ID: 10-000735drn.doc

ID: 18844-1.pja

Mr. W. Barry Olson
Safety and Compliance Director
East Maintenance, Inc.
P.O. Box 5010
Freehold, N.J. 07728-5010

Dear Mr. Olson:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) rear impact protection (underride guard) regulations apply to the "roll off" trailers your company manufactures. This roll off hoist equipment appears to be used to pick up and put down the long rectangular dumpsters often used to collect trash and construction debris. The short answer to your question is that your trailers are not excluded from the requirements.

From your letter and the photos you enclosed, it appears that your trailers function in the following manner. They are equipped with a tilting hoist frame that lies flat on the back of trailer. The frame rails are hinged at the rear of the trailer. To load a dumpster, the front end of the frame rails are raised by hydraulic pistons, until the rear end of the rails touch the ground behind the vehicle. In this position, the frame rails are located in the area specified in our regulations for the rear impact guard. Once the rails are tilted, a hoist pulls the dumpster up the rails onto the back of the vehicle, after which the pistons are collapsed to return the dumpster to a horizontal orientation. This appears to be the in-transit position.

Your trailers currently have an underride guard that does not meet our requirements. It automatically folds out of the way as the tilting hoist frame inclines and automatically deploys when the frame rails are lowered into the in-transit position. You state that the horizontal member of the guard is 25 inches above the ground when deployed. The rear face of the guard is 5 inches high from top to bottom, and positioned 20 inches forward of the rear of the rear extremity of the tilting frame. You state that installing a guard complying with our regulations would be impractical. You state your belief that these vehicles are excluded from our regulation as special purpose vehicles.

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 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 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 trailer is not excluded, because it does not meet the definition of a special purpose vehicle. No work performing equipment resides in or passes through the area where the horizontal member of the underride guard would be located while the vehicle is in transit. We are actively considering a petition for rulemaking to eliminate the "while in transit" limitation from the definition of special purpose vehicles. However, our evaluation of the petition may or may not result in a change to the standard. Further, any such change would not take effect until after we conduct a rulemaking proceeding, a process that takes several months.

Since your trailer does not meet the current definition of an excluded category, it would have to be equipped with an underride guard meeting our standards. We cannot provide specific guidance on trailer design, but we note that your existing guard would comply with the configuration requirements of our regulations if it were redesigned to be positioned three inches lower and 8 inches farther to the rear, and if the horizontal member were extended to within four inches of the side extremities. Perhaps this solution would work for you, as it apparently has for other manufacturers.⁽¹⁾

For your information, we are also enclosing a copy of a March 4, 1999 letter we sent to Erika Jones, discussing the need for automatically retracting a retractable guard. We emphasize that you, as the manufacturer of the vehicle, are responsible for the vehicle's compliance.

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,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures:
Parts 552, 555
ref:224
d.6/9/99

1. The National Solid Wastes Management Association (NSWMA), a trade group that may represent users of vehicles like yours, stated in a comment on roll-off hoist vehicles that "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."

ID: nht88-1.74

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/16/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: MORRIS EAST -- ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, LOUISIANA BUREAU OF SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: JULY 7, 1987 LETTER FROM EAST TO JONES IS ATTACHED

TEXT: This letter responds to your request for an interpretation of certain Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to school buses. I apologize for the delay in this response. In your letter, you state that one of your local school systems intends to remove a bus body from "an existing chassis, and place that body onto a new chassis." You state further that the system's school bus maintenance shop would perform the work. You ask a number of questions which I shall answer in order. My answers as sume that, at a minimum, the engine, drive axles, and transmission of the new chassis are new components.

Question 1: Is it permissible under the (Vehicle Safety Act as amended) for a local school board to remove the body from one school bus chassis and place that body on another school bus chassis?

The answer to this question is "yes." The Act does not prohibit a vehicle owner from altering, modifying, or manufacturing a vehicle; nor has NHTSA established such a prohibition in its regulations.

Question 2: Would this action (in Question 1) violate bus body integrity requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) (specifically FMVSS 208, 220, 221)?

The act of removing a school bus body from one chassis and placing that body on a different chassis does not violate any Federal safety standard. However, when a person uses a new body and mixed new and used chassis components in refurbishing a vehicle, the question arises whether the vehicle is new. In past interpretations, NHTSA has applied @ 571.7(e) to school buses that combine a new body and either (1) mixed new and used chassis components, or (2) used chassis components from different vehicles. If a school bus is considered "new" under the criteria set out in this provision, then the person who refurbishes the vehicle must

certify that the school bus meets all applicable safety standards in effect on the date the chassis was manufactured - including Standards 208, 220, and 221 if they apply - and affix a certification label under 49 CFR Part 567.

On the other hand, if an old bus body is placed on a chassis that is completely new, a different provision applies. In this case, the chassis is an incomplete vehicle. "Incomplete vehicle" is defined in 49 CFR @ 568.3 as: an assemblage consisting, as a minimum, of a frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations, other than the ad dition of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, to become a completed vehicle.

When a new bus chassis meets this description, a subsequent person who adds a body - even an old body - is a final-stage manufacturer, and must certify the completed vehicle as conforming to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards as of a d ate no earlier than the manufacturing date of the incomplete vehicle (the new chassis). (49 CFR @ 567.5, Requirements for Manufacturers of Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages.)

Neither @ 571.7(e) nor Part 568 would require a person to recertify a school bus when the body and all other vehicle components are not new.

Question 3: If permitted, can the work described in (Question) 1. above be performed in the school board's maintenance shop? Can it be contracted to an automobile dealer capable of performing such work? Can the work be contracted to other motor vehi cle repair shops such as body dealers or private motor vehicle repair shops?

The answer to each of these statements is "yes." Remember, though, that if the refurbished buses are considered new under the criteria discussed in Question 2, they must meet all applicable school bus safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture , and a certification label must be affixed to each refurbished vehicle to that effect.

If the refurbished buses are not "new" under these same criteria, then there is no obligation to recertify the vehicles. However, if a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business works on your buses, then there is restriction on what these commercial businesses can do - even if the vehicle is used. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act prohibits these persons from "knowingly rendering inoperative" any device or element of design incorporated into the vehicle in complia nce with an applicable Federal safety standard. Note that this restriction does not apply when the vehicle owner (e.g., a local school system) makes a modification, or if a repair facility that does not hold itself out to the public as being in the busi ness of motor vehicle repair (e.g., a maintenance shop that works only for the school board) makes the modification.

Question 4: If the changeover is allowed, must the new unit (new chassis with used body) be re-certified to meet FMVSS requirements? If it must be re-certified, who may provide the inspection and re-certification?

As I stated in my answers to Questions 2 and 3, under certain circumstances, the vehicle must be recertified by the refurbisher. The refurbisher is responsible for the vehicle's compliance status just as any vehicle manufacturer, and must be able to sho w that he exercised due care in certifying the vehicle. The agency examines issues of due care on a case-by-case basis evaluating all relevant facts. This evaluation would include assessing technological limitations, availability of test equipment, the market position of the manufacturer, and most importantly, the degree of manufacturer diligence.

I hope you find this information helpful.

ID: 571-108 -- LED headlamps motorcycles -- Stanley Electric Co. -- 11-006845

ID: 1985-02.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/30/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. John K. Park

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. John K. Park Consultant, Hyundai Motor Company 7314 Nineteen Mile Road Sterling Heights, Michigan 48074

Dear Mr. Park:

This is in reply to your letter of May 3, 1985, asking for an interpretation of the center high-mounted stoplamp provisions of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You stated that the Hyundai lamp is "obscured slightly by the rear window wiper arm" but that "the effective projective luminous lens area exceeds 4.5 square inches". You asked whether the wiper arm is considered an obstruction to the lamp.

The agency answered a similar question from Mazda in its response to petitions for reconsideration of the stoplamp requirements published on May 17, 1984 (copy enclosed). NHTSA advised that compliance of the lamp would be judged with a rear wiping system in the design off position, and that photometric conformance would be judged thereby. The lamp must be positioned in such a way that it will comply when tested at any of the photometric test points specified in the standard with the wiper system in the design off position.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Enclosure

May 3, 1985 Mr. Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219 400 Seventh Street Southwest Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Miller.

Regarding FMVSS No. 108: Our High Mounted Stoplamp is obscured slightly by the rear window wiper arm according to our current design. The design ensures, however, the effective projected luminous area exceeding 4.5 square inches satisfactory to S4.1.1.41.

Do you consider the rear wiper arm described above as an obstruction to the lamp: We need a correct interpretation from you. I am including a sketch copy for your reference.

Sincerely yours,

John K. Park Consultant to Hyundai Motor Company

JKP/bks

encl.

ID: nht87-1.84

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/03/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Leon Steenbock -- Administrative Manager, Engineering, FWD Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 8/13/80 letter from F. Berndt to FWD Corporation (Std. 206)

TEXT: Mr. Leon Steenbock Administrative Manager, Engineering FWD Corporation Clintonville, WI 54929-1590

This responds to you; April 10, 1981, letter to my office asking about the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components, to door locks on fire trucks. You enclosed a copy of an August 13, 1980, letter to you from former Chief Counsel Frank Berndt and asked whether Mr. Berndt's opinion concerning fire truck door locks is current. The answer is yes.

In 1985, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration amended Standard No. 206 to exempt doors equipped with wheelchair lifts from the requirements of the standard. However, since that amendment has no bearing on door locks for fire trucks and beca use we have made no changes to the standard that would affect fire trucks, we confirm that the agency's 1980 interpretation his not been superseded or revised by subsequent interpretations of or amendments to the standard.

For your information, I have enclosed a current copy of Standard No. 206 and information on how you can obtain copies of our motor vehicle safety Standards and other regulations.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures

April 10, 1987

U. S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventy Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Attn: Erika Jones - Chief Counsel

Subject: FMVSS 206 Door Lock; and Door Retention Components

Reference my phone conversation with Deirdie Hom on April 9, 1987 regarding door locks on fire trucks. Find attached a copy of the letter from NHTSA of August 13,1980 which addressed this subject. I asked if opinion given in this letter would still be cu rrent or had there been modifications to the standard that would change this opinion exempting fire trucks from this standards requirements.

As, we plan to discuss this subject at a Dealers Sales meeting the week of April 27, 1987 I would appreciate your earliest consideration of this request.

Sincerely, FWD CORPORATION Leon Steenbock Administrative Manager, Engineering enc: LS/llm PxHONE: 715-823-2141 TELEX:26-3424

(See 8/13/80 letter from F. Berndt to FWD Corporation

ID: nht76-1.50

DATE: 06/12/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; T. W. Herlihy for S. P. Wood; NHTSA

TO: Toyota Motors Sales, U.S.A., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your February 23, 1976, letter concerning the rim marking requirements of S5.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.

In its present form, S5.2 requires a rim to which the standard applies to be marked with its size designation and, if it is a multi-piece rim, its type designation as well. There is no prohibition on the marking of additional information beyond that which is required. Therefore, the marking of single piece rims with a type designation is permitted.

Please note that, in a notice published on May 6, 1976 (41 FR 18659, Docket No. 71-19, Notice 4), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration delayed the effective dates of several of the standard's requirements. In particular, the effective date of S5.2, Rim Marking, was delayed until August 1, 1977. A copy of this notice is enclosed for your convenience.

Yours truly,

Enclosure

ATTACH.

TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC.

FACTORY REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE

February 23, 1976

Frank A. Berndt -- Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation

Re: Interpretation of FMVSS No. 120, S5.2

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This is to request interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, 'Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles other than Passenger Cars," which was published in the Federal Register of January 23, 1976 as Docket No. 71-19; Notice 3.

In S5.2, it lists the information required to be marked on each rim on and after August 1, 1976. As we understand it, this requirement does not prohibit marking of additional information on rims. For example, although S5.2(6) requires that each rim be marked with information of the rim size designation, and, in the case of multipiece rims, the rim type designation, we believe that single piece rims should also be marked with the rim type designation, such as the type of flange denoted as J, JJ, etc., for reasons of vehicle safety.

We would appreciate your informing us of the correct interpretation at your earliest convenience.

Very truly yours,

D. KIWANO FOR

K. Nakajima -- Director/General Manager, Factory Representative Office

ID: nht80-3.30

DATE: 08/04/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Honorable Lloyd Bentson, United States Senator

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of July 10, 1980, forwarding correspondence from your constituent, Mr. Bob Lacy. Mr. Lacy, a Ford dealer, requested Ford Motor Company to offer locking gasoline caps as an option on all future cars and trucks because of the growing problem of gasoline theft. Ford informed Mr. Lacy that it could not do so because it would require testing all its vehicles twice for compliance with the Federal fuel system safety standard, i.e., with the regular gasoline cap and with the locking cap.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity (49 CFR 571.301), specifies performance requirements to ensure the safety of motor vehicle fuel systems. When subjected to a barrier impact crash test, vehicles cannot show fuel leakage beyond certain specified amounts. The standard is only a performance standard, however, and manufacturers are permitted to use any vehicle design they choose, including any gasoline cap they desire, as long as the standard is met.

Ford's statement that "in order to comply with FMVSS requirements for fuel systems, we would be required to test all our vehicles twice" is incorrect. Standard No. 301 does not require testing; it only requires that the vehicle meet the performance requirements that are specified. The manufacturer's legal responsibility is to exercise due care to ascertain that its vehicles do in fact comply with these performance requirements. Ford may feel it necessary to crash test vehicles with both types of gasoline caps, in order to establish due care, but doing so is not required by the standard. Other methods could be used to determine if the varying gasoline caps would affect compliance. Further, even if a manufacturer desires to do some testing, it is difficult to imagine that the design of the gas caps used for different Ford cars differ sufficiently to warrant testing every type of Ford car.

Finally, I would like to point out that if Ford believes crash testing is necessary for each type of gasoline cap used, it could choose to offer only locking caps rather than offering only regular caps. I suggest that Mr. Lacy contact Ford again to determine why they chose regular caps over locking caps, given Ford's decision that it only wanted to perform tests using one type cap.

If we can provide any further information, please do not hesitate to contact this office.

ID: nht80-1.26

DATE: 03/07/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Glenn Brinks

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in further reply to your earlier questions concerning Federal requirements for fuel systems on motorcycles. As stated in our previous letter, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fue' System Integrity (49 CFR 571.301-75), does not apply to motorcycles. You are correct in your assumption that there are no Federal regulations that would preclude the use of fiberglass fuel tanks for motorcycles. I might add that Safety Standard No. 301-75 does not specify design requirements for any vehicle (e.g., that the tank be made of metal or any particular material). Rather, the standard specifies performance levels that the entire fuel system must achieve during barrier crash tests.

Although no safety standards or other regulations preclude the use of fiberglass fuel tanks for motorcycles, you should still be responsible for assuring that such tanks are safe. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1974, a manufacturer of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment is responsible for any defect relating to motor vehicle safety which may exist in the manufacturer's product (15 U.S.C. 1411, et seq.). The manufacturer would be required to notify all purchasers of the existence of the defect and to remedy the defect at the manufacturer's expense.

I might point out that the agency is concerned that fiberglass fuel tanks will shatter upon impact in a collision, rather than crushing as do metal tanks. If you have any crash data regarding the performance of fiberglass motorcycle fuel tanks, we would appreciate receiving the information

I hope this has answered all your questions.

SINCERELY,

January 26, 1980

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel NHTSA

Dear Mr. Berndt;

Thank you very much for your prompt reply to my query about motorcycle fuel tanks. Could you clear up one remaining point? In your reply you state that the FMVSS regarding fuel system integrity does not apply to motorcycles. Does this mean that motorcycle fuel tanks can legally be made from fiberglass? A fiberglass fuel tank can be much lighter, stronger and more resilient than a comparable steel one, but I would like to make sure that such a tank is legal. Thank you very much for your help.

Glenn Brinks

ID: nht78-3.10

DATE: 09/22/78

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

TO: Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent question whether Mercedes may use a dynamic test to evaluate seat structure integrity instead of the static test specified in the testing procedures of Safety Standard No. 207.

The answer to your question is yes. A manufacturer is permitted to use whatever test procedures or methods of evaluation he chooses to assure its vehicles are in compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The legal requirement under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391, et seq.) is that the manufacturer exercise due care to determine that his vehicles will be in compliance with all applicable standards when tested by the agency in accordance with the test procedures specified in those standards.

Therefore, you may use a dynamic test method to determine the integrity of your vehicle seats if this constitutes the exercise of due care to assure the seats meet the performance requirements specified in Standard No. 207. Of course, it cannot be determined whether a manufacturer in fact exercised due care in advance of the actual events leading to the certification of compliance. Likewise, the agency will not approve a manufacturer's method of testing in advance of certification.

Please contact me if you have any further questions.

SINCERELY,

MERCEDES - BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.

July 3, 1978

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attention: Office of Chief Counsel

Subject: Request for Interpretation; FMVSS 207

Dear Madam or Sir,

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207 specifies in Section S5. Test Procedures, loading techniques to evaluate seat structure integrity. All figures in this standard depict draw bars or other force controlling devices typical of static testing procedures.

Mercedes-Benz of North America believes that such a description of these tests restricts a manufacturer from using alternative test procedures. It is also believed that dynamic testing techniques are more realistic and within the intent of this standard when they produce forces equal to or exceeding those specified in this standard. We would appreciate receiving your confirmation of this opinion at your earliest convenience to enable the use of a dynamic test as an alternative to the current technique specified.

HEINZ W. GERTH