ID: nht93-4.18

DATE: June 3, 1993

FROM: Charles H. Taylor -- Member of Congress, House of Representatives

TO: Jackie Lowey -- Acting Secretary for Legislative Affairs, Department of Transportation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-29-93 from John Womack to Charles H. Taylor (A41; Part 571).

TEXT: I am writing to urge the Department of Transportation to reconsider its rules regarding the sale of surplus HMMMV (Humvee) military vehicles to law enforcement organizations.

While there may be good reasons for not allowing surplus Humvees to be sold to the general public, I believe that new regulations regarding Humvees should be drawn up making a distinction between the general public and a law enforcement agency operating Humvees with trained drivers to carry out its official duties.

As you will note from the enclosed correspondence I have received from Charles Long, the Sheriff of Buncombe County, North Carolina, Humvees were invaluable in assisting the Sheriff's Department in their efforts to aid the citizens of Buncombe County during the recent massive snowstorm last March. I am also enclosing the reply of the Department of Defense to Sheriff Long's letter.

Thank you very much for your assistance in this matter.

March 31, 1993

The Honorable Charles Taylor 11th Congressional District 516 Cannon House Office Building Washington, DC 20515

Dear Congressman Taylor:

As I am sure you are no doubt aware, Buncombe County was one of the recent "Blizzard of '93" victims, and according to the local newspaper, we were one of the two hardest hit counties in the Western part of the State. Even with four wheel drive vehicles, travel was near impossible without chains, and for the first time that I can remember, County agencies were closed for three consecutive days.

Our Department was receiving calls for assistance faster than we could answer, and actual response was a nightmare. By the second day of the storm, we requested and received the assistance of the North Carolina National Guard who provided four wheel drive HMMWV vehicles (with drivers). We pride ourselves in being one of the best Sheriff's Departments' in the State, but there is no

question that we would never have been able to have done our jobs during this storm without these vehicles.

After the initial dilemma of the storm concluded, we critiqued our emergency operation plans, and one of the items we felt we should attempt to procure for future emergencies is a HMMMV vehicle, and accordingly, wrote to the State Agency for Surplus inquiring into this process. I have this date received word from State Surplus informing me that the Department of Defense has determined these type vehicles are unsafe for civilian agencies and cannot be surplused to same.

I strongly disagree that these vehicles are "unsafe for civilian agencies", at least, in that term. Frankly, lives were saved and damage to property minimized on account of these vehicles and certainly, had we not utilized them, it would have had serious repercussions and been much more "unsafe". To ban their use by any agency other than the military appears to me to defeat the original purpose of the design of this vehicle. I understand that the operation of this vehicle is unique, but in my Department alone there are at least five (5) individuals who are qualified, and at least two (2) who could become qualified operators of the HMMMV vehicle through their National Guard or Army Reserve Training.

The cost of these vehicles new would be exorbitant to an agency requiring such seldom use; however, I do understand they are available in the private sector under a different package. The only way an agency such as ours could purchase such a vehicle would be through surplus, given the price of the vehicle.

The purpose of this letter is to request your assistance in this matter in addressing this issue with the appropriate persons to either eliminate the ban to "civilian agencies", or, in the alternative, relax the language so as to allow emergency agencies to be allowed privy to this surplus, under the same guidelines as is required by the military.

Your kind assistance would be appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

Charles H. Long

CHL:j

cc: Senator Sam Nunn 301 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510-1001 ATTN: Charlie Harman Senator J. James Exon 528 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510-1001

ID: nht92-7.37

DATE: April 17, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Michael J. Sens -- Researcher, S.E.A., Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/26/92 from Michael J. Sens to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7135)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to me dated March 26, 1992, in which you sought our interpretation of whether the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components; 214, Side Door Strength; and 216, Roof Crush Resistance -- Passenger Cars, applied to a 1985 American Motors Corporation (AMC) Jeep CJ-7. You stated in your letter that AMC classified the vehicle as a "sport utility vehicle" and that it came with a soft top or an optional fiberglass top, both with removable side doors.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Safety Act), 15 U.S.C., S1381, et seq., as amended, authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and items of 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. In accordance with 49 CFR 567, Certification, manufacturers of motor vehicles must certify that their products comply with all such standards.

Each safety standard applies to specified "types" of motor vehicles and/or motor vehicle equipment. Motor vehicles are classified into the following types: passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, and motorcycles. A definition for each motor vehicle type is set forth at 49 CFR 571.3. Thus, a 1985 AMC Jeep CJ-7 was required to comply with all safety standards that applied to its vehicle type at the time of its manufacture. In order to determine what safety standards applied to the vehicle, it is first necessary to establish its classification under Part 571.3.

The Safety Act places the responsibility for classifying a particular vehicle in the first instance on the vehicle's manufacturer. For this reason, NHTSA does not approve or endorse any vehicle classification before the manufacturer itself has classified a particular vehicle. NHTSA may reexamine the manufacturer's classification during the course of any enforcement actions.

While AMC may have marketed the 1985 AMC Jeep CJ-7 as a "sport-utility vehicle," it classified it as a multipurpose passenger vehicle for purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The term "multipurpose passenger vehicle" is defined in Part 571.3 as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation." It is our opinion that AMC's classification was appropriate, given that the 1985 Jeep CJ-7 is a 4-wheel drive vehicle with an approach angle of

33 degrees, departure angle of 25 degrees, breakdown angle of 18 degrees, axle clearance of 7.8", and minimum running clearance of 8.1", and thus clearly has special features for occasional off-road operation.

With specific reference to the three standards you inquired about concerning possible applicability to a 1985 AMC Jeep CJ-7, Standards 214 and 216 applied only to passenger cars at the time the CJ-7 was manufactured. See S2 of Standard 214 and and S3 of Standard 216. Since the 1985 AMC Jeep CJ-7 was classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle and not a passenger car, those two standards, by their terms, did not apply to it.

Standard 206, on the other hand, did apply to multipurpose passenger vehicles as well as passenger cars. However, S4 thereof provided in pertinent part: ". . . (C)omponents on folding doors, roll-up doors, doors that are designed to be easily attached to or removed from motor vehicles manufactured for operation without doors, . . . need not conform to this standard." You indicated that the Jeep CJ-7 came with removable side doors, and we understand that the vehicle was manufactured for operation without doors. Accordingly, the AMC Jeep CJ-7 came within the above-quoted exception to Standard 206 and was not subject to its requirements.

I hope the above information will be helpful to you. If you have any further questions or need additional information regarding this matter please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-7.44

DATE: April 10, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Lance Watt -- Director of Engineering, The Flxible Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/11/92 from Lance Watt to Paul J. Rice (OCC 6972)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of February 11, 1992, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it relates to several scenarios regarding the wiring and use of optional brake retarder transmissions on city transit buses manufactured by your company.

In your current design, the retarder is designed so that it is electrically operated during the initial travel of the service brake pedal. As the service brake pedal is further depressed, the service brakes are activated, and this in turn illuminates the stop lamps. You have enclosed a copy of my letter of September 20. 1990, confirming that this design conforms to Standard No. 108, specifically S5.5.4 which states that "The stop lamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes."

Since that time, several additional scenarios have presented themselves. First, some customers have requested that the transmission retarder be activated when the accelerator pedal is released, rather than when the brake pedal is applied. In this configuration, the stop lamps would not be illuminated, "and therefore, following vehicles may be unaware of this sudden reduction in vehicle speed", unless the service brakes were also applied. However, some customers wishing this option would like to have the stop lamps illuminated by the retarder, that is to say, when the accelerator is released. Second, some customers have also requested a retarder cut-off switch in order to disable the retarder during icy or slippery road conditions. In such a case, the stop lamps would also be activated at the time of accelerator release "with minimal if any change in vehicle forward speed, and again, potentially with no intent on the part of the driver to use the service brakes."

To date, your company has resisted these requests, but these customers, without a specific NHTSA interpretation on the point, threaten to declare your company a nonresponsive bidder on transit bus procurements. You have asked whether a noncompliance with section S5.5.4 would result "if the stop lamps were activated without depressing the brake pedal as requested by our customers."

The purpose of the retarder feature is to provide supplemental braking to city transit buses. This braking results in the deceleration of the vehicle. A stop lamp is defined by SAE Standard J1398 MAY85 Stop Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles 2032 mm or More in Overall Width as one that indicates "the intention of the operator of a vehicle to stop or diminish speed by braking." Whenever the brake retarder is activated with the intent of diminishing speed by braking, Standard No. 108 does not require that the stop lamps be activated. The only mandate of the standard (S5.5.4) is that when the service brakes are applied, the stop lamps must be illuminated.

Nor does Standard No. 108 prohibit illumination of the stop lamps by release of the accelerator pedal followed by activation of the retarder. This is because the intention of the driver is to diminish speed by the braking action of the retarder. We distinguish this situation from the one in an interpretation provided Larry Snowhite, Esq. on January 25, 1990, in which a device activated the stop lamps whenever the accelerator pedal was released, regardless of the intent of the driver. Activation of the stop lamps initiated by release of the accelerator pedal is permissible only when the intent of the driver is to reduce the speed of the vehicle by an immediate subsequent act of braking, whether that is achieved through his use of the service brake system, use of retarders, or a combination of the two.

However, a configuration where the stop lamps operate in the absence of service brake application or activation of a retarder system (as appears to occur when a retarder cut off switch has been activated) would be subject to S5.1.3 of the standard. This prohibits the installation of motor vehicle equipment that impairs the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. In this instance, the retarder cut off feature would permit the stop lamps to send the false signal that the operator intended to stop or reduce vehicle speed when, in fact, there was no intent to do so.

I hope that this answers your question.

ID: 7236

John J. Jacoby
President
Cleartec
1919 Paper Mill Road
Huntington Valley, PA 19006-5813

Dear Mr. Jacoby:

I have been asked to respond to your April 6, 1992 letter to former Secretary Skinner, because our agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), is the part of the Department of Transportation that administers the program about which you asked. Specifically, your letter asks whether there are any Federal regulations that affect a new product Cleartec has developed. The product, Clean Sweep Strips, is a transparent material applied to the windshield in a herringbone pattern, in the path of the wipers, to clean the wipers. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

By way of background information, 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes NHTSA to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards. In addition, the Safety Act requires manufacturers to recall and remedy any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that contains a safety-related defect.

Your letter states that Clean Sweep Strips could be manufactured into new windshields. If a windshield with Clean Sweep Strips were installed as original equipment by a manufacturer of a new motor vehicle, the manufacturer would have to certify that the vehicle, with the Clean Sweep Strips installed, complies with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA has issued two safety standards, compliance with which might be affected by the installation of your Clean Sweep Strips. First, Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, establishes a number of requirements for light transmittance, abrasion resistance, and optical deviation and visibility distortion for windshields. Second, Standard No. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems, establishes requirements for a minimum area that must be wiped by the wiping system, and the frequency at which the wiping system must operate. Any manufacturer that installed your product as original equipment on a windshield would have to certify that the windshield continued to comply with Standards No. 205 and 104 with your product installed.

After the first sale to a consumer, a vehicle is no longer required by Federal law to conform to all safety standards. However, 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act provides as follows:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard...

This provision means that a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business cannot install your Clean Sweep Strips on any vehicle if such installation results in the vehicle no longer complying with Standard No. 205 or 104. Violations of this "render inoperative" prohibition are punishable by civil fines of up to $1,000 per violation.

I note that the "render inoperative" prohibition does not affect modifications made by vehicle owners to their own vehicles. Thus, individual vehicle owners may install your Clean Sweep Strips on their own vehicles, even if this installation causes the vehicles to no longer comply with applicable safety standards. Such installations may be regulated, however, by State law. If you are interested in further information on the provisions of State laws, you may wish to contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22203.

Additionally, under the Safety Act, Clean Sweep Strips would be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment. Your company, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, would be subject to the requirements in 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety defects. In the event that NHTSA or a product's manufacturer determines that a product that is an item of motor vehicle equipment contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Finally, I have enclosed a general information sheet for new manufacturers which summarizes NHTSA's regulations and explains where to obtain copies of Federal motor vehicle safety standards and other regulations.

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:104#205 d:5/29/92

ID: 7322

Mr. Douglas Berg
President
Ascend Productions
9823 Lake Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio 44102

Dear Mr. Berg:

This responds to your letter requesting that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration provide "recognition and support" for your item of motor vehicle equipment, the "Hazard Helper Safety Sign." You explained that this reversible device attaches to the driver's window and displays either a help needed symbol (a stick figure with extended arms and legs) or a hazard alert symbol (a triangle). Your sales literature indicates that the help needed symbol is intended to be displayed in the event of medical emergencies, mechanical breakdown, having a flat tire, or being stuck in snow or being out of fuel. The hazard alert symbol is intended to be displayed for going for gasoline, doing roadside repairs, resting, or awaiting known assistance.

As discussed below, this agency does not recognize, support or otherwise endorse particular products. Moreover, based on the information provided with your letter, it appears that your device would not comply with certain provisions of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 125, Warning Devices (49 CFR 571.125, copy enclosed).

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., the "Safety Act") gives this agency the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 125, Warning Devices. The Safety Act provides that no person shall "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States" any new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicles or equipment comply with the applicable standard. (See 15 U.S.C 1397(a)(1)(A).) NHTSA has no authority under the Safety Act to approve, certify, or otherwise endorse any commercial product. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a self-certification process under which each manufacturer is required to certify that each of its products meets all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. (See 15 U.S.C. 1403.) I am enclosing a general information sheet explaining NHTSA's regulations.

Section S3 of Standard No. 125 specifies that the standard "applies to devices, without self-contained energy sources, that are designed to be carried in motor vehicles, and used to warn approaching traffic of the presence of a stopped vehicle, except for devices designed to be permanently affixed to the vehicle." (Emphasis added.) Your device has no self-contained energy source, is designed to be carried in motor vehicles, and is not permanently affixed to the vehicle. Another condition set forth in S3 is that the device must be designed to be used to "warn approaching traffic of a stopped vehicle." Devices that are not intended to warn approaching traffic of a stopped vehicle, but only to alert passing traffic of the stopped vehicle's need for assistance, are not subject to Standard No. 125. An example of such a device would be a "HELP" message printed on a folding cardboard sunshade.

The "help needed" portion of your device appears to be designed to function in the same manner as other non-warning devices, i.e., it does not appear to be intended to warn approaching traffic of a stopped vehicle, but to alert passing traffic that the stopped vehicle needs assistance. This portion of the device would therefore not be subject to Standard No. 125.

However, the "hazard alert" portion of your device does appear to be intended to warn approaching traffic of a stopped vehicle, and must therefore comply with all of the requirements of Standard No. 125. From the enclosed copy of the standard you will see that some of the specific requirements with which your device must comply include minimum size, durability, material, container, labeling, configuration, color, reflectivity, luminance, and stability. From the information you provided with your letter, it appears that your device would not comply with several of these requirements.

Please be aware that violations of Safety Act provisions are punishable by civil fines of up to $1,000 for each violation of a safety standard. In addition, the Act requires manufacturers to remedy their products if they fail to comply with any applicable safety standards.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure

Ref:125 d:7/28/92

ID: nht87-2.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/08/87

FROM: ROSE TALISMAN -- JOAN FABRICS CORP

TO: DOUG COLE -- NATIONAL VAN CONVERSION ASSOC., INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/01/88 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO DOUG COLE; REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 302; LETTER DATED 06/29/87 FROM JONATHAN JACKSON TO DOUG COLE; LETTER DATED 06/22/87 FROM ROSE M. TALISMAN TO DOUG COLE; LETTER DATED 06/23/87 FROM DOUG CO LE TO STEVE KRANTZKE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Cole:

In accordance with our understanding from Mr. Irving Brown of C.M.I. Automotive, we are sending to your attention the specifications from both Ford Motor Company and General Motors in Detroit regarding the specific testing procedures required for meeting their codes for fire retardancy.

As you are well aware, we have run correlation studies on our pattern Passport with your recommended testing agency, Commercial Testing Company of Dalton Georgia. The test results have indicated a specific difference in correlation depending on the test method utilized. The method utilized and recommended to us by both Ford Motor Company and General Motors which requires the use of heat resistance support wires as stated on the attached specification are the direct guidelines we utilized in testing al l fabric designated for motorized product from our mill.

We certainly would be happy to discuss the rational and our specific methods for testing based on Detroit's specific requirements. Do not hesitate to call if you have any questions or need additional information.

Ford Laboratory Test Methods;

FLAMMABILITY TEST FOR AUTOMOTIVE INTERIOR MATERIALS

II. Small Parts (contd.)

A surrogate test plaque specimen made with a composition identical to that of the component material(s) shall be produced in the shape of a rectangle 4 inches (100 mm) wide, 14 inches (356 mm) long and the minimum thickness of the component up to 1/2 inch (12.7 mm) maximum, employing the same or equivalent process as used to produce the component part. The thickness of the plaque is that of the material as utilized in the vehicle except where it exceeds 1/2 inch (12.7 mm). In those applications, th e plaque is to be reduced to a uniform thickness of 1/2 inch (12.7 mm) to include the surface material exposed to the occupant compartment air space.

Test Procedure 1. Prior to testing, each specimen is conditioned for 24 hours at a temperature of 73.4 +/- 3.6 degrees F (23.0 +/- 2.0 degrees C) and 50 +/- 5% relative humidity and the test is conducted under those conditions.

2. Material is placed in the specimen holder as indicated below and tested in the direction (transverse or longitudinal) that produces the most adverse results. The specimen is oriented so that the surface closest to the occupant compartment air spa ce faces downward on the test frame.

(a) The standard test specimen (4 x 14 in (100 x 356 mm) x thickness) is inserted between two matching U-shaped frames (specimen holder) so that both sides of the specimen are held by the frames. The temperature of the frame in Figure 4 at the start of each test shall not exceed the conditioned temperature as stated above in Paragraph 1 of Test Procedure.

(b) Where the maximum available width of the specimen is 2 in (50 mm) or less so that the sides of the specimen cannot be held in the two matching U-shaped frames, it is to be supported by the use of 10 mil (0.25 mm) wires spanning the top surface of the bottom U-shaped frame at 1 in (25 mm) intervals, keeping such specimens from bending away from the horizontal at the flaming end, thereby allowing a more uniform and constant burn rate (see Figure 5). The bottom U-shaped frame shall always be positi oned so that the wires are "sandwiched" between the top and bottom frames.

(c) Samples tested with support wires: Flexible specimens, such as genuine leather, supported and unsupported vinyls, textile and backing fabrics, foams, textile padding[Illegible Word] compounds, etc., that frequently soften and bend at the flaming e nd so as to cause a non-uniform, uneven burn rate.

Samples tested without wires: Less flexible materials such as paperboard, carpets, rigid plastics, etc., seldom soften and bend at the flaming end; therefore, do not justify or necessitate support wires.

(d) Adjust ventilation hood door opening to approximately 23 in (580 mm) and regulate ventilation up to 110 CFM (0.052 m<3>/s) maximum air flow to prevent smoke and fumes from entering room.

ID: nht89-1.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/12/89

FROM: SAMSON HELFGOTT -- HELFGOTT AND KARAS

TO: ERICA K. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMIN. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/30/89 FROM ERICA Z. JONES TO SAMSON HELFGOTT, REDBOOK A33(4), STANDARD 108, VSA SECTION 108(A) 2(A); REPORT DATED 06/01/87 FROM NATIONAL PUBLIC SERVICES RESEARCH INSTITUTE, AN EVALUATION OF THE EFFECT OF A REAR WARNI NG LIGHT ON THE FOLLOWING DISTANCE AND/OR BRAKING RESPONSE TIME (BRT) OF VEHICLES BEHIND; AFFIDAVIT UNDER RULE 132, DATED 09/09/88, BY MERRILL J. ALLEN, IN SUPPORT OF PATENT REAPPLICATION OF AUTOMOTIVE WARNING AND BRAKE LIGHT ARRANGEMENT; BIOGRAPHICAL IN FORMATION OF MERRILL J. ALLEN, DATED 09/09/88 EST; SAFETY RECOMMENDATIONS H-85-30 ISSUED 11/05/85 BY NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

My client, Harold A. Caine, and the Safety Autodrivers Foundation for Education (S.A.F.E.) of Freeport, New York, have come up with a proposal for an amber (SAE approved) lamp that would be placed adjacent to the center high mounted brake lamp of a ve hicle. The amber lamp would have its own independent wiring and separate compartment so as not to interfere in any way with the operation of the center brake lamp. The amber lamp would be illuminated upon ignition and remain on until such time as the b rake lamp is illuminated so that the two lamps would be mutally exclusive and the following driver would be presented with either an amber or a red lamp, but not both together.

Accordingly, there would be no confusion between these lamps. We believe that there would be no impairment of the center brake lamp and that the amber lamp would not render the center brake lamp inoperative in any way, since it would operate independ ently thereof. We also do not believe that there would be any impairment from any other existing lamps.

We would appreciate knowing whether such amber lamp would be acceptable both for original equipment as well as for the after-market sales, under terms of Standard #108.

In a test conducted by Dr. A. James McKnight of the National Public Services Research Institute (Attachment A), he has found that with the presence of such amber lamp,

the improvement in breaking response time was between 0.2 sec. and 0.3 sec.

We believe that this improvement may occur for a number of reasons. Firstly, the presence of the amber lamp adjacent to this center brake lamp and preferable directly below the center brake lamp, focuses the attention of the rear driver to the center of the leading vehicle so that when the brake lamp turns on, it saves some time from the rear driver having to first focus his attention onto that center point at the back of the leading vehicle. Secondly, the illumination of an amber lamp psychologica lly gives a "warning" effect to the trailing driver so that he is already in a state of awareness and readiness when the brake will be applied and the red lamp is turned on. Thirdly, the lamp provides the effect of a rear running light as is supported b y the recommendations of the National Transportation Safety Board (Attachment B).

One feature of the amber light system is to include the use of a photo-electric cell that would control the brightness and prevent glare, based on existing ambient lighting conditions. The brightness would be within the minimum and maximum range of S tandard #108. The areas of red and amber illumination will also comply with the Standard #108 requirements.

It has additionally been found that the amber color is better perceived than either the green or the red color and, especially at greater distances, the amber lamp will be more easily visible. In addition, the amber lamp illumination will not be subj ect to chromeostereopsis errors in distance judgment by any part of the driving population, whereas green or red could be subject to a significant error in judgment of its distance.

In support of these explanations, I am also enclosing an affidavit from Dr. Merrill J. Allen, Professor of Optometry at Indiana University, together with some biographical information about him (Attachment C). This affidavit was originally submitted in the United States Patent and Trademark Office as part of the prosecution of a patent application to Mr. Caine. The application has been allowed and is shortly expected to issue.

We would appreciate receiving your response on this matter. Should you have any questions, please feel free to call me.

Sincerely yours,

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht88-2.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/02/88

FROM: STEVEN CROWELL

TO: ELIZABETH DENNISTON -- DIR. OF COMMUNICATIONS; EGON BITTNER COMMISSIONER-WALTHAM, MA.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 05/31/90 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO WILLIAM D. FALCON; REDBOOK A35; STANDARD 201; 202; 205; VSA 108[A][2][A]; LETTER DATED 01/30/89 FROM WILLIAM D. FALCON TO RALPH HITCHCOCK -- NHTSA; OCC 3107; LETTER FROM STEVE C ROWELL; DATED 11/02/88 EST

TEXT: Commission on Accredidation for Law Enforcement Agencies Inc. 4242b Chain Bridge Rd. Fairfax, Va 22030

Dear Ms. Denniston, Mr. Bittner and Mr. Medeiros;

The automobile interior partitions used in all cruisers I have observed seem to lack some legal requirements.

The Motor Vehicle Safety At of 1966 (U.S. Public Law 89-563) sets forth the following requirements;

49 CFR Ch.V (10/1/86 Edition)

** Sect. 567.7 Requirements For Persons Who Alter Certified Vehicles- A person who alters a vehicle that previously has been certified in accordance with sect 567.4 or 567.5 . . . . shall allow the original certification label to remain on the vehicle , and shall affix to the vehicle an additional label . . . . containing the following information: "This vehicle was altered by (individual or corporate name) in (month and year in which alterations were completed) and as altered it conforms to all appli cable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards affected by the alteration and in effect in (month, year).

** Sect. 571.107 Standard No. 107; Reflecting Surfaces. This standard specifies reflecting surface requirements for certain vehicle components in the driver's field of view.

** Sect 571.111 Standard 111; Rearview mirrors. This standard specifies requirements for the performance and location of rearview mirrors . . . to reduce the number of deaths and injuries that occur when the driver does not have a clear and reasonabl y unobstructed view to the rear.

** Sect. 571.201 Standard No. 201; Occupant protection in interior impact. This standard specifies requirements to afford impact protection for occupants. s3.2 Seat backs-when that area of the seat back that is within the head impact area (head impact area means all nonglazed surfaces of the interior of a vehicle that are statically contactable by a 6.5-inch dimeter spherical head form of a measuring device having a pivot point to "top of head" dimension infinitely adjustable from 29 to 33 inches in accordance with the following proceedure etc.).

** Sect 571.205 Standard No. 205; This standard specifies requirements for glazing materials for use in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. The purpose of this standard is to reduce the injuries resulting from impact to glazing surfaces, to e nsure a necessary degree of transparency in motor vehicle windows for driver visibility, and to minimize the possibility of occupants being thrown through the vehicle windows in collisions. S5.1.1.3 the following locations are added to the lists specifi ed in ANS Z26 in which item 6 and item 7 safety glazing may be used: (k.1.1.2 Interior partitions).

Your prompt response to my letter of 1/4/88 is greatly appreciated, however I have noticed a slight oversight in Standard 71.4.1 Transport Equipment. Specifically the mention of wire mesh in this recommendation for the use of a "Safety Barrier". To i dentify an interior partiton (the words used by the D.O.T. for this device) as a "safety barrier" is an oxymoron given the safety hazards inherent in the designs currently being used.

Statistics on bodily injury losses occuring in cruisers seem difficult to obtain, but not so for cabs. The graphs enclosed indicate that when and where interior partitions are used in taxis there is enhanced retention of control for the operation of the vehicle accompanied by epidemic increase in accident fatality and bodily injury loss. It seems that the only way to incur more accident fatality in fewer accidents and more injury with less property damage is to introduce occupant impact hazards.

It is my belief that enhancement in the design of interior partitions will still afford the safety of enhanced operator retention of control and additionally reduce the likelyhood of injury to occupants (front or rear compartments) in the event of a s udden stop or collision.

The economic impact of these hazards in the taxi industry in Boston has been astronomical. Prior to the use of interior partitions in Boston taxis (from 1950-1970) the cost of insurance for taxis was only twice that of the cost for private vehicles i n Boston (given that

ID: nht87-1.81

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/28/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Nobuyoshi Takechi

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Nobuyoshi Takechi Technical Manager MMC Services, Inc. 3000 Town Center Suite 1960 Southfield, MI 48075

Dear Mr. Takechi:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. Your questions are responded to below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufac turer to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Your first question concerns the identification requirements for a master lighting switch. You stated your belief that if the headlamps and tail lamps are controlled by the master lighting switch, the switch is not required to be marked with any symbol o ther than that specified in Standard No. 101 for the master lighting switch. You also stated your belief that the manufacturer had an option to use other symbols in addition to that symbol. As discussed below, your understanding is correct.

Section S5.2.1(a) states:

Except as specified in S5.2.1(b), any hand-operated control listed in column 1 of Table 1 that has a symbol designated for it in column 3 of that table shall be identified by either the symbol designated in column 3 (or symbol substantially similar in fo rm to that shown in column 3) or the word or abbreviation shown in column 2 of that table. . . . Words or symbols in addition to the required symbol, word or abbreviation may be used at the manufacturer's discretion for the purpose of clarity. . . .

Column 3 of Table 1 designates the symbol shown In your letter for the master lighting switch. Also, footnote 2 of the table states that separate identification is not required for headlamps and tail lamps if they are controlled by a master lighting swit ch. Thus, the master lighting switch symbol is sufficient identification under Standard No. 101 for the control identified in your letter.

A drawing provided with your letter shows various positions of the master lighting switch Identified by a word or symbols, which are provided in addition to the master lighting switch symbol. As indicated in the above-quoted text, section S5.2. 1(a) perm its words or symbols in addition to the required symbol or word, for purposes of clarity.

Your second question concerns identification requirements for an upper beam control. You stated that you believe no symbol is required for the upper beam control if it is on the turn signal lever, and that it is at the manufacturer's option to use a symb ol.

Standard No. 101 does not specify any identification requirements for an upper beam control , regardless of whether it is on the turn signal lever. Thus, the manufacturer has the option of deciding whether to identify the control and, If so, how to ident ify it. We note that the symbol you plan to use for future models is the same as that designated in Standard No. 101 for the highbeam (upper beam) tell tale. Thus, your planned approach appears desirable in minimizing the number of symbols drivers must f amiliarize themselves with for the same function.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Ms. Erika Jones, Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20530

Dear Ms. Jones:

This letter serves to request an interpretation or FMVSS 101; Controls and displays.

We believe, (1) if the head lamps and tail lamps are controlled by master lighting switch, this is not required to be marked with any symbol , other than and it is the manufacturer's option to use other symbols in addition to the, as desired.

(2) When using the turn signal lever for the upper beam control, no symbol is required, and it is at the manufacturer's option to use symbol as desired.

Shown by current models in Attachment 1 are the symbols we have been using. In future models, we plan to change the symbols to those shown by future models in Attachment 1.

Please inform us in a timely manner if these symbols are acceptable and whether our interpretation is correct. If you have any questions, please contact me at (515) 353-5444.

Sincerely, Nobuyoshi Takechi Technical Manager NT/sg MMC SERVICES, INC. Attachment

ID: 05-009466drn