ID: nht89-2.53

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/02/89

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

TO: FRANK MILLER -- GERRY BABY PRODUCTS

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 02/12/88 FROM FRANK H. MILLER -- GARRY BABY PRODUCTS TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA

TEXT: Dear Mr. Miller:

This responds to your letter to me asking whether the "binding" you use of the edges of a seat cushion should be tested under Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, separately from the cushion assembly or as a composite with the other mate rials. I regret the delay in responding. You said that you currently test the binding separately, but would find it easier to test the binding "as a portion of a cushion assembly."

Paragraph S4.2.1 of Standard No. 302 provides that "any material that does not adhere to other material(s) at every point of contact" must meet the standard's flammability resistance requirements when tested separately. Thus, if the binding is joined to the cushion assembly so that it does not adhere to the cushion at every point of contact, the agency would test it separately. If, on the other hand, the binding adheres to the cushion at every point of contact, paragraph S4.2.2 requires it to meet the performance requirements of the standard when tested as a composite with the other materials.

In your letter, you did not directly state whether the binding adheres to the cushion at every point of contact. However, we presume that you currently think it does not, since you said you test the binding separately from the cushion. I am enclosing c opies of two previous interpretations of Standard No. 302 that might be helpful in determining whether there is the requisite adherence. In a March 10, 1978 letter to Mr. Edmund Burnett, the agency discussed the application of S4.2.1 to a seat cushion c onsisting of vinyl stitched at varying internals to padding. In that letter, the agency stated that the vinyl, which did not adhere to the material at every point of contact, must be tested separately. On the other hand, a July 17, 1972 letter to Mr. S atoshi Nishibori concerned materials glued together, which NHTSA said would be tested by us as a composite.

Your inquiry follows our December 3, 1987 letter to you in which we said that thread that is used in the manufacture of a seat cushion may be tested as part of the component. We explained in our letter that although the agency recognizes that stitching that does not adhere at every point of contact should be tested separately under S4.2.1 of Standard No. 302, NHTSA has determiend that it is more practical to test stitching as part of the material since the test apparatus cannot readily accommodate stit ching alone. I note that the issue you now appear to raise is whether your binding, which presumably does not adhere at every point of contact, may be tested as part of the cushion material (i.e., as a composite) in the same manner thread is tested. Th e answer to this question is that the agency would probably separately test such binding under S4.2.1.

We have no reason to believe that it is not practicable to separately test binding that does not adhere at every point of contact, as specified in Standard No. 302. In fact, your present procedure which tests binding separately indicates that S4.2.1 is practicable. Since the practicability problems arising when separately testing thread are not encountered when the binding is tested, the agency will test binding that does not adhere at every point of contact in the manner specified in Standard No. 302 .

This does not mean to say, however, that you are prohibited from testing the binding as a composite. Standard No. 302 does not require you to test your products using the test procedure set forth in the standard. The standard only specifies how the age ncy will conduct its compliance test for the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302. A manufacturer may choose any means of evaluating its products to determine whether the vehicle or item of equipment complies with the requirements of Standard No. 302, provided, however, that the manufacturer exercises due care in ensuring that its products will comply with the standard when tested by the agency according to the procedures specified therein.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURES

ID: nht89-2.54

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: AUGUST 2, 1989

FROM: FREDERICK H. DAMBACH -- PRESIDENT, EXECULINE

TO: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 4-9-90 TO FREDERICK H. DAMBACH FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD; (A35; STD. 217) TEXT:

I appreciate your response to my letter dated July 10, 1989.

I must, in all respect, disagree with your decision. I must also ask you to reconsider, based on the following;

Your reply stated that my letter "indicated that if the roof mounted exits were counted as side exits, your buses would be in compliance with Standard 217." You go on to explain, and I quote from your reference to Standard 217, "At least 40 percent of t he total area required must be on the left side of the bus, and at least another 40 percent must be on the right side."

You go on to explain that a roof exit may not be counted because such an exit is not located on the side. Then you give an explanation of the term "side" as being that part of the bus which is perpendicular to the floor.

Well, you totally missed the boat on this one. You are reading words into my letter and into Standard 217 which are not written and do not exist.

In my letter, I never asked that a roof exit be considered a side exit as you stated in your letter. Nor does 217 require a roof exit to be considered a side exit for our buses to meet this spec.

Standard 217 simply and clearly states: "At least 40 percent of the total required unobstructed openings, computed in the above manner, shall be provided on each side of a bus".

Nowhere in 217 does it say "left or right side" as you stated in your letter! Nowhere in 217, or in title 393, does it even hint that the term "side" would mean "that part of a bus which is perpendicular to the floor". That is the definition for a "sid e wall", not each side of a bus.

If 217 actually stated, "left or right side wall" or "the side wall", your definition could then be correct, but 217 does not say, "left or right side wall" or "the side wall," it specifically states each side of a bus!

Again, you have read things into this spec. which are not there. This is what N.J. DOT did in reference to the push out windows, insisting that 217 specifically required push out windows, which it does not. I went around with them for five weeks, finall y calling the Governors Office before they correctly read the spec.

It is because of them that I am writing you concerning this situation, and now you are doing the same thing they did!

When Standard 217 says: "at least 40 percent of the total area of unobstructed openings shall be provided on each side of a bus, it is saying on each side of the center line of a bus, not on a "side wall".

To support this, I refer you to other sections of Title 393, of which Standard 217 is a small part.

They read as follows:

393.12 Lamps and reflectors, large buses and trucks.

b." On the rear, two tail lamps, one at each side; two stop lamps, one at each side; two turn signals, one at each side; two clearance lamps, one at each side; two reflectors, one at each side; three identification lamps, mounted on the vertical center line of the vehicle".

This section then refers the reader to a diagram to illustrate 393.12.(enclosed). The diagram shows each item in the above paragraph to be located left or right of the center line of a bus when they make reference to each side, not on the left "side wal l" or the right "side wall" as would be needed to support your definition of the term "side".

393.70 Coupling devices and towing methods, except for driveaway-towaway operations, says:

a. Tracking. "the path of a towed vehicle will not deviate more than three inches to either side of the path of the vehicle that tows it".

Using your definition of "side", an 8 foot wide bus being towed could deviate over 8 foot into on coming traffic before it was three inches to either side of the path of the vehicle that tows it. Again, they are talking about either side of the center l ine of a vehicle, not "side" as you described.

Paragraph (8) under the same section says, "the points of attachment on the towing vehicle shall be located equally distant from, and on opposite sides of, the center line of the towing vehicle".

This again supports the fact that each side of a bus, is each side of the center line, not the "side wall" as you have indicated.

393.78 Windshield wipers. (a): says, "Every bus, truck, and truck tractor, having a windshield, shall be equipped with at least two automatically-operating windshield wiper blades, one on each side of the center-line of the windshield". Again, supportin g the definition of "each side of a bus" being each side of the center line of a bus!

I could go on making other references to Title 393, but that would be

redundant. I've given you sufficient examples to support our position.

Please read the specifications without inserting your own words. Please read my letter without inserting your own words. I am then confident that you will agree with me.

As I've stated before, this fiasco has cost me thousands of dollars. We are a small company. We will never be able to recuperate the revenue already lost due to this situation, nor can we afford to lose anymore! Please work on this problem today! I nee d immediate relief!

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

ID: nht89-2.55

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/03/89 EST

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

TO: L. T. MITCHELL, -- THOMAS BUILT BUSES, INC.

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 02/24/89 FROM DAN TREXLER -- THOMAS BUILT BUSES INC; TO JOAN TILGHMAN -- NHTSA; OCC ILLEGIBLE; LETTER DATED 04/27/88 FORM L. T. MITCHELL -- THOMAS BUILT BUSES INC; TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA; LETTER DATED 12/20/84 FROM FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA TO MELVIN SMITH -- ILLINOIS DOT

TEXT: Dear Mr. Mitchell:

This responds to your letter asking us to reassess our previous interpretations of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release (49 CFR @571.217). Before turning to the substance of your letter, I would like to apologize for the regrettable delay in this response.

You asked us to reassess a December 20, 1984 letter to Mr. Melvin Smith regarding school buses. Mr. Smith had, among other things, asked for an interpretation of the concluding sentence of S5.4.2.1(b) of Standard No. 217. Section S5.4.2.1(b) requires si de emergency doors installed in a school bus with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 10,000 pounds to have an opening that is at least 45 inches high and 24 inches wide when the side door is extended. The final sentence of S5.4.2.1(b) reads: "A v ertical transverse plane tangent to the rear-most point of a seat back shall pass through the forward edge of a side emergency door." Mr. Smith had asked how much, if any, forward and/or rearward variation from perfect coincidence of the plane and door e dge were permissible. We responded that no variation from the explicit requirements of the standard is permissible.

Your letter stated that a requirement for an exact coincidence of the plane and door edge "opens the door to impossible manufacturing requirements," and is "an extremely difficult goal to meet." You stated that requiring an exact relationship between a p art of the seat and the door will require multiple seat installation adjustments, bending the seat, or deforming the seat padding. To avoid such burdens, you asked if the agency would consider setting tolerances for the coincidence of the points express ed in this provision. You proposed the following interpretation of the requirement for coincidence of the plane and door edge:

1. A seat back may not intrude backward into the door opening through the transverse plane coincident with the leading edge of the door opening.

2. A seat back may be located ahead of this transverse plane by no more than three-quarters of an inch, plus or minus three-quarters of an inch, or within but no more than, one and one-half inches ahead of the transverse plane coincident with the lea ding edge of the door opening.

It would be helpful to set forth some background information to fully explain why NHTSA cannot issue an intrepretation along the lines you have suggested. Section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392; the Safety Act) s pecifies that NHTSA shall establish by order appropriate safety standards and that the Administrative Procedure Act shall apply to all orders establishing, amending, or revoking a safety standard. The Administrative Procedure Act generally requires agen cies to publish a notice setting forth the proposed change to a safety standard, and allow the public to comment thereon, before the agency can adopt any change to the established safety standard.

Please note that the Safety Act requires public notice and comment only when adopting orders that establish, amend, or revoke a safety standard. Interpretations are not subject to the requirements for public notice and comment, because interpretations do not add, delete, or change any requirements established in a safety standard. Instead, intepretations explain how the requirements established in safety standards or the Safety Act apply to particular vehicles or equipment, or otherwise clarify the mea ning of the established requirements.

In this case, the meaning of the requirements in Standard No. 217 that "a vertical transverse plane tangent to the rear-most point of a seat back shall pass through the forward edge of a side emergency door" is clear. This language clearly and unequivoc ally requires an exact coincidence of the location of the seat back and the forward edge of a side emergency door. There is no way that we can interpret this language in accordance with your suggestion; i.e., that the seat back shall be located no more than 1 and 1/2 inches forward of the forward edge of the emergency door.

Your letter suggested a change to the requirements of Standard No. 217, not a clarification of those requirements. As explained above, the only way by which we can change those requirements is to initiate rulemaking and give the public notice of and the opportunity to comment on the proposed change. Hence, your letter asking for an intepretation would have been more properly filed as a petition for rulemaking, pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR Part 552.

Ordinarily, we would simply notify you of your right to file such a petition and take no further action unless and until you decided to file such a petition. In this case, however, the delay in this response may have conveyed the erroneous impression th at NHTSA would provide a substantive response to your request in this interpretation. To ensure that your request receives a response addressing its merits, we will treat your letter as a petition for rulemaking filed under Part 552. We

will notify you of our response to the petition as soon as we have completed our review of it.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-2.56

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: AUGUST 3, 1989

FROM: W. MARSHALL RICKERT -- ADMINISTRATOR, MARYLAND DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION

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

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-14-89 TO STEPHEN P. WOOD FROM TRACEY POWELL; [OCC-4154]

TEXT: Secretary Trainor has asked me to respond to your July 24 letter concerning modulating headlights.

In Maryland, the use of a modulating headlight on a motorcycle is not permitted. By law, "flashing lights" are reserved strictly for emergency vehicles. When the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration approved the use of this type of light, we did consider allowing the use of the modulating light. However, there was a great deal of concern that the "flashing lights" on motorcycles would be confusing to other motorists. Based on this, no changes were made.

After you complete your tabulation on States allowing the modulatory light, please send me a copy. This information could be very useful if we again consider making a change. In the meantime, if I can be of further assistance, please contact me.

ID: nht89-2.57

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/07/89

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

TO: CLIFFORD ANGLEWICZ -- VICE PRESIDENT MARKETING VERNE CORPORATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 10/18/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO RAYMOND M. MOMBOISSE -- IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE; LETTER FROM CLIFFORD T. ANGLEWICZ -- VERNE CORP TO NHTSA DATED 09/07/88; OCC 2529

TEXT: Dear Mr. Anglewicz:

This is in reply to your letter regarding the Dragon Armored Security Vehicle (ASV), as amplified by a telephone call to you by Mr. Vinson of this Office. The ASV that your company produces is presently used "by the U.S. Armed Forces". You are now consid ering the possibility of selling the ASV "to police departments, U.S. Border Patrol, Drug Enforcement Administration and the U.S. Customs Service to use as a special purpose rescue and utility vehicle", and have asked "to know the procedure for getting t his vehicle classified as a special purpose vehicle."

As Mr. Vinson explained to you, we have no category of "special purpose vehicle". If a vehicle is manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, it is a "motor vehicle" subject to the jurisdiction of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. This means that it must comply with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to its type and be certified as conforming to those standards, and that it is subject to remedial action upon the determination that it d oes not comply with one of those standards or that it contains a safety related defect. If the vehicle is a motor vehicle that has been manufactured for and sold directly to the armed forces in conformity with contractual specifications, it is not requi red to conform to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If a motor vehicle is one that is 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 classi fied as a "multipurpose passenger vehicle". A motor vehicle designed for carrying more than 10 persons is classified as a "bus".

2

This means that the ASVs sold to the armed forces have not been required to conform to the Federal standards. As Mr. Vinson further explained to you, we provided the Border Patrol with a letter of interpretation under which we concluded that its mission was so similar to that of the armed forces that it could be considered a component of it, and that the "Hummer" vehicle it wished to purchase in fulfilment of that mission need not be manufactured to meet Federal safety standards. I enclose a copy of t hat letter for your information. The ASV appears similar to the Hummer in configuration. Therefore, on the basis of the facts as presented in your letter, ASV's could be sold to the Border Patrol without the necessity of conformance with the Federal mot or vehicle safety standards. On the other hand, we have not been contacted by the Drug Enforcement Administration or the U.S. Customs Service, nor by any police department. In the absence of any interpretation issued in response to these entities, ASVs sold to them must be manufactured to conform with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Technically, the 11 and 12 passenger versions of the ASV would be "buses", but the overall configuration of the ASV, with its high approach and departure angl es, its capability of amphibious operation with special equipment, and its suitability for use on rough terrain support its classification as a "multipurpose passenger vehicle" for all passenger configurations.

Obviously, the ASV is not a conventional motor vehicle subject to easy classification or, possibly, conformity with multipurpose passenger vehicle standards (e.g., we understand it uses a military specification brake fluid rather than DOT-3). Because of the facts that your annual production is around 60 units, and that your sales are not to the general public, you might wish to petition for temporary exemption from one or more of the Federal safety standards. If the petition is granted, you would be a ble to sell the ASV to entities other than the armed forces without conforming it to the Federal standards. Mr. Vinson has provided you with the citations to the Federal standards and to the exemption procedures, and you may consult him if you have any questions with respect to them (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht89-2.58

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/07/89

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

TO: RANDY BLACKMAN -- PER-LUX INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 08/19/88 FROM RANDY BLACKMAN -- PERLUX INC TO NHTSA; OCC 2462

TEXT: Dear Mr. Blackman:

This responds to your letter asking for information about the application of Federal safety standards to a head restraint that attaches to the rear window of pickup trucks. I hope the following information is helpful.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) to issue Federal motor Vehicle safety standards that set performance requirem ents for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with our Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Instead, under the Safety Act (cop y enclosed), each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on our understanding of the information provided in your letter.

There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that is directly applicable to the product you wish to manufacture and sell. Our standard for head restraints (Standard No. 202) applies only to completed new passenger cars and not to a head r estraint device sold as an item of "aftermarket" equipment for pickup trucks.

However, there are other Federal requirements that indirectly affect your manufacture and sale of the head restraint device. Under the Safety Act, your device is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle eq uipment, you are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibili ties. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your head restraints contain a safety related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (copy enclosed), would also affect your head restraint if your product were installed by a commercial business on either new or used vehicles. A manufacturer installing your head restraint devi ce on a new truck prior to certifying the truck as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, as required by the Safety Act, has certain responsibilities relating to that obligation to certify. Standard No. 302 establishes fla mmability resistance requirements for trucks that must be met by certain vehicle components, including head restraints. The new vehicle manufacturer that installs your product on the new vehicle would have to certify the vehicle's compliance with Standa rd No. 302, and thus would be required to ensure that the head restraint device conforms to the flammability resistance requirements of the standard.

A commercial business wishing to install the head restraint on new or used vehicles would be subject to statutory considerations that affect whether the business may install your product on a vehicle without violating the Safety Act. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act states: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative . . . 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 section requires manufacturers, distributors, dealers or motor vehicle repair businesses (i.e., any person holding him or herself out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehi cles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation) installing your head restraint device on new or used vehicles to ensure that the addition of the apparatus would not negatively affect the compliance of any component or design on a vehicle with applicabl e Federal safety standards. For example, the commercial entity must ensure that the addition of the device does not degrade from the safety provided by flammable-resistant materials in the vehicle's interior compartment which have been installed in acco rdance with Standard No. 302. Installation of rapidly burning materials could vitiate the compliance of the materials which were present in the vehicle at the time of its sale to the first consumer and were certified as meeting FMVSS No. 302. Section 1 09 of the Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation of @ 108.

However, the prohibitions of @ 108(a)(2)(A) do not apply to the actions of a vehicle owner in adding to or otherwise modifying his or her vehicle. Thus, a vehicle owner would not violate the Safety Act by installing the head restraint, even if doing so would negatively affect some safety feature in his or her vehicle.

In addition to the materials described above, I am also enclosing a Federal Register notice (53 FR 50047) that NHTSA issued on December 13, 1988, proposing to extend the applicability of Standard No. 202 to light trucks and vans. NHTSA has proposed to m ake this extension effective September 1, 1991. We expect to announce the agency's next step in the rulemaking proceeding by this fall.

We are also returning herewith the sketch you enclosed with your letter, as you requested in a telephone conversation with Ms. Fujita of my

staff. We have issued this interpretation based on information which you confirmed you have no objection to publicly disclosing, and not on information which you asked us not to publicly disclose.

Please feel free to contact us if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURES

ID: nht89-2.59

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/07/89

FROM: JERRY L. DOOLEY -- US ARMY DEPUTY PROJECT MANAGER NON-LINE OF SIGHT

TO: LEGAL COUNCIL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 09/07/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO US ARMY; REDBOOK A34; SECTION 572.7

TEXT: Gentlemen:

We are currently making efforts to gather safety standards for vehicles of the military nature, in particular, those that would apply to the M1037 High Mobility Multipurpose Wheel Vehicle (HMMWV). In our search for this information, we have been advi sed that your office would be able to provide the information we need.

We request that you send the applicable standards and/or specifications for the following areas: (1) driver field of view, (2) rear view mirror placement, (3) basic visibility requirements, and (4) ingress/egress safety requrements. Although our prima ry interest is in regard to the M1037 HMMWV, similar information that would apply to the M993 Bradley Fighting Vehicle System (BFVS) is also requested. Any information you can provide will be helpful.

Information and materials can be forwarded to:

COMMANDER U.S. ARMY MISSILE COMMAND (MR. BOB BERGMAN) ATTN: AMCPM-FM-TM REDSTONE ARSENAL, ALABAMA 35898-5793

The Point of contact for this office is Mr. Robert Bergman (205-876-5350).

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-2.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/16/89

FROM: ROBERT N. LEVIN -- HUDOCK AND LEVIN

TO: OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRANSPORTATION SAFETY ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: SUN ROOFS

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/01/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO ROBERT N. LEVIN -- HUDOCK AND LEVIN; REDBOOK A34[B]; VSA 108[A][1][A]; VSA 108[A][2][A]; STANDARD 205; STANDARD 216; PART 567.7

TEXT: Dear Sirs:

I am writing to request your guidance in a matter just brought to my attention by a client. My client operates an auto repair facility. One of the services that it provides is the installation of sun roofs.

I recently discovered one of your regulations, 49 CFR 567.7. Your guidance would be greatly appreciated in discovering whether the labeling requirements apply to sun roof installations and if so what the underlying regulations are concerning safety s tandards.

Thank you.

Very truly yours,

ID: nht89-2.60

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/08/89

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

TO: LARRY P. EGLEY

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 01/17/89 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO KATHLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA; OCC 3028; LETTER DATED 05/23/89 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO KATHLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA; LETTER DATED 09/10/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO KATHLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA; OCC 2530; REPORT D ATED 09/10/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY, REQUEST FOR EVALUATION / INTERPRETATION OF PROPOSED INVENTION SUDDEN STOP FLASHER [SSF]; REPORT DATED 09/07/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY, AN APPEAL FOR VARIANT INTERPRETATION OF NHTSA STANDARDS AS THEY RELATE TO BRAKE LIGHTS AND THE SUDDEN STOP FLASHER [SSF]; LETTER DATED 07/13/88 FROM KATHLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA TO LARRY P. EGLEY; LETTER DATED 06/23/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO RALPH HITCHCOCK -- NHTSA; OCC 2256; LETTER DATED 06/20/88 FROM LEWIS S. BUCHANAN -- EPA TO LARRY P. EG LEY; OCC 2199; LETTER DATED 06/09/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO LEWIS BUCHANAN

TEXT: Dear Mr. Egley:

This is in reply to your letters with respect to the Sudden Stop Flasher (SSF), your invention, now registered with the U.S. Patent Office. Your first letter is a "Request for Evaluation/Interpretation" of your invention; your second is "An Appeal for V ariant Interpretation." I regret the delay in responding.

You have explained that the SSF operates as follows: when a vehicle reaches a certain high rate of deceleration, the SSF automatically flashes all three of the stop lamps on passenger cars at a rapid rate. If the vehicle has crashed, the SSF continues t o flash until the ignition switch is recycled. You recognize that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, requires stop lamps to be steady burning. You nevertheless ask for a favorable interpr etation because the SSF will be actuated only rarely, and "the concept of flashing tail lights to get the attention of drivers has already been approved in the hazard warning system." Because of the expense of developing the SSF, you state that you are n ot willing to undertake it "unless NHTSA would indicate at least tentative acceptance, subject to demonstration and testing of a working model."

You are correct that Standard No. 108 requires stop lamps to be steady burning, and hazard warning signal lamps to flash (generally through the turn signal lamps). The primary reason for the distinction is that stop lamps are intended to be operated whi le the vehicle is in motion, while the hazard warning lamps are intended to indicate that the vehicle is stopped. Each lamp is intended to convey a single, easily recognizable signal. If a lamp which is ordinarily steady burning begins to flash, the ag ency is concerned that the signal will prove confusing to motorists, thereby diluting its effectiveness.

Even if we did not have this reservation about the SSF, we could not change the steady burning requirement through interpretation. A change could be made through rulemaking only.

We do not currently have information indicating that a flashing signal would be be superior to a steady burning one. The SSF is based upon the concept that a flashing lamp increases vehicle conspicuity, and hence should shorten the reaction time of foll owing drivers. As you noted, "whether the SSF could significantly improve safety is the primary consideration." In research sponsored by this agency that led to the adoption of the center high-mounted stop lamp, a field study was conducted using 600 tax icabs in San Diego and Sacramento. The cabs were equipped with one of three kinds of center lamps, a steady-burning one, or one that flashed at 2.5 Hz, or one that flashed at either 1.5, 2.5, 4.5, or 7.0 Hz depending on the degree of deceleration. The test fleet accumulated 41 million miles. The study found that there was no statistically significant differences among the lamps (Mortimer, R.G., Field test evaluation of rear lighting deceleration signals: II - Field test. Final Report, DOT-HS-806-125 , 1981).

The agency would be unlikely to issue grants or fund research for the SSF, a proprietary device. Most of its vehicle safety research is devoted to obtaining data to support the development of standards that are more performance-oriented.

I am sorry that we cannot be more positive in our response, but we do appreciate your interest in reducing traffic accidents, and deaths and injuries associated with them.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-2.61

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/08/89

FROM: BUD SHUSTER -- MEMBER OF CONGRESS

TO: DIRECTOR CONGRESSIONAL RELATIONS DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/20/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO CONGRESSMAN BUD SHUSTER; REDBOOK A34; STANDARDS 109, 117, AND 119; LETTER DATED 10/16/89 FROM DONALD S. CLARK -- FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION TO CONGRESSMAN BUD SHUSTER

TEXT: The attached communication is submitted for your consideration, and to ask that the request made therein be complied with, if possible.

If you will advise me of your action in this matter and have the letter returned to me with your reply, I will appreciate it.

Very Truly yours, CONGRESSMAN BUD SHUSTER REQUEST FOR SERVICE REC'D AT: REC'D BY: DATE: 7/12/89 SAW CONGRESSMAN? NAME: Lester Hoover S.S. NUMBER: ADDRESS: 662 Lincoln Way West V.A. NUMBER: Chambersburg, PA OTHER ID NUMBER:

TELEPHONE: 717-263-4930

TYPE OF PROBLEM: Request for information

DETAILS: He would like the text of the law that covers the branding of tires that are not first quality as such. He would like to know if there is any way to apply it to other consumer goods, specifically batteries.