ID: nht79-2.20

DATE: 09/11/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: BMW of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Karl-Heinz Ziwica Safety & Emission Control Engineering BMW of North America, Inc. Montvale, New Jersey 07645

Dear Mr. Ziwica:

This is in response to your letter of May 16, 1979, to Mr. Schwartz of my office, and in confirmation of your subsequent telephone conversation with him.

You wish to know whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, Vehicle identification number, permits BMW to use all the permissible numerical digits in the 11th position of the vehicle ientification number (VIN) for each of its two plants, as long as each VIN in its entirety assigned to each individual vehicle uniquely identifies its plant of manufacture. A system such as you suggest was proposed in the notice of proposed rulemaking for this standard issued on January 16, 1978 (Docket No. 1-22; Notice 4, 43 FR 2189). The response to this particular proposal was negative, and the rule issued on August 17, 1978, withdrew it. Consequently, the 11th character of the VIN must in and of itself be decipherable into the plant of manufacture (S4.5.3.2).

This is not to say, however, that BMW does not have considerable flexibility in its utilization of the 11th position. As pointed out in Notice 8 (44 FR 17489, March 22, 1979), BMW can submit more than one character to represent a single plant. While this restriction unfortunately may result in some change to the system which BMW is currently employing, the agency believes that a sophisticated allotment of sequential blocks will alleviate at least some of the problems which you foresee.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

May 16, 1979

Mr. Frederic Schwartz, Jr. Office of the Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington DC 20590

Dear Mr. Schwartz

This is in reference to previous conversations we had concerning the manufacturer's possibility to submit more than one character to represent a single plant of manufacture under Part 571 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 115 as published in FR Vol. 44 No. 57 on March 22, 1979.

We wish to know whether the above mentioned regulation allows BMW to use all the permissible numerical digits in the 11th position for each of its two plants, as long as each VIN in its entirety assigned to each individual vehicle uniquely identifies its plant of manufacture.

Your confirmation in writing of this understanding would be appreciated.

Very truly yours

Karl-Heinz Ziwica, Manager Safety & Emission Control Engineering

KHZ/JPS

ID: nht79-2.34

DATE: 02/02/79

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

TO: United Bus Sales, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

FEB 2 1979

NOA-30

Mr. Melvin Ives President United Bus Sales, Inc. 6700 S. Garfield Avenue Bell Gardens, California 90201

Dear Mr. Ives:

This responds to your November 6, 1978, letter asking for an interpretation of the warning buzzer requirement of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release.

The standard requires a warning buzzer to sound when an emergency door release mechanism is not in the closed position and the vehicle's ignition is on. From conversations with you and our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, we have determined that your rear emergency door uses a warning buzzer that sounds when the door release mechanism is not in the closed position unless someone continues to exert pressure to hold the door closed. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration considers such a warning device to be in compliance with the standard. The purpose of the warning alarm is to warn passengers and the driver when a door is accidentally left in the open condition while the vehicle ignition is in the on position. Your device appears to meet the intent of the standard.

We have discussed this issue with Mr. Jerry Alexander of the California Highway Patrol, and he has indicated that he will accept our determination. We are sending him a copy of this letter for his information.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel cc: Mr. Jerry Alexander P.O. Box 11730 Fresno, California 93775

November 6, 1978

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 West 7th Street Southwest Washington, D.C. 20590

Attention: Chief Counsel

Gentlemen:

It has been suggested by the Commercial Vehicle Section of the Highway Patrol, State of California, that we ask you for a legal interpertation of Federal Standard, Part 571; S-217, Section S5.3.3 (C) pertaining to the position of the release mechanism and the sounding of the warning buzzer.

Specifically:

"When the release mechanism is not in the closed position, and the vehicle ignition is in the "on" position, a continuous warning sound shall be audible--------."

It is our feeling that our van-type school buses comply. It would, however, be most helpful if we could have an interpretation of the above quoted section for clarification. Mr. George Shifflett, your Compliance Specialist, has visited our plant and is familiar with the details of our units and our request and has been most helpful to us.

Sincerely,

UNITED BUS SALES, INC.

Melvin Ives President

MV/daw

cc: Zemaitis, Joseph Shifflett, George Campoy, Cliff Canova, Andy 02/02/79

ID: nht81-2.37

DATE: 06/19/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Tokai Rubber Industries, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter regarding several new kinds of plastic vacuum brake hoses that you plan to manufacture. The plastic brake hoses are flexible nylon tubes for use in a vacuum braking system. You indicate that these hoses cannot comply with several provisions of Safety Standard No. 106, and ask whether the plastic hoses could qualify as "vacuum tubing connectors."

Safety Standard No. 106 (49 CFR 571.106) specifies performance and labeling requirements for brake hose, which is defined in the standard as:

"a flexible conduit, other than a vacuum tubing connector, 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."

Since the nylon tubes which you plan to manufacture will transmit the vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes, the tubes would qualify as "brake hose" under this definition and would be subject to all requirements of Safety Standard No. 106. Moreover, it appears that the nylon tubes would not qualify as "vacuum tubing connectors," which are excepted from compliance with the standard in the definition of brake hose. Section 4 of Safety Standard No. 106 defines "vacuum tubing connector" as:

"a flexible conduit of vacuum that (i) connects metal tubing to metal tubing in a brake system, (ii) is attached without end fittings, and (iii) when installed, has an unsupported length less than the total length of those portions that cover the metal tubing."

According to the illustrated drawings included in your letter, the nylon flexible tubes with which you are concerned would have an unsupported length which is greater than the total length of those portions that cover metal tubing. Therefore, the nylon tubes would not qualify as "vacuum tubing connectors" under subsection (iii) of the above definition. The purpose of the definition is to except from compliance with the standard only those vacuum connectors that have unsupported lengths short enough that they will not sag or deflect because of their own weight. While your nylon tubes may be sturdy enough to meet this intended purpose, as the definition is currently written, the tubes cannot be considered vacuum tubing connectors.

If, as your letter indicates, the nylon brake hose does not comply with all requirements of Safety Standard No. 106, you would not be permitted to sell it in the United States. You may wish to petition the agency to amend Standard No. 106 to establish separate performance requirements specifically designed for nylon vacuum tubing such as that produced by Tokai. I am enclosing a copy of the procedures which explain how you can file a petition, in case you are interested.

Sincerely,

ID: nht81-3.2

DATE: 07/28/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: The Armstrong Rubber Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent request for an interpretation of the labeling requirements of Safety Standard No. 119 (49 CFR @ 571.119). Specifically you asked if the requirements of section S6.5(f), requiring the tire label to show the actual number of plies, and the composition of the ply cord material would be satisfied by the Marking: "Tread - 2 plies Polyester + 2 Aramid Woven Belts Sidewall - 2 plies Polyester."

It has been a longstanding policy of this agency not to issue advance approval of labeling information. However, we will state that marking appears to satisfy the requirements of section S6.5(f) if it is slightly modified. Specifically, the reference to "belts" should be deleted, and the word "plies" should be substituted.

The purpose of the marking requirements in Standard No. 119 is to ensure that the user of the tire is provided with technical information in a straightforward manner. This information is necessary for the safe use of the tire. Section S6.5(f) of the Standard requires that the marking include only the actual number of plies and the composition of the ply cord material. To satisfy this requirement, the information for the tread should appear as: "Tread - 2 plies Polyester + 2 plies Woven Aramid."

Your desire to represent the ply cords as belts probably represents a marketing effort by Armstrong to convince purchasers to buy this particular tire. This agency has no reason to believe that these tires are not outstanding performance tires or to reduce your marketing efforts. However, it is inappropriate to extend this marketing effort to the Federally required markings on the sidewall of the tires.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

May 8, 1981

Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel of National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration -- U.S. Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This letter is a request for an interpretation of identification for material placed in a tire as specified in Part 571.119, S5.6(f).

The Armstrong Rubber Company is planning to produce radial ply tires with an Aramid Woven Belt. Our preference would be to mark the sidewall of the tire as follows:

Tread - 2 plies Polyester + 2 Aramid Woven Belts

Sidewall - 2 plies Polyester

This woven belt is a new design for tread reinforcing material that has been tested by The Armstrong Rubber Company and found to be very satisfactory for use in radial ply tires.

I trust this information will permit you to respond.

Sincerely, THE ARMSTRONG RUBBER COMPANY; R. W. Cheetham -- Director of Quality Assurance

cc: Francis Armstrong

ID: nht80-3.23

DATE: 07/29/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Ford Motor Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

JUL 29 1980

NOA-30

Mr. Roger Maugh Automotive Safety Director Ford Motor Company The American Road Dearborn, Michigan 48121

Dear Mr. Maugh:

This is in response to your request for our comments concerning the prototype automatic belt system on the demonstration vehicle you brought to the agency several weeks ago. You were particularly concerned about past agency comments regarding automatic belt designs of this type that are so easily disconnectable.

We are concerned about automatic belt designs whose release mechanisms are so similar to those of current manual belts that they may actually encourage disconnection by motorists. By the same token, however, we realize that an automatic belt design that is extremely difficult to disconnect could lead to frustration of a motorist who does not wish to use it and to permanent defeat of the belt system. This, of course, is also not desirable since it would deprive a subsequent vehicle occupant who wanted to use the belt of protection. We hope manufacturers will develop innovative systems that will minimize these conflicting concerns.

Regarding the particular design that you demonstrated at our meeting, the release mechanism appears to be in compliance with the current provisions of Safety Standard No. 208. This is not to say, however, that additional features to discourage disconnection of the system are not desirable.

We were also concerned with other aspects of your automatic belt. For example, when the vehicle door was open the belt webbing lay on the vehicle seat, making entry into the vehicle both confusing and difficult for a vehicle occupant. Since such a design requires the occupant to lift the belt webbing, it could prove to be very inconvenient, particularly if the occupant is carrying an object like a bag of groceries. As you are aware, the recent proposal concerning seat belt comfort and convenience included a specification for 3-inch webbing/seat clearance. Even more than three inches may be needed to insure that automatic belts are in fact automatic and convenient (I am enclosing a past agency interpretation on this subject). You should consider these points when making a final decision concerning this type belt design.

Finally, I would like to emphasize that this letter only represents the agency's opinion based on the brief examination of the belt system during our recent meeting. It is up to the vehicle manufacturer to determine whether its vehicles are in compliance with all applicable safety standards and to certify that compliance.

Thank you for bringing this prototype automatic belt system to the agency for inspection.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: nht81-1.4

DATE: 01/22/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Davis Trailer Mfg. Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your November 7, 1980, letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff, in which you requested information concerning the legality of using welded mobile home axles and mobile home tires on trailers.

We have no regulations concerning the axles which may be used on trailers. However, the use of mobile home tires on new trailers would violate Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120 (49 CFR @ 571.120). For your information, I have enclosed a copy of this standard. Section S5.1 of the standard requires all new trailers equipped with tires for highway service to use tires that comply with either Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Use on Motor Vehicle Other Than Passenger Cars, or Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires -- Passenger Cars. Tires which have the label "For Mobile Home Use Only" have been expressly exempted from the performance requirements of Standard No. 119. Because of the exemption, these tires may only be used on mobile homes. Therefore, the use of these tires on new trailers would render the trailers in violation of Standard No. 120. A manufacturer using these tires on a new trailer would face a fine of up to $ 1,000 for each mobile home tire used, pursuant to the provisions of sections 108 and 109 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act as amended (15 U.S.C. 1397 and 1398). If you are aware of any such violations, the agency would appreciate any information you could supply.

As I have stated above, we have no regulations specifying performance requirements for the axles on trailers. If you have any further questions or need any further information on this subject, please contact Mr. Kratzke at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Enclosure

ATTACH.

DAVIS TRAILER MFG CO

NOVEMBER 7, 1980

(Illegible Words)

Dear Sir:

In regards as to our conversation on 11.5.80 I am asking for information on using Mobile Home (Illegible Word) cut into, welded back together an (Illegible Word) to the Public. As you might know on some axles & all mobile home tires are stamped these words. For Mobile Home use only.

If you will mail me some paper work on this matter I will surely appreciate it any information on trailers as to the law of the land. I want to know about it. My competers around me are about to put me out of business using this sort of luck

Hoping to hear from you soon.

Yours truly

Charlton C Davis -- OWNER, Davis Trailer Mfg. Co

ID: nht81-2.27

DATE: 05/19/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Bridgestone Tire Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

May 19, 1981

Mr. H. Hayashi Manager for Safety Standards Tire Quality Assurance Dept. Bridgestone Tire Co., Ltd. 2800-1, Ogawa, Higashi-Cho Kodaira-Shi, Tokyo, JAPAN

Dear Mr. Hayashi:

This is in response to your letter of March 26, 1981, requesting, an interpretation of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) Standards (49 CFR S575.104). You ask whether a tire designed for service as a temporary use spare tire, and labeled on its sidewall with the inscription: TEMPORARY USE ONLY FOR SPARE TIRE, INFLATE TO 40 PSI, MAX. SPEED 50 MPH, is exempt from the requirements of the UTQG Standards.

As you note, the "Application" section of the UTQG regulation does not apply to space-saver or temporary use spare tires. Thus, the UTQG Standards would not apply to the tire you describe, which is designed as a temporary use spare tire and is so labeled.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

March 26, 1981

Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street s.w., Washington,D.C.20590 U.S.A. Subject: Request for official advice in respect to the interpretation of Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (49CFR 575.104)

Dear Sirs:

Recently we have a plan to manufacture a temporary use type spare tire with 185/70 R14 size designation for U.S.A. market at the request of some automobile manufacturer. This type temporary use spare tire is designed to comply all the requirements of FMVSS No. 109, including labelling requirements.

In addition, this spare tire is to have the following labelling letters molded on both sidewalls:

Letters to be labelled

1) TEMPORARY USE ONLY FOR SPARE TIRE

2) INFLATE TO 40 PSI

3) MAX. SPEED 50 MPH

Note:- Refer to the attached sheet.

In the section 49CFR 575.104(C), it is provided that "However, this section does not apply to deep tread, winter-type snowtires or to space-saver or temporary use spare tires."

We, therefore, understand that Uniform Tire Quality Grading requirements would not apply to our temporary use type spare tire.

We hope to have your official comments and/or advice on our interpretation of the application of UTQG Standards.

Your kind and early reply would be highly appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

H. HAYASHI MANAGER FOR SAFETY STANDARDS TIRE QUALITY ASSURANCE DEPT.

ID: nht74-1.15

DATE: 05/01/74

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

TO: The Mansfield Tire & Rubber Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 19, 1974, inquiring whether Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 permits the labeling of both the 175R13 and the BR78-13 tire size designations on the same tire.

Paragraph S4.3 of Standard No. 109 permits the labeling on the same tire of equivalent inch and metric size designations. Based upon the Tables in the Appendix of Standard No. 109, we would consider the two size designations to be equivalent inch and metric size designations, and both may therefore be labeled on the sidewall of the same tire.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

Maximum Tire Loads (Pounds) At Various Cold Inflation Pressures Size 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 175R13 790 840 890 930 980 1030 1070 1110 1150 1190 BR78.13 780 840 890 930 980 1030 1070 1110 1150 1190

THE MANSFIELD TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY

March 19, 1974

L. R. Schneider -- Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, United States Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Schneider:

In the Federal Register November 1, 1973, Part III, the Department of Transportation published Passenger Car Tires and Rims Information under MVSS 109. Reviewing Rules and Regulations for Radial Ply Tires, it is noted that under Table I-H for the 175R-13 and under Table I-H for the BR78-13, the loads, inflations, rim, minimum size factor and section width are basically the same. For your observation, we are listing from the Tables both of these sizes as spelled out in these Rules and Regulations.

Maximum Tire Loads (Pounds) At Various Cold Inflation Pressures Test Min.

Rim Size Sect.

Width Fact. Width Size 36 38 40 (In.) (In.) (In.) 175R13 1230 1270 1300 4 1/2 30.30 6.75 BR78.13 1230 1270 1300 4 1/2 30.31 6.75

As these tires are both the same for the American size radial and the millimeter radial, it is our intent to mark both these sizes, as noted in MVSS 109, Part 571, Section S4.3 "Labeling Requirements", on the same tire with the maximum load and inflation branded on the tires. We are intending to use the American size tire code in the tire identification serial.

We will appreciate your reviewing this matter and unless advised to the contrary, we are intending to proceed with the marking as described above. We will appreciate hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely,

R. C. Hudson -- Director, Tire Engineering, Tech Service/Quality Control

ID: nht74-1.21

DATE: 07/08/74

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

TO: Lackey, Alexander & Jackson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: We are enclosing herewith a copy of new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, which becomes effective March 1, 1975, and a copy of a notice of proposed rulemaking regarding a new Federal standard (No. 120) which proposes requirements for tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars.

There are no Federal requirements regarding the tensile strength of tire bead.

We regret we cannot be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

LAW OFFICE

LACKEY, ALEXANDER & JACKSON

June 15, 1974

United States Department of Transportation -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration;

Atten: E. T. Driver,

Dear Mr. Driver:

In your letter addressed to the undersigned, you enclosed copies on Standard Regulation Nos. 109, 110, 117, and part of 574. You stated that you were in the process of developing proposed Standards Nos. 119 and 120. If these standards have been completed, I will appreciate your forwarding a copy of the same to me.

I do not intend to impose upon you, but if you have in your rules and regulations any test of the tensile strength of the steel wires forming the bead as defined in 22914, Section 571.109, Standard No. 109, Sub-Section S-3, I would appreciate your also forwarding a copy of same.

I am now prosecuting a case against a manufacturer and find that the bead wire is completely separated. When it was placed upon the rim to be mounted, air was put in the tire to cause it to expand to the rim; and the party mounting the tire lost an eye when the air escaped with great force at the break in the bead into his face.

The defense to this law suit appears to be that the party mounting the tire put too much air in the tire which caused the bead to separate. I have had the tire X-rayed and find a clean break in the steel wires in the bead; but there is no breaking of the fabric or the rubber.

I, therefore, need to know the tensile strength of the wires forming the bead in order to meet my opponents' effort to prove that the steel wires were broken because of excessive inflation of the tire. If you have any regulation as to the required tensile strength of the bead wires, I will appreciate your furnishing me a copy of such regulation or specification.

Your cooperation in this matter is very much appreciated.

Yours very truly,

Joseph L. Lackey

ID: nht74-1.39

DATE: 02/25/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James B. Gregory; NHTSA

TO: Ford

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 24, 1974, asking for an interpretation as to whether a rear lamp assembly design that Ford demonstrated to NHTSA representatives conforms to the location requirements of Standard No. 108. The assembly consists of three units which, from outboard to inboard, as a rear lighting assembly, comprise the tail lamp/stop lamp, backup lamp, and turn signal lamp.

Standard No. 108 specifies that stop lamps, tail lamps, and turn signal lamps be "as far apart as practicable." The standard does not specify a minimum separation distance of lamps, a maximum permissible location inboard, or location of one system relative to another. The determination of practicability in lamp spacing is to be made by the vehicle manufacturer, and the agency has generally afforded manufacturers some latitude in this interpretation.

Therefore, the configuration you have described and demonstrated would not violate Standard No. 108. It should be noted, however, that it would be in conflict with the requirements for rear turn signals and stop lamps as proposed in Docket 69-19, Notice 3.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

January 24, 1974

James B. Gregory -- Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Dr. Gregory:

On January 14 Ford demonstrated a rear lamp design that it plans to use on one of its 1975 models. The purpose of the demonstration was to display the design and make sure there were no misunderstandings as to the lamp's conformance with the location requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Ford pointed out that the various functions of the lamp were "as far apart as practicable" for the rear end design of the vehicle and for the separation of signal functions by space and color in which both the NHTSA and Ford are interested.

For the record the lamp assembly may be described as follows: Red White Amber Left side shown (Approximately to scale)

* The outboard pod has a red lens and wraps around the quarter panel, thus serving as a rear side market, taillamp and stop lamp and as side and rear reflex reflectors.

* The center pod has a white lens and serves as the backup lamp.

* The inboard pod has an amber lens and serves as the turn signal lamp.

While it is our impression that NHTSA technical personnel who examined this lamp design agreed that it fully meets the location requirements of Standard No. 108, we should appreciate formal confirmation that the Administration concurs in our interpretation.

Respectfully submitted,

J. C. Eckhold -- Director, Automotive Safety Office, FORD MOTOR COMPANY