ID: nht80-3.2

DATE: 06/11/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Questor Corporation

COPYEE: D. F. MITCHELL -- V. P. AND GEN. MGR, QUESTOR JUVENILE FURNITURE CO.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of May 9, 1980, to Stephen Oesch of my office concerning Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. You requested an interpretation of whether, an alternative configuration you are considering for the Kantwet "One Step" child restraint would comply with Section 6.1.2.2.1(c) of the standard.

You described the configuration as one in which the crotch strap would be modified so that it "is permanently attached to the shield (in a manner similar to the two upper torso restraints which the [agency's] April 29th letter stated were integral parts of the shield. The bottom end of the crotch strap would be buckled to the base of the seat between the child's legs after the child is seated."

As you have described the modified crotch strap, it is an integral part of the movable shield since it is not a separate device that must be attached to the shield each time the restraint is used, but is formed as a unit with the shield. Since the crotch strap is an integral device, it can be attached during the testing of the restraint.

As mentioned in our letter of April 29, 1980, we urge that you and other manufacturers take the additional step of assuring that the upper torso restraint and the crotch strap permanently remain integral parts of the adjustment or anchorage device to which they are attached.

SINCERELY,

Questor Corporation

May 9, 1980

Steven Oesch National Highway Traffic Administration United States Department of Transportation

Re: NOA-30

Dear Mr. Oesch:

Mr. Frank Berndt's letter of April 29, 1980, addressed to our Mr. J. P. Koziatek, P.E., has been referred to my attention for follow-up. As stated in our phone conversation of today, it appears that the basis of the opinion expressed in that letter is contained in the first sentence of the third paragraph: "The crotch strap used in the Kantwet 'One Step' is not an integral part of the movable shield." That paragraph continues, "The crotch strap is a separate device . . . In Contrast, the two upper torso restraints appear to be integral parts of the shield since they are designed to remain attached to an adjustment device and anchorage which are in turn permanently affixed to the shield."

The purpose of this letter is to suggest an alternative configuration for the subject seat embodying a crotch strap that would fall within the above quoted parameters, and request an interpretation of the modified configuration vis-a-vis Section S6.1.2.2.1(c) of Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. The modified crotch strap to be used in the Kantwet "One Step" would be an integral part of the movable shield, that is permanently attached to the shield (in a manner similar to the two upper torso restraints which the April 29th letter stated were integral parts of the shield). The bottom end of the crotch strap would be buckled to the base of the seat between the child's legs after the child is seated.

Your department's prompt opinion would be greatly appreciated, inasmuch as we need to finalize design of the seat at this time in order to be in compliance with the Standard by its effective date, and to comply with the catalog printing deadlines of certain of our customers.

Ronald A. Kramer Assistant General Counsel

ID: nht80-3.31

DATE: 08/05/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Department of Public Instruction - North Dakota

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 3, 1980, letter asking whether a ramp device used in school buses for the transportation of the handicapped would be in conflict with the Federal safety standard for school bus emergency exits if the ramp partially blocked the rear exit when it folded into the bus. You indicate in your letter that the ramp would make the exit release mechanism difficult to operate for small children. Although your letter provides few details concerning the ramp, we conclude that it probably would render the vehicle in noncompliance with the emergency exit regulation.

Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, regulates the number and size of school bus emergency exits and requires that the release mechanisms of those exits be readily accessible. The purpose of these requirements, of course, is to provide an easily operable, unobstructed school bus emergency exit. In the past, we have preempted a State requirement for a safety chain that would have been placed across an exit, because we viewed the chain as providing an obstruction to the opening. Similarly, it appears to us that the ramp you describe would provide an impediment to emergency vehicle exits and would not permit easy access to the release mechanism. Accordingly, we conclude that a bus with such a ramp as original equipment would not comply with the Federal safety standards. We note further that the ramp could not be added as aftermarket equipment by any manufacturer, dealer, or repair business, without rendering inoperative the compliance of the bus with the safety standard. Nothing, however, precludes a school from adding the ramps to its own vehicles except the possibility of increased liability in the event a child is injured in an accident involving the bus.

There are many possible devices designed to aid the transportation of the handicapped that would not conflict with the standards. For example, many vehicles have lifts designed for handicapped use. It might also be possible to have a ramp at the rear door that stows under the vehicle when not in use rather than in the passenger compartment. Any of these alternatives would be better than a ramp that might block the emergency exit.

SINCERELY,

THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

Department of Public Instruction

July 3, 1980

Roger Tilton Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Tilton: A bus used to transport handicapped people has a ramp device at the rear door of the bus. The ramp is bolted to the floor of the bus and folds to be brought inside the bus for travel. The ramp remains in front of the door when the door is closed. The door latch can be reached so the door could be opened from the inside and the ramp pushed out for use as an emergency exit, although this would be fairly difficult for a very young child.

We have been asked if a device of this type would be in conflict with the Safety Standard for emergency exits for school buses.

Can any type of device be located inside the emergency door as original equipment on a school bus based on the Safety Standard for emergency exits?

Thank you for your help.

ROLLAND LARSON, Director

Pupil Transportation

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht81-1.15

DATE: 02/19/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: J. L. Lubatti

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of December 12, 1980, to the Office of Public Affairs and Consumer Participation. In your letter, you relate an incident involving a 1979 Plymouth Horizon. You state that this vehicle drifted down a steep grade and overturned after the driver parked and left the vehicle. The car's automatic transmission was apparently left in "Drive." You ask whether the design of this vehicle, which permits the driver to remove the keys from the ignition when the transmission is not in "Park," is legal. You also ask whether there is any litigation pending concerning this matter.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is empowered to issue safety standards regarding motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Each regulation specifies minimum requirements that all vehicles and equipment to which the regulation applies must meet. The design of the Plymouth Horizon does not violate Federal safety standards. Safety Standard No. 102, Transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect, regulates starter interlocks on vehicle equipped with automatic transmissions. This rule requires that the engine starter be inoperative when the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position. It does not require that the transmission be in "Park" before the keys can be removed from the ignition. Safety Standard No. 114, Theft Protection, requires all passenger cars to have a key-locking system. Standard No. 114 mandates that the key-locking system prevent (among other things) steering, forward movement of the vehicle under its own power, or both when the key is removed from the lock.

The key-locking system in the Horizon does not prevent forward self-mobility, as evidenced by the accident you describe in your letter. However, it does lock the steering column when the keys are removed from the ignition, and so it complies with the rule. The requirements of Standard No. 114 were designed to reduce the incidence of joyrider theft.

NHTSA is not currently investigating the Plymouth Horizon in regard to the issue you raise in your letter. The agency is unaware of any pending litigation.

We hope you find this information helpful. Please contact this office if you have any more questions.

SINCERELY,

December 12, 1980

N.H.T.S.A.

ATTENTION PUBLIC AFFAIRS AND CONSUMER PARTICIPATION

Re: 1979 Plymouth Horizon

Gentlemen:

In accordance with our insurance contract with the Sisters of Divine Providence and the Diocese of Pittsburgh, we recently paid a collision claim in excess of $ 2,900.00 and secured the proper form subrogating our company to their rights.

The vehicle's automatic transmission was apparently left in the "Drive" position by our insured after being parked on a relatively steep grade. She was able to remove the ignition key from the steering column and exit the vehicle before it drifted down the hill and overturned. (A copy of the police report is enclosed to verify the details). I'm advised that all 1979 and 1980 models of Horizon and Omni allow the operator to remove the keys regardless of whether the automatic floor type shifter is in the "Park" position.

Is this design legal and/or acceptable to your agency? If not, please also advise of any pending litigation concerning the matter.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation. x

John L. Lubatti Branch Manager

Police report omitted.

ID: nht81-1.16

DATE: 02/19/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Titeflex, Industrial Products Groups

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter asking whether air compressor discharge hose lines would be considered "brake hose" subject to the requirements of Safety Standard No. 106.

Safety Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses (49 CFR 571.106), defines "brake hose" as:

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.

This definition excludes the line from the air compressor to the supply tank, if that hose does not supply force to the vehicle's brakes in your system. Therefore, your hose would not be required to comply with Safety Standard No. 106.

In response to your question 1(b), any hose that supplies force, either directly or indirectly, to the vehicle's brakes is considered "brake hose", whether or not the hose is "right at the wheel brakes themselves" (as stated in your letter). For example, hose in brake booster systems is generally considered "brake hose."

In answer to your last two questions, there are no other Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards which would be applicable to air compressor discharge hoses. You will have to contact the individual States to see if there are applicable regulations at that level. We are not aware of any such State regulations, however.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

Titeflex INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS GROUP

October 24, 1980

Office of Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Gentlemen:

The purpose of this letter is to obtain clarifying information concerning your Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #106-74 ("Brake Hoses"), revised 7/7/76, and as amended by Notice #24 effective 5/25/78, copies of which I have.

Our company is a manufacturer of flexible Teflon hose and swaged fittings. We have been asked by numerous motor vehicle end-users (buses, motorcycles, race cars, etc.) throughout the U.S. as to whether or not our hose, fittings, and hose assemblies meet DOT specifications. Accordingly, we would appreciate your response to the questions below:

1. Among other things, paragraph S-4 of #106-74 defines "brake hose" (and "a brake hose assembly") as being" 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 motor vehicle's brakes" (this pertains to hydraulic, air, and vacuum brakes).

(a) In public transit buses (e.g., those governed by UMTA's Transit Coach Specifications), must air compressor discharge flexible hose lines (air compressor-to-ping tank) be governed by Standard #106-74? Or are these compressor discharge lines considered only accessory lines and thus do not have to meet these specifications? Are these lines "in the brake system" or not?

(b) It is my understanding that only the actual brake hoses right at the wheel brakes themselves are the hoses which must comply with this standard. Is this correct?

2. This Safety Standard pertains only to "brake hoses". Are there any other Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, on a National basis, with which our hoses/assemblies must comply for any other motor vehicle application?

3. Finally, are there any individual state or local standards which apply for these or other flexible hose applications on any motor vehicle, assuming we comply with your national standards?

Your assistance in helping to clarify this matter will be most appreciated. Thank you in advance for your help.

Sincerely,

Robert J. McGurk -- Manager, Market Development

ID: nht81-1.18

DATE: 02/19/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Proprietors Insurance Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of December 12, 1980, to the Office of Public Affairs and Consumer Participation. In your letter, you relate an incident involving a 1979 Plymouth Horizon. You state that this vehicle drifted down a steep grade and overturned after the driver parked and left the vehicle. The car's automatic transmission was apparently left in "Drive." You ask whether the design of this vehicle, which permits the driver to remove the keys from the ignition when the transmission is not in "Park," is legal. You also ask whether there is any litigation pending concerning this matter.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is empowered to issue safety standards regarding motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Each regulation specifies minimum requirements that all vehicles and equipment to which the regulation applies must meet. The design of the Plymouth Horizon does not violate Federal safety standards. Safety Standard No. 102, Transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect, regulates starter interlocks on vehicles equipped with automatic transmissions. This rule requires that the engine starter be inoperative when the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position. It does not require that the transmission be in "Park" before the keys can be removed from the ignition. Safety Standard No. 114, Theft Protection, requires all passenger cars to have a key-locking system. Standard No. 114 mandates that the key-locking system prevent (among other things) steering, forward movement of the vehicle under its own power, or both when the key is removed from the lock.

The key-locking system in the Horizon does not prevent forward self-mobility, as evidenced by the accident you describe in your letter. However, it does lock the steering column when the keys are removed from the ignition, and so it complies with the rule. The requirements of Standard No. 114 were designed to reduce the incidence of joyrider theft.

NHTSA is not currently investigating the Plymouth Horizon in regard to the issue you raise in your letter. The agency is unaware of any pending litigation.

We hope you find this information helpful. Please contact this office if you have any more questions.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

December 12, 1980

PUBLIC AFFAIRS AND CONSUMER PARTICIPATION -- N.H.T.S.A.

Re: 1979 Plymouth Horizon

Gentlemen:

In accordance with our insurance contract with the Sisters of Divine Providence and the Diocese of Pittsburgh, we recently paid a collision claim in excess of $ 2,900.00 and secured the proper form subrogating our company to their rights.

The vehicle's automatic transmission was apparently left in the "Drive" position by our insured after being parked on a relatively steep grade. She was able to remove the ignition key from the steering column and exit the vehicle before it drifted down the hill and overturned. (A copy of the police report is enclosed to verify the details). I'm advised that all 1979 and 1980 models of Horizon and Omni allow the operator to remove the keys regardless of whether the automatic floor type shifter is in the "Park" position.

Is this design legal and/or acceptable to your agency? If not, please also advise of any pending litigation concerning the matter.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

John L. Lubatti -- Branch Manager, PROPRIETORS INSURANCE CO.

Enclosures omitted.

ID: nht81-1.9

DATE: FEBRUARY 3, 1981

FROM: J. KAWANO -- GENERAL MANAGER, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE-TOYOTA

TO: FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TITLE: INTERPRETATION OF FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 105-75

ATTACHMT: OCTOBER 3, 1988 LETTER FROM JONES TO BURKARD, EBNER, AND TEVES, OCTOBER 9, 1981 LETTER FROM BERNDT TO KAWANO, JULY 10, 1974 LETTER FROM DYSON TO NAKAJIMA, MAY 24, 1974 LETTER FROM TEVES TO GREGORY, AND MAY 27, 1988 LETTER FROM TEVES TO JONES

TEXT: Toyota is currently considering a new type of brake reservoir, as shown in Fig. 1, in accordance with your letter enclosed herewith as Attachment #1.

We request clarification of our interpretation of @5.4.2 & 5.3.1 of FMVSS No. 105-75, concerning this type of brake reservoir.

S5.4.2 reads as follows:

Reservoirs, whether for master cylinders or for other type systems, shall have a total minimum capacity equivalent to the fluid displacement resulting when all the wheel cylinders or caliper pistons serviced by the reservoirs move from a new lining, fully retracted position (as adjusted initially to the manufacturer's recommended setting) to a fully worn, fully applied position, as determined in accordance with S7.18(c) of this standard. Reservoirs shall have completely separate compartments for each subsystem except that in reservoir systems utilizing a portion of the reservoir for a common supply to two or more subsystems, individual partial compartments shall each have a minimum volume of fluid equal to at least the volume displaced by the master cylinder piston servicing the subsystem, during a full stroke of the piston.

As far as our new type of brake reservoir is concerned, we recognize that if the following three conditions were satisfied, these reservoirs would conform to S5.4.2. Is this interpretation correct?

i) W + X + Y > C + D + E *

ii) X > A

iii) Y > B

* (Note: A vehicle equipped with this type of reservoir can be expressed as W+X+Y>C+D, since E is equivalent to zero.)

W; common capacity for fluid of front brake, rear brake & clutch as hatching part in Fig. 1

X; a compartment capacity for front brake fluid Y; a compartment capacity for rear brake fluid

A; volume displaced by front master cylinder during a full stroke of position

B; volume displaced by rear master cylinder during a full stroke of position

C; front capacity of fluid when all cylinder pistons serviced by the reservoirs from a new lining, fully retracted position to fully worn, fully applied position

D; rear capacity of fluid when all cylinder pistons serviced by the reservoirs from a new lining, fully retracted position to fully worn, fully applied position

E; clutch capacity of fluid when all cylinder pistons serviced by the reservoirs from a new lining, fully retracted position to fully worn, fully applied position

In accordance with the aforementioned interpretation, we recognize that if the warning level is not less than the level of 1/4 (W+X+Y), S5.3.1 would be satisfied. This "W" is the same volume as the "W" in expression i) of inequality. Is this interpretation correct? The main point in question is whether the "W" in expression i) of inequality can be considered the capacity in a case where the overall compartment system -- clutch included -- has not failed. We illustrate such a case in te hatching segment of Fig. 1.

We would appreciate a reply at your earliest convenience. If you should have any comments or questions, please contact Mr. M. Mori, a member of my staff, who can be reached at: (201) 865-2019. Thank you.

Enclosure.

Fig. 1. Warning level.

ID: nht74-1.34

DATE: 01/10/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Trailmobile Technical Center

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letters of October 25, and December 14, 1973. I regret that your earlier letter did not arrive.

You stated that your customer wishes to mount rear identification lamps at the same height from the ground as the rear turn signal, stop, tail and clearance lamps, and that, because of the shallowness of the rear header area it is not "practicable" to mount them there.

Although it may not be "practicable" to mount the Grote #272 lamp, specified by your customer, in the header area, there may be other conforming lamps that it would be "practicable" to mount in that location in a three-lamp identification array. If such lamps are available, then Standard No. 108 takes priority over contractual specifications, especially since the clearance lamps will be mounted at a point other than "as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle".

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

TRAILMOBILE TECHNICAL CENTER

December 14, 1973

Lawrence Schneider, Chief Counsel -- Dept. of Transportation

Dear Mr. Schneider:

Please find enclosed a copy of a letter dated October 25, 1973 in which I requested a ruling on the lowering of the identification lamps on the rear of a trailer under certain conditions of shallow header depth.

Today I talked with Mr. T. Vinson of your office and was advised that the letter must have been lost as he had not seen the request and further advised that I resubmit a copy of the original request.

Sincerely,

Evan Hammond -- Manager - Central Engineering

Encl.

cc: R. J. Deller; J. E. Cook; E. E. Lungren - Chicago

October 25, 1975

Lawrence Schneider, Chief Counsel -- Department of Transportation Dear Mr. Schneider:

Please find enclosed a sketch of a trailer rear end lighting arrangement, on which we are requesting a ruling with respect to conformance to M.V.S.S. no. 108.

In this particular case the customer is specifying a higher than normal rear door opening to facilitate easier loading and unloading of palatized cargo. Accomplishment of this end necessitates that the rear frame header be 2-5/8" deep. At the same time, the customer is specifying a Grote #272 lamp for the rear identification lamp function. It is not possible to mount these lamps on the shallow header in any "practicable" manner to (Illegible Word) the overall height of the trailer. We respectfully request that we may be allowed to mount the lamps to a lower level (same level as the turn signal, stop, tail and rear clearance lamps), this being "as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle" in this case.

We believe that the proposed installation is not in conflict with the intent of the safety standard as it will provide an easier and more reliable installation with simpler maintenance and at the same time, the rear lamp configuration is identical to thousands of platform trailers and container chassis safety in operation today on our highways.

A prompt reply to this request will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Evan Hammond -- Manager - Central Engineering

Encl. to all

cc: R. J. Deller; J. E. Cook; E. E. Lungren - Chicago

(Graphics omitted)

PROPOSED TRAILER REAR END LAMP CONFIGURATION WITH "SHALLOW HEADER" REAR FRAME

ID: nht74-1.46

DATE: 11/05/74

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

TO: Midland-Ross Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Midland-Ross' October 8, 1974, clarification of its February 8, 1974, petition for an amendment of S5.1.2.1 and S5.2.1.2 of Standard No. 121, Air brake systems, that would establish separate air reservoir volume requirements for several brake chamber types generally available in the air brake component market. You point out that Midland-Ross was referring to chamber stroke and not chamber diameter as the chamber dimension which could affect the safety of a brake system. You also requested that we adopt SAE Standard J10b instead of J10a as our specification of a reservoir that "withstands" certain internal hydrostatic pressure.

In our denial of your petition, we did understand your point that additional stroke could be discouraged by a reservoir capacity requirement based on chamber size at maximum travel of the piston or diaphragm. We found that the stopping distance requirements in effect mandate the installation of high performance components, and we do not anticipate a safety problem. If a safety problem does arise in the future, we would consider a modification of S5.1.2.1 and S5.2.1.2.

SAE Standard No. J10b is identical to J10a in its requirement that no rupture or permanent circumferential deformation of the reservoir exceed one percent. Therefore, for purposes of S5.1.2.2 and S5.2.1.3, we are adopting SAE J10b as our specification of "withstand" until we undertake further rulemaking.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

POWER CONTROLS DIVISION Midland-Ross Corporation

October 8, 1974

James B. Gregory -- Administrator, U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Adm.

Dear Mr. Gregory:

Subject: N40-30 (TWH)

Thank you for your response to our petition dated February 8, 1974 in regard to Section S5.1.2.1 and S5.2.1.2 of Standard 121 Air Brake Systems. We feel that our petition may not have been clear in regard to use of small volume chambers which apparently led to your misinterpreting our concern. We also believe you may have referred to the incorrect SAE Standard regarding air reservoirs.

In regard to our petition for clarification of air reservoir required volumes, we made mention of the fact that "current reservoir volume requirement based on maximum displacement encourages the use of small volume chambers". By this statement we did not imply smaller diameter chambers but shorter stroke chambers. It is quite easily determined that little chamber stroke is required if the foundation brakes are carefully adjusted with minimum liner to drum clearance. A chamber with 1.5" stroke could be adequate and will meet all of the standard's requirements. If a vehicle manufacturer would elect to go with this short stroke, he could reduce reservoir capacity by 25%. However, there would be very little safety factor to allow for drum expansion and liner wear. It is this condition of which we are concerned and feel it is wrong to penalize the vehicle manufacturer by requiring them to have larger reservoirs when they attempt to provide this additional safety advantage. We ask that you again review this matter and adopt one of the recommended changes to S5.1.2.1 and S5.2.1.2 as stated in our petition.

In the last paragraph of your response you mention the NHTSA has adopted the SAE Standard No. J10a in regard to the definition of "withstand". We assume you intended to refer to SAE Standard J10b and would appreciate your concurrence with this assumption.

Sincerely,

M. J. Denholm -- Director of Engineering

ID: nht74-2.22

DATE: 06/12/74

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

TO: Southern Railway System

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letters of January 10, 1974, and May 17, 1974, you have asked if a trailer would comply with S5.8 of Standard No. 121, Air brake systems, ("have a parking brake system. . . when the air pressure in the supply line is at atmospheric pressure") if its parking brake system contained a valve that allows manual release of the parking brake with the supply line at atmospheric pressure but automatically resets itself when the supply line is pressurized, so that the parking brake system operates as specified by S5.8. Such a valve would permit limited motion of trailers on flat cars to cushion shock experienced during transit.

Such a valve does not appear to conflict with the intent of S5.8 that the parking brake system apply when the supply line is at atmospheric pressure. The requirement is not intended to interfere with intentional manual release of the parking brakes after automatic application has occurred. The danger of inadvertent disablement of the parking brake system during subsequent highway travel is avoided by the automatic features which would return the system to normal operation as soon as the trailer is connected to a source of air pressure, i.e., a tractor.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

May 17, 1974

Richard B. Dyson -- Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U. S. Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Dyson:

Please refer to my letter dated January 10, 1974, and I also refer to my telephone conversations of May 17 and earlier with Mr. (Illegible Word) of your office, concerning the problems created for trailers to be used on railroad flat cars by the new requirements for parking brakes.

Attached is a memorandum dated May 17, 1974 from Southern Railway's Assistant Vice President - Engineering & Research C. E. Webb, explaining why there is a need for a parking brake system on a trailer which will allow it to move longitudinally along a flat car for a short distance during impact. Read literally, Section S5.8 of the new regulations would require a trailer to be equipped with a parking brake designed so that the trailer would be incapable of this short longitudinal movement on impact. Mr. Webb in his memorandum proposes parameters for a device, to be developed by the manufacturers and approved by DOT if necessary, which would achieve the purpose of the new regulation when the trailer was in over-the-road use, while at the same time meeting the need for a means to "cut out" the parking brake when the trailer is on a rail car. Mr.

Webb envisions a fail-safe device. I might add that by proposing the device described by Mr. Webb, Southern intends to take no exception to a change in the rules which would be more liberal, that is, allow devices to be put on trailers that would also allow the manual disabling of the parking brake in other situations where it may be desirable, e.g., in freight yards during hostling.

As I said in my January 10 letter, we believe @ 5.8 does not forbid installation of a device like that described by Mr. Webb. However, in order to interest manufacturers in developing the device, we feel it important that your agency indicate that it would be proper and permissible under your regulations. Therefore, we would appreciate receiving advice from you to that effect, if that is the view of your agency.

Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

William P. Stallsmith, Jr. Senior General Attorney -- SOUTHERN RAILWAY SYSTEM

ID: nht79-4.33

DATE: 06/26/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Viking Truck Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 6, 1979, asking whether a rear lamp configuration that you describe would meet the location requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Viking Truck would like to use a lighting module containing turn signal lamps, stop lamps, tail lamps, and back-up lamps mounted on its "Bridgemaster" extendable axle. This "axle" has the appearance of a small trailer and in either extended or unextended position covers about half of the rear of the concrete mixer truck to which it is attached. You stated that Viking has had problems connected with vibration and damageability when the lamps are placed on the tag axle fender, and that remounting them on the extendable axle would alleviate these problems.

Table II of Standard No. 108 requires that stop lamps, turn signal lamps, and tail lamps be mounted "as far apart as practicable." Because the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a manufacturer self-certification scheme, the agency has traditionally deferred to a manufacturer's determination of what, in any given instance, is "practicable" except in such instances as appear to the agency to be a clear abuse of discretion. In our opinion, Viking has a reasonable basis for a determination that the location it wishes to use is practicable. In the absence of any investigation of the matter by NHTSA, or questioning of your practice, Viking's certification of compliance attached to the vehicle should ensure that the truck cannot be refused registration in any State simply because of the lighting configuration. This means, in our opinion and to answer your second question, Viking need not acquire State approval of the configuration before offering the truck for sale.

I hope this answers your questions.

SINCERELY,

VIKING TRUCK CORPORATION

June 6, 1979

Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219, DOT Headquarters

Gentlemen:

Enclosed you will find four photographs of a concrete mixer mounted with our "Bridgemaster" extendable axle. Two of these pictures show the axle fully extended. The other two show the axle completely retracted.

Please notice the location of the light module we have put into place. This lighting module, produced by Betts Safety Lamp, is a completely enclosed, waterproof, heavy duty lighting system. In the module are the left and right turn lights, brake lights and tail lights. The back up light and electrical junction block is also included in the module. The combination brake, turn, and tail lights are 18 1/4" from center to center. Also, please notice the rear clearance lamps on the fender of the rear driving axle.

We have had numerous problems with the lights when they are placed on the tag axle fenders. They receive a lot of vibration and have a tendency to get backed into. We believe mounting the lights in the location shown in the photographs would alleviate many of our rear lighting problems.

Would the brake, turn, and tail lights, as placed in the photographs, meet the requirements of being "as far apart as practicable" (Part 571; S108-11)? If you find these lights in accordance with the regulations, do we have to acquire approval from the individual states, particularly California?

Please contact me if you need any further information. Thank you.

Michael W. Brooks

(Graphics omitted)