ID: 1982-2.13

DATE: 05/19/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Transequip Industries Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter asking whether Federal regulations allow a brake hose to be used as a dual purpose hose for both the service brakes and the emergency brake.

Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, does not preclude the use of common components in parking, emergency, and service air brake systems. Accordingly, nothing would prevent you from using a common hose in those systems. However, the common component would have to comply with the requirements for each system. This means that a failure of the hose would always be treated as a failure in the parking, emergency and service brake systems. Applying this to the standard in section S5.2.1.1, it would be necessary for the parking brakes to be capable of being released with a failure of the common hose at any time. If your system cannot perform in this manner, which it appears it cannot, it could not comply with the safety standard.

Our engineering staff has reviewed your brake system very carefully over the past years. It appears that your system can be properly plumbed in a manner that it would seem to comply with the requirements. You have continued to seek slightly less expensive methods to plumb your system. In our opinion, these methods would not be capable of complying with the standard. We cannot see how your system can comply with the standard without traditional plumbing that is being used by many brake manufacturers today. Accordingly, we suggest that you concentrate your efforts on constructing your system in that manner.

SINCERELY,

transquip industries, inc.

March 22, 1982

Chief Counsel, NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

Sir:

In an air actuated, mechanically held system for trailers, such as described in the enclosed drawing, a single diaphragm brake chamber is provided using one delivery hose per chamber.

The brake hose (#25 on the drawing) is used as a dual purpose hose; It is used as a service brake hose when the service brakes are applied, and it becomes an emergency brake hose when the emergency brakes are applied. The destinction is in the application.

Should the hose break or puncture while applying the service brakes, three of the brakes would apply while air from the broken hose would go to atomosphere.

With the use of two 1400 cu in air tanks and the supply line continuously refilling the tanks, it is virtually impossible to cause a mechanical lock-up while using service brakes.

Should the trailer be parked with the emergency brakes applied and then cut the brake hose the air tanks would drain to zero. When the driver pushed in the tractor protection valve the broken hose would be sealed off, the tanks would refill and the parking brakes would then release when air pressure reached about sixty PSI. The failure which caused the lock-up could only occur when the trailer is in emergency.

My question is as follows: "Can a hose be used as a dual purpose hose and be considered a service brake hose while applying the service brakes and as an emergency brake hose while applying the emergency brakes"? Please advise.

Edward H. Clapp, President

(Graphics omitted)

NOTES:

1. DASHED ITEMS (Illegible) ARE NOT INCLUDED IN KIT.

2. FOR USE WITH DISC BRAKES, CONTACT FACTORY.

3. LENGTH TO BE DETERMINED BY CUSTOMER.

(Graphics omitted)

TRANSQUIP INDUSTRIES, INC.

614 West Main Street

Memphis, Texas 79245

TITLE TWO TANK - SINGLE VALVE SYSTEM TANDEM AXLE (2800 C.I.)

ID: 1982-2.14

DATE: 05/27/82

FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY STEPHEN P. WOOD

TO: Mrs. James J. Mitchell Jr.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is pleased to learn that you want to install a high-mounted stop lamp on your 1978 Buick LaSabre. The two studies that the Administration funded, one with the Essex Corporation and the other with the Allen Corporation, indicated that rear end collisions could possibly be reduced by 50 percent with the use of a single high-mounted stop lamp. We do not know whether the States of New York or New Jersey will allow the use of these lamps. Our Office of Rulemaking contacted the American Association of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers (AAMVA) but the information we received was indefinite, and I would suggest that you contact your local State Police for a definitive answer. The agency has proposed that passenger cars be equipped with this system, and if the proposal is adopted, the lamps would be legal in all States.

As to where to locate these lamps on the car, our research showed that a single lamp, placed on the rear vertical centerline of the vehicle and within the back window (either inside or outside) was the most effective position. Our research also included a system of two high-mounted lamps, mounted on either side of the rear window, apparently similar to the one you observed in upstate New York; however, this was not nearly as effective as the single lamp system in reducing rear end collisions.

SINCERELY,

April 2, 1982

Department of Transportation National Highway Safety Administration

Gentlemen:

Based on the attached article, which appeared in the June 1981 issue of McCall's Magazine, I sent a check for $ 29.90 to Amerace Brands Division, Hilite, Ace Road, Butler, N.J. 07405 for two Slimsonite Hi Lite brake lights, to fit a 1978 Buick LaSabre sedan.

Would you please tell me which states authorize these lights and where they must be placed on the car -- I am, of course, interested in New York State. The reason I make this inquiry is that when my husband took the lights to our local service station, the mechanic suggested that my husband check with the local police regarding the legality of these lights. We border on the State of New Jersey. My husband learned that we could not affix the lights; that if we did, he would be asked to remove them by the police.

When we traveled upstate New York, I noticed a car with similar lights, affixed in the back window, on either side. I must say that they do indicate when the car ahead is stopping. As a legal secretary, I worked on many accident cases, and I personally feel that a driver should give all the warning he can when he plans to stop.

Thank you for your reply.

Mrs. James J. Mitchell, Jr.

ID: 1982-2.15

DATE: 06/14/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Carrier Transicold Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 18, 1982, "regarding the legality of placing a red alternator warning light on the side of a truck refrigeration unit."

Because the warning light is not required as original motor vehicle lighting equipment under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, it is subject only to the prohibition of paragraph S4.1.3 that it not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment which the standard requires. The required lighting equipment on the sides of trucks are side marker lamps and reflectors, amber to the front as far as practicable and red to the rear as far as practicable. If the truck's overall length is 30 feet or greater, intermediate lamps and reflectors, amber in color, must be added at or near the mid-point between the front and rear markers.

You have not stated where the warning light will be located, nor the length of the truck on which it would be mounted. To avoid any suggestions of conflict we recommend, if the lamp is to be mounted on a truck carrying intermediate side markers, that it be as close to the rear as practicable. On a short truck equipped with only front and rear side marking devices any location from the mid-point rearward would be acceptable. These locations should also satisfy any questions State authorities may have.

SINCERELY,

May 18, 1982

United States Department of Transportation

Attention: Legal Counsel FMVSS108

Gentlemen:

I am writing you regarding the legality of placing a red alternator warning light on the side of a truck refrigeration unit. The proposed warning light would be a continuous (non-blinking) incandescent lamp, 0.64 inch in diameter. This light would function similar to alternator warning lights found on automobile dashboards, illuminating only when the alternator is failing to charge the battery.

My questions then are:

1. Is red a legally acceptable color for such a light?

2. If red is an unacceptable color, what other colors might also be restricted.

If you require any additional information in answering these questions, please contact me on (315) 432-6168 or leave a message with my secretary on (315) 432-6094.

Thank you for your cooperation.

David R. Siegenthaler Truck/Trailer Engineering

ID: 1982-2.16

DATE: 06/23/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Grebe; Gross; Jensen & Peek; P.C. -- J. Mack Shively

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Grebe, Gross, Jensen & Peek, P.C. 1530 S.W. Taylor Street Portland, Oregon 97205

This is in response to your letter of May 11, requesting our views as to the applicability of vehicle identification number requirements and certification label requirements to a semi-trailer to be manufactured by Cranston Diversified Industries. This trailer would have three interchangeable sections.

You are correct in your interpretation of the manner in which our requirements would be applied to the trailers in question. Only one vehicle identification number and one certification label are required. Affixing the label to the left side of the front section would be consistent with our regulations.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Office of Chief Counsel

RE: Manufacturer Identification Cranston Diversified Industries, Inc.

Dear Sirs:

My client, Cranston Diversified Industries, Inc., is currently negotiating with the patent holder to construct a semi-trailer which can be converted from a "flat" to a "drop center" trailer configuration. The design utilizes interchangeable front, rear, and center sections.

I have concluded that pursuant to 49 C.F.R ampersand 571.155, Standard No. 115, S4.1, each vehicle manufactured requires only one vehicle identification number. I have also concluded that the label to be attached to each trailer should be affixed to the left side of the front section (the hitch structure) and that only one label is required pursuant to 49 C.F.R. ampersand 567.4(d).

Please advise me as to whether my interpretation of your Regulations is correct. I have enclosed a copy of the Letters Patent of the United States issued for the trailer which include a detailed description of its structure.

Thank you very much for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

J. Mack Shively JMS:vs Enclosures cc: Cranston Diversified Industries, Inc.

ID: 1982-2.17

DATE: 06/30/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Jeff Wimer

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your phone request of June 11, 1982, concerning Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to motorcycle sidecars sold as aftermarket motor vehicle equipment.

While there are no "sidecar" standards, certain of the items of equipment that may be found in sidecars are covered by Federal equipment safety standards. Specifically, brake hoses, lighting equipment, tires, rims, and glazing materials (if provided) would have to comply with Standards Nos. 106, 108, 119, 120 and 205. I have enclosed an information sheet explaining how you can obtain copies of the agency's safety standards.

Because a sidecar itself is an item of motor vehicle equipment, the manufacturer of any sidecar sold in the aftermarket would be responsible for notification and remedy in the event the product was determined to contain a safety-related defect.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

ENC.

ID: 1982-2.18

DATE: 06/30/82 EST

FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: MIKE SMITH -- PRESIDENT, FLEET TIRE SERVICE

TITLE: NCA-30

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 3-23-82, FROM MIKE SMITH-FLEET TIRE SERVICE, TO NHTSA

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter to this agency asking about requirements for importing and retreading truck tire casings. In your letter and through a phone conversation with Mr. Kratzke of my staff on April 23, you stated that you had imported 220 truck tire casings from Belgium for the purpose of retreading. These casings all had DOT numbers on them. You buffed the tires for retreading, and then had a local police officer ascertain that each casing had indeed been buffed. This procedure would fully satisfy our requirements for retreaded truck tires.

As you probably know, there is no Federal safety standard for retreaded tires for motor vehicles other than passenger cars. However, before June 18, 1981, any such tires to be imported for retreading had to have a DOT symbol on the sidewall, or some other certification by the original manufacturer that the tires, as originally manufactured, complied with our standard for new truck tires. On June 18, 1981, the agency issued an interpretation stating that tires to be retreated for motor vehicles other than passenger cars could be imported solely for the purposes of retreading without having a DOT certification, providing that certain conditions were met. I have enclosed a copy of this interpretation for your information.

One of the conditions which the U.S. Customs Service has established for such activity is that the importer file an affidavit stating that casings without a DOT number will be buffed and retreaded, and none will be sold without retreading. The steps you took with this shipment of tires to show that each tire was actually retreaded were unnecessary, since your tires all had a DOT symbol on the sidewall, and could legally have been sold as used tires.

Your efforts to ensure that your retreading operation fully complied with all legal requirements are commendable. Efforts like yours will help make our roads as safe as possible for everyone using them. Should you have any further questions, or need any further information, please contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by phone at (202) 426-2992. ENCLOSURE

ID: 1982-2.19

DATE: 07/06/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Truck Body & Equipment Association -- Bradley Sweet

TITLE: FMVSS Interpretation

TEXT:

Truck Body & Equipment Association 5530 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1220 Chevy Chase Maryland 20815

Dear Mr. Sweet:

Since you represent the School Bus Manufacturers Institute, I am writing for your assistance. We are reinterpreting the requirements of @5.3.3 of Standard No. 217. Bus Window Retention and Release, as they apply to audible warning devices and would like your assistance in disseminating this interpretation.

As you know, the standard requires that a continuous warning sound shall be audible at both the driver's seating location and in the vicinity of the enclosed door. In the preamble to the notice implementing this requirement, the agency stated that section @5.3.3 requires two warning devices one located at each position. The agency made this interpretation based upon the then available data indicating that a single warning device in a bus might not be audible in both locations.

In the years that this requirement of the standard has been in effect, the agency has reexamined the issue in light of experience and finds that it is possible to have only one warning device audible at both locations. We have determined that this device can be heard even when a bus is loaded with noisy children. In accordance with this finding, the agency is reinterpreting the language of section @5.3.3 to permit one warning device is that device is audible at both locations. We caution manufacturers to ensure that their warning devices will be audible at both locations even when the bus is loaded.

Thank you for your assistance in providing this information to your members and others in the school bus industry.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: 1982-2.2

DATE: 04/07/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: D. L. Robertson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 9, 1977, regarding a letter from your constituent, Mr. Larry Gabor, Chairman of the Huntington Consumer Protection Board, concerning the safety of vehicle seats which do not lock in fore-and-aft adjustment position.

As we explained to Mr. Gabor in our letter of August 18, 1977 (copy enclosed), we have a Federal motor vehicle safety standard which is designed to prevent this situation. The standard regulates vehicles at initial sale, but does not cover inadvertent failure or premature wear-out situations. We do have authority to investigate such situations, however, to determine if grounds exist for conduct of a safety related defect "recall campaign." We are forwarding a copy of Mr. Gabor's letter to our Office of Defects Investigation to alert them of this situation. Our previous letter urged Mr. Gabor to furnish them the pertinent details on this matter. Only then can they investigate properly.

SINCERELY,

TOWN OF HUNTINGTON LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK

(Illegible Word) PROTECTION BOARD

July 25, 1977

Congressman Jerome Ambro

This Office is concerned about a particular aspect of automobile safety; the construction of the adjustable driver seat is what concerns us.

Based on an incident that occurred in our Town recently, it would appear that it is possible for a driver seat not to look into position but to actually slide back and forth depending on the motion of the driver, or the car, or both.

The incident that brought this to our attention was a driver, short in stature, actually unable to reach the brakes or the steering wheel of her car because the seat slid backward during acceleration. The driver of the car in this case was seriously injured.

We feel that this may be a significant hazzard and that some fail-safe system ought to be developed.

Please advise us of your thinking and experience on this subject.

Larry Gabor Chairman

ID: 1982-2.20

DATE: 07/21/82

FROM: Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Arnold P. Fuchs

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This letter is to confirm your view, expressed in a telephone call with Edward Glancy of this office, that the requirements of Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components, are not applicable to a replacement latch for a truck built in l969.

The requirements of Standard No. 206 are applicable to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks. See S2 of that Standard. However, its requirements are not applicable to replacement parts for installation in used vehicles of these types.

Further, the "render inoperative" provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act are not relevant to the installation of such a latch. Under section 108(a)(2)(A) of that Act, a business such as a garage must make sure that it does not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of a vehicle with any applicable safety standard. With respect to a 1969 truck and Standard No. 206, there is no compliance which could be rendered inoperative since the Standard was never applicable to that truck. That Standard applies only to trucks manufactured on or after January 1, 1972.

I would note that even in the absence of an applicable safety standard, the defect provisions of the Act may be applicable. Sections 151 et seq. of the Act provide that manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must notify owners of vehicles and equipment with safety-related defects and remedy those defects free of charge.

ID: 1982-2.21

DATE: 07/23/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Tri-City Tires, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff asking for a clarification of the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120 (49 CFR @ 571.120) concerning the use of retreaded tires on new trucks and trailers. Specifically, you wanted to know whether a DOT symbol was required to appear on any retreaded tires so used.

Pursuant to your request in a telephone conversation with Mr. Kratzke, he sent you a copy of a March 22, 1978 letter from this agency to Dorsey Trailers. That letter stated that retreaded tires could be used on new trucks and trailers, and that retreaded tires used for that purpose are not required to have a DOT symbol. This conclusion is mandated by the requirement in 49 CFR @ 574.5 that "the DOT symbol shall not appear on tires to which no Federal Motor Vehicle Standard is applicable." Since no safety standard applies to retreaded tires for use on trucks and trailers, it follows that the DOT symbol must not appear on those tires.

In your recent letter, you enclosed a copy of a September 29, 1980 letter from this agency to Elgene Tire Company. That letter states that, for purposes of Standard No. 120, used tires are interpreted to include retreaded tires. As you noted in your phone conversation with Mr. Kratzke, an implication of this intrepretation seems to be that retreaded tires are required, as used tires, to have a DOT symbol.

The agency position regarding the presence of the DOT symbol on retreaded tires has been consistent since 1978, i.e., that the controlling provision on that issue is @ 574.5 and therefore the DOT symbol is not required to appear on retreaded truck tires, and, indeed, must not appear on those tires. Retreaded truck tires without the DOT symbol may be used on new trucks and trailers in full compliance with Standard No. 120. To clarify this point, the agency published a proposal on October 30, 1980 (45 FR 71834) to amend Standard 120 so that it expressly permits the installation of retreaded tires on new trucks and trailers. (A copy of the proposal is enclosed) Final action on that proposal is expected this summer.

I trust that this response clears up the confusion to which you alluded in your letter regarding these requirements. Should you have any further questions in this area, feel free to contact Mr. Kratzke at (202) 426-2992.

ENC.

TRI-CITY TIRES, INC.

June 11, 1982

Steven Kratzke U.S. Dept. of Transportation Office of Chief Council NHTSA

Dear Steve,

I am writing, per your request, in reference to our conversation concerning the clarification of correspondence dated Sept. 29, 1980 to Elgene Tire Co. of Union, N.J. This letter is to ask your clarification and determination of paragraph 4, (used tires vs retreaded tires), that are requested by the customer to be installed on new equipment. Per your statement to me on June 11, 1982 there is a misrepresentation of interpretation concerning the use of used tires and retreaded tires. Please send me a clarification of this issue as soon as possible, so this problem can be solved once and for all.

John I. Kitchen