ID: nht76-4.19

DATE: 02/12/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Hon. Robin Beard - H.O.R.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your January 29, 1976, question whether an owner of a vehicle manufactured to comply with Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems may legally disconnect portions of the brake system after a vehicle has been delivered for use in his business.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(2)(A)) prohibits, with one exception, knowing disconnection of safety components by manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or repair businesses. Thus, there is no prohibition on disconnection by an owner of his own vehicle's system under the Traffic Safety Act. However, State statutes, or the regulations of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety may prohibit disconnection. In any case, the NHTSA urges that owners not disconnect safety devices without consultation with the vehicle manufacturer with regard to the safest configuration of the vehicle.

SINCERELY,

Congress of the United States House of Representatives

January 29, 1976

Robert L. Carter Associate Administrator Motor Vehicles Program U. S. Department of Transportation

I have been contacted by a constituent regarding the anti-skid devices on trucks and trailers.

I am informed by my constituent that he has encountered a great deal of expense due to the failure of these devices, such as damaged tires, tow bills, and time spent on repairs. My constituent would like to know if there would be a fine imposed or any type of penalty if these devices were disconnected.

I appreciate your checking on this matter and sending me a reply.

Robin Beard, M. C.

ID: nht74-3.18

DATE: 11/12/74

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

TO: Dana Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Dano Corporation's October 22, 1978, request for a statement by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that Standard No. 121, Air brake systems, does not require antilock systems on the axles of air-braked trailers subject to the standard, and, if antilock systems are provided, that the standard does not specify the number or location of the speed sensing or logic components which constitute the system.

Standard No. 121 requires that wheels not lock-up under certain conditions (S5.3.1, S5.3.2) but it does not require the use of an antilock system to prevent wheel lockup. If a manufacturer chooses to install an antilock system on his vehicle, the standard requires that an anti-lock warning signal be installed (S5.1.6), that electrical failure of the antilock system not increase the actuation and release times of the service brakes (S5.5.1), and that an antilock system on a trailer be powered through the stop lamp circuit (S5.5.2).

There are no other requirements for antilock systems used on air-brake equipped vehicles subject to Standard No. 121. This means that the manufacturer may choose the number of wheel speed sensors and logic modules that he includes in his antilock system. It should be noted, however, that the "controlled lock-up" exception of S5.3.1 (a) and S5.3.2(a) would not apply to a wheel which is not equipped with a wheel sensor that contributes to the control of the reduction of air pressure.

If the number and location of these components becomes a safety problem in the future, the NHTSA would consider appropriate specifications for them.

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: nht74-4.22

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: nht73-1.37

DATE: 11/19/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Crane Carrier Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 7, 1973, to Mr. Schneider asking whether Standard No. 108 permits four identification lamps.

It does not. The purpose of the three-lamp system is that vehicles 80 inches or more in overall width be clearly identified as large vehicles, and only the three-lamp system specified by the standard is permissible. Standard No. 108, however, allows some latitude in mounting. The system need not be mounted on the vertical centerline of the vehicle if the manufacturer determines that is impracticable. Since you appear to have made such a determination, the front identification lamp system should be placed "as close as practicable to the vertical centerline" with height and spacing requirements in accordance with Standard No. 108.

Yours truly,

NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel

Attention: Larry Schnieder

Dear Sir:

In regards to trucks of 80 or more inches, are the three (3) lamps for front identification a minimum requirement?

The front loader equipment requires a bumper guard across the center of the windshield over the cab which would obscure the center lamp. Would four (4) identification lamps be permissible, i.e., 2 on each side of the center?

I would appreciate any advice or reference to a standard.

Thanking you in advance.

Very truly yours,

Crane Carrier Company --

Darrell Gambill,

Standards Engineer

ID: nht73-1.49

DATE: 08/30/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Physicians for Automotive Safety

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 12, 1973, concerning children's car harnesses and car seats.

In response to your inquiry about the "Auto-babe" car harness, it is our opinion that the harness is a Type III seat belt assembly under Standard No. 209 and we presently are investigating the product as an apparent noncompliance with the standard.

The next stage in the rulemaking on child restraints will be reached this fall with a notice of proposed rulemaking on dynamic test requirements. We will be interested to have your comments on this proposal when it is issued.

Yours truly,

PHYSICIANS FOR AUTOMOTIVE SAFETY

July 12, 1973

James Wilson -- Acting Administrator, NHTSA, U.S. Dept. of Transportation

Dear Mr. Wilson:

I am enclosing a brochure describing a child auto harness, and would very much like to know 1. does the device meet requirements of Standard 209, Type II, and 2. if not, what action will be taken to prevent manufacture of the device and recall of those still in the stores.

I should also like to receive information with respect to the date a proposal for the upgrading of Standard 213 can be expected.

Your help in this matter would be very much appreciated.

Sincerely,

Seymour Charles, M.D.

President

Enclosure

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht73-1.9

DATE: 10/29/73

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

TO: T. N. O'Leary, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of October 8, 1973, to the Department of Transportation you ask whether it is true that DOT requires trailer braking systems to have stainless steel conduits rather than copper ones.

Neither the Federal motor vehicle safety standards nor the regulations of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety contain such a requirement, and we are unaware of any Federal regulation of this nature.

Yours truly,

October 8, 1973

Office of the General Counsel -- Department of Transportation

Gentlemen:

We have been informed that there is a Department of Transportation regulation to the effect that trailers hauled behind motor vehicles must have stainless steel, as opposed to copper conduits for their gravitational braking systems. As I understand it, the idea behind the gravitational braking system is that when the car puts on its brakes, the trailer naturally exerts forward pressure on the hitch, and this pressure in turn activates the conduits or braking system in such a way that brake fluid flows through the conduit and puts the brakes on the crailer in action.

If there is, in fact, such a regulation, I would appreciate your pointing it out to me. Thank you.

Yours very truly,

PAIN & JULIAN --

Thomas N. O'Leary

P.S. Also, I would appreciate knowing the reasons behind such a regulation and the evidentiary effect, if any, in a Court of Law for such a rule.

ID: nht73-2.42

DATE: 02/09/73

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

TO: Alfred Teves GMBH

COPYEE: PAUL UTANS; VINSON; LIMPERT; DRIVER

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. Paul Utans has asked us to provide you with an interpretation of paragraph S5.3.3 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105a, Hydraulic Brake Systems, Mr. Utans asks for confirmation of his understanding

"that the indicator lamp shall remain activated ther without the application of any pedal force or with one application of a pedal force (with a range of 25 or 50 pounds, as the case may be) if a failure of the kind described in S5.3.1(a) to S5.3.1(c) exists in the service brake system."

This interpretation is only partially correct. Paragraph S5.3.3 states in pertinent part:

". . . each indicator lamp, once activated, shall remain activated as long as the condition exists, whenever the ignition switch is in the 'on' position. An indicator lamp activated when the ignition switch is truned to the 'start' position shall be deactivated upon return of the switch to the 'on' . . . position . . . unless a failure of the kind described in S5.3.1(a) to S5.3.1(c) exists in the service brake system."

Paragraph S5.3.1(a) allows a brake pressure failure to be initially indicated either before or upon application of pedal force, but thereafter the light must remain activated while the ignition switch is in the "on" position. However, if the failure is present when the vehicle is first started, the indicator lamp must immediately be activated before any application of Pedal force, until the failure condition no longer exists.

This interpretation is subject to modification by response to petitions or reconsideration of Standard No. 105a, scheduled for publication around May 1, 1973.

ID: nht73-3.19

DATE: 02/06/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Robert L. Scates

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 6, 1973, requesting information on requirements regarding the manufacture of truck-mounted campers. You specifically mention requirements dealing with wiring.

There are several Federal requirements applicable to campers. Campers are items of motor vehicle equipment under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) and are required to conform to certain motor vehicle safety standards and regulations. Briefly, each camper must meet requirements applicable to the glazing materials (glass and plastics used in windows, doors, and interior partitions) used in the camper (Federal) Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, "Glazing Materials", 49 CFR 571.205). Each slide-in camper must, in addition, have affixed to it a label that indicates among other things its loaded weight. (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 126, "Truck-Camper Loading", 49 CFR 571.126). All campers must also be certified in accordance with Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) as conforming to applicable standards. Each camper manufacturer must submit certain information concerning his company pursuant to NHTSA regulations, "Manufacturer identification" (49 CFR Part 566). You may obtain copies of NHTSA standards and regulations as explained on the enclosure.

We understand that certain states also have requirements, including requirements for wiring, that apply to campers. Information regarding these requirements should be obtained from State authorities. Trade associations that represent recreational vehicle manufacturers may be of help in obtaining this information.

ENC.

ID: 77-4.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/03/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr; NHTSA

TO: American Trailers, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 20, 1977, letter asking whether your certification labels comply with Part 567, Certification, and Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.

As stated to you in an earlier letter, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not issue approvals of compliance with Federal safety standards or regulations. The agency will, however, give you an informal opinion as to whether your labels appear to comply with the requirements. The agency has determined that the two labels that you submitted do not follow the format established in the regulations and, therefore, do not comply with the requirements. If "R" denotes radial ply and "F" denotes load range, the tire designation should be 10.00 R 20 (F).

SINCERELY,

American Trailers, Inc.

July 20, 1977

Roger Tilton Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Admin.

SUBJECT: NOA-30 (RST)

This letter is to confirm our telephone conversation of July 19, concerning Mr. Levin's letter of July 13, 1977.

We are enclosing two new samples certification labels which have been modified from the original as submitted May 25, 1977. It is our understanding that the changes in the wording for the tire and rim size, and the deletion of the wording "maximum with minimum size tire-rims shown below" will give apparent compliance with the requirements of Part 567 and Standard No. 120.

Jerry McNeil Director of Engineering

ENCLS.