ID: nht92-9.59

DATE: 01/06/92

FROM: Joseph B. Gordon -- Manager of Engineering, ESI BRAKE PARTS, DIVISION OF STANDARD MOTOR PRODUCTS, INC.

TO: Mr. Rich Van Iderstine -- U.S. Department of Transporation, NHTSA

COPYEE: Daniel Carboni, Sr. V.P. (Ignition and Brake Products) David Blasco -- (Product Test Lab)

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 2-18-93 FROM JOHN WOMACK TO JOSEPH B. GORDON (A40; STD. 108; VSA (a)(2)(A))

TEXT: EIS has been approached as to the possibility of our manufacturing a product which provides an intermittently blinking brake light function. Before we actually consider such a project however, we need to learn if there are any existing prohibitions or problems which would disqualify this device from being introduced to the marketplace.

Intended for use in passenger vehicles, the product under consideration is an addition to the existing rear brake light system which causes the brake lights to flash intermittently when pressure to the brake pedal is applied. While this mechanism would provide an added measure of visibility to alert traffic behind a braking vehicle, our concerns are whether such a device would be confused with hazard warning lights or if there are other problems/restrictions connected with its manufacture.

EIS would very much appreciate any advice or information NHTSA can provide us with on this proposed braking product at your earliest convenience.

ID: nht92-9.6

DATE: February 14, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: David Klopp -- Freedman Seating Company

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/30/92 from David Klopp to Mary Versailles (OCC 6926)

TEXT:

This responds to your fax of January 30, 1992 to Mary Versailles of my staff asking whether the anchorage strength test in Standard No. 210, Seat belt assembly anchorages, requires simultaneous testing of seat belt anchorages located on the seat frame of a seat having multiple seating positions.

Under the current requirements of S4.2.4 of Standard No. 210, only floor-mounted anchorages are subject to simultaneous testing. The requirement applicable to vehicles with seat-mounted safety belt anchorages, S4.2.4 of Standard No. 210, has been changed, effective September 1, 1992. For a vehicle manufactured on or after that date, seat-mounted anchorages will be tested simultaneously by loading all anchorages common to the same occupant seat.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any further questions please contact Mary Versailles at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-9.60

DATE: January 3, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Tony Llama -- President, Davenport Enterprises

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/13/91 from Tony Llama to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 6784)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of December 13, 1991, with respect to the permissibility of temporarily importing a Fiat from Brazil that is not in conformance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The purpose of the importation is to design and build an air conditioning system for the car. Upon completion of this work, the Fiat will be exported.

You have enclosed a copy of my letter of August 2, 1990, granting permission for the importation of a van manufactured in the Soviet Union for which you had been asked to design an air conditioning system. In that letter, I informed you that it would be appropriate for you to enter the van pursuant to 49 CFR section 591.5(j), under the declaration that the vehicle is being imported solely for the purpose of research, investigations, and studies or demonstrations. Under the circumstances outlined in your letter, we believe that it would be appropriate for you to enter the Brazilian Fiat as well under section 591.5(j).

If you have any further questions, we shall be happy to answer them.

ID: nht92-9.61

DATE: 01/01/92 EST

FROM: B.J. Forney

TO: Diane K. Steed -- Traffic Sft. Adm.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/19/92 from Paul J. Rice to B.J. Forney (A34; VSA 102)

TEXT:

I am seeking a written statement from your dept. as to the legality of on the road operation of such a system described in the enclosed brochure. (back page.)

In 1982 I spent $4,500 with Inv. Mkt in Pitts, PA. with only paper work to show for it.

If this system is not or would not be allowed on the roads, an attempt to recover my fee is anticipated.

This would help me in my future efforts to market this system with any trucking industry.

Return postage cost would be accepted.

Thank you for your opinions.

Attachment (letter)

March 27, 1990

Mr. B.J. Forney R 6, 61 Harrison, AZ 72601

Dear Mr. Forney:

Thank you for your letter dated March 21, 1990, relative to an Automotive Power Drive. Before submitting this matter to our appropriate management people for determination of their interest, I would like to propose the following:

(1) Any disclosure of information by you to representatives of Westinghouse is to be on a non-confidential basis and such information is received by Westinghouse with no obligation whatsoever.

(2) You will rely solely on your patent rights with respect to compensation for any information so disclosed.

If the foregoing understanding is acceptable to you, please so indicate by executing and returning the acceptance provided on the extra copy of this letter.

We appreciate your thinking of Westinghouse in connection with your invention.

Very truly yours,

L.M. Laffoon Mgr., Administrative Services Westinghouse Electric Corporation Law Department - Intellectual Property

Attachment (brochure)

Forney Air, NAT-2929 (Text and graphics omitted)

ID: nht92-9.62

DATE: 01/01/92 EST

FROM: Leonard Marks

TO: Office of the Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/15/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Leonard Marks (A39)

TEXT:

I request of you any information you can supply me with pertaining to the safety laws and standards of seat belts.

I have developed a new adjustable attachment to seat belts which allows the user to lower the level so that it will no longer cut them in the neck and yet give them the safety of the belt. It will also give the persons that no longer use them because of the discomfort, to have the incentive to do so.

I would appreciate a response as early as possible as working models and dies are being manufactured.

I am available by phone if you have any question at (207) 934-5249. Thank you again for your immediate response.

ID: nht92-9.63

DATE: 01/01/92 EST

FROM: Scott D. Boone -- Van Conversions, Inc.

TO: Office of the Chief Counsel

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/8/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Scott D. Boone (A40; Std. 208; Part 568)

TEXT:

We at Van Conversions convert from time to time Ford E-150's for day care centers. We usually do a 21 passenger capability and would like to have in writing all the State laws we need to comply with, from bolts used and materials preferred.

We won't touch anything until we hear from you. Thank you very much.

Usually Ford E-150's 21 passenger Step well Isle runner Tell me about seat belts 3 pt. Tell me about bolts used and grades.

ID: nht92-9.7

DATE: February 14, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Cliff Chuang -- President, Prospects Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/22/92 from Cliff Chuang to Dorothy Nakama (OCC 6893; Std. 118))

TEXT:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 118 Power Windows (49 CFR S571.118). As you noted in your letter, the agency has published a final rule amending Standard No. 118 in the April 16, 1991, edition of the Federal Register (56 FR 15290). You requested clarification of certain requirements in that final rule.

The agency has received several petitions for reconsideration of the final rule amending Standard No. 118. One such petition is from your company. The agency is currently reviewing the merits of each petition. The agency will issue a notice in the Federal Register granting and/or denying the petitions. In that notice, the agency will also address the concerns raised in your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 118. Please let us know if you have any questions about the issues raised in your letter after our response to the petitions for reconsideration has been published and you have had the opportunity to review it.

If you need more information on this subject, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address, or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-9.8

DATE: February 14, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jeff Ruff -- The Braun Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/30/91 from Jeff Ruff to Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 6631)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of October 30, 1991, regarding Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and vehicles designed to be operated by persons with disabilities. Your letter indicates that you must remove "the support brace between the 'B' pillars and forward" when you alter a vehicle for a person who must transfer from a wheelchair to the driver's seat. You also indicate that the original manufacturer of the vehicle will not allow you to pass through certification for Standard No. 208 if these alterations are made.

The safety requirements for new light trucks and vans were upgraded as of September 1, 1991. Light trucks and vans manufactured on or after that date must be capable of providing occupant protection to belted front seat occupants when the vehicle is crash tested at 30 miles per hour (mph) into a concrete barrier. A vehicle that provides this crash protection will increase the safety of vehicle occupants.

As a result of this new requirement, this agency has recently received a number of phone calls and letters, from both van converters like your company and individuals, suggesting that the new light truck and van crash testing requirement will, in effect, prohibit van converters from modifying vehicles to accommodate the special needs of persons in wheelchairs. The agency also received a petition asking for an amendment to the light truck and van crash test requirement in Standard No. 208 "to eliminate requirements that inadvertently discriminate against individuals with disabilities including individuals who use wheelchairs."

On January 9, 1992, this agency granted that petition. You should understand that the granting of a petition for rulemaking signifies that the agency believes a further review of the issues raised in the petition appears to have merit, but it is not a determination that the light truck and van crash test requirement should be amended. Any determination to amend the crash test requirement would be made in the course of a rulemaking proceeding, in accordance with statutory criteria. By addressing the issue comprehensively, in response to this petition for rulemaking, instead of in a piecemeal fashion, in response to each of the individual requests, NHTSA will be able to ensure that the resulting requirement offers persons in wheelchairs the best possible safety protection.

However, we are aware that individuals seeking to purchase new vehicles modified for operation by persons with disabilities need more immediate relief than rulemaking can offer. To afford more immediate relief, this agency announced in a January 21, 1992 letter to Representative Porter Goss that NHTSA will not conduct any crash testing under Standard No. 208 of vehicles modified for operation by persons with disabilities while this

rulemaking is pending. This should allow your company to continue to produce such modified vehicles while this rulemaking is pending.

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

ID: nht92-9.9

DATE: February 14, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Michael A. Martin -- Program Manager, Bureau of Highway Safety, Augusta, Maine

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/9/91 from Michael A. Martin to Mary Versailles (OCC 6747); Also attached to letter from Erika Z. Jones to Martin V. Chauvin

TEXT:

This is in regard to your letter of December 9, 1991, regarding school buses. Your three questions are addressed below.

1. (W) hat is the general rule to which states need to comply with regarding Federal school bus safety standards? What bus safety modifications would not be restricted by 15 U.S.C. 1392(d)?

Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) provides that:

Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard ... is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent ... any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable Federal standard.

Section 103 (d) preempts state requirements for school buses covering the same aspect of performance as an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) that are different from the applicable FMVSS except to the extent that the requirements impose a higher level of performance and apply only to vehicles procured for the State's use. A state law imposing higher requirement would be preempted under S103(d) to the extent that the law requires all school buses manufactured for use in the state to comply with the law. The law would not be preempted to the extent that it applies to public school buses. The agency has previously interpreted the phrase "vehicles procured for (the State's) own use" to include public school buses and school buses operated and owned by a private contractor under contract to transport children to and from public school. See, for example, February 20, 1987 letter to Mr. Martin Chauvin (copy enclosed).

2. Would Federal safety standards restrict a state

from requiring safety belts on school buses?

A state requirement that all school buses be equipped with safety belts regulates the same aspect of performance as the Federal standard for school bus occupant crash protection (FMVSS No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection) and would not be identical to that standard for large school buses (those with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) over 10,000 pounds). FMVSS No. 222 requires school buses to provide passenger crash protection through a concept called "compartmentalization." Providing compartmentalization entails improving the interior of the school bus with protective seat backs, additional seat padding, and better seat spacing and performance. These interiors are intended to keep occupants in their seating area and protect them during a crash. FMVSS No. 222 requires the additional protection of safety belts at each passenger position in small school buses (10,000 pounds or less GVWR) because these buses experience greater force levels in a crash.

A state requirement for safety belts on school buses would be identical to the level of performance required for small school buses, but would specify a different level of performance for large school buses. However, because the state requirement specifies a higher level of performance for large school buses than that required by FMVSS No. 222, Maine may require the installation of safety belts in school buses procured by the State or its political subdivisions, as long as the Federal requirements for compartmentalization are not compromised.

3. Could a school bus fleet modify the rear lighting configuration of their buses (8 light system) to reduce the potential for other vehicles rear-ending buses during poor visibility conditions, e.g., fog? ... The proposed change is to replace the white 8 inch back-up lights with 8 inch red sealed beam warning lights similar to the two at the upper level of the rear end of the bus. These would flash in an alternating criss-cross fashion when the bus is stopped loading or discharging students. The small white lights at the lowest level of the rear end of the bus would each be replaced with white, universal backup lights angled to also direct their beams at 45 degree angles out from the rear of the bus.

The answer to your question is yes if the school district or its fleet contractor performs the modification itself. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) authorizes Cthis agency to issue FMVSS applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108 (a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) prohibits the sale for purposes other than resale of any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless it is in conformity with all applicable FMVSSs. After the first purchase of a vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale, the only provision in Federal law that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in Section 108 (a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides that: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

This provision does not regulate in any manner how a vehicle owner can modify his or her vehicle. I note, however, that this agency encourages vehicle owners not to tamper with their vehicle's safety equipment if the modification would degrade the safety of the vehicle.

In addition, it is possible that the modifications you describe could be made by one of the named commercial entities without violating the "render inoperative" provision. The modification you describe affects two requirements of FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. FMVSS No. 108 requires buses, including school buses, to have at least one backup light meeting the photometric and height requirements of SAE Standard J593c, February 1968. If the small white lights at the lowest level of the rear end of the bus comply with these requirements, the vehicle would continue to conform with this requirement.

Section S5.1.4 of FMVSS No. 108 requires school buses to have a system of either four red or four red and four amber signal lamps which conform to SAE Standard J887, July, 1964. The modification you describe would add an additional two red signal lamps to the existing eight light system. Section S5.1.3 of FMVSS No. 108 states that "(n)o additional lamp, reflective device or other motor vehicle equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard." It is our opinion that the addition of two red signal lamps would not violate this provision.

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

ID: nht93-1.1

DATE: 01-01-93 EST

FROM: A. F. Zang, III

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-18-93 from John Womack to A. F. Zang, III (A41; Std. 213; FMVSS 302)

TEXT: I am planning to produce a product for children. I am concerned about meeting all governmental rules concerning products for children. The product is made out of a fabric that is plastic coated, and is an after market child's car seat cover. My main concern is the flammability restrictions that the government places upon fabrics that are used for children's goods. I am writing to your agency because my product will be used on the highways.

Where can I go to get the fabric tested? What are the test specifications? Are these questions something that are already available from the factory? I want to be able to state on the packaging that the fabric has been tested and found to be within governmental regulations. I feel that it is important for parents to feel safe about the products they are purchasing for their children.

Any information that you could send me concerning governmental regulations for children's products would be greatly appreciated, thank you.