ID: nht81-3.23

DATE: 10/09/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Jellybean Express

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of September 9, 1981, concerning the Federal flammability requirements applicable to seat covers for child restraints. As explained below, if the seat cover is sold as an item of original equipment on a child restraint system, it must meet the flammability requirements of Safety Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. If the seat cover is sold as an item of aftermarket equipment, it is not covered by the standard. However, we would urge you to consider voluntarily complying with the standard.

Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR 571.213), sets performance requirements for child restraints as pieces of motor vehicle equipment. Section 5.7 of the standard provides that, "Each material used in a child restraint system shall conform to the requirements of S4 of Safety Standard No. 302 (S571.302)." Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, provides that when tested under specified conditions, material may not have a burn rate of more than 4 inches per minute (copy enclosed). Thus, if your seat cover is sold as a component on a new child restraint, that child restraint must comply with the requirements of S5.7 of Standard No. 213. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392 et seq., copy enclosed), manufacturers have the responsibility of certifying that they comply with all applicable standards. The agency does not grant prior approval or conduct tests to support a manufacturer's certification. Therefore, I am returning the sample of your seat cover.

Although Standard No. 213 only covers the manufacture of items of original equipment in child restraints, sale of your seat cover as an item of aftermarket equipment is indirectly affected by Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act. That section provides:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. . . .

Thus, none of the persons mentioned could not knowingly install your seat cover on a used child restraint if it renders inoperative the restraint system's compliance with Standard No. 213. However, the prohibitions of the Act and the standard do not cover sale of your cover as an aftermarket device nor its installation solely by the vehicle or equipment owner.

Regardless of whether your seat cover must comply with Standard No. 213, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment you have defect responsibilities under sections 151 et seq. of the Act. Those sections provide that manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must notify owners of safety-related defects in their products and remedy those defects free of charge. If your covers are highly flammable, this could be regarded as a safety-related defect.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

ENCLS.

(Illegible Word) EXPRESS

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL

Sept. 9, 1981

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writting per instructions of the Department of Transportation in San Francisco, CA, Mr. Joe Zemaitis.

We are a business in Sacramento California manufacturing childrens wear and accessories. One of the items we manufacture is a seat cover for childrens car seats. The Department of Consumer Affairs and Department of Transportation have determined that we do not need a special license to manufacture this item but we do need a determination as to the fire proofing requirements.

Mr. Zemaitis suggested that we write to you to request this determination. I have enclosed a sample of our product. Please tell us as soon as possible if we have to meet any fireproofing requirements and if we have to have it noted anywhere that this product meets Federal Fireproof standards.

Your expedious reply would be greatly appreciated as we have orders for our product and would not like to break any laws by putting something out on the market that is unsafe.

Fran Anderson Business Manager

ATTACHS.

ID: nht81-3.24

DATE: 10/09/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: A. Lakins & Sons, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter requesting confirmation of an informal opinion you were given in a telephone conversation with Mr. Steve Kratzke of this office. You were concerned about the requirements of Safety Standard No. 117 (49 CFR @ 571.117) and 49 CFR Part 574 (copies enclosed) regarding the information which must appear on the sidewall of retreaded passenger car tires. Your company would like to use a bead-to-bead retreading process which will remove all of the safety information and the DOT certification and identification number molded on the sidewall of the tire by the original manufacturer.

A retreader of passenger car tires is permitted to remove these markings, provided the retreader molds into or onto the sidewall of the retreaded tires the information and certification markings required by Standard 117 and Part 574. Section 6.3 of Standard 117 specifies the safety information which must appear on the sidewall of retreaded passenger car tires. This section explicitly gives the retreader a choice of retaining the information molded on the sidewalls by the original manufacturer or of molding the information into or onto the sidewalls during the retreading process. Since the retreading process you intend to use will remove the original labeling, you will have no choice but to mold the required information on the sidewalls during your retreading process.

With respect to the DOT certification label and the original manufacturer's identification mark, section 5.2.3 of Standard 117 provides that any passenger car tire casing that is to be retreaded must bear the DOT symbol of the original manufacturer as a certification that, at the time of manufacture, the tire met all the requirements of Standard 109. Ordinarily, in cases other than retreading, the removal of this DOT symbol from the passenger car tire by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor or motor vehicle repair business is prohibited by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section reads in part: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on . . . an item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . ." Since the DOT symbol is an element of design on a tire installed in compliance with Standard 109, any knowing removal by the parties listed in this section would be a violation of the section.

The prohibition in Section 108(a)(2)(A) which acts to prevent removal of the new tire certification symbol ceases to have effect when the tire is converted into a retreaded tire. This result is consistent with previous agency interpretations indicating that when a motor vehicle is converted from one type to another, section 108(a)(2)(A) ceases to require the vehicle's continued compliance with standards applicable to the vehicle as originally manufactured but not as converted.

Although both Standard 109 and Standard 117 require that tires be marked with a DOT symbol to certify compliance, the symbol affixed by the manufacturer of the new tire cannot serve also as the symbol to be affixed by the retreader. The retreader is required by section 6.1 of Standard 117 to affix its own DOT symbol to certify that the tire, as retreaded, fully complies with all the requirements of Standard 117. Chapter 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 574.5 specifies the location for the DOT symbol on the sidewall, as well as a manufacturer's code and other information which must be molded onto or into the sidewall immediately following the DOT symbol. The retreader's certification and identification mark serve the same purpose for the retreaded tire that the new tire manufacturer's certification and identification mark serve for the new tire. Thus, the retreader may remove the original DOT symbol and identification from passenger car tire casings during the retreading process.

If you have any further questions on this matter, please contact Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff (202-426-2992).

ENCLS.

A. LAKIN & SONS, INC.

July 7, 1981

Steve Kratzke Office of Chief Counsel NHTSA

Dear Steve:

This is a confirmation of our phone call of July 7, regarding sidewall information requirements for bead to bead retreaded tires we are planning to manufacture.

Please send us a letter setting forth these requirements with particular reference to the DOT identifications.

Thank you in advance for your help.

Frank J. Goossens

cc: LEWIS LAKIN; RONALD LAKIN

ID: nht81-3.25

DATE: 10/09/81 EST

FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- CHIEF COUNSEL-NHTSA

TO: J. KAWANO -- GENERAL MANAGER, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE - TOYOTA MOTOR CO., LTD.

TITLE: NOA-30 NONE

ATTACHMT: OCTOBER 3, 1988 LETTER FROM JONES TO BURKARD, EBNER, AND TEVES, FEBRUARY 3, 1981 LETTER FROM KAWANO TO BERNDT, JULY 10, 1974 LETTER FROM DYSON TO NAKAJIMA, MAY 24, 1974 LETTER FROM TEVES TO GREGORY, AND MAY 27, 1988 LETTER FROM TEVES TO JONES

TEXT: This responds to your letter of February 3, 1981, asking two questions about Safety Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems. The questions were asked in regard to a type of brake reservoir you are considering producing which would service both the braking system and the clutch.

The first question is whether an interpretation you have made of section S5.4.2 of the standard is correct. The essential issue to that question is whether hydraulic fluid which is available to the clutch, either for normal use of in the event of clutch failure, can be counted as part of the minimum capacity required by section S5.4.2 for the braking system. The agency interprets the standard to require that the minimum fluid capacity requirements for brake reservoirs be met by fluid which is not available to the clutch, either during normal use or in the event of clutch failure. Thus, as will be explained below, your interpretation is incorrect.

Safety Standard No. 105 establishes requirements for a vehicle's braking system, including minimum capacity requirements for the reservoirs. Neither this standard nor any other Federal motor vehicle safety standard includes requirements for the reservoirs of a vehicle's clutch. While nothing prohibits a manufacturer from producing a master cylinder which services both the vehicle's braking system and clutch, the minimum fluid capacity requirements for reservoirs must be met separated for a vehicle's braking system.

The first sentence of section S5.4.2 states:

Reservoirs, whether for master cylinders or other type systems, shall have a total minimum capacity equivalent to the fluid displacement resulting when all the wheel cylinders or caliper pistons serviced by the reservoirs

move from a new lining, fully retracted position (as adjusted initially to the manufacturer's recommended setting) to a fully worn, fully applied position, as determined in accordance with S7.18(c) of this standard.

This section specifies the total minimum fluid capacity that a vehicle's braking system reservoirs must have. That amount is determined by reference to the vehicle's braking system, i.e., by the fluid displacement which results when all the wheel cylinders or caliper pistons serviced by the reservoirs move from a new lining, fully retracted position to a fully worn, fully applied position.

The purpose of this requirement is to assure that a vehicle's braking system reservoirs have adequate fluid capacity to service the brakes.

The agency interprets section S5.4.2 to require that the minimum fluid capacity requirements for brake reservoirs be met by fluid which is solely available to the brakes. If fluid is available to both the brakes and the clutch, some of that fluid will be used by the clutch in normal service and thus be unavailable to the brakes. In the event of clutch failure, all of the common fluid may be used by the clutch. Therefore, while Standard No. 105 does not prohibit manufacturers from producing master cylinders with reservoirs that have some fluid available to both the braking system and clutch, none of that common fluid may be counted toward meeting the minimum fluid capacity requirements of section S5.4.2.

Your interpretation of section S5.4.2 is incorrect because it counts common fluid toward meeting these requirements. In reference to Figure 1 that you attached with your letter, no fluid above the top of the wall dividing X and Y from Z should be counted toward meeting section S5.4.2's requirements.

We are aware that this interpretation conflicts with our July 10, 1974, interpretation that you attached with your letter and regret any inconvenience. That interpretation indicated that all five designs included in your letter of May 24, 1974, appeared to conform to section S5.4.1, providing that the reservoir capacity requirements of section S5.4.2 were met. That interpretation did not properly consider the requirements of section S5.4.2, as discussed above. It should have indicated that designs (3) and (4) do not comply with Standard No. 105 because they cannot meet section S5.4.2's minimum capacity requirements without counting fluid that is common to the braking system and clutch.

Your letter also asked about which fluid should be counted in determining the minimum warning level specified in section S5.3.1(b). That section refers to a drop in the level of brake fluid in any master cylinder reservoir compartment to less than the recommended safe level specified by the manufacturer or to one-fourth of the fluid capacity of that reservoir compartment, whichever is greater.

The minimum warning level is thus determined by the fluid capacity of each compartment rather than by the total capacity of the reservoir, unless the manufacturer recommendes a higher safe level. In reference to Figure 1 that you attached with your letter, the compartments in question are X and Y. Thus, the warning level for compartment X must not be less than 1/4 of the capacity of X. Similarly, the warning level for compartment Y must not be less than 1/4 the capacity of Y. Since there may be safety advantages to higher warning levels, particularly where the capacity of individual compartments is small in relation to the capacity of the reservoir, you may wish to specify a higher warning level such as that indicated in Figure 1, i.e., at a level above the wall separating X from Y.

ID: nht81-3.26

DATE: 10/13/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Paccar Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of September 16, 1981, in which you requested our views on whether Paccar may use its name on the certification label of vehicles manufactured by its Mexican affiliate.

This agency's regulations provide that each vehicle's certification label must contain "the full corporate or individual name of the actual assembler of the vehicle." See 49 CFR 567.4(g)(1). The only relevant exception to that requirement is set forth in section 567.4(g) (1) (i), which states that if "a vehicle is assembled by a corporation that is controlled by another corporation that assumes responsibility for conformity with the standards, the name of the controlling corporation may be used." Thus, the answer to your question depends upon whether Paccar "controls" Kenworth Mexican, the Mexican affiliate.

Your letter states that Paccar effectively owns a 49 percent interest in Kenworth Mexicana, the maximum permitted under Mexican law. Based on your telephone conversations with Roger Fairchild of this office, we understand that the vehicles to be produced in Mexico are of Paccar design, with Paccar control over all matters relating to compliance with safety standards. In fact, any design changes in the vehicle must apparently be approved by Paccar under your agreement with the Mexican company.

In these circumstances, we conclude that Paccar may use its corporate name on the Mexican vehicles' certification labels notwithstanding the less than majority equity interest in the Mexican company. The "controlling corporation" exception to the general requirement that the vehicle assembler's name must appear on the certification label was enacted in recognition of the fact that "particularly in some foreign countries, assembly of a vehicle may be performed by a subsidiary corporation controlled by a parent that is the generally known 'nameplate company.'" The agency determined that in such a sitaution, "no important purpose is served by requiring the name of a lesser-known subsidiary corporation on the label." See 34 FR 11360, July 9, 1969. Further, the agency has previously stated in one of its interpretations that the "purpose of the manufacturer's designation in the certification regulations is to identify the company that has primary technical responsibility for conformity of the design and quality control of the assembly." Particularly with respect to the design aspects, Paccar meets this test.

If you have further questions in this area, please feel free to contact us.

ID: nht81-3.27

DATE: 10/15/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Colt Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter asking whether any Federal regulations apply to propane fuel systems designed for use in motor vehicles.

I am enclosing an information sheet which sets forth the implications under federal law of converting gasoline-powered vehicles to use propane or other types of gas, as well as a general discussion of auxiliary fuel tanks. From that discussion, you will see that there are no safety standards directly applicable to propane fuel systems on motor vehicles, if propane is the only fuel involved. There are, however, specifications under the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety regulations relating to propane fuel systems on commercial vehicles or to tanks used for shipment of propane gas in interstate commerce. If your tanks will be used on vehicles other than private vehicles, these regulations may be of interest to you. For further information, you may contact Mr. W. R. Piste of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (202-426-0033).

ENC.

Colt Industries Inc

August 17, 1981

Frank Bernt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Bernt:

A division of Colt Industries is interested in developing and marketing a liquified propane gas fuel system for motor vehicles.

It is naturally of vital importance that we be familiar with any federal design, performance or private laboratory (United Laboratories) approval regulations that might exist. On this matter, our contact with NHTSA officials has uncovered no such regulations. Your comments would be most appreciated.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you should have any questions.

SINCERELY,

DON W. UPSON

cc: W. POTOROKA

ID: nht81-3.28

DATE: 10/20/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Johnson, Campbell & Moesta

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter requesting confirmation that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has not issued any safety standards or regulations concerning the use of brake hose as a fuel line in commercial vehicles. Mr. Vernon Bloom of the NHTSA apparently told you that the agency has no standards regarding vehicle fuel lines.

Mr. Bloom is correct in his statement that no Federal safety standards or regulations preclude the use of brake hose as a vehicle fuel line, and that there are no standards directly relating to fuel lines. However, the agency does have a safety standard which indirectly involves fuel lines. Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity (49 CFR 571.301), specifies performance requirements governing fuel systems on new motor vehicles. The standard specifies the maximum amount of fuel leakage that may occur following a barrier crash test of a new vehicle. Although the individual components of the fuel system, such as the fuel tank, do not have to meet specific requirements, each component obviously must be durable in order for the entire system to meet the general performance requirement of Safety Standard No. 301. Therefore, you should ascertain whether the brake hose you intend to use as a fuel line would compromise a vehicle's ability to comply with that standard.

I would also point out that, although there are no safety standards directly relating to fuel lines, manufacturers are responsible for any safety-related defects which may occur in their vehicles or equipment. Section 151, et seq., of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provide that manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must notify owners of vehicles and equipment with safety-related defects and remedy those defects free of charge. Under these provisions, you would be responsible if it were determined that your fuel lines constituted safety-related defects.

SINCERELY,

JOHNSON, CAMPBELL & MOESTA, P.C.

September 8, 1981

Chief Counsel National Highway Safety Administration

Dear Sir:

On September 1, 1981 I spoke with Mr. Vernon Bloom, Engineer for NHSTA in Washington, D.C., as to whether or not NHSTA had any standards as to the use of Synflex brake hose as a fuel line in commercial vehicles. Mr. Bloom has informed me that NHSTA has no standards regarding fuel lines.

I am writing this letter requesting a formal written statement that NHSTA has no standards as to fuel lines.

Your anticipated cooperation in this matter is greatly appreciated.

VERY TRULY YOURS,

Daniel M. Jaworski Legal Assistant

ID: nht81-3.29

DATE: 10/28/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Hogan & Hartson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of December 15, 1980, in which you petitioned the agency to withdraw its recommended definition of "moped" and to define the vehicle commonly referred to as a "moped" uniformly throughout the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Your first petition requests the withdrawal of the recommended definition of "moped", which the agency made available as part of its series of recommendations relating to this category of vehicles.

The principal issue relates to the agency's definition of moped as a category of vehicles with pedals. In your view, the pedal requirement arbitrarily discriminates against vehicles which lack pedals but are otherwise identical to the vehicles defined in the current recommendations. To evaluate your position, the agency carried out a comparison of moped performance parameters to ascertain whether quantifiable safety differences exist between vehicles with and without pedals. The results of this analysis indicated that there are no significant differences, and the agency has therefore determined that it is appropriate to amend the definition of moped in the recommendation by removing the reference to pedals. In addition, the agency notes that the Economic Commission of Europe (ECE) regulations do not require mopeds to have pedals. Thus, to adopt your proposed definition will also aid international harmonization.

Consequently, the agency will shortly issue an advisory notice to the public of the amended definition, as it appears below, and seek additional public views for a period of thirty days.

"Moped" means a motor-driven cycle whose speed attainable in 1 mile is 30 mph or less, which is equipped with a motor that produces 2 brake horsepower or less. If an internal combustion engine is used, the piston displacement shall not exceed 50 cc and the power drive system shall not require the operator to shift gears.

Your second petition relates to making uniform the various definitions of low-horsepower motorcycles found in the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (49 CFR Part 571).

We agree that the time is now ripe to make consistent the various definitions which apply to mopeds, and will issue shortly a notice of proposed rulemaking to add to 49 CFR 571.3(b) the definition of "moped" stated above. Likewise, we propose to substitute the term "moped" for the various phrases which define this class of vehicles in 49 CFR 571.108, 49 CFR 115, and 49 CRF 571.122. In the case of 49 CFR 567.4(g), the presence of the term "moped" in 49 CFR 571.3(b) offers sufficient authority to identify a moped on the certification label when appropriate. Since the agency has indicated that it will soon propose rescinding Standard 127, it is unnecessary at this time to propose revisions to that standard.

Along with your petitions, you have asked a number of questions relating to current NHTSA regulations. The first four questions and their answers appear below. The remaining two questions, relating to the effects on State law of FMVSS 108 and 127, are being considered separately and will be answered upon our completion of an overall review of the issue of preemption under the National Highway Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

ENC.

Question 1: The present definition of "motor-driven cycle" is a "motorcycle" with a motor that produces 5 brake horsepower or less. 49 CFR @ 571.3 (1979). Does this mean that a "motor-driven cycle" must comply with all the regulations that affect motorcycles, unless it is specifically excepted?

Answer: Motor-driven cycles must comply with all regulations that apply to motorcycles unless specifically exempted. If a particular subcategory of motor-driven cycles is exempted, that subcategory of motor-driven cycles need not comply.

Question 2: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard ("FMVSS") 123, 49 CFR 571.123 (1979), requires that motorcycles be equipped with footrests at each seating position. If mopeds are subject to this standard, do the pedals on mopeds that are equipped with pedals satisfy the footrest requirement for the operator's seating position?

Answer: Yes. The pedals on the moped serve as footrests even when the moped is being propelled by the engine.

Question 3: FMVSS 123 also requires that motorcycle brake systems be operable either by a right foot control or by handlebar controls. If mopeds are subject to this standard, are mopeds with propulsion pedal operated brake systems in compliance?

Answer: Yes. Since such brakes are operable by the feet, they would comply with the requirement.

Question 4: FMVSS 127, 49 CFR @ 571.127 at S.3 (1979) excludes motor-driven cycles from its requirement that each motor vehicle should have a speedometer. FMVSS 123 sets marking and illumination requirements for motorcycle speedometers, 49 CFR @ 571.123 at S.1, but does not exclude motordriven cycles. If the manufacturer of a cycle that is excluded by FMVSS 127 decides voluntarily to equip its product with a speedometer, must that speedometer conform with the requirements of FMVSS 123? Must it conform with the requirements of FMVSS 127?

Answer: FMVSS 123 requires that if a motorcycle uses a speedometer, that speedometer must meet all requirements of that standard. The fact FMVSS 127 requires certain vehicles to have speedometers does not affect the uniformity requirements of FMVSS 123. Therefore, the manufacturer of motor driven cycles whose maximum attainable speed in one mile is 30 miles per hour or less need not equip such cycles with a speedometer, but if it wishes to do so, the speedometer must comply with FMVSS 123.

ID: nht81-3.3

DATE: 07/31/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: C. J. B. Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. Carol Fitzjohn Quality Control Manager C.J.B. Industries, Inc. P. O. Box 779 Chanute, Kansas 66720

Dear Mr. Fitzjohn:

This responds to your June 2, 1981, letter asking about the requirements for reservoir tanks for air brake systems. In particular, you ask whether section S5.1.2.2 and S5.2.1.3 are the only Federal requirements applicable to the manufacture of the reservoirs.

The two sections that you referenced in your letter are the only sections specifying requirements for the construction of reservoirs for air brake systems. For additional guidance in the construction of reservoirs, you should refer to SAE Standard J10b titled "Automotive and Off Highway Air Brake Reservoir Performance and Identification Requirements." This standard will provide you with the prevailing industry practice in the construction of reservoirs.

You should be aware that you would be responsible under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act if there were any defect relating to motor vehicle safety in your product.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

June 2, 1981

NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel, NOA-30 400 Seventh St. Southwest Washington, D. C. 20590

Gentlemen:

As a manufacturer of pressurized containers, we from time to time are asked to design and or manufacture components for over the road vehicles; and as such have been approached recently by a prospective customer to manufacture a reservoir under the provisions of the "Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121." However, this is where the problem arises. The standard as written does not specify in detail the construction of the reservoir, with respect to materials to be used or the wall thickness of the tank, or list a reference to any other document to which this information is found.

It is imparative for us to manufacture components in the least expensive way and still maintiin a high degree of quality. Therefore, to exceed provisions of a standard only enhances the construction costs.

We would appreciate an opinion on the clarity of sections S5.1.2 through S5.2.1.5 as to whether the construction of said reservoir meet only the provisions of sections S5.1.2.2 and S5.2.1.3; or are there additional requirements not contained therein.

We appreciate any consideration to this matter you can give us in a short amount of time.

Respectfully,

Carol Fitzjohn Quality Control Manager C.J.B. Industries, Inc.

CDF/pac

ID: nht81-3.30

DATE: 11/02/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Meiji Rubber & Chemical Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter regarding the use of flexible nylon tubes in vacuum braking systems. You ask whether such plastic hoses would qualify as "vacuum tubing connectors" for purposes of Safety Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses.

We recently received a letter asking this identical question from Tokai Rubber Industries of Japan. I am enclosing a copy of that letter for your information. I believe that it will answer all of your questions. You will see from the letter that these nylon tubes cannot qualify as "vacuum tubing connectors" and must comply with the requirements of Safety Standard No. 106.

Sincerely,

ENC.

TOKAI RUBBER INDUSTRIES, LTD.

April 20, 1981

Office of Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

Subject: Questionnaire Concerning the Application of All Plastic Vacuum Brake Hoses

Dear Sirs,

Our company, Tokai Rubber Industries, Ltd. is supplying vacuum brake hoses to Japanese automotive industries, which have both met the requirements of the standards of FMVSS-106(1974), S9 and been approved by your department.

As you know, it has began to make use of the variety of vacuum brake hose instead of conventional rubber vacuum hose in application to brake systems.

Tokai Rubber Industries, Ltd. has been developing and making plans for the supply of several kinds of plastic vacuum brake hoses which are composed of a single material and are molded in an exact, set shape for the specific application. We are intending to utilize two(2) flexible nylon tubes for a vacuum braking system, and our concept of assemblies is the following:

(Graphics omitted)

We have found, however, that these plastic vacuum brake hose does not meet several requirements of the FMVSS-106, S-9 due to the feat that their characteristics are different from the conventional type vacuum brake hoses, and therefore we would like to clarify the following points: (1) The molded plastic vacuum brake hose apparently does not meet the above mentioned requirements, such as Bend (S9.-2.7.) and Deformation (S9.2.10) of the FMVSS-106, S9. Is there any alternative standard or requirement?

(2) Based on the notice for amendment to the definition in the Standard No.106-74, a definition for 'vacuum tubing connector' is added. is our nylon flexible tube and assembly indicated above in a category of 'vacuum tubing connector'?

(3) If so, there is no federal rule concerning vacuum brake hoses to use in a vacuum brake booster system. Can we design a vacuum brake hose and assembly only based on manufacturer's performance standards ?

I thank you very much for your help and consideration in this matter and I am looking forward to hearing from you soon.

Very truly yours,

John Y. Yonezana -- Engineer - Development

cc: Mr. Sugimoto, Tokai

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF MOTOR VEHICLE ADMINISTRATORS

April 2, 1981

John Y. Yonezawa -- Tokai Rubber Industries, Ltd.

Dear Mr. Yonezawa:

Reference is made to your letter of February 20, 1981 in which you have requested our interpretation of the FMVSS-106 as it addresses brake hose and vacuum tubing connectors.

We have reviewed your questions and have tried to interpret the standard as it applies to your application and have contacted Mr. Vern Bloom at NHTSA for his interpretation of the 106 standard. Mr. Bloom (Illegible Words) your questions directly - the Office of Chief Counsel at NHTSA for a formal interpretation of the standard. This would preclude any misinterpretation which could be very costly to your firm.

AAMVA, as agent of the states and provinces, must use the FMVSS-106 for the certification of brake hose. If it is determined by NHTSA that the hose or device is not subject to the FMVSS-106, then it is not necessary to have it certified by us.

When NHTSA gives Tokai Rubber Industries their interpretation, we would appreciate receiving a copy for our reference.

We are sorry that we were not able to answer your questions in this matter.

Sincerely yours, George E. Walton -- Associate Director, Safety Equipment Services MEIJI RUBBER & CHEMICAL CO., LTD.

September 30, 1981 Our Ref. T-859/TT/tm

Messrs. Office of Chief Council

Dear sirs

RE: Inquiry to your interpretation on our plastic made vacuum brake hose through AAMVA

We are one of leading automobile hoses manufacturers in Japan, and developing new material's vacuum brake hose which made from Poly-amide resin to replace from conventional rubber hose.

However, you specify that vacuum brake hose must be conformed to all items of requirement in FMVSS 106, our nlyon made vacuum hose (not reinforced with any fiber, so we call it as "tube") don't satisfy S9.2.10 Deformation test and S10.6 Bend test.

This is the common problem of plastic made vacuum brake hose which developed by several manufacturers, we've asked the interpretation of yours against the adoption of this new material's hose to AAMVA.

Mr. George Walton Associate Director of AAMVA might request your interpretation to our inquiry that whether Nylon vacuum brake hose has a possibility of acceptance as vacuum brake hose which connect between rigid points or not.

We are awaiting your interpretation of Nylon vacuum brake hose, please inform us.

Enclosed please find the copies of our letter to Mr. Walton. Although we were asking him in our letter, it was also the question to you.

We must excuse our sudden request, but if you kindly inform us your interpretation or advise, it would be much appreciated for us.

We are looking forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience, we remain,

Yours sincerely

T. Takano -- Chief of Development Dept.

Encl: Copies of our inquiry letter addressed to Mr. Walton AAMVA

c.c. to Mr. Walton

June 3, 1981 Our Ref. T-809/TT/tm

George E. Walton -- Assistant Director Safety Equipment Service, American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators

Dear Mr. Walton Much appreciated for your kind reply in your letter dated April 7 to our question on plastic made Vacuum brake hose.

You've kindly enclosed latest FMVSS-106-74 and suggested us to carry the test in compliance with the standard out.

As the result, we have found that our plastic vacuum tube (not reinforced with any fiber, so we call this "tube") is conformed to the requirements such as High temperature resistance, Low temperature resistance, Ozone resistance, Burst strength, Vacuum and Swell test, but not conformed to Bend and Deformation tests.

Since we use Polyamide 11 material (fewer plasticizer contained), Kink phenomenon was happened when our vacuum tube was bent as way of bend test as specified. It was more than the collapse, completely yielded at the A point. In the Deformation test, our 3/8 inch I.D. tube was only conformed to the specification, but larger I. D. tubes 1/2 inch were not conformed.

Our technicals insist that so far as we use polyamide material to make the tube, it is inevitable to ocurr Kink phenomenon and inferior deformation restorative rate compared to rubber tube.

Notwithstanding such weak point, plastic tubes (mainly it is consisted with Nylon material) are available to automobile use. We hear Nylon made vacuum tube has been adopted to European vehicles before long and we can find particular specification of plastic tubing for its nominal diameter, end fittings and its assembly way in S9, Requirement-Vacuum brake hose of FMVSS 106.

In case of the appearance of developed products made by new material, it is usual to adapt the specification to new material, we believe.

Therefore we would like to ask you followings,

1. When your country import the vehicles which are installed Nylon made vacuum brake hose from Europe, you can accept them or not, we wonder. Because, European Nylon tube may also have inferior property against severe bend compared to conventional rubber made hose, we are afraid.

If you have special treatment for them, please inform us.

2. As FMVSS specifies particularly for plastic tube or assembly, we expect, you AAMVA or NHTSA might have some adaptation to introduce these new developed plastic vacuum brake tube, or your administrators may be planning to adapt existent specification or requirement to such a plastic made tube.

If so, could you please inform us such a tendency?

We are sorry to trouble you again, but if you would inform us your situation or tendency, it would be much helpful for us.

Yours sincerely

T. Takano -- Chief of Development Dept., MEIJI RUBBER & CHEMICAL CO., LTD.

July 7, 1981 Our Ref. T-826/TT/tm

George E. Walton -- Associate Director, Safety Equipment Services, American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators

Dear Mr. Walton

Thank you so much for your kind answer and exertion to our question.

At the moment, we don't yet receive any interpretation from NHTSA, unfortunately.

One of our manufacturers of these sort of tube interprets that vacuum brake hose is not fixed between swinging part as like as hydraulic brake hose, only for connecting between stationary parts such as engine to cleaner. Therefore vacuum brake hose can be regarded as rigid piping. If so, Nylon vacuum brake hose is not required severe flexibility and severe bending.

We are not sure that his interpretation is acceptable with you or not, but we think, there is some truth in what he says as far as Nylon vacuum hose connect between stationary parts.

Sorry to trouble you so often, but could you please address his interpretation to National Highway Traffic Safety Administration?

Enclosed pleased find a piece of V. W. Golf GII Vacuum hose with plastic made check value for your reference.

We are looking forward to hearing from you and are always appreciating for your favour.

Yours sincerely

T. Takano -- Chief of Development Dept. MEIJI RUBBER & CHEMICAL CO., LTD.

Encl: a piece of sample

ID: nht81-3.31

DATE: 11/02/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Department of Transportation - New York

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your September 8, 1981 letter enclosing correspondence from Mrs. Barbara Stephens asking about extending the seat spacing in a school bus that is designed to transport handicapped children. You ask for general guidance in this area.

First, let me say that the safety standards apply to manufacturers of vehicles as well as those individuals that alter new motor vehicles. Further, repair businesses are not permitted to render inoperative the compliance of a vehicle with the safety standards. On the other hand, nothing prohibits an individual from rendering inoperative the compliance of his or her own vehicle with any safety standard.

In specific reference to seat spacing in school buses, two general rules apply. First, seat spacing is not regulated in vehicles with gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less. Accordingly, any modification of seat spacing in these vehicles is permissible. Second, in vehicles with GVWR's in excess of 10,000 pounds, seat spacing is regulated, and a manufacturer may not produce a vehicle whose spacing exceeds the specifications set in Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. Further, a repair business may not affect the seat spacing in a way that would violate the standard. An owner, however, may change the spacing in his or her own vehicle.

The agency has specifically provided for the transportation of the handicapped by allowing the installation of side-facing seats in school vehicles designated for handicapped transportation. We would suggest that this is a more suitable approach than extending seat spacing. By extending seat spacing, a school would be taking its vehicles out of compliance with the safety standards. In the event of an accident involving one of these vehicles, the school might be subject to unnecessary liability for having made these modifications to its vehicles.

I hope that this will be of use to you in advising schools of the Federal requirements, and if I can be of further assistance, please contact me.

SINCERELY,

NEW YORK STATE

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

September 8, 1981

Roger Tilton Office of Chief Counsel N.H.T.S.A.

Dear Mr. Tilton:

We recently received the attached request and contacted a member of your organization (Mr. Robert Williams) to determine the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards once a vehicle reaches the users hands.

Since Medical Motor Service intended to modify the vehicle after taking title, it was determined that the standards did not apply since they are designed for manufacturers and manufacturers' representatives.

In discussing this situation, it was decided that we should send you a copy of the request since your organization is in the process of analyzing needs for handicapped transportation. We would appreciate your reactions and thoughts concerning the proposed modification. It is quite possible that similar circumstances might arise in the future and since we have no substantive guidelines to follow, your research in this general area might provide us with some input that will enable us to better cope with these situations.

We have already advised the company officials that there are no restrictions that would deny them the right to modify their vehicle so we are not delaying this operation in anyway while your review process takes place. Thank you for any help you can provide in this area.

JOHN H. SHAFER, Director Traffic and Safety Division

BY

MARTEN V. CHAUVIN, Chief Carrier Safety Bureau

ATTACH.

CC: BARBARA M. STEPHENS, EXECUTIVE DIR, MEDICAL MOTOR SERVICES; G. HUSSONG, TRAFFIC & SAFETY, REGION