ID: nht73-6.5

DATE: 11/14/73

FROM: E. T. DRIVER -- NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY CHARLES A. BAKER

TO: Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 26 to Mr. J. E. Leysath of this office concerning marker and signal lights on your Mack trucks.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 requires that front clearance and identification lamps be located as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle. Mounting these lamps on the top of the vehicles described in your letter does not appear to be practicable because of possible damage to the lamps. If mounting the lamps on the front vertical surface near the top is, in your determination, "as close to the top as practicable," then you have met the requirements of Standard No. 108. Mounting an additional side marker lamp (which you have identified as a corner clearance lamp) on each side of the cab, near the front and top of the cab, would not be prohibited by Standard No. 108.

Turn signal lamps and hazard warning signal lamps mounted on the rear of the vehicle may be either red or amber. The color of these lamps was addressed in a Notice of Proposed Rule Making published in the Federal Register on October 25, 1972, (Docket 69-19; Notice 3). It was proposed that amber be eliminated as an optional color for these lamps, but no final decision has been made.

ID: nht73-6.6

DATE: 04/13/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Thomas B. Mitchell

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: (Illegible Text)

DIRECTOR DIVISION OF MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 400 SEVENTH STREET, S.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590

2 (Illegible Text)

MRCH 27, 1973

The Officer in Charge, Federal Highway Administration,

Dear Sir,

I have been advised by the American Embassy in New Zealand to write to you so that(Illegible Word) may be furnished with certain information concerning the American Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards which I believe have been in force in your Country since 1968 to which Motor Vehicle Manufacturers must conform in respect to vehicles for sale or use in the United States.

Whilst I am very much interested in all the Safety Standards and Regulations which are in force in your Country the one which I am most interested in at the moment is the one which I believe specifies certain requirements for the safety of Fuel Tanks etc..

I particularly wish to know if the relevant Safety Standard in force in American requires the fuel tanks to be located outside the main body shell of the vehicles or if it is permissible under this Safety Standard for fuel tanks to be situated in the interior of the vehicles.

Trusting that the amount enclosed will be sufficient to cover the costs of postage etc and thanking you in anticipation.

Yours faithfully,

T. B. MITCHELL 707 EAST QUEEN ST. HASTINGS, NEW ZEALAND

ID: nht73-6.7

DATE: 05/16/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Hayden; Smith; Ford & Hays

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 30, 1973, requesting our opinion as to the conformity with 49 CFR Part 577, "Defect Notification", of a defect notification letter to be mailed by your client, V/M Custom Boat Trailers. The notification fails to conform with Part 577 in the following ways:

1. In the second paragraph, the phrase "trailer vehicle safety" must be changed to "motor vehicle safety". A trailer is a motor vehicle under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

2. The letter is silent as to precautions the owner should take to reduce the chance that the malfunction will occur before the vehicle is repaired (@ 577.4(c) (4)). One obvious precaution where vehicle lighting is defective is to refrain from night operation.

3. The letter is silent as to an evaluation of the risk to traffic safety reasonably related to the defect (@ 577.4(d)).

4. We would consider the last paragraph on page 1 of your letter, reading, "The defect on those trailers . . . does not affect the mechanical operation of said trailer except insofar as the lighting is inefficient as installed according to the U.S. Department of Transportation," to be a disclaimer and prohibited by section 577.6.

ID: nht73-6.8

DATE: 04/13/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: R. W. Lillie & Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: 99:(ILLEGIBLE TEXT)

Director

DIVISION OF MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 400 SEVENTH STREET, S.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590

ENC.

R. W. LILLIE & CO.

April 3, 1973

Robert L. Carter United States Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Carter:

Thank you very much for your letter of March 29, 1973 on Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and the very useful information it included. Even though you said that Standard NO. 116 includes silicone brake fluids, the standard itself on the first page under section S-3 says that it does not apply to petroleum based and silicone based brake fluids. Perhaps you can further enlighten me.

Regarding Plastic Fuel Tanks, the proposed rule making notice Docket No. MC-34 - Notice 71-26 must have been followed by some further action. Any ideas on this?

Very truly yours,

R. W. Lillie

ID: nht73-6.9

DATE: 12/21/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James B. Gregory; NHTSA

TO: B. F. Goodrich Tire Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your petition, dated May 18, 1973, for amendments to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 and the Tire Identification and Recordkeeping regulations (49 CFR Part 574). You request that the standard be amended to except tires having an "unusual configuration and construction," from that part of S4.3 which requires safety information to be labeled between each tire's safety information to be labeled between each tire's maximum section width and bead. You request a similar exception in Part 574 for the tire identification number. Goodrich has experienced difficulties in placing this information in the proper location in tire molds used to manufacture Goodrich's Space Saver Spare tire. You indicate this is caused by the thinness of the mold, which is apparently necessitated by the folding sidewall characteristics of the tire.

In the case of the Space Saver Spare, Goodrich wants to be able to place the labeling information and the identification number in the shoulder area of the tire. Your request is supported with pictures of a Space Saver Spare that has been run to wear-out yet still retains legible labeling in this area. In your view it is unlikely that this tire will be retreaded. You argue that the location you desire to use, while not between the maximum section width and bead, has the advantage of making the information and identification number visible both when the tire is inflated and deflated. The latter condition is important in this case in that this tire is generally carried in a deflated, folded condition when it is not in use.

We do not believe the facts you present justify an amendment to the standard, and have therefore determined that your petition should be denied. The purposes of requiring safety information and the tire identification number to be placed between each tire's maximum section width and the bead is to ensure, to the greatest extent possible, that the information will remain or the tire throughout its useful life, including a retreading process if the tire is retreaded. In our view, it is not all clear that the alternative location you suggest will still meet this objective. The justification which you provide does not show that labeled information cannot be removed in service or that these tires will not, in fact, be retreaded. We certainly would not object if Goodrich were to place identifying information in separate location in addition to that required by the standard.

With respect to the difficulty you have encountered in placing the information in the specified area, we do not find on the basis of the information you have supplied that the alternative possibilities are impracticable. For example, your letter does not mention whether you have attempted to engrave the safety information and that part of the identification number that is constant into the tire molds. While we understand engraving is generally more expensive and somewhat more inconvenient than branding the mold or using metal plates, we do not believe the added expense and inconvenience, particularly as it is amortized over the life of the mold, to be unreasonable in terms of the safety benefit achieved. It also appears that this labeling, in letters 0.078 inches in height, can be placed just above the rim centering rib, which from the sample submitted with your petition, does not appear to have been damaged upon removal. This location would allow removal of the tire from the mold without deformation of the lettering and would place the required information between the tire's maximum section width and bead. With respect to date codes, for which engraving is unsuited, it appears that the code stamp could be recessed so as to be flush with the mold surface, thus eliminating or substantially reducing the destruction of the lettering during removal.

SINCERELY,

July 10, 1973 . Wallace Dept. of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

A little slow perhaps, but here is a section of the B.F. Goodrich "Space Saver Spare" tire you asked me for. v.e are trying spring plates in the molds to get the prescribed branding below the curb rib as now required. As you can see it will not be visible for(Illegible Word) to see it when it is in the trunk and folded as is normally the case, this we must also put it below the tread edge as you can see it on the section. This means a "double" branding job on these tires.

I gathered from Mike Peskos concluding remarks after our meeting on our petition that he felt there was a good chance of us getting some relief from this multiple and unnecessary branding.

Any suggestions or ideas your office may have which can be accomplished by rewording and/or rewriting the petition to make acceptance more likely will be appreciated.

Please call any time you feel further discussion on the petition is necessary or might help solution of our problems in this area.

Yours very truly,

F. S. Vukan

May 18, 1973

The Administrator National Highway Traffic Administration

Dear Sir:

Ref: N40-30 (MPP)

With our letter of 7-30-71 which was in reply to your letter Ref. 40-30, Cir. 169 we submitted a petition for certain considerations and changes in FMVSS #109 and Part 574 "Tire Identification and Record Keeping". These were denied in your letter of 8-29-72, N40-30 (MPP), copies of our petition and your reply are attached as Attachments A and B respectively.

We have considered the recommendations contained in the last paragraph of your letter (Attachment B). We do not feel that a new size designation for the Space Saver Spare tire is desirable as it is used in conjunction with standard nomenclature tires and a different size designation would serve to confuse the tire users.

We are however still faced with a number of problems relating to location of branding and tire identification information as required by FMVSS #109 and Part 574. We investigated and tried many ways to meet these requirements but due to the mold design necessary to provide the unique folding capability of these tires we are unable to have the branding visible on both the inflated tire and the deflated tire in the area prescribed by FMVSS #109 and Part 574.

Although neither FMVSS #109 or Part 574 specifies the inflation conditions under which the required information must be visible we have strived to meet what we believe to be the intent of the regulations and the verbal guidance offered by the Office of the Counsel, NHTSA at our previous meetings which is to have the required branding visible to the user in event of a recall situation.

2

We can meet the intent of the regulations but not the letter of the regulations as written at present. We therefore petition that the regulations be changed as indicated for the reasons indicated:

Changes Necessary to FMVSS #109

NOTE: Underlining indicates wording added, wording to be omitted is stricken out (dashes).

A. 1. Change S4.3 "Labeling Requirements" as follows:

S4.3 Labeling Requirements. Except as provided for in S4.3.1, and S4.3.2 and S4.3.3 each tire etc. . . .

2. Change present S4.3.3 to S4.3.4

3. Add new S4.3.3 as follows:

S4.3.3 Tires of (i) unusual configuration or construction or (ii) which are used in a special or unusual service need not be labeled as specified in S4.3 (a) through (g) between the maximum section width and the bead provided the branding is so located as to remain on the tire and be visible throughout its normal service life. The selection of alternate locations is to be at the discretion of and the responsibility of the tire manufacturer.

4. The above changes are necessary and will adequately protect the public for the following reasons:

a. Our Space Saver Spare tire and possibly other such tires meeting performance requirements of FMVSS #109 are in a service such that the branding will stay on the tires for their entire service life when located above the widest part of the tire.

b. If branding can be positioned above the maximum section width and remain there for the service life of the tire, major requirements have been met.

c. We are at present putting our branding in the area designated as "A" on the attached Figure 1. Attached are photographs from worn out tires showing that the branding is not removed at the point of tire wear out Tire sections are available and will be furnished if desired. With the wording as proposed it would be the manufacturers' responsibility to see that branding remains on the tire and is visible throughout its normal service life.

3

d. We believe the need to position the branding for retreadability may not be applicable in the case of special tires for which we are asking the above variation (tires of unusual configuration or construction or which are used in a special or unusual service). In the case of our "Space Saver Spare" tire we believe retreading is unlikely.

B. 1. Change Part 574 Title 49 as follows:

S574.5 Tire Identification Requirements.

Each tire manufacturer shall conspicuously label on one sidewall of each tire he manufactures, except tires manufactured exclusively for mileage-contract purchasers, by permanently molding into or onto the sidewall, in the manner and location specified in Figure 1, a tire identification number containing the information set forth in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section. Tires of (i) unusual configuration or construction or (ii) made for a special service condition need not have the tire identification number in the location specified in Figure 1 provided the number is located so that it remains visible on the tire throughout its normal service life. Each tire retreader, except tire retreaders who retread tires for their own use, shall conspicuously label one sidewall of each tire he retreads by permanently molding or branding into or onto the sidewall, in the manner and location specified in Figure 2, a tire identification number containing the information set forth in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section. In addition, the DOT symbol required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards shall be located as shown in Figures 1 and 2.

The DOT symbol shall not appear on tires to which no Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard is applicable. The symbols to be used in the tire identification number for tire manufacturers and retreaders are "A, B, C, D, E, F, H, J, K, L, M, N, P, R, T, U, V, W, X, Y, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 0". Tires manufactured or retreaded exclusively for mileage contract purchasers are not required to contain the tire identification number if the tire contains the phrase "for mileage contract use only" permanently molded into or onto the tire sidewall in lettering at least one quarter inch high. 2. The above change will protect the public for the following reasons:

4

a. A provision for unique and special tires should be included in the regulation to cover tires which otherwise meet FMVSS #109 and are subject to recall but which due to their unusual configuration, or construction, or special service cannot or, need not, have the serial in the lower sidewall region provided the serial can be located so that it is visible and not obliterated during its full service life. It would be the responsibility of a manufacturer marketing such tires to determine that the identification number remains on the tire throughout its service life and is visible in event recall or examination is necessary.

b. In the case of the "Space Saver Spare" tire, based on our road tests and on examination of tires returned from service, a serial number located in the Area "B" of Figure 1 remains legible, and is visible on both the inflated and the deflated tire throughout its service life.

SUMMARY

Figure 2 is a representation of a mold used for Space Saver Spare tires. The line around the Fin "F" from (1) to (3) through (2) designates the area normally called the tire sidewall. With (2) as the mid-sidewall, the portion from (1) to (2) is below the maximum section width and that from (2) to (3) is the maximum section width.

Because that portion of the mold shown as Fin "F" is very thin and unsupported it is virtually impossible to stamp any branding into the Fin without bending and/or breaking it during the stamping operation. We have tried putting both thin metal branding plates as well as the serial number in this area but due to the violent stripping action in disengaging the tire from the mold (Fin) all such "add on" plates are susceptible to bending and of being torn from their fastening screws.

Our previous practice of placing the serial number in the Area "C" as shown on Figure 1 makes it unreadable when the tire is inflated due to the normal rotation of the tire bead in the rim flange area as the tire is inflated and prepared for service. The serial location at "B" of Figure 1 is possible and would be permissible with the language changes and additions as outlined in our petition.

5

The consideration of unusual configuration or construction or service is also desirable to cover tires which may have a service life or configuration or construction which makes it possible to conform to the intent of the regulation with the serial and/or branding in areas of the tire excluded by the present regulations.

Your consideration and approval of this petition is respectfully requested to enable us to produce a product which is filling a growing need but which because of its unusual configuration cannot meet the wording of the current regulations. If the regulations are amended as requested we can meet the wording as well as the intent of the law.

We would like very much to discuss our petition with you and your staff in greater detail or to revise it, as you may consider necessary, to achieve our mutual goals of providing tires to the tire users within the scope and the intent of the NHTSA regulations.

Very truly yours,

Patrick C. Ross

Text Omitted

ID: nht74-1.1

DATE: 10/16/74

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

TO: British Leyland Motors, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

OCT 16 1974 N40-30 (ZTV)

Ms. Dianne Black Engineering Liaison British Leyland Motors Inc. 600 Willow Tree Road Leonia, N. J. 07605

Dear Ms. Black:

This is in reply to your letter of September 27, 1974 asking whether paragraph S5.3.2 of Standard No. 105-75 allows activation of a brake indicator lamp "whilst the engine is cranking".

Under the system, you describe the lamp would be activated with the key in the "start" position while the engine is turning over. Aposition between "on" and "start" designated by the manufacturer as a check position, within the meaning of S5.3.2, includes both "on" and "start", and your proposed system therefore would meet Standard No. 105-75.

Yours truly,

Richard B. Dyson Acting Chief Counsel

ID: nht74-1.10

DATE: 10/04/74

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

TO: Nissan Motor Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 11, 1974 asking for an interpretation of paragraph S5.3.5 of Standard No. 105-75. You indicate that a prospective Nissan design uses a common indicator lamp to show both loss of fluid pressure and low brake fluid level. You ask if the indicator lamp lens may be labeled "Brake Failure."

The answer is no. If separate indicator lamps are used, Standard No. 105-75 allows words in addition to "Brake" to indicate the specific area where a problem may exist, e.g. an indicator lamp may be labelled "Brake fluid" to indicate a low level of fluid. However, if a lamp indicates more than one type of condition, paragraph S5.3.5 specifies that only a single word, "Brake," may be used. This alerts a driver in a general way that a problem exists somewhere in the brake system. We think the restriction of S5.3.5 preferable for most circumstances. In the configuration you propose for example, the word "Failure" would not accurately describe a low level of brake fluid.

We appreciate your continued interest in vehicle safety.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

September 11, 1974

Richard B. Dyson -- Acting Chief Council, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Dyson:

This is to ask your interpretation of S.5.3.5, indicator lamp requirement of MVSS 105 - 1975, which states:

"If separate indicator lamps are used for one or more of the various functions described in S5.3.1(a) to S5.3.1(d), the lens shall include the word 'Brake' and appropriate additional labeling (use 'Brake Pressure', 'Brake Fluid' for S5.3.1(a) and S5.3.1(b) except that if a separate parking indicator lamp is provided, the single word 'Park' may be used."

As I explained to Mr. Vinson on the phone, Nissan's 1976 model will be equipped with two sensors, brake fluid level sensor and pressure loss sensor (if one of the two sensors or both operate, the indicator lamp turns on). Therefore, since we cannot use either the word "Brake Pressure" or "Brake Fluid" as requested in the standard, we would like to use the word "Brake Failure" instead.

Would you kindly advise us as to whether or not this word "Brake Failure" is acceptable; and if not, please recommend a suitable word for our use. Your cooperation would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

Very truly yours,

NISSAN MOTOR COMPANY, LTD.; Tatsuo Kato -- Staff, Safety

ID: nht74-1.11

DATE: JANUARY 23, 1974

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

TO: Correct Manufacturing Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 14, 1974, asking about the category into which a Divco truck would fall and the applicability of Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 121 (Air Brake Systems) and 105a (Hydraulic Brake Systems) to them.

The vehicles you have described are "trucks" for purposes of the safety standards. The applicability of the braking standards is simple: trucks equipped with air brakes must conform to Standard 121 and those equipped with hydraulic brakes must conform to Standard 105c.

I enclose a sheet telling you how to obtain copies of the motor vehicle safety standards and regulations.

Enclosure

ID: nht74-1.12

DATE: 06/11/74

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

TO: Amerace Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 17, 1974, with questions as to the applicability of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to your operations, and its relationship to a contract provision requested by General Motors (GM) requiring that you certify compliance of the hoses you deliver to it.

Your primary responsibility under the Act is to manufacture brake hoses that conform to 49 CFR @ 571.106, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106. On and after September 1, 1974, pursuant to S5.2, Labeling, of that standard, each hydraulic brake hose, end fitting, and assembly shall be marked with "The symbol DOT, constituting a certification" by the hose manufacturer, fitting manufacturer, and hose assembler that each item "conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards." Since the symbol is a permanent mark on the product, certification will be furnished to anyone through whose hands it passes, whether or not it is required by @ 114 of the Act. In our view, the symbol DOT is also a "certificate" within the meaning of @ 108(b)(2) since it is the manufacturer's representation of compliance upon which other persons may rely. The contract language suggested by GM is therefore not something required by the Act.

I note however, that the amendment requested by GM is to take effect July 1, 1974, two months before you are legally required to use the DOT mark. With respect to your obligations in the interim: Under @ 114 and the certification notice published November 4, 1967, (32 F.R. 15444) an equipment manufacturer must certify conformity to "dealers" and "distributors" by a label or tag on the item itself or on the container in which it is shipped. Obviously this includes dealers and distributors to whom you sell directly.

We also consider that the manufacturer of a vehicle, such as GM, into which a hose is incorporated is a distributor of brake hoses to whom @ 114 certification must be provided. Any further requirements specified by GM in your contract would be, of course, purely a matter of contract law.

Because you are required to manufacture hoses to conform to Standard No. 106 you are legally responsible for any violation directly attributable to the manufacturing process, irrespective of any certification provided GM. The question whether that certificate relieves GM of liability cannot be answered in the abstract. As of January 1, 1975, Standard No. 106 will also apply to motor vehicles, and we do not interpret @ 108(b)(2) in this context as relieving a vehicle manufacturer of his obligation to exercise due care. Certainly, at a minimum, GM would be liable for violations attributable to installation.

You have also asked for guidance on the recall provisions of @ 111 and (Illegible Word) notification provisions of @ 113. The repurchase provisions of @ 111 come into effect upon a determination by either NHTSA or a manufacturer that there exists either a safety-related defect or a nonconformance. This section is not enforced directly by NHTSA, but affords redress to distributors and dealers in the event a manufacturer refuses to repurchase substandard vehicles or equipment items. Since a @ 108(b)(2) certificate covers only compliance and is not a guarantee of freedom from safety-related defects, it cannot have been intended "to pass the expense of recall from GM" to you when @ 111 is invoked. The @ 108(b)(2) certificate was intended only to provide protection to certificate holders from civil penalty liabilities. Liability for expenses under @ 111 or @ 113 is a contract matter between GM and you.

As for @ 113, your understanding of Mr. Vinson's remarks is essentially correct. There is a direct notification obligation under @ 113(a) only upon manufacturers of vehicles and tires. But a @ 113(e) proceeding can involve any motor vehicle equipment manufacturer as a party, who could be ordered to proceed with a @ 113(a) notification campaign upon a finding that a safety-related defect or a noncompliance exists. A brake hose manufacturer upon such a finding would be required to provide notification to aftermarket purchasers. If the component is used as original vehicle equipment the vehicle manufacturer would normally also be a party to a @ 113(e) proceeding and required to furnish notification to vehicle purchasers.

SINCERELY,

AMERACE CORPORATION,

May 17, 1974

Lawrence R. Schneider Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Pursuant to a conversation with Mr. Taylor Vinson of your office, I am requesting a written opinion relating to certain questions I have concerning the applicability of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act to our operations.

Our Swan Hose Division manufactures brake hose for, among others, the Chevrolet Motor Division of GM. We have been asked by Chevrolet to certify that the act of making each shipment pursuant to our contract constitutes certification as referred to in Section 108(B)(2) the Act (copy of certification enclosed).

Specifically, I would like to know what is our general responsibility under the Act as a manufacturer of brake hose? Does this request for certification add anything to what we are already obligated to do by the Act? I note that Section 114 apparently requires us to certify to distributors and dealers but not to manufacturers, such as GM. Do we have to certify if we sell to dealers or distributors directly?

Section 109 of the Act provides for civil penalties in situations where there is a violation. Does our certification to Chevrolet, in effect, pass the responsibility for violation on to us directly and insulate Chevrolet? Is is likely that the Administration would proceed against us directly in the case of a defect whether or not we have given the Section 108(P)(2) certification?

There are provisions in Section 111 of the Act for the recall of vehicles prior to the sale by a distributor or dealer. Is the Section 108 certification intended to pass the expense of recall from GM to us? Mr. Vinson advise me that recall is otherwise never mandatory. Can I assume that since recall is not mandatory the liability and expense for recall is a matter of agreement between Chevrolet and us and is unaffected by the Section 108 certification?

Mr. Vinson indicated that in the case of a safety-related defect the (Illegible Word) pursuant to Section 113(A) would be on the vehicle manufacturer to notify with no notification obligation on the hose manufacturer. However, in the event Chevrolet refused to recognize the safety defect, then a Section 113(E), Administrative Proceeding, might be brought against Chevrolet in which we would then be a party to the proceeding. Is there ever a situation where we have to notify dealers of a defect? Does the Section 108 certification pass the expense of notification from GM to us?

I wish to thank you, Mr. Vinson, and the other members of your staff who have been extremely helpful in assisting us in interpreting the Act.

I await your office's reply on the above questions and comments.

J. C. Vecchio Assistant Counsel

Enclosure

cc: N. P. Beveridge

AMERIACE CORPORATION SHAN HOSE DIVISION (Illegible Word) W SQUARE LK RD POB 249 BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MICH. 48013

CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO.: 38550

Amendment Effective Date: 7/1/74

Date: 4/3/74

(Illegible Words) Date: 6/30/75

The (Illegible Word) contract is hereby amended as follows: FOB DUNS-017560988

Contract No. CO-23064

PLEASE ADD THE FOLLOWING CLAUSES TO THE ABOVE MENTIONED CONTRACT:

"BY ACCEPTANCE OF THE CONTRACT OR PURCHASE ORDER, IT IS AGREED THAT THE ACT OF MAKING EACH SHIPMENT PURSUANT THERETO CONSTITUTES CERTIFICATION, AS REFERRED TO IN SECTION 108 (B) (2) OF THE NATIONAL TRAFFIC AND MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY ACT OF 1966, THAT EACH ITEM IN SUCH SHIPMENT CONFORMS WITH ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD." ALL SHIPPING CONTAINERS (INDIVIDUAL OR BULK), EXCEPT (Illegible Word) TIRES AND GLAZING MATERIALS (GLASS), PROVIDED THE ARTICLES INDIVIDUALLY HEAR THE CERTIFICATION SYMBOL SPECIFIED IN THE FOLLOWING WORDING: - CONFORMS TO APPLICABLE U. S. FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS -

THE PARTS IN THIS CONTRACT IDENTIFIED WITH AN ASTERISK (*) MUST BE PRODUCED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS ACT OF 1966, AS AMENDED."

BUYER 03

Reason for Change: ADDING CLAUSES TO CONTRACT

Accepted:

AMERCE CORPORATION SWAN HOSE DIVISION

CHEVROLET MOTOR DIVISION General Motors Corporation Central Office

ID: nht74-1.13

DATE: 03/06/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; L. R. Schneider for R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Lufkin Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your January 30, 1974, request for inclusion in Standard 106, Brake hoses, of J1402 type A and B hose and J844 (nylon type 3) hose.

Standard 106 has already been amended by the addition of 3/8-in and 1/2-in special sizes to the list of hose sizes which may be used with reusable fittings, and this addition permits continued use of commonly utilized types of A and B hose.

The nylon 3 hose to which you refer is not excluded from use under the standard. Several of its manufacturers have indicated that it does conform to the requirements of the standard, which have been modified to reflect the lower tensile strength valves needed when used at non-articulating points in the system.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

January 30, 1974

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION -- Docket Section

Re: Docket No. 1-5 Notice 8 49 CFR 571.106; 38 FR 31302 (November 13, 1973)

PETITION FOR NEW RULEMAKING - FMVSS

Gentlemen:

LUFKIN INDUSTRIES, Trailer Division, is a manufacturer of a variety of on and off-highway trailer equipment. We operate a number of branch offices that sell, service, repair and distribute parts for LUFKIN and other trailers.

We are concerned that FMVSS 106, in its present form, is design restrictive. The law will severely effect our timetable of preparation for FMVSS 121, for the following reasons:

1. Failure to list SAE J1402 type A and B hose as acceptable air brake hose.

2. Failure to list SAE J844 (Nylon Type 3) as acceptable "Chassis plumbing".

According to test data provided by our vendors, J1402 type A and B hose meets FMVSS 106, Paragraph S7. We strongly recommend that you recognize this product as acceptable due to its apparent safety and economy.

We have used J1402 type B for years as plumbing from air valve to brake chamber, and from belly of trailer down to sliding bogey. Repair manager interviews and review of documentation and warranty reports show no failures due to excessive pressure. Only two hose failures have occurred during the past two years. Both resulted from mechanical damage so severe that SAE 100RS, SAE J1402 type D, wire braid hose could not have prevented failure.

The same statements are true concerning SAE J844 (Nylon Type 3) tubing. The tubing's adaptability and workability have simplified complex varieties of air brake "chassis plumbing" on a variety of trailer configurations without sacrificing safety or dependability. We petition that SAE J844 (Nylon Type 3) tubing be accepted as "chassis plumbing" except for delivery lines from air relay valve to brake chambers, trailer-tractor connections, trailer-dolly-trailer connections, and trailer belly to sliding bogey connections.

If SAE J1402 type A and B hose and SAE J844 (Nylon Type 3) tubing are not accepted as brake hose under this law, we, as well as numerous trailer manufacturers, will be faced with unusable hose, tubing and fittings. Because of quantity order requirements necessitated by scarcity, long trailer construction lead times and planning uncertainties generated by FMVSS's 106 and 121, we may be unable to phase-out obsolete material in the time remaining. Additionally, all LUFKIN brake actuation and release timing tests have been conducted on equipment using the type B hose and nylon tubing. Duplication and waste will result if new components are to be introduced now.

We respectfully submit that the final disposition of FMVSS 106 needs immediate resolution. We must finalize drawings, purchase required parts, establish pricing, prepare a firm schedule for phase-out of any unusable parts and complete our shop training program. We need, from you, a finalized FMVSS 106 regulation that will allow us to plan effectively to meet mutual safety and reliability goals.

Yours very truly,

LUFKIN INDUSTRIES, INC.

W. T. Little -- Vice-President General Manager, Lufkin Trailer Division

cc: A. G. Colburn; Joe Bills