ID: nht74-4.29

DATE: 06/19/74

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

TO: Busby, Rivkin, Sherman, Levy, and Rehm

COPYEE: DYSON; DUGOFF; CARTER

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of June 10, 1974, in which you asked for our interpretation of the preemption provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (sec. 103(d)) with respect to the Pennsylvania position on brake hose. A letter that you enclosed from the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation advised a manufacturer's representative that "Pennsylvania will continue to approve brake hoses under the SAK Standards for air, hydraulic and vacuum hose," and that the State "will continue to require the hose be identified in the same manner as our present regulations," with the Federally-required labeling placed on "a separate line" from the State's labeling.

Section 103(d) of the Act, 43 U.S.C. 1392(d), plainly prohibits any State from establishing or continuing in effect a safety standard applicable to an item of motor vehicle equipment, where there is an applicable Federal standard, unless the State standard is "identical to the Federal standard." This preemption provision takes effect wherever a Federal standard is applicable to the same aspect of performance as the State standard. When the new Federal standard on brake hoses comes into effect, with its testing and labeling requirements, any differing State standards, as Pennsylvania's appear to be, will be preempted and void.

ID: nht74-4.3

DATE: 06/07/74

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

TO: Engineer/Transit Technology

TITLE: TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 2, 1974, request for a ruling on whether trolley and motor buses equipped with air brake systems and dynamic electric or hydraulic devices are required to be equipped with antilock equipment.

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, and the stops must be made with only controlled wheel lockup over 10 mph. Although the standard does not require antilock devices, many manufacturers have indicated they will use antilock devices to meet this requirement.

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).

It can be foreseen that at least one difficulty may arise in testing with supplementary brake systems. S6.3 requires that the transmission be in neutral or the clutch be disengaged during deceleration, which might eliminate the torque from your dynamic brake.

Please write again if this or other difficulties arise in the certification of your buses.

Sincerely,

April 2, 1974

National Highway Traffic Administrator

Dear Sir:

The Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle has recently written a specification for the purchase of more than 600 motor and trolley buses. The first draft of this specification is presently in circulation to potential bidders, transit properties, governmental agencies, consultants and other interested individuals for their comments. These comments must be received by the Municipality by April 30, 1974, for evaluation and possible implementation into the final specification which is scheduled for release about the middle of June, 1974.

In a telephone conversation with Assistant Chief Counsel Richard Dyson on March 26, 1974, I brought up a question related to bus brakes and FMVSS 121. The Municipality has a specification requirement for dynamic brakes on our new trolley buses in addition to the standard air brakes. We also have a specification requirement for an electric or hydraulic retarder on two of our new larger types of motor buses in addition to the standard air brakes. The question, as asked of the Municipality by an interested foreign manufacturer, is whether it is still necessary to provide anti-skid equipment or brake equalization with dynamic braking on the trolley bus, and whether it is necessary to provide anti-skid equipment or brake equalization with an electric or hydraulic retarder on the motor buses. The electric retarder operates off the gear box, drive shaft or differential and the hydraulic retarder operates off the transmission.

Mr. Dyson advised me to put the question with supplementary background in written form and address it to you for an interpretation and ruling. I have enclosed a copy of the letter regarding the brake question, a copy of the bus specification of the buses for the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, a copy of the information on the electrical retarder and a copy of the information on the hydraulic retarder.

We shall look forward to your reply so that we can advise potential bidders of this decision.

Very truly yours,

Alden G. Olson

Engineer/Transit Technology

Enclosures

TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT DEVELOPMENT CO.

MARCH 14, 1974

John Aurelius Mgr., Transit Technology SEATTLE METRO 410 West Harrison Street Seattle, WA 98119

SUBJECT: FMVSS QUESTIONS

Arne Lindqvist and I finally caught up with each other in New York so we had an opportunity to discuss our mutual problems as they relate to bus production for the U.S. market.

As he told you, meeting the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards is a bit of a thorn for European producers inasmuch as there is a somewhat different approach to safety in Europe.

There is one important point which, to our knowledge, has not yet been clarified. This is the question of brake equalization in a trolley coach. With dynamic braking, is it still necessary to provide anti-skid equipment or brake equalization? Is it possible to obtain an exception?

This same line of thinking would lead us to similar questions relating to motor coaches. All new motor coaches in Switzerland are equipped with dynamic braking as are a high percentage of the new commercial vehicles in other countries. The Telma retarder would be recommended for the second and third axlesof the HESS articulated motor coach.

Can you secure a ruling on these points? Perhaps you have already explored this subject and can advise us.

Very truly yours,

H.T. HAWKES---President

ID: nht74-4.30

DATE: 07/03/74

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

TO: Imperial-Eastman Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your May 21, 1974, question whether "I" or "II" should appear as a part of the label information on renewable 3/8-inch and 1/2-inch SP fittings.

It is not permissible to include type "I" or "II" in the labeling required on renewable fittings. S7.2 calls for the end fitting identification which appears in your letter, but S7.2 reserves the use of "I" and "II" for use in reusable assemblies, that is, assemblies which include reusable end fittings. The standard classifies renewable end fittings as a type of permanently-attached end fitting.

Yours truly

May 21, 1974

Legal Department National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Attention: T. W. Herlihy

We manufacture a line of renewable fittings for 1/4, 3/8, 7/16, 1/2 and 5/8" I. D. air brake hose. These couplings have a deformable sleeve and can be assembled in our factory, or in the field, with hand tools. While the sleeve can only be used once, the other components can be reused with a new sleeve (hence, the name renewable).

According to our interpretation of FMVSS 106, these fittings will now fall into the permanently attached coupling classification. However, because they are not two piece end fittings attached by crimping or swaging, they must be permanently labeled.

After carefully studying the DOT specificaion, we have decided on the following marking for each size of fitting (the hose involved is SAE J1402 Type A and Type B). HOSE I. D. COUPLING IDENTIFICATION 1/4 DOT ** A 1/4 3/8 * DOT ** A 3/8 7/16 DOT ** A 7/16 1/2 SP * DOT ** A 1/2 SP 5/8 DOT ** A 5/8

* Shown on reusable assembly Table III.

My question is this - What, if any, designation must appear after the letter "A" on the 3/8 and 1/2 SP. fittings? The above fittings are compatible with both SAE Type A and Type B hose and your Table III does not specify which type is represented by your Type I or Type II and the dimensions of each hose are identical. Is it necessary to use I or II after the A's?

Your prompt reply will be greatly appreciated.

IMPERIAL-EASTMAN CORPORATION

Eastman Division

M. A. Chermak

Chief Product Engineer

ID: nht74-4.31

DATE: 03/15/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: New York State Department of Transportation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 7, 1974, inquiring whether the words "emergency door" may be used in lieu of "emergency exit" under S5.5 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217. You indicate that New York's regulations manual specifies the use of the words, "emergency door," and that a revised printing of the manual presently under way still contains this requirement.

While the NHTSA does not consider the phrase "emergency door" to be synonymous with emergency exit (we do not believe pushout windows or other non-door emergency exits are appropriately marked "emergency door"), we would not consider a bus to fail to conform to Standard No. 217 if its emergency doors were marked "emergency door." Emergency exists other than doors, however, must be marked emergency exit.

NHTSA standards apply only to vehicles manufactured after a standard's effective date. Standard No. 217 does not apply to buses in use that were manufactured before its effective date of September 1, 1973.

I point out that the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act dealing with preemption of State requirements (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) prohibit New York from enforcing its requirement that emergency exits be marked "emergency door."

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

January 7, 1974

Jerry Palisi Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Mr. John Murphy of this office informed me that he discussed with you our question concerning the use of the words "Emergency Door" in lieu of "Emergency Exit" as is apparently required by federal standards or regulations.

New York State has been requiring the use of words "Emergency Door" for many years now and it appears to us that it would be unreasonable to request a change in this regulation when considering the difference is only a matter of semantics. We feel quite certain that the use of the words "Emergency Door" will achieve the same result as the use of the words "Emergency Exit", and it is our suggestion that both expressions be permitted, if not on a permanent basis at least on a temporary basis until our rules are next amended.

We would appreciate whatever consideration you and your office can give to this request, as compliance at this particular time would create a considerable hardship. To illustrate, we have in circulation now between 4 and 5,000 copies of our current regulations and have already started the process of printing new regulations which will contain the words "Emergency Door". If the difference were significant, we would certainly consider changing our wording, but this is not the case and we would hope for some relief. Thanks for your help.

WILLIAM G. GALLOWAY, Director Traffic and Safety Division

By

MARTIN V. CHAUVIN, Chief Carrier Inspection Section

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TO: Lawrence Schneider

Office of the Chief Counsel (N40-30)

FROM: Regional Administrator

Region II

DATE: January 11, 1974

In reply refer to:

0II-00.NHTSA

SUBJECT: Request for Exemption from or Modification to FMVSS

No. 217, "Bus Window Retention and Release"

The enclosed letter dated January 7, 1974, from Mr. Martin V. Chauvin, Chief, Carrier Inspection Section, New York State Department of Transportation, is a follow-up to a discussion with Mr. Guy Hunter, Office of Crashworthiness, M.V.P.

New York is questioning the requirements of Section S5.5 of the above Standard, specifically the designation, "Emergency Exit".

We would appreciate a direct response to New York and an informational copy to our office.

Jerome A. Palisi

Highway Safety Management Specialist

Attachment

ID: nht74-4.32

DATE: 07/03/74

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

TO: Alfred Teves GMBH

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your May 10, 1974, request for permission to stamp label information on hose assemblies in place of banding, and to reduce S9.2.5 burst pressure from 350 to 100 psi, and your further request for an interpretation of the status of an in-line check valve as part of a vacuum brake hose.

The in-line check valve is not subject to Standard No. 106, Brake hoses, as a brake hose and fitting. In this configuration, the couplers depicted in your drawing are the clamps, and the check valve is a separate component to which the hose assemblies are attached.

The issue of stamping instead of banding will be answered in our upcoming Notice 11 in response to petitions for reconsideration of the brake hose standard.

Your petition for a reduction in the burst strength requirement for vacuum hoses is denied. The minimum burst pressure of 350 psi was established by the Society of Automotive Engineers in 1942, taking into consideration the effects of backfire pressure and the severe underhood environment to which vacuum hose may be exposed. Hoses with this burst pressure have provided excellent reliability and durability. We have no data to justify a reduction in burst strength in view of the two hazards just cited.

MAY 10, 1974

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration US Department of Transportation

Subject: Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106

(Docket no. 1-5, Notice 10

According to Notice 10 the designation of fittings was dropped due to objections raised by various manufactures because of insufficient clearness. For years we successfully used to emboss the date of manufacture on to the fittings (after the swaging process). We therefore ask you to extend item S 5.2.4 to the effect that in case of two-piece end fittings, which are attached by crimping or swaging, embossing of the designation on to the fittings will also be allowed instead of using a band.

The present standard according to which only a band will be allowed would be connected with a high degree of capital expenditure (reconstruction of entire assembly machinery) for the manufacturing department of Alfred Teves GmbH.

As far as vacuum brake hoses (see item S 9.2.5) are concerned, we think that a 350 psi burst strength is too high. The maximum operating pressure amounts to a vacuum of 0,80 bar, so that the required 350 psi would mean a 27-fold safety.

For this field of application a burst strength of 100 psi is sufficient. We therefore ask you to amend item S 9.2.5 to the effect that in the case of vacuum brake tubes the burst strength will be reduced to 100 psi.

Our production programm also comprises a vacuum check valve, which 1st mounted between two vacuum brake tubes, according to the attached sketch. We kindly ask you to inform us whether in the case of vacuum check valves the same requirements as are applicable for complete brake tubes regarding a burst strength of 350 psi (item S 9.2.5) and a minimum cross-section of 70% (item S 9.2.1) will be made.

Considering the near effective date of FMVSS, we would like to receive your answer concerning the three items mentioned above as soon as possible.

Yours sincerely

ALFRED TEVES GMBH

ppa.

i.V.

BELLER

Attachment

1 sketch

Ruckschiagventil

Schlauchhalter

Vakuumschiauch

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht74-4.33

DATE: 07/08/74

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

TO: Bendix Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your May 28, 1974, question whether a short neoprene connector of two steel vacuum brake lines in the Bendix Hydrovac unit is subject to Standard No. 106, Brake hoses.

The neoprene connector functions as a brake hose under the definition set out in the standard:

"Brake hose" means a flexible conduit that transmits or contains the fluid pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes.

The determination of the "flexibility" of a particular brake line material is a difficult but important decision. Flexibility is required in brake lines for at least two reasons. First and most important is the flexibility required to accommodate large amounts of relative motion in service, in frame-to-axle applications for example. Less obvious but important is the flexibility required in the event a brake line is displaced during repair or alteration of the brake system or other nearby vehicle components. A mechanic's decision to bend a brake line during repairs may depend on whether it "looks" flexible, and therefore appearance becomes an important element of the determination. On this basis the NHTSA has concluded that copper and steel chassis plumbing, for example, do not invite bending during repairs because their appearance makes their relative inflexibility obvious.

In contrast, plastic air brake chassis plumbing and small sections of hose used to connect steel or copper tubing, are examples of "flexible conduits" that invite bending in order to make repairs. To ensure that these "flexible conduits" are not damaged when they are displaced, they are considered brake hose subject to the bend and deformation requirements of the standard. In the case of the Hydrovac, the presence of the neoprene connector would appear to permit flexibility to compensate for component misalignment and to permit removal and repair of the steel tubing. It therefore is considered a brake hose under this standard.

Sincerely Yours,

The Bendix Corporation

Docket Section

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

May 28, 1974

Gentlemen: Subject: Request for Clarification of Certain Portions of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 106

Clarification is requested concerning the requirements of FMVSS 106 (published in Notices 8 and 10 of Docket No. 1-5) as applied to the Vacuum Tube - Fig. 1 (Enclosure 1) used in our Hydrovac in-line vacuum/hydraulic brake booster. For convenience, a detail drawing of the Vacuum Tube is shown in Fig. 2 (Enclosure 2

On October 17, 1973, Bendix stated its opinion to the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (BMCS) regarding applicability of its regulations to the above-mentioned Vacuum Tube (Enclosure 3) and requested comments from BMCS. In reply, BMCS (Enclosure 4) concurred with Bendix' interpretation stating that "the use of 'tubing' rather than 'hose' is appropriate."

The request to BMCS was concerned primarily with BMCS' requirements for cord or duck ply in hose construction. We do not believe there is a question of construction of the tube as related to FMVSS 106; however, Enclosres 3 and 4 are included herewith only to help clarify the nature of the present request.

Reviewing the text of the Standard and the introductory comments to Notices 8 and 10, we are led to the conclusion that the definition of "Brake Hose" (S4, Paragraph 2) does not apply to the Bendix Vacuum Tube because of the lack of any requirement for flexibility. This conclusion seems to be supported by the lack of any bend requirement in Table V for hoses shorter than fourteen (14) inches in the diameter in question. On the other hand, the Bendix Vacuum Tube does "transmit or contains the fluid pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes". Hence, NHTSA is requested to verify Bendix' interpretation that FMVSS 106 is not applicable to the Bendix Vacuum Tube.

Your consideration of this request will be greatly appreciated in order to clarify the status of this part of the Hydrovac, which is a high volume component.

Respectfully submitted,

J. R. Farron

Group Director of Engineering

Enclosures (4)

FIG 1. SINGLE DIAPHRAGM HYDROVAC

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

The Bendix Corporation

October 17, 1973

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration

Attention: Docket Clerk

Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety

Subject: Request for Clarification of Subchapter B - Motor Carrier

Safety Regulation, Part 393 - Parts and Accessories

Necessary for Safe Operation

Our review of Docket No. MC-41; Notice 73-9 has brought to our attention a need for clarification of the Part 393 of the Motor Carrier Safety Regulations.

The vacuum tubes for Bendix' Hydrovacs, an in-line vacuum/hydraulic brake booster, may fall within the provisions of Parts (b)(1)(iii) and (b)(2)(ii) of Section 393.45 of the above reference. The item under discussion is noted as "Vacuum Tube" in Fig. 1. The cited Parts of the Regulation call for conformance of vacuum brake hose to SAE Standards which requires cord or duck ply reinforcement, whereas Bendix' tube is solid neoprene rubber. The detail drawing of the Vacuum Tube is given in Fig. 2.

One logical interpretation of the Regulation could conclude that it is intended to specify vacuum hose only between brake system components, and not specify hose where it is an integral part of a component such as the tube used in our Hydrovacs. It appears the Regulation's thrust is to avoid arbitrary selection from many types of hose which are available in bulk form, particularly in the field, and to assure sound installation of a flexible member that is formed as it is installed. This reasoning is exemplified by Part (a) of the Regulation which covers "General Requirements".

Our vacuum tube, on the other hand, is fully specified as to type, and is formed before installation, just as is any other part of the Hydrovac.

Bendix' historical experience indicates that the tube has been used in 8,000,000 Hydrovacs produced since 1947, and to our knowledge there have been no tube failures. It is not of SAE grade hose because it is used as a connector, as opposed to flexible plumbing in the vehicle vacuum system.

For purposes of clarification due to ambiguity in the language of the cited Parts, it is requested that you confirm our interpretation that the cited Sections of the Regulation do not apply to the vacuum tube used as an integral part of the Hydrovac.

If this request cannot be granted, we hereby enter a petition to change the cited sections as follows (added words underlined):

(b) (1) Change to read: "except as provided in Paragraph (c), brake hose installed on a motor vehicle for connection between brake system components on or after October 1, 1973, must conform to one of the following specifications"

(b) (2) Change to read: "except as provided in Paragraph (c), brake hose installed on a motor vehicle for connection between brake system components before October 1, 1973, must conform to either"

Your consideration and response to this request will be appreciated.

J. R. Farron

Group Director of Engineering

ID: nht74-4.34

DATE: 01/22/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: United States Senate

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your communication of January 3, 1974, forwarding to us correspondence dated November 29, 1973, from Mr. Bruce Motyka of Des Plaines. Mr. Motyka requests information regarding laws relating to pickup truck and camper weight limits, laws or studies relating to the sale of trucks exceeding GVW (Gross Vehicle Weight) rate minimums, and regulations or studies regarding maximum weights for tires.

The NHTSA has issued regulations relating to the installation of campers onto pickup trucks. Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 126 "Truck camper loading" (49 CFR @ 571.126) requires each camper to bear a permanent label containing information on its maximum loaded weight. The standard also requires each camper to be furnished with an owner's manual that contains information on total camper weight, the selection of an appropriate pickup truck, appropriate methods of camper loading, how to determine the camper's center of gravity and where it should be placed in the truck cargo area. A companion "Consumer Information" regulation, "Truck camper loading" (49 CFR @ 575.103) requires that written information be provided at the sale of each truck capable of being equipped with a slide-in camper that deals with the correct installation of a slide-in camper in that vehicle. This information is also required to be available in dealers' showrooms for retention by prospective purchasers of such trucks.

Other NHTSA regulations (49 CFR Part 567, "Certification") require every motor vehicle, including pickup trucks, to be labeled, usually on the driver's door or door jam, with its gross vehicle weight rating, and the gross axle weight rating for each axle. Each of these ratings is intended to be based on the weight of a fully loaded vehicle, as determined by the vehicle's manufacturer. While it is possible for manufacturers to incorrectly rate vehicles, and thus be in noncompliance with the regulations, we have not found this practice to occur in the case of pickup trucks.

There are also Federal requirements requiring motor vehicle tires to carry a load rating. Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 applies to passenger car tires and has been in effect since January 1, 1968. Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119 applies to tires for all other types of motor vehicles (trucks, trailers, buses, motorcycles, and multipurpose passenger vehicles) and will become effective September 1, 1974. This agency has conducted a study of the overloading of tires on recreational vehicles, and information regarding this study as well as copies of the safety requirements referred to above are enclosed.

We did not receive Mr. Motyka's earlier letter to us. As his questions are of a general nature we have provided him with general answers. If his questions involved a particular problem we would be happy to provide further assistance.

ENC.

REPLY TO: Office of United States

Senator Charles H. Percy

January 3, 1974

Mr. Bruce Motyka

2030 Laura Lane

Des Plaines, Ill. 60018

Respectfully referred to:

Department of Transportation National Highway Safety Division 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, D. C. 20590

Because of the desire of this office to be responsive to all inquiries and communications, your consideration of the attached is requested. Your findings and views, in duplicate form, along with return of the enclosure, will be appreciated by

CHARLES H. PERCY/MO

Nov. 29, 1973

Senator Charles Percy Senate Office Building Washington, D.C.

Dear Sir:

Close to 2 month's ago I wrote a letter to the Department of Transportation, National Highway Safety - Washington, D.C. requesting the following information:

1. Laws Relating to Pickup Truck & Camper weight limits.

2. Laws and or studies relating to manufactures selling trucks exceeding GVW Rate maximums.

3. Regulations or studies regarding maximum weights for tires.

I sent the Department of Transportation a rather lengthy letter requesting specific information, help & guidance

With all of the Public feeling concerning the present administration, it is very disturbing to me that I can't even get an answer to a simple inquiry.

This is the reason that I am writing to you. Would you please have someone check to see what happened to my original letter & ask that they reply as soon as possible.

Thank you.

Bruce J. Motyka

ID: nht74-4.35

DATE: 01/02/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: University Club Tower

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your December 10, 1973, question whether a dealer violates the Odometer Disclosure Requirements of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act and 49 CFR Part 580 if he simply duplicates the disclosure made to him when he bought the car.

If the dealer acts in good faith in making his disclosure, he is entitled to rely on the disclosure made to him as the basis of his statement. On the other hand, collusion between the dealer and the former owner to knowingly make a false disclosure would violate the Act. Either might be subject to suit and damages if intent to defraud can be shown.

We realize that such a burden of proof is difficult to meet and we suggest that, with regard to the dealer, an alternative remedy might be a report of possible misrepresentation to the state agency that licenses dealers.

YOURS TRULY,

December 10, 1973

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

Attention: Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

Re: N40-30(TWH)

Thank you for your letter of December 5, 1973 with its enclosed rules and regulations issued by your department.

As you are aware the act states that a purchaser of a used automobile is entitled to rely on the odometer reading unless the seller states that it is inaccurate and the actual mileage is not known. The enforcement provisions of the act state that an inaccurate statement must be made with the intentions to defraud. In my particular case, the dealer has attempted to circumvent this section by obtaining a statement from the person who sold him the automobile in the same wording as the statement he must give his purchaser. In other words, a used car salesman ignores the act completely by acting as a middle man even though he knew or should have known that the mileage was in excess of the odometer reading.

I am aware that this act is so new that there are no reported cases but I would appreciate any assistance you can give me in overcoming this situation and also I wish to make you aware of how the act is being ignored in our area. Please advise me by return mail.

Very truly yours,

ID: nht74-4.36

DATE: 01/03/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Lousiana Independent Tire Dealers Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 14, 1973, to Michael Peskoe of our Chief Counsel's Office, asking whether dealers must record the name and address of the tire purchaser on the appropriate form at the same time the tire is sold. You indicate that most dealers record the information on their sales tickets and put it on registration forms at some later time, as the press of business allows.

The Tire Identification and Recordkeeping regulations (49 CFR Part 574) do not require dealers to record the information on the registration form at any specific time. The "scare stories" to which you refer are not true at all. A recent NHTSA investigation of dealer recording practices was intended only to discover whether dealers were writing down the tire ID number and the purchaser's name, and not whether they were recording the information on particular forms.

The Tire Identification regulation (@ 574.8(b)) requires the information to be supplied to the manufacturer (or person maintaining the information) every 30 days, unless less than 40 tires are sold (your letter to us incorrectly stated less than 60 tires), in which case the information must be reported when 40 tires are sold or 6 months elapses, whichever occurs first.

I hope this clarifies the situation.

SINCERELY,

Nov. 14 1973

Michael Peskoe Cheif Counsels Office Nat Hwy Traffic Safety Admin

Re: Tire Registration & Recordkeeping

A dealer has just contacted me about what seems to be a rather widespread concern.

As we interpret the registration law, a dealer must register his tires at least every 30 days, unless it is under 60 tires pr mo sales, in which case he does not have to turn in this registrations at once.

Because of the time press, most dealers simply get the information on their sales tickets, and then put it on registration forms once every couple of weeks, or as the press of business allows, so long as they get them in once per month.

Now a few scare stpries are going around that if they dont fill in the form right then & there, they will be fined $ 500.00 pr tire.

Before putting out anything to the members, then I wanted to be sure that my understanding was correct. I woild sure appreciate hearing from you.

George H. Jones Manager

Copy: Bill Fowler

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