ID: nht76-3.48

DATE: 03/30/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Pullman Trailmobile

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Trailmobile's March 4, 1976, letter asking if a trailer equipped with one or more axles that have a gross axle weight rating (GAWR) of 24,000 pounds or more is excluded from the requirements of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

Section S3. of Standard No. 121 provides in part that any vehicle manufactured before September 1, 1977, that has a GAWR for any axle of 24,000 pounds or more is excluded from the standard. The determination of GAWR is made by the vehicle manufacturer (49 CFR 571.3) and must be based on the capabilities of the axle system at 60 mph. Because the determination is made by the vehicle manufacturer, the NHTSA is unable to say that the components you mention in your letter would necessarily constitute an axle system with a GAWR of 24,000 pounds.

YOURS TRULY,

Pullman Trailmobile

March 4, 1976

Mr. Sidney F. Williams, Jr. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation

Regarding our telephone conversation of March 3rd, would you confirm our discussion that a van trailer, having an axle rated at 24,000 pounds GAWR, based on adequate springs, axle beam, bearings, etc. and tires per Tire and Rim Association 60 MPH Rating would indeed be exempt from the Standard No. 121 "Air Brake Systems".

John R. Pratte Manager Materials Engineering

ID: nht76-3.49

DATE: 03/15/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Bock Products, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 11, 1976, question whether two trailer designs you describe would qualify as "Heavy Hauler Trailer[s]" as defined in Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. A copy of that definition is enclosed for your information.

Both of your trailer designs include a primary cargo-carrying surface that inclines from a height of 24 inches in the rear to a height of 47 inches in the front of the trailer. In one case, part of the inclined portion is removable, leaving a 6-foot length of the surface that is flat and 40 inches above the ground in the unloaded condition. In both cases somewhat more than one-half of the primary cargo-carrying surface is 40 inches or less in height.

The exclusion from Standard No. 121 for heavy hauler trailers applies (in relevant part) only to trailers "whose primary cargo-carrying surface is not more than 40 inches above the ground in an unloaded condition." The trailer designs you describe would not qualify for the exclusion, because only a portion of the surface qualifies as "not more than 40 inches above the ground."

SINCERELY,

BOCK PRODUCTS, INC.

Feb. 11, 1976

Office of the Chief Council NHTSA

Att: M.J. Herlihy

Mr. Sydney Williams of NHTSA suggested we write for a ruling on the enclosed designs to see if they would be exempt from the FMVSS #121.

They appear to fall within the description of the "Heavy Hauler Trailer", in that the bed height is below 40" over the primary cargo carrying length of the trailer.

However, to be sure of our position we are in need of a ruling by your office.

These designs would be used in the recreational vehicle industry as transporters for manufacturers of travel trailers and mini-motor homes.

Design #2 describes a 6'-0" section of removable ramp which would be left in position when transporting their product. It would install by pins at both ends.

We require your immediate attention on this matter as a rush order is pending.

Robert Fisher Sales Engineer/Coordinator

PROPOSED DESIGN PROFILE #2

DATE: 2-10-76

BOCK PRODUCTS 1901 W.HIVELY AVE. ELKHART, IND. 46514

NOTE! GROUND HEIGHT DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE UNLOADED HEIGHTS

(Graphics omitted)

PROPOSED DESIGN PROFILE #1

DATE: 2-10-76

BOCK PRODUCTS

1901 W. HIVELY AVE. ELKHART, IND. 46514

NOTE! GROUND HEIGHT DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE UNLOADED HEIGHT

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht76-3.5

DATE: 04/13/76

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD FOR FRANK A. BERNDT -- NHTSA

COPYEE: BUREAU OF MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am writing in response to your March 22, 1976, telephone conversation with Mark Schwimmer of this office concerning the treatment of plastic fuel tanks under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity.

As Mr. Schwimmer explained, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has issued no safety standards that apply directly to fuel tanks. Standard No. 301-75, which applies to entire vehicles, specifies fuel spillage requirements for barrier crash and rollover tests, but does not include a flame envelopment test. In addition to passenger cars and school buses, the vehicles that are subject to the standard are multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating of 10,000 pounds or less.

Standard No. 301-75 applies to new vehicles. In addition, the Federal Highway Administration's Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety has established requirements for certain vehicles in use in interstate commerce. I understand that a fuel tank flame envelopment test is among these. For information concerning such a test, you should communicate with that agency.

For your convenience, a copy of Standard No. 301-75 is enclosed.

ID: nht76-3.50

DATE: 03/11/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Lufkin Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 6, 1976, questions whether Lufkin Industries may, as an incomplete vehicle manufacturer, build "incomplete chassis trailers" that do not have brakes installed that comply with Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, and whether Lufkin may tow the "incomplete chassis trailers" over the highway to the final-stage manufacturer without brakes that conform to Standard No. 121.

Lufkin's activities are regulated by Part 568 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, if the "incomplete chassis trailers" qualify as "incomplete vehicles." A copy is enclosed for your information. Part 568 does not require the incomplete vehicle to meet all applicable safety standards, but @ 568.4 does require a statement of the status of an incomplete vehicle's conformity with all applicable standards.

In answer to your second question, the NHTSA permits the use of an incomplete vehicle on the public highways for the purpose of transit between the incomplete vehicle manufacturer and subsequent manufacturers, but for no other purpose, until such time as the vehicle complies with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to it as completed. This ruling by the NHTSA does not relieve the manufacturer or shipper from any applicable requirement imposed on the incomplete vehicle by other Federal, State, or local authority.

SINCERELY,

February 6, 1976

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

We would like to have your legal opinion on the following two questions:

1. We, as an original equipment manufacturer, have an order to build incomplete chassis trailers for another manufacturer who is qualified to complete and certify. He has requested we do not install the air brake system to meet S121 regulations. We would not certify these vehicles but would furnish the necessary documents prescribed for an incomplete vehicle.

Our question is: Can we legally build these incomplete vehicles with brakes that do not meet S121 regulation?

2. Provided we can legally build these vehicles, we would like to have your opinion on the following question:

Can the final stage manufacturer transport these incomplete vehicles over public highways pulling one vehicle with two like vehicles loaded on top? The supporting documents will accompany these vehicles.

Thank you for an early reply.

LUFKIN INDUSTRIES, INC. Trailer Division

A. G. Colburn Director of Trailer Design

ID: nht76-3.6

DATE: 11/10/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Southern California Recreational Vehicle Products, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your September 15, 1976, letter concerning the effect of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity, on manufacturers of replacement and auxiliary fuel tanks.

You are correct in your understanding that this standard applies to completed vehicles, rather than fuel tanks or other fuel system components. Therefore, for example, an auxiliary fuel tank that you manufacture is not itself subject to any performance requirements. However, a person who mounts such an auxiliary fuel tank on a new motor vehicle before the vehicle's first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale is a vehicle alterer under National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regulations. He is required by 49 CFR 567.7 (copy enclosed) to affix a label to the vehicle certifying that, as altered, the vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards -- including Standard No. 301-75.

In addition, the mounting of an auxiliary or replacement fuel tank on a motor vehicle after the vehicle's first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale is affected by Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section specifies in relevant part that

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or 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. . . . (Emphasis added.)

Therefore, such a mounting of an auxiliary or replacement fuel tank must be performed in such a way that the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 301-75 is not knowingly compromised.

SINCERELY,

September 15, 1976

Travis Armstrong, Director Office of Standards Enforcement National Hiway Traffic Safety Administration

We have a manufacturing plant in which our principal products are replacement and auxiliary fuel tanks for light trucks, vans and various recreational vehicles.

We have conformed to all our state emission control requirements for which we are fully accredited. We feel our products comply with all existing regulations. However, some of our customers have interpreted Federal Safety Standard FMVSS 301-75 to include our products thereby requiring test certification.

We have been advised by a Safety Engineer at the Automobile Club of Southern California that there were no standards for fuel tanks and that 301-75 does not apply to manufacturers of parts and other accessories for the aftermarket. He further advised us to write to you for confirmation of this fact.

We would, therefore, appreciate a reply clarafying the standard and to whom it applies.

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PRODUCTS, INC.

Charles G. Atkinson President

CC: BOBBY A. BOAZ -- OFC. OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

ID: nht76-3.7

DATE: 05/18/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin & Kahn

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your March 26, 1976, letter concerning the application of @ 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (the Act), to aftermarket installations of trailer hitches.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) specifies that:

No manufacturer, distributer, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or 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. . .

You have requested clarification of the following sentence appearing in our March 1, 1976, letter to General Motors Corporation:

Therefore, aftermarket trailer hitches must also be installed in such a way that compliance with Standard No. 301-75 is preserved.

A more precise characterization of the law on this subject is that aftermarket trailer hitches must be installed in such a way that compliance with the standard is not knowingly compromised.

You are correct in your understanding that trailer hitch manufacturers are not required to certify that their products comply with Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity. Despite the effect of @ 108(a)(2)(A), this standard applies only to vehicles. There is no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that applies to trailer hitches. Further, there is no duty on the part of hitch manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or installers to certify that the installation of a trailer hitch on a used vehicle does not compromise the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 301-75. Please note that the installation of a trailer hitch on a certified vehicle before the vehicle's first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale is governed by @ 108(a)(1)(A) of the Act and the alterer provisions in 49 CFR Part 567, Certification.

SINCERELY,

ARENT, FOX, KINTNER, PLOTKIN & KAHN

March 26, 1976

Robert L. Carter Associate Administrator for Motor Vehicle Programs National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Request For Formal Interpretation On behalf of the Trailer Hitch Manufacturers Association (THMA), which we serve as legal counsel, we respectfully request the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's interpretation as to certain legal obligations imposed upon the marketing of trailer hitches by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended.

Specifically, THMA requests (a) confirmation that the following language accurately states the law applicable to the aftermarket manufacture, distribution, and installation of trailer hitches and (b) incorporation of the substance of this legal interpretation in the NHTSA's official Federal Register responses to the General Motors and Chrysler petitions to amend FMVSS 301-75 with respect to trailer hitches:

Trailer hitches must not be installed in such a way that compliance with Standard No. 301-75 is knowingly compromised. Aftermarket hitches are not, however, subject to certification to Standard 301-75, nor are hitch manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or installers required to certify, or undertake testing to assure, that the installed hitch does not interfere with Standard 301-75 compliance.

We deeply appreciate the Safety Administration's assistance in clarifying present industry confusion in this area.

ARENT, FOX, KINTNER, PLOTKIN & KAHN

Lawrence F. Henneberger

Robert W. Green

CC: THOMAS W. HERLIHY; MARK I. SCHWIMMER

ID: nht76-3.8

DATE: 08/30/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Mark Schwimmer; NHTSA

TO: Interpretations File

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: SUBJECT: TELEPHONE CALL FROM MR. DAVE HUNT, NADA

On August 26, 1976, I spoke with Mr. Dave Hunt of the National Automobile Dealers Association (821-7030). He referred to a letter sent by General Motors Corporation to some of its dealers, concerning the relation between dealer installations of trailer hitches and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity. Because neither of us had actually seen the letter, we discussed that relationship in general terms. I explained that the installation of a trailer hitch on a used vehcle would be subject to the "knowingly render inoperative" provision -- Section 108(a)(2)(A) -- of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, and referred to Mr. Hunt to our May 18, 1976, letter on this subject to Mr. Larry Henneberger. I explained further that the most relevant portion of that statute concerning the installation of a trailer hitch on a vehicle before its first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale would be Section 108(a)(1)(A).

ID: nht76-3.9

DATE: 05/01/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: General Motors Technical Center

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 continous 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: nht76-4.1

DATE: 01/15/76

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

TO: Timpte, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Timpte's December 10, 1975, question whether modification of a certified trailer prior to retail sale constitutes the manufacture of a vehicle subject to applicable safety standards such as Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

The answer to your question is no. From your description, it appears that the proposed modification would be an alteration of a certified vehicle subject to @ 567.7 of NHTSA certification regulations (49 CFR @ 567.7) (copy enclosed). Under that section, conformity of the vehicle as altered need only be to standards in effect at the time the originally certified trailer was manufactured.

Sincerely,

Enclosure

ATTACH.

TIMPTE, INC.

December 10, 1975

Frank Berndt -- Acting Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

As a manufacturer of semi-trailers we have just been approached with a condition that I am unable to determine our particular status if we were to proceed with the modification requested. Let me explain the situation to you.

Two years ago, we manufactured 6 semi-trailers which were 26' long, single axle, dry freight vans. They were intended to be put in use as "doubles". Our order was from one of our distributors who is a separate entity from our Company. We built these trailers, delivered them to him and he has paid us for them. We furnished him with Statements of Origin on these units. However, two of them did not get sold to his customer and these have not been titled in any way at this time.

Now, our distributor has the opportunity of selling these trailers. However, a modification will have to be made to the extent that the trailers each would need to be lengthened to 45' in overall length and the single axle would be replaced by a tandem axle sliding bogie. The overhead rear doors would be replaced by swinging rear doors. Now, in one context, this is a modification where we are utilizing the entire frame and side structure of the present trailer and adding on to it in so far as length is concerned. We are, however, making a tandem out of it with a sliding bogie as opposed to a fixed single axle. Its GAWR rating for each of the axles would remain the same; however, the GVWR would increase. These trailers are not used trailers and they presently carry our plate showing manufacturing date of 1974.

Can this be considered a repair or is this a modification to the extent of a rebuild where we would be required to furnish 121 brake equipment on the units and how, in either case, would we go about certifying them if, in fact, certification would be required to particularly the FMVSS 121?

I grant that this is an unusual request and yet it is entirely valid in that the distributor, not having had a sale for these trailers for a long period of time, now sees an opportunity to dispose of them if, in fact, a modification of this degree could be made reasonably and without necessity of probably adding the 121 axles and brake equipment. From a structural standpoint, we would have no concern since we would be doing the work here in our plant and making appropriate accomodations so that the trailers would be as structurally sound as if they had originally been made in the configuration of 45' in lieu of the 26' length.

Since a sale is pending based on the decisions in this letter, I would appreciate the earliest possible reaction from you so that we, in turn, may know how to advise our distributor and proceed accordingly.

Thank you.

Very truly yours,

Jack Gromer -- Vice President - Engineering

ID: nht76-4.10

DATE: 02/06/76

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

TO: Davidge Warfield

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your January 21, 1976, request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117, Retreaded Pneumatic Tires.

You asked whether a retreaded tire may be manufactured with a casing from which the original manufacturer's tire identification number (required by 49 CFR Part 574 and Standard No. 109) has been buffed off, provided the original DOT symbol remains. The answer to your question is yes. The only items of information that are required to be retained from the original casing are the following:

(a) the symbol DOT;

(b) the size of the tire; and

(c) the actual number of plies or ply rating.

A retreaded tire must also, of course, be labeled with the DOT-R symbol and with the retreader's tire identification number, pursuant S6.1 of Standard No. 117 and 49 CFR Part 574.