ID: nht74-4.15

DATE: 07/15/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; A.G. Detrick; NHTSA

TO: Diamond Reo Trucks Incorporated

TITLE: TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reference to your defect notification campaign (NHTSA No. 74-0080) concerning Rose Gear steering gears.

Thank you for submitting the information which we had requested. The letter which you have sent to the owners of the involved vehicles, however, does not entirely inect the requirements of 49 CFR, Part 577. Specifically, it is required that paragraphs (a) and (b) of Part 577.4 be quoted exactly as they are written in the regulation. The identifying criteria of motor vehicles or item of motor vehicle equipment in paragraph (b) is the motor vehicle itself in cases where the defect exists in a motor vehicle. Your letter also does not give an estimate of the day by which dealers will be supplied with the necessary parts nor an estimate of the time required to perform the labor required to correct the defect (577.4(e) ii and iii).

You also did not state the risk to traffic safety in the manner prescribed by section 577.4(d). The second sentence in paragraph 2" . . .no situations as described above have occurred on Diamond Reo trucks . . ." is, in our opinion, a disclaimer and is prohibited by section 577.6.

It is therefore necessary for you to rewrite the owner notification letter and send a revised letter by certified mail to all owners who have not yet had their vehicles corrected. This should be done as soon as is reasonably possible. A copy of the revised letter should also be submitted to this office.

If you desire additional information, please contact Mr. J. Murray or W. Reinhart at (202) 426-2340. I am enclosing a copy of Part 577 for your information.

ENC.

ID: nht74-4.16

DATE: 07/17/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Elgin Sweeper Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 7, 1974, asking whether NHTSA Certification requirements (40 CFR Parts 567, 568) apply to the mounting of a device called the Elgin Eductor on a used truck.

The NHTSA does not consider the Certification requirements to apply to the mounting of a new truck body (based on the information you provide, this includes the Elgin eductor) on a used truck chassis. We consider additions to used chassis to be used vehicles under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and no certification is therefore required.

ID: nht74-4.17

DATE: 07/17/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Distributors Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 30, 1974, asking whether a final-stage manufacturer or vehicle alterer may use the incomplete vehicle's gross vehicle weight rating on the certification label when he adds a third axle. You point out that the manufacturer thereby increases the vehicle's actual capacity and could increase the vehicle's gross vehicle weight rating if he so desired, but he does not do so because the vehicle may not conform to applicable standards (mentioning specifically Standard No. 121) at the higher weight rating. It does conform, however, at the weight rating of the incomplete vehicle.

Although, as you point out, gross vehicle weight rating is established by the manufacturer, it must be based on a good faith attempt on the part of the manufacturer to conform to its definition. Gross vehicle weight rating is defined as " . . . the value specified by the manufacturer as the loaded weight of a single vehicle." A manufacturer is generally free to rate his vehicle at less than full loaded weight, and we would support such a policy where the purpose is to provide a reasonable safety margin. However, we would not consider as made in good faith a gross vehicle or axle weight rating that is so unrelated to vehicle capacity that it suggests a motive such as avoidance of an applicable standard. If it could be shown that this was the manufacturer's intent, he could be subject to civil penalties and other sanctions provided in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act for the issuance of a false and misleading certification, and to the responsibilities incident to a finding of a safety-related defect.

ID: nht74-4.18

DATE: 07/17/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Sheller-Globe Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of May 15, 1974, requesting that vehicles which seat 10 persons or less, but are of the same base design as buses specifically designed as school buses, be classified as school buses regardless of their intended use.

The vehicles that would be affected by the reclassification you request are currently categorized as multipurpose passenger vehicles, since they provide seating positions for 10 persons or less. In general, the multipurpose passenger vehicle category is subject to more stringent safety requirements than either the bus or the school bus categories. Further, additional standards are becoming effective for multipurpose passenger vehicles in the near future as part of the NHTSA's overall plan to extend the requirements presently applicable to passenger cars. Thus, multipurpose passenger vehicles can expect increasingly higher safety performance levels, comparable to those of passenger cars.

Vehicles used to transport handicapped children should not be reclassified in such a way as to reduce the number or the stringency of the requirements to which they are subject.

On the basis of the above reason, the NHTSA has concluded that the vehicles about which you are petitioning should not be reclassified as school buses and your petition is therefore denied.

Sincerely

SHELLER-GLOBE CORPORATION

May 15, 1974

Office of Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attention: Lawrence R. Schneider Chief Counsel

Sheller-Globe Corporation, Superior-Lima Division, Lima, Ohio manufacture bus bodies, including school bus bodies, activity bus bodies and special bus bodies that are used in the transport of the handicapped to and from school, health centers, and special education centers.

These special bus bodies are school bus body derivatives and are constructed similar to van buses or what is commonly referred to as Type II School Buses. The departure from the Type II School Bus is in the designated seating positions.

These special bus bodies have seating positions to accompany two to four persons, not including the vehicle operator or driver. The remaining space is designed for wheelchairs. The total passenger carrying capability will vary from seven to ten persons. This, of course, varies according to customer requirements, as to seat arrangements and/or basic van model, Dodge or Chevy-Van - the Dodge Van being 18 inches longer than the Chevy-Van.

Many of these special bus bodies are purchased by schools, private and public, and require that they be identified as school buses, as well, be equipped with the traffic controlling warning lamp systems. On the other hand, many are purchased by private, special education or health care centers and do not require the school bus identification or the warning lamp system.

These special bus bodies or buses have a place on the market due to their size. They are small enough and permit the ease of handling as required to manipulate small driveways to patient and/or student doorways and ramps provided for wheelchairs. As well, their size permits the ease of parking near the school or center and doorways and ramps provided for the off loading of the students and/or patients. Some of these special bus bodies or buses are equipped with special ramps or lift gates designed for ease of handling wheelchairs.

Our concern and, of course, the reason for this communication is pertinent to Certification and Standards Application. As we understand or interpret the law, vehicles that are designed to carry ten persons or less are Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles and, therefore, must meet the requirements of applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Until now all Van Buses or Type II School Buses were designed to carry more than ten persons and certification requirements were well defined.

Therefore, Sheller-Globe Corporation petitions the N.H.T.S.A. for an interpretation and requests that these buses of the same base design as buses specifically designed as school buses, regardless of their intended use or passenger carrying capacity for purposes of Certification and Standards Application be, in fact, classified or defined as school buses.

Sheller-Globe requests your expediting a ruling on this petition.

George R. Semark

Safety Engineer-Vehicles

Transportation Equipment Group

Vehicle Development Center

ID: nht74-4.19

DATE: 07/22/74

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

TO: Volvo of America Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 19, 1974, question whether required hose labeling under Standard No. 106, Brake hoses, permits placing some required labeling on each of several hose sections which are joined together in one vacuum brake line to form the required label. You ask how a 2 3/8-inch section could otherwise be labeled.

It is not permitted under S9.1 to label a vacuum brake hose with only part of the required information, whether or not it appears with all other required labeling in the same brake line.

You state that 5 inches is required to place all labeling on vacuum nose. We do not understand why the legend could not be shortened to 2 3/8-inches or less. There is no width requirement for lettering and Notice 11 now permits labeling information to appear in any order on the hose to simplify cutting.

Please write again if we have misunderstood the problem you have posed.

Yours Truly,

Volvo of America Corporation

June 19, 1974

Lawrence Schneider, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Volvo hereby requests an interpretation on FMVSS 106. We are planning to use one type of vacuum brake hose of several different lengths jointed together. The shortest piece will have a length of two and three eights inches. The minimum length necessary to provide room for all required FMVSS 106 markings is five inches. My question is can we use a vacuum brake hose, which consists of different lengths of the same hose jointed together, where the marking on the shortest piece is incomplete? If not, what marking would be acceptable for a hose two and three eights inch long?

Thank you for your consideration of this matter and we request your reply as soon as practicable.

Sincerely,

Rick Shue Product Safety Engineer

ID: nht74-4.2

DATE: 06/06/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Earl E. Eckert

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 3, 1974, inquiring as to the applicability of the Federal odometer law to trucks over 16,000 pounds.

The Federal odometer regulation does not require transferors of vehicles with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating of more than 16,000 pounds to provide an odometer disclosure statement upon transfer of the vehicle. By Gross Vehicle Weight Rating, the regulation is referring to the value specified by the manufacturer as the loaded weight of a single vehicle, which appears on its permanent certification label.

I have enclosed copies of pertinent portions of the Act and the regulation for your information.

ENCLS.

ID: nht74-4.20

DATE: 07/17/74

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

TO: Imperial-Eastman Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 24, 1974, questions whether brake hose manufactured before September 1, 1974, to comply with all performance requirements of Standard 106-74, Brake hoses, may be marked with the DOT symbol after that date, and whether the DOT may be used on hose, fittings, and assemblies prior to that date.

The answer to your questions is no. The DOT symbol means that a vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment was manufactured in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard and that it complies with the standard. Therefore, the DOT symbol can not be placed on hose, fitting, or assemblies manufactured before the date the standard becomes applicable to them, whether or not the DOT is actually placed on the hose before or after the effective date.

With regard to your supply of pre-106 vacuum hose, it may be used in assemblies as late as February 28, 1975, and in vehicles as late as August 31, 1975, if it is only clamped to the vehicle and not made into assemblies.

Yours Truly,

Imperial-Eastman Corporation

June 24, 1974

Legal Department National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attention: T. W. Herlihy

At the present time, Imperial-Eastman has a large quantity (about a two year supply) of 5/8 I. D. SAE J1403 Vacuum Brake Hose in inventory and it is evident this hose will not be sold before the DOT-106 goes into effect on September 1, 1974 or later. Our customers are already changing drawings and all new purchase orders call for brake hose that meets FMVSS 106.

It is impossible for any hose assembly supplier to sell unmarked hose up to the day 106 goes into effect and then switch to hose with the DOT layline without having a lot of old hose left over.

For this reason, it is imperative we get answers to the following questions as soon as possible.

1. Is it permissible for us to return the J1403 brake hose to the manufacturer and have it DOT branded? This hose meets all FMVSS 106 requirements and it would be marked with the original date of manufacture (Jan. 1972).

2. Is it permissible to purchase, couple and sell DOT hose and assemblies prior to the date 106 becomes effective? This is the only way we can balance our hose inventories and use up unbranded hose.

If it would be more convenient and less time consuming to discuss the above, please don't hesitate to call me collect.

M. A. Chermak

ID: nht74-4.21

DATE: 08/14/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Linch-Jones Incorporated

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your August 9, 1974, telephone request for a clarification of a transferor's duties under the disclosure requirements of the Federal odometer law.

The odometer requirements of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act specify that the transferor of a vehicle provide written disclosure to the transferee of the mileage registered on the odometer at the time of the transaction. If the transferor knows that the odometer reading is incorrect for reasons other than calibration error, a statement to that effect must also be executed at the time ownership of the vehicle is transferred.

In the situation where the accuracy of the odometer is in question, the transferror is required to state that the mileage indicated on the odometer is incorrect in accordance with the form specified in @ 580 of 49 CFR Part 580, Odometer Disclosure Requirements, if there is credible evidence indicating the inaccuracy. If the transferror has no firm basis for a conclusion that the odometer reading is incorrect but feels that it may be wrong, he does not violate the Act by indicating that the true mileage may differ from that shown. In so doing, he provides more information than required, and is not guilty of any violation.

A statement that the mileage may differ from that indicated on the odometer would only be a violation where positive evidence exists suggesting that the odometer reading is incorrect. In such a situation the transferor must inform the buyer of the inaccuracy in the manner prescribed in the odometer disclosure requirements.

If you are in need of any further information, please let us know.

ID: nht74-4.22

DATE: 08/05/74

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

TO: Oshkosh Truck Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 2, 1974, question whether a truck complies with the dynamometer requirements of S5.4 of Standard No. 121, Air brake systems, if its brakes are actuated by smaller slack adjusters and brake chambers than those specified by the brake manufacturer to establish torque levels which comply with the standard. Your question arises under the interim requirements of S5.3.1.2 and the full requirements of S5.4.2 and S5.4.3 as they apply to the on/off-highway category.

Standard No. 121 is a vehicle requirement, and the NHTSA will conduct compliance testing for dynamometer requirements using the force levels applied to the brakes on the particular vehicle it is testing. This means that if you use 5.5-inch slack adjusters and 30-inch brake chambers on your truck, the NHTSA would use the force applied by these components in its compliance testing. There is no prohibition to your modifying the brake manufacturer's "recommended package" to suit your needs. However, you should be able to show that, in the exercise of due care, the brake assembly meets the requirements of S5.4 as modified.

If you believe that the established dynamometer requirements conflict with optimum handling and stopping performance, you may, under NHTSA procedural rules (49 CFR 563, copy enclosed) petition to modify the standard.

In response to your July 10, 1974, letter asking whether an air-over-hydraulic front brake is subject to certain requirements of Standard No. 105a, I enclose a preamble to that standard which states that air-over-hydraulic systems are regulated only by standard No. 121.

ID: nht74-4.23

DATE: 08/12/74

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

TO: The Weatherland Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 10, 1974, request to modify the hose labeling provisions of Standard No. 106-74, Brake hoses, to permit DOT labeling of 1/8-inch O.D. nylon tubing.

To the best of our knowledge 1/8-inch O.D. tubing is not used as brake hose as it is defined by the standard:

"Brake hose" means a flexible conduit manufactured for use in a brake system to transmit or contain the fluid pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes.

The tubing is used for pressure gauge lines and in two-speed differentials, but is apparently not used to transmit or contain the pressure used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes. As it is not considered to be brake hose under the standard, it should not be labeled with the DOT symbol.

Aside from this prohibition on the use of the DOT symbol, you are free to label 1/8-inch O.D. nylon tubing as you choose.

The Weatherhead Company

July 10, 1974

Ref. MUE: 468

Mr. Richard B. Dyson Assistant Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation

SUBJECT: Air Brake Hose Labeling 571.106

The Weatherhead Company manufactures nylon air brake tubing (hose) covered by FMVSS 571.106 (effective September 1, 1974). The DOT labeling requirements for this product specified in the safety standard calls for at least 1/8 inch high letters. One of the common sizes of tubing (hose) (1'8 inch outside diameter) used in truck air brake systems does not have adequate outside surface area to accomodate 1/8 inch high lettering.

A specific exemption of this label requirement is requested to allow The Weatherhead Company to DOT label nylon air brake tubing (hose) of 1/8 inch outside diameter with letters smaller than 1/8 inch high.

Since this standard becomes effective September 1, 1974 for manufacturers of hose and because a lead time is necessary to obtain new DOT labeling equipment, a prompt reply to this request would be greatly appreciated.

JOHN H. MUELLER

Manager - Engineering

Standards & Specifications

ENCL.-SAMPLE