ID: nht92-1.30

DATE: December 10, 1992

FROM: Curtis J. Crist -- Product Development, US Marine

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/29/92 from Paul J. Rice to Curtis J. Crist (A40; Std. 108); Also attached to letter dated 10/08/76 from Frank Berndt (signature by Stephen P. Wood) to Donald I. Reed; Also attached to letter dated 12/21/77 from Joseph J. Levin, Jr. to Warren M. Heath

TEXT:

Please confirm that the enclosed 1976 and 1977 clarifications relative to front side marker lamps on boat trailers are still valid.

Also, I would like to attempt to eliminate the requirement for rear "identification lamps" on boat trailers 80 or more inches in overall width. Many of today's boat trailers have rear crossmembers positioned as much as 24 inches forward of the aft end of their frame. Consequently, the identification lamps are essentially hidden from view by the boat's hull bottom and outdrive or outboard lower unit. Please advise me as to what action I must take to have elimination of this requirement considered.

Thank you for your assistance.

ID: nht92-1.31

DATE: 12/10/92

FROM: JUAN F. VEGA

TO: ANDREW CARD -- SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 2-16-93 FROM JOHN WOMACK TO JUAN F. VEGA (A40; STD. 208)

TEXT: Attached to this letter you will find correct copies of multiples complaints that I have made. They have all been to no avial I wrote Captain [Illegible Words] of the Florida Highway Patrol complaining that the [Ilegible Word] being used at Florida State Prison to transport inmater have [Illegible Words]

On 9/20/92 I wrote the Asst. Superintendent at Florida State Prison setting which the same complaint.

In his response he stated that a copy of my complaint was being forward to the Department of Legal Affairs for further review and input.

The fact is that nothing has been done about the problem upto date.

[Illegible Words]

On 10/1/92 I wrote Florida State Prison Superintendent setting forth the same complaint.

On 10/9/92 he send me a response saying that the vans being used to transport inmates are not required to have seat belts.

Then he gave me the poor excuse that in the event of an accident it would [Illegible Words]

The fact is that in the event of an accident the injury is more saver if the prison does not have seat belts. And if the inmate breaks his back whats the hurry because you cannot move him. Its a clear established fact that Florida State Prison is trying to waste their duty to comply with Florida and Federal Safety belt law.[Illegible Paragraph]

ATTACHMENTS

1. LETTER UNDATED FROM JUAN F. VEGA TO TERRY R. MCINTYRE

2. INMATE REQUEST

DATED 9-20-92 FROM JUAN F. VEGA TO R. E TURNER

3. LETTER DATED 10-1-92

FROM Juan F. VEGA To STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTTIONS

4. Memorandum DATED 10-7-92 From Everett I. PERRIN, Jr. To Juan Vega

(Text Omitted)

ID: nht92-1.32

DATE: 12/09/92

FROM: DANIEL K. UPHAM -- PRESIDENT, SYS TEK CORPORATION

TO: CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: SUBJECT: COMPLIANCE WITH NATIONAL SAFETY STANDARDS, NEW PRODUCT

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-28-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO DANIEL K. UPHAM (A40; STD. 108); ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 8-17-89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD TO ALAN S. ELDAHR (STD. 108)

TEXT: We are a new company located in Southern California involved in new product development and manufacturing. We are currently designing a new product that can be used in motor vehicles as an advertising or silent communications device and we would like to be sure that we are not violating any local or federal laws. That being the case I spoke on the telephone with Mr. George Shefflett who suggested that we contact your office for an official opinion even though he believed there did not appear to be a problem.

The product we have in mind is a portable lighted message display using LED technology, that could be mounted inside the vehicle to the side rear or rear window. It will be either battery powered or it will be powered using the vehicle power source via cigarette lighter or directly to the cars electrical harness. This is an after market product sold through auto parts stores or various other consumer outlets.

We have reviewed the California Vehicle Code and are aware of the general constraints such as colors, view obstruction, light brightness, etc. Frankly we have found no serious obstacles to our endeavor at this point and we would like to hear your concerns and suggestions with regard to our idea. We would also appreciate any suggestions you may have as to what other agencies or organizations we might need to confer with before we make our final decisions.

Thank you very much for your time and help.

ID: nht92-1.33

DATE: December 8, 1992

FROM: Vasant Jinwala -- Consumer Testing Laboratories, Inc.

TO: Marvin Shaw -- Department of Transportation

TITLE: Flammability for Comfort Cushions

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/22/93 from John Womack to Vasant Jinwala (A40; Std. 302; VSA 102(4))

TEXT:

We have received a comfort cushion for testing. The sample does not conform to DOT 302 flammability requirements. The manufacturer claims that the DOT 302 standard is only applicable to a car's original equipment and NOT for auto accessories. Your input in this matter is appreciated.

Please see the attached copy of packaging. The packaging clearly indicates the intended CAR use.

(Comfort Cushion brochure omitted.)

ID: nht92-7.34

DATE: April 21, 1992

FROM: Al Twyford

TO: Associate Administrator for Safety, Federal Highway Administration

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/14/92 from Paul J. Rice to Al Twyford (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

I would like to voice a complaint about some makes of new cars that have two sets of headlights (4), which operate at the same time. When approaching these vehicles at night, going in the opposite direction, it has the same effect as a car approaching my vehicle with the high beam headlights on. I have had conversations with the California Highway Patrol and Department of Motor Vehicles, and they claim that these headlamps are approved for auto manufacturers by your department. They claim they can do nothing about the problem, without a change on the matter by your agency.

If you are committed to Highway Safety, why would you approve these headlamps for automobiles? Night driving is bad enough, without adding more vehicles to the highway with these extra bright lights which have the effect of highbeam brightness. I would like to ask that you re-examine your approval of these extra headlamps, and do some further testing under night time driving conditions. I personally have responded to these automobiles with the four lights with a dose of my highbeams to get these drivers to turn off the extra set of headlights. This doesn't seem to work as they either don't realize what they are doing to oncoming traffic, or can't turn off the lower set of lights. I might add that from the rear of my vehicle, it's the same problem; the approaching vehicle has the effect on me of highbeam lights in my rear view mirror and side view mirror.

I would appreciate some feedback on this problem, and what you propose to do about it. If you do nothing, I plan to take this matter up with Congressmen and U.S. Senators.

Thank you.

ID: nht92-7.35

DATE: April 21, 1992

FROM: Thomas D. Turner -- Manager, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Vernon Wright; Wisconsin Specification File

TITLE: Request for Interpretation: Reference: (1.) 49 CFR Part 571.131 Section S5.5. (2.) Wisconsin Administrative Code Trans 300.64 - Stop Signal Arm

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/17/92 from Paul J. Rice to Thomas Turner (A39; Std. 131)

TEXT:

Blue Bird Body Company is in the process of implementing changes to conform to the new stop signal arm requirements of FMVSS 131. Reference 1 requires that, "THE STOP SIGNAL ARM SHALL BE AUTOMATICALLY EXTENDED in such a manner that it complies with S5.4.1, at a minimum WHENEVER THE RED SIGNAL LAMPS required by S5.1.4 of Standard No. 108 ARE ACTIVATED (emphasis added); except that a device may be installed that prevents the automatic extension of a stop signal arm." The standard continues with requirements for this device including the requirement that an audible signal shall sound when the device is activated.

These requirements are logical and can be implemented in conjunction with the use of the eight light warning systems currently required in 46 of the 50 states; however, when these requirements are considered in terms of a four light warning system, there are certain operational issues that need to be considered. Specifically, the state of Wisconsin requires a four light warning system and a stop signal arm on school buses and has the following requirements for stop signal arms per Reference 2; "(2) Any bus manufactured after January 1, 1978, shall have the stop signal arm controlled by the service door. The stop signal arm shall not become operational until the service door opens. The stop signal arm shall be installed in such a manner that it cannot be activated unless the alternating red lamps are in operation."

To meet these requirements, Blue Bird provides a system by which the alternating red flashing lamps are activated by a driver controlled manual switch and the stop signal arm is activated by opening the service door. In order to comply with the new FMVSS 131 standard, we are adding a warning buzzer that will sound when the alternating red flashing lights are activated but the service door has not yet been opened to activate the stop signal arm. We believe that this system meets the intent of Standard No. 131 but are concerned about compliance with the wording of the standard in terms of requiring "automatic extension" of the stop signal arm. The system described above for Wisconsin provides for manual activation of both the alternating red flashing lights and the stop signal arm and is not "automatic." However, it appears to meet the intent of the standard by having the stop arm extend when the service door is opened and the alternating red flashing lights are on, and by having a warning buzzer activated whenever the arm is not extended and the lights are on.

It is our understanding that the Wisconsin requirements are necessary so that the alternating red flashing lights can be used to warn traffic of an impending stop and the stop signal arm is used to actually stop traffic. They do not

want the stop signal arm to extend automatically when the red lights are activated. For an eight light warning system, the amber lights are used to warn traffic of an impending stop and it is proper for the alternating red flashing lights and the stop signal arm to be activated simultaneously to stop traffic. Since Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards require as a minimum a four light warning system and allow an eight light warning system, the requirements of Standard No. 131 must be compatible with both systems.

Based on the above information and reasoning, and with the best interests of school bus safety in mind, Blue Bird requests confirmation that the warning light and stop arm system and operation, as required by Wisconsin and described above, conforms to the requirements of Standard No. 131 section S5.5. Specifically we request written confirmation that when a four light warning system is used and is activated by a driver actuated switch, it is permissible for the stop signal arm to be activated by opening of the service door, provided that an audible signal warns the driver when the alternating red flashing lights are on but the stop signal arm has not been extended.

Blue Bird is working to resolve all system design and operational issues regarding Standard No. 131 in the very near future so that changes in production can be implemented in time to meet the September 1, 1992 effective date. Your prompt consideration and response to this request is, therefore, urgently requested.

ID: nht92-7.36

DATE: April 21, 1992

FROM: Hank Hessey -- President, Hebco Products, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel

TITLE: Subject: D.O.T. 106/S7 Air brake hose

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/9/92 from Paul J. Rice to Hank Hessey (A39; Std. 106)

TEXT:

I'm writing in regards to the manufacturing of air brake hose no. 106. I would like to have an official opinion on what requirements and testing responsibilities are placed with the manufacturing of such hose, per D.O.T. Your attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated.

ID: nht92-7.37

DATE: April 17, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Michael J. Sens -- Researcher, S.E.A., Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/26/92 from Michael J. Sens to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7135)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to me dated March 26, 1992, in which you sought our interpretation of whether the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components; 214, Side Door Strength; and 216, Roof Crush Resistance -- Passenger Cars, applied to a 1985 American Motors Corporation (AMC) Jeep CJ-7. You stated in your letter that AMC classified the vehicle as a "sport utility vehicle" and that it came with a soft top or an optional fiberglass top, both with removable side doors.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Safety Act), 15 U.S.C., S1381, et seq., as amended, 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. In accordance with 49 CFR 567, Certification, manufacturers of motor vehicles must certify that their products comply with all such standards.

Each safety standard applies to specified "types" of motor vehicles and/or motor vehicle equipment. Motor vehicles are classified into the following types: passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, and motorcycles. A definition for each motor vehicle type is set forth at 49 CFR 571.3. Thus, a 1985 AMC Jeep CJ-7 was required to comply with all safety standards that applied to its vehicle type at the time of its manufacture. In order to determine what safety standards applied to the vehicle, it is first necessary to establish its classification under Part 571.3.

The Safety Act places the responsibility for classifying a particular vehicle in the first instance on the vehicle's manufacturer. For this reason, NHTSA does not approve or endorse any vehicle classification before the manufacturer itself has classified a particular vehicle. NHTSA may reexamine the manufacturer's classification during the course of any enforcement actions.

While AMC may have marketed the 1985 AMC Jeep CJ-7 as a "sport-utility vehicle," it classified it as a multipurpose passenger vehicle for purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The term "multipurpose passenger vehicle" is defined in Part 571.3 as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation." It is our opinion that AMC's classification was appropriate, given that the 1985 Jeep CJ-7 is a 4-wheel drive vehicle with an approach angle of

33 degrees, departure angle of 25 degrees, breakdown angle of 18 degrees, axle clearance of 7.8", and minimum running clearance of 8.1", and thus clearly has special features for occasional off-road operation.

With specific reference to the three standards you inquired about concerning possible applicability to a 1985 AMC Jeep CJ-7, Standards 214 and 216 applied only to passenger cars at the time the CJ-7 was manufactured. See S2 of Standard 214 and and S3 of Standard 216. Since the 1985 AMC Jeep CJ-7 was classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle and not a passenger car, those two standards, by their terms, did not apply to it.

Standard 206, on the other hand, did apply to multipurpose passenger vehicles as well as passenger cars. However, S4 thereof provided in pertinent part: ". . . (C)omponents on folding doors, roll-up doors, doors that are designed to be easily attached to or removed from motor vehicles manufactured for operation without doors, . . . need not conform to this standard." You indicated that the Jeep CJ-7 came with removable side doors, and we understand that the vehicle was manufactured for operation without doors. Accordingly, the AMC Jeep CJ-7 came within the above-quoted exception to Standard 206 and was not subject to its requirements.

I hope the above information will be helpful to you. If you have any further questions or need additional information regarding this matter please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-7.38

DATE: April 17, 1992

FROM: Bill Willett

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/8/92 from Paul J. Rice to Bill Willett (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

I am proud to have the oportunity to have talked with Mr. VanIderstine.

I feel that the flickering brake light is an improvement to the existing dim-bright red light now used.

The back windshield light used since 1986 is also an improvement. The cars before 1986 are the main concern to me. I believe if this were used on older cars that accidents would be prevented.

A survey of Alabama citizens interested in this safety device and how it has affected them over a period of time is one of the first projects of the new unit.

I am interested in knowing what I can do and what I can't do.

Example: Can a 10.00 fee be charged with a survay group member installing it free of charge. Is there any Federal law preventing me from doing research by adding another device to the vehicle lights.

At the present time I'm testing and looking for the proper flickering device to use.

This flickering brake light flashes on and off at a faster rate than that of the turn signal and the emergency flashers.

It is intended to alert the driver that the brakes are applied as long as the brakes are used -- unlike that used in California which I'm told only flashed for a second or two.

Very soon I plan to go to California and get information that might help me in Ala.

At this point it would mean a great deal to me if you responded with a letter supporting my effort in looking for a safer product and hopefully getting a good positive survey.

Sir, if you have any advice on the project I'd sure like the help. Thank you.

ID: nht92-7.39

DATE: April 16, 1992

FROM: Neil Friedkin -- Attorney at Law

TO: Marvin Shaw -- NHTSA, U.S. DOT

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/15/92 from Paul J. Rice to Neil Friedkin (A39; Std. 108; Std. 208; Std. 216); Also attached to letter dated 4/13/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Neil Friedkin

TEXT:

Enclosed is a copy of the letter provided to me by Paul Jackson Rice on April 13, 1992.

I would appreciate your providing me with the applicable 1986 standard for convertible passenger cars, if possible.

Once again, thank you for your courtesy and cooperation.

Attachment

NHTSA interpretation letter dated 4/13/92 from Paul J. Rice to Neil Friedkin. (Text omitted here.)