ID: nht81-1.1

DATE: 01/02/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Kux Manufacturing Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 25, 1980 asking whether any Federal regulation "prohibits the use of reflective red markings on the front of vehicles."

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulation administered by the Federal Highway Administration of the Department of Transportation impliedly prohibit the use of red reflectors on the front of vehicles subject to its jurisdiction by requiring that all reflectors, other than those at the rear, be amber in color (49 CFR 393.26(d)). The common contract, private or exempt carriers covered by this requirement are found in 49 U.S.C. 303.

The Federal motor vehicle safety standard on vehicle lighting (49 CFR 571.108) applicable to the manufacture of all motor vehicles contains a general prohibition (paragraph S4.1.3) against installation of reflective devices that impair the effectiveness of required lighting equipment. Because of the generally accepted lighting coding of amber to the front and red to the rear, we would view installation of red reflective material on the front of a vehicle as prohibited by S4.1.3.

SINCERELY,

KUX MANUFACTURING COMPANY

November 25, 1980

Legal Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Gentlemen:

Our Company is a manufacturer of vehicle graphics for the trucking and automobile industries. It has been our understanding that there is a Department of Transportation or other federal regulation prohibiting the use of reflective red markings on the front of vehicles. I would appreciate a response from your office as soon as possible verifying whether, in fact, such a prohibition exists. If so, please provide a citation for the provision.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Eric C. Oppenheim Corporate Attorney

cc: J. JONES

ID: nht81-1.10

DATE: 02/05/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Richard A. Rechlicz

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your December 18, 1980, letter asking several questions about the application of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, to school buses.

First, you refer to paragraphs (a) and (b) of S5.2.3.1 and question which paragraph establishes the minimum safety level. Since paragraph (a) was first proposed and subsequently modified by the addition of paragraph (b), you believe that paragraph (a) defines the minimum level of safety while paragraph (b) meets or exceeds that level of safety. This reading of the standard is not completely accurate. Paragraph (a) of that section was the first part of the section to be proposed. Before the rule became effective, however, the proposal was amended to include paragraph (b). Accordingly, both paragraphs must be read together as defining the minimum mandatory safety performance requirement.

Second, you ask for our opinion of the preemption clause in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)). You state that your interpretation is that no State or local government may adopt a safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance as a Federal standard unless it is identical to the Federal standard. An exception exists for standards applicable to vehicles purchased for the State's or the local government's own use. This is an accurate reading of the preemption clause, however, a major area of contention frequently arises around what constitutes the same aspect of performance as a Federal standard.

Third, you ask whether the Federal government, through Standard No. 217, has preempted States from regulating unobstructed openings for purposes of emergency exists. As you are aware, the standard states that the emergency exit opening must be of a certain size. Further, the standard specifies the location of one of the seats at the forward-most side of the emergency exit. These are the agency's only requirements relating to the unobstructed emergency exit opening. With respect to whether a State could regulate further in this area, it would depend upon the type of regulation the State adopted. For example, a regulation that governed the size of the opening or the location of the forwardmost seat would probably be preempted. However, a regulation that required an aisle leading to the side emergency door would not likely be preempted, since the Federal government does not regulate aisles in buses.

Your fourth question asks us to comment on whether a Wisconsin statute requires aisles in school buses. The agency does not issue interpretations of State statutes. You should contact appropriate State officials for this information.

Finally, you recite a Wisconsin definition of emergency door zone which states that it is "the area inside the vehicle required by FMVSS 217 to be unobstructed at the emergency exit . . . " You then ask whether there are any such zones on buses constructed with side emergency exits. The agency, as stated above, requires an unobstructed opening at each exit (S5.2.3.1). If Wisconsin defines this as a zone, then such a zone exists in buses for purposes of the Wisconsin statute.

SINCERELY,

RICHARD A. RECHLICZ

ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR

December 18, 1980

United States Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attn: Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

RE: Standard 217, Bus Window Retention and Release File No. 80-82

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Please be advised that the undersigned has been retained by and represents a corporation engaged in the manufacture of school buses throughout the United States, for the purpose of investigation certain issues that relate to standard 217, Bus Window Retention and Release and the Wisconsin Administrative Code Chapter MVD 17 entitled Transporation of School Children.

For your information, I have enclosed a copy of the Wisconsin Administrative Code MVD 17.

The purpose of this correspondence is to request a written legal opinion from your offices on the issues raised in this correspondence as they relate to standard 217 and MVD 17.

First, as I understand the legislative history of standard 217, S5.2.3.1 was first issued with only subsection (a). Later, as a response to and after opposition was voiced by certain west coast bus manufacturers using the "California window" due to rear mounted engines, NHTSA promulgated subsection (b). Thus, the present standard allows the manufacturer to choose either subsection (a) or subsection (b). Is it correct that subsection (a) established the minimum degree of safety and that subsection (b) either meets or exceeds that minimum standard?

Second, please advise as to the NHTSA position on the supremacy clause, 15USC section 1392(b). It was my belief that with respect to the directive of Congress to the NHTSA to address itself to the safety standards itemized in 15 USC 1395(i), where the NHTSA issued a safety standard thereon, the State could not adopt "any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of said vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard." (State owned and used vehicles excepted).

Third, and I believe this relates to question 2, as I read Standard 217, especifically 217 S5.2.1, it is my impression that all buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or more "shall meet the unobstructed openings requirements by providing side exits and at least one rear exit that conforms to S5.3 through S5.5". Has the federal government pre-empted the field as to what is unobstructed for the openings? For this example, please refer to the spec drawing enclosed: if the manufacturer meets the requirements of S5.4.2.1(b), can the State initiate a rule that the seating arrangement as shown in the drawing for the side door obstructs the opening? (Assume also that the seating arrangement meets federal specifications as to distance.)

Fourth, it is my belief that nowhere in the Wisconsin Administrative Code MVD 17, is there a requirement that buses must have aisles. From your reading of that chapter alone, and I suggest that the word aisle is used only in MVD 17.13(1) and 17.25(2)(b), do you find anywhere that MVD 17 either

(1) defines aisle? or

(2) requires aisles in school buses?

Again, I request the opinion on this aspect only from your reading of the provision, not from other outside factors.

Finally, MVD 17.06(3) defines "emergency door zone" as "the area inside the vehicle required by FMVSS 217 to be unobstructed at the emergency exit. . ." From a reading of this definition alone, could you please advise as to whether there are any emergency door zones on a bus that is manufactured with exists meeting FMVSS 217 S5.2.3.1(b) ("California window" and side door exit).

I understand that responses to all of these issues raised in this correspondence will require a considerable amount of time by your offices. Please realize that it is important that we have a response from your offices on each question.

Accordingly, if there is any question that is not clear to you as stated, please call.

Furthermore, I would request that you acknowledge receipt of this correspondence.

Your prompt and immediate attention to this correspondence is appreciated as we are currently experiencing certain time restraints.

I thank you in advance for your consideration and courtesies. Seasons greetings to you and your family.

ENC.

cc: THOMAS BUILT BUS, INC. ATTN: BRYCE HUNT; RODDY LIGON, JR.; WILLIAM G. LADEWIG, ATTY AT LAW;

NOTE:

THE SEAT JUST FORWARD OF THE SIDE EMERGENCY DOOR CAN NOT EXTEND BEYOND LEADING VERTICAL EDGE OF DOOR OPENING.

APPLIES TO:

"S" MODELS WITH SIDE EMERGENCY DOOR AND WITHOUT REAR EMERGENCY DOOR.

ALL GAUGES TO CONFORM TO AMERICAN IRON A STEEL INSTITUTE (AISI) SPECIFICATIONS

THOMAS BUILT BUSES, INC. HIGH POINT, N.C.

TITLE

SEAT LOCATION - SIDE EMERGENCY DOOR FMVSS #217

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht81-1.11

DATE: 02/09/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Synnestvedt & Lechner

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This replies to your letter of December 11, 1980, in which you ask us to reconsider the interpretation we issued on April 22, 1980, regarding Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. We stated in our letter to you on that date that the abrasion test for vehicle windshield glazing must be conducted on both the exterior and the interior surfaces of the windshield (i.e., both surfaces must comply with the requirements of the standard).

After further consideration, we reaffirm our earlier interpretation. However, on January 19, 1981, the NHTSA did issue an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) requesting comments on whether Standard No. 205 should be amended to adopt less stringent requirements for glass-plastic glazing. A copy of that notice is enclosed for your information.

Please contact this office if you have any more questions.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

SYNNESTVEDT & LECHNER

December 11, 1980

Frank E. Berndt, Esquire -- U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: NOA-30

Dear Mr. Berndt:

By letter of December 9, 1980 from Mr. Michael M. Finkelstein, we have been advised of the granting of the petition of our client, Saint-Gobain Vitrage, to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205.

In the context of a rulemaking proceeding in progress, we ask that prompt attention be given to our letter of May 7, 1980, copy enclosed, requesting that you reconsider the interpretative ruling we seek. By the interpretation we urge, some actual on-road experience in the United States could be gathered during the pendency of the rulemaking proceeding. This would come about through the supply from Saint-Gobain Vitrage to European car manufacturers who are already customers for the Securiflex inner guard windshield, of additional such windshields to be used in cars being shipped to the United States. Audi and Peugeot are obvious candidates to begin such introduction, although there are other European car manufacturers who would probably do the same, perhaps as an optional feature.

We will look for your response.

Very truly yours,

John T. Synnestvedt

Enclosures

cc: Joan Claybrook

ID: nht81-1.12

DATE: 02/09/81

FROM: DONALD W. VIERIMAA -- DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING TRUCK TRAILER MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION

TO: FRANK BERNDT -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TITLE: EXCLUSION OF THE TOWBAR OF A PERMANENT TRAILER DOLLY FROM THE FMVSS 108 LENGTH CRITERIA

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/10/81, FROM FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA TO DONALD W. VIERIMAA, NOA 30, REDBOOK A22, STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 04/04/73 FROM RICHARD B. DYSON -- NHTSA TO PAUL K. WILSON

TEXT: Dear Mr. Berndt:

S4.1.1.3 of FMVSS 108, which does not require intermediate side marker devices on vehicles less that 30 feet long, was interpreted by your office in 1973 as excluding converter dollies and their integral towbars from the overall length determination. Although in our industry, converter dollies, permanent dollies, and their towbars are often indistinguishable in utility, appearance, and length, neither the 1973 letter from the Chief Counsel's Office nor wording in FMVSS 108 specifically excludes permanent dolly towbars from the 30 foot overall length determination. However, S4.3.1.3 of FMVSS 108 does state that "On a trailer, the amber front side marker reflectors and amber front side marker lamps may be located as far forward as practicable exclusive of the trailer tongue." (emphasis added). This language would appear to exclude the towbar from the length determination.

Since permanent and converter dolly towbars are similar in utility and appearance and since lamps need not be located on the towbar in any case, we request your concurrance that both should be excluded from the overall length determination.

Sincerely yours,

ENCLS

ID: nht81-1.13

DATE: 02/11/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Toyoda Gosei Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Katsuhiko Yokoi Assistant Manager - Tech. Dept. Toyoda Gosei Co., Ltd. 1, Nagahata, Ochiai, Haruhi-mura Nishikasugai-gun Aichi-pref., 452 JAPAN

Dear Mr. Yokoi:

The answers to the questions in your letter of January 20, 1982, are "yes" to both questions.

1. The "adjacent layers" referenced in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 106, paragraphs S7.3.7, are (a) the inner tube and braided layer and (b) the braided layer and outer tube.

2. The adhesion requirements are met if both the tensile strengths measured between (a) the inner tube and braided layer and (b) that between the braided layer and the outer cover are equal to or greater than 8 lbs/inch as determined using the FMVSS No. 106 procedure. It should be noted that the 8 lbs/inch value is an absolute minimum value as indicated in paragraph S8.6.4(a) standard.

A copy of FMVSS No. 106 is included for your information.

Sincerely,

Vernon G. Bloom Safety Standards Engineer

Enclosure FMVSS No. 106

ID: nht81-1.14

DATE: 02/19/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: United States Testing Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

FEB 19, 1981 Mr. Frank Pepe Assistant Vice President United States Testing Company 1415 Park Avenue Hoboken, New Jersey 07030 Dear Mr. Pepe: This responds to your recent letter concerning the requirements of Safety Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, when applied to assemblies having dual sensitive emergency locking retractors. Your specific questions relate to the low lock-up provisions of paragraph S4.3(j) of the standard. Paragraph S4.3(j) of Safety Standard No. 209 specifies the following requirements for emergency locking retractors on seat belt assemblies: (1) Shall lock before the webbing extends 1 inch when the retractor is subjected to an acceleration of 0.7g; (2) Shall not lock, if the retractor is sensitive to webbing withdrawal, before the webbing extends 2 inches when the retractor is subjected to an acceleration of 0.3g or less; (3) Shall not lock, if the retractor is sensitive to vehicle acceleration, when the retractor is rotated in any direction to any angle of 15o or less from its orientation in the vehicle.

At the time these requirements were included in the standard, emergency locking retractors were either vehicle sensitive or webbing sensitive. Recently, however, manufacturers have been producing dual sensitive retractors that are sensitive to both vehicle acceleration and webbing acceleration. You point out that dual sensitive retractors can be tested to the requirements of S4.3(j)(3) with no problem since the webbing sensitive aspect of the retractor does not interfere. However, you state that it is impossible to isolate the vehicle sensitive portion of a dual sensitive retractor in order to test to S4.3(j)(2). Accordingly, when the retractor is accelerated to .3g under the specification of (j)(2), the vehicle sensitive portion causes the retractor to lock before 2 inches of webbing have withdrawn, even though the webbing sensitive portion of the retractor would not have caused lock-up. You explain that this occurs because most retractors containing vehicle sensitive mechanisms are designed to lock-up at low "g" force levels (i.e., a tolerance is built into the retractor to ensure that it can meet the .7g requirement of subparagraph (1)). In light of this problem, you ask whether dual sensitive retractors must comply with S4.3(j)(2).

This same question was raised by Safety Transport Inter AB, Sweden, several years ago. In an October 30, 1978, letter of interpretation responding to that question, the NHTSA Associate Administrator for Rulemaking made the following statement:

"A retractor sensitive to webbing withdrawal (even if it is also sensitive to vehicle acceleration) may properly be tested for the 0.3 g comfort requirement by holding the retractor stationary and accelerating the webbing to the required g level."

That interpretation was incorrect. Paragraph S4.3(j)(2) specifically states that the retractor is to be accelerated, not the belt webbing. Further, the agency has stated in the past that accelerating the retractor and accelerating the webbing are not equivalent tests because of inertial forces that react upon the retractor during its acceleration that are not present when the webbing alone is accelerated.

The agency believes that a dual sensitive retractor should be treated simply as either a vehicle sensitive or a webbing sensitive retractor for the purposes of the standard. The intent of the agency was to require that either vehicle sensitive or webbing sensitive retractors be used. There was no expectation that dual sensitive retractors would be used and no intent that a retractor be required to meet the requirements for both types of retractors. The provision of webbing sensitivity in a retractor that meets the vehicle sensitivity requirements is a voluntary act and therefore is not subject to the standard. Likewise, the provision of vehicle sensitivity in a retractor that meets the webbing sensitive requirements is a voluntary act.

This approach will resolve the conflict that has arisen with the compliance envelopes established in S4.3(j)(1) and (j)(2), given the compliance tolerances which manufacturers are designing into newer retractors. Since vehicle sensitive mechanisms are being designed so that they activate before the .7g's required in (j)(1) is reached, the retractor locks before the webbing sensitive portion of the retractor is activated. Therefore, these dual sensitive retractors can not be tested for compliance with (j)(2).

Under this approach, a manufacturer wishing to treat its dual sensitive retractor as a vehicle sensitive retractor for the purposes of Standard No. 209 would have to comply with S4.3(j)(1) and (3). A manufacturer wishing to treat its dual sensitive retractor as a webbing sensitive retractor would have to comply with S4.3(j)(1) and (2).

I hope this has been responsive to your inquiry. If you have any further questions, please contact Hugh Oates of my office (202-426-2992).

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

October 15, 1980

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 - 7th Street Washington, D.C. 20590

RE: FMVSS No. 209 Seat Belt Assemblies Interpretation, Emergency Locking Retractor, Lock-Up Requirement

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Some questions have been raised pertaining to the requirements for Dual Sensitive Emergency Locking Retractors when tested in accordance with FMVSS No. 209. The questions pertain to the low lock-up requirements (0.3g) Paragraph S4.3 (j).

A dual-sensitive retractor is a combination of webbing sensitive and vehicle sensitive locking mechanisms. The specifications clearly states requirements for either one of the mechanisms but does not take into account the combination of both in the same retractor. Consequently, an interpretation is needed to clarify the requirements of this type of retractor.

Our interpretation of the Standard, Para. S4.3 (j) (1) (2) and (3) as it applies to a dual-sensitive retractor is as follows:

(1) Shall lock before the webbing extends one (1) inch when the retractor is subjected to an acceleration of 0.7 g.

Comment: Applies to all types of emergency locking retractors

(2) Shall not lock, if the retractor is sensitive to webbing withdrawal, before the webbing extends two (2) inches when the retractor is subjected to an acceleration of 0.3 g or less.

Comment: Applies only to webbing sensitive type retractors. In dual sensitive retractors there is no way of isolating the vehicle sensitive portion (without disturbing an integral part of the retractor mechanism) to check the webbing sensitivity portion at 0.3 g. There is no requirement at 0.3 g for a strictly vehicle sensitive retractor. It should also be noted that most retractors containing vehicle sensitive mechanisms are designed to lock-up at low g force levels. This is to insure user confidence in the assembly during low level loading, such as braking.

(3) Shall not lock, if the retractor is sensitive to vehicle acceleration, when the retractor is rotated in any direction to any angle of 15o or less from its orientation in the vehicle.

Comment: Applies to both vehicle sensitive and dual-sensitive retractors.

I would appreciate your prompt review of the above interpretation and any comments you may have pertaining to same.

Very truly yours,

Frank Pepe Assistant Vice President Engineering Division

FP:mg

ID: nht81-1.15

DATE: 02/19/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: J. L. Lubatti

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of December 12, 1980, to the Office of Public Affairs and Consumer Participation. In your letter, you relate an incident involving a 1979 Plymouth Horizon. You state that this vehicle drifted down a steep grade and overturned after the driver parked and left the vehicle. The car's automatic transmission was apparently left in "Drive." You ask whether the design of this vehicle, which permits the driver to remove the keys from the ignition when the transmission is not in "Park," is legal. You also ask whether there is any litigation pending concerning this matter.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is empowered to issue safety standards regarding motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Each regulation specifies minimum requirements that all vehicles and equipment to which the regulation applies must meet. The design of the Plymouth Horizon does not violate Federal safety standards. Safety Standard No. 102, Transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect, regulates starter interlocks on vehicle equipped with automatic transmissions. This rule requires that the engine starter be inoperative when the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position. It does not require that the transmission be in "Park" before the keys can be removed from the ignition. Safety Standard No. 114, Theft Protection, requires all passenger cars to have a key-locking system. Standard No. 114 mandates that the key-locking system prevent (among other things) steering, forward movement of the vehicle under its own power, or both when the key is removed from the lock.

The key-locking system in the Horizon does not prevent forward self-mobility, as evidenced by the accident you describe in your letter. However, it does lock the steering column when the keys are removed from the ignition, and so it complies with the rule. The requirements of Standard No. 114 were designed to reduce the incidence of joyrider theft.

NHTSA is not currently investigating the Plymouth Horizon in regard to the issue you raise in your letter. The agency is unaware of any pending litigation.

We hope you find this information helpful. Please contact this office if you have any more questions.

SINCERELY,

December 12, 1980

N.H.T.S.A.

ATTENTION PUBLIC AFFAIRS AND CONSUMER PARTICIPATION

Re: 1979 Plymouth Horizon

Gentlemen:

In accordance with our insurance contract with the Sisters of Divine Providence and the Diocese of Pittsburgh, we recently paid a collision claim in excess of $ 2,900.00 and secured the proper form subrogating our company to their rights.

The vehicle's automatic transmission was apparently left in the "Drive" position by our insured after being parked on a relatively steep grade. She was able to remove the ignition key from the steering column and exit the vehicle before it drifted down the hill and overturned. (A copy of the police report is enclosed to verify the details). I'm advised that all 1979 and 1980 models of Horizon and Omni allow the operator to remove the keys regardless of whether the automatic floor type shifter is in the "Park" position.

Is this design legal and/or acceptable to your agency? If not, please also advise of any pending litigation concerning the matter.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation. x

John L. Lubatti Branch Manager

Police report omitted.

ID: nht81-1.16

DATE: 02/19/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Titeflex, Industrial Products Groups

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter asking whether air compressor discharge hose lines would be considered "brake hose" subject to the requirements of Safety Standard No. 106.

Safety Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses (49 CFR 571.106), defines "brake hose" as:

A flexible conduit manufactured for use in a brake system to transmit or contain the fluid pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes.

This definition excludes the line from the air compressor to the supply tank, if that hose does not supply force to the vehicle's brakes in your system. Therefore, your hose would not be required to comply with Safety Standard No. 106.

In response to your question 1(b), any hose that supplies force, either directly or indirectly, to the vehicle's brakes is considered "brake hose", whether or not the hose is "right at the wheel brakes themselves" (as stated in your letter). For example, hose in brake booster systems is generally considered "brake hose."

In answer to your last two questions, there are no other Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards which would be applicable to air compressor discharge hoses. You will have to contact the individual States to see if there are applicable regulations at that level. We are not aware of any such State regulations, however.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

Titeflex INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS GROUP

October 24, 1980

Office of Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Gentlemen:

The purpose of this letter is to obtain clarifying information concerning your Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #106-74 ("Brake Hoses"), revised 7/7/76, and as amended by Notice #24 effective 5/25/78, copies of which I have.

Our company is a manufacturer of flexible Teflon hose and swaged fittings. We have been asked by numerous motor vehicle end-users (buses, motorcycles, race cars, etc.) throughout the U.S. as to whether or not our hose, fittings, and hose assemblies meet DOT specifications. Accordingly, we would appreciate your response to the questions below:

1. Among other things, paragraph S-4 of #106-74 defines "brake hose" (and "a brake hose assembly") as being" a flexible conduit manufactured for use in a brake system to transmit or contain the fluid pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a motor vehicle's brakes" (this pertains to hydraulic, air, and vacuum brakes).

(a) In public transit buses (e.g., those governed by UMTA's Transit Coach Specifications), must air compressor discharge flexible hose lines (air compressor-to-ping tank) be governed by Standard #106-74? Or are these compressor discharge lines considered only accessory lines and thus do not have to meet these specifications? Are these lines "in the brake system" or not?

(b) It is my understanding that only the actual brake hoses right at the wheel brakes themselves are the hoses which must comply with this standard. Is this correct?

2. This Safety Standard pertains only to "brake hoses". Are there any other Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, on a National basis, with which our hoses/assemblies must comply for any other motor vehicle application?

3. Finally, are there any individual state or local standards which apply for these or other flexible hose applications on any motor vehicle, assuming we comply with your national standards?

Your assistance in helping to clarify this matter will be most appreciated. Thank you in advance for your help.

Sincerely,

Robert J. McGurk -- Manager, Market Development

ID: nht81-1.17

DATE: 02/19/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter asking whether certain flexible air pressure hoses for use on trucks would be subject to the requirements of Safety Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses. The hose in question would be used to transfer pressure from the air reservoir of the brake power assist unit (of the hydraulic service brake system) to a cylinder that actuates the exhaust brake control.

Safety Standard No. 106 defines "brake hose" as: "A flexible conduit, other than a vacuum tubing connector, manufactured for use in a brake system to transmit or contain the fluid pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes."

The hose that your company desires to use is not a part of the service brake system or the power assist system, either directly or indirectly. If pressure should be lost in the exhaust brake circuit of which the subject hose is a component, the loss would be isolated from the performance of the service and power assist circuits by means of a check valve. Therefore, the hose does not transmit the pressure or vacumm used to apply force to the vehicle's brakes, and it would not be considered a "brake hose" subject to the requirements of Safety Standard No. 106.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

MERCEDES - BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA. INC.

December 17, 1980

OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Request For Interpretation; FMVSS 106, Brake Hoses

Dear Madam or Sir:

Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. hereby requests an interpretation as to whether or not certain flexible air pressure hoses proposed for use on our truck models would be subject to the requirements of FMVSS 106, brake hoses. The hose in question would serve to transfer pressure from the air reservoir of the brake power assist unit (of our hydraulic service brake system) to a cylinder that actuates the exhaust brake control. The brake power assist unit reservoir is protected against pressure loss in this exhaust brake circuit by means of a check valve located directly on the reservoir. All pertinent components are identified on the attached drawing No. BL046/80.

Inasmuch as the hose used in this exhaust brake circuit is neither within the hydraulic service brake circuits, nor within the brake power assist unit circuit (air), and should pressure be lost in this exhaust brake circuit it would be isolated from the performance of the service and assist circuits by means of a check valve, Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. believes that this hose is not subject to the requirements of FMVSS 106.

Should you have any questions regarding this request, do not hesitate in contacting this office,

Best regards,

HEINZ W. GERTH -- VICE PRESIDENT, ENGINEERING AND SERVICE

ID: nht81-1.18

DATE: 02/19/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Proprietors Insurance Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of December 12, 1980, to the Office of Public Affairs and Consumer Participation. In your letter, you relate an incident involving a 1979 Plymouth Horizon. You state that this vehicle drifted down a steep grade and overturned after the driver parked and left the vehicle. The car's automatic transmission was apparently left in "Drive." You ask whether the design of this vehicle, which permits the driver to remove the keys from the ignition when the transmission is not in "Park," is legal. You also ask whether there is any litigation pending concerning this matter.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is empowered to issue safety standards regarding motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Each regulation specifies minimum requirements that all vehicles and equipment to which the regulation applies must meet. The design of the Plymouth Horizon does not violate Federal safety standards. Safety Standard No. 102, Transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect, regulates starter interlocks on vehicles equipped with automatic transmissions. This rule requires that the engine starter be inoperative when the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position. It does not require that the transmission be in "Park" before the keys can be removed from the ignition. Safety Standard No. 114, Theft Protection, requires all passenger cars to have a key-locking system. Standard No. 114 mandates that the key-locking system prevent (among other things) steering, forward movement of the vehicle under its own power, or both when the key is removed from the lock.

The key-locking system in the Horizon does not prevent forward self-mobility, as evidenced by the accident you describe in your letter. However, it does lock the steering column when the keys are removed from the ignition, and so it complies with the rule. The requirements of Standard No. 114 were designed to reduce the incidence of joyrider theft.

NHTSA is not currently investigating the Plymouth Horizon in regard to the issue you raise in your letter. The agency is unaware of any pending litigation.

We hope you find this information helpful. Please contact this office if you have any more questions.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

December 12, 1980

PUBLIC AFFAIRS AND CONSUMER PARTICIPATION -- N.H.T.S.A.

Re: 1979 Plymouth Horizon

Gentlemen:

In accordance with our insurance contract with the Sisters of Divine Providence and the Diocese of Pittsburgh, we recently paid a collision claim in excess of $ 2,900.00 and secured the proper form subrogating our company to their rights.

The vehicle's automatic transmission was apparently left in the "Drive" position by our insured after being parked on a relatively steep grade. She was able to remove the ignition key from the steering column and exit the vehicle before it drifted down the hill and overturned. (A copy of the police report is enclosed to verify the details). I'm advised that all 1979 and 1980 models of Horizon and Omni allow the operator to remove the keys regardless of whether the automatic floor type shifter is in the "Park" position.

Is this design legal and/or acceptable to your agency? If not, please also advise of any pending litigation concerning the matter.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

John L. Lubatti -- Branch Manager, PROPRIETORS INSURANCE CO.

Enclosures omitted.