ID: nht75-4.49

DATE: 03/05/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James C. Schultz; NHTSA

TO: Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

ID: nht75-4.5

DATE: 09/30/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Wesco Truck & Trailer Sales

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ID: nht75-4.50

DATE: 12/03/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; MaRK Schwimmer; NHTSA

TO: For Interpretation file

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: On December 1, 1975, I received a telephone call from Mr. Nakajima of Bridgestone Tire Co. (213-320-6030) concerning the meaning of the March 1, 1975, effective date of Standard No. 119. He wanted confirmation that tires, for vehicles other than passenger cars, that were manufactured before that date are not subject to the standard's labeling requirements. I explained that his understanding was correct, citing 49 CFR @ 571.7.

ID: nht75-4.6

DATE: 09/11/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Strick Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 17, 1975, question whether a used running gear assembly can be combined with a new platform to qualify as a "repaired" trailer that would not have to conform to the requirements for air brake systems on newly-manufactured trailers (Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems). I have enclosed an interpretive letter which should clarify this matter for you. Briefly, the answer is no, if the "platform" includes the main frame members.

You also asked whether the vehicle must conform to the safety standards if it is assembled for the manufacturer's own use or if it is leased to a third party. Section 108 (a) (1) (A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C 1397 (a) (1) (A)) prohibits not only the sale, but also the introduction or delivery for introduction in interstate commerce of vehicles which do not comply with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture. Therefore the answer to your question is yes if the vehicle is ever operated on the public streets or highways.

SINCERELY,

STRICK CORP.

July 17, 1975

James C. Schultz, Esquire Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: N40-30 (TWH)

Thank you very much for your letter of June 6, 1975 with regard to Standard #121, Air-Brake Systems. I would appreciate very much if you could let me know whether the NHTSA interpretations of the Standard would prohibit the utilization of a used running gear assembly with a new platform, on a platform trailer for our own use in our operations. In addition, we would appreciate advice as to whether or not the lease of such a vehicle to third parties would be prohibited.

Leonard Barkan Vice President and General Counsel

ID: nht75-4.7

DATE: 12/05/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ID: nht75-4.8

DATE: 05/02/75

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

TO: General Motors Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of March 21, 1975, inquiring as to the effect of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121 on Massachusetts and New Jersey State laws relating to air brake performance.

As you are aware, section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) provides that no State or political subdivision of a State may promulgate or continue in effect standards applicable to an aspect of motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment performance which is covered by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, unless the standards are identical.

Standard No. 121 includes provisions relating to truck and bus brake performance, including requirements for stopping distances. A more restrictive State brake requirement than that specified in Standard 121 is voided by @ 103(d) since the Federal standard is intended to cover all aspects of air brake performance.

The Federal requirements must be regarded as conclusive with regard to service, emergency, and parking braking capabilities in order to maintain the uniformity necessary in a Federal regulatory scheme. This was affirmed in a recent decision rendered in a case brought by the Motorcycle Industry Council, Inc. against the State of California in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California concerning the preemption of a California State requirement that motorcycle headlamps be wired to operate when the engine is running. The Court held that the California requirement is preempted by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration intended to cover all aspects of performance directly involving motorcycle headlamps.

Therefore, requirements such as those described in your letter would be preempted by Standard 121 since the aspects of performance that would be affected are covered by the Federal standard. You should note that this discussion of State "requirements" only refers to rules of general applicability within a State or municipality. It does not refer to purchase specifications that may be imposed by any person or organization, including a State or municipality, with respect to vehicles purchased for the person or organization's own use. Such specifications are not limited by Federal law, and in the case of governmental bodies are specifically allowed by @ 103(d), although of course they cannot alter a manufacturer's duty to conform to Federal standards.

ID: nht75-4.9

DATE: 05/20/75

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

TO: Oshkosh Truck Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 1, 1975, request for confirmation that the emergency braking stopping distance requirements in S5.7.2.3 of Standard No. 121, Air brake systems, specify that, when stopped six times for each configuration of weight and speed specified in S5.3.1.1 on a road surface with a skid number of 75 (with a single failure introduced in the service brake system), the vehicle must stop at least once within the distances specified in Column 3 of Table II and no part of the vehicle must leave the 12-foot roadway. You also request confirmation that modulation of the service brake control during the stop is not prohibited.

With certain exceptions, the statements in your letter are correct. Your interpretation only sets out the basic stopping distance requirements for those vehicles which the manufacturer has chosen to make conform to S5.7.2 of the standard. Thus, your interpretation does not include any of the requirements of the emergency braking capability option found in S5.7.1. Additionally, your interpretation does not include the requirements for a truck-tractor at unloaded vehicle weight plus 500 pounds, or for the trucks and buses which qualify for the interim requirements of S5.7.2.3.1 and S5.7.2.3.2.

Section S5.7.2 does not prohibit modulation of the emergency braking capability, and modulation by means of the service brake control is therefore permissible.

YOURS TRULY,

April 1, 1975

Richard Dyson Acting Chief Counsel U.S. Dept. of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Admin.

Please review our interpretation of Sections 5.7.1 and 5.7.2 of FMVSS 121 which pertain to emergency brake system operation and performance.

Our interpretation is such that:

1) During an acceptable emergency braking stop, the stopping distance must not exceed the values specified in Column 3 of Table II and no part of the vehicle must leave the 12 foot roadway.

2) When stopped six times, for each combination of weight and speed specified in 5.3.1.1, with a skid number of 75, at least one acceptable emergency braking stop must occur.

3) During an emergency braking stop, the emergency braking system may be modulated. Modulation occurs by actuation of the service brake control.

OSHKOSH TRUCK CORPORATION

Danny J. Lanzdorf Supervising Engineer

ID: nht75-5.1

DATE: 04/28/75

FROM: NOEL C. BUFE FOR JAMES B. GREGORY -- NHTSA

TO: Hendrickson Manufacturing Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am writing in response to your letter of March 25, 1975, in which you request advice as to whether you should establish gross axle weight ratings and gross vehicle weight ratings based on the 55 mph national speed limit or on the maximum attainable speed of the vehicle.

The Cross Axle Weight Rating (CAWR) and the Cross Vehicle Weight Rating (CVWR) are defined by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) as determinations made by the manufacturer. (49 CFR 3571.3). As a general matter NHTSA finds that the manufacturer is most familiar with the complexities of this product and is most qualified to assign these values.

Recently NHTSA has found it necessary to specify that CAWR's and CVWR's be calculated on the basis of highway speeds and not qualified by reduced speed ratings; our reasons for this action are contained in the enclosed letter. For purposes of CAWR-CVWR calculations, NHTSA will hencefort consider "highway speed" to be the 60 mph value used by the United States Tire and Rim Association in assigning unqualified ratings to their tires.

Therefore, your trucks and buses which are capable of speeds of 60 mph or more should be assigned ratings which reflect vehicle capabilities at 60 mph.

ID: nht75-5.10

DATE: 05/30/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Bock & Jones

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of May 2, 1975, inquiring about the existence of regulations governing the manufacture, design, and on-the-road operation of trailers used to transport fertilizer while hitched to a pickup truck.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has the responsibility of promulgating safety standards that set minimum performance requirements for vehicles manufactured and/or sold in the United States. There are five motor vehicle safety standards that apply to trailers. These standards relate to trailer lighting, tires, and braking systems (Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses (49 CFR Part 571.106), Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment (49 CFR Part 571.108), Standard No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids (49 CFR Part 571.116), Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR Part 571.119), Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems (49 CFR Part 571.121)).

There is no safety standard that applies to the towing of a trailer. The use of a safety chain to guard against release of the trailer may, however, be mandated by State law.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

BOCK & JONES -- ATTORNEYS AT LAW

May 2, 1975

CERTIFIED MAIL -- RETURNED RECEIPT REQUESTED #466442

Legal Department -- Department of Transportation

Gentlemen:

I am involved in a lawsuit in which a large fertilizer manufacturer-distributor furnished a four wheel pull-type fertilizer applicator, constructed very similar to a normal trailer, and was used for transporting bulk fertilizer from the distribution point, on the public highways, pulled by a pickup truck, to farms, for fertilizer application.

The trailer hitch was of a standard type which coupled to a hole in the rear bumper of the pickup truck.

For some unknown reason, the clevis pin probably broke, the trailer became uncoupled from the pickup truck, and crossed the centerline of the public highway, killing the driver of the approaching vehicle.

The trailer did not have the standard type of commonly used safety chains, which are also usually attached to the pulling vehicle to avoid accidents if the trailer hitch becomes uncoupled.

Since becoming involved in this litigation, we have determined that this is not uncommon in the area, as apparently these clevis pins through use, jolts, etc., do fracture or break, but fortunately the other accidents in the area were not fatal to other people.

My purpose in writing to your department is to determine:

(1) Whether or not you issue any type of regulations covering the manufacture or design of such trailers?

(2) Whether or not you have any type of regulations that set minimum standards for such trailers or applicators to be pulled or used on public highways?

If your agency should not be involved in such, perhaps you could advise us of another regulatory agency that might have such regulations.

Thanking you for this information, we are

Sincerely yours,

By: Harold D. Jones

ID: nht75-3.21

DATE: 07/22/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Crown Coach Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reponse to your letter of June 26 in which you request a clarification of the definition of "date of manufacture" as that term is found in Section 567.4 of the certification regulations.

As your vehicles are not manufactured in two or more stages, you are subject to the requirements of Section 567.4 with respect to certification. Section 567.4(g) (2) specifies the month and year of manufacture as "the time during which work was completed at the place of main assembly of the vehicle." This is when the vehicle is finished by you. The vehicle should be certified as meeting all of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable as of that date.

We trust that the above information is of assistance. If you have any further inquiries, please let us know.