ID: nht76-5.3

DATE: 04/12/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood for F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Masoaka-Ishikawa and Associates, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 24, 1976, request for affirmation that a particular Takata Kojyo test procedure for applying force to a continuous loop Type 2 belt system "meet[s] the requirements set forth in Standard 209, Seat Belt Assemblies."

Section S4.4 of Standard No. 209 sets forth the requirements of the standard for assembly performance. Section S5.3(b) sets forth test methods that would be used in a determination of whether a Type 2 seat belt assembly conforms to the requirements of S4.4. Takata Kojyo's obligation as a manufacturer is to ensure that its certification of compliance is not false or misleading in a material respect, and that it has exercised due care in manufacturing to conform to Standard No. 209 (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(b)(2)). A manufacturer is not required to follow specifically the test procedures of the standards, but to ascertain, in the exercise of due care, that its product will conform to the standard's requirements when it is tested by the stated methods.

From your description, you have modified the existing procedures by use of a clamp to ensure that all force is applied to the lower torso webbing and hardware or, alternatively, to the upper torso webbing and hardware. While it appears that the comtemplated test procedure may evidence the exercise of due care to certify compliance with S4.4, the NHTSA cannot approve a manufacturer's test procedure as the basis of due care in advance of the actual events that underlie certification. It is the manufacturer's responsibility to utilize sound engineering judgement in the exercise of due care.

MASOKA-ISHIKAWA AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

February 24, 1976

Dr. James B. Gregory Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

On behalf of Takata Kojyo Co., Ltd., a manufacturer of seat belt assemblies whose products are used in automobiles marketed in the United States, we seek affirmation from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that the testing procedures for "continuous-loop" seat belt assemblies as shown in the attached illustrations meet the requirements set forth in Standard 209, Seat Belt Assemblies.

The proposed Takata Kojyo test procedures as shown in Figures 3 and 4 are specifically designed for Takata Kojyo's newly developed energy-absorbing/conventional webbing, continuous-loop seat belt assembly.

Figure 1 shows Takata Kojyo's continuous-loop seat belt assembly. Figure 2 illustrates the manner in which Takata Kojyo's combination energy-absorbing/conventional seat belt webbing is manufactured in an unique continuous weaving process. The continuously type webbing for the lap portion and the energy-absorbing webbing for the upper torso portion in an especially advanced continuous-loop seat belt assembly which provides markedly improved occupant protection.

Takata Kojyo Co., Ltd., No. 10 Mori Building, 28 Sakuragawa-cho, Nishikubo, Shiba, Minato-Ku, Tokyo, Japan, is a privately held Japanese corporation engaged in the manufacture of seat belt assemblies. Takata Kojyo does not directly market its automotive safety products in the United States. Its products are sold to manufacturers whose automobiles are sold in the United States. Japanese automobiles which use Takata Kojyo seat belt assemblies include, but are not limited to, Toyota, Datsun, Mazda, Dodge Colt and Honda. Takata Kojyo is the largest supplier of seat belt webbing in Japan, accounting for the more than 80 per cent of the market.

We respectfully request your prompt reply to our inquiry as to whether the test procedures shown in the attached illustrations fulfill the requirements of Standard 209.

T. Albert Yamada

CC: S. ISHIKAWA

Fig. 3 Proposed test method. Takata Kojyo Type II Bedt System (Continuous Loop)

Fig. 4 Proposed test method. Takata Kojyo Type II Seat Belt (Continuous Loop)

(Graphics omitted)

Fig. 1 Takata Kojyo Continous Loop Seat Belt Assembly

Fig. 2 Takata Kojyo Energy-absorbing webbing. Manufactured in a continuous weaving process.

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht76-3.46

DATE: 01/08/76

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

TO: B. F. Goodrich Engineered Systems Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your August 28, 1975, question whether use of compressed air from a trailer air brake system to supply non-brake equipment such as an air suspension would violate the requirements of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

The answer to your question is no. Standard No. 121 does not contain a prohibition on the use of air pressure from the air brake system for powering auxiliary devices. The vehicle must of course conform to Standard No. 121 following installation of the device, if the installation occurs prior to the first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale. For example, the brake actuation timing would still be required to meet S5.3.3 of the standard.

Although not a requirement of the standard, the NHTSA does consider it appropriate that a pressure protective valve be placed in the line to the auxiliary device so that a rupture of an auxiliary line does not cause depletion of air pressure in the brake system.

With respect to your request for approval of four installations of auxiliary equipment, the NHTSA does not issue approvals of specific designs, and therefore cannot state that vehicles modified in the described fashion would or would not be capable of meeting all requirements of the standard.

YOURS TRULY,

B. F. Goodrich Engineered Systems Company

August 28, 1975

R. L. Carter Acting Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

The B.F. Goodrich Company has received numerous requests from our trailer customers asking for our approval to obtain air for auxiliary items, such as air suspension bags from the anti-skid air system.

Attached is one copy each of four drawings, Nos. 1998-42-43-44-45 which shows four different places in the anti-skid air system that air could be obtained for auxiliary items. Drawing -45 shows taking air from the Sealco Ratio Relay Valve. To assist you in evaluating this drawing, we are attaching a Sealco pamphlet describing the operation of the Ratio Relay Valve. We would appreciate your review and interpretation as to whether any or all of these methods would violate the requirements of MVSS-121. We would appreciate an early review of these proposed methods of obtaining air for auxiliary systems so that we will be in a position to properly advise our customers.

If you have any questions concerning information on the attached drawings please do not hesitate to contact me. I will look forward to a response from you and thank you for your consideration.

D. L. Haines Divisional Manager, Quality Assurance

B.F. Goodrich Engineered Systems Company

December 1, 1975

R. L. Carter Acting Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

Subject: Anti-Skid - Containment of Air for Auxiliary Items

Ref: My letter of August 28, 1975

Dear Mr. Carter:

Attached to referenced letter I sent one copy each of four drawings, Nos. 1998-42,43,44,45, showing four different areas in the anti-skid air system that air could be obtained for auxiliary items, such as air suspension bags.

As of this date, we have not received a response on your review and interpretation as to whether any or all of these proposed methods would violate the requirements of MVSS-121.

As I pointed out, B.F. Goodrich has received numerous requests from our trailer customers asking for our approval to obtain air for auxiliary items. Therefore, your prompt response to my August 28 letter will be greatly appreciated.

If you have any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

D. L. Haines Divisional Manager, Quality Assurance

ID: nht76-5.10

DATE: 08/24/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Sheller-Globe Corporation

COPYEE: TRUCK BODY AND EQUIP. ASSOC.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Sheller-Globe's July 7, 1976, request for revision of the requirements of S5.4.2.1 of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, so that passage of the described parallelepiped through the emergency door can be effected with its lower surface several inches above the bus floor. Section 5.4.2.1 requires that the 45-inch dimension of the parallelepiped remain vertical, that the 24-inch dimension remain parallel to the opening, and that the lower surface remain in contact with the floor of the bus at all times.

The three specifications for passage of the parallelepiped through the opening are intended to describe, for the benefit of the manufacturer, how the NHTSA will conduct its compliance testing. These specifications do not represent a requirement that the opening be constructed without a threshold or corner obstructions. As the agency interprets this requirement, minor obstructions that do not necessitate passage of the parallelepiped through the opening more than 1 inch above the floor are not prohibited by this requirement. Thus, in the case you describe, the NHTSA would move the parallelepiped through the opening with its sides vertical and the rear surface parallel to the rear surface of the bus, just above the obstructions, but no more than 1 inch above the bus floor.

SINCERELY,

SHELLER-GLOBE CORPORATION Vehicle Planning and Development Center

July 7, 1976

Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Reference: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 217 - School Bus Emergency Exit Requirements (Docket No. 75-3; Notice 2 - Effective October 26, 1976)

Paragraphs S5.4.2 and S5.4.2.1 of the above referenced safety standard require that the Parallelepiped should be entered into the emergency door opening, keeping the 24 inch dimension (the base of the Parallelepiped) parallel to the opening and the lower surface (the base of the Parallelepiped) in contact with the floor of the bus at all times.

By reducing the seating capacity of the bus, by installing one (1) 26 inch and one (1) 39 inch seat in the rearmost row, the requirement for the 24 inch wide Parallelepiped can be met in Superior School Buses, shown on Drawing No. 4100429, attached. However, also as shown on the attached drawing, the requirement for keeping the lower surface in contact with the floor cannot be met in Superior Buses.

The problem as can be seen on the attached drawing is two-fold, and as follows:

Section B-B, depicts a riser that as installed functions as a part of the emergency door weather sealing arrangement.

View Circle A, depicts a 2.81 inch radius that exists in the two lower corners of the emergency door opening. These radii also serves as a part of the emergency door weather sealing arrangement. Most importantly, these 2.81 inch radii are a part of the emergency door sash and are a part of a major structural member of the bus rearend assembly.

If the Superior Divisions of Sheller-Globe Corporation are required to comply with the exact requirements of Paragraphs S5.4.2 and S5.4.2.1 of the above referenced safety standard, and a major reengineering, redesign and retooling program would be required, in addition, the newly configured rearend assembly would need to be subjected to an extensive real-world evaluation to establish its' structural reliability.

The Superior Divisions of Sheller-Globe Corporation requests that the requirements of Paragraphs S5.4.2 and S5.4.2.1 of the above reference safety standard be rewritten to permit the existence of minor functional components in the emergency door openings such as the "riser" and minor radii as depicted on the attached drawing. It is the opinion of the Super Divisions of Sheller-Globe Corporation that permitted existence of such minor functional components would in no manner obstruct the effective egress of children in schoolbus crash situation.

Your concurrence in the above matter would be appreciated.

George R. Semark - Manager Vehicle Safety Activities

ID: nht74-2.29

DATE: 05/01/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Robert E. Langdon III

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 12, 1974, asking whether retreaded tires are required by Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117 to have either a ribbed tread pattern or treadwear indicators.

Standard No. 117 does not have requirements for tread pattern design, and thus retreaded tires need not have a ribbed tread design. Each retreaded tire must, however, in accordance with S5.1.1(b) of Standard No. 117, incorporate a treadwear indicator that will provide a visual indication that the tire has worn to a tread depth of 1/16 inch.

YOURS TRULY,

April 12, 1974

Office of the Chief Counsel -- Attn: Lawrence Schneider, N.H.T.S.A.

Dear Mr. Schneider:

I have talked with Mr. Zemaitas of the San Francisco office of the N.H.T.S.A. several times about the D.O.T. standards for retreaded pneumatic tires. He was able, after calling the enforcement section of N.H.T.S.A. in Washington, to answer the question I had. When I asked if he could send the information to me in writing, he told me that I would have to write to the legal section in Washington in order to receive a written reply, and he was kind enough to give me your address.

I am a member of the Code Committee of the Southern California Council of Sports Car Clubs. Our Council sanctions slaloms, which are non-racing time and maneuverability events for automobiles. These slaloms are normally held on privately owned parking lots. Many of the cars are towed or trailered to the events since, under the provisions of the California Motor Vehicle Code, they may not legally be driven on streets or highways.

My questions stems from the fact that our slalom code has a rule in reference to tires which states, "Tires must be listed . . . in the manufacturer's printed catalog, and/or have a D.O.T. marking." This rule applies to retreaded tires as well as to new tires.

We have dealt with several retreaders that have been retreading D.O.T. marked carcasses with rubber of a low Shore hardness for increased traction. These tires have met the D.O.T. standards and have always had a tread groove pattern. Consequently the retreaders have marked them with their D.O.T. marks in addition to the original manufacturer's D.O.T. mark already on the carcass. The reason our rule is written specifying a D.O.T. mark is that the safety and strength of tires used in our sport is very important to us. We feel that the retreaders will continue to supply us with high quality, safe tires if we require them to meet the D.O.T. standards for retreaded tires.

My question to Mr. Zemaitas which he referred to the enforcement section (Illegible Words) retreaded tire which meets the standards for retreaded pneumatic tires (Code of Federal REgulations, Title 49, Chapter V, Paragraph 571.117) be legally marked with the D.O.T. mark if (1) there is no groove or rib pattern in the tread, and (2) there are wear indicators in the tread.

The enforcement section indicated to Mr. Zemaitas that this can be done, as there is no requirement for a tread groove or rib pattern, but only for tread wear indicators.

What I would like from you is written verification that, as long as a retreaded tire has tread wear indicators, it does not need to have a tread groove or tread rib pattern in order to be legally marked with the D.O.T. mark. This letter will be shown to other members of the Southern California Council of Sports Car Clubs to verify to them that such a retreaded tire complies with D.O.T. standards and therefore can be legally marked with a D.O.T. mark.

I would appreciate a reply from you as soon as possible. If you have any questions, I am normally available from 10 am. to 3 pm. (PST) at the telephone number shown above.

Sincerely,

Robert E. Langdon III

ID: nht73-1.28

DATE: 04/18/73

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

TO: ADC Marketing, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 29, 1973, to Mr. Schneider asking for a clarification that the Front brake Light Adapter you describe "does not fall within the provisions of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108." The adapter, as we understand it, connects the stop lamps with the front turn signal lamps so that when the brakes are applied, the front turn signal lamps are activated in a steady-burning state, indicating that the vehicle is decelerating or has come to a halt.

In our opinion, use of the adapter as original equipment on a vehicle might be precluded by paragraph S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108 prohibiting devices that impair the effectiveness of the equipment required by the standard. The front turn signal lamp is a lamp that flashes in operation to indicate to oncoming drivers, or pedestrians, that the vehicle is preparing to turn, or that a potential hazard exists ahead (when the system is activated as a hazard warning system). Accordingly, when the brake pedal is applied, if the adapter overrides the flashing effect of the front signal lamps it would impair their effectiveness, and be prohibited by Standard No. 108.

The adapter would be permissable as original equipment, however, provided that the signals still flash when the brakes are applied, but a State would not be preempted from regulating it. Nothing in the standard precludes aftermarket sale of the adapter, but its use also would be subject to regulation by the individual States.

Yours truly,

March 29, 1973

U. S. Department of Transportation National Highway Safety Administration

Attention: Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel

Subject: Regulation Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 --

Front Brake Light Adapter

Gentlemen:

Pursuant to a meeting today with Mr. Lem Owen of the Lighting and Visibility Division and the suggestion that we place in writing our request for an official ruling that the Front Brake Light Adapter submitted does not come within or violate the provisions of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. We have submitted samples and discussed the background of the Front Brake Light Adapter presently being marketed by ADC Marketing, Inc. with the Lighting and Visibility Division, and it has been verbally stated that in their opinion this does not apply to Regulation No. 108.

We believe that we have satisfactorily shown to your Lighting and Visibility Division that there is a definite safety factor involved and that the Adapter does not impair or change, in any manner whatsoever, the present function of the lighting system of any automobile and, therefore, does not violate any of the provisions in Regulation No. 108.

Recently we submitted Form 1171, Docket No. R3-73-163, an Application for Presenting New or Improved Articles, to the General Service Administration, Federal Supply Service requesting a Schedule Contract on the item. At this instance Standardization Division of GHA questioned whether this might come within the provision of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 and while the verbal opinion given us in todays meeting would suffice for our own information, we feel that a written ruling should be made.

This Front Brake Light Adapter was first submitted to your Division in 1970 and correspondence continued into 1971. At that time U.S. Senator E.S. Muskie referred Mr. Clarence C. Turner's inquiry to your Division with the request that this item be included in Motor vehicle requirements. We are not pressing in this request for such a consideration, however, we do need to have clarified that this Front Brake Light Adapter does not fall within the provisions of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Very truly yours,

ADC MARKETING, INC.

LOUIS A. SISLER,

General Counsel

cc: Lloyd E. Singleton

Samuel P. Haines

ID: nht73-2.3

DATE: AUGUST 17, 1973

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFC. -- RICHMOND, VA.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of July 31, 1973, concerning the effect of our Standard 208 on State laws requiring vehicles to be equipped with seat belts.

Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392(d), reads:

Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established under this title is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. . . .

Standard 208 (49 CFR 571.208) permits passenger cars to be manufactured under any one of several options for occupant crash protection. One of these options is "complete passive protection", under which the vehicle must undergo a series of rigorous crash tests, in which instrumented dummies without belt restraints show force levels that would not create serious injury to a human occupant in most cases. Manufacturers are not required by the standard to have seat belts at any position that meets the requirements of this option.

The NHTSA considers that Section 103(d), quoted above, clearly renders void any State laws or regulations to the extent that they would require a vehicle to be equipped with seat belts at seating positions that comply with the complete passive protection option. Any State requirements that are not "identical" to these of an applicable standard are preempted by that section, under basic Constitutional principles of the supremacy of Federal law.

I am enclosing some information on the efficacy of air cushion restraints, as you requested. We are pleased to be of assistance.

Sincerely,

Enclosure

ATTACH.

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

July 31, 1973

Lawrence R. Schneider, Esquire -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

Dear Mr. Schneider: This is in reference to a recent telephone conversation with Mr. Dick Dyson in respect to the projected program of General Motors Corporation to market one hundred thousand automobiles equipped with "air bags" instead of safety belts.

As you know, a number of states have statutes requiring that all passenger cars or other motor vehicles registered after certain dates shall be equipped with safety belts. Chapter 357, Acts of Assembly of 1962, embodied in @ 46.1-309.1, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, requires all motor vehicles registered in this State designed and licensed primarily for private passenger vehicular transportation on the public highways, and manufactured for the year 1963 or subsequent years, to be equipped with safety lap belts or a combination of lap belts and shoulder straps or harnesses. In 1968 an amendment was added which requires that "Passenger motor vehicles registered in this State and manufactured after January 1, 1968, shall be equipped with lap belts or a combination of lap belts and shoulder straps or harnesses as required to be installed at the time of manufacture by the Federal Department of Transportation."

In view of the last quoted amendment, it seems clear that the safety belt requirements for such vehicles in this State are dependent upon the requirements of the Federal Department of Transportation. Further, I am aware of the premise of over-riding power in the case of conflict between State and Federal law. For the benefit of this and other states in further clarifying this situation, however, it is requested that you render an opinion on the question of validity of State laws requiring that vehicles be equipped with safety belts. In this, your attention is directed to Public Law 89-563, 89th Congress, S. 3005, September 9, 1966, and Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208. Any additional information on the efficacy of "air bags" as opposed to safety belts would be most helpful.

Respectfully yours,

A. R. Woodroof -- Assistant Attorney General

ID: 77-4.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/31/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: International Trade Group of Ohio, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 14, 1977, to Don Williamson of our Ohio regional office.

You enclosed information on an automatic warning flasher lamp that is designed for installation on the parcel shelf inside the rear window of automobiles. You asked whether such a device would be legal on U.S. cars or U.S. highways, and "what steps might be required to obtain an endorsement for the generic device from the N.H.T.S.A."

The unit appears to be designed for sale as a motor vehicle accessory in the aftermarket. There are no Federal prohibitions against the sale of the warning device or its installation in motor vehicles. Whether it is legal to use such a device however is a question to be answered under the laws of the jurisdiction where the motor vehicle in which it is installed is registered and/or operated.

The NHTSA does not issue approvals or endorsements of propriety safety devices.

Yours Truly,

INTERNATIONAL TRADE GROUP OF OHIO, INC.

October 14, 1977

Don Williamson National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

At the suggestion of John Pichler of the Ohio Highway Safety Department I am writing to you for some assistance.

Now, before reading further, look at the two enclosures with this letter. I came across the unit at the recent IAA show in Frankfurt, Germany. It is an emergency warning light for vehicles. It turns on automatically under impact or it can be switched on in case of emergency from a dash-mounted switch.

I am interested in some expert advice in two areas.

1. Would such a device be considered legal on U.S. cars on U.S. highways? While the current color is amber, it can be easily made any color that would be legal.

2. What steps might be required to obtain an endorsement for the generic device from the N.H.T.S.A.?

If necessary I can certainly come to Chicago to show you a unit and discuss its operation and use in more detail.

James E. Reider President

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics Omitted)

A B L THE AMBER WARNING LIGHT

ABL - everyone's amber warning

ABL - the automatic warning flasher has a dual safety function:

1. ABL switches on automatically without any human intervention immediately on a traffic accident.

2. You can switch the ABL on by hand in hazardous situations and to secure a stationary vehicle.

The ABL therefore secures both life and vehicle.

In case of an accident, this panoramic amber flasher will warn anything from 5 to 10 cars following. By fitting the light to the rear right in front of the rear window, i.e. inside the car, you protect your ABL warning system against dirt and guarantee it the most effective position for rapid and effective visibility in an emergency. In particular, these advantages of the ABL supplement the statutory flasher system.

A further advantage is that you can switch the ABL on immediately if you break-down, run out of petrol or have to stop for other reasons and need not first leave the car to fetch a warning triangle or a lamp often equipped with empty batteries - from the boot. A further safety factor in your life - just think of the hazardous conditions on the motorway.

The ABL is connected up to the car battery (12 volts). Home fitting is no problem to the expert handy man.

The ABL has been registered by the Federal Road Traffic Office at Flensburg and granted type certificate 8502.

Please note:

the ABL secures your life and vehicle!

KONIG Instrument Engineering

ID: nht75-1.46

DATE: 09/24/75

FROM: ROBERT L. CARTER -- NHTSA

TO: Imperial-Eastman Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of May 28, 1975, in which you petitioned for the replacement of the "permanent" labeling requirement for brake hose in Standard No. 106-74 with a "weather resistant" test requirement. You also asked whether a series of dots may be included after the required date information on the hose, to indicate in coded form the day or manufacture.

With respect to your petition, this agency is reconsidering the permanency requirement for the labeling, and a notice is planned for issuance shortly on the subject. We do not find an additional test requirement for the labeling to be justified, on the basis of data presently before the agency, since the usefulness of the labeling is limited primarily to the pre-assembly period. Therefore, in the strict sense your petition is hereby denied. You may find, however, that the changes now being developed in our rulemaking proceedings will resolve your problem in this area.

The standard does not permit the use of coded dots indicating production date in the location specified for the required information. S5.2.2(c) specifies the following information as part of the required label:

The month, day, and year, or the month and year, of manufacture, expressed in numerals. For example, 10/1/74 means October 1, 1974.

Our interpretation of S5.2 (as incorporated in S7.2) is that the required information may not be interrupted by optional information. Therefore, the day of manufacture, if indicated as part of the S5.2.2 legend, must be expressed in numerals. You may, of course, use the coded dots if they appear on the opposite side of the hose.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

Imperial-Eastman Corporation

May 28, 1975

Office of Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Ref: Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74

Gentlemen:

Please consider the following two areas of concern regarding the reference Standard:

1. The labeling requirements for air brake hose per S7.2, which refers to S5.2 on hydraulic brake hose, include the term ". . . shall be permanently labeled . . ."

Interpretation of the word "permanently" is creating a problem between suppliers and users because there is no test procedure to evaluate permanency.

To clarify the requirement, we hereby petition that the first paragraph of S5.2.2 be revised to the following:

"Each hydraulic brake hose shall be marked with a weather resistant label at intervals of not more than 6 inches, measured from the end of one legend to the beginning of the next, in block capital letters and numerals at least one-eight of an inch high, with the information listed in paragraphs (a) through (e). The label shall remain legible after 24 hours of exposure to salt spray. (S6.9)".

The title of S6.9 should correspondingly be changed to:

S6.9 End fitting corrosion resistance and label weather resistance test.

2. Please furnish an opinion on the legality of including a series of dots in the labeling of air brake hose. The dots would appear after the date (month and year) to indicate the working day of manufacture.

This system would allow us to satisfy internal needs for a lot coding system and avoid the extremely high cost of discarding the higher quality engraved marking wheels on a daily basis.

The dots would not interfere with or preclude the other required information.

Please give these two matters your prompt attention to allow us to confidently assure our customers of conformance to MVSS 106 with our C6 nylon air brake tubing.

Thank you for your cooperation. We look forward to an expeditious reply.

Sincerely,

William J. Kronschnable -- Assistant Chief Engineer, Synthetic Products

cc: Fred Redler - National Highway Traffic Safety Adminstration

ID: nht74-5.40

DATE: 04/03/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 19, 1974, request for information in behalf of Mr. Robert J. Jones, concerning the commercial offer he received for a device that would defeat the ignition interlock device found on 1974 model passenger cars.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 authorizes the issuance of motor vehicle safety standards, one of which requires occupant crash protection, one aspect of which is the ignition interlock system. Section 108(a)(1) of the Act prohibits the sale, offer for sale, introduction into interstate commerce, or the importation of any motor vehicle which does not conform to the standards. Our regulatory authority over new vehicles ends, however, with the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale. While we can prohibit arrangements between a dealer and a purchaser to disconnect the interlock, where they are part of the sales transaction, we have no remedy against arrangements to defeat the safety features made after the sales transaction.

Nevertheless, while selling devices intended to defeat safety equipment may be legal, we consider such practices reprehensible since they increase the chances of death and injury on the highways. We are considering a variety of remedies for the situation reported by Mr. Jones.

ENCLS.

Congress of the United States

House of Representatives

Washington, D.

March 19 1974

Congressional Liasion National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Sir:

The attached communication is sent for your consideration. Please investigate the statements contained therein and forward me the necessary information for reply, returning the enclosed correspondence with your answer.

Yours truly,

Frank Thompson, Jr.

M.C.

Re: Mr. Robert J. Jones

FEBRUARY 27, 1974

Honorable Francis Thompson House of Representatives Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Thompson:

The enclosed letter arrived in the mail today.

Could you have someone on your staff direct this letter from Merit Enterprise to the proper "Consumer Advocate Bureau" or governmental watch dog agency as a register of my protest against obvious effort to thwart the new safety laws?

I protest this crazy bridgefree enterprise that allows groups like Merit Enterprise to make a buck by devising ways to short cut and render unworkable good laws.

Sincerely yours,

Robert J. Jones Lawrenceville, N.J.

Dear New Car Owner:

We trust that you are pleased with your 1974 automobile. We are not so sure that you are pleased with the seal belt-starter interlock system which is standard equipment under a Congressional mandate.

There are times when this system is not only inconvenient, uncomfortable, and impractical, but also unsafe. For instance, when a child is buckled in the passenger's seat, there is a chance that his face or neck can be severely injured in a collision by the shoulder harness.

We are sure that you have already found that an article in either the passenger or center seat makes it necessary to buckle the article up to start the vehicle. This is most inconvenient for those of us who transport a briefcase, a bowling ball, or even a bag of groceries.

Recognizing these shortcomings in the seat belt interlock system, Merit Enterprises manufacturers and markets BELT-MATE, a product which allows you, the vehicle owner to temporarily override the system when it isn't prudent for personal safety.

If you feel the decision, "To Buckle or Not to Buckle", should be made by you instead of Congress, send $ 4.98 in cash, check or money order for your BELT-MATE to Merit Enterprises, Box 4068, Hampstead, N. C. 28443. Your Belt-Mate comes complete with instructions - no wiring needed, and your satisfaction is guaranteed.

Allow 2 to 3 weeks for delivery. North Carolina residents add 4% sales tax.

Awaiting your reply.

Very truly yours,

John R. Merit

ID: nht95-6.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 28, 1995

FROM: Lawrence A. Beyer, Esq. -- Attorney for Liphardt & Associates

TO: Administrator -- NHTSA

TITLE: Petition for Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 10/20/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO LAWRENCE A. BEYER (A43; REDBOOK 2; PART 556)

TEXT: This petition for inconsequential defect or noncompliance is submitted under 49 CFR Part 558, on behalf of:

Liphardt & Associates 15 Trade Zone Drive Ronkonkoma, NY

a New York State corporation.

[Illegible Lines]

The non-compliance relates to

49 CFR Part 592.5(f) Notification of change of facility information:

49 CFR Part 592.8(e) Hold period for inspection

49 CFR Part 592.6(f) Poor compliance photography

49 CFR Part 592.6(d) Label may not have correctly identified RI

BACKGROUND:

Liphardt & Associates has been a DOT Registered Importer since 1990, concentrating in the importation of noncomplying vehicles from Europe. However in 1994, due to sudden economic conditions, importation of vehicles from the Canadian market to the US market became viable, and there was significant need for Registered Importers to assist in vehicle importation and certification. The Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC) was also deluged with Canadian vehicle importation situations. Liphardt was approached by a Customs House Broker in upstate New York, and was requested to set up an additional facility for the processing (modification, documentation and holding) of [Illegible Line] this facility. It turns out that Liphardt's control over these vehicles was lost, that the processing was handled by persons other than Liphardt authorized personnel and the inconsequential defect or noncompliance occurred. Liphardt notified OVSC of this situation in February, 1995 and conducted its own investigation. In March, 1995, Liphardt voluntarily suspended all Canadian importations, and met informally with NHTSA staff.

SAFETY COMPLIANCE

NHTSA has reviewed compliance packages submitted on these vehicles, and the vast majority have been deemed sufficient for release of compliance bond.

Canadian vehicles, for the most part, differ from US FMVSS only in the following areas:

1. Odometer may not be labeled KM;

2. Passive restraint systems for passenger cars;

Certification Labels must also be affixed to the vehicles in accordance with 49 [Illegible Word]

Many odometers are labeled KM by the original manufacturer. In any event, the odometer/speedometer is routinely changed to a miles based instrument, since the marketability of kilometer based vehicles is severely impaired. All passenger [Illegible Word] Certification labels may have misnamed the Registered Importer. While this in unfortunate, the purpose of naming the RI on the certification label is to ensure that the responsible RI is known for subsequent defect/recalls. OVSC maintains a very accurate computer system in which the VIN and the responsible RI are listed. Therefore, if a vehicle with the wrong name listed on the RI section of the certification label was involved in a situation where the actual RI needed to be involved, NHTSA could easily provide the correct RI name.

Clearly these defects and non-compliance are not significant and are inconsequential to vehicle safety. Liphardt has tried to work within the regulatory framework to advise OVSC of the situations and seeks this petition and exemption process to finalize this matter.

Liphardt has corrected the cause of the noncompliance and will continue to abide by the duties of a registered importer as defined in 49 CFR 592.

Thank you.