ID: nht76-1.31

DATE: 04/28/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James B. Gregroy; NHTSA

TO: Hon. Vance Hartke - U.S. Senate

COPYEE: BUREAU OF MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY; FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of March 30, 1976, enclosing a letter from Mr. Dennis Oser concerning the effective date of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.

Standard No. 119 became effective March 1, 1975, and applies to non-passenger-car tires manufactured on and after that date. From his reference to "April 1, 1976", Mr. Oser appears to be concerned with the effective dates of 49 CFR 393.75, a regulation issued by the Federal Highway Administration's Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (BMCS). That regulation addresses the type of tires with which motor vehicles in use in interstate commerce must be equipped. Accordingly, I have forwarded your letter to the BMCS for further reply.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

United States Senate

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE

March 30, 1976

James Gregory, Administrator -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Dr. Gregory:

I am enclosing for your review a letter that I have received from Mr. M. Dennis Oser. Mr. Oser inquired as to whether it would be feasible to amend MVSS 119 so that it will apply to new tires only as they are purchased rather than as a it now applies to all tires being used on April 1, 1976. Would you please review Mr. Oser's letter and provide me with your response.

I look forward to your response.

Sincerely yours,

VANCE HARTKE, Chairman -- Surface Transportation Subcommittee

Enclosure

February 19, 1976

The Honorable Vance Hartke United States Senate

My dear Senator Hartke:

Enclosed, please find copies of letters concerning subjects of importance to this company and the trucking industry.

Any help you can give by lending your support will be greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours,

OSER LEASING COMPANY, INC.;

M. Dennis Oser -- Vice President General Manager

Enclosures

February 19, 1976

Bureau of Motor Carriers Safety -- Department of Transportation

Gentlemen:

RE: MVSS119

Please consider changing the subject standard so that it will apply to new tires only as they are purchased rather than as it now applies to all tires being used on April 1, 1976, regardless of date of purchase. The following two reasons appear to be the only applicable facts in this situation:

1. Safety will not be compromised by making the requested change.

2. There will be no adverse economic impact on the industry or this company if the requested change is made.

Sincerely,

OSER LEASING COMPANY, INC.;

M. Dennis Oser -- Vice President General Manager

February 19, 1976

The Honorable Lionel Van Doerlin -- Chairman, Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Finance, House of Representatives

Dear Representative Van Doerlin:

Within your jurisdiction as an oversight committee for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, please accept the enclosed copy of a letter to the Bureau of Motor Carriers Safety with regard to MVSS119.

Further, with regard to MVSS121, any priority your committee could assign in its oversight role to putting this standard high on its agenda could be of significant impact economically to the trucking industry. The confusion and frustration being felt throughout the operating segment of this industry is disastrous.

Yours very truly,

OSER LEASING COMPANY, INC.;

M. Dennis Oser -- Vice President General Manager

Enclosure

ID: nht74-2.38

DATE: 05/09/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Henke Manufacturing Corporation

COPYEE: MR. PESKOE; MR. SHIFFLETT; MR. FAY

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 12, 1974, asking several questions regarding the sale of snow plows and related equipment and their installation on vehicles. Your questions are restated below, followed by our responses:

1. Question A: "When we sell a plow, lift frame, lights and brackets to a dealer, do we have to report to you what dealers we sold light kits. Lights meet the code. Yes or no."

No. The sale of lighting equipment to a dealer, without any concurrent installation on a vehicle, does not give rise to any reporting or other requirements.

Question B: "When we receive an order for a snow plow and no light kit is ordered, what is our responsibility in this case: We assume the dealer furnishes his own light kit."

As long as you do not install the plow no requirements apply.

2. "We mount a lift frame for a county or city and they want to mount their own lights. We instruct them that lights are mandatory before they affix the plow. The lift frame only does not affect the present requirement for lights. Are we violating the law and what must we do?"

The addition of a lift frame to a completed vehicle (to which a "readily-attachable" plow will later be added) would make you a vehicle alterer and subject to section 567.7 of the Certification regulations. The alterer label should take into account the weight of a plow. As lights may be considered to be readily attachable, you may deliver the vehicle to the county without the additional lights. The county must install them, however, and you should obtain written assurance that it will do so. If the lights were not installed by the user, you would be responsible for a violation of section 108(a)(1) of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)). Your certification as an alterer would also be invalid, as the altered vehicle would not conform to all applicable standards.

3. "Henke receives a truck with a dump box and no certification label and nothing noted on incomplete registration. We certified the truck and informed the county that they should get the dealer mounting the box to put an addendum to the incomplete vehicle form to the effect that he mounted the box. Is this correct?"

Yes, if in fact the vehicle conforms to applicable standards, and its weight ratings are correct; no, if it does not conform or its weight ratings are not correct. In completing and certifying a vehicle without complete documentation required under Part 568, you run the risk of having no "due care" defense to a finding of nonconformity.

4. "Henke receives a truck that has a final certification. We mount lift frame, (Illegible Word) and front hydraulic power system. The county wants to mount their own lights. Do we have to put on an addendum sticker? We warn them regarding light requirements when plow is mounted."

Section 577.7 of the Certification regulations requires an alterer label when non-readily-attachable components, or any components whose installation modifies the stated weight ratings, are installed. We assume the equipment you mount in this case falls within one if not both of these categories, and an alterer label is therefore required. Your failure to install lights has the same effect here as in our answer to question 2.

5. "We receive a truck with a box capacity when loaded with sand which is more than the GVWR rating and we mount snow plow lift frame and wing. We instruct the customer to mount the plow and wing and add their normal ballast and take the truck to a scale and trim the load not to exceed the axle ratings as stated on the certification label. Our equipment does not overload any axle. Do we have any further liability in regard to the overloading of axles?"

As a vehicle alterer, you are required to recertify the vehicle, and modify its weight ratings if necessary, following the alterations you perform. The gross vehicle weight rating you establish must be based on the vehicle's rated cargo load. Normally, manufacturers are not required to determine what specific loads a vehicle they certify may carry, and are certainly not responsible for overloading by users. However, where the manufacturer (or alterer as the case may be) actually knows that a vehicle he certified is being purchased to carry primarily a particular commodity, the rated cargo load on which he bases his ratings should not be less than what he can reasonably expect the user to consider a "full load" of that commodity. If he knows that a normal full load of sand, for example, to be carried in that truck will weigh 5 tons, we would consider it false and misleading to rate the cargo load at 4 tons to avoid having to use heavier-duty running gear. In the example you describe, the answer would depend on what you (the manufacturer) know, or can reasonably be expected to know, about how the plow trucks are likely to be loaded. A warning to the buyer not to exceed the rated cargo load or the weight ratings, in that case, would not be sufficient if it were reasonable to expect that the vehicles would, in practice, exceed these ratings at normal full load despite the warning.

With respect to your request for a code number, no final requirements have been issued on this matter, and no number is presently required.

ID: nht78-1.47

DATE: 11/20/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Burke & Burke

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

November 20, 1978

Mr. Michael Pinto Burke & Burke 30 Rockefeller Plaza New York, New York 10020

Dear Mr. Pinto:

This is in response to your letter of October 25, 1978, requesting approval of the tread labels Atlas Supply Company proposes to use in satisfaction of the labeling requirements of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS) (49 CFR 575.104(d)(1)(i)(B)). You propose to include the applicable UTQGS grades for a particular tire on a tread label identifying the tire brand, type and size. All possible traction and temperature grades would be depicted with the grades applicable to the specific tire indelibly circled. A separate label would contain the general grading information from Figure 2 of the rule.

Part 575.104(d)(1)(i)(B) requires that each passenger car replacement tire, other than a snow tire or temporary use spare tire, have affixed a tread label containing both the specific UTQGS grades for the tire and an explanation of the grades in the form illustrated in Figure 2. While the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has no objection to the inclusion of the required UTQGS information on the same label with other data such as tire size and brand name, failure to provide the required explanations on the same label with the applicable tire grades is not permitted by the regulation.

While Atlas' proposed tread labels do not meet the present requirements of Part 575.104(d)(1)(i)(B), NHTSA now has under consideration a petition for rulemaking requesting amendment of the UTQG regulation to permit greater flexibility in tread labeling.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

October 25, 1978

Mr. Richard Hipolit Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Hipolit:

Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards

This letter is in response to our telephone conversation of October 23, 1978.

Atlas Supply Company (Atlas) is a trademark licensing organization which licenses the nationally known mark "ATLAS" for use on tires, batteries and other automobile accessory items.

In anticipation of the March 1, 1979 effective date for bias ply tires, Atlas is preparing revisions to its tire labels to bring them in compliance with the above referenced standards. Attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is a proposed layout of a tire label (in two parts) which contains the treadwear, traction and temperature grades of the tire required by 49 C.F.R, 575.104(d)(1)(B) as well as other pertinent information. The other part of the label contains other information in the form illustrated in Figure 2 of the standards.

Due to the amount of information required to be printed and the space limitations of the tire tread surface, Atlas is of the opinion that all of the requirements can best, if not only, be met by the use of a two-part label. Atlas will specify to the tire manufacturers that the information illustrated in Figure 2 must be immediately adjacent to the tire grading information.

We request your concurrence in our conclusion that this arrangement fully complies with the aforesaid standard.

Very truly yours,

Michael Pinto

MP:jg

Enc.

cc. Mr. F. F. Messier Mr. G. V. Cambeis

ID: nht73-4.23

DATE: 05/30/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Volvo of America Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 8, 1973, concerning the intent of Section S4.7 of the amendment of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 201 proposed by the notice of September 25, 1970. Although we have recently issued a notice advising the public that we intend to issue a further proposal on this subject before adopting a final rule, we can provide a brief explanation of the intent of Section S4.7.

The principal portions of the "A" and "B" pillars to which S4.7 was directed, are those portions lying above the low line of the vehicle's window. However, the breadth of S4.7 is such that it would also include all contactable areas of the pillars lying below the window line.

You will have further opportunity to comment on the use of force distributing materials and response to the rulemaking of Standard 201.

Yours truly,

Volvo of America Corporation

May 8, 1973

Lawrence Schneider, Esq. General Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Request for clarification of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 201 49 CFR Part 571

Volvo of America Corporation hereby requests clarification of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 201 as it relates to the "A" and "B" pillars of a vehicle.

It is our understanding that the standard as currently in effect does not specify requirements for the "A" and "B" pillars. However, Docket No. 2-1, Notice 2 as published in the September 25, 1970 Federal Register (page 14936) proposed an upgrading of Standard 201 which would have required force-distributing material on these surfaces. Although this proposed amendment has never been adopted, it is the best indication that we have to date of N.H.T.S.A.'s thinking in regard to requirements for the "A" and "B" pillars and we are using the information for planning purposes.

It is in regard to paragraph S4.7. of Docket No. 2-1; Notice 3 that we require clarification as follows:

S4.7. Pillars.

(quote)

The contactable surface of each "A" and "B" pillar, with the doors and windows closed, shall -

(a) Be covered with force-distributing material having a thickness of at least 0.50 inch; and

(b) With the force-distributing material removed, have no rigid contactable edge with a radius less than 0.50 inch.

2

Paragraph S3. "Definitions" of Docket No. 2-1; Notice 3 defines the term "contactable" as follows:

"Contactable" means able to be contacted from any direction by a 6.5-inch diameter rigid head form under a 90-pound static force.

Question:

Is it N.H.T.S.A's intention in paragraph S4.7. of the proposal to require that the "A" and "B" pillars be covered with force-distributing material for their entire length, i.e. from the roof to the floor, providing that the entire length is "contactable" as defined in paragraph S3.?

Your consideration of and a reply to our inquiry is requested as soon as practical. Thank you in advance for your consideration.

Very truly yours,

Donald W. Taylor Engineering Liason Representative

cc: D. Jarman L. Larsen G. Nield C. Simerlein E. Skarin

ID: 7964

Form DOT F 1320.65 (Rev. 5/83)
Supersedes previous editionOFFICIAL FILE COPYCONCURRENCESRTG SYMBOL
INITIALS/SIG
DATE
RTG SYMBOL
INITIALS/SIG
DATE
RTG SYMBOL
INITIALS/SIG
DATE
RTG SYMBOL
INITIALS/SIG
DATE
RTG SYMBOL
INITIALS/SIG
DATE
RTG SYMBOL
INITIALS/SIG
DATE
RTG SYMBOL
INITIALS/SIG
DATE
RTG SYMBOL
INITIALS/SIG
DATE

Mr. Ron Noirfalise Director of Pupil Transportation Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education Post Office Box 480 Jefferson City, MO 65102-0480

Dear Mr. Noirfalise:

This follows up your telephone conversation of November 10, 1992, with Walter Myers of my staff regarding a newly- effective statute in Missouri which revises state requirements on transportation of school children. You also stated that you were told by your counterpart in the State of Washington that Federal law prohibits transportation of school children in vehicles with a passenger capacity of less than ten people.

As discussed in your telephone conversation with Mr. Myers, I have enclosed four recent letters explaining Federal law and pertinent regulations applicable to school buses and transportation of school children. These four are a November 3, 1992 letter to Mr. G. Thomas Owens, a July 7, 1992 letter to Senator Jim Sasser, a May 27, 1992 letter to Mr. Gerald A. Guertain, and a January 15, 1991 letter to Ms. Carol C. Verenea. These letters cover a variety of issues that, I think, will clarify your understanding of the issues with which you are concerned. Also enclosed is a copy of a pamphlet issued by this agency entitled Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations, revised June 1989, and an information sheet issued by this agency entitled Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations.

In addition, I am enclosing for your information a copy of Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety. This publication was issued under the authority of the Highway Safety Act of 1966 which authorizes this agency to issue nonbinding guidelines that states may refer to in developing their highway safety programs. Guideline 17 was jointly issued by this agency and the Federal Highway Administration to provide recommendations to the states on various operational aspects of their school bus and pupil transportation safety programs. Among other things, Guideline 17 recommends that any vehicle designed to carry more than ten persons which is used as a school bus comply with all safety standards applicable to school buses at the time the vehicle was manufactured.

I hope the enclosed information will be of assistance to you. If you have any further questions, feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-1992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:571 d:11/20/92

ID: nht95-3.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 14, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: K. Olsen

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/4/92 LETTER FROM PAUL RICE TO BOB BULLARD; ALSO ATTACHED TO 5/12/95 LETTER FROM K. OLSEN TO JOHN WOMACK

TEXT: Dear Ms. Olsen:

This responds to your letter of March 12, 1995, requesting an opinion as to the liability of the manufacturer, dealer, or customer in an accident involving a trailer originally sold with used tires. I apologize for the delay in our response.

By way of background information, Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S. Code, authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 30112 of Title 49 pro vides that no person may manufacture for sale, sell, or import a new motor vehicle or a new item of motor vehicle equipment unless that vehicle or equipment complies with all applicable FMVSSs and is covered by a certification of such compliance. Genera lly speaking, upon the sale of that vehicle or item of equipment to the first retail purchaser, the use of that vehicle or equipment becomes a matter of state regulation.

This office cannot give you an opinion as to who may be liable in the accident you described. The question of liability would be a matter of state law. You may wish to consult with a local attorney on the question of liability.

I can advise you that FMVSS No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars, generally requires tires installed on new trailers to be new, but includes certain specified exceptions which do not appear to be relevant here. I n that connection, please find enclosed a copy of a letter we wrote to a gentleman in Odessa, Texas, dated September 4, 1992, which discusses in some detail our requirements for tires installed on new trailers.

This agency does not have any standards for trailer brakes other than air brakes. Also, as indicated above, matters relating to the use of a vehicle, such as connection of the electric brake control to the towing vehicle and loading of the trailer, are not under the jurisdiction of this agency.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Based on your March 12, 1995 letter and your telephone and facsimile communications with the staff of this agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, that office has initiated an inquiry to the trailer manuf acturer to determine if a noncompliance exists with FMVSS No. 120. If you have further information or data to offer in this regard, please contact Mr. Luke Loy at this address or at (202) 366-5288 or by FAX at (202) 366-3081.

ID: 86-1.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/06/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Hans W. Metzger

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Hans W. Metzger Scottsdale, AZ 85253

Thank you for your letter of October 14, 1985, asking several questions about Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. I hope that the following discussion answers your questions. You first asked for a clarification of S4.1.3.1.2. That section provides that a manufacturer must equip a specific amount of its vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1986, and before September 1, 1987, with automatic restraints. The amount must not be less than 10 percent of the average annual production of passenger cars manufactured for sale in the United States during the period September 1, 1983, to August 31, 1986 (the base period). You explained that your client did not produce any vehicles for the U.S. during one year of the base period (September 1, 1983 -September 1, 1984). For the other two years of the base period, your client produced a limited number of vehicles for sale in the U.S. You asked whether in calculating the average yearly production for the base period, it is correct for your client to use zero for the production for the production between September 1, 1983 and August 31, 1984, and the actual production figures for two subsequent years. The three year base period addresses a situation where a manufacturer has produced vehicles for sale in the U.S. in each of those years. The purpose of averaging the production is to ensure that the calculation of the percentage of a manufacturer's passenger cars that must comply with the automatic restraint requirements is based on a production figure which is representative of the manufacturer's typical production. In the case of a manufacturer who has produced vehicles for two of those years, it would defeat the purpose of the rule to allow the manufacturer to lower artificially the number of vehicles which must comply with the automatic restraint requirement by counting its production as zero for one of the base years. Thus, in a situation where a manufacturer has only two years of production, the manufacturer should calculate its base period average based on the number of vehicles produced during those two years. To provide manufacturer's with additional flexibility is calculating the number of passenger cars which must be equipped with automatic restraints, NHTSA proposed, on April 12, 1985 (50 FR 14509), an amendment to Standard No. 208 which would give manufacturers the option of using either a three year average or the actual production for the model year in question. We expect to issue shortly a final rule on this subject. You also asked for another clarification of S4.1.3.1.2. You asked if the required number of vehicles can be produced anytime between september 1, 1986 and August 31, 1987. S4.1.3.1.2 does not require that the automatic restraints be installed at any specific time during that period. Thus, you are correct that the installation of automatic restraints does not have to be evenly distributed throughout that 12 month interval. I hope this information is of assistance to you. If your have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: nht95-6.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 19, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: T. J. Sommer -- President, White Bear Sales, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 7/28/95 LETTER FROM T. J. SOMMER TO TAYLOR VINSON (OCC 11121)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Sommer:

This is in reply to your FAX of July 28, 1995, to Taylor Vinson of this Office.

You report that Chicago's police department is using four-wheeled all terrain vehicles (ATVs) for patrol work in the downtown area, and that they have been licensed by Illinois for on-road use. You believe that the vehicles are illegal to use on the streets and that city employees are at risk. You have been asked by the director of Chicago's fleet "to compile all federal definitions and statutes which apply to the quad runners, regarding classification, certification, and compliance for street use." You have asked for our assistance.

I note first that while Federal law regulates the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, the individual States establish their own requirements for the licensing of motor vehicles. Therefore, the question of whether the ATVs may legally be used on the road is a matter of Illinois law rather than Federal law.

Your letter does, however, raise the issue of whether the manufacture and/or sale of the ATVs was consistent with Federal law. We do not have specific information about the ATVs at issue; however, I can provide general information about how Federal law applies in this area.

By way of background information, Chapter 301 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code authorizes NHTSA to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. All motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards set forth in 49 CFR Part 571.

The issue of whether the ATVs were required to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards is dependent on whether they are considered "motor vehicles." I have enclosed several interpretation letters which address the criteria which NHTSA applies in determining whether a vehicle with on and off-road capability is a motor vehicle (addressed to Mr. Matthew Plache, dated December 3, 1991; Mr. Hiroshi Kato, dated October 31, 1988; Mr. Wayne Kirby, dated February 8, 1983; and Mr. Leonard Fink, dated March 25, 1982). If an ATV is a motor vehicle, it must be certified to comply with all applicable safety standards.

If, after reviewing this information, you believe that a violation of Federal law may have occurred, you may wish to contact Mr. Luke Loy of NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance at (202) 366-5288. If you have further questions about the applicability of our standards, please feel free to contact Mr. Taylor Vinson of my staff (202-366-5263).

ID: 1888y

The Honorable Fred Grandy
House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Grandy:

This is in reply to your recent letter to the Administrator Designate, Jerry Curry, on behalf of your constituent Daniel Weichmann, Jr., of Hampton. You enclosed a copy of Mr. Weichmann's letter to this agency with respect to headlamp covers which, regrettably, we have been remiss in answering. You asked that we review this matter and that you be provided a copy of our response. We are pleased to reply directly to you, with a copy to Mr. Weichmann so that he may be apprised immediately of our views.

Mr. Weichmann was advised by the Iowa Department of Transportation on October 10, 1988, that "The department specifically does not approve head lamp covers", because Iowa has adopted "Federal standards on equipment approval". Consequently, "If the headlamp covers in question meet the Federal Standards they would qualify under Iowa law." Thus, Mr. Weichmann asked us whether headlamp covers are approved by this agency.

Headlamp covers are not permissible as items of original motor vehicle equipment. Paragraph S7.7.5 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, in pertinent part, states that when headlamps are operated they "shall not have any styling ornament or other feature, such as a translucent cover or grill, in front of the lens." Although Standard No. l08 was only recently amended to state this prohibition expressly (I enclose a copy of the amended standard), the prohibition has existed since January l968 through the incorporation by reference in Standard No. l08 of an SAE headlamp Standard, J580b, which contained the identical language. The safety reason for the prohibition is the reduced effectiveness of a headlamp beam when it must pass through an extra layer of glazing, particularly if that glazing is tinted, yellowed, or cracked, or if moisture has condensed on the inside of the cover. Thus, headlamp covers are also implicitly prohibited by paragraph S5.1.3 of Standard No. l08 which forbids the installation of optional original equipment that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment, such as headlamps, that are required by Standard No. l08.

The Iowa DOT's views are consistent with the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act which permit States to enact State motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new vehicles provided that they are identical to Federal ones covering the same aspect of performance. Although the Federal standards do not regulate operation of a vehicle after it is sold, and hence could not prohibit a vehicle owner in Iowa from installing headlamp covers and operating his vehicle with them, Iowa's enforcement of a headlamp cover prohibition for vehicles in use would be consistent with its prohibition of them as original vehicle equipment. However, we cannot interpret Iowa law, and reach no conclusion as to whether its statutes or regulations have that effect.

Should either you or Mr. Weichmann have further questions, we shall be pleased to answer them.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Acting Administrator Enclosure

cc: Daniel Weichmann, Jr.

The Honorable Fred Grandy Mason City IA / ref:l08 d:7/5/89

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