ID: nht92-6.1

DATE: June 22, 1992

FROM: Eugene J. Welker

TO: Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, N.C.C.I., NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/7/92 from Kenneth N. Weinstein (for Paul J. Rice) to Eugene Welker (A39; Redbook (4); Std. 211; Std. 111)

TEXT:

Mr. Stronbotne suggested I write you relative to a mirror safety item that can be located near rear bumper on cars, trucks, vans, etc., to improve a driver backing out of either a perpendicular, 45 degree angle or other parking areas to ascertain if the way is clear for driver to proceed without endangering anyone.

The purpose of this letter is to question the legality of mirrors on rear of vehicles facing forward about 45 degrees so no following vehicles are affected by any reflection.

Mirrors on cars would be hinged on a vertical post and be a few inches above top rear window stop light. The two car mirrors are approximately 90 degrees apart or 45 degrees on each side so driver can tell from windshield if any traffic is coming from either direction prior to backing out.

Mirrors on prototype unit are 4" x 6" long, or approximately the size of mirrors on car doors. These are cut from 1/4" thick plexiglass and bolted on one end to hinge on vertical post.

Mirrors would be high enough on trucks, probably about heighth of ones outside drivers doors so driver can get a good view if all is clear before backing up.

I have made a prototype and can readily mount it on rear of my car above rear bumper in a few seconds with two small wing nuts to hold vertical shaft, approximately 35" long. I carry unit in car trunk so I can readily attach it if my vision is blocked on either side in rear.

In 1942 and 1943 I had the pleasure of working for the Small Arms Branch in the Pentagon expediting a variety of machinery and equipment.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

ID: nht92-6.10

DATE: June 11, 1992

FROM: Bob Clement -- U.S. House of Representatives

TO: Andrew Card, Jr. -- Secretary, Department of Transportation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/30/92 from Frederick H. Grubbe to Bob Clement (A39; Part 571.3)

TEXT:

I have recently been contacted by my constituents throughout the State of Tennessee who are concerned about the impact of a Federal law regarding the transportation of school children.

According to my constituents, the Federal law permits school officials to use vans equipped to transport up to 10 passengers; however, they are prevented from transporting school children in vans equipped to transport 11 or more passengers. It is my understanding that the school officials would like to use these vans to transport children participating in after-school athletic events.

I have attached a sample constituent letter for your review. I would greatly appreciate knowing if the regulations provide any relief for the school districts in this situation. If not, I would like to know if the National Transportation Safety Board or the Department of Transportation have considered revising the regulations on this matter.

If you need additional information or have any questions, please feel free to contact me or Jay Hansen of my staff at (202)225-4311.

Thank you in advance for any assistance you may be able to provide.

Attachment

Letter dated 5/29/92 from James C. Campbell, Athletic Director, Maryville High School, Maryville, Tennessee. Text of letter:

Dear Legislator:

Recently throughout our State much concern has mounted in regard to recent memos from Mr. Ernest Farmer, Director of Pupil Transportation, Tennessee State Department of Education. These memos have directed attention to an early 1970's federal law pertaining to use of vehicles with a capacity of eleven (11) or more.

Over the years, many schools throughout the State have made use of 12 and 15 passenger vans to transport athletic teams and other school groups to and from school-related events. These vans are NOT used for "pick-up" and "drops" on public roadways. Now, many systems have either had to park their vans or they are under a deadline to do so. This action already has or will create a tremendous financial burden on schools already strapped with financial hardships due to budget cuts. We fear the ultimate result will be the elimination of certain athletic teams and other school functions simply due to the enormous expense involved in renting buses on a daily basis. Also, another problem is that of finding buses available at the time of day needed.

At Maryville High School we have suspended use of two vans that were used for a variety of student activities. Replacing these resources means hiring school buses which we know will increase costs. Due to this change we are considering eliminating some valuable parts of our student activity programs.

We desperately need your help in seeing that this law is amended or changed in order to permit the use of these vehicles. To ensure that vans are maintained in a safe condition, they can be required to have the same inspection as that imposed on regular school buses.

We have real problems with, and do not understand the rationale, of a law that states we can legally use a van equipped to transport 10 passengers but we cannot use a van equipped to transport 11, 12, or 15 passengers. We appreciate your concern in this matter and desperately need your support.

ID: nht92-6.11

DATE: June 11, 1992

FROM: Matthew G. Martinez -- U.S. House of Representatives

TO: Andrew Card -- Secretary, Department of Transportation

COPYEE: Phillip M. Ramos, Jr. -- Philatron International

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/8/92 from Andrew H. Card, Jr. to Matthew G. Martinez (A39; Std. 106)

TEXT:

I am writing on behalf of Philatron International to strongly question the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's policy procedures.

In a letter to Philatron from NHTSA, dated April 10, 1992, NHTSA granted Philatron regulatory relief from the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106 by deleting the oil resistance test standard for air brake tubing. Clearly, this action by NHTSA demonstrated that Philatron's brake hose products posed no safety threat whatsoever. This outdated regulation is still on the books and continues to be administered by NHTSA today even though current truck and brake technology has eliminated air brake exposure to oil. This is the kind of scenario that the Vice President's Council on Competitiveness is working to eliminate.

Although NHTSA has agreed to initiate rulemaking procedures to change the regulation in the future, in the interim, Philatron is unable to continue to market their superior product and endures severe economic distress -- resulting in the firing of a large percentage of its employees. Before this regulatory nightmare, they sold 45,411 assemblies with no reported failures or complaints from any of its customers. The only objections came from Philatron's larger competitors.

I criticize NHTSA's decision not to allow Philatron to sell its brake hoses while their extremely time-consuming rulemaking process in ongoing. This misapplied regulation is unfair and economically crippling to this small business. Further, the longer this matter is left unresolved, the longer Philatron continues to experience serious economic hardship.

I request that you allow production of this product to continue and put those who were unfairly laid off, back to work. Thank you for your courtesy and any consideration that you could give this matter. I look forward to your response.

ID: nht92-6.12

DATE: June 10, 1992

FROM: Michael Love -- Manager, Compliance, Porsche Cars North America, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Request for Interpretation - FMVSS 108

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/7/92 from Paul J. Rice to Michael Love (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

On April 3, 1992, I wrote to you requesting an interpretation of FMVSS 108 regarding center high mounted stop lamps. Your interpretation of the regulations with regard to our proposed design was not consistent with our interpretation. Therefore, we have come up with an alternate design which we believe will be consistent with your interpretation. Since this new design raises several questions, we are requesting another interpretation. The attached document contains that request.

Please contact me at 702/348-3198 if you should have any questions.

Attachment

PORSCHE REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION

Porsche is considering a new design of center high mounted stop lamp (CHMSL) for its 911 Carrera model. In order to accommodate a moveable rear spoiler, the CHMSL would consist of two separate lamps: Lamp A would be mounted on the front edge of the moveable spoiler; Lamp B would be mounted on the rear edge of the moveable spoiler. Both lamps are on the center line of the car. This dual light system would function as follows:

From 0 to 50+/-5mph the spoiler would be in the down position. The CHMSL Lamp A would function (when the brakes were engaged). CHMSL Lamp B would not function.

At 5O+/-5mph when the spoiler is rising, Lamp A would function until the spoiler is approximately 35% up. At this point Lamp B would begin functioning and Lamp A would be disabled.

Above 50+/-5mph the spoiler would be in the up position and Lamp B would function (when the brakes were engaged).

As the speed drops below 5O+/-5mph the Spoiler would remain in the up position until approximately 9+/-3mph and Lamp B would function.

At 9+/-3mph when the spoiler is lowering, Lamp B would function until the spoiler reached the 35% up position. At this point Lamp A would begin functioning and Lamp B would be disabled.

With this design we expect that all photometric and height requirements of FMVSS 108 will be met with switching from Lamp A to Lamp B while the spoiler is moving. It is possible that it will be necessary to have both Lamp A and Lamp B functioning together for a short period of time in order to fulfill photometric requirements.

We have identified the following issues and request NHTSA's views on them:

The switching from Lamp A to Lamp B does not violate the "steady burning" requirement of FMVSS 108.

There is no problem with having two separate CHMSLs as long as they fulfill the requirements of FMVSS 108 while they are capable of functioning, either separately or together.

Having Lamp B drop below the height requirement of FMVSS 108 is not a problem if it is not capable of functioning while below that level (i.e.: If it is no longer capable of functioning (lighting), then it is no longer a lamp by definition).

ID: nht92-6.13

DATE: June 9, 1992

FROM: Jim Sasser -- United States Senator

TO: Jerry R. Curry -- Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/7/92 from Frederick H. Grubbe to Jim Sasser (A39; Part 571.3); Also attached to letter dated 5/29/92 from Jerry R. Curry to John J. Duncan, Jr.

TEXT:

I have been contacted by several Tennesseans regarding their concern about a federal law governing the use of vehicles with a capacity for eleven or more individuals. I have enclosed a sample letter for your reference.

Many schools in Tennessee formerly used passenger vans to transport athletic teams and have been forced to discontinue use of the vans due to this law. The elimination of the van service has placed a tremendous financial burden on these schools and forced some to eliminate some of their minor sports programs.

Accordingly, I would appreciate your giving careful consideration to this matter and providing me with a report which addresses whose responsibility it is to meet the federal safety standards. Does the individual who sells the van have responsibility or does the school which purchased the vehicle? Moreover, I would further appreciate the report addressing the question of the liability involved in the event of an accident.

Thank you for your courtesy and assistance.

Attachment

Letter dated 5/29/92 from Robert High, Athletic Director, Brainerd High School, Chattanooga, Tennessee to Jim Sasser. Text of letter:

Mr. Sasser:

Recently there has been much concern in regards to recent memos from Mr. Ernest Farmer, Director of Pupil Transportation, Tennessee Department of Education. The memo I have reference to concerns a law that dates back to 1970's. This memo is a federal law pertaining to the use of vehicles with a capacity of eleven or more passengers.

Many schools throughout the state have used both 12 and 15 passenger vans to transport their athletic teams to and from athletic events. There are several systems that have been required to stop using their vans for transportation in athletics due to that law. This situation has and could create a tremendous financial burden on schools, a problem we already have due to budget cuts.

If vans are eliminated from schools, I foresee several problems. Several schools would have to eliminate most of their minor sports simply because of the cost for renting buses on a daily basis. Also, the availability of buses at the time of day you need them.

We are desperately asking for your help in seeing that this law is amended or changed in order to permit the use of these vehicles. I personally don't understand the rationale in allowing a van to transport 10 passengers, but not 11, 12 or 15.

Here at Brainerd, we field 12 athletic teams and 2 squads of cheerleaders. We only have 2 revenue producing sports with those being football and basketball. I am hopeful that we will not have to result to cutting out minor sports because of a transportation cost problem.

We appreciate your support in this matter.

ID: nht92-6.14

DATE: June 8, 1992

FROM: Michael F. Hecker -- Micho Industries

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: M. Dunn; R. Rogers

TITLE: Re: R-BAR Passenger Restraint System

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/14/92 from Paul J. Rice to Michael F. Hecker (A39; Std. 222)

TEXT:

I wish to thank you for your response to my letter of March 31, 1992.

We understand that the R-BAR, once installed on the seatback, becomes part of the seatback and therefore is subject to the test requirements of F.M.V.S.S. #222. Further, in determining the proper test procedures for this device, in accordance with the stated regulations (CFR 49 571.222 S6.4.) and including Laboratory Procedures #TP-222-01 (re: B. Pretest Procedure, step #6), we understand that since the R-BAR is part of the seatback, and adjustable, that the testing procedures are to be done in its most upright position.

Please advise us if this is a proper interpretation of this (S6.4) regulation.

Once again, thank you in advance for consideration in this matter.

ID: nht92-6.15

DATE: June 5, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Robert S. McLean, Esq. -- King & Spalding

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/9/92 from Robert S. McLean to Paul J. Rice

TEXT:

This responds to your request for additional information on the requirements applicable to automatic belts. In response to your March 9, 1992 letters, I sent you a March 30, 1992 letter explaining how our requirements apply to automatic belts. Specifically, I explained that an automatic shoulder belt is not a Type 2a belt, as defined in Standard No. 209, and that automatic belts are not required to include any warnings required for Type 2a belts. I noted that all the requirements applicable to automatic belts are set forth in S4.5.3 of Standard No. 208.

On May 19, 1992, you sent a FAX to Steve Kratzke of this office asking for a further clarification of the requirements applicable to automatic belts. You followed the FAX up with a telephone call on May 27, 1992, during which you explained that you were seeking an opinion from me with respect to an interpretation that is being asserted in litigation in which you are involved. The issue involves the crash protection requirements in Standard No. 208. S4.1.2 of Standard No. 208 gives vehicle manufacturers a choice of three options for providing occupant crash protection and sets forth specific belt installation requirements for each option. However, S4.5.3 of Standard No. 208 contains an important proviso. This section provides that an automatic seat belt assembly may be used to meet the crash protection requirements of any option set forth in S4.1.2 and in place of any seat belt assembly that would otherwise be required by that option.

You explained that another party in your litigation is asserting that an automatic belt, which consists solely of a shoulder belt, could not be used pursuant to S4.5.3 of Standard No. 208 to meet the crash protection requirements of any option in S4.1.2 of Standard No. 208. This is so because, according to this argument, an automatic belt which consists solely of a shoulder belt is not a "seat belt assembly." The reason it is asserted that a shoulder belt alone cannot be a "seat belt assembly" is that S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209 requires that "a seat belt assembly shall provide pelvic restraint." Since an automatic belt that consists solely of a shoulder belt does not provide pelvic restraint, this argument concludes that automatic belts that do not provide pelvic restraint must not be "seat belt assemblies" within the meaning of Standard No. 209. If these belts are not seat belt assemblies, they are not eligible to be used pursuant to S4.5.3 of Standard No. 208 in place of seat belt assemblies otherwise required by Standard No. 208.

This argument is without merit. Contrary to the assertion in this argument, automatic belts which consist solely of a shoulder belt are "seat belt assemblies" within the meaning of S3 of Standard No. 209. That section defines a "seat belt assembly" as "any strap, webbing, or similar device designed to secure a person in a motor vehicle in order to mitigate the results of any

accident, including all necessary buckles and other fasteners, and all hardware designed for installing such seat belt assembly in a motor vehicle." An automatic belt consisting solely of a shoulder belt falls squarely within this definition. Thus, an automatic belt consisting solely of a shoulder belt may be used pursuant to S4.5.3 of Standard No. 208 to meet the crash protection requirements of the standard and in place of any seat belt assembly that would otherwise be required.

It may be that this argument was offered because the person was not aware that automatic belts are not generally subject to the provisions of Standard No. 209 that apply to manual seat belt assemblies, as explained in my March 30, 1992 letter to you. Thus, S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209 does not apply to automatic belts. In place of Standard No. 209's general requirements for manual seat belt assemblies, S4.5.3 of Standard No. 208 sets forth special requirements for automatic belts. No provision of S4.5.3 of Standard No. 208 precludes the use of automatic belts that consist solely of a shoulder belt.

I hope this information clarifies any lingering questions you may have had. As before, if you need any further information on the requirements applicable to automatic belts, feel free to contact Steve Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-6.16

DATE: June 5, 1992

FROM: Le Van Lac -- Vice President, Pioneer Electronic Services, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: For Legal Interpretation of 108-6, Sec. 5.1.3

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/31/92 from Paul J. Rice to Le Van Lac (A39; VSA 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

We at Pioneer plan to sell a new car speaker in the U.S. We contacted Mr. Harry Thompson at your office and he advised me to write a letter with explanation to you in order to get your advice.

1. NEW CAR SPEAKER WITH ILLUMINATION: Car speaker will illuminate by a 12 volt DC car battery. this car speaker will be installed in the rear deck of a car. Cosmetically it it well designed with Pioneer brand name to be printed on the rear side of the speaker cabinet.

2. PURPOSE OF ILLUMINATION SPEAKER: By lighting Pioneer brand name with blue color at night (when the head light is switched on), we intend to give a favorable and refined impression to driver, passengers. This illumination car speaker will satisfy the customers who wish to have a high end and unique car speaker.

3. CONSTRUCTION: Light was originated from a lamp. There are 8 lamps for each left and right speaker. The light will go through a filter and then a transparent panel as the drawing.

Power consumption of a lamp inside the car speaker using filament type (glass tube) at 1.54 watt.

The brightness of this blue light illuminated through the filter and transparent panel is just 1/40 of the high mount stop lamp (measured at 1 meter at 14.4 volt). Therefore, this illuminated speaker will not impair the effectiveness of the existing lighting equipment installed into the car.

Attached is the information of this 4-way high-end speaker TS-X450 that has been selling at other countries.

Please help to review our request and we hope to receive your approval soon.

Thank you very much.

Attachment (Text and graphics omitted)

ID: nht92-6.17

DATE: June 4, 1992

FROM: Bart Gordon -- U.S. House of Representatives

TO: Adele Derby -- Associate Administrator for Regional Operations, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/29/92 from Frederick H. Grubbe to Bart Gordon (A39; Part 571.3)

TEXT:

Pursuant to your conversation with Claudia Deane of my Washington staff, I am writing to request a clarification of NHTSA's regulations regarding the use of 11-15 passenger vans for school purposes.

In my home state of Tennessee, there is currently some confusion as to whether schools which are in possession of these vans can use them to transport students. The vans are not being used as primary transportation, but instead are used for extracurricular activities such as transporting the debate team or the cheerleading squad.

It is my understanding that there are regulation against selling these vans for school use. My question is whether schools which currently own vans can use them.

In speaking with state officials, the point of confusion seems to specifically lie in the application of NHTSA's definition of a school bus to these vans, and following on this, whether the vans are required to be in compliance with school bus class safety standards. The state's interpretation of NHTSA's regulations has led them to advise schools to stop using the vans in the 11-15 passenger category.

I appreciate your attention to this question and look forward to receiving a response in the near future. If I can answer any questions or provide you with further information, please feel free to contact my office.

ID: Phillips.jeg

Mrs. Pam Phillips
1545 Stanley Blvd.
Calumet City, IL 60409





Dear Mrs. Phillips:

The State of Indiana Office of the Attorney General, Consumer Protection Division, referred to this agency your complaint regarding the purchase of a used 1991 Mercury Sable from a local Lincoln Mercury dealer.

According to your letter, before you purchased the car, you noticed that the air bag light stayed on. You stated that an employee of the dealer told you "he would fix the air bag light that was staying on, that it would not be a problem for [you] just to bring the car back in and it would be taken care of." You stated that he did not tell you at the time of purchase that it was a great expense to correct the problem. You also stated that when you brought the car back in to get the light fixed, you were told they could not fix it, that "it was against federal law." You stated that you were never told that the light was on because the air bags were not working. You stated that you found out that the air bags did not work when your daughter was in a crash and the air bags never went off. You stated that you are very upset that the dealership sold a car that in your opinion should never have been sold to the public.

I am sorry to hear about the experiences you have had with your car. I am pleased to hear that your daughter was wearing her safety belt.

The laws we administer do not enable us to help you with the problem you identify. You may wish to consult with a private attorney to determine whether any remedies may be available to you under any other laws, including state laws.

It might be helpful to provide you with some background information about the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and our requirements for air bag warning lights.

NHTSA has the authority under 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq. to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to new motor vehicles and new 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.

One of the standards we have issued under this authority is Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Manufacturers install air bags in their vehicles to meet the requirement of this standard. Moreover, with regard to air bag indicator lights, paragraph 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. The purpose of the readiness indicator is to advise vehicle occupants of problems in the air bag system.

The Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply to used vehicles. There is a provision of Federal law that prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or vehicle repair business from knowingly making inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in accordance with any Federal motor vehicle safety standard. This provision would prohibit a dealer from disabling a readiness indicator on a used vehicle that shows a problem with the air bag system. However, it would not have the effect of requiring a dealer to repair a used vehicle with an air bag system that has a problem.

I note that the "make inoperative" provision would not prohibit a dealer from repairing the air bag system, including a problem with the readiness indicator, on a used vehicle. NHTSA, in fact, recommends that all safety systems on used vehicles be in good working order.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

cc:   State of Indiana
Office of the Attorney General
Consumer Protection Division
RE: File No. 99F702
Indiana Government Center South, Fifth Floor
402 West Washington Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204-2770

ref:208
d.5/1/01