ID: 07-004525--5 Oct 07--sa

ID: nht87-2.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/09/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Thomas Baloga

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Thomas Baloga Safety Engineering Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. P.O. Box 350 Montvale, NJ 07645

Dear Mr. Baloga:

Thank you for your letter of May 28, 1987, to Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning the requirements of Standard No. 301 Fuel System Integrity. You noted that there is a conflict in the standard about the correct ground clearance of the contoured impact s urface used in the school bus impact test of the standard. You noted that S7.5.1 of the standard refers to the dimension between the ground to the lower edge of the impact surface as 5.25 + 0.5 inches, while Figure 2 of the standard shows dimension is 5. 25 + 0.5 inches.

The agency adopted the use of the contoured barrier in a final rule issued on April 16, 1975. The preamble to the final rule stated that "The contoured barrier would incorporate the moving barrier specifications of SAE Recommended Practice J972a (March 1 973). However, the impact surface of the barrier would be at a height 30 inches above provision. Studies have shown that a 30-inch test height is more representative of actual collisions. This would be a typical engine height of vehicles that might impac t a schoolbus." Thus, in S75.1 of the standard, the agency adopted the ground clearance as 5.25 inches + 0.5 inches to ensure that the top of the barrier would be 30 inches from the ground. In Figure 2, the agency apparently incorporated the barrier dime nsions directly from the SAE Recommended Practice J972a, without changing the ground clearance dimension.

We will publish an amendment to the standard that will correct the ground clearance dimension set out in Figure 2 of Standard No. 301.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

May 28, 1987

Mr. Steve Oesch Legal Counsel Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Subject: FMVSS 301 "Fuel System Integrity" Printing Error

Dear Mr. Oesch:

Mr. Bob Williams, Office of Rulemaking, has verbally confirmed that a printing error exists in Figure 2 of the subject standard. Specifically, Dimension D in Figure 2 should be 5.25 (inches) instead of 12.25. The correct 5.25 inch dimension is stated in the text within paragraph S7.5.1. Would you be so kind and confirm this printing error in writing; perhaps it can be incorporated into our other request concerning a printing error in FMVSS-208.

Thank you very much for accommodating our requests.

Sincerely,

Thomas Baloga Safety Engineering (201) 573-2622

TCB/Wdo-M/A18

ID: nht93-3.42

DATE: May 12, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Bryan D. Patton -- International Automobile Enterprises, Inc., ERA Replica Automobile

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-16-92 from Bryan D. Patton to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 8200)

TEXT: This responds to your letter requesting information on Federal regulations for "tubing" you use for hydraulic brake lines in replica cars. I apologize for the delay in responding. We understand that you informed Mr. John Messera of NHTSA's Enforcement Office by telephone that the tubing is steel tubing.

The answer to your inquiry is that there is no Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) that applies to metal brake tubing. FMVSS No. 106, "Brake Hoses" applies to new motor vehicles and to "brake hoses" (which include plastic tubing), brake hose end fittings, and brake hose assemblies. "Brake hose" is defined in S4 of the standard as "a flexible conduit, other than a vacuum tubing connector, manufactured for use in a brake system to transmit or contain the fluid pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes." NHTSA's longstanding position is that the term "flexible" used in the definition excludes steel tubing. (SEE, E.G., NHTSA's response to petitions for reconsideration, 39 FR 7425, February 26, 1974.) Thus, based on the information you provided by telephone, Standard No. 106 does not appear to apply to the tubing you use in manufacturing your replica cars.

You should be aware, however, that under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in SS 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your steel tubing contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

You also ask whether "(t)he SAE standard would be used to determine such suitability in the absence of a specific federal code or regulation." Since there is no FMVSS that applies to your tubing, under federal law you are only responsible under the Safety Act for ensuring that your product is free from safety-related defects. As to your potential liability under State law, we suggest that you consult a private attorney for questions about this matter. A private attorney would also be able to answer your query as to whether, under State law, an SAE standard could be used to determine the suitability of your product.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact David Elias of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 77-4.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/17/77

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

TO: Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your August 31, 1977, letter asking whether a New York state requirement mandating the installation of both side emergency doors and rear emergency doors in school buses would mean that both emergency doors would be required to comply with the school bus exit specifications in Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release.

The NHTSA has determined previously that only those exists required by S5.2.3 must meet the requirements specified for school bus emergency exists in Standard No. 217. Paragraph S5.2.3 requires either a rear emergency door or a side emergency door and a rear push out window. The side emergency door to which you refer is installed in addition to a rear emergency door. The presence of the rear emergency door, alone, satisfies the requirements of S5.2.3. Therefore, a side emergency door is not required by the standard and need not meet the specifications for school bus emergency exists. Emergency exits installed in school buses beyond those required in S5.2.3 must comply with regulations applicable to emergency exists in buses other than school buses. These requirements are also detailed in Standard No. 217.

SINCERELY,

Thomas BUILT BUSES, INC.

August 31, 1977

Office of the Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation

Attn: Roger Tilton Subject: FMVSS - 217, Specific to Emergency Doors - Relating to New York State School Bus Regulations - New York State Department of Transportation.

We respectfully request a decision of the legality of the seat placement in the case of side emergency door(s) as noted in S5.4.2.1(b), when you also have a rear emergency door that complies with S5.2.3.1.

Our request speaks only to school buses, and vehicles of 10,000 pounds or greater. New York State required the following emergency doors. Passengers Doors Location 17-30 1 Rear Center 31-48 2 (1) Rear Center (1) Left Side 49-66 2 Same as 31-48 67 or more 3 (1) Rear Center (1) Left Side (1) Right Side

As can be seen by the chart the State of New York exceeds the F.M.V.S.S.-217 Section S5.2.3.1(a) by the addition of one or two extra doors.

Our request is that we be permitted to place a seat in the side door opening (Ref. 5.4.2.1(b). In other words, the last sentence of this section "A vertical Transverse, etc. . . . . . ." be declared null and void, yet the placement of the seat in relation to the door and for seat to the rear would not prevent the door to be used as an emergency exit.

To qualify as an emergency exit, seat placement and the door opening would permit the passage of the ellipsoid as specified in S5.2.2(b).

Should you desire additional information, kindly contact the writer.

James Tydings, Specifications Engineer

ID: nht91-6.35

DATE: October 23, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Phil Lanam -- City of Ukiah Fire Department

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-19-91 from Phil Lanam to Taylor Vinson (OCC 6412); Also attached to letter dated 3-4-80 from Frank Berndt to Joe Cain

TEXT:

This responds to your letter about the installation of new standard "S" cam air brakes on a 1978 Ford truck. You explained that because you were having problems with the vehicle's anti-skid system, you were planning to replace it with a new braking system. As discussed below, Federal law does not prohibit you or a commercial business from replacing the anti-skid system with a standard current brake system.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Highway Traffic and Motor Vehicle-Safety Act (Safety Act), it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its motor vehicles or items of equipment comply with all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

The agency has issued Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 121, Air Brake Systems. That standard applies to almost all new trucks, buses, and trailers equipped with air brake systems.

As originally manufactured, Ford, as the manufacturer was required to certify that the truck satisfied the requirements of all applicable safety standards. Among other things, the vehicle's brakes would have been required to comply with FMVSS No. 121.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act specifies that vehicles must conform with all applicable safety standards up until the first purchase for purposes other than resale. After the first purchase, the vehicle is no longer required by Federal law to conform with all safety standards. However, the Safety Act includes a provision that prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed in or on a vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. The render inoperative provision does not apply to modifications made by the owner of a vehicle.

The issue of whether a late 1970's antilock system for heavy vehicles can be disconnected by a commercial business is a special case under the render inoperative provision, since those antilock systems were used by some manufacturers to comply with certain requirements of FMVSS No. 121 that were later invalidated by a court decision. I have enclosed a copy

of a March 4, 1980 letter which addresses that issue. Based on this letter, a commercial business could replace the anti-skid system with a standard current brake system without violating the render inoperative provision.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: Turner.1

Mr. Thomas D. Turner
Vice Chairman
School Bus Manufacturers Technical Council
6298 Rock Hill Road
The Plains, VA 20198-1916

Dear Mr. Turner:

This responds to your February 17, 2004, letter in which you discuss what you believe to be errors in certain school bus-related provisions of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 111, Rearview Mirrors. Specifically, you stated that as currently printed in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), paragraphs S9.2(b)(1) and (b)(2) of the standard, pertaining to field of view requirements for the outside rearview mirrors on school buses, are inconsistent with amendments published in a 1995 final rule. Your letter seeks correction of the identified errors. After reviewing the relevant provisions, we agree that the current language in the CFR is inaccurate and in need of revision.

As you pointed out, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration previously modified FMVSS No. 111, including the above-referenced provisions, in a Federal Register notice published on March 27, 1995 (60 FR 15600). Paragraph S9.2(b) of that final rule, changes which were properly reflected in the CFR as late as 1997, provided as follows:

(b) Includes one or more mirrors which together provide, at the drivers eye location, a view of:

(1)For the mirror system on the right side of the bus, the entire top surface of cylinder N in Figure 2, and that area of the ground which extends rearward from cylinder N to a point not less than 60.93 meters (200 feet) from the mirror surface.

(2) For the mirror system on the left side of the bus, the entire top surface of cylinder M in Figure 2, and that area of the of the ground which extends rearward from cylinder M to a point not less than 60.93 meters (200 feet) from the mirror surface.

We believe that we now understand the source of the problem.In 1998, FMVSS No. 111 (and several other standards) were amended as part of the agencys metric conversion efforts (see 63 FR 28922 (May 27, 1998); 63 FR 50995 (September 24, 1998)). In converting the above requirements to metric measurements (i.e., 61 m), the May 27, 1998, Federal Register notice mistakenly inserted language referencing "area of the ground," rather than maintaining proper focus on the test cylinder (see 63 FR 28922, 28929). Subsequently, in attempting to correct an error brought to the agencys attention in a petition for reconsideration, the September 24, 1998, Federal Register notice mistakenly inserted a correction intended for S9.3(b)(2) at S9.2(b)(2) (see 63 FR 50995, 51000). Thus, the changes you have pointed out resulted from simple error, rather than any intentional regulatory action.

We appreciate your bringing this error to our attention, and we wanted to make you aware that we have drafted the attached correcting amendment to the standard to resolve the issue that you have raised. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:111
d.4/8/04

ID: 15398-1.pja

Mr. Michael L. Ulsh
Mechanical Engineer
Summit Trailer Sales, Inc.
One Summit Plaza
Summit Station, PA 17979

Dear Mr. Ulsh:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of whether the vehicles that your company manufactures are excluded from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) rear impact protection (underride guard) regulations. As explained below, your vehicles are not excluded from the regulation.

You ask about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 224, Rear impact protection, which in January 1998 will require most trailers and semitrailers weighing over 10,000 pounds to be fitted at the rear with an underride guard. Certain trailers are excluded from these requirements. You provided drawings and descriptions of four types of vehicles your company manufactures. In each case, you are concerned with the requirement in S5.1.3 which states that "the rearmost surface of the horizontal member of the guard shall be located as close as practical to a transverse vertical plane tangent to the rear extremity of the vehicle, but no more than 305 mm [about 12 inches] forward of that plane." S4 defines the rearmost extremity, in pertinent part, as

the rearmost point on a vehicle that is . . . below a horizontal plane located 1,900 mm above the ground . . . when the vehicle's cargo doors, tailgate, and other permanent structures are positioned as they normally are when the vehicle is in motion. Nonstructural protrusions such as taillights, rubber bumpers, hinges and latches are excluded from the determination of the rearmost point.

I will discuss the vehicle types in the order that your letter did.

Frame-type dump trailer

This vehicle has a deflector plate at the rear that extends rearward 12 inches from the end of the chassis. It deflects the load away from the trailer when it is dumping. You state that the plate is not a "structural member" because it is bolted or welded to the rear of the body. You also express some concerns that the trailer rear end might have to be modified by either moving the rear tires forward or extending the frame to prevent the guard from contacting the tires when the vehicle is dumping.

Is the rear extremity measured from the end of the deflector plate?

Yes. The definition of "rear extremity" states "nonstructural protrusions such as taillights, rubber bumpers, hinges and latches are excluded from the determination of the rearmost point." Merely because the deflector plate is attached to the body does not mean that an object is nonstructural. The definition of rear extremity refers to the "rearmost point on the vehicle," (emphasis added) not the rearmost point of the chassis. The attributes that the excluded objects have in common is that they are relatively small and localized and would not have a major impact on a colliding passenger vehicle. A 0.19 inch thick aluminum (or 7 gauge steel) plate extending across the entire width of the trailer is part of the vehicle, and is not a "nonstructural protrusion."

If so, where should the guard be located so that it lies no more than 12" (305mm) from the vertical plane tangent to the rear extremity . . . What are our alternatives for mounting this guard in a feasible manner and still comply with the new regulations?"

This is an engineering question that your engineers are in a better position to answer than we are. European governments use "type approval," which means that they approve particular designs as complying with their safety standards. In the United States, we write performance standards, and the vehicle manufacturers are responsible for devising engineering solutions to meet those standards. Therefore, NHTSA is not required to suggest, and will not approve, particular designs. In some cases, trailer rear end redesign might be necessary in order to comply with our underride guard standards.

However, you might want to consider two alternatives for meeting the standards that do not involve major redesign. One would be cantilevering the horizontal member of the rear impact guard slightly rearward from the rear of the chassis so that it is within 12 inches of the rear of the deflector plate. Another, possibly simpler alternative would be attaching the deflector plate in such a way that it would pivot at its upper edge and automatically swing downward (for example, when the tailgate is closed). The determination of rear extremity will be made "when the vehicle's cargo doors, tailgate, and other permanent structures are positioned as they normally are when the vehicle is in motion." If the plate were designed to have the "dropped" configuration whenever the vehicle is in motion, then NHTSA would not consider the plate to be the rear extremity of the vehicle. In fact, your particular vehicle would then meet the definition of an excluded "wheels back" trailer, because the rearmost surface of the rear tires would be within 12 inches of the rear extremity.

Frameless dump trailer

This type of trailer has a subframe that rolls forward when the trailer is dumping so that the front wheels leave the ground. You state that an underride guard attached to the subframe would rotate downward with the subfame and contact the ground slightly (according to your illustration) before the trailer reaches its maximum dump angle of 54 degrees.

Where should the guard be placed to comply with FMVSS No. 224, yet not interfere with the normal operation of the trailer? Are there any exclusions for this particular design?

There are no exclusions for dump trailers. As stated above, NHTSA cannot help to design your trailers. The previously mentioned possibility of a drop down deflector plate would probably also work for the frameless dump trailer. We would like to note that there is no requirement to mount the underride guard to the subframe. You could mount the guard to the axle or any other structural member that would provide adequate support.

Dual Arm trailer

This trailer has a steel bucket attached to two hydraulic arms which extend rearward on the sides of the trailer. During transit, the bucket is transported behind the trailer, with its lower rear corner at a distance of 36 inches behind the rear of the chassis and 70 inches from the ground.

Does this trailer qualify for the "special purpose vehicle" exclusion? If not, where should the guard be placed to comply with FMVSS No. 224?

Your dual arm trailer does not meet the definition of a special purpose vehicle. A special purpose vehicle is defined in S4 of FMVSS No. 224 as "a trailer or semitrailer having work-performing equipment . . . that, while the vehicle is in transit, resides in or moves through the area that could be occupied by the horizontal member of the rear underride guard . . . ." (Emphasis added.) According to your drawing, the bucket does not pass through the area where the horizontal member of the underride guard would be located while the vehicle is in transit, but instead resides about 70 inches off the ground. Therefore, your trailers are not excluded from the standard as special purpose vehicles.

As to locating the guard, your difficulty is the same as with the frame-type dump trailer. A piece of the trailer extends into the zone of consideration for determining the vehicle's "rear extremity," thereby creating a rear extremity (and therefore a required guard location) that is significantly behind the end of the trailer chassis. The bucket stows while in transit at a height that is not quite high enough to be excluded from consideration as the vehicle "rear extremity." Rear extremity is defined as the rearmost point "below a horizontal plane located 1,900 mm (about 75 inches) above the ground . . . ."

Although we do not know how feasible it would be, your drawing indicates that if the bucket were stowed only a few inches higher, above the upper limit of the zone of consideration for rear extremity, the rear extremity would then be considered to be the end of the chassis (or the end of the "bucket holder side plate," depending on where that is moved to). That would produce a fairly standard situation for attaching the guard to the end of the chassis.

Walking floor trailer

This trailer has steel chassis beams that extend 6 inches beyond the end of the trailer body to form a "pusher bumper." The bumper is 42 inches wide and approximately 39 inches from the ground.

Is the rear extremity measured from the end of the pusher bumper?

Yes. As indicated in the discussion of your dual arm trailer, the rearmost point of the trailer below approximately 75 inches from the ground will be considered the rear extremity. The pusher bumper is 39 inches off the ground, and is certainly too massive to be considered in the excluded category of "rubber bumpers." Therefore, it would be considered the rear extremity.

The guard would have to be mounted no more than 12 inches forward of the pusher bumper. However, S5.1.3 states that "the rearmost surface of the horizontal member of the guard shall be located as close as practical [to the vehicle's rear extremity](emphasis added). Therefore, unless there is some reason that it would not be practical, you are required to mount the guard so that the rearmost face of the guard's horizontal member aligns with the rear face of the pusher bumper.

This letter merely applies the existing regulatory language to the questions you posed, and does not constitute a judgment that your trailers could operate with a conventional underride guard in place. We have made a few observations that may suggest some engineering solutions that would meet the requirements of the standard without compromising the function of your vehicles. However, we reiterate that NHTSA is not responsible for vehicle design.

If there are solutions that you would not be able to implement before the January 26, 1998 effective date of the rule, you can apply for a temporary exemption. Under one of our regulations (49 CFR Part 555), vehicle manufacturers may apply for a temporary exemption from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Under Sec. 555.6(a), a manufacturer whose yearly production is not more than 10,000 units may ask for an exemption of up to three years on the basis that compliance would cause it substantial economic hardship and that it has attempted in good faith to comply with the standard from which it has asked to be excused. I have enclosed a copy of Part 555 for your information. Please note that it takes three to four months from the date of submittal before a decision can be made on such an application because it has to be submitted for public comment.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosures: 49 CFR Part 555
ref:224
d.10/20/97

ID: nht94-4.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 30, 1994

FROM: Arthur W. Perkins -- Perkins, Philips and Puckhaber

TO: John Womack -- Assistant Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Robert E. Dwyer, Administrator of the Estate of Sean P. Dwyer, Kelly Nedeau, Steven Nedeau and Diane E. Surran, Administratrix of the estate of Ronald G. Reed, Jr. v. Dobles Chevrolet, Inc., Van-Go, Inc., and Arthur "Lucky" Young, d/b/a Custom 's Unlimited

ATTACHMT: Attached to 2/3/95 letter from Philip R. Recht to Arthur W. Perkins (A43; Std. 207; Std. 208; Std. 301; Part 567.7); Also attached to 7/12/91 letter from Paul Jackson Rice to Samuel Albury

TEXT: Dear Assistant Chief Womack:

This office has had numerous conversations with Attorneys Marvin Shaw and Mary Versaille of your office relative to the applicability of various federal regulations to a motor vehicle that was converted from its original intended purpose as a cargo va n to a passenger vehicle. My office represents the interests of two estates and two injured parties in a products liability and negligence action which has been brought against a retail automobile dealership and the customizing company.

During our conversations with Mr. Shaw and Ms. Versaille, they informed me that by directing a letter to you outlining certain issues, we could obtain an opinion letter relative to the application of various sections of the Federal Motor Vehicle safet y Standards Act.

I expect this case will go to trial sometime in late 1994 or early 1995, and I would appreciate receiving a response from you at your earliest convenience.

Factual Summary

Defendant Dobles Chevrolet, Inc. of Manchester, New Hampshire ordered a 1985 cargo Astro Van from General Motors. (See Exhibit 1A and 1B General Motors invoice to Dobles Chevrolet, Inc.) Dobles Chevrolet, Inc., after having the cargo van in its inven tory for approximately three months, permitted Arthur "Lucky" Young, d/b/a Custom's Unlimited, to take the van for the purpose of converting it from a cargo to a passenger van. (See Exhibit 2, Dobles Chevrolet Purchase Order (#43031) to Customs Unlimite d). Mr. Young was a jobber and had an arrangement with Defendant Van-Go of New England, Inc. of Saugus, Massachusetts to customize cargo vans to passenger vans for a fixed price. (See Exhibit 3, Customs Unlimited sales order of 7/25/85).

1. Van-Go Accessories performed the following modifications:

The two Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) front driver and front passenger seats were removed and were replaced with "after market" captains style seats which were attached to rotating pedestals that were mounted on the original seat floor studs m anufactured by General Motors.

2. The van was further modified as follows:

A. The exterior of the van was cut to install three windows two 26" x 18" and one 30" x 18".

B. The ceiling and interior walls were covered with fabric.

C. The corrugated metal floor was covered with plywood (held in place with sheet rock screws) over which there was an application of foam pad and carpeting.

D. Two "after market" bench seats, middle and rear, (which folded to a platform bedding) were installed by using four mounting clips per seat frame. The mounting clips were held in place by one non-graded bolt, which passed through the elongated slot in the clip, through the carpet, the pad, the wood floor and the corrugated floor of the van and was bolted underneath using a washer and nut. (See Exhibit 4A, B & C, photos of bench seats and clips.)

E. Type 2 seatbelts for each seating position, two in the middle and three in the back, were attached to the frames of these seats. (See Exhibit 5A & B, photos of bench seats with attached seatbelts.)

The van was returned to Arthur Young, d/b/a Custom's Unlimited, absent any certification or any disclosure indicating that any work had been performed by Van-Go. Arthur Young performed some exterior painting, striping, put on new wheels, and affixed a 1 1/2" x 6" placard advertising that his firm had worked on the vehicle. Mr. Young then delivered the van to Dobles Chevrolet who prominently placed it in the showroom area and offered it for sale as a new vehicle.

Mr. Paul Nadeau went to Dobles Chevrolet for the purpose of acquiring a family vehicle, and purchased the van on August 31, 1985 (see Exhibit 6 and Exhibit 7.)

The placard affixed by Mr. Young was removed from the vehicle prior to Mr. Nadeau purchasing the vehicle.

The motor vehicle was being used by Paul Nadeau's son, Scott Nadeau, on September 20, 1987 when he was driving the vehicle together with four passengers, one of whom was buckled in the front passenger seat. The other three passengers, two in the midd le seat and one in the rear seat, were not wearing seatbelts. Scott Nadeau lost control of the vehicle at approximately 45 miles per hour, and the vehicle struck a tree in a rearward rotating fashion at approximately 28 miles per hour, whereupon the sea ts rotated from underneath the clip and came loose from the floor, allowing the two bench seats and their three occupants to load against the rear cargo doors. The front passenger was ejected rearward from underneath her belt, when her seat back collaps ed and was catapulted to the rear of the van. As the vehicle rotated from the point of impact with the tree, an accelerated force was exerted by the four bodies and the two bench seats on the rear door, and the welds holding the latching mechanism yield ed, allowing the four occupants to be ejected out the rear cargo doors.

Two of the passengers were killed and the other two sustained serious personal injuries. The back of the front passenger seat collapsed, in part because of the negligent manner in which the seat was affixed to the pedestal (only three nuts were insta lled although it was designed to be held by four), allowing the front passenger to slide under of the searbelt and be ejected out the rear door. The two occupants of the middle seats were ejected and killed, and the rear passenger, lying down on the ben ch seat, was ejected and sustained a head injury.

The Plaintiffs have brought an action against the dealer (Dobles), the converter (Van-Go), and the broker (Arthur Young, d/b/a Custom's Unlimited) in strict liability in tort because the seats and the seat anchoring mechanism were inherently dangerous .

The Plaintiffs claim 1) that the seats lacked sufficient strength, and 2) the anchoring system used for the seats in the vehicle did not comply with the minimum federal safety standards.

The Defendants are using the following as defenses:

1. The seats met Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207 because they withstood the force of 20 g's times the weight of the seat. The seat weighed 50 pounds, therefore, if the seats and seat backs could withstand 1000 pounds of force, they com plied with the FMVSS. (The manufacturer tested the seats when they were attached to a metal surface with a clamp arrangement using two bolts and the seas withstood 20 times their weight. The manufacturer assumed that seatbelts would be attached to the floor and not to the frame of the seats. The seats were never tested as attached using a clamp with a single bolt to the plywood and carpeted surface of the customized van. Nor were the seats tested after the seatbelts were attached to them.

2. The components installed by Van-Go are "readily attachable" components and they are accordingly exempt by @ 567.7 from certifying the vehicle.

3. Since the Plaintiffs on the bench seats were not wearing seatbelts, the FMVSS relative to the strength of the frames of the seat, seat backs and anchoring system are not applicable, as they apply to forward forces only.

The Plaintiffs request your opinion on the following with respect to Defendant Van-Go Accessories of New England, Inc.:

1. Are the items installed by Van-Go on the cargo van (e.g. windows, sub-flooring, padding, carpeting, seats, changing the seating arrangements, and attaching the seatbelts to the frames of the bench seats not designed to accommodate seatbelts) class ified as "readily attachable" and therefore exempt under @ 567.7?

2. If the items installed on the cargo van by Van-Go are not classified as "readily attachable", is Van-Go required under @ 567.7 to certify that they altered the vehicle? If so, what is the procedure for such certification?

3. Is it required that the vehicle as altered, including the seats and seat anchoring systems, be subjected to and be able to withstand the forces which would be applied to them under the fuel integrity test as set forth in Regulation 308?

4. Pursuant to the seat anchoring system requirements as set forth in Section 210, although they are applied in a forward direction, is it a reasonable assumption that the seat anchoring system should likewise resist the same forces in a rearward dir ection?

5. Do the requirements of Regulation 308 mean that the seats and seat backs must be able to withstand the forces which would be applied to them under fuel integrity testing in Regulation 308?

The Plaintiffs request your opinion on the following with respect to Defendant Arthur "Lucky" Young, d/b/a Custom's Unlimited:

1. Are the items installed on the cargo van (e.g. exterior painting, striping and new wheels) by Arthur Young classified as "readily attachable" and therefore exempt under @ 567.7?

2. If the items installed on the cargo van by Arthur Young are not classified as "readily attachable", is Arthur Young required under@ 567.7 to certify that he altered the vehicle?

3. If the van has been altered by Van-Go, is Arthur Young as the broker between Dobles and Van-Go required to certify the van prior to returning it to Dobles?

The Plaintiffs request your opinion on the following with respect to Defendant Dobles Chevrolet:

1. Is Dobles Chevrolet, as a dealer and first time seller of new motor vehicles, required to make certain that before it sells a new motor vehicle which has been altered, that the vehicle complies with the FMVSS as of the date of the alteration?

2. Who is ultimately responsible for making certain that a new vehicle, once certified by the manufacturer (General Motors) but subsequently altered, meets the FMVSS requirements prior to sale - the converter or the seller of the new vehicle?

If you need any additional information please contact us and we will be pleased to immediately answer your requests. If the questions we have posed are too burdensome and you would like us to narrow our focus, please let us know right away and we wou ld be happy to modify our questions posed. It is my understanding that your department can normally respond to inquiries such as this within a sixty day time period. If that is not possible would you please contact us and let us know the expected date of your reply.

Very truly yours,

ID: nht69-2.35

DATE: 10/21/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; B. M. Crittenden for Robert Brenner; NHTSA

TO: Department of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of August 20, 1969, concerning multiple compartment tail, stop and turn signal lamps.

The answers to your specific questions (numbered in accordance with your letter) are as follows:

1. (a)(b) If one compartment or lamp meets the photometric requirements, the additional compartments or lamps are considered as additional lamps and are, therefore, not regulated by Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 except by S3.1.2.

(c) The manufacturer has no choice in interpreting paragraph S3.1.1.7. However, the manufacturer does have a choice in how he designs his turn signal lamps to comply with S3.1.1.7.

2. In your reference to Mr. Baker's letter of May 13, it was interpreted that "all lamps or compartments shall be photometered simultaneously." Paragraph S3.1.1.7 clearly states that "photometric requirements . . . . shall be provided by one or a combination of the compartments or lamps." Therefore, if two lamps or compartments of a three lamp or three compartment lamp meet the photometric requirements, they shall be photometered together as a unit and the third lamp or compartment is considered an "additional lamp."

(a) Individual tests are permitted to determine whether one compartment actually does comply.

(b) No. The intent of paragraph S3.1.1.7 is clear. This section permits the use of either one or a combination of the compartments or lamps in meeting the photometric requirements.

3. (a)(b) Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 requires one tail lamp and one stop lamp on each side of the vehicle. If one lamp of a multiple lamp or one compartment of a multiple compartment lamp meets the requirements, 1(a) above would apply. If two or more lamps or compartments are necessary to meet the requirements, they shall be photometered together as a unit.

4. (a) I am not familiar with State requirements "that each rear lamp on a vehicle must perform a specific function and be approved for that function," and do not read California Vehicle Code Section 24003 as a requirement of this nature. There is no such requirement in Standard No. 108. Lamps on a vehicle, and not required by the Standard, are generally subject to regulation by the States.

(b) Same as 1(a).

(c) Same as 1(a).

5. (a) If one compartment meets the requirements, 1(a) applies. If both are needed to meet the requirements, they are to be tested as a single unit.

(b) Same as 5(a).

In general, we believe that the above replies answer your several questions. However, should you have any additional questions with respect to a specific rear lighting arrangement for a specific vehicle, we would be pleased to provide further clarifying information.

August 20, 1969

Robert Brenner Acting Director National Highway Safety Bureau

We have a copy of a letter to Mr. Charles W. Heyer of Electrical Testing Laboratories from Mr. Charles A. Baker regarding photometric test procedures. That letter quite clearly points out the method in which the National Highway Safety Bureau desires multicompartment turn signal lamps to be photometered. However, it raises additional questions concerning procedures to be used both by a laboratory in determining compliance of a device with the Federal standards and by a manufacturer in designing a lamp to meet those standards.

The photometric requirements in SAE(Illegible Word) were developed several years ago before multicompartment lamps were in common use. These(Illegible Word) reasonably well fulfilled the need in upgrading the performance of single-compartment lamps at that time. Later, experience with some of the original multicompartment lamps and complaints about excessive brightness of the taillamps and stoplamps on vehicles brought about a need for revising the standards.

At that time, each section of a multicompartment lamp was treated in the same manner as an individual lamp, since their performance was little different than that of individual lamps set side by side. Therefore, each compartment of a three-compartment lamp had to(Illegible Words) and the 80 candlepower minimum for a turn signal lamp. In addition, each compartment was allowed to have a maximum intensity of 15 candlepower at or above(Illegible Word) for the taillamp and 300 candlepower in red for the turn signal lamp.

The above maximum values were reasonable when only one or two lamps were used on each side of the vehicle. Unfortunately, the first three-compartment lamps were built with such high light output that each compartment barely(Illegible Word) with the maximum. This meant in some cases that the combined taillamp output on each sivo of the vehicle was over 45 candlepower and the combined turn signal output was barely below the total maximum of(Illegible Word) candlepower, thereby being annoyingly bright to following drivers.

The manufacturers and the SAE Lighting Committee recognized this problem and after a number of demonstration of systems and rewriting of proposed crafts developed the multicompartment rear lamp specification in SAE J575d. The original brightness problem appeares to be quite simple and could have been solved merely by reducing the maximum intensities allowed multicompartment lamps; however, the manufacturers more concerned that they would then be squeezed between a high minimum value for each compartment and a low maximum value which did not allow sufficient leeway for normal design and production.

The SAE studies indicated that with the types of multiple compartment lamps that were in use about three years ago, the values in SAE(Illegible Word) applying to the total light output of the multicompartment lamp were reasonable. This standard did not cover every condition of brightness and lens area that might be involved in providing anytime effectiveness while limiting nighttime brightness to reduce annoyance, but it was a first step in this direction.

Manufacturers who have attempted to comply with both FMVSS 108 and SAE J576d have differences in interpretation of your requirements. We would like to have the following points clarified so we do not cause the manufacturers unnecessary difficulties when we test devices for compliance with Federal and State standards:

1. Section 3.1.1.7 of FMVSS No. 108 specifies in part that the photometric requirements "shall be provided by one or a combination of the compartments or lamps".

(a) Does this mean that if one compartment or lamp meets the minimum and maximum requirements, the other compartments or lamps can have photometric output either below the(Illegible Word) required or above the maximum permitted?

(b) Does this mean that(Illegible Word) lamps may be used to meet the minimum requirements with the others adding stray light, provided the maximum requirement of 15 candlepower in the case of taillamp and 100 candlepower in the case of turn signal lamps is not exceeded when all lamps or compartments are lighted simultaneously?

(c) Does the manufacturer have the choice in interpreting this section as to which method is most favorable to him for his particular design?

2. Mr. Baker's letter of May 12 states that "The sums of the measured candlepowers at the test points of separately photometered lamps or compartments of a combination shall not be acceptable", whereby implying that all lamps or compartments shall be photometered simultaneously.

(a) What was the purpose of stating in Section 3.1.1.7 that photometric requirements shall be provided by "one" or a combination of compartments if individual tests are not permitted to cetorine whether one compartment actually does comply?

(b) If it is the intent that the compartments shall be measured simultaneously, should not the above section be recorded to eliminate the implied alternative of having only one of the lamps comply?

3. FMVSS No. 108 makes no mention of the method of testing multicompartment and multilamp taillamps and stoplamps, as Section 3.1.1.7 applies only to turn signals.

(a) Do the standards require each compartment of a taillamp or stoplamp to be tested separately to show compliance with J575c, or are they to be tested simultaneously as required of turn signals?

(b) Must each separate lamp or individual compartment meet the taillamp-to-stoplamp ratio, or is it sufficient that the compartments when lighted together meet the(Illegible Word) even though a particular lamp or compartment does not comply individually.

4. The California Vehicle Code contains a Section J1000 which prohibits a motor vehicle from being equipped with any lamp or illuminating device not specifically required or permitted by the Code. The manufacturers would like to interpret Section(Illegible Words) permitting any number of additional taillamps and and stoplamps on each side, provided only the lamp meets the requirements of J575c. The only limitation they propose is that all of the lamps taken together do not exceed the maximum candlepower requirements in(Illegible Word), do an example of(Illegible Word) of the(Illegible Word) of the effectiveness of the(Illegible Words) lamp. They would also use photometric(Illegible Word) showing that the total stoplamp to total taillamp output complies with the ratio requirements of J575c; again; to prove non-impairment.

(a) Do the Federal standards preempt States from enforcing present requirements that each rear lamp on a vehicle must perform a specific function and to approved for that function?

(b) Are all of the seneraio lamps in a multiple rear lamp arrangement considered by the bureau as comprising one lamp and(Illegible Word) to be taken as such by the states in enforcing identical standards?

(c)(Illegible Word) the Federal standard merely require the minimum of one stoplamp and raillamp on each side of the vehicle to meet the requirements of(Illegible Word), with the additional optional lamps to be provided at the manufacturers discretion regardless of whatever standards the states may have for any such supplemental lamps?

5. Some modern designs of multicompartment lamps have three compartment configurations where the large(Illegible Word) compartment is a backup lamp and on each side of it is a taillamp-stoplamp combination. Other configurations include a three compartment lamp centeres; on the rear of the vehicle where the(Illegible Word) compartment is a taillamp-stoplamp combination and the compartments on each side of it perform only taillamp functions.

(a) Where two rear lamp compartments are separated by a backup lamp compartment, is the entire lamp to be tested as a simple unit as though the rear lamp sections were adjacent to each other?

(b) With respect to the cervico where a taillamp is on each side of a center-mounted stoplamp, are the taillamps considered a part of the physically integral three-compartment center lamp for the purposes of determining compliance with minimum and maximum specification and ratio requirements? Or, is the taillamp on each side of the(Illegible Word) to be tested simultaneously with the other taillamps on that particular side of the vehicle for the purposes of determining compliance?

The manufacturers have been quite(Illegible Word) in developing different variations of multiple lamps and multicompartment lamps and each has his own interpretation as to how his particular arrangement might be considered as complying with a specific federal or(Illegible Word) standard. We have been asked a number of questions such as those above as a result of our program of purchasing and testing(Illegible Word) for conformance to the standards.

We would very such appreciate your giving consideration to this problem and providing us with specific information that we can use(Illegible Word) injuries from foreign and American manufacturers and in using the correct test procedure for determining compliance of a specific device with the requirements.

WARREN M. HEATH Commander Engineering Section

be: George Gaudaen, SAE

Ford Motor Company

June 10, 1975

Richard B. Dyson, Esq. Assistant Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

Re: 1975 Monarch Rear Taillamp Part No. (2)(A)(2) - IP2R(2)S(3)T75CT

We are writing to seek the express confirmation of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of the preemptive effect of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108, 49 CFR 571.108 ("Standard 108") on passenger car lighting, as was provided by NHTSA in Motorcycle Industry Council, Inc. v. Younger, No. Civ. S74-120 (D.C.E.D. cal., Sept. 24, 1974).

This request is being made so that we may respond to the attached correspondence (Attachment I) from Mr. Warren M. Heath, Commander; California Highway Patrol, concerning compliance with Section 25950 * of the California Vehicle Code by the 1975 Monarch rear taillamps. Mr. Heath's letters of April 8 and May 25 contend that the amber lens applied over a red lens on one of the Monarch taillamp compartments violates that provision of the California Vehicle Code Section 25950 which does not permit a taillamp to be amber when unlighted. On this basis, Mr. Heath has stated that similarly equipped 1976 model year Monarchs will not be eligible for registration in California.

* Section 25950 provides in pertinent part: "(b) All lamps and reflectors visible from the rear of a vehicle shall be red, except that stop lamps, turn signal lamps and front side-marker lamps required by Section 25100 may show amber to the rear.

This section applies to the color of a lamp whether lighted or unlighted, and to any reflector exhibiting or reflecting perceptible light of 0.05 candlepower or more per foot - candle of incident illumination, except that taillamps, stop lamps and turn signal lamps visible to the rear may be white when unlighted."

We believe the provisions of Section 25950 are prempted by Standard 108, and that pursuant to Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 USC 1392(d)), California is precluded from the enforcement of any nonidentical standard.

As the NHTSA has confirmed on several occasions, the Standard's lighting requirements are intended to be comprehensive and exclusive, and leave no room for differing state standards. The statement of the Administrator cited by the Court in the Motorcycle Industry Council judgment is particularly pertinent here where California seeks to enforce a differing standard for the precise function (i.e., taillamp color) covered by Standard 108. (Letter from James B. Gregory, Administrator NHTSA, to W. Pudinski, Commissioner, Dept. of Highway Patrol, dated Nov. 8, 1973, N40-30 (RED).)

Compliance of the Monarch rear lamps with the requirements of Standard 108 has been confirmed by tests conducted at Ford. (Attachment II) Therefore, we seek an opinion on the issue of preemption with respect to the differing California requirements of Section 25950.

For your assistance, we are enclosing color photos of the Monarch and Monarch Ghia rear lamps which demonstrate their appearance when lighted and unlighted. (Attachment III) Photo #1 is of the Monarch rear lamp unlighted. Photo #2 shows the taillamp (3 exterior red compartments) lighted. Photos #3 and #4 are of the Monarch Ghia.

If you have any questions on this matter, please so inform me. I may be reached by telephone at (313) 337-6462. We hope to receive a response at your earliest convenience.

Nancy Kolodny Staff Attorney

Attachments

ID: nht87-1.55

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/30/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Jack H. Whitney

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Jack H. Whitney 80 Hammersmith Bridge Road London W6 9DB England

This is in reply to your letter of November 14, 1986, with reference to the Asquith van that you wish to import into the United States from England and sell commercially.

You have asked the following questions:

"1. Does U.K. laminated glass meet D.O.T. regulations:"

Since the U.S. and U.K. glazing standards are not identical, U.K. laminated glass does not necessarily meet the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). Some glass manufactured in U.K. does meet our standard. It bears the required "AS" symbol and numerical designation (e.g., "AS-1" for windshields) and is incorporated in such British cars as Rolls-Royce and jaguar that their makers certify as complying with the FMVSS. Glazing manufactured in England without the AS symbol and numerical design ator presumptively does not comply.

"2. Can I carry passengers?"

"3. Can I haul goods in the back?"

Federal safety standards do not regulate your use of the vehicle; thus, as far as our standards are concerned, you are free to decide whether to carry passengers, haul cargo, or both. However, certain design aspects of the vehicle may affect the category of the vehicle for purposes of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. We define a truck as a vehicle "designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment." Load-carrying vehicles are generally certifie d as "trucks" and comply with safety standards applicable to that category. A multipurpose passenger vehicle" is one that is "designed to carry 10 persons or less and which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation. Many vans in the U.S. are certified as "multipurpose passenger vehicles." If a vehicle is neither constructed on a truck chassis nor has features for off-road use, but is designed for carrying 10 passengers or less it is a "passenger or less it is a "passenger car."

4. Once the van passes all D.O.T. and E.P.A. regulations, can it still be used on the road like any other vehicle?

Whether a vehicle nay be used on the public roads is a matter determinable under State law -- specifically the laws of any State where it will be licensed or driven. Generally, when a vehicle complies with D.O.T. and E.P.A. regulations, there should be n o problem in registering and operating it. However, we are not familiar with State laws covering replica vehicles like the Asquith.

"5. Without the engine assembly is my van considered a van, kit car or what?"

For purposes of importation into the United States, a vehicle without an engine is considered an assemblage of items of motor vehicle equipment. Any items in the assemblage that are directly covered by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard (i.e., brake hoses, brake fluid, lighting equipment, tires, glazing, seat belt assemblies, and wheel covers) must meet, and be certified as meeting, the applicable U.S. standard.

In reply to your final request, there are no printed forms for petitions for exemptions from the Federal safety standards. An applicant is expected to provide the information specified in 49 C.F.R. Part 555, in the order given. This regulation is contain ed in the volume referenced in our correspondence with Mr. Reed of May 2, 1986.

The following is a listing of those requirements that must be completed before shipments begin. You must:

1. Appoint an agent for service of process in accordance with Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 551 (49 CFR 551).*

2. Assign a vehicle identification number to your vehicles as required by 49 CFR 565 and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 115.*

3. Provide information as specified in 49 CFR 566, "Manufacturer Identification."*

4. Certify conformity by adding a label meeting the form, order, and location requirements of 49 CFR 567.

5. Maintain a list of first purchasers for purposes other than resale of your vehicles (section 158(b) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 USC 1418(b)).

6. Build to conform to applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety and Bumper Standards. Passenger cars must also meet theft prevention standards, if applicable.

7. Maintain a record of tires on your vehicles (49 CFR 574)."*

8. Provide consumer information (49 CFR 575), if applicable.

9. File a form HS-7 with the U.S. Customs Service at the port of entry. Only one form with each shipment is required.

10. Provide "Automotive Fuel Economy Reports" (49 CFR 537 ), if applicable.

If you determine in good faith that any vehicle manufactured by you does not conform with an applicable FMVSS or contains a safety-related defect, section 151 (15 USC 1411) of the Act requires that you furnish notification to the Secretary and to owners in accordance with section 153 (15 USC 1413) and to remedy without cost the failure to conform or defect in accordance with 154 (15 USC 1414). Details are contained in 49 CFR 573, 576 and 579.

We do not have "application forms." Those regulations requiring information from your company are identified by an asterisk.

We are enclosing the following pertinent publications:

1. The Act

2. 19 CFR 12.80, "Regulations for Motor Vehicle Importation"

3. "Order Form" for Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 400-999

4. "Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations"

5. 49 CFR 551, "Procedural Rules"

6. 49 CFR 573, "Defect and Noncompliance Reports"

7. 49 CFR 576, "Record Retention"

8. 49 CFR 579, "Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility"

9. Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment

If we may be of further assistance, please let us know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel U.S. Dept. of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Dear Ms. Jones,

Mr. Crispin Reed gave me your name. I am purchasing and importing one of their Shire'vans. Hopefully the vehicle will arrive in Florida in April of next year.

The vehicle will solely belong to me and will arrive without an engine, transmission, exhaust system, etc. I then, with the help of the Ford Motor Company, have installed, a new Ford Mustang engine assembly so I will comply with all EPA regulations.

I have been appointed an agent of the Asquith Motor Carriage Co. to sell future Shire vans to the U.S. market.

Because of the excellent quality of these vehicles and the potential sales and advertising abilities, I am now receiving help from the Florida Dept. of Commerce and the Broward Economic Development Board.

The first van will have two front seats and one large back seat. All the glass will be laminated and it will have a bulkhead separating the passenger area from the back cargo area. It will have winkers front, back and all sides. The chassis and hub and b rake assembly will be the brand new Ford Transit 100LWB.

The question I have on my van will certainly help to cut costs, time and save from doing thing incorrectly or twice, to meet current D.O.T. safety regulations: 1) Does U.K. laminated glass meet D.O.T. regulations? 2) Can I carry passengers? 3) Can I hau l goods in the back? I will be manufacturing furniture in Florida. 4) Once the van passes all D.O.T. and E.P.A. regulations, can it still be used on the road like any other vehicle? 5) Without the engine assembly is my van considered a van, kit car or what?

As for the other future vans, I would be grateful if you could send me (by air mail) the necessary forms required (exemption petitions) so the manufacturer and I can fill them out now, because of the four month waiting period mentioned in your letter dat ed May 2nd.

I want to do this thing correctly cause I would hate to be stuck with a $40,000 van that I couldn't drive.

On the other future vans, Mr. Reed has given me all of your past correspondence and the microfiches you kindly sent him. I shall be looking at them this week.

I assure you have our brochure. The van is 78" wide & 16 1/2 foot long.

*Not for hire.

Yours Sincerely,

Jack H. Whitney