Interpretation ID: nht89-3.8
TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA
DATE: 10/04/89
FROM: DELL RANDLE
TO: GEORGE MILLER -- CONGRESS
TITLE: NONE
ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/1/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO U.S. CONGRESSMAN GEORGE MILLER; REDBOOK A34; STANDARD 125; LETTER DATED 10/17/89 FROM NANCY L. BRUCE -- D.O.T OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL AFFAIRS TO GEORGE MILLER, U.S. HOUSE OF REPR ESENTATIVES; LETTER DATED 10/12/89 FROM GEORGE MILLER, U.S. CONGRESSMAN TO NANCY BRUCE -- D.O.T OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL AFFAIRS; LETTER DATED 9/8/89 FROM ELIZABETH M LUCAS -- NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL, PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT TO DELL RANDLE OF SHIKARI CONSULTA NT FIRM LTD.
TEXT: Dear Congressman George Miller:
This letter is in regards to a safety device, which I designed, The Shi-Lite Holder, to eliminate the danger and the inconvience for stranded motorist. This eliminates motorist from leaving their car to place safety devices upon the freeway.
Description of Shi-Lite Holder:
* made of light wire, hooks on car window * after raising holder which is 17 inches above the roof of the car * two 3 inch red reflectors * two red high intensive light sticks * sit in a lantern container * Light sticks are non flammable * non toxic
On or about February 9, 1989, I was in contact with Assemblyman, Robert J. Campbell. He informed me that I should contact Captain Bob Hayworth of CHP, to evaluate the Shi-Lite, that it confirms with current Laws. Upon meeting with Captain Hayworth he i nformed me I would have to make a change on the product, change being no red could be seen from the front by oncoming traffic, this was corrected.
On or about April 12, 1989, I was in the office of Mr. Bernard Trenton, Commercial and Technical, Service Section, Sacramento, to get the final approval by his office. Mr. Trenton and his assistant, Mr. Kyle Larsen, evaluated and approved that the Shi-L ite holder meets all State requirement.
On or about May 18, 1989, a letter and picture was sent to National Safety Council, Chicago, IL. C/O Ms. Liz Lucas. In her letter dated September 8, 1989, they declined the product, reason being the Shi-Lite does not meet Federal Requirements as set by the Department of Transportation.
On or about September 21, 1989, I spoke with Dr. August and Mr. Harper in Washington, D.C. Dr. August mailed me D.O.T. Standard No. 125 Sec 571.125 on warning devices. I see nothing in the standard that relates to the Shi-Lite.
Since I see nothing in the regulations governing the Shi-Lite and its functioning and national rejected it on those basis, being a federal ruling, I would like for your office to look into this matter, since the rejection was based on Federal regulations .
Sincerely,