ID: nht81-1.19

DATE: 02/19/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Toyota Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

FEB 19 1981

NOA-30

Mr. Jiro Kawano General Manager U.S. Representative Office Toyota Motor Co., Ltd. One Harmon Plaza Secaucus, NJ 07094

Dear Mr. Kawano:

This responds to your recent letter regarding a new emergency locking retractor design that incorporates, within the retractor housing, a separate webbing lock mechanism. You ask for confirmation that the one-inch locking requirement of S4.a(j)(1) of Safety Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, applies only to the retractor itself and not to a separate webbing lock that is incorporated in the retractor housing.

Your interpretation is correct. Provided the retractor as a whole complies with the one-inch locking requirement of S4.3(j)(1), the webbing lock is permissible and would not have to comply with the requirement as a separate component. The agency would view the webbing locking device as a voluntary component not required by the standard.

We have recently issued an interpretation to the American Testing Company which deals with a similar subject. That interpretation discusses the requirements of S4.3(j) as applicable to dual sensitive retractors (i.e., retractors that have both vehicle sensitive and webbing sensitive mechanisms). I am enclosing a copy of that interpretation for your information. It explains more fully the requirements of section S4.3(j). If you have any further questions after reviewing this information, please feel free to contact Hugh Oates of my staff (202-426-2992).

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

December 1, 1980

Frank Berndt, Esquire Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This is to seek confirmation of our interpretation of FMVSS 209 paragraph S4.3(j)(1) as it applies to a new emergency locking retractor (ELR) design which incorporates, within the same housing, a separate webbing lock.

As we explained in our September 30, 1980 informal meeting with Mr. Ralph Hitchcock and others of the NHTSA staff, this additional webbing lock improves overall seat belt performance and, for space and weight saving considerations, is built into the same housing as the ELR itself.

Therefore, we ask NHTSA to confirm that the one (1) inch locking requirement of paragraph S4.3(j)(1) of FMVSS 209 applies only to the ELR itself, and not to a separate webbing lock that may physically be incorporated into the same housing as the ELR.

We trust you will treat the above as confidential and should you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact our counsel, Donald M. Schwentker, at (262) 347-6007.

Sincerely,

TOYOTA MOTOR CO., LTD.

Jiro Kawano General Manager U. S. Representative Office

JK:dd

cc: Donald M. Schwentker

ID: nht81-1.2

DATE: 01/02/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndtn; NHTSA

TO: Bennett Goldworth

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 8, 1980, reporting your conversation with Mr. Vinson of this office and asking for a clarification of your status as a seller of a foreign car that does not meet the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. You purchased the car, a 1980 Volkswagen Rabbit, from Meir Halifa, an Israeli diplomat who imported it from Canada.

A diplomat is allowed to import a non-conforming vehicle into the United States pursuant to a written declaration that it will not be sold for use on American roads. Sale by Mr. Halifa for such use is an apparent violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. But your purchase and sale of the vehicle, and any subsequent purchase and sale is not prohibited by the Act. Nor is there any legal obligation under the Act for a person other than the original seller, Mr. Halifa, to conform the vehicle to American specifications.

I hope this answers your questions.

SINCERELY,

Mallamud - Finkelstein Associates, Inc.

December 8, 1980

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Mr. Vicent advised me to write to you concerning my problem.

I recently purchased a 1980 Volkswagon Rabbit from Meir Halifa, an Israeli diplomat. He had purchased the car in Canada, and the car had never been converted to meet United States specifications.

I am in the process of selling the car to a dealer, However, before he will accept the car in a trade- he would like a letter stating that I, as well as any subsequent owners will in no way be liable for Mr. Halifa's mistake and therefore not responsible for converting the car to U.S. specifications. From what I understand, Mr. Halifa is in Israel, but I understand it it out of my control as to whether you do prosecute or not. I would appreciate if you send the letter to me at 16 West 16th Street, N.Y. 10011. If you have any questions speak with Mr. Vincent, or contact me at (212) 765-2130.

Thank you for giving this your prompt consideration.

Bennett Goldworth

ID: nht81-1.20

DATE: 02/27/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagon of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

FEB 27 1981

NOA-30

Mr. Dietmar K. Haenchen Vehicle Regulations Volkswagen of America, Inc. 27621 Parkview Boulevard Warren, Michigan 48092

Dear Mr. Haenchen:

This responds to your January 12, 1981, letter requesting an interpretation concerning the recent amendment of Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, which added specifications for seat belt comfort and convenience. Specifically, you asked whether the requirement for seat belt guides contained in paragraph S7.4.6.1 of the amended standard exempts both seats which "fold and then tumble" and seats which "tumble and then fold."

The answer to your question is yes. All rear seats that "tumble" are exempted from the seat belt guide requirements of the standard. The agency did not use the phrase "fold and tumble" in order to clarify that tumbling is the characteristic that gives rise to the exemption. Some future designs may include seats that merely tumble over into the floor, and that do not fold to create the flat cargo surface that is desired in these vehicles. Such a design would be exempted from the seat belt guide requirement. However, seats that only fold (i.e., that do not also tumble) would not be exempted from the requirements.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

12 January 1981

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This letter is to request an official interpretation regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208. Specifically, our question is in reference to the recently published rule on seat belt comfort and convenience.

Paragraph 7.4.6.1 specifies certain requirements for seat belts and seat belt guides except that the requirements do not apply to "rear seats that tumble". The "tumble" function is not expressly defined, however, a reading of the preamble implies that it relates to the type of rear seat used in various Volkswagen products. Our question is then, does this exemption apply to both of the Volkswagen rear seat configurations which are mentioned in the preamble, i.e., both to seats which fold and then tumble, and also to seats which tumble and then fold, as illustrated in the enclosures.

It is our belief that this exemption does apply to both types of seats. Mr. Robert Nelson, the contact person for this rulemaking, concurred with this opinion in a conversation with Mr. Smreker of my staff on 9 January, 1981. However, he suggested that we request written confirmation of this from your office.

So that we may make an informed decision regarding a petition for reconsideration on this matter, we would appreciate receiving a response to the expiration of the 30 day reconsideration period.

Thank you for your prompt consideration of this matter.

Very truly yours,

VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.

Dietmar K. Haenchen Executive Engineer Vehicle Regulations

JPS/ubf

Encl.

ID: nht81-1.21

DATE: 03/03/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Vehtek Marketing Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

March 3, 1981 NOA-30

Mr. Michael J. Klein Vice President Vehtek Marketing Inc. 2795 Townline Road Alden, New York 14004

Dear Mr. Klein:

This responds to your February 12, 1981, letter requesting information concerning any Federal requirements that would be applicable to a water injection system used to increase the efficiency of vehicle fuel systems. Your company's water injection system is sold as aftermarket equipment which is attached to a vehicle's carburetor to increase gas mileage.

For your information, I am enclosing a synopsis of agency interpretations which sets forth the general Federal implications of installing auxiliary fuel tanks in vehicles or of converting vehicle fuel systems. This information explains in detail the responsibilities of a manufacturer under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1979 (15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq.), in relation to a vehicle's fuel system. Although your product is not an auxiliary gas tank and does not require a conversion of the fuel system, the stated principles are applicable to your product since it is motor vehicle equipment. Following is a summary of the most pertinent aspects of that material as it relates directly to your water injection system.

Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, is applicable only to completed new vehicles and would, therefore, not be directly applicable to your motor vehicle equipment. It may be indirectly applicable, however. The standard specifies performance requirements for fuel systems by limiting the amount of fuel leakage which may occur after a barrier impact crash test of the vehicle. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act specifies that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Any of these persons would be prohibited from installing your product on a vehicle fuel system if that installation would cause the vehicle to no longer be in compliance with Safety Standard No. 301. Since your letter indicates that the water injection system is not directly attached to a vehicle's fuel system, it is not likely that installation of the product would render inoperative the vehicle's compliance with Safety Standard No. 301. However, your company will have to determine whether in fact the installation would affect compliance. I have enclosed a copy of Safety Standard No. 301 for your information.

Under 49 CFR Part 579, your water injection system would be considered "motor vehicle replacement equipment." Part 579 places the responsibility for safety defects in performance, construction components, or materials of motor vehicle replacement equipment on the manufacturer of such equipment. Under section 108(a)(1)(D) and 109(a) of the Vehicle Safety Act, any manufacturer who fails to provide notification of or remedy for a safety defect in its motor vehicle equipment is liable for a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. Therefore, it is your responsibility to determine that your water injection system contains no safety-related defects. For example, if your system would cause a vehicle's engine to stall, this could be considered a safety defect by the agency.

In closing, I would state that you do not need any prior approval from the agency before marketing your product. All the responsibilities under the Vehicle Safety Act are placed directly on the manufacturer. I hope you will find this information helpful. Please contact Hugh Oates of my office if you have any further questions (202-426-2992).

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosures

February 12, 1981

Frank Berndt Office of Chief Consul National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th. Street - South-West Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt,

As per my telephone conversation Wednesday, February 11th, 1981, with Steven Wood, I am writing concerning a water injection system we manufacture for automotive use. We recently had some experience with State of New York owned vehicles where we were told that we need D.O.T. approval in order to be legal.

After two days of long distance telephone calls I reached your office. I was told that our situation may involve standard 301, and to mention that to you. Also let me state that we do not tap into the gasoline system or its passage.

Our system is relatively simple in operation. It was patented in 1973 (patent number 3778039) by its inventor, Al Dore, who worked with venter injection since the 1930's. We insert into the boost venturi of the carburetor a brass tube through which the water is drawn in - in much the same way as the gasoline is drawn in - the greater the engine speed, the greater the amount of water. We have a water reservoir mounted in the vehicles engine compartment which when low on water activates a water pump which draws water from a five gallon (D.O.T. 2E rated) container which is mounted, at the customers discretion, in a remote location. I have enclosed a brochure which depicts the system as I have described it. I would like to add that by design no water is drawn into the engine at speeds of below approximately 1500 RPM, as a safety precaution. The system is much more sophisticated than I describe, but for purposes of explanation that is how it works. It uses water at about the rate of one gallon of water to twenty gallons of gasoline.

We have several testimonial letters attesting to considerable mileage increase; above 10%. Most of these average 30%. We give a written money back guarantee of a minimum of a 10% increase in gas mileage! No other water injection manufacturer gives a similar warranty, and there are approximately forty-two other units on the market today. We know our unit works and we're proud to be manufacturing an American made energy saving device. I would appreciate your written comments at your earliest convenience so we may pursue government owned vehicles with the confidence of being legal. I would like to extend my appreciation for your time and efforts.

Sincerely,

Michael J. Klein, Vice President

MJK/JR

ID: nht81-1.22

DATE: 03/03/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Carbonneau & Turgeon Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mar 3, 1981 NOA-30

Mr. Wilfrid Carbonneau President Carbonneau & Turgeon Inc. 4E, Ave Centre Industriel St-Romuald, CTE Levis, P.Q.

Dear Mr. Carbonneau:

In response to your recent letter, to Mr. Schwartz of my office, I have enclosed a copy of U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, and two recent amendments. The Canadian authority for the issuance of the three or six character manufacturer identifier is:

MVMA of Canada Suite 1602 25 Adelide Street E. Toronto, Ontario MSC-1Y7 ATT: Mr. Brian Hickey Phone: 416-364-9333

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ST-ROMUALD, le, 6 fevrier 1981

M. Frederic Schwartz, junior National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400, Seventh Street, S.W.

Washington, D.C., 20590

U.S.A.

Monsieur,

Auriez-vous l'obligeance de m'envoyer de plus amples details au sujet de la nouvelle norme americaine, la FMVSS 115.

Vous remerciant a l'avance de votre attention, veuillez agreer, Monsieur, l'expression de nos sentiments les meilleurs.

Bien a vous,

CARBONNEAU & TURGEON INC.

Par: Wilfrid Carbonneau President

WC/cc

ID: nht81-1.23

DATE: 03/03/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: T. J. Welding Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

MAR 3 1981

NOA-30

Miss M. J. Riddle T. J. Welding Ltd. Box 98 Mount Albert, Ontario LOG 1M0

Dear Miss Riddle:

In response to your recent letter, to Mr. Schwartz of my office, I have enclosed a copy of U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, and two recent amendments. The Canadian authority for the issuance of the three or six character manufacturer identifier is:

MVMA of Canada Suite 1602 25 Adelide Street E. Toronto, Ontario M5C-1Y7 ATT: Mr. Brian Hickey Phone: 416-364-9333

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosures

January 22, 1981

Mr. Frederic Schwartz, Jr. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Dear Sir:

Your name has been given to us by Transport Canada - Surface concerning obtaining further details on your standard for a seventeen digit vehicle identification number, standard FMVSS 115.

Any information you can supply us with concerning this, will be appreciated.

Sincerely,

Miss M. J. Riddle T. J. Welding Ltd.

ID: nht81-1.24

DATE: 03/03/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stanley H. Backaitis; NHTSA

TO: Alderson Research Tabouletiones

COPYEE: MR. ARMSTRONG; MR. FINKELSTEIN; MR. STEPHENSON; MR. OATES

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 3/7/80 letter from Frank Berndt (NHTSA) to Fiat Motors of North America (Std. 208)

TEXT: Per your telephone request of March 3, 1981, enclosed is a copy of a letter of interpretation on dummy shoes sizes which was written to Fiat Motors of North America on March 7, 1980. As you indicated in your telephone call, the above interpretation responds satisfactorily to the needs outlined in your January 30, 1981, letter to this Agency.

ALDERSON RESEARCH LABORATORIES. INC.

January 30, 1981

Stanley H. Backaitis National Highway Traffic Safety Admin.

DEAR STAN:

From time to time over the past few years, some of our overseas customers have asked us to obtain for them shoes which meet Section 8.19 of the Part 572 test dummy requirements. As you are aware, this calls for Size 11-EE shoes meeting the configuration, size, sole and heel thickness specifications of MIL-S-13192, with a weight of 1.25 +/- .2 pounds. In the past we have been able to obtain these from a firm named Altama Delta Corporation, in Darien, Georgia. However, this week they advised us that they no longer have a Government contract to produce shoes to this specification and they could not advise us of any other firm currently producing this type shoe.

We have been in touch with the Bostonian/Hanover Shoe Company, as well as the Freeman Shoe Company in Wisconsin. In both instances, we have been advised that they make what they call a military shoe which they distribute through PX stores, but neither source could advise us as to how closely their products compared to the MIL Spec. requirements.

I would appreciate your advising us in the event that you are able to locate a source for the shoes which meets Part 572 as currently written. If not, would it be possible to amend the Part 572 wording so it would coincide with what is currently available in the marketplace.

SINCERELY,

Alan H. Raphael President

ID: nht81-1.25

DATE: 03/05/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Gillig Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

FMVSS INTERPRETATION Mr. Roy O. Smith

Manager of Body Design Gillig Corporation Box 3008 Hayward, California 94540

Dear Mr. Smith:

This responds to your letter of November 20, 1980, inquiring about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. You asked for our confirmation that a foot-operated turn signal control on your new transit bus is not subject to the identification requirements of Section S5.2.1.

The identification requirements of Section S5.2.1 of Safety Standard No. 101 are applicable to "hand operated" controls. Since the turn signal control on your new transit bus is foot operated, those requirements are not applicable. Since the standard does not include any other identification requirements for turn signal controls, your conclusion stated above is correct.

While the identification requirements of Section S5.2.1 are not applicable to your transit bus, you may wish to identify the turn signal control in some manner in order to prevent confusion when persons unfamiliar with foot-operated turn signal controls operate your transit bus.

The agency is currently conducting research on the standardization of the location of critical controls, including the turn signal control. We would appreciate receiving information as to why you are locating the turn signal control on the floor when the vast majority of other vehicles have the control mounted as a stalk on the steering column.

We would also note that Standard No. 101's display requirements for turn signals are applicable to your transit bus if it has a GVWR of under 10,000 pounds. Also Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, includes other requirements related to turn signals.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

November 20, 1980

Mr. Frank Berndt CHIEF COUNSEL U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

On our new transit bus, we use foot actuated push buttons to operate the turn signals. Section S5.2.1, (a) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 101-80, requires that "Any hand operated control listed in column 1 of Table I that has a symbol designated in column 3 shall be identified by that symbol".

Since our turn signal control is foot operated, not hand operated, it is our opinion that this requirement does not apply to our arrangement. Your comments would be appreciated.

Very truly yours,

GILLIG CORPORATION

Roy O. Smith

Manager of Body Design

ROS:1r

ID: nht81-1.26

DATE: 03/05/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Travel Accessories, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

FMVSS INTERPRETATION Mr. Ed Detwiler President Travel Accessories, Inc. P.O. Box 248 Orland, CA 95963

Dear Mr. Detwiler: This is in reply to your letter of February 12, 1981 with reference to the automotive aftermarket cruise control device offered by a competitor of yours which you believe does not comply with paragraph SS.3.1 of Standard No. 101.

That section, in pertinent part and in conjunction with Table 1 requires the illumination of the identification of automotive vehicle speed controls that are hand-operated if located other than on the floor, floor console, steering column or in the windshield header area. You have told us that the installation instructions advise that the control module "be mounted on the automobile's dashboard or console, as well as the steering column, the dashboard listed as being the preferred location."

Standard No. 101 is intended to apply to vehicles as delivered to their purchasers, rather than to individual aftermarket equipment items installed on them. If the device you describe is added after first purchase of the vehicle for purposes other than resale, there is no requirement that the device comply with Standard No. 101. If it is added before such purchase, the dealer selling the vehicle would have the legal responsibility of insuring that the identification of any dashboard mounted control was illuminated. We do not require a separate lamp for each control, and ambient illumination provided by lights for other controls could be sufficient to meet the requirements.

Under the circumstances, the manufacturer or importer of the device you describe would not appear to be in violation of Standard No. 101.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

February 12, 1981

Mr. Frank Berndt U. S. Department of Trasportation 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I would like to notify your agency that at present an automotive aftermarket cruise control device is being marketed in this country which is in direct violation of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, section 5.3.1.

The unit in question is called the Zemco Zt and Zemco Ztll currently marketed by Zemco, Inc. 12907 Alcosta Blvd. , San Ramon, California. These wits feature a control module , which according to the manufacturer' s installation instructions ad advertising materials is designed to be mounted on the automobile's dashboard or console , as well as the steering column, the dashboard listed as being the preferred location. This control module is not illuminated as required under the aforementioned standard.

The result of this violation is obvious. When the module is installed as recommended, it becomes a safety hazard. Travel Accessories, Inc., as a domestic manufacturer of a electronic cruise control which is in full accord of all U. S. Department of Transportation safety standards , objects that this product which is manufactured in Taiwan be allowed to be continued to be sold in this country while in obvious violation of our own government's regulations.

Continued condoning of this violation perpetuates a unfair competitive advantage. Zemco, Inc. currently enjoys a pricing advantage over Travel Accessories and other domestic manufacturers of this product category because of lower costs of materials and labor by not having to meet U.S. standards.

Travel Accessories, Inc. owns two plants in the United States totalling over 150,000 square feet and employing in excess of two hundred and fifty people. We have spent over a three year period of research and development and a great deal of funds bringing to market a quality piece of merchandise which complies with all of our own government regulations at what we believe to be a fair ad equitable price. file are forced to meet stringent government requirements ad standards in those countries we attempt to export to, only to find that a product such as this finds its way into our own domestic channels of distribution unregulated, with a minimal investment.

We request that the department of transportation take immediate action to have existing inventories of this product upgraded to meet all safety standards of the U. S. Department of Trade and further requires all future shipments of product received in this country to meet those stated requirements, as well.

I await your earliest response.

Sincerely,

Ed Detwiler President ED/sv

ID: nht81-1.27

DATE: 03/05/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Toler & Associates

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

March 5 1981

NOA-30

Mr. Bob Toler, Jr. Toler & Associates P.O. Box 43117 Birmingham, Alabama 35243

Dear Mr. Toler:

This responds to your letter of January 5, 1981, requesting information about Federal regulations which apply to Ready-Mix Concrete Trailers with a GVWR of 5,000 pounds and a Dico #6 drop surge actuator hydraulic brake system.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issues safety standards for "motor vehicles." A trailer is generally considered to be a "motor vehicle" if the manufacturer expects that it will use public highways as part of its intended function. We have enclosed a pamphlet prepared by the agency which more fully discusses the meaning of "motor vehicle."

Mr. Bloom has informed this office that in discussing with you the applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards, he meant only to indicate that Safety Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, does not apply to trailers. The following safety standards issued by this agency do apply to trailers: Safety Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses; No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment; No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number; No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids; No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars; No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars; and No. 121, Air Brake Systems. The air brake standard would not, of course, apply to a hydraulic braked trailer.

A manufacturer of a trailer is required to certify the compliance of the trailer to these Federal safety standards. Part 566 of our regulations, Manufacturer Identification (49 CFR 566), specifies information which must be submitted to the NHTSA by manufacturers of motor vehicles, including trailers. Part 567, Certification (49 CFR 567), specifies the content of the certification label or tag that must be attached to motor vehicles regulated by our standards.

We have enclosed a pamphlet prepared by the agency which gives a brief summary of the requirements and applicability of each of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (issued as of August 1978). However, because of the volume of these standards, we do not provide copies directly. We have enclosed an information sheet which explains how you can obtain up-to-date copies of our standards and other regulations.

In addition to our regulations, you may also wish to check the applicability of safety regulations issued by the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety. Unlike our regulations, which apply to all motor vehicles, Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety regulations essentially only apply to vehicles used in interstate commerce. For example, if a customer plans to use one of your trailers for work in more than one State, the trailer should meet Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety regulations. For more information about the applicability and content of these regulations, we suggest that you write the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety at the following address:

Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety Federal Highway Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosures

January 5, 1981

NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel 400-7th Street SW Washington, D. C. 20590

Re: Federal Regulations Regarding Concrete Trailers with Brakes Hydraulic

Gentlemen:

On December 28, 1980, I talked to Vern Bloom with the Department of Transportation in Washington, D. C. regarding the above reference.

We are in the process of manufacturing Ready-Mix Concrete Trailers with a GVWR of 5,000 pounds and a Dico #6 drop surge actuator hydraulic brake system. Mr. Bloom said D.O.T. had no regulations on the above trailer.

To insure we manufacture according to regulations please send a letter regarding verification of no regulations or regulations we need to comply with.

Your prompt attention and reply is appreciated.

Sincerely,

Bob Toler, Jr.

BT,jr./bt