ID: nht89-2.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/05/89

FROM: JEFFREY R. MILLER -- NHTSA ACTING ADMINISTRATOR

TO: FRED GRANDY -- HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 05/09/89 FROM FRED GRANDY -- CONGRESS TO JERRY CURRY -- NHTSA; LETTER DATED 05/05/89 FROM DANIEL F. WIECHMANN TO ROBERT A. DETERMAN, RE THE STATE OF IOWA VS. BARRY LYNN SPEICH; LETTER DATED 09/23/88 FROM DANIEL F. WIECHMANN TO RUTH SKLUZACEEK, RE THE STATE OF IOWA VS. BARRY LYNN SPEICH, FRANKLIN COUNTY CRIMINAL NO. WD488435; NO 24.432.0788 [321.424] OF THE CODE OF IOWA; LETTER DATED 10/10/88 FROM JODY JOHNSON -- IOWA DOT TO DANIEL F. WIECHMANN, REF NO 911.2; LETTER DATED 10/14/88 FROM DANIEL F. WIECHMANN TO RALPH HITCHCOCK -- NHTSA, RE THE STATE OF IOWA VS. BARRY LYNN SPEICH, FRANKLIN COUNTY CRIMINAL NO WD488435; NO. 24.432.0788 [321.424] OF THE CODE OF IOWA

TEXT: Dear Mr. Grandy:

This is in reply to your recent letter to the Administrator Designate, Jerry Curry, on behalf of your constituent Daniel Weichmann, Jr., of Hampton. You enclosed a copy of Mr. Weichmann's letter to this agency with respect to headlamp covers which, regr ettably, we have been remiss in answering. You asked that we review this matter and that you be provided a copy of our response. We are pleased to reply directly to you, with a copy to Mr. Weichmann so that he may be apprised immediately of our views.

Mr. Weichmann was advised by the Iowa Department of Transportation on October 10, 1988, that "The department specifically does not approve head lamp covers", because Iowa has adopted "Federal standards on equipment approval". Consequently, "If the headla mp covers in question meet the Federal Standards they would qualify under Iowa law." Thus, Mr. Weichmann asked us whether headlamp covers are approved by this agency.

Headlamp covers are not permissible as items of original motor vehicle equipment. Paragraph S7.7.5 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, in pertinent part, states that when headlamps are o perated they "shall not have any styling ornament or other feature, such as a translucent cover or grill, in front of the lens." Although Standard No. 108 was only recently amended to state this prohibition expressly (I enclose a copy of the amended stan dard), the prohibition has existed since January 1968 through the incorporation by reference in Standard No. 108 of an SAE headlamp Standard, J580b, which contained the identical language. The safety reason for the prohibition is the reduced effectivene ss of a headlamp beam when it must pass through an extra layer of glazing, particularly if that glazing is tinted, yellowed, or cracked, or if moisture has condensed on the inside of the cover. Thus, headlamp covers are also implicitly prohibited by par agraph S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108 which forbids the installation of optional equipment that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment, such as headlamps, that are required by Standard No. 108.

The Iowa DOT's views are consistent with the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act which permit States to enact State

motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new vehicles provided that they are identical to Federal ones covering the same aspect of performance. Although the Federal standards do not regulate operation of a vehicle after it is sold, and hence cou ld not prohibit a vehicle owner in Iowa from installing headlamp covers and operating his vehicle with them, Iowa's enforcement of a headlamp cover prohibition for vehicles in use would be consistent with its prohibition of them as original vehicle equip ment. However, we cannot interpret Iowa law, and reach no conclusion as to whether its statutes or regulations have that effect.

Should either you or Mr. Weichmann have further questions, we shall be pleased to answer them.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht89-2.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: JULY 5, 1989

FROM: DAVID G. GOULD -- LEGISLATION DEPT., LOTUS ENGINEERING, NORFOLK, ENGLAND

TO: STEVE WOOD -- OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: WMI REGISTER

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO SEPTEMBER 29, 2989 LETTER FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD, NHTSA, TO DAVID G. GOULD, LOTUS ENGINEERING;[REDBOOK A34; PART 565]

TEXT: Lotus Cars Ltd was allocated the WMI "SCC" some years ago by the British Standards Institution - BSI - in England. BSI handles the issuance of WMIs and the maintenance of the United Kingdom WMI register; they notify SAE, the world coordinating body, of those WMIs assigned.

Due to a difficulty that we are experiencing with BSI, Lotus Cars wish to establish the mandate that BSI has with respect to additions to and deletions from the world register, and we have been advised to consult you on this matter.

Specifically, we seek advice on whether a national agency (BSI in the case of the United Kingdom) can delete an allocated WMI from SAE's master register without the agreement of the holder of that WMI, for whatever reason.

Our concerns in this matter stem from the fact that the WMI is a legally required component of the VIN, itself a legal requirement in the European Community, and we would not wish to be deleted from the SAE master register as a result of our difficulties with BSI.

We understand from the SAE WMI co-ordinator in Warrendale PA that WMIs must be allocated by a national body, and cannot be allocated by SAE outside the USA.

We would therefore welcome your views on this query.

Yours sincerely,

ID: nht89-2.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/06/89

FROM: LINDA B. KENT -- MARKET DEVELOPMENT SR. ACCOUNT EXECUTIVE FASSON SPECIALTY DIVISION

TO: STEPHEN WOOD -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 01/09/90 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO LINDA B. KENT -- FASSON SPECIALTY DIVISION; REDBOOK A35; VSA 108 [A] [2]; STANDARD 205

TEXT: Dear Sir:

Enclosed you will find a brochure and samples of a product called Contra Vision. Avery International has purchased the Marketing and Selling rights of this invention. Contra Vision allows you to print an image on one side of a clear substrate, but from the other side, the viewer can see right through the sign.

This product will be used for promotional signage in store windows, but also has application in rear taxicab windows, as well as rear and side windows of city buses.

I am writing to request clarification of federal vehicle safety compliance standard no. 205. I understand that the federal standards outline the visibility rates that are permissable for use in these types of vehicles at the OEM level. I understand, al so, that there are state standards that can be the same or different from the federal standards. If, though, Contra Vision does comply with the federal standards, I feel that this will greatly help us in approching each state on an individual basis.

I feel that our product does comply with the federal standards in that you can see clearly through the Contra Vision panels. The same amount of ink is on both sides of the panel, it's just that your eye sees the colored dot, yet ignores the black dot.

If you could respond back to me with my request of clarification and your thoughts on compliance, it would be greatly appreciated.

Look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely, ENCLOSURE

ID: nht89-2.29

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 6, 1989

FROM: Bob Jones -- Triple J Motors Saipan, Inc.

TO: Ben Blas -- Congressman

TITLE: Re Ref: 704-11

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-5-90 from Robert H. Jones to Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance Enforcement, NHTSA; Also attached to letter dated 3-11-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Robert H. Jones (A37; VSA Sec. 103(8)); Also attached to l etter dated 1-22-91 from Robert H. Jones to Clive Van Orden (OCC 5733); Also attached to letter dated 12-11-90 from Robert H. Jones to Clive Van Orden; Also attached to letter dated 10-11-90 from Robert H. Jones to Congressman Ben Blaz

TEXT:

I am enclosing copies of a number of letters which create more confussion than they eliminate.

The problem is quite simple. Triple J Motors on Saipan is in compliance with FMVSS and FMCSR Safety and EPA Regulations with all vehicles which we sell. No other dealer is 100% in compliance. All have sold or are selling vehicles which do not meet the Department of Transportation Safety Requirements and/or EPA Regulations.

I want one of two things; either the Federal Government, through its U.S. Attorneys Office, should enforce the laws or set them aside so we all can play on a level ground. I am afraid to violate the regulations and wind up in a law suit as a result of a n accident or some late late action from the Federal Government.

Any assitance you can give would be greatly appreciated. We don't care which way it goes; just a clarification that the CNMI must comply and enforce the regulations or that the regulations don't apply, so that we can import the same non compliance type of vehicles as the competition.

ID: nht89-2.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/15/89

FROM: JOHN E. HAMMER -- JOHN E. HAMMER AND ASSOCIATES

TO: KATHLEEN C. DEMETER -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10/6/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO JOHN E. HAMMER -- JOHN E. HAMMER AND ASSOCIATES; REDBOOK A34, VSA 102, 108

TEXT: Dear Madam:

This is an inquiry regarding the legality of an owner rigidly attaching a hood ornament onto a motor vehicle to prevent theft of the ornament by vandals.

Mr. Zachary Fraser, Motor Vehicle Safety Administration, suggested an opinion from your office might be helpful.

This is a never-ending problem with the Dodge truck Ramhead ornament and we would like to provide an "after market" kit to solve the problem.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-2.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/10/89

FROM: FREDERICK H. DAMBACH -- EXECULINE

TO: NHTSA OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 07/26/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO FREDERICK H. DAMBACH; REDBOOK A33; STANDARD 217

TEXT: Dear Sirs:

Over a month ago, we purchased two 1985 Van Hool buses from an operating bus company in Florida. These vehicles have been operating for hire for the past three years.

When we brought the vehicles back to New Jersey, we were given a very difficult time by the N.J. Department of Transportation about the emergency exits on the bus.

N.J. DOT was incorrectly reading specification #571.217 and insisting that we needed push out windows to meet the emergency exit requirements. After speaking with Jeff Jiuseppe from the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, N.J. DOT finally agreed that w e did not need push out windows, and the existing emergency doors would meet the spec.

Now N.J. DOT is saying that although they will accept the doors to meet the requirements, they do not meet the total square inch requirement as outlined in 217.

It is my interpretation of 217 that we do meet the square inch requirements for emergency exits.

Paragraph S5.2, "Provision of emergency exits" (copy attached), explains the square inch requirements.

Our problem is when the spec. limits an opening to 536 sq. inches.

Our buses are 51 passenger capacity. We have over 9000 sq. inches between four exit doors. We have four roof hatches with over 960 sq. inches each. We have over 12,800 sq. inches of total exit space, only 3417 sq. inches are required by 217.

N.J. DOT will only credit us with 1064 sq. inches per side, saying we need a total of 1366.8 per side. They will only count the exit doors, giving no credit for the roof hatches, saying that they are not on the side. We need an interpretation of the de finition of "SIDE" as used in 217.

According to Websters New World Dictionary (page attached), side means "the right or left half, as of the body".

It is my contention, when 217 says 40% of the total required area of unobstructed openings shall be provided on each side of a bus, they are saying each half of a bus. In other words, if you split the bus body down the middle, 40% would have to be on ea ch side. You would then have to split the area for the roof hatches and credit half to each side.

Under this interpretation, we easily exceed the number of sq. inches required by 217.

We need a ruling on this interpretation immediately, in writing, and sent to Vincent Shultz, Supervisor, N.J. DOT, FAX #201-648-6912.

Please do not delay this request.

These two buses are half of my fleet. We have already been going around with N.J. DOT on this for over a month. As a result, we cannot operate the buses and it is costing me a fortune. I can not survive much longer without getting these buses on the r oad.

If you have any questions, please call me at the above number.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,

S5.2 Provision of emergency exits. Buses other than schoolbuses shall provide unobstructed openings for emergency exit which collectively amount, in total square inches, to at least 67 times the number of designated seating positions on the bus. At least 40 percent of the total required area of unobstructed openings, computed in the above manner, shall be provided on each side of a bus. However, in determining the total unobstructed openings provided by a bus, no emergency exit, regardless of its area, shall be credited with more than 536 square inches of the total area requirement. School buses shall provide openings for emergency exits that conform to S5.2.3.

ID: nht89-2.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/10/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: SADATO KADOYA -- MANAGER, SAFETY ENGINEERING MAZDA (NORTH AMERICA), INC. RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT CENTER

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Kadoya:

This is to provide you with a clarification of our letter to you dated November 3, 1988, based upon your telephone conversation with Taylor Vinson of this Office.

Our letter advised you that Standard No. 108 did not preclude the use of replaceable bulb headlamps with adjustable reflectors. In reply, you have cited two provisions of the standard which appear in conflict with this interpretation. With respect to a headlamp equipped with one or two HB1 light sources, S4.1.1.36(e)(1) states that "There shall be no mechanism that allows adjustment of an individual [HB1] or adjustment of reflector aim with two [HB1s]." To similar effect with respect to HB3 and HB4 li ght sources is S4.1.1.36(f)(1). Standard No. 108 has been amended effective June 8, 1989, and the corresponding requirements are now S7.5(d)(1) and (e)(1). Each has been revised to state "There shall be no mechanism that allows adjustment of an individ ual light source, or, if there are two light sources, independent adjustment of each reflector."

We believe that the revised wording of the new sections clearly allow the adjustment of single reflectors in single light source replaceable bulb headlamps, and dual reflectors in dual-light source replaceable bulb headlamps, provided that the reflectors are not capable of independent adjustment. Further, new S7.7.2.2 specifically addresses how moveable reflectors must operate.

The intent of these sections is to prohibit headlamp designs in which the bulb alone is adjusted to aim the headlamp since this is contrary to

mechanical aim requirements, or, where there is more than one reflector in a headlamp, designs in which each reflector may be adjusted independently, since this is also contrary to achieving precise mechanical aim.

Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-2.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/11/89

FROM: BUTLER DERRICK -- CONGRESS

TO: STEVE WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 07/31/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO BUTLER DERRICK -- CONGRESS; REDBOOK A31; STANDARD 208 TEXT OF THE RULING BY THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT UPHOLDING THE STATE'S LAW REQUIRING SEAT BELT USE BY DRIVERS AND FRONT SEA T PASSENGERS IN AUTOMOBILES; DATE 10/01/86

TEXT: I am writing to inquire about a matter which was brought to my attention by a constituent from South Carolina.

The constituent states that the Supreme Court has found laws requiring the wearing of helmets by motorcyclists to be unconstitutional. He does not understand why laws requiring people to wear seat belts in cars would not also be unconstitutional.

The constituent poses an interesting question, and I respectfully request that you look into this matter, particularly as it relates to existing federal and state precendents, and furnish me with a reply that I might share with him.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. I look forward to hearing from you.

With kind regards, I am

Respectfully

ID: nht89-2.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/12/89

FROM: GEORGE A. VAN STRATEN -- VAN STRATEN HEATED TAIL LIGHT CO

TO: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTIVE CHIEF COUNSEL U.S. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/11/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO GEORGE A. VANSTRATEN; REDBOOK A34; STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 05/16/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO THOMAS C. GRAVENGOOD -- AGAPE PLASTICS

TEXT: Dear Mr. Wood:

I am writing to you in regard to the product which I have invented and received patents on, called the "Heated Tail Light". I developed this product to keep the tail lights on vehicles snow and ice free in the winter months, so signals are clearly visib le. Recently my wife Jill spoke over the telephone with Mr. Benson from your department, who said you could help with my problem and I should send this information to your attention.

We have been working with our State Representatives office in Lansing, Michigan and through them a company by the name of Agap'e Plastics, Inc. from Grand Rapids, Michigan had heard of my product. A gentleman by the name of Tom Gravengood from Agap'e ap proached me about buying my company. He said that he wanted to help me out with sending my product into your department, as he already had the right connections and it would surely speed things up. Now, with my sending Mr. Gravengood the sample "Heated Tail Lights" and customer letters we had received, along with other information, we were under the understanding that this was to be handled under my company name. Also, I was to receive copies of any correspondence from your office. After quite some time, Mr. Gravengood finally told me over the telephone that he did receive a letter from you and he was reading parts of the letter to me. I could tell that the letter was to him and not to my company. After repeatedly trying to receive a copy of the letter, it was finally sent to me, however, not by Mr. Gravengood, but by our State Representatives office. It was sometime in the middle of June when I received it. I have enclosed a copy of the letter for you.

What I would greatly appreciate is, if you would send me a copy of any incoming correspondence from Mr. Gravengood and also, a letter in duplicate to the one sent to Mr. Gravengood dated May 16, 1989, but addressed to myself and my company. With receivi ng interest at the O.E.M. level, customers do indeed want to see some proof that I have gone through your office. With this, I can show them that I have done so.

I have enclosed some information on the "Heated Tail Light" to familiarize you with the product again. If you have any questions about anything, please feel free to give me a call at either (906) 353-7131 or (906) 353-6490. Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-2.34

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 14, 1989

FROM: J. Michael Mundy -- Lease Sales Representative, Penske Truck Leasing Co., L.P.

TO: Emory Lariscy

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-4-90 from P.J. Rice to E.J. Lariscy (A36; Std. 108; Std. 124; Std. 301); Also attached to letter dated 8-28-89 from E.L. Lariscy to G. Shifflett (OCC 3910) with Patent Application for Vehicle Safety Light Assembly (gr aphics omitted); Also attached to letter dated 7-14-89 from J.M. Staples to E.L. Lariscy; Also attached to letter dated 8-8-89 from L. Baer to E.L. Lariscy; Also attached to letter dated 7-28-89 from A.M. Kennedy to E.L. Lariscy

TEXT:

I recently had the opportunity to witness your speed-caution light in operation. It is a truly effective piece of safety equipment.

Rear end collisions are especially prevalent in the transportation industry because of lower speeds required due to weight and product requirements.

This light would not only save money in reduced repair cost and lower insurance premiums. More importantly, it may save someone's life.

Please forward me any information possible on your product as it becomes available.