ID: 77-3.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/27/77

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

TO: American Seating Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 24, 1977, letter asking for an interpretation of the requirements for knee contact area in Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, which state that, when impacted, "the resisting force of the impacted material shall not exceed 600 pounds and the contact area on the knee form surface shall not be less than 3 square inches." You ask whether this requirement can be interpreted as meaning that, when impacted, the resisting force of the impacted material shall not exceed 200 pounds per square inch rather than 600 pounds over 3 square inches.

The 600 pound maximum force and the 3 square inch minimum contact area are two distinct requirements. The first specifies an upper bound on the load that will be applied to the upper leg while the latter specifies a lower bound on the knee area over which an impact load must be distributed. To combine the two requirements, as you suggest, tends to relax the contact area requirement for a load which is less than 600 pounds. Such an interpretation would not ensure the level of safety the agency demands for knee contact area. The suggested combination of the two requirements may not provide an adequate distribution of forces over the knee. Accordingly, the agency declines to accept the suggested interpretation of the standard.

SINCERELY,

March 24, 1977

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Att: Chief Counsel, Frank A. Berndt

Reference is made to Federal Standard 222, paragraph S5.3.2.2, "When any part on the rear surface of that part of a seat back or restraining barrier within any zone specified S5.3.2.1 is impacted from any direction at 16 feet per second by the knee form specified in S6.7, the resisting force of the impacted material shall not exceed 600 pounds and the contact area on the knee form surface shall not be less than 3 square inches".

We request an interpretation of the requirement for the knee form contact area. The knee recess area of the seat back is the most vulnerable part of the seat not only to vandalism but to hard use by the passenger. This is the area where feet are placed on the back and soles of shoes scuff and damage softer material. Also objects such as briefcases and lunchboxes add to the damage in this area. In fact, in city and inter-city buses this area is normally protected by heavy plastic or stainless steel panels. In the endeavor to provide a more practical surface than the soft vinyl we have been successful in adopting a thin plastic back panel. However, in some areas of the seat back, the resisting force, at 16 feet per second, is only 300 pounds and proportionately the contact area caused by the knee form is about 2 - 2 1/2 square inches.

We question whether the 3 square inches applies to the resisting force of the 600 pound magnitude or if it must extend to the lesser force. If we consider the distribution of the 600 pound force over the 3 square inch area, we are applying 200 pounds per square inch. When we measure the distribution of forces in this manner we meet the 200 pound maximum per square inch.

Under separate cover we are sending you copies of the actual contact areas indicated by the paint imprint. Because your interpretation will have a direct bearing on the construction of the seat as well as performance and economy of maintenance, we would appreciate a response at your earliest convenience.

Chester J. Barecki Vice President - Sales Engineering Transportation Products Division

[Attachments Omitted]

CC: T. HOYT; E. HENEVELD; J. OTT; T. CAMP

ID: 77-3.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/27/77

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

TO: Truck Body and Equipment Association Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 6, 1977, letter asking whether two proposed labels satisfy the requirements for certification and information labels found in 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, and Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not issue advance approval of compliance by manufacturers with motor vehicle safety standards or regulations. The agency, however, will give an informal opinion as to whether your sample labels appear to comply with NHTSA regulations. From the illustrations you present, it appears that you have closely followed the format suggested in our regulations, and therefore, the labels seem to comply with the agency's requirements. Section S5.3(b) of Standard No. 120 permits the use of both labels when affixed in accordance with Part 567.4(b)-(f).

SINCERELY,

TRUCK BODY AND EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC.

April 6, 1977

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dockets 71-19; Notice 06 and No. 75-32; Notice 02 amend FMVSS 120 "Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles other than Passenger Cars" and Part 567 "Certification" by requiring tire and rim information on or adjacent to a vehicle's certification label.

Effective September 1, 1977, FMVSS 120, S5.3 (b) will allow a final stage manufacturer to use at his option, a "Tire Information Label" in conjunction with his present certification label.

The enclosed sheet depicts Truck Body and Equipment Association's proposed Tire and Rim Information Label for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's evaluation.

Are we correct in assuming that our proposed Tire-Rim Information Label when used with, and affixed adjacent to our present certification label (attachment 2) meets the new requirements of FMVSS 120 and Part 567?

Byron A. Crampton Manager of Engineering Services PROPOSED "TIRE-RIM INFORMATION" LABEL

TIRE-RIM INFORMATION

GVWR

GAWR FRONT with tires, rims, at psi cold

GAWR INTERMEDIATE with tires, rims, at psi cold

GAWR REAR with tires, rims, at psi cold

VIN

Notes:

1. Yellow foil with black lettering

2. Label shall meet 567.4(b) through (f) (Illegible Text)

ID: 77-3.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/27/77

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

TO: Edward J. Flesch

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter to the President dated February 8, 1977, which has been forwarded to our office by the Department of Justice. You are concerned whether there is a Federal law that prohibits the replacement of a single part of a seat belt assembly, as opposed to replacement of the entire assembly.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues safety standards and regulations that govern the manufacture of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Safety Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, specifies requirements for seat belt assemblies to be used both as original equipment in passenger cars and as aftermarket replacement equipment. Vehicle manufacturers must certify that their vehicles are in compliance with all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 209. There is no requirement in Standard No. 209, however, that would preclude the replacement or repair of a broken component in a seat belt assembly.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1381, et. seq.), provides that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Therefore, none of the persons mentined could replace or repair a component of a seat belt assembly if that action would destroy the compliance of the assembly with Standrad No. 209. Violation of this section of the Safety Act could result in the imposition of civil penalties up to $ 1,000.

Perhaps it is General Motors' policy not to replace or repair a component of a seat belt assembly because of the possibility that the assembly might, thereby, be "rendered inoperative." From the point of view of General Motors, replacement of the entire assembly with a new, certified, assembly might be a safer practice. General Motors is certainly entitled to operate under such a policy. The policy is not, however, a Federal law.

SINCERELY,

February 18, 1977

The President The White House

I have a consumer problem and I don't know just where to go for a solution. I've contacted the following with no result.

Better Business Bureau

Department of Transportation

Consumer Product Safety Commission

General Motors Corporation

District Attorney's Office

Bureau of Consumer Protection

Senator Zorinski's Office

A plastic part that attaches the shroud to the retracting device of the front seat belts on my 1975 Chevrolet Nova has broken. I'm certain that the part should cost somewhat less than a dollar. The Regional Representative for General Motors has told me that a law forbids replacing only this part - that the entire seat belt system most be replaced at a cost of over ten dollars plus labor.

If a law does exist in such language that it must be interpreted that way, it should be changed. The part is easily inserted without effecting the safety function of the seat belt system. Its absence does cause damage to the back of the seat by allowing the shroud to catch on the seat fabric.

I have asked each of those I contacted if instructions can be issued allowing reinterpretation of any regulation or law forbidding the sale of the part. Each Government agency has denied responsibility or the ability to find a solution and referred me to one of the others.

This is a prime example of one of those bureaucratic messes of which you have spoken. I could probably manufacture a "do for it" in my own workship, but it has become much more important to me to unravel this mess than it is to repair the broken shroud. Please let me know what can be done.

EDWARD J. FLESCH

MAY 23, 1977

Edward J. Flesch

Your letter to the President dated February 8, 1977, regarding your complaint concerning General Motors' refusal to replace a part of your seat belt has been forwarded to the Department of Justice for response.

The Consumer Affairs Section contacted the Office of the Chief Counsel for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and advised them of your complaint. We were informed by that Office that it has jurisdiction over requirements for seat belt assemblies and anchorages. We are therefore forwarding your correspondence to the Office of the Chief Counsel for their consideration.

We hope this is of assistance to you.

John H. Shenefield Acting Assistant Attorney General Antitrust Division

cc: FRANK A. BERNDT

ID: 77-3.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/28/77

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

TO: Collins Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your May 6, 1977, question whether Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity, is applicable to all school buses or only to school buses with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds.

You are correct in your statement that school buses are included in the broader classification, "buses", for purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, unless otherwise specified in a particular standard. Safety Standard No. 301-75 is applicable to passenger cars, and to multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses that have a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, including school buses under 10,000 pounds. The standard is also applicable to larger school buses, and the distinction is made in the standard since the large school buses are the only vehicles having a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds that are covered by the standard.

Safety Standard No. 301-75 was made applicable to all school buses pursuant to a mandate under the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 1392(i) (1) (A)).

SINCERELY,

COLLINS INDUSTRIES INC.

MAY 6, 1977

FRANK BERNDT ACTING CHIEF COUNCIL

FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS PART 571.301-7S-1 STATES THAT SCHOOL BUSES WITH GVWR GREATER THAN 10,000 POUNDS SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 6.5 OF 301. HOWEVER, SCHOOL BUSES BELOW 10,000 POUNDS GVWR ARE NOT SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED IN 301. I UNDERSTAND THAT ALL SCHOOL BUSES MUST MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF BUSES IN GENERAL UNLESS STATED OTHERWISE IN FMVS STANDARDS. BY DEFINITION, A SCHOOL BUS IS A BUS. IS MY INTERPRETATION CORRECT ACCORDING TO NHTSA?

A REPRESENTATIVE OF ONE OF OUR CHASSIS SUPPLIERS CALLED TO MY ATTENTION THAT ONLY THE LARGE SCHOOL BUSES (OVER 10,000 GVWR) WERE MENTIONED IN 301. HE SEEMED TO BE UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THIS COULD BE CONSTRUED TO MEAN SCHOOL BUSES LESS THAN 10,000 GVWR ARE NOT INCLUDED IN 301.

I AM LOOKING FORWARD TO YOUR REPLY AND WILL APPRECIATE ANY INFORMATION YOU GIVE ME.

JAMES M. BEACH DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING

ID: 77-3.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/30/77

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

TO: Matt Kolb

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 18, 1977, letter asking whether our regulations pertaining to truck-camper loading apply to trucks designed to haul fifth-wheel trailers.

Truck manufacturers are required to supply information pertaining to the cargo weight rating and longitudinal limits for the center of gravity of those vehicles capable of accommodating slide-in campers (Code of Federal Regulations, Volume 49, Part 575.103, Truck-camper loading). Slide-in camper is defined as "a camper having a roof, floor, and sides, designed to be mounted on and removable from the cargo area of a truck by the user." The purpose of this information requirement is to lessen the possibility of vehicle overloading. Since fifth-wheel trailers do not fall within the definition of slide-in camper, the regulations pertaining to truck-camper loading do not apply to vehicles designed to haul these trailers.

ID: 77-3.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/01/77

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

TO: Hon. Clarence D. Long - H.O.R.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your letter of May 9, 1977, to the Federal Trade Commission, on behalf of Mr. Edward L. Armstrong, Sr., Baltimore, Maryland, expressing his concern that new passenger car manufacturers will discontinue supplying spare tires, has been referred to this office of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation, for additional consideration and reply.

We believe that Mr. Armstrong's concern deals with the recently approved "temporary use" spare tire that will be manufactured and used with some of the new 1978 model automobiles. The use of a temporary use spare tire is not a new concept. These tires have been used with compact sport cars, such as Firebird and Camaro, since 1967. The further development of these spare tires has been fostered by the desire of the U.S. automobile manufacturers to produce small, lightweight cars in furtherance of the national energy conservation program. I am sure that you have noticed the new 1977 models by some domestic automobile manufacturers are, in fact, smaller. Of course, the development of these smaller, lightweight, energy-efficient automobiles has resulted in a substantial reduction in usable car trunk space, and therefore, providing a second reason to develop a spare tire which takes less storage space than a conventional tire.

Since this spare tire is designed for use on the nation's highways, it must conform to the minimum performance requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires - Passenger Cars, for strength, endurance and high speed performance. For your information, we have enclosed a copy of this standard.

ID: 77-3.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/01/77

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

TO: Miller Trailers Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of May 6, 1977, concerning a vehicle manufacturer's responsibilities with regard to overloading.

You make reference to several recent interpretations from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) which stated that manufacturers must take reasonable steps to ensure that the vehicles they produce will not be overloaded by their users. Although we acknowledge that a manufacturer does not have direct control over the actual use of its vehicles, it does exercise indirect control over use through the vehicle's design.

The NHTSA has stated in the past that a vehicle's gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) is determined by the sum of its unloaded vehicle weight, 150 pounds for each designated seating position, and its rated cargo load. It is the cargo load rating that is most relevant to the problem of overloading. The rated cargo load should represent the manufacturer's assessment of the vehicle's cargo-carrying capacity and the maximum load at which the vehicle may be safely operated. A manufacturer must consider the maximum load capacity of the vehicle when it designs its cargo-carrying portion. If this is not done, the rated cargo load, and thus the GVWR, may be meaningless since the vehicle may have a cargo-carrying chamber which, if filled, would cause the vehicle to exceed its stated weight ratings. An illustration of such a situation would be a tanker truck which exceeds its GVWR when the tank is filled with a type of material appropriate for carrying in that cargo area. If the manufacturer could reasonably have anticipated that such cargo would be carried in the tanker, yet rated the vehicle with a GVWR which was less than the vehicle's weight when fully loaded with that cargo, a safety-related defect for which the manufacturer is responsible may be considered to exist.

The NHTSA does not expect manufacturers to be omniscient when it comes to the use of the vehicles they produce. It does, however, expect the stated weight ratings to reflect the design of the vehicles and the uses to which they can reasonably be anticipated to be put. Where the manufacturer has reason to know the specific commodity intended to be carried in its vehicles and those vehicles have a totally enclosed cargo area, as with a tanker, the rated cargo load is relatively easy to determine.

A manufacturer's responsibility for any subsequent overloading of the vehicles it manufactures would be determined by the reasonableness of its GVWR's and gross axle weight ratings (GAWR), given the size and configuration of its vehicles and the types of loads which they could reasonably be expected to carry. In the case of flat beds (no enclosed cargo area) a manufacturer would obviously not be able to provide weight ratings sufficiently high to prevent overloading in all instances. The design of flat beds necessarily permits overloading since the cargo area is unrestricted. Thus if the weight ratings specified appear to have been arrived at by a good faith determination based upon the types of loads the manufacturer anticipates will be carried, its responsibility with regard to weight rating specifications will have been satisfied and no safety-related defect will be attributable to it.

SINCERELY,

SPECIAL PRODUCTS DIVISION MILLER TRAILERS, INC.

May 6, 1977

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

I have recently read with interest and concern several legal interpretations from NHTSA regarding GVW and GAW Ratings assigned by vehicle manufacturers and that relationship to the actual operation by the end user in which these ratings may or could be exceeded.

I'm sure you are well aware that general purpose freight trailers as well as specialized commodity trailers are designed to a maximum payload rating. The payload carried, however, can consist of a wide range of product densities. Insulation, for example, would be light and bulky where cartons of canned paint would be very heavy. In both these examples, the same trailer could be used. Using the total cubic capacity of a normal van trailer with a high density load, could very well overload both GVWR and GAWR. I believe that any trailer rated with a normal GVWR which is exceeded would also exceed the legal highway weight limits. Trailer manufacturers certainly have no control over an operator who decides to operate illegally.

Another popular specification used in trailers is a sliding running gear which is used by operators to distribute their loads between the axle(s) and the upper coupler assembly. By sliding the running gear forward, load is transferred from the upper coupler to the axle(s) with the opposite taking place by sliding the running gear rearward. If the operator elects to ignore using this feature to control the amount of axle load, it is certainly probable that the GAWR would be exceeded in specific cases. The trailer manufacturers have no control over this situation.

Flatbed trailers may be used for any number of commodities. A very popular use is the hauling of steel products such as plate, sheet, bar, rod, pipe, coil, etc. In the case of coil, this product is not only very dense in weight but takes little space resulting in a concentrated load rather than evenly distributed. Here again, the placement and quantity of the coil(s) loaded at the steel mill may result in overloading the stated GVWR and/or GAWR of the vehicle. The trailer manufacturer has no control over this condition.

Miller Trailers, Inc. manufacturers bulk fruit trailers for the citrus industry in Florida. If a severe freeze occurs such as happened in January 1977, the fruit must be picked and processed within several days. The Governor degrees a state of emergency and lifts all highway weight limits. This results in exceeding the GVW and GAW Ratings of the vehicles being used. The trailer manufacturer has no control over this condition.

Each of the circumstances stated above are not intended usage as far as the design and ratings of the manufacturer. They are, however, all forseeable conditions, reasonable or not, because manufacturers have seen this usage occur in the past and it will undoubtedly occur in the future. Manufacturers have no way of knowing if or when any of these conditions will occur and couldn't prevent them if they did know. It doesn't seem reasonable that a manufacturer could be charged with a safety related defect under these circumstances.

Mr. Berndt, I sincerely believe that most, if not all, trailer manufacturers make every effort to manufacture vehicles that are safe to operate on the public highways. We just can't afford not too. Possible I have misinterpreted the meaning of the legal interpretations from NHTSA on this subject.

I would appreciate hearing from you on this serious matter.

L. M. Anderson, Vice President Engineering

CC: D. VIERIMAA -- TTMA

ID: 77-3.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/01/77

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

TO: Great Dane Trailers Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of May 5, 1977, concerning a vehicle manufacturer's responsibilities with regard to overloading.

You make reference to a November 10, 1976, letter from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) which stated that manufacturers must take reasonable steps to ensure that the vehicles they produce will not be overloaded by their users. Although we acknowledge that a manufacturer does not have direct control over the actual use of its vehicles, it does exercise indirect control over use through the vehicle's design.

The NHTSA has stated in the past that a vehicle's gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) is determined by the sum of its unloaded vehicle weight, 150 pounds for each designated seating position, and its rated cargo load. It is the cargo load rating that is most relevant to the problem of overloading. The rated cargo load should represent the manufacturer's assessment of the vehicle's cargo-carrying capacity and the maximum load at which the vehicle may be safely operated. A manufacturer must consider the maximum load capacity of the vehicle when it designs its cargo-carrying portion. If this is not done, the rated cargo load, and thus the GVWR, may be meaningless since the vehicle may have a cargo-carrying chamber which, if filled, would cause the vehicle to exceed its stated weight ratings. An illustration of such a situation would be a tanker truck which exceeds its GVWR when the tank is filled with a type of material appropriate for carrying in that cargo area. If the manufacturer could reasonably have anticipated that such cargo would be carried in the tanker, yet rated the vehicle with a GVWR which was less than the vehicle's weight when fully loaded with that cargo, a safety-related defect for which the manufacturer is responsible may be considered to exist.

The NHTSA does not expect manufacturers to be omniscient when it comes to the use of the vehicles they produce. It does, however, expect the stated weight ratings to reflect the design of the vehicles and the uses to which they can reasonably be anticipated to be put. Where the manufacturer has reason to know the specific commodity intended to be carried in its vehicles and those vehicles have a totally enclosed cargo area, as with a tanker, the rated cargo load is relatively easy to determine.

In your particular case, your responsibility for any subsequent overloading of the vehicles you manufacture would be determined by the reasonableness of your GVWR's and gross axle weight ratings (GAWR), given the size and configuration of your vehicles and the types of loads which they could reasonably be expected to carry. Since some of your vehicles are flat beds (no enclosed cargo area) you would obviously not be able to provide weight ratings sufficiently high to prevent overloading in all instances. The design of flat beds necessarily permits overloading since the cargo area is unrestricted. Thus if the weight ratings you specify appear to have been arrived at by a good faith determination based upon the types of loads you anticipate will be carried, your responsibility with regard to weight rating specifications will have been satisfied and no safety-related defect will be attributable to you.

SINCERELY,

Great Dane Trailers, Inc.

May 5, 1977

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

In reference to your letter of November 10, 1976, you made some interpretations which we feel are unreasonable and find that it is impractical to meet compliance.

You indicated that "A vehicle whose axle weight ratings are likely to be exceeded under the manufacturer's intended or reasonably foreseeable conditions of usage would probably be considered to contain a safety related defect." You further stated "The NHTSA expects the vehicle manufacturer to take reasonable steps, short of refraining from production, to minimize the likelihood of vehicle misuse through overloading."

We, as a manufacturer, construct flat platform trailers and van type trailers. When these units are manufactured we certify both a GVWR and GAWR. We however, in most cases, have no way of knowing what products or mix of products will be carried on or in these vehicles.

We do know that most users of this type equipment will carry the maximum allowable payload by State and/or Federal laws. If we construct a vehicle with 10:00 X 20 tires our GAWR will be 19,040# per axle. The present Federal law will allow up to 20,000# per axle and states up to 22,000# per axle. From this we could conclude that many axles could be overloaded as compared to our GAWR. However, we have no real knowledge that this condition does exist but have strong suspicions that it may. We furthermore have no means of controlling how the vehicle is used during its lifetime.

It is definitely unreasonable for NHTSA to expect a vehicle manufacturer to be responsible for the actions and operations of truck lines and other trucking operations.

We feel that placing a specific GVWR and GAWR on the vehicle by the manufacturer is warning enough and that problems of overload is the responsibility of the user and should be controlled by Federal and State weight limits and the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety.

John Storz Director of Engineering

CC: DON VIERIMAA -- TTMA

ID: 77-3.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/01/77

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

TO: Transportation Testing Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your conversation with Karen Dyson of my staff in which you asked whether you could resell course monitoring tires after having used them to conduct tire tests.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration furnishes these tires to enable you to test for compliance with the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards. After you purchase course monitoring tires from the agency, they become your property to do with as you wish. There is no prohibition against the resale of the tires after you have completed your testing.

ID: 77-3.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/15/77

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

TO: Hendrickson Mfg. Co.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your May 17, 1977, letter asking for an interpretation of "unloaded vehicle weight." You are interested specifically in whether cranes and drill rigs are included in the computation of a vehicle's "unloaded vehicle weight."

"Unloaded vehicle weight" is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Part 571.3 to mean

the weight of a vehicle with maximum capacity of all fluids necessary for operation of the vehicle, but without cargo or occupants.

Through a previous interpretation (copy enclosed), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has determined that the "weight of the vehicle" includes the weight of those accessories that are installed on a vehicle before delivery and are not ordinarily removed.

From the description of the apparatus to which you refer in your letter, it would appear that the cranes or drilling rigs are not normally removed from the vehicle when not in use. Further, the removal of these pieces of equipment appears to be a cumbersome task. Accordingly, it is the opinion of the NHTSA that the weight of the equipment to which you refer would be part of the "weight of the vehicle" and, therefore, would be included in the computation of the "unloaded vehicle weight."

SINCERELY,

May 17, 1977

Attention: George Reagle National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Hendrickson Mfg. Co. manufactures crane carrier and drill rig chassis. In order to determine if a few of these vehicles would be exempt from the Standard 121 by Section 3, Part d of the Standard, we require a clear interpretation of the term "unloaded vehicle weight".

Hendrickson Mfg. Co. builds a few crane carrier and drill rig chassis for operation over the public highway system, without special permit. Some of these chassis when completed, have a completed vehicle weight over 95% of the GVWR with a speed attainable in two miles of 45 MPH or less. These vehicles would be exempt from the Standard 121 if the unloaded vehicle weight is defined as being the same as the completed vehicle weight.

The confusion on the term "unloaded vehicle weight" comes about because it is necessary, at times, to strip the vehicle of heavy components, in order to comply with State weight restrictions. To reduce the weight of the vehicle, large and heavy components such as the four outrigger boxes (1000 lbs. each) and counter weight (over 1000 lbs) are dismantled from the vehicle. Because of the difficulty involved in the removal and installation, these heavy components would be removed from the vehicle only when necessary to comply with weight laws.

We petition the Administrator for a ruling that would clarify the term "unloaded vehicle weight" as would apply to crane carriers and drill rigs.

HENDRICKSON MFG. CO.

Kenneth R. Brennan Engineer

cc: M. A. SIGNA