ID: nht76-4.48

DATE: 05/18/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: NSK Warner Kabushiki Kaisha

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to NSK Warner's April 12, 1976, question whether the release and buckle requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, permit the use of a latch mechanism that consists of a fixed hook over which belt webbing (presumably from the upper torso and pelvic portions of a continuous loop system) is slipped by the occupant, causing a rotating catch to close the open end of the hook and secure the webbing. Release is accomplished by depression of a push button that rotates the catch away from the open end of the hook, followed by occupant action to slip the belt webbing off the hook.

Standard No. 208 specifies that a seat belt assembly installed in a motor vehicle shall have a latch mechanism "[that] releases at a single point by a push-button action" (S7.2(c)). "Release" in this context means that the portions of the belt assembly on either side of the latch mechanism disengage from one another. From your description of the hook mechanism, it would not disengage the two portions of belt assembly by a push-button action, because an additional action by the occupant is required. It therefore appears that such a mechanism would not conform to S7.2(c) of Standard No. 208.

Standard No. 209 specifies that "A Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly shall be provided with a buckle or buckles readily accessible to the occupant to permit his easy and rapid removal from the assembly" (S4.1(e)). "Buckle" is defined in S4 as "a quick release connector which fastens a person in a seat belt assembly." Section S4.3 further specifies that "The buckle of a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly shall release when a force of not more than 30 pounds or 14 kilograms is applied" (S4.3(d) (1)). "Release" in this standard is also interpreted to mean that the portions of the belt assembly on either side of the latch mechanism disengage from one another. For this reason, it appears that the described device would not comply with the listed requirements of Standard No. 209.

I trust that this answer is responsive to your inquiry.

SINCERELY,

NSK WARNER KABUSHIKI KAISHA

April 12, 1976

Francis Armstrong Director Office of Standard Enforcement Motor Vehicle Programs U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Re Interpretation of "buckle" for seat belt

One of our customers has developed a kind of latching device for seat belt buckle. We are obliged if you will read followings and give your opinion to us.

Structure

As illustrated in the attached sheet, the device books like a hook with a stopper and it has an arm fixed stationary to a base, a rotatable c shape catch and a pushbutton.

If a thin and not so soft article such as plastic-covered webbing enters into a slot between the arm and the base, the article pushes the right claw of the catch (Fig. 1) and rotates it. Then, the left claw of the catch shuts the entrance of the slot (Fig. 2).

Pushing the button makes the entrance open by using a mechanical linkage.

Our doubt

We have no doubt of its mechanism but there is a doubt raised after consideration of requirements of FMVSS 208 and 209 if this device should be used for the seat belt buckle.

When a passenger pushes the button and opens the entrance of the slot to release himself from a seat belt restraint, the webbing remains in the slot and it does not make him free. The device, therefor, needs one more action; "picking the webbing off the device", to release the passenger completely.

Especially in a case after a turn-over accident, we may be unable to release the passenger because the seat belt is under tension caused by his weight if the webbing has been caught by the hook.

The above is our anxiety about introducing the device to the seat belt buckle.

We would appreciate very much if you could judge and let us know whether the device could be regarded as a buckle.

A. Mita, Chief Engineering Dept.

Fig. 1 Released Position

(Graphic omitted)

ID: nht76-4.49

DATE: 07/09/76

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

TO: Chrysler Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your March 16, 1976, request for assurance that paragraph S4.3(f) of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, does not apply to the mechanism in a continuous loop seat belt system that limits (prevents) transfer of belt webbing from the shoulder to the pelvic portion of the belt when the buckle is engaged. Your letter recommended that Standard No. 209 be amended to specifically exempt such adjustment mechanisms from the requirements of paragraph 4.3(f) or that separate, appropriate requirements for those mechanisms be established.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has determined that the adjustment mechanism described in your letter is not a "tilt lock" within the meaning of paragraph S4.3(f) of the standard, although the two mechanisms are superficially similar. Therefore, this mechanism does not have to comply with the requirements of paragraph S4.3(f).

We would like to emphasize our comments to you of June 13, 1975, regarding the requirement that a continuous loop assembly have a sufficiently low level of friction at the buckle mechanism to ensure that the lap portion of the belt is automatically adjustable. The friction in the buckle must be low enough that the normal motion of the occupant against the shoulder belt tightens the lap portion of the belt to prevent excessive slack and possible submarining of the occupant.

The NHTSA has also considered Chrysler's petition to amend Standard No. 209 to establish "separate appropriate requirements" for the adjustment mechanism in question and decided that it should be granted. A notice proposing such modifications of the standard is anticipated in the near future.

As you are aware, the commencement of a rulemaking proceeding does not signify that the rule in question will necessarily be issued. A decision concerning the issuance of a rule is made on the basis of all available information developed in the course of the rulemaking proceeding, in accordance with statutory criteria.

SINCERELY,

ATTACH.

CHRYSLER CORPORATION

March 16, 1976

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

Subject: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION AND PETITION FOR AMENDMENT OF @ 4.3(f) OF MVSS 209 - SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES

Dear Dr. Gregory:

Recently, the U.S. Testing Company, Inc. conducted a test on our continuous loop (unibelt) seat belt system for the American Safety Equipment Corporation (our supplier). They are questioning whether an adjustment mechanism in a unibelt system utilizing a tilt-lock design superficially similar to the tilt-lock buckle of a Type 1 lap belt assembly needs to meet the requirements of @ 4.3(f) of MVSS 209, Seat Belt Assemblies.

In our opinion, these requirements should not apply to a unibelt adjustment mechanism, since its function is quite different from that of a tilt-lock buckle in a Type 1 lap belt assembly. In a Type 1 lap belt only assembly it is important that the tilt-lock buckle hold the webbing firmly in place without excessive slippage under load. Accordingly, the tests prescribed in @ 4.3(f) of MVSS 209 are appropriate for that application. In a continuous loop system, however, it is the retractor (not the adjustment buckle) which adjusts the belt webbing to the proper length and holds the webbing at that length under load. In a loop system, the primary purpose of the adjustment mechanism is to permit easy or automatic tightening of the total belt system by the retractor. Several of the continuous loop belt systems currently being used provide for this adjustment by use of a simple slip ring design which allows free movement of the webbing between the lap and shoulder belt portion of the system. This design does not have a buckle adjustment mechanism which holds the lap belt taut. Obviously, in these cases, the requirements of @ 4.3(f) do not apply. It is our opinion that this section is equally inapplicable if the adjustment device uses a tilt mechanism superficially similar to a tilt-lock of a Type 1 lap belt assembly in place of the slip ring.

On May 16, 1975, Chrysler engineers demonstrated our unibelt system to NHTSA personnel in the garage of the NHTSA headquarters. At that demonstration we pointed out the tilt-type adjustment feature designed into our system. In addition to allowing automatic tightening of the total belt system by the retractor our tilt-type buckle adjustor holds the lap belt taut once the user has tightened it. The feature was provided for the convenience of and added safety of belt users who like a tighter fitting lap belt than can be provided by a slip ring. Coupled with our window shade tension relief mechanism for the shoulder belt, it allows the belt user to have a snug fitting lap belt and a comfortable shoulder belt. This adjustment feature is accomplished by the use of a tilt-lock mechanism superficially similar to a tilt-lock buckle used with a Type 1 lap belt assembly. As noted above the design and function are significantly different, however.

We recognize that NHTSA does not give certification approvals or otherwise prejudge the compliance of a device. However, in a letter dated June 13, 1975 to S. L. Terry from the Administrator, it was noted that NHTSA personnel saw no evidence of design deficiency related to our unibelt system. The letter gave two important requirements for such systems: (1) the level of friction in the assembly must be low enough to allow "automatic adjustment" of the lap belt portion with normal motion of the occupant against the shoulder belt, and (2) devices that limit retractive action may only be used with seat belt assemblies that have an "individually adjustable lap belt." It is our understanding from the NHTSA representatives who participated in the demonstration that our system meets both of those requirements.

In view of questions concerning our understanding and interpretation of the standard, we request that NHTSA provide us assurance that @ 4.3(f) of MVSS 209 does not apply to the adjustment mechanism of a unibelt system using a design superficially similar to a tilt-lock buckle commonly used in Type 1 lap belt assemblies.

Secondly, we recommend that the standard be modified to specifically exempt such adjustment mechanisms from those requirements or that separate appropriate requirements for these mechanisms be established.

Very truly yours, S. L. Terry -- Vice President, Public Responsibility and Consumer Affairs

ID: nht76-4.5

DATE: 01/07/76

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

TO: The Leithiser Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your November 14, 1975, question whether an air-braked trailer that carries three spools of electric power line and is designed to pay out and tension the three lines over towers would be required to comply with Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

Section S3. (Application) states in part that ". . . the standard does not apply to any trailer whose unloaded vehicle weight is not less than 95 percent of GVWR [gross vehicle weight rating] . . ." It appears from your description that the trailer in question does not have either a passenger-carrying capacity or a rated cargo load. The unloaded vehicle weight would be equal to the GVWR and the trailer would be exculded from the requirements of the air brake standard.

YOURS TRULY,

The Leithiser Company

November 14, 1975

Administrator, Dept. of Transportation National Highway Safety Administration

Reference: Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, 49 CFR 571.121 Tensioner - Tri-Axle Mounted

On March 15, 1974 we submitted a quotation to the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co., Cleveland, Ohio covering the construction of a piece of special machinery for tensioning electric power lines. On April 10, 1974 we received a purchase order for the equipment.

We are enclosing a line sketch of the referenced device. The machine is mounted on a tri-axle suspension because the gross weight of 34,000 lbs. exceeds by 2,000 lbs. the legal limit in Ohio for a tandem axle.

Due to recent problems in the delivery of components, this machine will not be completed until March or April of 1976. The addition of "121" equipment to this device, particularly in view of the three axles, would increase the cost to our customer approximately $ 4,000,00.

We feel that because this is a specialized piece of equipment that the econimic burden of acquiring certification and the increase in cost to our customer, should relieve us of the necessity for installing the "121" appliances. May we have a ruling in this matter as soon as possible?

George L. Leithiser, Pres.

(Graphics omitted)

The LEITHISER Company York, Fa

THREE REEL PAYOFF TRA. DCALO 1/32 "DWO MC. DATE 11/10/75 DWN. WY M. KLINK

ID: nht76-4.50

DATE: 12/09/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: BMW of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your October 29, 1976, request for confirmation that a recent NHTSA interpretation regarding the buckle crush requirements of Standard No. 209 (as stated in a letter to Volvo dated August 31, 1976) is applicable to BMW seat belt buckles.

Our letter to Volvo stated that "the existing S4.3(d)(3) buckle requirements are not applicable to buckles that are located between bucket seats and attached to the console or to the end of a rigid cable or bar." This interpretation constitutes an explanation of S4.3(d)(3) as its provisions apply to all seat belt buckles regulated by the standard. The interpretation is not applicable only to Volvo belt buckles or to buckles produced by any other individual manufacturer. It is the responsibility of each manufacturer to determine, in the first instance, whether or not his products fall within any standard's provisions, including provisions that are explained by means of an interpretation.

I am enclosing a copy of our August 31, 1976, letter to Volvo for your information. As requested, we have withdrawn your petition for rulemaking.

Sincerely,

Enclosure

ATTACH.

November 16, 1976

Frank A. Berndt, Esquire -- Acting Chief Counsel, U. S. Department of Transportation NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Thank you for your letter N40-30 of October 29, 1976, informing us that our submission of September 28, 1976, concerning the Buckle Crush Requirements of S4.3(d)(3) is currently being reviewed by your Program Division.

Meanwhile, we have searched the docket and found that an interpretation in respect to the application of the buckle crush requirements has already been given by your office to Volvo of America Corporation with letter of August 30, 1976, according to which you conclude "that the existing S4.3(d)(3) buckle requirements are not applicable to buckles that are located between bucket seats and attached to the console or to the end of a rigid cable or bar".

As we have indicated in our submission, BMW's seat belt buckle assembly is also of rigid design and is located between the front bucket seats. We, therefore, assume that our buckle, as described in our letter of September 8, 1976, would be exempted from the requirements of S4.3(d)(3). Inasmuch as you have provided a favorable interpretation on the question of buckle crush requirements to Volvo, we assume that this interpretation is also applicable to BMW's seat belt buckle. We would appreciate receiving confirmation from you that the interpretation given to Volvo is also applicable to BMW's seat belt and buckle configuration. If you agree, you may consider our September 28, 1976 submission withdrawn.

Very truly yours, Karl-Heinz Ziwica -- Manager - Safety Engineering, BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.

cc: BMW-AG

ID: nht76-4.6

DATE: 02/19/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James B. Gregory; NHTSA

TO: Hal H. Newell -- Eaton Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Eaton Corporation's January 21, 1976, questions whether the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stay of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, eliminated all requirements of the standard for the period of the stay, whether complying vehicles built prior to the stay may be modified so they do not comply, and whether non-complying vehicles built during the stay would have to be retrofitted upon reinstatement of the standard. Your other questions are no longer relevant in view of the recent reinstatement of the standard by the Supreme Court.

The NHTSA has interpreted the stay to have had the effect, nationwide, of voiding the standard's force and effect as a whole during the period of January 16 through January 29, 1976.

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(1)(A)) prohibits the sale of a vehicle unless it is in conformity with applicable standards in effect on the date of its manufacture. Therefore, a vehicle manufactured in conformity with Standard No. 121 prior to January 16, 1976, would have to conform to the standard when sold. Non-complying vehicles built during the stay would not be required to be retrofitted under this provision, because the standard was not in effect on the date of manufacture.

SINCERELY,

Eaton Corporation Government Relations Office

January 21, 1976

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

Eaton Corporation desires clarification as to the effect the order, issued on January 16 by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in PACCAR Inc., vs. NHTSA and DOT, has on the current status of FMVSS 121 and the proposed changes thereto. Are the requirements mandated under Standard 121 totally eliminated during the duration of the order? Does the Government plan to appeal the order or seek to have it reconsidered by the Court? Can equipment installed on vehicles prior to January 16 in order to meet the requirements of the Standard now be removed? If a vehicle is produced while the Court order is in effect which cannot meet the requirements under the Standard, should the Standard ultimately be sustained, would the purchaser be required to refit the vehicle to meet the Standard's requirements? In the event the stay order is lifted will NHTSA permit a delay in requirements under the Standard until supply lines have been re-established.

As a brake system supplier to the truck industry, there is considerable uncertainty at Eaton as to what type of equipment should be manufactured during this interim period. We would appreciate receiving your thoughts on the problems described above as early as convenient.

Hal H. Newell

ID: nht76-4.7

DATE: 05/21/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood NHTSA

TO: Department of the Army

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 13, 1976, request for written confirmation that the requirements of paragraph S5.2.2.2 of Standard No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids, do not preclude the use of brake fluid dispensing devices which are used without attachment to the brake fluid container.

Paragraph S5.2.2.2 of Standard No. 116 specifies the information that packagers of brake fluids are required to place on the outside of the brake fluid container. Subsection (g) of this paragraph specifies four warnings that must be marked on the container. These labeling requirements apply only to the brake fluid container. The requirements do not apply to use of the brake fluid, and therefore do not create duties on the part of the user to abide by the warnings. The purpose of these requirements is only to ensure that purchasers are warned of potential safety hazards that can result from improper use and storage of the product.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

APRIL 13, 1976

OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Gentlemen:

Reference is made to Title 49 - Transportation, Chapter V - National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT), Part 571 - Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, Motor Vehicle Hydraulic Brake Fluids, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 116.

This Headquarters has issued a Solicitation IFB DAAA09-76-B-6363 for a quantity of automotive hydraulic brake system filler-bleeders.

One of the potential competitors on this procurement (i.e., Bowes Seal Fast Corporation, (Bowes)) has brought into issue the Department of Transportation FMVSS No. 116 in relationship to the specification cited in this solicitation (Incl 1). Specifically, Bowes contends that the required item under Mil-F-19849C dated 14 May 1969, Type I, Class A, Size 1, violates the requirement of FMVSS No. 116, paragraphs S5.2.2.2., (g) 1, 2, 3, and 4.

Our engineering staff is of the opinion that the requirements of FMVSS No. 116 properly applies only to the producer, packager, wholesaler, retailer and user for storage purposes, but has no relationship to the dispensing device used to fill any vehicles hydraulic brake systems.

Contact has been made with Mr. Sid Williams and Mr. Fred Redler of your office and they have orally confirmed that our engineering staffs' view of this matter is correct. Written verification of this fact is requested so that a final reply can be made to Bowes. Your prompt attention to this request will be appreciated. It is also requested that you forward the latest Series 100 and 300 Standards.

Sincerely yours,

MARVIN L. (Illegible Word) -- Chief, Procurement Law Division

1 Incl As stated

BOWES SEAL FAST CORPORATION

March 24, 1976

General William E. Eicher -- U. S. Army (Illegible Word) Command

Dear Sir:

Subject: FILLER-BLEEDER, HYDRAULIC BRAKE SYSTEM, AUTOMOTIVE NSN 4910-00-273-3658 (Formerly FSN 4910-273-3658)

Inasmuch as our Company is a small business, and manufacturer of equipment in the above category, that category is of interest. We are also government contractors and sub-contractors. Following is a tabulation of contract awards from your Command of which we find record in Commerce Business Daily: Solicitation No. DAAF03-72-B-1405 DAAA09-74-B-6988 Applicable Document Cited T&E PD-58B T&E PD-82 1969 June 20 1973 September 05 Contract Award DAAF03-73-C-1029-0004 DAAA09-74-D-6033-0001 24 April 1973 8 May 1974 Award Quantity 1,556 Units 1,016 Units Award Amount $ 69,302 $ 70,632

There has been some previous correspondence from this office to your Command on the above procurement. While our correspondence took exception to the procurement, it did not include a protest of contract award. A reply to one of our letters discussed procurement under T&E PD-58B and T&E PD-82, stating "based on higher work load priorities during this time frame, a military specification was not prepared."

Now, we have received current IFB DAAA09-76-B-6363 applying to NSN 4910-00-273-3568 in quantity of 1,597 units with bid opening date of 9 April 1976. The applicable document cited in this solicitation is MIL-F-19849C dated 14 May 1969.

Upon reading MIL-F-19849C, we do not find equipment described to be basically different from that of T&E PD-58B and T&E PD-82, at least as far as IFB DAAA09-76-B-6363 is concerned. The current IFB stipulates Type I, Class A, Size 1 unit with tank capacity of 3 gallons +/- 1/2 gallon. This refers to a storage tank with diaphragm into which hydraulic brake fluid would be transferred from the original container for shop use as needed.

2 Attention is invited to Department of Transportation FMVSS No. 116 published in Federal Register, Volume 36, No. 232, December 2, 1971. FMVSS 116 serves to establish standards for hydraulic brake fluids and their use.

Attached are specimens of labeling, including directions for use, which have been on all Bowes brake fluid containers since 1972. That this label includes the name of our Company is not significant, because all brake fluid marketers now use identical directions. This is as required in FMVSS 116, Section S 5.2.2.2., sub-paragraph (g), outlining the information to be clearly and indelibly marked on each brake fluid container. As will be noticed under the directions of panel 2, the label clearly states brake fluid is to be stored only in its original container, and that a container is not to be refilled.

In our reading of MIL-F-19849C, it appears to be a revision of earlier Specification MIL-F-198488, dated 4 September 1963. It is evident, then, that the specification has not been revised since 14 May 1969, hence is in conflict with FMVSS No. 116, effective 1 March, 1972.

While FMVSS 116 does not specify any particular type of dispenser for the use of hydraulic brake fluid, it does clearly state "store brake fluid only in its original container". It also specifies "do not refill container." This would exclude transferring brake fluid from its original drum or can to a refillable-reusable tank of 3 gallon capacity.

Attached is a catalog-instruction sheet on the Mack Brake Fluid Bleeder-Filler which is manufactured by our Company. This unit passed feasibility testing at your Command in 1971, following which it was approved and a contract issued from General Services Administration under date of February 15, 1972. It does meet the requirement of FMVSS No. 116 in dispensing brake fluid directly from an original closed container. Since pressure for operation of the unit is provided by a spring-loaded cylinder extending into the original brake fluid container, no air line, pressure gauge or water trap is required. Incidentally, we do not see the latter mentioned in MIL-F-19849C, although we question that a diaphragm would always be impervious to moisture in compressed air.

While the Mack Brake Fluid Bleeder-Filler is a product of distinctive quality, safety and convenience, it is not a proprietary item. That it does serve satisfactorily in its intended use is evidenced by repeat orders from original GSA contract buyers. The unit has also been the subject of a "New Equipment Review" letter from your Command.

As will be noted in the tabulation of contracts shown elsewhere in this letter, the cost of procurement increased over 50% from the 1973 award to the 1974 award, or from $ 44.54 to $ 69.52 per unit. In 1976, the Mack Brake Fluid Bleeder-Filler is available to dealers and fleet users from Bowes distributors throughout the United States at $ 18.25. Construction of the unit is of a nature not requiring special packaging. Standard commercial packaging is one unit per corrugated box 6 1/4" x 3 3/4" x 10 1/8", 10 units per master corrugated shipping carton 22" x 10 1/2" x 13 3/4". Shipping in this packaging has not involved any problem of damage in shipment or storage.

While our Company would be pleased to bid the Mack Brake Fluid Bleeder-Filler under IFB DAAA09-76-B-6363, there is no reason to do so as such offer would be considered non-responsive to the solicitation.

In our opinion, MIL-F-19849C has been obsolete for some time, no longer an appropriate criterion for procurement. Therefore, we respectfully ask that Solicitation No. DAAA09-76-B-6363 be canceled pending a thorough review of its subject, and development of an up-to-date revision of MIL-F-19849C.

Cordially yours,

GEORGE E. TALMAGE, Secretary

Copy to: Commander, U. S. Army Tank-Automotive Command, AMSTA-MST National Automotive Center, GSA-FYS; DRXMD-TE, Mr. Van Acker

[Attachments Omitted]

ID: nht76-4.8

DATE: 09/22/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Imperial Chemical Industries Limited

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 2, 1976, question whether evaluation of the lubricity of DOT 4 brake fluid by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) modified stroking test (SAE J1703f) is consistent with the requirements of Standard No. 116, Brake Fluids.

Standard No. 116 specifies that the stroking properties of DOT 4 brake fluids be tested by use of the apparatus described in SAE Standard J1703b. This is the procedure that would be used in a determination of whether a certain brake fluid conforms to the requirements of Standard No. 116. Section 571.5 of our regulations (49 CFR Part 571) provides that materials subject to change are incorporated into a standard as provided in the standard or, if no indication is made, as of the date of adoption of Part 571. In this case, the standard indicates that J1303b is the version of the SAE practice that has been incorporated.

This does not mean that you cannot use the modified SAE procedure for purposes of your certification testing. Your obligation as a manufacturer is to ensure that your certification of compliance is not false or misleading in a material respect, and that you have exercised due care in manufacturing to conform to Standard No. 116 (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(b) (2)). A manufacturer is not required to follow specifically the test procedures of the standards. Rather, he must ascertain, in the exercise of due care, that his product will conform to the requirements of the standard when it is tested by the stated methods. The NHTSA cannot approve a manufacturer's test procedure as the basis of due care in advance of the actual events that underlie certification.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

Imperial Chemical Industries Limited

Petrochemicals Division Headquarters

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration -- Department of Transportation

JULY 2, 1976

Dear Sirs

DOT 4 BRAKE FLUID

We refer to your specification for DOT 4 grade brake fluid as given in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No 116, published in the Federal Register, Vol 36, No 122, June 24 1971.

We note that in section S6.13 the evaluation of stroking properties follows the procedure given in SAE J 1703b section 4.12 "Simulated Service Performance".

However our latest SAE Standard for brake fluid (SAE J1703f) contains details of a modified stroking test.

We are considering changing our stroking test apparatus to comply with SAEJ1703f and would be grateful if you could confirm that evaluation of brake fluid lubricity by this method is acceptable for DOT 4 grade fluid.

Yours faithfully

J J Cowley

ID: nht76-4.9

DATE: 09/02/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Paul Atkinson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your June 18, 1976, letter concerning the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117, Retreaded Pneumatic Tires, to passenger car tires that are retreaded from bead to bead.

I understand that in this process, the labeling information molded on the sidewalls of the tire to be retreaded is buffed off prior to the application of new rubber. You have requested our assurance that "it is permissible to do bead to bead retreading, removing the present labeling and remolding all the pertinent information on the tire."

The requirements for casings to be used in retreading are set out in S5.2.3 of Standard No. 117:

Each retreaded tire shall be manufactured with a casing that bears, permanently molded at the time of its original manufacture into or onto the tire sidewall, each of the following:

(a) The symbol DOT;

(b) The size of the tire; and

(c) The actual number of plies or ply rating.

This section requires the above information to be present on the casin at the beginning of the retreading process, to ensure both that the carcass was originally manufactured to comply with Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires -- Passenger Cars, and that the retreader has reliable information on which to base the labeling of the completed tire. The section does not, however, require that this originally molded information be retained on the completed tire.

Certification and labeling requirements for completed retreaded tires are set out in S6 of the standard. The DOT symbol required by S6.1, however, is not a "remolding" of the original DOT symbol (certifying compliance with Standard No. 109) that may have been buffed off. It is a new certification by the retreading party that his product complies with Standard No. 117. Further, this new DOT symbol must be followed by the letter "R", as indicated in 49 CFR @ 574.5, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping. "Remolding" of the original DOT symbol is neither required nor permitted. Finally, the information required by S6.3 to appear on the completed tire is permitted, but not required, to so appear through retention of the original labeling.

In conclusion, bead-to-bead retreading is not prohibited by Standard No. 117, provided that the casings satisfy S5.2.3 at the beginning of the retreading process, and all other requirements of the standard are met.

YOURS TRULY,

PAUL ATKINSON TIRE RETREADING CONSULTANT

June 18, 1976

Frank Berndt, acting chief council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

I visited with Mr. Arturo Casanova and Mr. David Snyder on Tuesday, June 15. I brought some questions to them that they felt should be directed to you for a decision, and if necessary, a ruling.

I have a firm that I represent in Pennsylvania, that is planning to enter the passenger tire retreading field. They will be different in their operation in that they plan to retread tires from bead to bead. Both sidewalls will be buffed, and a thin venier of rubber applied. The sidewall mold plates will be engraved to contain all of the information required by your department.

I raised the question to Mssrs. Casanova and Snyder about any objections that your department might have to these plans. It was their feeling that their was no objection, other than the possible objection to the removal of the DOT certification, proving that the casing used was in fact a DOT casing.

As this process involves a very advanced cost in federal excise taxes, and advanced cost in processing, materials, and equipment, it will not be competitive with customary retreading. It will have to be sold at a very premium price.

Also, it has been eight years since the incorporation of the DOT symbol. Tires without this symbol have been for all practical purposes, have been used up, and are no longer on the casing market. I do not feel that any reputable dealer would accept a casing of this age, regardless of DOT rulings.

I am requesting a ruling from you that it is permissible to do bead to bead retreading, removing the present labeling and remolding all the pertiment information on the tire. This is with the understanding that all tires used for passenger use will be DOT casings. The DOT would be returned by molded labeling.

I would add for your consideration that this system is widely used throughout Europe. There is also a dealer in Minnesota who is advertising this type work in magazines. I am also informed that it is being done by at least one company in California.

I would appreciate your favorable ruling on this matter at your earliest convenience.

Paul Atkinson

ID: nht76-5.1

DATE: 01/23/76

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

TO: AB Stil-Industri

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Stil-Industri's December 12, 1975, question whether S5.2(d)(1) of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, specifies, in the case of a push-button release, the location and direction of force application used in testing the release under the requirements of S4.3(d)(1). Section S5.2(d)(1) provides in part:

(1) . . .The buckle release force shall be measured by applying a force on the buckle in a manner and direction typical of those which would be employed by a seatbelt occupant. For pushbutton-release buckles, the force shall be applied at least 0.125 inch from the edge of the push-button access opening of the buckle in a direction that produces maximum releasing effect. . .

The NHTSA interprets these provisions of S5.2(d)(1) to permit the manufacturer to apply force in the direction and location that provides the best possible mechanical advantage relative to the manufacturer's buckle design. The only limitation in the case of a push-button design is that the manufacturer must not apply the force any closer than 0.125 inch from the edge of the push-button access opening.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

CHIEF COUNSEL -- NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

DECEMBER 12, 1975

GENTLEMEN,

WE ARE A SWEDISH COMPANY PRODUCING SAFETY-BELTS FOR DIFFERENT CARS AND ALL DIFFERENT MARKETS. WE WOULD KINDLY ASK YOU TO HELP US WITH SOME QUESTIONS WE HAVE ABOUT HOW TO INTERPRET SECTION (1) IN S.5.2 (D) ABOUT BUCKLE RELEASE.

FROM THE PASSAGE: "THE BUCKLE RELEASE FORCE SHALL BE. . . . .TO:. .. RELEASING EFFECT". WE WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS. WHERE ON THE PUSH BUTTON SHALL WE APPLY THE FORCE? IN A POSITION WHICH IS TYPICAL FOR THE SEAT BELT OCCUPANT? IN THE CENTER? 1/8 INCH FROM WHICH EDGE? IN WHAT DIRECTION? THESE QUESTIONS ARE OF GREAT IMPORTANCE FOR US AND WE AWAIT YOUR REPLY WITH GREAT INTEREST. WE ARE VERY GREATFUL IF YOU COULD ANSWER AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

SINCERELY YOURS AB STIL-INDUSTRI; HANS SYLVEN -- CHIEF OF CONSTRUCTION

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