ID: nht75-3.41

DATE: 08/25/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: National Solid Wastes Management Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to the National Solid Wastes Management Association's July 29, 1975, question whether Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, or other Department of Transportation regulations require a vehicle operator to maintain and not disconnect brake components used in satisfaction of the standard. You state that you are already aware of operator responsibilities to meet the regulations of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety and those promulgated by State and local governments.

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(1)(A)) specifies in part that no person shall sell or introduce in interstate commerce a vehicle which does not comply with applicable standards in effect on the date of manufacture. Section 108(b)(2) provides that @ 109(a)(1)(A) does not apply after the first purchase for purposes other than resale. The general effect of these provisions is that the brake system must comply and not be disconnected prior to its first retail sale. Section 108(a)(2)(A) provides that no manufacturer distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative a device installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard. Taken together, these provisions do not require the vehicle operator to maintain or not render inoperative a safety system after the first retail purchase. This agency does not recommend disconnection of elements of a brake system, however, in view of the probable adverse effect on handling not intended by the vehicle designer and engineer.

Other than the regulations of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, of which you are aware, no regulations of the Department of Transportation require the maintainence or prohibit the disconnection of systems installed in satisfaction of motor vehicle safety standards.

SINCERELY,

National Solid Wastes Management Association

July 29, 1975

James Schultz Chief Counsel NHTSA

On March 1, 1975 FMVSS 121 Air Brake Systems became effective. It is our understanding that the vehicle manufacturer is responsible for complying with MVSS 121. Are there any requirements pursuant directly from MVSS 121 or indirectly from general applicability of DOT safety standards, which place responsibilities upon the vehicle operator to maintain or not to disconnect MVSS 121 equipment?

We are aware of the applicability of BMCS regulations upon interstate carriers and that often state legislatures and/or transportation departments often adopt Federal regulations and standards. However, clarification is desired pertaining to the implications of MVSS 121 on the vehicle operator, directly and indirectly.

James R. Greco Technical Director

ID: nht75-3.42

DATE: 10/10/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Kelsey-Hayes Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Kelsey-Hayes Company's July 28, 1975, question asking whether the requirements of S5.1.6 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, that specify a warning signal "in the event of a total electrical failure of the antilock system" would permit installation on a vehicle of an antilock-equipped axle that has no capability to signal electrical failure of its antilock system. You state that the vehicle would be equipped with antilock systems on other axles that would provide a warning signal in the event of their electrical failure.

The answer to your question is yes. As you noted in your letter, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has interpreted the specifications of S5.1.6 to require a signal only in cases where electrical failure within the antilock electrical system circuitry causes loss of antilock control of every wheel on the vehicle. In the design you describe, the signal which activates upon loss of antilock control at one or more wheels on the vehicle would fulfill this requirement, because it would always activate by the time antilock control had been lost at every wheel on the vehicle. Under our interpretation of S5.1.6, a failure of antilock only on the axle described by you would not constitute "loss of antilock control of every wheel on the vehicle" and would not be required to be signaled.

SINCERELY,

KELSEY-HAYES COMPANY

July 28, 1975

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

ATTN: James Schultz Chief Counsel

RE: Request for Interpretation FMVSS-121: Air Brake Systems 5.1.6, Antilock Warning Signal

Kelsey-Hayes Company, a domestic manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment including antilock systems, requests an interpretation of the above referenced section of Standard 121 as it relates to tag axles, liftable axles and removable dollies.

Interpretations on this section of the standard issued by your staff in the past, specifically one to Wagner Electric on May 26, 1972 and another to the Eaton Corporation dated December 26, 1974 state that the phrase "total electrical failure" means any electrical failure within the antilock electrical system circuitry which would cause loss of antilock control of every wheel on the vehicle.

Since an antilock system failure on one axle need not actuate the warning signal, we ask whether it is consistent with these interpretations to equip an axle on a vehicle, specifically a tag axle, liftable axle, or removable dolly, with an antilock system that does not have the capability to activate the warning signal in the event of an electrical failure. Electrical failures which would disable the antilock system on the wheels of the other axles would activate the warning signal such that the "total electrical failure" situation would be complied with. In other words, the total electrical failure situation cannot occur unless the antilock systems on the other axles are disabled and, if they are, the warning signal will be activated.

We have been advised by installers of tag axles that it is burdensome to match the antilock system of the tag axle with the same make as those originally equipped on the other axles of the vehicle and that making the necessary electrical connections to the failure detection circuits on the other axles creates unacceptable liability risks. The most practical means to mitigate this condition would be to use trailer type antilock system components, which do not have electrical failure detection capability, for tag axles and other axles customarily added by body builders, etc.

Your prompt attention to this request for interpretation will be appreciated.

John F. McCuer

ID: nht75-3.43

DATE: 10/10/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Truck Body and Equipment Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your September 8, 1975, question whether trucks that carry specialized equipment (such as emergency medical equipment, fire fighting apparatus, or mobile power generator equipment), would qualify for exclusion from Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, if they are geared down or governed so that their speeds attainable in two miles are not more than 45 mph. You state that each vehicle's empty weight is more than 95 percent of its gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR).

The section of Standard No. 121 that lists the vehicles to which the standard applies reads as follows:

S3. Applicability. * * * In addition, the standard does not apply to any trailer whose unloaded vehicle weight is not less than 95 percent of its GVWR, or any vehicle that meets any one of criteria (a) through (d) as follows:

(d) (1) A speed attainable in two miles of not more than 45 mph; and

(2) An unloaded vehicle weight that is not less than 95 percent of the vehicle GVWR; and

(3) No passenger-carrying capacity.

From your description, it would appear that these vehicles would qualify for exclusion under category (d) of Section S3. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration assumes that your description of emergency medical vehicles does not include an ambulance equipped with air brakes.

Sincerely,

TRUCK BODY AND EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC.

September 8, 1975

Richard Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

The recent amendment to FMVSS 121 relieving vehicles with an empty weight greater than 95% of the GVWR, no passenger or cargo carrying capacity and incapable of speeds in excess of 45 mph, from standard compliance has caused a number of questions from the truck body industry.

The questions center around a number of special duty vehicles designed and built to transport their self contained equipment rather than cargo. Examples of these vehicles would include: 1. Emergency communication vehicles

2. Emergency medical vehicles

3. Emergency electrical supply vehicles

4. Fire apparatus

Each of these vehicle types is generally completed on a commercial truck chassis with a piece or pieces of permanent equipment and its associated enclosures, i.e. large output generator sets, aerial ladder or elevating platform, mobile medical equipment. The chassis portion serves only as a means for transporting these pieces of equipment to the job site.

Where these vehicles are not designed or equipped to carry passengers or cargo, and their empty weight is always above 95% of the GVWR, are we correct in assuming that if the subject vehicles are physically restricted (governed, geared etc.) to speeds less than 45 mph then FMVSS 121 does not apply.

Byran A. Crampton Manager of Engineering Services

ID: nht75-3.44

DATE: 09/11/75

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

TO: Lear Siegler, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I appreciate your letter of August 13, 1975, forwarding a copy of Neway's publication on Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. The efforts of companies like Neway to assist final-stage manufacturers in their certification responsibility has been an important part of the implementation of the air brake systems standard.

You asked for review of the booklet, which consists mainly of instructions to manufacturers concerning systems that must be tested and how to establish a basis for certification. This is an area which our statutory scheme leaves to the manufacturer, and in which, aside from discussions of general principles, this agency declined to issue statements of approval. While we appreciate the usefulness of the advice contained in your booklet, we regret that we can not judge the adequacy of a certification program in the abstract.

YOURS TRULY,

LEAR SIEGLER, INC.

NEWAY DIVISION

August 13, 1975

Richard Dyson Assistant Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Adm.

I thought you would be interested in reviewing the enclosed copy of our FMVSS-121 booklet. If you wish additional copies, they are available.

This represents our interpretation of the Safety Standard and our recommendations to the industry in order to guide them in compliance with FMVSS-121.

We would appreciate your critical review of this booklet and any comments that you may have.

Ed Young

LEAR SIEGLER, INC.

NEWAY DIVISION

July 21, 1975

GENTLEMEN: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121 (FMVSS-121) is a Department of Transportation Safety Standard defining brake system equipment and braking performance to be met by nearly all vehicles with air brake systems. Its purpose is to insure safe braking performance under normal and emergency conditions and is applicable to trucks, tractors, trailers and buses equiped with air brakes. Most trailers manufactured after December 31, 1974, and most trucks, tractors and buses manufactured after March 1, 1975, must meet the requirements of FMVSS-121. FMVSS-121 is in fact a law within which we must abide and conduct our business. Confusing? - complicated? - cumbersome? - Costly? YES! Impossible to deal with and comply? No! Difficult? Maybe at first but it too will come to pass and fall within our experteise and we shall take it in our stride.

FMVSS-121 is to be reckoned with so let us jointly accept it as reality and do everything in our power to comply with the law. Our heavy duty trucking customers are still going to rely on us to supply them with completed, road-ready vehicles, properly certified and meeting all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations and standards. And it can be done. It is in this spirit that we offer this manual to be used as a guide in installing add-on, non-powered axles to new truck and tractors.

Edward L. J. Young

Director of Engineering

ID: nht75-3.45

DATE: 06/06/75

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

TO: TTMA

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to the Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association's May 1, 1975, request for a determination of what speed the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) considers as "highway speeds" in establishing gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) and gross axle weight ratings (GAWR) under the requirements of 49 CFR @ 567.4 (g)(3) and (4).

For purposes of GVWR-GAWR calculations, NHTSA will consider "highway speeds" to be the 60 mph value used by the United States Tire and Rim Association in assigning unqualified ratings to their tires. Therefore, trailers which are capable of speeds of 60 mph or more should be assigned ratings which reflect vehicle capabilities at 60 mph.

SINCERELY,

May 1, 1975

James C. Schultz Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

In regard to your letter of March 5, 1975, you state that "A vehicle capable of highway speeds and reasonably expected to be operated at such speeds is subject to Standard No. 121 - Air Brake Systems at weight ratings specified for highway speeds".

Advice would be greatly appreciated as to the numerical value NHTSA has assigned to the term "highway speeds".

Don W. Wieriman Staff Engineer-Tank Vehicles

ID: nht75-3.46

DATE: 09/03/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Peerless Division - Royal Industries

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

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

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

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

SINCERELY,

July 15, 1975

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

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

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

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

PEERLESS DIVISION ROYAL INDUSTRIES

C.J. Baker Director of Engineering

ID: nht75-3.47

DATE: 06/13/75

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

TO: Truck Body and Equipment Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

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

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

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

Yours truly,

April 9, 1975

Stan Haransky -- Truck Body and Equipment Association

Dear Stan:

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

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

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

Thank you very much for your help in this matter.

Very truly yours,

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

Enc.

SPECIFICATIONS

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

TIRES - 12 ply

SIZE 8.25 x 15

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

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

All prices and specifications subject to change without notice

KLEIN PORTO-TOWER -- COMPLETELY MOBILE

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

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

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

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

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

QUICK LOADING AND DISCHARGE

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

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

* 24" man hole with safety grate.

Specifications subject to change without notice

Economical On or Off-the-road Water Supply

KLEIN PRODUCTS, INC.

SOLD AND SERVICED BY:

Klein Porto - Towers

8,000 to 16,000 Gallon Capacity

A KLEIN EXCLUSIVE!

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

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

Model KPT-120

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

(See complete specifications on the back)

ID: nht75-3.48

DATE: 12/29/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Truck Trailer Manufacturer Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

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

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

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

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

SINCERELY,

TANK CONFERENCE

TRUCK TRAILER MANUFACTURER ASSOCIATION

November 17, 1975

MESSRS:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Charles J. Calvin President

ID: nht75-3.49

DATE: 05/27/75

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

TO: Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

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

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

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

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

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

SINCERELY,

Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

March 28, 1975

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sumner Meiselman Staff Engineer

ID: nht75-3.5

DATE: 07/07/75

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

TO: Department of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

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

You first asked:

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

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

You next asked:

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

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

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

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

May 21, 1975

File No.: 61.A1588.A3107

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

Dear Mr. Schultz:

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

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

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

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

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

Very truly yours,

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