ID: nht76-1.13

DATE: 07/09/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Moto Villa, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your May 27, 1976, letter concerning the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses, to brake hose assemblies that you import and contemplate importing for use on motorcycles.

I understand that you presently import brake hose assemblies for use only on off-road, moto-cross motorcycles. These assemblies are not "motor vehicle equipment" as that term is defined in Section 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1391(4)) (the Act). Therefore, they are not subject to any requirements of Standard No. 106-74.

The other assemblies that you contemplate importing for onroad use, however, are subject to the standard. Your letter indicates that the manufacturer of the assemblies is prepared to affix bands to them, certifying that they meet all the performance requirements of the standard, but that he is not yet able to obtain hose and end fittings that are labeled pursuant to S5.2. The relief that you have requested, however, is found in S12, which reads as follows:

Brake hose assemblies manufactured from March 1, 1975, to August 31, 1976. Notwithstanding any other provision of this standard, a brake hose assembly manufactured during the period from March 1, 1975, to August 31, 1976, shall meet each requirement of this standard, except that the assembly may be constructed of brake hose which meets every requirement of the standard for hose other than the hose labeling requirements of S5.2, S7.2, and S9.1, and the assembly may be constructed of end fittings which meet every requirement of the standard for end fittings other than the end fitting labeling requirements of S5.2, S7.2, and S9.1.

You should note that the critical date for application of this section is the assembly's date of manufacture, rather than that of importation.

Please note further that Section 110(e) of the Act requires every manufacturer who offers a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment for importation into the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as his agent upon whom service of all processes, orders, notices, decisions, and requirements may be made.

You state in your letter that the brake system products that you plan to import are manufactured by Gri Me Ca S.P.A. In order to comply with section 110 of the Act it is necessary that Gri Me Ca designate an agent in the United States for service of process. There is no requirement in the Act that a motor vehicle importer, located in the United States, designate an agent.

In order for the designation to be effective, it is necessary that the procedural requirements of 49 CFR 551.45 (enclosed) be fulfilled by the submission of the following information:

1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and binding on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made;

2. The full legal name, principal place of business and mailing address of the manufacturer of the brake system components;

3. Marks, trade names, or other designations (Illegible Word) origin of any of the manufacturer's products which do not bear his name;

4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer;

5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed, which may be an individual, a firm, or a U.S. corporation; and

6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent.

In addition, the designation must be signed by one with authority to appoint the agent; the signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his signature.

If you have any questions concerning these requirements, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Enclosure

ATTACH.

May 27, 1976

Mark Schwimer -- Office of Chief Council, National Highway Traffic Safety Admin

Dear Mark,

I would like to thank you for your assistance regarding the Brake hose standard, S106.

MotorVilla, Ltd. is the exclusive importer of products manufactured by Gri Me Ca S.P.A. 40068 S. Lazzaro Di Savena, Bolona Italy. Gri Me Ca is a small speciality manufacturer of wheels and brake products. They have not sold products into the United States until Jan. 1976 when we became their distributor. Moto Villa is involved in off road motorcycle racing and imports the Villa line of moto cross motorcycles. We have been promoting the Gri Me Ca brakes on our dirt track racers, and for sale to others for dirt track racing.

This product is not readily adaptable to on-road vehicles for several reasons. If a motorcycle doesn't already have disc brakes the entire wheel assembly must be changed including drum, disc, sprocket, rim, etc. Once this has been changed the complicated mounting problem must be tackled. Without a machine shop one could not even think about making this change. If the motorcycle happens to have disc brakes, and someone were to attempt to replace their equipment with ours, they would meet two big problems. First complicated bracketry must be fabricated to adopt our product, then the problem of different threads on the hose must be taken on. I think it is a fair statement that no one is likely to use our products for on-road use.

However, we are considering some other products that Gri Me Ca makes for on-road use. This is the main reason that we would like to get the D.O.T. requirements satisfied. We have sent a copy of Standard S106 to the manufacturer and they have informed us that they have gone through their testing procedure and have passed all the tests. They have indicated to us that this information was supplied to the Italian manufacturers using their product on their motorcycles. We have asked for a copy of this datum.

Gri Me Ca has said they can certify to the standard, however it will take several months to obtain the brake line and fitting with the correct labeling. They indicate that they have the ability to band the assemblies almost immediately with the proper information. We would like to request that they be allowed to do this possibly under S12 or S13.

Gri Me Ca was never made aware of the exacting labeling standards required in the U.S. until we provided them with the text. Their only exposure seems to have been to the performance standards, which Moto Guzzi or one of the other manufacturers provided them. They are being very cooperative and working very hard to do what is needed to be in full compliance with our laws.

We would like to request on their behalf that while new hose and fitting are being manufactured that they be allowed to "band" their current assemblies, which meet all other requirements of this standard except for the labeling. They will start shipping assemblies with all proper labeling as soon as they receive the parts to build complete assemblies. They will not attempt to use up their non labeled assemblies, but will sell them in countries other than the U.S.

Please let me know what other information you may need to facilitate our complying with the standard.

Sincerely,

Charles R. Cheatham -- General Partner, Moto Villa, Ltd.

ID: nht76-1.14

DATE: 10/26/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Toyoda Gosei Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in belated response to your April 9, 1976, letter concerning the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses, to certain combination hydraulic brake hose assemblies.

Figure 3 of your letter depicts two typical brake hose assemblies that are connected end-to-end. Figure 4 depicts the intended installation of such a pair of assemblies, with the joined fittings meeting at a bracket that is attached to a shock absorber. Figures 1 and 2 show two designs to simplify the structure at this juncture.

Treating these figures in reverse order, the "B type" design shown in Figure 2 is similar to the pair of assemblies shown in Figure 3, except that the pair of joined end fittings is replaced with a single center fitting. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) considers such a construction to be two distinct brake hose assemblies, which would be tested separately for compliance with Standard No. 106-74. The center fitting would simply be considered an end fitting for each of these assemblies.

The "A type" design shown in Figure 1 would be treated differently, however. In this design, the two separate pieces of hose are replaced by a single piece that runs the full length between the outermost end fittings. In place of joined fittings as in Figure 3 or a center fitting as in Figure 2, this hose would be surrounded by molded rubber and a metal ring. The ring would be mounted in the bracket that is attached to the shock absorber. The NHTSA considers this construction to be a single brake hose assembly, and testing for compliance with Standard No. 106-74 would be conducted accordingly. For example, the tensile strength test would be performed by pulling, at the outermost fittings, on the full length of the hose. However, this interpretation would not require the assembly to be capable of meeting the whip resistance requirement of S5.3.3 with the full length subject to flex. The NHTSA considers such a brake hose assembly to have two distinct "free lengths" -- one on either side of the center metal ring. Therefore, the whip resistance test would be performed separately on each of these portions. In other words, the metal ring would be treated as an "end fitting," for the purposes of the whip resistance test described in S6.3.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

TOYODA GOSEI CO., LTD.

April 9, 1975

Richard B. Dyson -- Acting Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Dear Mr. Dyson

We want to obtain an approval for the two types of hydrauric brake hose assemblies as shown in the attached Fig. 1 and Fig. 2. Please tell us how to obtain the approval.

Sometimes we have to fix an intermediate point of hose assembly to prevent it from being in touch with any part of motor vehicle as shown in Fig. 4. Currently, in this case, we joint No. 1 hose assembly with No. 2 hose assembly as shown in Fig. 3 and use the joined hose, which we call "joint hose assembly". For example, its jointed fitting is fixed on the frange of a shock absorber as shown in Fig. 4.

We obtain the approval for each No. 1 hose assembly and No. 2 hose assembly when they are used as joint hose assembly. When we use A type and B type hose assemblies which are shown in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 respectively, how can we obtain their approvals.

1. Explanation of A and B type hose assembly

a) A type hose assembly

This hose assembly has the part which is constructed with insert metal ring and molded rubber as shown in Fig

b) B type hose assembly

This hose assembly has the integrated "center fitting" as shown in Fig. 3.

2. Questions

Please answer the following questions.

a) About A type hose assembly

Can we use A type hose assembly from which the metal ring and molded rubber are taken off when we estimate its performance?

b) About B type hose assembly

1) Should we regard that this is composed of two hose assemblies and estimate their performances separately?

2) Or should we test it as one hose assembly?

In the latter case, how should we practice the following performance tests?

1; Constriction

* Can we test the constriction of the center fitting by using a long gauge plug as shown in Fig. 5?

2; Free length * Should we regard the sum of free length of the two parts as that of the B-type hose assembly? (That is, L[1] + L[2] in Fig. 2)

3; Whip test

* Should we test it using a special jig as shown in Fig. 6?

* Should we test B type hose assembly in the same method as usual hose assembly is tested as shown in Fig. 7? In this case we can not proof the required whip performance for this type hose.

* Or can we regard the whip performance of usual hose assembly, whose free length is equal to L in Fig. 2 as that of B type hose assembly? (cf. Fig. 8)

4; Tensile test

* Should we determine the tensile strength of the two parts separately as shown in Fig. 9?

* Or can we test it as the usual hose assembly with only two end fittings as shown in Fig. 10?

Your kind reply will be appriciated

Very truely yours,

Katsuhiko Yokoi -- Chief staff Ist. Product Development Sect

[Graphics omitted]

ID: nht76-1.15

DATE: 07/15/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Suplicy Cacique Trading Co., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your telephone conversations of June 3 and June 21, 1976, with Mark Schwimmer of this office concerning the application of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards to components of hydraulic brake systems for passenger cars.

The performance of hydraulic brake systems for passenger cars is the subject of Standard No. 105-75. The only standards that apply directly to components of a hydraulic brake system are Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses, and Standard No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids. Standard No. 106-74 applies to brake hoses, brake hose end fittings, and brake hose assemblies. These terms are defined in the standard as follows:

"Brake hose" means a flexible conduit, other than a vacuum tubing connector, 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.

"Brake hose end fitting" means a coupler, other than a clamp, designed for attachment to the end of a brake hose.

"Brake hose assembly" means a brake hose, with or without armor, equipped with end fittings for use in a brake system, but does not include an air or vacuum assembly prepared by the owner or operator of a used vehicle, by his employee, or by a repair facility, for installation in that used vehicle.

"Vacuum tubing connector" means a flexible conduit of vacuum that (i) connects metal tubing to metal tubing in a brake system, (ii) is attached without end fittings, and (iii) when installed, has an unsupported length less than the total length of those portions that cover the metal tubing.

Please note that vacumm tubing connectors are not presently subject to any safety standards.

Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, specifies that

Every manufacturer or distributor of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment shall furnish to the distributor or dealer at the time of delivery of such vehicle or equipment by such manufacturer or distributor the certification that each such vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. In the case of an item of motor vehicle equipment such certification may be in the form of a label or tag on such item or on the outside of a container in which such item is delivered . . . .

With respect to an item of motor vehicle equipment for which there exists no applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration interprets this section as not requiring any certification.

ID: nht76-1.16

DATE: 10/08/76

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

TO: Alfred Teves GMBH

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to the Alfred Teves GMBH (Teves) petition of April 9, 1976, for amendment of S5.2.1 of Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses, to eliminate the striping requirement in the case of hose used in assemblies that have "keyed" end fittings at both ends. We interprete "keyed" fittings to mean those that can be installed in only one (or possibly several) orientation(s) to the vehicle.

This is to advise you that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has determined to grant Teves' petition with regard to hose that is assembled into an assembly whose fittings permit their installation into the vehicle in only one orientation. Detailed reasons for the limitations expressed in this letter will accompany any notice that proposes this change.

You should understand that our commencement of a rulemaking proceeding does not signify that the rule in question will be issued. A decision as to the issuance of the rule is made on the basis of all available information in accordance with statutory criteria.

Your letter incorrectly characterized the amendment of S5.2.2 that was proposed in Notice 19 of docket 1-5 (40 FR 55365, November 28, 1975) and made final in Notice 21 (41 FR 28505, July 12, 1976). The amendment only stated that the labeling required on hose need not be present after the hose has become part of a brake hose assembly or after it has been installed in a motor vehicle. The conclusion in the second paragraph of your letter that ". . . brake hose does not require labelling according to S5.2.2. . ." is therefore incorrect.

With regard to your comments on Standard No. 116, Brake Fluids, I assume that you were referring to the agency's proposed definition of "brake fluid" published on December 5, 1975 (40 FR 56928). I also assume that the phrase "polychloroprene (CR) brake hose inner tube stock" in the proposed definition led you to conclude that only polychloroprene inner tube stock would be allowed for brake hose construction. This is incorrect. All of the materials specified in the definition, including SBR, EPR, CR, and NR, are considered suitable for use in brake hoses.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

ALFRED TEVES GMBH

Welfred M. Redler, P. E. -- Office of Crash Avoidance

April 9, 1976 PETITION

Ref.: Amendment to Standards FMVSS 106 49 CFR Part 571, Docket No. 1-5, Notice 19

In notice 19 DOT has proposed that S.5.2.2 should be altered, in that, the labeling information could be eliminated as soon as the brake hose becomes a brake hose assembly. According to S.5.2.1 the hose manufacturer was given the option to interrupt the 2 stripes by information according to S.5.2.2 and additional information.

We understand this DOT recommendation to mean that in future permanent brake assemblies do not require labelling information so long as the manufacturer documents all hoses before assembly. i.e the brake hose does not require labelling according to S.5.2.2 because the hoses are documented and can thereby always be identified

Notice 19 indicates that our interpretation in assuming the above is correct. Provided that our interpretation is correct then, we are in agreement with the proposed amendment and endorse it.

Although the deleting of S.5.2.2 for brake hoses used in permanent brake hose assemblies is apparent, the requirement S.5.2.1 which states: "each hydraulic brake hose shall have at least two clearly identifiable stripes" is still required for brake hoses not part of a brake hose assembly.

The stripes are a visible indication of hose twisting during assembly. We are convinced that the brake hose marking would be unnecessary if the brake hose assembly could, by mechanical means, be prevented from twisting during and after installation. This mechanical means would eliminate the necessity of having two marking stripes.

Taking into account the foregoing we petition that S.5.2.1. should be amended to require the two marking stripes only when this mechanical means is not a part of the brake hose assembly in both ends.

We propose that FMVSS 106 should be amended as follows:

S.5.2.1 Each hydraulic brake hose, with the exception of those brake hose assemblies which have keyed ends (preventing twisting during and after instalation), shall have at least two clearly identifiable stripes of at least one-sixteenth of an inch in width, placed on opp. . . .

This amendment would prevent the unnecessary duplication of safety requirements thereby keeping costs to a minimum.

Ref.: FMVSS 116 49 CFR 571 116 Docket No. 71-13

The formulation of the definition S.4. suggests that brake hose inner tube stock must be of polychloroprene (CR). We have been using SBR for our inner tubes for years with excellent results. Naturally they meet the USA Standard FMVSS 106 and also have US approval through AAMVA based on a certificate from the independent test laboratory "ETL".

As the US standards FMVSS 106 has never objected to our brake hose material with regards to its properties and suitability for use in its designed environment we fail to understand why SBR together with the other materials EPR, EPDM, buthyl etc. are not considered suitable for use as brake hose inner tube.

May we suggest therefore that the definition S4 be formulated in such a way that this point is more clearly defined. In our opinion this should be changed to cover all materials which have a stable resistance to brake fluid.

Yours faithfully -- ALFRED TEVES GMBH

ID: nht76-1.17

DATE: 07/01/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Parker Hannifin Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your March 24, 1976, letter concerning the application of the labeling requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses, to thermoplastic tubing of 1/8 inch nominal outside diameter that is used in "auxiliary air equipment rather than the brake system itself."

You have pointed out that it is difficult to label tubing of this diameter with letters that are 1/8 inch high, and requested an amendment of the standard to permit the labeling of such brake hoses with letters that are 1/16 inch high.

Because the tubing that you have described is not manufactured for use in the brake system itself, it is not "brake hose" as that term is defined in Standard No. 106-74 and is therefore not subject to any of the standard's requirements. In fact, although the standard does not prohibit the manufacture of air brake hose of 1/8-inch outer diameter, we are unaware at this time of the existence of any hose or tubing of that diameter that meets the definition of "brake hose". Therefore, the conformity or nonconformity of the tubing in question with the performance or labeling requirements of the standard is a matter of private contract between Parker Hannifin Corporation and those truck manufacturers that are requesting conformity.

In consideration of the possibility that 1/8-inch outer diameter tubing may in the future be used in brake systems, however, the NHTSA has decided to grant your petition to reduce to 1/16 inch the minimum required lettering height on brake hoses of such diameter. Accordingly, a proceeding respecting the issuance of a notice of proposed rulemaking has been commenced.

You should understand that our commencement of a rulemaking proceeding does not signify that the requested amendment will necessarily be issued. A final decision concerning the issuance of a proposal to amend the standard will be made on the basis of all available information developed in the course of the proceeding, in accordance with statutory criteria.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

PARKER HANNIFIN CORPORATION

M. Schwimmer -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

March 24, 1976

Subject: CFR 571, STANDARD 106 SECTIONS 5.2.2 and 7.2 "MARKING"

Gentlemen:

As presently constituted, FMVSS 106 requires that the Department of Transportation marking shall be a minimum of 1/8" high. Note specifically Sections 5.2.2, 5.2.2 (a), 5.2.2 (b), 5.2.2 (c), 5.2.2 (d), and 7.2 We have determined that legible marking of this height cannot be printed efficiently by existing production equipment upon thermoplastic tubing of 1/8" nominal outside diameter. This height of letter would cover a total span of 114.5 degrees if in perfect alignment. Even with a grooved marking wheel, we have established that 60 degrees is the practical upper limit for the lettering height to span. Beyond this span, the skewed movement between type and its own printing at the top and bottom of each letter causes perceptible smudging, so that the printing actually becomes less readable instead of more so.

Major usage of 1/8" nominal outside diameter thermoplastic tubing on highway trucks seems to be in auxiliary air equipment rather than the brake system itself. Nevertheless, the truck manufacturers have required that this size conform to FMVSS 106 for safety reasons. If a complete failure of these lines should occur, they reason that the volume of compressed air supply momentarily lost could create a significant adverse effect upon the brake system. Not holding this size to the same requirements as all others would thus be inconsistent with the stated purpose of FMVSS 106:

"To reduce deaths and injuries occurring as a result of brake system failure from pressure . . . lost due to hose or hose assembly rupture."

We wish to make the following two alternative petitions in this regard:

1. We petition that the minimum lettering height of required marking on 1/8" nominal outside diameter airbrake tubing be changed from 1/8" to 1/16".

2. In the event that it is determined that the usage of 1/8" nominal outside diameter airbrake tubing lies beyond the scope of FMVSS 106, we petition for a clear directive which excludes this size from the standard and requires that it must not bear the marking called out in the sections of the standard which are referenced above.

Very truly yours,

W. E. Currie -- Chief Engineer

cc: W. Hertel; C. Foote; T. Landy

ID: nht76-1.18

DATE: 11/10/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nichirin Rubber Industrial Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in belated response to your May 14, 1976, letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) recognizes the designation "NCRN" as identifying Nichirin Rubber Industrial Co. on all brake hose and brake hose assemblies manufactured by Nichirin, regardless of whether these components are intended for use in hydraulic, air, or vacuum brake systems.

The NHTSA does not issue approvals of motor vehicle equipment prior to sale. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, certification of compliance with applicable safety standards is performed by the manufacturer. Standard No. 106-74 does not specify the testing which a manufacturer must do before certifying that his brake hose and assemblies comply; it does specify the performance levels which these products must meet when tested by the NHTSA for compliance. The manufacturer is required to exercise due care in assuring himself that his certification is neither false nor misleading.

SINCERELY,

NICHIRIN RUBBER INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD.

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

May 14, 1976

ATTENTION: Richard B. Dyson Acting Chief Counsel

According to your letter on the 7th of Feb. in 1975, I understood that our designation "NCRN" had been entered in Office of Standards Enforcement.

I want to ask your advice for following point. May I interpreted it that designation "NCRN" is able to apply to all head that is written in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74?

Namely these are S5 Hydraulic Brake Hose, S7 Air Brake Hose, S9 Vacuum Brake Hose. Now, we apply to the Hydraulic Brake Hose. In the future We Want to apply to the Air Brake Hose and Vacuum Brake Hose.

Of course we think it is necessary that we complete regular process (AAMVA etc.) after test of TEST Laboratory in U.S.A. Will you please give me your advice that is necessary for me?

Etsuo Yamazoe Factory Manager

ID: nht76-1.19

DATE: 03/08/76

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

TO: Midland-Ross Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your January 30, 1976, letter requesting clarification of my March 7, 1975, letter concerning the relationship between Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses, and Military Specification MIL-H-3992C.

My previous letter indicated that brake hose and brake hose assemblies sold to the military in conformity with MIL-H-3992C are, because of the provisions of 49 CFR 571.7(c), subject to neither the labeling nor the performance requirements of Standard No. 106-74. While Part 571.7(c) appears to exclude from the requirements of Standard No. 106-74 only that equipment which is sold directly to the Armed Forces, the NHTSA interprets this section as also excluding that equipment which is sold to military contractors, under contracts requiring it to conform to military specifications such as MIL-H-3992C, for installation in vehicles which are in turn sold directly to the military. We are considering the issuance of an interpretive amendment of Part 571.7(c) to this effect.

YOURS TRULY,

MIDLANDROSS

February 3, 1976

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

Further clarification of your March 7, 1975 letter to the undersigned (reference number N40-30 (MIS)) is requested with respect to the question of direct sales to the military. We, as a brake hose assembler, sell MIL-H-3992C specification hose to a vehicle manufacturer, the prime contractor for a military vehicle. Does this constitute selling "directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications?" Does this further place the end-use control of the hose assemblies with the prime contractor?

Rulings by you or your office would be appreciated on the above questions.

Leon C. Huneke Chemical Engineer

ID: nht72-4.5

DATE: 03/10/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John Womack; NHTSA

TO: Dockets

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: SUBJECT: Conversation with Jensen Motors representative on Monday February 7, 1972

Howard D. Panton, Chief Designer for the Jensen Motors Company, met with representatives of NHTSA to discuss rulemaking actions of concern to his company. Representing the NHTSA were Robert Crone, Office of Crashworthiness, and John Womack, Office of Chief Counsel.

The major areas of concern to Jensen are Standard 206, 208 and 214, and the proposed rulemaking on Standard 201.

Standard 206 bears on Jensen's plans to develop a car with gull-wing doors. Their problems with the test procedure are similar to those expressed by Mercedes and they were invited to submit suggestions for changes in the test procedure.

Standard 214 also affects the gull-wing car, which would have a very high sill. The company feels that a test with the ram five inches above the bottom of the door would require then to have an unsatisfactory height for the door structure, with corresponding reduction in the glass area. It was indicated that Jensen's problem could not be met by an interpretation of the standard, and that they would have to seek an amendment of the procedure. Panton indicated that the company would consider doing this.

Standard 208 is of particular concern due to the apparent need for impact testing of several cars. This is said to be a serious problem for a small company (1000 cars a year) with a high cost per car ($ 10,000 plus). The NHTSA representatives indicated that the agency was aware of the problem. On the question of exemption authority, which Jensen considered to be a possible remedy, they were told that the agency no longer has exemption authority but that if such authority were returned to the agency it might be used to give the smaller manufacturers additional time on complex standards if they can establish the need for delay.

The current proposal on Standard 201 concerns Jensen in several ways, most notably with respect to the proposed changes in the windshield header location. They were advised that this requirement is undergoing careful review and that any detailed comments they could make would be welcome.

ID: nht72-4.50

DATE: 10/01/72 EST

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Pioneer Machinery Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of September 15, 1972, you ask for clarification of the records that Pioneer Machinery, Inc., as a manufacturer and installer of truck hoists and racks, is required to keep.

There are several regulations issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that could apply to Pioneer. The first of these is 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification. Under this regulation manufacturers of vehicles and equipment to which a Federal motor vehicle safety standard applies must file certain information with the NHTSA. Although Pioneer may not manufacturer equipment subject to a standard, it could be a final-stage manufacturer, as defined by 49 CFR Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages, and subject to both these regulations. I enclose a copy of each. If Pioneer determines it is a "final-stage manufacturer" then it would also be subject to the obligations of Part 568 (@ 568.6) and the requirements of Part 567 (@ 567.5) Certification, copy enclosed.

If Pioneer is a "final-stage manufacturer," it must file quarterly reports of production figures pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573, (@ 573.5 (b)) Defect Reports. I have also enclosed a copy of this regulation for your review.

ID: nht72-4.6

DATE: 03/29/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Douglas W. Toms; NHTSA

TO: Automobile Manufacturers Association, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 3, 1972, in which you asked to be referred to the information on which we based our statement in the notice of February 24, 1972, that systems meeting the injury criteria of Standard 208 are available using current seat belt technology.

Research data on the capabilities of seat belts are found in several places in the public docket, notably in the progress reports from our Safety Systems Laboratory and from Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory (69-7 General Reference Nos. 74, 75, 83, 96, 102, 117, 120 and 135). There are records of vehicle tests in which current lap and shoulder belt systems have met the injury criteria (see, e.g. N<13>-69-7-20; N<13>-69-7-37). Also, the record contains information on energy absorbing webbing and anchorages, both of which are improvements within the current state of the art (see, for example, the 6th progress report from Cornell, runs no. 625-630, 69-7 General Reference No. 135; the data from Toyota in N<13>-69-7-23; and the Takata Koyjo data in N<16>-16-69-7-1).

Although the behavior of the head seems to be a greater problem for belt systems than the behavior of the chest, due in part to the effects of rebound, we have proposed changes in the head injury criterion that should ease the problem considerably.