ID: nht93-6.26

DATE: September 1, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Frank Millar

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter (fax) dated 4/28/93 from Frank Millar to John Womack (OCC 8599)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, and Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Recommended Practice J201. I apologize for the delay in our response. You asked about the significance of the two documents for manufacturers and consumers. You also asked whether you are correct in interpreting section S5.2.1 of Standard No. 105 as requiring the parking brake of a Toyota Camry with a standard (stick shift) transmission to hold the car stationary on a hill with a 30 percent grade in both forward and reverse directions for five minutes. Your questions are addressed below.

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. All motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards.

Standard No. 105 is one of the safety standards issued by NHTSA. The standard specifies requirements for hydraulic service brake systems and associated parking brake systems, for the purpose of ensuring safe braking performance under both normal and emergency situations. The standard applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with hydraulic service brake systems. Manufacturers must ensure that each new vehicle complies with each applicable requirement of the standard. The standard specifies the specific test conditions under which each performance requirement must be met.

You asked the agency to confirm your understanding that section S5.2.1 of Standard No. 105 requires the parking brake of a Toyota Camry with a standard transmission to hold the car stationary on a 30 percent grade for five minutes in both forward and reverse directions. Section S5.2.1 reads as follows:

Except as provided in S5.2.2, the parking brake system on a passenger car ... shall be capable of holding the vehicle stationary (to the limit of traction on the braked wheels) for 5 minutes in both a forward and reverse direction on a 30 percent grade.

Section S5.2.1 thus applies to all passenger cars, except as provided in S5.2.2. The alternative requirement set forth in S5.2.2 is only available for certain vehicles with a transmission or transmission control which incorporates a parking mechanism. Vehicles with standard transmissions do not typically have such a parking mechanism. Assuming that a Toyota Camry does not have a parking mechanism, it would be required to meet the requirements of S5.2.1.

I note that, even assuming that a vehicle meets the requirements of S5.2.1, it would not follow that the parking brake system would hold the vehicle stationary on a 30 percent grade under all real world driving conditions. As indicated above, Standard No. 105 specifies specific test conditions under which its performance requirements must be met. In the case of the standard's parking brake requirements, the specified test conditions include such things as control force and test surface. Also, the requirement only applies to the limit of traction on the braked wheels. Thus, if a 30 percent grade has a slippery surface, the vehicle might slide down the grade even though its parking brake system held the wheels locked. Finally, the requirement applies only to new vehicles and not used ones.

You also asked the significance of SAE J201 to manufacturers and consumers. The Society of Automotive Engineers is an independent, non-governmental group. In some cases, NHTSA has incorporated portions of that organization's recommended practices into its safety standards. Since the agency has not done so with SAE J201, that recommended practice does not have any significance to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. NHTSA can only comment on the significance of its own standards and regulations and not on ones issued by other organizations or agencies. Therefore, we suggest that you contact SAE concerning the significance of SAE J201.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact David Elias of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht93-6.27

DATE: September 1, 1993

FROM: Carolyn McDaniel -- Attorney at Law

TO: Mary Versailles -- Office of General Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/27/93 from John Womack to Carolyn H.

McDaniel (A41; Std. 208)

TEXT:

Your name was given to me to contact regarding a traffic accident involving prisoners being transported in vans. I was retained by a group of prisoners being extradited by a company called Extradition Services Inc., or ESI, out of Michigan. They were involved in an accident in the state of Texas. The driver fell asleep at the wheel and ran into the back of a truck. They were extraditing prisoners from Texas and other parts of the U.S. to several other states including Colorado and Florida. However, their primary destination was Michigan.

They were in an extended Dodge van, bars over the windows, handles off the doors, one bench in a wire cage, two more bench seats and a bench seat across the back of the van. The aisle ran along the passenger side of the van. The seats appeared to be the original seats and seat belts apparently had been removed because none were present.

The number of prisoners the van was carrying ranged from 10 to 12 on the average, but was frequently up to 14 or more. Sometimes prisoners had to sit on the floor.

The two drivers would often drive in excess of 48 hours without rest stops. The drivers would sleep for only 2 hours each. They were also seen taking some type of pills.

My clients were denied food and restroom stops. It became so bad at times, they had to urinate on the floor.

The insurance company for ESI, Amerisure, has tried to force them to sign NO-FAULT Insurance forms. We have not done so because Texas is not a no-fault state. These people have not even paid the hospital for the prisoners medical treatment at the time of the accident.

I do not like to see anyone treated the way these people were treated. Any company conducting themselves in this manner should be fined and have their licenses revoked.

I would appreciate any help or direction you can give me regarding the regulations ESI and their people would fall under as I am not familiar with those regulations. It is my understanding you are the expert on these types of complaints.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

ID: nht93-6.28

DATE: September 1, 1993

FROM: John P. Gach -- Marketing Coordinator, North American Lighting, Inc.

TO: Richard Van Iderstein -- Visibility & Controls Group, NHTSA

COPYEE: Dave Barnes

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/22/93 from John Womack to John P. Gach (A41; Std. 108)

TEXT:

It was a pleasure speaking with you again and thank you for the information on DRLs.

I'm following up in regard to our conversation on "Blu-Lite" (advertisement attached).

As discussed, we are curious about the feasibility of federal regulation in support of such a product. If I understand correctly, state laws also govern the use of blue lighting and limit it exclusively for vehicles responding to emergencies.

I would like to have a follow up conversation and discuss regulation issues related this product and similar devices in both OEM and aftermarket applications.

Thank you.

Enclosure (Wilson Emergency BLU-LITE) omitted.

ID: nht93-6.29

DATE: September 2, 1993

FROM: Donald W. Vierimaa -- Vice President-Engineering, Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: TTMA Engineering Committee; Tank Conference Engineering Committee; The 3M Company; Reflexite

TITLE: Conspicuity

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/7/94 from John Womack to Donald W. Vierimaa (A42; Std. 108)

TEXT:

We request three interpretations pertaining to S5.7 of FMVSS 108.

Conversion from S1 to English linear dimensions

May we consider the following nominal English dimensions equivalent for the purpose of compliance with S5.7 of FMVSS 108?

FMVSS 108 English English Citation Item Metric (actual**) (nominal)

5.7.1.3(b) Length of 300 mm 11.8 inches 12 inches red or white +/- 150 mm +/- 5.9 inches +/- 6 inches block of (150 mm (5.9 inches (6 inches sheeting to 450 mm) to 17.7 in.) to 18 inches)

5.7.1.3(d) Width of Grade 50 mm min* 1.9 inches 2 inches DOT C2 sheeting

5.7.1.3(d) Width of Grade 75 mm min* 2.9 inches 3 inches DOT C3 sheeting

5.7.1.3(d) Width of Grade 100 mm min* 3.9 inches 4 inches DOT C4 sheeting

5.7.1.4(b) Edge of white 75 mm min. 2.9 inches 3 inches sheeting to any lamp

5.7.1.4(c) Edge of red 75 mm min. 2.9 inches 3 inches sheeting to an amber lamp

5.7.1.4.1(a) Height of 1.25 m 49.2 inches 49 inches horizontal sheeting on rear

5.7.1.4.1(b) Length of 300 mm min* 11.8 inches 12 inches sheeting in upper contours of trailer

5.7.1.4.2(a) Height of 1.25 m 49.2 inches 49 inches horizontal sheeting on side of trailer

5.7.1.4.2(b) Alternative 25 mm min* 0.98 inches 1 inch width of two strips of Grade DOT C2 sheeting and their separation 25 mm max 0.98 inches 1 inch

5.7.1.5 Sheeting 3 mm min 0.118 inches 1/8 (0.125) certification inch character height

5.7.1.5 Sheeting 300 mm max 11.8 inches 12 inches certification marking separation

5.7.2.2(b) Alternative 100 mm max 3.9 inches 4 inches reflex reflector center to center separation

5.7.2.3 Reflex 3 mm min 0.118 inches 1/8 (0.125) reflector inch certification character height

* Assumed to be minimum. ** Significant decimal places for comparison.

The nominal English dimensions without underlining would appear to be acceptable conversions since they exceed the minimum metric dimensions. The nominal English dimensions underlined would, however, exceed the metric maximum dimension.

SAE J1322 JUN85, "Preferred Conversion Values for Dimensions in Lighting - Inch-Pound Units/S1," describes how English units may be converted to S1 (metric) units, but does not describe how to convert S1 units to English Units.

Vertical Location of Rear and Side Sheeting Cargo tank trailers may have a "vertical" surface only at their "belt line" which may be as high as 90 inches (2.3 m) above the ground. Retroreflective sheeting could, however, be located much closer to the ground, but for some

cargo tank trailers this may place the sheeting on non-vertical surfaces. In our comment of March 31, 1992 to Docket No. 80-9; Notice 4 we stated that "it is not clear from the proposed rulemaking as to where retroreflective material should be placed on curved surfaces of tank and some dump trailers or angled surfaces of some dump trailers."

One manufacturer of retroreflective sheeting states that "the sheeting could be applied at a maximum angle of 30 degrees to the vertical." This manufacturer reports that "An angle greater than this provides less conspicuity as defined by NHTSA."

May retroreflective sheeting be located significantly higher than 1.25 m above the road surface if there is no vertical surface lower than this height without installing structure just for the sheeting?

Upper Contour Sheeting

May the horizontal and vertical sheeting to the right and left upper contours of the trailer body required per S5.7.1.4.1(b) be of the dimensions and location shown in the enclosed figures 1 through 5?

Since a number of trailer manufacturers are presently installing conspicuity treatments in accordance with S5.7 of FMVSS 108 as standard equipment or at the request of their customers, your timely response is desirable.

ID: nht93-6.3

DATE: August 5, 1993

FROM: P. J. Harrington -- Assistant Chief, Northern Division, Dept. of California Highway Patrol

TO: Superintendent -- Potter Valley Community Unified School Dist.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/9/94 from John Womack to Maurice Hannigan (A42; Std. 205) and letter dated 3/31/93 from John Womack to W. C. Burke

TEXT:

This is to inform you that California Highway patrol has received a written interpretation from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regarding the marking requirements for replacement window glass in school buses. As you are aware, California has adopted the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard for safety glass used in motor vehicles.

In their letter (copy enclosed), NHTSA states a person who cuts a section of glass to size for installation in a motor vehicle is considered a manufacturer and is, therefore, required to mark the glass. The only exception to this is if the cut section of glass still contains the original markings, in which case remarking that piece of glass is not necessary.

The markings required must contain the following information: (1) the words "American National Standard" or the characters "AS"; (2) a number identifying the item of glazing; (3) a model number assigned by the manufacturer identifying the type of construction of the glass; and (4) the manufacturer's trademark.

It is recommended you contact the installer of your glass to notify them of these findings and have the glass in your school buses inspected for the proper markings. To obtain a number as required by this Federal Standard, your installer should contact Mr. John Messcra of the NHTSA at (202) 366-5300.

We are allowing an extended period of time by which the glass must be properly marked and in compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 205. The new compliance date is January 1, 1994. All school buses inspected by the California Highway Patrol after that date will not be certified if any of the glass is found not to comply with FMVSS 205.

Attached is an acknowledgement form. We would appreciate your Superintendent/Director, or designated alternate, completing and returning it to our office by September 1, 1993, in the addressed, postage paid envelope provided.

If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact the Northern Division Motor Carrier Safety Unit at (916) 225-2098.

ID: nht93-6.30

DATE: September 2, 1993

FROM: John M. Tolliday -- President, Dayman USA, Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, N.A.H.T.S.A. (NHTSA)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/16/94 from John Womack to John M. Tolliday (A42; Part 591 Sec 102(3); Also attached to letter dated 8/7/89 from Stephen P. Wood to Clifford Anglewicz (Sec 102)

TEXT:

We are hoping to import into the United States British Army Ferret Armored Cars of which I enclose two photos. These vehicles were manufactured around 1970. They are in a driveable condition, but all armaments have been removed.

I would be selling these on the basis they would only be used for off road purposes.

If we did import these vehicles would they be exempt from Federal Motor Vehicle Standards?

Thanking you in advance for your assistance.

ID: nht93-6.31

DATE: September 3, 1993

FROM: Charles E. Schumer -- Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime and Criminal Justice, House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary

TO: Barry Felrice -- Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, NHTSA

COPYEE: Barbara Gray -- Office of Market Incentives, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/21/93 from Howard M. Smolkin to Charles E. Schumer (A41; CSA S601)

TEXT:

Because my role in sponsoring the Anti Car Theft Act of 1992 (ACTA), interested parties often contact my office with questions about Department of Transportation rules implementing and interpreting ACTA. My practice is to refer such questions to you and your staff.

I want to draw your attention to one particular question that I have been asked and that I believe needs a clear answer. As you know, ACTA modified a statute which directs DOT to promulgate regulations requiring motor vehicle manufacturers to mark the major parts of the vehicles they produce with vehicle identification numbers (15 U.S.C. S 2021 et seq.). The statute constrains DOT's discretion by declaring that the DOT regulations may not impose on manufacturers costs of more than $15 per vehicle (with certain exceptions) (see 15 U.S.C. S 2024). The statute further provides that manufacturers may gain a partial exemption from the parts-marking requirement by installing anti-theft devices in some vehicle lines (see 15 U.S.C. S 2025). These anti-theft devices must be approved by DOT.

The question I want to bring to your attention is: Does the $15 per vehicle limitation in S 2024 also limit the cost of anti-theft devices approvable under S 2025? In other words, can a manufacturer gain an exemption from parts-making by installing an anti-theft device that costs more than $15 per vehicle? Providers of anti-theft devices have approached my office with this question.

I think it is clear from the statute that the S 2024 does not in any way limit anti-theft devices. Manufacturers are free if they wish to install anti-theft devices costing in excess of $15 per vehicle, and, if the device meets DOT standards, to gain thereby an exemption from parts-marking. Indeed, it is my understanding that the anti-theft devices currently being used by manufacturers to gain exemptions in fact cost considerably in excess of $15 per vehicle.

Although I believe this is the clear meaning of the statute, it is NHTSA's responsibility to interpret the statute for purposes of implementing it and I do not wish to opine about your views. Accordingly, I would like to know whether your understanding of this issue differs from mine.

Thank you very much for your attention to this matter.

ID: nht93-6.32

DATE: September 7, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: David Degenstein -- Manager, Product Safety & Compliance, Kenworth Truck Company

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/3/93 from David L. Degenstein to John Womack (OCC 8745)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. You asked whether the location you are considering for an automatic vehicle speed system control (i.e., a "cruise control") would meet the location requirement of Standard No. 101, and whether the control is excluded from the illumination requirements of the standard. As explained below, the answer to both questions is yes.

Your letter explained that your company is developing a vehicle that "will locate a cruise control switch in a console that is attached to the manual transmission shift lever, adjacent to the shift knob." You state that the switches on the console will be "operable by the driver." You believe that because the cruise control console's location is similar to that of a switch located on the vehicle floor console, illumination of the cruise control is not necessary.

Your first question asks whether the proposed location of the cruise control would meet Standard No. 101. S5.1 of Standard No. 101 specifies that each control listed in S5.1 "that is furnished" must be operable by the driver. S5.1 lists, under the heading of "hand operated control," the automatic vehicle speed system (i.e., the cruise control). Thus, under S5.1, a furnished hand operated cruise control must be operable by the driver.

It appears from your letter that the switches on the cruise control console are operable by the driver. Two photographs you enclosed show the cruise control as mounted on the manual transmission shift lever, and as located so close to the driver's seat as to be almost touching it. Accordingly, the proposed location of the cruise control console would be permitted by Standard No. 101.

Your second question asks whether your proposed cruise control would have to be illuminated under S5.3 of Standard No. 101. S5.3.1 excludes from the illumination requirements hand operated controls that are mounted on the floor, floor console or steering column.

You believe that your cruise control, while mounted on the transmission shift lever, should be considered mounted on the floor console. We agree that locating the control on the shift lever is similar to locating it on the floor console for the purposes of illumination requirements. This interpretation is based on agency precedent concerning S5.3.1's exception for controls on steering columns. In the preamble to a final rule dated May 4, 1971 (36 FR 8296), NHTSA determined that the exception for controls mounted on the steering

column extends to controls mounted on the steering wheel. Since the transmission shift lever bears the same relationship to the floor console as does the steering wheel to the steering column, controls on the transmission shift lever are excepted from S5.3.1's illumination requirements.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht93-6.33

DATE: September 7, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Reuven Koter -- Director, Baran Advanced Technologies Ltd.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter (fax) dated 7/21/93 from Reuven Koter to Rich Van Iderstine

TEXT:

We are replying to your FAX of July 21, 1993, to Mr. Van Iderstine of this agency, and are enclosing a copy of SAE J590b as you requested.

You have asked us to identify the U.S. regulations pertaining to turn signal and hazard warning signal lights including tell-tales. The applicable regulation is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Standard No. 108 incorporates by reference many SAE materials, including those regarding flashers. In addition to SAE J590b (turn signal flasher, with the exceptions noted in S5.1.1.19 and S5.1.1.20 of Standard No. 108) Standard No. 108 incorporates SAE J589 (turn signal operating unit, with the exception noted in S5.1.1.13), SAE J588 (turn signal lamps for vehicles less than 2032 mm in overall width and J1395 for wider vehicles), J910 (vehicular hazard warning signal operating unit) and J945 (vehicular hazard warning signal flasher). The turn signal pilot indicator specifications are at paragraph 5.4.3 in SAE J588 and J1395. NHTSA is not contemplating rulemaking concerning any of these requirements.

We understand from Mr. Van Iderstine that you are contemplating manufacturing a device that senses the sudden release of the accelerator pedal and activates the hazard warning lamp system. Under Standard No. 108, this device is permissible as original vehicle equipment (i.e. installed at the factory, or by the dealer before sale) if it does not impair the effectiveness of any of the lighting equipment that is required by Standard No. 108. We assume that the device would be automatically deactivated when the brake pedal is applied and that manual deactivation is not required. We further assume that the device is not activated under normal stopping conditions.

Finally, we assume that manual activation of the turn signals will override the device should it be operating at the time the turn signal control is activated. Under these assumptions, we do not believe that the device would impair the effectiveness of the stop, tail, and turn signal lamps required by Standard No. 108. However, the judgment of impairment is one made by the person installing the device who must certify (or ensure that the certification remains valid) that the vehicle incorporating the device complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Mr. Van Iderstine advises that no further details are currently available on ECE agenda item "Regulation No. 48."

Attachment

Copy of SAE J590B - Automotive turn signal flashers. (Text omitted.)

ID: nht93-6.34

DATE: September 8, 1993

FROM: Christopher S. Spencer -- Engineering

TO: R. C. Carter -- U.S. Department of Transportation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/25/94 from John Womack to Christopher S. Spencer (A42; Std. 121)

TEXT:

Allow me to introduce myself to you. I am an engineer at a manufacturer of air reservoirs for air braking systems. I am looking at modifying a present design. The new design is to improve the volume without increasing the need for more space. This design is to maintain a low cost as well. There is a problem with how to interpret the FMVSS-121 that I would like for you to help evaluate for me. According to FMVSS-121 Section S5.1.2.2 this reservoir should withstand a defined amount of pressure for 10 minutes. Generally speaking, this is 750 p.s.i. The safety standard does not clarify the test criteria specifically how the reservoir is to be sealed. We have tested two different ways. One shows acceptable results 100% of the time. The second way is not as impressive. Some people here say that both are valid test. My question to you is can we check reservoirs in either way. Why or why not. I look forward to hearing from you.