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

ID: nht88-2.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/20/88

FROM: GEORGE ZIOLO -- DOT PAPERWORK PROCESSOR

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TITLE: HEADLAMP COMBINATIONS - REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION, FMVSS 108

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 09/12/88 TO GEORGE ZIOLO FROM ERIKA Z JONES; REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 108;

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

I assist graymarket automobile importers in conforming their vehicles.

Some foreign models come equipped with four headlamps two of which are 7" diameter and two 5 3/4" diameter.

My clients modify them by installing two Type 2D1 (7" dia) high & low beam units outboards, and two Type 1C1 (5 3/4" dia) high beam units inboards.

OVSC (NEF-32) rejects such installations because they are "nonconforming" "headlighting systems". It is my opinion that such rejection is without basis.

As I understand it, the FMVSS are "minimum standards". S4.1.1 confirms this by requiring that "...each vehicle...be equipped with at least the number of lamps...specified in Tables I and III,...."

My clients' installation of two Type 2D1 lamps satisfies the minimum requirement specified in Table III.

My clients' installation of two Type IC1 lamps in addition to the two Type 2D1 lamps is not counter to a "headlighting system" as I can find in the standard. In addition, S4.4 appears to permit such combination.

While it may have been necessary to ensure symmetry in headlighting systems combinations in motorcycles by way of S4.1.1.34, where Table III calls for only one lamp, such clarification relative to vehicles other than motorcycles is obviously not needed s ince symmetry in such will be natural.

I therefore kindly request that you determine whether or not FMVSS 108 allows lamp combinations as outlined above and advise me at your earliest convenience. The cited lamp combinations are desired by my clients for reasons of appearance. Also, modificat ion of such vehicles to delete the 2D1 (7") lamp in lieu of a 2C1 (5 3/4") lamp is costly, including replacement of the entire front grille.

Sincerely,

FEDERAL REGISTER VOL 52, NO 208 10/28/87 NHTSA 49 CFR PART 571 (DOCKERT 87-15 NOTICE 1) FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS, VEHICLE CLASSIFICATION (TEXT OMITTED)

ID: nht88-2.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/19/88

FROM: RAYMOND M. MOMBOISSE -- IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE GENERAL COUNSEL

TO: BWAYNE VANCE -- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10/18/88 FROM ERICA Z JONES TO RAYMOND M MOMBOISSE; REDBOOK A32; 571.7 (A) SECTION 101(3)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Vance:

We request a waiver from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation (DOT), exempting the Hummer vehicle from the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) when purchased directly from the manufacturer, AM Genera l Corporation. We are requesting a waiver on behalf of the Border Patrol.

The Hummer is a four-wheel drive vehicle currently manufactured by AM General Corporation for the U.S. Army. The Border Patrol intends to use Hummers to fulfill our traditional and expanded law enforcement missions, especially in the area of drug interd iction. The Hummer's high performance level will give Border Patrol a distinct advantage both in high-speed cross-country pursuits of drug or alien smugglers, and in routine patrolling.

Border Patrol's fleet of about 3,000 vehicles includes nearly 1,500 four-wheel drive vehicles. The Border Patrol currently has about five Hummers, and hopes to purchase approximately 100 Hummers over the next two years.

There are three main reasons why we are requesting a waiver from DOT. The main reason is that we wish to enhance the Hummer with a central tire inflation system (CTI) which can only be done by AM General Corporation as an assembly line item. Secondary reasons are that the Hummer will only be used on public highways approximately 30% of the time, and that buying directly from AM General Corporation will save about $ 5,000 per vehicle. Each reason will be developed below.

The major reason for requesting a waiver is that we need to modify the Hummers to include a CTI. The CTI is a patented feature only available as an assembly line item from AM General Corporation.

The CTI works simply and effectively. The CTI allows the driver to individually and quickly adjust tire pressures while traveling. The ability to adjust quickly tire pressures enhances

control over tire traction and therefore increases vehicle stability. For example, the tire pressures could be adjusted from 10 to 16 psi for typical off-road use over rough terrain. The tire pressures can also be raised from 20 to 24 psi for dirt roads to indirectly increase vehicle speed. The tire pressures can be increased to 32 psi for highway use.

The CTI is critical to carry out our law enforcement missions, both in terms of the types of terrain and conditions covered, and the range of topography within each type of terrain and conditions. Many of the areas patrolled by Border Patrol are inacces sible by commercially-available four-wheel drive vehicles. However, the performance characteristics of the Hummer as modified to include the CTI enables the Hummer to travel over these varied terrains, conditions and topographies.

The Border Patrol routinely patrols eight thousand miles of extremely varied types of terrain and conditions on the United States borders with Mexico and Canada. The terrain and conditions range from deserts to rocks to deep snow to forests.

In addition, the topography and conditions within each type of terrain vary enormously. For example, a typical mountain terrain may have greatly varying topographies or conditions requiring the following unique vehicle characteristics:

1. the ability to ascend or decent a 60% grade, including stopping and restarting on the grade;

2. the ability to traverse a 40% side slope;

3. the ability to negotiate a twenty-two inch vertical step from a complete stop;

4. the ability to ford a thirty inch stream of fresh water or salt water; and

5. the ability to clear the ground by eighteen inches with an approach angle of 60 degrees and a departure angle of 45 degrees.

The high performance characteristics of a fully-equipped Hummer with a payload of 3,500 pounds easily accommodate these varied terrains, conditions, and topographies.

The Hummers will only be used on public highways approximately 30% of the time. The Hummers will generally only be used on public highways to travel between stations and assigned duty areas. Thus, the Hummers use on public highways will be relatively mi nimal.

The Border Patrol's existing Hummers were first purchased by the U.S. Army pursuant to a contract and are in conformity with the specifications. Since the U.S. Army is now selling these vehicles to the Border Patrol, the vehicles are now used military v ehicles. Per 49 C.F.R. Sec. 571. 7(a) and (1), these Hummers are not subject to the DOT FMVSS.

However, purchasing the Hummers directly from the manufacturer will reduce the total cost by about $ 5,000 per vehicle. Vehicles purchased from the U.S. Army are more expensive because the amortized development costs are spread through the contract term . If we purchase the 100 Hummers we hope to purchase, then buying directly from the manufacturer will save the Border Patrol a total of approximately $ 500,000.

Please contact Elizabeth M. Jarrell at (202) 633-1260 upon receipt of our requests. Thank you.

ID: nht88-2.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/20/88

FROM: JERRY SWISHER -- COOPER TIRE AND RUBBER COMPANY

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

TITLE: REQUEST FOR OPINION

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/26/88 TO JERRY SWISHER FROM ERIKA Z JONES, REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 109

TEXT: Gentlemen:

Cooper Tire & Rubber Company (Cooper) is a manufacturer of passenger, light truck and truck tires, which are sold and distributed to independent tire dealers through Cooper's own sales and distribution system and also sold to private brand customers f or distribution and sales through their own systems.

One of our private brand customers has inquired as to whether Cooper can manufacture and sell to them tires which would have:

1. No identification on the sidewall as to the name of the manufacturer or brand name owner, other than Cooper's assigned DOT letters. This tire would meet all the requirements of 49 CFR 571.109 S4.3(a) through (g) and 49 CFR 574.5; however, it woul d not have permanently molded on the upper sidewall the name "Cooper", the private brand owner's name, nor any other general trade name, trademark or identifying name. Each tire would have in the lower sidewall near the bead area, and visible after the tire was mounted, three different names, approximately one-quarter inch (1/4") in height, with each name appearing, for example, at the 2 o'clock, 6 o'clock and 10 o'clock positions on the tire. These names would be placed in such a manner that they woul d not interfere with the labeling or markings required under 49 CFR 571.109.

2. In the alternative, our private-brand customer makes the request as in 1. above, except that some generic connotation, such as, for example, "All Season" or "Performance" would also be molded on the upper sidewall.

The reason for the request from our private brand customer is that, in addition to its direct marketing, the private brand customer has two subsidiaries, and each of the three markets tires under a different name. They are seeking a generic tire with out prominent identification, but one which would contain all three names, thus making it marketable by any one or all three of the entities.

We request your opinion in reference to 1. and 2. above as to whether either would be in violation of, or in non-compliance with, 49 CFR Parts 571 and 574.

If you have any questions pertaining to the above, please feel free to contact me.

Very truly yours,