ID: nht93-4.11

DATE: May 28, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Thomas Luckemeyer -- SWF Auto-Electric Guild GmbH

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-28-93 from Thomas Luckemeyer to Taylor Vinson (OCC 8589)

TEXT: As you have requested, we are responding by FAX to your letter of April 28, 1993, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. You have asked two questions with respect to the acceptability of a multiple rear turn signal lamp under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, and have enclosed a sketch of the lamp.

Your first question is:

"Is it allowed to split the turn signal lamp in two parts with the dimensions given in the sketch . . . where the bigger part (4.5 sq. in.) is on the body of the car. The distance does not exceed 22 in."

Your question indicates that the turn signal lamp array of two lamps that is illustrated in the sketch is intended for installation on passenger cars or other vehicles whose overall width is less than 80 inches. Standard No. 108 incorporates by reference the SAE standard applicable to such vehicles, J588 NOV84. Paragraph 5.1.5.2 of SAE J588 NOV84 permits the use of multiple rear turn signal lamps to meet the photometric requirements of Standard No. 108.

When multiple lamps are used to meet the photometric requirements of a rear turn signal lamp, paragraph 5.3.3 of SAE J588 NOV84 requires that the functional lighted lens area of each lamp shall be at least 22 sq. cm, provided the combined area is at least 37.5 sq. cm. Your sketch shows that the functional lighted lens area of one lamp is 23 sq. cm, and of the other, 30 sq. cm, with a combined area of 53 sq. cm. Therefore, Standard No. 108 permits you to use the turn signal lamp array shown in your sketch.

Your second question is:

"Is it allowed to use the combination of the two lamps to meet the photometric requirements."

Because the distance between the two adjacent light sources in the array does not exceed 560 mm (the sketch indicates that it is less than 550 mm), paragraph 5.1.5.2 of SAE J588 NOV84 requires that the combination of the lamps be used to meet the photometric requirements for the corresponding number of lighted sections, two in this case.

ID: nht93-4.12

DATE: May 28, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Steve Reeder -- President & General Manager, Trails West Manufacturing

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-21-93 from Steve Reeder to Taylor Vinson (OCC 8601)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of April 21, 1993, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, in which you ask questions about the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to the livestock trailers that you manufacture.

The trailer box is 78 inches wide, but the overall vehicle width exceeds 80 inches when the fenders are added. You have asked whether such trailers must be equipped with lamps required of vehicles whose overall width is 80 inches or more (clearance and identification lamps) as they will be installed on the trailer box. In an interpretation published in 1976 which remains valid today, the agency stated that "overall width" refers to "the nominal design dimension of the widest part of the vehicle . . . exclusive of flexible fender extensions, and mud flaps . . . ." The trailers you manufacture do not appear to be equipped with "flexible fender extensions", according to the literature that you supplied, and therefore the fenders would be included in determining the overall width. Accordingly, they would be required to be equipped with clearance and identification lamps. Although the clearance lamps will be located on the box, they should be placed, as nearly as possible, to indicate the overall width of the vehicle and as near the top as practicable, as Table II of Standard No. 108 requires. Thus, to answer your second question, side marker lamps would be located as required by Table II rather than Table IV.

In determining whether the overall length of the trailer is 30 feet or more for purposes of installation of intermediate side marker lamps and reflectors, you ask whether "the gooseneck or 5th wheel portion of the trailer which extends over the tow vehicle" should be included. The agency has not adopted a definition of "overall length." However, with respect to a trailer that is less than 6 feet in overall length, paragraph S5.1.1.15 requires that "the trailer tongue" be included in the measurement. Therefore we believe that the calculation of overall length for longer trailers should also include the trailer tongue or equivalent connector to the towing vehicle.

You have also asked if "front clearance lights (would) be required where the gooseneck or 5th wheel portion of the trailer extends over the tow vehicle." The answer is yes. Table II of Standard No. 108 requires that amber clearance lamps be located "on the front" and as near the top as practicable, which we interpret to be the foremost, highest part of the trailer.

Your final question relates to regulations for "safety chains" for your products. We are unaware of any Federal requirements that apply to this item of equipment. States may have adopted specifications such as VESC Regulation V5, or SAE Recommended Practice J697 MAY88, which would apply to vehicles operated within their borders. However, we are unable to advise you on State laws, and suggest that you contact, for an opinion, the American Association of

Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

ID: nht93-4.13

DATE: May 28, 1993

FROM: Richard J. Dessert -- Proprietor, Sun Cycle Company

TO: Administrator -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/11/94 from John Womack to Richard J. Dessert (A42; Part 555) and letter dated 5/7/93 from John W. Schumann

TEXT:

I, Richard Dessert, as owner of Sun Cycle Company, a sole proprietorship organized within the State of California, hereby petition the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for a temporary exemption from the safety standards of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 for a period of two years to facilitate the development of new motor vehicle low emission engine features. It is the intent of Sun Cycle Company to produce electric vehicles (EVs) that will comply with all NHTSA safety standards including those which are scheduled to take effect in 1995. Further, it is the belief of Sun Cycle Company that the first prototype production vehicles to be produced by Sun Cycle Company would substantially comply with all the safety standards for motor vehicles as required by NHTSA.

The basis for this petition for temporary exemption is the development and field evaluation of a low-emission motor vehicle. Sun Cycle Company will manufacture electric vehicles which it believes will comply with all emission standards of the Clean Air Act and thus would be considered a low-emission vehicle. (The Sun Cycle electric vehicles would be classified as zero-emission vehicles as defined by the California Air Resources Board.)

It is the intent of Sun Cycle Company to subject the electric vehicles to testing that would lead to substantiation for certification to the safety standards of NHTSA.

It is the intent of Sun Cycle Company to produce a limited number of electric vehicles for purchase by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) if a mutually agreed upon purchase contract is signed between Sun Cycle Company and LADWP. Documentation of a Request for Proposals for Acquisition of Electric Vehicles (RFP) from qualified and successful bidders (dated May 5, 1993) is attached to this letter as Attachment A. As part of LADWP requirements for successful bidders, evidence of progress towards obtaining Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards certification may be provided through demonstration that an application was made with NHTSA for a temporary exemption from Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. LADWP states on page 4 of their RFP that it intends among other uses to use the purchased electric vehicles (Evs) to assess and promote ongoing advancements in EV technology.

At the end of the exemption period it is the intent of Sun Cycle to produce electric vehicles which conform to all safety standards of the NHTSA. Sun Cycle Company will not sell more than 2,500 exempted vehicles in the United States in any 12 month period if granted a temporary exemption by NHTSA.

If you should have further questions regarding this petition for temporary

exemption, please direct them to me at the address and telephone indicated on this letter.

ID: nht93-4.14

DATE: June 2, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Vincent Schulze -- Chief, Motor Carrier Inspection and Investigation, State of New Jersey, Department of Transportation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2-26-93 from Vincent Schulze to Ron Havelar.

TEXT: This responds to your February 26, 1993 letter to Mr. Ron Havelar of the Federal Highway Administration. Because your question concerns a safety standard issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), it has been referred to my office for reply. You ask whether a bus can comply with the requirements of Standard No. 217, BUS WINDOW RETENTION AND RELEASE, particularly S5.4, if it is equipped with side exit windows which slide open.

NHTSA's longstanding position is that sliding windows are not prohibited by Standard No. 217, as long as they comply with all of the standard's requirements. The requirement in S5.4 that the emergency exit must be "manually extendable" refers to the ability to open the exit manually, i.e., even when the bus's power is off. Sliding windows must also be capable of complying when the window is in either the opened or the closed position.

While sliding windows are not prohibited, NHTSA believes it is difficult for sliding windows to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 217. For example, S5.3 of Standard No. 217 specifies release requirements for emergency exits. Section S5.3.2 states, in part,

The release mechanism or mechanisms shall require for release one or two force applications, at least one of which differs by a 90 degrees to 180 degrees from the direction of the initial push-out motion of the emergency exit (outward and perpendicular to the exit surface).

Thus it appears that the initial motion to open an exit window must be outward and perpendicular to the exit surface, even if it is a sliding window.

You should be aware that on February 25, 1992, the Blue Bird Body Company petitioned the agency to amend Standard No. 217. One issue raised by this petition is the installation of sliding exit windows. This petition has been granted and the agency is proceeding with rulemaking on this issue.

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.

ID: nht93-4.15

DATE: June 2, 1993

FROM: Eddie Bernice Johnson -- Member of Congress, 30th District Texas, U.S. House of Representatives

TO: Art Neill -- Division Chief, Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-28-93 from John Womack to Eddie Bernice Johnson (A41; Part 571).

TEXT: Dr. Way recently contacted my office concerning the resale of military vehicles for civilian use. The enclosed letter from Dr. Way should more clearly state issue.

I would appreciate having the benefit of your review and consideration of Dr. Way's request so that I might better prepare a response. Please respond to my Dallas office at the District address above, where this case has been assigned to my staff assistant, Scott Rule.

Thank you for your attention in this matter.

April 29, 1993

Congressman Martin Frost 400 S. Zang Dallas, TX 75208

Dear Congressman:

As a concerned citizen of Dallas, Texas, I want to inform you of something I have been alerted to. I called to find out about the purchase of used military jeeps for possible use as a vehicle on my ranch. We would use this vehicle as an off-the-road vehicle and occasionally as a vehicle to travel back and forth to town. Upon contacting the Department of Defense at 800-222-3767, which is a recorded message describing the Department of Defense surplus sales, it states that the military jeep M-151 is a type of vehicle that for some reason the Department o+ Transportation has deemed unsafe to be used on public roads. Therefore, the military vehicles are not sold, but are destroyed by crushing. I called Carswell AFB and asked the surplus sales department there about sale of the jeeps. They gave me the same information, that they do not sell military Jeeps, and they are destroyed for safety reasons.

I find this very unusual, because if they are found to be unsafe on our roads, how can we consider these vehicles safe for use by military personnel? I was in the military and rode in these vehicles on and off the road, and they were very safe depending on who was driving.

I would like you to investigate this situation, because I feel this is another waste of materials by the government. These vehicles could be sold and used by civilians after they have completed their military use. I think this is a situation that needs to be rectified.

Sincerely yours,

Bill V. Way, D.O. Concerned Citizen

ID: nht93-4.16

DATE: June 3, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Berkley C. Sweet -- Executive Vice President, School Bus Manufacturers Institute

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-2-93 from Berkley C. Sweet to Mary Versailles (OCC 8393); Also attached to letter dated 3-20-90 from Stephen P. Wood to Cadwallader Jones (A35; VSA 102(14); Part 571.3)

TEXT: This responds to your letter requesting definitions of primary, preprimary, and secondary school students. You write in response to our July 28, 1992 letter to you in which we state that the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. S1581, et seq. (Safety Act), defines a school bus as a vehicle that is "likely to be significantly used for the purposes of transporting PRIMARY, PREPRIMARY, or SECONDARY school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools" (emphasis added).

The terms primary, preprimary, and secondary school are not defined in the Safety Act or in the legislative history of the Act. However, NHTSA has historically interpreted "preprimary school" to refer to kindergarten, nursery schools and Head Start facilities. "Primary school" refers to elementary school, and "secondary school" refers to high school.

I have enclosed a copy of our March 20, 1990 letter to Mr. Cadwallader Jones that discusses whether various institutions (e.g., church schools and colleges) are considered "schools" under the Safety Act.

The various states may have their own definitions of a "school" for determining the use requirements for school vehicles. Therefore, you should check with the state where questions of school vehicle use are at issue.

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

ID: nht93-4.17

DATE: June 3, 1993

FROM: Michael H. Dunn -- Vice President, Marketing, Micho Industries

TO: Greg Fera -- Pupil Transportation Specialist, Department of Education, Bureau of Pupil Transportation

COPYEE: M. Hecker; J. Heritscko; G. Gruber

TITLE: Re: R-Bar Passenger Restraint System

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-29-93 from John Womack to Michael H. Dunn (A41; Std. 222); Also attached to letter dated 11-29-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Michael H. Dunn; Also attached to letter dated 12-3-91 from Michael H. Dunn to Paul Jackson Rice.

TEXT: To confirm our recent telephone conversation, Micho Industries is now making the arrangements to complete the testing of the R-Bar, with the latest modifications, for compliance with FMVSS 222, specifically for rear impact (4" clearance) requirements.

This testing should put to rest the only remaining concern about the safety of the R-Bar and its compliance with all applicable Federal standards, since all other aspects of those regulations have previously been tested and "certified" to meet those requirements.

We hope to have the complete test data package very soon and I will forward a copy to you immediately for evaluation. In the meantime, please don't hesitate to call me if you have any questions.

May 17, l993

Mr. Greg Fera, Pupil Transportation Specialist Department of Education Bureau of Pupil Transportation, CN-500 225 W. State Street Trenton, NJ 08625-0500

Re: R-Bar Passenger Restraint System

Dear Greg:

To confirm our telephone conversation, I wish to advise you that, due to several improvements made in the R-Bar design, we can not "CERTIFY" that it is in full compliance with all requirements of FMVSS No. 222, including the rear impact tests described in S5.1.4(c) of that regulation. Please advise Linda Wells for me and, if either of you have any questions, please let me know.

As you know, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer of a product to provide that certification and Micho Industries can now offer you that assurance.

While details of specific changes will not be made public for awhile, I wanted you to be one of the first to be aware of the fact that we can now offer the R-Bar for sale in New Jersey and other states that are looking for a practical and safe alternative to seat belts for school buses.

Thanks for your patience with us. I am sorry it took to so long to get here.

Regards,

Michael H. Dunn V.P. Marketing

MHD/md CC: M. Hecker, J. Heritscko, G. Gruber

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: nht93-4.19

DATE: June 3, 1993

FROM: Kenneth G. Koop -- Risk Control Representative, Intergovernmental Risk Management Agency

TO: John Wolmack (Womack) -- Acting Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Commission

TITLE: Passenger Seat and Airbag Removal

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/26/93 from John Womack (signature by Kenneth N. Weinstein to Kenneth G. Koop (A41; Std. 207; Std. 208; VSA 108 (a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

The Intergovernmental Risk Management Agency is a municipal risk pool serving 60 municipalities in Northeastern Illinois.

Several of our member Police Chiefs have inquired as to whether there is a variance procedure that would permit their departments to legally remove the passenger seat and passenger airbag from their police vehicles, and place permanently mounted policing equipment in the seat's place.

It is our position that since the passenger seat will be removed, therefore allowing no passenger in that area, the removal of the passenger side airbag should be permitted.

We would greatly appreciate specific direction regarding these proposed modifications.

ID: nht93-4.2

DATE: May 18, 1993

FROM: Richard Muraski -- President/CEO, Equa-Brake

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief General Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Armando Mena

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/5/93 from John Womack (signature by Kenneth N. Weinstein) to Richard Muraski (A41; Std. 121)

TEXT:

On July 2, 1992, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) denied a Petition of Rulemaking on an Air Brake System product presented by the Washington Corporation. The petition would have amended FMVSS Standard No. 121 to require a device that regulates air pressure differential between the two wheels on each axle. This ruling could impact our product, the Equa-Brake System which operates on a similar principal yet different design.

Equa-Brake is enclosing a packet on our product and would like an interpretation of this NHTSA action on it.

This interpretation is vital to our efforts. Equa-Brake understands that this denial of rulemaking does not prohibit Equa-Brake from installing its product on vehicles through manufacturers dealer or repair businesses provided it does not render the brake system to fall out of compliance with Standard 121. If you have any questions, please contact me at 702-329-7072 or Armando Mena at 703-938-5117. Thank you.

Attachment

EQUA-BRAKE is a MECHANICAL "auxiliary brake system" that increases brake force and improves brake performance on all vehicles that are equipped with air brakes.

Direct benefits of the Equa-Brake "auxiliary brake system" include safer, straighter, shorter (up to 30% shorter) stopping under panic braking situations.

Reduced one wheel lock-up coupled with significantly reduced brake drum temperatures (reduced brake fade) allows drivers to maintain control under emergency stopping conditions, virtually eliminating potential jack-knife problems.

Under normal braking - the increased brake force permits drivers to maintain their habitual braking patterns with substantially less application pressure. This reduces brake wear and also reduces the tendency for trailer wheels to lock-up - loaded or unloaded.

Tire life is extended from 10% to 20% or more by reducing flat spots caused by one wheel lock-up.

Additional direct benefits result in lower operating costs by extending brake component life up to 40% or more (some users claim extended brake life significantly exceeding 40%).

Indirect benefits derive from increased driver confidence in the vehicle being driven, along with potential insurance savings that result from a safer vehicle that could avoid costly accidents.

Unlike drive line retarders that have proven to be dangerous when activated on wet road surfaces - especially in turns or cornering the driver is always in control of any vehicle equipped with the Equa-Brake "auxiliary brake system".

The Equa-Brake "auxiliary brake system" is totally mechanical, does not use any type of electronics, does not require maintenance and is warranteed for five (5) years.

It is absolutely fail safe. In the unlikely event any component of the Equa-Brake "auxiliary brake system" should fail, the vehicle brake system will return to factory specifications.

Current users include fleets, concrete mixer trucks, fleets of trailers only and fire departments.

Users report improved brake performance, extended brake component life and increased driver confidence in the ability to control their vehicle during the braking sequence.