ID: nht89-3.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: NOVEMBER 14, 1989

FROM: TRACEY POWELL -- LEGISLATIVE COORDINATOR, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, AMERICAN MOTORCYCLIST ASSOCIATION

TO: STEPHEN WOOD, CHIEF COUNSEL -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 2/5/90 FROM S. WOOD, NHTSA, TO T. POWELL, AMERICAN MOTORCYCLIST ASSOCIATION; [REDBOOK A35; VSA 103(D); STD. 108]

TEXT: The AMA recently completed a study to see how many states have complied with 49 CFR @ 571.108 permitting modulating headlights for motorcycles. We believe modulating headlights should be allowed in every state to help prevent accidents. I was informed that you might find the results of our study of interest.

Responses to our recent mailing to a representative in each state indicate that 37 states and the District of Columbia allow the use of modulating headlights either by the passage of legislation or by virtue of not being prohibited by law. Iowa, Miss issippi, Oklahoma, Utah and West Virginia remain unclear even after follow up calls. Although the 1985 ruling clearly recognizes the difference between modulating and flashing lights, Florida, Hawaii, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts and Rhode Island continue to prohibit the use of modulating headlights based on the possibility that a motorcycle with a modulating headlamp might be perceived as an emergency vehicle since flashing lights are generally reserved for emergency vehicles.

I have enclosed a response from Maryland indicating their acknowledgment of NHTSA's ruling and intentional disregard for compliance. We would appreciate your assistance in attaining uniform recognition of the legal use of modulating headlights throug hout the United States as approved in 49 CFR @ 571.108.

ENC.

ID: nht89-3.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/14/89

FROM: DIANA REGAN

TO: STEPHEN WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 2-14-90 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD, NHTSA, TO DIANA L. D. REGAN; A35; STDS. 208; 209; 213

TEXT: This letter will serve as my request for an interpretation of a product with which I hope to greatly improve safety for children riding in automobiles equipped with Lap-Shoulder safety belts. Enclosed you will find a description of the product (protecte d by a sole licensing agreement under U.S. Patent 4,832,367) and its use.

It is understood that as a manufacturer of such an auto safety product there are certain responsibilities and standards which must be complied with. Because of its innovative nature, it is unclear where a product such as the one described in the enclosu re lies. Is it a seat belt or should it be considered as an infant car seat?

I respectfully request an interpretation of the product and my responsibilities as its manufacturer and seller. It is hoped the information enclosed is sufficient and I will be happy to provide anything further.

Thank you.

Enc.

SUPPLEMENTAL AUTOMOBILE SAFETY BELT RESTRAINING APPARATUS FOR THE OLDER CHILD.

BACKGROUND OF THE APPARATUS.

Automobile safety for the Older Child, defined as a child weighing between 40 pounds and 85 pounds, is a much-neglected field. While infants are required by law to be restrained in an approved infant seat and younger children generally are required to o ccupy an approved booster seat, these seats are not appropriate for older children since in many instances they can no longer be accomodated in the confined space of the seat.

It has been suggested that children educated at an early age in the correct use of Lap/Shoulder safety belts are far more likely to continue the practice later in life.

However, with the introduction of new safety standards for 1990 requiring manufacturers to install three point Lap/Shoulder safety harnesses on the outboard rear seats of all automobiles, a potential problem looms in that these belts are designed primari ly for adults. Older Children attempting to wear Lap/Shoulder safety belts will invariably find that rather than correctly fitting, the shoulder portion of the Lap/Shoulder safety belt will cross the child's neck or face, which is both uncomfortable and dangerous.

The Older Child will usually solve the problem by placing the Shoulder portion of the belt behind their body, a practice which is highly dangerous since while the child's hips remain restrained, the upper torso is not, and so can propel forward in the ev ent of an accident.

The objective of this apparatus is to permit the adjustment of the Shoulder portion of the Lap/Shoulder seat belt downwardly into a position which correctly places the shoulder portion of the belt across the Older Child's chest and shoulder.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPARATUS.

The apparatus is comprised of an adjustable length of 2" wide safety belt webbing conforming to Standard No. 209, to which at each end is attached a fastener designed to firmly attach to the webbing of the Lap/Shoulder safety belt.

It connects to both the lap section and the shoulder section of the Lap/Shoulder safety belt and to no other structure in the automobile. The apparatus is connected firstly to the lap section of the Lap/Shoulder safety belt in a position which is the fu rthermost practical point away from and below the line of the Older Child's hip, and secondly to the shoulder section of the safety belt in a position above the line of the child's shoulder at a point which causes the shoulder section of the safety belt to be correctly placed across the Older Child's chest and shoulder.

As a consequence of the apparatus being solely attached to the existing Lap/Shoulder safety belt webbing, the forces generated during a collision will continue to be directed to and absorbed by the approved Lap/Shoulder safety belt and its anchorage poin ts.

The simplicity of construction of the apparatus and the ease in which an adult can connect it to or disconnect it from a Lap/Shoulder safety belt enhances its suitability for use as a supplemental child restaining device. Once connected, the Lap/Shoulde r safety belt will safely restrain the Older Child, and upon disconnecting only the uppermost fastener, the Lap/Shoulder safety belt can again be correctly worn by an adult.

The photograph hereunder illustrates clearly the mechanics of the apparatus and its application to Older Child automobile safety.

ID: nht89-3.38

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: November 14, 1989

FROM: Vaughn Crawley -- Vice President, Monitor Manufacturing Co.

TO: Steven Wood -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-15-90 to V. Crawley from P. J. Rice; (A36; VSA 108(b)(2)

TEXT:

I am writing at the recommendation of Marvin Shaw of your Department, to whom I was referred by Mr. Jettner of the Crash Worthiness Engineering Branch of DOT.

My question is, that if necessary to respond to a certification review of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and in order to support certification that the vehicles meet the requirements of FMVSS #207, Seating System and #210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages; would test reports and engineering analysis of the individual components of the seating system tested independently, one from the other, meet the require ments of the law? For instance, in a van conversion, if the pedestal, the seat , and the seat belts are supplied by different manufacturers and have been tested and supported by test reports and engineering analysis to conform to the requirements of FMVSS #207 and #210. Would these documents be adequate as a basis of certification of the seating system, or would the components have to be combined together and re-tested in order to comply with the request for certification. Your prompt response would be appreciated.

ID: nht89-3.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: NOVEMBER 19, 1989

FROM: GEORGE B. MADAY -- PRES., NETWORK USA INC.

TO: ADMINISTRATOR -- NHTSA

TITLE: DAYTIME RUNNING LIGHTS

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 4-8-90 TO GEORGE B. MADAY FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD; (A35; STD. 108); GRAPHICS OMITTED. TEXT:

We are assessing the U.S. market potential for an Automatic Light Switching Device for automobiles. The device works on the basis of a light sensor which automatically activates the vehicles headlights at a certain level of darkness (adjustable with pot entiometer). There is a manual override for the operator.

This quality product is manufactured in Switzerland and is being used by the Swiss Police vehicles.

As their U.S. agent, I seek to find out the following:

1. What legislation is in force or pending regarding the mandatory utilization of such daytime running lights for vehicles?

2. What regulations, standards, form s, etc., have to be submitted to you or the appropriate agency to ensure that the product meets any U.S. specifications or standards prior to importation.

I look forward to a response at your earliest convenience.

ID: nht89-3.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/28/89

FROM: MARK F. HOLMES

TO: STEVE WOOD ASST. CHIEF COUNSEL N.H.T.S.A., U.S. DEPT. OF TRANPORTATION (MOTOR VEHICLES)

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10/31/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO MARK F. HOLMES; REDBOOK A34; USA 108 [A][2][A]; STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 09/28/89 FROM MARK F. HOLMES TO STEVE WOOD -- NHTSA

TEXT: Dear Mr. Wood:

Prior to my phone conversation with one of your associates, Mr. Vincent, enclosed please review a literary introduction letter along with a colorful illustration for two multi-purpose lighting devices called the Strobalarm and the Spotlight Alarms.

I am presently interested in presenting both items to a manufacturer for an after market device for commercial usage.

Before I can proceed with this presentation, I need to know that these devices and their features would not be in violation of any standards or regulations that have been established by your department.

I feel as though that by knowing first hand that these devices would not be challenged by law and would not be denied a patent or marketing rights because of an infraction based on it's usage and raw materials.

The Strobalarm and the Spotlight Alarm, are two devices that are designed to be used only when a vehicle is parked or broken down in a given area.

A speedy response from your department would be valued and appreciated.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-3.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/20/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: BUD SHUSTER -- U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 10/16/89 FROM DONALD S. CLARK -- FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION TO CONGRESSMAN BUD SHUSTER; LETTER DATED 8/8/89 FROM CONGRESSMAN BUD SHUSTER TO THE DIRECTOR OF CONGRESSIONAL RELATIONS -- DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Shuster:

Thank you for your inquiry on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Lester Hoover. Mr. Hoover requested information about laws that cover the branding of tires that are not first quality. In addition, he asked whether there is any way to apply such a law to o ther consumer goods such as batteries. This inquiry has already been referred to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which sent you a letter dated October 16, 1989 explaining its tire labeling regulations. The FTC's letter also indicated that this agen cy's tire labeling regulations might be of interest to Mr. Hoover.

Let me begin by explaining that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has promulgated regulations related to tires. In particular, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires, applies to new tires for use on passenger cars, Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, applies to new tires for use on vehicles other than passenger cars, Standard No. 117, Retreaded Pneumatic Tires, applies to retreaded tires for use on passenger cars, an d Part 569, Regrooved Tires, applies to all regrooved tires. Each of these regulations includes some labeling requirements.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires that every manufacturer certify that each of the tires it produces complies with these standards, including the labeling requirements. Thus, even a tire identified as something like "blemished" or "out-of-round" must be certified as complying with all provisions of the applicable safety standard(s). None of the regulations administered by this agency require, or establish any standards for, the identification of tires as something other than " first quality."

If some Federal regulation exists that requires the identification of tires as something other than "first quality," it would be promulgated by the FTC under that agency's authority to regulate unfair and deceptive trade practices. If the FTC does not h ave any such regulation, I am not aware of any other Federal agency that would have authority in this area. Similarly, I am not aware of any such labeling regulations that could be applied to consumer goods such as batteries.

I hope you find this information helpful. Please let me know if you have any further questions or concerns in this area.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-3.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: NOVEMBER 21, 1989

FROM: MICHAEL S. KMIECIK

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED APRIL 8, 1990 TO MICHAEL S. KMIECIK FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD; (A35; VSA 108(a)(2)(A); GRAPHICS OMITTED. TEXT:

I would like to purchase several of these convertible kits and produce a few cars for resale. I need to know the safety standards that apply to convertibles 1978 and older. I would also request an interpretation as to whether this conversion kit meets these standards. The main safety features of this kit seem to be:

1. reinforce windshield pillar with steel.

2. 1 in. steel tubing welded to shock towers.

3. 2 x 3 x 1-1/2 in. channel iron over the original unibody frame rails.

ID: nht89-3.42

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: November 21, 1989

FROM: Patrick S. Baran -- Inventors, Dreamers, Explorers & Artists Inc.

TO: Taylor Vinson -- U.S. Dept. of Transportation.,NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-9-90 To Patrick S. Baran and From Stephen P Wood; (A35; STD 108 & 218); Also attached to letter 8-2-82 To William R. Harris, Jr. and From Frank Berndt; Attachment SAEJ586c not included.

TEXT:

We have a brake light for the back of a motor cycle helmet. I am writing to you for informations on the D.O.T. guidelines for tail light brightness.

If there is anything else you can think of that we need to know for D.O.T. approval of this helmet brake light please let us know. I can be reached at(312)883-9200 or mail the information to I.D.E.A. Inc.; 2340 West Belmont; Chicago, IL 60618. Thank you for your time.

ID: nht89-3.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/21/89

FROM: MICHAEL S. KMIECIK

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 05/30/90, DN A35 STD 215, FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO MICHAEL S. KMIECIK; Alpha I GTO, Ferrari on Rice (article omitted)

TEXT: I would like to purchase several of these kits and produce a few cars for resale. I need an interpretation of Safety Standard 581. If Datsun is produced before Sept. 1, 1976 are used does this kit meet the requirements of Safety Standard 215. Also cou ld you please send me a copy of Safety Standard 215 and Safety Standard 108.

ID: nht89-3.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/24/89

FROM: JAMES A. COWAN, -- DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING CROWN COACH INC

TO: ERIKA JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: FMVSS 217 BUS WINDOW RETENTION AND RELEASE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 01/09/90 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO JAMES A. COWAN -- CROWN COACH INC; REDBOOK A35; STANDARD 217; LETTER DATED 11/29/88 FROM JAMES A. COWAN -- CROWN COACH INC; RE FMVSS 217, BUS WINDOW RETENTION AND RELEASE

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

Twelve months ago, the attached letter was sent to your office requesting guidance. On March 31, 1989, we received a telephone call from Joan Tillgham of NHTSA wanting to know if we still needed the information; the answer was affirmative.

We have subsequently dropped our plans to widen the emergency door on our buses due to the lack of response from NHTSA and reverted to the design originally developed in 1977. (The new bus has recently been tested for and passed all requirements of F MVSS 217).

However, we now plan to sell the pilot bus with the door referenced in our November 29, 1988 letter. Could you please give us a response? As a last resort, we will simply remove the passenger seat at the wider door and install a restraining barrier.

Your attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Respectfully,

ATTACHMENT