ID: nht88-2.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: JUNE 2, 1988

FROM: C. W. PIERSON -- LORD AND PIERSON

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, DOT

TITLE: DOT REQUIREMENTS FOR TESTING OF SEATS (AUTOMOTIVE, TRACK, BUS, MASS TRANSIT).

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 10-17-88 TO CHARLES W. PIERSON FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TEXT: Lately the government has been requiring more "dynamic" testing over "static" testing. This leads to broad interpretation (or mis-interpretation) by engineers like myself, and I think the loopholes should be closed.

For example, if you say a headrest shall be pull-tested at a load of 200 pounds (49USC-202-S4-b4ii) it leaves very little to the imagination. But if you say ". . . during the 10 g deceleration the H.I.C. number shall not exceed 400 for passengers ran ging in size from a six year old through a 95 percentile male" (49USC-1601-2.3.2.4-1), you set up a number of variables.

1. Are you using Dreyfus' (M.I.T.) standard man, or NASA's standard man? (Personally J use Barnes standard man-he is between the two). Have you visited a 6th grade class lately to see the size spread? I chaperoned a recent Chicago trip and the age r ange was 10 through 14!

2. The University of Michigan crash tests, but will NOT certify the results.

3. Laws requiring certification usually do not require the actual crash test to be performed.

4. Where do I get SAE Recommended Practice J833? It is NOT readily available!

5. The Formula:

(SEE ILLUSTRATION ON ORIGINAL)

. . . really can be mis-calculated and the results mis-interpreted, because you are putting variables in.

As you can see, a fixed number eliminates guesswork. Anyone can understand it, and over the years I've reached the conclusion that only about half of the engineers have a real live college degree, (I'm a Western grad!)

ID: nht88-2.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/02/88

FROM: STEVEN CROWELL

TO: ELIZABETH DENNISTON -- DIR. OF COMMUNICATIONS; EGON BITTNER COMMISSIONER-WALTHAM, MA.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 05/31/90 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO WILLIAM D. FALCON; REDBOOK A35; STANDARD 201; 202; 205; VSA 108[A][2][A]; LETTER DATED 01/30/89 FROM WILLIAM D. FALCON TO RALPH HITCHCOCK -- NHTSA; OCC 3107; LETTER FROM STEVE C ROWELL; DATED 11/02/88 EST

TEXT: Commission on Accredidation for Law Enforcement Agencies Inc. 4242b Chain Bridge Rd. Fairfax, Va 22030

Dear Ms. Denniston, Mr. Bittner and Mr. Medeiros;

The automobile interior partitions used in all cruisers I have observed seem to lack some legal requirements.

The Motor Vehicle Safety At of 1966 (U.S. Public Law 89-563) sets forth the following requirements;

49 CFR Ch.V (10/1/86 Edition)

** Sect. 567.7 Requirements For Persons Who Alter Certified Vehicles- A person who alters a vehicle that previously has been certified in accordance with sect 567.4 or 567.5 . . . . shall allow the original certification label to remain on the vehicle , and shall affix to the vehicle an additional label . . . . containing the following information: "This vehicle was altered by (individual or corporate name) in (month and year in which alterations were completed) and as altered it conforms to all appli cable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards affected by the alteration and in effect in (month, year).

** Sect. 571.107 Standard No. 107; Reflecting Surfaces. This standard specifies reflecting surface requirements for certain vehicle components in the driver's field of view.

** Sect 571.111 Standard 111; Rearview mirrors. This standard specifies requirements for the performance and location of rearview mirrors . . . to reduce the number of deaths and injuries that occur when the driver does not have a clear and reasonabl y unobstructed view to the rear.

** Sect. 571.201 Standard No. 201; Occupant protection in interior impact. This standard specifies requirements to afford impact protection for occupants. s3.2 Seat backs-when that area of the seat back that is within the head impact area (head impact area means all nonglazed surfaces of the interior of a vehicle that are statically contactable by a 6.5-inch dimeter spherical head form of a measuring device having a pivot point to "top of head" dimension infinitely adjustable from 29 to 33 inches in accordance with the following proceedure etc.).

** Sect 571.205 Standard No. 205; This standard specifies requirements for glazing materials for use in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. The purpose of this standard is to reduce the injuries resulting from impact to glazing surfaces, to e nsure a necessary degree of transparency in motor vehicle windows for driver visibility, and to minimize the possibility of occupants being thrown through the vehicle windows in collisions. S5.1.1.3 the following locations are added to the lists specifi ed in ANS Z26 in which item 6 and item 7 safety glazing may be used: (k.1.1.2 Interior partitions).

Your prompt response to my letter of 1/4/88 is greatly appreciated, however I have noticed a slight oversight in Standard 71.4.1 Transport Equipment. Specifically the mention of wire mesh in this recommendation for the use of a "Safety Barrier". To i dentify an interior partiton (the words used by the D.O.T. for this device) as a "safety barrier" is an oxymoron given the safety hazards inherent in the designs currently being used.

Statistics on bodily injury losses occuring in cruisers seem difficult to obtain, but not so for cabs. The graphs enclosed indicate that when and where interior partitions are used in taxis there is enhanced retention of control for the operation of the vehicle accompanied by epidemic increase in accident fatality and bodily injury loss. It seems that the only way to incur more accident fatality in fewer accidents and more injury with less property damage is to introduce occupant impact hazards.

It is my belief that enhancement in the design of interior partitions will still afford the safety of enhanced operator retention of control and additionally reduce the likelyhood of injury to occupants (front or rear compartments) in the event of a s udden stop or collision.

The economic impact of these hazards in the taxi industry in Boston has been astronomical. Prior to the use of interior partitions in Boston taxis (from 1950-1970) the cost of insurance for taxis was only twice that of the cost for private vehicles i n Boston (given that

ID: nht88-2.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/03/88

FROM: WILLIAM J. HENRICK -- GENERAL TIRE ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL

TO: ERIKA JONES -- NHTSA OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/01/88 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO WILLIAM J HENRICK; REDBOOK A32, PART 574

TEXT: Gentlemen:

This company has reached an agreement with two foreign manufacturers of tires to jointly produce a radial medium truck tire. The facility used to produce this tire will be an expansion of one of this company's facilities in the U. S. of America.

It is contemplated that the same green or uncured tires will be used by all three entities. However, the sidewall will reflect the member company's name.

This letter is a request to confirm our interpretation of 49 CFR 574.6. We believe that each member company may under the regulation secure its own identification mark for use in the curing process. Of course, it is understood that compliance with s ubsections (a), (b) and (c) of part 574.6 would be required.

ID: nht88-2.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: JUNE 7, 1988

FROM: WILLIAM SHAPIRO -- MANAGER -- REGULATIONS AND COMPLIANCE, VOLVO

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NUMBER 106; BRAKE HOSES-REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO MEMO DATED 12-9-88, TO WILLIAM SHAPIRO, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA, STD 106

TEXT: Section 5.3 sets forth the test requirements for hydraulic brake hoses. This section states that:

"A hydraulic brake hose assembly or appropriate part thereof shall be capable of meeting any of the requirements set forth under this heading, . . . However, a particular hose assembly or appropriate part thereof need not meet further requirements aft er having been subjected to and having met the constriction requirement (S5.3.1) and any one of the requirements specified in S5.3.2 through S5.3.11."

Sections S5.3.3 and S6.3 speak to the Whip Resistance Test. Table 11 in Section S6.3.1 specifies slack for different hose configurations. In Table 11 for a hose "over 19 to 24 inches inclusive", and "more than 1/8 inch or 3mm." there is no slack specif ied and therefore no requirement in the standard.

Volvo believes that the correct interpretation of this standard, for a hose that falls into the category of over 19 to 24 inches, inclusive, and more than 1/8 inch or 3mm. in diameter is that, while it must meet or exceed the constriction requirement, an d any one other of the requirements in Section S5.3, it need not be tested to meet or exceed the whip resistance requirement to be in compliance with FMVSS 106. Please confirm this for us.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you require any additional information, please feel free to contact me.

ID: nht88-2.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/08/88

FROM: LACY H. THORNBURG -- ATTORNEY GENERAL; MABEL Y. BULLOCK -- ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL NORTH CAROLINA

TO: SUSAN SCHRUTH -- NATIONAL HIGHWAY AND TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION SAFETY ADMINISTRATION U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: WINDOW TINTING; FEDERAL PRE-EMPTION OF STATE REGULATIONS

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 04/13/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO MABEL Y. BULLOCK, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 215, VSA 103 (D), VSA SECTION 108 (A)(2)(A); LETTER DATED 12/18/87 FROM LACY H. THORNBURG AND MABEL Y. BULLOCK, SUBJECT MOTOR VEHICLES, RE GULATIONS OF DARK SHADED WINDOWS; PREEMPTION; LETTER DATED 05/06/88 FROM DAIRL BRAGG TO WILLIAM S. HIATT; LETTER DATED 10/28/82 FROM FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA TO LAWRENCE T. HIROHATA, N0A-30; LETTER DATED 04/04/85 FROM JEFFREY R. MILLER TO ARMOND CARDARELLI; REGULATIONS DATED 07/01/85 EST, FEDERAL AUTO SAFETY LAWS AND MOTOR VEHICLE WINDOW TINTING

TEXT: Dear Susan:

It has taken a little longer than I anticipated to get this letter to you. I appreciate your taking the time to talk with me on the several occasions that I have called to discuss window tinting with you.

I have enclosed a copy of North Carolina's statute regulating window tinting and a copy of the regulations filed pursuant to the statute. I have also enclosed an Attorney General opinion interpreting the statute, recent correspondence from Mr. Daryll Bragg and past correspondence from various NHTSA representatives.

My position is that because our statute regulates both owner-operator of motor vehicles with window tinting and manufacturers of such window tinting material, it would be pre-empted by federal regulation if it allows a light transmittance requirement other than 70%.

North Carolina General Statute 20-127(f) regulates what type of tinted film the manufacturer is allowed to make available for installation on a motor vehicle in North Carolina. It seems that the wording in 15 USC @ 1391(4) and 15 USC @ 1397 (a)(2)(A) would preempt our state statute if less than 70% light transmittance in window tinting material was permitted -- based on the regulation of the manufacturer, not the operation of the motor vehicle.

Please let me know your interpretation of this matter. As I interpret past correspondence from NHTSA, it is your agency's position that the federal regulations do cover after-market tinting on used motor vehicles. If you would like to discuss this m atter further by telephone, please call be at (919) 733-3254. Your assistance in this matter would be greatly appreciated.

(North Carolina statute omitted.) Sincerely,

ENCLOSURES

ID: nht88-2.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/09/88

FROM: L. F. ROLLIN COMMANDER COMMERCIAL AND TECHNICAL SERVICES SECTION DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL

TO: JERRY K. YOST -- JERRY'S SERVICE

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/19/88 TO DOUGLAS H BOSCO, FROM ERIKA Z JONES, REDBOOK A32 (2) STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 06/16/88, TO ERIKA Z. JONES, FROM DOUGLAS H. BOSCO; LETTER DATED 08/03/87 TO DOUGLAS H. BOSCO FROM ERIKA Z. JONES; LETTER DATED 03/28/88 TO C-MORE-LITE JERRYS SERVICE FROM DON O. HORNING RE TEST REPORT NO 92606; 1988 LETTER TO ERIKA Z. JONES FROM JERRY'S SERVICE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Yost:

This letter is in response to your inquiry about the legality of the C-More-Light headlight device.

My engineering staff reviewed your letter, the letter from NHTSA and the test report (#92606) from Industrial Testing Laboratories (ITL). It is our opinion that the device is legal to install and use on any headlight system designed to meet type "F" pho tometrics. This system is also permitted by California law as long as the photometric output is within the standards established for any other type of headlight. The ITL tests appear to show compliance.

Vehicles equipped with the C-More-Light and a control group of similar vehicles without the C-More-Light device should be used in field testing. Responses from drivers should address the effectiveness of the headlights on both high and low beam as well as the reactions of approaching drivers. Reactions such as flashing high beams or other indicators that the headlights are annoying should be noted. Effective testing should ensure that the test and control group vehicles have properly adjusted headlig hts and that the driver's responses are not prejudiced (not informing the drivers which vehicles have operational C-More-Light devices). We look forward to seeing a report on your test results.

Any further questions should be directed to my engineering staff.

Very truly yours,

ID: nht88-2.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/09/88

FROM: LARRY P. EGLEY

TO: LEWIS BUCHANAN -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/09/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO LARRY P. EGLEY; REDBOOK A33 [2]; STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 01/17/89 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO KATHLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA; OCC 3028; LETTER DATED 05/23/89 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO KAT HLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA; LETTER DATED 09/10/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO KATHLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA; OCC 2530; REPORT DATED 09/10/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY, REQUEST FOR EVALUATION / INTERPRETATION OF PROPOSED INVENTION, SUDDEN STOP FLASHER [SSF]; REPORT DATED 09 /07/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY, AN APPEAL FOR VARIANT INTERPRETATION OF NHTSA STANDARDS AS THEY RELATE TO BRAKE LIGHTS AND THE SUDDEN STOP FLASHER [SSF]; LETTER DATED 07/13/88 FROM KATHLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA TO LARRY P. EGLEY; LETTER DATED 06/23/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO RALPH HITCHCOCK -- NHTSA; OCC 2256; LETTER DATED 06/20/88 FROM LEWIS S. BUCHANAN -- EPA TO LARRY P. EGLEY; OCC 2199

TEXT: Dear Mr. Buchanan:

I have invented a concept which I believe could significantly improve automobile safety. I call this concept the Sudden Stop Flasher (SSF).

The SSF would work in conjunction with standard automobile brake lights. During the routine deceleration range, the brake lights would function normally. However, at an unusually high braking deceleration rate, such as when the driver suddenly sees a dog on the road or an accident ahead, the SSF system would utilize a pendulum-type decelerometer in conjunction with a special high-speed flasher to rapidly flash the brake lights automatically (such as drivers sometimes try to do themselves but only whe n they have time!).

To increase the effective flash rate, and the "attention-getting index," the high-mount light would flash in rapid sequence with the two lower brake lights, the latter two flashing simualtanously.

I believe this concept would be especially effective in preventing high-speed crashes such as on an Interstate highway when separation intervals are greater and when rapid deceleration may be completely unexpected. These crashes too frequently result in ruptured gas tanks and fatalities.

The SSF would also be especially applicable, I believe, to sutomobiles with anti-skid brakes, because of their superior braking performance. While anti-skid brakes may be highly effective, ironically, automobiles without anti-skid brakes travelling b ehind them may crash into them because of inferior braking performance.

With or without anti-skid braking involved, however, the automatic signal that a high-deceleration slowdown or stop is occuring up ahead could often provide the critical second or two of advance warning which could be the difference between a safe sto p and disaster.

Patent application activity is in progress. However, before I invest more money to develop this concept, I want to be reasonably sure it is not likely to be categorically disapproved by NHTSA. While I do not expect approval, of course, based on only a general description, I would very much appreciate your preliminary comments concerning the prospects of this concept, as well as any related advice you may have to offer.

Because patent activity is in progress, I would appreciate reasonable confidentially.

I would hope to receive a reply from you within 30 days of this date, June 9, 1988.

Thank you very much for your attention.

ID: nht88-2.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/10/88

FROM: T. BAILEY -- LEGISLATION ENGINEER, INTERNATIONAL AUTOMOTIVE DESIGN

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSS 104 Windshield WIPING & WASHING SYTEMS

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 11-3-88, TO T.P. BAILEY, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, STD. 104

TEXT: As an automotive design consultancy we need a clear understanding of this Standard, particularly the requirements of paragraph S4.1.2, Wiped Area. We have a problem with this and would appreciate some advice.

Firstly, can you confirm this paragraph is only applicable to passenger cars.

Secondly, the hypothetical results for a windscreen are shown on attachment 1. In this, Area A on one side extends to the DLO, on the other, overlaps it. (The DLO is taken to start at the inner edge of the obscuration band). As drawn, the correct perce ntage wiped area is still achieved. Should Area A be wholly:-

1. On exterior surface of glass, inside a perimeter line drawn one inch from edge of daylight opening.

2. On exterior surface of glass, inside the DLO.

3. On exterior surface of glass (ie. whole surface visible from outside vehicle including the obscuration band).

4. On total exterior surface of glass (ie. including the part normally hidden under trim and mouldings).

Thank you for your attention. I look forward to hearing from you.

See Illumtation on original

ID: nht88-2.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/10/88

FROM: A. J. ACKLEY -- MARTEK CORP.

TO: ERICA Z. JONES, CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/08/88 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO A J ACKLEY; REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 125; LETTER DATED 05/26/88 FROM A. J. ACKLEY TO JOAN TILLGHAM, OCC - 2096

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

We are in the process of submitting a proposal to an account utilizing the red safety triangle. All of the elements of the device will follow the standards as set by the D.O.C. What we propose is using their logo in the center - see drawing. This woul d revolve (to eliminate a windshield) and add to the reflective quality of the device.

Do you see any legal problem with the concept?

Thank you.

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht88-2.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/21/88

FROM: JUANITA P. DAVISON

TO: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION VEHICLE CRASH EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/22/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- HNTSA TO JUANITA P. DAVISON, REDBOOK A33(2), STANDARD 208

TEXT: Please advise me to whom I can make some input about the automatic type seat belts. I have a 1987 Toyota and have also seen this type seat belt used in Ford makes.

Please tell me for what purpose this design has been used. Is it to meet some safety regulation? Or is it some gimmick of the auto manufactuer?

This belt is a nuisance and most inconvenient. A person is not fully belted unless the lap belt is also pulled in place. How much simpler to make one move accomplish the process of being fully belted.

This shoulder belt takes away the roominess of the front. It is in the way when getting in the car with a handbag or briefcase or package which needs to be placed elsewhere in the car. I wear glasses on a chain and I have to always hold this out of the way when the shoulder belt in in position. Passengers not familiar with the action are startled and confused by it. To disengage the belt after stopping the motor and just sitting in the car, the door has to be opened. This shoulder belt requires a sp ecial unlocking mechanism in case of emergency after impact. What if that is damaged during a collision. It is much more complicated than the push button used to release the lap belt (and combined lap and shoulder belts in other cars).

This is a travesty imposed on the ones who were not aware of the inconvenience and the fallacy of "automatic seat belts". I still have to buckle the lap belt and then be ready for the shoulder belt to rivet in place when the motor is turned on. The rev erse process when leaving the car. There is so much lost motion besides all the inconvenience just fr the sake of having a shoulder belt forceably used. Of course all I have to do is take the shoulder belt and lift it back over my head if I don't want to use it while driving. But I do want to be fully belted and would like the one step method. Can I legally disengage the motorized mechanism with the shoulder belt in place so that I can just lift it over my head? This would eliminate some of the dra wbacks.

Juanita P. Davison

(P.S.) I have also been told it is not safe to wear a shoulder belt without the lap belt, because of possibility of choking!