ID: nht74-4.10

DATE: 07/03/74

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

TO: Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 11, 1974, request for approval of Toyota's banding design to meet the requirements of Standard No. 106, Brake hoses, for labeling brake hose assemblies.

The NHTSA interpretes a band as a label which encircles the hose completely and attaches to itself. To constitute labeling at all, of course, the band must be affixed to the hose in such a manner that it cannot easily be removed. You should be able to determine the compliance of your labeling method with the standard. It does appear that the Toyota label does not encircle the assembly and attach to itself. The NHTSA does not approve specific designs in advance, in any case, because the material, installation method, and underlying material can significantly affect the quality of a specific design.

TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC.

June 11, 1974

James B. Gregory Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Interpretation of FMVSS No. 106

We would like to request clarification of S5.2 of Standard No. 106, "Labeling," as published in theFederal Register on November 13, 1973 and amended on February 26, 1974.

S5.2.4 reads as follows:

"Each hydraulic brake hose assembly, . . . , shall be labeled by means of a band around the brake hose assembly. The band may at the manufacturer's option be attached so as to move freely along the length of the assembly, as long as it is retained by the end fittings. The band shall be permanently etched, embossed or stamped, in block capital letters and numerals at least one-eighth of an inch high, with the following information: . . ."

On the basis of our understanding of this section, we constructed a prototype plastic band to be attached to the neck of the end fitting. The band was made of plastic because of the rust problem that occurs in metal bands during corrosion testing. On the band the figures "DOT TG A/B," where A represents the numeral for the month and B the last two digits of the year of production, are permanently etched. While the band can be removed manually if desired, it will definitely not fall off during vehicle usage.

With the original of this letter, we have attached a sample of this band. Please let us know whether or not you think that it will meet the requirement.

As this is a very urgent matter, your expeditious reply will be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

Y. Veda

for K. Nakajima

Director/General Manager

Factory Representative Office

ID: nht74-4.11

DATE: 07/03/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Linch-Jones Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of June 4, 1974, inquiring as to the validity of your odometer disclosure statement.

The odometer disclosure requirements prescribed at 49 CFR Part 580 specify that a seller must provide his purchaser with a written statement that declares the mileage indicated on the vehicle odometer at the time of the transfer. If that mileage is known by the transferor to differ from the number of miles actually traveled by the vehicle, this must also be included in the disclosure statement in the form specified in the regulations.

The statement suggested in your letter inserts the word "may" into the aspect of the disclosure statement pertaining to mileage registration that is inaccurate for reasons other than calibration error. Although the statement as you have phrased it is not a direct violation of the Act, it is in conflict with the intended purpose of the disclosure statement to inform the purchaser of a vehicle as to the accuracy of the mileage registered on the odometer. In order to accomplish this purpose it has been determined that where the seller of a vehicle has good reason to believe that the mileage registered on the odometer differs from the vehicle's true mileage he must so inform the buyer in positive terms. This insures a conscious effort to determine the accuracy of the vehicle's odometer will bemade by the seller and prevents him from transferring ownership of a vehicle in a manner that could mislead the buyer.

In the situation where the transferor is uncertain whether the mileage is accurate, he must determine whether there is a credible basis for an assumption that the mileage is either correct or incorrect. If he has good reason to believe that the mileage is inaccurate, even though he is not positive, he should check the statement saying that the mileage indicated on the odometer is incorrect.

We urge you to phrase your odometer disclosure statement in the manner prescribed in the odometer regulation.

The full odometer statement enclosed in your letter appears correct. However, I should point out that the transferor's signature and the date of the statement must appear on the form in order for it to be complete.

For your information I am enclosing a copy of the odometer regulation which includes the odometer disclosure statement form.

ENCLS.

June 4, 1974

National Highway Traffic & Safety Administration, D.O.T.

Chief Counsel:

I request an interpretation as to the validity of our statement (as below).

I state that the actual mileage may differ from odometer reading for reasons other than odometer calibration error and that the actual mileage is unknown.

I also enclose a copy of my odometer mileage statement in total, which is incorporated in the bill of sale, to further add to the clarification of this matter.

Respectfully yours

William E. Linch, President

Linch-Jones, Inc.

CAR INVOICE

GERMAN AUTO BROKER

LINCH-JONES INCORPORATED

131 Honeysuckle Lane

Smyrna, Georgia 30080

SOLD TO

ADDRESS

DATE

Make

Body Type

Year

Model

Vehicle Identification No.

Sold "as is."

PRICE OF CAR

EXTRAS:

OPTIONAL EQUIP. & ACCES.

LICENSE TAG SALES TAX

TOTAL

Odometer Mileage Statement

Federal regulations require you to state the odometer mileage upon transfer of ownership. An inaccurate statement may make you liable for damages to your transferee, pursuant to Section 409 (a) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act of 1972, Public Law 92-513.

I. , state that the odometer mileage indicated on the vehicle described below is miles.

I further state that the actual mileage may differ from the odometer reading for reasons other than odometer calibration error and that the actual mileage is unknown.

ID: nht74-4.12

DATE: 07/10/74

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

TO: Flyer Industries Limited

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 5, 1974, question whether electric trackless trolley coaches are motor vehicles under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Act of 1966, and if so, whether Standard No. 121, Air brake systems, or any other special requirements must be met by this type of vehicle. Section 102(3) of the Act defines motor vehicle:

"Motor vehicle" means any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

An electric trackless trolley coach is a motor vehicle under this definition, and Standard No. 121, Air brake systems, applies to a coach equipped with an air brake system. No special requirements apply to trackless trolley coaches. Standard No. 121, Air brake systems, requires stopping distance performance which must be met by any bus equipped with air brakes, whether or not it is equipped with supplementary dynamic braking means. In evaluating a vehicle's compliance with the stopping distance performance requirements of S5.3 and S5.7.2.3, auxiliary braking devices may be utilized in making the stops provided such devices are engaged by means of the same service brake pedal or parking brake control that operates the air brakes. It should be noted, however, that these stops must be made with the transmission selector control in neutral or the clutch disengaged (S6.1.3).

FLYER INDUSTRIES LIMITED

June 5, 1974

Department of Transportation

Att: Office of Legal Information

ELECTRIC TRACKLESS TROLLEYS

File: 600 E13, E75/50

Dear Sir,

We are currently in the negotiation stages for an order to manufacture a number of electric trackless trolley coaches for a number of U.S. transit properties.

These vehicles are similar to standard diesel buses in that they are fitted with air brakes, cir suspension, and power steering. Coaches also have electrical braking of the rear wheels.

We would be interested to know if HVSS 121, Air Brake Systems Trucks, Buses and Trailers, is applicable to electrically driven vehicles operating from overhead wires. Are there any other special regulations that must be met by this type of vehicle?

Yours very truly,

A. Deane

Director of Engineering

ID: nht74-4.13

DATE: 07/10/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: University of Virginia

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 28, 1974, asking whether there are any Federal laws that would have a bearing on the University of Virginia's contemplated decision to purchase a tire grooving machine to regroove tires that will be used on buses operated by the University.

The NHTSA has recently amended Federal "Regrooved Tire" regulations (49 CFR 569, copy enclosed) to prohibit any person from regrooving his own tires (49 CFR @ 569.7). The regulation would apply to the University with respect to the tires you contemplate regrooving for use on university buses, and should certainly bear on your decision to purchase a tire regrooving machine.

The amendment to the regulation resulted from litigation National Association of Motor Bus Owners v. Brinegar, 483 F.2d 1294 (D.C. Cir. 1973) in which the United States Court of Appeals held that under section 204 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1524) Congress authorized this agency to permit only the sale of regrooved tires.

There are presently some efforts being made in the Congress to amend the Safety Act to alter the effect of this court decision. No final action of any kind has been taken, however, and we do not know whether or when such action might be taken.

ENC.

ID: nht74-4.14

DATE: 07/11/74

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

TO: Automobile Importers of America

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 24, 1974, asking that the NHTSA reconsider its decision to extend the time period within which it will normally respond to petitions for reconsideration. You also suggest that public meetings be held following the deadline for receipt of petitions.

Although the NHTSA appreciates the need for expeditious handling of petitions for reconsideration, it has become clear through the years that a shorter deadline for action than 90 days after the closing date for receipt of petitions is not practicable. In order to give full consideration to the points raised in the petitions, a period of 90 days from the closing date for petitions is often necessary and in the public interest. Every attempt will be made to remain within this limitation.

With regard to your suggestion that a public proceeding be held after the receipt of petitions, in general such proceedings have been found unnecessary at this stage in the rulemaking process. Written submissions have proven more helpful than oral discussion during this phase, since they tend to provide more constructive information and "hard data." In cases where a public meeting appears advisable, we will of course not hesitate to hold one.

Thank you for your comments.

AUTOMOBILE IMPORTERS OF AMERICA

June 24, 1974

James B. Gregory Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

On April 25, 1974, a notice was published in the Federal Register extending from 90 days to 120 days from publication of a final rule, the time period during which the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will normally respond to petitions for reconsideration. It is the unanimous view of the member companies of the Automobile Importers of America (AIA) that this extension of the NHTSA response time is not in the public interest and that you should reconsider this policy change in light of the following:

(a) With few exceptions, manufacturers must initiate changes in production tooling and order appropriate materials from suppliers promptly after issuance of a new or revised standard in order to meet the specified effective date. Since the deadlines for such production decisions are often short, delay on the part of NHTSA in responding to a petition can serve, in effect, as a denial of the petition.

(b) Manufacturers are allowed a 30-day period after publication of a standard to transmit the text to the factory, translate it to a foreign language (in most instances), construct and perform tests on special prototype vehicles or components, determine the conformance, producibility, and cost of an appropriate design, and, if significant problems are encountered, prepare a Petition for Reconsideration to the NHTSA. In view of this, it does not seem unreasonable to expect NHTSA personnel to respond to the petition within 60 days - double the time allowed for preparation of the petition by manufacturers

It is recognized that rule making decisions are often difficult since they are complex technically and since to serve the public interest, many points of view must be considered. Accordingly, we would suggest that if petitions for reconsideration are received, a public proceeding be scheduled closely following the deadline for such petitions. This would facilitate understanding of the problem and possible solutions and assure consideration of all points of view. In addition it would assure the consideration of the petitions on a timely basis, and provide a forum for the presentation of information adverse to as well as in support of the petitions. Finally, the record of the proceeding would, we believe, be of considerable use to your staff in facilitating and expediting the disposition of petitions.

Ralph T. Millet President

ID: nht74-4.15

DATE: 07/15/74

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

TO: Diamond Reo Trucks Incorporated

TITLE: TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

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

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

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

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

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

ENC.

ID: nht74-4.16

DATE: 07/17/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Elgin Sweeper Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

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

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

ID: nht74-4.17

DATE: 07/17/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Distributors Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

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

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

ID: nht74-4.18

DATE: 07/17/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Sheller-Globe Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

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

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

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

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

Sincerely

SHELLER-GLOBE CORPORATION

May 15, 1974

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

Attention: Lawrence R. Schneider Chief Counsel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

George R. Semark

Safety Engineer-Vehicles

Transportation Equipment Group

Vehicle Development Center

ID: nht74-4.19

DATE: 07/22/74

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

TO: Volvo of America Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

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

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

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

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

Yours Truly,

Volvo of America Corporation

June 19, 1974

Lawrence Schneider, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

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

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

Sincerely,

Rick Shue Product Safety Engineer