Vehicle Fleet Manager 3.0.300 Serial Key + Patch 
Number of Previous Owners: This vehicle has 1 reported owner. Personal Use Only: No Usage Type: This vehicle was part of a corporate fleet. History Provider: AutoCheck Clean Title: No title issues reported. Jacko, Charles M. Brunhofer, and F. Simonds and James L. James N. Bernstein, Robert T. Robinson, Gregory 0.
Ness, Richard J. Waxweiler, and John M. Shasby, M. Petersen, T. Hodous, and J. Lockey and Stuart M. Brooks Discussion on Venniculite Talc: Natural Non-Fibrous Substitutes: Talc, Arthur M.
Herrick, A. Alcarese, R. Reisdorf, and D. The Chairmen express special thanks to the speakers and participants, who provided much insight and information about the subject. Guimond U. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D.
Welcome to the first National Workshop on Substitutes for Asbestos. I will be chairing the technical and economic sessions of this workshop. We hope you find the meeting informative.
I have been looking through the presentations and I have found much that I was not aware of before and much that has expanded our horizons. There are going to be eight Roundtable discussions. There is a list of questions, issues, and topics that we would like to take up in those Round- tables.
The first page of the handout for the Roundtable discussion is a general set of questions that apply to all Roundtable discussions, but the remaining pages focus on the individual sessions. There is a session for asbestos friction products, reinforced plastics, flooring, gaskets and pack- ings, paper and roofing products, textiles, asbestos cement sheet, and asbes- tos cement pipe.
People are free to move around the various sessions, in case you want to learn about more than one topic or participate in more than one session. Because of the large number of participants attending the meeting, I am going to ask that all remarks or questions be held to 3 minutes, so that everyone has an opportunity to ask a question or to make their comment.
Peter Preuss U. Warren Muir U. The Consumer Product Safety Commission is an independent agency headed by five commissioners and a chairman appointed by the President. Basically, we administer two statutes that allow us to deal with and regulate asbestos, other hazardous materials, and health and safety issues related to consumer products. Under the Consumer Product Safety Act, the Commission has the general responsibility to protect the public from unreasonable risks of injury, illness, or death associated with consumer products.
The second Act, the Federal Hazardous Substances Act, allows us to regu- late hazards presented by the presence or use of toxic and other hazardous substances. In the past, the agency has used both of these Acts in controlling sub- stances they felt posed a hazard. Regardless of which statute we have used in the past or which we might use in the future, one of the keys to effective regulation is having not only good communication from all involved parties, but also having regulations that are based on good and appropriate information.
This has been one of the issues that 1 have been speaking about ever since I came to the Commission about a year ago because it has troubled me that there has not been a sufficient flow of information. And whether it was at the meet- ing of the Asbestos Information Association or a variety of other forums where I have been privileged to represent the Commission, I have tried to make this point: CPSC, in particular, tried to get some idea of the scope of the potential problem posed by consumer products containing asbestos.
A number of very specific questions were asked at that time. Very recently, the Commission has voted to approve a General Order that requires the submission of information about the use of asbestos in a variety of consumer products.
The point is to obtain some very specific infor- mation for a number of defined and specified consumer products. We hope that these kinds of efforts will provide us with the information that is important and necessary to make our decisions. In addition, we have just completed setting up a test facility in Chicago to look at asbestos and other fibers as they may be emitted from consumer products.
That laboratory is now beginning to look at many materials and prod- ucts. This kind of effort will become more important and the information we gather will become more important as we move from asbestos to some of the substitute materials. I think one of the points of this workshop is that if we have learned anything from our past efforts, it really is very important to try to accumulate the information and assess and evaluate the information before we go too far down any one road.
We cannot wait until materials are in widespread use, until everybody is exposed, or until they are present in all parts of the environment before we begin to look at deleterious health effects. So we are looking forward, during these 3 days, as a regulatory agency, to obtaining some of the information dealing with the identity, the uses, and the possible adverse health effects from consumer exposure to this potentially very large group of materials that we are, for convenience, calling “asbestos substitutes.
It is, indeed, an effort that is being coordinated by all of the agencies belonging to the IRLG, the Interagency Regulatory Liaison Group, which is composed of five agencies. I mention this because these IRLG agencies have been working very hard over the past year on this topic of asbestos and asbestos substitutes to try to make sure that we are sharing information; that we are not stepping on each other’s toes’, that we are not duplicating efforts; that we make sure what we are doing is as coherent and as reasonable as we can possibly make it so that this workshop and the information that comes from it will clearly be shared with all of those agencies.
Hopefully, this workshop will serve as a model for that effort, and so, after the 3 days are over, we will all agree that we have benefited from this exercise. We will have benefited particularly by learning a great deal from you; by learning a little better what our needs are; and jointly, by under- standing how we can communicate a little bit better with each other.
The workshop is structured in a way to allow maximum participation by all of the people who are attending. And to get those of you who, clearly, know much more about many of these specific areas to participate with us and to try to share knowledge. The sessions will cover a variety of topics, everything from physical uses to health effects. I think you all have an obligation to, in fact, participate with us in these efforts so that we can make this work- shop a success.
And, again, I think that the more informed we are, as regulatory agencies, as we proceed in our regulatory investigations, the better our chances are of obtaining the best results.
We are holding this conference as part of our investigation in an effort to expand our knowledge regarding the substitutes of asbestos. We want to learn as much as possible about asbestos substitutes in various product categories. We are eager to learn about their performance, their cost, and any health and environmental risks that they may pose. The Act required that EPA eliminate unreasonable risks of human and environmental injury posed by chemical substances.
Several factors are involved in evaluating whether or not asbestos, or any chemical substance or mixture, presents an unreasonable risk. To promulgate a rule to control risks from exposure to asbestos, the EPA plans to consider the following three things and, indeed, such factors would weigh into any control regulation under the Toxic Substances Control Act.
The first of these is the hazard of asbestos on health and the magnitude of exposure to humans. Secondly, the benefits of asbestos from its various uses and the availability of substitutes.
And thirdly, the reasonableness of the ascertainable economic and regulatory impact of any rulemaking that we would undertake. These three factors would enter into, generally, any regu- latory action that we would take. EPA’s preliminary health assessment, which we have been undertaking, indi- cates that asbestos poses a substantial risk to human health. The various toxicological characteristics of asbestos have been well known for many years and our assessment has, in essence, confirmed those relatively well known characteristics.
In deciding on the specifics of such a rule, we felt it appropriate to investi- gate the substitutes of asbestos; and, hence, we are interested in participating with the Consumer Product Safety Commission in undertaking this workshop.
We wanted to make sure that we had made a careful examination of the availability of reasonable substitutes for the various uses of asbestos and, therefore, we are investigating both those substitutes already available commercially and those anticipated to be available in the near future.
EPA wants to know about the good and bad characteristics of the substi- tutes so that our decisions will reflect the best information available. This workshop is one of our efforts aimed at gathering and evaluating such informa- tion. As Dr. Preuss has pointed out, our ability to undertake these actions, in any reasonable fashion, is really predicated upon a good information phase.
Other information collection actions include contractor studies and com- ments on an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that we had in the Federal Register. Under our current schedule, we expect to complete our deliberations. This will be a proposed rule. We expect that this workshop will provide us with valuable data and in- formation, as well as perceptions of the industry, environmentalists, academia, and the public.
The more informed we are, as we proceed in our regulatory investigation, the better our chances of obtaining an optimal result, namely, the elimination of unreasonable risks from exposure to asbestos while minimizing the adverse impacts of such a regulation. We have structured this workshop to provide us with a broad array of view- points regarding the substitutes of asbestos. We have representatives from companies that use asbestos to achieve various product characteristics; those that are suppliers of asbestos; manufacturers of substitutes; research scien- tists; concerned private citizens, and others.
We also have representatives from industry and elsewhere on the possible asbestos substitutes currently available or projected. I would like to focus on some of the specifics about the workshop. The kind of information we are looking for covers substitutes for the many uses that have been found for asbestos.
We want to know about their technical per- formance, their economics, and their effects on human health through the environment. We have divided these uses into eight product specific categories, which are friction products, gaskets and packings, plastics and floorings, paper products, textiles, sealants, asbestos cement sheet, and asbestos cement pipe.
This will enable all of us to focus on specific areas of interest and concern, and will help us obtain information and advice from the most qualified people in each of the respective fields. The technical performance of asbestos and the economic aspects of developing, marketing, and using asbestos substitutes will be discussed within each of the category review sessions. From this we can find out where substitutes are available for product categories or subsets of categories and how they per- form technically.
We want to look at both the general fiber substitutes for asbestos and at substitutes for specific asbestos products. We want to know about the technical limitations of the substitutes present; for what applica- tions are there no feasible substitutes; and how much has been invested in research and development to find such substitutes. We are also concerned about the economic and practical impacts of conver- sion to asbestos substitutes.
Where has this occurred, and how might the situation be improved? What are the estimated conversion costs in the various product industries? Would industry requirements be altered significantly, and are there performance standards and regulatory guidelines that might encourage or inhibit the production or introduction of any such substitutes?
These are a few of the topics for the Round Table sessions. And, finally, we will be addressing the health aspects of various fibrous and nonfibrous substitutes, both synthetic and natural. We will review the routes of exposure and the results of exposure to various substances, many as reported in studies and surveys of exposed workers in several industries. We have set aside some time for open discussion on the evaluation of cri- teria for health studies and on the scientific evaluation of substitutes.
We are here to learn; we have come with open eyes and open ears. We hope that you will do the same. We want to know all sides of the issue, the essential uses for asbestos, those applications for which there are no feasible substi- tutes yet available, and those for which substitutes exist and may even be superior.
The workshop is not the end of our search for information. We hope that it will stimulate your thoughts and generate new ideas. So, if you have any additional data, information or comments, or wish to elaborate on any of the discussion that has occurred during the workshop, we would encourage you to make that available to us. Jacko, Ph. Charles M.
Brunhofer and Mr. Historically, the foundation or major constitutent of automo- tive friction materials has been asbestos fiber, so chosen because of thermal stability, friction level, reinforcing properties, availability, and relatively low cost. Numerous substitutes for asbestos in conventional organic materials have been evaluated, including both naturally occurring and synthetic materials. Complete reformulation, not simple substitution, is necessary to meet the numerous, complex performance requirements of consumers, manufacturers, and government standards, such as FMVSS and FMVSS In the fs, a new class of friction materials, called semimetallics, was developed to meet severe braking requirements, primarily in heavy-duty disc brake and extreme duty truck block applications.
Semimetallics operate satis- factorily against the ventilated cast-iron rotors in the smaller brakes of downsized cars, as well as against the solid rotors found in the lighter brakes of new front wheel drive vehicles. Semimetallics rely on steel fiber and pow- der metallurgy techniques for reinforcement, and do not require asbestos.
The improved performance of semimetallics compensates for their higher costs due to more expensive ingredients, higher specific gravity, and more costly pro- cessing requirements. Overall development took more than 10 years from intro- duction to significant customer acceptance.
Brunhofer 9 The characteristics of semimetallics make them extremely difficult and costly to process as a drum lining segment. Consequently, an additional new class of friction materials is under development, specifically for drum lining applica- tions. Additional development effort is necessary, not only to confirm the performance characteristics of these new substitute fiber formulations, but also to develop new processing techniques.
These new-type friction materials will be more costly, however, due to the ingredients and new processing techniques. During a brake application, the friction material stator makes contact with the rotating drum or disc rotor , creating a friction force resisting the relative motion between the two bodies.
The energy of motion is transformed into heat energy, which is dissipated, primarily through the rotating member. As one might expect, the friction material must operate in a rather hostile environment. The nature of the on-the-road operating environment dust, mud, salt, water, etc. The friction material must possess an optimized balance of characteristics, and maintain those characteristics throughout 20, to 40, miles of vehicle operation.
The fundamental characteristics of friction materials are listed in Table 1. Friction level must be adequate and stable over a wide range of operating speeds, application pressures, and temperatures, regardless of the conditioning and age of the material.
The friction material must have good wear properties for long life, but it must also not cause excessive wear or grooving on the mating disc or drum. Excessive com- pressibility, noise and roughness chatter, vibration, pulsation must be avoided, and sensitivity to moisture must be minimized. Finally, the friction material must be capable of being manufactured with consistency at a reasonable cost.
Detailed definitions of these characteristics, and their interaction and interdependence, have been discussed at length by Aldrich and Jacko.
The development of friction materials is therefore a complex, interactive process seeking an optimized combination of interdependent characteristics. The existence of numerous brake designs provides another level of com- plexity in designing friction materials. Linings for drum brakes require a wide range of properties. The duo-servo drum brake the most popular U.
The non-servo drum brake used on many sub-compact vehicles requires a friction material which encompasses the best characteristics of the primary and secondary in a single formulation, with emphasis on low-temperature properties and static friction capability.
The large hydraulic and air-operated drum brakes utilized on medium and heavy trucks require, in general, the maximum properties of the smaller vehicle linings but at significantly higher operating temperatures.
The arcuate form of drum brake linings places additional restrictions on the formulation, because of processing requirements.
Disc brakes demand a totally different set of operating conditions for the friction materials. Disc brakes generally operate at significantly higher tem- peratures than equivalent drum brakes, and the front disc brakes run hotter than the rear drum brakes on the same vehicle Table 2. The friction material for disc brakes must be specifically designed for these higher temperatures, and must possess a higher coefficient of friction and better wear characteristics across the temperature range.
Friction-material formulations must also be tailored to the specific needs of the particular vehicle application. Numerous parameters such as vehicle weight, front-to-rear brake balance, actuating system design, and duty cycle affect the capability of a particular lining formulation to perform satisfactorily.
The existence of numerous complex performance standards emanating from con- sumers, associations, manufacturers, and government agencies provides an addi- tional set of parameters that friction materials must meet. Significant dif- ferences can exist between friction materials used as original equipment in new vehicles and friction materials available as replacement parts in the after- market. Each vehicle manufacturer has a unique, extensive set of test and acceptance standards to ensure the safety, durability, and performance of its products and the components used therein.
Government-instituted requirements exist at the federal, state, and local levels. Federal requirements include those promulgated by the Department of Transportation vehicle performance , the Occupational Safety and Health Administration manufacturing work practices , and the Environmental Protection Agency manufacturing practices and raw materials. In order to meet the many characteristics outlined thus far, friction mate- rials for automotive brakes have developed as complex composites containing three general types of ingredient materials: Historically, the type of friction materials used in most automotive applications has been conventional organic friction material.
The foundation or major constituent of conventional organic friction material has been asbestos fiber, so chosen because of its unique combination of char- acteristics. Asbestos fibers provide reinforcement, possess a high coefficient of friction, and more importantly, have excellent thermal stability. The open- ness of the fiber, its adsorptiveness, and its compactability enhance the pro- cessing and uniformity requirements.
Finally, asbestos fibers have been avail- able in a variety of grades at a relatively low cost. During brake operation, the high temperatures generated at the interface convert more than Two courses of action are open for elimination of asbestos from automotive friction materials: Develop a new generation of friction materials, designed from the start without asbestos in mind.
Attempt to substitute an alternative fiber system for the asbestos in conventional formulations, with subsequent mod- ification of composition and process techniques. Bendix is aggressively pursuing both courses of action.
As Mr. William Agee, our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, has stated, Bendix is committed to being asbestos-free at the earliest possible date within this decade. Class A organics typical U. Map of Alabama Alabama Bridge Ownership and Condition Age of Existing Alabama Bridges Annual Hours of Delay per Commuter Annual Excess Fuel Consumed per Commuter Annual Cost of Delay per Commuter Number of crashes recorded between and in thousands Fatalities by location of crash between and Economic impact of Alabama crashes between and losses in billions of dollars Unemployment Rate — Alabama and Southeastern States Tonnage on Highways, Railroads, and Inland Waterways
What’s New in Vehicle Fleet Manager 3.0.300?
FLEET AVERAGE NON‑METHANE ORGANIC GAS EXHAUST MASS EMISSION. REQUIREMENTS FOR LIGHT‑DUTY VEHICLE WEIGHT CLASSES 7,8,9 [grams per mile” (or “g/mi”)] Loaded Durability Fleet Average. Vehicle Vehicle Vehicle Model Non‑Methane. Type 1 Weight (lbs.) Basis (mi) 7 Year Organic Gases 2,3,4,5,6. PC and All 50, serials | vehicle fleet manager Date Name Success Rate; Vehicle Manager Fleet Net Edition. Vehicle Fleet Manager Serial Numbers. Convert Vehicle Fleet Manager Trail Version To Full Software. Serial Numbers. Convert Vehicle Fleet Manager Serial.
How to install Vehicle Fleet Manager 3.0.300
- Download and extract the Vehicle Fleet Manager 3.0.300 Serial Key + Patch  file.
- Read Activator guidelines.
- Activate according to instructions given.