ID: nht93-9.14

DATE: December 15, 1993

FROM: Ramin Bogzaran -- Remedquip International Mfg. Inc., Canadian Division

TO: Marvin Shaw -- Office of the Chief Legal Council

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/26/94 from John Womack to Ramin Bogzaran (A42; VSA 102(3)); Also attached to letter from Ramin Bogzaran to John Womack; Also attached to letter dated 11/15/93 from Amar Chhabra to whom it may concern; Also attached to letter dated 11/30/93 from Lynn White to Jeff Boraston

TEXT:

I am sending you this fax to follow up on our application for interpretation of section 591.5(a)(1). As stated previously on my package to your offices, the trailers in discussion are not going to be licensed as vehicles and are going to be sitting at a site as part of a soil remediation plant. It is of great importance for us to get a ruling on the above section as soon as possible because certain deadlines which we must meet have come and gone. I apologize for the rush and I realize that your office has many cases to deal with, however, if our situation was not so critical I would not be so persistent. I thank you for your kind attention, and I look forward to your call.

ID: nht93-9.15

DATE: December 15, 1993

FROM: Ted H. Richardson -- Fleet Coordinator, Priefert Manufacturing Company, Inc.

TO: Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Division)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/12/94 from John Womack to Ted H. Richardson (A42; Std. 120; VSA 102(3))

TEXT:

Please forward opinion on "FMVSS No. 120" concerning new trailers with used tires. Per a conversation that I had with Mr. Walter Myers on 12/13/93, he felt that with the description of our product (over the phone) it would not apply. I am enclosing a product catalog that contains pictures and descriptions of the two pieces of equipment in question. I also request a copy of your definition of a trailer and a copy of FMVSS #120.

Thank you and please handle as expeditiously as possible.

ID: nht93-9.16

DATE: December 15, 1993 EST

FROM: Robert Matulich

TO: Office of Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/7/94 from John Womack to Robert Matulich (A42; Std. 111)

TEXT:

Per my phone conversation with Kevin Carvey and Richard Vanirerstine on 12-7-93, I was instructed to contact your office.

The enclosed material explains clearly how my patent works.

I wish some feedback from your office, hopefully positive, as I am in the marketing stage, as to any advice you have concerning my product and how it relate to federal safety standards.

At present, I do know 98% of vehicle mirrors exceed the federal standard for mirror area. Thus I am not inquiring as to the legality of the mirror area lost to the adhesion area of my product.

I have given this matter much thought, hopefully you can help me further.

ATTACHMENT

(Drawing and text omitted.)

ID: nht93-9.17

DATE: December 15, 1993

FROM: Perry McGlothan -- Quality Assurance Test Specialist, Century Products Co.

TO: Chief Council, NHTSA

COPYEE: Jerry Chickini; Ken Collins; Dave Galambos; Jim Gilkey -- NHTSA; Mike Pine -- NHTSA; Craig White

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/8/94 from John Womack to Perry McGlothan (A42; Std. 213)

TEXT:

Per conversations with Mike Pine and Jim Gilkey at NHTSA, I am sending to you samples of three of our base car seats. The samples have the head impact protection foam attached with two push in pins (Christmas tree). We presently, and have always in the past, glue the head impact foam to the head area of the car seat shell. We would like to make this change to better secure the foam to the car seat shell and help our manufacturing process. Please evaluate these three samples (Models 4560, 4590 and Century STE series) for head impact protection (MVSS No. 213, S5.2.3) and protrusion limitation (MVSS No. 213, S5.2.4) and respond in writing to Century Products Company. Please advise as to compression deflection and head contact safety. Century Products feels the change will not diminish or change the head impact protection of the slow recovery energy absorbing foam.

Push In Pin Locations On Foam

Top Edge of Foam From Centerline of To Centerline of Foam to Centerline Push In Pin of Push In Pin

4560 4" 3 1/4" 4590 4" 3 1/4" STE Series 4" 4 1/2"

(See Attached Drawings)

Note: Push in pins have a 3/4-inch diameter head and are 1/2-inch in length from the underside of the head to the tip of the push in pin (see attached print).

If you have any questions, please contact me at (216) 468-2000, ext. 210.

(Drawings omitted.)

ID: nht93-9.18

DATE: December 16, 1993

FROM: Erika Z. Jones -- Mayer, Brown & Platt

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 6/9/94 From John Womack To Erika Jones (A42; Std. 213; VSA 103(d)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

I am writing to obtain your opinion about the applicability to automotive child restraints of a California statute regarding flammability resistance of upholstered furniture, California Business and Professions Code, Division 8, Chapter 3, @ 19006 and 19161. The California law has been implemented in state regulations, Cal. Code Regs., title 4, @ 1370 et seq. The implementing regulations incorporate Technical Bulletin 117 of the State of California Bureau of Home Furnishings; which specifies the required performance requirements and test procedures. I have enclosed a "Flammability Information Package" prepared by the State of California which includes a copy of the statute, regulations and Technical Bulletin cited above.

Automobile child restraints are subject to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 213 (49 C.F.R. @ 571.213), which incorporates FMVSS 302, pertaining to the flammability of interior materials contained in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. FMVSS 213 and FMVSS 302 specifically regulate the flammability resistance of these interior materials and, thus, pertain to the same aspect of performance as that addressed by the California law.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act preempts any state statute or regulation that is not identical to the federal standard. (15 U.S.C. 1392(d). n1/ As the California

2

flammability standard is not identical to the federal flammability requirements as contained in FMVSS 213 and FMVSS 302, it appears that the California standard is preempted by the NHTSA standards, insofar as the California law would be applied to automotive child restraints. Therefore, it appears that the California flammability requirements are not applicable to automotive child restraints certified to comply with FMVSS 213, and such restraints need not comply with the requirements of that statute.

n1/ The statute reads: "Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established under this title 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."

Please confirm whether NHTSA concurs in our understanding of the applicability of the California flammability standard to automotive child restraints.

Sincerely,

enclosure

ID: nht93-9.19

DATE: December 17, 1993

FROM: Tim Adamson -- PITT Power Systems

TO: Wm. J. (Bill) Lee -- Representative, Georgia House of Representatives

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/8/94 from John Womack to Sam Nunn (A42; Part 571.7), letter dated 1/11/94 from Sam Nunn to Jackie Lowey, and letter dated 12/22/93 from Bill Lee to Sam Nunn

TEXT:

The enclosed literature is some of the notes covering the Military vehicles I spoke to you about at Kiwanis the other night. They are the AM General HMMWV M998's.

The Military sold a few of these and then suddenly put all sales of these vehicles on hold. We Don't Know Why. Certain Military vehicles are sold in good condition, but with the contract provisions that they be scraped before being removed from the Base. One of these vehicles was the M151 jeep. The reason stated for the sale of M151 jeeps to be scraped was they supposedly did not meet Federal Safety regulations and would turn over. Tens of thousands of these jeeps have been sold for nearly nothing per vehicle ($5.00 to $25.00 each) simply because none of the parts were usable on anything else. This has been a tremendous waste of good vehicles that could have been sold for considerably more ($1,000.00 to $1,500.00 each) if they were allowed to be removed from the Base in usable condition.

I am trying to prevent this tremendous waste from happening to the Hum V series. These trucks in anything close to one piece will bring on a sale from $3,500.00 to $12,000.00 each. The sale of these vehicles in usable condition will not only help reduce the Federal Deficit but increase profits by any number of Military truck dealers around the country which will generate the Federal Government more money through income tax, the State more money from sales tax of the complete vehicle and related parts to supply them. It will provide jobs such as mechanics, painters and truckers for the rebuilding and transportation of these vehicles for the end user and the snowball effect of helping the economy.

The bottom line is this vehicle was built especially for the U.S. Military, but is being sold to the civilian market by the manufacturer. It has no safety problems and as stated in one of the articles enclosed - is a vehicle that is built to withstand any type of terrain without handling problems. In other words its no different selling a M1000 series Chevrolet pickup or a Hummer. They are both offered to the civilian market as a pickup by the manufacturer.

The U.S. Department of Transportation claims these vehicles are "unsafe." This cannot possibly be true because anyone with common sense would know the manufacturer is not going to make an entirely different vehicle for the civilian market. The only difference is the electrical system which is 24 volts for the Military and probably 12 for the civilian market. The voltage in the electrical system makes no difference from a safety standpoint.

Apparently quite a few other people are complaining to the Defense Reutilization Market Service in Memphis about this claim. Most likely what has happened is someone at AM General has paid off someone in the U.S. Department of Transportation to declare these vehicles unsafe with the anticipation of selling new ones to the civilian market. The retail price for one of these vehicles is approximately $60,000.00. Anyone who would pay $60,000.00 for one of these vehicles certainly would not buy one from a surplus equipment dealer.

This is the U.S. Government wasting millions of dollars worth of Military trucks just so one corporation can sell a few new vehicles to a select high end clientele. This is unfair to the American Taxpayer and something should be done about it.

The U.S. Government agency responsible for selling Military surplus is the DRMO in Memphis, TN. They can be reached at 1-800-222-3676 or 1-901-775-6821. The person I spoke with name was Evelyn Jones. She is a contracting officer, but someone else may be able to talk to you.

Please contact Senator Nunn with this information to see if he would be willing to help us get the Military to take these vehicles off hold and release them for sale.

Please feel free to contact me at anytime at the numbers above or at my home number (404) 473-0354.

ID: nht93-9.2

DATE: December 2, 1993

FROM: James E. Shlesinger -- Shlesinger, Arkwright & Garvey

TO: Walter K. Myers -- Office of the General Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None $125(Y) OCC-9388

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/21/94 from John Womack to James E. Schlesinger (A42; Redbook; Part 575.104), letter dated 12/23/92 from James E. Shlesinger to Walter Myers, and letter dated 2/23/93 from John Womack to James E. Schlesinger

TEXT:

This is to follow-up on prior correspondence and discussions pertaining to regulatory standards for tires and manufacturer and tire brand name owner requirements in the areas of treadwear, traction and temperature resistance. Previously, we requested an opinion concerning the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS) as it applied to a certain fact situation. Copies of our letter dated December 23, 1992, and Chief Counsel's letter of February 23, 1993 in response are enclosed for your reference.

Our present request is directed to an interpretation of the language of 49 C.F.R. S575.104(c)(2) and the qualifications as a limited production tire exception to the requirement that the UTQGS information be molded onto or into the tire sidewall and be provided by means of a paper label affixed to the tread surface of the tire. We also seek confirmation of violations of 49 C.F.R. S575.6(b) and 575.6(d)(2) in the case below wherein a brand name owner of tires both fails to provide the consumer and the Administrator consumer information applicable to tires offered for sale. Finally, we request a brief comment concerning the penalties for violation of the UTQGS as set forth in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. S1381 et seq., as amended (hereinafter "Act").

For the purpose of convenience and clarification, we present the following background information which we believe forms the basis for a violation of the Act subjecting the violator to civil penalties for each violation.

Companies A and B are wholly owned Canadian subsidiaries of U.S. companies. A and B manufacture tires for Company C for sale and distribution in Canada. The tires produced by A and B for C carry C's brand name on both the tire sidewall and the paper tread label affixed to the tread surface of the tire. C retails and sells tires through stores which C own and operate throughout Canada. All of the tires in question carry the "DOT" certification and the Canadian National Tire Safety mark which is evidenced by a maple leaf. However, the tires manufactured by A and B for C do not contain UTQGS information on either the tire sidewall or the paper tread label affixed to the tires. We believe the reason for this is because Canada does not require UTQGS information be molded into the sidewall of the tire or be placed on the paper tread label for the tire, and that the tires manufactured by A and B were produced for C for sale within its stores in Canada.

For various reasons, C rejected a large number of tires manufactured for it by A and B during the period 1990-1991 and these tires ultimately found their way into the U.S. market. Specifically, C rejected tires manufactured

for it by A or B in three instances. In the case of an overrun of tires to the extent that C was unable to absorb the volume, C permitted A or B to market and sell the tires in the United States or countries other than Canada. Second, C did not accept blem tires for sale through its stores in Canada. Blem tires would initially be offered for sale to an associate of C in Canada, but if the associate rejected the offer, then A and B were free to dispose of the blem tires provided said tires were not disposed of in Canada. Third, in the case of an end of the line run of a certain brand of tires, when C decided to discontinue the line, A and B were allowed to sell the excess of the discontinued line to countries other than Canada.

All of the tires shipped to the U.S. by A or B which carried C's brand name on them during this period were passenger car tires. None of the tires were deep tread, winter type snow, space-saver, or temporary use spare tires. Also, none of the tires were with nominal rim diameters of 10-12 inches. (See 49 C.F.R. S575.104(c)).

As noted previously, none of the tires in question contained information pertaining to treadwear, traction and temperature resistance, either by means of a label affixed to the tread surface of the tire or molded onto or into the tire sidewall as set forth in the requirements governing UTQGS at 49 C.F.R. S575.104. Further, C, the brand name owner of the tires did not file any documents or any submissions to the Administrator at any time prior to or concurrent with the shipment of tires into the U.S. as noted in the requirements set forth at 49 C.F.R. S575.6(d)(2) which specify that a brand name owner of tires must submit to the Administrator ten (10) copies of information specified in subpart B that is applicable to tires offered for sale at least thirty (30) days before it is first provided for examination by prospective purchasers. Nor was any of this information provided to purchasers.

With this information, our specific inquiry is directed to the "limited production tires" exception to the requirement to meet UTQGS set forth at 49 C.F.R. S575.104(c)(2)./1 The specific language is as follows:

(2) "Limited production tire" means a tire meeting all the following criteria, as applicable:

(iii) the tire's size was not listed as a vehicle manufacturer's recommended tire size designation for a new motor vehicle produced in or imported into the U.S. in quantities greater than 10,000 during the calendar year preceding the year of the tire's manufacture;...

COMPANY A

Approximately 6,975 tires were shipped to the U.S. in April 1990 and 2,947 tires were shipped to the U.S. in November 1991, all with the tire size P225/75R15. This size refers to a tire size listed as a vehicle manufacturer's recommended tire size designation for the calendar year preceding the year of the tire's manufacture. For example, P225/75R15 is a

1/ For the purpose of this inquiry, it can be assumed that the criteria set forth at S575.104(c)(2)(i), (ii) and (iv) are met by Companies A and B.

vehicle manufacturer's recommended tire Size for the 1988 Buick LeSabre, Buick Electra Estate Wagon, Cadillac Brougham (4-door) Sedan, and Oldsmobile Custom Cruiser Wagon; the 1989 Buick Electra Estate Wagon, LeSabre Estate Wagon, Cadillac Brougham (4-door), Chevrolet Caprice Wagon, and Oldsmobile Custom Cruiser Wagon; and the 1990 Chevrolet Caprice, Cadillac Brougham and Buick Estate Wagon. These motor vehicles were produced in or imported into the U.S. in quantities greater than 10,000 during the respective years. We therefore believe that the limited production tire exception of 575.104(c)(2) does not apply because criteria (iii) of the exception was not met.

COMPANY B

Approximately 6,164 tires were shipped to the U.S. in June 1990 with various tire sizes. The tire sizes for these tires were acceptable substitute sizes for a given tire size listed as a vehicle manufacturer's recommended tire size designation for new motor vehicles produced in or imported into the U.S. in quantities greater than 10,000 during the calendar year preceding the year of the tire's manufacture. For example, some of the tires shipped to the U.S. in June 1990 were of the tire size P255/6OR15. P255/6OR15 is an acceptable substitute tire size for the P225/75R15 referred to above.

Assuming that all of the tires aforementioned shipped to the United States by Companies A and B were sold in the United States, please advise on the following:

1. Is Company A in violation of the UTQGS set forth at 49 C.F.R. S575.104?

2. Is Company B in violation of the UTQGS set forth at 49 C.F.R. S575.104?

3. Is Company C in violation of 49 C.F.R. S575.6(b) and 575.6(d)(2) for the failure to provide consumer information and the failure to submit to the Administrator 10 copies of the information specified in Subpart B of the regulations applicable to the tires offered for sale?

4. In addition to the penalties for the violation of the UTQGS set forth in the Act under Section 109 (15 U.S.C. S1398(a)), are there additional sanctions (i.e., requiring the manufacturer or brand name owner to recall unlawful product or notification procedures intended to identify unlawful product in the marketplace?

Thank you for your consideration of this matter and we appreciate your kind assistance.

ID: nht93-9.20

DATE: December 21, 1993

FROM: Carl Haywood -- Operations Manager, Emergency Response Specialists

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Council of NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/17/94 from John Womack to Carl Haywood (A42; Std. 207; Std. 208; Std. 209; Std. 210; VSA 102(3))

TEXT:

Emergency Response Specialists (ERS) would like to request an interpretation of the statutes regulating a piece of equipment that we are designing. ERS's primary business is emergency response to chemical spills. We are implementing a nationwide service that will provide quality response, in 7 hours or less, for the contiguous United States (lower 48). Our plan is to provide the logistics of this service using a C-130 Hercules aircraft to transport our response units and a crew of 6 response team members. The Hercules' ramp type loading system will allow us to drive our response unit, a tractor trailer combination, in and out of the cargo bay eliminating the need for ground handling equipment at the airport (a logistics nightmare).

Our response units are designed to transport all six (6) of our response team members, for over the highway transportation three (3) of our team members will ride in the tractor and the remaining three (3) will ride in the trailer. During air transportation all six (6) team members will ride in the trailer. By providing seating with lap and shoulder restraints in the response unit for both ground and air transportation we eliminate the need for special crew cabins for air transportation, and extra vehicles for ground transportation. This conserves the limited space available on the C-130 allowing us to carry all the equipment needed to respond effectively to large scale chemical releases.

Our intent is to abide by all pertinent federal and state regulations. The problem we are having is finding out who regulates crew member seating. This seating is approved according to the FAA under the restricted FAR 91 permit that we will be operating under. DOT stated that they have no regulations regarding this matter, (their regulations only addressed "Transportation for air") and suggested that I contact National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and Federal Motor Carrier Safety Board (FMCSB). FMCSB had no jurisdiction over this matter and also suggested that I contact NHTSA. According to NHTSA Vehicle Safety Compliance (Mr. Levine) they have no guidelines for crew seating and suggested that I write you requesting written confirmation of this.

We are trying to get the system operational by August 1994 and appreciate any help you could lend in this matter. Due to the long lead times in construction we would appreciate a response as soon as possible. If you have any questions or know of any other agencies we need to contact please call or write at the number listed at the bottom of the preceding page.

Thank you for your assistance.

ID: nht93-9.21

DATE: December 22, 1993

FROM: Wm. J. (Bill) Lee -- House of Representatives, State of Georgia

TO: Honorable Sam Nunn -- U. S. Senate

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/8/94 from John Womack to Sam Nunn (A42; Part 571.7), letter dated 1/11/94 from Sam Nunn to Jackie Lowey, and letter dated 12/17/93 from Tim Adamson to Bill Lee

TEXT:

Reproductions attached come to me from your constituent and mine, Tim Adamson, a highly respected businessman in Clayton County.

Tim and his family are very knowledgeable about surplus vehicles and equipment and in my judgement make some valid points about the Hum V series military trucks and the need to review current policy as to disposition.

It would certainly be appreciated if you would get into this with the military and D.O.T. to insure our government gets the best deal out of the surplus vehicles. Thank you.

ID: nht75-4.32

DATE: 04/25/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. C. Schultz; NHTSA

TO: Brougham Industries

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 17, 1975 request for an explanation of the seat belt assembly installation requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection, as they apply to motor homes with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of more than 10,000 pounds, and those with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less.

The standard requires that motor homes with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds be equipped with "passive" crash protection of a certain level (S4.3.1) or a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly at each designated seating position (S4.3.2).

Motor homes with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less must be equipped with "passive" crach protection of a certain level (S4.2.1.1) or a Type 2 seat belt assembly at each outboard designated seating position that includes the windshield header within the head impact area, and a type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly at each other designated seating position (S4.2.1.2).

At the front outboard designated seating position, you state that the incomplete vehicle manufacturer provides Type 1 seat belts. Unless the documentation, provided under Part 568 of our regulations (49 CFR Part 568), states that modification of the Type 1 seat belts is required to meet Standard No. 208, it appears that the vehicle windshield header is not within the head impact area and that Type 1 seat belts meet the requirement.

You point out that some manufacturers may not provide as many designated seating positions as there are sleeping accommodations in the vehicle. We evaluated the proportion of this problem recently because of the possibility that occupants were not being provided with enough Type 1 seat belts. An informal but comprehensive survey at a recent trade show indicated that the problem is extremely limited. If you have information that this practice is becoming more common, please provide this office with more specific identification of manufacturer and model line.

We do appreciate your efforts to provide your purchasers with a high level of crash protection.

SINCERELY,

BROUGHAM

March 17, 1975

Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U. S. Department of Transportation

Brougham Industries, Inc. has been manufacturing Class C Motor Homes on chopped Van chassis with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less since 1970. In compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations, part 571; S208 paragraphs S 4.2, S 4.2.1 and S 4.2.1.2, Brougham has been installing type 2 seat belts in the forward outside passenger and driver seats where windshield header contact is possible. Type 1 seat belts have been installed in the aft seats to bring the total seats suitable for occupancy while moving to advertised sleeping capacity of the vehicle i.e., 6 to 8. This costs Brougham approximately $ 80.00 to $ 100.00 per coach.

Our competitive surveys indicate Winnebago, Mobile- Traveler, Midas, Fleetwood, Open Road and the majority of the competition are using type 1 seat belts that come with the forward control truck chassis for the driver and forward passenger. Aft passenger seat belt installations vary from all seats equipped with type 1 seat belts to all seats placard against use while the vehicle is in motion.

Brougham desires to comply with the spirit as well as the letter of the Safety Standards, but this added $ 80.00 to $ 100.00 cost per vehicle places the company at a disadvantage in the market place.

Please give me an official interpretation of this regulation as it applies to motor homes of 10,000 pounds and less and over 10,000 pounds so that I can incorporate the correct design criteria in our product.

John S. Knaur, Jr. Corporate Engineer

cc: CARLOS FLORES -- SMALL BUSINESS ADMIN.