ID: nht81-2.14

DATE: 04/14/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Seats Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 20, 1981, letter asking about the seat belt testing requirement applicable to seat belts mounted on a seat frame in a school bus.

You state that it is your understanding that seat belts that are mounted on a seat frame in a school bus are not required to be tested simultaneously, because the seat is not considered to be a common mounting. Further, you state that if the seat belts mounted on the frame use a common anchorage, either a common anchorage hole or a U-bolt connecting the two belts, that they would be required to be tested simultaneously.

Your interpretation of Standard No. 222 as it relates to school buses is correct. We would emphasize that this interpretation for the testing of seat mounted seat belts applies only to school buses.

SINCERELY,

Seats

March 20, 1981

Mr. Frank Berndt U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Reference: NOA-30

As a final effort to end all misinterpretations of your Department's stand on FMVSS 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, seat belt requirements; I reference past communication with your department, copies enclosed, on the subject of common and separate mounting and the effect a U-bolt mounting has on the Department's interpretation to common mounting and test requirements. Communications referenced are:

A. Your Department's interpretation to Wayne Corporation, dated March 25, 1977 (Enclosure A)

B. Letter to Mr. Roger Tilton, dated October 31, 1980 (Enclosure B)

C. Your Department's letter NOA-30, dated December 2, 1980 (Enclosure C)

I understand, in layman's language, so all can have, without doubt, the same understanding of the following, that individual seat belt anchorage testing is required as long as each seat belt system has its own anchorage points.

Therefore, the simultaneous testing is totally dependent on the interpretation of common anchorage of two seat belt systems on a two-passenger seat assembly.

It is further my interpretation that the metal seat frame or supporting structure is not considered a common anchorage point, that each seat belt system being attached to the seat frame by its own bolts and nuts, one set for each end of the seat belt system, is not considered common anchorage; and therefore, does not require simultaneous testing of the two seat belt systems, but independent tests of 5,000 pounds. However, if any part of the two seat belt systems are attached by a single bolt and nut on the inside portions or the use of a U-bolt so that the same attaching hardware comes in contact with more than one seat belt system, it is considered a common anchorage point and thus requires simultaneous testing of 5,000 pounds for each seat belt system for a total force of 10,000 pounds.

If you concur with my interpretation on this matter, please sign one copy in the space provided and return to me for my records file.

Harold J. Van Duser Engineering

Mr. Frank Berndt U.S. Department of Transportation

ID: nht81-2.20

DATE: 05/06/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: J. G. Frail

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

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

May 6, 1981 NOA-30

Mr. John G. Frail P.O. Box 581 Bronxville, New York 10708

Dear Mr. Frail:

This is in reply to your letter of April 9, 1981, to this agency asking, with respect to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, "whether the minimum edge to edge separation distance between lamp and tail or stop lamp of 4 inches is measured outside of the lamp or inside of the lamp." You have asked this question in behalf of an "OEM supplier" in Germany.

The requirement in Table IV of Standard No. 108 is that the minimum edge to edge separation distance between a turn signal lamp and a tail or stop lamp be 4 inches while the turn signal lamps themselves must have a minimum separation distance of 9 inches between their centerlines. (Your design is somewhat confusing as it depicts centerlines of stop lamps and turn signal lamps at 9 inches.) We interpret this as meaning the minimum separation distance between the edge of lighted area to be 4 inches, as depicted in "B" in your design. Of course, final responsibility for compliance with this requirement rests on the vehicle manufacturer rather than the equipment manufacturer.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

John G. Frail Post Office Box 581 Bronxville, New York 10708

April 9, 1981

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: FMVSS 108 interpertation.

Gentlemen:

The attachment from the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations from ULO-WERK of West Germany questions the following:

The contents of the attachment are that of Table III & Table IV (Part 571; S 108 11/12). They are interested, as illustrated by the client, the interpertation as to whether the minimum edge to edge separation distance between lamp and tail or stop lamp of 4 inches is measured outside of the lamp or inside of the lamp.

They have not specified their concern other than being OEM suppliers. This question may have risen as a result of two manufacturers supplying the lamp for one vehicle. The outside ornamentation of the lamp may be the question resulting in how one should measure the distance. Also, if we assume the distance is basically for light output of the lamp (night time driving) they may have a reasonable question.

So that I may inform our client, please advise in writing the proper interpertation of the subject specification as to wether the measurement of 4 inches regarding the distance between tail-stop-lamp and indicator lamp will be measured at the inside or outside of the spare lens.

Please forward your answer to my above post office box address at your earliest convenience.

Very truly yours,

John G. Frail

Attachment Omitted

ID: nht78-2.42

DATE: 01/06/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: National Tire Dealers & Retreaders Association, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your October 27, 1977, letter asking whether a tire retreader is permitted to change the designation of a tire from "tubeless" to "tubetype".

Standard No. 117, Retreaded Pneumatic Tires, requires that the information appearing on the tire sidewall be the same as that which appeared on the tire as originally manufactured. This is indicated by the language in paragraph S6.3. If a retreader changed the tire designation from "tubeless" to "tubetype", he would be altering the information that was associated with the original tire. Thus, a retreader is not permitted to change the tire designation in the manner you describe.

SINCERELY,

TIRE RETREADING INSTITUTE

October 27, 1977

John Diehl Department of Transportation Tire Identification and Record Keeping

Dear John:

By this letter we seek a clarification on the subject of using tubes in tubeless tires.

It is our understanding that some new tires manufactured as tubeless are labeled as being tubetype. We understand that the word "tubeless" on the tire sidewall is removed and the word "tubetype" is substituted. Further, we understand that no safety related aspect is involved in making the substitution.

(Accordingly, we seek your concurrence that a tire labeled "tubeless" being processed as a retread, may be labeled "tubetype" at the option of the retreader). We recognize that such an option cannot be exercised if safety considerations dictate otherwise. For example, a tube cannot be used in a retread in lieu of making a needed repair. Yes.

Your early confirmation that retreaders be afforded the same option of re-labeling as is available to new tire manufacturers is sought.

Philip H. Taft Director

November 2, 1977

Philip H. Tafts Director Tire Retreading Institute

Dear Mr. Taft:

Your October 27, 1977 to Mr. John Dill has been referred to this office for reply.

The tire manufacturer is the one who determines whether a tire is a tubeless or tube type tire.

The retreader does not have the option to re-label the tire cord body inorder to retread the tire, and sell it as a tube type tire, because the original tire manufacturer has followed the labeling requirements of (Illegible words) of FMVSS std. 109.

There are no safety related aspects associated with the reclassification of a tubeless tire to tube type, because inner tubes were used in tires that had a special gum insert on the first or band ply before tubeless tire were in successful production.

The above (Illegible Word) a recent article stating that the placement of a tube in a tubeless tire will cause the assembly to run hot and possibly lead to failure.

Also to aid in the understanding of reclassified tires from tubeless to tube type is the fact that the tube type tire is (Illegible Word) completely through the side wall to allow any entrappes air to escape when the tire contains an inner tube in a tubeless tire.

We hope we have clarified your position on tubeless and tube type tires he re-classified by the retrader.

Drill no control

Legal Concurrence!

(Illegible Word)

ID: nht89-3.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: OCTOBER 18, 1989

FROM: M. IWASE -- GENERAL MANAGER, TECHNICAL ADMINISTRATION DEPT., KOITO MFG. CO., LTD. TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: VEHICLE HEADLAMP AIMING DEVICE (DOCKET NO. 85-15; NOTICE 8)

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED APRIL 9, 1990 TO M. IWASE FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD; (A35; STD. 108). ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 12, 1988 TO M. IWASE FROM ERIKA Z. JONES AND LETTER DATED APRIL 8, 1988 TO ERIKA Z. JONES FROM M. IWASE. TEXT:

We would like to again ask your interpretation of FMVSS 108 concerning Vehicle Headlamp Aiming Device (VHAD).

In responding to our question dated April 8, 1988, you kindly gave us the interpretation dated September 12, 1988, for which thank you very much.

At that stage the provision of VHAD were just a proposal (Notice 5). On May 9, 1989, a final rule (Notice 8) of the VHAD has been issued.

Therefore, at this stage when the final rule has been issued, we would again ask and confirm your interpretation, as shown in the attached sheets.

Upon your kind review to the above matters, your prompt reply would be greatly appreciated.

Encl. Our previous letter of inquiry dated April 8, 1988 Your responding letter dated September 12, 1988.

ATTACHMENTS

BACKGROUND

In a letter dated April 8, 1988, we asked about a detachable spirit level which is installed in the socket by removing a bulb. In responding to our inquiry the agency stated in a letter dated September 12, 1988, as follows;

"----- Although the proposal does not specifically prohibit this feature, the test procedures do not anticipate a VHAD design where the light source would be removed and replaced with the VHAD."

On account of your advice we recently made some design modification on our detachable spirit level, as shown below: Detachable Spirit Level (Koito's New Design) [GRAPHICS OMITTED] 1) Detachable spirit level is mounted onto a headlamp housing. (Headlamp shall be aimed with bulb remaining in the socket.)

2) Once the headlamp is aimed, the spirit level would be remove to another (the other side) headlamp for aiming it. We are able to provide a single spirit level with each vehicle, which results in a significant cost saving.

QUESTION:

Could the above detachable spirit level be accepted to the requirements of S7.7.5.2 "On-vehicle aiming" in FMVSS No. 108 ?

KOITO'S VIEW:

We have carefully reviewed the wording of S7.7 "Aimability Performance", and found that the following provision is specified in S7.7.5.2(c)(1) - "Testing the VHAD";

"The headlamp assembly (the headlamp(s) and the integral or separate VHAD mechanism) shall be mounted on a level goniometer,

The above provision in the final rule (Notice 8) allows a detachable spirit level, we think.

Structure-2: Detachable Spirit Level [GRAPHICS OMITTED]

1) Spirit level is not permanently fixed onto headlamps.

2) Spirit level is built into bulb gauge.

3) When aiming adjusted, bulb is moved out and Bulb gauge is mounted into reflector socket.

4) Bulb gauge is provided for each vehicle as a standard part.

ID: nht93-2.39

DATE: March 31, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: W. C. Burke -- Captain, Department of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-7-92 from W. C. Burke to Paul Rice (OCC 8125)

TEXT: This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of FMVSS No. 205, GLAZING MATERIALS (49 CFR S571.205). This interpretation is based on my understanding of the statements in your letter as well as statements made by Mr. Greg Bragg of the California Highway Patrol (CHP) in a telephone conversation with Mr. Clarke Harper of this agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Standards and Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff.

You ask about the marking responsibilities of glass installers who put replacement glass in school buses. CHP personnel have found school buses with replacement glass that is not marked. You ask whether an installer who cuts sections of glass from a larger, marked section is required by S6.4 of FMVSS No. 205 to mark each individual smaller section (if not already marked) prior to installing them as replacement windows. As explained below, the answer to your question is yes.

The person who cuts a section of glazing to size for installation in a motor vehicle is considered a manufacturer of the glazing. This is because the item of glazing is not considered manufactured until it is in the form that it will actually be sold for installation into a motor vehicle. This position that the person cutting the glazing is a manufacturer was stated early in the history of Standard No. 205, in a letter to Donald Counihan (May 9, 1968). The agency has stated frequently since then that persons cutting sections of glazing are manufacturers, most notably in a preamble for a 1972 rule on Standard No. 205 adopting the requirements of S6.4. (37 FR 24035, November 11, 1972) NHTSA stated that S6.4 requires "persons who cut glazing" to include the markings required by Standard No. 205 "on each cut piece."

S6.4 requires each person who cuts glazing to mark the piece with the markings required by section 6 of American National Standard (ANS) Z26. Section 6, ANS Z26 requires the following information: (1) the words "American National Standard" or the characters "AS," (2) a number identifying the item of glazing, (3) a model number assigned by the manufacturer that identifies the type of construction of the glazing material, and (4) the manufacturer's distinctive designation or trademark. Section S6.5 of Standard No. 205 also requires that person to certify the material in accordance with section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

While your letter refers to persons cutting sections of glazing from larger sections, we note that it is possible that an item of replacement glazing was designed for a specific vehicle by a "prime glazing material manufacturer" (i.e., "one who fabricates, laminates, or tempers the glazing material," see S6.1 of Standard No. 205). If the item was so designed by such a manufacturer, the item must be marked and certified in accordance with S6.1 and 6.2 of Standard No. 205. A person other than a prime glazing material manufacturer installing the glazing without cutting it would have no marking requirement

under Standard No. 205. I hope that you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mr. Shaw at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht93-3.26

DATE: April 27, 1993

FROM: Scott R. Dennison -- Vice President-Production, Excalibur Automobile Corporation

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/27/93 from John Womack to Scott R. Dennison (A41; VSA Sec. 102 (illegible)

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter of April 19 in response to my fax to Mr. Robert Helmuth. I apologize if I misled my intentions of the letter. I am fully aware that the Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1972 is quite clear and concise. I am also proud of the fact that Excalibur Automobile Corporation has been one of the manufacturers to comply with the Act as a specialty car, low volume manufacturer.

The point of my letter is that as one of the most well known specialty car manufacturers, I am constantly contacted by other low volume manufacturers and builders, as an "expert," who ask questions regarding compliance with both the FMVSS and EPA. My response is always the standard that if a person builds a vehicle to enter into commerce in the U.S., it must comply with the current standards in effect as of the year of manufacture. The most difficult area to offer more advice and direction is the treatment of FMVSS with regards to a '23 T-Bucket Hot Rod for instance. This is a car that would never comply yet there is a demand and someone will build one to sell.

My goal in all of this is to help all of the people in our industry comply with the standards and stay in business. It is just that at times I do not feel I have the right answers for some of these manufacturers and I would like to have some additional direction from Mr. Helmuth's office. Many of these builders, of course, will call me or someone like me, because they are afraid to call you for fear of reprisal. I would appreciate any advice you may have for me to pass one.

The "debate" I refer to in my letter is perhaps a misnomer but refers to the development of policy as currently being pursued by the National Hot Rod Association (NHRA) lobbyists and the Specialty Equipment Market Association (SEMA) regarding hot rods, muscle cars, and replicars. The debate appears to be more of can a new, more specific policy be developed which will allow these builders to produce an authentic replica and stay within the standards?

I would reference the policy which was developed by the U.S. EPA in order to allow specialty car builders the ability to utilize previously certified engine systems and not have to go through the expensive and intricate certification procedure. I have enclosed a copy of this policy for your review.

After you have had an opportunity to reflect on the situation that I face with these builders and manufacturers, please let me know your thoughts and any advice that you might offer me. I thank you for your time and effort

and hope that my requests do not place an undo burden on you or your department.

Enclosure (EPA KIT CAR POLICY) omitted.

ID: nht78-1.21

DATE: 10/02/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Dunlop Tire Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 10, 1978, letter asking whether it is permissible to label motorcycle tires with alternate speeds and load ratings appropriate for those speeds. You suggest that your tires be labeled with maximum speeds of 131, 137, and 143 miles per hour with the corresponding load ratings. The labeling of motor cycle tires is regulated by Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other (Illegible word) Passenger Cars.

Standard No. 119 requires that tires be marked with, among other things, the maximum inflation pressure of the tire and the load rating applicable to that inflation pressure. Speed qualifications are permitted on tires when, for example, the tires are speed restricted. Otherwise, tires are not marked with speed criteria although they may be marked with the symbols S, H, or V as part of the tire identification number. These symbols, established by the European Tyre and Rim Technical Organisation (ETRTO), indicate that the tire is an acceptable high-speed tire.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration considers it appropriate to permit the symbols S, H, or V to be marked on tires to indicate that such tires are appropriate for high-speed use. This permits, for example, a sophisticated purchaser of tires for emergency vehicles to know that the tires are suitable for the higher operational speeds necessary for those vehicles. The NHTSA, however, considers it inappropriate to mark motorcycle tires with maximum speeds of 131, 137, and 143 miles per hour with the corresponding safe load ratings. Such markings would appear to sanction the use of the tires at these speeds which far exceed the national speed limit.

Since Standard No. 119 regulates the permissible uses of speed designations on nonpassenger car tires, the agency interprets the standard to prohibit the marking of any other speed designations on a tire. The NHTSA considers the only appropriate speed designation on tires to be one that reflects a speed restricted tire or one that uses the symbols established by the ETRTO for tires that have been tested and can be operated at higher speeds.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

July 10, 1978

J. Levin -- Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Levin:

Dunlop Tire and Rubber Corporation has been asked to manufacture tires for new Honda motorcycles with several load designations appearing on the tire sidewall. The loads vary according to the speed imposed on the vehicle as follows: (These are all V rated tires).

Front Tire Rear Tire Inflation Pressure Max. MPH 3.50V19 4.25V18 Maximum 131 515 Lbs. 655 Lbs. 42 psi 137 490 Lbs. 620 Lbs. 42 psi 143 465 Lbs. 585 Lbs. 42 psi

I have discussed this subject briefly by telephone with Mr. A. (Illegible Word) who urged me to write for your legal interpretation of FMVSS 119 and how to identify these supplementary loads on a tire sidewall.

As I will be out of the office until July 24, please contact Mr. A. M. Mills if additional information is required. His direct phone is (716) 879-8397.

Very truly yours, DUNLOP TIRE & RUBBER CORPORATION; Richard H. Attenhofer -- Manager - Tire Technical Relations

cc: A. M. Mills

ID: nht78-1.33

DATE: 03/22/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your January 11, 1978, letter asking whether several joints in your school bus must comply with Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength.

The terms which establish the applicability of the requirements of the standard to a particular section of a school bus body are defined in S4 of the standard. Read together they establish the following test. If the edge of a surface component (made of homogeneous material) that encloses occupant space in a bus comes into contact or close proximity with any other body component, the requirements of S5 apply, unless the area in question is designed for ventilation or another functional purpose, or is a door, window, or maintenance access panel. Applying this test to the several joints to which you refer, it appears that they do not need to comply with the requirements since they connect panels which are considered to be maintenance access panels.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) notes that maintenance access panels are granted this exception from the requirements because of their need for removal for routine service to underlying components. The NHTSA will not consider all bus walls as maintenance access panels simply because wiring may be present behind them since routine maintenance would not be required on such wiring. Further, should any of the panels to which you refer in your letter not have wiring or other serviceable components requiring routine maintenance behind them, they will not be treated as maintenance access panels.

SINCERELY,

January 11, 1978

Joseph J, Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Levin:

SUBJECT: 571.221 Standard Number 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength

Section S4 defines a body panel joint as follows:

""Body panel joint" means the area of contact or close proximity between the edges of a body panel and another body component, excluding spaces designed for ventilation or another functional purpose, and excluding doors, windows, and maintenance access panels." Blue Bird has initially set up the following panels to meet 60% joint strength per S5.

Front Upper Inner Panel

Rear Upper Inner Panel

Rear Vision Panel Inside Right Hand

Rear Vision Panel Inside Left Hand

Rear Inner Panel Right Hand

Rear Inner Panel Left Hand

Post Cap Rear Emergency Door Access Right Hand

Post Cap Rear Emergency Door Access Left Hand

We have had field and production line complaints regarding wiring access with the many rivets in these panels and propose to designate these panels as maintenance access panels per section S4 and install them with screws as shown in the enclosed pictures. Sheets 1 through 5 show the lamp wiring which is serviced by the appropriate inside panels.

We understand that competitive make buses are already using similar designs and we are being pressured by the marketplace from both the cost and serviceability points of view to adopt the proposals which appear in this letter.

We look forward to receiving your confirmation that these proposals fully comply with the requirements of FMVSS 221.

W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services

[ENCLS. OMITTED]

ID: nht76-3.7

DATE: 05/18/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin & Kahn

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your March 26, 1976, letter concerning the application of @ 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (the Act), to aftermarket installations of trailer hitches.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) specifies that:

No manufacturer, distributer, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. . .

You have requested clarification of the following sentence appearing in our March 1, 1976, letter to General Motors Corporation:

Therefore, aftermarket trailer hitches must also be installed in such a way that compliance with Standard No. 301-75 is preserved.

A more precise characterization of the law on this subject is that aftermarket trailer hitches must be installed in such a way that compliance with the standard is not knowingly compromised.

You are correct in your understanding that trailer hitch manufacturers are not required to certify that their products comply with Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity. Despite the effect of @ 108(a)(2)(A), this standard applies only to vehicles. There is no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that applies to trailer hitches. Further, there is no duty on the part of hitch manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or installers to certify that the installation of a trailer hitch on a used vehicle does not compromise the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 301-75. Please note that the installation of a trailer hitch on a certified vehicle before the vehicle's first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale is governed by @ 108(a)(1)(A) of the Act and the alterer provisions in 49 CFR Part 567, Certification.

SINCERELY,

ARENT, FOX, KINTNER, PLOTKIN & KAHN

March 26, 1976

Robert L. Carter Associate Administrator for Motor Vehicle Programs National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Request For Formal Interpretation On behalf of the Trailer Hitch Manufacturers Association (THMA), which we serve as legal counsel, we respectfully request the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's interpretation as to certain legal obligations imposed upon the marketing of trailer hitches by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended.

Specifically, THMA requests (a) confirmation that the following language accurately states the law applicable to the aftermarket manufacture, distribution, and installation of trailer hitches and (b) incorporation of the substance of this legal interpretation in the NHTSA's official Federal Register responses to the General Motors and Chrysler petitions to amend FMVSS 301-75 with respect to trailer hitches:

Trailer hitches must not be installed in such a way that compliance with Standard No. 301-75 is knowingly compromised. Aftermarket hitches are not, however, subject to certification to Standard 301-75, nor are hitch manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or installers required to certify, or undertake testing to assure, that the installed hitch does not interfere with Standard 301-75 compliance.

We deeply appreciate the Safety Administration's assistance in clarifying present industry confusion in this area.

ARENT, FOX, KINTNER, PLOTKIN & KAHN

Lawrence F. Henneberger

Robert W. Green

CC: THOMAS W. HERLIHY; MARK I. SCHWIMMER

ID: nht73-1.39

DATE: 06/19/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Bendix Automotive Aftermarket

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 30, 1973 and confirms the telephone conversation with Mr. Vinson of my staff on June 14, 1973.

The amendments to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 116 published on May 17, 1973 modified container labelling requirements only for silicone-based brake fluid and hydraulic system mineral oil (paragraph S5.2.2.3) and did not affect the requirements for conventional DOT 3 and DOT 4 fluids (paragraph S5.2.2.2) as you assumed. Therefore you appear to have no problem, and it is not necessary to consider your letter as a petition for reconsideration.

Sincerely,

Bendix

Automotive Aftermarket

May 30, 1973

Department of Transportation

Attention: Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel

Reference: Phone conversation with Mr. Taylor Vincent on 5/14/73

Dear Mr. Schneider:

The revision to the FMVSS #116 Standard, as published May 17, 1973, has an effective date for label changes of July 1, 1973, but does not specifically authorize the sellers of Brake Fluid to exhaust existing container stock.

The label changes are minor, as follows:

Existing Safety Warnings:

1. FOLLOW VEHICLE MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS WHEN ADDING BRAKE FLUID.

2. KEEP BRAKE FLUID CLEAN AND DRY. Contamination with dirt, water, petroleum products or other materials may result in brake failure or costly repairs.

3. STORE BRAKE FLUID ONLY IN ITS ORIGINAL CONTAINER. KEEP CONTAINER CLEAN AND TIGHTLY CLOSED TO PREVENT ABSORPTION OF MOISTURE.

4. CAUTION: DO NOT REFILL CONTAINER, AND DO NOT USE FOR OTHER LIQUIDS.

* New Safety Warnings:

1. FOLLOW VEHICLE MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS WHEN ADDING BRAKE FLUID.

2. KEEP BRAKE FLUID CLEAN. Contamination with dirt or other materials may result in brake failure or costly repairs.

3. CAUTION: STORE BRAKE FLUID ONLY IN ITS ORIGINAL CONTAINER. KEEP CONTAINER CLEAN AND TIGHTLY CLOSED. DO NOT REFILL CONTAINER OR USE OTHER LIQUIDS.

* We have corrected the labeling as to the use of upper and lower case letters per the instructions of Mr. Taylor Vincent.

The current safety warning label requirements are not inadequate for the conventional Brake Fluids. Bendix labeling for DOT 3 Brake Fluid conforms to the existing standard for safety warnings.

This letter is a request for permission to exhaust container stock purchased prior to the July 1, 1973, effective date. Existing Bendix container stock is in the form of lithographed containers both filled and unfilled. A minimum of 60 - 90 days is required to modify lithography plates. If permission is not granted, this letter is to be considered a petition to amend the Docket No. 71-13, Notice 4, published May 17, 1973. Please amend this docket to give the conventional Brake Fluid sellers the right to exhaust stock purchased prior to the July 1, 1973, effective date.

Very truly yours,

Cam Brame --

Quality Assurance Analyst

cc: M. J. Stepanek; B. Stubbs; R. Hasnerl; J. Howard