NHTSA Interpretation File Search
Overview
NHTSA's Chief Counsel interprets the statutes that the agency administers and the standards and regulations that it issues. Members of the public may submit requests for interpretation, and the Chief Counsel will respond with a letter of interpretation. These interpretation letters look at the particular facts presented in the question and explain the agency’s opinion on how the law applies given those facts. These letters of interpretation are guidance documents. They do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. They are intended only to provide information to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.
Understanding NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
NHTSA makes its letters of interpretation available to the public on this webpage.
An interpretation letter represents the opinion of the Chief Counsel based on the facts of individual cases at the time the letter was written. While these letters may be helpful in determining how the agency might answer a question that another person has if that question is similar to a previously considered question, do not assume that a prior interpretation will necessarily apply to your situation.
- Your facts may be sufficiently different from those presented in prior interpretations, such that the agency's answer to you might be different from the answer in the prior interpretation letter;
- Your situation may be completely new to the agency and not addressed in an existing interpretation letter;
- The agency's safety standards or regulations may have changed since the prior interpretation letter was written so that the agency's prior interpretation no longer applies; or
- Some combination of the above, or other, factors.
Searching NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
Before beginning a search, it’s important to understand how this online search works. Below we provide some examples of searches you can run. In some cases, the search results may include words similar to what you searched because it utilizes a fuzzy search algorithm.
Single word search
Example: car
Result: Any document containing that word.
Multiple word search
Example: car seat requirements
Result: Any document containing any of these words.
Connector word search
Example: car AND seat AND requirements
Result: Any document containing all of these words.
Note: Search operators such as AND or OR must be in all capital letters.
Phrase in double quotes
Example: "headlamp function"
Result: Any document with that phrase.
Conjunctive search
Example: functionally AND minima
Result: Any document with both of those words.
Wildcard
Example: headl*
Result: Any document with a word beginning with those letters (e.g., headlamp, headlight, headlamps).
Example: no*compl*
Result: Any document beginning with the letters “no” followed by the letters “compl” (e.g., noncompliance, non-complying).
Not
Example: headlamp NOT crash
Result: Any document containing the word “headlamp” and not the word “crash.”
Complex searches
You can combine search operators to write more targeted searches.
Note: The database does not currently support phrase searches with wildcards (e.g., “make* inoperative”).
Example: Headl* AND (supplement* OR auxiliary OR impair*)
Result: Any document containing words that are variants of “headlamp” (headlamp, headlights, etc.) and also containing a variant of “supplement” (supplement, supplemental, etc.) or “impair” (impair, impairment, etc.) or the word “auxiliary.”
Search Tool
NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search
| Interpretations | Date |
|---|---|
ID: nht76-2.7OpenDATE: 05/05/76 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA TO: Blue Bird Body Company TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This responds to Blue Bird Body Company's March 29 and 31, 1976, and April 14, 1976, requests for confirmation of several interpretations you have made regarding the new safety standards for school buses and the definition of "school bus" as they become effective in October 1976. Your interpretation is correct that "bus passenger compartment" as used in S5.2.3.1 of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, means that portion of the bus that is rearward of the forwardmost point on the windshield. Your request confirmation that the requirement in S5.7(a) of Standard No. 220, School Bus Rollover Protection, to open emergency exits during the application of force to the bus roof are inappropriate and therefore not applicable in the case of roof exits. Your interpretation is correct, and the NHTSA intends to modify the language of Standard No. 220 appropriately. You request confirmation that the knee impact requirement of S5.3.2.1 of Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, does not apply to the rear row of seating in a school bus because there is no passenger seating behind this row. Your interpretation is correct. I would like to point out that the seat back of the rear row of seating also is not subject to the requirements of S5.3.1.1 for the same reason. You are also correct that "school bus passenger seat" as defined in S4 does not include a wheelchair that is placed in a school bus to transport non-ambulatory bus passengers. Our response on other issues concerning special arrangements for handicapped passengers will be forthcoming as a response to the outstanding Sheller-Globe petition for reconsideration of Standard No. 222. In your March 31, 1976, letter you asked whether a bus that is sold for purposes that include carrying kindergarten and nursery school children to and from school or related events would be considered a school bus under the redefinition of "school bus" that becomes effective October 27, 1976 (40 FR 60033, December 31, 1975). The answer to your question is yes, because the statutory definition underlying the NHTSA definition of school bus specifically lists preprimary students as passengers of school buses. See 15 U.S.C. @ 1391(14). In your April 14, 1976, letter you ask whether the requirement of S5.3.1.3 of Standard No. 222 for a minimum "contact area" on a described spherical head form refers to the area of actual contact on the surface of the spherical head form, or the area of contact on the head form as seen in projected view. The "contact area" refers to the area of actual contact on the surface of the head form. SINCERELY, BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY March 29, 1976 Thomas W. Herlihy Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration We have several questions requiring interpretations for recently issued safety standards which apply to school buses. FMVSS 217 S5.2.3.1 states in part "Each school bus shall provide at the manufacturer's option one emergency door on each side in the rear half of the bus passenger compartment . . .". We need a definition of the term "bus passenger compartment." Are we correct in assuming that this means the front of front windshield to the back of the bus body so that the engine hood on a Conventional type school bus is effectively eliminated? This in effect would define the bus passenger compartment as the "box" which the passengers occupy. We feel that this is the most workable definition of the term since any other definition would have to reference some other bus component which would not be easily identified in all bus configurations. FMVSS 220 S4b states in part "each emergency exit of the vehicle provided in accordance with Standard 217 (571.217) shall be capable of opening as specified in that standard during the full application of the force and after release of the force . . .". S5.7a states in part "In the case of testing under the full application of force, open the emergency exits as specified in S4b while maintaining the force applied in accordance with S5.4 and S5.5." These requirements seem unrealistic and indeed practically impossible with respect to roof emergency exits. As written the force application plate would have to have an access hole through which the roof emergency exit would open. Obviously, roof emergency exits will be in different protions of the bus for different bus sizes and, therefore, would necessitate a variety of complicated force application plates. More importantly would be the questionable meaning of such a test since the configuration of the access hole in the force application plate would significantly affect the deflection in the area of the roof emergency exit. This, of course, would affect the operation of the emergency exit as far as latch forces and opening forces are concerned. In addition, this requirement does not seem to be realistically required in accident situations. The only time a roof load would be imposed is when the bus is in the rolled over orientation. Obviously, in this condition passengers would not be able to use roof emergency exits and would choose one of the other emergency exits that are required on all bus configurations. We, therefore, request that roof emergency exits need not be tested during the application of the roof load but rather before and after the application of the roof load. Because of the timing involved, we must proceed on this assumption in order to meet tooling deadlines for the October 26 effective date. We request your written approval of this approach and rulemaking action which would clarify this requirement. FMVSS 222 We are somewhat unsure of the requirements of S5.3.2.1 with respect to knee impact requirements for the last row of seats in a bus. As we understand this requirement the rearmost seat in a bus does not have to meet the knee impact requirements on its seat back since there will be no occupants behind it. These are special seats because of the rear emergency door exit requirements of FMVSS 217 and, therefore, require special tooling. We are committing tooling on this assumption and request your concurrence. From previous conversations with NHTSA personnel it is our understanding that wheelchair seating positions in buses for transporting handicapped students need not meet the requirements of FMVSS 222. For buses which have occupant positions for both wheelchair confined passengers and ambulatory passengers we are assuming that the seating and barrier requirements of FMVSS 222 only apply to those ambulatory passengers who will occupy a standard type school bus passenger seat. In other words, we are assuming that the definition of "school bus passenger seat" in FMVSS 222 does not apply to a wheelchair in a school bus. We feel that there will be many questions regarding the applicability of FMVSS 222 to handicapped buses in the future. Some general guidelines form NHTSA concerning this matter should be considered. May we have your early written reply to each of these matters? W. G. Milby Staff Engineer BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY April 14, 1976 Tad Herlihy Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration SUBJECT: FMVSS 222 We need an interpretation on Paragraph S5.3.1.3, head form force distribution, of the subject standard. The last sentence of this paragraph reads: "Where any contactable surface within such zones is impacted by the head form from any direction at 5 feet per second, the contact area on the head form surface shall be not less than three square inches." Do the words "contact area" refer to the spherical contact area on the head form or the projected contact area? W. G. Milby Staff Engineer BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY March 31, 1976 Thomas W. Herlihy Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Part 571, Docket No. 75-24; Notice 02, Redefinition of "School Bus." The question has arisen as to whether a bus that carries kindergarten and nursery school children would be defined as a "school bus." Thanks for a ruling on this matter. W. G. Milby Staff Engineer |
|
ID: 06-007881asOpenJames C. Morton, Jr., Vice Chairman Nissan North America, Inc. Government Affairs Office 196 Van Buren Street, Suite 450 Herndon, VA 20170-5345 Dear Mr. Morton: This responds to your letter asking for an interpretation of one-piece instrument panels and console assemblies under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact. Specifically, you asked whether certain indicated seams would determine where the instrument panel ends and the center console begins. Seams do not necessarily denote where the instrument panel begins and the console assembly ends. However, as discussed below, we have interpreted where we believe the rearmost surface of the instrument panel is situated on your vehicle. Your letter describes a one-piece design, where the instrument panel and the console assembly are attached to the floor and form a one-piece, contiguous, T-shaped design, extending rearward between the driver and passenger seats. In the diagrams included with your letter, you indicated two seams (one in Example A and the other in Example B) which you believe constitute the upper edge of the center console and the lower edge of the dashboard. You state that because S5.1.1(a) of FMVSS No. 201 excludes console assemblies from the head impact protection requirements of the standard, you believe that areas below the seam are not subject to the head impact protection requirements. In the past, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has declined to pick the dividing line between the instrument panel and the console[1] in one-piece assemblies. In previous interpretations regarding this issue, we have instead used the language from S5.1.1(e) to analyze which portions of a one-piece assembly are subject to the head impact protection requirements of S5.1. We note that it is difficult to determine the dividing line between a dashboard and an adjoining console where there is no intervening gap, and so we continue to believe that using S5.1.1(e) to determine the areas where the head impact protection requirements apply is more appropriate. S5.1.1(e) exempts areas below any point at which a vertical line is tangent to the rearmost surface of the panel. NHTSA addressed this issue in a 2006 letter to Robert Babcock, in which we stated that for the vehicle in question the rearmost surface of the instrument panelis the rearmost surface of the dashboard at the right front passenger seating position.[2] Although it is difficult to tell from the oblique diagrams in your letter, a horizontal line drawn at the rearmost surface of the dashboard appears to fall between the seam in example A and the seam in example B. In this instance, a profile view would be helpful for a more precise interpretation. In the absence of an otherwise discernable rearmost surface of the instrument panel, NHTSA would not require areas below the line specified above to meet the head impact protection requirements of S5.1. If you have any additional questions, please contact Ari Scott of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel NCC-112:AScott:mar:5/29/07:62992:OCC-007881 S:\INTERP\201\06-007881as.doc Cc: NCC-112:AS:03/19/07:62992 NVS-100, NVS-200, Docket FMVSS 201 |
|
ID: 09-003935 217OpenMr. Jonathan Weisheit Project Engineering J.K. Technologies, L.L.C. 3500 Sweet Air Street Baltimore, MD 21211 Dear Mr. Weisheit: This responds to your question asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release. You ask about S5.2.3.2(b) of that standard, as it applies to an open top double decked bus that your client Ensign Bus, a bus importer, wishes to import into the United States. As explained below, it appears that the bus does not comply with certain provisions of FMVSS No. 217.
By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 to issue and enforce safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Description of the Double Decker Bus In your letter, you write that the double decker bus that Ensign Bus wishes to import has two stairways that access the open top upper deck of the bus. You describe one stairway as midway between the center of the bus and the front of the bus, to the left of center. You describe the other stairway as midway between the center of the bus and the rear of the vehicle to the right of center.[1] Because of the engines location, there is neither a rear emergency window exit nor a rear emergency door exit on the lower deck. You provided schematics, showing the seating positions on both the upper and lower decks of the bus, and the locations of the stairways in relation to the seating positions. The schematic of the bus states that the lower deck has 30 seating positions (apparently not counting the drivers seat) and that the upper deck has 46 seating positions. You also provided photographs of the interior of the lower deck. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you stated that the double decker bus is over 10,000 pounds (lb) gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). S5.2.3.2(b) Requirements Under S5.2.1 of the standard, manufacturers of buses other than school buses may meet FMVSS No. 217 requirements for the provision of emergency exits by meeting either S5.2.2, Buses other than school buses, or S5.2.3, School buses. You seek confirmation that the bus at issue would satisfy the requirements of S5.2.3.2(b) of FMVSS No. 217 (the school bus requirements) with the two stairway exits to the roof/upper deck. S5.2.3.2(b), Emergency roof exit, states, in relevant part: (1) Each emergency roof exit shall be hinged on its forward side, and shall be operable from both inside and outside the vehicle. (2) (3) In a bus equipped with two emergency roof exits, one shall be located as near as practicable to a point equidistant between the midpoint of the passenger compartment and the foremost limit of the passenger compartment and the other shall be located as near as practicable to a point equidistant between the midpoint of the passenger compartment and the rearmost point of the passenger compartment. (4) (5) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(6) of this section, each emergency roof exit shall be installed with its longitudinal centerline coinciding with a longitudinal vertical plane passing through the longitudinal centerline of the school bus. (6) In a bus equipped with two or more emergency roof exits, for each roof exit offset from the longitudinal vertical plane specified in paragraph (b)(5) of this section, there shall be another roof exit offset from that plane an equal distance to the other side. A question presented by your inquiry is whether S5.2.3.2(b) requires a cover or hatch of some sort for the roof exit. If these school bus roof emergency exit requirements require a cover, your exits (the staircases) would not meet the requirements, since they are not covered.
After consideration of the standard and its history, our conclusion is that S5.2.3.2(b) does not contemplate this particular kind of roof exit (uncovered stairways to the roof of a double decker bus). In stating that the roof exit shall be hinged on its forward side, and shall be operable from both inside and outside the vehicle, S5.2.3.2(b)(1) assumes the existence of a cover or hatch. We do not construe the language of S5.2.3.2(b)(1) as an indirect requirement that a roof exit consisting of a staircase to the upper level of a double decker bus be covered. Covering the staircase poses challenges for a double decker bus, given how passengers are intended to move between the lower and upper levels of the vehicle. (If the staircase had a cover, the cover must meet the requirements in the standard for emergency exit covers, including their release.) With regard to other provisions in S5.2.3.2(b), it appears from your enclosures that the roof exits would meet them. One roof exit appears to be located as near as practicable to a point equidistant between the midpoint of the passenger compartment and the foremost limit of the passenger compartment and the other appears to be located as near as practicable to a point equidistant between the midpoint of the passenger compartment and the rearmost point of the passenger compartment, as specified in S5.2.3.2(b)(3). From your enclosures, it also appears that for each of the roof exits offset from the longitudinal vertical plane specified in paragraph S5.2.3.2(b)(5), the other roof exit is offset from that plane an equal distance to the other side. Thus, S5.2.3.2(b)(6) appears satisfied. However, there are other requirements in S5.2.3 with which it appears the bus does not comply. These are discussed below. Other Requirements in S5.2.3
S5.2.3, the section of the standard you have elected to meet, states: S5.2.3 School buses. Except as provided in S5.2.3.4, each school bus shall comply with S5.2.3.1 through S5.2.3.3. S5.2.3.1. Each school bus shall be equipped with the exits specified in either S5.2.3.1(a) or S5.2.3.1(b), chosen at the option of the manufacturer. (a) One rear emergency door that opens outward and is hinged on the right side (either side in the case of a bus with a GVWR or 10,000 pounds or less), and the additional exits, if any, specified in Table 1 [of Standard No. 217]. (b) One emergency door on the vehicles left side that is hinged on its forward side and meets the requirements of S5.2.3.2(a), and a push-out rear window that provides a minimum opening clearance 41 centimeters high and 122 centimeters wide and meets the requirements of S5.2.3.2(c), and the additional exits, if any, specified by Table 2 [of Standard No. 217]. * * * * * In order to comply with S5.2, Provision of emergency exits, the bus must meet either all of the requirements in S5.2.2 or all of the requirements in S5.2.3. Based on the schematics of the bus you have provided, it appears that the bus does not have a rear emergency door or an emergency door on the vehicles left side. Thus, the bus does not appear to comply with S5.2.3.1 and, as a result, would not satisfy S5.2.3. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel Dated: 4/27/10 [1] Based on the photographs and schematics provided, the staircase at the front of the bus appears to be flush with the left side of the bus and the staircase at the rear of the bus appears to be flush with the right side of the bus. |
2010 |
ID: nht76-5.11OpenDATE: 06/29/76 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John Womack for F. Berndt; NHTSA TO: W. G. Milby COPYEE: TRUCK BODY AND EQUIP. ASSOC. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This responds to Blue Bird Body Company's May 29, 1976, question whether safety chains are prohibited across the opening of a side or rear emergency door that is provided in satisfaction of S5.2.3.1 of Standard No. 217. Bus Window Retention and Release. You note that the State of Washington plans to require a "seat guard" at side emergency doors to prevent students from accidentally falling through these openings. The requirements of Standard No. 217 for school buses manufactured on or after October 26, 1976, specify that each school bus shall be equipped with either a rear emergency door or a side emergency door and a rear window (S5.2.3.1). Unobstructed passage through these exists from the interior of the bus is required by S5.4. A parallele-piped of specified dimensions must be capable of unobstructed passage through rear doors, and the rearmost point of a seat back must coincide with the forward edge of a side emergency door, so that unobstructed passage from the vehicle interior is preserved. The agency's intent in specifying these emergency exit provisions is to assure unimpeded egress from school buses in the event of accident. Small children are often transported in school buses, and provisions for emergency exists should be as simple as possible to assist their exit. For these reasons, sections S5.2.3.1 and S5.4 prohibit the installation of safety chains across any emergency exit provided in satisfaction of S5.2.3.1. Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides: @ 103 (d) Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard under this subchapter is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the Federal Government or the government of any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard of performance than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable Federal standard. It is the opinion of this agency that the State of Washington's requirement would be preempted as of the effective date of the new school bus requirements of Standard No. 217, with regard to emergency doors that are installed in compliance with S5.2.3.1. The agency does not believe that the requirement for safety chains constitutes a higher level of protection, and has concluded that it would cause the vehicle to be in non-compliance with the requirements of S5.2.3.1 and S5 4. SINCERELY, BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY May 20, 1976 Thomas Herlihy National Highway Traffic Safety Administration SUBJECT: FMVSS 217 BUS WINDOW RETENTION AND RELEASE It has been our practice to furnish safety chains with snaps on both ends across side emergency doors as standard equipment per the enclosed photograph. Chains are optional equipment for rear emergency doors. The State of Washington plans to require the following on school buses: "Seats adjacent to side emergency doors, if so positioned, shall have a seat guard of adequate size to prevent student falling from bus should emergency door be accidentally opened." Will the subject safety chains or seat guards for either side or rear emergency doors be legal for school buses after October 26, 1976? W. G. Milby Staff Engineer (Graphics omitted) |
|
ID: 23606Open Roger C. Fairchild, Esq. Dear Mr. Fairchild: This is in response to your letter of September 7, 2001, in which you sought an interpretation of Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact (49 CFR 571.201). Specifically, you ask a number of questions regarding the applicability of S5.3 of Standard No. 201 to the covers of certain compartments and storage areas within the interior of a prototype vehicle. Your letter notes your belief that the determination of whether an interior compartment door is subject to the requirements of S5.3 requires a two-step inquiry. The first step is the determination of whether the particular door falls within the definition of an "interior compartment door" as set forth in 49 CFR 571.3(b). The second step involves an inquiry as to the location of the cover and whether it is located in a console, instrument panel, seat back or side panel. Based on your understanding of this two-step process, you ask a number of questions about the definition of "interior compartment door" and which areas of the vehicle interior are encompassed by the terms "console" and "instrument panel" for the purpose of S5.3. At the outset, I would like to note Part 576 of volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (49 CFR 567) makes a vehicle's manufacturer responsible for certifying that the vehicle complies with all applicable provisions of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. For this reason, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has no authority to approve, endorse, or offer assurances of compliance for any vehicle designs or features. NHTSA will, however, tentatively state our opinion of how the safety standards would apply to a vehicle design or feature. It is important that the manufacturer be aware that these tentative statements of agency opinion are based on the information presented to the agency by the manufacturer. You ask several questions regarding the definition of "interior compartment door." Your first question asks if covers for compartments that are intended to hold vehicle equipment or disposable non-personal items such as ashes are not considered to be "interior compartment doors" and therefore not subject to S5.3, even if they are located on the instrument panel, console, seatback or side panel. You also ask if the question of whether a door is "installed by the manufacturer as storage space normally used for personal effects" is determined by the manufacturer's intent or some other indicia of use. Standard No. 201 establishes performance requirements to reduce the risk of injury when occupants strike the interior of a vehicle during a crash. One of these requirements, found in S5.3 of Standard No. 201, specifies that doors to certain interior compartments must remain latched when subjected to certain forces that might be experienced in a crash. As S5.3 of Standard No. 201 applies only to "interior compartment doors" located in the instrument panel, console, seat back or side panels, the determination of whether a compartment cover is subject to the requirements of S5.3 of Standard 201 is determined by both the location of the cover and whether the cover fits within the definition of "interior compartment door." NHTSA has repeatedly indicated that the term "interior compartment door" does not refer to every door that covers a compartment that could potentially be used as a storage space for personal effects. Section 571.3(b) defines "interior compartment door" as "any door in the interior of the vehicle installed by the manufacturer as a cover for storage space normally used for personal effects" (emphasis added). Therefore, ash trays and spare tire compartment doors, which are not normally used for storing personal effects, are not considered to be "interior compartment doors." 33 FR 15794 (October 25, 1968). Similarly, the agency has also indicated that a fuse box door (July 3, 1984 letter to Mr. Bruce Henderson), the outside surface of a fold-down table (January 31, 1986 letter to Mr. Russ Bomhoff), and a cupholder (February 27, 1990 letter to Mr. George F. Ball), are not "interior compartment doors." A cover that is fitted over a compartment that would not normally be used to store personal effects is not an "interior compartment door." However, regardless of the manufacturer's intent in designing the compartment, the determination of whether a cover is an "interior compartment door" is controlled by whether the compartment would "normally" be used to store personal effects. If such an inquiry leads to the conclusion that the compartment would not normally be used for storage of such personal items, any cover would not be an "interior compartment door" for the purposes of Standard No. 201 regardless of its location. Your letter also asks several questions regarding the meaning of the term "instrument panel." You ask what area of the dashboard structure is considered to be the "instrument panel" for the purposes of S5.3, and whether an "instrument panel" includes the upward facing top section, downward facing lower section and lateral portions of the dashboard. As you correctly point out in your letter, the term "instrument panel" is not expressly defined in Standard No. 201. Your letter further indicates that NHTSA has, in an interpretation letter to the Blue Bird Company (January 31, 1982 letter to Thomas Turner), indicated that the instrument panel is the "panel below the windshield which is used to mount the speedometer, other gauges, etc." In that interpretation, NHTSA indicated that, for the purposes of S5.3 of Standard No. 201, the term "instrument panel" encompasses a greater area than that used to mount the speedometer and other gauges. For example, S5.1 of Standard No. 201 sets the head impact protection requirements for instrument panels. With the exception of certain zones set forth in S5.1.1, these performance requirements are applicable to the entire instrument panel. S5.1.1 sets out five exceptions to the instrument panel performance requirements because these areas are not likely to be struck by an occupant's head in a crash. For example, S5.1.1(c) provides that "areas closer to the windshield juncture than those statically contactable by the head form with the windshield in place" need not meet the impact requirements. Similarly, S5.1.1(e) provides that "areas below any point at which a vertical line is tangent to the rearmost surface of the panel" are also excluded. As the agency indicated in the January 31, 1982 letter to the Blue Bird Company, it is important to note that when NHTSA first promulgated the interior door requirements of S5.3, a number of commenters suggested that S5.3 apply only to those interior compartment doors that were within the areas of the instrument panel subject to impact testing under S5.1. (30 FR 15794). NHTSA declined to incorporate this limitation into S5.3 on the basis that open interior compartment doors outside this area could still cause injury. This supports the agency's conclusion that any door located within the instrument panel is subject to S5.3, including those on the top surface of the panel immediately below the windshield and those on the lower portion of the instrument panel as well. Your letter also contains a number of questions regarding "consoles." You ask how NHTSA defines what a "console" is, if a console includes any structure below the dashboard and between the seats and whether the padded cover on a center armrest is subject to S5.3. You also ask for guidance on how the agency differentiates between consoles and armrests for the purposes of S5.3. The term "console" is not defined in Standard No. 201. In prior interpretations, the agency has described a "console" as a "low-lying structure mounted on the floor of and [lying] primarily between the vehicle seats" (October 27, 1986 letter to Mr. Tsuyoshi Shimizu). As this structure is mounted to the vehicle floor, it is both fixed and not attached to the seat or seat structure. In contrast to a "console" attached to the vehicle floor, an armrest is either attached to a seat or to a door panel. S5.5.2 of Standard No. 201 establishes performance requirements for folding armrests that either fold into a seatback or between two seatbacks. These folding armrests typically occupy space between two outboard seating positions, and any door incorporated into such an armrest is not subject to the requirements for compartment doors in S5.3 of the Standard. A low-lying fixed structure mounted to the floor of a vehicle between two front bucket seats would be a "console" for the purposes of Standard No. 201. If a console incorporates a door with a top that closes over a storage space and this space would normally be used for the storage of personal effects, the cover would be an "interior compartment door." As such, this cover must meet the requirements of S5.3. I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Otto Matheke of my staff at (202) 366-5253 if you have any additional questions or need some additional information on this subject. Sincerely, John Womack ref:201 |
2001 |
ID: 16008-1.pjaOpenMr. Jay Reese Dear Mr. Reese: This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of whether four different trailers your company manufactures would be excluded from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) recent rear impact protection (underride guard) regulations. In some cases they are excluded, and in others they are not and a guard would be required. Each trailer design is addressed separately below, with reference to the drawings you enclosed. 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, low chassis vehicles and special purpose vehicles. Design 1: Drawing #BTS-5104 Flatbed You believe that this vehicle meets the description of an excluded wheels-back vehicle. Wheels-back vehicles are excluded by S3 of Standard No. 224, Rear impact protection. The term is defined in S4 as a "trailer or semitrailer whose rearmost axle is permanently fixed and is located such that the rearmost surface of [the tire] on that axle is not more than 305 mm forward of the transverse vertical plane tangent to the rear extremity of the vehicle." The drawing you enclosed of the trailer your company manufactures shows that the rear surface of the tires on that axle is within 305 mm of the rear extremity. Assuming the axle is "permanently fixed," this is a wheels back vehicle, and no guard is required. Design 2: Drawing BTS-4748 Hydraulically operated dovetail with flipunder approach plate You believe this flatbed trailer meets the definition of a special purpose vehicle. The vehicle has an 8 foot long tail section that tilts down at a 15 degree angle to permit loading of wheeled vehicles. At the rear of the section is depicted a triangular full width approach plate that, during loading, extends farther rearward and downward, bridging the gap between the tail section and the ground. Its purpose is to allow construction equipment to transition from the ground up onto the bed without encountering the "bump" of the edge of the tailpiece. During transit, this approach plate folds under the tail section and fits into an indentation in the bottom of the chassis. The forwardmost edge of the plate locks into position on the bottom of the chassis. In this position, the lower surface of the approach plate is 22 inches above the ground, and the rear face of the vehicle presents a vertical surface from 22 to 37 inches above the ground. 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) Again, the approach plate 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, the approach plate 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. Approach plates do not perform work in this sense because they merely form a ramp between the ground and the vehicle driving onto the tilt bed.(2) Therefore, the approach plate is not work-performing equipment and the vehicle does not meet the definition of a special purpose vehicle. We now turn to the question of whether your trailer is excluded as 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 vehicle that may meet these configuration requirements is the rear edge of the folded approach plate itself, so the question becomes whether the approach plate is considered to be part of the "chassis" of the vehicle. Chassis is defined in S4 as "the load supporting frame structure of a motor vehicle." There are two elements to this definition that must be satisfied: "load supporting" and "frame structure." To be considered "load supporting," the frame structure has to support load when the trailer is performing its function. Generally, this means that the structure would have to contribute to supporting the cargo load when the trailer is in transit. To be considered part of the frame structure, a structural member must be either an integral part of the overall frame structure, or be connected with other frame structural members in a way that is necessary to the structural integrity of the trailer. One factor the agency considers in deciding whether a structural member is part of the frame is its size and strength. Frame structural components often are the major structures defining the shape of the trailer. Although frame structure is not limited to the largest frame components (i.e., the frame rails for most trailers), generally frame components are substantial and have strength similar to other frame components. Moveable components may "lock" into the frame structure sufficiently that they are integral with other frame members-in this situation NHTSA may consider the combined components to be one frame unit. However, the agency also looks at the purpose and function of the structural member in supporting the trailer and its load. Applying these principles to your approach plate, we conclude that it is part of the chassis. The folded approach plate conforms with the outline of the underside of the trailer bed, maintaining a constant bed thickness and helping to define the outline of the bed. Your approach plate is hinged along the entire rear of the trailer and, when folded, locks at its forward edge into a place fitted for it on the underside of the chassis. NHTSA considers the approach plate on your trailer to be "locked" into the frame of the vehicle sufficiently that it is considered integral with it, as one unit, and therefore a part of the frame structure. By contributing to the structural integrity of these frame members, NHTSA considers the approach plate to be supporting load. Therefore, the approach plate is part of the chassis, and the trailer is a low chassis vehicle, excluded from the underride guard requirements. Design 3: Drawing #BTS 5110 Fixed dovetail with flipover approach plate This trailer is similar to design 2, except that the downward-tilted dovetail section is not hydraulically operated, but attaches rigidly to the flatbed. The approach plates on this design are not full-width, and they swing up instead of down and lie on top of the dovetail when the vehicle is in motion. The rear face of the dovetail itself appears to meet the configuration requirements of S5.1.1 through 5.1.3. NHTSA considers the dovetail section to be an integral extension of the main chassis frame members, and therefore the vehicle is excluded as a low chassis vehicle, according to the analysis in Design 2. Design 4: Drawing BTS-2844 Pusher bumper This vehicle, which you state is for off-road use, is a flatbed trailer with a lower chassis surface that is 31 inches above the ground. There is a "pusher bumper" cantilevered rearward from the rear underside of the trailer. It extends slightly behind the rear of the chassis and its lower surface is 17 inches from the ground. The pusher bumper is used to push the vehicle out of the soft ground in the oilfields. Your drawing notes that "pusher bumper guard assy supplied by customer." You stated that this trailer falls under the special purpose vehicle exclusion, meaning that you regard the pusher bumper as work-performing equipment. Your questions raises two main issues: (1) whether the bumper is "work-performing" equipment, and (2) whether the "off-road" nature of your trailer excludes it from our definition of a "motor vehicle." Both of these issues are addressed below. The pusher bumper is not work-performing equipment. As explained in the above discussion of Design 2, "work-performing"equipment must actively perform its function, and that the function must involve exerting force or moving something else. Pusher bumpers do not themselves actively exert force, but are instead passively pushed against by other equipment. Therefore, the pusher bumper is not work-performing equipment and the vehicle does not meet the definition of a special purpose vehicle. In fact, it appears that you currently consider the pusher bumper to be an underride guard. Your diagram refers to it as a "guard assy" and it appears to meet the configuration requirements for an underride guard. Many underride guards may perform passive pushing or holding functions on occasion. For example, many trailers use their guards to secure the trailer at a loading dock using a dock locking device that holds the underride guard. When performing this function, these guards are subjected to forces in the forward-aft direction, although the forces may be less than a pusher bumper experiences. To say that all these guards are work-performing equipment would mean that many, if not most, standard van-type trailers would be excluded; clearly not what the agency intended by its special purpose vehicle exclusion. Your diagram stated that the pusher bumper is "supplied by" the customer. Regardless of who supplies it, you, as the manufacturer of the vehicle, are responsible for installing a device that will enable you to certify that your trailer complies with Standards No. 223 and 224.(3) You state that "the trailer is for off-road use in the oil field business." This raises the possibility that it is not a motor vehicle subject to our laws. NHTSA's statute defines the term "motor vehicle" as:
Whether NHTSA considers a piece of oilfield equipment to be a motor vehicle depends on its use. In the past, we have concluded that this statutory definition does not encompass mobile construction equipment, such as cranes and scrapers, which use the highway only to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site. In such cases, the on-road use of the equipment is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which they were manufactured. Other construction vehicles, such as dump trucks, frequently use the highway going to and from job sites, and stay at a job site for only a limited time. Such vehicles are considered motor vehicles, since the on-highway use is more than "incidental." If the trailers are specially designed for use in the oilfields and their use of the roads is infrequent and incidental to their primary mission in the oilfield, then they are not "motor vehicles" within the meaning of the statutory definition and our regulations would not apply to them. However, we are unable to make that determination based on the very few statements in your letter. If your Design 4 trailer is not excluded, 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, 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). 2. To the extent that this interpretation is inconsistent with interpretation letters to Mr. Thomas M. Joyce and Mr. R. H. Anderson of Landoll Corporation, interpreting the frame rails of tilt bed trailers as work-performing equipment, those prior interpretations are superceded. The basic answer in those letters did not depend on this point, and the analysis in this letter is more thorough. 3. NHTSA's regulations do not control modifications that vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. However, the Federal Highway Administration's regulations may require compliant guards to be maintained after the vehicle is sold. |
1998 |
ID: nht80-4.27OpenDATE: 12/09/80 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA TO: Wisconsin State Patrol TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This responds to your October 28, 1980, letter asking whether Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, requires that there be an aisle to provide access to a side exit. The answer to your question is no. Standard No. 217 states that side emergency exits on school buses must have an opening of 45 by 24 inches. The standard further states that a vertical transverse plane tangent to the rear most point of a seat back shall pass through the forward edge of the emergency exit. These requirements mean only that the size of the opening must be 45 by 24 inches, and that the opening must be located in a specific place with reference to the seat back. The Federal government does not require an aisle or other access to a side emergency exit. Although some seats may partially block a side emergency exit, it can still be used for emergency exit purposes and is supplementary to a rear emergency exit. The agency adopted this approach to side emergency exits as a balance between the desire for additional exits in school buses and the need to maintain the fullest possible seating in school buses as well as the proper seat spacing. A State is permitted to require an aisle leading to the side exit if the State determines that this is an area that it would like to regulate. Such a regulation would not be preempted, because the Federal government does not regulate the placement of aisles in buses. However, the required seat spacing would need to be retained. This means that the seat behind the aisle leading to a side emergency exit would need to have a restraining barrier placed in front of it. The net effect of the aisle and the restraining barrier could be a substantial loss of seating capacity. SINCERELY, State of Wisconsin / DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF ENFORCEMENT AND INSPECTION October 28, 1980 Roy Shannon U.S. Department of Transportation N. H. T. S. A. Dear Mr. Shannon: I am writing to you reference our conversation about the 1980 Thomas School Bus Body with the Side Emergency Door. I have enclosed pictures and a sketch with measurements. In further inspection of this Emergency Door, I find it quite difficult to exit, especially if you are sitting in the seat located in the door opening. (The State of Wisconsin Rule MVD 17 requires a 12 inch aisle to the Emergency Door zone.) I am interested in the application of your Standard No. 217, Section S5.4.2.1 (b) which reads: In the case of a side emergency door, an opening at least 45 inches high and 24 inches wide. A vertical transverse plane tangent to the rearmost point of a seatback shall pass through the forward edge of a side emergency door. Does this mean that there must be an opening with access or does it mean that there must only be an opening in the side of the bus that size? The seat blocks this emergency door opening so that there is not an opening 45 inches by 24 inches. Thank you for your interest and attention and if I can be of further assistance, please contact me. Ronald H. Wonders Inspector III (Graphics omitted) (Graphics omitted) |
|
ID: 16262-1.pjaOpenMr. Dale Dierks Dear Mr. Dierks: This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of whether several different trailers your company manufactures would be excluded from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) rear impact protection (underride guard) regulations. In a May 14, 1998, telephone conversation with Paul Atelsek, one of our attorneys, you explained that you had changed the designs of your trailer line so that you are confident that all but one of the trailers now comply with the rule. You asked Mr. Atelsek to address only the Model DHT Series Hydraulic Tail trailers. As explained below, this trailer is an excluded low chassis vehicle, to which our underride guard regulations do not apply. These trailers are essentially a flatbed design, with an eight foot long, full width tail section extending rearward behind the rear tires. The rear edge of the tail section can be raised or lowered using hydraulic cylinders located beneath the front part of the tail. The tail section tilts down to permit loading of wheeled vehicles. At the rear of the tail section is a four foot long, full width approach plate. During loading, the approach plate extends farther rearward (12 feet total length from the front edge of the tail section) and downward, bridging the gap between the tail section and the ground. Its purpose is to allow construction equipment to transition across its triangular cross section from the ground up onto the bed without encountering the "bump" of the edge of the tailpiece. During transit, this approach plate folds under the tail section and stows against the bottom of the tail section. You added further detail in a March 27, 1998, telephone conversation with Mr. Atelsek. Although the tail section can be tilted up and down, it is designed so that it can not be transported in any position other than the horizontal position, and that the tail section and the approach plate both lock into that position. In this position, you state that the combined rear surface of the tail section and the approach plate meets the configuration requirements our regulations. However, without counting the tucked-under approach plate, the lower rear of the tail section does not meet the configuration requirements because it is too far above the ground. The approach plate is attached by a large full-width piano-type hinge, fits into an indentation on the bottom of the tail section, and locks in place there during transit. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 224, Rear impact protection, requires most trailers and semitrailers weighing over 10,000 pounds to be fitted at the rear with a rear impact (underride) guard meeting the requirements of Standard No. 223, Rear impact guards (49 CFR 571.223 and 571.224, published on January 24, 1996, at 61 FR 2004). However, certain kinds of vehicles are excluded. The only excluded category that is relevant for the purposes of this letter is low chassis vehicles. Low chassis vehicles are defined in S4 of Standard No. 224 as "a trailer or semitrailer having a chassis that extends behind the rearmost point of the rearmost tires and a lower rear surface that meets the configuration requirements of S5.1.1 through 5.1.3 of this section." In other words, the chassis itself must satisfy the configuration requirements applicable to a guard when the vehicle is outfitted for transit. The only part of your vehicle that may meet these configuration requirements is the rear edge of the folded approach plate itself, so the question becomes whether the approach plate is considered to be part of the "chassis" of the vehicle. Chassis is defined in S4 as "the load supporting frame structure of a motor vehicle." There are two elements to this definition that must be satisfied: "load supporting" and "frame structure." To be considered "load supporting," the frame structure has to support load when the trailer is performing its function. Generally, this means that the structure would have to contribute to supporting the cargo load when the trailer is in transit. To be considered part of the frame structure, a structural member must be either an integral part of the overall frame structure, or be connected with other frame structural members in a way that is necessary to the structural integrity of the trailer. One factor the agency considers in deciding whether a structural member is part of the frame is its size and strength. Frame structural components often are the major structures defining the shape of the trailer. Although frame structure is not limited to the largest frame components (i.e., the frame rails for most trailers), generally frame components are substantial and have strength similar to other frame components. Moveable components may "lock" into the frame structure sufficiently that they are integral with other frame members-in this situation NHTSA may consider the combined components to be one frame unit. However, the agency also looks at the purpose and function of the structural member in supporting the trailer and its load. Applying these principles to your approach plate, we conclude that it is part of the chassis. The folded approach plate conforms with the outline of the underside of the trailer bed, maintaining a constant bed thickness and helping to define the outline of the bed. Your approach plate is hinged along the entire rear of the trailer and, when folded, locks at its forward edge into a place fitted for it on the underside of the chassis. NHTSA considers the approach plate on your trailer to be "locked" into the frame of the vehicle sufficiently that it is considered integral with it, as one unit, and therefore a part of the frame structure. By contributing to the structural integrity of these frame members, NHTSA considers the approach plate to be supporting load. Therefore, the approach plate is part of the chassis, and the trailer is a low chassis vehicle, excluded from the underride guard requirements. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, |
1998 |
ID: 22466Open Mr. Johnny Cathey Dear Mr. Cathey: This is in response to your letter of December 15, 2000, in which you ask whether we consider the trailer described in your letter to be a "special purpose vehicle" or a "low chassis vehicle" as defined in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 224, "Rear Impact Protection," and thus excluded from the requirements of Standard No. 224. Your trailer does not meet the definition of special purpose vehicle, but does meet the definition of low chassis vehicle. Thus, the trailer described in your letter is excluded from the requirements of Standard No. 224 as a low chassis vehicle. Special Purpose Vehicles A special purpose vehicle is defined in S4 of Standard 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." You believe that your trailer meets this definition because "an extension must be welded to the trailer frame to accommodate the reel storage area." The reels located in the reel storage area "will be manually spooled and un-spooled from the rear of the trailer while parked on location." For your trailer to be excluded, the reels would have to be considered work-performing equipment and would have to reside in or move through the area that could be occupied by the horizontal member of the rear underride guard while the vehicle is in transit. 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, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (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. This is a long-standing position of the agency. The reels that will be welded to your trailer do not meet NHTSA's interpretation of "work-performing." The reels merely serve a storage function. In your letter, you state that the reels "will be manually spooled and un-spooled while the trailer is parked on location." Thus, they do not exert force or move anything by themselves. We conclude, consequently, that the reels do not perform any work, and that your trailer is not excluded as a special purpose vehicle. Low Chassis Vehicles A low chassis vehicle is 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. S5.1.1 through 5.1.3 require the guard to extend to within four inches of the side extremities of the vehicle, be no higher than 22 inches across the full width of the guard, and be located within 12 inches of the rear extremity of the vehicle. The only part of your trailer that meets these configuration requirements is the extension that will be welded to the trailer frame to accommodate the reel storage area. According to your letter, the extension extends the full width of the rear of your trailer, is 22 inches above the ground, and is located at the rear extremity of your trailer. Therefore, the question becomes whether the extension is considered to be part of the chassis of your trailer. 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 a 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. The agency also considers the purpose and function of the structural member in supporting the trailer and its load. Applying these principles to the extension that will be welded to your trailer, we conclude that it is part of the chassis. The extension contributes to supporting the cargo load (the reel storage area) when the trailer is in transit, so it is considered load-supporting. The extension is similar in size, and presumably in strength, to the other frame members. The extension conforms with and helps to define the outline of the trailer. Moreover, the extension is welded to the trailer frame. Thus, it is considered part of the frame structure. For these reasons, we conclude that the extension is part of the chassis and that your trailer is a low chassis vehicle excluded from the requirements of Standard No. 224. To ensure that this interpretation is properly construed, we wish to point out that any manufacturer of a trailer with a design that is close to the dimensional limits specified for exemption from the requirements of this standard should consider all the variables that could cause variance from the trailer's nominal design values. The Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC) regularly conducts field inspections for possible noncompliances with Standard No. 224. Through these inspections, OVSC has discovered that some manufacturers may have failed to account for design aspects - such as adjustable suspension settings (for alignment purposes), optional tire sizes and equipment, and design tolerances - in assuming that their trailers are covered by an exemption from Standard No. 224. Manufacturers must ensure that the trailer satisfies the required dimensional limits throughout the range of tolerances and equipment options inherent in the trailer design. I hope you find this information useful. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please contact Mr. Dion Casey in my office at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack ref:224 |
2001 |
ID: 16360-2.pjaOpenHarry W. Hanson, Esq. Dear Mr. Hanson: This responds to your letter on behalf of Cornelius Manufacturing, Inc., a company that produces a flatbed trailer that can be converted to a dovetail configuration. We apologize for the delay in responding. You wrote asking whether this particular trailer design was excluded from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) rear impact protection (underride guard) regulations. As explained below, these vehicles are not excluded. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 224, Rear impact protection, requires most trailers and semitrailers weighing over 10,000 pounds to be fitted at the rear with an underride guard. These regulations were issued to prevent the many fatalities that have resulted from crashes in which a passenger vehicle striking the rear end of a trailer or semitrailer penetrates so far underneath that the rear end of the heavy vehicle enters the passenger compartment. Certain trailers are excluded from these requirements. You appear to be asking whether your vehicle is an excluded "low chassis vehicle." This is defined in section S4 of Standard No. 224 as a vehicle "having a chassis that extends behind the rearmost point of the rearmost tires and a lower rear surface that meets the configuration requirements of S5.1.1 through S5.1.3 of this section." S5.1.2 contains a requirement that the bottom edge must be no more than 560 mm (about 22 inches) from the ground. The flatbed vehicle that Cornelius Manufacturing produces has a variable ground clearance. You note in the product literature that the lower rear surface of the vehicle is 16.5 inches when the dovetail is in the down position, and 28.75 inches when the vehicle is configured as a flatbed. The product literature refers to this vehicle as a "flatbed with the adjustable dovetail (optional)." We understand from this, from the illustrations showing it being used in the flatbed configuration, and from your statement that it is "quite possible that . . . it might never be in compliance," that it can be operated on the road in its flatbed configuration. In the flatbed configuration, the 28.75 inch bed height is over six inches too high to be considered low chassis, and would not provide adequate rear impact protection. In this configuration, these vehicles do not meet the definition of a low chassis vehicle, nor do they meet the definition of any other excluded category. A vehicle would have to meet the definition of the excluded category in every position in which it can be operated on the road in order to be excluded. Since in the flatbed mode the vehicle would not meet the definition of any excluded vehicle type, and is capable of transport in that mode, it would not qualify for any exclusion. The vehicle would have to be equipped with an underride guard meeting the requirements of 49 CFR 571.223 in order to be certified. Section S6.2(a) of Standard No. 223 allows the manufacturer to designate whether the agency should test for compliance on a rigid test fixture or on a trailer. On a rigid test fixture, the question of bed height is not an issue. However, if testing on the trailer there is a question of in which configurations, in the range of flatbed to dovetail, NHTSA will test the guard. Standard No. 223 does not specify in which configuration (flatbed, dovetail, or in between) the agency should test for compliance if there is a choice. When a standard does not specify a particular test condition, we begin with a presumption that the requirements must be met in every test condition in which the vehicle can be operated. See, for example, NHTSA's October 2, 1990 letter to Mr. S. Kadoya of Mazda. It is not practical to specify every possible test condition in Standard No. 223 because of the wide variety of trailer configurations. Changeable configurations like Cornelius Manufacturing's trailers are a good illustration of the difficulty. Starting from this presumption, we look to the language of the standard and its purposes for guidance to decide whether some limitation on the test condition should be implied. The language excluding low chassis trailers from the standard's requirements is one indication that the trailer should not be subject to the requirements in the dovetail configuration. No language would imply a limitation as to configurations that would not qualify for an exclusion. As to the purposes, with the trailer configured in the flatbed mode with its rear end at a height above 560 mm, a colliding vehicle would likely underride the trailer. This safety concern is one that the agency considered extensively in the January 24, 1996 final rule (see 61 FR 2016-18), and it is this kind of situation the regulation was intended to prevent. However, in the dovetail configuration and at rear bed heights of 22 inches or less the vehicle would be excluded if it were fixed in that position, and the bed of the vehicle would probably prevent a colliding vehicle from underriding it. In this case, we find an implied limitation on the test condition based on the standard's language and purposes. Therefore, NHTSA could test a vehicle with an adjustable rear end for compliance with the rule in all non-excluded configurations in which it can be operated on the highway. In the case of the Cornelius Manufacturing flatbed, this means NHTSA could test whenever the rear bed is positioned between a height between 22 inches and the flatbed height of 28.75 inches. At lower heights the guard would not have to be present for the vehicle to comply. We cannot provide a specific opinions on how your trailer might be redesigned to accommodate a guard. We note, however, that manufacturers of tilt bed trailers have told us that they have found engineering solutions that would meet the requirements of the standard without compromising the function of their vehicles. Some of them are using guard designs that deploy when in the flatbed configuration and automatically retract when in the tilted configuration. Perhaps some of these solutions may also work for you. However, we emphasize that NHTSA is not responsible for vehicle design. The agency would consider a petition for temporary exemption from Standard No. 224. Under one of our regulations (49 CFR Part 555), vehicle manufacturers may apply for a temporary exemption from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Under Sec. 555.6(a), a manufacturer whose yearly production is not more than 10,000 units may ask for an exemption of up to three years on the basis that compliance would cause it substantial economic hardship and that it has attempted in good faith to comply with the standard from which it has asked to be excused. We have enclosed a copy of Part 555 for your information. We have also enclosed a copy of our regulations relating to the protection of confidential business information. Most of the trailer manufacturers submitting petitions for temporary exemption have requested that their financial information remain confidential. Please note Part 555 requires the agency to publish a notice in the Federal Register seeking public comment on each exemption petition before a decision can be made on such a request, and then publish a second notice either granting or denying the petition. This process normally takes three to four months from the date of submittal. NHTSA would try to handle a request from Cornelius Manufacturing expeditiously. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, cc: Congressman John N. Hostettler |
1998 |
Request an Interpretation
You may email your request to Interpretations.NHTSA@dot.gov or send your request in hard copy to:
The Chief Counsel
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, W41-326
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20590
If you want to talk to someone at NHTSA about what a request for interpretation should include, call the Office of the Chief Counsel at 202-366-2992.
Please note that NHTSA’s response will be made available in this online database, and that the incoming interpretation request may also be made publicly available.