ID: nht74-5.37

DATE: 04/26/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; A. G. Detrick; NHTSA

TO: Conco Incorporated

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter to Mr. W. J. Reinhart, dated March 26. In this letter you requested that the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) reconsider the necessity of your revising the notification letters which were mailed by you in conjunction with your defect notification campaign (NHTSA No. 74-0038).

We have determined that your notification letter must be revised and that you must provide this office, and those owners who did not correct their vehicles, with a copy, sent certified mail, of the revised letter. It is not sufficient under Part 577 for you to state that a "safety hazard" exists "due to a decrease in visibility of the vehicle." This statement fails to conform to section 577.4(d) of the Defect Notification regulations (49 CFR Part 577). That section provides that the risk to traffic safety presented by the defect be evaluated in terms of whether or not vehicle crash is the potential occurrence. We believe it obvious within the context of Part 577 that the potential result of the failure of any vehicle to conform to the lighting requirements of Standard No. 108 is vehicle crash. The factors you cite, that the vehicles have limited use, go only to whether it is likely they may be involved in crashes, not whether crash is the potential or possible result. In this regard, we note that your own description of the likelihood of crash does not preclude the possibility that crash can occur.

ID: nht74-5.38

DATE: 04/22/74

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

TO: Meiji Rubber & Chemical Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your February 27, 1974, request concerning brake hose identification codes and labeling, conflicts of Federal and State standards, and procedures for certifying hose, end fittings, and hose assemblies in compliance with Standard No. 106, Brake hoses. This also responds to your March 25, 1974, (ref T-76) request for approval of your proposed hydraulic and vacuum brake hose labeling.

Notice 10 was published on February 26, 1974. It modified the labeling requirements, and a copy is enclosed. It is certain that another notice will be published shortly which may modify the marking requirements further. Therefore I advise that you not undertake modifications of your labeling in the near future.

In answer to your February 21 letter, if we require a code at a later date, the code will not relate to the MRA code. Concerning the marking of multi-piece fittings, the designation must appear on each part of a reusable end fitting, although this requirement is presently under reconsideration.

With regard to conflicting State regulations such as Pennsylvania's, our regulation as of September 1, 1974, preempts any State brake hose regulations which are not identical with respect to the some aspects of performance. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 provides at @ 103(d):

Whenever a federal motor vehicle safety standard established under this subchapter is in effect, no state or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. . . .

2

However, it is permissible, if a manufacturer wishes, for him to place Pennsylvania labeling on the reverse side of the hose.

It is the responsibility of the manufacturer to certify that his products comply with Standard No. 106. You may conduct a test program, or you may hire an independent test laboratory to conduct the test program for you. One test laboratory in the United States which tests brake hose is VPI of Blacksburg, Virginia. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not conduct certification tests, but it does conduct tests on manufacturer products to enforce compliance.

In answer to your March 25 letter, the hydraulic brake hose marking on "Face A" appears to conform to the requirements of S5.2.2, assuming that letter "size" refers to letter height. Notice 10 permits the manufacturer designation to be other than block capital letters. "Face B" is not regulated by our standard.

With regard to the brake hose end fitting and brake hose assembly examples, they appear to conform to S5.2.3 and S5.2.4 if the letter "size" refers to letter height. It should be noted that Notice 10 excludes labeling of two-piece fittings and certain assemblies and that the next notice may make further modifications.

With regard to vacuum brake hose, your "Face A" example appears to conform to S5.2.2 if letter "size" refers to letter height. S5.2.1 is not applicable and therefore the stripe is not required. "Face B" is not regulated by our standard.

ENC.

MEIJI RUBBER & CHEMICAL CO., LTD.

February 21, 1974

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sirs:

Subject: Brake Hoses for FMVSS

As to the Part 571-Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS), Brake Hoses of Docket No. 1-5: Notice 8 published in the Federal Register Vol. 38, No. 218 issued on Tuesday Nov. 13, 1973, we shall be pleased if you will kindly show us about the procedure for getting the code nos.

1. We manufacture brake hoses and metal fittings, assemble them into oil brake hoses, and sell them to automobile manufacturers. We have got the Code No. 57-1 from MRA. Please show us the relation between the code no. of MRA and that of newly published FMVSS.

2. Please show us the relation between FMVSS and the specifications regulated by a state such as the State of Pennsylvania.

3. In order to get the code no. FMVSS, what procedure should be followed by company as ours, who manufactures hoses and several types of metal fittings, and assembles them into oil brake hoses?

4. There are several types of forms in our metal fittings. Is it necessary to get the code no. on the respective types of our metal fittings?

5. Please introduce us to the public institutions who can test and qualify oil brake hoses to get the code no. FMVSS.

Your generous cooperation would be highly appreciated.

Yours Sincerely

H. Tsukano, Sub-manager Technical Division

MEIJI RUBBER & CHEMICAL CO., LTD.

March 25, 1974

Docket Section National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: Submission of Comments on Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Docket No. 1-5: Notice 9

We would like to ask for the approval of our attached application about the Brake Hose Identification provided in the Docket No. 1-5; Notice 9 on the Federal Register, Vol. 39, No. 20, Tuesday, January 29, 1974.

H. Tsukano, Sub-Manager Technical Division

enc.

P.S. As for the expenses, we will pay on your request.

1

LABELING

I. HYDRAULIC BRAKE HOSE

1. Hydraulic brake hose (ID 1/8")

1-1. Printed parts

1-2. Face A (printed mark) (every 6 inches)

-- DOT MRCC 10/74 1/8 HR -- DOT MRCC

Notes: The color of printed letters is white.

The size of a letter is 1/8".

The width of line is 1/16".

MRCC stands for Meiji Rubber & Chemical Co.

1-3. Face B (printed mark)

M MEIJI RUBBER JAPAN 1/8 NO57-1 1974 SAE J1401

(which is indication of the approval for the export to a northern state (Pennsylvania).)

Notes: The white letters are printed continuously

The size of letter is 1/8".

M: The trade mark of Meiji Rubber & Chemical Co.

1/8: The inside diameter of hose 1974: year of production

N057-1: The approval number of RMA (Rubber Manufacturers Association) (444 Madison Avenue, New York 10022, U.S.A.) Line number 57

Yarn color code yellow yellow-black

RMA assignment Meiji Rubber Company, Ltd. attained on March 1st, 1967

SAE J1401 Society of Automotive Hydraulic Brake Hose

2. Hydraulic brake hose end fitting

DOT MRCC 1/8 H XY

Notes: Letters stamped

The size of a letter 1/16"

MRCC stands for Meiji Rubber and Chemical Co.

1/8: The inside diameter of hose X is the figure of production that comes after 197 Y means the month of production

3. Hydraulic brake hose assembly

DOT MRCC 10/74

Notes: Letters stamped

The size of a letter 1/8"

Rubber band width 8 mm red colored hypalon rubber

MRCC stands for Meiji Rubber & Chemical Co.

II. Vacuum Brake Hose (ID 3/8")

1. Printed parts

(A) Face A (printed mark) (every 6 inches)

-- DOT MRCC 10/74 3/8 VL -- DOT MRCC

Notes: The white letters printed

The size of a letter 5 mm

The width of line 3 mm

MRCC stands for Meiji Rubber & Chemical Co. 3/8 means the inside diameter of hose.

(B) Face B (printed mark) (every 6 inches) M MRCC JAPAN -- M ---

Notes: The white letters printed

The size of a letter 5 mm

The width of line 3 mm

M is the trade mark of Meiji Rubber & Chemical Co. MRCC stands for Meiji Rubber & Chemical Co.

ID: nht74-5.39

DATE: 02/01/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Mrs. L. M. Thompson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I would like to thank you for your interest in the safety benefits of the interlock system and for forwarding the Seattle newspaper advertisement which offers a method to bypass the seat belt interlock.

The interlock standard only requires that new vehicles be equipped with required safety equipment. Therefore a purchaser may have the system modified to accommodate circumstances, such as physical incapacity, which makes use of the belts unwise or inconvenient.

The advertisement of a system to circumvent the standard, however, is a different matter, and whether it is legally permitted is a conclusion which the courts will have to determine. This agency is reviewing the legal remedies available which might permit removal of such a product from the market. Having promulgated the interlock option as part of the occupant crash protection standard, whose validity was sustained in court, we are committed to taking all possible actions to insure its effectiveness.

January 8, 1974

Dept. of Transportations U.S. Government Washington, D.C.

Gentlemen:

I noticed this ad in a newspaper and(Illegible Word) if such an operation is legal.

If my memory is accurate I believe the car manufacturer were ordered by the Federal Govt. to install interlock(Illegible Word). If this is true, then wouldn't it be an illegal act for anyone to tamper or modify it?

Is there anything you can do to prevent this?

Sincerely,

Mrs. L. M. Thompson 9624 - 4th St N.E. Everett,(Illegible Word) 98205

TO ALL 1974 AUTO OWNERS or PROSPECTIVE OWNERS

Are you aggravated by this safety belt ignition interlock system that forces you to perform a certain sequence before the car will start?

You, the owner of a 1974 auto may modify the interlock system so that you can be sure, in an emergency, or any other time, that your car will start even if some part of the interlock system malfunctions. This modification also allows you to buckle your seat belt, or not, as it pleases you.

There is a simple way that any one can easily make the modification to his own 74 auto and bypass the interlock.

This information is available (with complete simple instructions) in a report that may be purchased for the low sum of $ 4.00 with satisfaction guaranteed. Enclose cash, check or m.o. and specity make, model, and engine.

ORDER YOUR REPORT CASCADE HOUSE Box 2170-A Renton, Washington 98055

Seattle Post(Illegible Word)

12-30-73

ID: nht74-5.4

DATE: 02/19/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; A. G. Detrick; NHTSA

TO: White Motor Corporation

COPYEE: J. W. MURRAY; MR. PESKOE; MR. VINSON

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of February 4, regarding the proposed owner defect notification letter for defect notification campaign #73-0140.

Your letter fails to conform to 49 CFR, Part 577 as it states in the second sentence that the defect exists in equipment items manufactured and supplied by Rockwell International Corporation. We do not consider this statement to be responsive to 577.4(b)(1). As White Motor Corporation in the manufacturer of the motor vehicles involved, its determination and the statement required pursuant to 577.4(b)(1) must be to the effect that it has determined that a defect exists in the vehicles you identify in the following sentence.

The wording used by White Motor Corporation in the owner letter for defect notification campaign #73-0242 is an example of a letter which does conform to the regulation.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is aware that there is a disagreement between White Motor Corporation and Rockwell International as to the exact cause of the defect. The NHTSA does not wish to become a party to this disagreement and in our opinion we cannot allow White Motor Corporation to use the owner notification letter as a forum to air their views.

I trust that you will make the appropriate changes to the owner notification letter and submit a revised copy to this office.

ID: nht74-5.40

DATE: 04/03/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 19, 1974, request for information in behalf of Mr. Robert J. Jones, concerning the commercial offer he received for a device that would defeat the ignition interlock device found on 1974 model passenger cars.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 authorizes the issuance of motor vehicle safety standards, one of which requires occupant crash protection, one aspect of which is the ignition interlock system. Section 108(a)(1) of the Act prohibits the sale, offer for sale, introduction into interstate commerce, or the importation of any motor vehicle which does not conform to the standards. Our regulatory authority over new vehicles ends, however, with the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale. While we can prohibit arrangements between a dealer and a purchaser to disconnect the interlock, where they are part of the sales transaction, we have no remedy against arrangements to defeat the safety features made after the sales transaction.

Nevertheless, while selling devices intended to defeat safety equipment may be legal, we consider such practices reprehensible since they increase the chances of death and injury on the highways. We are considering a variety of remedies for the situation reported by Mr. Jones.

ENCLS.

Congress of the United States

House of Representatives

Washington, D.

March 19 1974

Congressional Liasion National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Sir:

The attached communication is sent for your consideration. Please investigate the statements contained therein and forward me the necessary information for reply, returning the enclosed correspondence with your answer.

Yours truly,

Frank Thompson, Jr.

M.C.

Re: Mr. Robert J. Jones

FEBRUARY 27, 1974

Honorable Francis Thompson House of Representatives Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Thompson:

The enclosed letter arrived in the mail today.

Could you have someone on your staff direct this letter from Merit Enterprise to the proper "Consumer Advocate Bureau" or governmental watch dog agency as a register of my protest against obvious effort to thwart the new safety laws?

I protest this crazy bridgefree enterprise that allows groups like Merit Enterprise to make a buck by devising ways to short cut and render unworkable good laws.

Sincerely yours,

Robert J. Jones Lawrenceville, N.J.

Dear New Car Owner:

We trust that you are pleased with your 1974 automobile. We are not so sure that you are pleased with the seal belt-starter interlock system which is standard equipment under a Congressional mandate.

There are times when this system is not only inconvenient, uncomfortable, and impractical, but also unsafe. For instance, when a child is buckled in the passenger's seat, there is a chance that his face or neck can be severely injured in a collision by the shoulder harness.

We are sure that you have already found that an article in either the passenger or center seat makes it necessary to buckle the article up to start the vehicle. This is most inconvenient for those of us who transport a briefcase, a bowling ball, or even a bag of groceries.

Recognizing these shortcomings in the seat belt interlock system, Merit Enterprises manufacturers and markets BELT-MATE, a product which allows you, the vehicle owner to temporarily override the system when it isn't prudent for personal safety.

If you feel the decision, "To Buckle or Not to Buckle", should be made by you instead of Congress, send $ 4.98 in cash, check or money order for your BELT-MATE to Merit Enterprises, Box 4068, Hampstead, N. C. 28443. Your Belt-Mate comes complete with instructions - no wiring needed, and your satisfaction is guaranteed.

Allow 2 to 3 weeks for delivery. North Carolina residents add 4% sales tax.

Awaiting your reply.

Very truly yours,

John R. Merit

ID: nht74-5.41

DATE: 03/29/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; LAWRENCE R. SCHNEIDER; NHTSA

TO: TIRE RETREDING INSTITUTE

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 22, 1974, concerning an article in the November 1973 Retreader's Journal entitled "Repairing Torn Beads." You ask whether the article is correct when it states that casings with cord exposed in the bead area may be retreaded.

Standard No. 117 (S5.2) prohibits the retreading of any casing on which bead wire or cord fabric is exposed before processing. "Processing" encompasses the entire process, including the making of any needed repairs, by which a casing is retreaded. The NHTSA has taken the position that the only exception to this prohibition is that casings with exposed chafer fabric may be retreaded. A casing that before processing has any exposed bead or cord material other than chafer fabric, however, may not be retreaded. Therefore, insofar as the Retreader's Journal article states that casings with exposed cord in the bead area may be retreaded it is incorrect.

We have sent a copy of this letter to the Retreader's Journal.

CC: RETREADER'S JOURNAL

TIRE RETREADING INSTITUTE

February 22, 1974

Edward Wallace National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Several of our members have questioned thie practice of repairing damaged beads on passenger tires.

It has been our interpretation of Standard 117 that a damaged bead is an exposed bead and therefore can not be retreaded.

At a recent meeting of retreaders, a group of them took exception to our interpretation and quoted an article appearing in the Retreader's Journal. A copy of that article is enclosed.

Please let us know how to handle the question.

Philip H. Taft Director

Enclosure Omitted.

ID: nht74-5.42

DATE: 03/20/74

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

TO: Western Auto Associate Store

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your request for information on Standard 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars, and on a "Petition #2" concerning exemption of "Mopeds" from the motorcycle regulatory category.

Standard 119 applies to tires, not vehicles, and therefore it regulates only the manufacturer of the tire, not a retailer of vehicles like yourself.

The "Petition #2" to which you refer was filed by Mr. Robert Smith of Ohio Bikes, 631 Broad Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, asking for a redefinition of "motorcycle" to exclude Moped-type vehicles, and a change in the lighting standard to exclude Moped-type vehicles from the present motorcycle requirements.

Yours truly,

WESTERN AUTO ASSOCIATE STORE

RICHARD B. DYSON A'SST. CHIEF COUNSEL DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION

I thank you for your responsive letter Feb 4, 1974 concerning my inquiry on Status of Solex reports. In your letter you(Illegible Word) to a new standard affecting tires on mopels. Standard #119 effective March 1, 1975. Could you please furnish me with the specific requirements of this standard.

Also(Illegible Words) of a new Petition, referred to as Petition #2 which is currently before the D.O.T. asking that some of these requirements on mopels be(Illegible Word) to the extent that they not be classified with motorcycles but more in the cycle classification. Could you please furnished us with more detailed information regarding this Petition.

THANK YOU.

ID: nht74-5.43

DATE: 08/01/74

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

TO: Volkswagen of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 1, 1974, letter concerning Volkswagen's petition to exempt its pre-bent vacuum hose from some requirements of Standard No. 106-74, Brake hoses. You requested that we confirm that an in-line vacuum check valve is not regulated under the standard, and that the standard's use of "light duty" and "heavy duty" vacuum hose terminology corresponds to the use of those terms in the SAE Standard J1403a. We responded to the Volkswagen petition in a letter of July 2, 1974, to Mr. J. W. Kennebeck of Volkswagen.

You are correct in your conclusion that an in-line check valve like the valve in Volkswagen's pre-bent vacuum line is not a brake hose fitting subject to the requirements of Standard No. 106-74.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration tends to make the same distinction between light and heavy duty vacuum hose types as is made by the SAE Standard J1403a, which is based on the thickness of the hose wall. In addition to those sizes listed by the SAE we have added 9/32-inch hose.

YOURS TRULY,

VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.

July 1, 1974

Tad Herlihy, Esq. Office of Chief Counsel NHTSA

This will confirm our recent telephone conversation concerning FMVSS 106 applicable to brake hoses.

I understood you to say that Notice 11 of Docket 1-5 was not intended to serve as a response to our letter of April 26, 1974, which raised several questions concerning the applicability of S 9.2, 9.2.2, 9.2.3, 9.2.7 and 9.2.10 to certain pre-bent non-metallic vacuum hoses used by Volkswagen. You indicated that a separate response would be forthcoming in the near future.

You also confirmed that vacuum line check valves, regardless of where they are located in relation to the engine, whether in line, such as Volkswagen's, or directly connected to the engines, are exempt from Section 106.

In a separate telephone conversation, Mr. Ziwica raised the question as to whether the substance of the definition of "light and heavy duty vacuum brake(Illegible Word)" was identical to that used in SAE J 1403. I understand that it was the NHTSA's intent to incorporate the SAE definitional elements although somewhat different language was chosen. If my understanding is incorrect, please let me know as soon as possible.

Gerhard P. Riechel Attorney

cc: Mr. K.-H. Ziwica

ID: nht74-5.44

DATE: 08/01/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Lieberman; Tratras & Markowitz

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 16, 1974, forwarding to us a second sample defect notification letter regarding the failure of certain trailers manufactured by Bill's Trailer Manufacturing Company to conform to Standard No. 108.

Your notification letter still fails to conform to applicable requirements (49 CFR Part 577, copy enclosed for your further reference). Particularly, Part 577 requires a specific opening statement, which you have omitted, and a specific second statement, which you have altered. We refer you to the regulation regarding the opening statement. With respect to the second, it must state, following the regulatory format, that the manufacturer, Bill's Trailer Manufacturing Company, has determined that a safety related defect exists. We also prefer, in the case of a defect resulting from a noncompliance, that, in addition to describing the equipment that is missing and that will be installed (as you have done), the notification include a statement that the defect results from the failure to conform to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. This information could come at the end of the second sentence of your first paragraph, which we assume will be rewritten to conform to this letter. In other respects your letter does conform to Part 577.

For your information, any future defect reports should be sent to the Office of Defects Investigation rather than to this office.

NHTSA has discontinued its mailing list concerning new regulations. I enclose a copy of an information sheet on how to obtain our standards and other regulations.

ID: nht74-5.45

DATE: 08/01/74

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

TO: Bayerische Motoren Werke AG

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to BMW's June 20, 1974, question whether 7/16-inch vacuum tubing may be manufactured and sold although it does not appear in Table V of Standard No. 106-74, and if so, what Table V values would be used in testing it.

Table V establishes test values for vacuum hose but does not limit the vacuum hose sizes which may be manufactured and sold in conformity with the standard. You are free to utilize 7/16-inch vacuum hose, and the Table V test values for 15/32-inch hose should be used to test 7/16-inch hose.

We are considering the addition of an entry in Table V to cover 7/16-inch hose in the near future.

YOURS TRULY,

Bayerische Motoren Werke KTIENGESELLSCHAFT

AIR MAIL

Docket Section

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

June 20, 1974

Betreff: Standard 109; Vacuum Brake Hose Tests

With reference to Table V (38 FR 31308) of the subject standard, BMW would like to forward the comments and requests contained below.

Table V lists various values relating to vacuum brake hoses of different inside diameters. We are presently contemplating the use of such a hose whose I.D. is 11.1 mm, or 7/16 of an inch, which is not included in the table.

There is concern here that it may have been omitted if, for some reason, this size is not approved.

If use of the 7/16 inch size is permitted, we would like to have written statement to that effect - since it is not part of the present table - and would further request that, in the interest of completeness, this size be included in future tables.

Accordingly, we await your reply.

ppa. i.v.

(Kraft) (Fellerer)