ID: nht87-3.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/7/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Tom George

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Tom George P.O. BOX 475 Howard, KS 67349

Dear Mr. George:

Secretary Dole has asked me to respond to your letter to her, in which you asked why we believe it is necessary to have laws mandating the use of safety belts. You stated that you believe a public education campaign about safety belt use would have been sufficient. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our position to you.

During thy past decade, 470,000 persons have died on American highways. Each year, an estimated 300,000 are injured seriously enough to require hospital treatment. These traffic deaths and injuries have resulted in an annual cost to society of approximat ely 57 billion dollars resulting from such costs as emergency medical services, long-term medical care and rehabilitation, worker's compensation, welfare payments, and lost tax revenue.

Numerous analysis have shown that safety belts reduce fatalities by 40-50 percent and reduce serious injuries by 45-55 percent. I have enclosed copies of a safety belt face sheet and several pamphlets we have published explaining how and why safety belts are so effective. Because of the extensive body of evidence about the effectiveness of safety belts, the United States Supreme Court has said, "We start with the accepted ground that, if used, seatbelts unquestionably would have many thousands of lives and would prevent tens of thousands of crippling injuries."

This Department and other groups tried many public education efforts to make these facts known to the public, with the anticipation that more people would use safety belts when they knew the facts. Despite these efforts, the rate of usage for safety belt s did not change substantially from what it had been in 1967. As recently as 1983, the overall safety belt usage rate for front seat occupants Has only slightly above 12 percent.

This trend suggested that public education campaign alone would not substantially reduce unnecessary deaths and injuries on our highways. In an effort to protect their citizens by substantially reducing vehicle-related deaths and injuries, and to reduce the financial burden on their taxpayers, 29 Stated and the District of Columbia have enacted safety belt use laws. I want to emphasize that each of these state legislatures made their own decisions with respect to safety belt use laws. This Department ne ither has nor seeks any authority to withhold. Federal funds if states do not adopt or repeal safety belt use laws. We do, however, believe that safety belt use laws are more than justified by the possibility of achieving substantial reductions in vehicl e-related deaths and injuries, and reducing the financial burden on thy taxpayers. The available data show that among front seat occupants, safety belts saved about 2,200 lives in 1986, and 1,750 of those lives were saved in States that have safety belt use laws.

We agree with you, however, that safety belt use laws alone may not ensure long-term increased usage of safety belts. Simply requiring persons to wear their safety belts does not get to the heart of the problem of non-usage: lack of knowledge and negativ e attitudes regarding occupant restraints. experience has shown that a combination of usage requirements and information and education campaigns are the most effective way to get more people to wear their safety belts. Therefore, we have continued our pu blic information and education campaigns about safety belts, as has the State of Kansas. As a result of these combined efforts, our most recent data show that the overall safety belt usage rate for front seat occupants is now slightly above 40 percent.

We in the Department of Transportation are committed reducing as much as possible the deaths and injuries on our nation's roads. This mission can only succeed with the cooperation and input of concerned citizens like yourself. Thank you for taking the ti me to express your concerns, and please let us know if you have any further questions or concerns about our programs.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

September 4, 1987

The Honorable Elizabeth R. Dole Secretary of Transportation 400 7th Street, SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mrs. Dole:

My name is Tom George and I am a senior at West Elk High School in Howard, Kansas. I have a few questions to ask you.

Why do you feel it is necessary to make the use of seat belts a law? I understand the effectiveness of seat belts in saving lives, but is it necessary to make it mandatory by law? I personally feel public service announcements educating the general public about seat belt use would have been sufficient.

Sincerely yours,

Tom George

Tom George P.O. Box 475 Howard, KS 67345

ID: nht88-1.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/11/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: MTD Products Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. J.V. McFadden President MTD Products Inc. P.O. Box 36900 Cleveland, Ohio 44136

Dear Mr. McFadden:

This responds to your letter concerning the applicability of Federal on State requirements to a hydraulic logsplitter mounted on a frame carriage equipped with highway high speed wheels and a trailer towing hitch. While we can not answer your question co ncerning applicable State requirements, we provide the following information on the applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

By way of background information, our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 D.S.C. 1381 et seq.), to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse commercial products. Instead, the Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is required to certify that its p roducts meet all applicable safety standards. The Vehicle Safety Act prohibits the manufacture or sale of a noncomplying product unless, despite the exercise of due care, the manufacturer doesn't have reason to know that the noncompliance exists.

Any vehicle that falls within the statutory definition of the term "motor vehicle" must comply with all applicable safety standards. Section 102(3) of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 D.S.C. 1391(3) defines a "motor vehicle" as any vehicle driven or drawn by m echanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

We have interpreted this language as follows. The definition does not include equipment which uses the highways only to move between job sites and which typically spends extended periods of time at a single job site. In this case, the on-highway use of t he vehicle is merely incidental, and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured.

On the other hand, when a vehicle frequently uses the highway going to and from job sites, and stays at the job site for only a limited time, it is the agency's position that the vehicle in question is a "motor vehicle" in the statutory sense, since the on-highway use is more than "incidental".

Notwithstanding the foregoing, a vehicle is not classified as a motor vehicle if it is of such an unusual configuration that it is easily distinguished from normal traffic and it has a top speed of not more than 20 miles per hour.

A determination of whether or not a vehicle falls within the definition of motor vehicle is based upon a consideration of all of the above factors. Given the information that you have provided us, it appears that the hydraulic log-splitter is a motor veh icle. From the picture in the brochure, it is clear that the vehicle has an unusual configuration. This alone, however, is not adequate to prevent a determination that the vehicle is a motor vehicle within the meaning of the statute. More important is th e fact that the vehicle may make frequent use of the highway, staying at one particular job site a limited amount of time. The provision of highway speed tires indicates the manufacturer's intention to produce a vehicle which is suitable for driving at h ighway speeds.

Because the tow-behind logsplitter is equipped with a trailer tow hitch, we would consider the vehicle a trailer, defined in the agency's regulations as:

a motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle.(See 49 CFR 571.3.)

The safety standards which apply to all trailers are Standard No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment: Standard No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars: and Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identificati on Number--Basic Requirements. The content requirements for the vehicle identification number are found at Part 565. In addition, if the trailer is equipped with brakes, it must meet Standard No. 106, Brake hoses, Standard No. 116, Motor vehicle brake fl uids, and applicable requirements of Standard No. 121, Air brake systems. All of these standards are found in 49 CFR Part 571.

We regret the delay in responding to your request. If you have further questions on this matter, please contact us.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of Chief Counsel 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, DC 20590

RE: Applicability of Highway Rules - Tow Behind Logsplitter

Gentlemen:

Your advice is requested relative to whether there are any federal or state requirements which would pertain to a hydraulic log-splitter mounted on a frame carriage equipped with highway high speed wheels and a trailer towing hitch.

We enclose product literature produced by Duerr Incorporated who inform us that this particular application does not fall within any regulations which would require lights, license plates, etc.

Very truly yours,

J.V. McFadden President

JVM/djm Enclosure: Product brochure

ID: nht88-1.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/11/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Joanne Salvio -- Fire Research Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 8/13/80 letter from F. Berndt to FWD Corporation (Std. 206)

TEXT: Ms. Joanne Salvio Fire Research Corporation 26 Southern Blvd. Nesconset, NY 11767

This responds to your November 10, 1987, letter asking whether the "Guardian Gate" your company manufactures for firefighting vehicles is subject to Safety Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components. The answer to your question is yes, if the Gate is installed on new vehicles and if the area into which the door leads contains one or more seating positions.

The advertising material you enclosed states that the Guardian Gate "is designed to help firefighters while they are riding to fires in the jump seat of apparatus (sic)." The advertisement said that the unique feature of the Guardian Gate is its locking mechanism which enables the gate to be locked "on both its sides to the vehicle; the cab side, as well as the pump panel side." The advertisement said this "dual locking" feature is intended to minimize the likelihood that the gate will be opened either unintentionally or because of "hazardous conditions" (an explanation of which the advertisement did not include).

Paragraph @4 of Standard No. 206 states: "Components on any side door leading directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommodations shall conform to this standard. 206, but these are doors that are readily removable or that are not provided for retaining occupants. Since the Guardian Gate falls into neither of these two categories, the exemptions are not relevant to your inquiry.)

From the information you provided in your letter and in telephone calls between you and Ms. Hom of my staff, we understand that the standing area on the firefighting vehicle enclosed by the Guardian Gate contains a jump seat. Because "seating accommodati ons" referred to in @4 include jump seats, a Guardian Gate that is installed to enclose a jump seat area on a new firefighting vehicle must comply with Standard No. 206. This determination is consistent with an August 13, 1980 letter from NHTSA to Mr. L. Steenbock of the FWD Corporation (copy enclosed), in which this agency stated that a door leading to a standing area that contains no seating position would not have to comply with Standard No. 206.

Because Standard No. 206 applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks (e.g., firefighting vehicles), and not to replacement parts for installation in used vehicles of these types, you may sell the Guardian Gate to vehicle owners without regard as to whether the Gate complies with the performance requirements of the standard. However, we urge you to consider meeting those requirements voluntarily, to ensure that the Gate will perform to specified levels for the safety of firefigh ters riding in the "jump seat area" of the vehicle. You should also be aware that you are responsible under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, to ensure that your product contains no defect re lating to motor vehicle safety. If you or this agency determines that a safety related defect exists, you must notify purchasers of your product of the defect and remedy the problem free of charge.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure - see 8/13/80 letter from Frank Berndt to FWD Corporation

TO: Ericka Jones, Chief Counsel, NHTSA

DATE: November 10, 1987

SUBJECT: Guardian Gate

As per my telephone conversation with Ms. Hom, I am enclosing a copy of our Guardian Gate literature. We are trying to determine whether it is necessary for us to meet Regulation #206 or whether it does not apply to our product.

Any help you can give us will be greatly appreciated.

Thank you,

Fire Research Corp. after year of development announces a new product for the fire service. This new gate is designed to help firefighters while they are riding to fires in the jump seat of apparatus. This new design, PAT. PENDING, has a unique feature n ot available on any other door or gate. That is a dual locking concept. This gate actually locks on both its sides to the vehicle; the cab side, as well as the pump panel side. Thus, minimizing the chances for the gate to open up under hazardous conditio ns. The new locking mechanism actually lifts the gate up out of dual catches which allows it to be swung open. The gate handle with its unique design minimizes the possibility of inadvertently opening the gate unintentionally.

INTRODUCTORY PRICE $575 PER FAIR

MEASURING INSTRUCTIONS FOR ORDERING

LOCATE HINGE LOCKS M1 & M2 AND SECONDARY LOCK M3 ON VEHICLE SO THAT TOP RAIL IS LOCATED AT A SAFE HEIGHT. M3 SHOULD BE LOCATED AS HIGH AS POSSIBLE.

ID: nht76-4.35

DATE: 07/30/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Sun Control Products of Virginia, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 11, 1976, request that Madico solar protective polyester film be "designated as acceptable" under Ford Motor Company's DOT code number for the Ford product "Privacy Glass" or, in the alternative, that the Madico product be assigned a separate DOT glazing code number. You state that the Madico film achieves the same effect as "Privacy Glass" for reduction of solar heat, glare and fading.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, specifies requirements for glazing materials for use in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Section S6 of the standard outlines the procedures required for certification and marking of glazing materials, to certify that the glazing complies with all the requirements of the standard. Paragraph S6.2 of that section requires certain manufacturers to mark their glazing materials with the "DOT" symbol and a manufacturer's code number, which is assigned to the manufacturer by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration upon written request. Each code number is the unique mark of a single manufacturer, and is intended to facilitiate the traceability of the glazing to the original manufacturer. Therefore, Ford's code number (DOT - 75 FM-M73) cannot be used by Madico or by another glazing manufacturer or distributor.

Your letter states that the Madico product is a solar protective film that is "bonded or laminated to existing, installed clear glass." We conclude that this "protective film" is not glazing material and is not subject to the requirements of Standard No. 205. Therefore, a glazing manufacturer's code number cannot be assigned for the product.

Whether or not the Madico protective film is otherwise subject to Federal requirements depends upon who uses the product. If a vehicle manufacturer or a dealer places the film on glazing in a vehicle prior to sale of the vehicle, he must certify that the glazing continues to be in compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 205.

On the other hand, the vehicle owner may alter his vehicle as he pleases, so long as he adheres to all State requirements. The owner could install the protective film on glazing in his vehicle whether or not such installation affected compliance with Standard No. 205. It should be noted, however, that section 108 (a) (2) (A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 provides that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Therefore, no manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business may knowingly install the Madico protective film on a vehicle for its owner in a manner that would destroy the conformity of the glazing with the requirements of Standard No. 205.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

SUN CONTROL PRODUCTS OF VIRGINIA, INC.

June 11, 1976

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

Dear Dr. Gregory:

It is my understanding and observation that the Ford Motor Company is supplying and selling as an option their "Privacy Glass" for their Club Wagons and Econoline Vans in the 1976 Model year.

The "Privacy Glass" carries the following identification on the installed glass:

"Laminated Safety Glass, 'Carlite', F-6D, R-AS3, DOT-75 FM-M73"

It is my further understanding that the DOT Code number above indicates that certain Solar Optical Properties of the "Privacy Glass" have been supplied by Ford Motor Company (Or the Glass manufacturer) to DOT before DOT issued the code number.

Attached is a copy of the manufacturer's (MADICO) Product Specification sheet of solar protective polyester film, Non-Reflective Laminated FADE SHIELD SERIES FSLW 100-20 Gray. This solar protective film is bonded or laminated to existing, installed clear glass, and attains the same effect as the "Privacy Glass" for reduction of solar heat-gain, solar glare and solar fading.

It is my understanding that the solar optical properties of MADICO'S FSLW-100-20 Gray are equal to or within reasonable tolerance and range of the solar properties of the Ford Motor Company's "Privacy Glass" under DOT-75 FM-M-73.

Accordingly, it is requested that MADICO'S FSLW-100-20 Gray, solar protective film be assigned or designated as acceptable under DOT-75 FM-M73, as an alternate to "Privacy Glass" for installation on existing clear glass of vehicles under the same provisions.

If it is not possible for FSLW-100-20 Gray, solar protective film to be included under DOT-75 FM-M73, it is requested that a DOT CODE NUMBER be issued for FSLW-100-20 Gray.

Thank you for your cooperation, and we look forward to an an early reply.

Cordially, Mark T. Lerche President

[PRODUCT SPECIFICATION SHEET OMITTED]

ID: nht73-1.40

DATE: 06/19/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Mobil Oil Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 1, 1973 and confirms the telephone conversation with Mr. Vinson of my staff on June 14, 1973.

The amendments to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 116 published on May 17, 1973 modified container labelling requirements only for silicone-based brake fluid and hydraulic system mineral oil (paragraph S5.2.2.3) and did not affect the requirements for conventional DOT 3 and DOT 4 fluids (paragraph S5.2.2.2) as you assumed. Therefore you appear to have no problem, and it is not necessary to consider your letter as a petition for reconsideration.

The sample label you enclosed appears to designate the contents as "Super Heavy Duty Brake Fluid", rather than "DOT 3 MOTOR VEHICLE BRAKE FLUID" as paragraph S5.2.2.2(e) requires. Otherwise, it is adequate compliance with paragraph S5.2.2.2.

Sincerely,

Mobil Oil Corporation

June 1, 1973

T. Vinson -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation

FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

MOTOR VEHICLE BRAKE FLUIDS

PACKAGE LABELING

DOCKET NO. 71-13

Dear Mr. Vinson:

You may recall that on May 23, we spoke about the Motor Vehicle Brake Fluid Standard No. 116, identified as 571.116, Docket No. 71-13; Notice 4 and previous Notices. I mentioned that there were some changes in labeling instructions in Notice 4 as compared to the instructions which appeared in the Federal Register on Thursday, June 24, 1971, page 11989. I also mentioned that it would be virtually impossible to comply with the new labeling outlined in the May 17, 1973 Federal Register by the effective date of July 1, 1973.

You suggested that we might like to file a Petition of Reconsideration mentioning the two items which we discussed. Would you, therefore, please consider this letter as a Petition of Reconsideration.

1. Since it would be virtually impossible to prepare new graphics and lithography and have material packaged between now and July 1, 1973, and since the wording does not seem to represent a substantive change, we would like to make the labeling change in an orderly way. I would estimate this could be done in six to eight months after we know the exact wording to be used on the package.

2. The June 24, 1971 Federal Register carried as a caution, "DO NOT REFILL CONTAINER, AND DO NOT USE FOR OTHER LIQUIDS." The May 17, 1973 Federal Register carries the caution, "Do not refill container or use other liquids." It seems to me that the former wording is better than the latter. There is also a difference in the various Notices with respect to the use of upper and lower case letters. We would like to know exactly which words should be used before changing the graphics and notifying the can manufacturers to use new lithography on future containers.

You may be interested to see the marking on our current 16-oz Mobil Super Heavy Duty Brake Fluid package, so here is a copy of the art. When we redo the graphics, we will, of course, change the text in the upper half of the rear panel to reflect the newest SAE Specification J-1703c and the newest Federal Specification VV-B-680-B. We will also change the wording in the lower part of the back panel when we find out exactly what is wanted with respect to the caution and the use of upper and lower case letters.

Very truly yours,

J. W. Lane, Manager --

Product Promotion, Technical

Publications and Packaging

Attachment

DRY BOILING POINT EXCEEDS 450 F (232 C)

Mobil Registered

super heavy duty brake fluid

Surpasses SAE Specification J-1703b, conforms to Federal Specification VV-B-680-A, and to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 116, DOT 3 Motor Vehicle Brake Fluid.

KEEP OUT OF THE REACH OF CHILDREN

A non-volatile super heavy duty fluid for use in all types of auto and truck hydraulic brake systems where vehicle manufacturer specifies SAE J-1703b or DOT 3 Motor Vehicle Brake Fluid. Mixes perfectly with any automotive hydraulic brake fluid approved by vehicle manufacturers or which meets SAE Specification J-1703b, Federal Specification VV-B-680-A, or Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard, No. 116, DOT 3. Minimum wet boiling point 284 F (140 C). Do not spill on vehicle finishes.

CAUTION -- COMBUSTIBLE MIXTURE N.Y.F.D.C. OF A. NO. 1095

1. FOLLOW VEHICLE MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS WHEN ADDING BRAKE FLUID.

2. KEEP BRAKE FLUID CLEAN AND DRY, Contamination with dirt, water, petroleum products or other materials may result in brake failure or costly repairs.

3. STORE BRAKE FLUID ONLY IN ITS ORIGINAL CONTAINER. KEEP CONTAINER CLEAN AND TIGHTLY CLOSED TO PREVENT ABSORPTION OF MOISTURE.

4. CAUTION: DO NOT REFILL CONTAINER, AND DO NOT USE FOR OTHER LIQUIDS.

Distributed By Mobil Oil Corporation, New York, N.Y.

ID: nht75-4.3

DATE: 08/28/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Dennis Replansky

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SINCERELY,

BLANK, ROME, KLAUS & COMISKY

July 24, 1975

James C. Schultz, Esquire Chief Counsel U. S. Dept. of Transportation - NHTSA

A number of our clients in the motor vehicle industry have raised questions concerning the applicability to rebuilt trailers of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, especially Standard #121, Air Brake Systems. Unfortunately, Standard #121 does not define "manufacture" for purposes of determining applicability.

The following factual situation has arisen most often:

A manufacturer's customer presently has trailers, commonly called "chassis", which are used solely for hauling containers. The equipment represents a considerable investment. At present, the customer's trailers are obsolete because they cannot carry the new I.S.O. containers. The customer has asked the manufacturer to modify the old trailers to permit them to use the new I.S.O. containers. The manufacturer will do this by taking the customer's old axle assembly (composed of the axles, brakes, wheels, drums, rims, tires and certain connecting parts) and adding to that a new structural frame, namely a box frame and fittings, to permit each trailer to carry the new I.S.O. containers.

Does Standard #121, Air Brake Systems, apply to such rebuilt trailers?

We would appreciate your guidance.

DENNIS REPLANSKY

CC: TAD HERLIHY

ID: nht75-3.36

DATE: 08/13/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Construction Machinery Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 18, 1975, question whether a system which pressurizes a water tank on a concrete mixer by means of air from the truck's air brake system would violate the requirements of Standard No. 121, Air brake systems.

The answer to your question is no. Standard No. 121 does not contain a prohibition on the use of air pressure from the air brake system for powering auxiliary devices. The vehicle must of course conform to Standard No. 121 following installation of the device if the installation occurs prior to the first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale.

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

SINCERELY,

June 18, 1975

T. Herlichy, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Division

I've talked to Mr. Williams about the method we use to take air from the air system of a truck to pressurize the water tanks on truck mounted concrete mixers. He in turn suggested I write you for an opinion whether or not the system comes under the brake regulation 121 and, if it does, whether we comply with it.

Basically the design is shown on Page 31, which is enclosed. Valves 4 & 5 on Page 31, are the same as the valves shown on Page 22. An air line runs from Valve 4 up to a control valve that allows the operator to add air to the water tank.

To give you a better idea of how the entire operation goes, let me describe the sequence of events when loading, mixing, and hauling concrete. First of all, the truck is driven under the batching plant at the ready mix yard and loaded with concrete. At the same time the driver fills the water tank with water. After the truck is loaded, it is driven out from under the plant to a mixing area where air is added to the water tank and the operator washes off whatever concrete that has accumulated on the mixer during charging. After the mixer is cleaned and the concrete is mixed, the truck is ready to go on the highway.

At this point no further air is taken from the truck system because either the water tank is completely pressurized or the operator will shut the air off to the water tank. So, while the truck is traveling from the ready mix plant to the job site, no air is taken from the truck brake system.

While on the job site the operator will add water to the mix and washdown the truck after the mixer is empty. He will again be taking air from the truck system. But before he returns to the highway either the water tank will be completely pressurized or the air shut off so that while he is traveling on the road no air will be used from the truck system.

I believe I have given you all the information needed, but if not, let me know what else is required and I will forward it to you.

CONSTRUCTION MACHINERY COMPANY

James E. Johnson, Chief Engineer Vice President-Director of Engineering

PRESSURE WATER SYSTEM

(Graphics omitted)

The air valves in the pressure water system are adjusted and set at the factory. Further adjustment should not be required except for possible adjustment of the height of dial as shown in illustration of leveling of water tank. The pressure regulator (1) is set to maintain a maximum pressure of 40 p.s.i. In the interest of safety this setting should not be exceeded. The relief valve (2) is set to crack open at 75 p.s.i. affording added protection for the system. Control valve (3) in the position shown, is admitting air to the tank, its normal operation position. Turning the valve handle 90 degrees clockwise shuts off the air supply and exhausts the air from the tank. When the air stops escaping, the water tank can be filled. Then moving the valve back to its original position will charge the tank with air. Valve (4) is a pressure hold-back valve. This valve prevents air from passing from the supply tank of the truck when the supply tank pressure is below 65 p.s.i. thus keeping pressure available for operating the truck brakes. Valve (5) is main shut off for all air to mixer water tank and controls.

To operate the pressure water system, open Valve "A". To add water to the drum, open Valve "C". To drain the entire system in freezing weather, open all valves "A", "B", "C", "D" and "F".

AIR SUPPLY TANK HOOK UP

HOOK INTO THE TRUCK AIR SUPPLY, USING THE METHOD SHOWN WHENEVER AIR IS TAKEN FROM THE TRUCK AIR SYSTEM FOR ANY MIXER CONTROL.

(Graphics omitted)

WATER TANK INSTALLATION (Illegible Data)

ID: nht75-3.48

DATE: 12/29/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Truck Trailer Manufacturer Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

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

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

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

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

SINCERELY,

TANK CONFERENCE

TRUCK TRAILER MANUFACTURER ASSOCIATION

November 17, 1975

MESSRS:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Charles J. Calvin President

ID: nht69-1.33

DATE: 07/14/69

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

TO: Interamerican Motor Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 27 in which you request information necessary to obtain a D.O.T. number and import "Pneumant" tires. The information furnished below concerns only those requirements of the Department of Transportation.

Regulations promulgated pursuant to Section 110(e) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. @ 1391 et seq., 1399(e)) require any manufacturer, assembler, or importer of a motor vehicle before offering a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment for importation into the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as his agent upon whom service of all processes, notices, orders, decisions, and requirements, may be made.

The manufacturer of "Pneumant" tires is therefore required to designate an agent is prescribed in the regulations (49 C.F.R. @ 351.45) and I enclose a copy of them, as well as a copy of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, for your information.

Please note that these regulations require the designation to be made in a specific manner. The designation should contain the following:

(1) a certification by the signer of the designation that it is binding on the manufacturer of "Pneumant" tires under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation by the manufacturer of "Pneumant" tires at the place and time where it is made;

(2) the full legal name, principal place of business, and mailing address of the manufacturer of "Pneumant" tires;

(3) trade names, or other designations of origin of the products of the manufacturer of "Pneumant" tires which do not bear its legal name;

(4) a provision that the designation remains in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer of "Pneumant" tires;

(5) a declaration of acceptance duly signed by the designated agent; and,

(6) the full legal name and mailing address of the designated agent.

In addition, the designation should be signed by one with authority to appoint the agent for the manufacturer of "Pneumant" tires, and this authority should be so indicated.

In your letter you state that it is your understanding that "all tires used in this Country are subject to approval which will be given in form of a D.O.T. number." This is incorrect. There is no provision in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act which provides that motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment are to be approved by the United States Government. On the contrary, under this Act the manufacturer of the motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment bears the responsibility for complying with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards promulgated pursuant to the Act; and, pursuant to Section 114 of the Act for certifying that his product so complies. In the case of tires, the applicable standard is Standard No. 109 and I enclose a copy of it with applicable amendments for your reference. Standard No. 109 contains requirements for new pneumatic tires for passenger cars, and in order to meet the requirements of the Act, "Pneumant" tires must comply with Standard No. 109. Furthermore, the manufacturer of these tires must certify in the prescribed manner that such tires so comply.

The "D.O.T. number" to which you refer is required by Section 201 of the Act and the labelling section (S.4.3 and "Figure 1") of Standard No. 109. As specified in the standard, the letters "D.O.T.", when permanently molded into or onto the tire so that the tire is conspicuously labelled on both sidewalls, indicate pursuant to S.4.3(1) and Figure 1 of Standard No. 109, that the tire has been manufactured to conform to applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. This satisfies the certification requirement referred to above.

The code mark number is included as part of the label (as illustrated in Figure 1) pursuant to Section 201 of the Act, when the tire contains a brand name other than the name of the manufacturer, and is included for the purpose of permitting the seller of the tire to identify the manufacturer to the purchaser upon his request.

A code mark number can be obtained from the Department of Transportation by any tire manufacturer on request, but is only necessary when a name other than the manufacturer's is used on the tire. Such a request should be directed to Secretary of Transportation; Attention: Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service, National Highway Safety Bureau, Federal Highway Administration, U. S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C. 20591. Issuance of the code mark number by the government that tires manufactured by the one to whom it is issued meet Federal requirements. As indicated above, the code mark number is to be used purely for labelling purposes.

I am also enclosing a copy of Federal Highway Administration Import Regulations, (19 C.F.R. @ 12.80) which are promulgated jointly with the Treasury Department pursuant to Section 108(b)(3) of the Act for your information.

Should you have further questions, please feel free to contact me.

ID: nht68-3.6

DATE: 06/07/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; William Haddon, Jr., M.D.; NHTSA

TO: Toyota Motor Company, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of April 25, 1968, concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Numbers 111, 291, and 206. I hope these interpretations will answer your questions:

Standard No. 111:

Question 1. Your interpretation is not entirely correct. Your Figure 1 shows only six directions the 90-pound force can be applied; whereas, the force may be applied from any intervening location from within the solid wedge in the 180 degrees forward are inserted within the six lines you show in your Figure 1. S3.1.2.2 requires that the mirror is to be subjected to this test force. This may be applied to the center of the mirror or to any other location on the mirror surface.

Question 2. The test force may be applied as shown in your Figures 2(a), (b), and (c) but not as shown in Figure 3. As stated above, the test force must be applied to the mirror itself, not to the mirror support.

Question 3. As stated above, the 90-pound force may be applied as shown in your Figure 2(c) since it would not be possible, in this case, to obtain the maximum 45 degrees angle due to design of the mirror system.

Standard No. 201:

Since S3.4.2(b) of Standard No. 201 does not specifically state the thickness of energy-absorbing material required to cover the folding armrest, the armrest shown in your sketch on page 5 appears to be permissible. It does seem advisable, however, in future designs to either provide a greater thickness of energy-absorbing material or increases the potential area of contact with the underlying steel support by providing a wider flange and turning the edge inward.

Standard No. 206:

The inertia lond requirements of S3.3.3 refer to S3.3 - Door Latches only, and do not include the lock. Door lock requirements are specified separately in S3.1. Therefore, the door latch system requirements must be met without a lock engaged.

April 25, 1968

Dr. William Haddon, Jr., Director

National Highway Safety Bureau

We have questions on interpretation of Standards No. 111, No. 201, and No.

206.

Your kind cooperation would be very much appreciated if you answer the following questions.

Standard No. 111 S3.1.2.2

Question 1.

S3.1.2.2 specifies that " when the mirror is subjected to a force of 90 pounds in a forward or sideward direction in any plane 45 degrees above or below the horizontal". We interpret that direction of a force which should be applied to the mirror means any one of the six directions shown in Fig. 1, and that the force should be applied to a universal joint of the mirror or to a center of the mirror. Is this interpretation right?

Question 2.

As actual procedures of applying a force we use methods shown in Fig. 2 and 3, whether we use Fig. 2 method or Fig. 3 method depends on vehicle models. We think Fig. 2 method simulates actual application of a force better than Fig. 3 method, although direction of a force applied to the mirror by a head form will be different from 45 degrees (less than 45 degrees) when a head form approaches the mirror in Fig. 2 (a). If we use Fig. 3 method, we can always apply 45 degree force. Are those Fig. 2 and 3 methods permissible?

Question 3.

In applying a force using a head form, in some cases, it is impossible to apply 45 degree force due to shape of the mirror and mirror support. In this case, is it permissible to apply a force of as big as possible but less than 45 degree direction as shown in Fig. 2 (c)?

Standard No. 201 S3.4.2 (b)

We need clarification of "covered with energy absorbing material." In Fig. 5 and 6 we show a structure of folding armrest of Toyota Crown model. In Fig. 4, if force F is applied to the armrest as shown, fixtures of the armrest as shown A is comparatively easily deformed. However, a portion encircled in Fig. 5 BB crossection has only 5 mm thick cover of urethane foam rubber. Is this structure permissible?

Standard No. 206 S3.5.3

Is it permissible to lock the door latch system before we apply an inertia force of 30g to the door latch system?

Thank-you,

Toyotaro Yamada Manager

Fig. 1 (Graphics omitted)

Fig 2(a) Downward applied Force (Graphics omitted) Fig 2(b) Upward applied Force (Graphics omitted)

Fig 2(c) Downward applied Force. (Graphics omitted)

Fig 3 (Graphics omitted)

Fig 5 Armrest Installation (Graphics omitted)

Fig 6 Armrest Structure (Graphics omitted)

crossection CC. (Graphics omitted)

crossection AA (Graphics omitted)

crossection BB (Graphics omitted)