ID: nht93-6.19

DATE: August 18, 1993

FROM: Tom DeLapp -- Executive Coach Builders, Inc.

TO: Chief Council -- NHTSA

TITLE: F.M.V.S.S. #207

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/1/93 Est. from John Womack to Tom DeLapp (A41; Std. 207)

TEXT:

As a manufacturer of quality limousines we expect to meet or exceed any safety regulation which would affect our vehicles. To this end, we request an interpretation to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (F.M.V.S.S.) = 207, specifically the section addressing folding or hinged seats.

During and after production of 1993 Ford/Lincoln Town Cars, access to the area rearward of the front seat is limited due to the inclusion of a privacy panel installed to separate the passenger compartment from the drivers compartment. To allow ourselves and our customers access to the area between the front of the panel and the back of the front seat (containing auxiliary fuse panels and relays), we wish to modify the hinge assembly controlling forward and reclining movement of the seat. As constructed by Ford/Lincoln, the seat hinge is limited in it's forward movement by a metal pin in the hinge assembly. By removal of the pin, the seat would articulate forward to a greater degree, thereby providing access to the area in question. This modification is as provided on two door vehicles to allow passengers access to the rear seating.

No change or modification of the O.E.M. recliner latch is performed by our company. The recliner latch provides for a self locking mechanism (and release) for the articulation of the seat back.

Research by myself of the F.M.V.S.S. standards does not reveal a prohibition to removal of the limiting pin or a forward travel limit to the seat back. Additionally, a phone conversation with Clark Harper of the F.M.V.S.S. staff on 8-17-93 failed to locate a prohibition to this modification.

Please address this matter at your earliest convenience. Should you require further information or engineer drawings, please contact me by phone or FAX.

Phone (417) 831 3535 FAX (417) 831 0834

ID: nht93-6.2

DATE: August 5, 1993

FROM: Bernhard Peer -- President, Peer Enterprises Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Council, Chief Council's Office, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/6/93 from John Womack to Bernhard Peer (A41; VSA 102(3))

TEXT:

Per my conversation with the Department of Transportation in Washington D.C. they have advised I should write to you regarding our needs.

Our company, Peer Enterprises Inc., is the main importer for a product known as a TWIP; a slow moving, battery driven, scooter type vehicle with a maximum top speed of approximately 9 miles per hour (.27kw). Please see attached brochure for full explanation and specification detail. The scooter is very quiet and because it is powered by a rechargeable battery, there is no exhaust thus making it very friendly to the environment. Manufactured In Italy, the TWIP has already been certified in most of the European Countries and is now ready for introduction to the USA. The TWIP Is extremely high quality construction, fully equipped with: brakes-front and rear, foot rests, kick stand, head light, tail light, horn and rear view mirror. The TWIP Is collapsible and can be easily stored for portable transportation.

Our primary market for this product will be recreational use i.e. RV motor homes, boats/yachts, etc. - anyone that can use a storable, portable form of transportation. Another segment of the market is industrial use. The TWIP is used in plants, warehouses, hospitals, etc.; also adequately serving security guards and maintenance personnel in a variety of circumstances.

Throughout Europe the market has been very successfully defined and the product overwhelmingly accepted. We now request your assistance to obtain federal approval and certification for the USA. We ore enclosing copies of certification forms from several of the existing distributing countries for your use. Peer Enterprises Inc. is staffed and fully prepared to begin our distribution business awaiting only your approval. We therefore ask your assistance as quickly as possible. If there is anything we can do to help expedite the process, please advise.

We thank you for your immediate attention to our request and await your response.

(Brochure omitted)

ID: nht93-6.20

DATE: August 18, 1993

FROM: Jack McIntyre -- V.Pres., Tie Tech Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/23/93 from John Womack to Jack McIntyre (A41; Std. 209; Std. 222) and letter dated 9/15/93 from Jack McIntyre to John Womack (OCC-9123)

TEXT:

In January 1993, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued requirements for wheelchair securement systems that are used on school buses. These requirements are included in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 222. As stated in the comments that were provided to the Proposed Rule, these standards are needed.

In reviewing the final requirements, however, it appears that a particular requirement for the wheelchair securement system was adopted that is inconsistent with the securement systems being manufactured by most wheelchair securement manufacturers. Also, this requirement does not appear to be directly relevant to the crash performance of a wheelchair securement belt. The specific requirement I am referring to appears in S5.4.2, which references the requirements of Type 1 safety belts of FMVSS 209, and requires that the belt webbing be not less than 1.8 inches wide.

There is no apparent need to specify a minimum belt width for wheelchair securement belts as there is for occupant restraint belts. I understand that the belt width requirements for occupant restraint systems is to spread the crash forces over a larger area of the body. There is no such need for securement belts. Currently the industry standard for securement belts is a 1 inch wide belt made from polyester that easily meets the 6,000 pound force requirements of FMVSS 209 and 222. Additionally, the 1 inch wide belts made from polyester have less stretch than the 1.8 inch nylon belts.

Finally, it is noted that 1 inch wide securement belts and related hardware are easier and less cumbersome to connect to a wheelchair, particularly in the tight circumstances that exist on school buses in many instances, than are the 1.8 inch wide belts and their larger pieces of hardware.

Based on the above, I petition to change the requirement that the wheelchair securement belt must be at least 1.8 inches wide. The cost to the wheelchair securement industry to retool for the wider belts would be significant, without any added benefits in terms of safety to occupants of wheelchairs in school buses.

Thank you for your consideration.

ID: nht93-6.21

DATE: August 19, 1993

FROM: Richard A. Wennerberg -- Vice President, Marketing Services, American Gas Association

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Rich Kolodziej -- A.G.A.; Paul Duvall -- Brunswick

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/22/93 from John Womack to Richard A. Wennerberg (A41; Std. 303)

TEXT:

On behalf of the American Gas Association (A.G.A), I would like to express our appreciation to the persons at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) responsible for convening the recent meeting to discuss the status of the compressed natural gas cylinder rulemaking. We are hopeful that the meeting and the planned follow-up actions will result in the speedy resolution of this issue. The implementation of a final rule will serve to allay some of the concerns that currently are impeding the marketability of natural gas vehicles.

As stated at the meeting on Monday, the lack of standards is a problem for vendors and manufacturers that are seeking to use or sell natural gas cylinders. Some state and local officials are hesitant at this time to commit to natural gas vehicles due to the lack of acceptable federal standards. There appears to a perception by some state officials that the existing Department of Transportation regulations (those adopted by the Research Special Programs Administration) apply to (Vehicular cylinders i.e., cylinders designed to store a vehicle's supply of fuel. Many state planning agencies and federal authorities are in the process of finalizing or implementing alternative fuel programs. As a result, equipment manufacturers are working aggressively to meet the expected demand for alternative fuel vehicles. We are concerned that officials will overlook the attractive advantages of natural gas vehicles due to the misperception that our products do not meet existing standards.

With regard to this misperception, A.G.A. would like to request that your office write a short letter clarifying this issue. One of our staff attorneys has spoken with Mr. Woodford regarding our concerns. Mr. Woodford recommended that we should forward our request to your office. Such a clarification could simply explain that the existing standards were not designed with vehicles in mind and that NHTSA is currently in the process of developing federal standards for compressed natural gas cylinders.

If the agency feels more comfortable sending the letter to state officials instead of to myself, A.G.A. would be happy to supply NHTSA with the relevant names and addresses. We would ask that A.G.A. be copied on any such letter. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to hearing from you.

ID: nht93-6.22

DATE: 08/26/93

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by Kenneth N. Weinstein

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

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/3/93 from Kenneth G. Koop to John Wolmack (Womack) (OCC 8768)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of June 3, 1993, requesting information on a modification for police vehicles. You seek permission to remove the passenger seat and passenger air bag from police vehicles, and to permanently mount equipment where the passenger seat had been. As explained below, this type of modification would be permitted under Federal law.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1381 et seq.; Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. Among the standards that NHTSA has issued are two which could be affected by the modification you propose: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, (49 CFR S571.207), which requires each vehicle to have an occupant seat for the driver and sets strength and other performance requirements for all occupant seats in a vehicle, and Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR S571.208), which specifies occupant protection requirements based on vehicle type and seating position within the vehicle.

If your contemplated modification is made before a vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration (See 49 CFR Part 567.7).

Once the front passenger seat is removed, Standard No. 208 would not require an air bag for that location since an occupant restraint is only required if a seating position is there.

After a vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale, i.e., the first retail sale of the vehicle, the presence and condition of devices or elements of design installed in the vehicle under applicable safety standards is affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

NHTSA does not consider there to be a violation of the "render inoperative" prohibition with respect to occupant restraints if, after one of the named types of commercial entities modifies a used vehicle, the vehicle is equipped with occupant restraints at every seating position and those occupant restraints are the type that Standard No. 208 permitted when the vehicle was new. Again, if a seating position were removed from a used vehicle, the removal of the air bag as well would not violate the render inoperative provision because the presence of the air bag was originally premised on the presence of the seating position. However, the render inoperative prohibition would be violated if removal of the passenger side air bag caused the driver side air bag to malfunction or deploy. I would like to caution you to contact the vehicle manufacturer concerning the proper procedure for any air bag removal. Removing an air bag could cause it to deploy and injure the mechanic. In addition, removal of the passenger side air bag could cause the driver side air bag to malfunction or deploy.

You should also note that the "render inoperative" prohibition applies only to the named entities. Therefore, vehicle owners are permitted to make any modifications to their vehicles, even if the vehicle would no longer comply with applicable safety standards. However, we encourage vehicle owners not to tamper with the occupant protection systems installed in their vehicles.

You should be aware that S4.5.2 of Standard No. 208 requires a readiness indicator for an air bag system which is clearly visible from the driver's seating position. NHTSA believes that most manufacturers install one indicator for both air bags. After the passenger side air bag is removed, this indicator would show that the air bag system is not operative. NHTSA is concerned that the driver would then be unable to tell if the driver side air bag were functional. Therefore, I urge you to contact the manufacturer to determine how the indicator could be altered to monitor the readiness of the driver side air bag only.

As a final caution, I note that the purpose of the "render inoperative" provision is to ensure, to the degree possible, current and subsequent owners and users of the vehicle are not deprived of the maximum protection afforded by the vehicle as newly manufactured. Your letter states that you will "place permanently mounted policing equipment in the seat's place." It is our understanding that it is common for police cars to be sold after a few years of service. Presumably any police equipment would be removed before such a sale. I urge you to either reinstall the passenger seat and occupant restraint or to make these modifications in a way that will discourage reinstallation of the passenger seat, so that future users of the vehicle are unlikely to use a seating position that does not have any occupant restraint.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht93-6.23

DATE: August 30, 1993

FROM: Hal Sullivan

TO: David Elias -- Esq., Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Code Of Federal Regulations; 49 CFR, @ 567.5 And Any Relevant Related Codes.

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 6/8/94 From John Womack To Mr. And Mrs. Hal Sullivan (A42; Part 567; VSA 108(a)(1)(E)

TEXT: Dear David,

This letter will serve to confirm our request that you proceed to render your opinion on the definition the phrase "rated cargo load" contained in @ 567.5, entitled "GROSS. VEHICLE WEIGHT RATING".

As you will please recall, we purchased a 1992 Pace Arrow motor home from Fleetwood Motor Homes of California Inc., and when filled with fresh water, 6 gallons of water in the hot water heater, 3 gallons of water and chemical in each of the holding tanks and equipped with the identical factory optional HWH hydraulic jacks, the motor home is already over the maximum GVWR for the chassis. Our vehicle had a serious chassis failure at 4000 miles. The dealers routinely do everything but disclose the seriously inadequate carrying capacity associated with many of the motor homes manufactured by Fleetwood.

Please also direct me as to how 49 CFR is enforced as against a manufacturer who violates the code, i.e. are there fines, civil penalties etc?

Your prompt attention is most appreciated, as we are currently involved in a civil action against Fleetwood.

Sincerely,

ID: nht93-6.24

DATE: August 31, 1993

FROM: Joey Ferrari -- Director Technical Sales, Grant Products

TO: Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/6/93 from John Womack to Joey Ferrari (A41; Std. 208; VSA 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

I am writing this to you at the advice of Mr. Jettner.

Grant Products is an automotive parts manufacturer and our main product line is aftermarket steering wheels. With the arrival of the air bag, we have been careful to specifically state that our products are not applicable to any air bag equipped vehicle since we do not manufacture an air bag.

We receive many inquiries from both repair shops and private individuals asking if our products will fit their vehicles originally air bag equipped. Some say they don't want or like the air bag, but most calls are after an accident where the bag has deployed. Upon finding out how expensive it is to replace the air bag system (especially if they don't have insurance) people call us.

My questions are asked relating to our possible liability exposure if someone uses our products (without an air bag) in place of the factory wheel that was originally equipped with an air bag system.

1. If a vehicle is originally equipped with an air bag, must it have an operable air bag system for its entire useful life?

2. If a repair shop removes an operating air bag system and replaces it with a Grant product not having an air bag: A. Is this legal or illegal?

B. If illegal which party is liable?

3. If a private individual removes an operating air bag system and replaces it with a Grant product not having an air bag: A. Is this legal or illegal?

B. If illegal which party is liable?

4. After an accident in which the air bag was deployed, must a repair shop or individual replace the air bag and/or system so that it is again operable as originally equipped?

5. After an accident in which the air bag was deployed, can a repair shop or individual replace the air bag with a Grant product not having an air bag?

6. Upon resale of a vehicle from the first owner (individual) to a second or subsequent owner, must the vehicle have an operable air bag system as originally equipped?

7. If we have a potential liability exposure for someone suing our products to replace an original air bag, what do we need to do to limit this exposure?

I look forward to hearing your responses to my questions. Should you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact me.

ID: nht93-6.25

DATE: August 31, 1993

FROM: Ray Paradis -- Manufacturing Manager, Dakota Mfg. Co., Inc.

TO: Pat Boyd -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/16/93 from John Womack to Ray Paradis (A41; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Per our conversation concerning the reflective tape I have enclosed literature and photos of several of our trailer currently in production.

Questions are as follows:

(1) Deck heights are from 22" TO 39 1/2".

(2) The rear design does not allow for continuous tape all models.

(3) The side extension model has fold-up sides #2.

(4) Does the front require any stripe.

I have numbered the literature and attached photos for reference. I am looking forward to your comments.

ID: nht93-6.26

DATE: September 1, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Frank Millar

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter (fax) dated 4/28/93 from Frank Millar to John Womack (OCC 8599)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, and Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Recommended Practice J201. I apologize for the delay in our response. You asked about the significance of the two documents for manufacturers and consumers. You also asked whether you are correct in interpreting section S5.2.1 of Standard No. 105 as requiring the parking brake of a Toyota Camry with a standard (stick shift) transmission to hold the car stationary on a hill with a 30 percent grade in both forward and reverse directions for five minutes. Your questions are addressed below.

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act 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.

Standard No. 105 is one of the safety standards issued by NHTSA. The standard specifies requirements for hydraulic service brake systems and associated parking brake systems, for the purpose of ensuring safe braking performance under both normal and emergency situations. The standard applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with hydraulic service brake systems. Manufacturers must ensure that each new vehicle complies with each applicable requirement of the standard. The standard specifies the specific test conditions under which each performance requirement must be met.

You asked the agency to confirm your understanding that section S5.2.1 of Standard No. 105 requires the parking brake of a Toyota Camry with a standard transmission to hold the car stationary on a 30 percent grade for five minutes in both forward and reverse directions. Section S5.2.1 reads as follows:

Except as provided in S5.2.2, the parking brake system on a passenger car ... shall be capable of holding the vehicle stationary (to the limit of traction on the braked wheels) for 5 minutes in both a forward and reverse direction on a 30 percent grade.

Section S5.2.1 thus applies to all passenger cars, except as provided in S5.2.2. The alternative requirement set forth in S5.2.2 is only available for certain vehicles with a transmission or transmission control which incorporates a parking mechanism. Vehicles with standard transmissions do not typically have such a parking mechanism. Assuming that a Toyota Camry does not have a parking mechanism, it would be required to meet the requirements of S5.2.1.

I note that, even assuming that a vehicle meets the requirements of S5.2.1, it would not follow that the parking brake system would hold the vehicle stationary on a 30 percent grade under all real world driving conditions. As indicated above, Standard No. 105 specifies specific test conditions under which its performance requirements must be met. In the case of the standard's parking brake requirements, the specified test conditions include such things as control force and test surface. Also, the requirement only applies to the limit of traction on the braked wheels. Thus, if a 30 percent grade has a slippery surface, the vehicle might slide down the grade even though its parking brake system held the wheels locked. Finally, the requirement applies only to new vehicles and not used ones.

You also asked the significance of SAE J201 to manufacturers and consumers. The Society of Automotive Engineers is an independent, non-governmental group. In some cases, NHTSA has incorporated portions of that organization's recommended practices into its safety standards. Since the agency has not done so with SAE J201, that recommended practice does not have any significance to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. NHTSA can only comment on the significance of its own standards and regulations and not on ones issued by other organizations or agencies. Therefore, we suggest that you contact SAE concerning the significance of SAE J201.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact David Elias of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht93-6.27

DATE: September 1, 1993

FROM: Carolyn McDaniel -- Attorney at Law

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

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/27/93 from John Womack to Carolyn H.

McDaniel (A41; Std. 208)

TEXT:

Your name was given to me to contact regarding a traffic accident involving prisoners being transported in vans. I was retained by a group of prisoners being extradited by a company called Extradition Services Inc., or ESI, out of Michigan. They were involved in an accident in the state of Texas. The driver fell asleep at the wheel and ran into the back of a truck. They were extraditing prisoners from Texas and other parts of the U.S. to several other states including Colorado and Florida. However, their primary destination was Michigan.

They were in an extended Dodge van, bars over the windows, handles off the doors, one bench in a wire cage, two more bench seats and a bench seat across the back of the van. The aisle ran along the passenger side of the van. The seats appeared to be the original seats and seat belts apparently had been removed because none were present.

The number of prisoners the van was carrying ranged from 10 to 12 on the average, but was frequently up to 14 or more. Sometimes prisoners had to sit on the floor.

The two drivers would often drive in excess of 48 hours without rest stops. The drivers would sleep for only 2 hours each. They were also seen taking some type of pills.

My clients were denied food and restroom stops. It became so bad at times, they had to urinate on the floor.

The insurance company for ESI, Amerisure, has tried to force them to sign NO-FAULT Insurance forms. We have not done so because Texas is not a no-fault state. These people have not even paid the hospital for the prisoners medical treatment at the time of the accident.

I do not like to see anyone treated the way these people were treated. Any company conducting themselves in this manner should be fined and have their licenses revoked.

I would appreciate any help or direction you can give me regarding the regulations ESI and their people would fall under as I am not familiar with those regulations. It is my understanding you are the expert on these types of complaints.

Thank you for your time and consideration.