ID: nht91-3.30

DATE: April 29, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Takeo Wakamatsu -- Executive Vice President and General Manager, Mitsubishi Motors America, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-28-91 from Takeo Wakamatsu to Scott Shadle (OCC 5897)

TEXT:

This responds to your March 28, 1991, letter to Mr. Scott Shadle of this agency's Rulemaking office, on behalf of Mitsubishi Motors Corporation (MMC) in Japan. MMC requests approval of its plan for "derating" the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of certain imported trucks for the purpose of marketing strategy. Based on the context of the letter, I presume that you mean that MMC would like to lower the GVWR of the vehicles. The following responds to this request.

NHTSA is not authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). Each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

The GVWR assigned to a vehicle by its manufacturer affects the vehicle's loading and other test conditions to which the vehicle will be subjected during NHTSA's compliance testing for the vehicle. Generally, NHTSA expects the GVWR to reflect a manufacturer's good-faith evaluation of the vehicle's size, weight, and load carrying capacity. The only regulatory limitation on the GVWR that manufacturers may assign to their vehicles is set forth in 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. Section 567.4(g)(3) provides that the assigned 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."

There is no regulatory prohibition against a manufacturer lowering the GVWR assigned to its vehicles. Of course, the lower GVWR would have to be not less than the minimum GVWR specified in 567.4(g)(3). Further, the certification label on the vehicle would have to show the lowered GVWR as the GVWR assigned to the vehicle. In addition, the manufacturer must reexamine its certification of compliance for the vehicle to ensure that the vehicle continues to comply with all safety standards at this new lower GVWR, and that the vehicle continues to comply with all other NHTSA regulations (such as 49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number-Content Requirements) at the lower GVWR. Assuming these conditions would be satisfied, MMC would be permitted to lower the GVWR assigned to these vehicles.

I hope that this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact us if you have any further questions.

ID: nht92-8.17

DATE: March 26, 1992

FROM: Michael J. Sens -- Researcher, S.E.A., Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/17/92 from Paul J. Rice to Michael J. Sens (A39; Std. 206; Part 571; Part 567)

TEXT:

By way of this letter, I am seeking an interpretation of FMVSS 206, 214, and 216 as they would pertain to a 1985 Jeep CJ-7. The Jeep CJ-7 was classified (it is no longer in production) by its manufacturer, American Motors Corporation, as a "sport-utility vehicle". The vehicle came with a soft top and a removable fiberglass top option. The side doors are easily removable.

FMVSS 206, "Door Locks and Door Rentention Components," requires at S4. that "components on any side door leading directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommodations shall conform to this standard." It goes on to say, "However, components on folding doors, roll-up doors and doors that are designed to be easily attached to or removed from motor vehicles manufactured for operation without doors need not conform to this standard". My first question is: since the 1985 Jeep CJ-7's side doors are easily attached and removed by design for operation in a doorless manner, is it exempt from conformity to FMVSS 206?

FMVSS 214, "Side Door Strength," states at S2. that "this standard applies to passenger cars." The 1985 Jeep CJ-7 is defined by its manufacturer as a "sport-utility vehicle." This classification is not that of a "passenger car." My second question is: since the 1985 Jeep CJ-7 is classified as a "sport-utility vehicle," does FMVSS 214 apply to it?

FMVSS 216, "Roof Crush Resistance-Passenger Cars," states at S3. that "This standard applies to passenger cars." After stating that it does not apply to vehicles that conform to the rollover test requirements of S5.3 of standard 208, it continues, "It also does not apply to convertibles." My third question is: since the 1985 Jeep CJ-7 is classified as a "sports-utility vehicle" and is a convertible, does FMVSS 216 apply to it?

Please find enclosed two views of the type vehicle under discussion. The 1985 CJ-7 shows the soft-top package with the top down and the side doors removed. Unfortunately, I do not have an illustration of the 1985 CJ-7 with the optional hard snap-on top. However, the 1981 CJ-7 model photograph enclosed is typical of how the 1980's CJ-7 line appeared with the optional top.

Thank you in advance for your time and considerations on this issue. If you require additional information, do not hesitate to contact me.

Attachment

Photos and text pertaining to the 1981 and 1985 CJ-7 vehicles.

(Text and graphics omitted)

ID: nht78-4.5

DATE: 05/10/78

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

TO: The Barbour House

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your January 12, 1978, letter asking several questions concerning the applicability of the Federal safety standards to vehicles that are being reconstructed with new chassis. The answers to your specific questions are set forth below.

1. You ask whether the replacement of the engine, transmission, drive train, rear end, frame, front axle, front brakes, wheels, and steering box constitutes the manufacture of a new chassis requiring a new or upgraded body. The answer to your question is yes. Part 571.7(e) of Volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations specifies the items that must be retained in a truck chassis in order that such chassis be considered used. These same considerations apply to reconstructed school buses since they are built on truck chassis.

2. You ask what parts of a chassis must be retained to ensure that the vehicle could continue to utilize an old body that does not comply with current Federal safety standards. Part 571.7(e) states that, at a minimum, the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) must be retained.

3. You ask who must certify a remanufactured vehicle if its chassis is considered old or new. In the case of an old chassis that retains the required components and is therefore considered used, no certification is required of any repair business. In the case of a remanufactured chassis, the chassis manufacturer must certify his chassis for compliance and the shop that installs the body must certify the final compliance of the vehicle.

4. Part 568.8 states that vehicles altered before the first purchase for purposes other than resale must be labeled with an alterer's label. When a new chassis is installed in a vehicle, this is not an alteration, but rather, it is the manufacture of a new motor vehicle. Therefore, section 568.8 would not apply. The other provisions of Part 568 relating to the manufacture of a new motor vehicle would apply to this reconstructed vehicle. The person undertaking the remanufacture would be treated like the original manufacturer of the vehicle and would be required to certify it for compliance with the standards.

5. Standards promulgated after 1975 that are specifically applicable to school buses are: Standard No. 217-76, Bus Window Retention and Release, Standard No. 220, School Bus Rollover Protection, Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength, Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, and Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity. Many of the other safety standards apply to school buses as well as other vehicles. I am enclosing a sheet detailing the applicability of Federal safety standards. All Federal safety standards are located in Volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 571. By examining the standards in Part 571, you can ascertain when their most recent amendment has occurred.

ID: 11305

Mr. Edward Mansell
Chief Engineer
Polar Tank Trailer, Inc.
12810 County Road 17
Holdingford, MN 56340-9773

Dear Mr. Mansell:

This is in reply to your letter of October 10, 1995, to Philip R. Recht, former Chief Counsel of this agency. You seek an interpretation of the conspicuity requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as they apply to some Food Grade Tank Trailers (FGTTs).

Paragraph S5.7.1.4.1(a) requires conspicuity sheeting to be placed "across the full width of the trailer" and "as close as practicable to not less than 375 mm and not more than 1525 mm above the road surface." You indicate that for many trailers the rear bumper is the closest practicable location (approximately 500 mm), but that, on some FGTTs, the load/unload ports are directly above the center portion of the rear bumper. The hot water to which the bumper is exposed degrades the conspicuity sheeting. "Since installation of sheeting subject to frequent hot water run off is not practicable", you interpret this paragraph to allow the sheeting to be "applied from the extreme ends of the bumper to points no more than 6 inches (150 mm) to the left or right of the area directly below the load/unload area." You also state that "otherwise, the center section of the sheeting should be located on the tank, above the load/unload area."

We believe that this interpretation meets the intent of the standard. Under paragraph S5.7.1.4.1(a), the mounting height of the conspicuity material is based upon practicability, but the application "across the full width of the trailer" is absolute. We interpret "across the full width" to mean that the sheeting must cover the entire width of the vehicle, though not necessarily on the same plane or continuously. Thus, mounting above the load/unload area would be acceptable as a practicable location. Generally, the agency defers to a manufacturer's determination of practicability and will not question it if it is not clearly erroneous. It is not the intent of the standard that manufacturers "redesign trailers to redirect the flow of wash water."

You also believe that, for FGTTs which use a cabinet to enclose the load/unload area, "conspicuity sheeting should be

mounted on the cabinet doors to augment the sheeting on the bumper." Although you did not enclose a drawing of this configuration, it appears acceptable. We assume that, when viewed from the rear, the sheeting has the appearance of extending across the full width of the vehicle, even if the section on the cabinet doors is not on the same plane as that on the bumpers. This, too, is acceptable as a manufacturer's determination of practicability.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:12/1/95

ID: nht95-4.90

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 1, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Edward Mansell -- Chief Engineer, Polar Tank Trailer, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 10/10/95 LETTER FROM Edward Mansell to Philip R. Recht (OCC 11305)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Mansell:

This is in reply to your letter of October 10, 1995, to Philip R.Recht, former Chief Counsel of this agency. You seek an interpretation of the conspicuity requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as they apply to some Food Grade Tank Traile rs (FGTTs).

Paragraph S5.7.1.4.1(a) requires conspicuity sheeting to be placed "across the full width of the trailer" and "as close as practicable to not less than 375 mm and not more than 1525 mm above the road surface." You indicate that for many trailers the rear bumper is the closest practicable location (approximately 500 mm), but that, on some FGTTs, the load/unload ports are directly above the center portion of the rear bumper. The hot water to which the bumper is exposed degrades the conspicuity sheeting. "Since installation of sheeting subject to frequent hot water run off is not sheeting to be "applied from the extreme ends of the bumper to points no more than 6 inches (150 mm) to the left or right of the area directly below the load/unload area." You also state that "otherwise, the center section of the sheeting should be located on the tank, above the load/unload area."

We believe that this interpretation meets the intent of the standard. Under paragraph S5.7.1.4.1(a), the mounting height of the conspicuity material is based upon practicability, but the application "across the full width of the trailer" is absolute. W e interpret "across the full width" to mean that the sheeting must cover the entire width of the vehicle, though not necessarily on the same plane or continuously. Thus, mounting above the load/unload area would be acceptable as a practicable location. Generally, the agency defers to a manufacturer's determination of practicability and will not question it if it is not clearly erroneous. It is not the intent of the standard that manufacturers "redesign trailers to redirect the flow of wash water."

You also believe that, for FGTTs which use a cabinet to enclose the load/unload area, "conspicuity sheeting should be

P2

mounted on the cabinet doors to augment the sheeting on the bumper." Although you did not enclose a drawing of this configuration, it appears acceptable. We assume that, when viewed from the rear, the sheeting has the appearance of extending across the full width of the vehicle, even if the section on the cabinet doors is not on the same plane as that on the bumpers. This, too, is acceptable as a manufacturer's determination of practicability.

Sincerely,

ID: nht95-7.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 1, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Edward Mansell -- Chief Engineer, Polar Tank Trailer, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 10/10/95 LETTER FROM Edward Mansell to Philip R. Recht (OCC 11305)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Mansell:

This is in reply to your letter of October 10, 1995, to Philip R.Recht, former Chief Counsel of this agency. You seek an interpretation of the conspicuity requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as they apply to some Food Grade Tank Trailers (FGTTs).

Paragraph S5.7.1.4.1(a) requires conspicuity sheeting to be placed "across the full width of the trailer" and "as close as practicable to not less than 375 mm and not more than 1525 mm above the road surface." You indicate that for many trailers the rear bumper is the closest practicable location (approximately 500 mm), but that, on some FGTTs, the load/unload ports are directly above the center portion of the rear bumper. The hot water to which the bumper is exposed degrades the conspicuity sheeting. "Since installation of sheeting subject to frequent hot water run off is not sheeting to be "applied from the extreme ends of the bumper to points no more than 6 inches (150 mm) to the left or right of the area directly below the load/unload area." You also state that "otherwise, the center section of the sheeting should be located on the tank, above the load/unload area."

We believe that this interpretation meets the intent of the standard. Under paragraph S5.7.1.4.1(a), the mounting height of the conspicuity material is based upon practicability, but the application "across the full width of the trailer" is absolute. We interpret "across the full width" to mean that the sheeting must cover the entire width of the vehicle, though not necessarily on the same plane or continuously. Thus, mounting above the load/unload area would be acceptable as a practicable location. Generally, the agency defers to a manufacturer's determination of practicability and will not question it if it is not clearly erroneous. It is not the intent of the standard that manufacturers "redesign trailers to redirect the flow of wash water."

You also believe that, for FGTTs which use a cabinet to enclose the load/unload area, "conspicuity sheeting should be

P2

mounted on the cabinet doors to augment the sheeting on the bumper." Although you did not enclose a drawing of this configuration, it appears acceptable. We assume that, when viewed from the rear, the sheeting has the appearance of extending across the full width of the vehicle, even if the section on the cabinet doors is not on the same plane as that on the bumpers. This, too, is acceptable as a manufacturer's determination of practicability.

Sincerely,

ID: 1982-3.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/23/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOV 23 1982 NOA-30

Mr. F. Michael Petler Head, Administration Government Relations Department Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd. P.O. Box 1100 Brea, California 92621

Dear Mr. Petler:

This responds to your October 27, 1982, letter asking for permission to place the certification labels for certain motorcycles produced by Suzuki Motor Co. in locations not previously permitted by Part 567, Certification.

You request alternative locations, because some motorcycles are equipped with fairings as standard equipment. These fairings would obscure the certification labels if the labels were to be installed in their required location. You propose, as an alternative, the installation of the labels on the down tubes in front of the engine on either the right or left side. In consideration of the problems of installing the certification labels in their normal positions on vehicles equipped with fairings and since the agency desires that these labels be easily readable, we grant your request to install your labels in these limited instances in the alternative locations that you suggested.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

October 27, 1982

Raymond A. Peck, Jr.

Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Re: Certification Label Placement

Dear Mr. Peck:

We have been asked by our parent company to request approval that would give Suzuki the option of affixing the certification label specified in 49 CFR 567.4(e) at a location on the motorcycle other than in the area of the intersection of the steering post with the handlebars for certain models, at the time of manufacture.

The reason for this request is that on motorcycles sold with a fairing as standard equipment it would not be possible to read the certification label if it were to be affixed in the usual location on the steering post.

On two previous occasions we have written for permission to affix this label to other areas of the motorycle frame in lieu of the location specified under Part 567.4(e), and in both instances our request was approved.

For the GS1100ES and for other fairing equipped models that will be produced in the near future, Suzuki wishes to be given the option of being able to affix the label to the down tube in front of the engine on either the right or left side of the motorcycle. The general location for the right side is shown on the enclosed drawing.

We would appreciate your consideration of our request at the earliest possible date so that production planning can proceed for the GS1100ES and other models that will be equipped with a fairing as standard equipment.

Sincerely,

SUZUKI MOTOR CO., LTD.

F. Michael Petler Head, Administration Government Relations Department

FMP:kp

Enclosure (1)

SUZUKI MOTORS CO., LTD. October 26, 1982

*Insert Diagram Here

ID: 1984-1.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/07/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nr. Karl-Heinx Faber -- Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Karl-Heinz Faber Vice President, Product Compliance and Service Administration Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. P.O. Box 350 Montvale, New Jersey 07645

This is in response to your September 14, 1983, letter in which you request that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration confirm that the Unimog vehicle produced by Mercedes-Benz is not a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1391(3). The agency stated in a March 9, 1972, letter that a previous version of the Unimog would not be classified as a "motor vehicle."

The principal differences between the 1972 version of the Unimog and the version expected to be sold in the near future are, based on your representations made in a September 8 meeting with agency staff increases in engine horsepower, gross vehicle weight rating, wheelbase, length, width, height, and certain ground clearance specifications. The anticipated sales level for the vehicle is slightly higher than the past level, as well.

It appears that none of these changes would affect the classification of the Unimog under the Safety Act. Therefore, we conclude that the vehicle is still not a "motor vehicle." This conclusion presumes that the Unimogs would still be marketed, as in the past, principally through farm machinery and heavy equipment dealers, and that the vehicle would have affixed in the cab a label stating that the Unimog is not manufactured for highway use.

Sincerely Original signed by Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel cc: Mr. J. Sonosky Hogan and Hartson 815 Connecticut Ave., N.W.

Washington, DC 20006

September 14, 1983

Mr. Frank Berndt 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, DC 20590

Subject: Classification of the Unimog Vehicle

Dear Mr. Berndt:

On March 9, 1972, after a thorough review, NHTSA advised us that the Mercedes-Benz Unimog was not a "motor vehicle" as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1391(3) and therefore was not subject to the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The letter also mentioned that the Agency's decision was subject to future review and reconsideration on the basis of any relevant information that might come to its attention.

On September 8, 1983, a meeting took place at the Agency with Messrs. Wood, Shifflet and Fairchild of your staff, Mr. Sonosky of Hogan & Hartson, counsel to MBNA, and members of my staff present. In this meeting, the planned expansion of the Unimog marketing program and technical changes in the vehicle were discussed in detail. A table showing specifications of the new Unimog models we intend to introduce as well as several brochures showing the intended uses of the vehicles were left with your staff. For your convenience, we enclose a duplicate set of that material. The number of models with only minor differences in GVWR and engine horsepower reflects our aim to provide that best suited equipment for each individual use.

In the discussion, your staff expressed interest in obtaining marketing data which would substantiate the off-highway nature of the vehicle as indicated by actual sales and implement applications. Enclosed please find a list of implements and attachments sold with Unimogs from 1975 to this date, the Unimog sales figure for the same period, and a summary of the Unimog use by business.

Other issues raised by your staff include whether the vehicle will continue to be labeled as in the past and sold through a dealer network related to farm machinery and heavy equipment. This is to re-affirm our intention to maintain both practices in our expanded program.

We trust that the information provided to your staff at the meeting, and the information contained in the enclosed material, are sufficient to enable you to maintain the decision expressed in the Agency's letter of March 9, 1972, for the new generation Unimog models which differ in size from the Unimog 900 but which, like their predecessor, were designed as off-road implement carriers and not intended primarily for use on roads and highways.

Since the initiation of our new marketing program is imminent, we respectfully request your expeditious review of this matter. Should you need any further information, please do not hesitate to contact this office.

Sincerely, Original signed by (?) Enclosure

Implements and attachments sold with Unimogs during Calendar Year 1975 through 1983 by order of sale volume:

QUANTITY IMPLEMENT/ATTACHMENT

150 Snowplow 112 Snowblower/Cutter 80 Backhoe 74 Doser Blade 64 Salt and Sand Spreader 34 Railroad Switcher 32 Front End Loader 24 Three-Point Hitch for Agriculture 23 Broom/Sweeper 23 Mower 18 Crane 24 Winch 11 Digger Derrick/Auger 10 Wood Shredder 9 Western Fire Package 5 Mobil Drill 3 Trencher 2 Man Basket 2 Forklift 2 Cable Plow 2 Dump Bed 1 Tree Spade 1 Sludge Pump 1 Brush Cutter

Comparison Unimog/Attachment Sales (Detail) 1975 - 1983 Ratio Unimog Sales Implement/Attachment Sales Unimog/Attachment 441 697 1 : 1.58

Unimog Use by Business

Federal, State, County and Municipal Departments 39% Contractors 15% Utility and Telephone Companies 11% Airports 10% Railroads 10% Agriculture 7% Others 8% PAGE 37 LEVEL 1 - 12 OF 169 ITEMS

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/08/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Bob D. Troxel -- Vice President and General Manager, J.F. Enterprises Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 10/15/73 letter from Richard B. Dyson to David J. Humphreys (RVI Inc.)

TEXT:

Mr. Bob D. Troxel Vice President and General Manager J. F. Enterprises, Inc. Box 583 Wakarusa, Indiana 46573

This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff, asking for a clarification of the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CFR S571.302). Specifically, your company manufactures innerspring mattresses, some of which are used in motor vehicles. You noted that the mattress covers on those mattresses for use in motor vehicles must comply with the flammability requirements of Standard No. 302, and that you had interpreted the mattress cover to consist only of the covering applied over the finished mattress. Hence, under your interpretation, Standard No. 302 would not apply to the ticking used as the outside of the mattress. However, you were told by several ticking manufacturers that a recent decision by this agency stated that ticking used on mattresses for use in motor vehicles must also satisfy the flammability requirements of the standard. It is correct that the ticking must satisfy Standard No. 302's flammability requirements.

The mattress cover has been interpreted by this agency to include both a covering put over a finished mattress and the permanent mattress ticking since Standard No. 302 became effective. Hence, the information that this was a recent decision by this agency is incorrect. For your information, I have enclosed a 1973 letter to the Recreational Vehicle Institute setting forth this interpretation over ten years ago.

Should you have any other questions about the applicability of Standard No. 302 to your products, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosure - 10/15/73 letter from Richard B. Dyson to David J. Humphreys omitted here.

December 7, 1983

Dear Mr. Kratzke:

Our company is a manufacturer of innerspring mattresses. A small percentage of our production goes to the Recreational Vehicle Industry. Of this portion of our business a portion goes into Motorized Vehicles (Mini Homes, Motor Homes, etc.).

I am told that you may be able to clarify an item pertaining to how these mattresses are affected by the FMVSS 302 Flammibility Standard. We have been informed that the DOC FF 4-72 Standard that all of our mattresses are manufactured under applies and FMVSS 302 applies only to mattress "covers". The term "cover" we understand applies to a covering applied over the finished mattress and not the ticking used as the outside of the mattress.

I have recently been "told" by several manufacturers of "ticking" that a recent decision has been made that the ticking must meet FMVSS 302 when the finished product is used in a Motorized Vehicle.

I am asking your help in clarifying this question of the FMVSS 302 as it applies to an innerspring (or poly) mattress used in a Motorized Recreational Vehicle.

Thank you for your help.

Sincerely,

Bob D. Troxel Vice President and General Manager

BDT:csy

ID: nht78-1.7

DATE: 12/05/78

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

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

December 5, 1978 NOA-30

Mr. W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services Blue Bird Body Company P.O. BOX 937 Fort Valley, Georgia

Dear Mr. Milby:

This responds to your September 20, 1978, letter asking whether a particular bus body joint is subject to the requirements of Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength. The joint in question is the connection of two body panels under which runs a continuous body member for the entire length of the bus body.

Standard No. 221 establishes strength requirements for body panel joints which are defined as "the area of contact or close proximity between the edges of a body panel and another body component..." Body panel is further defined to mean "a body component used on the exterior or interior surface to enclose the bus' occupant space." The exterior body panels to which you refer are involved in the enclosure of the bus' occupant space, and accordingly, their connection is a joint falling within the requirements of the standard. The fact that an underlying body member runs under the panels perpendicular to the joint in no way excepts the joint from the requirements of the standard.

Your analogy of these panels to rub rails whose joints are not tested according to the requirements of the standard is inappropriate. Rub rails are added on to the exterior of a bus over the body panels. All parts of the rub rails fall outside the exterior skin of a bus, and therefore, they serve no purpose in enclosing occupant space. The panels to which you refer, on the other hand, are the primary, sidewall components enclosing bus' occupant space.

You ask how the agency will test this joint since it has a body structure member that runs perpendicular to it. You suggest that the agency cut an appropriate size specimen of the panels' joint, and underlying body member and pull one panel and the body member against the other panel and the body member. The agency disagrees. This procedure would not test the strength of the joint, since the stresses imposed by the test would be carried by the continuous body member being pulled against itself.

The agency tests such joints by cutting a specimen of the panels that includes a portion of the underlying body member. The ends of the body member are then removed to allow the testing device to clamp the two body panels that are to be tested. However, rivets or other bonding materials that connect the panels and the body member at the joint remain intact. This is what is intended by the standard's requirement that the underlying body structure be included within the joint strength test. Leaving the underlying structure intact at the joint permits a test of the joint's strength that closely approximates the actual strength of the joint as it is installed in a completed bus.

Responding finally to your last comment that the agency by its testing technique is hindering the development of integrally constructed bodies, the NHTSA disagrees. The agency believes that the strength of the entire bus body is dependent upon the strength of its parts. Each joint must be examined independently to ensure that it is strong enough to withstand accident forces. Since those forces vary with the nature of any impact and can result in severe stress on one small section of a bus, it is appropriate to measure the strength of individual joints. However, the agency's testing technique as outlined above considers the effect of the underlying bus structure thus encouraging the development of integrally constructed bodies.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

September 20, 1978

Mr. Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590

Reference: 1) Frank Berndt to W. G. Milby, April 26, 1976 N40-30

Dear Mr. Levin:

The purpose of this letter is to seek an interpretation on two questions:

1. Whether a particular area on our bus body is a joint subject to FMVSS 221 and,

2. What constitutes a joint specimen for testing to determine compliance with FMVSS 221.

These questions arose recently during tests at Mobility Systems and Equipment Company under contract to NHTSA No. DOT-HS-7-01670. These issues must be resolved for future compliance testing both by Blue Bird Body Company and NHTSA. The questions are dealt with independently below.

1. The area in question is circled on the enclosed photograph which shows the basic location on the body. The most basic issue is that this should not even be considered a joint. As shown in the attached sketch 41, the alledged joint is only skin over a continous, one piece, 16 gauge structural member which runs the full length of the body parallel to the direction of force application. Even if the skin panels were removed, the body would be fully enclosed beneath them by the solid one piece structural member. The skin in this case in analogous to the rub rails in reference 1 wherein it states that "...the rub rails... are not themselves considered to have a function in enclosing the occupant space and are therefore not considered body components for the purposes of the requirements." We therefore ask for confirmation that the area shown in the enclosed photograph, and represented by sketch #1 is not a joint.

2. Irrespective of this basic issue, for this particular joint however, there are other questions which must be resolved that apply to all joints. Therefore, even though we do not agree that the particular area in question is subject to the requirements of FMVSS 221, the remainder of this letter is written as though it were a joint so that the other issues can be resolved.

The question is what should be gripped and pulled, in order to test a joint? In other words, what constitutes a joint specimen? Our interpretation is that, as defined in the enclosed simplified sketch #2, parts 1 and 3 should be gripped on one end of the specimen and parts 2 and 3 should be gripped on the other end of the specimen.

We have arrived at this conclusion through the following analysis of FMVSS 221:

S 6.3.1 says "Grip the joint specimen on opposite sides of the joint..." Although "joint specimen" is not explicitly defined in S 4, Definitions, it is implicitly defined in S 6.1, Preparation of the test specimen. This says "...cut a test specimen that consists of any randomly selected 8-inch segment of the joint, together with a portion of the bus body whose dimensions to the extent permitted by the size of the joined parts, are those specified in Figure 1, ..."

The underlined portion above tells us we must, in cutting the specimen from the body, cut parts 1, 2 and 3 as defined in the enclosed sketch. Indeed, because of the integral nature of the way parts 1 and 2 are assembled to part 3, it would be impossible not to include part 3 in cutting the specimen from the body. Therefore, the assembly of parts 1, 2 and 3 constitute the joint specimen referred to in S 6.3.1 for the particular joint under consideration.

An explanation of how parts 1, 2 and 3 are assembled together is in order at this point. Parts 1 and 2 are fastened to part 3 not only at the "alleged body panel joint" but continuously along the length of the body by rivet row A, making a continuously integral assembly of part 3 to parts 1 and 2. Therefore, the strength of the body panel joint in question is meaningless without considering the strength of part 3. Part 3 is a continuous structural member running the full length of the body. Therefore, "failure" of the alleged body panel joint in question cannot occur without failure of rivet row A and part 3.

The issue involved here is more than the simple resolution of how to test one particular joint segment on one manufacturer's bus body or what constitutes a joint specimen. It involves the basic economic incentive or disincentive the NHTSA is creating for manufacturers to build stronger, integrally assembled body structures. NHTSA briefly touched on this fact in the preamble to FMVSS 221 in the January 27, 1976 issue of the Federal Register by acknowledging comments stating that manufacturers could take the approach to FMVSS 221 of weakening the overall body structure in order to lower the required joint strength. This approach is very possible since FMVSS 221 does not set an absolute strength requirement but rather a relative strength requirement; i.e. 60% of the weakest joined body panel.

If the NHTSA does not agree with the interpretations outlined above, it will be establishing a policy which will discourage manufacturers from designing strong, integrally constructed bodies, and encourage them toward the most cost effective means of meeting the letter of FMVSS 221 regardless of total body strength.

For these reasons then, we look forward to your early confirmation of:

1. The alleged joint in question is not for the purposes of FMVSS 221, and

2. What constitutes a joint specimen.

Thank you.

Very truly yours,

W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services

ID: AIT.jeg

Mr. Daniel H. Fagerstrom
Station Manager - AIT Freight Systems, Inc.
3340-C Greens Road
Suite 350
Houston, TX 77032

Dear Mr. Fagerstrom:

This responds to your inquiry whether a "truck-mounted hydraulic crane 'bundle extractor'" you wish to import is considered a motor vehicle that would have to comply with the applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. You submitted your inquiry on behalf of your client, Hydro-Engineering, Inc.

According to your letter, the unit "comprises a used Peinemann Truck Mounted Bundle Extractor (TMBE) which consists of a hydraulic crane apparatus permanently mounted on a special-order Mercedes diesel truck chassis." The TMBE is used to remove, handle, and replace bundles of heat exchanger and cooling tubes from industrial heat exchangers and cooling towers. The work for which the TMBE is designed is performed in oil refineries, electric power and process chemical plants, or other similar heavy industrial settings. You stated that "(t)ypically the TMBE spends extended periods of time at a single jobsite." You also stated that the intended use of the TMBE is definitely that of off-road applications, and that there are numerous features of its design and construction that make it unsuitable for anything other than sporadic, short-term road travel.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) interprets and enforces the laws under which the Federal motor vehicle safety standards are promulgated. NHTSA's statute defines the term "motor vehicle" as follows:

"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."

Whether the agency considers a vehicle such as you describe to be to be a motor vehicle depends on its use. It is the agency's position, for example, that this statutory definition does not encompass mobile construction equipment, such as cranes and scrapers, which use the highway only to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site. In such cases, the on-highway use of the vehicle is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured. In contrast are instances where vehicles, such as dump trucks, frequently use the highway going to and from job sites, and stay at a job site for only a limited time. Such vehicles are considered motor vehicles, since the on-highway use is more than "incidental."

Based on the information you provided, it appears that the TMBE is not a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of the statutory definition.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:VSA
d.6/22/00