ID: nht87-3.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/16/87

FROM: GLENN L. DUNCAN -- THORNE GRODNIK AND RANSEL

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

TITLE: FMVSS 207 SEATING SYSTEM

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/16/88, TO GLENN L. DUNCAN FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 207; LETTER DATED 08/30/79 TO ROBERT J. WAHLS FROM FRANK A. BERNDT; LETTER DATED 04/28/77 TO GORDON P. CRESS FROM FRANK A. BERNDT, STANDARD 210; LE TTER DATED 02/01/88 TO ERICA Z. JONES FROM GLENN L. DUNCAN RE UNITED TOOL AND STAMPING INC FMVSS 207 SEATING SYSTEM

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

The undersigned represents United Tool and Stamping, Inc., a component supplier for seating systems used in motor vehicles, particularly recreational vehicles (motor homes). FMVSS 207 establishes a standard or performance requirements, using terminology such as "failure" or "shall withstand the following forces". My question is, what is NHTSA's current interpretation of what constitutes a "failure" or inability to "withstand forces".

It is my understanding from talking with various engineers, including Mr. Stan Fray from TRC of Ohio, who I understand performs some testing for NHTSA, that the currently accepted level of performance or definition of failure is that the seat must not se parate from the floor when the test forces are applied, although it may bend or deform. To state it another way, the seat may give, but must not break free from the floor.

Miss Diedre Hahn has indicated the proper way to obtain the answer to this question is to supply you with the question in writing. I would appreciate a response at your earliest possible convenience.

Respectfully,

ID: nht87-3.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/18/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Paul Autery -- President, Auto Accessories, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Paul Autery President Auto Accessories, Inc. P.O. Box 10044 New Iberia, LA 70561

This responds to your letter to Mr. John Messera, of our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, concerning the installation of your company's armrest in certain Volvo models. Specifically, you propose to have dealers remove the part of the front seat belt assembly that contains the buckle for the belt, straighten a metal guide that ensures that the buckle portion of the seat belt assembly will remain accessible to passengers, and discard a spacer washer that is provided with the seat belt assembly. The sp acer washer would be replaced by the armrest mounting bracket, which you stated is the same thickness as the spacer washer it would replace. You asked us whether this procedure would be permissible under the law and our regulations. As explained below, a ny dealers that follow your proposed installation procedures might violate Federal law.

Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR S571.208) sets forth minimum requirements for occupant protection. Additionally, section S7.2 sets forth an accessibility requirement for safety belt latch mechanisms that reads as follows:

S7.2 Latch mechanism. A seat belt assembly installed in a passenger car, except an automatic belt assembly, shall have a latch mechanism (a) Whose components are accessible to a seated occupant in both the stowed and operational positions; ...

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) provides that: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part , any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ..." This statutory prohibition might be violated by any dealer that followed your proposed installation proce dures for your armrest.

For example, it may be that Volvo installed the metal guide on its front seat safety belts for the purpose of complying with section S7.2 of Standard No. 208. If this were the case, any dealer that straightened that metal guide, in accordance with your i nstallation instructions, might render inoperative a device (that metal guide) that was installed in the vehicle in compliance with Standard No. 208. In this situation, whether the dealer actually renders inoperative the metal guides by straightening the m depends on whether the buckle portion of the seat belt assembly no longer complies with section S7.2 (which requires the buckle to be accessible to the front seat occupant) after the installation.

Section 109 of the Safety Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1000 for each violation of section 108(a)12)(A), up to a maximum of $800,000 for a related series of violations. We would consider each installation of your armrest by a dealer that render s inoperative the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208 to be a separate violation. Accordingly, a dealer might be liable for a civil penalty of $1000 multiplied by the number of vehicles in which the dealer had installed armrests in accordance with your instructions.

Please do not misconstrue this letter as suggesting that this agency either approves or disapproves the proposed installation instructions for your armrests. The Safety Act does not give NHTSA any authority to approve or endorse any products. Instead, th e Safety Act places the initial responsibility for determining whether your proposed installation instructions violate a legal or regulatory requirement on your company. The agency may reexamine your initial determination in the context of an enforcement action.

To comply with your legal obligations, I suggest that you carefully reexamine the proposed installation instructions and compare those instructions with the requirements of Standard No. 208, to determine if installing your armrests in accordance with you r installation instructions would result in the vehicle no longer complying with Standard No. 208. If it would do so, you will have to devise some other means of installing your armrests, so that dealers would not be instructed to render inoperative the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208. If your proposed installation instructions do not result in a rendering inoperative of the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208, dealers can follow those instructions without violating any provisions of t he law.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ATTN: JOHN MESSERA REG: CENTER ARMREST INSTALLATION ON VOLVO 240 SEDAN.

I WOULD LIKE AN INTERPRETATION AND/OR ADVISE ON THE MODIFICATION OF THE SEAT BELT LATCH ASSEMBLY WHICH IS NECESSARY TO INSTALL OUR ARMREST. OUR A/R IS A AFTERMARKET ACCESSORY WHICH HAS BEEN ON THE MARKET FOR 6 YEARS NOW. THE A/R WAS DESIGNED TO INSTALL I NTO PRE-EXISTING HOLES ON THE TUNNEL OF THE CAR. AT THE TIME OF DESIGN AND UP UNTIL THIS YEAR THE HOLES WERE LEFT BLANK ON THE AMERICAN MODELS BUT USED IN SOME EUROPEAN COUNTRY'S. THE VOLVO CAR CORP. OF SWEDEN HAS A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT SEAT BELT LATCHES AVAILABLE. STARTING IN MID 87 VOLVO AMERICA SWITCHED SAME DESIGN USED IN EUROPE WHICH INSTALLS INTO THE HOLES OUR ARMREST WAS DESIGNED TO GO IN.

OUR ARMREST CAN STILL BE INSTALLED INTO THE HOLES IF YOU REMOVE A LARGE WASHER FROM THE SEAT BELT ASSEMBLY AND REPLACE THE WASHER WITH OUR ARMREST MOUNTING BRACKET, WHICH IS THE SAME THICKNESS .

THE LARGE WASHER THAT WOULD BE REMOVED IS A SPACER THAT IS USED TO SHOULDER UP THE BOLT TO THE FLOOR OF THE TUNNEL WHICH IS BELOW THE SAME THICKNESS OF CARPET.

THE ACTUAL SEAT BELT LATCH PIVOTS ON THE BOLT WHICH HOLDS IT IN PLACE. SO AS YOU WILL BE ABLE TO SEE FROM SAMPLES I'VE SENT AND FROM THE ILLUSTRATIONS, THAT EXCHANGING THE WASHER, FOR THE A/R MOUNTING BRACKET, WHICH IS THE SAME THICKNESS, WON'T AFFECT TH E PERFORMANCE OF THE SEAT BELT LATCH.

I'VE ENCLOSED THE PROPOSED INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS FOR YOU TO REVIEW. THE PROCEDURE WILL BE DONE BY QUALIFIED MECHANICS AT THE INDIVIDUAL DEALERSHIPS AROUND THE COUNTRY.

WE DO A LOT OF BUSINESS WITH SEVERAL VOLVO DEALERS IN YOUR AREA, AND COULD EASILY ARRANGE FOR A DEMO OF THE INSTALLATION IF THIS WOULD BE OF ANY ASSISTANCE.

WE 15 EMPLOYEES AT AUTO ACCESSORIES WILL BE EAGERLY AWAITING YOUR INTERPRETATION AND/OR ADVISE.

SINCERELY YOURS PAUL AUTERY PRESIDENT AUTO ACCESSORIES, INC.

ID: nht87-3.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: NOVEMBER 18, 1987

FROM: DAVIS THEKKANATH -- SR. SUPERVISING ENGINEER, OSHKOSH TRUCK CORPORATION

TO: CHIEF COUNSEL -- NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSS 121

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 9-12-88, TO DAVIS THEKKANATH, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES-NHTSA, STD 121

TEXT: Section 5.1.1. of the subject regulation addresses air compressor capacity requirements in terms of pump up time, to bring the reservoir pressure from 85 psi to 100 psi for trucks and buses. What happens when the truck has a trailer behind it? Does the air compressor capacity requirement include the volume of service reservoirs for the trailer too? My conversation this morning with Mr. Richard Carter of your office indicates that only the truck's service reservoirs have to be considered for the pump up time. Please confirm.

Thank you,

ID: nht87-3.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/25/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ms. Sally P. Tate

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Sally P. Tate Adaptive Driving Service 2818 Ronco Drive San Jose, CA 95132

Dear Ms Tate:

This is in reply to your letter of August 13, 1987, with reference to the following problem: an owner of a 1987 Toyota Corolla has multiple sclerosis, and instead of walking must use a powered scooter. The scooter is transported by a lift platf orm mounted on a trailer hitch in the rear of the car. However, this lift unit "obstructs direct view of -- the factory installed high rear brake light." You propose to install another stop lamp on the post of the lift "so that it will be in dir ect view of the drivers behind....," leaving untouched the original center highmounted stop lamp. You have informed us that California will not sanction the additional lamp unless this agency authorizes it. Vehicles in use are subject to the prohibition in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act that equipment installed in accordance with a safety standard may not be rendered inoperative, in whole or in part, by a person other than the vehicle owner. Installation of any equipment that obstructs the light output of a highmounted stop lamp would render it partially inoperative in our opinion. Because photometric compliance of the lamp is determined from a distance of not less than 10 feet, and b ecause the distance between the Toyota rear lamp and lift unit would appear to be less than that distance, it is probable that one or more of the requisite photometric test points might be obscured by the device.

However, it appears that the prohibition against rendering inoperative may not be violated by the modification you propose. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment allows an exception for modifica tions made during the manufacturing process or before sale. Under Paragraph S4.3.1.1, if motor vehicle equipment prevents a lamp from compliance with photometric requirements, an auxiliary lamp meeting the photometric requirements shall be provided. Wher e a standard provides alternative methods of compliance, alteration of a vehicle or item of equipment so that it meets a different alternative from the one which it originally met does not constitute rendering inoperative within the meaning of the prohib ition.

We believe that your situation is sufficiently similar so that your addition of an auxiliary lamp meeting the photometric requirements would not violate the prohibition. In this instance the fact that the new lamp would not be located directed on the rea r vertical centerline of the vehicle, but slightly to the left of it, would not be of great concern to us. In conclusion, we have no objection to the proposed installation of the lamp.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

August 13, 1987

Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel F.M.V. #108, Room 5219 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation 400 7th Street SouthWest Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Erika Z. Jones,

As per my conversations with Mr. Kevin Cabey and Mr. Taylor Vinson, I have been advised to write directly to you to have you assist us with our request.

I will try to be as brief as possible. I work with Physically Disabled individuals and I have been contracted by the State of California to work with a client who has Multiple Sclerosis. She purchased a 1987 Toyota Corolla liftback which obviously has th e high center rear brake light feature. This light in itself poses no problem. However, our client uses a powered scooter since her ability to ambulate is minimized and this scooter can only be transported through the means of a special lift unit mounted on a trailer hitch in the rear of the car. (Please refer to the brochure of Tiger Lift enclosed.) When this lift unit is mounted on the car, it abstracts direct view of the factory installed high rear brake light. We have come up with a solution of moun ting another high rear brake light" on the post of the lift so that it will be in direct view of the drivers behind our client. Our State Chief of Automotive Inspection insists that this rear brake light be visible.

Our snag hinges on the fact that the California State Department of Automotive Inspection will not sanction any location of the high rear brake light (only factory installed), in our case on the post of the lift, unless we receive a letter of authorizati on directly from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

We are therefore requesting and greatly appreciate your efforts in assisting us with this client's need. Our automotive chief has stated that this unit will not be installed unless we are able to receive a written letter of authorization addressing the a cceptance of the installation of another high rear brake light, which can be mounted on the post of this lift unit. The factory installed unit will remain untouched.

Thank you for your prompt attention in this unusual request.

ID: nht87-3.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/19/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: M.B. Mathieson -- Director of Engineering, Thomas Built Buses L.P.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 3/20/87 letter from Erika Z. Jones to M.B. Mathieson (Std. 301)

TEXT: Mr. M.B. Mathieson Director of Engineering Thomas Built Buses L.P. P.O. Box 2450 High Point, NC 27261

Dear Mr. Mathieson:

This is in reply to your letter of April 27, 1987, asking for a clarification of my letter of March 20.

In that letter I answered your question as to whether the results of frontal barrier impact tests that occurred at 30.1 mph with a vehicle that exceeded the test height limits would constitute either a noncompliance with Standard No. 301 or a safety rela ted defect. Because the test has not conducted in accordance with Standard No. 301's conditions I replied that this would not be a noncompliance, and further, that those results "do not constitute a safety related defect regardless of the use of the vehi cle." This statement appears unclear to you.

By my earlier statement I intended to explain that we do not use a safety standard's compliance test results (particularly if the test was not conducted in accordance with the prescribed procedures) as the sole basis for a determination of a safety-relat ed defect in the same aspect of performance governed by that standard. For example, having determined through rulemaking that a particular level of vehicle performance is expected in a 30 mph crash test, it would be inappropriate to use the results from an otherwise identical crash test conducted at 35 mph to form the sole basis for a determination of a safety-related defect in the tested vehicles. To do so would constitute, in effect, rulemaking to raise the impact speed in the standard to 35 mph. We c ompletely agree, however, with your statement that "there can be safety-related defects that are not addressed by the standards." We also agree that the manufacturer has the responsibility to address safety defects that become apparent to him through test data or otherwise.

With this background, we will turn to your question. You have now posed a hypothetical in which your tests indicate that a fully-loaded school bus may encounter a severe leakage exceeding 4.1 ounces of fuel per minute in a head-on impact of 30 m.p.h. Thi s may be evidence that could lead you to believe that there would be a significant number of failures if a school bus, in its normal operation with full complement of students, encounters a head-on collision at what appears to be a reasonable operating s peed. This combination of factors might appear to pose an unreasonable risk to safety and afford the basis for the determination that a safety related defect exists.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

April 27, 1987

Ms. Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear. Ms. Jones,

This letter is in reference to yours of March 20, 1987, regarding Thomas Built Buses, L.P. questions resulting from crash tests performed on a proposed vehicle utilizing a Thomas school bus body and a Chevrolet Model #G31303 chassis.

We understand from your letter that since the test parameters of vehicle velocity and vehicle test weight did not meet the "letter of the law" in that the test impact velocity exceeded 30 mph by 1.333%, and the vehicle test weight exceeded the manufactur ers limits as defined in @7.1.6(b) of FMVSS 301, that your office has found the test to be invalid as far as determining the requirements of compliance to the standard are concerned.

We further understand from your letter that final stage manufacturers are not prohibited from manufacturing a vehicle that falls outside the limits of the chassis manufacturer's guidelines for maximum unloaded vehicle weight. However, those final stage m anufacturers who build and offer for sale such a vehicle bear full responsibility for certification to FMVSS 301 for such completed vehicles.

We do not understand the basis of the statement in your letter, i.e. "Further, those results do not constitute a safety related defect regardless of the use of vehicle".

Our interpretation of P.L.8g-563 regarding "failure to comply" and "safety related defects" is that these two possible situations are not necessarily coincident or correlated. In other words, while "failure to comply" will possibly always be considered a safety related defect, there can be safety related defects that are not addressed by the Standards but which carry the full responsibility and associated penalties for report and failure to report when they have become apparent to a vehicle manufacturer .

April 24, 1987 Ms. Erika Z. Jones

In light of the above, we would appreciate your consideration of the following:

Thomas Built Buses, L.P., is contemplating the manufacture of a school bus in the "10,000 lbs. or less" GVWR class. We expect the vehicle to operate frequently at the maximum design GVWR of 10,000 lbs., carrying school children in the normal fulfillment of its' purpose. Our tests have indicated that if this fully and legally loaded vehicle encounters a severe head-on impact of 30 mph there will be a significant fuel system "failure" resulting in a fuel leak exceeding 4.1 ounces of fuel per minute.

Question: Does this condition constitute a safety defect in a school bus completed and offered for sale by Thomas Built Buses, L.P.? Thomas Built Buses currently has two prototype vehicles operating in public service.

Your prompt reply would be most helpful to this Company. Sincerely yours,

THOMAS BUILT BUSES, L.P.

M. B. MATHIESON, Director of Engineering

MBM/jm

cc: J. W. Thomas, Jr. J. E. Thomas Roger Chilton Morris Adams Roddey Ligon Tom Mitchell Dale Guthrie

ID: nht87-3.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/19/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Roger M. Cox -- R & R Lighting, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 8/11/88 letter from Erika Z. Jones to J. Mike Callahan (A32; Std. 108); 4/14/87 letter from J. Mike Callahan to Taylor Vinson (occ 409); 9/3/87 letter from Erika Z. Jones to David M. Romansky

TEXT: Mr. Roger M. Cox R & R Lighting, Inc. Route 1, Box 190 Gadsden, AL 35901

Dear Mr. Cox:

This is in reply to your letter of July 8, 1987, with respect to whether a lighting product you intend to market is "in violation of any federal regulation when mounted on a motor vehicle." You describe your product as a "lighted decal" which can be mounted in the rear window of any car or pick-up truck, and the photographs you enclosed show it mounted in the center of the rear window of a pre-1980 model Seville. The decal will be wired int o the brake system and when activated by the brake "only the letters in the decal will be lighted." You state further that although the letters will appear red to an observer this product is not designed nor will it be marketed as a brake light or a tail light.

In our opinion, your product may or may not be in violation of Federal requirements depending upon the following uses. The product does not appear to be intended as a substitute for the center highmounted stop lamp that has been standard equipment on pas senger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985. Indeed, it could not be so used unless it met all requirements for such a lamp. The principal requirements are that such lamps have a minimum of 4 1/2 square inches of illuminated lens area, that it meet specified photometrics at 13 test points, ad that it produce a signal visible from 45 degrees from the right to the left and from five degrees up to five degrees down. If your device does not meet these requirements, removal of the lamp and replace ment with your device would violate a prohibition of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act against rendering inoperative equipment installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, in this case Safety Standard No. 108, Lam ps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. However, a dealer could install it on a new pick-up truck, or to one side of the center lamp in a new passenger car before their initial sale, provided the device did not impair the effectiveness of the r ear lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108, and the device could be installed on some vehicles in use (cars built before September 1, 1984, and any pick-up) provided that it did not render inoperative in whole or in part other required rear ligh ting equipment.

By this we mean that the device appears allowable for these vehicles under Federal law provided that wiring it into the brake system does not reduce the stop lamp output or otherwise affect the operation or the effectiveness of the stop lamp system. You should also ensure that your product is acceptable under State and local laws as well. Because there are no Federal requirements for your product, each State may regulate it as it deems proper.

I am enclosing the samples that you enclosed, and hope that we have answered your questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

R & R Lighting, Incorporated Route 1, Box 190 Gadsden, Alabama 35901

July 8, 1987

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Attention: Ms. Erika Jones

Dear Mrs. Jones:

I am in the final planning stage before marketing/manufacturing a new product. After having exhausted all efforts at state and national levels, I talked with Mr. Brooks in the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. It was Mr. Brooks' opinion that we are no t in violation of any federal laps, but he suggested I correspond with you to get an appropriate legal opinion as to whether my product in violation of any federal regulation when mounted on a motor vehicle.

My product. the "#1-American Team Light", is a lighted decal. It is designed to be mounted in the rear window. My product can be mounted onany car or pick-up truck. It will be wired into the brake system and when activated by the brake, only the letters in the decal will be lighted. The letters will appear the same color as automobile manufacturers use in brake lights and tail lights; however, this product is not designed nor will it be marketed as a brake light or tail light. We have targeted the sport s enthusiast at high school and college level as our market group. We also feel we have a smaller market at local and state levels with a lighted decal that reads "Police" and "State Trooper".

In order to effectively market my product at its peak season, which would be September, time is of the essence. I have enclosed a sample lens and photographs.

Please review my information and sample and let me hear from you at your earliest convenience. If further information is needed, please call me collect at (205) 442-1642 or (205) 442-8436.

Very truly yours,

R & R LIGHTING INCORPORATED

Roger M. Cox

RMC/lc

Enclosures

ID: nht87-3.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/30/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: D.F. Landers -- President, Mobile Products, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 7/11/83 letter from Frank Berndt to D.F. Landers

TEXT:

D. F. Landers PSI Mobile Products Inc. 25 Eldredge P.O. Box 1183 Mt. Clemens, Michigan 48043

This is in response to your letter requesting confirmation of a July 11, 1983 determination by this agency that your special tow tractor vehicle is exempt from Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You indicate in your letter that you now have three si zes of tow tractors and that your market may expand to include commercial airline use as well as the Department of Defense.

Based on the information you have provided us, we confirm our previous determinations that baggage tow tractors are not subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The agency has consistently interpreted the definition of motor vehicle as excl uding vehicles such as airport runway vehicles that are intended and sold solely for off-road use and are not equipped for highway use. Further, we note that section 571.7(c) of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, provides that.

No standard applies to a vehicle or item of equipment manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications.

Your vehicles might become subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards if there is a material change in the facts regarding the intended or actual use, design or sale of your vehicles. Please remember that compliance with all Federal motor vehi cle safety standards is the obligation of each manufacturer of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. We appreciate your continuing efforts at classifying correctly your vehicles.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Dear Mr. Berndt:

We have requested your opinion in the past, regarding the applicability of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards to our special tow tractor vehicle. (A copy of our most recent correspondence is attached.) The purpose of this letter is to update our files and exemption position.

PSI now manufactures three sizes of tow tractors. These are sold to the Department of Defense agencies only, but may have commercial airline potential sales In the future.

The three vehicle sizes are shown on the chart enclosed along with pertinent specifications. Photographs and brochures are also enclosed for your information and files.

We would appreciate your confirmation that your previous determination that these vehicles are exempt from the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards still applies.

Yours very truly, D. F. Landers President DFL/mm enclosures (See 7/11/83 letter from NHTSA to D.F. Landers)

ID: nht87-3.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/01/87 EST

FROM: REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/09/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO JACK MCCROSKEY AND GLENDA SWANSON LYLE, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 119; LETTER DATED 09/13/88 FROM JACK MCCROSKEY AND GLENDA SWANSON LYLE TO LARRY COOK -- NHTSA, OCC 2539; LETTER DATE D 08/26/88 FROM R. E. MORGAN TO MARVIN ORNES; LETTER DATED 09/09/87 FROM RE MORGAN TO R. ROGERS RE GOODYEAR MILEAGE TIRES, REF BRUCE RUMAGE PHONE CALL

TEXT: SPECIAL SERVICES

Fares can be paid in cash (exact amounts only), with tokens, tickets or a monthly pass. Peak hours are weekdays 6 a.m. to 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. All other times are off-peak hours. Transfers are free and are issued upon boarding. Riders must p ay the difference in fare when transferring to a more expensive level of service. Peak Off-Peak Elderly & Handicapped Off-Peak Circulator $ .50 $ .50 $ .10 Local .75 .50 .10 Express 1.25 1.25 .10 Regional 2.00 2.00 .10 Boulder City .50 .50 .10 Longmont City .25 .25 .10 Tokens Tokens are available in 25 cent and 75 cent denominations from all RTD sales outlets. The 25 cent tokens are also available from Albertsons, King Soopers and Safeway stores. 10-Ride Books of 10 single trip coupons are avail-Ticket Books able at 10 percent discount for Regional, Express and Local service at all RTD sales outlets. The coupons are good during the calendar year in which they are purchased. Monthly RTD monthly passes are valid throughout Passes the stated month for which they are purchased. The passes are good for unlimited rides on the level of service purchased, less expensive levels of service, or as a credit toward more expensive levels of service. The passes offer a 15 percent discount over cash fares and can be valid for extra benefits too, such as discounts from local merchants or for special events. Passes are available at any RTD sales outlet and at Safeway and King Soopers stores. Passes also can be obtained through the mail or by phone (777-8893). Some individuals are eligible for additional pass discounts, including youths 18 and under, students of any age at accredited schools, senior citizens 65 and over and disabled individuals. The reduced rate passes are available from RTD sales offices or through the mail.

DIRECTORS

RTD offers a variety of special services, including those for the elderly, handicapped and students. More than 77 percent of the District's fleet is fully accessible to handicapped persons in wheelchairs. RTD also offers the handyRide program, a cur b-to-curb subscription service to meet the needs of those more severely disabled individuals who cannot use regular accessible service.

The popular seniorRide gives thousands of elderly persons the opportunity to participate in more than 300 social, educational and recreational events during the year. A shopper service provides midday trips to shopping centers for the elderly and han dicapped. For information call 778-3503.

Persons ages 18 and under are offered independence during the summer months with the Summer Youth Pass. For just $ 7 a month, the pass gives unlimited rides on all Local, Limited and Circulator routes and may also be good for discounts at selected ar ea merchants.

RTD also offers BroncoRide and BuffaloRide to get fans directly to Denver Bronco and University of Colorado (Boulder) home football games. The Mall The 16th Street Mall, built by RTD, was officially opened in October 1982. It is anchored at both ends by transit stations, linked by the free Mall shuttles. A fleet of 26 shuttle buses operates along the mile- long mall, and carried 11.9 million people in 1986. District A Jack McCrosky Downtown & Central DenverDistrict B Glenda Swanson Lyle, Northeast Denver District C Henry L. Solano, North Denver District D Michael J. Garcia, Southwest Denver District E Bob Jacobsen, Southeast Denver District F Mary Duty, Aurora District G Richard P. Karma, Second Vice Chairman Arapahoe/Douglas CountiesDistrict H J. Bear Baker, Secretary Arapahoe CountyDistrict I Bill Womack, First Vice Chairman East Boulder/Adams CountiesDistrict J Kevin Sampson, Northwest Adams County District K Robert June, East Adams County District L Thomas G. Thomas North Jefferson CountyDistrict M Helen W. Steele, Treasurer Central Jefferson CountyDistrict N Stephen C. Millard, South Jefferson County District O Roger Cracraft, Chairman West Boulder County GeneralChester E. Colby Manager

(PHOTOGRAPH OMITTED)

OPERATING STATISTICS 1985-1987

The Regional Transportation District is a public agency created in 1969 by the Colorado General Assembly to develop, operate and maintain a mass transportation system for the benefit of the people in RTD's six-county service area.

The service area includes all of Boulder, Denver and Jefferson counties, and the urban portions of Adams, Arapahoe and Douglas counties.

The District is governed by a 15-member board of directors elected for four-year terms. Route/ Telephone Information Center, open 5 a.m. Schedule to 10 p.m. weekdays; 7 a.m. to 10 p.m.Information weekends and holidays. 778-6000 Denver Metro Information 777-3343 Boulder Information 1-800- Calls to TIC from outside Denver Metro 223-1565 dialing area 778-1034 TDD Information (for persons with speech or hearing impairments) Customer For information not related to routes and Service schedules. Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.573-2343 District-wide Customer Service 573-2202 TDD (for persons with speech or hearing impairments) 1,843,000 Population within six-county service area 35 Cities and towns served 2,304 Square miles in service area 26,830,314 Current annualized route service miles 2,278 Miles of routes (1986) 8,900 Bus stops 149 Total number of routes 47 Local 54 Express 16 Regional 6 Circulator (including mall) 10 Boulder City 5 Longmont City 9 Limited 2 Paratransit 170,000 Estimated 1987 average weekday boardings (includes approximately 40,000 Mall Shuttle boardings) 51,500,000 Estimated 1987 annual boardings (includes approximately 11,500,000 on Mall Shuttle) 91,813 Daily miles operated (1987 average weekday) 7,535,325 Diesel fuel consumption (1986 gallons) 759 Total active buses in fleet 588 Wheelchair lift-equipped buses 5.3 years Average fleet age 38 Park-n-Ride facilities 598 Peak-hour buses required (October 1987) 2,055 Total number of employees (1987 Adopted Budget) 419 Salaried employees 1,636 Represented employees (including approximately 110 part-time bus operators) 1987 1986 1985 Adopted Actual Actual Budget .6 of one $ 79,500,000 $ 77,941,000 $ 78,851,000percent general sales tax Transit Fares $ 18,000,000 $ 17,423,000 $ 17,927,000 Federal $ 30,231,000 $ 32,569,000 $ 20,557,000Grants Investment $ 8,679,000 $ 8,419,000 $ 8,689,000Income & Other Debt $ 0 $ 19,485,000 $ 1,275,000Financing From 1986 fund balance carryover: Federal $ 11,797,000 $ 0 $ 0Capital Grants Local Funds $ 11,219,000 $ 0 $ 0 Total $ 159,426,000 $ 155,837,000 $ 127,299,000 Operations & $ 100,122,000 $ 104,959,000 $ 103,011,000Administration Capital $ 63,688,000 $ 39,749,000 $ 25,381,000 Total $ 163,810,000 $ 144,708,000 $ 128,392,000 Ending $ 51,479,000 $ 51,269,000 $ 58,377,000accumulated revenues over expenditures

ID: nht87-3.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/03/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: M. Iwase, Manager, Technical Administration Dept. Koito Mfg. Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 7/23/87 letter from Erika Z. Jones to M. Iwase (Std. 108)

TEXT:

Mr. M. Iwase, Manager Technical Administration Dept. Koito Mfg. co., Ltd. Shizuoka Works 500, Kitawaki Shimuzu-shi, Shizuoka-ken JAPAN

This is in reply to your letter of September 15, 1987, with further reference to features of a 60 degree slant replaceable bulb headlamp presently being developed by Koito. You have explained that the aiming pads for the new system will be installed on t he aiming adapter, rather than the headlamp lens, and have asked for confirmation that this is "not illegal" under Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

As you noted in your letter, paragraph S4.1.1.36(a) (2) specifically requires the exterior face of each replaceable bulb headlamp lens to have three aiming pads. The agency has no specifications for the design of aiming adapters, and a headlamp without a iming pads would be one that is not designed to conform to the standard.

The agency is examining concepts for aiming methods for other than mechanical aim, but no amendments to Standard No. 108 are contemplated that would permit or require aiming pads to be on aiming adapters.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Air-Mail Ms. Erica Z. Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Admin. 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Dear Ms. E. Z. Jones:

We would like to further ask you the following question of headlamp aiming adaptor in connection with your kind advice mentioned in your letter of July 23, l987 replying to our letter of March 24, l987. (Refer to the attached.)

RE = 1 ) Aiming Adaptor for 60 " Slant Bulb Replaceable Headlamp

As shown below, instead of being installed, on the lens of headlamps, aiming bosses are installed on the surface of the special adaptor which is to be equipped onto each vehicle so that mechanical aiming can be performed, by use of the headlamp aimer " s pecified SAE J602C.

Of course, the special adaptor is so designed that it can be surely attached onto the proper design position of headlamps.

The aiming bosses and markings, which are applied to 54. 1. 1.36 (a) (2)& (3) of FMVSS No. 108, are placed on the surface of the special adaptor.

(INSERT GRAPHICS)

Attn: Ms. Erica Z. Jones Date: Sept. 15, 1987 Page: 2 / 3

Question:

We believe that the aiming boss installation as abovementioned can be applied to FMVSS NO. 108 and not illegal under FMVSS NO. 108. We would like you to confirm whether our interpretation is correct or not.

Aiming pads are specified in 54.1. 1.36 (a) (2) of FMVSS NO. 108 as follows;

"The exterior face of each replaceable bulb headlamp lens shall have three pads which meet the requirements of Figure 4, Dimensional Specifications for Location of Aiming Pads on Replaceable Bulb Headlamp Units .. ."

However, for all this prescription, we can not find it necessary that aiming pads shall be placed on the lens of headlamps which can be aimed by the use of the adaptor equipped onto each vehicle, because the special adaptor can be designed regardless of lens bosses so as to be surely attached onto the proper design position of headlamps in any way, we think.

And it is not only useless but also impractical that the specified aiming bosses are placed onto the lens of headlamps which slant up to about 60o in vertical and horizontal, because the projection of the aiming bosses becomes higher according to the len s slant inevitably.

(INSERT GRAPHICS)

Attn: Ms. Erica Z. Jones Date: Sept. 15, 1987 Page: 3 / 3

Upon our consideration of the abovementioned matter, it should not be required that aiming bosses shall be placed on the lens of headlamps which are aimed by use of the special adaptor equipped onto each vehicle.

Upon your review, your prompt reply to this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours, M. Iwase Manager Technical Administration Dept. Koito Mfg. Co., Ltd. Shizuoka Works

See 7/23/87 letter from Erika Z. Jones to M. Iwase.

ID: nht87-3.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/03/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Frank Miller -- Gerry Baby Products

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Frank Miller Gerry Baby Products 12520 Grant Drive Denver, CO 80233

This responds to your September 25, 1987 letter to Mr. Val Radovich of NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Standards and your October 19, 1987 letter to my office concerning paragraph S4.2.1 of Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials.

You ask whether the thread that is used in the manufacture of a seat cushion is tested as part of the component. The answer is yes. In a March 10, 1978 interpretation of Standard No. 302, NHTSA recognized that stitching that does not adhere at every poin t of contact should be tested separately under S4.2.1. However, the agency also determined that, from the standpoint of practicality, the stitching cannot be tested separately in the prescribed manner. NHTSA thus concluded that stitching will be tested a s part of the material itself.

Please contact us if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

September 25, 1987

To: Mr. Val Radovich Office of Vehicle Safety Standards National Highway Traffic Safety Admin. 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

From: Frank Miller Gerry Baby Products 12520 Grant Drive Denver, CO 80233

Dear Sir:

This inquiry is in regards to the flame retardancy requirements of FMVSS 302, specifically S4.2.1. A question has been brought up about the thread that is used in the manufacture of the seat cushion.

Is the thread considered to be part of the composite?

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Frank Miller Quality Engineer

October 19, 1987

Office of Chief Counsel NHTSA 400 Seventh St. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sir/Madam:

To satisfy our specifications we need written legal interpretation of the term "composite" as used in FMVSS 302.

Our feeling is that as long as the sewn seat meets the requirements, the thread and/or binding does not have to meet the requirements if tested separately. We feel this way because the thread and binding in the Gerry Guardian Car Seat adheres to the seat cushion at every point of contact.

Your response to this matter will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Frank Miller Quality Engineer