ID: nht93-9.3

DATE: December 4, 1993

FROM: David Fabrycky

TO: Chief Counsel -- US DOT, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 5/12/94 From John Womack To David Fabrycky (A42; Std. 213; VSA 108(a)(2)(A)

TEXT: Dear Sir,

I and my associates are currently involved in the development of a child safety device that is intended to prevent the inadvertent and curiosty based opening of the safety buckle by a one to six year old. Although there have been many studies done on the value of such a device the Code of Federal Regulations contains many relevant statements regarding the testing and operation of child restraint systems.

I am writing you for the purpose of gaining your insight and opinion as to the relationship between the type of device we have developed and the standards articulated in the Code of Federal Regulations.

Our device is and after-market item purchased by the parent or gaurdian. The device covers the safety buckle and prevents the child from gaining access to the pushbutton. The adult or gaurdian is presumed to possess sufficient mannual dexterity and cognitive skills to easily remove the cover and release the safety belt. The device is also transparent so that the objective is visible.

Regarding the following sections, what is your opinion of the installation of such a device on a child's seat belt buckle in conjuction with other approved devices?

Please find several references to the Code of Federal Regulations followed by specific issues/questions in boldface.

CFR 571.214

S5.4.3.5 Buckle Release. Any buckle in a child restraint system belt assembly designed to restrain a child using the system shall: (a) When tested in accordance with S6.2.1 prior to the dynamic test of S6.1, not release when a force of less than 9 pounds is applied and shall release when a force of not more than 14 pounds is applied:

The device requires that a latch be accuated and the cover pivoted away from the buckle so that the pushbutton can be depressed. If none of the forces required to accomplish these tasks exceed the limits specified, would the device be acceptable.

The device requires the manual dexterity to exert the forces in many directions simulateously. Does this comply with the foregoing requirement?

(b) After the dynamic test S6.1, when tested in accordance with S6.2.3, release when a force of not more than 16 pounds is applied;

2

The device does not bear the restraining force of any test and is designed to operate after any stress as when first installed.

(c) Meet the requirements of S4.3(d)(2) of FMVSS No. 209 (CFR 571.209), except that the minimum surface area for child restraint buckles designed for pushbutton application shall be 0.6 square inch;

The device covers the pushbutton during use. The parent or gaurdian is required to remove the device in order to access the pushbutton.

S6 Test Conditions and procedures.

This section describes in detail the procedures required for child restraint system. How would the addition of the device relate to the objectives of the tests?

S6.2 Buckle Release Test procedure.

This section describes in detail the procedures required for buckle of child restraint systems. How would the addition of the device relate to the objectives of the tests?

What other Regulations seem relevant to the development of our device and do you have other observations or opinions that relate to public policy that I have not mentioned?

Thank you in advance for your prompt response.

Sincerly

ID: nht93-4.41

DATE: June 22, 1993

FROM: Alan Niedzwiecki -- Director of Business Development, EDO Corporation, Government Systems Division

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: DOT NHTSA position on CNG cylinder standards

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/13/93 from John Womack to Alan Niedzwiecki (A41; Part 303)

TEXT:

EDO Corporation is a seventy year old Aerospace/Defense contractor headquartered in College Point, New York with several operating divisions across the USA and one in Canada. One of the products that EDO Corporation has developed and is currently manufacturing is an all-composite cylinder for compressed natural gas vehicle on-board motor fuel storage. The cylinder has been certified to the Canadian Government CNG cylinder standard which has the highest safety factor of any other existing CNG cylinder standard (SF 3.33). Our cylinder was actually tested to a safety factor of 3.5. It is EDO's intention to begin a large US fleet conversion program using these cylinders, commencing July 15, 1993. If this program is successful, vehicle may be equipped at the OEM level with these cylinders.

At this time, there is no applicable U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) cylinder standard for compressed natural gas on-board motor vehicle storage cylinders. To quote the NFPA 52 (1992 Edition) Section 2-4.2: "Note 1: Current DOT and TC specifications, exemptions, and specific permits do not address the use of cylinders as vehicle fuel containers."

We are aware of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), entitled: "NHTSA 49 CFR Part 571 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Compressed Natural Gas Fuel System and Fuel Tank Integrity." This new CNG cylinder standard is to be adopted by law on September 1, 1994. It is our understanding that the NHTSA NPRM is a self certification standard which places full responsibility on both the cylinder manufacturer and automobile manufacturer for liability issues. In addition, manufacturers are subject to the U.S. re-call laws under the U.S. Automobile Vehicles Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381.

It is important to note that the existing EDO LiteRider cylinder meets the requirements of the "New" DOT NHTSA Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 49 CFR Part 571 FMVSS in its current form which calls for a 3.5 safety factor.

In the interim, the AGA NGV2 has been adopted by ANSI as a voluntary industry standard for CNG motor fuel storage cylinders.

Based on numerous discussions with Department of Transportation and American Gas Association Laboratory personnel, please note that:

. The EDO LiteRider cylinder has been certified to the Canadian Government CAN/CSA B51-M91 Appendix G, Boiler, Pressure Vessel, and Pressure Piping Code.

. EDO has commenced ANSI/AGA NGV2 Certification. Anticipated approval - July 1, 1993.

. EDO will comply with the US Automobile Vehicle Safety Act, U.S.C. 1381.

. EDO has sold LiteRider cylinders for demonstration programs, in USA.

. EDO is aggressively promoting the sale of LiteRider cylinders throughout the USA.

It is EDO's position that given the above certifications there are no additional DOT regulations to which we are required to comply, prior to starting the conversion program.

We request that you review our position and let us know if there are any other measures required, prior to our proceeding.

Should you have any questions or require any additional information, please feel free to contact me at (718) 321-4503 or Fax: (718) 321-4540. My mailing address is as follows:

EDO Energy Corporation 14-04 111 Street College Point, New York 11356-1434 Attn: A. Niedzwiecki, Director of Business Development

ID: nht76-3.9

DATE: 05/01/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: General Motors Technical Center

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to General Motors' January 14, 1975, request for confirmation that a Type II seat belt assembly demonstrated to Messrs. Carter, Detrick, Hofferberth, Burgett, Hitchcock, and Herlihy of the NHTSA on December 17, 1974, satisfies the requirements of S7.1.1 of Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection, that the lap belt portion "adjust by means of an emergency-locking or automatic-locking retractor." You describe the seat belt assembly as of the single retractor, continuous loop type, with a B-pillar-mounted "window shade" emergency-locking retractor, and a one-way frictional "D ring" buckle tongue which limits return of webbing to the lap belt portion from the torso portion when the belt assembly is in use. At the December 17 demonstration you specifically asked if the "D ring" frictional characteristics satisfy the criterion established in a September 25, 1972, letter to Renault, Inc. (copy enclosed), that "the friction in the buckle is low enough that the normal motion of the occupant against the shoulder belt cinches up the lap belt."

Section S7.1.1 requires adjustment of the lap belt portion "by means of an emergency-locking or automatic-locking retractor" and adjustment in most cases of the upper torso portion "by means of an emergency-locking retractor." The language permits some single retractor, continuous loop systems as long as the single retractor does "automatically adjust" the tension of the lap belt portion to prevent excessive belt slack. Because of the submarining danger of a slack lap belt, the NHTSA has restricted the acceptability of continuous loop systems under S7.1.1 in two areas.

One restriction was set out in the Renault letter and it is the basis for your question whether the GM "D ring" has a sufficiently low level of friction to qualify the lap portion as "automatically adjustable."

We would like to clarify that letter by emphasizing that, to conform to the requirements, the assembly must be designed by the manufacturer with a sufficiently low level of friction to qualify the lap portion as "automatically adjustable." Thus it is the manufacturer who determines whether or not the particular belt is designed to satisfy the requirements of the standard. In your December 17 demonstration we saw no evidence of design deficiency in limited use of that continuous loop system.

The other restriction was set out in a March 9, 1973, letter to General Motors (copy enclosed). It limits the use of "comfort clips" on the upper torso portion of continuous loop systems. The letter distinguishes continuous loop systems from systems that have separate lap and shoulder belt retractors. It concludes that "a comfort clip would be acceptable under S7.1.1 of the standard, so long as the shoulder belt is otherwise capable of adjustment as required by S7.1.1."

This restriction has since been the subject of an NHTSA proposal (Docket 74-32; Notice 1) which would restrict the use of "a device used to limit retractive action of an emergency-locking retractor for the comfort of the occupant" to seat belt assemblies that have "an individually adjustable lap belt." General Motors' response to that proposal and its anticipated use of a "window shade" device in future continuous loop systems assume that NHTSA intends to permit "belt tension relief" devices on all continous loop systems. I would like to point out that this issue is outstanding in Docket 74-32.

Pursuant to your request for confidential treatment of this question on a new seat belt assembly, this letter will be made public only after the introduction of the new vehicle in question.

ID: nht76-4.29

DATE: 10/07/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Pullman Trailmobile

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Trailmobile's August 13, 1976, question whether a trailer would be considered to be newly manufactured for purposes of compliance with applicable safety standards if it is assembled from all new materials except for axles (axle beams, spindles and brakes, and associated brake drums, wheels, seals, and bearings) from an existing trailer whose identity and ownership would be continued in the reassembled trailer.

The answer to this question is yes. The assembly of a trailer entirely from new materials except for the trailer axles does not qualify as a "repair" under NHTSA regulations (49 CFR @ 571.7(f). This regulation states that such trailers will be considered newly manufactured unless, "at a minimum, the trailer running gear assembly (axle(s), wheels, braking, and suspension) is not new . . ." In the case you describe, the suspension would be new.

SINCERELY,

Pullman Trailmobile

August 13, 1976

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

RE: Used Components in Trailer Manufacturing NHTSA Regulation @ 571.7(f), Effective July 1, 1976

Opinion is requested concerning the extent to which substitution of new components in trailer running gear assemblies taken from existing trailers is permissible under the above regulation which permits the combination of new and used highway trailer components without the re-assembled trailer being considered "newly manufactured".

A customer has tendered to Pullman Trailmobile 200 trailer running gear assemblies selected by the customer from its inventory of wrecked and damaged van trailers. The customer proposes to ship the assemblies to a Pullman Trailmobile factory, identified by the serial numbers of the existing trailers from which the running gear assemblies were taken. The customer requests Trailmobile to combine such running gear assemblies with new components to complete re-assembled van trailers which will continue to be used by the customer in its transportation business. The trailer running gear assemblies to be shipped to Pullman Trailmobile will consist of the following components:

(a) axle beam including the spindle and brake assembly;

(b) complete axle assembly (including brake drums, wheels, oil seals, bearings, etc.).

All other components of the trailer running gear assemblies have been adjudged by the customer's maintenance employees to require replacement, consistent with safe maintenance and operation practices.

Reference is made to NHTSA's discussion and evaluation of comments upon the proposed regulation published in the July 1, 1976 Federal Register; in particular, to that paragraph reviewing the comments of Firestone Corporation concerning rims and wheels. In that connection, it was stated that "The agency in no way intends to modify safe maintenance and operation practices by its action. Substitution of new components or of use of old components is not advocated or discouraged by this action". NHTSA also reported that "frame attachment components" were excluded from the description of running gear assemblies for fear that persons might reuse damaged attachment hardware.

Based upon the foregoing, a favorable opinion is requested that reuse of the above described components of trailer running gear assemblies in combination with sufficient new running gear and other components required to produce re-assembled van trailers does not result in a "newly manufactured" trailer; assuming, of course, that the re-assembled trailer will be used by the owner of the existing trailer which will continue to be identified by its existing serial number.

If additional facts or information in connection with the agency's determination is necessary or desirable, please call upon this writer for assistance.

Edgar E. Lungren Jr.

ID: nht74-3.15

DATE: 02/27/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Excel Industries

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 14, 1974, inquiring whether Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, "Bus Window Retention and Release" (49 CFR 571.217), prohibits the use of sliding windows as emergency exits in buses. You refer to language in S5.3.1 and S5.4 of the standard which refers specifically to the use of push-out windows as emergency exits.

Standard No. 217 is not intended to prohibit the use of sliding windows as bus emergency exits, but such windows must comply with all of the standard's requirements for emergency exits.

Yours truly,

January 14, 1974

Lawrence Schneider

NHTSA

Excel Industries has, in the past few years, been in the production of a sliding window that is used in multi-purpose vehicles, motor homes, trailers, and other related recreational vehicles. With the energy crisis, some of our customers are attempting to convert these motor homes into people carriers, limousines, airport buses, ski lodge transportation, etc.

Under amendments to paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of 393.61 and amendments to 393.63 of the Motor Carrier Safety Regulations as published in the Federal Register on June 10, 1972, "On a bus manufactured on and after September 1, 1973, having a seating capacity of more than 10 persons, each push-out window shall conform to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, Part 571 of this title."

Furthermore, under Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, paragraph S5.2.1, it states that unobstructed opening requirements are to be provided which conform to S5.3 through S5.5 for vehicles with a GVWR of greater than 10,000 lb. Paragraph S5.2.2 states the unobstructed openings for buses with a GVWR of less than 10,000 lb. Under subparagraph (b) of this paragraph, it merely states, "Windows that can be opened manually to a position that provides an opening large enough to admit. . . ." etc. In reviewing these standards, we feel that our windows would definitely conform to the buses defined in S5.2.2 and, by meeting the window retention requirements in S5.1 and the emergency release requirements in S5.3, our window would conform to the definition of an emergency exit for buses defined in S5.2 except for the wording on push-out windows or other emergency exits, Paragraph S5.3.1 and S5.3.2, "The release mechanism or mechanisms shall require for release. . . . . of the initial push-out motion of the emergency exit (outward and perpendicular to the exit surface.)" In re-reading these specs, many references are made to windows as being push-out windows. However, in discussing this with Mr. Frank Bergsman of your Standards Office (ph. 202-426-2807), he feels that, if our sliding window can be opened to permit the 20x13 ellipsoid to pass through it, our window could conform as an emergency exit in both paragraphs; i.e., S5.2 for over 10,000 lb. buses and S5.2.2 for buses of 10,000 lb. or less.

Mr. Bergeman has said he has discussed this spec with you, and we would like a written reply on this interpretation as soon as possible.

S. A. Spretnjak

Chief Design Engineer

(Graphics omitted)

EXCEL INDUSTRIES

PARADE OF NEW PRODUCTS

FOR THE MOBILE HOME AND R.V. INDUSTRY

ROUND CORNERED BAGGAGE DOOR

SQUARE CORNERED BAGGAGE DOOR

MOTOR HOME SEAT PEDESTAL

ROUND CORNERED SLIDING WINDOW

VAN SCREENS

MOBILE & MODULAR SINGLE HUNG WINDOW

CAMPER TAILGATE SPRING LIFT ASSIST

ID: nht74-4.14

DATE: 07/11/74

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

TO: Automobile Importers of America

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 24, 1974, asking that the NHTSA reconsider its decision to extend the time period within which it will normally respond to petitions for reconsideration. You also suggest that public meetings be held following the deadline for receipt of petitions.

Although the NHTSA appreciates the need for expeditious handling of petitions for reconsideration, it has become clear through the years that a shorter deadline for action than 90 days after the closing date for receipt of petitions is not practicable. In order to give full consideration to the points raised in the petitions, a period of 90 days from the closing date for petitions is often necessary and in the public interest. Every attempt will be made to remain within this limitation.

With regard to your suggestion that a public proceeding be held after the receipt of petitions, in general such proceedings have been found unnecessary at this stage in the rulemaking process. Written submissions have proven more helpful than oral discussion during this phase, since they tend to provide more constructive information and "hard data." In cases where a public meeting appears advisable, we will of course not hesitate to hold one.

Thank you for your comments.

AUTOMOBILE IMPORTERS OF AMERICA

June 24, 1974

James B. Gregory Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

On April 25, 1974, a notice was published in the Federal Register extending from 90 days to 120 days from publication of a final rule, the time period during which the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will normally respond to petitions for reconsideration. It is the unanimous view of the member companies of the Automobile Importers of America (AIA) that this extension of the NHTSA response time is not in the public interest and that you should reconsider this policy change in light of the following:

(a) With few exceptions, manufacturers must initiate changes in production tooling and order appropriate materials from suppliers promptly after issuance of a new or revised standard in order to meet the specified effective date. Since the deadlines for such production decisions are often short, delay on the part of NHTSA in responding to a petition can serve, in effect, as a denial of the petition.

(b) Manufacturers are allowed a 30-day period after publication of a standard to transmit the text to the factory, translate it to a foreign language (in most instances), construct and perform tests on special prototype vehicles or components, determine the conformance, producibility, and cost of an appropriate design, and, if significant problems are encountered, prepare a Petition for Reconsideration to the NHTSA. In view of this, it does not seem unreasonable to expect NHTSA personnel to respond to the petition within 60 days - double the time allowed for preparation of the petition by manufacturers

It is recognized that rule making decisions are often difficult since they are complex technically and since to serve the public interest, many points of view must be considered. Accordingly, we would suggest that if petitions for reconsideration are received, a public proceeding be scheduled closely following the deadline for such petitions. This would facilitate understanding of the problem and possible solutions and assure consideration of all points of view. In addition it would assure the consideration of the petitions on a timely basis, and provide a forum for the presentation of information adverse to as well as in support of the petitions. Finally, the record of the proceeding would, we believe, be of considerable use to your staff in facilitating and expediting the disposition of petitions.

Ralph T. Millet President

ID: nht74-4.27

DATE: 05/14/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: L and R Enterprises

COPYEE: HON. JOHN TOWER; HON. LLOYD BENTSEN

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 15, 1974, letter asking whether your installation of spotlights through the left A-pillar of passenger cars is subject to Standards 201 and 216.

Standard 201 does not apply to the instrument panel area on the driver's side from the left door to a longitudinal plane 3-1/4 inches to the right of the steering wheel. The left A pillar is within this excluded area.

Your drilling operation may affect roof strength and I have enclosed a copy of Standard 216, our standard on roof crush resistance. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, it is the responsibility of the person who manufacturers or alters a vehicle to determine whether his vehicle meets the requirements.

Your business is subject to these requirements, however, only if you qualify as an alterer of motor vehicles under 49 CFR 567.7, which is enclosed. The mounting of a spotlight by drilling the A-pillar is a "non-readily attachable" alteration. Such an alteration would be subject to the @ 567.7 requirement only if you mount it "before the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale."

2 ENCLS

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

February 19, 1974

Jim Lang President L and R Enterprises

Since the questions raised in your letter of February 15, 1974, are under the jurisdiction of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation, we have taken the liberty of forwarding it to the General Counsel of that agency.

You can expect to hear directly from that office in the near future.

FRED J. EMERY Director of the Federal Register

cc:w/encl Lawrence R. Schneider, Esq.

General Counsel

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

cc: (1) Honorable John Tower

United States Senate

(2) Honorable Lloyd Bentsen

United States Senate

L and R Enterprises

February 15, 1974

Director Office of Federal Registrar National Archives and Records Service General Services Administration

Ref: Code of Federal Regulations

49 transportation

Parts 200 to 999

Revised October 1, 1972

With reference to part 571 of the above publication and entitled Federal Motor Vehicle Standard; sub-part 571.201 and with specific reference to S3.1.1b and c, has been interpreted to indicate that any rigid projection outboard from the padded dash is or will be illegal. Our exact reference here has to do with a "post mounted spot light which has a rigid handle outboard from said dash." Please provide an exact interpretation of the above for us.

Another question arises in sub-part 571.216 with specific reference the strength of the roof of a vehicle. Said testing is completed the factory, but if a 1/2" to 3/4" hole is drilled in the left or right front corner post, the physical structure is altered and weakened. We would appreciate a positive interpretation on this point also.

L and R Enterprises is a manufacturer of 12 volt lighting devices, and we need these two interpretations so as to know how to schedule our production.

Thanks for your assistance in this matter.

Jim Lang President L and R Enterprises

c/c Honorable John tower Senator from Texas

Honorable Lloyd Pentsen

Senator from Texas

ID: nht73-1.16

DATE: 02/27/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Douglas W. Toms; NHTSA

TO: American Automobile Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

This is in further reply to your letter of January 26, 1973, regarding performance of studded tires and the legal implications of installing studs.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has not tested studded tires as part of its regular compliance program However, a special test of studded tires outside of the regular compliance program was conducted. The results of this program are presently being prepared for release to the public through NHTSA's Technical Reference Division.

Briefly, in this program, snow tires manufactured and studded by the major tire manufacturers, were tested in accordance with the requirements of Standard No. 109 and to conditions that exceed the requirements of Standard No. 109. Unstudded tires of the same type were tested concurrently for direct comparison.

To summarize the data from this program, both the studded and the unstudded tires passed both the endurance and high speed performance tests, the studded tires without loss of studs. In extension of the high speed test to 1/2 hour at 90 mph and 1/2 hour at 95 mph, some of the studs came out during the 1/2 hour at 95 mph. Some studded tires were run to 103 mph before tread chunking occurred. In extension of the endurance test for three hours with 10 percent increased load each hour, no studs were lost. As a result of this program, it would appear that studded tires do not present special problems when tested to the laboratory wheel tests of Standard No. 109.

We understand that major tire manufacturers in the industry have also run similar tests and determined that studded tires will meet the requirements of Standard No. 109. We recommend that tire and stud manufacturers be contacted directly for additional information concerning studded tire performance.

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, persons who properly install appropriate studs in snow tires designed to be used with studs would not be responsible if the tire failed to conform to Federal standards. Because the installation of studs is clearly contemplated by the tire manufacturers, we would consider the conformity of such a tire to be his responsibility. On the other hand, a person who willfully used improper studs, improper installation procedures or who attempted to stud a tire not designed for studs would be responsible for conformity. Whether proper stud installation was used would depend upon a variety of factors, such as accepted practice, and the tire and stud manufacturers' recommended procedures.

Sincerely,

January 26, 1973

General Benjamin O. Davis -- Assistant Secretary of Transportation for Safety and Consumer Affairs, Department of Transportation

Dear General Davis:

We would like to have all the information now available as to what safety performance compliance testing under MVSS No. 109 and No. 110 for studded tires have been performed by or for the Department of Transportation, and the availability of any related test reports.

Since tire studs may be installed by tire manufacturers' retail outlets as well as independent tire dealers, information is also needed as to the legal implications of modifying a tire by installing tire studs, subsequent to the time it is "DOT" certified by the original tire manufacturer.

Any help you can give would be most appreciated.

Yours sincerely,

John de Lorenzi --

Managing Director,

Public & Government Relations

ID: nht73-1.18

DATE: 10/10/73

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

TO: Motor Vehicle Administration

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

This is in further response to correspondence dated July 10, 1973, between the Maryland Department of Transportation and Mr. Bernard Nolan. Mr. Nolan had written to the Maryland State Attorney General's Office regarding the practice of tire dealers of selling tires that have been relabeled "tube type" by their manufacturer, while representing that it was not necessary, and may even be unsafe, to install tubes in them. You attach a memorandum to you from Mr. Thomas J. Widerman which concludes that the practice does not violate any Federal or State law but recommends that Maryland's proposed tire safety standards be amended to prohibit the practice. You indicate to Mr. Nolan that you are forwarding the matter to this agency for appropriate action.

We believe this practice involves at least a technical violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Section 108(a) (1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(1)) prohibits, among other things, the sale of motor vehicle equipment manufactured after the effective date of an applicable safety standard that does not conform to the standard.

We believe a person who sells a "tube type" tire as a tubeless tire is at least representing that the tire will meet the Federal standard applicable to tires, No. 109, without a tube. Accordingly, we believe that it is appropriate under the Safety Act to test that tire to the standard as a tubeless tire and, if failure occurs, to initiate civil penalty proceedings against the tire seller. That seller may also be liable for civil penalties for certifying the tire as conforming in a false and misleading manner (Sec. 108(a)(3) of the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(3)).

I am therefore referring the matter to our enforcement personnel with the recommendation that they inquire into the matter.

However, I also concur with the recommendation of Mr. Widerman that a specific prohibition against this practice be made part of Maryland law. NHTSA's enforcement procedures are civil in nature, and involve determinations that products fail to meet technical tests which are time-consuming and costly to run. State criminal procedures would, in our view, be far more effective than NHTSA's procedures in dealing with situations such as this.

Sincerely,

July 10, 1973

E. Wallace -- Dept. of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Dear Ed:

A little slow perhaps, but here is a section of the B.F.Goodrich "Space Saver Spare" tire you asked me for.

We are trying spring plates in the molds to get the prescribed branding below the curb rib as now required. As you can see it will not be visible for(Illegible Word) to see it when it is in the trunk and folded as is normally the case,(Illegible Word) his we must also put it below the tread edge as you can see it on the section. This means a "double" branding job on these tires.

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

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

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

Yours very truly,

B.F.GOODRICH TIRE COMPANY,

A Division of The B.F.Goodrich Co. --

F. S. Vukan

ID: 77-4.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/17/77

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

TO: Crane Carrier Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Crane Carrier Corporation's June 8, 1977, question whether the maximum time limits specified by S5.1.1 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, for build-up of brake system air pressure from 85 to 100 psi includes the time taken to build up air pressure in an accessory reservoir (for an air starter) that is replenished only when the truck is started.

The answer to your question is no. Section S5.1.1 is a performance requirement that assures that repeated use of the brakes during vehicle operation will not deplete the available air supply because of insufficient air compressor capacity. The purpose of this requirement only indirectly relates to the initial air pressure build-up that occurs when the vehicle is first started.

The agency's existing laboratory procedure for compliance testing provides for fully charging the air brake system (and any accessory reservoirs which charge automatically in the process) before the test is begun. The engine is shut off while brake system air pressure is reduced to a level that permits a subsequent build-up for measurement purposes. In order to properly test vehicles with air starters, the agency is modifying its procedure to keep the engine running throughout the test, so that the air starter reservoir remains fully charged throughout the measurement period.

SINCERELY,

HEAVY DUTY TRUCK MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION

June 20, 1977 Frank Berndt Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Pursuant to our telephone conversation last Friday, I am pleased to enclose the inquiry we discussed. You suggested that interpretive rulings should be in writing, and I am pleased to respond.

F. MURRAY CALLAHAN General Counsel

CRANE CARRIER COMPANY

June 8, 1977

Heavy Duty Truck Manufacturers Assoc.

Attention: F. Murray Callahan, General Counsel Subject: Compliance with Section S5.1.1 of MVSS 121, when vehicles are equipped with air starters.

We are seeking an interpretation of Section S5.1.1 due to the following condition occurring on vehicles equipped with air starters. These vehicles require a separate large volume (17,787 C.I.) starter reservoir isolated from the trucks air brake system by means of a pressure protection and check valve which maintains a minimum of 75 psi air pressure in the service brake system. However, after initial start up of truck, which could use up to approximately 50% of starter reservoir capacity, and the truck brake system is built up to 75 psi, the protection valve between the two systems opens, and at this point the total system capacity is equal to the brake reservoir volume plus that of the air start reservoir. When this occurs, it is impossible for us to comply with the time limit specified in Section S5.1.1 due to the extremely large combined volume of the two systems.

What we seek interpretation of is if the standard will allow: (1) air start reservoir to be completely refilled as soon as engine is started, (2) draining of air in the service brake reservoirs and then, (3) replenishing the air in the brake reservoir in the time limit specified. This seems to us to satisfy the standard since the standard is only trying to insure of a large enough air compressor to replenish the service brake reservoirs and once the air start system is filled it will have no effect on the brake system operation.

If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact me.

Ray Sizemore Engineer

cc: KEN LAWRENCE