ID: nht92-1.27

DATE: 12/10/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: DAVID KENNEDY -- W. Y. MOBERLY, INC.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-11-92 FROM DAVID KENNEDY TO NHTSA OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL (OCC 8035); ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-30-82 FROM FRANK BERNDT TO KENNETH M. BUSH

TEXT: This responds to your letter of November 11, 1992, asking for an interpretation of Federal regulations pertaining to the importation of automotive rims for motorcycle use.

Your Canadian client ships to the United States a motorcycle conversion kit consisting of a prefabricated rear end assembly complete with brakes, drums, brake lines, and passenger car tires mounted on passenger car rims. While the tires bear a DOT certification symbol, the rims do not. You understand that motorcycle rims must bear a DOT certification symbol, and that passenger car rims are not required to be certified. You have asked whether, under these circumstances, the passenger car rims in the kit must bear a DOT certification.

Some years ago, Suzuki Motor Co. asked the agency whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, allow a manufacturer to equip a motorcycle with passenger car tires and rims. On December 30, 1982, we replied that paragraph S5.1.1 of Standard No. 120 did permit a motorcycle to be equipped with tires meeting the requirements of Standard No. 109, the passenger car tire standard. Although passenger car tires must be fitted to rims suitable for their use, which will ordinarily be passenger car rims, Standard No. 120 nonetheless requires that rims intended for use on motorcycles be marked in accordance with paragraph S5.2. These markings include the DOT certification symbol. As you have surmised, the standard that covers passenger car tire rims, Standard No. 110, contains no marking requirements. Therefore, since your client wishes to export new tire/rim combinations for use on motorcycle conversions, the tires must be certified as conforming to Standard No. 109, and the rims certified as conforming to Standard No. 120. I enclose a copy of our letter to Suzuki.

ID: nht92-1.28

DATE: 12/10/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: DAVID M. HART -- PRESIDENT, FLUSHSAVER

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-16-92 (11-16-91) FROM DAVID M. HART TO PAUL J. RICE (OCC 8021); ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 9-3-87 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES TO DAVID M. ROMANSKY (STD. 108)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of November 16 asking for "feedback" on your plan to market a decal called "Flashit" for installation over a center high-mounted stop lamp.

I enclose a copy of an agency letter representative of our advice to inquirers on this subject. Though this letter, to David M. Romansky, dates from September 3, 1987, it remains the agency's position today.

Should you wish to contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators on this subject, please note that its new address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

ID: nht92-1.29

DATE: 12/10/92

FROM: STAN KAPLAN -- SHIMAZAKI CORP.

TO: CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 1-25-90 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD TO LARRY E. SNOWHITE (STD. 108); ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-29-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO STAN KAPLAN (A40; STD. 108)

TEXT: We at the Shimazaki Corporation are most interested in getting a review and knowing if a automotive product we are wanting to import into the U.S. for sales meets the required federal standards set by the traffic safety administration.

The product is called Red Alert. It is a safety device that automatically alerts the driver behind you that you are about to make a sudden stop before your foot hits the brake pedal.

Red Alert is a sophisticated sensor that is activiated only when there is a sudden release of the accelerator, as in the case during an emergency stop. RedAlert is located on the accelerator rod (not on the part that is by the foot) and does not interfere with driving habits.

You can install red alert in your car without making any changes in its electrical system. Installing Red Alert is quick and simple and only takes 15 minutes to install and requires no special tools.

Please advise if it meets the standard set by your administration and the how we can get a waiver on this product or does it require one at all?

Enclosed please find brochures on the Red Alert system for your study. I previously discussed this on the telephone with Mr. George Shifflett. He advised me to send you a letter to get a definitive statement on this product. Hope to here from you in this regard as soon as possible.

(BROCHURES OMITTED.)

ID: nht92-1.3

DATE: December 30, 1992

FROM: Donald L. Anglin -- Consulting Editor, MacMillan/McGraw-Hill Publishing, Automotive and Technical Writing

TO: William A. Boehly -- Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-19-93 from John Womack to Donald L. Anglin (A41; Redbook (4); Std. 105; Std. 121)

TEXT: Your assistance in the past has certainly been appreciated and informative. So may we ask for your insight into another issue affecting highway safety.

Does the removal of drum-brake self-adjusters from a vehicle constitute a violation of the anti-tampering provisions of the Clean Air Act, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, or any other Federal law, regulation, or standard?

As always, thank you very much for your continuing interest and assistance.

ID: nht92-1.30

DATE: December 10, 1992

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

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

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

TEXT:

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

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

Thank you for your assistance.

ID: nht92-1.31

DATE: 12/10/92

FROM: JUAN F. VEGA

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

TITLE: NONE

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

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

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

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

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

[Illegible Words]

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

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

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

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

ATTACHMENTS

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

2. INMATE REQUEST

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

3. LETTER DATED 10-1-92

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

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

(Text Omitted)

ID: nht92-1.32

DATE: 12/09/92

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

TO: CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you very much for your time and help.

ID: nht92-1.33

DATE: December 8, 1992

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

TO: Marvin Shaw -- Department of Transportation

TITLE: Flammability for Comfort Cushions

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

TEXT:

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

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

(Comfort Cushion brochure omitted.)

ID: nht92-1.34

DATE: December 8, 1992

FROM: George D. James, Jr. -- Safety Chairman, Unit 169 WBCCI

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA; Attention: Stephen P. Wood -- Assistant Chief Counsel for Rulemaking, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TITLE: RE Tekonsha Electronic Brake Control ("Control")

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-21-93 from John Womack to George D. James, Jr. (A41; Std. 108)

TEXT: Thank you for your 12/4/92 reply to my 10/24/92 letter objecting to your "approval" of this brake controller. Because your agency does not "approve", "endorse" or offer assurance of compliance of any M.V, equipment, I err in thinking you have "approved" these controllers.

I still believe that using trailer brakes without activating the STOP LIGHTS is an unsafe procedure AND you imply approval.

You state that "at this time we do not have any data indicating a real-world safety problem created by the use of the Tekonsha brake control".

What data do you need to realize that a rear end collision (or a following vehicle choosing to leave the road to avoid one) or chain-reaction collisions caused by a slowing or stopping vehicle WITHOUT STOP LIGHTS BEING ACTIVATED is not a "real world" safety problem?

How many thousands of such accidents have already been recorded? How many violation citations with or without penalties have been made because of inoperating stop lights?

Mr. Wood, I've just talked with the Macon County Sheriff's Department and the State Highway Patrol (North Carolina) and they both confirm that:

1. There'll be a lot more collisions on the highways if vehicles are permitted to run with non-operating stop lights, and

2. Don't get caught here with stop lights not working or you'll for sure be ticketed.

Now by George, you KNOW this is right. YOU DON'T NEED "MORE DATA"! HOW CAN YOU SAY YOUR AGENCY'S GOAL IS MINIMIZING DEATHS AND INJURIES ON THE HIGHWAYS, and still defend your decision re these new brake controllers? HOW CAN YOU SAY YOU NEED MORE DATA INDICATING A POTENTIAL PROBLEM?

ID: nht92-1.35

DATE: 12/07/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: MARK V. SCHWARTZ -- ACCOUNT EXECUTIVE, ENTRAN DEVICES, INC.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10-28-92 FROM MARK V. SCHWARTZ TO PAUL J. RICE (OCC 7927)

TEXT: This responds to your October 28, 1992 letter, asking me to reconsider my September 29, 1992 letter to you interpreting 49 CFR Part 572, Anthropomorphic Test Dummies. More specifically, my September 29, 1992 letter addressed the requirement in @ 572.36(g) that the thorax and knee impactor accelerometers in the Hybrid III test dummy "shall have the dimensions and characteristics of Endevco Model 7231c or equivalent."

You had asked if one of your company's accelerometer models would be deemed "equivalent," within the meaning of @ 572.36(g), to the specified make and model accelerometer. I stated that Part 572 sets forth the specifications with which test dummies must comply if those test dummies are to be used in this agency's compliance testing. I further stated that the agency has always used the specified make and model accelerometer in the compliance testing conducted to date. Thus, it has not been necessary for the agency to make any determination of which accelerometers, if any, are "equivalent" to the specified accelerometer for agency compliance testing purposes. Until the agency makes a determination about equivalent accelerometers, I indicated that the matter is one to be worked out between your company and prospective users of your company's accelerometers. I also indicated that NHTSA will not review the use of any particular accelerometers in certification testing, including your company's accelerometers, unless the test results indicate a problem or problems caused by those accelerometers.

In your October 28, 1992 follow-up letter, you expressed that you were "extremely disappointed" with my September 29 letter. You stated that "[though] your letter states that users of accelerometers are free to define equivalence, the reality is that they will take no unnecessary course of action that varies from your compliance testing." You said that you had spoken with "technical decision makers" at Chrysler, Ford, and GM and all three indicated that they would not use an accelerometer for development and certification work, when a different accelerometer must be used in NHTSA's compliance testing. Accordingly, you again asked that the agency state whether a model of accelerometer manufactured by Entran is equivalent to the make and model of accelerometer specified for use in compliance testing.

In order to make a determination of which accelerometer models are "equivalent" to the make and model of accelerometer currently specified for use in compliance testing, NHTSA must conduct an analysis to identify the attributes that will ensure that an accelerometer measures results in the relevant crash environment that are equivalent to the results that would be measured in that crash environment by the currently specified accelerometer. This analysis would require an expenditure of agency time and resources, although the amount of the expenditure is currently not known. These expenditures would not benefit the agency's compliance testing efforts, since the currently specified accelerometer is readily available, nor would the expenditures contribute generally toward the agency's safety mission. Accordingly, the agency cannot justify the expenditure of resources needed to make an analysis of the equivalence issue at this time.

However, accelerometer manufacturers and other interested parties are free to make their own analyses of equivalence, using their resources. The interested parties may present their analyses of equivalence to potential users of a non-specified accelerometer, in order to demonstrate to the potential user that the non-specified accelerometer will be found equivalent to the specified accelerometer when NHTSA makes its determination of equivalence. If the potential user is convinced by such demonstration, that party can then use the non-specified accelerometer in its testing.

In my previous letter to you, I stated that NHTSA will not review the use of any particular accelerometers in certification testing, unless the test results indicate a problem or problems caused by those accelerometers. This statement was included in that letter to make clear to all parties that the absence of a NHTSA determination of equivalence for a particular accelerometer model does not represent some sort of negative finding by the agency with respect to the performance or capabilities of that particular accelerometer. This statement has apparently served that purpose. For instance, it has come to our attention that Chrysler and General Motors have procured significant numbers of Entran accelerometers for use in vehicle crash tests. Thus, it appears that vehicle manufacturers and other potential users correctly understand the meaning of the current specification in Part 572 for one particular accelerometer model, and that the specification of one particular accelerometer model in Part 572 does not pose any insuperable obstacle to the use of other, non-specified accelerometer models for testing other than NHTSA's certification testing. There is, therefore, no compelling need for NHTSA to use its resources to conduct an analysis of accelerometer equivalence.