ID: nht93-9.6

DATE: December 8, 1993

FROM: Michael J. Siris -- Attorney at Law

TO: Mary Versailles -- NHTSA

COPYEE: Roger Harvey

TITLE: Standard 114

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/10/94 from John Womack to Michael J. Siris (A42; Std. 114; VSA S108(k))

TEXT:

Although you were nice enough to answer my questions regarding standard no. 114, I still would like to have some confirmation that a manufacture's compliance with a given NHTSA standard does not necessarily exonerate the manufacture. Is that proposition published in the CFR.

Also, given the scenario we discussed, i.e., the 1987 Ford which allowed the automatic transmission to be shifted while the key was not in the steering column, do you have any other suggestions besides no. 114? In other words, is there some other source of standards that might be more stringent than NHTSA's standards?

Thank you for your anticipated attention to this matter.

ID: nht93-9.7

DATE: December 8, 1993

FROM: Steve J. Brooks -- Program Manager, IAD West Coast, Inc.

TO: Office of Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/7/94 from John Womack to Steve J. Brooks (A42; Part 567; Part 571.3)

TEXT:

We are developing a vehicle, of which only six will be built.

These vehicles will be fit for highway use and will be used to travel to trade shows and promotional events at which point the crew of two will distribute items and literature relating to the company.

The vehicle will carry less than ten passengers and the GVWR will be 11,500 lbs.

Would the office of chief council please indicate, what drivers license would be necessary to operate this vehicle, and confirm the classification of the vehicle.

Look forward to your reply.

(Drawing omitted.)

ID: nht93-9.8

DATE: December 9, 1993

FROM: Harris W. Fawell -- U.S. House of Representatives

TO: Howard Smolkin -- Acting Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Matthew Gerrity; 7624 Rohrer Drive, Downers Grove, IL 60516

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/30/93 from John Womack (signed by Kenneth N. Weinstein) to Matt Gerrity (A42; Redbook (2); Std. 208; VSA 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

During April of this year, a member of my district office staff spoke with John Wolmack in your office regarding Mr. Gerrity's problem with a new Cadillac he had purchased. Because of a physical handicap, the steering wheel of Mr. Gerrity's car must be modified with a device which permits him to operate it. As he explains it, the device would prohibit the normal function of the air bag and would cause him injury in the event of an accident. Mr. Wolmack said that requests to authorize the waiver of federal air bag regulations are considered on a case-by-case basis, and suggested that Mr. Gerrity should write to you, explaining the circumstances, and the need for such a waiver.

We are writing to you now because Mr. had advised us that he had written a letter to you, and had not received a response. When we called Mr. Wolmack about this, he told us that your records showed that no letter had been received. We then asked Mr. Gerrity for a copy of his letter, which we now present to you. We note that the letter is undated and that your address is not complete, which may explain why you cannot locate the original.

I would appreciate your responding to Mr. Gerrity on the basis of this copy. If this is not possible, please advise us on what we need to do in order for you to consider his request that he be authorized to disconnect the air bag.

All of this is a little convoluted, I know. Thanks for your patience and whatever help you can give us to help Mr. Gerrity with his problem.

- - -

The following is the letter from Matt Gerrity to Howard Smolkin:

Matt Gerrity 7624 Rohrer Drive Downers Grove, IL 60516 (708) 964-7201

Howard Smolkin National Highway Safety Administration 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20598

Dear Mr. Smoklin,

I am a handicapped motorist. In order to steer my car, I have a metal bar that goes across the steering-wheel with a type of spinner-know at the end. I recently purchased a 1990 Coup De Vile with a drivers side air-bag. In the

event, the air-bag should go off, the steering device would probably pop off causing serious injury. I have gone to dealers and other mechanics who see the obvious problem but are reluctant to disconnect the air-bag because of Federal Law. I would have the air-bag connected again upon sale of this car. Please tell me what measures I should take.

Sincerely,

Matt Gerrity

ID: nht93-9.9

DATE: December 10, 1993

FROM: Thomas Luckemeyer -- ITT Automotive Europe

TO: Taylor Vinson -- Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Rear Fog Lamp

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/23/93 from John Womack to Thomas Luckemeyer (A42; Std. 108; VSA 103(d))

TEXT:

In the field of a new development for a German customer who intends to certificate a rear lamp in the U.S. there are some questions regarding the permissibility of rear fog lamps on U.S. cars. I hope you will answer the questions below.

- Is the rear fog lamp in a combined rear lamp unit permissible in all the states of the U.S.? There is no statement in the MVSS 108.

- Which photometric requirements do we have to fulfill for the rear fog lamp?

- Is the certification of the combined rear lamp unit binding upon the whole states of the U.S.?

- Do you have a list of lighting equipment for cars and the necessary requirements in the different states of the U.S.?

Please send your answer by FAX.

Thank you in advance for your help.

ID: nht94-1.1

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: 01/01/94 EST

FROM: Tom Delapp -- Executive Coach Builders, Inc.

TO: Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/29/94 from John Womack to Tom Delapp (A42; Std. 206)

TEXT:

As a quality manufacturer of limousines we strive to meet or exceed any safety regulation which would affect our customers or their clients. To this end we request an interpretation to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #206, specifically the section which addresses the use of an inside locking mechanism.

Our need for this interpretation is based on the design of a "5th" door conversion that we plan to offer for sale based on the 1993 Lincoln Town Car base vehicle. The door assembly has been evaluated by a professional engineer and has exceeded the requi rement of section #214. It is designed to be opened safely through the use of an electrically controlled solenoid that is accessible by the driver from a parked position. The door panel contains no provisions for occupant control due to the exclusion o f interior and exterior release controls, making the use of a rear door locking mechanism unnecessary.

In a telephone conversation with George Shifflett, Safety Compliance Specialist, he concurred that the provision for an interior lock in this case was redundant, but cautioned that a final interpretation and approval must be issued by your office.

Please address this matter at your earliest convenience. Should you require further information to process this request, please feel free to contact me by phone or writing.

ID: nht94-1.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 6, 1994

FROM: C. N. Littler -- Administrator Regulatory Affairs, MOTOR COACH INDUSTRIES (MANITOBA, CANADA)

TO: Mary Versailles -- Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NHTSA Pre-emptive Authority With Respect to FMVSS P571 @ 121

ATTACHMT: Attached to Letter Dated 09/07/94 from John Womack to C. N. Littler (A42; STD. 121; VSA 103D)

TEXT: I am writing to request a NHTSA legal opinion regarding New York State enforcement of a brake stopping distance standard which is not identical in nature or substance to FMVSS 121.

In effect, NYSDOT is currently inspecting and placing out of service privately owned motor coaches which do not stop within 22.2 feet and 20 mph. FMVSS 121 requires a stopping distance of 35 feet at 20 mph on a road surface having a skid pad number of 81. Not only is the New York standard not identical to the Federal standard, (as required under the provisions of Sec. 103(d) of the Motor Vehicle Traffic Safety Act of 1966), it is also unduly restrictive.

Recently, the Bus Association of New York met with members of NYSDOT to attempt to resolve this problem. This meeting unfortunately only resulted in an impasse, whereby NYSDOT requested that the vehicle manufacturers write letters to the NYSDOT Compl iance and Enforcement Branch requesting exemptions to the New York standard.

We do not feel that this approach is appropriate. This issue is not one of a technical nature. It is, in fact, a legislative issue in that New York State is not in compliance with a Federally mandated standard.

Your assistance in providing a legal opinion with respect to this rather urgent matter would be greatly appreciated. I have attached for your reference copies of the standards and statute above named. Please do not hesitate to call me at 204-287-427 4 or FAX 204-453-7356 should you or counsel's office staff required further information. With kindest regards, I remain,

ATTACHMENTS: NEW YORK STATE TRANSPORTATION REGULATIONS (TEXT OMITTED)

ID: nht94-1.100

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 25, 1994

FROM: James Ackley -- Region 4 Director; Carol Baumhauer -- Counselor; Krista D. Subler -- Counselor -- Small Business Development Center, Upper Valley JVS Business Development Center

TO: John E. Boehner

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/25/94 Est from John Womack to John A. Boehner (A42; Std. 108; VSA S102(a)(2)(A) and letter dated 4/7/94 from John A. Boehner to Jackie Lowey

TEXT:

We are writing in reference to clients of the Upper Valley Small Business Development Center in Piqua. Mr. John Cail and Mr. James Lipps are inventors with a patent on a product called Life Lites.

Because this system has the potential to save lives, we request your assistance in guiding Mr. Cail and Mr. Lipps through the color code designation process and any other resource possibilities available.

We appreciate your consideration in this matter.

ID: nht94-1.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 6, 1994

FROM: Littler, C.N. -- Administrator Regulatory Affairs, Motor Coach Industries, Manitoba, Canada

TO: Versailles, Mary -- Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NHTSA Pre-emptive Authority With Respect to FMVSS P571@121

ATTACHMT: Attached To 10/1/94 (EST.) Letter From John Womack To C. N. Littler (A42; VSA 103(D))

TEXT: I am writing to request a NHTSA legal opinion regarding New York State enforcement of a brake stopping distance standard which is not identical in nature or substance to FMVSS 121.

In effect, NYSDOT is currently inspecting and placing out of service privately owned motor coaches which do not stop within 22.2 feet and 20 mph. FMVSS 121 requires a stopping distance of 35 feet at 20 mph on a road surface having a skid pad number of 81. Not only is the New York standard not identical to the Federal standard, (as required under the provisions of Sec. 103(d) of the Motor Vehicle Traffic Safety Act of 1966), it is also unduly restrictive.

Recently, the Bus Association of New York met with members of NYSDOT to attempt to resolve this problem. This meeting unfortunately only resulted in an impasse, whereby NYSDOT requested that the vehicle manufacturers write letters to the NYSDOT Compl iance and Enforcement Branch requesting exemptions to the New York standard.

We do not feel that this approach is appropriate. This issue is not one of a technical nature. It is, in fact, a legislative issue in that New York State is not in compliance with a Federally mandated standard.

Your assistance in providing a legal opinion with respect to this rather urgent matter would be greatly appreciated. I have attached for your reference copies of the standards and statute above named. Please do not hesitate to call me at 204-287-427 4 or FAX 204-453-7356 should you or counsel's office staff required further information. With kindest regards, I remain,

Attachments

(STANDARDS AND STATUTES OMITTED.)

ID: nht94-1.12

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 7, 1994

FROM: D. E. Dawkins -- Director - Vehicle Compliance and Safety Affairs, Chrysler Corporation

TO: John G. Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Request for Interpretation Regarding Combined Sun Visor Air Bag Caution Label and Utility Vehicle Label

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/21/94 from John Womack to Dale E. Dawkins (A42; Redbook; Std. 208)

TEXT:

Chrysler Corporation requests that the NHTSA affirm an interpretation of MVSS 208-Occupant Crash Protection, that would permit the sun visor air bag caution label required in S4.5.1(b) to be combined with the utility vehicle information sticker required by 49 CFR Part 575.105. We believe that the messages of these labels are equally important to the operator of the vehicle, and that they can be effectively displayed together on a common label.

We are aware that General Motors Corporation and Ford Motor Company have submitted petitions for reconsideration of the final rule of Docket 74-14; Notice 82, which amends MVSS 208, in part, to require the sun visor label containing certain air bag cauti ons. Both companies ask that the agency further amend the air bag visor label requirement to permit the continued location of the utility vehicle label on the visor.

We support those petitions, and ask that the agency grant them and proceed with the proposed amendments. However, we ask that the agency also confirm that the information from both labels may not only appear on the same sun visor, but may be incorporate d into a single label on a given surface of the sun visor. In our opinion, the messages are of equal significance to the safe operation of the vehicle and deserve equal and simultaneous presentation to the driver. If the agency cannot affirm that posit ion within the existing regulation, please consider this request as a petition for rulemaking to that end.

If there are questions about this request, please address them to Howard Willson of my staff at (810) 370-8563.

ID: nht94-1.13

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 8, 1994

FROM: Bob Carver -- Product Engineering, Wayne Wheeled Vehicles

TO: John Womack

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/24/94 from John Womack to Bob Carver (A42; Std. 217)

TEXT:

I have two matters in which I need rulings from the Chief Counsel regarding FMVSS 217. I've discussed both with Charles Hott and he recommended that I write you for an official response.

QUESTION 1:

There's some confusion here in our engineering department regarding the interpretation of the "Daylight Opening" and "Unobstructed Opening" as it applies to the new side emergency door specifications in FMVSS 217. Page 2 shows the allowable obstruction and the context in which "Daylight Opening" and "Unobstructed Opening" are used. Page 3 shows some measurements of our seats placed according to the "30 cm minimum" shown on page 2. Page 4 shows four different interpretations of the "Unobstructed Openi ng" area. Depending on the interpretation, between 9 and 15 people may be accommodated by a side emergency door. My question is this: of the four possibilities shown, which definition of the "Unobstructed Opening" area is correct? Mr. Hott indicated definition 4.

QUESTION 2:

Here is an excerpt from FMVSS 217 S5.5.3(a): "Each school bus ....shall have the designation "Emergency Door" or "Emergency Exit" as appropriate,.... For emergency exit doors, the designation shall be located at the top of, or directly above, the emergency exit door on both the inside a nd outside surfaces of the bus..... For emergency window exits, the designation shall be located at the top of, or directly above, or at the bottom of the emergency window exit on both the inside and outside surfaces of the bus."

I've seen a two-sided sticker used by other bus manufacturers. It is applied on the inside surface of a window and the same image "Emergency Door" or "Emergency Exit" can be read from both inside and outside the bus. Is it permissible for us to use thi s sort of decal, assuming it meets all other (i.e. FMVSS 302)?

I can make an educated guess on both questions, but I'd like an official ruling. I look forward to your response.

ATTACHMENT

Figure 5C - Mimimum Side Emergency Exit Clearance Specifications and Side Door Opening With Seat Obstruction. (Text and graphics omitted.)