ID: nht93-1.10

DATE: January 14, 1993

FROM: Bob Dittert -- Trooper, Texas Department of Public Safety, Safety Education Service

TO: Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

COPYEE: Janet Monteros -- Office of the Attorney General, General Litigation Section

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-5-93 from John Womack to Bob Dittert (A41; Std. 205; VSA 103(d))

TEXT: It would be appreciated if your agency would make clear the authority of the CFR's concerning automotive equipment standards for new vehicles and after- market equipment.

1. Are the CFR's law and enforceable only by federal agents?

2. Are the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards law and only enforceable on new manufactured vehicles?

3. Are states allowed to enact legislation that allows less stringent standards than the CFR's?

4. Concerning the installation of non-complying automotive equipment, i.e., sun screening, taillamp 'black out' lenses, neon license plate lamps, etc., is this allowed by the owner but prohibited installation by a commercial entity?

I am of the understanding that the CFR 48, Part 571.105 requires light transmission of 70% minimum (words illegible) is this correct? If this is correct and Texas law, VCS S701(illegible) Art. XII, Sec. 184(C), allows light transmission of only 35% (words illegible) action of Federal law? (Words illegible) Sec. 108 stated that if a Federal standard for any item of automotive equipment exists that standard will take precedence over any state standard and this section also empowers the Department (Texas Department of Public Safety) to control the sale and use of automotive equipment. If the state statutes are in error can that be remedied by the Federal Government? If so, how?

It doesn't seem realistic that every state could have different standards for automotive equipment, either new manufactured vehicles or after-market!

Your answers to these questions are awaited in ernest.

ID: nht93-1.11

DATE: January 19, 1993

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Michael Dib, Esq. -- Law Offices of Reid, Maguilis and Dib

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/5/93 from Tony Stump to Walter Myers

TEXT:

This responds to the letter on your behalf from Mr. Tony stump of Backtrack Unlimited, and telephone conversations between Mr. Stump and Mr. Walter Myers of this office. Mr. Stump requested information on a tire containing the DOT tire identification number (TIN) CPFMPKD101. Specifically, the letter requested the name and address of the manufacturer, date of manufacture of the tire, and any additional information known to this agency about this tire.

49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 574.5 (copy enclosed) establishes the requirement for TINs and specifies the information to be contained therein as well as the format and sequence of such information. The purpose of the TIN is to facilitate the effective recall of tires from the public if the tires are found not to comply with applicable safety standards or if the tires contain a safety-related defect.

Part 574.5 provides that the TIN will be composed of four groups of symbols, letters and/or numbers. The first grouping, CP, on the TIN for the tire indicates that the manufacturer is the Continental Gummi-Werke, A.G., Continental Street 3 to 5, D-354 Korbach, Germany. NHTSA does not maintain data on the second and third groupings, which identifies tire size and significant characteristics of the tire. The fourth grouping, 101, shows the week and year of manufacture. In this case, 101 would be the tenth full week of a year that ends in a "1," such as 1981 or 1991.

NHTSA has no additional information on this tire.

I hope this answers your questions. Should you have any further questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht93-1.12

DATE: January 19, 1993

FROM: Steven C. Friedman -- Director of New Product Development, Saddleman, Inc.

TO: Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-26-93 from John Womack to Steven C. Friedman (A40; Std. 208; VSA 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT: Our company, Saddleman, Inc., is contemplating the introduction of an aftermarket automotive airbag. The product is manufactured by a Korean company, Line Precision Co., LTD. As you can see in the accompanying brochures, the airbag attaches to the ceiling of the vehicle and discharges downward in between the occupant and the steering wheel or dashboard. The product operates by a mechanical, rather than an electronic, sensor. The response time of the airbag is .05 seconds after sensing frontal impact. This product has been marketed in Korea since early 1992 under the brand name "Challa." Line Precision has applied for T.U.V. approval in Germany, and expects to receive this approval shortly.

Saddleman is based in Logan, Utah, with manufacturing facilities in Utah, Ohio, and S. Carolina. We sell exclusively automotive aftermarket products to such mass merchandisers as Wal-Mart, K-Mart and Sears; and to automotive retailers such as Pep Boys, Trak Auto, and Northern Automotive. We feel that the Challa Airbag, being an attachable, aftermarket product, will fill a market need by providing airbag protection in vehicles where an original equipment airbag is not available.

Saddleman would like to be advised of any federal standards that would apply to this product and of any responsibilities we would have to the NHTSA. We would greatly appreciate a response as soon as possible so that we may address any issues that we have not foreseen.

Attached to brochure (graphics and text omitted)

ID: nht93-1.13

DATE: January 19, 1993

FROM: Olin Wright

TO: Porter Goss -- U.S. House of Representatives

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-17-93 from John Womack to Olin Wright (A41; Std. 208)

TEXT: This is to follow up our telephone conversation this weekend and the call from Sheryl about airbags in automobiles.

I would like to establish a company to install airbags in automobiles not currently equipped with these life saving safety systems. As of this date, I have been unable to find a supplier who will sell me the airbags. I have contacted many companies here and abroad without success.

The bags are made in this country by both Morton International and TRW. I am not interested in anything but the best quality that can be bought. I need complete systems, ready for installation.

I will appreciate any help which you and your staff can give me. I feel that every day there is additional unnecessary loss of life.

January 27, 1993

The Honorable Porter Goss House of Representatives Washington, DC

Dear Rep. Goss:

I hope you received my FAX on January 19, 1993 pertaining to retrofitting airbags in automobiles. Below is a quote from the February 1993 issue of MOTOR TREND magazine which has interesting figures on automobile crash costs:

"While traffic fatality rates continue falling to historic lows, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reports the total dollar cost to the nation from motor vehicle crashes keeps going up. In 1990, we spent $137.5 billion -- roughly 2 percent of the country's gross national product -- for lost market and household productivity ($50.6 billion), property damage ($45.7 billion), medical costs ($13.9 billion), insurance administration ($10 billion), legal and court costs ($9 billion), and other costs ($3 billion)."

Much of the drop in fatality rates can be attributed to the increase use of seatbelts and airbags. There are many lives and much money to be saved by the continued use of airbags in automobiles, particularly the retrofitting of airbags in older automobiles. I hope you and your staff will continue to do whatever you can to see that these important safety systems are made available

to the public. The establishment of a company to install these airbags would provide jobs for hundreds of persons now unemployed.

I hope to hear from you soon.

Sincerely,

Olin Wright

Phone: 313-489-2073

April 7, 1993

Mr. Stanley Feldman Congressional Liaison Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Room 5219 Washington, DC 20590

RE: Name: Mr. Olin Wright Address: 6852 Sandtrap Drive Fort Myers, Fl. 33919 Claim/File #:

Gentlemen:

Enclosed please find correspondence from the referenced constituent.

I would appreciate your immediate review of the concerns addressed in this correspondence and your prompt response as to what action will be taken by your office.

As Mr. Wright is anticipating a prompt response from you, my thanks in advance for your prompt attention to this matter.

PLEASE RESPOND DIRECTLY TO MR. WRIGHT AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS.

Sincerely,

Peter Goss Member of Congress

ID: nht93-1.14

DATE: January 21, 1993

FROM: Michael Love -- Manager, Compliance, Porsche

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Request For Interpretation

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 5/17/94 From John Womack To Michael Love (A42; Std. 102; Std. 101)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Rice:

On June 28, 1988 Porsche submitted a request for interpretation regarding FMVSS 101 and 102 as they applied to a new transmission design. NHTSA responded to that request in a letter dated April 3, 1989. Since that time, Porsche has introduced that transmission as the "Tiptronic (R)" on two models. Porsche is currently considering changes to the method of shifting of this transmission and has several questions regarding the applicability of FMVSS 101 and 102 to those changes.

The current design of the shift lever console and transmission position display in the speedometer is as shown in Figure 1. Porsche is considering three options for changes.

1) As shown in Figure 2, eliminate the 3, 2, and 1 positions on the automatic (left) side of the shift gate.

2a) As shown in Figure 3, eliminate the 3, 2, and 1 positions on the automatic side of the shift gate; the gear shift lever can be moved from D to M to select automatic or manual shifting respectively; in the manual mode, gear selection would be accomplished not by the shift lever but by shift rocker switch(es) on the steering wheel.

2b) As shown in Figure 4, eliminate the 3, 2, and 1 positions on the automatic side of the shift gate and eliminate the separate manual side of the shift gate. Once in the D position, the shift lever can be pulled backward to change from automatic to manual gear selection by means of a switch activated in the same manner as the switches in the manual mode of the current Tiptronic. Pulling the lever backwards a second time would change back from manual to automatic gear selection. Once in the manual mode, gear selection would be accomplished not by the shift lever but by shift rocker switch(es) on the steering wheel.

2

In all three options, the speedometer display of transmission position would remain as shown in Figure 1. This display would be the same for all options. The shift lever position selected would be indicated by lighting an arrow ((or)) next to the appropriate symbol, as is done on the current display.

As shown in Figure 1, Porsche currently has gear selection positions 3, 2 and 1 in line with PRND positions. For options 1, 2a and 2b, Porsche believes that it is not necessary to have the shift lever positions 3, 2 and 1, or to necessarily display these positions if selected automatically in the D position, as long as they are displayed when selected manually by use of the shift lever (in option 1) or shift rocker switch(es) (in options 2a and 2b). Does NHTSA concur?

Porsche believes that under options 2a and 2b, both the shift lever and the shift rocker switch(es) would be considered as "shift levers" during the period when they are capable of changing the transmission position. The "shift lever position" would then be defined as the transmission position, or mode of operation, that was selected by manipulation of any combination of "shift levers". It follows then that identification of "shift lever position" would entail identifying the distinct transmission operating modes, in relation to each other and the specific mode selected.

Based on this understanding, we believe that the display as shown in Figure 1, if lighted during the conditions of 571.102 @ 3.1.4.3(a) and (b), fulfills the requirements of @ 3.1.4.4. Does NHTSA concur with this interpretation?

For options 2a and 2b, Porsche believes it is not necessary to illuminate the shift rocker switches, just as it is not necessary to illuminate the shift lever, under provisions of FMVSS 101, as long as the display in the speedometer showing transmission position is illuminated. Does NHTSA concur?

Sincerely,

ID: nht93-1.15

DATE: January 22, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Terry Wagar -- Technical Services Bureau, State of New York, Department of Motor Vehicles, Division of Vehicle Safety Services

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/16/92 from Terry W. Wagar to Paul J. Rice (OCC 8023)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking about the repair of glazing in in-service motor vehicles that were originally designed to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR S 571.205). You were specifically concerned about the safety of a repair process known as "Ultra B-0-N-D" which you explained involves injecting a liquid through a crack in a windshield. The repaired area is then exposed to a lamp, scraped with a razor blade, and cleaned. You explained that after this process is completed, the crack is "not as visible."

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. Pursuant to this authority, the agency has issued Standard No. 205, which establishes performance requirements for all windows (called "glazing" in the Standard) in new motor vehicles and for all new replacement windows for motor vehicles.

The Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply to vehicles and motor vehicle equipment after their first sale to a consumer. The Safety Act does include a provision that prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers and motor vehicle repair businesses from "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. However, that provision does not require those entities, in repairing a damaged vehicle, to restore it to its original level of performance.

The States do have the authority to regulate motor vehicle repairs and the condition of in-service vehicles, and this agency encourages them to take steps to ensure the safe operating condition of vehicles-in-use. (The Federal Highway Administration has in-service requirements for commercial motor vehicles used in interstate commerce.) I regret that we are unable to provide any information concerning the safety of the "Ultra B-0-N-D" process. We suggest that, in developing criteria for the condition of in-use glazing, including the permissibility of certain types of repairs, that you consider such factors as whether particular damage, even after repair, would adversely affect driver visibility, would likely become more serious during normal use (e.g., a small crack becoming a large crack), would reduce the ability of the windshield to retain unrestrained occupants in the vehicle, or would otherwise adversely affect vehicle safety. In addition, if the windshield is so extensively damaged that it cannot be repaired using the "Ultra B-0-N-D"

process, and must be replaced, the new windshield should be installed in accordance with the vehicle manufacturer's instructions. In the event of an accident, an improperly installed windshield may allow unrestrained occupants to be ejected from the vehicle with resulting personal injury.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information.

ID: nht93-1.16

DATE: January 22, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Vasant Jinwala -- Consumer Testing Laboratories

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/8/92 from Vasant Jinwala to Marvin Shaw (OCC 8099)

TEXT:

This responds to your inquiry about a product known as the "Comfort Cushion" that your organization is testing for compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, (49 CFR S571.302). According to the product's packaging that accompanied your letter, the Comfort cushion is intended to be placed over seats in motor vehicles as well as in homes and offices. You stated that a Comfort Cushion you tested did not conform to Standard No. 302. You further stated that the product's manufacturer believes that Standard No. 302 only applies to a car's original equipment and does not apply to an aftermarket auto accessory. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 102(4) of the Safety Act defines, in relevant part, the term "motor vehicle equipment" as:

any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component or as any accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle...

In determining whether an item of equipment is considered an accessory, NHTSA applies two criteria. The first criterion is whether a substantial portion of the expected use of the item is related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. We determine a product's expected use by considering product advertising, product labeling, and the type of store that retails the product, as well as available information about the actual use of the product. The second criterion is whether the product is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles. If the product satisfies both criteria, then the product is considered to be an "accessory" and thus is subject to the provisions of the Safety Act.

Applying these criteria to the Comfort Cushion, it appears that this product would be an accessory and thus an item of motor vehicle equipment under the Safety Act. Based on our understanding of the product, it appears that a substantial portion of the expected use of the Comfort Cushion will be during motor vehicle operations. In addition, it appears that the product would typically be used by ordinary users of motor vehicles since it is intended to be placed over the vehicle's seats.

While it appears that the Comfort Cushion is an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA has not issued any standards setting forth performance

requirements for such a device. Standard No. 302 would not apply to the device because that standard applies to new motor vehicles and not to aftermarket items of motor vehicle equipment.

However, there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect the manufacture and sale of the Comfort Cushion. The manufacturer of the product is subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and for remedying the problem free of charge.

A commercial business that installs the Comfort Cushion would be subject to provisions of the Safety Act that affect whether the business may install the product on a vehicle. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397 (a)(2)(A)) provides that:

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

Any violation of this "render inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business that installs an aftermarket item of rapidly burning material could vitiate the compliance of the materials that were present in the vehicle at the time of the vehicle's sale to the first consumer. Such an installation could constitute a possible violation of the render inoperative prohibition.

Please note also that the render inoperative prohibition does not apply to modifications vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners install the Comfort Cushion in their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their own vehicles.

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

ID: nht93-1.17

DATE: 01/22/93

FROM: GUY DORLEANS -- INTERNATIONAL AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MANAGER, VALEO LIGHTING

TO: CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: AIMABILITY OF HEADLAMPS

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 3-4-93 FROM JOHN WOMACK TO GUY DORLEANS (A40; STD. 108)

TEXT: Valeo Lighting is currently studying new principles for aiming small circular headlamps. Two versions are considered:

Version A:

A pair of headlamp spacer rims, hereunder designated by the acronym "HSR", are permanently attached to the car. The lens of each headlamp has 3 bosses, so that the HSR shown on sheet A1 easily finds its place between the lens and a standard circular adpater for 5" 3/4 sealed-beam units. Sheet B2 shows the assembly, before adjunction of readily available aimers for 5" 3/4 sealed beams units.

The pair of "HSR" is placed in an accessory kit, in the trunck. Relevant instructions for use are included in the owner's manual.

Version B:

The part shown on sheet B1 replaces the functions of the HSR and the function of the standard circular adapter.

The B1 specific adapter (see sheet B2) is the link between the lens of the headlamp and the external 5" 3/4 aimers, these latter devices being available in the United States for more than 30 years.

In this case also, a pair of specific adapters are sold with the car, and permanently placed in the trunck of each car. Relevant informations are provided by the owner's manual.

-------

Valeo respectfully asks NHTSA to confirm that both versions are in compliance with Standard 108.

Do not hesitate to contact me if further clarifications are needed.

ATTACHMENTS

(GRAPHICS OMITTED.)

ID: nht93-1.18

DATE: January 25, 1993

FROM: Jeff Gerner -- Product Engineering Manager, Banner Welder, Inc., Environmental Recycling Equipment Division

TO: NHTSA, Office of Chief Counsel

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-26-93 from John Womack to Jeff Gerner (A41; VSA 102(3))

TEXT: After speaking to George Entwistle from OVSC of NHTSA, George recommended that I write your office to request a legal interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Standard 571.121 for BANNER's line of Mobile Machinery.

BANNER manufactures two (2) lines of mobile machinery, the Farwick American Mobile Trommel Screener and the Jenz American Mobile Shredder. The machines are designed to be used at compost sites (similar to a landfill environment) for processing yard waste. Some of these machines may be towed to the site and never moved from the site again. Others may be used to operate multiple sites, and will require daily or weekly transportation on Federal, State and local highways. In general, however, the machines are primarily off-road vehicles.

Upon reviewing 121, I have learned that mechanical emergency braking is a requirement of this standard. Utilizing a braking system of this type will prove to be extremely inconvenient for normal daily operation, which will require frequent moving of the machine. Typically these machines are moved at the compost site with front-end loaders. With a brake system of this type, this will not be possible. Instead a truck with an air brake system will be required at all times in order to move the machine.

Please review the enclosed literature and technical specifications and provide a response that states whether this machinery may be exempt from this standard.

In addition, please provide any references to standards that are applicable.

Please do not hesitate to call me if you have any questions.

Attached to brochures (Farwick Mobile Trommel Screens and Jenz American Mobile Shredder).

(Text and graphics omitted.)

ID: nht93-1.19

DATE: January 26, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Paul David Wellstone -- United States Senate

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/22/92 from Paul David Wellstone to Paul J. Rice (OCC 8181)

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituents, Ms. Tutti Sherlock and Ms. Mary Bock, regarding the application of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) school bus standards to Head Start facilities.

Your constituents ask that NHTSA inform the Minnesota Department of Transportation that we do not require school bus manufacturers to provide school bus equipment, such as stop arms and special stop lights, on Head Start buses. They base this request on their belief that in 1985, NHTSA said that states may decide which regulations should apply to Head Start buses. They also believe that stop arms and lights for Head Start buses are unnecessary, and that painting Head Start buses yellow could be confusing.

We cannot provide the requested interpretation, because the understanding of your constituents is incorrect. By way of background, your constituents' concerns relate to two sets of regulations, issued under different Acts of Congress. The first of these, the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) issued under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act"), apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. NHTSA has issued a number of FMVSS's for school buses, including FMVSS's requiring these buses to have a stop arm and warning lights. The Safety Act requires that each person selling a new bus (defined in our regulations as a vehicle designed for 11 or more persons) to a primary, preprimary or secondary school must sell a bus that is certified to the FMVSS's for school buses. State law cannot change this requirement.

The question of whether Head Start facilities are "schools" under the Safety Act has been addressed by NHTSA since the beginning of the school bus FMVSS's. The agency's longstanding position is that Head Start programs are primarily educational in focus rather than custodial, and are therefore "schools" under the Safety Act. We base this conclusion on a review of the goals and functions of the Head Start program (see, e.g., 45 CFR 1304.1-3), and on past NHTSA interpretations of "school." NHTSA has stated its position that Head Start facilities are schools most recently in an August 21, 1992 letter to Mr. Chuck Anderson of the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Any new bus that is sold to a Head Start facility must have the safety features of a school bus at the time of the vehicle's sale, including the stop arm and signal lights.

However, the Safety Act does not require Head Start facilities to USE school buses or any other particular vehicle, nor does it require school buses to be painted yellow. The maintenance and operational characteristics of school buses are matters left to the individual states. (1) NHTSA's second set of school bus regulations, issued under the Highway Safety Act, is a set of recommendations to the states for developing effective pupil transportation

programs. Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, "Pupil Transportation Safety" (copy enclosed), recommends that any vehicle designed for 11 or more persons that is used as a school bus should comply with the FMVSS's for school buses and should be painted yellow. However, Guideline 17 would affect the operation of your constituents' school buses only to the extent that Minnesota has incorporated it into state law.

I hope this information will be helpful in responding to your constituents.

(1) We stated this in NHTSA's September 27, 1985 letter to Mr. Charles Pekow, to which you refer in your letter. To clarify your understanding of the letter, NHTSA stated that "The requirements for school bus OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ... are matters left to the individual states to determine. (Emphasis added.)

Attachment

Copy of Federal Register, Vol. 56, No. 81, Rules and Regulations pertaining to Part 1204.4, Pupil Transportation Safety. (Text omitted.)