ID: nht73-3.24

DATE: 02/14/73

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

TO: Orin D. Miner

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Contact 6 of Milwaukee, Wisconsin has sent us a copy of your letter asking that we respond to your questions.

In your letter you inquire as to the distribution of fines collected from tire manufacturers as a result of their manufacturing tires that do not comply with the requirements of the Federal standard for passenger car tires (Standard No. 109).

Monies collected as settlement offers are transmitted to the general funds of the United States Treasury.

The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, including the passenger car tire standard, are minimum standards vehicle manufacturers and equipment manufacturers are required to meet. They are issued to give assurance that if the product in question meets the standards the public will have some protection against unreasonable risk of death or injury.

In addition to the question of civil penalties, manufacturers of non-conforming vehicles or tires are usually required to issue a defect notification and are urged to replace the defective equipment. Your complaint does not appear to be concerned with a safety related problem but rather with tires that you believe have not given you adequate treadwear. This is not an area covered by existing standards, however, this agency has under consideration a quality grading regulation which would include grading requirements for the treadwear life of each tire manufactured after a given date.

Concerning your recommendation that Federal inspectors be placed in tire manufacturers' plants, this has been considered at various times and the agency's present thinking is that the cost and manpower involved would not warrant this course of action.

Thank you for your interest in auto safety and your views in this area.

ID: 77-4.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/23/77

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

TO: Alabama Department of Education

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your October 7, 1977, letter to and conversation with Mr. Roger Tilton of my staff concerning the applicability of the Federal school bus standards to college buses.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has determined that colleges do not fall within the ambit of the school bus regulations. I am enclosing a copy of a previous letter on this issue. Accordingly, seat spacing in buses used to transport college students can be determined by the particular state in which the bus will be operated.

Your problem appears to be somewhat more complex than the above description, however, since you require the college bus to be painted yellow, have flashing lights, and be labeled "school bus." It is unlikely that any manufacturers will sell you a bus marked and painted as a school bus that does not comply with the Federal school bus requirements. Were they to do this, it would subject them to liability if the bus were misused to transport school children, which from all outward appearances it would be designed to do. We suggest that you label the bus with the name of the college or other institution and drop the "school bus" designation. This would permit manufacturers to supply the bus without fear of violating Federal requirements.

SINCERELY,

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway, Traffic Safety Adm.

The State of Alabama operates buses to transport students to past secondary schools that operate separate and apart from the "primary, preprimary and secondary schools". There is a great need for these buses to have a seat spacing greater than the requirement in FMVSS 222. Any assistance in getting this seat spacing relayed for past secondary will be greatly appreciated.

Norman N Lopez State Coordinator of Pupil Transportation Alabama Department of Eduction

ID: nht74-5.16

DATE: 03/01/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Mercedes-Benz

COPYEE: C. KACHN; D. PRITCHARD

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 21, 1974, which requested interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 104, "Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems."

The wiped area as stated in S4.1.2, is to be evaluated as a percentage of areas A, B, and C "of the windshield." This means that areas A, B, and C are evaluated in "unwrapped view." rather than in the form of a projection of the Windshield's surface.

SINCERELY,

MERCEDES-BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.

January 21, 1974

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Mr. Elwood Driver

Re: Ruling Standard 104

As discussed with Mr. Pritchard on January 18, 1974 Daimler-Benz AG. is seeking a ruling with respect to interpretation of S4.1.2 of paragraph 571.104, windshield wiping and washing systems.

S4.1.2 references in respect of the wiped area to SAE recommended practice J903a from May 1966. Definition of the wiped area on the windshield is outlined in this recommended practice under 2.4 (a), (b), (c) and (d) and constitutes tangential cut-off of the two-dimensional eye range contour.

You are undoubtedly aware that SAE recommended practice J903a has been superseded by SAE J903b, last revised in July 1968. In this practice the wiped area is evaluated in an unwrapped view in which the wiped pattern and the areas A, B and C have been incorporated.

571.104 as well as J903a do not state whether the areas A, B and C should be evaluated in relation to the A area in projected form or in unwrapped view as exercised in J903b.

An early ruling in clarification of the above mentioned problem area is highly appreciated.

G. M. Hespelar Manager Safety Engineering

ID: nht74-5.21

DATE: 04/11/74

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

TO: BMW of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 19, 1974, request for confirmation that the clamps and check valve that attach a vacuum hose assembly to a brake booster are not subject to Standard No. 106, Brake hoses.

A brake hose end fitting is defined as "a coupler, other than a clamp, designed for attachment to the end of a brake hose." As described by you, the couplers are the clamps and the check valve is an engine component to which the hose has been attached by the clamp couplers. Therefore your interpretation is correct that the clamps and check valve are not subject to Standard No. 106.

Yours Truly,

BMW of North America, Inc.

March 19, 1974

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attn: Mr. L. Schneider, Chief Counsel

Re: Marking of Brake Hoses

This is subject to FMVS's No. 106 Brake Hose Markings. In our brake system, BMW uses a vacuum hose assembly which leads from the intake manifold to the brake booster and which includes also a check valve. The components are assembled by BMW, the manufacturer, who, of course, also certifies the finished vehicle.

It is BMW's understanding that the vacuum hose, which is used for this assembly, has to be marked with the manufacturer's code, or with the manufacturer's marking as long as no code is available. The clamps which are used for this assembly as well as the check valve which meets the free flow requirements, don't need to be marked.

If our assumption is incorrect, we kindly ask that you inform us accordingly.

Office of O. Weinreich Director of Engineering Signed by M. Rein Staff Engineer

ID: nht74-5.24

DATE: 04/10/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Jesse R. Hollins

COPYEE: T. W. HERLIHY

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 23, 1974 request for an explanation of why Docket 69-7; Notice 26 was sent to you in response to your February 15, 1974, telegram request for the reasons or needs for such a (alternative interlock) proposal or amendment."

The Notice 26 preamble states in the fourth paragraph appearing on page 9831 of Volume 38 of the Federal Register the "reasons or needs" for proposing an alternative interlock system: that "it may prove desirable for some manufacturers". The proposal would allow greater freedom in the design of a belt interlock system while preserving the direct use incentive of the present sequential ignition interlock system. The Automotive Need conclusion to which you refer, that one effect of the alternative interlock would be to permit operation of the vehicle in reverse, was not a reason cited or relied on by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in making the proposal.

I hope I have made clear why Notice 26 was sent to you. I have enclosed Notice 31 for your information.

March 23, 1974

Lawrence R. Schneider, Esq. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sir:

Re: N40-30 (TWH)

I acknowledge the receipt of a copy of Docket 69-7; Notice 26 which was enclosed with your letter as per above reference number.

My telegram of February 14th. 1974 to the attention of Robert L. Carter, Assistant Administrator of NHTSA asked for certain information specifically pertaining to Docket 69-7; Notice 31.

I am at a loss to understand your reason for submitting Notice 26 to me.

Can you explain this?

Thanking you, I am

Very truly yours

JESSE R. HOLLINS

ID: nht74-5.36

DATE: 04/16/74

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

TO: Domi Racer Distributors, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 19, 1974, request to know if aircraft hydraulic hose is suitable for motor vehicle use under Standard 106, Brake hoses.

Standard No. 106, Brake hoses, presently applies to hydraulic brake hose for use in passenger cars, and therefore sale of aircraft hydraulic hose for use in motorcycles is presently legal. However, Standard 106 has been recently amended to require extensive performance testing and labeling of all motor vehicle brake hose manufactured after September 1, 1974. Sale of an aircraft hose manufactured after that date which has not been certified to conform to Standard 106 would violate @ 108(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. This means that the hose must be properly tested for conformity to the standard, and labeled according to the standard, before it can be sold as motor vehicle hose.

Domi Racer

DISTRIBUTORS, Inc.

MESSAGE

TO NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADM. SUITE 214 EXECUTIVE PLAZA 1010 DIXIE HIGHWAY CHICAGO HEIGHTS, ILL 60411

DATE 3-19-74

GENTLEMEN; WE HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO YOUR OFFICE BY THE LOCAL BUREAU OF MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY.

OUR PRINCIPAL POINT OF CONCERN AT THE MOMENT IS FEDERAL REQUIREMENT FOR HYDRAULIC BRAKE HOSES TO BE IMPRINTED WITH AN SAE SPECIFICATION. WE ARE PRESENTLY MARKETING A HYDRAULIC HOSE FOR MOTORCYCLE USE WHICH CARRIES A MILITARY AIRCRAFT SPECIFICATION H-8794, ALSO FAA APPROVED.

SPECIFICALLY, WE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF AN FAA APPROVED HOSE WOULD NOT BE SUITABLE FOR USE ON THE PUBLIC HIGHWAYS AS IT IS A MUCH STRONGER PART THAN THE STANDARD ITEM IT REPLACES.

SINCERELY, J. K. WHITE

REPLY

ID: nht74-5.41

DATE: 03/29/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; LAWRENCE R. SCHNEIDER; NHTSA

TO: TIRE RETREDING INSTITUTE

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 22, 1974, concerning an article in the November 1973 Retreader's Journal entitled "Repairing Torn Beads." You ask whether the article is correct when it states that casings with cord exposed in the bead area may be retreaded.

Standard No. 117 (S5.2) prohibits the retreading of any casing on which bead wire or cord fabric is exposed before processing. "Processing" encompasses the entire process, including the making of any needed repairs, by which a casing is retreaded. The NHTSA has taken the position that the only exception to this prohibition is that casings with exposed chafer fabric may be retreaded. A casing that before processing has any exposed bead or cord material other than chafer fabric, however, may not be retreaded. Therefore, insofar as the Retreader's Journal article states that casings with exposed cord in the bead area may be retreaded it is incorrect.

We have sent a copy of this letter to the Retreader's Journal.

CC: RETREADER'S JOURNAL

TIRE RETREADING INSTITUTE

February 22, 1974

Edward Wallace National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Several of our members have questioned thie practice of repairing damaged beads on passenger tires.

It has been our interpretation of Standard 117 that a damaged bead is an exposed bead and therefore can not be retreaded.

At a recent meeting of retreaders, a group of them took exception to our interpretation and quoted an article appearing in the Retreader's Journal. A copy of that article is enclosed.

Please let us know how to handle the question.

Philip H. Taft Director

Enclosure Omitted.

ID: nht74-5.6

DATE: 02/20/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Douglas F. Welebir, Esq., Attorney at Law

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of December 28, 1973, File No. 1041, requesting information on the Federal installation requirements for safety belts in a 1971 Toyota Land Cruiser.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (formerly titled "Seat belt installation"), required safety belts in all designated seating positions of all passenger cars manufactured on or after January 1, 1968. Similar requirements were instituted for trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles manufactured after July 1, 1971. The Toyota Land Cruiser is classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle. If it were manufactured before July 1, 1971, no installation requirement would have applied. It should be noted that seat belts were not factory-installed in some Land Cruisers, and we know of one Arizona dealer who failed to install seatbelts in a Land Cruiser built after that date.

In answer to your second question, the Land Cruiser did not have any exemption under 15 U.S.C. @ 1410 or any other section of the Act.

ENC.

December 28, 1973

Director National Highway Safety Bureau

I represent a young man injured in an automobile accident primarily because of the lack of seat belts in a 1971 Toyota Land Cruiser. Would it be possible to obtain a copy of the vehicle safety standards enacted pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 relating to the installation of seat belts in new automobiles.

I would also appreciate knowing whether or not Toyota Motor Company of the United States has been exempt from compliance with this Act under 15 USC 1410 or any other section.

I thank you for your assistance and helpfulness in this important matter.

DOUGLAS F. WELEBIR

ID: nht75-4.17

DATE: 09/11/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Flenniken Financial Services, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of July 1, 1975, concerning the legal duties of a tire recapping firm which you insure.

For your convenience, I have enclosed a copy of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117, Retreaded Pneumatic Tires. This standard does not specify the testing which a manufacturer of retreaded tires must do; it does specify the criteria which the tires must meet when tested by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for compliance. While the surest way for the retreader to be confident of compliance would be to follow the procedures in every detail, he is not legally obligated to do so. Section 108 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, requires him to assure himself that, when tested by the NHTSA according to the procedures set out in the standard, his tires will meet the specified criteria. In addition, he is required to repair or replace without charge a non-complying tire.

SINCERELY,

July 1, 1975

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration James B. Gregory Administrator

Re: Title 40 CFR 571-171A and Current Amendments

We insure a tire recapping firm here in Knoxville, Tennessee. We are providing products coverage, and the company writing this coverage has set out some essential recommendations to be complied with in order to continue same. I an enclosing the recommendations and request that you advise me as soon as possible just what these people need to do to be in compliance with these.

Thank you for your cooperation and prompt reply.

FLENNIKEN FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.

Frank C. Howard, Jr.

8-5-75

I would appreciate a reply on this I can't do any think until I hear from you

Thank you Frank C. Howard, Jr

ID: nht75-4.6

DATE: 09/11/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Strick Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 17, 1975, question whether a used running gear assembly can be combined with a new platform to qualify as a "repaired" trailer that would not have to conform to the requirements for air brake systems on newly-manufactured trailers (Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems). I have enclosed an interpretive letter which should clarify this matter for you. Briefly, the answer is no, if the "platform" includes the main frame members.

You also asked whether the vehicle must conform to the safety standards if it is assembled for the manufacturer's own use or if it is leased to a third party. Section 108 (a) (1) (A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C 1397 (a) (1) (A)) prohibits not only the sale, but also the introduction or delivery for introduction in interstate commerce of vehicles which do not comply with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture. Therefore the answer to your question is yes if the vehicle is ever operated on the public streets or highways.

SINCERELY,

STRICK CORP.

July 17, 1975

James C. Schultz, Esquire Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: N40-30 (TWH)

Thank you very much for your letter of June 6, 1975 with regard to Standard #121, Air-Brake Systems. I would appreciate very much if you could let me know whether the NHTSA interpretations of the Standard would prohibit the utilization of a used running gear assembly with a new platform, on a platform trailer for our own use in our operations. In addition, we would appreciate advice as to whether or not the lease of such a vehicle to third parties would be prohibited.

Leonard Barkan Vice President and General Counsel