ID: nht75-3.46

DATE: 09/03/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Peerless Division - Royal Industries

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 15, 1975, question whether Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, requires "hold back valves" on air brake system reservoirs to guard against loss of air pressure through auxiliary equipment installations.

The answer to your question is no. Standard No. 121 does not contain a prohibition on the use of air pressure from the air brake system for powering auxiliary devices. The vehicle must, of course, conform to Standard No. 121 following installation of any auxiliary devices, if the installation occurs prior to the first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale. For example, the compressor build-up pressure must still meet S5.1 of the standard whether or not auxiliary equipment is installed.

Although not a requirement of the standard, the NHTSA does consider it appropriate that a pressure protection valve be placed in the line to an auxiliary device so that rupture of an auxiliary line does not cause depletion of air pressure in the brake system.

SINCERELY,

July 15, 1975

Tad Herlihy U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

For auxiliary air equipment such as an air ride suspension, we have been utilizing a brake system hold back valve to protect the complete brake system at about 90 p.s.i. We are attempting to get a 100 p.s.i. hold back valve but there does not seem to be one available. We are working with an air valve supplier to develop such a valve. To get a 90 p.s.i. hold back valve, we have to modify an existing valve. Only 60 p.s.i. hold back valve, we have to modify an existing valve. Only 60 p.s.i. hold back valves are available through our normal sources of supply.

It has been brought up by some of our people that they think that we are required to protect only the spring brake release tank and that on some manufacturer's brake system this is provided in their spring brake valve.

I would like to get your legal interpretation on this matter as soon as is reasonable.

PEERLESS DIVISION ROYAL INDUSTRIES

C.J. Baker Director of Engineering

ID: nht75-3.47

DATE: 06/13/75

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

TO: Truck Body and Equipment Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your request for a determination whether a mobile water tower trailer equipped with air brakes would be subject to the requirements of Standard No. 121, Air brake systems.

The answer to your question is yes. From the description supplied to you by Klein Products, the trailer does not appear to qualify for exclusion from the standard.

I would like to advise you that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration recently proposed exclusion of this vehicle type from Standard No. 121, and we invite the submission of comments from the Truck Body and Equipment Association or Klein Products on our proposal.

Yours truly,

April 9, 1975

Stan Haransky -- Truck Body and Equipment Association

Dear Stan:

Enclosed is a brochure with a brief description of our Klein Porto Tower which I discussed with you by telephone today.

I would appreciate your help in obtaining a clarification of the Federal Safety Standard #121 in regard to the application of the anti-skid system on this unit or whether this type of equipment is exempt.

This tank is set up on a construction site and uses the highway system only for a movement from job site to job site. It is not capable of carrying a load when being transported.

Thank you very much for your help in this matter.

Very truly yours,

KLEIN PRODUCTS, INC. -- Ray Foote, Sales Manager

Enc.

SPECIFICATIONS

(Graphics omitted) Model Gallon Capacity Approx. Empty Weight Approx. Length KPT-80 8,000 10,000 lbs. 25 ft. KPT-120 12,000 18,000 lbs. 29 ft. KPT-160 16,000 21,000 lbs. 40 ft.

TIRES - 12 ply

SIZE 8.25 x 15

4 1/2 HP air-cooled engine to drive hydraulic system

All prices include a rust-resistant plastic coating on the interior of tank and the exterior painted one color of the customer's choice.

All prices and specifications subject to change without notice

KLEIN PORTO-TOWER -- COMPLETELY MOBILE

* Can be towed anywhere in down position as a conventional trailer. KPT-80 with tow hitch-eye KPT-120 and KPT-160 demi with king pin

* Legal dimensions and weight for highway transportation without a permit (in MOST States).

* Hydraulically erected and lowered by self-contained gasoline engine driven pump.

* One man can elevate and insert pins in 5 to 8 minutes -- completely stable in up position with 13' ground clearance from down-spout.

12 1/4 x 5 1/2 air brakes.

QUICK LOADING AND DISCHARGE

* 4" inlet float controlled valve (Model K-7140) is standard equipment on KPT-120 and KPT-160 3" control valve on KPT-80. 6" -- 12" inlet valves are available on request.

* 14" down spout and control valve for quick discharge -- up to 7500 gallons per minute. Standard equipment on KPT-120 and KPT-160: 10" down spout -- up to 3000 GPM on KPT-80 -- optional up to 20".

* 24" man hole with safety grate.

Specifications subject to change without notice

Economical On or Off-the-road Water Supply

KLEIN PRODUCTS, INC.

SOLD AND SERVICED BY:

Klein Porto - Towers

8,000 to 16,000 Gallon Capacity

A KLEIN EXCLUSIVE!

-- developed and engineered by Klein to fill an acute need for the construction industry.

-- patented by Klein (Patent No. 3,160,171).

Model KPT-120

The Porto-Tower is another example of the advanced developments in low cost water transportation and supply by Klein Products, Inc. This mobile water tower can be moved, elevated and lowered by one man -- no crane required. It is erected and lowered by a self-contained engine driven hydraulic pump. This unique equipment has a fast discharge, with rates up to 7,500 gallons per minute. The tank loads quickly with automatic float control assembly. No permit is required for transporting on the highway.

(See complete specifications on the back)

ID: nht75-3.48

DATE: 12/29/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Truck Trailer Manufacturer Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to the Truck Trailer Manufacturer Association's November 17, 1975, request that the NHTSA reconsider its opinion that modification of existing tank trailers to increase their volumetric capacity and length does not constitute manufacture of a new air-braked trailer that must comply with Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. This opinion appears in a letter of August 28, 1975, to Stainless Tank and Equipment, Inc.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) authorizes the issuance of motor vehicle safety standards (15 U.S.C. @ 1392(a)) and prohibits, among other things, the manufacture of a motor vehicle on or after the date any applicable standard takes effect unless the vehicle conforms to the standard, and is so certified (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a) (1) (A), 1403). With the 1974 Amendments, (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a) (2) (A)) no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business may perform modifications that render inoperative any device or element of design required by a standard. However, unless the modifications performed are so extensive as to constitute legally the manufacture of a new vehicle, the standards that continue to apply to a vehicle are those in effect at the time of its original manufacture, not those that may have come into effect at a later date.

The modification of a tank trailer to increase its volumetric capacity and length does not, in our view, constitute the manufacture of a new vehicle in the typical situation (about an 18-inch increase in length). For this reason, Standard No. 121 does not apply to existing vehicles that are modified in accordance with your description.

This response does not address the issue of compliance with Federal motor carrier regulations raised in your November 17, 1975, letter.

SINCERELY,

TANK CONFERENCE

TRUCK TRAILER MANUFACTURER ASSOCIATION

November 17, 1975

MESSRS:

Dr. James B. Gregory Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Admin. Department of Transportation

Dr. Robert A. Kaye Director Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety Department of Transportation

GENTLEMEN: There has been considerable discussion, correspondence, and individual rulings resulting from the legislation that liberalized weight laws at the same time the new braking standard became effective.

The central question is: If a tank trailer is modified to increase its load carrying capacity under the new weight law, must it also be modified to the latest safety standards?

Our industry, because of the type of materials handled in tank trailers that we manufacture, has always had a great deal of concern for the safety aspect of these tank trailers. This was certainly shown in the cooperation between the Tank Conference Engineering Committee and the Department of Transportation during the upgrading of the MC codes in 1967. We felt in tune with, and supported, the obvious objectives of the Department of Transportation to upgrade the safety of tank trailers on the highway. All tank trailers built to the previous less stringent specifications, such as MC 305, were to be gradually phased out through attrition and all new tank trailers built after 1968 would have to conform to the new and safer specification, such as MC 306.

The recent enactment of Public Law 93-643 enabling carriers to transport higher gross vehicle loads has raised two major questions:

(1) Whether a capacity increase in a tank trailer -- or "stretching" would require bringing the tank trailer up to the standard of the existing MC specifications (post-1968), irrespective of when the tank trailer was originally produced, and

(2) Whether this equipment when modified would require compliance with all current MVSS 121 braking standards.

There are additional questions such as whether the modified tank trailer would require recertification per current Motor Vehicle Safety standards, per latest Hazardous Materials Regulations and per ASME and National Board as applicable.

Some of the specific rulings or interpretations issued by various officials in the Department have stated that increasing the capacity of a tank trailer or "stretching" would not require bringing the tank trailer up to the current MC specification nor the installation of the MVSS 121 braking system.

This appears to be inconsistent with what we understood to have been the Department's previous intent, which we as an industry wholeheartedly supported. It appears that under this practice the pre-1967 specifications could be perpetuated indefinitely.

Since the shell of a tank trailer is also its sole structural support, special safety implications must be taken into account which do not apply to other types of trailers.

It is unanimous opinion of the Tank Conference of TTMA that any modification of a tank trailer that increases its volumetric or gross vehicle weight capacity should be permitted only if the tank trailer is brought to the current safety standards as reflected in the current MC specifications and MVSS 121.

Our Engineering Committee would be pleased to meet with you at your convenience to discuss these important items.

Charles J. Calvin President

ID: nht75-3.49

DATE: 05/27/75

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

TO: Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to the Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association March 28, 1975, request that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) review its position that building a trailer from new materials in combination with the running rear of an existing trailer constitutes the manufacture of a new vehicle subject to applicable safety standards. You also request confirmation that modification of the barrel of a tank trailer to replace compartments or to add to its volume does not constitute manufacture of a new vehicle.

NHTSA has already reconsidered its interpretation of what constitutes the manufacture of a new truck in cases where components from an existing vehicle are used. Based on the high value of the drive train components found in powered vehicles, NHTSA has proposed an amendment of Part 571 that would supplant its earlier interpretation that, to constitute repair, the chassis of the existing vehicle must as a minimum be used in the new vehicle. The proposed amendment would establish that, in the assembly of a truck, a new vehicle is manufactured for purposes of compliance with and certification to applicable safety standards, unless the engine, transmission, and rear drive axles (as a minimum) of the rebuilt vehicle are not new, and at least two of these components were taken from an existing vehicle whose identify is continued in the rebuilt vehicle with respect to model year, vehicle identification number, and any other documentation incident to the vehicle's remanufacture and registration.

Our interpretation of what constitutes manufacture of a new trailer (when use of components from an existing vehicle is involved) parallels our present interpretation of truck rebuilding in this area. We regret any confusion in our use of the term "chassis", but we have made clear that the running gear and main frame of an existing vehicle, must, as a minimum, be used in the rebuilding of a vehicle to be considered a repair. I enclose copies of two letters which establish this point.

NHTSA does not view the manufacture of trucks and trailers as sufficiently similar to justify attempting to apply our newly-proposed position on truck rebuilding to trailer manufacture. The primary consideration of extremely high value of drive train components found in powered vehicles is not applicable to trailer manufacture. NHTSA also concludes that the economic considerations which discourage avoidance of Standard No. 121, Air brake systems, in truck manufacture do not operate in trailer manufacture.

In regard to tank trailer modifications where the tank serves the purpose of and replaces the frame rails, we would not consider replacement of compartments in the tank to be manufacture of a new vehicle. Similarly, the addition of volume in response to the new weight limits would not constitute manufacture of a new vehicle.

SINCERELY,

Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

March 28, 1975

Dr. James B. Gregory Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation

Subject: Petition for Reconsideration of Applicability of Motor Vehicle Safety Standards through Interpretive Letters

(Info copies to: Chief Legal Officer, NHTSA - Docket 49 Part 571)

Reference is made to the letter of interpretation by Mr. Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA, to Robert S. Podlewski of Diamond Reo Trucks, Inc., dated October 7, 1974, NHTSA file No. 40-30(TWH) concerning the use of "glider kits" and to subsequent related actions now understood to be under advisement and study by the staff of the Office of Chief Legal Counsel, NHTSA.

The Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association (TTMA) represent approximately 200 truck trailer and component suppliers who produce more than 90% of the truck trailers built in the United States. Some of our member companies also engage in repairing damaged vehicles and others are engaged in furnishing vehicle components to those organizations that are involved in vehicle repairing activities.

The membership of this Association is concerned over the interpretation understood from the above referenced letter as are some truck manufacturers.

Our membership greatly appreciates cost effectiveness activities. The repairing of a customers' damaged truck trailer is understandably a consumer's cost effectiveness program especially during these trying economic times.

There are many cases where truck trailer bodies, frames or trailer tanks are unserviceable, and, byu repairing (oftentimes including the replacement of damaged or unserviceable assembly or sub-assembly components a most proper and necessary cost effectiveness vehicle repairing program can be and should be accomplished.

In addition, there are cases where truck trailer running gears such as axles, suspensions, and/or frames and stub frames are perfectly safe, serviceable, and suitable for continued road use. Our membership considers the disposal of such serviceable items to be a monetary loss and a national economic waste of durable goods. This waste would not occur except for interpretations of certain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

When a customer-owned trailer is unfortunately involved in an accident and that vehicle owner or his insurance company desires to save the majority of new vehicle replacement costs by repairing that old vehicle for that owner by replacing or installing a new or used body structure, thereon, we do not understand how that repair job can be classified to be the manufacture of a new vehicle for Safety Standards Application purposes.

Accordingly, this Association petitions and requests that the decision resulting from the process whereby the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reconsiders the issues involved in the referenced Diamond Reo -- International Harvester, et al question involving the subject of truck repair versus new vehicle manufacturing, as related to unserviceable used vehicles, that the decision be couched in such language that the interpretation can be directly applied to truck trailers which are constructed of the same or similar types of components as are found in trucks.

Related to the above, it should be noted that auxiliary driving engines have been installed, from time to time, on truck trailers to furnish auxiliary driving power when it was found desirable to enhance the combination vehicles' hill climbing ability or for other reasons.

In arriving at the Administration's re-evaluated interpretation concerned, we should like to advise that the "frame" of a vehicle is not synonymous with "chassis". The "chassis" is generally understood to mean the basic operating motor vehicle including engine, frame, operational controls, and other essential parts but exclusive of a cab, body or accommodations for the operator, passengers, or property. Where a cab or flat face cowl is installed on a chassis, the composite is known and designated as "chassis and cab" or "chassis and cowl", etc. It would therefore be appreciated if the NHTSA interpretations to be rendered, especially on the repair versus new vehicle manufacturing question, give due consideration to the above clarification of "chassis" which NHTSA has previously used in a questionable and perplexing manner.

We do not construe that the use of a new "frame" or the equivalent structure to which is attached the used components of the original vehicle, to replace a damaged, bent, and/or unserviceable "frame" in any way, shape, or form constitutes the construction of a new motor vehicle, considering that the vehicles operating and identifying characteristics remain unchanged.

Again, related to the above, is the processing of a tank trailer where an existing leaking compartment is to be replaced or where the compartment is to be increased in capacity while the remainder of the vehicle is not otherwise changed. We do not consider that these repairing processes constitutes the construction of a new vehicle for Safety Standards Application purposes.

The Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association fully supports the enforcement of appropriate, practical and needed for safety Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. However, we must petition for the reconsideration of what appears to be the unlawful interpretations which, in effect, retroactively require equipment modernization to the most current safety standards promulgated for new vehicles to be applied to used motor vehicles because of normal trade practices of cost effective repairing of damaged or otherwise unserviceable used equipment.

The Association believes that the Podlewski response by NHTSA is a questionable intepretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standards which were promulgated under the Administrative Procedures Act. What appears to have happened, in this case of repair versus new manufacturing question, has the effect of retroactive applicability of Safety Standards by fiat subsequent to the time that the Standards are established. Yet, we do not believe NHTSA or the Congress ever intended to require the retroactive modernization of used vehicles by rule interpreting procedures.

The Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association supports the concept found in the White Motor Company's suggested draft of "Interpretation of Manufacture vs. Repair of Vehicles" contained in the Public Docket.

It is therefore requested that the contents of this presentation be given due consideration in the action now being studied by Legal Counsel of NHTSA on the Diamond Reo-International-White et al reconsideration question of Repair vs. New Manufacturing.

Sumner Meiselman Staff Engineer

ID: nht75-3.5

DATE: 07/07/75

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

TO: Department of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 21, 1975, requesting answers to two questions "relating to the requirements for 16 or 18 gage wire specified by [SAE Standard] J589" ["Turn Signal Switches"] in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You first asked:

"1. Once the switch has met test requirements using the 16 or 18 gage wire, can a switch manufacturer change the wire gage to a smaller or larger size for installation and use on a vehicle?"

We are uncertain as to what you mean. If you intended to refer to the vehicle manufacturer, the answer to the question is yes. He may use a gage other than 16 or 18 when the switch is installed in his vehicle. The test set forth in J589 is a laboratory test measuring voltage drop that must be met by a switch when 16 or 18 gage wire is used.

You next asked:

"2. Would a switch which was tested with other than 16 or 18 gage wire (larger or smaller) meet the certification requirements of Part 567 of the federal standards?"

When a manufacturer certifies conformance to Standard No. 108, he is indicating that the turn signal switch will meet the requirements of SAE J589 if tested with 16 or 18 gage wire. He may use any method he chooses to ensure this. This agency does not, through its certification requirements or otherwise, instruct manufacturers how to test their products.

Thank you for your suggestion that we amend Standard No. 108 to incorporate SAE J589 which does not specify the gage of wire for test purposes. We have already proposed adoption of J589b in Notice 3 of Docket No. 69-19.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

May 21, 1975

File No.: 61.A1588.A3107

James C. Schultz -- Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Schultz:

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 specifies that signal switches meet the requirements of SAE J589. The durability test for switches in J589 states among other things that the voltage drop from the input terminal of the switch to each lamp terminal (including 3 inches of No. 16 or 18 gage wire from each side of the switch) should be measured at the beginning and at intervals of not more than 25,000 cycles during and upon completion of the test.

We would like answers to the following questions relating to the requirements for 16 or 18 gage wire specified by J589.

1. Once the switch has met test requirements using the 16 or 18 gage wire, can a switch manufacturer change the wire gage to a smaller or larger size for installation and use on a vehicle?

2. Would a switch which was tested with other than 16 or 18 gage wire (larger or smaller) meet the certification requirements of Part 567 of the federal standards?

We also note that the current version of J589 is J589b. This version does not specify the gage of wire for test purposes. If the answer to question one above is yes, we strongly recommend that consideration be given to amending Federal Standard No. 108 to indicate that switches meet the requirements of SAE J589b instead of J589.

Very truly yours,

WARREN M. HEATH -- Commander Engineering Section, DEPT. OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL

ID: nht75-3.50

DATE: 06/10/75

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

TO: Volvo of American Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Volvo of America Corporation's May 9, 1975, request for reconsideration of the NHTSA's March 31, 1975, determination that a Volvo brake system that employs air pressure modulated by the vehicle operator to provide the energy used to actuate the brake is an air brake system subject to Standard No. 121, Air brake Systems.

Having reviewed all of the data submitted with your letter, it is concluded that the Volvo system is an air brake system subject to Standard No. 121. In the development of separate air brake and hydraulic brake system standards, the NHTSA had to make a determination of the status of brake systems which employ both air and hydraulic fluid as a means of transmitting force to the vehicle brakes. The agency decided that use of air as a means of power and transmission of the brake force would quality the system as an air brake system. This decision permits manufacturers to determine with certainty whether a standard applies to their products.

Since the withdrawal of applicability to trucks of Standard No. 105-75, Hydraulic brake systems, our decision has had the beneficial effect of ensuring that "air over hydraulic" systems are subject to a braking standard. If you are aware of any adverse safety consequences of our decision, I would appreciate hearing from you.

Sincerely,

May 9, 1975

James Schultz, Acting Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Request for interpretation, FMVSS 105-75 - Hydraulic Brake Systems, and FMVSS 121 - Air Brake Systems

This correspondence is a follow-up to our request for interpretation dated March 3, 1975, your response dated March 31, 1975, and a subsequent telephone conversation between the undersigned and Mr. Richard Dyson, Esq. of your office.

In our March 3rd request we described a somewhat unique truck service brake system employing both air and hydraulic subsystems and asked for your concurrence that the described system was in fact a "hydraulic brake system" with a "brake power unit" as defined in 571.105-75 S4 and, therefore, not subject to the requirements of 571.121. In your March 31st response you disagreed with Volvo's proposed interpretation, stating in part that the system in question appeared to be an "air over hydraulic" system and cited an earlier interpretation contained in the preamble to 571.121 which defines the term "air brake system" as including brake configurations commonly referred to as "air over hydraulic", in which failure of either medium can result in complete loss of braking ability.

Having reviewed your response very carefully, we are presently of the opinion that your classification of the described Volvo brake system as "air over hydraulic" may be somewhat arbitrary and it appears you may have overlooked some important characteristics of the system. This could be in part due to overly simplified technical information supplied with our original request. It is, therefore, our intention to submit more detailed technical information as well as additional arguments to support our position at this time, in hopes that you will review and revise your original interpretation.

It is Volvo's contention that the brake system in question is a "Hydraulic brake system" as defined in 571.105-75 S4 in that it uses hydraulic fluid as the primary medium for transmitting force from the service brake control to the service brake and in that it incorporates a "brake power unit" as also defined in S4. The "brake power unit" provides the energy required to actuate the brakes, with operator action consisting of only modulating the energy application level. It is our belief that the subject Volvo system, to be described more fully, is in principal identical to currently used hydraulic brake systems in all major respects, except that it is a power brake and that the energy source which the driver modulates happens to be derived from compressed air rather than vacuum or hydraulic pressure. This single factor is not, in our opinion, decisive for classifying the Volvo system as an "air brake system", inasmuch as failure of a single air or hydraulic subsystem will not result in complete loss of braking ability, as you imply is the case with "air over hydraulic" systems.

A complete set of specifications and working description of the Volvo brake system in question, including illustrations and braking performance characteristics, is provided as Attachment No. I. Additionally, we are providing as Attachment No. II a group of pictorials depicting the actual layout of the components on the truck chassis.

The subject Volvo brake system has the following major characteristics in common with other truck "hydraulic brake systems":

1. The main chassis plumbing consists of hydraulic lines connecting the master cylinders to the wheel brake cylinders.

2. The medium transmitting force between the master cylinders and the wheel brake cylinders is hydraulic brake fluid.

3. The brake shoes are activated by hydraulic wheel cylinders.

In addition to the mentioned similarities, the subject Volvo brake system offers the following features and characteristics which we believe are superior to most current truck hydraulic brake systems:

1. Volvo offers a "split service brake system" with completely independent hydraulic circuits for the front and rear axles. plus split "brake power" (air) circuits which are isolated from each other and other air powered equipment in case of leakage.

2. We are confident that Volvo trucks equipped with the subject system offer stopping performance which is superior to most competitive trucks with hydraulic system in compliance with Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, 393.40.

3. Volvo offers an air controlled parking brake system which can be effectively modulated and used for emergency braking.

4. The Volvo system includes a load sensitive valve which proportions hydraulic pressure to the rear axle.

The air portion of the subject Volvo brake system, as described in principal in Attachment No. I, will meet all applicable requirements of 571.121 S5.1. Additionally, the hydraulic fluid used meets the requirements of 571.116, and all brake hoses, both air and hydraulic, meet the requirements of 571.106.

We hope that the foregoing information and discussion will enable your office to revise its previous interpretation rendered to us on this topic. Before reaching a final decision, however, we would welcome an opportunity to meet with your technical and legal personnel to discuss the Volvo braking system in detail, and to further clarify our position in this matter. Due to pressing time constraints, we would appreciate your cooperation in arranging such a meeting before the end of May, 1975.

We thank you in advance for your cooperation.

VOLVO OF AMERICA CORPORATION Product Engineering and Development

Donald W. Taylor Manager, Product Safety & Quality

cc: B. Klingenberg/Truck Div.

ID: nht75-3.6

DATE: 11/11/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of October 14, 1975, in which you request an interpretation of Standard No. 301 as it applies to a vehicle with an electric fuel pump that operates only when the ignition switch is in the "ON" position and the engine oil pressure is within the normal operating range.

You indicate in your letter that, in effect, the fuel pump can only operate when the vehicle's engine is running. Paragraph S7.1.3 of Standard No. 301 requires that an electrically driven fuel pump be operating at the time of the crash tests if the pump "normally runs when the vehicle's electrical system is activated." It appears from your letter that activation of the electrical system by switching the ignition to "ON" will not by itself activate the fuel pump. As a result, the pump need not be operating at the time of the crash tests.

SINCERELY,

October 14, 1975

Richard Dyson NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION Department of Transportation

This is to request your official interpretation as to the applicability of S7.1.3 of F.M.V.S.S. 301 to the system described below.

The fuel pump is electrically driven but operates only when the ignition switch is in the 'ON' position and the engine oil pressure is within the normal operating range. The engine must be running in order to produce this condition.

Your earliest response in this matter would be appreciated.

AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.

Brian Gill Assistant Manager Safety & Environmental Activities

ID: nht75-3.7

DATE: 11/18/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of October 15, 1975, in which you request an interpretation of paragraph S7.1.3 of Standard No. 301, as to whether it is permissible to stop an electric fuel pump prior to the rollover test.

Paragraph S7.1.3 provides that "If the vehicle has an electrically driven fuel pump that normally runs when the vehicle's electrical system is activated, it is operating at the time of a barrier crash." The static rollover test specified by S6.4 is not a barrier crash, and therefore is not covered by S7.1.3. In the amendments to Standard No. 301 published on October 15, 1975 (40 FR 48352), the addition of the phrase "In meeting the requirements of S6.1 through S6.3" to S7.1.3 clarifies the intent of the agency not to require that an electric fuel pump be operating at the time of the rollover test, because the rollover test is required by paragraph S6.4. Therefore, you may turn off the pump if it is still working at the time of the static rollover test.

SINCERELY,

October 15, 1975

Frank Berndt Office of Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

I would like to ask your interpretation of the following phrase which is found in MVSS 301, S.7.1.3 :

"at the time of the barrier crash"

My understanding is that this phrase means that we should turn on the electric system which activates the electric fuel pump before the barrier crash test and leave it on through the subsequent roll over test.

The breakage of the battery and the wiring disconnection, due to the crash, may or may not stop the electric fuel pump, but if it is still working, we should not turn off the switch.

Is my understanding on the above mentioned phrase correct, or may we turn off the pump if it is still working during the roll over test?

Your interpretation on the above will be greatly appreciated.

There may have been a discussion on this matter before. It would be a great help if you could send us the documents on the resolution of that discussion.

Thank you.

NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.

Naoyoshi Suzuki

Staff, Safety

ID: nht75-3.8

DATE: 09/16/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: The Hardy Heater Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of July 30, 1975, in which you inquire as to any rules and regulations to which you may be subject with respect to your pre-heater defroster. Your letter was referred to this office by the Environmental Protection Agency.

We assume, from the material submitted with your letter, that your pre-heater is sold for installation in used cars and supplements the vehicle's existing defrosting system. If our assumption is incorrect, please advise us. If your pre-heater is installed in a motor vehicle prior to its first purchase or if it replaces an existing defrosting system, you will be subject to regulations in addition to those mentioned in this letter.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides that a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair shop may not render inoperative any safety device or design in a motor vehicle after its first purchase by the owner. This means that the installation of the pre-heater must not take the vehicle out of compliance with an applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. The standard with which you will likely be most concerned is Standard No. 103, Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems (copy enclosed).

(Graphics omitted)

In addition, if the fuel used in your pre-heater has a boiling point greater than 32 degrees F, you must ensure that the pre-heater fuel system complies with Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity (copy enclosed).

Thank you for your interest in motor vehicle safety.

YOURS TRULY

THE HARDY HEATER COMPANY

July 30, 1975

Director E. P. A.

I am having manufactured and will market a pre-heater defroster for auto's as shown in the attached documents which are a part of my (Illegible Words).

Please advise me if I am required by rules, regulations or otherwise to obtain any (Illegible Word)) permits to prior to marketing my heater nationwide.

As you (Illegible Words) cylinder of L. P. (Illegible Words) am primarily concerned with any legal requirement with respect its use in automobiles.

I will appreciate any information on the subject.

Frank Hardy

Teddy's drivers in cold climates are not satisfied each day entering a miserably cold auto, with limited or no vision because of condensation, frost, ice, snow, build-up on the glassed areas.

A majority of the over 80 million cars on our highways, and the over 10 million being built each year, need this heater to provide a warm, safe comfortable car from the start. This device fills a gap that has been completely overlooked in automotive engineering.

Please note how many vehicles you see on the highway, especially in the morning, in cooler climates, driving virtually blind, until the standard heater defroster clears the glass area. My heater eliminates this dangerous condition, and provides a comfortable temperature inside the car from the start.

A common cold weather practice is to start the auto engine on cold mornings and let it set and run until the conventional heating process warms and defrosts the car. This practice causes excessive engine wear and long periods of cold engine idle, which is a major factor in air pollution by automobiles. This inconvenience, wear, and pollution can be eliminated with the use of my heater.

Volume sales will be to gasoline powered vehicles; however, it will be a natural as an inducement for all who are thinking of conversion or have converted to propane from gasoline as a motor fuel, as certain basic components such as fuel tank controls, etc., could serve both installations.

Attached is information on a unique gas fired auxiliary and independent automobile heater, that will eliminate the misery and danger of a cold automobile, with frosted glass area, when you first enter it in cold weather. It can provide home-like comfort 24 hours a day, or may be shut off to automatically come on several hours before returning to the car, at which time it will be heated and frost free for safe and comfortable driving from the start.

I have a patent pending for this heater, and am interested in working with a manufacturer for mutual benefits in the production and sale of this item.

I am available for an interview to discuss any ideas or interest you might have concerning my situation.

Warren Frank Hardy

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht75-3.9

DATE: 11/28/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Ford Motor Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of September 24, 1975, in which you ask whether it is permissible to test certain 1978 vehicles for compliance with Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, with open vapor vent tube pressure relief valves.

The Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not specify the tests which you must perform. They do specify the conditions and procedures under which the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will conduct its compliance testing. S7.1.1 and S7.1.2 of Standard No. 301 specify that the vehicle's fuel system shall contain Stoddard solvent rather than fuel and, by implication, that the engine shall not be running. If, as you indicate, one consequence of the engine's not running is that a certain pressure relief valve in the vapor vent tube is closed, then that valve must remain closed during the NHTSA's compliance testing; the existing standard could not be interpreted otherwise. Although in an actual collision any rollover would probably occur immediately after the initial impact, in some accidents vehicle occupants would be trapped for some period of time after rollover. Therefore, we do not consider that this interpretation creates, as you suggest, an artificial condition by subjecting the fuel tank to a potential vapor pressure build-up during preparation for the rollover test.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

September 24, 1975

James B. Gregory -- Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Dr. Gregory:

Re: Request for Interpretation in Relation to Conducting FMVSS 301-75 Tests with Proposed 1978 Evaporative Emission System

In preparing for compliance with 1978 California SHED evaporative emission requirements (presently under consideration by EPA for application in all areas), Ford Motor Company (Ford) is considering modifications to the fuel tank vapor venting system. At this time, Ford's primary design direction for certain of its 1978 vehicles is to incorporate a pressure relief valve in the vapor vent tube between the fuel tank vapor separator/rollover valve and the carbon canister (see Attachment).

When the engine is operating, this pressure relief valve will be open and the fuel tank will vent in a normal manner through the carbon canister. When testing according to the procedure set forth in FMVSS 301-75, the pressure relief valve would be closed, contrary to its normal open position when the engine is operating, and such closure would prevent venting of vapor from the fuel tank into the carbon canister. As a result, vapor pressure could build up within the fuel tank during FMVSS 301-75 testing, and indeed would do so if the fuel tank were exposed to elevated ambient temperatures during the substantial time period (in some instances several hours) required to ready the test vehicle for the rollover test following an impact test. If such pressure built up, it (taken together with the hydrostatic pressure of the Stoddard solvent in the tank) might force open the vacuum/pressure valve in the fuel tank cap and permit leakage through that valve (cap).

Such leakage would not occur in an accident involving a rollover because, in such a situation, vapor pressure would not build up in the fuel tank, and therefore, the vacuum/pressure valve in the cap would not open. Any rollover of the vehicle that may occur would happen immediately after the collision, before vapor pressure build-up. Hence the vacuum/pressure valve (cap) would remain closed after rollover. More particularly, just before the accident, the vapor vent tube pressure relief valve would be open, preventing vapor pressure build-up.

Accordingly, Ford proposes to perform tests relating to compliance with FMVSS 301-75 with the vapor vent tube pressure relief valve open, the better to simulate actual usage conditions. Before testing in this manner, Ford would appreciate receiving assurance from the Administration that it regards as appropriate the maintaining open of this pressure relief valve during rollover tests, and would conduct in that manner its rollover tests of those Ford vehicles equipped with such a valve.

As you are undoubtedly aware, in addition to design and development work, a test program required to obtain emission certification covers a period of many months. Therefore, since Ford has only a limited time in which to develop a 1978 evaporative emission system complying with the SHED requirements, an early response to this letter is urgently requested.

Respectfully submitted,

J. C. Eckhold -- Director, Automotive Safety Office, FORD MOTOR COMPANY

ATTACH.

PROPOSED 1978 EVAPORATIVE EMISSION SYSTEM

(Graphics omitted)

Automotive Safety Office September 22, 1975