Interpretation ID: nht76-4.13
DATE: 06/29/76
FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John Womack for F. Berndt; NHTSA
TO: Peterbilt Motors Company
TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION
TEXT: This responds to Peterbilt Motor Company's June 9, 1976, questions whether Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, contains a permanent exclusion for "auto transporters" and whether "auto transporter" would include a truck-trailer vehicle combination that includes a dromedary forward of the fifth wheel to hold empty tin cans that are loaded by means of the trailer. I would like to note that I am unaware of "discussion and interpretive rulings suggested through telephone contact" with this office.
Your interpretation is not correct that the exclusion for "auto transporters" is permanent. Some confusion may arise from the words used in S3 to describe the exclusion until September 1, 1977. The phrase "or to any vehicle which" that appears at the end of the second sentence in S3 will shortly be modified to "or that" to improve the structure and clarity of the sentence.
Your question whether a "can hauler" qualifies as an "auto transporter" appears to be based on the proposed wording of this definition that was modified in final form. As defined in the standard, "auto transporter" means:
. . . a truck and a trailer designed for use in combination to transport motor vehicles, in that the towing vehicle is designed to carry cargo at a location other than the fifth wheel and to load this cargo only by means of the towed vehicle.
It is clear from this definition that a "can hauler" would not qualify as an "auto transporter" subject to the exclusion.
Sincerely,
ATTACH.
Peterbilt MOTORS COMPANY
June 9, 1976
OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Re: FMVSS 121 Air Brake Systems
Gentlemen:
Peterbilt Motors Company is the manufacturer of the custom built, heavy duty, Class 8 trucks and truck-tractors identified by the "Peterbilt" nameplate. As such, we have received inquiries regarding the constructing of specialized vehicles concerning which we find conflicting information stipulated in FMVSS 121.
This letter is to substantiate and record the substance of discussion and interpretive rulings suggested through telephone contact with your office.
As we interpret the wording of S3. Application, vehicles referred to as "auto transporter" are exempt from the requirements of FMVSS 121. However, S5.3 Service Brakes - Road Tests specifies that auto transporters manufactured after September 1, 1976 shall meet the requirements of S5.3.1.
Please clarify the total applicability of FMVSS 121 to vehicles defined as "auto transporter".
Additionally, we wish to have clarified the scope of vehicles to which the definition "auto transporter" can be applied.
Section S4. Definitions defines "auto transporter" as a truck and trailer designed for use in combination, in that the towing vehicle, with fifth wheel mounted, is designed to carry cargo at a location other than the fifth wheel and that this cargo is loaded by means of the towed vehicle.
This definition describes a vehicle combination which is commonly referred to as a "can hauler". This vehicle combination consists of a truck and trailer, which truck has a fifth wheel mounted at the end of the frame and has a van body (dromedary) mounted forward of the fifth wheel. This forward cargo area is loaded by means of the towed vehicle, which is a van body that opens at both ends. The truck and trailer remain connected in combination for both loading and unloading through the rear of the towed vehicle.
The application of the "can hauler" vehicle combination further parallels that of an "auto transporter" in that the cargo being carried is a low density, high bulk commodity (empty "tin cans").
We, therefore, respectfully request an interpretation from your office regarding the applicability of the definition of "auto transporter" for inclusion of the "can hauler" as a thereby controlled identity.
We will appreciate your thoughtful consideration of these questions.
Sincerely,
Arlen E. Riggs -- Executive Engineer