ID: nht68-1.27

DATE: 06/21/68

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

TO: ATECO Equipment Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in further reply to your letter to Mr. Slagle dated March 8, 1968, in which you ask for information as to your company's responsibility under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and regulations issued pursuant to the Act.

As I understand the description of the modification your company makes to trucks the only standard now in effect that is applicable is Standard No. 205, the glazing standard. Therefore, the glass that you install in place of the original glass in the truck cab would have to comply with this standard.

Your company might also be affected by the enclosed Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Your particular attention is directed to Docket No. 2-12 which would, if finalized, make the standard concerning anchorage of seats (No. 207) applicable to trucks.

Sincerely,

Enclosure

March 8, 1968

National Highway Safety Bureau Edwin Slagle, Director Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service

Dear Mr. Slagle:

I talked to David Schmeltzer who I understand is in the Office of the Chief Council of the Federal Highway Administration. Mr. Schmeltzer advised me to approach you for information concerning matter mentioned in the above subject.

This company is a manufacturer and a distributor of motor truck mounted equipment. We are generally to date and are currently practicing the requirements set forth in Federal Regulation #108 and #111 effective January 1, 1968.

Or to January 1, 1968, we had modified Ford, Model C-600 tilt-cabs by handing the original configuration approximately 15-1/4" longer than standard. We incorporate within this change two (2) one-man seats behind the driver-passenger compartment. One of these seats is located on a right angle behind the driver's seat and faces the street side of the vehicle. Another seat is installed behind the passenger's seat in reverse position to the one mentioned. We did not furnish any escape hatch, yet the glazed opening to which the passengers faced was made larger than the original factory furnished glazing. This glazing was set in rubber and locked in place through the use of standard rubber key locks that are used for this purpose in the motor truck industry. This glazing principle did not offer a push-out convenience, yet we at this time could leave the key lock strip out, thereby offering a convenience of a push-out window. We did not change or modify the factory furnished rear window glass.

We now wish to make similar changes to the equipment that we have described. We have researched all printed material and instructions that have been made available to us, to determine a correct and legal path to follow, but we have not found any information by which we should proceed, therefore we have taken the liberty to approach you for help and advice on this matter.

Attached please find the copy of a sketch of the equipment that we are concerned about, on which we have shown a dotted line vertically on the rear portion of the truck cab to indicate the approximate length that we extended the cabs done prior to January 1, 1968.

We need correct information and printed material or a written testimonial from a proper Federal agency telling us if we can or cannot make these changes to fulfill our obligation to Federal requirements.

We wish to take this opportunity to thank you in advance.

Very truly yours,

ATECO EQUIPMENT COMPANY--

R. A. Moynihan

Sales Manager - Truck Equipment

JWT FILE JWT S.O. David Schmeltzer RAM(Illegible Words)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht68-1.28

DATE: 01/01/68 EST.

FROM: H.M. Jacklin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Electrical Testing Laboratories, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letters of July 30, and August 9, 1968, concerning the test of seat belt anchorages which are anchored to a seat.

On the question regarding the test method for applying the loads specified in paragraph $3.1.1, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, we would agree with your conclusion to apply the loads at the required different points and directions simultaneously.

On the question of whether bucket seats with seat belt anchorages attached may be tested separately, the applicable paragraph in SAE J787b is 5.2 rather than 5.1 as stated in your letter. There is no test method specified therein relative to this question and accordingly, test of the bucket seat with seat belt anchorages attached may be tested either separately or in sets.

ID: nht68-1.29

DATE: 10/22/68

FROM: Joseph R. Gorman for Francis Armstrong -- NHTSA

TO: Valley Buick Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of August 15, 1968, regarding safety standards applicable to the Austrian "Haflinger" vehicle.

This vehicle will be required by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 to comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Enclosed are copies of the Act and the Standards and amendments through August 1963.

I have reviewed the prospectus you enclosed with your letter and would conclude that the "Haflinger" vehicle meets the definition of a multipurpose passenger vehicle as specified in Section 255.3 of the Initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Accordingly, any vehicle of this type, manufactured after January 1, 1963, must conform to the following Standards which have application to multipurpose passenger vehicles of less than 80 inches overall width:

FMVSS #103 - "Windshield Defrosting and Defogging"

FMVSS #104 - "Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems"

FMVSS #106 - "Hydraulic Brake Hoses"

FMVSS #107 - "Reflecting Surfaces"

FMVSS #111 - "Rearview Mirrors"

FMVSS #205 - "Glazing Materials"

FMVSS #209 - "Seat Belt Assemblies"

FMVSS #211 - "Wheel Nuts, Wheel(Illegible Words)

In addition, vehicles manufactured after January 1, 1969, will be required to comply with:

FMVSS #106 - "Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment"

FMVSS #112 - "Headlamp Concealment Devices"

FMVSS #113 - "Head Latch Systems"

(Illegible Words)

August 15, 1968

National Highway Safety Bureau Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation Attention George Nield

Gentlemen:-

The early part of this year we arranged to handle a Vehicle named Haflinger, through Overland Vehicle Corp. of North Miami Beach, Florida, the imported. This vehicle is built in Austria. We are attaching a fly covering the specifications.

The Haflingers we have sold were 1967 Models, ie; built prior to January 1, 1963. All have been sold to operators of Ranches, such as the King Ranch. This vehicle is designed for cross-county, off the highway use. It has a maximum speed of forty-seven miles per hour.

The 1967 models we received were equipped with Seal-Beam Headlights, Parking and Stop-Lights. Directional Signals with Amber Side Lights mounted on each side at the front of the vehicle, tail and licence plate lights and windshield wipers.

About ninety days ago we placed an order with Overland Vehicle Corporation for twenty Haflingers accompanied by a letter of Credit. One of the conditions of the Letter of Credit, was that the vehicle would meet the Federal Safety Standards. We have been unable to contact any one during the last thirty days with the Overland Vehicle Corporation, and it appeared they had closed their office in North Miami Beach.

We have now been in communication with the Manufacturer of the vehicle in Austria and they advise that their contract with Overland expires August 31, 1963 and they have offered to sell us direct. This vehicle has created a lot of interest among farmore and ranchers in the area, as well as hunters.

It will be appreciated if you will give us an official ruling as quickly as possible of the Safety Standards necessary to enable us to import this vehicle for sale in the United States.

Thanking you, we are

Yours very truly,

VALLEY BUICK COMPANY -- Carl A. Murphy

ID: nht68-1.3

DATE: 08/22/68

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

TO: E.T.R.T.O.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This in response to your letters of May 24, requesting (1) a footnote to Table 1-A to provide that equivalent millimeter designations may be marked on tire sizes in addition to the dimension sizes in inches; and (2) a footnote to Table 1-C to provide that the tire sizes provided in this table can be marked on the tire by giving the millimeter equivalent either before or after the size designation in inches.

We do not consider that Table 1-A of the standard, as presently written, prohibits equivalent marking in millimeters as long as the conversion from inches to millimeters is exact and the tire meets the size and load carrying requirements shown in Table 1-A.

Similarly, we do not consider that the standard as presently written prohibits the marking of the tire with equivalent millimeter sizes before or after the marking which gives the size of the tire in inches.

In view of the above, a footnote is not considered necessary.

ID: nht68-1.30

DATE: 08/20/68

FROM: ROBERT BRENNER FOR WILLIAM HADDON -- NHTSA

TO: Messrs. Quarles; Herriott; Clemons; Teschner & Noelke

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of July 23 to the attention of the Federal Highway Administrator enclosing product literature on the "Model 16" and "Cruiser" manufactured by your client, the M-B Company. You have asked what Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply to these vehicles.

Since the Model 16 line striper is "driven . . . by mechanical power" it is a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. However, it does not fall into any of the vehicle types defined thus far, to which standards are applicable, and consequently there are no standards applicable to it at this time.

Section 255.3(b), quoted by you, defines a "truck" as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment." The definition thus excludes all trailers, but would include the Cruiser which transports special purpose equipment necessary for street sweeping. Therefore, the Cruiser must conform to all Federal standards applicable to trucks.

I hope this answers your questions.

Sincerely

July 23, 1968

Federal Highway Administration Director

Attention Mr. Bridwell

Gentlemen:

We request that your office issue an interpretive ruling as to what requirements of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, if any, certain products manufactured by the M-B Company must comply with. The products in question are the "Cruiser," and the "Model 16" Brochures illustrating these products and containing information about them are enclosed herewith.

We would in particular appreciate receiving answers to several specific questions:

1. In the definition of "Truck," contained in@255.3 of the regulations, does the word "except" refer only to "a trailer" or does it also refer to "designed previously for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment.

2. Do the devices contained on the "Cruiser" and "Model 16" constitute "special purpose equipment," within the meaning of this phrase as it is used in the aforesaid definition of "Truck?" 3. Does "Model 16" have "motive power" within the meaning of this phrase as it is used in the aforesaid definition of "Truck," since it does not have the normal type of a motor system found in trucks in that it does not have a battery or generator?

The primary practical problem M-B Company has is with regard to "Modes 16" which is designed to be inexpensive, light weight, and small. Therefore, it does not even have a generator or a battery, and thus necessarily, no lights. The absence of lights presented no practical problem, since it was designed solely or use in the daylight. If M-B Company must make "Model 16" comply with the lighting requirements for "Trucks," it will necessarily require "Model 16"'s design to be substantially altered.

We would appreciate receiving this interpretive ruling as soon as possible. M-B Company continues to manufacture the aforesaid products. Its uncertainty as to which of your department's standards, if any, these products must comply with, places it in a most difficult and uncomfortable position. If your department desires any additional information as to the aforesaid products, just contact us and we will supply it promptly.

Very truly yours,

QUARLES, HERRIOTT, CLEMONS, TESCHNER & NOELKE --

Charles S. Quarles

CC: L.P. Blumberg

ID: nht68-1.31

DATE: 07/03/68

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

TO: Horseless Carriage Corp.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of June 11, 1968, concerning the applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards to motor vehicles which have a curb weight of 1000 pounds or less.

Your reference to section 255.7 of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and the present applicability of the standards to motor vehicles 1000 pounds or less curb weight is correct. However, we are enclosing a copy of an Advance Notice of Proposed Rule Making, Docket No. 5-1, which was published in the Federal Register on October 14, 1967. As you can see from the Advance Notice of Proposed Rule Making, the Administrator is considering adding new standards applicable to motor vehicles of 1000 pounds or less curb weight.

Sincerely,

HORSELESS CARRIAGE CORP.

June 11, 1968

Administrator Federal Highway Administration

ATTENTION: Robert M. O'Mahoney Assistant Chief Counsel

Gentlemen:

Thank you for the attention and assistance found in your letter of 31 May.

In reviewing the Federal Motor Vehicle Standards, we note that sub-part 255.7, "Applicability", paragraph (a) "General", specifies that the standards apply to ". . . motor vehicles over 1000 pounds curb weight; . . .".

Since our Replica antique automobiles have a curb weight of less than 350 pounds, it would appear that by definition and reference they are excluded, which obviates our petitioning for exemption under PL 90-283.

We would appreciate your comment or interpretation.

Very truly yours,

Ferris M. Smith, Jr. -- President

ID: nht68-1.32

DATE: 04/24/68

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

TO: Carrington; Johnson & Stephens

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of March 16 which asked several questions concerning the applicability of present Federal motor vehicle safety standards to equipment installed, either at the factory or afterwards, "in pickup trucks and other light trucks."

You have asked:

"(1) Does a standard applicable only to passenger cars apply to a vehicle coming within both the definitions of 'truck' and the definition of 'passenger car' as defined in the Standards?"

(2) Does your answer to the foregoing apply to pickup trucks and other light trucks sometimes used for family purposes?

(3) Are these considered to be 'multipurpose passenger vehicles' and therefore specifically excluded from the definition of 'passenger cars'?"

The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards define a "truck" as a motor vehicle "designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment". This includes pickup trucks used occasionally for family purposes. The answer to your questions therefore is that vehicles are not both trucks and passenger cars and a standard applicable only to passenger cars is not applicable to pickup and other light trucks. The distinction between passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles is that the latter are vehicles constructed either on a track chausis or with special features, such as 4-wheel drive, for occasional off-road operation. The Ford Bronco and International Harvester Scout are two examples of multipurpose passenger vehicles.

With regard to your question regarding applicability of standards to dealer-installed equipment, the standards, at this time, do not apply to installation or removal of equipment after the first purchase of a vehicle for purposes other than resale. They do apply prior to sale and dealers should be warned against making modifications which might interfere with the compliance that has been certified by the vehicle manufacturer.

The meaning of your last question is unclear to me. Certification is required by the Act between a manufacturer and a dealer or distributor and then only if there is an applicable standard. Many vehicle manufacturers routinely require by a contract that equipment manufacturer "certify" that equipment supplied meets Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. These clauses are a matter of contract between the parties.

Regardless of the end use of the equipment supplied, and even though no certification is required because the sale is to a vehicle manufacturer and not a dealer or distributor, if there is a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard applicable to the equipment manufactured the equipment manufacturer is subject to civil penalty for violation of section 108(a)(1) of the Act (15 USC 1397 (a)(1)) if the equipment does not comply with applicable standards.

Sincerely,

CARRINGTON, JOHNSON & STEPHENS

March 16, 1968

Robert M. O'Mahoney, Esq. Assistant General Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration National Highway Safety Bureau

Dear Mr. O'Mahoney:

We represent a firm which is a "manufacturer" as defined in Sec. 102(5) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the "Act"), of "motor vehicle equipment" as defined in Sec. 102(4) of the Act. Such firm is the same concern concerning which you and I had correspondence last summer, culminating in your letter of August 1, 1967 wherein you kindly furnished us with guidance in the interpretation of a possibly ambiguous aspect of the Act concerning sale of such equipment in the passenger car after-market, in order that we might in turn be guided in advice to our client.

Now our client proposes to sell such equipment to a concern which is a "manufacturer" of "motor vehicles" under Sec. 102(3) of the Act, which equipment is to be used in pickup trucks and other light truckscoming within the definition of "truck" in the Initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards @ 255.3(b). In some cases the equipment will be factory-installed, and in some cases it will be installed by factory-franchised truck dealers as optional equipment specified by the purchaser of the truck.

This letter is to request your advice concerning the applicability of the Initial Standards (and I especially have in mind Standard 201) to this equipment.

Section 255.3(b) of the Initial Standards defines truck as follows:

"Truck' means a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment."

The same general section of definitions at the same time defines "passenger car" as follows:

"'Passenger car' means a motor vehicle with motive power, except a multipurpose passenger vehicle, motorcycle, or trailer, designed for carrying 10 persons or less."

The same general section also defines "multipurpose passenger vehicle" as follows:

"'Multipurpose passenger vehicle' means 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."

The structuring and thrust of the Initial Standards and of the Act appear clearly to contemplate that standards applicable to trucks as above-defined are intended to be limited in applicability to trucks, and that standards applicable to passenger cars as above-defined are intended to be limited in applicability to passenger cars. Yet, if literally and superficially read, without the illumination of such purpose and intent, the definition in @ 255.3(b) of "passenger car" would literally cover a pickup truck, or possibly even a large truck, so long as it was "designed for carrying 10 persons or less" unless as to a particular kind of truck it would be said to be a "multipurpose passenger vehicle." An interpretation which includes trucks of any kind under the definition "passenger car" would, in my opinion, be strained and would not further the results desired to be accomplished by the Initial Standards or the Act, but the language used has led us to request your advice with respect to the following:

(1) Does a standard applicable only to "passenger cars" apply to a vehicle coming within both the definition of "truck" and the definition of "passenger car" as defined in the Standards?

(2) Does your answer to the foregoing apply to pickup trucks and other light trucks sometimes used for family purposes?

(3) Are these considered to be "multipurpose passenger vehicles" and therefore specifically excluded from the definition of "passenger cars"?

(4) If your answer to either of the first three questions is that the "passenger car" standards do cover such a vehicle, would the applicability of such standards to equipment installed in such a vehicle be governed to any extent by the fact of installation of such equipment by a dealer, rather than at the factory --

(a) before delivery of the vehicle to the customer?

(b) after delivery of the vehicle to the customer?

(5) If the equipment involves were in noncompliance with the standards if factory-installed in "passenger car" but the Vehicle manufacturer contractually represents that the equipment is purchased for use only on vehicles to which "passenger car" standards do not apply, can the equipment manufacturer rely on such representation so as not to certify the equipment as being in compliance with the standards?

We shall appreciate your assistance to us with respect to these questions.

Sincerely yours,

MARVIN S. SLOMAN

ID: nht68-1.33

DATE: 10/23/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James B. Gregory; NHTSA

TO: National Association of Independent Insurers A.J.J. Enterprises Inc. NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION FMVSR INTERPRETATION

ID: nht68-1.34

DATE: 06/01/68 EST

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lester D. Johnson; NHTSA

TO: Elford A. Cederberg; House of Representatives

COPYEE: DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 28, 1968, concerning the application of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards to a Morgan 4/4 convertible automobile imported by Mr. Edvis Fine of Mount Pleasant, Michigan.

Based on the information contained in your letter, it appears that the vehicle in question has not been manufactured in conformity with the safety standards prescribed by the Department of Transportation. Therefore, the vehicle is not permitted entry into the United States unless entry is made under bond and Highway Safety Form 7 (copy enclosed) is completed by the importer. This requirement is provided for in section 12.80(b), Customs Regulations, a copy of which is also enclosed for your convenience.

If your constituent wants to take delivery of the vehicle so that it can be brought into conformity, the foregoing requirements must first be complied with. To avoid certain storage charges, it will be to Mr. Fine's advantage to make entry for consumption or export the vehicle as soon as possible. Normally, storage charges begin to necrue on the sixth day, exclusive of Sundays and holidays, after date of arrival of the importing carrier in the port.

The Bureau of Customs cannot advise your constituent what modifications or additions are necessary to bring the vehicle into conformity. This information can be obtained from the Department of Transportation and a copy of your letter has been forwarded to that office for direct reply.

Sincerely yours,

Congress of the United States

House of Representatives

May 28, 1968

Lester D. Johnson Commissioner Bureau of Customs

Dear Mr. Johnson:

On January 12, 1968, my constituent, Mr. Lewis Fine of Mount Pleasant, Michigan, placed an order with Metro Motors of Windsor, Ontario, for a British-made Morgan 4/4 convertible automobile. The car was shipped from England on or about April 19, 1968, and the order, a copy of which is enclosed, was plainly marked "for export to the USA." Mr. Fine is having difficulty getting his car into the United States, having been told that he would have to sign your Form No. NS7 stating that he would bring the car up to Government standards within ninety days and the Canadian dealer would have to post bond guaranteeing compliance. It is my understanding that the car is already equipped with the following equipment:

1. 1600 CC Ford Cortina Engine

2. Electric windshield washers and wipers

3. Front and rear bumpers

4. 3 Point seat belts

5. Hydraulic and mechanical brakes

6. 72 spoke wire wheels and hubs (not the knock on type)

7. Two rear view fonder mirrors

8. Four two-way flasher and back-up lights

I shall appreciate it if you will review this file and advise me what further stops are necessary in order for Mr. Fine to get this car into the United States.

Sincerely yours,

Elford A. Cederberg

Enclosure

ID: nht78-1.14

DATE: 03/20/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Alfred Teves GMBH

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of June 23, 1977, to Mr. W. M. Radler, you asked if Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 106-74, Brake Hoses, would apply to a special hose assembly intended for use with your Hydrobooster system. The diagram you enclosed showed the hose assembly interconnecting the charging valve with the brake booster unit. Power steering fluid is fed through it under pressure.

Your representative, Mr. Paul Utans, has presented two rubber hose assemblies in the recent past. On October 5, 1977, he submitted what we assume to be the design to be used with your Hydrobooster. It is stamped with the date 10/8/77.

In the preamble to Notice 11, Docket 1-5, published June 24, 1974, (39 FR 24012) all power steering type hoses that connected power steering pumps with accumulators were exempted from the standard. Hoses connecting accumulators with boosters were also exempted if redundant boosters were provided. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has reviewed this latter interpretation and determined that all power steering type hose should be exempt from FMVSS 106-74, whether or not redundant boosters are present.

Brake power booster systems must meet the applicable performance requirements of FMVSS 105-76, "Hydraulic Brake Systems" which does not require a redundant booster. Further, the requirements in FMVSS 106-74 are not appropriate for power steering hoses. The interpretation in Notice 11 is therefore modified to permit the exemption of all power steering type hoses and tubing assemblies used with hydraulically operated brake power boosters until performance requirements for them are established.

After consideration of the sample and the information you have supplied, we have concluded that the subject hose assembly must be classified as power steering hose. Consequently, your Hydrobooster hose assembly is considered exempt from coverage by FMVSS 106-74 until appropriate requirements for such hose assemblies can be included in the standard. A plastic tube assembly used in the same system would also be exempt.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

Welfred M. Redler, P.E. -- Office of Crash Avoidance, NHTSA

June 23, 1977

Subj.: Request Dear Mr. Redler,

for one of our customers, a central hydraulic system is being installed since the beginning of production of the 78 model range; the wiring diagram of this system is attached. The tube which is presently mounted between accumulator and hydrobooster is to be replaced before long by a plastic hose for reasons of noise transmissions. Mr. Utans has already informed you that we cannot use a rubber hose with the required dimensions (internal dia. 10 mm) for this specific purpose. Since, however, we are not sure about the requirements the hose will have to meet in the U.S.A., we kindly ask you to inform us about them.

The following hose characteristics should be taken into consideration:

a) When installed in the system, the hose must withstand a permanent pressure of 36 - 52 bar (522 - 754 psi).

b) In the case of a failure of this hose, the system will still meet the requirements as per FMVSS 105-75, S 7.10.

c) Since it is a plastic hose, the requirements as per FMVSS 106-74, S 6.3, Whip Test, cannot be met. However, we hold the view that this is not necessary since the hose is used as a connection for two units attached to the same vehicle part (frame) where no important vibrations will occur. As has been mentioned before, this hose will be exclusively used as a noise deadening hose.

d) If, contrary to our expectations, you decide that our plastic hose is a hydraulic brake hose as defined by FMVSS 106-74, we should like to ask you to release us from the obligation to meet the requirements of sections 5.2 Identification and 6.3. Whip Test.

When taking a decision, please bear in mind that similar hoses are presently installed in production vehicles in the U.S.A.

Thanking you in advance for your kind assistance we remain,

Yours sincerely, Alfred Teves GmbH

P.P.9

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)