ID: nht93-8.38

DATE: November 30, 1993

FROM: Len R. Thies -- C & C Creations

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 5/18/94 From John Womack To Len R. Thies (A42; Std. 111; Std. 205; Std. 302)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

My partner and I have developed an after-market device for use in commercial and non-commercial vans. The device inhibits the flow of air from the back of the van to the front and vice-versa, in effect reducing the amount of volume to be heated or cooled. The result is a more efficient use of the vehicle's heating/cooling system resulting in more comfort for the driver and passengers especially in cases of extreme temperatures.

The device is composed of a sheet of clear vinyl suspended near the ceiling by a metal bar. The vinyl is also attached to the sides of the vehicle by velcro patches. Visibility is unimpaired, and is easily detached and removed from the vehicle by the owner.

After additional testing we intend to start marketing the device. In order to address all potential regulations, I contacted Ms. Mary Verseilles and Mr. Mark Levine in your office, who have given me their informal opinions. I appreciate their time and commend them for their sincerity in addressing my questions and for guidance through other potential areas of concern.

The only real concern regarding the device is one raised by Mr. Levine and focuses on fire resistence. Vinyl will burn but must have constant ignition in order to do so. Many people might call it a "melt" rather than a burning action.

Basis the foregoing I would request from you a written opinion relative to the acceptability of the device for use in vehicles.

Thank you in advance for your handling of my request.

Sincerely,

ID: nht93-8.39

DATE: December 1, 1993

FROM: Lisa A. Norris

TO: Illegible Name

COPYEE: Robert F. Hellmuth

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/27/93 from John Womack to Lisa A. Norris (A41; Std. 108)

TEXT:

(Illegible text) American Honda referred me to you because they say that your (illegible) applied to this. I would like a copy of this and the interpretation issued by Chief Counsel, Paul Jackson. Thank you for your cooperation. I have a hard time believing that I spent this much money for a car and have items "disconnected" for my "safety".

ID: nht93-8.4

DATE: November 9, 1993

FROM: Jerry Schwebel -- Executive Vice President, Star Comm Ltd.

TO: Walter Myers -- Attorney, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 5/12/94 From John Womack To Jerry Schwebel (A42; Std. 213)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Myers,

Thank you for the time given to us by you and your associates to discuss our air filled children's car seat.

In accordance with our discussion we are requesting an opinion with respect to the retention of the front strap. This strap is marked in the attached diagram. (Exhibit A)

Description:

The strap is not part of the primary restraint. Its main function is to offer additional side impact protection by keeping the leading side of the seat attached to the opposite side so as to prevent the child from rolling out. The strap is non load bearing in frontal impact.

Summary:

We recommend use of the strap based upon the improved HIC factor, and additional side impact protection. Test data, with and without the strap is included as shown on exhibits respectively B & C to substantiate this.

Your prompt response is appreciated.

Sincerely,

ID: nht93-8.40

DATE: December 1, 1993

FROM: Ramin Bogzaran -- Remedquip International Manufacturing, Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: Request for interpretation 102(3) - Definition of motor vehicle; Reply requested by December 14, 1993

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated January 26, 1994 from John Womack to Ramin Bogzaran (A42; VSA 102(3); Attached to fax dated 12/15/93 from Ramin Bogzaran to Marvin Shaw; 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:

Further to my discussions with Mr. Vinson I am sending your offices a request for ruling on the definition of motor vehicle and section 591.5(a)(1).

We have two trailers which have specialized equipment mounted on them and were originally manufactured in Greenville, TN in 1991, to U.S. DOT standards. This equipment has been stored on one site since it was delivered to Canada and was never operated or modified. At the time of delivery the manufacturer obtained permits for the trailers to be shipped to Canada and did not place a DOT sticker on the trailers. This equipment was a special order for a now defunct Canadian company. The equipment mounted on the two trailers is a BAGHOUSE which is built for AIR POLLUTION CONTROL.

These units were BUILT TO BE PART OF A TRANSPORTABLE SOIL REMEDIATION PLANT and will be used in the same capacity once imported to the United States. The trailers do not get registered and only get moved with permits as required. The reason for not registering the trailers is that the projects are long term and the trailers hardly see the road in their lifetime.

The trailers will be inspected every time before they are moved to make sure that they are SAFE AND COMPLY WITH ALL SAFETY STANDARDS. As the trailers are in Canada we can check them here to make sure that they comply with all safety regulations in Canada and also the CVSA, Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, which is an alliance signed between Canada and the United States to make sure that the commercial vehicles of both countries are safe and road worthy. It is our complete intention to make sure that the equipment is safe to be on the road and we feel that a favorable ruling to transport this equipment from Vancouver, Canada to our shop in San Diego, CA would be justified.

We will have the equipment checked by a United States certified technician once it has arrived to get a permit and make sure that it does comply with all federal safety regulations.

You will find enclosed a copy of the certificate of origin, pictures, a letter from the company which has had the equipment for the past two years stating that the equipment was built in the United States, and a letter from the manufacturer.

I thank you for your kind attention as our company must have this equipment at our facilities as soon as possible. I will be in contact with your office to make sure that you have all the necessary information which you may need to give us a ruling on the above.

ID: nht93-8.5

DATE: November 10, 1993

FROM: J. Frank Haasbeek -- President, International Transquip Industries, Inc.

TO: Albert Gore, Jr. -- Office of the Vice President

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/23/93 from Howard M. Smolkin to J. Frank Haasbeek (A41; Std. 121)

TEXT:

In common with other entrepreneurs and business managers, I am delighted that you have made it your personal goal to reshape the way in which government goes about its business and thus lighten the bureaucratic load that inevitably each one of us has to carry.

My business has suffered enormously at the hands of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the gridlock in that division of the Department of Transportation is getting worse and not better.

Of necessity I will need to burden you with some background information that I will try to keep as brief and to the point as possible.

My company, a small business enterprise, manufactures air brake systems for trucks, buses, trailers etc. Our system is patented and its performance and built-in safety features are unequalled.

In April of 1992, the NHTSA issued an interpretation under a 1991 FMVSS 121 rule that instantly made our system incapable of compliance with that rule and hence illegal.

In a June 1992 meeting with NHTSA's Chief Counsel and over twenty of its department heads and staff, we proved conclusively that the NHTSA interpretation was in error and a rule making procedure was subsequently initiated by NHTSA to correct this anomaly.

The new draft rule was published in the Federal Register in March 1993, but as of this date the final rule has not been issued. I have been given to understand by the NHTSA that the agency's attorneys are too pre-occupied with congressionally mandated rule making to write the necessary legal language.

This company has been economically disadvantaged and damaged by the inordinate delay on the part of the NHTSA to correct its own bungling. We have had to reduce our staff and incurred substantial losses while a safer air brake system has been denied to many potential users.

The NHTSA is still without an administrator and the agency is foundering with no-one at the helm.

My employees, my investors and I would indeed be grateful if your office could assist in the issue of the final rule without any further delay.

- - - - - The following letter transmitted Mr. Haasbeek's correspondence to the NHTSA:

MEMORANDUM

DATE: DECEMBER 14, 1993 TO: Director, Office of Executive Secretariat U.S. DOT Room 10205 400 Seventh Street, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20590

Enclosed are letters from constituents asking for assistance with matters related to the U.S. Department of Transportation. This information was sent to the office of Vice President Gore.

On behalf of the Vice President, I am forwarding this material with the request that the issues be addressed in an appropriate and expeditious manner. An acknowledgement of receipt and notification of this referral has been sent to each of the constituents. Please respond directly to the correspondents. No reply to this office is necessary.

Sincerely,

Bill Mason Director of Correspondence

ID: nht93-8.6

DATE: November 10, 1993

FROM: Cheryl Graham -- District Manager, Northeast Region, ARI

TO: Chief Counsel's Office -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/7/94 from John Womack to Cheryl Graham (A42; VSA Sec. 108(a))

TEXT:

I have spoken to several representatives of the Department of Transportation who were extremely helpful in providing me with information on brake light regulations, however, they suggested I write to you for a final determination on this subject.

Background: I work for a fleet leasing company and a client of mine, with a substantial fleet of cars across the country, wishes to install additional brake lights with the hopes of reducing rear-end collisions. The intent is to install an additional light at each side of the rear window. These lights would be the same color as the other brake lights and would illuminate simultaneously. The vehicle manufacturers do not offer this as an option and the work would be performed by an after-market installer, not yet determined.

When I initially investigated this request, I obtained copies of Federal Registers Volume 48, No. 202 and Volume 49, No. 97 as well as excerpts from the NHTSA Manual, Part 571.108. On page 236, S5.4(a) states that "No high-mounted stop lamp shall be combined with any other lamp or reflective device, other than with a cargo lamp." There were also several paragraphs referring to the positioning of high-mount stop lamps.

My interpretation was that additional stop lights were not permitted. However, subsequent conversations with the Office of Rulemaking for NHTSA have led me to believe that they are permitted. Therefore, my letter to you.

I would appreciate it if you could respond to me in writing as to whether my client can have the additional lights installed. Also, if the work is done improperly and results in an accident, where does the liability lie? As a leasing company, we are the registered owners of the vehicle but would have no direct control over the after-market installation. Insurance coverage is the responsibility of the lessee.

Your assistance in this matter is greatly appreciated. If you need to contact me by phone, please feel free to do so at 609-778-1500.

ID: nht93-8.7

DATE: November 10, 1993

FROM: Steven R. Taylor -- S.R. Taylor Toys

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/17/94 from John Womack to Steven R. Taylor (A42; Part 571)

TEXT:

This letter consists of information about the (ORIGINAL DESIGNER SEATBELT STRAPP). Its function is to serve as a reminder to buckle-up and to entertain a child with his/her favorite cartoon character, etc.

The ingriediants to the (SEATBELT STRAPP) consists of D.O.T. standard nylon seat belt webbing and a double sided tape adhesive. The face of the (SEATBELT STRAPP) has silk screened designs.

The (CHILD SEATBELT STRAPP) model is 15" in length and 1 1/2" in width. The double sided tape adhesive has a backing that peels off, so the adhesive is showing and can now be attached to the existing seat belt. (The adult size is 30" l x 2" w).

(Graphics omitted - see original)

The (ORIGINAL DESIGNER SEATBELT STRAPP) serves only as an entertainment piece and not as a safety device.

Who will buy the child (seatbelt strapp)? Our market target are: parents, grand parents, uncles and aunts.

Who will buy adult (SEATBELT STRAPP)? Hopefully everyone from teenagers to senior citizens.

ID: nht93-8.8

DATE: November 11, 1993

FROM: Kathryn A. Roach -- Paralegal to Lloyd D. Levenson, Cooper Perskie April Niedelman Wagenheim & Levenson

TO: Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: None $125 (OCC-9344)

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/10/94 from John Womack to Kathryn A. Roach (A42; Std. 208), letter dated 1/19/90 from Stephen P. Wood to Linda L. Conrad (Std. 208), and letter dated 3/4/93 from John Womack to Robert A. Ernst

TEXT:

Please be advised that I spoke with the chief engineer at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration who told me there is no regulation under the federal law which would require air bag replacement.

I would request that the above information be confirmed, in writing. The chief engineer provided me with your address, so that I could obtain the requested information.

Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions concerning the above.

ID: nht93-8.9

DATE: November 12, 1993

FROM: J. Z. Peepas -- Selecto-Flash, Inc.

TO: Taylor Vinson

TITLE: FAX#202-366-3820

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/30/93 from John Womack to J. Z. Peepas (A41; Std. 108)

TEXT:

ATTACHED ARE 4 PRINTS, A-1, A-2, B-1, B-2 WHICH COVER THE FOLLING:

A-1 (40' CHASSIS) SHOWS 20' REFLECTIVE BEHIND THE GOOSE NECK FOR 40' CHASSIS WITH ONLY 6" PIECE WHITE REFLECTIVE MARKED ITEM 10, DELINEATING THE FRONT OF THE CHASSIS. THIS WILL LEAVE 8' CHASSIS UNMARKED AS DISCUSSED ON THE TELEPHONE.

A-2 (40' CHASSIS) WITH 20' REFLECTIVE FROM END OF GOOSE NECK BACK AND ADD ADDITIONAL REFLECTIVE FOR GOOSENECK.

B-1 (40/45' CHASSIS) SHOWS 50% OF THE REFLECTIVE FROM END OF GOOSE NECK TO END OF CHASSIS AND ONLY 6" PIECE WHITE REFLECTIVE AND DELINEATING FRONT OF CHASSIS.

B-2 (40/45' CHASSIS) WHICH ADDS ADDITIONAL REFLECTIVE ON GOOSE NECK EQUALLY SPACED.

WHEN I SPOKE ON THE TELEPHONE WITH YOU AND PAT BOYD, YOU INDICATED THAT AT LEAST 50% OF THE TOTAL LENGTH CHASSIS IN REFLECTIVE MATERIAL IS PLACED BEHIND THE GOOSE NECK. SINCE THE LOAD COVERS THE GOOSE NECK, YOU DID NOT SEE ANY NECESSITY IN PUTTING REFLECTIVE ON THE GOOSE NECK. HOWEVER, AT TIMES, A CHASSIS DOES MOVE WITHOUT A LOAD, AND THIS IN OUR OPINION, WILL CREATE A HAZARD, BECAUSE YOU WILL HAVE AN AREA OF 96" OR EVEN MORE DEPENDING ON DESIGN, WHICH WILL NOT HAVE ANY REFLECTIVE SHEETING ON IT.

IT WOULD BE OUR SUGGESTION THAT YOU RE-EVALUATE YOUR POSITION FOR NOT MAKING IT MANDATORY THAT REFLECTIVE SHOULD BE APPLIED ON THE GOOSE NECK.

I DISAGREE WITH THIS- 50% OF OVERALL LENGTH EVENLY SPACED FROM FRONT TO REAR (INCLUDING GOOSENECK) WITH A TOTAL OF 24'4" FOR A 48 FT. CHASSIS.

CHASSIS DO TRAVEL WITHOUT CONTAINERS AND WOULD THEN CREATE A SAFETY HAZARD WHEN:

1) ON THE HIGHWAY BY HAVING AN 8 TO 10 FOOT GOOSENECK NOT IDENTIFIED CREATING A SPACE THAT COULD BE CONFUSING TO A MOTORIST.

2) IN THE CONTAINER YARDS WHEN CHASSIS ARE OFF LOADED. SEVERAL INCIDENTS HAVE BEEN REPORTED WHERE A PANEL TRUCK WILL RIDE UNDER THE NOSE OF CHASSIS DRIVING IT THROUGH THE WINDSHIELD.

FINALLY WE UNDERSTAND THAT PAT BOYD HAS ADDRESSED THE ISSUE THAT NO MORE THAN FOUR FEET OF UNIDENTIFIED AREA SHALL BE ALLOWED ON A CHASSIS. OBVIOUSLY THE 8 to 10 FEET OF GOOSENECK WOULD BE IN VIOLATION OF THAT STATEMENT, FOR CHASSIS OFFLOADED ON A HIGHWAY.

ID: nht93-9.1

DATE: December 2, 1993

FROM: Harry C. Gough, P.E. -- Automotive Engineering Professional Specialist, State of Connecticut, Department of Motor Vehicles

TO: Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/29/94 from John Womack to Harry C. Gough (A42; Std. 108)

TEXT:

I am writing on behalf of the State of Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles. We are requesting a written opinion or interpretation regarding the meaning of the terms "flash alternately" or "alternately flashing" as they apply to school bus overhead signal lamps required under FMVSS #108. The terms are used in SAE Standard J887, which is incorporated by reference. The reason for the request is that a manufacturer of strobe (gaseous-discharge) lamps has supplied test documentation indicating that a system they offer complies with the mechanical, color, and intensity provisions of SAE J887 and thus comply with FMVSS #108. The system offered uses what is referred to as a quad-pulse strobe flash pattern. Effectively the lamp on one side flashes on and off four times in a 255 millisecond period and then stays off for 745 milliseconds, then the lamp on the opposite side of the bus repeats the aforementioned pattern. While the pattern is repeated alternately from side to side a question arises as to whether "alternately flashing" refers to the pattern heretofore described or do the four distinct on/off cycles on each side of the school bus defeat the intent of the term alternating.

While I realize your office is very busy with such interpretations, I would appreciate a response at your earliest convenience. If there are any additional questions or information required, please feel free to have your office call me at (203) 566-3754.

Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter.