ID: nht72-2.46

DATE: 07/18/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Gold Eagle Products Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of June 23, 1972 asking if there is any objection to placing the information required by paragraph S5.2.2.2(d) of Standard No.116 on the top of brake fluid containers.

Stamping this information on the top of the container would meet the requirements of S5.2.2.2(d) that it be located on the bottom or on the side, underneath the distributor's name and mailing address. However, we are reviewing the matter and if we decide to modify the requirements, the appropriate notices will be published in the Federal Register.

ID: nht72-2.47

DATE: 02/14/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: North Carolina Automotive Wholesalers Association, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 19, 1972, concerning brake fluids.

A revised Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 116, effective March 1, 1972, was published on March 24, 1971 (36 F.R. 11987), based upon a proposal published on September 30, 1970 (35 F.R. 1522O). I enclose a copy of the proposal and the rule for your information: the preambles to these notices explains the relationships between the DOT and SAE terminology in identification of brake fluid.

In response to your specific questions, brake fluid must conform to Standard No. 116 at the time it is sold to the ultimate purchaser. This means that the manufacturer is responsible for manufacturing fluid that meets Standard No. 116, and the package and retail seller for insuring that the fluid continues to conform until the time of sale.

Brake fluid manufactured before March 1, 1972, may be sold until the supply is exhausted, and no relabeling is necessary.

ID: nht72-2.48

DATE: 02/15/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Pyroil Company, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 7 to Lawrence R. Schneider requesting an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 116.

No standard code numbering system has been established, and composition of the code is at the discretion of the manufacturers and packagers of brake fluid. Note that the use of a code is optional and not a requirement of paragraph S5.2.2.2(b).

No standard format has been adopted for the serial number identifying the package lot and date of packaging, and this information may be incorporated into one code, explainable to this agency upon our request.

ID: nht72-2.49

DATE: 10/18/72

FROM: C.A. BAKER FOR E.T. DRIVER -- NHTSA

TO: Bandag, Incorporated

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of September 27 you suggest that Standard 117-paragraph 5.2.1(b) which relates to exposing fabric during the buffing operation of the retread process might be interpreted as forbidding the retreading of casings containing nail holes. You further quote the conclusion of an outside contractor of a Department of Transportation sponsored tire repair study that "while test wheel tests could not be passed on repaired tires, road tests showed them all to be satisfactory."

We do not consider nail holes to constitute an exposure of cord fabric within the meaning of the standard. Briefly, our examination of retread tires to date shows that nail holes which have been repaired with the repair materials vulcanized to the inside of the tire are very satisfactory. We have cut through such repairs and find them to be sound even after being subjected to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 109 and No. 117, Endurance and High Speed Wheel Tests. Providing the nail holes are permanently sealed on the inside of the tire they appear to be no more objectionable than the casing penetrations made by new tire manufacturers and retreaders in their awl venting procedures.

The Discussion Paper presented at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Technical Heating hold on April 10, 1969, contained rather detailed requirements for casings that were to be retreaded. Included within this extensive list were requirements for not retreading a casing if "two closed punctures (nail hole type) which extend through the fabric, or are less than 15" apart or are outside of the tread area." As a result of the comments received at the April 10, 1969, technical conference, at which you and Mr. Vischer attended, the Administration changed the casing condition requirements to only prohibit retreading of casing which had cord or bead wire exposed. The Administration considers the casing as part of the raw material used in the retreading process and as such, each retreader must use his exportise in casing selection prior to applying his DOT self-certification symbol.

Supplementing the above, we have noted that repairs with the repair materials not bonded to the carcass loosen during flexing and have a high incidence of failure on the Endurance and High Speed Wheel Tests.

ID: nht72-2.5

DATE: 12/01/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Cotter Atkinson Campbell & Kelsey

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of October 27, 1972, inquiring about information on fuel tanks.

The location of fuel tanks in passenger cars is at the option of the vehicle manufacturer, since there are no Federal motor vehicles safety standards (FMVSS) concerned with tank location. The FMVSS are essentially performance oriented, and the manufacturer has the freedom for innovation and use of his own expertise in selecting the means for compliance to a specified safety performance requirement. FMVSS No. 301, which has been in effect since January 1, 1968, specifies certain fuel containment requirements as the result of a front-end impact at 30 miles per hour into a fixed barrier. Proposed amendments for FMVSS No. 301 have been issued specifying performance requirements for rear-end impacts, but the final rule has not yet been issued. The effective date for this amendment, then issued, has now been indicated as September 1, 1976. Copies of FMVSS No. 301 and the Notice of Proposed Rule Making are enclosed for your interest. A copy of Public Law 89-563 is also enclosed with a booklet briefly describing the current standards.

A number of research studies have been completed on fuel systems, and some statistical data is provided in these reports which may be of interest. These reports are available from the National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22151, at a price of three dollars per volume. The RTIS code number must be identified when ordering.

1. In Assessment of Automotive Fuel System Fire Hazards, Dynamic Science Final Report on Contract No. PN-11-7579, December 1971, NYIS Codes PB-205240 and PB-208241 (2 Volumes)

2. Impact Intrusion Characteristics of Fuel Systems, Contract No. PN-11-7309 (Cornwall Aeronautical Laboratory, Inc.) April 1970, RTIS Code PB-159347

3. Fuel Tank Protection: Fairchild-Miller, Contract No. FR-11-6919, June 1969, RTIS Code PB-191148 (1 Volume)

4. Investigation of Motor Vehicle Performance Standards for Fuel Tank Protection: Fairchild-Miller, Contract No. PB-11-6696, September 1967, RTIS Code PB-177690 (2 Volume).

The correspondence containing comments from manufacturers and other interested parties, together with other documentation concerning the rule making system to (Illegible Word) FMVSS No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, it contained in the public record. Docket No. 70-20 identifies this rule making action, and this file is available for conducting in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of the Chief Counsel, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Room 5221, Washington, D.C. 20590.

We trust this information will provide some of the data you are seeking.

Sincerely,

LAW OFFICES OF COTTER, ATKINSON, CAMPBELL & KELSEY

October 27, 1972

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Gentlemen:

This office is interested in a law suit against the American Motors Corporation for the placing of the gas tank in the extreme rear of the car. We are trying to determine how many accidents and burns result from the placing of the gas tank in this position and the engineering and structural reasons for placing the gas tank there. Do you have or do you know where we can get information concerning gas tank explosions or leakages that result from fires after a rear-end collision or the engineering and structural reasons for placing the gas tank in that position?

We are also interested in any studies or investigations concerning the best position to put the gas tank. The car involved was manufactured in 1971 and any studies that would be applicable to cars of that year or before would be extremely helpful.

Please let us know of any charges in connection with obtaining the aforementioned information.

Thank you very much for your cooperation.

Paul M. Fish

ID: nht72-2.50

DATE: 05/01/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Labelmaster

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 11, 1972, in which you ask whether four samples which you submit of labels for retreaded tires will meet the requirements of S6.2 and S6.3 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117.

Each of the labels, with either the appropriate information filled in or clearly indicated by an "X" or other mark will meet the requirements of the standard. In the case of styles "C" and "D", however, either "2-ply" or "4-ply" will have to be deleted by the retreader, as one tire, of course, cannot be both a 2-ply and 4-ply tire. An alternative would be to eliminate the reference to plies, as stating the ply rating by itself is sufficient under the standard.

We are pleased to be of assistance.

ID: nht72-2.6

DATE: 11/02/72

FROM: F. ARMSTRONG FOR ROBERT L. CARTER -- NHTSA

TO: Pine Ridge Nursery

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of October 11, 1972, regarding the installation of LP gas tanks in a small van to serve as a "recreational vehicle."

There is no Federal regulation regarding installation of LP gas tanks on the exterior of recreational vehicles.

There is a voluntary standard on recreational vehicles issued by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), 60 Batterymarch Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02110. Identified as NFPA Standard No. (Illegible Word). This standard includes requirements for fuel supply systems based on the use of LP gas. You may wish to refer to the standard for safety guidance in installing your system.

I appreciate your interest in motor vehicle safety.

SINCERELY,

PINE RIDGE NURSERY

Oct. 11 1972

National Highway Traffic Safety Adm. Dept. of Transportation

Gentlemen:

I am equipping a small van as a "Recreational Vehicle".

I have been told by a commercial builder of these vehicles that a new Federal regulation will become effective Jan. 1, 1973 prohibiting installation of LP gas tanks on the exterior of such vehicles.

If he is correct, I will have to revise my plans.

Can you inform me if such a regulation exists or will be (Illegible Word)? If I can obtain a copy of the text or pertaient paragraph of such rule (if one exists) I shall take steps to comply.

Thank you.

Ray Brown.

ID: nht72-2.7

DATE: 10/16/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: North American Rockwell Automotive Technical Center

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 28, 1972, requesting an extension of the time allowable to petition for reconsideration of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105a, Hydraulic Brake Systems.

You base your request upon the alleged necessity for testing to determine front axle capability under paragraph S5.1.16, Spike stops. This paragraph is substantially similar to paragraph S4.13 in the proposal published on November 11, 1970. You did not indicate in your comments to Docket No. 70-27 dated February 1, 1971, that the spike stop proposal needed further time for your evaluation. In our view, the 22 months that elapsed between issuance of the proposal and the final rule should have afforded you ample opportunity for testing. In any event, the time allowed for filing of petitions for reconsideration is fixed at 30 days by 49 CFR @ 553,35(a), and we generally do not extend this time.

We will, however, consider the substantive comments you submitted concerning paragraph S5.4.2 and respond to them in due course.

ID: nht72-2.8

DATE: 05/03/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Clark Equipment Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This will serve to confirm the opinion which you were given by telephone on April 24, 1972, to the effect that the filing of timely petitions for reconsideration of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121 (37 F.R. 3905, February 24, 1972) will prolong the period within which Clark Equipment Company may seek judicial review of the standard until 60 days after the NHTSA's response to the petitions appears in the Federal Register. You may therefore wait until after disposition of the petitions without losing the right to judicial review as to each of the issues raised in your petition.

ID: nht72-2.9

DATE: 03/13/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Truck Equipment & Body Distributers Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of February 23 you present a fact situation in which a final stage manufacturer (Illegible Words)a completed vehicle, such as a Ford Econoline and is instructed by the ultimate puchaser to add seats and seatbelts, flashing lights, etc. to transform the vehicle into a small school bus. You ask:

"Must this vehicle be certified as a bus, even though it had been certified previously by the chassis maker as a completed truck? How would a person to certify?

Where a completed, certified vehicle is altered after manufacture, the issue is whether sufficient modifications have been made to the original vehicle that the one who modifies it must be considered a manufacturer in his own right. Considering two scope of modifications you describe, and the change of vehicle type from "truck" to "bus" (if its carrying capacity is over 10 persons), or to multipurpose passenger vehicle (if it can carry 10 persons or less), this question would most likely be answered in the affirmative. In such a case the modifying manufacturer would have to certify the vehicle as complying with all applicable standards. He would have the responsibility of ensuring that his modifications did not affect the vehicle's original compliance with the standards, as well as full responsibility for any standards that became newly applicable because of the change of vehicle type.

Yours Truly,