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.

ID: nht76-4.11

DATE: 12/27/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Jack's Tire Company, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your November 23, 1976, letter concerning retreaded tires and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117.

Your understanding that you are required to retain for three years certain records described in your letter is mistaken. While such a requirement was proposed in a Federal Register notice published on March 5, 1970 (35 FR 4136), it was never adopted. The NHTSA strongly recommends, however, that retreaders retain information on the materials and processes that they use, so that in the event of a defect or noncompliance they will be able to determine which tires are involved.

To assign you a retreader's identification mark, we need more information from you. 49 CFR Part 574.6 specifies that:

To obtain the identification mark required by @ 574.5(a), each manufacturer of new or retreaded motor vehicle tires shall apply after November 30, 1970, in writing, to "Tire Identification and Record- keeping," National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C., 20590, identify himself as a manufacturer of new tires or retreaded tires, and furnish the following information:

(a) The name, or other designation identifying the applicant, and his main office address.

(b) The name, or other identifying designation, of each individual plant operated by the manufacturer and the address of each plant, if applicable.

(c) The type of tires manufactured at each plant, e.g., passenger car tires, bus tires, truck tires, motorcycle tires, or retreaded tires.

Enclosed for your convenience is an information sheet entitled "Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations.

SINCERELY,

Frank A. Berndt Acting Chief Counsel

MEMO

TO: Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service National Highway Safety Bureau Federal Highway Safety Administration U.S. Dept of Taxation

FROM: JACK'S TIRE COMPANY INC

SUBJECT: D O T. REg. No. DATE: 11/23/76

MESSAGE

Please Issue a Code # to identify retreads produced by My Company. I understand that it is required of me to keep the following records for at least a period of three years. (1) records of the material used in theretreading process) (2) records of performance test, (3) records of reported defects and failures, with associated causes.

Also requesting a Current copy of "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117.

Jack D. Cooper, PRESIDENT

ID: nht76-4.12

DATE: 08/04/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Blue Bird Body Company's June 21, 1976, question whether S5.3.1 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, requires the installation of an antilock system, or whether the stopping distance and "no lockup" requirements may be met using modulation of the service brake control by the vehicle driver.

Section S5.3.1 requires that vehicles subject to it must be capable of stopping under specified conditions, within the stopping distance set forth in Table II without leaving a 12-foot-wide lane and without "uncontrolled" lockup of certain wheels of the vehicle. There is no requirement for the installation of an antilock system. Also, there is no test condition that specifies a full brake application and modulation of the service brake may be used to reduce or eliminate lockup.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

June 21, 1976

Thomas Herlihy -- Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Herlihy:

SUBJECT: FMVSS 121 - AIR BRAKE SYSTEMS

It is our understanding that the subject standard does not currently specify maximum allowable stopping distances. We also understand that maximum allowable stopping distances are specified for future vehicles.

Our question is, when and if the stopping distance requirements of Paragraphs S5.3.1 and Table 2 are reinstated for buses, will it be permissible to meet those stopping requirements without an anti-lock system, provided we can meet the requirements stated in S5.3.1 ". . . . without any part of the vehicle leaving the roadway and without lock up of any wheel at speeds above 10 MPH . . . .?" Obviously, the driver would have to modulate the braking force to prevent wheel lock up on a system not equipped with an automatic anti-lock system.

We would appreciate your early reply.

Thank you.

Yours very truly, W. G. Milby -- Staff Engineer

c Ben Newberry

ID: nht76-4.13

DATE: 06/29/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John Womack for F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Peterbilt Motors Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Peterbilt Motor Company's June 9, 1976, questions whether Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, contains a permanent exclusion for "auto transporters" and whether "auto transporter" would include a truck-trailer vehicle combination that includes a dromedary forward of the fifth wheel to hold empty tin cans that are loaded by means of the trailer. I would like to note that I am unaware of "discussion and interpretive rulings suggested through telephone contact" with this office.

Your interpretation is not correct that the exclusion for "auto transporters" is permanent. Some confusion may arise from the words used in S3 to describe the exclusion until September 1, 1977. The phrase "or to any vehicle which" that appears at the end of the second sentence in S3 will shortly be modified to "or that" to improve the structure and clarity of the sentence.

Your question whether a "can hauler" qualifies as an "auto transporter" appears to be based on the proposed wording of this definition that was modified in final form. As defined in the standard, "auto transporter" means:

. . . a truck and a trailer designed for use in combination to transport motor vehicles, in that the towing vehicle is designed to carry cargo at a location other than the fifth wheel and to load this cargo only by means of the towed vehicle.

It is clear from this definition that a "can hauler" would not qualify as an "auto transporter" subject to the exclusion.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

Peterbilt MOTORS COMPANY

June 9, 1976

OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: FMVSS 121 Air Brake Systems

Gentlemen:

Peterbilt Motors Company is the manufacturer of the custom built, heavy duty, Class 8 trucks and truck-tractors identified by the "Peterbilt" nameplate. As such, we have received inquiries regarding the constructing of specialized vehicles concerning which we find conflicting information stipulated in FMVSS 121.

This letter is to substantiate and record the substance of discussion and interpretive rulings suggested through telephone contact with your office.

As we interpret the wording of S3. Application, vehicles referred to as "auto transporter" are exempt from the requirements of FMVSS 121. However, S5.3 Service Brakes - Road Tests specifies that auto transporters manufactured after September 1, 1976 shall meet the requirements of S5.3.1.

Please clarify the total applicability of FMVSS 121 to vehicles defined as "auto transporter".

Additionally, we wish to have clarified the scope of vehicles to which the definition "auto transporter" can be applied.

Section S4. Definitions defines "auto transporter" as a truck and trailer designed for use in combination, in that the towing vehicle, with fifth wheel mounted, is designed to carry cargo at a location other than the fifth wheel and that this cargo is loaded by means of the towed vehicle.

This definition describes a vehicle combination which is commonly referred to as a "can hauler". This vehicle combination consists of a truck and trailer, which truck has a fifth wheel mounted at the end of the frame and has a van body (dromedary) mounted forward of the fifth wheel. This forward cargo area is loaded by means of the towed vehicle, which is a van body that opens at both ends. The truck and trailer remain connected in combination for both loading and unloading through the rear of the towed vehicle.

The application of the "can hauler" vehicle combination further parallels that of an "auto transporter" in that the cargo being carried is a low density, high bulk commodity (empty "tin cans").

We, therefore, respectfully request an interpretation from your office regarding the applicability of the definition of "auto transporter" for inclusion of the "can hauler" as a thereby controlled identity.

We will appreciate your thoughtful consideration of these questions.

Sincerely,

Arlen E. Riggs -- Executive Engineer

ID: nht76-4.14

DATE: 07/23/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: White Motor Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to White Motor Corporation's April 26, 1976, question whether S5.3.3 and S5.3.4 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, require minimum brake chamber air pressures of 60 psi and 95 psi, respectively, or whether these air pressures are included in the sections only as "bench marks" on which to base specifications for minimum actuation and release timing in brake systems. Section S5.3.3 specifies in part:

. . . With an initial service reservoir system air pressure of 100 psi, the air pressure in each brake chamber shall, when measured from the first movement of the service brake control, reach 60 psi in not more than 0.45 seconds. . . .

Your understanding that S5.3.3 and S5.3.4 only specify the air pressures of 60 psi and 95 psi as the basis for timing requirements is correct. Neither value is intended as a requirement that the vehicle be designed to provide a certain level of brake chamber air pressure. The values were based on an understanding of the typical configuration of existing air brake systems at the time the final rule was issued.

In response to your request for interpretation of these sections in view of White's intent to use a lower air pressure than was commonly used in the past, the agency will utilize the stated 60-psi value or a value that is 70 percent of the maximum air pressure (measured by the NHTSA at the brake chamber), whichever is lower. In the case of release, the stated 95-psi value or the value that represents maximum air pressure (measured by the NHTSA at the brake chamber), whichever is lower, will be used. For purposes of this determination, the maximum air pressure in the brake chamber is that obtainable with full brake application when the pressure in the service reservoir is at 100 psi. Use of the maximum air pressure application timing would be unreasonable because of the decreased rate of air pressure build-up that occurs as the brake chambers reach maximum pressure.

The agency will issue an interpretive amendment to S5.3.3 and S5.3.4 to reflect this interpretation.