ID: nht92-5.43

DATE: June 26, 1992

FROM: Richard Hamlin

TO: Andrew Card -- Secretary of Transportation, DOT

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/14/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Richard Hamlin (A39; Part 571)

TEXT:

I am relatively certain, at this time, that you are besieged with transportation issues. However, your assistance or that of one of your colleagues would be a tremendous asset.

I have particular knowledge that the safe maintaining of school buses is governed by specific state laws and regulations; and, I am aware that particular components of a school bus must comply with certain Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

My question, in lieu of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards governing particular components of school buses; would federal standards - possibly laws and regulations - not also be the rule rather than the exception as it pertains to maintaining school buses in safe operating condition.

Your reply to my inquiry would be of great assistance.

ID: nht92-5.44

DATE: June 25, 1992

FROM: Donald W. Vierimaa -- Vice President - Engineering, Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

TO: Fred Grubbe -- Acting Administrator, NHTSA

COPYEE: TTMA Engineering Committee; Tank Conference Engineering Committee; Brake Associates; Larry Strawhorn -- American Trucking Associations; Hank Seiff -- Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association; Andrew H. Card, Jr. - Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation

TITLE: Subject: Petition to Extend the Comment Period for Docket No. 92-29; Notice 1 - Stability and Control Requirements for Medium and Heavy Duty Vehicles

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/7/92 from Barry Felrice to Donald W. Vierimaa (A39; Std. 121)

TEXT:

The advance notice of proposed rulemaking, Docket No. 92-29; Notice 1, asks 32 questions pertaining to a proposed requirement to equip trucks, truck tractors, and trailers with antilock braking systems (ABS). This notice issued in the June 8th Federal Register requests comments by August 7th. We petition for an extension of the comment period for another 60 days.

We are disappointed that you have not responded to our petition of April 23, 1992 (enclosed) which requested a comment period of 120 calendar days for any major proposed rulemaking. The proposed requirement for ABS is considered by trailer manufacturers as a major proposed rulemaking. You have also requested comments on ABS even though testing has not been completed nor have test reports on completed testing been issued.

When we petition DOT for rulemaking, we often wait months and even years for a decision. Yet, when you propose rulemaking, you request comments within 60 days. Please provide us with the same amount of time to comment on proposed rulemaking as you require in responding to our petitions for rulemaking.

Enclosure

Letter dated 4/23/92 from Donald W. Vierimaa (TTMA) to Andrew H. Card, Jr., DOT Secretary. Text of letter:

We petition that any major proposed rulemaking issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Federal Highway Administration, or Research and Special Programs Administration allow a public comment period of at least ninety (90) calendar days (approximately 63 working days) and preferable one hundred twenty (120) calendar days.

Typically, a DOT agency will spend months or even years developing a proposed rulemaking, then ask the public for comments within 30 to 60 calendar days, and then spend several months or years analyzing the comments before issuing a final rule.

Several examples of comment closing dates follow.

Comment Extended Published Comment Period Comment Docket Subject Date Closing (calendar Closing days) date)

HM-183 Cargo Tank Requirements 9/17/85 2/11/86 150

HM-198A Elevated Temperature 9/21/89 11/20/89 60 2/20/90 Materials

FS-1 Safeguarding Food During 2/20/91 3/26/91 35 4/29/91 Transportation

91-21; N1 Automatic air brake 5/3/91 6/17/91 45 adjustment

80-9; N4 Conspicuity 12/4/91 2/3/92 60 3/31/92

1-11; N9 Rear Impact Guard 1/3/92 3/4/92 60* 6/8/92 & Protection

(*) 41 working days

We have 86 member manufacturers of trailers and two engineering committees, one of which is concerned with tank vehicles and the other concerned with non-tank trailers. These committees meet about every three months. The following is a typical handling of our response to major rulemakings listed by your agencies.

Day Activity

1 Published In Federal Register 4 Federal Register received by TTMA 6 Proposed rulemaking mailed to members 10 Proposed rulemaking received by members 20 Task Force drafts response to proposed rule 24 Draft received by TTMA office 29 Draft reviewed and mailed to members 33 Draft received by members 40 Comments on draft mailed to TTMA office 44 Comments received by TTMA office 48 Comments compiled and a second draft mailed to members 52 Second draft received by members 59 Comments on second draft mailed to TTMA office 63 Comments received by TTMA office 67 Comments compiled and final draft mailed to members 71 Final draft received by members 78 Approval and/or comments mailed to TTMA office 82 Approvals and comments received by TTMA office 90 Final comment submitted to DOT agency

The above scenario does not include discussion at a regularly scheduled engineering meeting. If a proposed rule is very complex or controversial, it may not be possible to draft a response to the rule without holding a meeting.

In this situation, a 120 day comment period would likely be needed. In the case of Docket 80-9; Notice 4, Conspicuity, we sent four draft comments to our members before obtaining approval. Weekends, holidays, and in the summer, vacations, may add to the days needed to respond to a proposed rulemaking. In some cases, prototype development or testing may be required. This could easily require an additional ninety (90) calendar days or more.

Most trailer manufacturers are small businesses with limited staff. Designing and producing trailers to meet customer orders takes precedence. Often the review of proposed rulemaking must be accomplished on weekends.

Typically, the longer the comment period, the more detailed our comments will be. Your agencies should allow a comment period equal to the period they will require to analyze docket comments and issue a final rule. As a matter of course, we intend to petition for an extension of the comment closing date for any period less than ninety (90) calendar days for any major proposed rulemaking.

cc: Jerry Curry, NHTSA Administrator Travis Dungan, RSPA Administrator Thomas Larson, FHWA Administrator

ID: nht92-7.13

DATE: May 6, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: L. Louis Raring -- Raring & Lipoff

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/25/92 from L. Louis Raring to Jack Rice (OCC 7065)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for information on Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218, Motorcycle Helmets (49 CFR S571.218). Specifically, you were interested in whether this agency "approves" motorcycle helmets pursuant to Standard No. 218. I am pleased to have this chance to explain our laws and regulations for you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 218, which applies to all new helmets designed for use by motorcyclists and other motor vehicle users. Standard No. 218 sets forth a series of performance tests to ensure that motorcycle helmets will reduce deaths and injuries to motorcyclists resulting from head injuries.

When a safety standard like Standard No. 218 is in effect, section 108 (a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397 (a)(1)(A)) provides that no person shall "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States" any motorcycle helmet unless that helmet is in conformity with Standard No. 218 and is covered by a certification issued under section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403).

This statutory requirement that every motorcycle helmet be covered by a certification pursuant to section 114 of the Safety Act means that the United States follows a different approach to ensuring conformity with its motor vehicle safety standards than do some other countries. In the European countries, for example, a helmet manufacturer would deliver a sample of its helmets to a governmental entity for approval, before any of those helmets can be offered for sale. The governmental entity would then conduct testing and, assuming the helmet passed the tests, assign an approval code to these helmets. The manufacturer could offer this type of helmet for sale after it receives this government approval code.

The United States follows a substantially different approach. Instead of putting the burden on the government to initially decide if a motorcycle helmet or other item of motor vehicle equipment complies with all applicable safety standards, the Safety Act puts the burden on the manufacturer of the motorcycle helmet. It is the motorcycle helmet manufacturer that must, in the first instance, determine whether its helmets conform to Standard No. 218. Once the manufacturer is satisfied that its helmets conform to the requirements of the standard, it certifies that conformity by labeling the symbol DOT on the helmet, pursuant to S5.6.1(e) of Standard No. 218. The manufacturer may offer its helmet for sale as soon as it has certified the helmet as conforming with Standard No. 218.

For enforcement purposes, NHTSA periodically purchases certified motorcycle helmets and tests them to the specific requirements of Standard No. 218. If, as is the case in the vast majority of instances, the helmets conform to all the requirements of the standard, no further action is taken. If the helmets are determined not to conform to all the requirements of the standard, the manufacturer is liable to notify owners of the noncompliance and to remedy the noncompliance without charge to the consumer, pursuant to sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419). In addition, the helmet manufacturer would be liable for a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each noncomplying helmet it manufactured, pursuant to section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398).

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information.

ID: nht92-7.14

DATE: May 6, 1992

FROM: Peter K. Brown -- President, KC HiLites

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/15/92 from Paul J. Rice to Peter K. Brown (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

I wrote to you in April of 1990, regarding your opinion and interpretation of the law relative to hi and low beam headlight use.

The product in question is called, the quad beam and we have been selling it now since mid 1990, directed at vehicles with 4 headlamp systems.

In as much, as vehicles with 2 headlamp systems represent a good part of the vehicle population, and that most of the 2 headlamp equipped vehicles, use only the low beam filaments when on low beam and only the high beam filament when high beam is selected, has prompted me to write to you again.

Our quad beam will enable the low beam to work in conjunction with the high beam, which will dramatically increase the amount of light output.

My question then is, can our product legally be used on two headlamp systems, either sealed beam or replaceable bulb type?

I appreciate your help on this. I am including a copy of your previous letter for your reference.

ID: nht92-7.15

DATE: May 6, 1992

FROM: Kevin B. Brown -- Manager, Fleet Services, EG&G Idaho, Inc.

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: VEHICLES PURCHASED FOR THE IDAHO NATIONAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY (INEL) THROUGH THE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION (GSA) - KBB-09-92

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/4/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Kevin B. Brown (A39; Part 567)

TEXT:

EG&G Idaho, Inc. is the prime contractor for the Department of Energy, Idaho Field Office (DOE-ID) to procure and maintain all government-owned vehicles at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL).

Vehicles are procured for DOE-ID through the General Services Administration (GSA). Occasionally truck chassis are purchased through GSA for subsequent mounting of service bodies to be used for official government business.

Our inquiry is to the 49 CFR 567 requirements for intermediate or final stage manufacture vehicle labeling. We would not be constituted as a merchant, or the first purchaser for resale.

The mounting body would be in accordance to the original equipment manufacturer of the vehicle, or the vehicle recommended by the body manufacturer. Following the service life of the vehicle, it may be excessed to another Federal or State agency, or sold to the public.

All vehicles assigned to the INEL are maintained to the manufacturer's specifications and to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. A description of vehicles for subsequent mounting of service bodies are provided below:

New truck chassis or existing used; installing service bodies, dump bodies, van bodies, and related accessories. Trucks range in size from 8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight (GVW) to 48,000 pounds GVW.

Based on the above information, would EG&G Idaho need to be certified to install intermediate or final stage labels per 49 CFR 567? Please send your response to the following address:

Mr. Kevin B. Brown EG&G Idaho, Inc. P. 0. Box 1625 Idaho Falls, ID 83415-4103

If you should need additional information, please contact me at (208) 526-2075.

ID: nht92-7.16

DATE: May 5, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John W. Phillips -- Project Engineer, Transportation Research Center of Ohio

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/20/92 from John W. Phillips to Office of Chief Council, NHTSA (OCC 7114)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to this office dated March 20, 1992, in which you inquired whether the Hybrid III large male test dummy, Model No. H3-95-R with 1992 pelvis upgrade, manufactured by First Technology Safety Systems, is an "approved equivalent test device" for conducting the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 202 test. I am sorry we could not respond to you on or before April 2 as you requested.

Standard 202, Head Restraints (49 CFR Part 571.202), specifies requirements for head restraints to reduce the frequency and severity of neck injury in rear-end and other collisions. S4.3 of the standard requires that "a head restraint that conforms to either (a) or (b) shall be provided" for certain seating positions. In Standard 202's demonstration procedures relating to the compliance option set forth in S4.3(a), S5.1(a) specifies use of a "dummy having the weight and seated height of a 95th percentile adult male with an approved representation of a human, articulated neck structure, or an approved equivalent test device."

The Model H3-95-R dummy is marketed by First Technology Safety Systems as a "95th Percentile Male Hybrid III Test Dummy." We therefore assume that it has the weight and seated height of a 95th percentile adult male. The only remaining issue of whether the dummy can be used under S5.1(a) is whether it has "an approved representation of a human, articulated neck structure."

In the preamble to the final rule establishing Standard No. 202, NHTSA provided clarification of the term "approved representation of a human articulated neck structure." The agency stated that a neck structure of a test device would be approved if it could be demonstrated by technical test data that the articulation of the neck structure represented that of a human neck. NHTSA indicated that approval could only be given to a structure sufficiently described in performance parameters to ensure reliable and reproducible test data. See 33 FR 2945-2946, February 14, 1968.

You did not provide any specifications or test data concerning the Hybrid III 95th percentile male dummy (Model H3-95-R). However, NHTSA conducted an extensive evaluation of the Hybrid III 50th percentile male dummy, including its neck, in the context of specifying its use (as one of two alternative 50th percentile male dummies) in Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, dummy. The specifications for the Hybrid III test dummy, for purposes of Standard No. 208, are set forth in Subpart E of 49 CFR Part 572. The specifications for the other 50th percentile male dummy used in Standard No. 208 are set forth in Subpart B of 49 CFR Part 572.

We understand that the Hybrid III 95th percentile male dummy is essentially a scaled version of the Hybrid III 50th percentile male dummy. We therefore approve a Hybrid III 95th percentile male dummy for purposes of Standard 202, so long as its neck structure is essentially the same as that of the Part 572 Hybrid III test dummy, other than minor differences related to adjustments for length. For the same reasons, we approve use of a 95th percentile male version of the dummy specified in Subpart B of 49 CFR Part 572, so long as its neck structure is essentially the same as that specified in Part 572, other than minor differences related to adjustments to length.

I hope the above information will be of assistance to you. If you have any further questions with regard to this matter, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-7.17

DATE: May 5, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Tm Kozy -- Marketing Director, Infini Med

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/24/92 from Tm Kozy to Office of the Chief Council, NHTSA (OCC 7145)

TEXT:

This responds to your March 24, 1992 letter concerning "adaptive aids (hand controls) in cars equipped with air bags." I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Your two questions and the response to each follows.

1. Is it illegal to install a hand control unit that is drilled into the steering column that, according to the bulletin issued by Chrysler Corporation referring to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208, voids the warranty on the air bag as it may render the system inoperative.

To the extent you are seeking information about warranty claims, NHTSA has no authority to regulate those issues. Therefore, I cannot comment on the effect installation of hand controls might have on a warranty. The only Federal agency that has authority to regulate questions relating to warranties in general is the Federal Trade Commission. If you wish to contact that agency for further information regarding warranty questions, you may write to: Mr. Barry J. Cutler, Director, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, Pennsylvania Avenue at Sixth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580.

I will, however, discuss the implications of the laws and regulations administered by this agency on the installation of hand controls in motor vehicles. Section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes NHTSA to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items, of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products meet all applicable safety standards. NHTSA periodically tests certified products to ensure that they do, in fact, comply with applicable standards, and investigates allegations that products contain defects related to motor vehicle safety.

If a new vehicle were altered by installation of adaptive controls prior to the vehicle's first sale to a consumer, the person making the installation would be considered an "alterer" and would be required by 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, to certify that the vehicle continues to comply with all applicable safety standards affected by the alteration. With respect to the installation of adaptive controls at a driver's position equipped with an air bag, the party making such an installation would be obliged to certify that the air bag is capable of functioning at least as well with the adaptive control installed as it functioned before the installation.

After the first sale to a consumer a vehicle is no longer required by Federal law to conform to all safety standards, and persons modifying the vehicle are no longer required to attach certification labels. However, S108 (a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act provides as follows:

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

This provision obliges any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business that installs adaptive controls in vehicles equipped with air bags at the driver's position to ensure that such installation does not "render inoperative," or interfere with, the protection afforded the driver by the air bag. Violations of this "render inoperative" prohibition in the Safety Act are punishable by civil fines of up to $1,000 per violation. I note that S108 (a)(2)(A) does not affect modifications made by vehicle owners to their own vehicles.

Finally, under the Safety Act, adaptive controls would be considered items of motor vehicle equipment. There are currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to adaptive controls as a separate item of motor vehicle equipment. However, although no safety standards apply directly to adaptive controls as a separate item of motor vehicle equipment, manufacturers of adaptive controls are subject to the requirements in SS151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety defects. In the event that NHTSA or a manufacturer determines that a manufacturer's product contains a safety related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

2. I need to know if such a unit were installed on an air bag equipped vehicle, and that same vehicle is resold in, say a year or two, is the seller required by law to notify the next buyer that the warranty on the air bag system has been voided, even though the controls may now have been removed.

At the outset, I must again note that this agency has no authority over warranty issues or alleged unfair trade practices. Any such questions should be addressed to the Federal Trade Commission at the address given above. My answer is limited to obligations imposed by the Safety Act and the standards and regulations issued by this agency pursuant to that Act.

The "render inoperative" provision of the Safety Act does not impose an affirmative duty on dealers to replace equipment that was previously removed by someone else, or to repair equipment that was damaged in a crash. Thus, the "render inoperative" provision does not require a dealer to replace an air bag that does not function because of something that happened before the dealer took possession of the vehicle, including the installation of hand controls. Moreover, nothing in the Safety Act imposes a duty on dealers of used vehicles to disclose information to purchasers. Notwithstanding the absence of any such requirements in the Safety Act, a dealer may be required by State law to repair or replace the air bag in these circumstances. For further information on the provisions in various State laws, you may contact: the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22203.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions or need some additional information in this area, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-7.18

DATE: May 5, 1992

FROM: Stephen Newmark

TO: Jerry Curry -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/27/92 from Frederick H. Grubbe to Phil Gramm (A39; Part 555)

TEXT:

I have been in contact with Congressman Geron's office concerning the formation of a Texas based company (Lonestar Classics Inc.) which will manufacture kit or reproduction automobile packages. We have been advised that an exemption is available to companies whose production does not exceed 10,000 units during a four year period in so far as Department of transportation safety standards are concerned. Our initial projections are that we would produce approximately 600 such units per year and are hereby requesting said exemption. It is our intent to use this exemption to obtain certificate of origin forms from the State of Texas which would otherwise require proof of our having met the aforementioned standards. We will in any case, make certain that our advertising clearly indicates that such standards have not been met. If you require any additional information, please feel free to contact me at 817-267-6241 or at the address listed below.

ID: nht92-7.19

DATE: May 5, 1992

FROM: John W. Arnold Jr.

TO: NHTSA, U.S. Dept. of Transportation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/22/92 from Paul J. Rice to John W. Arnold, Jr. (A39; VSA 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

On 4-22-92 I had bucket seats installed in my 1992 Dodge Diesel Ram pickup (standard sized - not extended cab) by a vehicle accessories dealer, Orig. Equip of San Angelo, Texas. The newly installed seats seemed so totally unsafe that I removed them and reinstalled the original bench seat. Are such dealers required to meet Federal motor vehicle safety standards? If so I would like to file a complaint -- if not, they should be. Thank you.

ID: nht92-7.2

DATE: May 15, 1992

FROM: Douglas Berg -- President, Ascend Productions

TO: NHTSA Legal Council

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/28/92 from Paul J. Rice to Douglas Berg (A39; Std. 125)

TEXT:

As highway safety authorities you are aware of the danger motorists are subjected to when they have a problem on the highway and must stop on the side of the road. Motorists and passengers run the risk of being hit by passing traffic or otherwise suffering further, when they are unable to exclaim their need for help. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Admin. 45,000 injuries and 367 deaths occurred in the U.S. last year as motorists worked on there vehicle, walked for or awaited help.

No safe and effective means exists for motorists to communicate a distress. According to Phil Hartman of the American Automobile Association, 23 million out of the 32 million AAA members were in need of road service last year. That is over 70% or 2 in every 3 drivers.

We would greatly appreciate your recognition and support for Ascend Productions' HAZARD HELPER Safety Sign and Motorists Safety Program. Our hope is that this product and program represent the new standard of communication for motorists in distress. The HAZARD HELPER Safety Sign eliminates the ambiguity surrounding the unclear and dangerous situations when a motorist must stop, whether it be a medical emergency, a mechanical breakdown, a rest stop, or even to await for known assistance. This new standard will make driving safer and less worrisome for the millions of motorists who become disabled every year.

The HAZARD HELPER Safety Sign displays two universal symbols: On one side are two help needed symbols and on the other side, two hazard alert symbols. Two symbols are used so both direction of traffic are alerted with the same message. The American version of this product uses yellow retroreflective sheeting as a background to be consistent with current Federal highway (warning signage. The triangle is used universally to represent warning or hazard and is used to symbolize hazard alert for motorists. The help needed symbols compliment the current human-hazard road signage. The human-like figure universally personifies the nonverbal exclamation for help. These symbols are represented in black on the American version of this product to effectively contrast the yellow (warning) background. The European version of the HAZARD HELPER Safety Sign has red symbols on a white background.

We know that there are limits on the forms of advocacy or recognition that the NHTSA could give this sort of matter. We would truly appreciate any and all support for this Safety Program and Product. At the very least, a short letter written at your convenience, back to us at Ascend would help enormously in transforming this vision into reality as we begin to make the public and media aware of the HAZARD HELPER Safety Sign. Please call with any questions or comments at 1-800-972-6633, we would love to have your feedback.