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: aiam4158

Dear Mr. Williams: This is in reply to your letter asking about regulations applicable t the 'new lights that are now being seen on the trunk lids, and the rear windows of new automobiles'.; The specific legal name for this light is 'center high-mounted sto lamp.' It was optional for use as original equipment on passenger cars manufactured between August 1, 1984 and September 1, 1985. It has been mandatory original equipment since them. The Federal regulation that requires it is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment* issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration of the Department of Transportation. This standard specifies color, minimum illuminated lens area, mode of operation, etc. for original equipment, and for equipment intended to replace that original equipment. The standard does not cover center high-mounted stop lamps intended for use on cars that never had them, and a manufacturer of such aftermarket motor vehicle equipment is subject only to State laws on their design, installation, and use. We encourage aftermarket manufacturers to follow the Federal standard so that the full potential of the lamp may be realized. This means that the lamp should be steady- burning rather than pulsating, and that the lens not have logos, trademarks, or other markings on it to interrupt the transmission of light from the lamp. The standard does not specify the shape of the lamp but virtually all to date have been rectangular (photos of the 1984 Cadillac Allante show a circular one), and some have exceeded the minimum requirement of a lens area of at least 4 1/2 square inches.; Noting your interest as a prospective manufacturer of these devices, enclose a copy of Standard No. 108. Sections 4.1.1.41 (page 218), Section 4.3.1.8 (page 227) and Table III (page 256) provide the relevant requirements for center high-mounted stoplamps. Should you proceed to manufacture aftermarket lamps, you would be subject to the agency's notification and remedy procedures should a safety related defect occur in them. Otherwise, you would appear to be subject only to State laws.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3504

Dear Mr. Holsten: This responds to your November 25, 1981, letter asking whethe children's car seats must comply with the flammability requirements of Standard No. 302, *Flammability of Interior Materials*. The answer to your question is yes. Section S5.7 of Standard No. 213, *Child Restraint Systems*, specifically states that each material used in a child restraint system shall comply with the flammability requirements of Standard No. 302.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3505

Dear Dr. Holsten: This responds to your November 25, 1981, letter asking whethe children's car seats must comply with the flammability requirements of Standard No. 302, *Flammability of Interior Materials*. The answer to your question is yes. Section S5.7 of Standard No. 213, *Child Restraint Systems*, specifically states that each material used in a child restraint system shall comply with the flammability requirements of Standard NO. 302.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3613

Dear Mr. Bede: This is in reply to your letter of September 29, 1982, asking for a interpretation that your modified motorcycle is a 'motorcycle' under the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. In addition to the standard motorcycle configuration of a single front and rear wheel, your design incorporates two small wheels in outrider positions, both of which hold the vehicle at rest, but which, in motion, do not touch the ground simultaneously. The purpose of the wheels is to add stability so that in a left turn the left outrider wheel will touch the ground, and in a right turn, the right wheel.; This configuration appears to meet the definition of 'motorcycle contained in 49 CFR 571.3(b) as a machine 'designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground.' Although the vehicle rests on four wheels, it travels on only two or three depending upon whether it is proceeding in a straight direction or in a turn.; We appreciate your interest in motorcycle safety. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: nht72-1.17

DATE: 01/26/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; David Schmeltzer; NHTSA

TO: National Farmers Union Property and Casualty Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 4, 1972, in which you inquired into the possibility of selling tires that sustained (Illegible Words) damage in a service station fire. In 1969, you were faced with a similar situation and we advised you of the way in which these tires could be sold. In 1970, Safety Standard No. 109 was amended to deal with the problem of tires that had to be reclassified and thus you cannot (Illegible Word) rely upon our comments of three years ago.

I have enclosed a copy of the (Illegible Word) on point. The Amendment indicates a policy of (Illegible Word) control over the sale of "farm use only" tires. Since you are reclassifying the tires, you will have to meet the requirements of (Illegible Words) the same manner as a manufacturer. You will also be interested in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making I have enclosed. This proposal would prohibit the sale of tires which can now be sold as reclassified.

ID: nht79-1.36

DATE: 11/23/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOV 23 1979

Mr. T. Fujita Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Department Stanley Electric Co., Ltd 2-9-13, Nakameguro Meguro-ku Tokyo 153, Japan

Dear Mr. Fujita:

This is in reply to your letter of October 17, 1979, asking for an interpretation for Paragraph S4.3.1.7 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

S4.3.1.7 says in effect that a front turn signal lamp and a low beam headlamp may be closer to each other than 4 inches "if the sum of the candlepower values of the turn signal lamp measured at the test points within each group listed in Figure 1 is not less than two and one-half times the sum specified for each group for yellow turn signal lamps."

You have asked whether a motorcycle turn signal lamp should "satisfy the values specified in S4.3.1.7 or half those values. The answer is, the values specified in S4.3.1.7. Half those values would be "less than two and one-half times the sum specified ..." and impermissible under S4.3.1.7.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel October 17, 1979

Att.: Mr. Michael M. Finkelstein Associate Administrator for Rulemaking

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590 U. S. A.

Re: Photometric requirement of a motorcycle front turn signal lamp which is mounted closer to the low beam headlamp than 4 inches.

Dear Mr. Finkelstein,

Section 4.3.1.7 of FMVSS No.108 specifies as follows;

S.4.3.1.7

The requirement that there be not less than 4 inches between a front turn signal lamp and a low beam headlamp, specified in SAE Standard J588e, "Turn Signal Lamps," September 1970, shall not apply if the sum of the candlepower values of the turn signal lamp measured at the test points within each group listed in Figure 1 is not less than two and one-half times the sum specified for each group for yellow turn signal lamps.

When we apply this provision to a motorcycle turn signal lamp, we would like to have your opinion as to which one of the following requirements the lamp should satisfy.

A: the values specified in S.4.3.1.7

B: half the values of that specified in S.4.1.3.1.7

Thanking you in advance for your cooperation,

Very truly yours,

Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

T. Fujita Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Dept.

MF/mo

ID: nht91-6.28

DATE: October 17, 1991

FROM: Carl Miller -- O.E. Sales Manager, DICO Tire, Inc.

TO: Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-15-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Carl Miller (A38; Part 574)

TEXT:

This is a request for an interpretation of a regulation.

At DICO Tire, we manufacture high speed boat trailer tires. Presently we provide a warranty along with a recall information card to the original equipment manufacturers to be issued to the customer at the time of purchase. We also provide warranty and recall information cards to dealers for the replacement males market. It has been my understanding that we were to provide recall information cards on any tire with a D.O.T. stamp on it whether it was sold in the original equipment market or sold in the replacement market. A comment was made that there was a new ruling which stated the recall information cards were no longer required in the replacement market.

Could you please clarify this point?

ID: aiam5470

"Dear Mr. Howard: This responds to your request for an interpretatio whether the 'super golf car' your company is developing is a motor vehicle subject to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). As explained below, since your golf car does not have an unusual configuration and is designed to attain speeds in excess of 20 miles per hour for use on the public roads, we would consider your golf car to be a motor vehicle. In your letter to us, you stated that your company's super golf cars 'will have a top speed of 29 miles per hour.' You enclosed three photographs, each of 'one model of our vehicles.' One photograph shows a man sitting in the driver's seat. The size of the man in relation to the golf car makes it appear that the golf car is somewhat smaller than compact passenger cars. The styling of your golf car is not unlike that of the prototype Volkswagen Concept 1 car, unveiled by Volkswagen at the January 1994 Detroit Auto Show. (Automotive News article with photograph of car enclosed.) Unlike conventional golf carts with straight sides, the sides of your golf cars are curved, resembling passenger cars. The photographs of all three golf cars show a raked windshield, with a single windshield wiper, front headlights, two seats, and four wheels. At least one outside rearview mirror is shown on each golf car. Two golf cars have side doors. The third has no doors. Two golf cars have no roof or other overhead cover. The third includes what appears to be a removable top, similar to that on a convertible automobile. Based on conversations between you and Dorothy Nakama of my staff, it appears that you expect that purchasers would use your 'super golf cars' to travel regularly on the public roads. In this connection, we note that you mentioned that Arizona has registered more than 23,000 golf carts for on-road use. Arizona officials have informed us that these golf carts must have motorcycle license plates. The FMVSS apply to 'motor vehicles,' within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6). 'Motor vehicle' is defined at section 30102(a)(6) as: a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line. In past interpretation letters, NHTSA has stated that vehicles that regularly use the public roads will not be considered 'motor vehicles' if such vehicles have an abnormal configuration that readily distinguishes them from other vehicles and have a maximum attainable speed of 20 miles per hour or less. Applying these criteria to your products, we note that the 'super golf cars' do not have an unusual configuration, making them readily distinguishable from other motor vehicles on the road. The styling and features of your 'super golf cars' make them resemble the prototype Volkswagen passenger car. Although the golf cars may be smaller than passenger cars, we cannot say that the golf cars are significantly smaller. Further, while the weight of your vehicles (1,100 lbs. for the electric 'super golf car' and 950 lbs. for the gas powered 'super golf car') is less than that of most, if not all, current passenger cars, low weight alone is insufficient to prevent a vehicle from being regarded as a 'motor vehicle.' At one time, NHTSA excluded small motor vehicles, i.e., those whose curb weight was 1,000 lbs. or less, from the application of our safety standards. However, that exclusion was rescinded in a final rule published May 16, 1973 (38 FR 12808)(copy enclosed). Moreover, you have stated your golf cars can attain a maximum speed of 29 miles per hour (mph). Twenty nine mph significantly exceeds 20 mph, the maximum speed at which NHTSA has stated that a vehicle designed to travel on the public roads would not be considered a 'motor vehicle.' Twenty nine mph is also almost the same speed (30 mph) specified for some compliance testing of passenger cars for such FMVSS as Standard No. 301, Fuel system integrity and Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection. For these reasons, we conclude that the 'super golf car' as described above is a 'motor vehicle' subject to all applicable FMVSS. As a manufacturer of a motor vehicle, you have several options. One is, of course, to comply with the current safety standards. Another is to petition the agency to amend the current standards so as to accommodate any special compliance problems that a small car might experience. In the 1973 finalrule terminating the exclusion of lightweight vehicles, NHTSA stated that a manufacturer has the option of petitioning for amendment of any standard it feels is impracticable or inappropriate for lightweight vehicles. Finally, you may have the option of petitioning for temporary exemption from one or more standards upon one of the bases provided in 49 U.S.C. 30113 General exemptions. The petitioning procedure is described in NHTSA's regulations at 49 CFR part 555 Temporary Exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. You should understand that exemptions are primarily granted as an interim measure to give small manufacturers a chance to come into compliance. You should also understand that exemptions are typically given for only a select number of the standards applicable to an exempted vehicle. Across-the-board exemptions from all standards have not been granted. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel Enclosures";

ID: aiam2932

Dear Mr. Gerth:#This is in response to your letter of November 27 1978, requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101-80, *Controls and Displays*. Specifically, you asked whether it is permissible to use symbols for the parking lamp functions of the headlamp switch, in addition to the headlamp symbols required in Table I of the Standard.#The answer to your question is yes. Section 5 of the standard states that each passenger car 'with any control listed in S5.1 or in column 1 of Table 1, ... shall meet the requirements of this standard for the location, identification, and illumination of such control or display.' Since no symbols or other designations are required under the standard for parking lamps where their control is not combined with that for headlamps or for 'lamps-off' positions on controls, it is up to the manufacturer whether to label these additional functions and whether to use words or symbols. Footnote 2 of Table 1 of the standard does provide that a manufacturer must use the single headlamp symbol to designate several functions when clearance, identification, parking and/or side marker lamps are all controlled with the headlamp switch. This footnote was not intended to preclude additional symbols for these other functions, however. In fact, S5.2.1 provides that 'additional words or symbols may be used at the manufacturer's discretion for the purpose of clarity.'#Regarding your drawings, clearance lamps are listed in paragraph S5.1 and in column 1 of Table 1 of the standard. Therefore, they must be identified by the symbols shown in column 3 of Table 1 or by the words 'Clearance Lamps' or 'Cl Lps'. The 'parking right and left' symbol shown on the drawing submitted with your letter would not satisfy the requirements for clearance-lamp designations. However, the symbol labeled 'Clearance Lamps' that appears on the drawings which Mr. Gebhard M. Hespeler and Mr. Craig Jones submitted on December 20, 1978, would conform with the requirements. I have enclosed a copy of that drawing.#If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to write.#Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel;