ID: nht74-4.47

DATE: 01/03/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James B. Gregory; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagen

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your letter of October 30, 1973, raises several questions about the present requirements of Standard 208 and its future course, and you suggest modifications of its vehicle loading and the lateral impact requirements to make the standard "representative of real world conditions." You state that leadtime is critical and this consideration compels you to raise specific questions.

The August 15, 1975, date for fully passive systems under Standard 208 was established March 10, 1971. Manufacturers will have had over four years of leadtime to study and design systems to meet the 208 crash protection requirements, or in the alternative to petition for rulemaking to amend them. While a decision to modify elements of Standard 208 is pending within the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, I can assure you that sufficient additional leadtime would be given to develop systems that conform, if such a course were found necessary.

I would recommend against an attempt to predict the future of Standard 208 from a reading of other proposed standards. While our desire is to reduce the complexity and cost of testing by making simultaneous barrier testing to several standards possible, complications such as you point out make the realization of this goal uncertain. You have suggested specific changes in vehicle loading and lateral crash test requirements of Standard 208. We request that these suggestions be proposed as petitions under 49 CFR Part 553.31 to amend the standard if this is your intent. Your petition to permit use of passive belt systems, for example, has been acted on under this procedure.

Sincerely yours,

The Honorable Administrator Dr. Gregory National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

October 30, 1973

Dear Dr. Gregory:

The preamble to docket 73-8, notice 2 (part 572 - Anthropomorphic Test Dummy, and amendment to MVSS 208) states that:

(a) The specified part 572 test dummy is to be used only for compliance testing of passive restraint systems installed in vehicles manufactured during the time period August 15, 1973, to August 14, 1975.

(b) The question of restraint system requirements to be in effect after August 15, 1975, will be the object of future rulemaking action, and the agency will not make any final decision regarding reinstatement of mandatory passive restraint requirements without further notice and opportunity for comment, and

(c) should the agency propose mandatory passive restraint requirement the question of conformity of a suitable dummy will again be open for comment.

The status of the rulemaking for mandatory passive restraints and a suitable dummy for testing these restraints is of extreme importance to Volkswagen. We must know the direction the NHTSA is taking in this matter so that our development work can address the real future requirements. Since leadtime is critical and we have not yet seen the expected rulemaking, we are compelled to raise the following questions:

1. Will the installation of mandatory passive restraint systems be required as of August 15, 1975, or at some later date?

2. Can you please clarify the inconsistency between the statement in the preamble(Illegible Word) docket 73-8, notice 2, that dummy conformity after August 15, 1975, will again be open for comment, and the statement in docket 73-20, notice 1 (fuel for testing after September 1, 1975? (The preamble to docket 73-20, notice 1, suggests that vehicles would be tested under both MVSS 208 and MVSS 301 simultaneously.)

3. If passive restraints become mandatory, will they be required at all seating positions, or only front seating positions? (Again, noting that the preamble to docket 73-20, notice 1 suggests simultaneous testing for MVSS 208 and MVSS 301, S 6.1 of that notice proposes that test dummies be installed only in each front outboard seating position. This could lead to the conclusion that for future rulemaking for MVSS 208, the injury criteria requirements would only be measured for the front outboard seating positions in frontal impacts, and no passive restraint system would be required for the rear seats. Volkswagen has previously commented on the unfavorable cost/ benefit ratio for rear seat passive restraints due to their infrequent occupancy.)

4. MVSS 208 requires a very high loading of the test vehicle. We feel that these loading conditions are not representative of real world conditions. Typically, an automobile has only one or two passengers, and no luggage in the trunk. Since the future requirements for passive restraints will be the subject of further rulemaking, could the NHTSA re-evaluate the test loading requirements and address this point in the rulemaking proposal?

5. MVSS 208 requires that the moving barrier has to have a vertical, rigid, flat rectangular impact surface 78 inches wide and 60 inches high with its lower edge five inches above the ground surface. Thus, the upper edge is 65 inches above the ground surface which is much higher than the front end of any american or imported passenger car.

In lateral barrier impact tests according to MVSS 208 with our current models, our test engineers observed that the dummies adjacent to the barrier impact surface hit the rigid barrier surface with their heads, obtaining very high injury criteria.

Up to now we have not found means to solve this problem. The use of laminated glass for the side windows, for example, did not show better results, because any available crush distance is already used up by the high barrier when the dummies' head impact the windows. As the recent barrier does not represent the front end of a typical car and the injury criteria depends greatly on the barrier height, we feel that paragraph S 8.2.2 of MVSS 208 is unrealistic. We suggest to specify the barrier face as in SAE J 972a. Other barriers for lateral impact such as the barrier established by ECE have even lower or equal upper edges of the impact surface.

Since this barrier height problem is especially critical to our small vehicles, and "Safety Standards shall take into consideration different classes of vehicles, such as small cars" (as recognized by the sixth circuit court of appeals in the Air Bag case), could the NHTSA re-evaluate the need for such a high barrier face and address this point in future rulemaking on passive restraints?

Your answers to each of our questions would be appreciated as soon as possible, so that we can continue our development work for restraint systems after August 15, 1975, with a clear understanding of NHTSA requirements.

Yours truly,

E. Fiala

ID: nht74-4.48

DATE: 01/23/74

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

TO: Robert H. Mollohan; House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in further reply to your letter of January 8, 1974, on behalf of Mr. James R. Alfred of Prideport, West Virginia, regarding regulation of tires for mobile homes.

Apparently Mr. Alfred has a misunderstanding of Federal regulation on sole and resale of mobile home tires. At the present time there is no Federal regulation that prohibits resale of mobile home tires. Remission Part 574 governs tire identification and recordkeeping but contains no restriction against sale or resale of used tires. A mobile home dealer who sells a new motor vehicle equipped with tires that were not on the vehicle as received from the manufacturer is considered a tire dealer and must comply with recordkeeping requirements of the regulation by reporting purchaser name and address to the manufacturer or his assigned. Likewise, if he sells a used mobile home equipped with new tires or newly retreated tires he is considered a tire dealer and must comply with the regulation in the same manner.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119 entitled "Non-Passenger Car Tires" is applicable to mobile home tires but does not become effective until September 1, 1974. This standard specifies performance and marking requirements for new tires manufactured on and after the effective date.

A Notice of Proposed Rule Making entitled "Tire and Pin Selection and Rin Performance," issued July 29, 1971, is intended to require that new non-passenger car vehicles, such as mobile homes, be

P2 equipped with tires that meat specified safety requirements. This proposal has not reached final rule status and therefore the effective date has not been established.

ID: nht74-4.49

DATE: 01/25/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Dow Corning Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 10, 1974, to Mr. Schneider.

It is uncertain whether "some time in July of 1974 Federal standards will become effective relating to silicone brake fluids." The proposed effective date for DOT 5 fluids is July 1, 1974, but the comments on this rulemaking action are still under consideration and the actual effective date, if the proposal is adopted, will probably be somewhat later.

It is true that S5.4.3 of Standard No. 105a does not require that all reservoir labelling be "DOT 3." The letters "e.g." mean "for example." If DOT 4 is the recommended fluid then "DOT 4" would be the appropriate insertion in the required statement.

ID: nht74-4.5

DATE: 06/20/74

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

TO: Wagner Electric Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your May 7, 1974, request to know whether check valves or equivalent devices must be placed immediately adjacent to or within each service reservoir in a trailer air brake system to comply with S4.2.1.5 of Standard No. 121, Air brake systems, and whether the standard intends each axle subsystem to have a separate service reservoir and check valve system, with particular regard to arrangements for liftable axle systems. S5.2.1.5 states:

S5.2.1.5 Each service reservoir shall be protected against loss of air pressure due to failure or leakage in the system between the service reservoir and its source of air pressure by check valves or equivalent devices.

The answer to both of these questions is no. In an April 3, 1974, letter to Great Dane Trailers, Inc., we interpreted S5.2.1.5 to permit location of the check valve at the isolated reservoir, permitting that valve to also guard the service reservoirs on that axle system. The language of S5.2.1.5 is unclear in this regard, and may be amended in the future. In response to your specific question, it is permissible to use a single check valve to protect more than one reservoir in a subsystem.

Standard No. 121 does not require a separate service reservoir check valve for each axle system in a tandem axle. As you point out this could decrease total vehicle reliability, and abuse in this area could lead to amendment of the provision. In answer to your fourth question, a single check value could be utilized to protect the air reservoir or reservoirs required for a liftable axle system or subsystem.

Yours truly,

WAGNER ELECTRIC CORPORATION

May 7, 1974

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attention Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel

Re: Docket 74-10; Notice 1 49 CFR 571.121

SUBJECT: Request for Interpretation

As a supplier to the motor vehicle industry of air brake equipment designed to meet the requirements of FMVSS-121, we find ourselves faced with a constant responsibility to provide this equipment in the most economical form. Competitive influences and customer confidences demand this response from the equipment suppliers. The possible combination of several components essential to the FMVSS-121 trailer air brake system and related economies hinges on the degree of latitude allowed in the meaning intended for Section 5.2.1.5. We realize, however, that economy should not prevail if, in fact, there is any significant reduction in overall safety or system protection.

In designing and constructing air brake systems to meet the requirements of FMVSS-121, we have considered several approaches to the means of complying with Section S5.2.1.5, particularly with regard to the definition of the system connecting the trailer service reservoir with its source of air pressure. For convenience in reference, we reprint S5.2.1.5 below with the word "system", which is specifically in question, underlined.

S5.2.1.5 Each service reservoir shall be protected against loss of air pressure due to failure or leakage in the system between the service reservoir and its source of air pressure by check values or equivalent devices.

It has been difficult for us to assess how much of the trailer air brake system is considered by NHTSA to be included in the wording . . . between the service reservoir and its source of air pressure . . .", particularly when the ultimate source of air pressure to charge said reservoir is located on another vehicle, the self-propelled towing vehicle, in the form of its air compressor.

In the case of a vehicle application where it is advantageous to use several reservoirs in a separate but connected subsystem, the possibility is presented of using a single check valve conveniently placed to protect the subsystem.

Question #1: Is it permissible to use a single check valve to protect a plurality of reservoirs in a subsystem?

One interpretation is that all of the air lines existing between the point of coupling to the towing vehicle (the supply air line coupler) and the service air reservoir are subject to failure or leakage, and that the protecting check valve or equivalent device is to be placed immediately adjacent to or within the reservoir.

This location of the check value or equivalent device would give the required protection for all failures or leakages occurring between the air reservoir and any source of air pressure notwithstanding a failure in the check value itself.

We have interpreted the "source of air pressure" for a service reservoir to be the last connection to that reservoir. This precludes the use of tubing or hose between some remotely-located device and the reservoir port.

Question #2: Must the check valve or equivalent device be either (1) immediately adjacent to [coupled at the reservoir port] or (2) within the service reservoir?

Any alternative location allowed for the protective device gives rise to either a need for redefinition of the intent of S5.2.1.5 or an interpretation of the meaning of the one word "system" as used in this particular section, hence our request for clarification.

We have read several preamble statements in 121-related Dockets (73-13, Notice 1; 73-13, Notice 3; 74-10, Notice 1) which emphasize the Administration's opinion that axle-by-axle systems, i.e. separate systems for each axle of a truck, enhance the total vehicle reliability. Does this same safety philosophy apply to trailers and to the service reservoirs on trailer axles? To paraphrase this, we submit

Question #3: Is it intended for each axle subsystem to have separate service reservoir and check valve provisions?

If the answer to Question #3 is negative, there is a further possibility that a separate definition is required to differentiate between (1) protection for a single-axle trailer and (2) protection for tandem or multiple-axle trailers.

To extend this idea further for installations on multiple-axle trailers where one or more "liftable" axles are employed, an additional question arises.

Question #4: May a single check valve be utilized to protect the air reservoir or reservoirs required for the "liftable" axle system or subsystem?

We have asked for interpretations rather than for rule changes so that these matters will not give cause for delaying the effective date for FMVSS-121 Air Brake Systems.

John W. Kourik

Chief Engineer, Automotive Products

ID: nht74-4.50

DATE: 01/28/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Petroleum Equipment

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your request for information concerning the transfer of cargo tanks from one chassis to another has been brought to our attention by the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires that a label certifying the compliance of motor vehicles to all applicable safety standards be affixed to a vehicle by its manufacturer. Certification regulations enacted pursuant to the mandate of the Act require the final-stage manufacturer to provide the certification of the vehicle with all applicable standards, based on information concerning the conformity of the chassis furnished by the chassis manufacturer pursuant to our regulations. This means that cargo tank manufacturers who install the tanks on the chassis and so complete the vehicle must certify it as a finished product.

Responding to your specific question, the action of transferring a cargo tank from one chassis to another would require a label certifying that the vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards if the chassis was new and had not yet been purchased for purposes other than resale. If the chassis was one which had already been purchased for purposes other than resale, there would be no obligation to recertify the compliance of the vehicle.

ID: nht74-4.6

DATE: 06/27/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James B. Gregory; NHTSA

TO: House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 29, 1974, concerning a problem with retreaded tires experienced by your constituent, Mr. Leon Mentzer of Lancaster. Mr. Mentzer was concerned that a pair of retreaded tires which he purchased and returned as the new tread came off after 15 miles were, according to the dealer, to be retreaded again and resold. He asks if there are Federal regulations regarding retreads.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117 (49 CFR 371.117 (copy enclosed)) does specify certain requirements for passenger car retreaded tires, primarily in the areas of rasing selection and processing, treadwear indicators, and labeling. The standard at one time contained performance requirements as well, but these requirements were successfully challenged in an industry-sponsored lawsuit (H & H Tire Company v. Volpe, 471 F.2d 350 (7th Cir. 1572). The re-retreading of a tire in the situation described by Mr. Mentzer would not fail to conform to Standard No. 117 if the casing were not damaged in a manner described in the standard. A further retreading, if done properly, would not necessarily be unsafe.

ENCLS.

Congress of the United States

House of Representatives

May 29, 1974

James B. Gregory Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

My constituent, Mr. Leon Mentzer, R.D. 6, Box 951, Lancaster Pennsylvania 17604, has expressed concern to me in regard to two re-capped tires he recently purchased.

After driving on the tires for approximately fifteen miles, the re-tread came apart. After retaining an attorney he did succeed in getting a refund of his purchase price. What concerned him more was a remark made by the seller when the tires were returned to the effect that they would be re-capped and resold.

Mr. Mentzer wonders if there are Federal regulations regarding re-capping of tires. Any information you may be able to provide which I may send along to him would be much appreciated.

Edwin D. Eshleman

ID: nht74-4.7

DATE: 06/14/74

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

TO: The Berg Manufacturing Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your December 21, 1973, letter and subsequent communication with Mr. Sidney Williams of the NHTSA Handling and Stability Division asking if a check valve located at the isolated reservoir (as pictured in your schematic drawing) to protect the trailer service reservoir(s) would comply with S5.2.1.5 of Standard No. 121, Air brake systems.

The check valve may be placed at the isolated tank to protect the trailer service reservoir as specified in S5.2.1.5.

It appears from your schematic that a single failure in the service brake system could cause loss of service brakes on both trailer axles. It should be noted that if this arrangement is used and a significant safety problem result, it would be subject to NHTSA safety defect authority.

ID: nht74-4.8

DATE: 07/03/74

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

TO: Continental Hydraulic Hose Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your May 16, 1974, request for approval of Continental's banding technique to meet the requirements of Standard No. 106 Brake hoses, for labeling brake hose assemblies, and for use of the letter "C" to identify Continental as an assembly manufacturer.

The NHTSA interpretes a band as a label which encircles the hose completely and attaches to itself. To constitute labeling at all, of course, the band must be affixed to the hose in such a manner that it cannot easily be removed. From this discussion, you should be able to determine the compliance of your labeling method with the standard. The NHTSA does not approve specific designs in advance because the material, installation method, and underlying material can significantly affect the quality of specific design.

The letter "C" has already been recorded with the Office of Standards Enforcement as the manufacturer designation for Continental Gummi-Werke A. G. of Germany. Please submit another choice to: Office of Standards Enforcement, "Brake Hose Identification", National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St. S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.

Continental Hydraulic Hose Corp.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attention: Mr. Herlehy

Subject: MVSS-106 Docket 10

Dear Sir:

Continental Hydraulic Hose manufacture hydraulic brake hose assemblies. We also make the end fittings but purchase the hose. The fittings are permanently crimped in place.

Reference is made to paragraph S5.2.4 of Docket 10 which relates to labeling by the hose assembler. We propose:

1) That our designation be the letter "C".

2) That the band be a strip of adhesive backed vinyl tape wrapped securely around the skirt of one end fitting. The tape would be preprinted in 1/8" letters with:

DOT

C (our code) Month and year.

Please advise if the above is acceptable.

Sincerely,

James W. Long

ID: nht74-4.9

DATE: 07/03/74

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

TO: Volvo of America Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 26, 1974, question whether labeling information on hose installed in vehicles must remain legible after the vehicle is painted, and what "permanently labeled" means in S5.2.2.

The answer to the question of painting over label information will be answered in our upcoming notice in response to petitions for reconsideration of the amendments we have made to the standard.

"Permantly labeled" means affixed in such a manner that it is not easily removable, and is reasonably designed to remain affixed and legible for the normal life of the component.

Yours Truly,

Volvo of America Corporation

April 26, 1974

Lawrence Schneider, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Volvo of America Corporation hereby requests an interpretation on amended FMVSS 106 published February 26, 1974 [Docket No. 1-5; Notice 10].

Volvo requests an interpretation on the extent which the markings on the brake hose, end fitting and band around the brake hose assembly must remain legible after the assembly is installed on the vehicle. Volvo has determined these markings may become illegible after the chassis is painted. Would the NHTSA find it acceptable to have one or more markings on the hose remain legible, and the markings on the fitting and the band, if not legible after painting, be legible when the paint is removed?

Volvo also requests a definition of "permanently labeled" as stated in Section S5.2.2

Volvo thanks you for your consideration on this matter and requests a reply as soon as practical.

Rick Shue Product Safety Engineer

cc: S. Larsson

ID: nht74-5.1

DATE: 02/15/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Open Road Industries Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: We have received correspondence from Mr. & Mrs. William D. Waterhouse of Homestead, Florida, concerning the recall campaign in which their 1970 Open Road motor home is involved (NHTSA campaign #73-0043). Mr. and Mrs. Waterhouse object to the indemnity and hold-harmless provision which you have required them to agree to in order for your company to repair their vehicle without charge to them. That provision reads;

The undersigned will save and hold Open Road Industries, Inc. harmless from and indemnify it against any and all claims, actions, causes of action and damages it may suffer or sustain by reason of making said repair and alteration.

Our records indicate that the recall in question was initiated on March 12, 1972. Accordingly, regulations applicable to the owner notification letter (49 CFR Part 577) do not apply, as these regulations first became effective March 26, 1973.

We wish to inform you, however, in the event Open Road Industries finds it necessary to conduct notification campaigns in the future, that we would not consider a notification letter such as this to conform to Part 577. We believe the hold harmless and indemnity provision is a charge to the purchaser beyond what is standard business practice in these matters. While no money is demanded,

the legal rights which your company demands be relinquished are not without monetary value, and may, as in the case of the Waterhouses, influence the purchaser's decision as to whether the manufacturer should be entrusted to make the repair. While this agency has no authority to compel manufacturers to repair defective vehicles, or to prevent manufacturers from making repairs subject to conditions, it does require through Part 577 that specific information regarding defective vehicles be provided to purchasers. That information is required to be more extensive when the manufacturer does not perform the repair free of charge to the purchaser. Consequently, future notification letters sent by Open Road which include these or similar hold-harmless or indeminity provisions must specify the measures to be taken to repair the defect in accordance with @ 577.4(e)(3), which deals with those cases where the manufacturer does not bear the cost of repair.