ID: nht67-1.11

DATE: 08/25/67

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; William Haddon Jr. M.D.; NHTSA

TO: Honda of New York

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 4, 1967, to Mr. Donald H. Schwentker in which you request confirmation that the Japanese-made CONY Models AF-11SVH and AF-7SVH compact trucks are multipurpose passenger vehicles under the new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

You state that the CONY line is primarily a line of commercial truck-type vehicles and that the Models AF-11SVH and AF-7SVH, although providing for four persons, are built on the same truck chassis as the purely commercial models.

A "multipurpose passenger vehicle" is defined in section 255.3 as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation."

Therefore, the CONY Models AF-11SVH and AF-7SVH are multipurpose passenger vehicles, since they are designed to carry 10 persons or less and are constructed on a truck chassis.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

August 4, 1967

Donald M. Schwentker -- National Highway Safety Bureau, Federal Highway Administration

Dear Mr. Schwentker:

As you suggested in our recent telephone conversation, this is in the nature of a request to your office to confirm two models of the Japanese-made CONY brand of compact trucks which we import, as multi-purpose passenger cars, rather than as passenger cars, for the purpose of classifying them under the new national motor vehicle safety standards.

The basis of this request rests on the facts that (1) the CONY line is primarily a commercial truck type of vehicle and (2) the two models in question AF-11SVH and AF-7SVH, although providing for four persons, are convertable to exclusively cargo space (the rear seat folds down to the floor) and are built upon the same truck chassis as is employed for the purely commercial models.

I am herewith enclosing brochures describing the entire line of eight vehicles of the CONY brand (only two of which are expressly built for passenger-carrying) and have checked and marked the two models thereon.

Inspection of the drawings, photographs and specifications will show only the slightest differences existing among the eight models in size, design and performance and for all practical purposes, each model has a majority of the engineering characteristics of all the other models.

We would appreciate your earliest interpretation for the benefit of our manufacturer who must consider the necessary modifications for 1968 models.

May I also reiterate my appreciation for the information and advice you have already tendered.

Very truly yours,

John J. Paxton -- HONDA OF NEW YORK

ID: nht67-1.12

DATE: 05/23/67

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; George C. Nield; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In response to your letter of May 12, 1967, regarding the classification of your Blue Bird Wanderlodge, I have enclosed a copy of the Initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. On page 2408 of this document, "Bus" is defined as a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons. With the assumption that your Wanderlodge does have seating capacity for more than 10 people, it would therefore be classified as a bus.

Thank you for your interest in the motor vehicle safety program of this Bureau.

ID: nht67-1.13

DATE: 05/08/67

FROM: WILLIAM HADDON, JR., -- NHTSA

TO: EARL W. KINTNER -- ARENT, FOX, KINTNER, PLOTKIN & KAHAN

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 05/13/87, TO WILLIAM E DANNEMEYER FROM ERIKA Z JONES, REDBOOK A30(2), STANDARD 211; LETTER DATED 05/10/67, TO HAROLD T. HALFPANNY FROM LOWELL K. BRIDWELL; LETTER DATED 04/10/87 TO WILLIAM E. DANNEMEYER FROM EDWARD J. BABBITT; LETTER DATED 03/30/87 TO ED BABBITT, FROM WILLIAM E DANNEMEYER; LETTER DATED 11/06/86, TO LARRY THUNDERBIRD AND MUSTANG FROM JOHN H HEINRICH AND J. MICHAEL ZEHNER

TEXT: Dear Mr. Kintner:

This is in response to your letter of April 7, 1967, in behalf of the Motor Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA) regarding the application of the Initial Motor Vehicle Safety Standards to original equipment and replacement parts.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to answer the questions which have been raised by the MEMA members and outlined in your letter. Before doing so, however, I would like to briefly discuss and clarify the effect of the actions taken March 29, 1967, by the National Traffic Safety Bureau, regarding Standard Nos. 111 and 206.

In your letter you have quoted certain language from the preamble to the amendments of Standards Nos. 111 and 206, and interpreted such language to mean that original equipment manufactured on or after January 1, 1968, and replacement parts for vehicles manufactured on or after that date, fall within the regulations of these two Standards. I must advise that this interpretation is not correct. These standards as now amended no longer apply to equipment, but only to the vehicles specified in the standard when such vehicles are completed by the vehicle manufacturer on or after January 1, 1968.

It should be noted that where, as in the case of amended Standard Nos. 111 and 206, the paragraph designated "S.2" and entitled, "Application," refers only to vehicles and not to vehicle equipment, the person responsible for compliance is the vehicle manufacturer. This is true notwithstanding the fact that identifiable equipment may be referred to and made the subject of control in some other paragraph of the standard. For example, Standard No. 107, in paragraph S4, refers to the "horn ring and hub of sterring wheel assembly," and prohibits a specular gloss of the surface of such equipment from exceeding a specified brightness. The vehicle manufacturer is solely responsible for compliance with this requirement.

2

There are now sixteen of the twenty initial standards which require compliance only by the vehicle manufacturer. However, Standard Nos. 106, 205, 209 and 211 each refer to equipment for use in specified motor vehicles in the application paragraph. Compliance and certification is required by both equipment manufacturers and vehicle manufacturers with regard to these four standards.

I will now direct myself to your specific questions which I will quote and follow with a brief answer:

(1) Do all of the Initial Standards require compliance and certification by parts manufacturers as to replacement parts for vehicles manufactured after January 1, 1968?

Answer: No, only Standard Nos. 106, 205, 209 and 211.

(2) Which of the Initial Standards, if any, apply to replacement parts produced on or after January 1, 1968, for vehicles manufactured prior to that date?

Answer: Standard Nos. 106, 205, 209 and 211.

(3) With respect to question 2, is a certification required of the affected equipment manufacturers in such cases?

Answer: Yes.

(4) With respect to questions 1-3, are the compliance and certification requirements any different where the replacement part involved are identical to the original equipment for vehicles produced on or after January 1, 1968?

Answer: No.

(5) Do the Initial Standards require manufacturers of original equipment produced on or after January 1, 1968, to certify their products?

Answer: The requirement for certification of motor vehicle equipment found in section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, provides in the pertinent part that:

3

"Every manufacturer or distributor of . . . motor vehicle equipment shall furnish to the distributor or dealer at the time of delivery of such . . . equipment . . . the certification that each such . . . item of motor vehicle equipment conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards . . ."(emphasis supplied).

It should be noted that neither the Act in section 114, nor the standards which are applicable to vehicle equipment, make any distinction between "original equipment" and "replacement equipment." Where applicable equipment is delivered to a "distributor" or "dealer," as those terms are defined in the Act, then certification is required. However, where such equipment is delivered to a vehicle manufacturer, as the term "manufacturer" is defined in the Act, then no certification is required. Therefore, if the term "original equipment" as used in your question is intended to mean equipment delivered to vehicle manufacturers for incorporation into new vehicles manufactured after January 1, 1968, then the answer to your question is that no certification is required.

I trust that the foregoing response adequately answers the questions you have raised. However, if I can be of assistance to you with further clarification, please do not hesitate to let me know.

I very much appreciate your assurance of cooperation and support, in behalf of MEMA. Notwithstanding the fact that there will be numerous items of motor vehicle equipment, particularly replacement parts, which will not be directly regulated by the initial Federal Safety Standards, it is my earnest hope that MEMA manufacturers and all other motor vehicle equipment manufacturers, will make every effort to voluntarily comply with all of the standards in the interest of motor vehicle safety.

Sincerely yours,

ID: nht67-1.14

DATE: 05/10/67

FROM: LOWELL K. BRIDWELL -- FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR

TO: HAROLD T. HALFPENNY -- LEGAL COUNSEL AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 05/13/87, TO WILLIAM E DANNEMEYER FROM ERIKA Z JONES, REDBOOK A30 (2), STD 211; LETTER DATED 05/08/67 TO EARL K KINTNER, FROM WILLIAM HADDON; LETTER DATED 04/10/87 TO WILLIAM E. DANNEMEYER FROM EDWARD J. BABBITT; LETTER DATED 03/30/87 TO ED BABBITT, FROM WILLIAM E DANNEMEYER; LETTER DATED 11/06/86, TO LARRY THUNDERBIRD AND MUSTANG FROM JOHN H HEINRICH AND J. MICHAEL ZEHNER

TEXT: Dear Mr. Halfpenny:

This is in reply to your letter of March 14, 1967, seeking clarification as to the effect of the recently issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards on the aftermarket repair automotive industry.

In your letter you have expressed the opinion that vehicle parts sold after the effective date of the standard must conform to such standards only when they are for replacement in systems which are required to conform to the standard. You have asked if this opinion is correct and specifically whether any replacement part which does not meet the new standards but which is to be used on prestandard vehicles can still be manufactured and sold.

The answer to your question, as you have correctly noted, requires an examination of section 108(a) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. This section prohibits the manufacture or sale of any "item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date of any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect ... unless it is in conformity with such standard ..." (emphasis supplied). It should be noted that this provision of the law makes no distinction between systems, parts or components, nor does it distinguish between original equipment manufactured for replacement, improvement, or as an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle. Any such distinctions would depend in each instances upon the terms of the "applicable" standard.

The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, 23 CFR 255.21, each contain a paragraph designated S.2 and entitled "Application." This paragraph establishes the coverage of that particular standard by identifying the motor vehicle and/or motor vehicle equipment to which the standard applies. Where the application paragraph refers only to vehicles, the person responsible for compliance is the manufacturer of such motor vehicles. As example of this type coverage is found in Standard No. 107 - REFLECTING SURFACES, which provides in paragraph 3.2: "This standard applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses." Since this standard does

not apply to motor vehicle equipment, the manufacturers of equipment otherwise referred to in the standard, e.g., windshield wiper blades and arms, have my legal obligation to conform to the standard. This is true notwithstanding the fact that equipment manufacturers will be furnishing such equipment to vehicle manufacturers as original equipment.

Where, however, the application paragraph refers to equipment for use in specified motor vehicles, both the manufacturer of such equipment and the manufacturer of the specified vehicles are responsible for compliance. An example of this type coverage is Standard No. 106 - HYDRAULIC BRAKE HOSES, which provides in paragraph S.2: "This standard applies to hydraulic brake hoses for use in passenger cars and multipurpose passenger equipment." All hydraulic brake hoses manufactured and sold on or after january 1, 1968, must conform with this standard whether such brake hoses are manufactured as original equipment or as replacement for either prestandard or poststandard motor vehicles.

There were six of the twenty Federal motor vehicle safety standards issued on January 31, 1967 (32 F.R. 2408) applicable to both motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment Standards Nos. 106, 111, 205, 206, 209, and 211. Two of these standards, No. 111 - Rearview Mirrors, and No. 206 - Door Latches and Door Supports, were amended on March 29, 1967 (32 F.R. 5498), to exclude coverage of equipment and are now applicable only to certain specified vehicles. This mean that manufacturers of rearview mirrors, door latches and door supports will not be required to comply with these standards. Therefore, only the following four initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards are now applicable to motor vehicle equipment:

Standard No. 106 - Hydraulic Brake Hoses--Passenger Cars and Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles.

Standard No. 205 - Glazing Materials--Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Motorcycles, Trucks and Buses.

Standard No. 209 - Seat Belt Assemblies--Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks and Buses.

Standard No. 211 - Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs, and Hub Caps--Passenger Cars and Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles.

Pursuant to each of the above standards equipment manufacturers of the specified motor vehicle equipment must manufacture such equipment in conformance with the standard whether it is to be used as original equipment on new vehicles, as a replacement part, an accessory, or an addition to the motor vehicles specified in the standard. None of the above standards except from coverage equipment manufactured and sold for replacement or as an accessory to prestandard vehicles.

In summary, your opinion to the effect that motor vehicle parts manufactured and sold "after the effective date of the standard must conform to such

standards when they are for replacement in systems which are required to conform to the standard, and not otherwise" is incorrect. Your question as to "whether any replacement part which does not meet the new standards but which is to be used on prestandard vehicles can still be manufactured and sold" must be answered in the negative with regard to Standards Nos. 106, 205, 209, 211, for the reasons I have outlined above.

I trust that this response clarifies the issues you have raised in behalf of Automotive Service Industry Association. If I can be of further assistance to you or numbers of your association, please do not hesitate to call upon me.

Sincerely,

ID: nht67-1.15

DATE: 02/27/67

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; William Haddon, Jr. M.D.; NHTSA

TO: Edward K. Kennedy, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 10, 1967.

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105 applies only to new passenger cars manufactured January 1, 1968, or later. Although the National Traffic Safety Agency intends to issue additional standards in the future that apply to items of motor vehicle equipment, most of the initial Motor Vehicle Safety Standards issued January 31, 1967, apply to vehicles only, as the application paragraph of each standard specifies.

Please do not hesitate to call upon us if we can be of further service to you.

ID: nht67-1.16

DATE: 06/19/67

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; G. C. Nield; NHTSA

TO: S.I.C.A. Peugeot

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of April 20, 1967, concerning the clarification of several requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105.

The bulb for the emergency brake system effectiveness indicator may also be used for the hand brake indicator light. Further, the means for establishing the electrical contact for testing the emergency system indicator bulb may be the hand brake lever.

This clarification is not considered as a change in the requirements of the standard as issued. All characteristics required for the indicator light must be met.

ID: nht67-1.17

DATE: 08/07/67

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; George C. Nield; NHTSA

TO: Kar Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Dr. Haddon asked me to thank you for your letter of June 19 concerning certification procedures for your product.

Apparently our reply of June 14 did not reach you prior to your sending your second letter. I have enclosed a copy of this answer for your reference. This reply was based on the assumption that your KAR Safety Mirror was not original equipment but rather would be sold in the aftermarket.

Your second letter asks three questions. The first question states that the KAR Safety Mirror will be original equipment on a new Camper being introduced in 1968 and asks what steps, if any, must be taken to certify said mirror for this specific purpose. The answer to this question is that the certification obligation contained in Standard No. 111 applies to the vehicle and it is therefore the vehicle manufacturer who will have to certify that the vehicle needs all applicable standards including Standard No. 111. Question No. 2 concerns the transfer of mirrors from cars now equipped with the KAR Safety Mirror, and question No. 3 concerns the certification requirements on 1963 models where the owner installs the KAR Safety Mirror as an after purchase add on piece of equipment. The answer to both of these questions, of course, is that there is no certification requirement at this time for the mirror, as such, as an item of motor vehicle equipment.

Thank you again for your interest in motor vehicle safety.

June 19, 1967

William Haddon, Jr., M.D., Administrator National Traffic Safety Agency

Under date of May 19, 1967, I wrote to you asking for guidance in submitting the KAR Safety Mirror to the proper local authority for certification under the provisions of the National Traffic & Motor Vehicle Act of 1966. The absence of a reply, to this date, would indicate you have not had sufficient time to implement this prodigious and important program. However, at the risk of being importunate, I earnestly inquire for answers to the conditions presented herein; namely,

1. The KAR Safety Mirror will be original equipment on a new Camper being introduced in 1968. What steps, if any, must be taken to certify said mirror for this specific purpose?

2. A number of owners now having cars equipped with the KAR Safety Mirror will trade for 1968 models and will transfer said KAR Safety Mirror to the new car immediately 'after purchase'. Is prior certification required under these circumstances? If so, how do we proceed?

3. Will prior certification be required for the KAR Safety Mirror when owners of 1968 models buy outright and install said KAR Safety Mirror directly 'after purchase' of the new car?

We would appreciate your comment and reply to these questions at the earliest practical moment.

Alan Axtell, President

cc Honorable George Murphy

cc Honorable Warren G. Magnuson

Will Scott Ford Motor Company

I see no objection to your request of June 28, 1967, to ship the outside mirrors loose in your Econoline models until reaching dealer destination. Since the mirror is shipped and the mounting holes are drilled at the factory, the installation of the mirror by the dealer is purely a routine dealer service.

Sincerely,

William Haddon, Jr., N.B.

DR. WILLIAM HADDON JR DIRECTOR NATIONAL HIGHWAY SAFETY BUREAU FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON D C 20591

PARAGRAPH S3.2.1.1 OF STANDARD NUMBER 111 SPECIFIES THAT AN OUTSIDE REAR-VIEW MIRROR QUOTE SHOULD BE INSTALLED UNQUOTE ON APPLICABLE VEHICLES. IT HAS JUST BEEN BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION THAT FORD ECONOLINE MODELS ARE SHIPPED WITH OUTSIDE MIRROR LOOSE IN VEHICLE. THIS PRACTICE IS FOLLOWED BECAUSE OF RESULTING INSUFFICIENT CLEARANCE FOR LOADING ON LOWER LEVEL OF HAULAWAY VEHICLES IF MIRROR IS INSTALLED AT FACTORY. ECONOLINES EQUIPPED WITH MIRRORS COULD, OF COURSE, BE SHIPPED ON UPPER HAULAWAY LEVEL ONLY BUT SHIPPING DELAYS AND FREIGHT PENALTIES THAT WOULD RESULT FROM UNDERUTILIZATION OF EQUIPMENT MAKE SUCH A PLAN UNREASONABLE.

WE DRILL MIRROR MOUNTING HOLES AT FACTOR TO INSURE THAT MIRROR IS IN FACT, INSTALLED BY DEALER PRIOR TO CUSTOMER DELIVERY. WOULD THIS BE ACCEPTABLE TO BUREAU OR WILL IT BE NECESSARY TO CLASSIFY THESE UNITS AS IMCOMPLETE VEHICLES SORRY TO BOTHER YOU WITH THIS DETAIL WHEN BUREAU HAS FAR MORE IMPORTAND SUBJECTS UNDER CONSIDERATION REGARDS

WILL SCOTT FORD MOTOR AUTOMOTIVE SAFETY DIRECTOR CENTRAL OFFICE BLDG DEARBORN MICH

ID: nht67-1.18

DATE: 06/16/67

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE: Robert M. O'Mahoney; NHTSA

TO: Peugeot, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In answer to your letter of May 26, concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 208 and 210, your interpretation is correct: a four-passenger automobile (such an the Peugeot 404) must have two Type 2 seat belt assemblies for the front seat passengers if the windshield header is within the head impact area, two Type 1 or Type 2 sent belt assemblies for the front seat passengers if the windshied hender is not within the hand impact area, and two Type 1 seat belt assemblies for the rear seat passengers. However anchorages for Type 2 seat belt assemblies are required in the rear to enable the owner to install Type 2 seat belt assemblies should he desire to afford his rear seat passengers this means of protection.

May 26, 1967

Mr. O'Mahoney National Traffic Safety Agency United States Dept. of Commerce

Regarding our telephone conversation of May 26, I am in need of legal interpretation concerning Standards 208 and 210.

According to Standard 208, paragraph S3.1.1, Type 2 seat belt assembly should be installed in each outboard passenger car in the front seat position, including the windshield, within the impact area, which, in my mind includes the front seats only. Thus, the rear seats should have only Type 1 (lap belt).

From Standard 210, table 1, it seems to clearly indicate that we must have seal belt anchorages for a Type 2 seat belt in outboard seats in the rear, but it does not expressly state that the Type 2 seat belts should be installed in the outboard seats in the rear.

Would you kindly let me know if my interpretation is correct: on a 4-passenger car, we should have Type 2 seat belts in the front, Type 1 seat belts in the rear, but anchorages in the rear for Type 2 and Type 1 seat belts.

Thank you very much in advance for your reply.

Henri B. Combe Executive Vice President

ID: nht67-1.19

DATE: 12/22/67

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; William Haddon Jr. M.D.; NHTSA

TO: McIntosh Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of November 3, 1967, to Mr. Lowell K. Bridwell, requesting clarification on certain aspects of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

In answer to your specific questions, please be advised that the supplier of a component of a motor vehicle is a manufacturer within the meaning of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act. However, he is not obligated to certify that the item of motor vehicle equipment he manufactures complies with the standard unless he is supplying that item to a distributor or dealer, and then only if there is an applicable Federal Standard.

As regards identification of parts, there is no specific requirement under the Act.

With reference to the entire matter of keeping of records under Section 112(c), this Bureau has under study an appropriate program based on evaluation of certification experience during the next few months that will load to specific regulations. It is contemplated that these regulations will have an effective date of January 1, 1969.

If there is any other information you would like, I hope you will let me know.

ID: nht67-1.2

DATE: 06/19/67

FROM: WILLIAM HADDON, JR. -- M.D. FOR LOWELL K. BRIDWELL, NHTSA

TO: E. W. Kintner

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Re: Your Request for Interpretation -- Initial Federal Motor Vehicle Standard No. 105

This is in response to your letter of May 29 on behalf of Minnesota Automotive, Inc., requesting an interpretation of Initial Federal Motor Vehicle Standard No. 105 such as would allow the installation of a one-way check valve hydraulic parking brake system as a supplement to the friction type system required by that Standard.

Standard No. 105, by its own terms, applies to passenger cars and not to any other category of motor vehicle. As to passenger care either of the statements set forth in your letter in correct and you may so inform your client. This Standard does not proclude or prohibit the installation of one-way check valve hydraulic brake systems on passenger care which, of course, must be also equipped with parking brakes meeting the requirement.[Illegible Word] $ 4.3 of that Standard.

Since this interpretation is fairly obvious it is not suitable for publication in the Federal Register.

Thank you for the support expressed in your letter.

Sincerely,

May 29, 1967

Lowell K. Bridwell Federal Highway Administrator Federal Highway Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

Re: Request for Interpretation -- Initial Federal Motor Vehicle Standard No. 105

Dear Mr. Bridwell:

Minnesota Automotive, Inc., which I serve as counsel, has authorized me to submit a Request for Interpretation of Initial Federal Motor Vehicle Standard No. 105 to your office for clarification of the permissible use of brake lock safety devices as a parking brake system, in addition to the safety equipment required by that standard.

Minnesota Automotive, located in Mankato, Minnesota, manufactures a line of hydraulic brake products, including a one-way check valve hydraulic parking brake which connects into the primary braking system hydraulic unit and shoes. This device, without interfering with normal brake service, will fit any vehicle on the road having a hydraulic braking system, and when actuated will effectively convert the system into a powerful, reliable parking brake lock. Where a dual service brake is employed, two of these devices can be used, one geared to each hydraulic system. These devices serve as important supplements to the standard parking brake system of the vehicle.

The hydraulic brake lock is designed to meet the needs of heavy duty and high frequency parking brake usage. I might mention parenthetically that the brake locking devices manufactured by Minnesota Automotive are no longer under patent; other automotive equipment manufacturers have marketed and are marketing safety brake lock products using the one way check valve principle.

Problems have arisen in the marketing of these safety products, particularly with respect to vehicles currently subject to the jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission, because of that agency's safety regulation on parking brakes. Specifically, Section 193.41 of the ICC Motor Carrier Safety Regulations provides that the "parking brake or brakes, shall . . . remain in the applied condition . . . despite . . . leakage of any kind. . . ." Since the brake locking device in connected into the service brake hydraulic system and consequently will not function if there is leakage in the latter, many potential users of the device have construed the ICC regulation as prohibiting the use of such a device, even when installed in addition to a parking brake system meeting the requirements of the regulation.

A potential difficulty is again presented by Paragraph S4.3 of Initial Standard No. 105, as well as related standards which may be developed by the Bureau in the future. Standard No. 105 requires a "parking brake system of a friction type with a solely mechanical means . . . "Although we would agree that neither this language nor the above noted standard necessarily implies that safety locks are not permitted, the marketing resistance based on the existing ICC regulation indicates the need for clarification in this area.

In view of this experience, we respectfully request an interpretation as to whether Initial Standard can be construed as follows:

1. Paragraph S1 of Initial Standard No. 105, which sets out the purpose and scope of the standard, is not to be construed as prohibiting the use of hydraulic holding devices, such as one way check valves, in hydraulic brake systems, in addition toparking brakes which meet the requirements of Paragraph S4.3: or alternatively,

2. The requirement of Paragraph S4.3 that a parking system of a friction type with a solely mechanical means be provided does not preclude the installation of hydraulic holding devices, such as one way check valves, in addition to the mechanical parking brakes.

Because of the desirability for all manufacturers producing these safety devices of an official position establishing the propriety of using such one way check valve brake locks, we further request that any interpretation to this effect be published in the Federal Register.

On behalf of Minnesota Automotive, I want to take this opportunity to assure you of our complete support of your efforts in attempting to meet the challenging goal of developing meaningful vehicle safety standards. We congratulate you on the significant progress made thusfar.

Should you require any additional information with respect to our Request for Interpretation, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Earl W. Kintner -- ARENT, FOX, KINTNER, PLOTKIN & KAHN