ID: aiam3250

Dear Dr. Kalies: This is in response to your letter of January 22, 1980, asking whethe the Dubl-Life Saver Support restraint vest manufactured by Easy Way Products Co. is in compliance with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The advertisement you enclosed with your letter describes the Dubl-Life Saver as a support restraint vest for the safe transportation of all sizes of handicapped children in motor vehicles. The advertisement further claims that the safety belts used with the vest exceed 'federal specifications'.; Based on the information in the advertisement, it appears that th restraint vest does not provide pelvic restraint and thus does not comply with Standard No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*. I have referred this matter to the agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance for appropriate action.; The University of Michigan's Highway Safety Research Institute ha conducted tests of various devices used to restrain handicapped children. I have enclosed a copy of a Society of Automotive Engineers paper describing the results of the testing.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: nht74-2.14

DATE: 09/30/74

FROM: R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Royal Industries

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your August 28, 1974, question whether a "logging pole trailer", which consists of a beam to which an exle-mounted bolster can be clamped at different points to accommodate different log lengths, qualifies as a heavy hauler trailer as that term is defined in Standard No. 121, Air brake systems:

"Heavy hauler trailer" means a trailer with one or more of the following characteristics:

(1) its brake lines are designed to adapt to separation or extension of the vehicle frame; or

(2) Its body consists only of a platform whose primary cargo-carrying surface is not more than 40 inches above the ground in an unloaded condition, except that it may include sides that are designed to be easily removable and a permanent "front-end structure" as that term is used in @@393.106 of this title.

The logging pole trailer you describe is a heavy hauler trailer, and as such, Standard No. 121 does not apply to this trailer until September 1, 1976. The beam or "reach", together with the bolster, constitutes the frame of the trailer, and the brake lines are designed to adapt to extension of the bolster element along the beam.

ID: 13241-2.pja

Mr. Frank Smidler
Director of Engineering
Wabash National Corporation
P.O. Box 6129
Lafayette, IN 47903

Dear Mr. Smidler:

This letter responds to your December 11, 1996, letter asking several questions about the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's January 24, 1996, (61 FR 2004) rear impact protection (underride guard) standards. You asked about using an elastomeric bumper facade to meet the energy absorption requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 223, Rear impact protection. The short answer to your questions is that the elastomeric material, by itself, cannot be used to meet the energy absorption requirements because the requirements call for plastic, not elastic, deformation of the guard. Your specific questions are answered below, in the order that you posed them.

Question 1: S5.2.2 Guard energy absorption states ". . . shall absorb by plastic deformation within the first 125 mm of deflection at least 5,650 J of energy . . .". Is energy absorption through elastic deformation acceptable? (Emphasis in original).

You urge us to interpret the standard to allow for elastic deformation for two reasons. First, you believe that a guard designed to absorb energy by "simple plastic deformation of steel" is more likely to be damaged by repetitive normal impacts of a vehicle with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating of 80,000 lb with loading docks, thus rendering it useless for the intended purpose of protecting colliding vehicles. Second, you state that elastomeric material would be easier to apply to trailers with low floor heights and other special applications where it is not possible to mount a bumper that hangs down and can pivot back on a long arm during impact.

The standard's required energy absorption cannot be met by elastic deformation of the guard. We interpret the language "by plastic deformation" in S5.2.2 to mean that the required energy absorption will be provided exclusively by plastic deformation. In other words, any energy that the guard returns to the force application device when the load is removed (i.e., the elastic component of the deformation) is subtracted from the total energy absorption for purposes of meeting the requirement. The typical energy absorption curve in Figure 2 (61 FR 2034) shows that the area under the force-deflection curve where the guard rebounds elastically from 125 mm of deflection to about 90 mm of deflection is not included in the shaded area (the shaded area represents the amount of energy absorption counted against the requirement in the standard). There is a discussion in the preamble to the final rule (61 FR 2011) of NHTSA's reasons for requiring plastic deformation.

Please note that the standard does not prohibit the use of elastomeric material as supplemental shock absorbers. The material might be useful in preventing shock-induced metal fatigue for certain guard designs. However, NHTSA believes that the strength requirements of the standard are sufficiently high that most guard designs would stand up to the stresses of normal use without significant degradation in performance.

Please also note that the standard is not prescriptive about guard design, as your letter implied. There is no requirement that "[s]imple plastic deformation of steel" provide the energy absorption. Other materials may provide the deformation, and the deformation may be as complex as desired. There is also no requirement that trailers with low floor heights or any other trailers have a "bumper that hangs down and can pivot back on a long arm during impact to absorb energy." The final rule specifically mentioned that vertical supports were not required (61 FR 2013). Even if the conventional vertical strut guard design would not work well for certain vehicles, other designs could be engineered for these vehicles without resorting to elastic materials.

Question 2: S6.6(c) states that when testing for energy absorption ". . . apply the force to the guard until displacement of the force application device has reached 125 mm." S5.2.2 states ". . . shall absorb by plastic deformation within the first 125 mm of deflection . . .". If our test bumper absorbs the required amount of energy at less than 125 mm of deflection (i.e., ". . . within the first 125 mm . . .") do we have to continue to test load to the full 125 mm of deflection? (Emphasis in original)

No. The test procedures in the standard describe how NHTSA will test guards for compliance with the standard's requirements, and are not binding upon guard manufacturers. They may certify their guards based on other kinds of testing or even engineering analysis, if these provide a reasonable basis for certification. If a guard can pass NHTSA's test after less than 125 mm of displacement, it would be reasonable to assume that it will pass the test if displacement was continued to the full 125 mm, because more displacement will only result in more energy absorption, up to a certain point.

Even if the guard appears to have absorbed the required amount of energy before the displacement has reached 125 mm, NHTSA will continue the test because S6.6(c) states "[i]f conducting a test . . . for . . . energy absorption . . . apply the force . . . until displacement . . . has reached 125 mm." NHTSA does this because it does not know how much elastic rebound the guard will exhibit once the load is removed, and the energy returned during the rebound will have to be subtracted when calculating the total energy absorbed.

Question 3: S6.6(b) states that "If conducting a strength test . . . the force is applied until the forces specified . . . has been exceeded, or until the displacement of the force application device has reached at least 125 mm, whichever occurs first." Is it correct to take this to mean that the strength requirements must be met at or before 125 mm of deflection? The ". . . at least. . . " is slightly confusing.

Your assumption is correct. The words "at least" do not imply that NHTSA will continue to displace the guards beyond 125 mm. If the required level of strength has not been achieved by 125 mm, the guards will have failed the test. The test procedures are based on demonstrating compliance with the requirements, and the relevant requirement, S5.2.1, states "[t]he guard must resist the force levels specified . . . without deflecting by more than 125 mm."

Question 4: Hydraulic guards that are velocity sensitive have been excluded from the energy absorption test with the statement in the January 24, 1996 Federal Register that the NHTSA is unaware of any nonhydraulic guards that are velocity sensitive. We are looking at the contribution of energy absorption of air escaping from an elastomeric bumper facade as it is compressed under load and at high velocity. What must be done to allow the energy absorption of a pneumatic chamber deflating?

Hydraulic guards are defined in S4 as ". . . a guard designed to use fluid properties to provide resistance force to deformation." (emphasis added). Pneumatic guards use the fluid properties of air to provide resistance to deformation. However, the word "hydraulic" is defined as "operated by, moved by, or employing water or other liquids in motion."⁽¹⁾ Therefore, the word "hydraulic" limits the meaning of the word "fluid" to liquids. This is also the common sense meaning of the word "hydraulic."

Like hydraulic guards, guards based on pneumatic resistance of escaping air might not provide sufficient resistance to the slow application of force in Standard No. 223's quasi-static test. Therefore, the quasi-static test is inappropriate for testing guard designs based on the principle of pneumatic resistance of escaping air. Only a change in the standard will allow relying on such a chamber to provide energy absorption.

Question 5: Will we be allowed to use a full width elastomeric bumper facade that does not meet the quasi-static test using an 8" x 8" input plate but that in total provides more energy absorbing potential that a structure utilizing plastic deformation of steel supports that does meet the quasi-static test using an 8" x 8" plate?

No. The requirements are not based on the total energy absorbing potential of the entire structure, but on the energy absorbing potential at the P3 test points using an 8" by 8" plate. Writing a standard based on calculating the "total energy absorbing potential" would be impractical due to the many possible guard designs. In addition, that is not an appropriate measure for guard performance, because the force of an underriding vehicle will normally be concentrated in a certain area, rather than distributed along the entire surface of a bumper facade.

We note that NHTSA has received petitions for reconsideration on certain aspects of the energy absorption requirements, although their resolution probably will not affect our answers to your questions. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:223

d:4/29/97

1. Random House Dictionary of the English Language, unabridged edition, 1966.

ID: aiam5347

"This responds to your letter about the brake reservoir requirements o Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems (49 CFR 571.121). I apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that you are developing a new reservoir design to improve reservoir volume without increasing the need for space. You asked how to test your reservoirs since you believe that '(t)he safety standard does not clarify the test criteria specifically how the reservoir is to be sealed.' By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. Standard No. 121 establishes performance and equipment requirements for braking systems on vehicles equipped with air brakes. The standard's reservoir requirements for trucks and buses are set forth in section S5.1.2. That section requires these vehicles to be equipped with one or more service reservoir systems that meet specified performance requirements. Section S5.1.2.2 specifies the following: Each reservoir shall be capable of withstanding an internal hydrostatic pressure of five times the compressor cutout pressure or 500 psi, whichever is greater, for 10 minutes. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that an air brake system reservoir has a minimum level of structural integrity. NHTSA has long interpreted the term 'withstand' to require that there be no rupture or permanent circumferential deformation of the reservoir exceeding one percent. At one point, the agency issued an interpretation concluding that the term 'withstand' meant that a reservoir can deform only slightly and must contain the applied pressure with only a limited pressure drop at any time during the test. However, NHTSA later withdrew that interpretation because it inadvertently increased the severity of the requirement. See 42 FR 64630, December 27, 1977, and 43 FR 9149, March 6, 1978. You asked about this requirement in connection with a reservoir design that includes a bushing on the inside of an endcap. A weld is placed around the bushing. You describe two different procedures you have used to seal the reservoir. In what you describe as 'Test Criteria 1,' a socket head plug is put into the bushing with 3 full wraps of tape. With this first method, you state that as the pressure is applied to the reservoir, the endcap starts to expand out. The bushing stretches with the endcap, and as the bushing stretches the threads are pulled away from the plug. The plug must therefore be retightened several times before the required pressure is reached. In your 'Test Criteria 2,' you state that a rubber grommet or washer is placed on the inside of the bushing and forced to expand to seal the bushings from the inside. You stated that this method checks the weld but removes the threads from the test. With the second method, you state that there was no failure at over five times the working pressure. While Standard No. 121 does not specify a particular test procedure for this requirement, the language of S5.1.2.2 makes it clear that a reservoir must 'withstand' for 10 minutes a condition where the reservoir is pressurized at the specified level. Therefore, in conducting a compliance test, NHTSA would pressurize a reservoir to the specified level. This would necessitate sealing the reservoir. In considering how a particular reservoir would be sealed, it is important to bear in mind that the purpose of the test is to evaluate the reservoir's structural integrity and ability to withstand pressurization. I can offer you the following comments on the two alternative test methods you described. The first method (Test Criteria 1) would appear to evaluate a reservoir's ability to withstand pressurization. The threaded plug would appear to reasonably approximate how the reservoir would be sealed in an actual use situation. I note that the mere fact that the plug needs to be tightened during the test to achieve the specified level of pressure would not indicate a failure but would simply reflect minor air leakage around the plug. The second method (Test Criteria 2) would not fully evaluate a reservoir's ability to withstand pressurization, since it would, as you recognized, remove the threads from the test, thereby creating an artificial seal. It is our opinion that a reservoir would not be capable of 'withstanding' the specified hydrostatic internal pressure if the threads failed under such pressurization. This would represent a structural failure equivalent to a rupture. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ";

ID: aiam0784

Dear Mr. Waldman: This is in response to your letter of July 21, 1972 requesting determination as to the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, *Door Locks and Door Retention Components*, to sleeper berth equipment manufactured for installation on truck tractors.; An amendment to Standard No. 206 was issued in January 1972 (37 F.R 284), which stated that the requirements of the Standard are applicable to any side door leading directly into a passenger compartment containing one or more seating accommodations.; From the information and photographs you provided, it appears tha although the sleeper berth equipment is a passenger compartment, it is designed as a completely separate unit not containing any seating accommodations, and would therefore be exempt from the requirements of Standard No. 206.; It should be noted, however, that if the sleeper berth equipment i installed in such a way that it is contiguous to the truck cab and can be entered by the driver from within the cab, then any side doors on the sleeper berth equipment would be side doors leading into a passenger compartment (the cab) containing seating accommodations and they would have to meet the requirements of the Standard.; For your information, I am enclosing a copy of this recent amendment t Standard No. 206.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4426

"Dear Mr. Henrick: This is in response to your letter of June 3, 1988 seeking an interpretation of Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping. Specifically, you stated that your company has reached an agreement with two foreign tire manufacturers to jointly produce a radial medium truck tire in one of your domestic facilities. You anticipate that all three entities will use the same 'green' or 'uncured' tires. Although your letter is not clear on this point, I am assuming that the sidewall on a given tire will contain the name and the respective tire identification mark of only one company. You asked whether each of the three companies involved in this joint venture may secure its own identification mark required by Part 574 to identify its tires. The answer to your question is yes. 49 CFR /574.5 requires that 'Each tire manufacturer shall conspicuously label on one sidewall of each tire it manufactures . . . by permanently molding into or onto the sidewall, in the manner and location specified in Figure 1, a tire identification number containing the information set forth in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section.' The purpose of the tire identification number requirements is to facilitate the effective recall of tires from the public if the tires are found not to comply with the applicable safety standards or if the tires contain a safety related defect. To best effectuate the recall of noncomplying or defective tires, the agency recommends but cannot require each production plant to have its own tire identification number. If the company that produced the tires in its molds (General in this case) wished to put its tire identification number on all of the tires produced for this joint venture, /574.5 would not prohibit it from doing so, since that company could certainly be considered the manufacturer of all of the tires. However, if that company were to do so, it would be responsible for any recalls of these tires, including the tires sold by the other partners in the joint venture. On the other hand, /574.5 does not prohibit each of the three partners in the joint venture from putting its own tire identification number on those tires produced for it by the joint venture. Each partner could be considered the 'manufacturer,' for purposes of /574.5, of those tires that it markets under its name. Each partner would then be responsible for any recalls of those tires produced by the joint venture on which its identification number appears. I am enclosing 49 CFR Part 551 which requires all manufacturers headquartered outside of the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of process in this country. The agent may be either an individual or a business entity. Part 551 specifies that the designation of agent must contain the following six items of information: 1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and binding on the foreign company under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made, 2. The full legal name, principal place of business and mailing address of the foreign company, 3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of the tires which do not bear the name of the foreign company. 4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the foreign company, 5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed by the foreign company, and the agent may be an individual, firm, or United States corporation, and 6. The full name and address of the designated agent. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions on this subject, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam4977

"Dear Mr. Watt: This responds to your letter of February 11, l992 asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it relates to several scenarios regarding the wiring and use of optional brake retarder transmissions on city transit buses manufactured by your company. In your current design, the retarder is designed so that it is electrically operated during the initial travel of the service brake pedal. As the service brake pedal is further depressed, the service brakes are activated, and this in turn illuminates the stop lamps. You have enclosed a copy of my letter of September 20. 1990, confirming that this design conforms to Standard No. 108, specifically S5.5.4 which states that 'The stop lamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes.' Since that time, several additional scenarios have presented themselves. First, some customers have requested that the transmission retarder be activated when the accelerator pedal is released, rather than when the brake pedal is applied. In this configuration, the stop lamps would not be illuminated, 'and therefore, following vehicles may be unaware of this sudden reduction in vehicle speed', unless the service brakes were also applied. However, some customers wishing this option would like to have the stop lamps illuminated by the retarder, that is to say, when the accelerator is released. Second, some customers have also requested a retarder cut-off switch in order to disable the retarder during icy or slippery road conditions. In such a case, the stop lamps would also be activated at the time of accelerator release 'with minimal if any change in vehicle forward speed, and again, potentially with no intent on the part of the driver to use the service brakes.' To date, your company has resisted these requests, but these customers, without a specific NHTSA interpretation on the point, threaten to declare your company a nonresponsive bidder on transit bus procurements. You have asked whether a noncompliance with section S5.5.4 would result 'if the stop lamps were activated without depressing the brake pedal as requested by our customers.' The purpose of the retarder feature is to provide supplemental braking to city transit buses. This braking results in the deceleration of the vehicle. A stop lamp is defined by SAE Standard J1398 MAY85 Stop Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles 2032 mm or More in Overall Width as one that indicates 'the intention of the operator of a vehicle to stop or diminish speed by braking.' Whenever the brake retarder is activated with the intent of diminishing speed by braking, Standard No. 108 does not require that the stop lamps be activated. The only mandate of the standard (S5.5.4) is that when the service brakes are applied, the stop lamps must be illuminated. Nor does Standard No. 108 prohibit illumination of the stop lamps by release of the accelerator pedal followed by activation of the retarder. This is because the intention of the driver is to diminish speed by the braking action of the retarder. We distinguish this situation from the one in an interpretation provided Larry Snowhite, Esq. on January 25, 1990, in which a device activated the stop lamps whenever the accelerator pedal was released, regardless of the intent of the driver. Activation of the stop lamps initiated by release of the accelerator pedal is permissible only when the intent of the driver is to reduce the speed of the vehicle by an immediate subsequent act of braking, whether that is achieved through his use of the service brake system, use of retarders, or a combination of the two. However, a configuration where the stop lamps operate in the absence of service brake application or activation of a retarder system (as appears to occur when a retarder cut off switch has been activated) would be subject to S5.1.3 of the standard. This prohibits the installation of motor vehicle equipment that impairs the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. In this instance, the retarder cut off feature would permit the stop lamps to send the false signal that the operator intended to stop or reduce vehicle speed when, in fact, there was no intent to do so. I hope that this answers your question. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: gustback_doorlatch

Dr. Peter Gust
Kirchhoff GmbH & Co. KG
Oststrasse 1
58553 Halver
Germany

Dear Dr. Gust:

This letter responds to your e-mail and fax inquiries into the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door locks and door retention components. You asked a question about how a specific back door latch configuration is tested under the procedures specified in the standard. We have addressed your question below.

Your letter describes a back door that opens upward, with a single latch at the bottom of the door with a single striker on the back door sill. According to the diagrams sent with your letter, the latch is comprised of two sections. When the latch is engaged, (1) the portion of the latch that is attached to the door is oriented perpendicular to the vehicle floor plane (the "upper section"), and (2) the portion of the latch face that interacts with the striker is oriented along a plane that is roughly 45 degrees to the vehicle floor plane (the "lower section"). The diagrams also show that the striker plate is parallel to the lower section, with the striker oriented perpendicular to the striker plate. You asked how the test procedures in Load Test One and Load Test Two of FMVSS No. 206 apply to your latch assembly.

FMVSS No. 206 specifies requirements for door locks and door retention components including latches, to minimize the likelihood of occupants being thrown from their vehicle as a result of an impact. Under FMVSS No. 206, hinged back doors must comply with several load requirements, including:

S4.4.1.1  Load Test One. The primary door latch and striker assembly, when in the fully latched position, shall not separate when a load of 11,000 Newtons (2,500 pounds) is applied in the direction perpendicular to the face of the latch (corresponding to the longitudinal load test for side door latches) such that the latch and the striker anchorage are not compressed against each other. When in the secondary latched position, the primary latch and striker assembly shall not separate when a load of 4,450 Newtons (1,000 pounds) is applied in the same direction.

S4.4.1.2  Load Test Two. The primary door latch and striker assembly, when in the fully latched position, shall not separate when a load of 8,900 Newtons (2,000 pounds) is applied in the direction of the fork-bolt opening and parallel to the face of the latch (corresponding to the transverse load test). Figure 1 depicts the loading direction for this test. When in the secondary latched position, the primary latch and striker assembly shall not separate when a load of 4,450 Newtons (1,000 pounds) is applied in the same direction.

As indicated in S4.4.1.1 and S4.4.1.2, the orientation of the latch face dictates the direction of the loads. FMVSS No. 206 does not define latch face, but we have stated that SAE J839, Passenger car side door latch systems (JUN91), provides guidance on its meaning (see 60 FR 50124, 50128; September 28, 1995). While SAE J839 does not define latch face, it defines "latch plate" as "the main body or frame for supporting working components, appendages and transmitting or distributing loads to the door structure" (S3.1.1).

Based on the specifications in S4.4.1.1, Load Test One would be oriented with the lower section of the latch face in question. While S4.4.1.1 does not specifically address testing a latch face that aligns with more than one plane, the section does specify that the latch and striker anchorage should not compress upon application of the load. The intent of Load Test One is to apply the load such that there is no engagement of the latch face by the striker. This is accomplished with your latch assembly by applying the test load in a direction perpendicular to the lower portion of the latch face. By contrast, application of the test load perpendicular to the upper portion of the test face would result in some compression; i.e. , the striker would engage the latch face to some extent, and would thus not test the latch as specified by the standard.

Regarding the application of Load Test Two to your latch system, again the standard indicates that the direction of force should be oriented with the lower section of the latch face. Load Test Two specifies application of the load in the direction of the fork-bolt opening, parallel to the face of the latch. Figure 1 of FMVSS No. 206 illustrates that Load Test Two is applied in a direction that is parallel to the portion of the latch face that interacts with the striker. On the latch face in question, this corresponds to the lower section. Testing in this manner is consistent with the intent of the standard to test the latch in a manner representative of opening the door.

Further, applying Load Test One and Two as described would test your latch in a manner consistent with the longitudinal and transverse testing specified for side door latches, respectively. Additionally, orienting the test loads to the lower portion of the latch face would permit testing in accordance with SAE J934, as intended by the agency (see 60 FR 50128).

I hope that you find this information helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:206
d.11/19/04

ID: aiam4557

"Dear Mr. Shapiro: This responds to your letter concerning the testin of hydraulic brake hose assemblies to the whip resistance requirement (S5.3.3) of Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses. I regret the delay in responding. Your question relates to Table II of Standard No. 106, which specifies the amount of slack that should be introduced when mounting brake hose assemblies on the whip test apparatus. (The amount of the hose indicated as 'slack' in Table II is the difference between the projected length of the hose assembly (when mounted in the whip test machine) and the free length of the hose while maintained in a straight position.) Slack must be present in the hose when mounted on the whip test machine to enable the proper 'whipping' movement of a brake hose assembly. Without slack, an assembly would probably be incapable of withstanding any rotation of the movable header of the whip test apparatus described in Standard No. 106 without rupturing. Table II specifies the amount of slack for some sizes of assemblies, and not for others. You ask whether a hydraulic brake hose assembly of a size falling in the latter category--viz., an assembly comprised of a brake hose that is 19 to 24 inches in free length, and which is more than one-eighth inch or three millimeters (mm.) in diameter--'need not be tested to meet or exceed the whip resistance requirement' of the standard. With regard to NHTSA's Standard No. 106 compliance testing, your understanding is correct that Table II does not specify the amount of slack for testing assemblies of the size you describe. Due to the absence of the slack specification, NHTSA does not require testing of such assemblies to the whip resistance requirements of the standard. With regard to your certification that the brake hose assemblies you manufacture comply with all applicable requirements of Standard No. 106, you are correct that hydraulic brake hose assemblies of the size you describe are not subject to the whip resistance requirements. However, the agency urges manufacturers to ensure that these assemblies perform in a safe manner while subject to environmental conditions of vehicle operations which may result in flexing of the brake hose or brake hose assembly. Please contact my office if you have further questions. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam2061

Dear Mr. and Mrs. Kienzler: This is in response to your letter of September 8, 1975, concernin apparent alteration of the odometer on the 1971 Pontiac Ventura II you traded in to Mosher Motor Sales.; The Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (Pub. L. 92-513 prohibits disconnection, resetting, or alteration of a vehicle odometer with intent to change the number of miles indicated thereon. It also requires the execution of a written disclosure of a vehicle's mileage at the time ownership of a vehicle is transferred. A false statement on the disclosure form, knowingly made by the transferor, is considered a violation of the Act.; Violation of any of these requirements, committed with the intent t defraud, makes available to the buyer a civil remedy in the amount of $1,500 or treble damages, whichever is greater. To obtain this remedy the Act provides that a private civil action be instituted in State or Federal court.; The situation you describe in your letter indicates that there hav been at least two violations of the Act by the dealer to whom you traded you car. If the person who purchased the vehicle from him becomes aware of the violations they will be able to sue according to the procedure described above. The only danger that exists for you relates to the absence of an odometer disclosure statement executed by you at the time you gave up possession of the car. If an eventual owner of the car discovers that the mileage has been altered he may sue everyone who ever owned the vehicle.; I would therefore suggest that you now execute an odometer disclosur statement indicating what the mileage was on the car at the time you turned it over to Mosher. I have enclosed the odometer disclosure regulation promulgated pursuant to the Act which contains a sample disclosure form. You may want to state somewhere on the document the reasons for your not having provided the statement at the time you sold your car. You can then send the document to the dealer by certified mail and retain your receipt as evidence that he received it. You may also find it a good idea to retain a copy of the odometer disclosure you complete.; Mosher Motor Sales is in violation of the law if it does not provid you with an odometer disclosure statement for the vehicle you purchased. A letter will be sent from this office informing the dealership of its noncompliance. You should demand that you be given a statement that conforms to the one required by law since it will serve as protection for you should that vehicle's mileage every (sic) be questioned.; Based upon the information you have provided it appears that Moshe Motor Sales may be violating the Federal odometer law. If you question the accuracy of the mileage currently indicated on the odometer of the car you purchased from them there are several means by which you may be able to establish that there has been an alteration. First, you may be able to obtain copies of prior odometer disclosure statements that certify the mileage on the vehicle at various points in the past. If these statements are unavailable, you may want to question prior owners of the vehicle as to what they recall the mileage being when they gave up possession. Your State Department of Motor Vehicles should be able to tell you how to trace back the chain of title. Some States record the mileage on vehicles at the time they are inspected and others enter mileage directly on the title document which is often filed with the State. These would be possible leads to finding out whether the mileage is accurate. Finally, an experienced mechanic may be able to determine if an odometer has been disconnected or altered.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has no authorit under the Cost Savings Act to conduct investigations to determine if there has been a violation of the odometer provisions. For this reason, we must rely on private individuals such as yourselves to notify us of violations. We will alert Mosher to the fact that we have received a compliant concerning them and inform them of the penalties for noncompliance.; Thank you very much for your letter. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel