ID: nht89-2.29

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 6, 1989

FROM: Bob Jones -- Triple J Motors Saipan, Inc.

TO: Ben Blas -- Congressman

TITLE: Re Ref: 704-11

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-5-90 from Robert H. Jones to Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance Enforcement, NHTSA; Also attached to letter dated 3-11-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Robert H. Jones (A37; VSA Sec. 103(8)); Also attached to l etter dated 1-22-91 from Robert H. Jones to Clive Van Orden (OCC 5733); Also attached to letter dated 12-11-90 from Robert H. Jones to Clive Van Orden; Also attached to letter dated 10-11-90 from Robert H. Jones to Congressman Ben Blaz

TEXT:

I am enclosing copies of a number of letters which create more confussion than they eliminate.

The problem is quite simple. Triple J Motors on Saipan is in compliance with FMVSS and FMCSR Safety and EPA Regulations with all vehicles which we sell. No other dealer is 100% in compliance. All have sold or are selling vehicles which do not meet the Department of Transportation Safety Requirements and/or EPA Regulations.

I want one of two things; either the Federal Government, through its U.S. Attorneys Office, should enforce the laws or set them aside so we all can play on a level ground. I am afraid to violate the regulations and wind up in a law suit as a result of a n accident or some late late action from the Federal Government.

Any assitance you can give would be greatly appreciated. We don't care which way it goes; just a clarification that the CNMI must comply and enforce the regulations or that the regulations don't apply, so that we can import the same non compliance type of vehicles as the competition.

ID: nht89-2.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/15/89

FROM: JOHN E. HAMMER -- JOHN E. HAMMER AND ASSOCIATES

TO: KATHLEEN C. DEMETER -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10/6/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO JOHN E. HAMMER -- JOHN E. HAMMER AND ASSOCIATES; REDBOOK A34, VSA 102, 108

TEXT: Dear Madam:

This is an inquiry regarding the legality of an owner rigidly attaching a hood ornament onto a motor vehicle to prevent theft of the ornament by vandals.

Mr. Zachary Fraser, Motor Vehicle Safety Administration, suggested an opinion from your office might be helpful.

This is a never-ending problem with the Dodge truck Ramhead ornament and we would like to provide an "after market" kit to solve the problem.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-2.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/10/89

FROM: FREDERICK H. DAMBACH -- EXECULINE

TO: NHTSA OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 07/26/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO FREDERICK H. DAMBACH; REDBOOK A33; STANDARD 217

TEXT: Dear Sirs:

Over a month ago, we purchased two 1985 Van Hool buses from an operating bus company in Florida. These vehicles have been operating for hire for the past three years.

When we brought the vehicles back to New Jersey, we were given a very difficult time by the N.J. Department of Transportation about the emergency exits on the bus.

N.J. DOT was incorrectly reading specification #571.217 and insisting that we needed push out windows to meet the emergency exit requirements. After speaking with Jeff Jiuseppe from the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, N.J. DOT finally agreed that w e did not need push out windows, and the existing emergency doors would meet the spec.

Now N.J. DOT is saying that although they will accept the doors to meet the requirements, they do not meet the total square inch requirement as outlined in 217.

It is my interpretation of 217 that we do meet the square inch requirements for emergency exits.

Paragraph S5.2, "Provision of emergency exits" (copy attached), explains the square inch requirements.

Our problem is when the spec. limits an opening to 536 sq. inches.

Our buses are 51 passenger capacity. We have over 9000 sq. inches between four exit doors. We have four roof hatches with over 960 sq. inches each. We have over 12,800 sq. inches of total exit space, only 3417 sq. inches are required by 217.

N.J. DOT will only credit us with 1064 sq. inches per side, saying we need a total of 1366.8 per side. They will only count the exit doors, giving no credit for the roof hatches, saying that they are not on the side. We need an interpretation of the de finition of "SIDE" as used in 217.

According to Websters New World Dictionary (page attached), side means "the right or left half, as of the body".

It is my contention, when 217 says 40% of the total required area of unobstructed openings shall be provided on each side of a bus, they are saying each half of a bus. In other words, if you split the bus body down the middle, 40% would have to be on ea ch side. You would then have to split the area for the roof hatches and credit half to each side.

Under this interpretation, we easily exceed the number of sq. inches required by 217.

We need a ruling on this interpretation immediately, in writing, and sent to Vincent Shultz, Supervisor, N.J. DOT, FAX #201-648-6912.

Please do not delay this request.

These two buses are half of my fleet. We have already been going around with N.J. DOT on this for over a month. As a result, we cannot operate the buses and it is costing me a fortune. I can not survive much longer without getting these buses on the r oad.

If you have any questions, please call me at the above number.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,

S5.2 Provision of emergency exits. Buses other than schoolbuses shall provide unobstructed openings for emergency exit which collectively amount, in total square inches, to at least 67 times the number of designated seating positions on the bus. At least 40 percent of the total required area of unobstructed openings, computed in the above manner, shall be provided on each side of a bus. However, in determining the total unobstructed openings provided by a bus, no emergency exit, regardless of its area, shall be credited with more than 536 square inches of the total area requirement. School buses shall provide openings for emergency exits that conform to S5.2.3.

ID: nht89-2.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/10/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: SADATO KADOYA -- MANAGER, SAFETY ENGINEERING MAZDA (NORTH AMERICA), INC. RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT CENTER

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Kadoya:

This is to provide you with a clarification of our letter to you dated November 3, 1988, based upon your telephone conversation with Taylor Vinson of this Office.

Our letter advised you that Standard No. 108 did not preclude the use of replaceable bulb headlamps with adjustable reflectors. In reply, you have cited two provisions of the standard which appear in conflict with this interpretation. With respect to a headlamp equipped with one or two HB1 light sources, S4.1.1.36(e)(1) states that "There shall be no mechanism that allows adjustment of an individual [HB1] or adjustment of reflector aim with two [HB1s]." To similar effect with respect to HB3 and HB4 li ght sources is S4.1.1.36(f)(1). Standard No. 108 has been amended effective June 8, 1989, and the corresponding requirements are now S7.5(d)(1) and (e)(1). Each has been revised to state "There shall be no mechanism that allows adjustment of an individ ual light source, or, if there are two light sources, independent adjustment of each reflector."

We believe that the revised wording of the new sections clearly allow the adjustment of single reflectors in single light source replaceable bulb headlamps, and dual reflectors in dual-light source replaceable bulb headlamps, provided that the reflectors are not capable of independent adjustment. Further, new S7.7.2.2 specifically addresses how moveable reflectors must operate.

The intent of these sections is to prohibit headlamp designs in which the bulb alone is adjusted to aim the headlamp since this is contrary to

mechanical aim requirements, or, where there is more than one reflector in a headlamp, designs in which each reflector may be adjusted independently, since this is also contrary to achieving precise mechanical aim.

Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-2.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/11/89

FROM: BUTLER DERRICK -- CONGRESS

TO: STEVE WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 07/31/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO BUTLER DERRICK -- CONGRESS; REDBOOK A31; STANDARD 208 TEXT OF THE RULING BY THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT UPHOLDING THE STATE'S LAW REQUIRING SEAT BELT USE BY DRIVERS AND FRONT SEA T PASSENGERS IN AUTOMOBILES; DATE 10/01/86

TEXT: I am writing to inquire about a matter which was brought to my attention by a constituent from South Carolina.

The constituent states that the Supreme Court has found laws requiring the wearing of helmets by motorcyclists to be unconstitutional. He does not understand why laws requiring people to wear seat belts in cars would not also be unconstitutional.

The constituent poses an interesting question, and I respectfully request that you look into this matter, particularly as it relates to existing federal and state precendents, and furnish me with a reply that I might share with him.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. I look forward to hearing from you.

With kind regards, I am

Respectfully

ID: nht89-2.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/12/89

FROM: GEORGE A. VAN STRATEN -- VAN STRATEN HEATED TAIL LIGHT CO

TO: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTIVE CHIEF COUNSEL U.S. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/11/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO GEORGE A. VANSTRATEN; REDBOOK A34; STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 05/16/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO THOMAS C. GRAVENGOOD -- AGAPE PLASTICS

TEXT: Dear Mr. Wood:

I am writing to you in regard to the product which I have invented and received patents on, called the "Heated Tail Light". I developed this product to keep the tail lights on vehicles snow and ice free in the winter months, so signals are clearly visib le. Recently my wife Jill spoke over the telephone with Mr. Benson from your department, who said you could help with my problem and I should send this information to your attention.

We have been working with our State Representatives office in Lansing, Michigan and through them a company by the name of Agap'e Plastics, Inc. from Grand Rapids, Michigan had heard of my product. A gentleman by the name of Tom Gravengood from Agap'e ap proached me about buying my company. He said that he wanted to help me out with sending my product into your department, as he already had the right connections and it would surely speed things up. Now, with my sending Mr. Gravengood the sample "Heated Tail Lights" and customer letters we had received, along with other information, we were under the understanding that this was to be handled under my company name. Also, I was to receive copies of any correspondence from your office. After quite some time, Mr. Gravengood finally told me over the telephone that he did receive a letter from you and he was reading parts of the letter to me. I could tell that the letter was to him and not to my company. After repeatedly trying to receive a copy of the letter, it was finally sent to me, however, not by Mr. Gravengood, but by our State Representatives office. It was sometime in the middle of June when I received it. I have enclosed a copy of the letter for you.

What I would greatly appreciate is, if you would send me a copy of any incoming correspondence from Mr. Gravengood and also, a letter in duplicate to the one sent to Mr. Gravengood dated May 16, 1989, but addressed to myself and my company. With receivi ng interest at the O.E.M. level, customers do indeed want to see some proof that I have gone through your office. With this, I can show them that I have done so.

I have enclosed some information on the "Heated Tail Light" to familiarize you with the product again. If you have any questions about anything, please feel free to give me a call at either (906) 353-7131 or (906) 353-6490. Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-2.34

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 14, 1989

FROM: J. Michael Mundy -- Lease Sales Representative, Penske Truck Leasing Co., L.P.

TO: Emory Lariscy

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-4-90 from P.J. Rice to E.J. Lariscy (A36; Std. 108; Std. 124; Std. 301); Also attached to letter dated 8-28-89 from E.L. Lariscy to G. Shifflett (OCC 3910) with Patent Application for Vehicle Safety Light Assembly (gr aphics omitted); Also attached to letter dated 7-14-89 from J.M. Staples to E.L. Lariscy; Also attached to letter dated 8-8-89 from L. Baer to E.L. Lariscy; Also attached to letter dated 7-28-89 from A.M. Kennedy to E.L. Lariscy

TEXT:

I recently had the opportunity to witness your speed-caution light in operation. It is a truly effective piece of safety equipment.

Rear end collisions are especially prevalent in the transportation industry because of lower speeds required due to weight and product requirements.

This light would not only save money in reduced repair cost and lower insurance premiums. More importantly, it may save someone's life.

Please forward me any information possible on your product as it becomes available.

ID: nht89-2.35

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 14, 1989

FROM: James M. Staples -- Director of Safety and Health, Bassett- Walker, Inc.

TO: Emory L. Lariscy -- President, Lariscy Enterprises, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-4-90 from P.J. Rice to E.J. Lariscy (A36; Std. 108; Std. 124; Std. 301); Also attached to letter dated 8-28-89 from E.L. Lariscy to G. Shifflett (OCC 3910) with Patent Application for Vehicle Safety Lighty Assembly (g raphics omitted); Also attached to letter dated 7-14-89 from J.M. Mundy to E. Lariscy; Also attached to letter dated 8-8-89 from L. Baer to E.L. Lariscy; Also attached to letter dated 7-28-89 from A.M. Kennedy to E.L. Lariscy

TEXT:

Several days ago, I had the opportunity to observe a vehicle that had a safety caution light installed in the rear window over the third brake light. As I was following this vehicle, I noticed this caution light would operate independently of the brake lighting system which alerted me that something was occurring with the vehicle ahead of me.

This raised my awareness and when the vehicle, ahead of me with the caution light installed, began to decelerate and stop, to my surprise, I was able to react and began to brake before the brake lights came on indicating that the vehicle ahead was attemp ting to stop.

An inquiry into this device has led me to write you and express my feelings from this experience.

I was employed as a Police Officer for the City of Martinsville for 10 years and worked as a Traffic Officer five of those ten years, and during that time, I investigated many automobile accidents. I am now employed by Bassett-Walker, Inc. as Director o f Safety and Health, and have been in this capacity for the past eight years.

From both of these positions, I can clearly see that if this device had been installed on vehicles, a large amount of the accidents which involved rear-end collisions could have been prevented.

I certainly hope you will consider manufacturing and marketing this safety caution light because it is my opinion that this small device is a giant step in accident prevention which will save lives, reduce over all cost for insurance, property damage and bodily injury.

ID: nht89-2.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/19/89

FROM: THEO BOSE -- WEBASTO HEATER INC

TO: FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 05/31/90 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO THEO BOSE -- WEBASTER HEATER INC, A35, STD 301

TEXT: We are a improter and distributor of diesel fuel burning coolant heaters and air heaters for automotive applications.

These units are often installed in busses or trucks to preheat the engine and/or provide supplementary heat to busses and school busses etc.

We are often asked by OEM's to certify the unit as required under the above mentioned paragraph or to FMVSS 301-75.

Fuel intergrity and safety are of high importance to us and we would like your comments about this subject to be able to furnish the proper documentation to our customer clientele.

I have enclosed one typical installation manual for your review. Your earliest response is appreciated. Contact me if you have any questions.

encl: DBW 2020 manual

ID: nht89-2.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 20, 1989

FROM: Kathleen DeMeter -- Assistant Chief Counsel for General Law, NHTSA

TO: B.L. Swank -- Swank-Standley Motors, Inc. (Kansas)

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 11/28/95 LETTER FROM Samuel J. Dubbin to Phyllis Armstrong (A43; Part 580); Also attached to 5/17/95 letter from Phyllis Armstrong to Phillip Reckt

TEXT: Dear Mr. Swank:

This is in response to your letter of May 31, 1989, requesting an interpretation of the Federal odometer disclosure requirements. You asked how someone who had disconnected the odometer of his or her vehicle in order to tow the vehicle would complete an odometer disclosure statement upon that vehicle's transfer.

As long as the drive wheels are removed from the pavement, the distance travelled by a vehicle in tow need not be counted, and the transferor of such a vehicle need not certify that the odometer reading does not reflect that vehicle's actual mileage. Ho wever, a vehicle towed with the drive wheels running on the pavement would be considered to have travelled the distance it had been towed. Thus, because of the increased wear to the vehicle in that situation, the transferor of such a vehicle would have to declare that the odometer reading did not reflect the vehicle's actual mileage.

It should, of course, be remembered that anyone who has towed a vehicle must reconnect the vehicle's odometer before next driving the vehicle, the operation of a vehicle whiel its odometer is disconnected is a violation of Federal law.

Thank you for your interest in the Federal odometer disclosure requirements. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mattie Cohan of my staff at (202) 366-1834.

Sincerely