ID: nht88-2.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/06/88

FROM: DAIRL BRAGG -- DIRECTOR STATE GOVERNMENT RELATIONS MOTOR AND EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION

TO: WILLIAM S. HIATT -- COMMISSIONER DIV. OF MOTOR VEHICLES NORTH CAROLINA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 04/13/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO MABEL Y. BULLOCK, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 205, VSA 103 (D), VSA SECTION 108 (A)(2)(A); LETTER FROM MABEL Y. BULLOCK AND LACY H. THORNBURG TO SUSAN SCHRUTH -- NHTSA RE WINDOW TINTIN G, FEDERAL PRE-EMPTION OF STATE REGULATIONS, OCC 2142; NORTH CAROLINA STATUTE REGULATION WINDOW TINTING; LETTER DATED 12/18/87 FROM LACY H. THORNBURG AND MABEL Y. BULLOCK, SUBJECT MOTOR VEHICLES, REGULATIONS OF DARK SHADED WINDOWS; PREEMPTION; LETTER DAT ED 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 Commissioner Hiatt:

Thank you for providing me the opportunity, on behalf of the sunscreen industry, to meet with you and your people to address the problem concerning the implementation of HB-955, the new automotive sunscreen law.

We, as an industry, believe we have acted responsibly in attempting to exercise our right to compete in commerce in the state of North Carolina. We have asked the legislature to regulate our industry and provide us with guidelines as to the level of light transmission in sunscreening materials we may provide the consumer for use upon his or her vehicle. The legislature has provided that guidance by the passage of HB-955 in the 1987 session of the General Assembly. However, because of two factors, we now find ourselves in the precarious position of being unable to do business in your state, in keeping with the guidelines provided us in the new law. One factor is the opinion issued on December 18, 1987 by the Attorney General which concludes that a state law or regulation permitting 35% light transmission on windows in motor vehicles would be in conflict with the federal standard 205 and would be preempted by that standard. The second is the adoption of regulation NCAC.3D.0900-.0904 which change s the light transmission permitted in the new law from 35% to 70%.

As I stated at our meeting last week, preemption is not at issue here. Federal Standard 205 regulates the vehicle manufacturer and is applicable to certain windows in certain new vehicles prior to first sale. The one addition to the requirement of th is standard since it became effective in January 1968 is the 1974 amendment to the 1966 Act, Section 108(a)(2)(A), which extends the requirement and applicability to manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses. The state law regulates the operation of a motor vehicle in-use upon the public right of way which is

registered or required to be registered in the state and is applicable to the use of approved film upon the windows of that vehicle. The statutory requirements and applicability of standard 205 and the requirements and applicability of the new North Car olina law are clearly two separate and distinct issues. The Chief Counsel of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has consistently stated, in the form of written legal opinions, that they do not have the statutory authority to regu late the consumer in what he or she does or has done to their vehicle after its purchase. At our meeting last week, I provided you with copies of some of those opinions which address this specific issue. Additionally, I talked to Susan Schruth on Monda y, May 2, the NHTSA attorney with whom both Ms. Bullock and I have been discussing this issue. Ms. Schruth reaffirmed this steadfast position of NHTSA.

Since the Attorney General's opinion addressed only the federal standard 205 and its preemption of the state law but did not address the specifics of the new state law, particularly the difference in its requirements and applicability from 205, the fo llowing question should be asked: Would the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 or Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 205 preempt a state statute or regulation which permits the operation of a motor vehicle in use upon the public rig ht of way which is registered or required to be registered in the state with sun screen film, approved by the Commissioner, upon the side and rear windows which reduces the light transmission to 35%?

Based upon the numerous legal opinions issued by the Chief Counsel of NHTSA stating that they do not have the statutory authority to regulate the consumer and the vehicle in use, the Attorney General may wish to study and evaluate these documents and consider revising his opinion to reflect this NHTSA position.

We look forward to an early amicable resolution of this issue so that our industry may compete in commerce in North Carolina in keeping with the provisions of the new law as we do in in more than 30 other states which have passed favorable legislation regulating our industry.

If I can be of further assistance or provide you with additional information, please do not hesitate to get back in touch with me.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-2.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: MAY 7, 1988

FROM: WILLIAM K. BALDWIN

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: "THE BALDWIN REAR-VIEW MIRROR SAFETY SYSTEM" PARTLY COVERED BY U.S. PAT. #3,667,833

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO MEMO DATED 8-26-88, TO WILLIAM K. BALDWIN, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, STD 111, VSA 108(A) (2)(A)

TEXT: My rear-view mirror safety system offers the latest in technology and safety in performance of all types of automotive vehicles. These mirrors in conbination will absolutely and completely eliminate the hazardous blind spots on both sides of the vehicle , not just the right side which is presently being used by auto manufacturers. You do not have to turn your head or twist your body to check out traffic in the blind spot areas not visible in the conventional flat rear-view mirrors.

It has always been my contention that convex (reduced image) mirrors should be used in conjunction with flat rear-view mirrors in order to obtain a safe and true rear-view vision. These conbination interior and exterior, (both sides) rear-view mirror s are most effective. The present reduced image only, right side only rear-view mirrors used by most auto manufacturers today are not sufficiently effective. Every motorist needs this rear-view mirror safety system. It increases visibility for safer d riving which in turn saves lives.

It is my desire to submit my "BALDWIN REAR-VIEW MIRROR SAFETY SYSTEM" for your evaluation and hopefully your approval.

Please respond as soon as possible to this proposal.

ENCLOSURES

Baldwin Rear View Mirror Safety System

PATENT NO. 3,667,833

These products will absolutely and completely eliminate the hazardous blind spots on both sides of your vehicle. You do not have to turn your head or twist your body to check out traffic in the blind spot area not visible in the conventional flat rear v iew mirrors.

VEHICLE IN BL/NL SPOT AREA

FLAT REAR-VIEW MIRRORS FIELD OF VIEW

EXTRA WIDE FULL-VIEW(Illegible Word) REAR-VIEW VISION

MIRROR SAFETY SYSTEM" OF VIEW

ID: nht88-2.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/08/88

FROM: MARTIN M. GINSBURG

TO: ERIKA JONES -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 07/27/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO MARTIN M. GINSBURG -- PROLINE DESIGNS; REDBOOK A33; STANDARD 126; STANDARD 302 LETTER DATED 11/24/88 FROM MARTIN M. GINSBURG TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA

TEXT: After speaking to Mr. George Shifflett and Mr John Messera concerning Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, they recommended that I ask you for a legal interpretation indicating that I do not need to comply with this standard.

My product consists of a window covering, also known as a curtain, which is made out of various fabric materials. This product is to be sold as an accessory for pick-up truck covers, also known as a shell or cap. This shell or cap is an after-market product. It is placed directly over the empty bed of the truck. There are no seats in the bed area or in the cover. Also this cover is segregated from the cab area.

I would appreciate a legal interpretation concerning my need to comply with the 302 standard.

Thank you

ID: nht88-2.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/09/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Nolan and Taylor-Howe Funeral Home, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

President Nolan and Taylor-Howe Funeral Home, Inc. 5 Laurel Avenue Northport, NY 11768

Dear Mr. Nolan:

This is in reply to your letter of March 24, 1988, enclosing a letter you have received from the Department of Motor Vehicles, New York State, advising you that your 1987 Cadillac hearse requires a center high-mounted stop lamp. You have asked for the sp ecifications of such a lamp.

The center high-mounted stop lamp is required only on passenger cars. A passenger car is defined as a motor vehicle "designed for carrying 10 persons or less." A "multipurpose passenger vehicle" is one "designed for carrying 10 persons or less which is c onstructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off road operation." A "truck" is defined as a motor vehicle "designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment." The agency recognizes chassis constructed for commercial use, such as a hearse, as the equivalent of a truck chassis. The determination of vehicle category is initially that of the manufacturer or final stage assembler who certifies compliance with all Federal motor vehicle safety st andards applicable to the category of vehicle selected. In our opinion, a hearse could be properly certified as a either a "multipurpose passenger vehicle," or a "truck."

In a conversation with Taylor Vinson of this Office on April 29, you informed us that the first six characters of the VIN of your hearse are "1GEDO9", and that its final stage assembler, Superior, had certified it as an "MPV" (multipurpose passenger vehi cle). The "G" in the VIN identifies it, according to internal documents of the initial stage manufacturer, General Motors, as "Cadillac Incomplete Coaches" (meaning, it would appear, funeral coaches), and the "9" as "Cadillac Commercial Body/Chassis." Th is chassis does not form the basis of any passenger car completed by Cadillac. The letter from New York State states "The manufacturer claims that funeral cars are classified as multipurpose vehicles and do not require the lights." This is correct, as yo u have told us that Superior has classified it as an MPV, and certified its compliance to all standards applicable to that vehicle category. As the center high-mounted stop lamp standard is not one of those applicable to multipurpose passenger vehicles, there is no Federal requirement that your hearse be equipped with such a lamp.

We appreciate your interest in safety, and trust that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief counsel

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of Standards Compliance 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

RE: 1987 CADILLAC HEARSE AND THIRD BRAKE LIGHT

Gentlemen:

Enclosed please find a copy of the letter we received from the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles dated March 16, 1988. They have determined that the above vehicle should be required to have a third brake light.

I would like to know what the requirements are as to its specific location, size. etc.

Please forward any and all pertinent information regarding the above to this office.

Thank you in advance for your assistance.

Yours truly,

NOLAN & TAYLOR-HOWE FUNERAL HOME, INC. James P. Nolan, Jr. President

JPN:plg ENC:

Mr. James P. Nolan, Jr. Nolan & Taylor-Howe Funeral Home, Inc. 5 Laurel Avenue Northport, L.I., NY 11768

Dear Mr. Nolan:

In your letter dated February 22, 1988, you asked if a third taillight is required on a 1987 Cadillac hearse. The manufacturer claims that funeral cars are classified as multi-purpose vehicles and do not require the lights.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards require a third brake light on 1986 and newer passenger motor vehicles. Multi-purpose passenger vehicles are exempt from this requirement. A multi-purpose passenger vehicle is a vehicle which is built on a truck cha ssis and has certain features making it suitable for off-road operation. I do not believe a hearse can quality as a multi-purpose passenger vehicle. Therefore, I believe your hearse requires a third brake light.

The Department of Motor Vehicles' has no control over a manufacturer located in another state. I suggest you write to the U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Office of Standards Compliance, 400 Seventh Stree t, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has the authority to require the manufacturer to recall every vehicle to bring it into conformity with the standards.

I trust this information will be of assistance to you.

Very truly yours,

ARTHUR L. ALOWITZ Assistant Counsel

ID: nht88-2.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: MAY 9, 1988

FROM: KAREN WHITEHEAD

TO: OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNCIL -- NHTSA

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO MEMO DATED 11-25-88, TO KAREN WHITEHEAD, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, STD 213, STD 302, VSA 108(A)(2)(A)

TEXT: Enclosed is a copy of a design for a back and head rest for a child's car toddler seat I have designed.

As you know when a child falls asleep their head simply falls forward or to either side without support. The purpose of the back and head rest I have designed and true tested on many toddlers assures support of the head and shoulders in a comfortable up -right position.

The back and head rest is made from J4Lx fire retardent foam which meets the required 302 Fire retardent standards. The piece measures 18"x22" and is 3/4" thick, the sides are a contour cut measuring 3"x4" at the top, 17" long and tapered to meet flush with the back piece approximately 5" from the bottom of the back piece.

The finished back rest is covered in a cotton polyester fabric with an envelope flap in the back for easy removal. The cover is machine washable and dryable.

The back rest is ancored by slipping the car seat belt through the back rest elastic loops around the toddler seat and buckling the seat belt in the usual manner.

Please send me the regulations for this type of item.

CHILD REATRAINT BOOSTER SEAT

AUTO SEAT

LAP SEAT BELT

ID: nht88-2.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/11/88

FROM: VICKY S. JOHNSON -- STAFF ATTORNEY, Kansas Dept. of Transportation

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-9-88 TO VICKY JOHNSON, KANSAS DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION; FROM ERIKA JONES, NHTSA

TEXT: I talked recently with a member of your staff, Joan Tillman, concerning a school transportation issue which has arisen in our state. This letter is to follow up on that conversation and to request that you give us your thoughts on the subject.

Many school districts in Kansas have, for a number of years, been using vans with more than ten seating positions that do not meet school bus standards for school transportation. Since I became responsible for KDOT legal advice on school transporatat ion issues, I have been attemping to educate the districts concerning the civil liability risks inherent in the use of non school bus student transportation as well as the fact that it is in violation of federal regulation for the manufacturer or dealer to sell them a vehicle with more than ten seating positions for pupil transportation without meeting relevant standards. I think I have most of them persuaded that 12-15 passenger vehicles which come from the manufacturer with their 49 CFR 567.4 label c ontaining the "bus" classification are a source of considerable risk. However, they have come up with a new approach. They are now ordering the same vans with ten seating positions and the manufacturer is labeling them multi-purpose passenger vehicles. Since the definition of that term includes ten or less seating positions, and therefore takes them out of the "bus" category, they feel safe with this new approach.

In my opinion, this new approach avoids the "illegal transaction" since the manufacturer is not selling a "bus." However, I still believe there is considerable risk of civil liability in the events of an accident. I would appreciate your comments on this issue.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter. If you need any clarification of my request please call me at (913) 296-3831.

ID: nht88-2.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/13/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Busch Transportation Services

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Dan Moore Engineer - Car Design Busch Transportation Services 5901 State Route 15 Belleville, IL. 62223

Dear Mr. Moore:

This responds to your letter requesting information concerning a step-van design. You indicated that you propose to attach a step-van to a truck chassis with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating of 10,000 pounds, and sought information about applicable Federal requirements. Specifically, you asked which of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards would apply to the finished step-van, what other National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regulations would apply, and which of the safety standards require a ctual testing of a prototype. While I apologize for the delay in responding to your requests, I hope that the following information is useful to you.

First, by way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seg.) requires every new motor vehicle sold in the United States to be certified as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Th e Safety Act specifies that it is the manufacturer itself that must certify that each of its vehicles complies with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacturer. Because of this statutory requirement, this agency does not "approv e" any manufacturer's vehicles or offer assurances that the vehicles comply with the safety standards.

In certifying compliance with the safety standards, the manufacturer must do so consistent with the agency's definitions of motor vehicle types, found in S571.3 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations. From the information in your letter, it appea rs that your vehicle would be classified as a truck. (Our regulations define "truck" as a "motor vehicle, with motive power, except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment.") I am enclosing with this letter a table which lists each standard that applies to each basic vehicle type. From this list you should be able to determine which safety standards apply to your vehicle. In addition, I am enclosing a fact sheet for new manufacturers, which describes all pertinent areas of regulation of motor vehicles, as well as a booklet for complying with regulations on importing motor vehicles. While you are not importing vehicles, the booklet does contain summary statements for each of the standards, which may be helpful to you.

You indicate that you will be attaching a step-van to a truck chassis, and thus request information concerning your responsibilities as a final stage manufacturer. The agency's requirements for final stage manufacturers are set forth in Parts 567 and 568 of the agency's regulations. I have enclosed copies of both of these regulations. Briefly, these requirements can be explained as follows.

Under S568.6, a final stage manufacturer must complete the vehicle in such a manner that it conforms to all safety standards for the applicable vehicle type (in this case we presume a truck) in effect on a date no earlier than the manufacturing date of t he incomplete vehicle (in this case, the chassis), and no later than the date of completion of the final-stage manufacture (in this case, the attachment of the body to the chassis). In addition, you must affix a label to the completed vehicle in accordan ce with the certification requirements set forth in S567.5. Requirements For Manufacturers of Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages.

To reduce the certification burdens on final stage manufacturers, NHTSA has imposed some regulatory requirements on incomplete vehicle manufacturers. Under S568.4, an incomplete vehicle manufacturer must list by number each standard that applies to its v ehicle at the time of manufacture, and make one of the following three statements for each standard:

1. That the vehicle when completed will conform to the standard if no alterations are made in identified components:

2. That if the vehicle is completed under specific conditions of final manufacture set out in the compliance document, it will conform to the standard: or

3. That conformity with the standards is not substantially affected by the incomplete vehicle design, and the incomplete vehicle manufacturer makes no representation as to conformity with the standard. (49 CFR 568.4(a)(7))

I would like to point out one circumstance that may affect your certification as final stage manufacturer and reliance on representations made by the incomplete manufacturer. It is possible that, in the course of your attaching the step-van to the truck chassis, you will change the Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) of the vehicle. If this occurs, you much certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards at this new GVWR. Some of the standards which are likely to be affected by an increase in the GVWR are Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, and Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars.

With regard to your question about actual field testing, the agency does not require that a manufacturer's certification be based on a specified number of tests, or any tests at all. Instead, we only require that the manufacturer's certification be made with the exercise of due care, as specified in the Safety Act. It is up to the individual manufacturer in the first instance to determine what data, test results, or other information it needs to enable it to certify that its vehicles comply with the saf ety standards.

I hope the information in this letter is useful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact us.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

May 18, 1987

Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S. W. Washington, D. C. 20590

PETITION: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

Gentleman:

We here at Busch Transportation Services (BTS) are considering entering our design for a step-van into the market. Although we are a part of the Transportation Group of Anheuser-Busch, we are very new to the industry of new trailer/truck body design and manufacture.

In accordance with CFR 49, Part 552, we respectfully request your interpretation regarding the applicability of CFR 49, Part 571, "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards" to our proposed design. The step-van we propose would be for attachment (by BTS) to truck chassis of 10,000 pound GVWR. Specifically, we would like to know which of the FMVSS's would apply to us as the final stage manufacturer, as well as any other CFR 49 requirements we would have to meet.

Additionally, we would like to know which of the applicable FMVSS's would require actual field testing to be performed on a prototype of our proposed design. We would appreciate guidelines as to whom would be able to perform such tests for us.

We want to work with your Administration so that we will have a fully NHTSA-certified vehicle and will look forward to finding out exactly how to do so. Please call if we can provide any other information.

Sincerely,

Dan Moore Engineer-Car Design

ID: nht88-2.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/17/88

FROM: GERALD PETERSON -- TARACO ENTERPRISES INC

TO: ERIKA JONES -- N.H.T.S.A.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 09/02/88 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO GERALD PETERSON; REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 202; LETTER DATED 08/28/87 FROM CARL C CLARK TO JERRY PETERSON; LETTER DATED 09/29/86 FROM DALE T FANZO TO DIANE STEED

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

My name is Gerald Peterson and I would like to introduce you to a new safety product that our company produces called the Truck Hed-rest. This product is designed to help protect the head of the driver and passenger of a truck in an accident when their head is snapped back against the rear window of a vehicle. A brochure, a description of the product and safety information is enclosed.

I am very concerned about the safety of trucks and would like you to send me any information on petitions filed, concerning the safety problems on trucks.

I have done extensive testing on our product and feel it to be a terrific and inexpensive product.

I look forward to hearing from you in the very near future. If you have any questions please call me anytime.

ENCLOSURES

THE ORIGINAL

TRUK -- HEDREST

* Tested and fits into NHTSA guidelines, for rear end collisions up to 50 MPH D.O.T. to help protect against possible neck and head injuries.

* Inexpensive.

* Mounts to truck rear window or van bulkhead.

* Hi-lo temperate velcro mounting material.

* Attractive and easy to install, removes easily with the Velcro(tm).

* Use with sliding rear window.

* Washable and adjustable.

* Use as seat cushion.

* Use as a cushion when canoeing.

* Kneeling pad.

* Five colors: Burgundy, Tan, Black, Blue and Brown.

* Passes MVSS-302 Test for fire and toxic fumes.

* Customized company logo can be imprinted on the Hedrest.

DON'T BE CAUGHT WITHOUT THE PROTECTION OF TRUK-HEDREST IN YOUR TRUCK OR VAN

Taraco Enterprises, Inc. would like to introduce you to a new safety product that our company produces called the Truk-Hedrest. This product is designed to help protect the head of the driver and passenger of a truck or van in an accident when their hea d is snapped back against the rear window or bulkhead of a vehicle. It gives the person added protection that could prevent injuries to your employees and could save your company medical and injury-related expenses. This is the first after-market head p rotection devise of its kind on the market today.

The Truk-Hedrest is easily attached to the back window of a vehicle with Velcro(tm) and therefore can be taken off at any time. A brochure describing the Truk-Hedrest is enclosed along with a general description of the product, some of its features, the safety testing done and a current price sheet. Please read through all the materials to get a good understanding of what the Truk-Hedrest is and how it can protect your employees or yourself.

If your company would like to know more about the Truk-Hedrest and the added protection it can give your employees, please give me a call at (612) 228-3417. I will be glad to provide you with a sample of our product along with other literature on it. A video tape which shows the extent of injuries that can occur to the driver or passenger of a vehicle if their head hits against the back window or van bulkhead is also available.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely yours,

Jerry Peterson President

SAFETY TESTING

The Hedrest was tested extensively under the following conditions to determine to a certain extent the safety it provided to a person's head in a vehicle that was rear ended. These tests were performed by TEI with Gerry Peterson using NHTSA guideline s.

A bowling ball weighing approximately 10 pounds (which is the approximate weight of a human head as per the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration guidelines) was dropped onto the rear window of a truck. The distance the ball was dropped vari ed to simulate the velocity a head would hit the rear window. The test was designed to see at which levels the head was most likely to break the rear window tempered glass. Without the Hedrest on the glass, the bowling ball broke the glass at a height o f 7.5 feet or a contact velocity of 15 mph. With the Hedrest on the rear window glass, the bowling ball was dropped from a height of 25 feet or 54 mph contact velocity and the rear window did not break, indicating that the chance of head injuries should decrease or not be as extensive. The reason the window did not break was because the Hedrest displaced the force of the blow throughout the entire perimeters of the Hedrest and tempered the blow. The test showed the added protection the Hedrest can giv e to the driver or passenger of a vehicle.

Another interesting fact about how dangerously exposed the head is, is the high impact that can occur when the head hits the glass at just 35 MPH. The force of impact or contact velocity of a head hitting the rear window at 35 MPH without any protect ion would equal approximately 100 G's at the point of impact and extensive injuries could and probably will result.

Illbruk Manufacturing Co. who helped develop the Hedrest also tested the Hedrest for fire hazard and toxic fumes. The Hedrest passed the MVSS-302 test in both of these areas. Also, different materials were tested to determine which would produce the be st and safest Hedrest.

TRUK-HEDREST

Specifications

The Truk-Hedrest is made of a soft yet firm foam material covered by a micro-thin layer of a special plastic. The plastic coating protects the Hedrest, allows it to be washed, and gives it a long life. The Hedrest measures 14 inches horizontally and 8 inches vertically so that if the vehicle is hit at an angle there still should be enough room to protect a person's head.

The Hedrest is attached to the back of the window of a vehicle by three pieces of Velcro(tm) that are placed in three strategic places so that the Hedrest will not interfere with the opening of a split window on the back of a truck. One-half of the Velcr o(tm) is attached to the back of the Hedrest and one is attached to the glass on the rear window. This allows the Velcro(tm) to be separated and the Hedrest removed if desired. The adhesive on the Velcro(tm) pieces is made to withstand drastic temperat ure changes and will not fall off.

The Truk-Hedrest also passes the MVSS-302 test for fire and toxic fumes. It has also been tested under NHTSA guidelines for collisions up to 50 mph.

The Hedrest does not claim to prevent all injuries to the head of a driver or passenger in a collision but rather it is designed to help protect the head by helping to reduce the extent of injuries that can occur when an accident occurs.

ID: nht88-2.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/18/88

FROM: HIROSHI KATO -- ASSISTANT VICE-PRESIDENT MMC SERVICES INC

TO: ERIKA JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 09/21/88 TO HIROSHI KATO FROM ERIKA Z JONES, REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 201

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

This letter serves to request an interpretation of the requirements of 49 CFR Part 571.201; Occupant Protection in Interior Impact for the "one-piece" instrument panels and console assemblies in the passenger vehicle interiors shown in the enclosures.

We request that these enclosures be treated confidentially under the provisions of 49 CFR Part 512; Confidential Business Information. An affidavit attesting to the confidentiality is also enclosed.

Section S3.1 of FMVSS 201 requires that the deceleration of the head foam impacted into the instrument panel within the head impact area must not exceed 80g continuously for 3 ms. The console assembly is exempted from this head impact areas as described in S3.1.1.

In your letter to Tsuyoshi Shimizu of our office dated October 27, 1986, you defined the instrument panel to be the vehicle structure below the windshield used to mount a vehicle's gauges. Gauge is described in 49 CFR 571.101; Definitions under S4. to m ean a display that is listed in S5.1 or in Table 2 and is not a telltale. Specifically, gauges are listed in S5.1 as the speedometer, turn signal, gear position, brake failure warning, fuel, engine coolant temperature, oil, high beam, and electrical cha rge. Table 2 adds the following gauges: malfunction in anti-lock or brake systems, odometer, and automatic gear position.

Based on this definitions, we determine the instrument panel to be areas where gauges are mounted which communicate critical vehicle functions to the driver. In contrast, the console assembly is where less essential functions are located, heater control panel, radio, ashtray, etc., which aid in occupant comfort.

Based on this judgment, we have delineated the separation of the instrument panel and console assembly on the enclosed diagrams just above the heater control panel (highlighted by a solid-slashed line). View Z on the same attachments shows the "setback" area which makes this boundary line clearer. While 49 CFR 571.103, Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems specifies performance criteria for the defroster and although we consider the defroster a necessary safety function, it is not a gauge and, th erefore, is not included as part of the instrument panel.

I ask for your confirmation of this interpretation and the acceptability of our indicated separation of the instrument panels and console assemblies on the enclosed diagrams. If you have any questions, please call me at (313) 353-5444.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURES (6)

ID: nht88-2.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/19/88

FROM: SPENCER A. DARBY -- SATE-LITE MFG CO

TO: JOAN TILGHMAN -- NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION OF FMVSS 125

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/07/88 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO SPENCER A DARBY, REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 125; TELECOPY DATED 08/30/88 FROM SPENCER A DARBY TO JOAN TILGHMAN RE 2166

TEXT: Dear Ms. Tilghman:

Sate-Lite Manufacturing Co. is one of the countries leading manufacturers of FMVSS 125 complaint Emergency Warning Triangles, and has been so since 1974. In a recent engineering review of the current FMVSS 125, some serious concerns have arisen, and I w ould appreciate your interpretation of the three areas stated below.

We understand that the applicable law requiring the three bi-directional emergency reflective triangles to be carried by vehicles over 80" wide used in" interstate commerce is a requirement of the Federal Highway Administration. And we further understan d that the triangles when used must be in conformance to FMVSS 125 as administered by NHTSA.

QUESTION #1: If the FHA requires three triangles, and since Para S5.1.5.(c) requires that "Figure 3" be included in the instructions for erection, why does Figure 3 show a passenger vehicle with only one triangle erected? For years Sate-Lite has placed the generally accepted diagrams for the over 80" tractor-trailer rig on either a divided highway, or a two lane highway on the inside of the container for the three triangles, as well as on the lower arm of the individual triangle, (see enclosed samples) per the S5.1.5.(c) requirement and is now concerned about the correctness of this practice. When used by the trucking industry, are these currently used diagrams correct, and in compliance with the requirements of S5.1.5?

QUESTION #2: More and more single triangles are being used in a non-required manner by passenger cars, especially the European imports. For this application, Sate-Lite has included on the inside cover of the single triangle container the "Figure 3" diag ram for proper erection of a single triangle when used by a passenger car. However, the triangle itself does not have the single triangle placement diagram for lack of room on the moldings. It is our opinion that since the single triangle is not regula ted for under 80" vehicle width usage, and since the usage by a passenger car owner is voluntary, the diagram does not have to be on the triangle itself. Is this a correct assumption?

QUESTION #3: Should not FMVSS 125 be amended to include a "Figure 4" for over 80" vehicles on a dividend highway, and a "Figure 5" for over 80" vehicles on a two lane highway? And if amended, should not Para S5.1.5 be revised to include specific ere ction requirements depending on the type vehicle?

As a major supplier of the Emergency Warning Triangles to the industry, we are naturally concerned. Our sales are to a few OEM Lighting manufacturers, or representatives, who then resell them to the ultimate consumer. We have no control over the end us age, and would not know if it were to be used as required by the FHA on over 80" wide trucks, or individually by the driver of an automobile or van. I can see problems arising if we were required to manufacturer two or three versions of the triangle, di ffering only in the erection diagram molded into the lower arm. Please advise

If I have raised more questions than I have asked, please feel free to call me at 312-647-1515 and we can discuss them of the phone.

Thank you for your kind assistance.

ENCLOSURE