ID: nht93-7.16

DATE: October 7, 1993

FROM: Donald E. Schmitz -- Engineering Manager, Featherlite Mfg., Inc.

TO: Howard M. Smolkin -- Acting Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/16/93 from John Womack to Donald E. Schmitz (OCC-9204)

TEXT:

This letter addresses the TTMA, September 8, 1993 Recommended Practice on Trailer Conspicuity Systems. Featherlite Trailers will begin applying the conspicuity tape to the trailer's bottom rail as shown in the attached sketches. The bottom rail is the most practicable tape location on our trailers since it provides a smooth, splice free surface and is not closer that 15 inches from the ground. Therefore it is as close as practicable to 49 inches from the ground.

Featherlite will assume our interpretation is correct and will begin applying this tape as described above and in the attached sketches unless we receive a response from your office within ten days.

ID: nht93-7.17

DATE: October 8, 1993

FROM: Thomas D. Price -- President, Strait-Stop Manufacturing Co., Inc.

TO: Marvin Shaw -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Senator Boren; Senator Nickles; Representative Bill Brewster

TITLE: Re: Docket N. 93-69; Notice 1 and Docket No. 92-29; Notice 2

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/3/94 from John Womack (signed by Kenneth Weinstein) to Thomas D. Price (A42; Std. 121)

TEXT:

I am hereby requesting immediate definition of specific technical terminology used in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) issued in FR/Vol. 58, No. 186/Tuesday, September 28, 1993. You indicated on the telephone, this week, you could not give assurance of a timely response to any questions for terminology definition. However in view of the scope and significance of the proposed standards, it seems mandatory, and in the best interest of all affected parties, that all commenters have a common basis of knowledge as to the intended meaning of specific technical terms, upon which they can base their responses required on or before November 29, 1993.

I questioned three professors of mechanical/electrical engineering at the University of Oklahoma as to the meaning of the terminology listed below and was unable to receive a comfortable commonality of definition. This would indicate that the listed terminology may have some specific meaning for the Agency that is not readily discernible by engineers who lack the prior association with the persons or entities which have developed specific understanding regarding definition.

1. On pages 50757 and 50760 of the reference documents, there are proposed amended definitions to S571.105, S4 and S571.121, S4 which delete the definition of "antilock system", and add the definition "antilock braking system". In the latter definition, in sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) the terminology "rate of angular rotation of wheels" and "rate of wheel angular rotation" are used, but lack definition. Please define this terminology.

2. There is a definite ambiguity as to the precise meaning of the term "performance". In some places it is obviously talking about the vehicle's ability to meet the standards of "stopping distance" and "lateral stability". However, in other places it is, just as obviously, referring to a step by step functional pattern designed to achieve the prior "performance" criteria, the achievement of which becomes a verification that the prescribed functional pattern is effective. Please define the terminology "performance" as it applies to the GOAL of the Agency to be accomplished by the proposed rules.

We urgently and respectfully request that the Agency provide the two definition clarifications specified above by November 8, 1993, which is one month from the date hereof.

ID: nht93-7.18

DATE: October 8, 1993

FROM: Frank Williams -- President, Safety Brake Set

TO: Office Of Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 4/21/94 From John Womack To Frank Williams (A42; Redbook (2); Std. 121

TEXT: Dear Sirs:

I have a patent applied for and am presently marketing a device which sets the brakes on an air brake vehicle when the driver exits the cat.

The device does not [Illegible Word] into the [Illegible Word] system but [Illegible Word] the [Illegible Word] button out if the driver is off the seat and the door is open. The brake then must be manually disengaged.

[Illegible Words]

Thank you,

ID: nht93-7.19

DATE: October 12, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Thomas Dougherty -- C.A.P.S. Inc

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/9/93 from Thomas Dougherty to John Womack (OCC 8995)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking about how this agency's regulations might apply to your product, the "E.A.R.S." system. You state that your product contains an LED light and an 82 decibel tone and serves to alert hearing impaired drivers of approaching emergency vehicles. You further state that the part of the system that alerts drivers plugs into the cigarette lighter, while a microphone is placed outside the vehicle. (You did not explain how or where the microphone is placed or whether a hole is drilled through the windshield.)

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations. I am also enclosing a copy of a fact sheet titled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment."

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the "Safety Act") defines, in relevant part, the term "motor vehicle equipment" as:

any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component OR AS ANY ACCESSORY, or addition to the motor vehicle ... (emphasis added).

In determining whether an item of equipment is considered an accessory, NHTSA applies two criteria. The first criterion is whether a substantial portion of the expected use of the item is related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. We determine a product's expected use by considering product advertising, product labeling, and the type of store that retails the product, as well as available information about the actual use of the product. The second criterion is whether the product is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles. If the product satisfies both criteria, then the product is considered to be an "accessory" and thus is subject to the provisions of the Safety Act.

Applying these criteria to the E.A.R.S. system, it appears that this product would be an accessory and thus an item of motor vehicle equipment under the Safety Act. Based on our understanding of the product, it appears that the entire portion of the expected use of the E.A.R.S system relates to motor vehicle operation. That is, the system is intended to alert the vehicle driver about an oncoming emergency vehicle. Also, it appears that the product would typically be used by ordinary users of motor vehicles, in particular, hearing impaired drivers.

While it appears that the E.A.R.S. system is an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA has not issued any standards for such a device. Nevertheless, there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect the manufacture and sale of your product. You as the product's manufacturer are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

A commercial business that installs the E.A.R.S. system would also be subject to provisions of the Safety Act that affect modifications of new or used vehicles. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) provides that:

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 or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

This means that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business must not install your device if the system renders inoperative the vehicle's compliance with the FMVSS's. For instance, compliance with Standard No. 205 might be degraded if it were necessary to drill a hole through the windshield. Any violation of this "render inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation.

Please note also that the render inoperative prohibition does not apply to modifications that vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners install the E.A.R.S. system in their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade any safety device or system installed in their vehicles. In addition, individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their vehicles, so you might wish to consult State regulations to see whether your device would be permitted.

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

ID: nht93-7.2

DATE: September 30, 1993 Est.

FROM: Randolph Schwarz

TO: John Messera -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/5/94 from John Womack to Randolph Schwarz (A42; Std. 116)

TEXT:

I would appreciate your help in getting a few short questions answered regarding DOT 5 silicone brake fluid. I had called the NHTSA Hotline and was advised that, as the Engineer for FMVSS 116, you are currently the appropriate person to contact.

My basic question is that when retrofitting a vehicle with DOT 5 silicone brake fluid, does one have to be concerned with the compatibility of this fluid's seal swelling additives with various elastomers that may be used in past and present brake systems, such as SBR, EP, EPDM, neoprene, etc?.

Would the fact that a DOT 5 brake fluid meets Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 116 insure such elastomer compatibility?

With regard to elastomers, does FMVSS 116 only address SBR compatibility (SBR cup tests)?

If FMVSS 116 only mentions SBR, would it be advisable to add other elastomers to the specification or have an advisory note on the product container regarding elastomer compatibility/incompatibility?

Product information from Dow Corning and Union Carbide differ in FMVSS 116 DOT 5 requirement for maximum viscosity at -40 F (900 cSt vs. 1,500 cSt respectively). What should the correct specification be?

If it would help expedite matters, feel free to write your responses directly on this letter. Thank you for your help, and I look forward to hearing from you shortly.

ID: nht93-7.20

DATE: October 12, 1993

FROM: Michinori Hachiya -- Director and General Manager, Nissan Research & Development, Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/16/93 from John Womack to Michinori Hachiya (A41; Std. 208)

TEXT:

This letter requests your opinion regarding several aspects of the labeling requirements in the recent mandatory air bag rule. Our specific questions are set forth below.

1. Section 4.5.1(b)(2) of FMVSS 208, as amended in the recent final rule, states with regard to the information placed on the air bag warning label on the sun visor that "No other information shall appear on the same side of the sun visor to which the label is affixed." May the same information appear on the visor in French, immediately following the English text? Permitting the addition of a French translation would facilitate harmonization with Canadian requirements for dual language labels. The French translation would add no information that contributes to "information overload," in our opinion, nor is it likely to cause confusion.

2. Section 4.5.1(a) states that the air bag maintenance label may be combined with the air bag warning label, but section 4.5.1(b) generally prohibits the addition of information to the warning label. We assume that the more specific statement in section 4.5.1(a) is controlling, and the two labels may be combined on the same side of the sun visor. If this assumption is correct, are there restrictions on the manner in which the two labels may be combined? For example, may the air bag maintenance information be inserted into the warning label information immediately prior to the words "see owner's manual for further information and explanations"? This sequence would avoid the necessity of referring twice to the owner's manual for further information.

3. The mandatory air bag rule establishes type size and format requirements for the air bag maintenance label (section 4.5.1(a)), but no similar requirements for the air bag warning label in section 4.5.1 (b). Are we correct in understanding that the lettering of the warning label may be of any size or format, so long as the letters are legible? May different type size and formats be used if the two labels are combined?

4. NHTSA's Consumer Information Regulations provide that a utility vehicle rollover warning label may be affixed to the driver's side sun visor, and the label must include language urging the use of seat belts at all times. See 49 CFR 575.105(c)(1). However, the mandatory air bag rule prohibits placing (1) any additional information on the same side of the sun visor as the air bag warning label and (2) any other information about the need to wear seat belts anywhere on the sun visor. 49 CFR 571.208, section 4.5.1(b)(2). The mandatory air bag rule did not explicitly amend the consumer information provision to prohibit the sun visor location of the rollover warning label. Since part 575 continues to explicitly authorize

the sun visor location for the rollover label, we believe that these requirements can be reconciled by interpreting them to permit the rollover label to be placed on the opposite side of the sun visor from the air bag warning label. Do you agree with this interpretation? We understand that GM and Ford have filed petitions to reconsider section 4.5.1(b)(2) which raises the same issue.

5. It is our understanding that warning labels that do not refer to air bags or seat belts may continue to be placed on the side of the sun visor opposite from the air bag warning label. Nissan currently places a label on the sun visor of a convertible model which provides instructions regarding the use of the convertible top. May this type of label continue to be placed on the sun visor, so long as it is on the side of the visor opposite from the air bag warning label?

We request NHTSA to promptly consider these issues due to our lead time requirements. If you have any questions on this matter, please contact Mr. Toshio Horiuchi of my staff at (202) 466-5284.

ID: nht93-7.21

DATE: October 12, 1993

FROM: Kathy Rose -- Account Executive, FitzGerald Corporation

TO: Glen Beck -- U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Office of Motor Carriers

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/21/94 from John Womack to Kathy Rose (A42; Std. 108)

TEXT:

I called your office today and spoke to Bill Poole. I have a question regarding the "trailer conspicuity" ruling, enclosed is a copy of the first and last page of this ruling.

The FitzGerald Corporation is producing a "trailer skirting" aerodynamic product for van trailers (please see the enclosed literature piece for this product). In regards to the conspicuity ruling, we often have questions from our customers regarding whether it is legal to have the retroreflective tape that is regulated to be applied to the length of the trailer be placed below the trailer, on the trailer skirting (please see drawing enclosed on last page).

We appreciate your help on this and look forward to hearing from you.

Attachments: (Federal Register and Aero Flair brochure omitted.)

- - - -

11/8/93 letter from Joseph N. Cindrich (NHTSA) to Kathy Rose:

Your letter dated October 12, 1993 regarding Final Rule, Docket No. 80-9 associated with 49 CFR Part 571, Standard No. 108 was referred to us by Federal Highway Administration.

By copy of this letter, your request has been forwarded to our Washington Office of Enforcement (NEF-01), NHTSA Headquarters, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C., 20590. You should be hearing directly from them regarding any further contact.

We suggest you call our Auto Safety Hotline to get additional information on specific defects, crash tests, recalls, tire quality grading, odometer complaints, and other auto safety questions. (See enclosed pamphlet) The toll-free number is 1-800-424-9393.

Sincerely,

Craig Miller for Joseph N. Cindrich, Regional Administrator, NHTSA

- - - -

10/15/93 letter from Glenn R. Beck (Federal Highway Administration) to Joseph Cindrich:

The attached correspondence was received at our division office from the FitzGerald Corporation who is seeking an interpretation of your Final Rule, Docket No. 80-9 associated with 49 CFR Part 571, Standard No. 108. It is being forwarded to your office for whatever action you deem appropriate.

Thank you for your interest in motor carrier and highway safety.

Sincerely,

Robert Frank for Glenn R. Beck, State Director, U.S. DOT, Federal Highway Administration, Region Nine

ID: nht93-7.22

DATE: October 12, 1993

FROM: Saburo Inui -- Vice President, Toyota Motor Corporate Services of North America, Inc.

TO: Robert F. Hellmuth -- Director Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA

TITLE: Test Procedure for FMVSS 214

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/28/94 from John G. Womack to Saburo Inui (A42; STD 214)

TEXT: We request confirmation of our interpretation of the means to establish vehicle attitude during the testing for compliance with FMVSS 214, Side Impact Protection, as well as clarification of certain ambiguities in the test procedure.

S6.1, Test Weight, provides that "[e]ach passenger car is loaded to its unloaded vehicle weight, plus its rated cargo and luggage capacity . . . plus the weight of the necessary anthropomorphic test dummies. Any added test equipment is located away from impact areas in secure places in the vehicle."

S6.2, Vehicle test attitude, defines "fully loaded condition" as the "test vehicle loaded in accordance with S6.1."

The term, "fully loaded attitude," used in S6.2, is not defined.

Toyota assumes that the "test weight" described in S6.1 includes the weight of one front seat and one rear seat dummy, but it is not clear whether the "added test equipment" is added to the "test weight" or whether parts of the vehicle (weighing the same as the "added test equipment") are to be removed to keep the vehicle weight at the "test weight." It is also unclear whether the "as delivered" left-to-right attitude must be maintained when adding test equipment.

2

We also assume that the term, "fully loaded attitude," describes the attitude of the vehicle in the "fully loaded condition" defined in S6.1 (subject to the requested clarifications). Toyota requests confirmation of that interpretation.

Since these issues can affect compliance with the Standard, we request that NHTSA amend the Test Procedure to ensure that all manufacturers and laboratories employ exactly the procedures in conducting compliance testing.

If you have any questions about this matter, please contact Mr. Soichiro "Chuck" Okudaira of my staff at (202) 775-1707 or our counsel, Donald M. Schwentker, at (703) 799-7447.

ID: nht93-7.23

DATE: October 13, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Frau Margret Schmock von Ohr -- Robert Bosch GmbH

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/9/93 from Margret Schmock von Ohr to Taylor Vinson (OCC-8841)

TEXT:

This responds to your FAX of July 9, 1993, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking for a further interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it relates to reflex reflectors.

In your earlier FAX, you asked whether it is permissible to have an amber painted reflex reflector lens, and the conditions under which it is permissible to have it painted. We informed you that the amber painted reflex reflector lens is permissible provided that the front reflex reflector assembly meets all requirements of Standard No. 108 including the referenced SAE J594f.

You ask now whether "the combination plastic + paint" has to meet SAE J576c, pointing out that the outdoor exposure test requires a period of three years. You also ask whether it is sufficient to have only the plastic material (without paint) tested, and if it is not sufficient, the means by which you may get an exemption from the rule.

S5.1.2(c) of Standard No. 108 requires that, after the outdoor exposure test, plastic materials used for reflex reflectors shall meet the appearance requirements of paragraph 4.2.2 of SAE J576c. Paragraph 3.1 of SAE J576c indicates that the plastic materials are to be tested with the colors that will be employed in their end use. We understand that Bosch is not the manufacturer of the plastic materials but is simply the entity that fabricates the reflex reflectors from the plastic materials. Your customer, in turn, will install these reflectors until December 1993 as original equipment on its motor vehicles. We have found, under Standard No. 108, that the manufacturer of the plastic materials advises the lamp manufacturer that, if used in the manner specified by the materials manufacturer, the plastic materials supplied to be incorporated into lamps will perform in accordance with the requirements of SAE J576c for plastic materials. The manufacturer of the materials should provide Bosch with such assurances of compliance with SAE J576c as Bosch deems suitable to support its own assurances in turn to the vehicle manufacturer, enabling the vehicle manufacturer to certify . that it meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. There is no legal requirement that the plastics manufacturer conduct an actual 3-year test in order to provide Bosch with these assurances.

Because our temporary exemption procedures involve a process of three to four months duration, and are not retroactive in applicability, there appears to be no feasible way to consider an exemption.

You have asked that this request be treated "as a confidential business

information." We are unable to do so in this instance because our interpretations are a matter of public record, and the matters discussed herein cannot be separated from our earlier interpretation which has been made available to the public. However, we have removed your name from the copy of this letter that will be publicly available. Furthermore, Taylor Vinson has removed the name of your customer from the publicly available copy of the earlier interpretation, in accordance with the concern you expressed to him in a phone call, and we believe that this meets the intent of your request.

ID: nht93-7.24

DATE: October 14, 1993

FROM: Amantha L. Barbee -- Sales Coordinator, Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/23/93 from John Womack to Amantha L. Barbee (A41; Std. 102; Part 571), letter dated 1/26/93 from John Womack to Paul David Wellstone, letter dated 8/21/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Chuck Anderson, and letter dated 9/27/85 from Jeffrey R. Miller to Charles Pekow

TEXT:

I am writing you in search of information pertaining to the van versus school bus issue. I am the Head Start Sales Coordinator for Thomas Built Buses, Inc. I have found many Head Start Agencies to be using vans to transport students to and from the program. When I have asked the directors of the agencies why they are not using FMVSS as a guide for transportation. The answer across the board is, "because we have not been told otherwise."

If I understand the ruling correctly, this practice should be illegal. I am asking your help in clarifying this issue for me. If indeed this is unlawful, what can be done within the organization to rectify the situation?

I would appreciate any assistance you could offer. I can be reached at the above address or at (919) 841-5794.