ID: nht76-5.2

DATE: 08/31/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Volvo of America Corporation

COPYEE: ALLIED CHEMICAL CORP.; U.S. TESTING CO., INC.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your April 6, 1976, request for interpretations regarding certain sections of Safety Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, when applied to the continuous loop seat belt assemblies provided on current Volvo vehicles.

Paragraphs S4.4(b)(1) and (2) specify performance requirements for components in the pelvic restraint and upper torso restraint portions of a belt system, tested separately and in combination. You ask for verification of your interpretation that the requirements for separate testing of pelvic and upper torso portions are inapplicable to a continuous loop seat belt, on the basis that this type system "can never in real life be subjected to forces only in the pelvic restraint." Your letter includes an illustration of your test apparatus for determining compliance with paragraph S4.4(b), and you request verification that your procedure is correct.

Section S5.3(b) of the standard sets forth the test methods that would be used in a determination of whether a Type 2 seat belt assembly conforms to the requirements of S4.4(b). Paragraph S4.4(b)(1) specifies that the pelvic restraint shall withstand a force of not less than 2,500 pounds, and S4.4(b)(2) specifies that the upper torso restraint shall withstand a force of not less than 1,500 pounds. The Volvo continuous loop belt systems are subject to these requirements. A recent NHTSA interpretation letter to Toyo Kojyo (copy enclosed) on the same subject sets forth the responsibilities of the manufacturer in cases where the specified test procedures may not be entirely suitable to a new safety component design. In testing continuous loop belt systems for compliance with S4.4(b)(1) and (2), the agency has interpreted S5.3(b) to necessitate the use of a clamp in the same fashion as suggested by Toyo Kojyo to ensure that the force is applied to the appropriate portion of belt webbing and hardware. It must be understood, of course, that the NHTSA cannot approve a manufacturers's test procedure as the basis of due care in advance of the actual events that underlie certification. It is impossible for the agency to foresee whether the various aspects of a particular test procedure will be conducted in a proper fashion, based solely on a written description of that test procedure.

In the second part of your letter you asked whether the buckle crush requirements of paragraph S4.3(d)(3) of Standard No. 209, when tested in accordance with the procedures specified in S5.2(d)(3), are applicable to Volvo seat belt buckles and, if so, whether Volvo's interpretation as to how the test should be conducted is correct.

It is true that the buckle requirements were originally included in the standard to guard against possible damage to the buckle caused by the steering wheel in a crash situation. Since the issuance of the standard, new seat belt assembly designs have been developed in which the belt buckle is located between the front seats. As you pointed out in your letter, these buckles are not likely to be contacted by the steering wheel in a crash situation.

In view of the significant design changes that have occurred, the agency has reconsidered its 1972 interpretation to United States Testing Company on this subject. Because it is unlikely that any of these buckles would be damaged by compressive forces in a crash, we have determined that the requirements are inappropriate. Therefore, we conclude that the existing S4.3(d)(3) buckle requirements are not applicable to buckles that are located between bucket seats and attached to the console or to the end of a rigid cable or bar.

SINCERELY,

April 6, 1976

Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Interpretation of FMVSS 209 Demonstration Procedures

FMVSS 209 - Seat Belt Assemblies, specifies in detail performance requirements which must be met by automotive seat belt assemblies. The manner in which conformance with these requirements is to be demonstrated is outlined in S5 of FMVSS 209. Both the performance requirements and the demonstration procedures reflect the design characteristics of those types of seat belt assemblies commonly in use when the standard was written. We have experienced difficulty in applying these requirements to the single loop type seat belt assembly employed on current Volvo vehicles.

Attached are a discussion of section S4.4(b) and a discussion of sections S4.3(d)(3) and S5.2(d)(3) of FMVSS 209 outlining our interpretation of how the requirements of FMVSS 209 apply to single loop type seat belt assemblies. Also attached are illustrations of the Volvo single loop seat belt assembly. Your verification that our interpretation of FMVSS 209, as stated in the attached discussions, is consistent with the requirements of FMVSS 209 would be appreciated.

Any questions on this matter may be addressed to the undersigned. Thank you for your prompt consideration of this request.

VOLVO OF AMERICA CORPORATION Product Engineering and Development

Donald J. Gobeille, Jr. Product Safety Engineer

Request for Interpretation FMVSS 209 S4.3(d)(3) and S5.2(d)(3)

S5.2(d)(3) specifies that a seat belt buckle shall be subjected to a compressive force of 400 pounds applied ". . . anywhere on a test line that is coincident with the centerline of the belt extended through the buckle . . ." (alternative 1) or ". . . on any line that extends over the center of the release mechanism and intersects the extended centerline of the belt at an angle of 60 degrees . . ." (alternative 2). The requirements which shall be met, when tested in this manner, are found in S4.3(d)(3).

The intent of these requirements is expressed in Docket 69-23, Notices 1 and 2, published on March 17, 1970 (35 F.R. 4641) and on March 10, 1971 (36 F.R. 4607), respectively, where it is stated that the test will tend to eliminate buckle designs which are prone to accidental damage, or which release during the initial phase of the accident.

For a design where the buckle is rigidly mounted on the floor between the front seats (see attached description), its location protects it from accidental damage and from release during the initial phase of an accident. It is our interpretation that if the buckle crush requirements are at all applicable to buckles of this design and location, they shall be tested in accordance with alternative 1 above and the force shall be applied as indicated on the attached description. The basis for this interpretation is that the only damage which may occur results from compression if the seats are displaced as a result of a side impact, where the protective effect of a belt in any case can be discussed.

Therefore we request you to:

(1) state if the buckle crush requirements of S4.3(d)(3), when tested in accordance with S5.2(d)(3), are applicable to the described type of buckles, and

(2) if so, if our interpretation as to how this test shall be conducted is correct.

Request for Interpretation FMVSS 209 S4.4(b)

S4.4(b) specifies requirements for Type 2 seat belt assemblies. S4.4(b)(1) and (2) specify requirements for components in the pelvic restraint and in the upper torso restraint, respectively. Then S4.4(b)(3) specifies requirements for components which are common to pelvic and upper torso restraints.

A Type 2 seat belt assembly which is designed as a continuous loop seat belt with a sliding locking tongue, can never in real life be subjected to forces only in the pelvic restraint. Therefore we interpret S4.4(b)(1) and (2) as not directly applicable to such a design of seat belts. Only S4.4(b)(3) should apply, which indirectly covers the same aspect of performance. The maximum elongation requirements of S4.4(b)(4) and (5) can be met by limiting the double-roller block travel to 10 inches when the 6000 pounds force is applied.

The breaking strength requirement of S4.4(b)(6) for a webbing cut of the pelvic restraint should be applicable to any webbing cut in a continuous loop seat belt.

In accordance with our interpretation, a continuous loop seat belt assembly should be tested as indicated in the following figure:

As can be seen from this figure, the test set up includes all attachment hardware, and the positions of the components simulate as close as possible their actual positions in a vehicle.

We request that you confirm our interpretation as stated above.

(Graphics omitted) Part of drawing No 1290538

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht76-5.20

DATE: 06/30/76

FROM: J. WOMACK FOR F. BERNDT -- NHTSA

TO: Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your March 24, 1976, letter concerning the label required by @ 567.4(g) of 49 CFR Part 567, Certification.

The certification label is required by paragraph (g) (3) to include "'GROSS VEHICLE WEIGHT RATING' or 'GVWR' followed by the appropriate value in pounds . . ." Paragraph (g) (4) specifies a similar requirement for Gross Axle Weight Ratings.

You have pointed out that the Canadian motor vehicle safety regulations require a similar certification label with these weight ratings expressed in kilograms. You have asked whether a single label that expresses the weight ratings in both pounds and kilograms would be permitted by 49 CFR Part 567. The answer is yes, provided that each kilogram rating, which is optional, appear after the corresponding pound rating, which is required.

Please note that these two ratings differ in legal status. The rating that is expressed in pounds is the official rating for the purposes of the United States Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations. The accompanying equivalent kilogram rating, however, will be considered as optional, supplementary information provided for the guidance of the reader. This distinction is necessary, because the measurement values, including weights, that appear in our safety standards and regulations are specified in exact terms, without tolerances. While a measurement in English units can be "equal" to one in metric units to any preselected number of significant figures, the two can never be exactly equal.

ID: nht76-5.21

DATE: 07/08/76

FROM: JOHN WOMACK FOR FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA

TO: Kentucky Manufacturing Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Kentucky Manufacturing Company's June 17, 1976, question whether the replacement of the frame of a converter dolly constitutes the manufacture of a new vehicle subject to applicable motor vehicle safety standards when the running gear (the axles, wheels, suspension, and related components sometimes known as a bogie) and the fifth wheel of the damaged converter dolly are reused. This office received clarification from you by telephone that the fifth wheel would be reused, although this was not stated in your letter.

The replacement of the frame is considered a repair by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and not the manufacture of a new vehicle. Thus the operation you describe would not constitute the manufacture of a new trailer that would require certification of compliance with safety standards such as Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

I have enclosed a copy of a recent amendment of NHTSA regulations that permits the rebuilding of trailers without certification in some cases when it was previously prohibited. The details of the conditions under which such rebuilding is allowed are discussed in the preamble of the document.

Yours truly,

Enclosure

ATTACH.

KENTUCKY MANUFACTURING COMPANY

June 17, 1976

Frank A. Berndt -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Would the installation of a new frame on a converter dolly require certification to FMVSS-121 if the axle, air brake equipment, wheels & tires are used from the old, damaged unit? The dolly would still carry the old identification, serial number, etc.

Very truly yours,

Glenn W. Dobrick -- Chief Engineer

ID: nht76-5.22

DATE: 03/11/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Hardings Lane

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am writing in response to your March 9, 1976, telephone conversation with Mark Schwimmer of this office concerning the meaning of "GVWR" as it appears in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity.

"GVWR" or "Gross vehicle weight rating" is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 as:

the value specified by the manufacturer as the loaded weight of a single vehicle.

One constraint on this specification is found in @ 567.4(g)(3) of 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, which requires that the GVWR shall not

be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity. . . .

An information sheet entitled "Where to Obtain Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations" is enclosed for your convenience. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to write.

ID: nht76-5.23

DATE: 06/02/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood; NHTSA

TO: American Honda Motor Co. Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your May 6, 1976, request for confirmation that the Honda "MPV" qualifies as a multipurpose passenger vehicle although it is constructed on a "modified" truck chassis.

In our letter to you of April 30, 1976, we concluded that the Honda "MPV" would be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle, based upon the assumption that the "MPV" is constructed on a truck chassis. You responded that the "MPV" is constructed on a "modified" truck chassis, and questioned whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration considered this fact in its previous interpretation.

The reference to "truck chassis" in the definition of multipurpose passenger vehicle, 49 CFR Part 571.3(b), is intended to include chassis that were designed and developed for trucks, but which have been produced in a version for use in passenger carrying vehicles. According to your letter and drawings of March 1, 1976, the Honda "MPV" is a passenger version of the Honda TN500 light truck. Since the modification of the chassis in the production of the "MPV" does not appear to be so great that the major characteristics of the truck chassis are destroyed, we confirm our previous determination that the Honda "MPV" qualifies as a multipurpose passenger vehicle.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO. INC.

May 6, 1976

Stephen P. Wood -- Assistant Chief Counsel, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Wood:

Your Ref: N40-30

Thank you for your letter of April 30, regarding the Honda "MPV."

I would like to point out that the chassis upon which the "MPV" is constructed is a modified truck chassis. This is clearly shown in the drawings which I sent to you.

I would like to confirm that this fact was considered in your assumption that the "MPV" is constructed on a truck chassis, and if not does it make any difference to your opinion.

Please call me at the telephone number shown above if you have any questions about this matter.

I look forward to your early response.

Yours truly,

Brian Gill -- Assistant Manager, Safety & Environmental Activities

ID: nht76-5.24

DATE: 03/08/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Steam Power Systems

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 22, 1976, requesting confirmation that your company's Paratransit Vehicle would be classified as a "multipurpose passenger vehicle" for purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations.

Your letter states that the Paratransit Vehicle is designed primarily to carry wheel-chair-confined passengers in a Dial-a-Ride or jitney type of service, and that the vehicle is of the forward control configuration, constructed with a custom chassis-body structure.

Based upon the facts presented in your letter, the description and specifications contained in the attached SAE design paper, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's previous interpretation of the classification, we would conclude that the Paratransit Vehicle does qualify as a "multipurpose passenger vehicle."

Please contact us if we can be of any further assistance.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

Steam Power Systems

January 22, 1976

Office of Chief Council -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U. S. Department of Transportation

Dear Sir:

Steam Power Systems, Inc. (SPS) is currently constructing a prototype Paratransit Vehicle (PTV) for the Urban Mass Transportation Administration of the D.O.T. The PTV is designed primarily to carry wheelchair confined passengers in a Dial-a-Ride or jitney type of service. The SPS prototype vehicle is of the forward control configuration and is constructed with a custom chassis-body structure. The vehicle design is discussed in some detail in the accompanying SAE paper.

SPS plans to certify that the vehicle meets all applicable FMVSS for a Multipurpose Passenger Vehicle (MPV). SPS has been in touch with Mr. Joseph O'Gorman of the Office of Standards Enforcement of NHTSA, and he feels our vehicle should be classified as a MPV, but he suggested that we request an interpretation from the Office of Chief Council that would classify the paratransit vehicle as a multipurpose vehicle.

SPS would appreciate it if you could review the vehicle design and intent and let us know whether the PTV is legally considered to be an MPV. Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

Phil Schneider -- PTV Project Supervisor

[Enclosure Omitted.]

ID: nht76-5.25

DATE: 11/22/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Kustom Fit of Ohio Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 30, 1976 request for confirmation that "liability" for the correct location of a vehicle's seating reference point (SRP) lies with a vehicle manufacturer or alterer that installs seating and not with the manufacturer of the seat. I regret that we have not responded to your request sooner.

"Seating reference point" is defined by NHTSA regulations (49 CFR @ 571.3) to mean --

. . . . the manufacturer's design reference point which --

(a) Establishes the rearmost normal design driving or riding position of each designated seating position in a vehicle;

(b) Has coordinates established relative to the designed vehicle structure;

(c) Stimulates the position of the pivot center of the human torso and thigh; and

(d) Is the reference point employed to position the two dimensional templates described in SAE recommended Practice J826, "Manikins for Use in Defining Vehicle Seating Accommodation", November 1962.

While the term "manufacturer" found in the beginning of this definition could refer to either a vehicle or equipment manufacturer under the relevant statutory definition (15 U.S.C. & 102(5)), the references in subparagraphs (a) and (b) make clear that the SRP is a location established with reference to the vehicle structure. It is a commonly understood reference point for specifying the available space for a seated occupant within a vehicle. The only exception to this relationship to the vehicle has been in the case of Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, where the NHTSA has indicated it would accept an SRP designation that is established with reference to the seat frame. This policy is limited to school buses where seat placement within the vehicle is subject to more variation than in other vehicle types.

This means that the NHTSA, in verifying the compliance of a vehicle with a standard such as Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Anchorages, will ask the vehicle manufacturer for the location of the SRP.

SINCERELY,

KUSTOM FIT of OHIO Inc.

April 30, 1976

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration On August 6, 1975 the Recreational Vehicle Industry Association issued bulletin #MS32-752 to all manufacturers and suppliers which dealt with seating reference points in M.P.V.'s.

This letter enclosed please find a copy of it, has created a misunderstanding of responsibilities between the seating manufacturer and the Original Equipment Manufacturer or converters of recreational vehicle products.

It has been the accepted responsibility of the seating manufacturer to establish compliance with standard No. 207 which has to do with pull testing, the integrity of the seat, etc. Our product has been tested extensively by independent laboratories and is regularly pull tested within our own plant to establish that we maintain these standards. The SRP point however is established by fitting a special mannequin into the vehicle in such a manner that its feet are in contact with the gas pedal and floor while its other various extremities are in contact with the steering wheel, etc. By using this method the outboard designated seating position is established in each vehicle as well as the head impact area and the pelvic impact area and the torso line. The only possible way to establish that seating reference point is to check a seat as it is installed in the vehicle complete with its seat belt anchoring system. This SRP point would vary with every model in which it is installed.

Kustom Fit manufactures seats for installation in a wide variety of vehicles and deals with over five hundred customers. While we can give the center of gravity of the seat from which its original pull test were made and are happy to do so we are not in a position to supply the SRP point which is the responsibility in our opinion of the vehicle manufacturer or converter rather than a seat manufacturer.

This being the case we ask that you supply us and the R.V.I.A. with a letter stating that the liability for the correct SRP point lies with the converter of the vehicle or manufacturer rather than with a component manufacturer such as ourselves.

We thank you for your help.

James A. Rupp Vice President General Manager

cc: EARL BELK; JIM PORTER; R.V.I.A. (Illegible Text) (Illegible Text) (Illegible Text) (Illegible Text)

ID: nht76-5.26

DATE: 11/24/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Bendt; NHTSA

TO: HM Vehicles

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 15, 1976, to Secretary Coleman asking for copies of our regulations that would apply to a small vehicle, apparently threee-wheeled, which you intend to manufacture in limited numbers.

I enclose a copy of an information sheet that tells where you may obtain copies of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to motor vehicles, and of the regulations that apply to manufacturers. I also enclose a copy of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, the authority for the safety standards and regulations. If you have any questions after reviewing these materials, I will be happy to answer them for you.

Three-wheeled vehicles are classified, and will be for the foreseable future, as "motorcycles." A proposed redefinition which would have removed enclosed three-wheeled vehicles from the definition is in abeyance and consideration is being given, as you suggested, to establishing standards appropriate for all lightweight motor vehicles.

ID: nht76-5.27

DATE: 11/24/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Messrs. Patton; Boggs & Blow

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 19, 1976, to the Administrator with respect to the Ryan tote-trailer manufactured by your client, Outboard Marine Corporation. You have asked whether the tote-trailer is a "motor vehicle" as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1391(3); if the answer is affirmative you have asked whether the tote trailer is a "pole trailer" as defined in 49 CFR 571.3(b); if the answer is negative, you have asked that any failure to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and other regulations be deemed inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.

In our opinion the tote-trailer is a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of @ 1391(3). Although the equipment that it carries is intended for off-road use, the tote trailer with load is hauled from place to place by motor vehicles, as depicted in the sales literature, that operate on the public roads. It has been our continuing opinion that vehicles which use the highway on a necessary and recurring basis to move between work sites are motor vehicles. As your letter indicates, the trailer is purchased by rental agencies and "is likely to be towed on the public roads and highways." We therefore have concluded that the tote trailer is "manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways" and falls within the coverage of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966.

It is also our conclusion that the tote trailer is not a "pole trailer" as defined by 49 CFR 571.3(b). The tote trailer is attached to the towing vehicle by a conventional tongue and not "by means of a reach or pole, or by being boomed or otherwise secured to the towing vehicle." In addition, the load does not appear capable of sustaining itself as a beam between the supporting connections.

Therefore, it appears from your letter that all tote trailers manufactured since January 1, 1969, have not been equipped with lighting devices required by 49 CFR 571.108, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, that those manufactured since January 1, 1972, have not been provided with GAWR and GVWR figures on the certification labels required by 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, and that those manufactured since September 1, 1976, may have not been equipped with tires required by 49 CFR 571.120, Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.

If your client wishes to submit a petition for inconsequentiality we request that it follow the format in proposed 49 CFR Part 556, copy enclosed. You may refer any questions on this matter to Mr. Vinson of my staff.

SINCERELY,

PATTON, BOGGS & BLOW October 19, 1976

John W. Snow Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

Re: Request for Interpretation and, if Necessary, for Exemption from Requirements as to a Failure to Comply with a Motor Vehicle Safety Standard

Outboard Marine Corporation ("OMC") 100 Sea-Horse Drive, Waukegan, Illinois 60085, by its counsel, hereby requests: (i) a determination whether the vehicle described herein, manufactured under the trade name "Ryan" is a motor vehicle as that term is defined in @ 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (the "Act"); (ii) if so, a ruling as to the proper classification of the vehicle for purposes of the regulations and standards of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA"); and (iii) if such standards are applicable, a determination that any failure to comply therewith is "inconsequential" within the meaning of @ 157 of the Act and an exemption from any requirement with respect to such failure to comply. In support of this request, the following information is provided.

A. Description

This request relates to a vehicle known as a "tote trailer," which is manufactured as a complement to the turf care equipment line manufactured by OMC under the trade-name "Ryan." Turf care equipment includes a variety of machines specially designed for use in the growth and maintenance of turf grasses. While some items of Ryan equipment are designed for residential use, such as lawnowners and edgers, the principal employment of Ryan equipment is in the maintenance and care of the turf grasses on golf courses, athletic fields, parks, sod farms, and similar locations. The equipment includes power rakes, thatchers, spreaders, golf green aerators, tractor drawn aerators, sod cutters, and levelers. The attached brochure (Annex A) describes the Ryan equipment line and provides illustrations of typical usage.

The principal plant facility for the manufacture of the Ryan equipment line is in Minnesota. For some years this plant has manufactured a small, inexpensive "tote trailer" designed exclusively for the carriage of certain Ryan machines. The tote trailer is sold in three versions, each designed solely for a specific machine. For example, the junior sod cutter tote trailer is designed to carry only that machine (the junior sod cutter) and could not be conveniently used for any other kind of equipment (see Annex A, page 13).

The trailer is very simple: it consists of a triangular frame, two upright bars, an axle and two wheels. The trailer does not have a deck and is configured solely to accommodate the specific item of Ryan equipment for which it is designed. The trailer has always been considered an accessory to the equipment it is designed to carry. In fact, the only purpose of the trailer is to permit convenient transportation of bulky and heavy equipment. In these circumstances, the trailer can be logically considered as an accessory of the equipment it is designed to carry rather than a discrete item.

The basic function of the tote trailer is to transport the specific item of Ryan equipment for which it is designed from one location to another. The transportation may be on private lanes within a golf course or park not involving public roads and highways. However, the tote trailer is also purchased by rental agencies that lease the Ryan equipment including the tote trailer to the public. In this circumstance, the tote trailer and the Ryan equipment for which it is designed is likely to be towed on the public roads and highways.

The tote trailer has been sold without lights, license plate holder, fenders, or any of the other usual indicia of an on-road vehicle. The hitch arrangement is equally adaptable to towing behind a tractor as behind an automobile, although the arrangement is fully compatible with automotive hitches. In the past, an optional fender and light unit has been offered but there has been little interest in this option and few kits have been sold. OMC has now, however, taken the decision that the tote trailer will in the future be manufactured as a motor vehicle in the trailer class and units manufactured after December 1, 1976, will be in compliance with all regulations and standards applicable to trailers.

B. The Tote Trailer is not a Motor Vehicle in the Usual Sense

Since the tote trailer is designed to carry only one item of equipment, it is essentially an accessory to that piece of equipment. As a general rule, the tote trailer would not be purchased or utilized other than in association with a specific item of Ryan equipment. All such equipment is designed and intended for use on lawns, golf courses, etc., and while generally self propelled on wheels, is obviously not in the category of motor vehicle as defined in the Act. Because of these characteristics of the basic equipment, it was not unreasonable for petitioner's manufacturing and sales personnel - who are not routinely engaged in motor vehicle manufacture - to consider the tote trailer as being other than a motor vehicle for purposes of the Act.

Petitioners do not have specific knowledge of the ultimate usage of the tote trailer in all cases. However, it is known that some of the units in use are utlized on golf courses or other similar locations and seldom, if ever, appear on public roads. Other tote trailers are owned by rental companies that rent the trailer in conjunction with the Ryan equipment for which it is designed. This group of trailers probably do appear on public roads since their ordinary function is to transport the equipment from the rental office to the residence of the user.

Under the NHTSA regulations and interpretations, the determination as to whether an item of equipment is a "motor vehicle" as that term is defined in the Act is based, in part, on the use of the vehicle. Because the tote trailer is an accessory to a specific piece of equipment, it would not be illogical to conclude that the trailer plus the equipment constitute the "vehicle" and that the primary use of the unit as a whole is in off road situations. Put another way, the unit as a whole is occasionally used on public roads, but primarily is not. In these circumstances, OMC requests that the Administrator determine that to date, the tote trailer was not "manufactured primarily for use on the public streets . . ." and, therefore, has not been a motor vehicle as that term is defined in @ 102(3) of the Act.

C. Classification In the event the Administrator concludes that the tote trailer is a motor vehicle, we urge that it be classified as a "pole trailer" as defined in @ 571.3(b). A pole trailer is:

"a motor vehicle without motive power designed to be drawn by another motor vehicle and attached to the towing vehicle by means of a reach or pole, or by being boomed or otherwise secured to the towing vehicle, for transporting long or irregularly shaped loads such as poles, pipes, or structural members capable generally of sustaining themselves as beams between the supporting connections."

As will be shown below, the tote trailer has each of the characteristics of a pole trailer as so defined.

First, the tote trailer is designed for transporting irregularly shaped loads. As the illustrations on pages 13 and 15 of Annex A clearly show, the Ryan equipment that is carried on the tote trailer is obviously bulky and irregularly shaped. Second, since the tote trailer is simply a frame without a deck, it is clear that the load (i.e., a piece of Ryan equipment) is capable of sustaining itself between the supporting connections. Third, the trailer is secured to the towing vehicle by a hitch attached to the frame members that in turn support the load. Thus, each of the criteria for a pole trailer classification are met by the tote trailer and it should be so classified.

While there has not, to our knowledge, been developed a body of precedent as to classifications under the Act and NHTSA Regulations, there has developed such case law in the area of Customs administration where classifications are routinely made as to imported merchandise. Under the Customs precedents, the principle has always been that where an article falls within both a general and specific class, it is always classified in the latter. That is, the more specific definition prevails. See, e.g., Broderick & Bascom Rope Co. v. United States, 59 C.C.P.A. 130, 460 F.2d 1070 (1972). This principle of construction seems equally appropriate for the NHTSA regulations where there is a general class, trailers, and a number of more specific classes, namely: the pole trailer, the boat trailer and the trailer converter dolly. Following the Customs law rationale, the Ryan tote trailer which fits both the general trailer and more specific pole trailer definitions, logically should be classified as the latter.

Accordingly, in the event the Administrator determines that the Ryan tote trailer is a motor vehicle, then we submit it should be classified as a pole trailer at least with respect to those units produced to date. While pole trailers are subject to certain requirements under the NHTSA regulations, they are excluded from compliance with Standard 108 (see @ 571.108, S2). Because of this exclusion from the principal standard applicable to trailers, the failure to comply with the certification and manufacturer identification requirements is obviously inconsequential. Accordingly, the Administrator, should, pursuant to @ 157 of the Act, exempt petitioner from any compliance with the requirements of notification and remedy in Part B of the Act.

D. Even if the Tote Trailer is Classified Other than a Pole Trailer, then Any Failure to Comply is Inconsequential

Without in any way compromising our position that the tote trailer, if a motor vehicle, is properly classified as a pole trailer, we would urge that even if classified as a regular trailer, any failure to comply with the motor vehicle safety standards is inconsequential. Accordingly, the Administrator would be justified in exempting the petitioner from any requirement as to notice or remedy under part B of the Act.

Petitioner has manufactured the tote trailer for some years as an accessory to a product line wholly unrelated to the motor vehicle industry. It has been manufactured for a specific class of customers that have not requested lighting (Standard 108) or a title certificate. To petitioner's knowledge, there has never been a product liability case or, for that matter, accident involving the tote trailer. And, as noted, above, the petitioner has now determined to establish a classification of the tote trailer as a trailer (general class) and to manufacture it in compliance with the applicable regulations.

E. Conclusion

OMC submits that it would not be unreasonable for the Administrator to issue a determination that the tote trailer was either not a motor vehicle or, if so, was a pole trailer for the reasons stated herein. In the event such a determination would require additional information or discussion, a conference is hereby requested. Kindly contact the undersigned if there are any questions in connection with the foregoing.

Charles O. Verrill, Jr.

ID: nht76-5.28

DATE: 01/07/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Wisconsin Trailer Company Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your November 26, 1975, request for confirmation that the NHTSA permits the establishment of gross axle weight ratings (GAWR) for trailer axles based on use at a speed of less than 60 mph.

Your interpretation is incorrect. In the April 28, 1975, interpretation letter to Mr. James Srch that was enclosed in the NHTSA's recent letter to you, it was stated that ". . . NHTSA has found it necessary to specify that GAWR's and GVWR's be calculated on the basis of highway speeds and not qualified by reduced speed ratings . . . ."

Since the NHTSA's November 20, 1975, letter to you, the agency has published a proposal that would amend the definition of GAWR to conform to this interpretation. A copy is enclosed for your information.

YOURS TRULY,

WISCONSIN TRAILER COMPANY, INC.

November 26, 1975

Frank A. Berndt Acting Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Adm.

Reference: N40-30

I have your letter of November 20th, in which you discussed Gross Axle Weight Rating and Gross Vehicle Weight Ratings at an attainable speed of 60 miles per hour.

Enclosed is a copy of amendments to Title 49, which became effective October 1, 1975 . . . with exceptions as provided.

It is our interpretation that trailer manufacturers are permitted to rate their product at a speed lesser than 60 miles per hour. Are we correct in our interpretation?

Your early reply would be appreciated.

LeRoy E. Mueller President