ID: 77-1.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/18/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: The Govmark Organization, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your December 10, 1976, letter asking whether Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, applies to the living area of motor homes and mobile homes.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) no longer regulates mobile homes. The National Mobile Home Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5401 et seq.) ("the Mobile Home Act") established within the Department of Housing and Urban Development a comprehensive program for the regulation of mobile homes. We have concluded that one result of that statute's enactment was the implied repeal of the NHTSA's authority with respect to mobile homes. Accordingly, we consider that the enactment had the effect of amending the Vehicle Safety Act's definition of "motor vehicle" to exclude "mobile homes" as the latter term is defined in the Mobile Home Act.

A motor home, on the other hand, is classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle (or a bus if it is designed to carry more than 10 persons) and is subject to the requirements of Standard No. 302. The standard mandates that certain enumerated components located within the vehicle occupant compartment meet specified burn test requirements. The living area of a motor home constitutes part of the vehicle occupant compartment, and therefore, any component listed in S4.1 of the standard and situated within the living area must comply with the standard.

SINCERELY,

THE GOVMARK ORGANIZATION INC.

November 10, 1976

Associate Administrator Traffic Safety Programs U.S. Department of Transportation Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Administration

re: Federal Motor Vehicle Standard #302

We are seeking a clarification of the type of vehicle and the classification of occupant space.

We specifically refer to a motor home which is a self-propelled vehicle containing living quarters.

To our mind, this would classify as a multi-purpose passenger vehicle.

Your standard restricts the flammability of materials in the occupant compartments of motor vehicles. We can see with a commercial freight trailer that the occupant compartment is clearly the cab of the tractor assembly.

In a motor home, either the driving section or the living quarters could be considered occupant compartments.

Therefore, the living quarters should also contain materials which conform to FMVSS #302.

Additionally, if a motor home is larger than 8 feet wide and 32 feet long it then becomes a mobile home. (We are seeking confirmation from HUD for this interpretation).

If it becomes a mobile home, are both standards in effect or will one department allow the other department to rule?

Salvatore Messina

ID: nht91-5.11

DATE: July 31, 1991

FROM: Wayne Trueman -- Plant Manager, BX-100

TO: Barry Felrice -- Associate Administrator of Rulemaking, U.S. D.O.T.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter from Paul Jackson Rice to Wayne Trueman (A38; Std. 121); Attached to letter dated 9-24-91 from Wayne Trueman to Marvin Shaw

TEXT:

Once again please allow me to take this opportunity to thank you and your staff for the prompt response you gave to my previous inquiries to your office.

Currently, our BX-100 Brake Equalizers are being specified by numerous customers for installation on their new equipment (tractor and trailer) orders at the factory. There have been several inquiries by school districts from several states in reference to having these units retrofitted onto their current stock of school buses or included into the specification for their new bus orders. However, current California law requires that written approval be obtained from the chassis manufacturer prior to making any "Brake System Modifications ". (ref. California Highway Patrol Title 13, Section #1246c. - copy attached).

What we are trying to determine now is: 1. Whether or not a similar written authorization requirement exists for some or all other states in reference to school buses.

2. Are there any special regulations pertaining to school buses that need to be considered prior to installing or retrofitting product into their air brake systems.

Or are the remaining states simply subject to compliance with current FMVSS 121 regulations?

The effectiveness of the BX-100 Brake Equalizer has been documented by independent test labs, customer conducted tests and testing done with a "Minnetonka Warehouse" VC200 de-accelerotometer. I am enclosing a copy of the tests done at Nevada Automotive Test Center, and two "G" Force graphs done from the information obtained with the deaccelerometer. These and other tests have been done on a variety of air brake equipped vehicles both before and after installation of the BX-100 Brake Equalizers. The results consistently indicate shorter stopping distance with less application pressure, and increased driver control which allows the vehicle to stop in a straight line.

Once again, I would like to thank you in advance for your assistance on this matter. If we are successful in penetrating this market, the test and actual end user results, indicate that we will be instrumental in avoiding accidents and saving many lives.

Attachment A

California Highway Patrol Title 13 Section 1246C School Bus Brakes (text omitted)

Attachment B

Nevada Automotive Test Center Final Report for BX-100 International, Inc.

Brake Test Evaluations for the BX-100 Brake Equalizer Authorization: Purchase Order No: Verbal NATC Project No: 20-17-404 October 1989 Prepared by: Gene Smith Test Engineer

Nevada Automotive Test Center P.O. Box 234, Carson City, Nevada 89702 Telephone No. (702) 882-3261

(Text and graphics omitted)

ID: 1984-3.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/03/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Rodger I. Bloch, Sales & Marketing Director, Scott Air, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Rodger I. Bloch Sales & Marketing Director Lavelle Road, P.O. Box 1745 Alamogordo, NM 88310

Dear Mr. Block:

This responds to your letter of August 15, 1984, concerning the application of Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, to an air conditioning system you supply to school bus manufacturers. You explained that your system taps into the fuel system of the school bus. If your system is installed by a manufacturer as an item of original equipment on a school bus, the manufacturer of the bus, is required by Part 567, Certification, to certify that the vehicle with the auxiliary air conditioner complies with all applicable standards, including Standard No. 301.

If you are installing the air conditioners on the vehicle before its sale to its first purchaser for purposes other than resale, then you would be considered a vehicle alterer and under Part 567.7 be required to certify that the vehicle as altered complies with all applicable standards.

In addition, you, in effect, asked about how a manufacturer or alterer demonstrates that it has exercised due care in making its certification of compliance. The agency has recently written Blue Bird Body Co. concerning this issue and I am enclosing a copy of that letter.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

August 15, 1984

Dear Mr. Burndt:

Scott Air is a manufacturer of bus air comfort systems (air conditioning). It has been called to our attention by a manufacturer of school buses, that FMVSS 301-75 relating to fuel integrity was a concern to them. They have taken all steps to certify compliance to this standard. We are now supplying a self contained air conditioning system that is skirt mounted on the drivers side.

Our system is mounted to the chasis of the vehicle and incased in a steel housing, it is protected also by the steel brackets, by which it is mounted, as well as, the vehicle itself. Please see the enclosed photo's. We are tapping into the original certified fuel system of the vehicle and our system holds only about 6.5 ounces of fuel.

I have been talking to Mr. Taylor Vincent of your staff and also Mr. Tom Grubbs with the engineering department. They have both indicated we should be able to secure a DO CARE certification. Would you or your staff be so kind as to issue instructions to me, so I can proceed in this matter.

Your assistance in this matter is greatly appreciated.

Sincerely, Rodger I. Bloch Sales & Marketing Director ds Enclosure: omitted.

ID: nht80-1.33

DATE: 03/18/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mercedes-Benz

COPYEE: JEROME N. SONOSKY

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter forwarded to us by Mr. Jerry Sonosky, requesting an interpretation of the term "overall width" as used in Safety Standard No. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems. You ask questions: (1) whether overall width means the design width of a vehicle, or whether it means the maximum possible width allowed by design tolerances, and (2) whether overall width includes plastic, splash molding attached to the vehicle body with screws and nuts.

In answer to your first question, overall width means the maximum design width of the vehicle including tolerances.

Safety Standard No. 104 defines "overall width" as the maximum overall body width dimension "W116," as defined in section E, Ground Vehicle Practice, SAE Aero-space-Automotive Drawing Standards, September 1963. The "W116" standard specifies that overall width is measured across the body, excluding hardware and applied moldings, but including fenders when integral with the body. Therefore, the overall width of a vehicle would not include splash molding on the sides of the vehicle.

SINCERELY,

HOGAN & HARTSON

February 14, 1980

Hugh Oates Office of the General Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Hugh:

Enclosed is a request for interpretation of Standard 104 which our client, Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. asked us to forward directly to you.

Best wishes.

Jerome N. Sonosky

ENC.

CC: PROF. DR. W. REIDELBACH; CRAIG JONES

MERCEDES-BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.

November 16, 1979

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attn: Office of Chief Counsel

Subject: Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 104 - Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems; Request for Interpretation

Dear Madam or Sir:

Your interpretation is requested on the definition "Overall width" as used in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 104 - Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems. Section S 3. of that standard defines "Overall width" as being the maximum overall body width dimension "W116", as defined in section E, Ground Vehicle Practice, SAE Aerospace-Automotive Drawing Standards, September 1963. This second standard contains the statement that "Overall width" is measured across body, excluding hardware and applied moldings, but including fenders when integral with body.

Your interpretation of this definition is requested as follows:

1. Does overall width mean the design width of a vehicle, or does it mean the maximum (or minimum) possible width allowed by design tolerances?

2. Does overall width include plastic, splash molding attached to the vehicle body with screws and nuts. You will note in the attached drawing that this splash trim (cross-hatched) is the widest portion of the vehicle. However it is only an applied molding as shown both in the cross-section view as well as the vehicle photograph.

Should you require additional information on this request do not hesitate to contact Mr. G. M. Hespeler of our Safety Engineering Department - 201-573 2616.

HEINZ W. GERTH

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: Koito.2followup

Mr. Kiminori Hyodo
Deputy General Manager, Regulation & Certification
Koito Manufacturing Co. , Ltd.
4-8-3, Takanawa
Minato-ku Tokyo
Japan




Dear Mr. Hyodo:

This responds to your recent letter requesting further clarification of our August 1, 2005, letter of interpretation to Mr. Takayuki Amma of Koito Manufacturing Co. (Koito), in which we stated that your companys proposed intensity-reducing headlamps would not meet the "steady-burning" requirement of S5.5.10 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. As described in Koitos earlier letter, the proposed headlamp would automatically and perceptibly reduce intensity (with approximately a 20-40% reduction in wattage) when the vehicle is stopped, thereafter returning to full intensity once vehicle motion resumed. Your latest letter asked whether a headlamp would be permitted to change in intensity, so long as the light is "perceived to be a steady beam and essentially unvarying in intensity, as well as occurring gradually (e.g. by setting some phase period) such that the change would not be perceptible to oncoming drivers". Presuming that this new design, consistent with your earlier design, would be such that "[a]t all times through the change of the intensity, the lamps provide sufficient level of intensity and will be within the parameters of the minimum and maximum values of candela specified in FMVSS No. 108," the answer to your question is yes.

To reiterate the relevant provision of FMVSS No. 108, paragraph S5.5.10 provides:

S5.5.10   The wiring requirements for lighting equipment in use are:
(a)   Turn signal lamps, hazard warning signal lamps, and school bus warning lamps shall be wired to flash;
(b)   Headlamps and side marker lamps may be wired to flash for signaling purposes;
(c)   A motorcycle headlamp may be wired to allow either its upper beam or its lower beam, but not both, to modulate from a higher intensity to a lower intensity in accordance with section S5.6;
(d)   All other lamps shall be wired to be steady-burning.

In short, S5.5.10(d) of FMVSS No. 108 requires that all lamps must be "steady burning," unless otherwise permitted, and while S5.5.10(b) does permit headlamps to be wired to flash for signaling purposes, we note that paragraph S3 of FMVSS No. 108 defines "flash" as meaning "a cycle of activation and deactivation of a lamp by automatic means." Through our interpretations, we have explained that the "steady-burning" requirement under the standard means "a light that is essentially unvarying in intensity" (see e.g. , February 9, 1982, letter of interpretation to Dr. H.A. Kendall).

We further clarified the requirement in S5.5.10(d) in our March 10, 1994 letter of interpretation to Mr. Joe de Sousa. That letter involved the permissibility of daytime running lamps (DRLs) that operated by using the vehicles lower beam headlamps at less than full intensity through "pulse width modulation," a technique which cycles the headlamps "on and off faster than the eye can detect". In our response to Mr. de Sousa, we stated that although a modulating headlamp technically is not a steady-burning one, for purposes of this requirement under S5.5.10(d), we have concluded that there is no failure to conform if the modulating light from the lamp is perceived to be "steady-burning. "

In our July 21, 1998, letter of interpretation to Mr. Ian Goldstein, we stated that "gradational" daytime running lamps (DRLs), devices that are capable of modulating the intensity of the DRLs according to ambient light conditions, are permissible under FMVSS No. 108. In that letter, we stated, "A DRL with a gradational feature would continue to provide the steady-burning light that is required for DRLs. The standard does not prohibit changes in intensity, which we presume will be within the parameters of the minimum and maximum values of candela specified. "

In sum, if an intensity-reducing headlamp operates in a manner that meets all of the other applicable requirements of the standard and is perceived as being steady-burning, we believe that such a design would be permissible under the standard, and we would not expect it to be a source of distraction to other drivers.

If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.11/5/05

ID: 1985-02.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/20/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Jim Preisler -- Senior Vice President, Drag Specialties

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. Jim Preisler Senior Vice President Drag Specialties P.O. Box 9336 Minneapolis, MN 55440

This responds to your letter of January 17, 1985, concerning Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. Your company manufactures an aftermarket replacement motorcycle windscreen, which incorporates auxiliary wind deflectors. Standard No. 205 specifies that the upper portion of the windshield can be made out of item 1, 6, 10, or 11 glazing materials. The glazing used in the auxiliary wind deflectors can be made out of item 1, 2, 4, 10, or 11A glazing materials. You said that the glazing material used in the windscreen and deflector meets the requirements for both item 4 and 6 glazing materials. You asked whether you can mark both those components as item 4/6 glazing materials. The answer is that you can mark them as item 4/6 materials.

Section S6 of the standard sets out the certification and marking requirements for each item of glazing material. It provides that each piece of glazing material shall be marked, in accordance with section 6 of American National Standard "Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways" Z-26.1 - 1977, January 26, 1977, as supplemented by Z26.1a, July 3, 1980, with a number signifying that it meets the performance requirement set for that particular glazing item number. In your case, the glazing material meets all for the requirements set for two separate item numbers. Since your product conforms to the requirements for both items 4 and 6 the agency has no objection to marking the components with both item numbers.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219 400 7th St. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 Mr. Frank Berndt, Chief of Council January 17, 1985

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I was referred to your office by Mr. Steven Oesch for assistance with my request.

My company is manufacturing an aftermarket replacement motorcycle windscreen. We applied for and were assigned manufacturer's code number 353, as specified in FMVSS No. 205. The material of the windscreen must meet Item #6 of the American National Standard Z26.1 1983. Our windscreen incorporates auxiliary wind deflectors (2) as part of its design. The deflector material must meet Item #4 of the same standard.

The material we are specifying for the windscreen and the deflectors meets both Items #4 and #6. I am requesting permission to mark both devices as 4/6. The reason for my request is based on cost savings. Each hot stamp die to mark the devices can be $500 to $1000 each.

Please advise me as soon as possible as our production date is closing in on us.

Sincerely,

Jim Preisler Senior Vice President

ID: nht69-1.37

DATE: 08/19/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Norton Villiers Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPREATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of July 17, 1969, responding to our letter to you of July 8, 1969, which requested that Norton Villiers Ltd. designate an agent pursuant to Section 110(e) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1399(e)), and the regulations promulgated thereunder (49 CFR 351.45). A copy of the regulations was enclosed in our July 8 letter, and another copy is enclosed herein.

In your letter, you ask whether the requirement for designation of agent needs to be complied with by the importers of the products of Norton Villiers Ltd. as well as by Norton Villiers Ltd. itself. In addition, you ask whether it is mandatory for Norton Villiers Ltd. to designate only one agent or whether it would be appropriate for Norton Villiers Ltd. to designate two agents, one for West Coast and one for East Coast matters.

In response to your first question, there is no requirement under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 that a corporation located permanently within the United States designate an agent for service of process purposes. Such a company, however, may be designated by Norton Villiers Ltd. as its agent under the regulations. With respect to your second question, the regulations require Norton Villiers Ltd. to designate one agent. However, if Norton Villiers Ltd. wishes to designate two agents, there is no prohibition to its so doing. If two agents are designated however, each must be designated in conformity with the regulations and each must serve in the capacity of agent for Norton Villiers Ltd. throughout the entire United States, without division as to function according to geographical situation.

I hope you find the above information helpful.

ID: Sens_a_brake003065

Mr. Gregory Gibb
Edge International Limited
PO Box 5682
Frankton, Hamilton
New Zealand

Dear Mr. Gibb:

This responds to your inquiry regarding the regulations applicable to a trailer brake system that relies on a combination of air and hydraulics. You asked if a system manufactured by your company, the "Sens-a-Brake" system, would be classified as an air brake system under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 121, Air brake systems. As explained below, the "Sens-a-Brake" system would be defined as an air-over-hydraulic brake subsystem, and therefore would be an airbrake system under FMVSS No. 121.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. FMVSS No. 121 specifies performance requirements for trucks, buses and trailers equipped with air brake systems. S4 of the standard defines "air brake system" as follows:

Air brake system means a system that uses air as a medium for transmitting pressure or force from the driver control to the service brake, including an air-over-hydraulic brake subsystem, but does not include a system that uses compressed air or vacuum only to assist the driver in applying muscular force to hydraulic or mechanical components. (Emphasis added.)

S4 of the standard defines "air-over-hydraulic brake subsystem" as:

[A] subsystem of the air brake system that uses compressed air to transmit a force from the driver control to a hydraulic brake system to actuate the service brakes.

In your letter you explained that the "Sens-a-Brake" system consists of an electronic brake controller and an air compressor mounted on a trailer, which supplies air for the application of the trailers braking mechanism. Your companys web site states that the electric brake controller incorporates a "pressure sensitive film that enables accurate measurement of the force being applied to the towing vehicles brake pedal."The website further explains that this pad attaches directly to the brake pedal of the tow vehicle. The pedal controller then modulates the air pressure supplied by the air compressor based on the pressure applied to the brake by the vehicle driver. The air pressure then transmits a force to the mechanism used to apply or release the hydraulic trailer brakes.

Based on the description you provided in your letter and the information on your companys website, the "Sens-a-Brake" system comes within definition of "air-over-hydraulic brake subsystem." The "Sens-a-Brake" system transmits a force applied by a vehicle driver to the brake pedal, first through an electrical signal and then through compressed air, to a hydraulic brake system. While the system does not use air as the initial means for transmitting force from the driver control to the hydraulic system, compressed air is used in the system to transmit force from the driver control. Therefore, the "Sens-a-Brake" system would be an "air-over-hydraulic system," which is regulated as an air brake system under FMVSS No. 121.

In your letter, you referenced a previous interpretation letter the agency issued to Mr. Tom Brunson, in which the agency concluded that a system with some similarities to the "Sens-a-Brake" system was not an air brake system (April 4, 2000). However, the system addressed by the letter to Mr. Brunson had one significant difference; the air pressure in that system was controlled primarily through an inertial controller mounted on the back of the tow vehicle. The system in the Brunson letter permitted a driver to control braking through a dash-mounted switch, but the switch was not intended to modulate the pressure applied to the brake mechanism. The primary control for actuating the air compressor in the Brunson letter system was the inertial controller mounted on the rear of the tow vehicle and not the vehicle driver. In contrast, the "Sens-a-Brake" system relies on force generated at the driver control (the force applied to the brake pedal pad) to modulate the application of compressed air to a hydraulic brake.

Similarly, in an October 22, 2001 letter to Mr. Gary Rudnik the agency concluded that a trailer brake system was not an air brake system under FMVSS No. 121 if a trailers brakes activated as a result of the tow vehicles brake lamps illuminating (copy enclosed). Under the system described in the Rudnick letter, the brake pedal would function solely as an on-off switch for the trailer braking system, with the trailers brakes being activated upon illumination of the tow vehicles brake lamps when the driver pressed the tow vehicles brake pedal. However, the system would not transmit force applied by the driver via air to modulate the brakes; the brake pedal merely served as an on-off switch for the trailer braking system. Again in contrast, the "Sens-a-Brake" system relies on force applied to the brake pedal to modulate the application of compressed air to a hydraulic brake.

Thus, if a system were to modulate the amount of air pressure applied to a hydraulic trailer brake mechanism in relation to force applied to a driver control, then that system would be an air brake system. If, however, a driver control were merely to function as an on-off switch, then that system would not be an air brake system under FMVSS No. 121.

We note that when the agency incorporated the definition of "air-over-hydraulic brake subsystem" into FMVSS No. 121, we did not anticipate its application to light duty trailers. At that time, the agency indicated that air-over-hydraulic brake subsystems were installed exclusively on single-unit vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 19,500 pounds (See 60 Federal Register 36741; July 18, 1995; copy enclosed). Unless the standard were amended through the rulemaking process, the Sens-a-Brake system is an air brake system under FMVSS No. 121. If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Chris Calamita, of my staff at (202) 366-2992

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:121
d.6/25/04

ID: nht74-3.12

DATE: 09/27/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: The Fairmount Press

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of August 19, 1974, inquiring as to the compliance of your MVF odometer disclosure form with the Federal odometer requirements.

The MVF form enclosed in your letter fails to comply with our regulation in several respects. The statement referring to the mileage indicated on the odometer at the time of the vehicle's transfer must be phrased to indicate that the disclosure document was executed at the moment of the vehicle's transfer, not at some later time. In addition, the statement must be written in such a manner that it is clear it is to be completed by the transferor alone. To satisfy these criteria the statement should read

"I, , state that the odometer mileage indicated on the vehicle described above, at the time of transfer to , is as follows:"

Instructions are necessary on your form to ensure that the section specified for the disclosure of mileage is completed in a consistent manner by all persons. This can be accomplished by inserting the following statement above the lines provided for stating the vehicle's mileage:

"(Complete line 1; and where applicable, complete line 2 and check line 3.)"

We urge you to reprint your disclosure forms to reflect the changes suggested above as they are not currently in compliance with Federal odometer requirements.

Your Interest is appreciated.

Yours Truly,

THE FAIRMOUNT PRESS

August 19, 1974

Richard B. Dyson

Ass't. Chief Counsel

NHTSA

Enclosed please find previously approved copies of our MVF form. They were approved on June 11, 1973.

We have been informed by one of our customers that there have been changes made. The customer was unaware of what changes had been made, but was advised by another New Car Dealer that indeed changes had been made.

We would appreciate your rechecking the forms enclosed and ascertaining if they are still in compliance with current regulations.

A prompt reply would be appreciated in that we are preparing for a new run of the MVF forms, and if there are any changes, we wish to include same.

Thank you for your cooperation and help in this matter.

Norman E. Salzman

General Manager

ODOMETER MILEAGE STATEMENT

Required Under Section 408, P.L. 92-573 USA Also Pursuant to Sect. 392-E, General Business Law, State of New York

Date of this Statement

Year Make Model

Body Type Color/s

Vehicle Ident. No.

No. Cylinders Last Plate No.

State Year

The mileage appearing on the odometer of the motor vehicle described above at time of transfer to:

was as follows:

1. miles

2. Total Cumulative Miles (If over 100,000)

3. [] The actual mileage differs from the odometer reading for reasons other than odometer calibration, error and that the actual or true mileage is unknown.

Seller's Name

Seller's Address

Seller's Signature

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

I/We (Transferee) hereby certify that I/We have received a copy of the above odometer mileage statement.

ID: nht81-1.16

DATE: 02/19/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Titeflex, Industrial Products Groups

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter asking whether air compressor discharge hose lines would be considered "brake hose" subject to the requirements of Safety Standard No. 106.

Safety Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses (49 CFR 571.106), defines "brake hose" as:

A flexible conduit 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.

This definition excludes the line from the air compressor to the supply tank, if that hose does not supply force to the vehicle's brakes in your system. Therefore, your hose would not be required to comply with Safety Standard No. 106.

In response to your question 1(b), any hose that supplies force, either directly or indirectly, to the vehicle's brakes is considered "brake hose", whether or not the hose is "right at the wheel brakes themselves" (as stated in your letter). For example, hose in brake booster systems is generally considered "brake hose."

In answer to your last two questions, there are no other Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards which would be applicable to air compressor discharge hoses. You will have to contact the individual States to see if there are applicable regulations at that level. We are not aware of any such State regulations, however.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

Titeflex INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS GROUP

October 24, 1980

Office of Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Gentlemen:

The purpose of this letter is to obtain clarifying information concerning your Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #106-74 ("Brake Hoses"), revised 7/7/76, and as amended by Notice #24 effective 5/25/78, copies of which I have.

Our company is a manufacturer of flexible Teflon hose and swaged fittings. We have been asked by numerous motor vehicle end-users (buses, motorcycles, race cars, etc.) throughout the U.S. as to whether or not our hose, fittings, and hose assemblies meet DOT specifications. Accordingly, we would appreciate your response to the questions below:

1. Among other things, paragraph S-4 of #106-74 defines "brake hose" (and "a brake hose assembly") as being" a flexible conduit manufactured for use in a brake system to transmit or contain the fluid pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a motor vehicle's brakes" (this pertains to hydraulic, air, and vacuum brakes).

(a) In public transit buses (e.g., those governed by UMTA's Transit Coach Specifications), must air compressor discharge flexible hose lines (air compressor-to-ping tank) be governed by Standard #106-74? Or are these compressor discharge lines considered only accessory lines and thus do not have to meet these specifications? Are these lines "in the brake system" or not?

(b) It is my understanding that only the actual brake hoses right at the wheel brakes themselves are the hoses which must comply with this standard. Is this correct?

2. This Safety Standard pertains only to "brake hoses". Are there any other Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, on a National basis, with which our hoses/assemblies must comply for any other motor vehicle application?

3. Finally, are there any individual state or local standards which apply for these or other flexible hose applications on any motor vehicle, assuming we comply with your national standards?

Your assistance in helping to clarify this matter will be most appreciated. Thank you in advance for your help.

Sincerely,

Robert J. McGurk -- Manager, Market Development