ID: nht76-4.24

DATE: 04/07/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Trail-O-Matic, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 8, 1976, request to know the status of "log trailers" under Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, whether the exclusion for "heavy hauler" trailers terminates September 1, 1976, and what the penalties are for non-compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. You indicate that you may know of some manufacturers that do not comply with Standard No. 121 and suggest that all persons concerned with the standard be advised of the status of the regulation.

Without description of the "log trailers" in question, it is not possible to determine if Standard No. 121 applies to them. Most pole trailers and trailers equipped with any axle having a gross axle weight rating of 24,000 pounds or more are examples of vehicles that may be excluded from the standard. Mr. Herlihy of this office has already sent applicable documents to you under separate cover.

The exclusion from the standard for "heavy hauler" trailers was extended recently and now terminates September 1, 1977.

Section 108(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(1)) prohibits the sale and false or misleading certification of a non-complying vehicle to which a standard is applicable. Each violation of these provisions makes the manufacturer liable to a maximum civil penalty of $ 1,000 for each violation, up to a total of $ 800,000 for a related series of violations. (15 U.S.C. @ 1398). You may advise our Office of Standards Enforcement of any violations of which you are aware.

The NHTSA finds it impracticable to notify directly every interested person of each of its regulatory actions. Each action is made public and is widely distributed by commercial services and trade associations. Enclosed is an information sheet that explains the various means to obtain copies of our regulations.

YOURS TRULY,

Trail-O-Matic, Inc.

March 8, 1976

Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

RE: N40-30 (TH)

With reference to "anti-skid" brake regulation # 121 we have strictly conformed to all terms and conditions of the above but wish to report some our competition in Georgia and Florida are building log trailers without installing the anti-skid equipment.

It isn't quite fair to comply with the rules and then miss some sales because competition is selling much cheaper because the unit is not equipped to the D. O. T. # 121 requirement.

What are the penalties, if any, for not complying with this requirement OR has anything been changed basically that we are not aware of?

As a suggestion I think the government should advise all concerned as to the status of this regulation in order to clear the air and put everyone on equal footing.

Please let me hear from you as soon as possible with reference to the above and also will the September 1, 1976 date be applicable on low bed machinery trailers.

Thanking you for your prompt attention, we are

J. L. Chancey President

ID: nht76-4.25

DATE: 06/30/76

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

TO: Wayne Daniel Truck, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 18, 1976, request for permission to substitute pre-121 brake components for certain components of the brake systems on trucks and trailers you own that were manufactured in conformity with Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

From your description, I assume that you intend to remove portions of the brake system that were installed in satisfaction of the requirements of S5.3.1 of Standard No. 121. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(2)(A)) prohibits, with one exception, knowing disconnection of the antilock system by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business.

A person that does not fall into there categories is not prohibited from disconnection of the systems. Thus, it would be permissible for you to make such modifications on your own trucks and trailers. Other State or Federal requirements, such as those of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety for operation in interstate commerce, may prohibit disconnection. In any case, the NHTSA urges that you not disconnect safety devices without consulting the vehicle manufacturer with regard to the safest configuration of the vehicle.

SINCERELY,

Wayne Daniel Truck, Inc.

June 18, 1976

Thomas Herliky Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Admin.

Our firm is planning to purchase some new trucks in the near future. Since we have had difficulty with the 121 brake we would like to replace the brake with the pre-121 brake.

Please let me know as soon as possible if we will be in violation if we do this.

W. Wayne Daniel

ID: nht76-4.26

DATE: 09/09/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: B. F. Goodrich Engineered Systems Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 26, 1976, question whether the "no lockup" requirement of S5.3.1 and S5.3.2 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, requires wheel sensors on both axles of a tandem axle system in those cases where the "no lockup" performance is provided by means of an antilock system. I have enclosed a detailed discussion of this issue that responded to a similar question from another manufacturer. The response should answer your question.

Yours truly,

Enclosure

ATTACH.

B.F. Goodrich Engineered Systems Company

July 26, 1976

JOHN W. SNOW -- ADMINISTRATOR -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF MVSS 121

Gentlemen:

Section S.5.3.1.A (for trucks and buses) and Section S.5.3.2.A (for trailers) of MVSS 121 states that wheel lock-up shall not occur on any wheel above 10 M.P.H., except for controlled lock-up of wheels allowed by an anti-lock system.

It is understood that a manufacturer is not required to utilize an anti-lock system to meet the "no lock-up" requirement, however, if a manufacturer does choose to utilize the "controlled lock-up" exception of S.5.3.1.A and S.5.3.2.A, by installing an anti-lock system, it must control the lock-up of the wheels which are pneumatically controlled by that system (reference attached copy of letter dated March 7, 1975 to Harold D. Shall from James C. Shultz). Therefore, it is our interpretation that the vehicles' anti-lock system, if included, must include a wheel speed sensor on each wheel, that is pneumatically controlled by the anti-lock logic module valve. Is this correct?

We will appreciate your official ruling on this pressing matter at your earliest convenience.

Very truly yours,

Richard J. Brandewie -- Program Manager, Highway Products

cc: D. L. Haines; C. D. McCarty

ID: nht76-4.27

DATE: 09/03/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Freightliner Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 23, 1976, question whether the "no lockup" requirement of S5.3.1 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, requires wheel sensors on both axles of a tandem axle system in those cases where the "no lockup" performance is provided by means of an antilock system. Sections S5.3.1 (trucks and buses) and S5.3.2 (trailers) specify that the vehicle shall, under various load, road surface, and speed conditions, be capable of stopping

. . .without lockup of any wheel at speeds above 10 mph, except for:

(a) Controlled lockup of wheels allowed by an antilock system. . .

(b) * * * * *

This basic requirement is stated in performance terms, permitting a manufacturer to choose any brake system design that will ensure that the wheels do not lock up under the specified conditions.

The exception to the "no lockup" requirement set forth above permits "controlled lockup of wheels allowed by an antilock system." Manufacturers demonstrated, during the course of rulemaking, that properly functioning antilock systems might be designed to allow wheel lockup for a fraction of a second, and that antilock design should not be inhibited by a prohibition on all lockup. The agency made the "controlled lockup" exception a part of the standard (36 FR 3817, February 27, 1971) and has subsequently interpreted the term to permit manufacturers latitude in the design of their systems.

In compliance with the basic requirement, most manufacturers have equipped each axle of a vehicle with a valve to regulate the air pressure that applies the brakes, sensors at each wheel to send a signal when a wheel is locking up, and a logic module that receives the signals and instructs the valve when to release air pressure to prevent lockup ("axle-by-axle control"). Recently, some manufacturers have simplified their systems by utilizing only one valve and logic module to modulate the air supply to both axles of the typical tandem axle system found on many trucks and trailers ("tandem control"). Two approaches to wheel sensor placement have been used for tandem control systems. If it is possible to predict which of the two axles will lock first during braking, sensors may be placed on this axle only, knowing that reduced air pressure in response to a signal from the "sensed" axle will also release the brakes on the "unsensed" axle. In other cases, where it is not possible to predict which axle will lock first, tandem control systems may have sensors on all four wheels of the tandem.

In November 12, 1974, and March 7, 1975, letters of interpretation to Dana Corporation, the NHTSA confirmed that a manufacturer may choose the number of wheel speed sensors and logic modules that he includes in his antilock system. Thus, tandem control is not prohibited by the standard, regardless of the number of wheel speed sensors provided. When Dana asked if lockup on the unsensed axle of a single-axle sensor system would qualify for the "controlled lockup" exception of the requirement, the agency said that it would not, reasoning that the logic module would not exert effective control over the lockup of the unsensed axle without benefit of input signals from wheels on that axle. Therefore, according to the Dana interpretation, the unsensed axle in a single-axle sensor system could not be allowed to lock at all, even momentarily, during the service brake stopping test. No data of actual performance was submitted with the Dana letter.

Your letter argues that the NHTSA's interpretation of "controlled lockup" (to Dana Corporation) creates an anomalous and unjustified restriction on the use of "tandem control." Your submission, and data received by the agency from other interested persons, demonstrate that the Dana interpretation does not adequately reflect the degree of control which a single-axle sensor system actually can exert over the unsensed axle of a tandem system. Based on analysis of the submitted data, it appears that the amount of lockup permitted on unsensed axles is closely controlled by the permitted on unsensed axles is closely controlled by the available antilock systems. While there is a measurable difference in stopping performance between "axle-by-axle" control and "tandem control," the standard already permits either of these means to satisfy the requirements. When the narrower question of the performance difference between sensors on one or both axles is analyzed, it is apparent that virtually no difference exists in the stopping distance of vehicles equipped these two ways. The effective lateral stability available during a stop also appears comparable regardless of placement of sensors on one or both axles. A technical report summarizing these findings will be placed in the public docket as soon as possible.

For this reason, and based on review of test unavailable at the time of the Dana interpretation, the agency concludes that its interpretation of "controlled lockup" in response to the question posed by Dana should be, and is hereby, withdrawn. It is the agency's interpretation that the "controlled lockup" exception is not dependent on the number or location of sensors used in an antilock installation.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

FREIGHTLINER CORPORATION

July 23, 1976

LEGAL COUNSEL -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121 (49CFR571.121)

Dear Sir:

Freightliner Corporation, a manufacturer of light-weight heavy-duty air braked vehicles, is vitally affected by the requirements of FMVSS-121. Therefore, we are requesting a clarification of the exemption contained in S5.3.1, for "controlled lockup of wheels allowed by an antilock system." In reading the requirements of Standard No. 121, the exemption to the "no wheel lockup" requirement contained in S5.3.1 clearly applies to any wheel of a tractor, truck or bus which is subject to the control of an antilock system. But in a previous interpretation on this subject (March 7, 1975, letter of James C. Shultz to Harold D. Shall, Dana Corporation), the Acting Chief Cousel appeared to limit this exemption only to wheels which are equipped with antilock wheel speed sensors. Clearly, this interpretation is design restrictive in that it is stated in design rather than performance terms. Further, this interpretation does not take into consideration the possibility of alternate means for achieving controlled wheel lockup, such as mechanical drives which interlock both tandem axles.

The results of recent tests conducted by Freightliner show that the wheels on both tandem axles of a tandem axle vehicle can be effectively controlled through the use of one antilock system sensing wheel speeds from only one axle, and demonstrate that "controlled lockup" typical of that provided by axle-by-axle antilock systems can be achieved through a combination of suspension design, controlled brake actuation timing, and antileck system design. The test results (see attachment) indicate that the vehicle equipped with only one antilock controller meets the stopping distance requirements of FMVSS-121 with performance equivalent to that of vehicles equipped with the more complex and costly axle-by-axle antilock systems currently employed.

Since tractors and trucks, such as those manufactured by Freightliner Corporation, are subject to stopping distance requirements under a variety of road and load conditions, efficient utilization of available traction for braking is already a requirement of the standard for powered vehicles. Therefore, we believe that requiring the use of axle-by-axle antilock systems is unnecessary to ensure efficient utilization of available traction for braking of powered vehicles. Accordingly, we request interpretation of the requirements of S5.3.1 which is:

1. Stated in performance rather than design criteria.

2. Which does not impose a more strigent requirement for axles which are not equipped with wheel speed sensors (but subject to the control or an antilock system) than the "controlled lockup" requirement applicable to wheels which are equipped with wheel speed sensors.

If further information is necessary or desirable, we would be pleased make a technical presentation to you and appropriate members of the NHTSA staff, which would include a discussion of our test results along with movies of the tests.

Respectfully submitted,

Ray W. Murphy -- Director, Research and Development

Attach. FMVSS-121 STOPPING DISTANCE TEST DATA

Vehicle - Three Axle COE Tractor, 138" Wheelbase Control Axle Loads (lbs.) Steering Drive Trailer Loaded 10,480 34,110 33,290 Bob tail 7,550 6,040 -

Brakes Size Actuation Power Linings Steering Axle 15x4 14 degrees x9 ABB-551D Drive Axle 15x7 12 degrees x12 (Dual) ABB-551D

Average service brake stopping distances in ft., vehicle equipped with tandem control antilock system (numbers in parenthesis are values from tests of similarly configured vehicle equipped with axle-by-axle antilock control system)* Loaded Bobtail FMVSS-121 Requirement 20 MPH Dry Asphalt 33.6 27.6 35 (SN 75) Test Surface (34.0) (26.4) 60 MPH Dry Asphalt 259.8 251.2 293 (SN 75) Test Surface (253.7) (225.5) 20 MPH Wet Slippery 58.8 60.2 ** (SN 20) Test Surface (71.3) (57.3)

* Freightliner CTC Report No. T081-75/12, November 20, 1975

** 60 ft. on SN 30 test surface

ID: nht76-4.28

DATE: 09/03/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Frehauf Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your August 17, 1976, question whether the "no lockup" requirement of S5.3.1 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, requires wheel sensors on both axles of a tandem axle system in those cases where the "no lockup" performance is provided by means of an antilock system. Sections S5.3.1 (trucks and buses) and S5.3.2 (trailers) specify that the vehicle shall, under various load, road surface, and speed conditions, be capable of stopping

. . . without lockup of any wheel at speeds above 10 mph, except for:

(a) Controlled lockup of wheels allowed by an antilock system. . .

(b) * * * * *

This basic requirement is stated in performance terms, permitting a manufacturer to choose any brake system design that will ensure that the wheels do not lock up under the specified conditions.

The exception to the "no lockup" requirement set forth above permits "controlled lockup of wheels allowed by an antilock system." Manufacturers demonstrated, during the course of rulemaking, that properly functioning antilock systems might be designed to allow wheel lockup for a fraction of a second, and that antilock design should not be inhibited by a prohibition on all lockup. The agency made the "controlled lockup" exception a part of the standard (36 FR 3817, February 27, 1971) and has subsequently interpreted the term to permit manufacturers latitude in the design of their systems.

2

In compliance with the basic requirement, most manufacturers have equipped each axle of a vehicle with a valve to regulate the air pressure that applies the brakes, sensors at each wheel to send a signal when a wheel is locking up, and a logic module that receives the signals and instructs the valve when to release air pressure to prevent lockup ("axle-by-axle control"). Recently, some manufacturers have simplified their systems by utilizing only one valve and logic module to modulate the air supply to both axles of the typical tandem axle system found on many trucks and trailers ("tandem control"). Two approaches to wheel sensor placement have been used for tandem control systems. If it is possible to predict which of the two axles will lock first during braking, sensors may be placed on this axle only, knowing that reduced air pressure in response to a signal from the "sensed" axle will also release the brakes on the "unsensed" axle. In other cases, where it is not possible to predict which axle will lock first, tandem control systems may have sensors on all four wheels of the tandem.

In November 12, 1974, and March 7, 1975, letters of interpretation to Dana Corporation, the NHTSA confirmed that a manufacturer may choose the number of wheel speed sensors and logic modules that he includes in his antilock system. Thus, tandem control is not prohibited by the standard, regardless of the number of wheel speed sensors provided. When Dana asked if lockup on the unsensed axle of a single-axle sensor system would qualify for the "controlled lockup" exception of the requirement, the agency said that it would not, reasoning that the logic module would not exert effective control over the lockup of the unsensed axle without benefit of input signals from wheels on that axle. Therefore, according to the Dana interpretation, the unsensed axle in a single-axle sensor system could not be allowed to lock at all, even momentarily, during the service brake stopping test. No data of actual performance was submitted with the Dana letter.

Your letter argues that the NHTSA's interpretation of "controlled lockup" (to Dana Corporation) creates an anomalous and unjustified restriction on the use of "tandem control." Your submission, and data received by the agency from other interested persons, demonstrate that the Dana interpretation does not adequately reflect the degree of control which a single-axle sensor system actually can exert over the unsensed axle of a tandem system. Based on analysis of the submitted data, it appears that the amount of lockup permitted on unsensed axles is closely controlled by the available antilock systems. While there is a measurable difference in stopping performance between "axle-by-axle"

3

control and "tandem control," the standard already permits either of these means to satisfy the requirements. When the narrower question of the performance difference between sensors on one or both axles is analyzed, it is apparent that virtually no difference exists in the stopping distance of vehicles equipped these two ways. The effective lateral stability available during a stop also appears comparable regardless of placement of sensors on one or both axles. A technical report summarizing these findings will be placed in the public docket as soon as possible.

For this reason, and based on review of test data unavailable at the time of the Dana interpretation, the agency concludes that its interpretation of "controlled lockup" in response to the question posed by Dana should be, and is hereby, withdrawn. It is the agency's interpretation that the "controlled lockup" exception is not dependent on the number or location of sensors used in an antilock installation.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

FRUEHAUF DIVISION / FRUEHAUF CORPORATION

August 17, 1976

Chief Counsel NHTSA Gentlemen:

RE: 49 CFR 571.121

In our evaluation of anti-lock systems, Fruehauf has become convinced that a considerable economic improvement can be made in the system provided for FMVSS 121. A system involving sensors on one axle, a logic controlling that axle, and a second axle of the suspension controlled by the same logic, performs identically to a system on the same suspension that uses sensors on each wheel and a logic for each axle. The economic gains for trailer users is very attractive. This system conforms with the 121 standard in its entirety and no change in the standard is requested.

We have exhibited in many tests, that our suspension provides mechanical control of lock-up. The momentary lock-up of the second axle of the suspension is always initiated at a slightly later time than the front axle. When we use an air and electrical system as described above, we can assure that the release of air to the two axles is simultaneous. Therefore, the second axle performance in lock-up is equal to or slightly better than the first axle. See charts in Appendix B of typical tests.

Both axles are under the control of an anti-lock system. The control is such that any momentary lock-up on the axle without sensors is equal to or shorter than momentary lock-up with sensors. This is possible through the geometry of the suspension. The suspension has equal loads on the axles at rest. However, with the application of brakes, one axle reduces load, transferring load to the second axle momentarily. This transfer assures that the first axle always locks or reduces speed faster than the second axle. The effect of this system of anti-lock is that the average of the two wheels of the front axle controls both axles. No wheel is allowed more than momentary lock-up.

2

The suspension described above is different from that on which Dana Corporation requested an interpretation some time ago. However, the letters of interpretation in answer to Dana are general enough that they should be clarified so they do not restrict our use of this system. Those interpretations say that an axle must have sensors if it is to be allowed to have momentary lock-up. This requirement does not seem justified in this instance since it requires the axle without sensors to perform better than the axle with the complete sensor and logic system. Certainly, we agree that the axle-by-axle complete control system adequately controls the braking function and stability of a trailer. Wheel-by-wheel systems were not significantly better. We believe that a "slave" axle that performs as well as those controlled axles in all respects, should be adequate even though mechanical control is used rather than sensors in each wheel.

While stopping distances is not a test requirement on trailers, it is an important safety factor. Considerable testing with measured stopping distances has been done with both bogie control and axle-by-axle control. Best stopping distances are secured with systems which allow momentary zero wheel speed intervals on low mu surfaces. A system tuned to give no lock-up or zero wheel speed would give longer stopping distances. While there are differences in some instances with one system having shorter distance than the other, the variations are not as great between bogie control and axle control of a given anti-lock system on a given trailer, as they are between two manufacturers' anti-lock systems. See Appendix A. Therefore, the use of bogie control does not change the stopping distance beyond the ranges already exhibited by variations in anti-lock systems.

In all of the testing that has been done with bogie control, we've had no indication of lack of stability.

Air consumption, which is not a test requirement but is a factor in the selection of systems, is not significantly different.

Systems on which we have seen test data using four sensors with a single logic, do not perform better than the bogie control described here.

In the interest of providing the most economical system that meets the requirements and intents of FMVSS 121, Fruehauf is considering production of the described system of anti-lock where any momentary lock-up on any wheel is of equal or shorter time than any momentary lock-up on the wheel using electrical speed sensors.

3

We request your prompt confirmation that the described system complies with FMVSS 121. If NHTSA has any questions about this systems' compliance, Fruehauf would request an early response to avoid any economic loss or inconvenience to the trailer customers.

Sincerely,

A. F. Hulverson Vice President Engineering

(Enclosures Omitted.]

ID: nht76-4.29

DATE: 10/07/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Pullman Trailmobile

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Trailmobile's August 13, 1976, question whether a trailer would be considered to be newly manufactured for purposes of compliance with applicable safety standards if it is assembled from all new materials except for axles (axle beams, spindles and brakes, and associated brake drums, wheels, seals, and bearings) from an existing trailer whose identity and ownership would be continued in the reassembled trailer.

The answer to this question is yes. The assembly of a trailer entirely from new materials except for the trailer axles does not qualify as a "repair" under NHTSA regulations (49 CFR @ 571.7(f). This regulation states that such trailers will be considered newly manufactured unless, "at a minimum, the trailer running gear assembly (axle(s), wheels, braking, and suspension) is not new . . ." In the case you describe, the suspension would be new.

SINCERELY,

Pullman Trailmobile

August 13, 1976

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

RE: Used Components in Trailer Manufacturing NHTSA Regulation @ 571.7(f), Effective July 1, 1976

Opinion is requested concerning the extent to which substitution of new components in trailer running gear assemblies taken from existing trailers is permissible under the above regulation which permits the combination of new and used highway trailer components without the re-assembled trailer being considered "newly manufactured".

A customer has tendered to Pullman Trailmobile 200 trailer running gear assemblies selected by the customer from its inventory of wrecked and damaged van trailers. The customer proposes to ship the assemblies to a Pullman Trailmobile factory, identified by the serial numbers of the existing trailers from which the running gear assemblies were taken. The customer requests Trailmobile to combine such running gear assemblies with new components to complete re-assembled van trailers which will continue to be used by the customer in its transportation business. The trailer running gear assemblies to be shipped to Pullman Trailmobile will consist of the following components:

(a) axle beam including the spindle and brake assembly;

(b) complete axle assembly (including brake drums, wheels, oil seals, bearings, etc.).

All other components of the trailer running gear assemblies have been adjudged by the customer's maintenance employees to require replacement, consistent with safe maintenance and operation practices.

Reference is made to NHTSA's discussion and evaluation of comments upon the proposed regulation published in the July 1, 1976 Federal Register; in particular, to that paragraph reviewing the comments of Firestone Corporation concerning rims and wheels. In that connection, it was stated that "The agency in no way intends to modify safe maintenance and operation practices by its action. Substitution of new components or of use of old components is not advocated or discouraged by this action". NHTSA also reported that "frame attachment components" were excluded from the description of running gear assemblies for fear that persons might reuse damaged attachment hardware.

Based upon the foregoing, a favorable opinion is requested that reuse of the above described components of trailer running gear assemblies in combination with sufficient new running gear and other components required to produce re-assembled van trailers does not result in a "newly manufactured" trailer; assuming, of course, that the re-assembled trailer will be used by the owner of the existing trailer which will continue to be identified by its existing serial number.

If additional facts or information in connection with the agency's determination is necessary or desirable, please call upon this writer for assistance.

Edgar E. Lungren Jr.

ID: nht76-4.3

DATE: 01/15/76

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

TO: Burlington Management Service Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Burlington Fleet Service's December 9, 1975, question whether the combination of usable parts from several existing vehicles into one functioning vehicle constitutes the manufacture of a new vehicle subject to applicable motor vehicle safety standards such as Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

The answer to your question is no. For an assembly operation to constitute manufacture, there must be a substantial proportion of new or fundamentally rebuilt parts. In this case, no new parts, other than minor materials such as hoses and gaskets, are involved in the assembly. The NHTSA therefore, does not consider the operation to constitute manufacturing subject to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1381 et seq.)

YOURS TRULY,

Burlington Fleet Services

December 9, 1975

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

Our organization is dedicated to keeping maintenance records for many fleets throughout the nation and as part of our service, we attempt to keep our customers advised of new government regulations and how these affect their maintenance practices. At this time, we require clarification of one of your new rulings -- namely, that pertaining to rebuilding trucks using new cabs (glider kits).

It is our understanding that when using glider kits, that two of the three power-line components must be from the same vehicle; otherwise the vehicle will be classified as new and require certification under such standards as 121.

My specific question is, what happens in the case of canabalization, that is, where two or more units are disassembled and reassembled as one, or remanufactured to make a 'new' vehicle?

In summary, when a cab, frame rail, and/or front suspension from one unit is used in conjunction with an engine, transmission and drive axle from one or more other units, does this comprise remanufacturing and will the vehicle be required to meet the same specifications as if a glider kit was used?

Today, with many fleets postponing the purchase of new equipment, extending the life of older units through such practices raises many questions, some of which are economical and, in your case, one which is specifically legal. This question is perplexing both for us and many of our fleets, and requires further clarification. Would you please advise this writer as to your ruling?

We would appreciate being on your mailing list for new or proposed rulings in these areas, for we believe that we have much to offer, especially with the large data base we maintain in this area.

J. E. Paquette Director

ID: nht76-4.30

DATE: 06/03/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: City of Marion

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your May 6, 1976, request for permission to remove the brake system from two trucks that were manufactured with brake systems conforming to the requirements of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

From the description of the problems you have encountered with the vehicles, I assume that you do not intend to remove the entire brake system, but only one or more antilock systems installed in satisfaction of the "no lockup" requirement of S5.3.1 of Standard No. 121. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(2)(A)) prohibits, with one exception, knowing disconnection of the antilock system by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business. Your dealer's refusal to remove the devices is probably based on this prohibition.

A person that does not fall into these categories is not prohibited from disconnection of the systems. Other State or Federal requirements, such as those of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety for operation in interstate commerce, may prohibit disconnection. In any case, the NHTSA urges that you not disconnect safety devices without consulting the vehicle manufacturer with regard to the safety configuration of the vehicle.

SINCERELY,

CITY OF MARION

May 6, 1976

Gordon Lindquist Regional Office National Highway Safety Administration

The City of Marion purchased two new Ford trucks in 1975 for use in the Sanitation Department, Serial No's N 80 FVW 47128 and N 80 FVW 47129. These trucks are used for garbage pickup within the city and the brake systems are presenting problems. As I understand this is the Federal Regulation SM2SF-121. I have asked the local Ford dealer, Kennedy Ford, Inc., to remove this system as we can not keep the trucks on the street due to downtime caused by this system. They, of course, refused to do so because of the regulation.

The purpose of this letter is a request for permission from you to allow the system to be removed.

These trucks have been out of service three times since the purchase and each time is for two to three weeks. I feel this brake system is a safety hazard when used for the purpose stated above.

Thank you for your consideration.

Charles N. Eblin Service Director

ID: nht76-4.31

DATE: 10/29/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Truck Body and Equipment Association, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to the Truck Body and Equipment Association's letter of September 14, 1976, inquiring as to the effect of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, on State laws relating to air brake performance. You ask whether the Commonwealth of Massachusetts can impose requirements pertaining to parking brake release on trucks and buses which differ from provisions contained in the Federal standard.

I believe that the question you raised is identical to a question raised by the State of California, International Harvester Company, and White Motor Corporation in October 1974, prior to the effective dates of Standard No. 121. It was our opinion at that time that promulgation by a State of a more restrictive parking brake requirement providing for the installation of a release not specified in Standard No. 121 was prohibited by @ 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. A copy of that letter is enclosed for your information.

SINCERELY,

TRUCK BODY AND EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC.

September 14, 1976

Frank A. Berndt Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

The state of Massachusetts has established a law requiring an air brake equipped truck sold in that state, to have a system that differs from those presently designed and developed for FMVSS 121 compliance. The difference lies in the Massachusetts requirement that the air brake system be equipped with an additional air reservoir or "third tank" capable of supplying air to the spring set parking brakes in case of an air brake failure. (See Attachment # I).

At the present time, all new trucks equipped with air brakes are required by Department of Transportation through National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to be completed in accordance with the performance levels found in FMVSS 121. As a result, all new trucks have air systems that are capable of meeting the application and release times, system build up times and the spring brake modulation requirements found in FMVSS 121.

The Massachusetts law was instituted to provide an additional means by which the spring brakes may be released during emergency situations. This release requirement is already supplied on all new chassis produced today in compliance with FMVSS 121 by a mechanical means.

The Massachusetts law requires that the existing 121 system be repiped to accommodate the new third tank and emergency release circuit. Any modification to the complex 121 system increases the likelihood of system damage or the modification may cross connect the split air system thus defeating the intent of two separate brake systems.

The chances of a modified system failure seems more likely than a FMVSS 121 brake lock up on a railroad grade crossing.

In previous correspondence the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of Chief Counsel, has indicated that a state can not set any motor vehicle safety standard that is in variance with an existing Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. (See Attachment # II).

We at the Truck Body and Equipment Association feel that the Massachusetts requirement for a modified brake system is inconsistent with the requirements outlined in FMVSS 121 and would appreciate the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's opinion of the legality of this state regulation.

Byron A. Crampton Manager of Engineering Services

ATTACHMENTS

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles

August 13, 1976

Dear Sir:

In reply to your inquiry as to brake requirements on commercial vehicle chassis, I am enclosing a copy of that portion of Massachusetts law in regards to brakes.

If a vehicle is equipped with air brakes and the parking or emergency brake portion of the brake system is a spring loaded brake, Massachusetts requires a third air tank and there must be a check valve between your main source (wet/dry tank or tanks) of supply and the third tank.

Under emergency conditions when there is a loss of the service brake, the spring loaded brake is automatically applied. To move the vehicle would require the winding down to release the spring loaded brake. Our requirement of a third tank allows 4 to 6 quick release operations so that the vehicle can be safely moved out of traffic, a roadway, a railroad crossing or an intersection.

Any vehicle equipped with air brakes and a spring loaded parking/emergency brake must be equipped with the third tank for registration and operation in Massachusetts. If we find a vehicle is not so equipped (third tank) we will not permit it to be registered. If it has been registered, statutory law allows the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to suspend the registration. No consideration is given relative to the reinstatement of the suspended registration until the brake system is in compliance and examined by an inspector from this department.

I hope this information will be of some help to you.

Charles V. Mulhern Supervisor Vehicle Inspection Branch

provisions of this section shall be punished by a fine of not less than ten nor more than one hundred dollars.

@ 7. Brakes, Lights and Other Equipment

[MASSACHUSETTS REGULATION OMITTED]

March 21, 1975

Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

Recently several members of the Truck Body and Equipment Association have raised questions concerning state versus federal motor vehicle lighting requirements.

The vehicle in question is a multipurpose passenger vehicle less than eighty (80) inches wide, equipped with a raised roof.

Our question is as follow: Can a state require a motor vehicle to be equipped with lights not required under FMVSS #1007

Thanking you in advance for your help, I am,

Byron Crampton Manager of Engineering Services

ID: nht76-4.32

DATE: 12/29/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood for F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Department of Police - Detroit

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of November 9, 1976, asking whether Federal regulations permit manufacturers to equip police vehicles with "push bumpers" and with bullet-proof shields located between the front and rear seating compartments.

Standard No. 215, Exterior Protection, establishes requirements for the impact resistance and the configuration of front and rear vehicle surfaces of passenger cars. This standard does not prohibit "push bumpers" and manufacturers are free to equip passenger cars with any bumper design they choose as long as the requirements of Standard No. 215 are met.

Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, specifies requirements for glazing for use in motor vehicles, including the permissible locations for the various types of glazing. The standard permits bullet-resistant glazing to be used anywhere in a motor vehicle, provided such glazing meets specified performance requirements. Therefore, vehicle manufacturers are permitted to equip vehicles with the bullet-proof shields mentioned in your letter if such shields are constructed with glazing that conforms to the requirements in Standard No. 205.

You also asked whether the police department or a business could install the equipment in question. If the equipment is installed after the first sale of the vehicle for purposes other than resale, the Federal safety standards would no longer be applicable under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(b)(1). However, @ 108 (a)(2)(A) prohibits, with one exception, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative a safety device or element of design that has been installed in compliance with a motor vehicle safety standard.

Therefore, whether or not a business could install the equipment depends on the nature of the business. If the business is a "motor vehicle repair business", it can only install the "push bumpers" and shields if such installation does not knowingly render inoperative devices or elements of design installed in the vehicle in compliance with applicable safety standards. Section 108(a)(2)(A) defines "motor vehicle repair business" as any person who holds himself out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation.

I have enclosed copies of Standard No. 205 and Standard No. 215. I have underscored the pertinent sections of Standard No. 205 (and the ANS 226 standard incorporated by reference in Standard No. 205) for your information.

SINCERELY, Department of Police Detroit, Michigan

Hugh Oates National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Pursuant to our phone conversation on November 1, 1976, the Equipment Control Section of Detroit's Police Department has experienced a degree of reluctance by the auto manufacturers in providing police vehicles with specialized equipment. The purpose of this communique is to resolve the following two questions:

(1) The auto manufacturers state that per regulations issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, they are unable to equip police vehicles with a special "push bumper". To more clearly delinate this concern, enclosed please find several photographs of the "push bumpers" and how they are attached to the car's bumper system. The Detroit Police Department prefers to order vehicles from the manufacturers with the "push bumper" attached. In furtherance of this desire, a ruling by your administration allowing the manufacturers to construct police vehicles with "push bumpers" and sell same to our department, would clearly alleviate this dilemma.

(2) The auto manufacturers also state that they cannot sell vehicles equipped with a bullet proof shield located between the front and rear seating compartments. My research uncovered no federal statute or regulation prohibiting this. Your advise on this matter would clear any ambiguity.

In responding to the above requests, assuming the auto companies could not lawfully sell us police vehicles with any of the above special equipment, I would appreciate you probing the possibility of the City installing such equipment subsequent to our purchasing the vehicles, or having a private business perform these tasks. Please note that both the "push bumper" and bullet proof shield are removed from the vehicle when same is later sold at public auction.

If further information is needed, please feel at liberty to call me (313-224-4426).

JOSEPH E. PAPELIAN Legal Advisor Section

cc: INSPECTOR JOHN DOMM