ID: nht93-4.17

DATE: June 3, 1993

FROM: Michael H. Dunn -- Vice President, Marketing, Micho Industries

TO: Greg Fera -- Pupil Transportation Specialist, Department of Education, Bureau of Pupil Transportation

COPYEE: M. Hecker; J. Heritscko; G. Gruber

TITLE: Re: R-Bar Passenger Restraint System

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-29-93 from John Womack to Michael H. Dunn (A41; Std. 222); Also attached to letter dated 11-29-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Michael H. Dunn; Also attached to letter dated 12-3-91 from Michael H. Dunn to Paul Jackson Rice.

TEXT: To confirm our recent telephone conversation, Micho Industries is now making the arrangements to complete the testing of the R-Bar, with the latest modifications, for compliance with FMVSS 222, specifically for rear impact (4" clearance) requirements.

This testing should put to rest the only remaining concern about the safety of the R-Bar and its compliance with all applicable Federal standards, since all other aspects of those regulations have previously been tested and "certified" to meet those requirements.

We hope to have the complete test data package very soon and I will forward a copy to you immediately for evaluation. In the meantime, please don't hesitate to call me if you have any questions.

May 17, l993

Mr. Greg Fera, Pupil Transportation Specialist Department of Education Bureau of Pupil Transportation, CN-500 225 W. State Street Trenton, NJ 08625-0500

Re: R-Bar Passenger Restraint System

Dear Greg:

To confirm our telephone conversation, I wish to advise you that, due to several improvements made in the R-Bar design, we can not "CERTIFY" that it is in full compliance with all requirements of FMVSS No. 222, including the rear impact tests described in S5.1.4(c) of that regulation. Please advise Linda Wells for me and, if either of you have any questions, please let me know.

As you know, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer of a product to provide that certification and Micho Industries can now offer you that assurance.

While details of specific changes will not be made public for awhile, I wanted you to be one of the first to be aware of the fact that we can now offer the R-Bar for sale in New Jersey and other states that are looking for a practical and safe alternative to seat belts for school buses.

Thanks for your patience with us. I am sorry it took to so long to get here.

Regards,

Michael H. Dunn V.P. Marketing

MHD/md CC: M. Hecker, J. Heritscko, G. Gruber

ID: nht93-4.18

DATE: June 3, 1993

FROM: Charles H. Taylor -- Member of Congress, House of Representatives

TO: Jackie Lowey -- Acting Secretary for Legislative Affairs, Department of Transportation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-29-93 from John Womack to Charles H. Taylor (A41; Part 571).

TEXT: I am writing to urge the Department of Transportation to reconsider its rules regarding the sale of surplus HMMMV (Humvee) military vehicles to law enforcement organizations.

While there may be good reasons for not allowing surplus Humvees to be sold to the general public, I believe that new regulations regarding Humvees should be drawn up making a distinction between the general public and a law enforcement agency operating Humvees with trained drivers to carry out its official duties.

As you will note from the enclosed correspondence I have received from Charles Long, the Sheriff of Buncombe County, North Carolina, Humvees were invaluable in assisting the Sheriff's Department in their efforts to aid the citizens of Buncombe County during the recent massive snowstorm last March. I am also enclosing the reply of the Department of Defense to Sheriff Long's letter.

Thank you very much for your assistance in this matter.

March 31, 1993

The Honorable Charles Taylor 11th Congressional District 516 Cannon House Office Building Washington, DC 20515

Dear Congressman Taylor:

As I am sure you are no doubt aware, Buncombe County was one of the recent "Blizzard of '93" victims, and according to the local newspaper, we were one of the two hardest hit counties in the Western part of the State. Even with four wheel drive vehicles, travel was near impossible without chains, and for the first time that I can remember, County agencies were closed for three consecutive days.

Our Department was receiving calls for assistance faster than we could answer, and actual response was a nightmare. By the second day of the storm, we requested and received the assistance of the North Carolina National Guard who provided four wheel drive HMMWV vehicles (with drivers). We pride ourselves in being one of the best Sheriff's Departments' in the State, but there is no

question that we would never have been able to have done our jobs during this storm without these vehicles.

After the initial dilemma of the storm concluded, we critiqued our emergency operation plans, and one of the items we felt we should attempt to procure for future emergencies is a HMMMV vehicle, and accordingly, wrote to the State Agency for Surplus inquiring into this process. I have this date received word from State Surplus informing me that the Department of Defense has determined these type vehicles are unsafe for civilian agencies and cannot be surplused to same.

I strongly disagree that these vehicles are "unsafe for civilian agencies", at least, in that term. Frankly, lives were saved and damage to property minimized on account of these vehicles and certainly, had we not utilized them, it would have had serious repercussions and been much more "unsafe". To ban their use by any agency other than the military appears to me to defeat the original purpose of the design of this vehicle. I understand that the operation of this vehicle is unique, but in my Department alone there are at least five (5) individuals who are qualified, and at least two (2) who could become qualified operators of the HMMMV vehicle through their National Guard or Army Reserve Training.

The cost of these vehicles new would be exorbitant to an agency requiring such seldom use; however, I do understand they are available in the private sector under a different package. The only way an agency such as ours could purchase such a vehicle would be through surplus, given the price of the vehicle.

The purpose of this letter is to request your assistance in this matter in addressing this issue with the appropriate persons to either eliminate the ban to "civilian agencies", or, in the alternative, relax the language so as to allow emergency agencies to be allowed privy to this surplus, under the same guidelines as is required by the military.

Your kind assistance would be appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

Charles H. Long

CHL:j

cc: Senator Sam Nunn 301 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510-1001 ATTN: Charlie Harman Senator J. James Exon 528 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510-1001

ID: nht93-4.19

DATE: June 3, 1993

FROM: Kenneth G. Koop -- Risk Control Representative, Intergovernmental Risk Management Agency

TO: John Wolmack (Womack) -- Acting Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Commission

TITLE: Passenger Seat and Airbag Removal

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/26/93 from John Womack (signature by Kenneth N. Weinstein to Kenneth G. Koop (A41; Std. 207; Std. 208; VSA 108 (a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

The Intergovernmental Risk Management Agency is a municipal risk pool serving 60 municipalities in Northeastern Illinois.

Several of our member Police Chiefs have inquired as to whether there is a variance procedure that would permit their departments to legally remove the passenger seat and passenger airbag from their police vehicles, and place permanently mounted policing equipment in the seat's place.

It is our position that since the passenger seat will be removed, therefore allowing no passenger in that area, the removal of the passenger side airbag should be permitted.

We would greatly appreciate specific direction regarding these proposed modifications.

ID: nht93-4.2

DATE: May 18, 1993

FROM: Richard Muraski -- President/CEO, Equa-Brake

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief General Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Armando Mena

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/5/93 from John Womack (signature by Kenneth N. Weinstein) to Richard Muraski (A41; Std. 121)

TEXT:

On July 2, 1992, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) denied a Petition of Rulemaking on an Air Brake System product presented by the Washington Corporation. The petition would have amended FMVSS Standard No. 121 to require a device that regulates air pressure differential between the two wheels on each axle. This ruling could impact our product, the Equa-Brake System which operates on a similar principal yet different design.

Equa-Brake is enclosing a packet on our product and would like an interpretation of this NHTSA action on it.

This interpretation is vital to our efforts. Equa-Brake understands that this denial of rulemaking does not prohibit Equa-Brake from installing its product on vehicles through manufacturers dealer or repair businesses provided it does not render the brake system to fall out of compliance with Standard 121. If you have any questions, please contact me at 702-329-7072 or Armando Mena at 703-938-5117. Thank you.

Attachment

EQUA-BRAKE is a MECHANICAL "auxiliary brake system" that increases brake force and improves brake performance on all vehicles that are equipped with air brakes.

Direct benefits of the Equa-Brake "auxiliary brake system" include safer, straighter, shorter (up to 30% shorter) stopping under panic braking situations.

Reduced one wheel lock-up coupled with significantly reduced brake drum temperatures (reduced brake fade) allows drivers to maintain control under emergency stopping conditions, virtually eliminating potential jack-knife problems.

Under normal braking - the increased brake force permits drivers to maintain their habitual braking patterns with substantially less application pressure. This reduces brake wear and also reduces the tendency for trailer wheels to lock-up - loaded or unloaded.

Tire life is extended from 10% to 20% or more by reducing flat spots caused by one wheel lock-up.

Additional direct benefits result in lower operating costs by extending brake component life up to 40% or more (some users claim extended brake life significantly exceeding 40%).

Indirect benefits derive from increased driver confidence in the vehicle being driven, along with potential insurance savings that result from a safer vehicle that could avoid costly accidents.

Unlike drive line retarders that have proven to be dangerous when activated on wet road surfaces - especially in turns or cornering the driver is always in control of any vehicle equipped with the Equa-Brake "auxiliary brake system".

The Equa-Brake "auxiliary brake system" is totally mechanical, does not use any type of electronics, does not require maintenance and is warranteed for five (5) years.

It is absolutely fail safe. In the unlikely event any component of the Equa-Brake "auxiliary brake system" should fail, the vehicle brake system will return to factory specifications.

Current users include fleets, concrete mixer trucks, fleets of trailers only and fire departments.

Users report improved brake performance, extended brake component life and increased driver confidence in the ability to control their vehicle during the braking sequence.

ID: nht93-4.20

DATE: June 3, 1993

FROM: David L. Degenstein -- Manager, Product Safety & Compliance, Kenworth Truck Company

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/7/93 from John Womack to David Degenstein (A41; Std. 101)

TEXT:

Kenworth Truck Company, a manufacturer of heavy duty Class 7 and 8 trucks and truck tractors, respectfully submits the following request for interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 101, Controls and Displays.

FMVSS 101 specifies requirements for the location, identification, and illumination of motor vehicle controls and displays. One of the vehicle controls regulated by this standard is the automatic vehicle speed system, or cruise control.

Kenworth is in the process of developing a new product that will locate a cruise control switch in a console that is attached to the manual transmission shift lever, adjacent to the shift knob (see the attached photographs). One switch in the console will control the SET and RESUME functions of the cruise control, and the other switches will control the engine brake. The switches are operable by the driver, and the identification is visible to the driver in accordance with S5.1 of Standard No. 101; therefore, Kenworth believes this location to be in compliance. For your information, the switch which controls the ON and OFF function of the cruise control will remain located on the dash panel. Of course, while operating, the cruise control can be disengaged by depressing the brake, or clutch pedal.

Illumination requirements for control identifications are specified in S5.3, and listed in Table 1(a), column 4, of Standard No. 101. Accordingly, Automatic - Vehicle Speed control (cruise control) is listed on Table 1(a) and accompanied by the word "yes" under column 4, indicating illumination is required whenever the headlights are activated. Exception to the illumination requirement is allowed provided the control is mounted to the floor, floor console, or steering column.

Kenworth requests an interpretation regarding the applicability of the illumination requirement to a transmission shift lever mounted cruise control switch. Kenworth believes this cruise control switch location is similar, relative to driver's accessibility and visibility of the control, to an automobile switch located on a floor console, and therefore, illumination should not be necessary or required.

Please confirm that our proposed location for a cruise control switch does not require illumination, and that the location complies with FMVSS No. 101.

We look forward to hearing from you concerning our request. In the meantime, if you have any questions or need additional information, please do not

hesitate to contact me.

(Attached photos and drawing omitted.)

ID: nht93-4.21

DATE: June 3, 1993

FROM: Richard Glover -- Director of New Product Development, Evenflo Juvenile Furniture Company, Inc.

TO: Deirdre Fujita -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/20/93 from John Womack to Richard Glover (A41; Std. 213)

TEXT:

I had attempted to call you concerning the possibility of including a bar code which could be automatically scanned at the bottom of the Car Seat Registration Card which consumers fill out. This bar code would contain model number, date of manufacturer, and serial number for the product that the card represents. We feel that by adding an automatically scanned bar code section to the card, that it will eliminate the possibility of mis- keying any of this information, in as much as the human element has been removed from the card. We would request a white section to be allowed in the portion of the card which is currently specified to be a 10 percent minimum gray scale background. I have sent you a mock up of the possible location that this bar code may reside in, for your consideration. We have noticed on the cards which are coming back to us at Evenflo so far, that if any postal damage has occurred to the card, that is very likely to occur on the bottom edge of the card. As a result of that, it may be more advantageous to move this white space into the area immediately below the area that the consumer fills in. It would be approximately the same width as the zone that the consumer fills in, and simply be a white space slightly further down into the card. It would leave the gray background around the outside perimeter of the card and would allow us space to openly print the model number, date of manufacture, and serial number in case there were any difficulties in bar code reading.

I would appreciate your consideration of this matter. Please advise us, as we are near the point of having to print additional cards at this time, and release printing lots to our printing company are at a rate of 500,000 cards per lot. If this will require a petition for a change in the current rules, please advise me so that we may petition as soon as possible. I remain,

Attachment (Child Restraint Registration Card) omitted.

ID: nht93-4.22

DATE: June 4, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Daniel L. Kokal -- Champagne Imports

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-8-93 from Daniel L. Kokal to Johnathan Womack (OCC 8624)

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 8, 1993, requesting use of continuous surety bonding for importation of nonconforming vehicles under the Registered Importer program.

As you have informed us, (c)urrently, single entry bonds are filed with each (nonconforming) vehicle at 150% of the vehicle's value . . . .", and that this is expensive for the importer of Canadian vehicles which "rarely, if ever, require safety modifications to meet U.S. standards." You propose a continuous bond which would cover more than one vehicle, with the same level of value. The example you give is that of a continuous bond of $150,000 which would cover 10 vehicles imported together, each with a value of $10,000 as determined by the U.S. Customs Service, rather than individual bonds for 10 vehicles of $10,000 value, each bond at $15,000. Your specific suggestion is for "the ability to import no more than 15 vehicles under a given continuous bond at 150% total vehicle value."

We are unable to implement your suggestion at present. Under 49 CFR 591.8 (a), the safety compliance bond's coverage is restricted to "only one motor vehicle." Thus, rulemaking is required to amend paragraph 591.8 (a) to permit a bond that covers more than one vehicle. In addition, Appendix A to Part 591 will have to be modified; this sets forth the terms of the bond, presently expressed in single-entry terms. As NHTSA is required to reimburse Customs for its costs in processing safety compliance bonds, that agency must necessarily be consulted to determine the impact of such a change on its operations, with a possible change in the bond processing fee imposed under Part 594. However, the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance will consider the feasibility of rulemaking on this subject.

ID: nht93-4.23

DATE: June 4, 1993

FROM: Margaret W. Mouzon -- Mouzon Information Services

TO: Mary Versailles -- Office of the General Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/21/93 from John Womack to Margaret W. Mouzon (A41; Std. 208; VSA 108(b)(1)), letter dated 3/4/93 from John Womack to Robert A. Ernst, and letter dated 1/19/90 from Stephen P. Wood to Linda L. Conrad (Std. 208)

TEXT:

Could you please describe and provide and interpretation of any federal regulations regarding dealer responsibility for occupant restraint system installations?

For example, if a new or used car dealer sells a used car with an occupant restraint system which has been rendered inoperable, for example, a deployed airbag, does the dealer have to restore the restraint system to its original condition before delivering the vehicle to the purchaser?

What if the dealer is selling the showroom model or demonstration model of an otherwise "new" vehicle, does the occupant restraint system have to be operable?

I would much appreciate a response to these questions.

Thank you very much for your assistance.

ID: nht93-4.24

DATE: June 4, 1993

FROM: James G. O'Neill

TO: D. Fujida -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/5/93 from John Womack (signature by Kenneth N. Weinstein) to James G. O'Neill (A41; Std. 213)

TEXT:

I was directed to your office by Mr. Dick Jasinski of the equipment branch of safety compliance.

I am manufacturing a product that will be attached to a child's car seat. I would like to know if there are any N.H.T.S.A. requirements the product must meet.

The sketch will give you an idea of its function.

Attachment

Sketch omitted.

ID: nht93-4.25

DATE: June 7, 1993

FROM: Ben F. Barrett -- Associate Director, The Legislative Research Department, State of Kansas

TO: Office of Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/1/93 from John Womack to Ben F. Barrett (A41; Part 571.3)

TEXT:

A Kansas school district recently has expressed its desire to use a 15-passenger vehicle, which I believe generally is categorized as a "bus," to transport students to and from school or to and from school-related activities. But, the district does not want to cause these vehicles to meet the additional safety requirements of a "school bus." However, it is my understanding that if such a vehicle is used to transport students, it is under the federal law of a "school bus."

Our state law, among other things, defines a "school bus" as a motor vehicle designed for transporting more than ten passengers in addition to the driver. The suggestion is that the state law be amended so as to exclude the 15-passenger vehicles from the state's "school bus" definition.

No doubt, proposals of this type previously have been called to your attention. It would be helpful to us to obtain your comments concerning the consequences of such legislation, both with respect to any federal sanctions that might relate to this type of nonconformity and to liability or other issues that might merit attention.

Thank you for your assistance.