ID: nht93-9.10

DATE: December 10, 1993

FROM: Joe Miller -- Product Support Manager, Load King

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

TEXT:

Load King manufactures trailers in Elk Point, South Dakota. We sell our trailers to a dealer in Minneapolis, Minnesota who in turn sells these trailers to customer/users. The dealer does not use these trailers other than to set them in their yard for resale.

We want this dealer to do some finish manufacturing for us. One item specifically is to paint the trailers, install operational decals and place the conspicuity striping. Can primed trailers be moved without conspicuity striping in this case?

Thank you in advance for your reply.

ID: nht93-9.11

DATE: December 13, 1993

FROM: Lawrence P. White -- Acting Director, Bureau of Motor Vehicles, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Dept. of Transportation

TO: Mary Versie -- NHTSA, School Bus Regulations

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/21/94 from John Womack to Lawrence P. White (A42; Redbook; Std. 217)

TEXT:

I am writing concerning the new school bus emergency exit requirements in the FMVSS 217.

My office has received numerous inquiries from Pennsylvania's law enforcement agencies, school bus sales representatives and school bus contractors, concerning the new school bus exit requirements. These questions are:

1. The effective date - is it the chassis manufacturer's date of completion, the final stage manufacturer's date of completion, or somewhere in between?

2. Based on the formula for emergency exit space, is the area of the front entrance door to be included? Does this mean on a vehicle of 60 to 77 passengers, the only additional requirements beyond the front and rear doors is a left side exit door?

3. The "clear aisle space" required for exit to the proposed side emergency door, according to federal specifications, can be met with a flip- up type seat or a clear opening of 12", as measured from the back of the door forward. Are there any specifications, definitions, or descriptions provided as to what would be considered a "flip seat"?

4. Also, there is concern regarding school buses that are equipped with the "flip seat" by the emergency door opening and the possibility of school children, either intentionally or accidentally, unlatching the door latch mechanism. Are the door latch mechanisms to be equipped to help prevent this from occurring?

In the interest of maintaining the integrity of school buses, I am inquiring as to the correct responses to these questions and concerns.

Thank you for your assistance on this matter.

ID: nht93-9.12

DATE: December 14, 1993

FROM: J. Hulshof -- NEDAP N.V.

TO: Patrick Boyd -- Office for Rulemaking, NHTSA

TITLE: Standard FMVSS 118

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/12/94 from John Womack to J. Hulshof (A42; Std. 118)

TEXT:

Referring to our recent telecons we wish to inform you about the following.

We have designed a SCU (Sunroof Control Unit) for a power operated roof panel system where the roof panel can be closed only in the following circumstances:

1. Ignition key activated AND continuous activation of close button 2. Ignition key activated AND short touch of close button (one shot close, close button is released and roof panel moves to closed position) 3. Continuous operation of Central close mechanism, not capable closing the roof panel from a distance of more than 6 meters from the vehicle. 4. Ignition key activated AND continuous operation of a PANIC button

Note: System has no reversal mechanism acc. to the FMVSS 118

Referring to the above mentioned: Does the sunroof comply with the rules as stated in FMVSS 118?

Are there any amendments to the FMVSS 188 in progress?

We look forward to your answer.

Note: For any reactions, our fax nr. in the USA: 815 633 6089 Attn. Bob Cooper, LMS

ID: nht93-9.13

DATE: December 14, 1993

FROM: Michael S. Marczynski -- Sales Representative, Anita's Auto World

TO: Office Of The Chief Council -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 6/3/94 From John Womack To Michael S. Marczynski (A42; Std. 108; 205; 208; 216; 302; VSA 109(A)(2)(A))

TEXT: Dear Chief Council,

This letter is in regards to a telephone conversation on 12-14-93 with a Mr. Entwhistle of your Washington office. The topic of the conversation was about obtaining a formal written notice from you concerning the legal installation of roll pans, and convertible tops on light-duty pick-up trucks. Some of our customers have expressed concern over the legal aspects of having these items installed in their vehicles. If at all possible, could you please address this issue in letter form for us. We are a professional body/paint shop located in Lansing, Michigan, and would like to perform this after-market installation as a service to our customers. I feel a written letter would carry more validity for us.

Thank-you for your time. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at (517) 487-2220.

Sincerely,

ID: nht93-9.14

DATE: December 15, 1993

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

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

TITLE: None

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

TEXT:

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

ID: nht93-9.15

DATE: December 15, 1993

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

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

TITLE: None

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

TEXT:

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

Thank you and please handle as expeditiously as possible.

ID: nht93-9.16

DATE: December 15, 1993 EST

FROM: Robert Matulich

TO: Office of Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

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

TEXT:

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

The enclosed material explains clearly how my patent works.

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

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

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

ATTACHMENT

(Drawing and text omitted.)

ID: nht93-9.17

DATE: December 15, 1993

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

TO: Chief Council, NHTSA

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

TITLE: None

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

TEXT:

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

Push In Pin Locations On Foam

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

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

(See Attached Drawings)

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

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

(Drawings omitted.)

ID: nht93-9.18

DATE: December 16, 1993

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

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

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

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

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

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

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

2

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

n1/ The statute reads: "Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established under this title is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard."

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

Sincerely,

enclosure

ID: nht93-9.19

DATE: December 17, 1993

FROM: Tim Adamson -- PITT Power Systems

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

TITLE: None

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

TEXT:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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