ID: nht88-2.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/04/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Patricia Bicking

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mrs. Patricia Bicking 1132 Chestnut Avenue Woodbury Heights, NJ 08097

This is a response to your letter of last fall in which you asked a number of questions concerning seat-belts and large school buses. apologize for the delay in responding. In your correspondence, you enclosed a letter of January 19, 1984, from this offi ce to Thomas Built Buses, Inc., (Thomas), and the incoming letter from Thomas that was the basis of our interpretation.

Your first question references the January 1989 letter, and asks why the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) decided that when school bus manufacturers install seat-belts or seat-belt anchorages on large school buses (over 10,000 lbs. gross vehicle weight rating the manufacturers do not have to certify that the belts or anchorages meet Federal motor vehicle safety standards 208, 209, and 210.

The answer to this question is that NHTSA does not require a school bus manufacturer to install seat-belts on large school buses. Our regulations require a motor vehicle manufacturer to certify compliance to allapplicable standards. You ask whether this decision stillstands. The answer to that question is "yes" for the reason just stated. The agency does not require large buses to have seat-belts because the "compartmentalization" concept (to which you allude in your letter) supplies adequate protection for passengers in large school buses.

Let me give you some background information on our school bus regulations that I think will help address your questions. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for developing safety standards applicable to all new motor vehicles, including school buses. In 1977, we issued a set of motor vehicle safety standards regulating various aspects of school bus performance. Among those standards is Standard 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. Standard 222 req uires large school buses to have passenger crash protection through "compartmentalization."

Compartmentalization requires large school buses to incorporate certain protective elements into the vehicles' interior construction, thereby reducing the risk of injury to school bus passengers without the need for safety belts. These elements include h igh seats with heavily padded backs and improved seat spacing and performance. (Our regulations require a safety belt for the school bus driver because the driver's position is not compartmentalized. Further, because small school buses experience greater force levels in a crash, passengers on these vehicles need the added safety benefits of the belts.)

You also asked whether there have been and improvements in school bus seating compartments since 1977, and whether the improvements are mandatory. The answer to your question is that there have been no major changes in the school bus safety standards sin ce they became effective in April, 1977. However, the agency continuously reviews school bus safety standards to assess whether it is appropriate to add or amend a requirement.

You may be interested to know that school buses continue to have one of the lowest fatality rates for any class of motor vehicle. Large school buses are among the safest motor vehicles because of their size and weight (which generally reduce an occupant' s exposure to injury-threatening crash forces): the drivers' training and experience: and the extra care other motorists take when they are near a school bus. For these reasons, NHTSA has not required safety belts in large school buses.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Joan Tilghman, of my staff, at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Chief Counsel

I am writing to you in behalf of the compartmentalization concept for large school buses.

I have a copy of a letter written from the NHTSA and addressed to Mr. Ron Marion of Thomas Built Buses, dated 1-19-84.

This letter states it was decided that school bus manufacturers were allowed to install seat belts for passenger seats (without) having to certify that the belts and anchorages apply with (standards) #s 208, 209 and 210. Could you please explain why this decision was made? And does this decision still stand today?

I also have information from the National Transportation Safety Board Safety Recommendations; H-83-39 through 41.

In 1977 there were recommendations for large school buses to de designed in the way that they will support the installation and use of a seat belt.

The NHTSA response states, "Improving the seating compartments eliminates the need for seat belts and provides sufficient crash protection."

A truly excellent response but, could you please explain what, if any type improvements have been made since this date of 1977? Have any of these improvements become mandatory?

Could you also please explain what the FMVSS 222 is? And what are the major requirements for the FMVSS 222.

Thank you so much for your time.

Mrs. Patricia Bicking of Woodbury Hts. N.J.

ID: nht88-2.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: MAY 5, 1988

FROM: I. ROBERT EHRLICH -- ENGINEER

TO: RICHARD STROMBOTNE -- NHTSA OFFICE OF SAFETY STANDARDS

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO MEMO DATED 12-19-88, TO I. ROBERT EHRLICH, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA, REDBOOK A33, PART 571.3, PART 567

TEXT: Would you please send me a copy of NHTSA Docket 88-06, Notice 1 and Docket 88-07, Notice 1 proposing to strengthen the side impact crash test procedures and performance requirement for passenger cars, as indicated in the attached clipping from Automotive Engineering, APRIL 1988.

What I am particularly interested in is whether or not the proposed new standards will include stretch limousines, which are frequently covered by light sheet steel to fill in the gap created by lengthening a conventional passenger car. This leaves a wide, unprotected gap in the center.

Side Impact Protection -- The January 27, 1988, Federal Register contained NHTSA Docket 88-06, Notice 1 (page 2239), and Docket 88-07, Notice 1 (page 2254), proposing to strengthen the side impact crash test procedures and performance requirements for pa ssenger cars, and specifying a new side impact test dummy. The amendments would require a test procedure to simulate a severe side crash, a barrier to represent a striking vehicle, a test dummy specially designed for side impacts, and maximum injury crit eria for the dummy. Ten percent of a manufacturer's production would be required to meet the standard during the first year, which would begin two years after publication of the final rule. The percentage would increase to 25% the next year, 40% the thi rd year and 100% thereafter. Comments on both Notices are due October 24, 1988. For further information contact Dr. Richard Strombotne, NHTSA Office of Vehicle Safety Standards (202) 366-4916.

ID: nht88-2.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/06/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Z. Taylor Vinson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Subject: Oral Interpretation of Standard No. 108: Optical Combination

From Z. Taylor Vinson Senior Staff Attorney

To: Interpretations Files

Recently a lamp manufacturer phoned to ask whether a replacement lighting device it had developed for installation on trucks and trailers in use would be allowable under Standard No. 108.

The lamp as described is an amber-lensed wrap-around lamp incorporating a clearance lamp to the front and a marker lamp to the side, with one bulb for each function. I replied that the prohibition in S4.4. applicable to clearance lamps forbade their comb ination only with identification lamps and stop lamps, and that if his combination lamp met photometric and mounting requirements applicable to each function, it appeared to be permissible under Standard No. 108.

ID: nht88-2.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: MAY 6, 1988

FROM: WILLIAM J. STEPHENSON -- PRESIDENT, PRO-FLITE OF VERO, INC.

TO: ERIKA JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: JULY 11, 1988 LETTER FROM JONES TO STEPHENSON

TEXT: Please find enclosed two photographs of a new safety device designed to reduce turning accidents on large vehicles.

In conversations with insurance companies, safety engineers, school boards, motor home owners, truckers and local/state government officials, etc., we conclude there is definitely a need for "Pro-Lite."

I've presented "Pro-Lite" to municipalities, city and county governments, heavy equipment operators, truckers, as well as individuals, all of whom have enthusiastically endorsed "Pro-Lite."

A little about the construction of "Pro-Lite." The entire housing is of standard plastic, impregnated with emergency red pigment. It is internally lit by a series of clearance lights designed to flash in sequence with either turn signal. It is equipped with two (2) hot leads, one of which connects to the turn signal on each side of the vehicle. A single ground wire completes the circuit and . . . presto . . . "Pro-Lite!" Access to bulbs is simply accomplished by removing four (4) screws in the face p late and removing the cover. "Pro-Lite" is made water-tight through the use of a rubber strip that compresses when screws are tightened.

A myriad of mounting possibilities exist. One can mount "Pro-Lite" flush with screws or tape, mount under truck bed, on top of vehicle, etc. Ideally, "Pro-Lite" will be placed on the rear center of vehicle for maximum visability.

We are confident "Pro-Lite" will provide for safer highways and, after all, safety should be a priority concern for everyone.

Ms. Jones, if we may have your thoughts and suggestions, we shall be grateful.

Enclosures

ID: nht88-2.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/19/88

FROM: HIROSHI KATO -- MMC SERVICES, INC

TO: ERIKA JONES, -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10/31/88 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO HIROSHI KATO; REDBOOK A32, VSA 102

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

As was discussed in a meeting held on March 14, 1988 with Mr. S. Kratzke of your office, we are requesting an interpretation as to whether Mitsubishi Motors Corporation's (MMC) lightweight industrial truck to be introduced for sale in the U.S. by its aut horized distributor, Mitsubishi Motor Sales of America, Inc. (MMSA), should be classified as a motor vehicle under 15 USC 1391(3) and Section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

The following provides a general description of MMC's lightweight industrial truck, hereafter referred to as SH27:

Purpose: General or carrier work for off-road applications such as factories, warehouses, dock areas, transportation terminals, golf course, and park settings.

Basic Specifications:

Engine: 548 cc, 3-cylinder

GVW: 2303-3196 lbs.

Length: 125.8 inches

Width: 54.9-59.8 inches

Height: 70.9-73.0 inches

Two-Wheel Drive Models:

* Full cab with doors or side bars

* Full cab with doors or side bars and with tilt-bed

* Flo-Thru (TM) model (full cab with side bars and without windshield or rear window)

Four-Wheel Drive Models:

* Full cab with doors or side bars * Full cab with doors and tilt-bed

Enclosed is a photograph showing the full cab version of the SH27.

The following information characterizes the SH27 under the criteria your agency has used to determine whether a vehicle should be designated a motor vehicle as described in your September 25, 1987 response to Mr. J. Niemela of Ranger International.

1. Whether States or foreign countries have permitted or are likely to permit the vehicle to be registered for on-road use.

Some configurations of the SH27 can be registered for on-road use in several foreign countries including Japan, Taiwan, Cyprus, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and the Phillipines. However, the U.S. specification SH27 is different in several material aspects from these "general export" vehicles.

The primary differences are 1) the maximum speed of the U.S. SH27 is approximately 25 mph as opposed to a speed of greater than 55 mph for general export vehicles, 2) the engine displacement of the U.S. SH27 is 548 cc as compared to 796 and 783 cc for general export, and 3) the U.S. SH27 uses an hourmeter, similar to agricultural vehicles, in place of a speedometer.

Based on the specification differences between the SH27 and the general export vehicles and the differences in the safety regulations and registration practices of the foreign countries where these general export vehicles can be registered, we believe there is little basis for assuming that foreign registration of the SH27 correlates to the likelihood of U.S. State registration.

2. Whether the vehicle is or will be advertised for use on-road as well as off-road, or whether it is or will be advertised exclusively for off-road use.

MMSA will ensure that advertising and promotional materials will state that the SH27 should be used

for off-road purposes only and will not depict or suggest that the vehicle can be used on-road.

3. Will the vehicle's manufacturer or dealers assist vehicle purchasers in obtaining certificates of origin or title documents to register the vehicle for on-road use?

Dealer personnel will be instructed by MMSA that the SH27 is to be used solely for off-road purposes and that no assistance should be given to obtain a title for the vehicle or to register the vehicle in the U.S.. Neither MMSA or Mitsubishi Motors Co rporation will be providing any similar assistance.

MMSA also desires to state on the face of any ownership documents (as permitted by applicable law) that the SH27 is not intended for on-road use.

4. Will the vehicle be sold by dealers also selling vehicles that are classified as motor vehicles?

Only dealerships engaged in the sale of non-motor vehicles, such as material handling equipment; (i.e. for lifts, and agricultural equipment) will be authorized by MMSA to sell the SH27.

5. Will the vehicle have a warning label affixed which states that the vehicle is not intended for use on public roads?

There will be four warning labels affixed to the interior and exterior of the body. Labels stating "Off Road Use Only" will be applied to the exterior front panel of the cab, the rear gate, and the instrument panel. Additionally, a label worded "War ning: Off Road Use Only" will be affixed to the exterior rear panel of the cab.

Based on this information, we believe that the SH27 should clearly not be designated a motor vehicle within the meaning

of 15 USC 1391(3). We would appreciate your expedited confirmation of our interpretation.

If you have any questions, please call D. Bakker of my staff at (313) 353-5444.

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht88-2.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/06/88

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

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

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 04/13/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO MABEL Y. BULLOCK, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 205, VSA 103 (D), VSA SECTION 108 (A)(2)(A); LETTER FROM MABEL Y. BULLOCK AND LACY H. THORNBURG TO SUSAN SCHRUTH -- NHTSA RE WINDOW TINTIN G, FEDERAL PRE-EMPTION OF STATE REGULATIONS, OCC 2142; NORTH CAROLINA STATUTE REGULATION WINDOW TINTING; LETTER DATED 12/18/87 FROM LACY H. THORNBURG AND MABEL Y. BULLOCK, SUBJECT MOTOR VEHICLES, REGULATIONS OF DARK SHADED WINDOWS; PREEMPTION; LETTER DAT ED 10/28/82 FROM FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA TO LAWRENCE T. HIROHATA, N0A-30; LETTER DATED 04/04/85 FROM JEFFREY R. MILLER TO ARMOND CARDARELLI; REGULATIONS DATED 07/01/85 EST, FEDERAL AUTO SAFETY LAWS AND MOTOR VEHICLE WINDOW TINTING

TEXT: Dear Commissioner Hiatt:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-2.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: MAY 7, 1988

FROM: WILLIAM K. BALDWIN

TO: NHTSA

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

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

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

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

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

Please respond as soon as possible to this proposal.

ENCLOSURES

Baldwin Rear View Mirror Safety System

PATENT NO. 3,667,833

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

VEHICLE IN BL/NL SPOT AREA

FLAT REAR-VIEW MIRRORS FIELD OF VIEW

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

MIRROR SAFETY SYSTEM" OF VIEW

ID: nht88-2.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/08/88

FROM: MARTIN M. GINSBURG

TO: ERIKA JONES -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

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

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

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

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

Thank you

ID: nht88-2.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/09/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

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

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

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

Dear Mr. Nolan:

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief counsel

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

RE: 1987 CADILLAC HEARSE AND THIRD BRAKE LIGHT

Gentlemen:

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

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

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

Thank you in advance for your assistance.

Yours truly,

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

JPN:plg ENC:

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

Dear Mr. Nolan:

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

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

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

I trust this information will be of assistance to you.

Very truly yours,

ARTHUR L. ALOWITZ Assistant Counsel

ID: nht88-2.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: MAY 9, 1988

FROM: KAREN WHITEHEAD

TO: OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNCIL -- NHTSA

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please send me the regulations for this type of item.

CHILD REATRAINT BOOSTER SEAT

AUTO SEAT

LAP SEAT BELT