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.

ID: nht92-8.34

DATE: March 5, 1992

FROM: J. W. Lawrence -- Manager, Compliance and Technical Legislation, Volvo GM Heavy Truck Corporation

TO: Administrator -- NHTSA

TITLE: Petition for Rulemaking - FMVSS-108 Turn Signal Installation Requirements

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/5/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to J. W. Lawrence (A-40; Std. 108)

TEXT:

The Administration established a new requirement for FMVSS-108 turn signals in Federal Register Vol. 56, No. 239, pp 64733 dated December 12, 1991 constituting an act of rulemaking without opportunity for comment and therefore in violation of 49 CFR Part 553. Volvo GM Heavy Truck Corporation respectfully petitions for the revocation of the "Figure 2" requirements published in the December 12, 1991 Register and restore the Standard to its prior status as amended May 15, 1990 in FR 55, No. 94.

This petition is filed in accordance with the requirements of 49 CFR Part 552, by Volvo GM Heavy Truck Corporation of 7900 National Service Rd., Greensboro, N. C. 27409. Volvo GM Heavy Truck Corporation manufacturers heavy duty trucks.

TECHNICAL DISCUSSION SUPPORTING THE PETITION

1. Docket 88-17 Notice 2 (FR 55, No. 94; May 15, 1990) upgraded the safety standard's SAE referenced requirements from "J588e September 1970" to "J1395, April 1985". The substantive portion of this change in FMVSS-108 is an increase in the lens luminous area from 8 sq. inches to 12 sq. inches.

SAE J1395, April 1985 was therefore incorporated as-is into 49 CFR Part 571.108 applicable to both front and rear turn signal lamps for vehicles over 80 inches wide.

2. "SAE J1395, April 1985" Installation Requirements are as follows:

"Signals from lamps on both sides of the vehicle shall be visible through a horizontal angle from 45 deg. to the left for the left lamp to 45 deg. to the right for the right lamp." (emphasis added)

3. Federal Register notice Vol. 56, No. 239, December 12, 1991 contains technically inaccurate information upon which the Administration has presumably based its interpretation and resulting rulemaking. The FR notice states in part as follows:

"Thus, the turn signals on both sides of the vehicle must be simultaneously visible through a horizontal angle from 45 degrees originating at the left lamp, to the left to 45 degrees to the right originating at the right lamp measured at a radius of 3 meters." (emphasis added) The requirement for "simultaneously visible" does not appear in SAE J585e,

SAE J1395 Apr. 85, SAE J1398 May 85 or in the May 1990 amendment to FMVSS-108.

The Administration should also be advised that the 3 meter requirement in SAE J1395 is for photometric measurement and has no connection to the 45 installation visibility which is the ability to observe 13cm2 (2 sq. inches) of outer lens surface at the 450 viewing angle.

4. FMVSS-108 Table I for vehicles over 80 inches wide requires 2 red or amber and 2 amber turn signal lamps. Table II "location of required equipment" for Truck, Bus and MPV over 80 inches wide does not require the turn signals be located on the rear except for trailers.

Turn signals are intended to signal pending maneuvers not mark the end of the vehicles.

In summary we wish to reaffirm that our petition is necessary to correct an unfortunate circumstance created by an inaccurate reference which has now become a requirement.

Encl. FR Vol. 56, No. 239; December 12, 1991; pp 64733-64737

ID: nht92-8.35

DATE: March 2, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Steve Ross -- Future Visions, Ltd.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/16/92 from Steve Ross to NHTSA (OCC 6902)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter that requested information about how the laws and regulations administered by this agency would apply to a product you wish to market. This product is an antitheft device for trucks and passenger automobiles equipped with power-assisted steering. In your letter, you stated that your device is designed to prevent the theft of a vehicle by blocking the flow of hydraulic fluid in hydraulic steering systems, so that the vehicle cannot be steered. In a subsequent telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my office, you explained that your device is to be installed on vehicles in the aftermarket, and will not be installed as original equipment on new vehicles. I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss our laws and their applicability to your device.

By way of background information, NHTSA has no authority to approve, endorse or offer assurances of compliance for any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment. Accordingly, it is misleading and incorrect to state, as does page 2 of the "Summary from Originating Country" enclosed with your letter, that this device has been "approved by the USA." Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 ("Safety Act," 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) makes manufacturers of motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment responsible for certifying that each of their products conforms with all applicable safety standards.

In this instance, there are no specific provisions in the safety standards that set forth requirements for devices that block the flow of hydraulic fluid in hydraulic steering systems. Thus, your company as the manufacturer of such a product would not have to certify that a device that blocks the flow of hydraulic fluid in steering systems complies with any safety standards before offering it for sale to the public.

However, the addition of this device to a vehicle before the vehicle's first sale to the public could affect the vehicle's compliance with the safety standards. NHTSA's certification regulation requires vehicle manufacturers to permanently attach a label to each of their new vehicles stating that the vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards. See 49 CFR S567.4. The certification regulation also sets forth requirements for persons who modify previously certified

vehicles by adding, modifying, or substituting readily attachable components or who modify vehicles so that the stated weight ratings are no longer valid. Such persons are considered "alterers" of the prviously certified vehicles. Alterers are required to leave the original manufacturer's label in place and affix an additional label identifying the alterer and stating that the vehicle, as altered, continues to comply with all applicable safety standards. See 49 CFR S567.7.

While your letter gave no details about how this device would be installed on a vehicle, it seems highly unlikely that a device would be treated as "readily attachable" if it requires the installation of separate lines to carry hydraulic fluid between itself and the power steering unit. Thus, any person that installed this device on a new vehicle before the vehicle's first sale to the public would be required to certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards with this device installed.

After the first sale to the public, persons who modify vehicles are subject to the prohibition in section 108(a)(2) of the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2). That section 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 or item of motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard..."

To avoid a "rendering inoperative" violation for vehicles that comply with any of our safety standards, you should examine the proposed installation instructions for your device and compare those instructions with the requirements of our safety standards, to determine if installing the device in accordance with those instructions would result in the vehicle no longer complying with any of those safety standards. If the installation of your device would not result in a "rendering inoperative" of the vehicle's compliance with the safety standards, the device can be installed by dealers, distributors, and repair shops without violating any Federal requirements.

Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as your device are also subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. The Safety Act specifies that if either your company or this agency determines that a safety-related defect exists in your device, your company as the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the safety-related defect and must either:

(1) repair the product so that the defect is removed; or

(2) replace the product with identical or reasonably

equivalent products which do not have a defect.

Whichever of these options is chosen, the manufacturer must bear the full expense and cannot charge the owner for the remedy if the equipment was purchased less than 8 years before the notification campaign.

For your information, I have enclosed a copy of an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. This sheet gives a brief description of our regulations and explains how to obtain copies of those regulations. You should also be aware that state laws may apply to the use of your device. For further information on state laws, you may wish to contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators at 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22203.

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

ID: nht92-8.36

DATE: March 2, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Paul N. Wagner -- President, Bornemann Products Incorporated

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/22/92 from Paul N. Wagner to NHTSA

TEXT:

This responds to your letter seeking further information about the extension of the dynamic testing requirements in Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection to light trucks and vans. You indicated that you were particularly interested in the application of the dynamic testing requirements to vehicles manufactured in more than one stage.

Your letter stated that throughout 1991 your company was repeatedly led to believe there would be no delay of the September 1, 1991 effective date for the application of the dynamic testing requirements to light trucks and vans. Your letter also indicated that, after proceeding with testing to ensure that your company's van conversions would comply with the dynamic testing requirements, you found additional complications hampering your testing efforts. In response to these complications, your company filed a petition asking that the applicability of the dynamic testing requirements to light trucks and vans manufactured in more than one stage be delayed from the scheduled September 1, 1991 date until April 1, 1992. NHTSA received your petition on August 29, 1991.

This petition was rejected as untimely and you were notified of the rejection in an October 10, 1991 letter from Mr. Barry Felrice, our Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. Your company proceeded with further testing after you learned that NHTSA had not accepted your petition, and have been able to certify that your conversion vans comply with the dynamic testing requirements. Your letter estimated that the total cost of the research and testing performed by your company to certify compliance with the dynamic testing requirements was nearly $200,000.

Then, on January 21, 1992, your company received a memorandum from the trade group Recreational Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA), announcing that representatives of RVIA had met with representatives of this agency on January 14, 1992. You believed that the RVIA memorandum "indicates (a delay of the September 1, 1991 effective date for the dynamic testing requirements) is on the horizon." Your letter suggested that there is now confusion among van converters and other multistage manufacturers about the status of the dynamic testing requirements for vehicles manufactured in more than one stage. You asked us to state whether a delay in the effective date for the dynamic testing requirements as applied to multistage vehicles is now being considered by the agency. The answer is no.

There was a meeting between representatives of this agency and the RVIA on January 14, 1992. From our perspective, the meeting was informative and constructive, and provided us with further insights into the efforts that were needed for van converters to ensure that their vans complied with the new dynamic testing requirements. We hope to maintain such dialogues with RVIA and any other interested multistage manufacturers.

However, our January 14, 1992 meeting did not change some facts. First, the dynamic testing requirements took effect for light trucks and vans on September 1, 1991, including light trucks and vans manufactured in more than one stage. This means that each light truck and van manufactured on or after September 1, 1991 had to be certified by its manufacturer as complying with the dynamic testing requirements. Second, any member of the public can petition the agency to modify any of its standards, including the dynamic testing requirements as they apply generally to light trucks and vans manufactured in more than one stage. If RVIA should submit a petition to modify the dynamic testing requirements, as it suggested it would in the memorandum you received, NHTSA would consider that petition according to the same procedures followed in the case of your company's petition on this subject or any other petition from the public.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further concerns or questions, please let me know.

ID: nht92-8.37

DATE: March 2, 1992

FROM: Nathan W. Randall

TO: Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/21/92 from Paul J. Rice to Nathan W. Randall (A39; Part 571)

TEXT:

I am planning to start a business assembling classic automobile replicas for individual collectors. My intention is to construct approximately four-to-eight vehicles annually. Each vehicle will be constructed around a new, previously unused, NASCAR-style tubular-steel spaceframe chassis. This chassis features a safety engineered cockpit surrounded by designed crush zones to absorb impact energy, heavy steel inner door frames, roll bar, and a safety fuel cell located to minimize the possibility of rupture.

Each vehicle will utilize a new and previously unused body, and new unused components for braking, steering, suspension, cooling, fuel delivery, etc. In compliance with EPA emission requirements for rebuilt vehicles, these vehicles will incorporate previously used engine/transmission/drive axle/gearing combinations from previously certified configurations.

These vehicles will be fully compliant with EPA regulations for rebuilt automobiles and the Colorado State Motor Vehicle code.

My situation appears to be analogous to that of the Porsche replica builder in the "copy" interpretation letter (see attachment) provided by the NHTSA Compliance Office. As I understand the "copy" interpretation letter, your agency would tend to view my automobile as "used", even though its body and chassis are previously unused, because its running gear is not new. Also, due to the safety design incorporated into the vehicle, plus the low level of production, you would not consider my vehicles to contribute to any overall degradation of traffic safety.

I understand that I will be viewed as a "manufacturer" of used motor vehicles and will be responsible for notification and remedy of any safety related defects occurring in my product.

Please review the above facts and tell me if I have correctly applied the "copy" interpretation letter to my situation.

If I can answer any further questions you may have, please call me at (719) 593-5533.

Attachment

This is in reply to your letter of March 30, 1980, asking about the applicability of Federal regulations to the Porsche replica which you plan to build.

You have explained that the vehicle will be constructed from new parts except for the front suspension and axles, engines, and transmissions which will be taken from Volkswagens of the mid-1960's. Your present intention is to construct a total of 200 vehicles on an annual basis of 24 units.

As Mr. Vinson discussed with you on the telephone, you will be a "manufacturer" of motor vehicles because you are the assembler of the machine. The regulation of vehicles assembled from both old and new parts is a complex subject. Because such vehicles appear to comprise an infinitesimal portion of motor vehicle production, we have not developed a comprehensive set of regulations specifically designed for them. Each case is treated individually on the basis of the facts as we understand them. For example, the combination of a new body and the chassis of a vehicle previously in use has been considered a "used" vehicle to which Federal motor vehicle safety standards (which cover only new vehicles and equipment) do not apply. Similarly, the agency has again that even where a new frame is involved, if the vehicle is to be assembled by the ultimate owner who has a choice of new or used components (such as suspension, engine, radiator and tires and wheels) compliance appeared impossible and common sense required that it be treated as "used."

We have taken a more formal position in situations that are somewhat analogous: combining new and used components in refabricating trucks (glider kits) and in trailer manufacturer, fact situations covered by Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations 571.7(c) and 7(f). Where a new cab is installed, the resultant vehicle will be considered "used" if the engine, transmission, and drive axles (as a minimum) are not new and at least two of these components were taken from the same vehicle. Similarly, a reconditioned trailer is "used" if, at a minimum, the running gear assembly (axles, wheels, braking and suspension) is not new, and (1) was taken from an existing trailer whose identity is continued in the reassembled vehicle with respect to its Vehicle Identification Number and (2) that is owned or leased by the user of the reassembled vehicles.

You will see from the above that the agency tends to view as "used" a motor vehicle whose running gear is not new even though its body and chassis may be previously unused. We therefore would consider your vehicle as one that is "used." The list of safety related designs you intend to incorporate in your vehicle, plus the low level of production, indicates that it should not contribute to any overall degradation of traffic safety. As a "manufacturer" of a motor vehicle, however, new or used, you would be responsible for notification and remedy of any safety related defects occurring in your product.

There is one final possibility. If your vehicle is intended primarily for competition purposes with special features such that it cannot be licensed for on-road use, it would no longer be a "motor vehicle subject to our jurisdiction.

If you have any further questions, we shall be happy to answer them.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: nht92-8.38

DATE: March, 1992 EST

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: S. Watanabe -- Manager, Automotive Equipment Legal & Homologation Sect., Stanley Electric Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/6/92 from S. Watanabe to NHTSA Administrator (OCC 7008)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of February 6, 1992, to the Administrator, requesting an interpretation of section S7.2(b) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Section S7.2(b) requires that headlamp lenses be marked "with the name and/or trademark of the manufacturer, which is registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office." Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. of Japan has subsidiaries in Thailand and Taiwan. Each subsidiary uses three manufacturer identification marks, and you have asked whether each subsidiary may use one of the marks as a manufacturer identification under S7.2(b).

You also relate that application has been made to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office with respect to one of those identification marks. Certainly, once registration has been completed, Stanley of Thailand and Stanley of Taiwan may use the registered mark and this will be in compliance with Standard No. 108. Stanley has not registered the other two identification marks (TH STANLEY or TW STANLEY, and STANLEY TH or STANLEY TW) because it has concluded that these are not trademarks but the manufacturer's name.

We agree with your suggestion that the identification marks TH STANLEY, TW STANLEY, STANLEY TH, and STANLEY TW are just the manufacturer's name, not a trademark. Section S7.2(b) of Standard No. 108 does not specify any particular form in which the manufacturer's name must appear on the lens, nor does that section require the manufacturer's name to be registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Therefore, there would be no violation of S7.2(b) if your Thai and Taiwanese subsidiaries mark the lenses of their headlamps with the identification marks identified in your correspondence as manufacturer names.

ID: nht92-8.39

DATE: February 29, 1992

FROM: Allan Schwartz -- President, Tron Industries, Inc.

TO: Taylor Vinson -- Legal Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSS 108

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/21/92 from Paul J. Rice to Allan Schwartz (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

We are the manufacturer of LUMITRON, an electronic neon lighting kit for vehicles which is sold and installed as an automotive aftermarket product. Each LUMITRON neon tube is enclosed and sealed in polycarbonate tubing and is energized by a miniature electronic module which is connected to each tube. Our LUMITRON tubes are not like the neon tubes made by local sign shops and used under vehicles. LUMITRON tubes require NO external high voltage (6,000 to 12,000 volt) transformers and NO interconnections of high voltage GTO wires running under the vehicle between the neon display tubes and into the engine compartment.

The product described above is legal for street use as long as it is installed below bumper level and under the vehicle. We do NOT manufacture this product for street use in RED, BLUE, YELLOW, and WHITE because they are reserved for Police, Fire and Emergency Services. After speaking with both The Florida Highway Patrol and Mr. Kevin Cavey, N.H.T.S.A., Dept. of Transportation they confirmed our findings that our product falls under 49 CFR Ch. V (10-1-90 Edition) Sec. 571.108. A highlighted copy of this section is enclosed for your convenience to reference. As you can imagine we were delighted to learn that our LUMITRON neon lighting kit, when installed and used as per our instructions, places the user's vehicle into further compliance with S2 Purpose as it illuminates the roadway and enhances the conspicuity of the vehicle thus reducing the possibility of traffic accidents, deaths and injuries.

We have been informed by our dealer, Mr. Harry Adcock of All State Audio Services, Inc., 11554 Plank Road, Baton Rouge, LA 70811 that Louisiana and possibly other states have not uniformly adopted or follow the Code of Federal Regulations, 49 CFR Ch. V as it pertains to automotive aftermarket lighting. Authorities in Louisiana believe these products are legal but they have to be approved by the Commissioner. We would be most appreciative if you could write us a letter confirming what we already understand about this regulation that we could submit to the Commissioner. He would then be able to adopt it as Louisiana Law thus making our product legal for use in that State. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

ID: nht92-8.4

DATE: April 3, 1992

FROM: Frank J. Sonzala -- Senior Vice President, International Transquip Industries, Inc.

TO: Phil Gramm -- United States Senate

COPYEE: J.F. Haasbeek -- President; Gerald Flowers -- Past President

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/20/92 from Frederick H. Grubbe to Phil Gramm (A39; Std. 121); Also attached to letter dated 6/1/92 from Paul J. Rice to Frank J. Sonzala (A39; Std. 121); Also attached to letter dated 4/3/92 from Frank J. Sonzala to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7172)

TEXT:

In May of 1990 our company's former President, Gerald Flowers, asked you to intercede with NHTSA's rule-making powers as it related to our product, and our Texas-based company's future existence. Your help in this matter, I am sure, certainly influenced NHTSA to rule favorably concerning our product and its advanced technology for the transportation industry.

Once again we appeal for your assistance with the NHTSA. The attached letter was sent to Paul Jackson Rice requesting an interpretation of a test procedure mandated by FMVSS 121 regulation. Because of the ambiguity of the test procedure parmeters, our company's growth has been stifled. Our request of your office is to call upon the Chief Counsel for NHTSA and express your concern that this matter be tended to promptly and positively.

I have enclosed a copy of our company's video for your review. I realize you are very busy with government affairs, but you may be interested in knowing how a Texas-based company is leading the transportation industry in air brake technology. A positive response from NHTSA will go a long way in aiding our company to grow, add more jobs and ultimately improve the safety of the air brake equipped heavy truck, trailer and bus industry in the United States.

We thank you for your effective pursuit of this matter on our behalf.