ID: nht91-5.23

DATE: August 12, 1991

FROM: Frank Kenney -- Sporting Tailors Manufacturing Co.

TO: Office of the Chief Councel (Counsel) -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-21-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Frank Kenney (A38; Std. 302); Also attached to copy of 49 CFR 571.302, pages 517-519: Standard No. 302, Flammability of interior materials; Also attached to letter dated 6-29-90 from Paul Jackson Rice to Ed McCarron of Western Star Trucks Inc. (Std. 302)

TEXT:

We are planning to manufacture roll bar or "Bikini Tops" for off road Vehicles such as Jeep Wranglers. We are presently clothing manufacturers and this would be a new product line we would becoming involved with. We, therefore, have, some questions for you.

Since this is an "after market product", it is our understanding that the roll bar tops must conform to automotive code #302 which has to do with passing flammability requirements. We have resolved this problem by imparting a flame retardent element between the vinyl roll bar top and the brushed nylon black backing fabric ass per the enclosed sample. (The vinyl top fabric is bonded to the brushed nylon tricot black fabric and the flame retardent is sandwiched between the two fabrics.)

Our question is the following: (Please refer to diagram of the roll bar top and the fabric sample enclosed)

Would the binding fabric strips sewn all around the edges of the roll bar top to lend stability and finished appearance also be required to have a flame retardent element added to the back of the strips as well?

Since the bonded roll bar vinyl top fabric bonded to the brushed nylon tricot fabric with the flame retardent sandwiched between IS ACTUALLY LYING BETWEEN THE STICHED BINDING STRIP, would it be required to make the strip flame retardent as well? Would we not be duplicating our efforts?

We would greatly appreciate your response to this at your very earliest convenience.

We understand that we must conform to 49 CFR Part 566 manufacturer identification and if there would be anything else that would apply to this after market product, please advise us.

The last question we pose to you is the following: If we supply a tote bag to the consumer in order that the roll bar top may be kept clean while not in use, would this tote bag also be required to conform to Automotive code #302:

We thank you in advance for your comments and information.

ID: nht95-2.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 27, 1995

FROM: Ken Calvert -- Member of Congress

TO: Edward D. Harrill

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/18/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO KEN CALVERT (A43; VSA 102(4))

TEXT: LETTER 1:

Dear Mr. Harrill:

My office has received an authorization for a Congressional Inquiry on behalf of my constituent Mr. Alexander Patnode, SSN 043-07-7207. We are enclosing a copy for your review along with paperwork Mr. Patnode feels will be pertinent to his request.

Mr. Patnode is requesting our assistance in obtaining information regarding the purchase of an engine stand from Pep Boys Auto parts. This stand is made in China for Rally Accessory Inc. located in Miami, Florida. Failure of the stand caused an engine to fail, injuring his ankle. Mr. Patnode states he can't find an agency in the state that will accept or act on his complaint. After a review of Mr. Patnode's paperwork my office would appreciate a written response to his request.

Thank you for your interest in Mr. Patnode. If we may be of further assistance in this matter you may contact Genelle Stephens of my Riverside District Office. I am looking forward to your reply.

Sincerely,

Ken Calvert

LETTER 2:

03/21/95

Ken Calvert 3400 Central Ave. Suite 200 Riverside, Ca. 925

Your Honor,

I need your assistance. I purchased an engine stand from Pep Boy's auto parts, in Temecula, Ca., Failure of the stand caused an engine to fall, injuring my ankle. The stand is made in China, for Rally accessory Inc. located in Miami, Florida. The s tands are obviously made without quality control. I purchased a second stand to use as evidence in my lawsuit. It did not have the same welds, which failed on the first stand. A third stand, on display at Pep Boy's, is made different from either of th e other two. It has an additional brace, welded on the lower portion, in the same area where the first stand failed. None of the stands are equipped with the large brace that appears in the assembly manual.

Home mechanics often leave engines mounted on these stands for extended periods of time. There is potential for serious injury or death to occur, should a stand fail, especially if there are children in the area. Neither Pep Boy's nor Rally seem to be taking this condition seriously.

I called the U.S. Consumer Products Safety Commission hot line. It took until the next day for them to respond, when they told me that they do not handle this. I find it hard to believe that this type of problem doesn't come under their jurisdiction. I haven't been able to find an agency in the state that can accept or act on my complaint. I also contacted the Consumer Affairs in the Attorney General's office, but they couldn't help me. I am enclosing pictures that I hope will illustrate my problem . Any help that you can give will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerly,

Alexander H. Patno

32840 SHEILA LANE

LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530

(Brochure omitted.)

LETTER 3:

April 27, 1995

John Womack, Esq. Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Room 5219 400 7th Street, SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Womack:

As we discussed by telephone, the Consumer Product Safety Commission ("CPSC") received an inquiry from Rep. Ken Calvert concerning what agency would have jurisdiction over an engine stand purchased by Mr. Alexander H. Patnode. The stand broke, causin g an injury to Mr. Patnode's ankle.

The Consumer Product Safety Act excludes "motor vehicle equipment," as that term is used in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, from the CPSC's jurisdiction. As we discussed by phone, it appears that this engine stand is motor vehicle equipment. Accordingly, I have enclosed the material we received on this incident.

Please contact me if you need anything further.

Sincerely, Harleigh Ewell

cc: The Hon. Ken Calvert

ID: nht94-8.37

DATE: January 31, 1994

FROM: Steve Williams -- Director, Public Transportation, Mississippi Department of Education

TO: William Moss -- Superintendent, Jones County School District

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/31/94 from John Womack to Mike Parker (A42; Std. 222; Part 571.3), letter dated 4/18/94 from Mike Parker to Christopher Hart, and letter dated 1/28/94 from Steve Williams to Terry L. Voy

TEXT:

On January 24, 1994, Jon Harper and I met with James Green, Transportation Director, and George Dukes, Chapter I Coordinator from your district, to discuss the installation of VCR's and TV monitors on school buses. Pursuant to our visit, I have contacted school bus engineers which advise against such installation due to liability concerns. In addition, I am requesting an interpretation and opinion from the National Standards for School Buses and Operations Interpretation Committee to determine if the national school bus standards prohibit such installation (copy attached). The interpretation will clarify this matter because Mississippi bus standards are modeled after and based upon the national standards. My discussion with a representative from that committee indicated that without official testing and standardization procedures, such installation would probably not be advisable.

Until such time that we can receive the opinion based on the National Standards for School Buses and Operations, we cannot support and would advise against installation of VCR's and TV monitors. It is my understanding that a school district in Arizona has installed such equipment. Nonetheless, it is incumbent upon our office to ensure that there is no violation of safety standards regarding the school buses that transport students to and from school or related activities.

We will advise you of the Interpretation Committee's opinion as we receive it. If you have any questions, please let me know.

ID: nht94-1.2

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: 01/01/94 EST

FROM: Rowe Manufacturing

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: GLAD-GRIP

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/18/94 from John Womack to Neil Rowe (A42; Std. 106)

TEXT:

The Glad-Grip started as a useful device to help connect and disconnect the hydraulic hoses on farm implements. This device is called the Hydra-Grip. As time passed and the Hydra-Grip became better known, several truckers saw the Hydra-Grip and thought they would be an asset on the air hoses of semi truck tractors. There is nothing on the air hoses to get a grip on except the hose itself or the spring below the glad hand. Especially during cold weather when drivers twist the glad hand loose from its mating coupler half, the hose would be bent at a severe angle causing the hose to either break or develop a leak. This problem is greatly reduced by installing the Glad-Grip, a very durable and simple handle. Safety is also a factor as the operator's hand is not in contact with the air hose itself.

The Glad-Grip has a machined steel core designed and tested to withstand a minimum of 3000 psi of hydraulic pressure, far in excess of the pressure on the air line system. The center bore of the core exceeds DOT requirements of at least 66% of the air l ine inside diameter. The threads, both male and female, are cut to American National Standard Institute one half inch NPTF threads.

It is the desire of Rowe Manufacturing to provide a safe and economical device for the trucking industry. To help minimize down time and costly repairs associated with broken hoses. At the same time we want to abide by all DOT standards and regulations .

Thank you for your consideration of our product. If you have any questions regarding our product feel free to call.

ID: nht75-5.21

DATE: 06/18/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: The General Tire & Rubber Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Please refer to Mr. Ronald W. Mohler's letter of September 6, 1974, (copy enclosed) and Mr. Snyder's telephone conversation with you on January 23, 1975, regarding the transfer of tread code mark "BFK" from the "Griffin General Tire Service, Inc." retread company operated by Mr. James W. Griffin to the "Griffin General Tire Service" company operated by The General Tire and Rubber Company.

The enclosed copy of the May 17, 1973, letter to Mr. Daniels of the Daniels Tire Service, Inc. company outlines the conditions which must prevail for this company and the "Griffin General Tire Service, Inc." company to use the same code mark BFK. With respect to the "Griffin General Tire Service, Inc." the various limiting conditions prevailing at that time and which we understand will be continued by your acquired company are:

1. Recordkeeping procedures must be internal, i.e., within the specific company.

2. Production is limited. Mr. Griffin advised us that production in 1973 was approximately five truck tires per day.

3. The plant serves only local trade in the vicinity of Hornell, New York.

Please advise us whether our understanding is correct that these conditions will be met by the "Griffin General Tire Service" company operating under the control of The General Tire and Rubber Company. If not, a new code number must be assigned to this plant.

We further wish to advise you that the conditional usage of code mark BFK will not be extended to any future disposition of the "Griffin General Tire Service" company. To perpetuate the abnormal condition where two retread plants use the same code mark is highly undesirable due to the potential confusion, the extra necessary control effort, as well as the personal supervision required at our computer operation.

ID: nht72-5.34

DATE: 03/21/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Truck Equipment & Body Distributors Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 23, 1972, concerning the application of the Certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567) to certain vehicles and components.

You describe a device, called a "converter gear", which is used to convert a semi-trailer into a trailer, and ask whether this unit is considered to be a trailer which must be certified. You also ask whether all lamps and reflectors specified for trailers are required. We believe this device to be a trailer, as it appears from your description that it is a "trailer converter dolly" under the Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (49 CFR @ 571.3). Trailer converter dollies are specifically exempt from the requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, "Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment," and are consequently not required to meet the lighting requirements applicable to other trailers. In addition, there are presently no other motor vehicle safety standards applicable to trailers and consequently, trailer converter dollies need not be certified. This will no longer be the case, however, after the effective date of Standard No. 121, "Air Brake Systems." Trailer converter dollies manufactured on or after that standard's effective date will be required to comply with its requirements, and to be certified in accordance with Part 567.

You also ask how manufacturers are to determine the GVWR for semi-trailers, and whether such a figure can be based solely on the semi-trailer's axle or axles. The GVWR of a semi-trailer should not be based on the vehicle's axles. The definition of GVWR calls for the weight of a fully loaded vehicle, and normally the capacity of a semi-trailer is greater than that of its rear axles.

You describe another device, a "Jo-Dog" or detachable tag axle to be attached to a truck tractor, asking whether this unit is a "trailer" which must be certified and whether the use of such a device would alter the truck tractor to the extent that an altered certification label is required. It appears from your description of this device that it is also a "trailer converter dolly." As in the case of the "converter gear" described above, certification by the manufacturer (at the present time) is not required. Moreover, we would not consider the use of such a device to be "manufacturing" within the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and no certification of any kind by a user (as distinguished from a manufacturer) would be required.

Finally you describe additional devices, a "drom," and an auxiliary cargo-carrying platform, both of which can be added to truck tractors between the cab and the fifth wheel. You ask whether the installation of such devices would constitute re-manufacturing of the vehicle and if additional certification is required when compliance to a standard is not altered.

We would consider the addition of such components to a new vehicle to be manufacturing under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and certification by the vehicle manufacturer would be required regardless of whether compliance of the vehicle to any standard is affected.

We are pleased to be of assistance.

ID: 10-001831 106

ID: nht75-6.32

DATE: 10/03/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Charter Arms Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your letter of August 6, 1969, to the National Commission on Products Liability has been referred to the National Highway Safety Bureau for reply.

Vehicle skidding is a function of many parameters within the tire-pavement interface. The most adverse tire-pavement interactions occur when pavement is covered with water. Under certain wet pavement conditions, complete loss of traction or hydroplaning occurs. The two possible hydroplaning phenomena which may occur are viscous hydroplaning or dynamic hydroplaning. Both of these conditions of hydroplaning to a degree may be controlled by the proper selection of pavement texture and tread depth of tires.

The detection of hydroplaning as the causation of accidents is most difficult to establish and although we have many accident studies in progress, I would seriously doubt that hydroplaning can be successfully isolated from the common form of skidding.

The tire manufacturers recognize hydroplaning and they do provide adequate water escape passages as well as tread depth to cope with this problem. However, the tire is only a subsystem within the tire-pavement system of hydroplaning.

For further information on this subject, I suggest that you contact the National Aeronautics and Space Administration what research history on hydroplaning dates to 1958.

ID: nht69-1.4

DATE: 09/02/69

FROM: C. A. Baker; NHTSA

TO: Garis, Trezza, Ithurburn and Keely

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your letter of August 6, 1969, to the National Commission on Products Liability has been referred to the National Highway Safety Bureau for reply.

Vehicle skidding is a function of many parameters within the tire-pavement interface. The most adverse tire-pavement interactions occur when pavement is covered with water. Under certain wet pavement conditions, complete loss of traction or hydroplaning occurs. The two possible hydroplaning phenomena which may occur are viscous hydroplaning or dynamic hydroplaning. Both of these conditions of hydroplaning to a degree may be controlled by the proper selection of pavement texture and tread-depth of tires.

The detection of hydroplaning as the causation of accidents is most difficult to establish and although we have many accident studies in progress, I would seriously doubt that hydroplaning can be successfully isolated from the common form of skidding.

The tire manufacturers recognize hydroplaning and they do provide adequate water escape passages as well as tread depth to copy with this problem. However, the tire is only a subsystem within the tire-pavement system of hydroplaning.

For further information on this subject, I suggest that you contact the National Aeronautics and Space Administration who's research history on hydroplaning dates to 1958.

ID: 17340-2.pja

Mr. Richard Dorris
President
QMC
18071 Mt. Washington St.
Fountain Valley, CA 92708

Dear Mr. Dorris:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of whether the trailer mounted hydraulic cranes your company manufactures would be excluded from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) rear impact protection (underride guard) regulations. The vehicles have, near their rear, under the bed, outriggers that stabilize the trailer while the crane is operating. The outriggers slide horizontally out of a housing and extend laterally several feet from the side of the trailer. You ask whether, due to the unique nature of these vehicles, they would be excluded as special purpose vehicles. As explained below, it is our opinion, based on the information you provided, that the regulation does not apply to them because these vehicles are not considered motor vehicles under our statute. Therefore, these trailers would not need to be fitted with a compliant rear impact guard.

Chapter 301 of Title 49, U. S. Code authorizes the Secretary of Transportation, through this agency, to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The pertinent part of 49 U.S. Code 30102(6)) defines the term "motor vehicle" as "a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways  . . ." (emphasis added).

Your trailer mounted hydraulic cranes are not motor vehicles, within the statutory definition quoted above. In a July 8, 1998, telephone conversation with Paul Atelsek of my staff, you stated that they are utilized primarily on construction sites but are occasionally transported over the public roadways from one job site to another, at which they typically spend extended periods of time. In such cases, the on-highway use of the vehicle is considered merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured. This is in contrast to vehicles, such as dump trucks, which frequently use the public roadways going to and from job sites, but stay at a job site for only a limited time. Such vehicles are considered motor vehicles, since their on-highway use is more than "incidental."

Based on your description of their use, it is our opinion that your trailer mounted hydraulic cranes are not motor vehicles, and therefore are not subject to the underride guard requirements of Standard No. 224. However, if we were to receive information that your trailers were used on the roads more than on an incidental basis, then we would have to reconsider this opinion.

I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:224
d.9/16/98