ID: 77-4.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/08/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt for J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Grand Teton Trading Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of September 12, 1977, requesting information concerning the certification requirements for acrylic glazing to be used in motor vehicles. Specifically, you are interested in the separate certification responsibilities of the company that manufactures the acrylic sheets, the company that cuts and shapes the acrylic, and the company that constructs aluminum frames around the acrylic and sells windows to the customized van market.

Paragraphs S6.1 and S6.3 of Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, specify that prime glazing material manufacturers shall certify each piece of glazing that is for use in motor vehicles in accordance with section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq.) and with section 6 of the ANS Z26 standard. These requirements would be applicable to the company from which you buy acrylic sheets, since that company would qualify as a prime glazing material manufacturer.

As a manufacturer or distributor who cuts a section of glazing for use in a motor vehicle, your company would be required to certify its product in the same fashion as your supplier (paragraphs S6.4 and S6.5 of Standard No. 205). Please note, however, that under section 6 of ANS Z26 your company is required to mark any section of glazing that it cuts with the same words, designations, characters, and numerals as the piece of glazing from which it was cut. This means that you would stamp your product with markings identical to the certification markings on the acrylic sheets you purchased.

The company that constructs aluminum around the glazing and sells windows to the customized van market would be required to certify its product in accordance with section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Section 114 provides that an item of motor vehicle equipment (including glazing) may be certified by means of a label or tag on the item of equipment or on the outside of a container in which the equipment is delivered. The label or tag must certify that the item of motor vehicle equipment complies with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards, Standard No. 205 in this case.

Please contact this office if you have any further questions.

SINCERELY,

GRAND TETON TRADING CO.

September 12, 1977

Guy Hunter Office of Chief Counsel NHTSA

I have been advised by Mr. Bradley Marks of your Colorado office to write you concerning clarifications of the Motor Vehicle Standard No. 205.

We are a company who intends to purchase acrylic sheets from a manufacturer that states his product has been certified to meet the requirements of ANSI-Z26. We intend to cut sections of the acrylic sheets to various shapes that will be used as window inserts. Our customer will construct aluminum frames around the acrylic insert and market the window to the customized van market.

Based upon the situation stated above, I have the following questions:

1. What should I expect from the manufacturer of the acrylic sheets in the area of ANSI-Z26 certification?

2. What is our company required to do to comply with ANSI-Z26?

3. What is our customer required to do to comply with ANSI-Z26?

This is a new market area for our company and we would appreciate any information and clarification you can provide.

Robert P. Ducey

ID: 77-5.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/29/77

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

TO: Utility Trailer Manufacturing Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Utility Trailer Manufacturing Company's October 6, 1977, request for confirmation that the criteria for a bulk agricultural commodity trailer contained in S5.6 and S5.8 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, can be met by a trailer that does not accommodate "slip-in bottom dump" bulk harvest tubs as well as the "deck type" harvest tubs used for tomatoe harvesting. From your description, it is assumed for the purposes of this interpretation that the trailers in question do conform to the criteria in the standard for maximum length and an air line and reservoir arrangement that minimize field damage.

The criterion of "skeletal construction that accommodates harvest containers" can be met by a design that accommodates mounting of deck type bulk harvest tubs by means of removable flooring, whether or not the removal of flooring also permits the mounting of "slip-in bottom" bulk harvest tubs.

SINCERELY,

UTILITY TRAILER MANUFACTURING CO.

October 6, 1977

National Highway Safety Administration

Attention: Duane Perrin

Attached is a copy of a letter sent to our Utility Dealers who have historically sold the agricultural commodity trailer. The letter tells the story.

Basically, we find that there are many more trailers required in the tomatoe harvest than any other kind. Thus, the operator wants to avoid the cost of accommodating the slip-in containers which adds plenty to the cost and weight of the trailer - - - and, I find that our competitors are following the rules we have now set. A copy of a letter that stated our position to Fruehauf last May is attached. Obviously, we and Fruehauf now have the same rules.

Unless we are off-base, I will assume that you agree with our restrictions.

Paul Bennett Chief Engineer

ATTACH.

To: San Leandro - Bruce Myers Fresno - Lyman Ehrlich Los Angeles - James Pollard Phoenix - Ben Cravens The legal definition of an Agricultural Commodity Trailer with specific exemptions from MVSS 121 is "Trailer designed with a high ground clearance and other special features for use with farm tractors during harvest."

Up to the date of this letter Utility has restricted its manufacture of Agricultural Commodity Trailers to a specially designes combination trailer model FS1WC (Semi) and FF2WC (Pull). We now learn many users do not want or need extra expense of a combination trailer that will accommodate a deck mounted harvest tub (tomatoes) as well as the bottom dump can for slip-in body (grapes and fruit) - - - and, that often, a center frame design is preferred to the wide frame design. As a consequence, the following trailer type order will be accepted for trailers qualified as Agricultural Commodity Trailers:

1. Standard Utility combo trailer Models FS1WC & FF2WC, - or -

2. Utility chassis trailer Models FS1W and FF2W (wide frame) or FS1C and FF2C center frame trailers which consider the following special specification:

A. Booster mountings to be top mounted on the axles to accommodate the high road bed clearance requirement.

B. Omission of all floor material for the purpose of accommodating a customer light weight floor or base support for a deck type harvest tub.

C. Trailer lengths may not exceed 27 ft.

D. A dealer letter is to accompany each order warranting that a sole and primary use will be in-field with farm type tractor. The dealer, obviously, should protect himself with a similar letter at time of sale.

John C. Bennett

CC: NHTSA

ID: nht75-1.30

DATE: 06/03/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Floyd, Kramer & Lambrecht

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of April 25, 1975, concerning the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses, to the Wabco Westinghouse Duo-Matic Coupler.

You have described the Coupler as a device which replaces the glad hand coupler now used by most manufacturers to connect truck tractor and trailer brake lines. Because the brake hose which attaches to the Coupler is equipped with its own end fittings, the Coupler itself is not an end fitting. Therefore, Standard No. 106-74 is inapplicable.

The Coupler is, however, subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 393.45 and 393.46, of which I have enclosed a copy. Please direct any questions you may have concerning interpretation of these requirements to the Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal Highway Administration, at 400 Seventh St., S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.

Yours truly,

Enclosure

April 25, 1975

Office of Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Attention: Mark Schwimmer

Re: Wabco Westinghouse Duo-Matic Coupler

Dear Mr. Schwimmer:

Reference is made to our telephone conversation on April 11, 1975, concerning the applicability of M.V.S.S. No. 106-74 and Part 566-Manufacturer Identification, to our above referenced product. As indicated, we represent the importer of this equipment in the United States and wish to comply fully with your agency before distribution is begun in this country. Enclosed please find:

1. Three copies of a product description for Wabco Westinghouse Duo-Matic Coupler, Model No. 452 803,

2. Three copies of product description for Wabco Westinghouse Duo-Matic Coupler, Model No. 452 802,

3. Assorted photographs of the coupler showing the unit with and without brake hose end fittings. The black and white picture shows the unit installed on a Norwegian vehicle.

As indicated above, we are interested as to whether the above cited regulations apply to these units. It should be noted that we don't feel this is a "brake hose end fitting", as defined in your regulations, as a fitting is placed on the brake hose prior to the brake hose being attached to our unit. The end fittings are not part of our unit. Our unit simply replaces the "glad hand coupler" now used by most manufacturers to couple the hose end fittings of the tractor and trailer truck units.

We also feel that our units do not constitute a "brake hose assembly" as defined in your regulations, as, again, our unit does not include brake hoses or the end fittings of brake hoses, but merely couples end fittings together between tractor and trailer or between two trailers.

We would also advise you that the above referenced units are used in Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, and New Zealand and have been so used in said countries since 1971.

We would request from you the following:

1. Whether the above cited regulations apply to our products.

2. Whether any other regulations of your agency apply to these products.

If any further additional information is required for you to make the above determination, please notify us. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter, and I remain

Sincerely,

FLOYD, KRAMER & LAMBRECHT -- Kenneth B. Kramer

Encls.

ID: nht74-5.5

DATE: 02/20/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: House of Representatives

COPYEE: LAWRENCE R. SCHNEIDER -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY RICHARD B. DYSON

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In response to your February 11, 1974, request in behalf of a constituent, Mr. Frank Mills of Saint Louis, I would like to discuss the legal implications of modifications to the ignition interlock system on 1974 model passenger cars. I am not familiar with the booklet to which Mr. Mills refers.

The interlock is one part of Standard 208, which like any other safety standard issued under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, applies to new vehicles only. Once a vehicle is sold for purposes other than resale and the buyer takes delivery, he may modify the system or legally have the system modified by an automobile repair service to accommodate circumstances, such as physical incapacity, which make use of the belts unwise or inconvenient.

Whether or not a dealer's disconnection of an interlock system under any given specified set of circumstances would be legally permitted is a conclusion which the courts would determine if called upon to decide such an issue. The position of this agency is that any act by a dealer to disconnect an interlock system which could be related to a sales transaction or the introduction into interstate commerce of a motor vehicle is prohibited. In this respect, we support H.R. 5529 which would prohibit any motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from removing or rendering inoperative any Federally-required safety equipment, including interlocks, from new or used vehicles. The prohibition would not apply to vehicle owners.

I have taken the liberty of forwarding a copy of this letter to Mr. Mills at his St. Louis address to assure receipt of the information by February 21, 1974.

February 11, 1974

Larry Schneider Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Will you please advise me on the legal aspects of the clarification of the seat belt law, which information has been requested by one of my constituents, Mr. Frank Mills, President of the Greater St. Louis Automotive Parts and Service Association of St. Louis, Missouri. For your information, I am enclosing herewith a copy of Mr. Mills' letter.

You will note that Mr. Mills has requested this information for use at the next meeting of his Association on February 21, 1974. If it is at all possible, I would like very much to fulfill his request.

Thank you for your cooperation in this instance.

Leonor K. (Mrs. John B.) Sullivan Member of Congress 3rd District, Missouri

Enclosure

GREATER ST. LOUIS AUTOMOTIVE PARTS & SERVICE ASSOCIATION

FEBRUARY 5, 1974

Lenore Sullivan 2221 Rayburn Bldg. Washington D.C. 20515

I am writing to request your booklet on the "Clarification of the Seat Belt" law. It is unlawful for the Automobile Dealers to disconnect this system, but an independent person feels he is not covered by this law. This does not seem logical.

When speaking with your Office, I explained as President of the Greater St. Louis Automotive Club, I wished to look into the proper legal aspects and discuss it at our next meeting, the 21st of February. They informed me, I must send my request to you and you would see it was received on time.

Thanking you in advance for your time and trouble.

Sincerely,

Mr. Frank Mills President

Copy: file

Please mail to:

Mr. Frank Mills 5204 Walsh St. Louis, Missouri 63109

ID: nht74-5.54

DATE: 07/10/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Hellstar Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 17, 1974, requesting further information on the applicability of Federal safety standards to auxiliary fuel tanks.

Standard No. 301 does not apply directly to auxiliary or extra-capacity fuel tanks. However, it does apply to motor vehicle fuel systems. Therefore, if an auxiliary or extra-capacity tank is installed in the fuel system of a vehicle that is subject to the performance requirements of Standard No. 301, before its first purchase for purposes other than resale, causing that fuel system not to be in compliance with the standard, the person installing the tank or offering the vehicle for sale would be in violation of @108 (a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Since Standard No. 301 becomes applicable to trucks with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less on September 1, 1976, the fuel systems of such trucks will have to meet the performance requirements of the standard as of that date.

The fact that a customer may have ordered the auxiliary or extra-capacity tank to be installed in the vehicle he is purchasing does not affect the installer's responsibilities under the Act. He would still be in violation of Standard No. 301 if the tank were installed prior to the first purchase causing the fuel system to be in noncompliance.

Auxiliary and extra-capacity fuel tanks are not subject to regulation under Standard No. 301 where they are installed after the first purchase of the vehicle for purposes other than resale. However, the auxiliary and extra-capacity tanks are subject to the

2 section of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act that authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to make a determination as to whether or not an item of motor vehicle equipment contains a safety-related defect. In the event that such a determination is made, the manufacturer may be compelled to notify purchasers of the hazard.

If the installation of the fuel tank occurs before the first purchase of the vehicle for purposes other than resale, the installer must affix to the vehicle an additional certification label stating the alterer's name, the date of the alteration completion, and that the vehicle conforms to all applicable safety standards in effect on a date no earlier than the manufacturing date of the original vehicle, and no later than the date the alterations were completed.

We appreciate your interest.

YOURS TRULY,

CORPORATION June 17, 1974

Richard B. Dyson Assistant Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

Re: N40-30 KK

Your letter to Merle Robberts did not state clearly what effects standard No. 301, Part 571 would have to pick up truck auxiliary fuel tanks when this standard takes effect in 1976.

If I am reading your letter correctly auxiliary fuel tanks will not be effected, even after 1976, as long as they are not installed prior to first sale. Is this a correct assumption?

We also manufacture a line of extra capacity fuel tanks where the original tank is removed and our tank is installed in its place. Would the above be true in this situation?

If a new truck dealer installed an auxiliary or a replacement fuel tank on a vehicle that was ordered by the customer, would he be in violation of Standard 301?

Would a person that installs an auxiliary or replacement fuel tank on a vehicle have to recertify this vehicle under Part 567 certification rules?

A reply to the above at your earliest convenience will be greatly appreciated.

John J. Gostomski President

ID: nht75-4.21

DATE: 10/17/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Tiffin Metal Products

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your request for an opinion on the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 205 to a road grader intended for use in highway construction.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issues safety standards for "motor vehicles." Therefore, our regulations apply to a vehicle and its manufacturer only if the vehicle qualifies as a motor vehicle under the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. Section 102(3) of the Act defines motor vehicle as:

any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

Thus, a motor vehicle is a vehicle which the manufacturer expects will use public highways as part of its intended function.

Tracked and other vehicles incapable of highway travel are not motor vehicles. In addition, vehicles intended and sold solely for off-road use (e.g. aircraft runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not considered vehicles even if operationally capable of highway travel. They would, however, be considered motor vehicles if the manufacturer knew that a substantial proportion of his customers actually would use them on the highway.

Just as clearly, vehicles which use the highway on a necessary and recurring basis to move between work sites are motor vehicles. The primary function of some vehicles is of a mobile, work performing nature and as such their manufacturer comtemplates a primary use of the highway. Mobile cranes, drill rigs, and towed equipment such as chippers and pull-type street sweepers are examples in this area. Even if the equipment uses highways infrequently, it is considered a motor vehicle. An exception to this is that occasional use of the highway in the immediate periphery of the work site, as is the case with some farm and construction equipment, would not by itself case a finding that the vehicle is a motor vehicle. The motor vehicles described above generally qualify as trucks or trailers. As such they are subject to several of the motor vehicle safety standards, and the manufacturer must comply with other regulations in Chapter V of Title 49, code of Federal Regulations.

There are some vehicles which are excepted from the motor vehicle classification despite their use of the highway. Highway maintenance and construction equipment, lane stripers, self-propelled asphalt pavers, and other vehicles whose maximum speed does not exceed 20 miles per hour and whose abnormal configuration distinguishes them from the traffic flow are not considered motor vehicles. This would appear to include road graders whose maximum speed does not exceed 20 miles per hour, if intended for use in highway construction.

From these guidelines you should be able to determine whether a piece of equipment qualifies as a motor vehicle. Please write again if you are unable to make this determination.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

Tiffin METAL PRODUCTS

August 11, 1975

National Highway Traffic Safety Commission Mr. Hunter

Dear Mr. Hunter:

Per our telephone conversation of August 11, 1975, please forward to me in writing the ruling stating that the Huber Cab for road construction does not have to meet STD 205.

Thank you for your attention in this matter.

Very truly yours,

Joe Steininger -- Inventory Control Manager

cc: W. Heddles; M. Smith

ID: nht75-4.28

DATE: 07/30/75

FROM: Z. TAYLOR VINSON FOR RICHARD B. DYSON -- NHTSA

TO: Truck Body and Equipment Association, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of July 3, 1975, forwarding a copy of an earlier letter that evidently was never received by us. You asked whether a garbage truck that contained an auxiliary driver's position on the right side of the vehicle, with a separate set of controls, needs to have a seat at the auxiliary position, and whether access to such controls as the heater, wipers, and lights from this position is required.

We consider the standards relating to the driver's position as relating to the normal position, and not to an auxiliary driving position. The answer is no, therefore, to both of the above questions.

Yours Truly,

TRUCK BODY AND EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC.

July 3, 1975

Richard Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

Enclosed please find a copy of a letter submitted to the NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel on May 19, 1975. In addition to the original cover letter, there were sales documents, a vehicle performance analysis, and several other pieces of background information.

We are still waiting to receive an interpretation on the vehicle in question.

If I can be of any help in expediting this matter please feel free to contact me.

Byron A. Crampton Manager of Engineering Services

TRUCK BODY AND EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATION INC.

May 19, 1975

James Schulz Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

Recently a member of TBEA's Refuse Body Division raised several questions concerning the applicability of certain Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards to a specific vocational vehicle.

The vehicle in question is a relatively new concept in a solid waste removal vehicle (Garbage Truck) designed for optimum manpower utilization. From the enclosed sales literature the basic operating configuration is apparent - a one man operation. The projected cost savings associated with this design are achieved by the reduction in the number of people required to operate these vehicles during the collection cycle. Aside from the cost savings benefits appreciated through this side loading type of collection vehicle, additional benefits are achieved in the area of operating safety. The one man side loading unit has been proven to be substantially safer to operate than the conventional rear loading unit.

The vehicle's construction is as unique as its operation. The conventional truck cab is partitioned off into two separate areas. The left hand section, equipped with (1) designated seating position, is conventionally controlled to allow for normal road operation to and from landfill areas. The right hand section of the cab is altered by removing the door, lowering the floor and installing an additional set of hand operated driver controls. This modified section then becomes a convenient stand-up curbside work station. The 500 to 600 stops per day require constant movement in and out of the vehicle and this curbside/curb level operating position allows the driver to easily move and load the collection vehicle. As stated earlier, there is no door, door hardware, or seating system located at the curbside control position.

With these facts in mind, are we correct in assuming that no seating system and corresponding hardware is required for this auxillary control position? In addition, is control accessibility required (i.e. heater, wipers, lights) for this auxillary control position?

Should any clarification be required, please feel free to contact me.

Byron A. Crampton Manager of Engineering Services

ID: nht75-4.29

DATE: 03/27/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: General Motors Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to General Motors' January 14, 1975, request for confirmation that a Type II seat belt assembly demonstrated to Messrs. Carter, Detrick, Hofferberth, Burgett, Hitchcock, and Herlihy of the NHTSA on December 17, 1974, satisfies the requirements of S7.1.1 of Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection, that the lap belt portion "adjust by means of an emergency-locking or automatic-locking retractor." You describe the seat belt assembly as of the single retractor, continuous loop type, with a B-pillar-mounted "window shade" emergency-locking retractor, and a one-way frictional "D ring" buckle tongue which limits return of webbing to the lap belt portion from the torso portion when the belt assembly is in use. At the December 17 demonstration you specifically asked if the "D ring" frictional characteristics satisfy the criterion established in a September 25, 1972, letter to Renault, Inc. (copy enclosed), that "the friction in the buckle is low enough that the normal motion of the occupant against the shoulder belt cinches up the lap belt."

Section S7.1.1 requires adjustment of the lap belt portion "by means of an emergency-locking or automatic-locking retractor" and adjustment in most cases of the upper torso portion "by means of an emergency-locking retractor." The language permits some single retractor, continuous loop systems as long as the single retractor does "automatically adjust" the tension of the lap belt portion to prevent excessive belt slack. Because of the submarining danger of a slack lap belt, the NHTSA has restricted the acceptability of continuous loop systems under S7.1.1 in two areas.

One restriction was set out in the Renault letter and it is the basis for your question whether the GM "D ring" has a sufficiently low level of friction to qualify the lap portion as "automatically adjustable."

We would like to clarify that letter by emphasizing that, to conform to the requirements, the assembly must be designed by the manufacturer with a sufficiently low level of friction to qualify the lap portion as "automatically adjustable." Thus it is the manufacturer who determines whether or not the particular belt is designed to satisfy the requirements of the standard. In your December 17 demonstration we saw no evidence of design deficiency in limited use of that continuous loop system.

The other restriction was set out in a March 9, 1973, letter to General Motors (copy enclosed). It limits the use of "comfort clips" on the upper torso portion of continuous loop systems. The letter distinguishes continuous loop systems from systems that have separate lap and shoulder belt retractors. It concludes that "a comfort clip would be acceptable under S7.1.1 of the standard, so long as the shoulder belt is otherwise capable of adjustment as required by S7.1.1."

This restriction has since been the subject of an NHTSA proposal (Docket 74-32; Notice 1) which would restrict the use of "a device used to limit retractive action of an emergency-locking retractor for the comfort of the occupant" to seat belt assemblies that have "an individually adjustable lap belt." General Motors' response to that proposal and its anticipated use of a "window shade" device in future continuous loop systems assume that NHTSA intends to permit "belt tension relief" devices on all continuous loop systems. I would like to point out that this issue is outstanding in Docket 74-32.

Pursuant to your request for confidential treatment of this question on a new seat belt assembly, this letter will be made public only after the introduction of the new vehicle in question.

ID: nht75-4.32

DATE: 04/25/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. C. Schultz; NHTSA

TO: Brougham Industries

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 17, 1975 request for an explanation of the seat belt assembly installation requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection, as they apply to motor homes with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of more than 10,000 pounds, and those with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less.

The standard requires that motor homes with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds be equipped with "passive" crash protection of a certain level (S4.3.1) or a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly at each designated seating position (S4.3.2).

Motor homes with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less must be equipped with "passive" crach protection of a certain level (S4.2.1.1) or a Type 2 seat belt assembly at each outboard designated seating position that includes the windshield header within the head impact area, and a type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly at each other designated seating position (S4.2.1.2).

At the front outboard designated seating position, you state that the incomplete vehicle manufacturer provides Type 1 seat belts. Unless the documentation, provided under Part 568 of our regulations (49 CFR Part 568), states that modification of the Type 1 seat belts is required to meet Standard No. 208, it appears that the vehicle windshield header is not within the head impact area and that Type 1 seat belts meet the requirement.

You point out that some manufacturers may not provide as many designated seating positions as there are sleeping accommodations in the vehicle. We evaluated the proportion of this problem recently because of the possibility that occupants were not being provided with enough Type 1 seat belts. An informal but comprehensive survey at a recent trade show indicated that the problem is extremely limited. If you have information that this practice is becoming more common, please provide this office with more specific identification of manufacturer and model line.

We do appreciate your efforts to provide your purchasers with a high level of crash protection.

SINCERELY,

BROUGHAM

March 17, 1975

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

Brougham Industries, Inc. has been manufacturing Class C Motor Homes on chopped Van chassis with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less since 1970. In compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations, part 571; S208 paragraphs S 4.2, S 4.2.1 and S 4.2.1.2, Brougham has been installing type 2 seat belts in the forward outside passenger and driver seats where windshield header contact is possible. Type 1 seat belts have been installed in the aft seats to bring the total seats suitable for occupancy while moving to advertised sleeping capacity of the vehicle i.e., 6 to 8. This costs Brougham approximately $ 80.00 to $ 100.00 per coach.

Our competitive surveys indicate Winnebago, Mobile- Traveler, Midas, Fleetwood, Open Road and the majority of the competition are using type 1 seat belts that come with the forward control truck chassis for the driver and forward passenger. Aft passenger seat belt installations vary from all seats equipped with type 1 seat belts to all seats placard against use while the vehicle is in motion.

Brougham desires to comply with the spirit as well as the letter of the Safety Standards, but this added $ 80.00 to $ 100.00 cost per vehicle places the company at a disadvantage in the market place.

Please give me an official interpretation of this regulation as it applies to motor homes of 10,000 pounds and less and over 10,000 pounds so that I can incorporate the correct design criteria in our product.

John S. Knaur, Jr. Corporate Engineer

cc: CARLOS FLORES -- SMALL BUSINESS ADMIN.

ID: nht75-4.5

DATE: 09/30/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Wesco Truck & Trailer Sales

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent request for a discussion of what constitutes the manufacture of a new trailer when used components from an existing trailer are utilized. As you are aware, a newly-manufactured air-braked trailer must, in all but a few cases, be equipped with an air brake system that conforms to Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

The use of new components in combination with used components to assemble a complete vehicle is a common practice in both truck and trailer operations. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has recognized this commercial practice by establishing that the use of a new body on a used "chassis" that has already been certified does not constitute the manufacture of a new vehicle. In contrast, placing a used body on a new chassis that has never been certified as a vehicle has been determined to create a newly-manufactured vehicle that must be certified. This distinction did not present difficulty to trailer manufacturers in the past, when they were only required to meet the lighting requirements of Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

Since implementation of Standard No. 121, however, manufacturers have had to determine whether the particular assembly they undertake contains a used "chassis" which would not be required to meet the air brake standard. As a general matter, the NHTSA has stated that, as a minimum, the running gear (the axles, wheels, suspension, and related components sometimes known as a bogie) and main frame of the existing vehicle must be used to qualify as a used "chassis". However, the many different types of trailer construction make it difficult to determine what constitutes the main frame of some configurations. The NHTSA has concluded that the load-bearing structural member(s) which run the length of the vehicle and support the trailer will be considered to be the "main frame".

In the case of monocoque van construction, the trailer side walls which constitute the main load-bearing members through the length of the vehicle must be reused as the main frame in addition to the running gear, or else the rebuilding operation will constitute manufacture of a new vehicle.

In the case of container chassis, the box frame that consitutes the main load-bearing member through the length of the vehicle must be reused as the main frame in addition to the running gear, or else the rebuilding operation will constitute manufacture of a new vehicle.

In the case of a platform trailer, the main frame members which run the length of the trailer must be reused in addition to the running gear, or else the rebuilding operation will constitute manufacture of a new vehicle.

In the case of a tank trailer in which the tank serves the purpose of and replaces frame rails, the tank must be reused as the main frame in addition to the running gear, or else the rebuilding operation will constitute manufacture of a new vehicle. If a separate frame serves as the load-bearing member through the length of the vehicle, the tank could be replaced without the operation constituting the manufacture of a new vehicle. An inner tank may be replaced without certification as a new vehicle if the inner tank does not serve as a main load-bearing member.

Modifications of existing trailers to increase or decrease volumetric capacity or vehicle length are generally permitted without recertification. For example, the barrel of a tank trailer may be lengthened in response to the new weight limits without recertification of the vehicle.

In closing, it should be noted that Bureau of Motor Carrier regulations may differ on modification or rebuilding of vehicles in interstate commerce.