ID: nht89-2.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/28/89

FROM: VICTOR CRISCI

TO: ERICA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED FEBRUARY 14, 1990 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD, NHTSA TO VICTOR CRISCI; A35; STD. 108

TEXT: I was given your name by a person who's in my motorcycle club.

I intend to install a Safety Light Flasher on my motorcycle and I would like to know whether it would be in conflict in anyway with U.S. DOT regulations.

My motorcycle is now equipped with a headlight on/off switch and a dimmer switch (hi/lo beam).

Operation of headlight with safety flasher installed

If headlight is on, the safety flasher flashes the headlight between high and low beam for 2-4 seconds then returns the light to it's original state (hi/lo beam).

If the headlight switch is off, the light flasher automatically turns the light on, flashes the headlight between hi/lo beam for 2-4 seconds then returns the light to it's original state (hi/lo beam).

In both of the above cases the sequence is initiated by pressing the horn button only. As an option the flasher can be initiated by a seperate non-horn switch.

I want to install this device because it will significantly inprove my rider safety. It will allow me automatic "forward recognition" because the vast majority of accidents occur when bikers are "not visable" to motorists who are making left turns in front of them, pulling out of driveways shopping centers and changing lanes etc.

I feel the device should not be in conflict with DOT regulations because no new switches or lights are added to the vehicle and the operation of the headlight is done automatically in a way which is now done manually and legally.

Your reply will be appreciated.

P.S. Please sent me a copy of STD 108

ID: nht89-2.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/29/89

FROM: SAMUEL K. SKINNER -- DOT

TO: ERNEST F. HOLLINGS -- CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION UNITED STATES SENATE

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/24/89 EST; FROM JEFFREY R. MILLER -- NHTSA TO MICHAEL E. KASINER -- NATIONAL TRUCK EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATION; REDBOOK A34, STANDARD 204; LETTER DATED 08/01/89 FROM MICHAEL E. KASTNER -- NATIONAL TRUCK EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATI ON; TO SAMUEL K. SKINNER -- DOT, OCC 3809; LETTER DATED 08/26/87 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO TAK FUJITANI

TEXT: Dear Mr. Chairman:

Thank you for your letter, co-signed by other members of the Senate Commerce Committee, concerning the issuance of certain safety standards for light trucks and vans ("LTV's"), including sport utility vehicles. I share your interest in ensuring that occ upants of these vehicles are well protected. As I stated in my confirmation hearing, I place a high priority on the safety of all our transportation systems including motor vehicles used for personal travel. I wish to assure you that the Department is moving expeditiously to improve vehicle safety, including rulemaking for additional LTV safety standards.

The Department has carefully reviewed those passenger-car safety standards which do not currently apply to LTV's, as evidenced by our reports to Congress in May 1987 and April 1988. As noted in those reports, we are committed to prompt rulemaking action s and decisions. Specifically, the Department's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has already issued Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to require both head restraints and rear-seat lap/should belts in LTV's, and an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to require side-impact protection in LTV's. In addition, NHTSA is currently preparing an NPRM to establish a minimum roof-crush resisance standard for LTV's.

In each of these four areas -- head restraints, side-impact protection, roof-crush resistance, and rear-seat lap/shoulder belts -- I expect to begin discussions within the Administration during the next 90 days on our recommendations for the next rulemak ing actions to be taken. These discussions will also address an NPRM to require automatic occupant protection for LTV's. I will advise you of the conclusion of these discussions.

NHTSA is also analyzing the research on how to enhance brake light performance on these vehicles, and expects to make a decision on requiring additional stop lamps by the end of the summer. Lastly, NHTSA has already granted a petition for rulemaking to d evelop a rollover protection standard and has a comprehensive data collection and research program under way to provide the basis for an effective regulation. Most of that research should be completed by year's end, and I assure you that we will not tol erate delays in the research schedule.

We note that the Department has initiated these and other vehicle safety rulemaking proceedings under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which provides a solid, effective, legal framework for these activities. Therefore, we do not believe that specific legislative mandates and timetables for LTV rulemaking projects are necessary or appropriate.

In closing, I appreciate your concern for improving the safety of vehicles and highway travel. Please be assured that this Department will continue to take whatever actions are needed to assure further progress in highway safety.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-2.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/29/89

FROM: DAVID W. RANEY -- ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVITIES MANAGER SAAB SCANIA OF AMERICA INC

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10/12/89 FROM STEPHEN WOOD OF NHTSA TO DAVID RANEY OF SAAB; REDBOOK A34, PART 541, 543

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

Saab-Scania of America and Saab-Scania AB of Sweden (hereafter collectively referred to as Saab) respectfully request an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 541 -- Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard and 49 CFR Part 543 -- Exemption From Vehicle Th eft Prevention Standard. Our specific questions are as follows:

(1) Does Part 543 exempt a manufacturer from marking replacement parts (Part 541.6) on a carline subject to Part 541 when many of the carline replacement parts specified in Part 541.5(a) can also be used to replace parts on the same carline manufactured in earlier model years which were parts-marked in compliance with Part 541?

(2) Can a manufacturer of a carline subject to Part 541 and in receipt of a Part 543 exemption for the carline resume vehicle and replacement parts marking if it chooses to discontinue equipping the carline with a Part 543 approved anti-theft device in a future model year?

By way of background, the Saab 9000 carline -- introduced in 1986 -- is subject to the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard. In 1987 and 1988, all Saab 9000 models and replacement parts were marked in compliance with Part 541.

For model year 1989 Saab 9000 models, Saab received a Part 543 exemption and discontinued vehicle parts marking. However, Saab has continued to mark the replacement parts specified in Part 541.5 (a).

After reviewing the federal regulations, Saab believes that the Part 543 exemption allows it to discontinue marking the replacement parts for the 1989 Saab 9000 carline even though the replacement parts can also be used to replace parts on Saab 9000 mode ls manufactured in previous model years which were parts-marked in compliance with Part 541.

Also, Saab believes it retains the right in a future model year to discontinue equipping the Saab 9000 carline with a Part 543 approved anti-theft device for whatever reasons and resume vehicle and replacement parts marking. Saab seeks the NHTSA's concu rrence on both these points.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-2.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: JUNE 29, 1989

FROM: SUSAN BIRENBAUM -- ACTING GENERAL COUNSEL, U.S. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

TO: STEPHEN WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 5-25-90 TO SUSAN BIRENBAUM FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD (A35; VSA 102(4)); ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 2-1-90 TO STEPHEN WOOD FROM SUSAN BIRENBAUM AND LETTER DATED 10-12-89 TO STEPHEN WOOD FROM DAVID SCHMELTZER TEXT:

I am writing to request your assistance in determining whether a product manufactured by Nationwide Industries, Inc., and marketed under the brand names "SNAP fix-a-flat FOR PICK-UP TRUCKS," "SNAP fix-a-flat," and "SNAP super fix-a-flat" is an item of "m otor vehicle equipment" as that term is defined by section 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Act (15 U.S.C. SS 1391(4)). Section 3(a)(1)(C) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA) (15 U.S.C. SS 2052(a)(1)(C)) excludes "Motor vehicle equ ipment from those "consumer products" which are subject to the authority of the Consumer Product Safety Commission under the CPSA.

The product in question is sold for inflating and temporarily repairing flat tires. It consists of a container which holds liquid latex and a propellant of pressurized gas. Photographs of the containers and the labeling of the product are enclosed.

As stated on the labels, the propellant gas used for this product is extremely flammable. The Consumer Product Safety Commission has received reports of deaths and serious injuries associated with ignition of the gas from this product contained in tires which were being repaired, usually at a garage or service station. In all but one instance known to the Commission, the person injured was a mechanic or other employee of a repair facility and not the owner of the tire being repaired.

Although the product appears to be intended primarily for use with cars and trucks, the labeling on some containers suggests that the product could be used on tires of bicycles, tractors, and off-road all-terrain vehicles. See photographs A3, C1, C3, D1 , D2, and D3.

Section 6(b) of the CPSA (15 U.S.C. SS 2055(b)), requires that before the Commission may release information about a product identified by manufacturer, it must first provide the manufacturer of the product with a summary of the information and an opport unity to comment on its accuracy. However, section 29(e) of the CPSA (15 U.S.C. SS 2078(e)) authorizes the Commission to provide information about products to other agencies of the Federal Government without having followed the procedure required by sec tion 6(b), provided that the agency receiving the information does not disclose it to the general public.

The information in this letter about the product under consideration is subject to the provisions of section 6(b) of the CPSA. The Commission has not provided the manufacturer with either a summary of this

information or the opportunity to comment on its accuracy. For this reason, I request your assistance in not disclosing it to the general public.

If you need additional information about this inquiry, please call Allen F. Brauninger of this office at 492-6980.

Thank you for your assistance with this matter.

Enclosures

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.