint system" if the manufacturer affixes the statement appearing in Paragraph S5.5.2(g) which states as follows:

WARNING! Failure to follow each of the following instructions can result in your child striking the vehicle's interior during a sudden stop or crash. Secure this child restraint with a vehicle belt as specified in the manufacturer's instructions located --.

As I explained to you in our telephone conversation, this firm represents Spalding & Evenflo Companies, Inc. in a products liability action. The plaintiff alleges that even though Evenflo's child restraint system had the warning stipulated in Paragraph S5.5.2(g) of FMVSS 213 affixed to it, Evenflo violated Paragraph S5.6.3 of the regulation by failing to include additional language explaining the "primary consequences of not following the warnings."

I request that the issuance of the Chief Counsel's interpretation be undertaken on an expedited basis given the time constraints of the pending litigation.

Should you have any questions concerning our inquiry, please do not hesitate to call.

ID: nht92-2.42

DATE: November 9, 1992

FROM: Rodney T. Nash -- Vice President Engineering, Collins Industries, Inc.

TO: Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/30/92 from Stephen P. Wood (signed by John Womack) (A40; Part 571.3)

TEXT:

Please forward this letter to the appropriate locations within the office of General Counsel to answer this question on vehicle designation. The final-stage manufacturer of a vehicle is required to label his vehicle with the information designated in FMVSS 115 and FMVSS 120. This information requires the final-stage manufacturer to designate the vehicle classification involved. We need to know how to classify an ambulance that is built on a truck chassis.

The ambulance carries more weight of specialized equipment for patient-care support than it carries people. The special purpose vehicles operates half of its life with no patient in the rear cargo area but always carries heart monitors, jaws of life, stretchers, respirators, and other life-support equipment. The question that needs clarification is what vehicle class (truck or MPV) should be applied to an ambulance. Should the classification change if the vehicle is focused on equipment transport over patient transport? It appears to us that the final-stage manufacturer is free to select between these categories.

Should you wish to discuss this question further, please call 316-663-5551 during normal working hours. I've taken the liberty of enclosing a piece of sales literature for a cargo intensive ambulance for you to review in issuing your opinion letter.

Thank you in advance for any prompt consideration you can give this request.

ID: nht91-4.21

DATE: June 17, 1991

FROM: Ivan Lee -- Deputy General Manager, Regulation Affairs, Hyundai America Technical Center, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: FMVSS 214, Side Impact

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-23-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Ivan Lee (A38; Std. 214)

TEXT:

We would like to request your assistance with an interpretation regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard.

As you know, pursuant to the newly adopted side impact rule of FMVSS 214, all the light duty vehicle manufacturers are required to meet the yearly phase-in schedule, beginning with model year 1994.

To fulfill this requirement, Hyundai is making every effort to work out with the regulation as much as possible. But because Hyundai is limited carline manufacturer, we think Hyundai needs an alternative approach to comply with the requirement.

With the finalized schedule and Hyundai's alternative schedule listed in the table below, we would like to request your comments if Hyundai's alternative plan is acceptable or not.

94MY 95MY 96MY 97MY

Requirement 10 % 25 % 40 % 100 % Alternative Plan 20 % 20 % 50 % 100 % +/- % + 10 % - 5 % + 10 % 0

As you see in the table, compliance percentage of 1st year (1994) and 3rd year (1996) will exceed 10% more than requirement and 2nd year (1995) will be 5% short. However, as a whole, total compliance rate of alternative schedule is 15% more than requirement. We would appreciate if you would review Hyundai's plan and kindly provide us your opinion. Should you have any question, please feel free to contact Mr. Y.K. Moon of my staff at (313) 747-6600.

ID: nht91-4.24

DATE: June 19, 1991

FROM: Gerald Farr -- P. Eng., Senior Compliance Engineer, Compliance Engineering and Vehicle Testing, Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation Directorate, Transport Canada

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: FMVSS 210 - S4.3.1.1

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-16-91 from Paul Jackson Rice (signature by Kenneth Weinstein) to Gerald Farr (A38; Std. 210)

TEXT:

I am writing at this time to determine whether or not there have been any "official" interpretations of the method used to calculate the angle specified in FMVSS 210, section 4.3.1.1. This section requires that a LINE FROM the seating reference point (or adjusted seating reference point) TO the nearest contact point of the belt with the hardware attaching it to the anchorage, must extend FORWARD from the anchorage at an angle with the horizontal of not less than 20 and not more than 75 degrees.

There are two particular areas of interest.

1. When the angle of the line which joins the two points (SRP and belt anchorage) is calculated with respect to the horizontal, is the calculation made using a three dimensional protocol or a two dimensional protocol. (The two dimensional protocol would not take into account the transverse ("y") coordinate of the two points.)

2. Have any interpretations been made concerning what constitutes "the nearest contact point of the belt with the hardware connecting it to the anchorage"?

I would appreciate receiving any information you can provide concerning this matter. I can be reached at (613)998-1999 if you wish to discuss this further.

ID: 23668.rbm

Mark S. Lore, President
Ride-Away Handicap Equipment Corporation
51 Wentworth Avenue
Londonderry, NH 03053

Dear Mr. Lore:

In a letter dated October 9, 2001, you asked three questions regarding compliance with 49 CFR 595.7(e)(5). This section sets forth certain disclosure requirements related to vehicle modifications made for a person with a disability. Among the requirements set forth in this section is a statement of the load carrying capacity of the vehicle if it has been reduced by more than 100 kilograms (220 pounds). I regret the delay in responding.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers a statute requiring that motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States or imported into the United States be manufactured so as to reduce the likelihood of motor vehicle crashes and of deaths and injuries when crashes do occur. We refer to that statute as the Vehicle Safety Act. It is codified at 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq.

One of the agency's functions under the Vehicle Safety Act is to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs). These standards specify safety performance requirements for motor vehicles and/or items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of motor vehicles must certify compliance with all applicable safety standards and permanently apply a label to each vehicle stating that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSSs and providing the vehicle gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR).

NHTSA's regulations impose certain requirements on those who alter in certain ways a vehicle that has been previously certified by a manufacturer but not yet sold in good faith for purposes other than resale. Alterers are considered to be manufacturers and are responsible for ensuring that the vehicle meets all applicable federal safety standards when delivered to the first retail customer. Alterers must determine whether those modifications could affect the vehicle manufacturer's certification of compliance and, if so, must apply a label adjacent to the original manufacturer's certification label stating that the vehicle, as altered, conforms with all applicable standards.

Those who modify a completed vehicle after the first retail sale are considered to be "modifiers." The Vehicle Safety Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment that is in compliance with any applicable federal motor vehicle safety standard. NHTSA may assess a civil penalty to enforce this provision. NHTSA may also, through regulation, exempt a person or business from the prohibition if it decides that an exemption is consistent with motor vehicle safety and the Vehicle Safety Act.

On February 27, 2001, NHTSA published a final rule setting forth a limited exemption from the make inoperative prohibition for businesses or individuals who modify vehicles for persons with disabilities (66 Federal Register 12638; Docket No. NHTSA-01-8667). This exemption is codified in 49 CFR Part 595, subpart C. Only portions of some Federal motor vehicle safety standards are covered by the exemption.

An underlying premise of Part 595 is that the individual for whom the modifications were made is unlikely to realize that the vehicle, as modified, may no longer meet all applicable FMVSS and may have a different load carrying capacity than listed in the owner's manual or on a tire placard. These vehicle changes could have an effect on the overall performance of the vehicle. Accordingly, we determined that vehicle modifiers who decide to take advantage of the exemption set forth in 49 CFR Part 595 should provide the customer with certain safety information and place a permanent label on the vehicle. The language for the label is set out in 49 CFR 595.7(d), and a detailed breakdown of the required information is contained in 49 CFR 595.7(e). One of the required pieces of information is the vehicle's load carrying capacity when it has been reduced by 100 kilograms (220 pounds) or more.

This requirement was intended to address circumstances in which the cargo carrying capacity has been reduced as a result of the modification. The term GVWR is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 as "the value specified by the manufacturer as the loaded weight of a single vehicle." The GVWR informs vehicle owners how heavily the vehicle may be safely loaded. It also affects the vehicle's loading and other test conditions for the performance tests to ascertain whether the vehicle complies with applicable safety standards.

The only express regulatory limitation on the GVWR that manufacturers may assign to their vehicles is set forth in 49 CFR 567.4(g)(3), which provides that the assigned GVWR "shall not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity." "Unloaded vehicle weight" is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 as "the weight of a vehicle with maximum capacity of all fluids necessary for operation of the vehicle, but without cargo, occupants, or accessories that are ordinarily removed from the vehicle when they are not in use." Although the term "rated cargo load" is not defined by regulation, generally it is the GVWR of the vehicle minus the combined weight of the occupied designated seating positions (150 pounds times the total number of designated seating positions) and the unloaded vehicle weight.

Alterers must also determine whether their modifications affect the manufacturer's stated GVWR, gross axle weight rating (GAWR), and vehicle type. If such a change has been made, the alterer must specify the new GVWR, GAWR, or vehicle type in a manner consistent with the capability of the vehicle to comply with applicable standards and operate at higher weight rating and/or as a different type of vehicle. NHTSA expects both manufacturers and alterers to assign GVWR and GAWRs that reflect the manufacturer's or alterer's good-faith evaluation of how the vehicle's braking, load bearing items (including tires), suspension, steering, and drive train components will react to the vehicle's weight, size, cargo-carrying capacity and intended use.

Although the term "load carrying capacity" was not specifically defined in the February 2001 final rule, the term was intended to convey the same meaning as vehicle capacity weight, as defined in FMVSS No. 110, Tire selection and rims. "Vehicle capacity weight" is defined in that standard as the rated cargo and luggage load plus 68 kilograms (150 pounds) times the vehicle's designated seating capacity. Simply stated, a vehicle's load carrying capacity is its GVWR minus its unloaded weight.

The number of designated seating positions used to determine the load carrying capacity may not be the same as the number of designated seating positions that were in the vehicle when the vehicle manufacturer or alterer assigned the GVWR. In many instances, one or more seating positions may be removed in order to make the modifications needed to accommodate a particular disability. When calculating the load carrying capacity under 49 CFR 595, if an original designated seating position is replaced by a wheelchair retention device that will be used to secure an occupied wheelchair, that position replaces the original designated seating position, i.e., 150 pounds must be allocated for that seating position but the weight of the removed seat may be deducted. If the original designated seating position is not replaced by another seat or a wheelchair retention device, it need not be considered as a designated seating position when calculating the load carrying capacity, and the weight of the removed seats, or other equipment, need not be considered.

The installation of a wheelchair retention device to restrain an unoccupied wheelchair as cargo does not qualify as a designated seating position, and a modifier would not be required to allocate a 150 pound capacity for that position. The vehicle modifier may include the weight of the wheelchair as part of the load carrying capacity. However, the modifier is required to tell the owner of the vehicle whether the weight of the wheelchair has been included when determining the reduced load carrying capacity and when specifying what available load capacity remains. Moreover, since wheelchair weights can vary by hundreds of pounds between manually operated and self-propelled models, a modifier must state the weight it used for any wheelchair included in its calculation of available load capacity. As discussed in the February 2001 final rule, the vehicle modifications contemplated by 49 CFR 595, subpart C are limited to modifications made for a specific customer. Accordingly, the customer should be able to provide the modifier with the weight of any wheelchairs that they expect the vehicle to transport.

You have asked three questions about the effect of the reduced load carrying capacity disclosure requirement of Part 595 on vehicle modifiers or alterers. Specifically, you asked:

1. If the modifier/alterer A adds 200 pounds, and modifier/alterer B adds 20 or more pounds - both doing that prior to final delivery, who, if anyone is responsible for notification to the consumer?

2. Often times conversion companies specializing in non-handicap equipment (RV's, custom vans, 4 wheel drive units, etc.) add in excess of 220 lbs. Or an amount that when added with a modifier will exceed the 200 pounds threshold. What are the requirements in the case in where there may be 3 or more modifiers each adding weight less than 220 pounds, but from aggregate level the amount exceeds 220 pounds? Who is responsible in this case for notification to the consumer?

3. Many times handicap equipment modifiers remove certain equipment and then add other equipment. The ruling in this provision would require that modifiers weigh each vehicle, and notify the consumer if the total added/deleted equipment exceeded 220 pounds. Is this the intention?

As noted above, Part 595, subpart C applies only to modifications made to accommodate a person with disabilities after the first retail sale. If the modifications were made prior to the first retail sale, the entity making the modifications would be an "alterer" and required to ensure that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSS. We anticipate that, since the alterer's certification will specify the GVWR and GAWR as altered and since the label will be placed next to the original certification label, any subsequent modifier will be able to assess whether the modification to accommodate a person with disabilities has resulted in a total reduction in the load carrying capacity of more than 100 kg (220 lbs). The modifier will then be responsible for providing the required information to the consumer.

Similarly, any "conversion compan[y] specializing in non-handicap equipment" that alters a vehicle prior to its first retail sale is, again, an "alterer" responsible for placing an alterer's certification next to the original certification label. To the extent the vehicle has been modified after the first retail sale in a way that adds weight but does not affect compliance (such that no prior modification was required by Part 595), we anticipate that the owner of the vehicle or a modifier familiar with the base vehicle may be aware of the modification and that the modifier may be able to assess the amount of additional weight and gauge the extent to which the final modifications may have exceeded the original GVWR or GAWR. We expect that the modifier relying on Part 595 exemption will be able to assess whether the load carrying capacity of the vehicle, as wholly modified, has been reduced by more than 100 kg (220 lbs.) and will have sufficient experience and knowledge to determine in good faith whether the consumer must be provided with the Part 595 required information.

Part 595 was not intended to require the modifier to weigh each vehicle. It is intended, however, to ensure that if the consumer receives a vehicle that has a significantly reduced load carrying capacity, s/he will be aware of that fact so as not to overload the vehicle and experience tire, braking, suspension, stability, and/or steering problems. Any good faith method to determine the reduction in load carrying capacity may be used. Nonetheless, if the only means of determining whether the load carrying capacity has been significantly reduced (i.e., reduced by more than 220 lbs) is to weigh the vehicle, then we anticipate the modifier will do so.

Should you require any additional information or assistance, please contact Rebecca MacPherson, of my staff, (202) 366-2992 or at the address given above.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:595
d.4/25/02

ID: 07-000135as

ID: 07-007338drn Sept 16 clean

ID: 12371-2.pja

Mr. Thomas M. Joyce
Executive Vice President
Landoll Corporation
1900 North St.
Marysville, Kansas 66508

Dear Mr. Joyce:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation on whether the tilt bed trailers your company manufactures would be excluded from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) recent rear impact protection (underride guard) regulations. As shown in the product literature and videotape you enclosed with your letter, your trailers are equipped with hydraulic traveling rear axles. These axles move fore and aft under the frame rails of the vehicle in conjunction with hydraulic pistons at the front of the bed to tip the bed of the trailer down in the rear until it contacts the ground. Once tipped, containers, construction equipment, and wrecks can be driven or pulled by a hoist cable on and off the bed.

Based on your product literature and videos, it appears that your factory mounts this equipment on new truck and trailer chassis prior to first sale. You believe that these trailers are excluded due to their "special design." We assume you mean that you believe the vehicles are excluded as "special purpose vehicles," because mounting underride guards on the rear underside of the rails which would prevent them from being fully lowered. The short answer to your question is that your trailers are not excluded.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 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 FMVSS No. 223, Rear impact guards (49 CFR 571.223 and 571.224, published on January 24, 1996 at 61 FR 2004). The only excluded category of vehicle that is relevant for the purposes of this letter is special purpose vehicles.

A special purpose vehicle is defined in S4 of FMVSS No. 224 as being "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 . . . (emphasis added)." Your tilt bed trailer is not excluded, because it does not meet the definition of a special purpose vehicle. Although NHTSA considers the rails to be work performing equipment that, as the frame is tilted, passes through the area where the horizontal member of the underride guard would be located, they do not do so while the vehicle is in transit.

NHTSA addressed the issue of roll off hoist trailers in the final rule. The National Solid Wastes Management Association (NSWMA), a trade group that we believe represents many of your customers, requested special consideration for roll-off hoist vehicles. However, NSWMA's main objection was requiring guards on the containers themselves, which is not your concern. NSWMA stated in their comment that:

[t]he most common type of roll-off tilt frame used is the 'outside rail' design . . . In these cases the rear underride [guard] required by [23 CFR] 393.86 will contact the ground at a frame tilt angle of approximate [sic] 40 degrees. Since this causes instability if the ground is uneven, a number of manufacturers have resorted to a retractable underride [guard] design, where a strut attached to the rear chassis frame will cause the underride [guard] to move forward and out of the interference area as the frame is tilted.

NHTSA assumed by this comment that a design solution had been found to address the problem of the guard hitting the ground. Therefore, NHTSA believed it was only necessary to respond to NSWMA that guards were not required on the container, only the trailer that carries it.

We note that your current design already is nearly compliant with the configuration aspects of the rule. The drawing you sent us shows that the guard is mounted to the back of the traveling rear axle and extends rearward from the axle. One drawing shows the rear surface of the guard's horizontal member within two inches of the required zone. Perhaps extending the mounting struts rearward another two inches would produce a compliant guard. Alternatively, you could contact NSWMA to explore the possibility of using the retractable guard design that it discussed.

If you believe your trailers should be excluded from Standard No. 224, you may submit a petition for rulemaking (see 49 CFR Part 552, which I have enclosed for your convenience) requesting that NHTSA amend the standard. 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.12/10/96