ID: nht78-3.28

DATE: 03/22/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Midland Machinery Company, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Midland Machinery Company's February 20, 1978, request for confirmation that Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, does not apply to an air-braked trailer that carries no cargo and consists entirely of a portable mixing plant.

Section S3 of Standard No. 121 contains an exclusion for any trailer whose unloaded vehicle weight is not less than 95 percent of its gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). "Unloaded vehicle weight" means the weight of a vehicle with maximun capacity of all fluids necessary for operation of the vehicle, but without cargo or occupants. You state that the portable mixing plant trailer carries no cargo, and it would thus be excluded from the requirements of Standard No. 121.

Enclosed are copies of Standard No. 108 and 120, along with an information sheet that explains how copies of these and other NHTSA regulations may be obtained.

ID: nht78-3.29

DATE: 04/14/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Grove Manufacturing Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. R. G. Wilkins Product Safety and Reliability Grove Manufacturing Co. Shady Grove, Pennsylvania 17256

Dear Mr. Wilkins:

This responds to your recent letter asking whether plastic glazing materials may be used on the superstructure operator cabs of mobile construction cranes. Apparently, the upper superstructure cab is used only for craning operations and is distinct from the cab used to drive the crane over public highways.

Under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR Part 571.205), plastic glazing may be used only in locations to the rear of the driver in trucks or truck tractor cabs and only at levels not requisite for driving visibility. Therefore plastic glazing could not be used in the windshield or windows to the right or left of the driver in the main driving cab of the mobile crane. It is our interpretation, however, that the superstructure operator cab is, effectively, to the rear of the driver when the vehicle is being used on the highway and could be equipped with plastic glazing materials meeting the requirements of Standard No. 205. This interpretation assumes that the operator cab cannot be used to drive the mobile crane on the highway. If the operator cab could be used as the driving cab, plastic glazing could only be used in locations to rear of the driver at levels not requisite for driving visibility.

Please contact this office if you have any questions concerning this interpretation.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

Ref: PSR-2727

February 23, 1978

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Washington, D.C. 20590

Attention: Office of Legal Counsel

Subject: Request for Interpretation on Use of Plastic Glazing Materials on Superstructure Cabs Applicable to Mobile Hydraulic Cranes.

Reference: (a) FMVSS-205 (b) Z26.1-1966

Dear Sir:

For the past few years our distributors, predicated on user input, has requested Grove to consider the installation of various plastic glazing materials in our (upper) superstructure operator cabs to aid in the prevention of vandalism at their yards and construction job-sites as well as reducing machine "down-time" for glass replacement.

For your edification, we have included two typical carrier-mounted hydraulic crane sales brochures to be utilized as an aid to better understand our design characteristics and positioning of our superstructure cabs. Grove Manufacturing Company feels that an official interpretation from your office is required prior to any action on our part to install a glazing material other than glass inasmuch as Grove does certify to meet all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) on the date of manufacture.

Our interpretation of FMVSS-205 precludes the use of plastic materials as glazing other than to the rear of the driver, however, our superstructure cab is utilized strictly for craning operations on an off-highway configuration and while "roading" the crane over public highways the upper mode is unoccupied.

If clarification or further information is required to aid in forming an official NHTSA opinion on this matter, please do not hesitate to contact us.

May we thank you in advance of any consideration given in this matter.

Very truly yours,

GROVE MANUFACTURING COMPANY

R. G. Wilkins Product Safety & Reliability Analyst

RGB/cds

Encl.

ID: nht78-3.3

DATE: 09/13/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Department of Transportation - Rhode Island

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I regret the delay in answering your letter. This responds to your questions concerning the recent amendment of Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, that permits the use of rigid plastics in the side windows of buses. Specifically, you ask whether the amendment includes school buses and whether plastic glazing would be allowed in entrance doors and in rear emergency doors of school buses.

Safety Standard No. 205 was amended to permit the use of rigid plastic glazing in all doors and windows of buses, except windshields or in windows to the immediate right or left of the driver (42 FR 61465, December 5, 1977). This amendment is applicable to school buses, since they are a special sub-category of "bus." The plastic glazing would not be allowed in a bus entrance door since this would constitute a "window to the immediate right" of the driver. Plastic glazing would be allowed in the rear emergency door, however, since that location was not excepted in the amendment.

Please contact Hugh Oates of this office if you have any further questions (202-426-2992).

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS

Department of Transportation

July 12, 1976

Joseph J. Levine -- Chief Counsel, N.H.T.S.A.

RE: Docket No. 71-1; Notice 06 Final Rule, Glazing Materials. Amended Safety Standard No. 205

Dear Sir:

During a recent telephone conversation with Ms. Nancy Egar it was suggested that I submit my request for an interpretation of the above mentioned amendment relative to glazing material to be used with the use of school buses.

In preparing our school bus inspection for the start of the September 1978 school year, I am in need of guidelines in interpreting whether or not rigid plastic glazing material is allowed for use in the school buses in particular locations such as the rear emergency door which is a visible location via the rear view mirror and the entrance door which is a visible location for children prior to the door being opened. Further to this, the overall amendment includes buses but I was wondering if school buses per say may be exempt in the interpretation of the word bus.

I would appreciate your reviewing the above comments and notifying me in writing as to the N.H.T.S.A. interpretation relative to these questions as soon as possible so that I in turn may respond to the school bus owners before August 15, 1978.

Sincerely yours, Alfred Massarone, Chief -- MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY AND EMISSION CONTROL DIVISION

ID: nht78-3.30

DATE: 12/13/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Cars & Concepts, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your December 4, 1978, letter concerning the applicability of Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, to applied windshield tint bands.

I am enclosing copies of two previous letters of interpretation by the agency regarding polyester films that appear to be similar to the product you describe. I think these letters will answer all of your questions. If not, please contact Hugh Oates of my office at 202-426-2992.

ID: nht78-3.31

DATE: 06/14/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 4, 1978, letter asking several questions concerning the applicability of the Federal school bus safety standards to your vehicles.

First you ask whether a driver is considered a passenger for computation of designated seating positions and whether he is included in the computation of vehicle capacity. The term "passenger" is not used in the definition of designated seating position in Part 571.3 of our regulations. Designated seating position uses the term "person" in its definition, and a driver is considered a person for both the computation of designated seating positions and vehicle capacity.

On a related point concerning designated seating positions, you ask whether wheelchairs are considered designated seating positions or auxiliary seats. Wheelchair seating positions are not designated seating positions and, therefore, are not required to comply with standards that apply to designated seating positions. However, wheelchair positions are counted in determining vehicle seating capacity for the determination of the type classification of a vehicle.

In your second question, you ask what is the proper vehicle classification for a standard design school bus that carries fewer than 10 persons. This type of vehicle would be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle. As a multipurpose passenger vehicle, all fixed seating positions would be required to have seat belts. Wheelchair positions, since they are not designated seating positions, are not required to have seat belts.

In a question pertaining to the above-mentioned vehicle type, you ask whether it can be classified as a school bus if it complies with all of the school bus safety standards. The answer to your question is no. This vehicle would be a multipurpose passenger vehicle. As a multipurpose passenger vehicle it must be certified in compliance with all of the standards applicable to that vehicle type. You are not prohibited from marking the vehicle as a school bus, however, with school bus paint, lighting, and lettering. Such markings do not change the vehicle type from multipurpose passenger vehicle to school bus.

SINCERELY,

April 4, 1978

Joseph J. Levin Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Levin:

As a followup to a conversation by Bill Milby and Roger Tilton on March 29, 1978, I am writing to seek clarification of several terms and their application. The terms are as defined in Part 571-1 under Definitions.

1. With respect to "designated seating capacity" and "designated seating position":

a. Is the driver included as a passenger? Must he be counted for vehicle capacity?

b. Are wheelchairs considered auxiliary seats or must they be included as designated seating positions for certification?

2. What is the proper vehicle classification for a vehicle of "traditional" school bus styling with seating capacity for less than ten persons?

3. If proper classification for item 2 is "multipurpose passenger vehicle", must fixed seating positions and wheel chair positions have seat belts?

4. If the vehicle has seating capacity for less than 10 persons, may it be classified as a "school bus" provided it meets all FMVSS applicable to schoolbuses?

5. If the vehicle has seating capacity for less than 10 persons and is classified as a MPV, can it be painted yellow and black and carry children to and from school and be identified with the letters "SCHOOL BUS"?

I am looking forward to your interpretation.

Thank you.

R. L. DuMond Staff Engineer

ID: nht76-3.29

DATE: 03/12/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Maurice J. Sopp & Son

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 27, 1976, concerning the sale of a 1975 Chevrolet Step Van that has been modified by the addition of a "boiler" assembly.

@@ 567.4(g)(3) and 567.5(a)(5) of 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, provide that the Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) appearing on the certification label

shall not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity . . .

Further, @ 567.7 provides that a person who, before the first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale, alters a previously certified vehicle in such a manner that its stated weight ratings are no longer valid shall affix to the vehicle an additional label that certifies the modified weight ratings and the vehicle's continued compliance with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Your letter indicates that the unloaded weight of the van, as altered by Steamaster Boiler Co., exceeds the original 10,000 pound GVWR. From this information, it appears that there has been a violation of the Certification regulation. While we would have to investigate your role as the dealer in this transaction to determine your precise liability, we advise you not to sell the vehicle in its present condition.

ID: nht76-3.3

DATE: 05/05/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your April 14, 1976, letter concerning the meaning of the effective dates of Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

You are correct in your understanding that a vehicle's date of sale is irrelevant to a determination of which standards are applicable to it. 49 CFR @ 571.7(a), Applicability, specifies in relevant part:

. . . each standard . . . applies according to its terms to all motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment the manufacturer of which is completed on or after the effective date of the standard.

For vehicles that you complete by mounting a body on a chassis, you are permitted by 49 CFR @ 567.5(a) (7) to treat as the time that manufacture is "completed" for the purposes of @ 571.7(a) any date no earlier than the manufacturing date of the incomplete vehicle and no later than the date of completion of final-stage manufacture, regardless of when the body or chassis was sold. Please note that you must be consistent in your choice of completion date, e.g., you may not choose one date to determine applicability of certain standards while choosing another date for other standards.

ID: nht76-3.30

DATE: 06/04/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James B. Gregory; NHTSA

TO: Honorable John M. Murphy; House of Representatives

COPYEE: CONGRESSMAN VAN DEELIN

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am writing in response to former Chairman Lionel Van Deerlin's April 21, 1976, letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity, as applied to motor homes. His letter is particularly concerned with the request of the Recreational Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA) for a delay in the standard's effective date of September 1, 1976, for the first phase of the requirements that apply to motor homes.

This effective date requires clarification in the case of multi-stage vehicles. RVIA members typically manufacture motor homes by installing bodies on chassis that have been supplied to them by other manufacturers. In such situations, the meaning of the September 1, 1976, effective date is not that all motor homes completed after that date must comply with the standard. Section 567.5(a)(7) of 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, permits the final stage manufacturer of a multi-stage vehicle to consider as the vehicle's date of manufacture any date that is neither earlier than the completion date of the chassis nor later than the completion date of the entire vehicle. The practical result of this provision is that the standard requires compliance only of those motor homes whose chassis are completed on or after September 1, 1976.

Because the ability of a motor home to comply with Standard No. 301-75 is substantially affected by both the design of the chassis and the manner in which the vehicle is completed, it is not meaningful to apply the standard directly to incomplete vehicles. All that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requires of incomplete vehicles is the following: those that are manufactured after September 1, 1976, must be capable of being completed into complying motor homes and must be accompanied by the incomplete vehicle document described in 49 CFR Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages. That document will include, with respect to Standard No. 301-75, either (i) a statement that the motor home as completed will comply with the standard provided no alterations are made in identified components of the incomplete vehicle, or (ii) a statement of specific conditions of final manufacture under which the completed motor home will comply with the standard. While Part 568 generally offers the incomplete vehicle manufacturer a third option -- to make no representation whatever of the compliance status of his product -- that option is unavailable in this context because his work substantially affects compliance.

The RVIA has argued that a delay in the standard's effective date for completed motor homes is necessary for its members to gain experience with chassis that have been designed for completion into complying motor homes. The NHTSA recognizes the need for such experience or its equivalent through the provision of technical information by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer. However, the agency expects motor home manufacturers to obtain this experience or information, through cooperation with the chassis manufacturers, in advance of the September 1, 1976, effective date. While such advance manufacturing or provision of information on the part of chassis manufacturers is not required by any regulations of this agency, it is required by the commercial realities of their relationships with the motor home manufacturers. A simple delay in the standard's effective date would merely delay the date by which incomplete vehicle manufacturers would be required by the NHTSA to supply chassis that have been designed for completion into complying motor homes. Such a delay would thus not provide the relief that the RVIA has requested.

The RVIA has, in effect, requested the agency to establish an "experience interval" by retaining September 1, 1976, as the time by which chassis must be designed for ultimate compliance and setting a new and later "secondary" effective date for the activities of the RVIA members. With this approach, a completed motor home would be required to comply with Standard No. 301-75 only if it were based on a chassis manufactured after the secondary effective date. While the establishment of such an "experience interval" might at first appear to be a simple solution to an acknowledged problem, the NHTSA has concluded that it is not only unnecessary but inappropriate as well.

It is unnecessary because the ordinary private dealings between motor home manufacturers and their suppliers can ensure that sufficient technical information, experience with redesigned chassis, or some combination of the two will be available before the "primary" effective date. The legal requirement of compliance by vehicles built with chassis that are manufactured after that date can be expected to trigger those market forces which will induce suppliers of incomplete vehicles to cooperate with RVIA members. Any "experience interval" would represent an intrusion by the government into the satisfactory operation of those forces. This position was announced in the agency's response to an RVIA petition for reconsideration of effective dates (39 FR 40857, November 21, 1974) (copy enclosed).

The design of those motor homes that do not already comply with Standard No. 301-75 can be modified in many ways to achieve compliance. Changes might be made in both chassis and bodies. Bodies might be redesigned in such a way that no change in chassis construction is necessary. Conversely, all of the necessary protection might be incorporated in an upgraded chassis design, assuming that the addition of a motor home body did not present protrusions that would degrade this protection. In fact, this latter approach is already being followed in the case of school buses with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating of more than 10,000 pounds. I understand that the School Bus Manufacturers Institute and several of its major chassis suppliers have reached agreements that provide for substantially all the necessary impact protection in the chassis.

While RVIA members may not be as successful as the schoolbus manufacturers have been in inducing their chassis suppliers to redesign for compliance, the above example illustrates the importance of the government's avoiding involvement in such contractual relationships. This agency is concerned in the first instance with the performance of completed vehicles, rather than the allocation between incomplete vehicle manufacturers and final-stage manufacturers of the task of redesigning for such performance. The agency lacks both the information and the expertise to determine either the most appropriate form of such redesign or the time that each manufacturer might consider desirable to effect the transition. This determination is therefore best made through cooperation or negotiation between the private parties involved. Because this determination is inextricably connected with decisions concerning the advance supply of redesigned chassis, it is impossible for the NHTSA to become involved in negotiations over the latter without interference in the former. The creation of an "experience interval" as requested by the RVIA would therefore be inappropriate. In any event, such a modification of the standard's effective dates is prohibited by Section 108 of the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-492).

Finally, the NHTSA has not found it necessary to take special steps to encourage incomplete vehicle manufacturers to furnish advance information to motor home manufacturers. We understand that such cooperation is already taking place.

SINCERELY,

Congress of the United States House of Representatives

COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSUMER PROTECTION AND FINANCE

April 21, 1976

James B. Gregory, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation

The Recreational Vehicle Industry Association has contacted me regarding the Fuel System Integrity Standard (Standard 301) as it applies to manufacturers of motor homes. As you are aware, the first stage of the standard becomes effective on September 1, 1976.

It is my understanding that the Recreational Vehicle Industry Association has petitioned the NHTSA to delay the effective date of the Standard insofar as it applies to multi-stage vehicles. The Recreational Vehicle Industry Association maintains that motor home manufacturers should not have to comply with the new standard until they have received and had an opportunity to gain experience with the new complying incomplete vehicles. I can certainly appreciate the desire of NHTSA to see that the American motorist is provided the additional protection from Standard 301 as soon as possible, but I am also sympathetic to the difficulties which the motor home manufacturer may face.

I would appreciate your sending me any information you have explaining the NHTSA decision to deny the Recreational Vehicle Industry Association petition for an extension of time. Would you also please indicate what efforts, if any, NHTSA has made to see that chassis manufacturers supply the motor home manufacturers with information regarding the new complying chassis so that the second-stage manufacturer will be able to anticipate and plan necessary adjustments to insure that the completed vehicle also complies with the standard.

Thank you for your assistance.

Lionel Van Deerlin Chairman

ID: nht76-3.31

DATE: 06/30/76

FROM: JOHN WOMACK FOR FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA

TO: FAM Enterprises

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your May 17, 1976, question whether special safety requirements exist for a vehicle that is modified to permit its operation by a handicapped person from a wheelchair that is secured at the driver's position.

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(1)(A)) specifies that

@ 1397(a)(1) No person shall --

(A) manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment

unless it is in conformity with all applicable standards. If your modifications are made to a new vehicle prior to its first purchase for purposes other than resale and involve more than the addition of readily attachable components or minor finishing operations, Part 567 of our regulations requires that the vehicle remain in compliance following these alterations and that any change of gross vehicle weight rating or type classification be noted (49 CFR 567.7).

Assuming that the vehicle you modify is a multipurpose passenger vehicle under NHTSA regulations (e.g., a van-type vehicle that does not qualify as a truck) (49 CFR 571.3), it appears from your description of intended modifications that compliance with the following Federal motor vehicle safety standards might be affected:

Standard No. 101, Control Location, Identification, and Display

Standard No. 102, Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect

Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors

Standard No. 124, Accelerator Control Systems

Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components

Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection

Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies

Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages

I have enclosed an information sheet that explains how to obtain copies of our standards and regulations.

There are no additional Federal motor vehicle safety requirements that apply to vehicles operated by a handicapped person sitting at the driver's position in a wheelchair. I have enclosed a Veterans Administration document detailing their specifications for vehicle modifications.

Exemptions from the motor vehicle safety standards are available only to manufacturers of motor vehicles in accordance with @ 123 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1410).

FAM Enterprises

May 17, 1976

Department of Transportation

We are building a vehicle for the handicapped driver that is confined to a wheel chair. This vehicle is so designed that the driver may enter the vehicle by himself and operate all of the functions of this vehicle without leaving his wheelchair. Our intentions are to market this vehicle on a commercial basis.

Safety and complying with the present safety regulation is of great concern to us. Are there certain safety items that may be eliminated or need to be installed that are different from a normal driving vehicle? Safety catches will be installed to hold the chair in place in case of severe impact or an accident. If you feel that some items maybe changed, I would appreciate knowing of these prior to completing our first unit. We hope to have this in operation by the end of August, 1976. If some waivers are required, would you please put us in contact with the proper authorities so that we can take the necessary action to obtain these waivers.

Gary K. Mercer

ID: nht76-3.32

DATE: 04/02/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Hackney & Sons Inc.

COPYEE: BUREAU OF MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of December 2, 1975, concerning the duties of a manufacturer of a beverage trailer that, when fully loaded, would overload a light-duty truck by which it might be towed.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not directly regulate the use of motor vehicles. Instead, it regulates their manufacture, with a view towards their expected and intended uses. If a trailer manufacturer knows that his product is likely to be towed by a vehicle of insufficient load-carrying capacity, the NHTSA expects him to take reasonalbe steps, short of refraining from production, to minimize the likelihood of such misuse. Otherwise, the trailer would be considered to contain a defect relating to motor vehicle safety.

In the first hypothetical situation presented in your letter, there would be no violation of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards or regulations. In Situation 2, we are not prepared to state categorically whether or not the trailer manufacturer could be obliged to assume defect responsibility. Such responsibility might be minimized assuming that the written warning to which you refer clearly indicates (i) what load ratings are necessary as a minimum for the towing vehicle and (ii) that the trailer must not be towed by a vehicle without such load ratings. Nevertheless, the lines of responsibility between two such parties are not that clear-cut, especially where the trailer manufacturer knowingly delivers for introduction into interstate commerce a vehicle which immediately results in a serious overload situation.

In Situation 3, the trailer would probably contain a safety-related defect, because its advertising would promote its misuse in a way that would create a safety hazard. In Situation 4, the trailer would probably also be considered to contain a safety-related defect, because the total payload capacity could be calculated, and the warnings to limit the actual load to the limits of the towing vehicle could not reasonably be expected to be observed.

You have also asked more generally for a description of the circumstances under which trailers of this type might be considered to contain safety-related defects. The NHTSA cannot define in advance all such possible circumstances. Among them, however, would be those in which the owner's manual lacked the warning described above for Situation 2 and those in which the trailer's advertising promoted its misuse.

I have forwarded a copy of your letter to the Federal Highway Administration's Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety for examination of the possibility that the user of a mismatched combination of vehicles, if he is an interstate carrier, would be in violation of their regulations. There may also be State laws prohibiting local carriers from making such combinations.

Thank you for your concern for safety on the highways. We especially appreciate your realization that a manufacturer can have ethical duties that go beyond his legal duties.