ID: nht76-4.25

DATE: 06/30/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John Womack for F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Wayne Daniel Truck, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 18, 1976, request for permission to substitute pre-121 brake components for certain components of the brake systems on trucks and trailers you own that were manufactured in conformity with Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

From your description, I assume that you intend to remove portions of the brake system that were installed in satisfaction of the requirements of S5.3.1 of Standard No. 121. 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 the antilock system by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business.

A person that does not fall into there categories is not prohibited from disconnection of the systems. Thus, it would be permissible for you to make such modifications on your own trucks and trailers. Other State or Federal requirements, such as those of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety for operation in interstate commerce, may prohibit disconnection. In any case, the NHTSA urges that you not disconnect safety devices without consulting the vehicle manufacturer with regard to the safest configuration of the vehicle.

SINCERELY,

Wayne Daniel Truck, Inc.

June 18, 1976

Thomas Herliky Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Admin.

Our firm is planning to purchase some new trucks in the near future. Since we have had difficulty with the 121 brake we would like to replace the brake with the pre-121 brake.

Please let me know as soon as possible if we will be in violation if we do this.

W. Wayne Daniel

ID: nht74-3.23

DATE: 10/02/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Bendix Home Systems Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 21, 1974, asking whether the terms "loaded vehicle weight" or "rated cargo load" include the liquid for both water potable tanks and waste holding tanks in the case of motor homes and multipurpose passenger vehicles. You indicated in a phone conversation with Mike Peskoe of this office on September 4, 1974, that the purpose of your question is to determine whether the weight of this liquid would be included in a manufacturer's computation of gross vehicle weight rating. You also ask for definitions of "loaded vehicle weight" and "rated cargo load."

It is not required that a determination of gross vehicle weight rating include the weight of a full amount of liquid in both the potable and the waste holding tanks on the assumption, stated in your letter, that in actual use the holding tank is empty when the potable tank is filled, and the liquid is drawn gradually from one tank to the other. It should be placed in the potable tank for determining GVWR, for this more closely reflects a new vehicle configuration.

The term "loaded vehicle weight" is not defined in the Federal motor vehicle safety standards or regulations nor are we aware of its use therein. A related term, "maximum loaded vehicle weight," is defined in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110 (49 CFR 571.110), but this definition is not applicable to your question. "Rated cargo load" is also not specifically defined, but is used in the requirements for gross vehicle weight rating in 49 CFR 567 and as a test condition in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. (Illegible Word) It is intended to mean the manufacturer's good faith rating of the weight of a vehicle's full cargo.

ID: nht74-3.35

DATE: 05/03/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Hawk Motor Homes, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 27, 1974, enclosing a sample certification label and requesting that we approve as an alternate location the inside wall left of the driver's seat beneath the driver's side window, to the left of the dash.

The labels you supply state in day, month, and year the dates of complete and incomplete vehicle manufacture, and the date by which applicable standards are determined. The Certification regulations (49 CFR Parts 567, 568) call for these dates to be stated only by month and year. While we prefer that the regulation be followed specifically, and thus that month and year only be specified, we will accept the format you have submitted which includes the day. The other information on the labels conforms to the Certification requirement.

With respect to your request for an alternate location, we approve the alternate location you request.

SINCERELY,

Hawk Motor Homes, Inc.

March 27, 1974

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Admin.

Attention: Frank Berndt

Re: N40-30 (JB)

CIR-954

In accordance with our telephone conversation on March 25th, we are enclosing herewith two sample labels for approval. Would you kindly affix your approval to one of the labels and return to us in the self-addressed stamped envelope also enclosed herewith.

It is our intention to have these labels attached to the wall immediately left of the driver's seat and directly underneath the window to the rear of the dash board. Kindly indicate whether or not this location is acceptable. Also note the diagram enclosed.

Very truly yours,

by Fred H. Hogan -- President

ID: nht74-4.25

DATE: 05/30/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: The Philadelphia Inquirer

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your recent letter to the U.S. Department of Transportation concerning Federal regulations on supplemental lights to be installed on your trucks.

There are no requirements in our Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards which would prohibit the use of a white light on the cab roof to Illuminate information on the front of the truck body. Likewise, we have no specifications for such lights. The use and location of the lights would, however, be subject to regulations imposed by the individual States.

As a matter of information, the front identification lamps and clearance lamps, as shown on the sketch attached to your letter, do not appear to be located in accordance with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 (copy enclosed). Table II requires these lamps to be located as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle. In your unscaled drawing the top of the truck body appears significantly higher than the cab.

Thank you for your interest in highway safety.

ENC.

N.H.T.S.A

We are acquiring a new fleet and we would like to mount a white light on the roof of our cabs that would illuminate the Company Name and vehicle identification number which is located on the front of the truck body. Before installing these lights, we would like to know if there is any part of the D.O.T. regulations which would prohibit their use, or if there are any regulations regarding their location, type, etc. Thank you for your cooperation.

Patrick R. Mulrooney

Fleet Safety MGR.

The Philadelphia Inquirer

ENC.

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht74-4.37

DATE: 01/08/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: American Retreader's Association, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 20, 1973, asking under what conditions retreaded tires, which you describe as, "not first class mainly from the standpoint of appearance, may be sold. You state that the tires are not defective, and are being sold for non-highway use, such as for farm wagons and hay bailers.

Standard No. 117 (Retreaded pneumatic tires) applies to all retreaded tires manufactured for use on passenger cars. The sale of such tires for off-highway vehicular purposes does not remove them from the coverage of the standard. Consequently, the tires must comply fully with Standard No. 117, bear the manufacturer's identification number (49 CFR Part 574), and not be restricted to off-road operation.

November 20, 1973

Mike Peskoe Assistant Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

A number of our members have written, asking us questions concerning the sale or disposition of retreads that are not first class, mainly from the standpoint of appearance. They are not defective.

(Illegible Word) retreads are being sold to implement dealers for non-highway(Illegible Word) such as on farmwagons, hay balers, etc.

1.) Should the retreader remove his assigned identification mark before selling it?

2.) Should he leave his assigned identification mark on the retread and brand or otherwise permanently identify it as being for farm or non-highway use?

3.) Should he remove his assigned identification mark and permanently identify it as being for farm or non-highway use?

Your help in clarifying these questions will be appreciated.

Arden H. Faris Assistant Director

ID: nht73-1.12

DATE: 10/23/73

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

TO: Trelleborgs Gummifabriks Aktiebolag

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of August 22, 1973, responding to our reply of June 26, 1973, to your letter of May 28, 1973. We informed you in the June 26 letter that labeling a passenger car tire, "Max Load 1200 Lbs. At 36 psi," would not be consistent with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 because this label does not make it clear that 36 psi is the maximum permissible inflation pressure. In your letter of August 22 you state that you have already manufactured tires labeled in this manner, and ask whether such tires may be imported into the United States in their present form.

The answer to this question is no. As we have determined that this labeling does not conform to Standard No. 109, the tires in question cannot be imported into the United States unless the labeling is modified to conform to the standard.

Sincerely,

U.S. Department of Transportation att: Assistant Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Administration

August 22, 1973

Dear Mr Dyson:

Thank you for your letter of June 26, 1973. Our problem is that we already have manufactured a number of tires, labelled "Max load 1200 LBS at 36 PSI" without the word Max Press in front of 36 PSI.

My question: are we allowed to export these tires to the United States without any complications due to the not quite correct labelling? I can mention that we later on have changed to the correct labelling in accordance with your instructions.

Yours truly, TRELLEBORGS GUMMIFABRIKS AKTIEBOLAG Tire Development Department -- Erik Sundelin

ID: nht73-1.13

DATE: 08/01/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; L. R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: The General Tire & Rubber Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

By your telegram of July 16, 1973, you requested an interpretation of the passenger car tire standard -- No. 109, which would allow the branding of the information required to be on the sidewall.

As we understand the situation in this case, the tires in question are certified by the manufacturer as complying and have all the required information but the "DOT" certification is in the wrong location.

In this instance, we have no objection to branding the "DOT" in the proper location.

We are notifying the Baltimore Customs officials that the tires that do not comply with the standards can be brought into this country by making a box 3 declaration that the merchandise does not conform but will be brought into conformance within 90 days by branding "DOT" in the proper location. Under the Customs regulation, 19 CFR 12.80, this requires the posting of a bond equal to the value of the merchandise.

Sincerely,

WESTERN UNION

JULY 16, 1973

LAWRENCE SCHNEIDER -- U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

CORRECTION OF MSG SENT JULY 13 - DO NOT DUPLICATE APPROXIMATELY 2,800 TIRES HAVE BEEN SHIPPED TO US FROM FABRICA NEUMATICOS ESPANOLA THESE TIRES ARE PRESENTLY BEING HELD BY CUSTOMS OFFICIALS IN BALTIMORE MARYLAND LESS THAN 1,000 OF THESE TIRES SPRINT JET RADIALS 165R 13 TECHNICALLY DO NOT COMPLY WITH STANDARDS PROMULGATED UNDER PARTS 57, AND 574 -- LABELING REQUIREMENT

REQUEST YOUR APPROVAL TO PERMIT ENTRY OF THESE TIRES SO THAT WE MAY ACCOMPLISH REBRANDING HERE IN AKRON REQUEST YOUR INTERPRETATION THAT THE STANDARDS DO NOT PROHIBIT SUCH BRANDING TO BRING TIRES(Illegible Words) PLEASE ADVISE 216-798-2048

WILLIAM & HENRICK THE GENERAL TIRE & RUBBER CO I GENERAL ST AKRON OHIO 44329

ID: nht73-1.23

DATE: 08/20/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James B. Gregory; NHTSA

TO: Oregon Traffic Safety Commision

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of July 23, 1973, enclosing an amended version of Oregon House Bill 2721.

We note that Section 2 of the Bill no longer requires a mandatory green-yellow-red rear mounted lighting system but specifies that it may be used on an optional basis, in accordance with the suggestions in Mr. Wilson's letter of July 20, 1973. In order to avoid preemption under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, ORS 483.412(3)(b) [Section 3] should be similarly amended to substitute "may" for "shall" so that all references to a mandatory system are removed from the Bill.

Sincerely,

OREGON TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION

July 23, 1973

James E. Wilson -- Associate Administrator, Traffic Safety Programs, U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

RE: N40-30 (ZTV)

Dear Mr. Wilson:

Attached is an engrossed (amended) version of Oregon House Bill 2721 relating to a series of red-yellow-green taillights.

Note that, as passed, the law is permissive. It does not relate to the manufacturer of a vehicle. A vehicle owner may, under the new law, add an accessory with a red-yellow-green series of taillights on his car.

Since this is in addition to the standard taillight system, it does not conflict with 49 CFR @ 571.108 Standard No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment.

When you are in Oregon we would be pleased to show you this system. We believe it will reduce rear-end collisions substantially.

Sincerely,

Gil W. Bellamy Administrator

[Enclosure Omitted.]

ID: nht73-1.42

DATE: 05/18/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Signum Plastics

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 26, 1973, requesting that you be assigned a "DOT" code number for purposes of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, "Glazing Materials". You state that you purchase acrylic plastic sheet from Thailand and Japan, and indicate that you are sole importers of this material.

Under paragraph S6 of Standard No. 205, the assignment of a code number is restricted to prime glazing material manufacturers, who are those manufacturers who either fabricate, laminate, or temper the glazing material. As you import only acrylic sheet, you are not a prime glazing material manufacturer, and the assignment of a code number to you is not appropriate.

I have enclosed a copy of marking requirements for glazing materials. Paragraph S6.2 requires a prime glazing material manufacturer to apply a code number, which is obtained upon written request to this agency, to that glazing designed as a component of any specific motor vehicle or camper. The code number requirement does not apply to glazing sheets not designed for a specific motor vehicle or camper. If you plan to import glazing material that is designed for a specific motor vehicle or camper, the prime manufacturer of that material, whether foreign or domestic, must apply for and receive a DOT code number.

Yours truly,

Enclosure

April 26, 1973

Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Gentlemen:

We are requesting assignment of a D O T number, relative to Standard No. 205.

We purchase acrylic sheet plastic from Thailand and Japan, and are the sole importers of this material, as evidenced by the enclosed labels.

We are in the process of getting a registered trademark for this label.

Very truly yours,

SIGNUM PLASTICS --

Jack Molesworth, Partner

Encl.

ID: nht73-2.49

DATE: 12/21/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Crisp & Henderson, Attorneys at Law

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 19, 1973, inquiring whether there are Federal or State regulations that contain labeling requirements for rubber used in retreaded tires.

There are to our knowledge no Federal regulations that either establish quality levels or require labeling for rubber used in retreaded tires.

Yours Truly,

CRISP & HENDERSON GREENVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA

November 19, 1973

Federal Department of Transportation Consumer Affairs

RE: Tire rubber specifications for recapping tires

I have a client with a special problem for which I need your assistance. I would like to briefly outline the problem.

A manufactures tire rubber in sheets which he sells to B in a small town in Eastern North Carolina. B wanted one quality of rubber for recapping, but did not want to pay the asking price. A deal was made so that B got what he thought was the higher quality rubber because the sheets of rubber were stamped with a higher quality label. Actually A was supplying B with lower quality sheets of rubber, but with a higher quality label. This means that B might be putting a quality made for farm tires or passenger car tires into truck tires. B now realizes that a substitution has been made in the quality of rubber he has been receiving.

I would like to know what state and federal regulations apply to labeling rubber which is used for recapping tires. Both A & B in my problem are located in North Carolina. I would appreciate your assistance in advising me of this information or of the appropriate agency for me to write.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Deborah A. Henderson Attorney at Law