ID: 1985-02.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/18/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Ernest Astle

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Ernest Astle Purchasing Agent Alco Manufacturing Company P.O. Box 724 Logan, Utah 84321

Dear Mr. Astle:

This responds to your letter to Steve Kratzke of my staff asking for an interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 302, Flammability of interior materials (49 CFR 571.302). Specifically you asked if the requirements of that standard apply to aftermarket seat covers. While the standard applies only to new motor vehicles, its requirements do indirectly affect some aftermarket seat covers. As explained in greater detail in the attached letter to Mr. Cederbaum regarding the same issue, rendering inoperative equipment or elements of design installed in a vehicle pursuant to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards is prohibited if done by certain commercial enterprises, but is permitted if done by the vehicle owner. Thus, if a seat cover in a complying vehicle were replaced with a noncomplying seat cover by one of those enterprises, that act would violate the above prohibition. The same act, if done by the owner, would not be a violation.

Should you need further information or have any further questions in this area, please contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Alco Manufacturing Company

April 7, 1985

Steve Kratzke Office of Chief Council NHTSA Room #5219 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Steve

Reference to the phone call on February 22, 1985, concerning Motor Vehicle Saftey Standard NO. 302, pertaining to manufacturers of after market seat covers.

Does the after market manufacturer need to comply to the Federal Standard by law. Or does it not matter, except for product liability Insurance, if the covers should be flammable enough to cause fire.

I understand that as long as the ultimate consumer installs the covers the product Liability claim are void.

Do the Jobbers, that install covers, need to meet the 302 if they manufacturer covers?

J. C. Penney Company states that the 302 is their standard. Could this be their policy to protect them from any suits?

Please answer the above questions and statements by letter and/or by publication.

Thank You

Ernest Astle Purchasing Agent

kj

ID: 19994.ztv

Mr. F. Barry Hennegan
General Counsel
Atlas and Reusable Launch Systems
Lockheed Martin
P.O. Box 179
Denver CO 80201-0179

Re: SS-99-10099

Dear Mr. Hennegan:

This is in reply to your letter of May 3, 1999, to the Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, "regarding possible exemptions from certain of the requirements of 49 C.F.R. Sections 571.121 and 393.52" with respect to two trailers owned by Lockheed Martin.

The Office of Motor Carrier Safety, Department of Transportation, enforces 49 CFR 393.52. I am forwarding a copy of your letter to that Office for its response to you on this issue.

In brief, Lockheed Martin is the owner of two trailers manufactured for it by Martinez and Turek of Riato, California. These trailers were manufactured to your specifications, which included compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air brake systems. The trailers also feature steerable rear wheels mounted on a removable bogie assembly. You inform us that "after completion of acceptance and road testing of both trailers, it appears that neither will fully meet Section 571.121, Paragraphs S5.3.3 Brake actuation Time and S5.3.4 Brake Release time."

However, you note that S3(a) of Standard No. 121 excludes trailers which exceed 102.36 inches in width and which are "equipped with two short track axles in a line across the width of the trailer." Your trailers are wider than this but don't meet the axle specification. Nevertheless, you believe that the intent of this exception is "not to have the requirements apply to oversize, slow, or specialty trailers such as ours." Accordingly, you ask that we exempt your trailers from S5.3.3 and S5.3.4 of Standard No. 121.

I am sorry to inform you that we have no authority to exempt these trailers from Standard No. 121 under the circumstances that you relate. Because they are not equipped with two short track axles across their width, the trailers do not qualify for the exclusion from Standard No. 121 provided by S3(a). The trailers, then, were required by 49 U.S.C. 30112(a) to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and to be certified by their manufacturer as conforming to those standards.

We have authority to exempt trailers from Standard No. 121 at any point up to and including their first sale for purposes other than resale, upon application by their manufacturer (49 U.S.C. 30113). Given the fact that these trailers are already owned by Lockheed Martin, it is too late for their manufacturer, Martinez and Turek, to apply for an exemption.

When either we determine, or a manufacturer determines, that a motor vehicle fails to comply with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, the manufacturer is required to notify us and its dealers and purchasers, and to remedy the noncompliance (49 U.S.C. 30118-30120, as implemented by 49 CFR Parts 573 and 577). However, if the manufacturer believes that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, it may petition us for a decision to that effect. If we grant the petition, the manufacturer is relieved of its statutory obligation to notify and remedy (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h), as implemented by 49 CFR Part 556).

Therefore, if the manufacturer, Martinez and Turek, agrees that Lockheed Martin's trailers fail to comply with S5.3.3 and S5.3.4 of Standard No. 121, the company is required, at a minimum, to notify us in the manner prescribed in 49 CFR Part 573. Within 30 days of notifying us, it may also submit an inconsequentiality petition with us under 49 CFR Part 556. In this particular instance, the manufacturer might want to discuss, as part of such a petition, whether this vehicle is operated only under special permit and with escort vehicles. If it does not file a petition (or if the petition is denied), it is required to remedy the noncompliance.

Although you did not address the issue, under our interpretations, the removable bogie assembly appears to be a trailer, and subject to compliance with Federal requirements. You state that the auxiliary axle was added after delivery of the trailers to ensure that the vehicles, when in use, would not exceed the maximum Colorado allowable rear wheel road loading for tandem axle trailers. A bogie/axle unit installed as part of a trailer's original equipment is considered to be part of the trailer itself, and covered by its manufacturer's certification and the trailer's VIN. However, a bogie/axle unit sold and installed after the trailer has been delivered to its owner is considered a trailer, and is required to comply with Federal requirements applicable to trailers, including compliance with Federal standards, the VIN regulation, and certification by the bogie/axle manufacturer. I am enclosing a copy of a letter we furnished Jay Reese on September 25, 1996, which explains this in further detail. If the bogie/axle units installed on your two trailers do not in fact comply with Federal standards applicable to trailers, the bogie manufacturer is subject to the same notification, recall, and inconsequentiality procedures discussed in the preceding paragraph.

If you have any questions, you may phone Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure

cc: Martinez & Turek
Riato, CA

ref:121#573#555
d.11/9/99

ID: 1985-03.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/05/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Edward Maloney

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Edward Maloney 1302 Potter Road Bellevue, Nebraska 68005

Dear Mr. Maloney:

Thank you for your letter of April 17, 1985 concerning the safety belts in your 1984 Ford Tempo. You explained that Ford has offered to replace the safety belt buckle in your car and you asked if such an alteration is permissible under Federal law. As discussed below, Ford can replaceable buckle as long as the safety belt would continue to comply with our safety standard for safety belts.

Our agency has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209 Seat Belt Assemblies, which sets performance and marking requirements for safety belts. All safety belts sold as items of original or aftermarket equipment must be certified as meeting Standard No. 209. The alteration or repair of items of safety equipment is affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. That section provides, in part, that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard....

Thus, if a dealer alters a safety belt, the dealer must ensure that it is not rendering inoperative the belt's compliance with Standard No. 209.

I hope this information is of assistance. If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

April 17, 1985

Dear Sir,

I wrote you previously 2/8/84 about my problems with Ford Motor Co. substituting a cheap seat belt in my '84 Tempo that became defective, with one from an '84 Escort car which did not even match my decor.

I took them to Small claims court because I could not get satisfaction or any help from anyone. Ford produced a letter in court in which they offered to alter the seat belt by tearing it apart and putting a different buckle on it. I refused them on grounds of safety. I was under the impression that the federal government specified seat belts in cars for safety, and any alteration was a federal violation, as are all other parts of the car that meet safety standards.

A copy is enclosed. If you prosecute Ford, count on me.

Sincerely,

Edward Maloney 1302 Potter Rd. Bellevue, NE 68005

ID: nht75-2.37

DATE: 04/22/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Truck Body and Equipment Association, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of March 21, 1975 inquiring whether a State may require a motor vehicle to be equipped with lights not required under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

In your phone conversation of March 28 with Mr. Robert Donin of this office you indicated that the vehicle in question was an ambulance outfitted with a raised roof designed to enable medical personnel to stand inside. The raised top increases the height of the vehicle to 9 feet. You stated that although you could not identify the specific State statute involved, it was your understanding that Virginia requires clearance lights near the top of all vehicles over 7 feet in height. The law to which you apparently were referring is Virginia Motor Vehicle Code @ 46.1-265. A copy is enclosed. It states in part:

(a) All motor vehicles, trailers or semitrailers exceeding seven feet in height or in width or the widest portion of which extends four inches beyond the front fender extremes shall be equipped with lamps mounted at the extreme right- and left-hand front top corners of such vehicle, each of which lamps shall be capable of projecting an amber light visible in clear weather for a distance of at least five hundred feet to the front of such vehicle, and shall be equipped with lamps mounted at the extreme right- and left-hand rear top corners of such vehicle, each of which lights shall be capable of projecting a red light visible in clear weather for a distance of at least five hundred feet to the rear of such vehicle;***

(b) In addition to the lamps required herein, each such vehicle shall be equipped with amber reflectors located on the side thereof, at or near the front. Red reflectors shall be used on the rear of each such vehicle. Such reflectors shall be securely fastened to the vehicle not less than twenty-four inches and not more than sixty inches from the ground, provided that in the case of a vehicle which is less than twenty-four inches in height such reflectors shall be securely fastened thereto at the highest point the structure of the vehicle will permit. The reflectors required therein shall be of a type that have been approved by the Superintendent. ***

It is important to note that the Virginia Motor Vehicle Code also provides in @ 46.1-267:

*** No motor vehicle shall be operated on any highway which is equipped with any lighting device other than lamps required or permitted in this article or required or approved by the Superintendent or required by the Federal Department of Transportation.

As you may know, section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) provides that no State or political subdivision of a State may promulgate or continue in effect safety standards applicable to an aspect of motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment performance covered by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, unless the standards are identical. By virtue of this provision, the Federal government is said to "preempt" the field of regulation with respect to any aspect of performance for which there is a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard.

The key question, therefore, is whether Federal Standard No. 108 and Virginia Motor Vehicle Code @46.1-265 regulate the same "aspect of performance." If so, Virginia may not apply its requirement unless the Federal and Virginia requirements are identical. From a comparison of the two laws, it is evident that both address the same aspect of performance and that they are not identical:

* Both the Federal and Virginia laws apply to ambulances. An ambulance is a multipurpose passenger vehicle, under Federal Standard No. 108 and a "motor vehicle" under Virginia Code 46.1-265.

* Both laws require that the vehicle be equipped with lights at certain specified locations to facilitate recognition of its dimensions.

* The configuration and color of the lights required by the two laws differ.

Consequently Federal Standard No. 108 is preemptive, and to the extent that they differ from the Federal requirements the State clearance lamp and reflector requirements quoted are void. The language of Virginia Code @ 46.1-267, to the effect that lighting devices may conform to Virginia or Federal standards, is incorrect.

SINCERELY,

TRUCK BODY AND EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATION, II

March 21, 1975

Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

Recently several members of the Truck Body and Equipment Association have raised questions concerning state versus federal motor vehicle lighting requirements.

The vehicle in question is a multipurpose passenger vehicle less than eighty (80) inches wide, equipped with a raised roof.

Our question is as follows: Can a state require a motor vehicle to be equipped with lights not required under FMVSS #108?

Thanking you in advance for your help, I am,

Byron Crampton Manager of Engineering Services

ID: 1985-03.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/10/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; SOURCE UNAVAILABLE

TO: Mr. Donald H. Giberson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

U.S. Department of Transportation

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Mr. Donald H. Giberson Assistant Director Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Law and Public Safety 25 South Montgomery Street Trenton, New Jersey 08666

Dear Mr. Giberson:

Thank you for your letter of May 17, 1985, to Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning the decorative etching of glazing in vehicles and how it may be affected by our regulations. You explained that the etching is apparently being done by using either vibrator tools with carbide tips, ultra high speed grinders, or sandblasters. You expressed concern that the integrity of the glass may be affected and in some cases the etching is in a position that obstructs the vision of the driver.

You further explained that glazing with etching that obstructs the driver's vision is rejected by your inspectors during New Jersey's annual motor vehicle inspection, but that glazing in areas not used for driving vision cannot be rejected for the same reason. You asked for our comments on this issue.

I hope that the following discussion of how our regulations could affect the practice of etching glass is of assistance. As you know, our agency has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which sets performance requirements for glazing materials used in new vehicles or sold as items of replacement equipment; a copy of Standard No. 205 is enclosed. If the windows are etched before the vehicle or the piece of replacement glazing is sold, then the person doing the etching would have to certify that the glazing continues to be in compliance with all of the requirements of Standard No. 205, including the light transmittance requirement for glazing in areas requisite for driving visibility. We would be particularly concerned whether the etched items of glazing would continue to comply with the impact resistance requirements of the standard. Please note that impact tests have to be met by items of AS1, AS2, AS3, AS4, AS5, AS8, AS9, AS1O, AS11A, AS11B and AS14 glazing regardless of whether the glazing is used in an area requisite for driving visibility. Purchasers of a new vehicle or glazing may themselves alter the vehicle or glazing as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements.

If the etching is done in used vehicles, then Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act may apply; a copy of that section of the Act is enclosed. That section provides that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. Thus, none of those persons may etch a vehicle's glazing if by so doing they would knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle's glazing with Standard No. 205. Violation of this section can result in Federal civil penalties up to $1,000 for each violation.

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

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

May 17, 1985

Mr. Stephen Oesch Office of Chief Council NHTSA 400 - 7th Street S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Oesch:

It has come to our attention that the glazing on many vehicles registered in New Jersey, is being decoratively etched after it has been installed in the vehicle by the manufacturer. We know of three methods being used to etch the glass.

Most people are using vibrator tools with carbide tips, but others are using ultra high speed grinders or sandblasting techniques. The vibrators often leave grooves in the glass deeper than those which could be inscribed with a glass cutting tool.

We are concerned with this problem because the integrity of the glass may be affected and in some cases the etching is in a position that vision is obstructed.

I have enclosed three pictures of vehicles equipped with etched window glass. In each of these cases, the etching is in a position which will interfere with driver visibility. Therefore, the glazing would be rejected during annual inspection and the hazard eliminated.

Etching which is placed on glazing in areas not used for drivers visibility cannot be rejected for the same reason. Although there is a strong likelihood that the glass has been weakened, we are not sure how to handle such cases.

Your advice on this matter would be appreciated. If you need additional information, please advise. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Donald H. Giberson Assistant Director

DHG:WH:rc

Enclosures

cc: Edward Jettner, NHTSA Edward Gyarfas, NJ DMV

ID: nht74-4.11

DATE: 07/03/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Linch-Jones Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of June 4, 1974, inquiring as to the validity of your odometer disclosure statement.

The odometer disclosure requirements prescribed at 49 CFR Part 580 specify that a seller must provide his purchaser with a written statement that declares the mileage indicated on the vehicle odometer at the time of the transfer. If that mileage is known by the transferor to differ from the number of miles actually traveled by the vehicle, this must also be included in the disclosure statement in the form specified in the regulations.

The statement suggested in your letter inserts the word "may" into the aspect of the disclosure statement pertaining to mileage registration that is inaccurate for reasons other than calibration error. Although the statement as you have phrased it is not a direct violation of the Act, it is in conflict with the intended purpose of the disclosure statement to inform the purchaser of a vehicle as to the accuracy of the mileage registered on the odometer. In order to accomplish this purpose it has been determined that where the seller of a vehicle has good reason to believe that the mileage registered on the odometer differs from the vehicle's true mileage he must so inform the buyer in positive terms. This insures a conscious effort to determine the accuracy of the vehicle's odometer will bemade by the seller and prevents him from transferring ownership of a vehicle in a manner that could mislead the buyer.

In the situation where the transferor is uncertain whether the mileage is accurate, he must determine whether there is a credible basis for an assumption that the mileage is either correct or incorrect. If he has good reason to believe that the mileage is inaccurate, even though he is not positive, he should check the statement saying that the mileage indicated on the odometer is incorrect.

We urge you to phrase your odometer disclosure statement in the manner prescribed in the odometer regulation.

The full odometer statement enclosed in your letter appears correct. However, I should point out that the transferor's signature and the date of the statement must appear on the form in order for it to be complete.

For your information I am enclosing a copy of the odometer regulation which includes the odometer disclosure statement form.

ENCLS.

June 4, 1974

National Highway Traffic & Safety Administration, D.O.T.

Chief Counsel:

I request an interpretation as to the validity of our statement (as below).

I state that the actual mileage may differ from odometer reading for reasons other than odometer calibration error and that the actual mileage is unknown.

I also enclose a copy of my odometer mileage statement in total, which is incorporated in the bill of sale, to further add to the clarification of this matter.

Respectfully yours

William E. Linch, President

Linch-Jones, Inc.

CAR INVOICE

GERMAN AUTO BROKER

LINCH-JONES INCORPORATED

131 Honeysuckle Lane

Smyrna, Georgia 30080

SOLD TO

ADDRESS

DATE

Make

Body Type

Year

Model

Vehicle Identification No.

Sold "as is."

PRICE OF CAR

EXTRAS:

OPTIONAL EQUIP. & ACCES.

LICENSE TAG SALES TAX

TOTAL

Odometer Mileage Statement

Federal regulations require you to state the odometer mileage upon transfer of ownership. An inaccurate statement may make you liable for damages to your transferee, pursuant to Section 409 (a) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act of 1972, Public Law 92-513.

I. , state that the odometer mileage indicated on the vehicle described below is miles.

I further state that the actual mileage may differ from the odometer reading for reasons other than odometer calibration error and that the actual mileage is unknown.

ID: aiam3634

Dear Mr. Burgess: This is in reply to your letter of November 1, 1982, regarding a interpretation of the 'lens area requirements of FMVSS No. 108' as applied to the high contrast lamp whose design you enclosed.; We understand that your design applies to rear lamps. The measuremen for the illuminated area of a rear lamp as specified in SAE J585e, 'Tail Lamps (Rear Position Lamps),' for example, is stated in part as follows:; >>>...'To be considered visible, the lamp must provide an unobstructe projected illuminated area of outer lens surface....'<<<; This applies to the installation requirements, i.e., the device as use on a vehicle. It is not part of the laboratory test procedure.; Further, with regard to photometric requirements of a lamp, n measurement for the illuminated area of a rear lamp is specified in SAE test procedures.; In summary, Standard No. 108 does not prohibit Lucas from manufacturin the lamp in question, but the vehicle manufacturer must be careful to insure that the lamp, when installed, conforms to the standard's requirements for visibility of lens area.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0918

Dear Mr. Hodges: This is in response to your letter of November 20, 1972, regardin Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 125, Warning devices, issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration on March 9, 1972. You refer to the Docket entry submitted by the National Safety Council to NHTSA on February 3, 1971, and reiterate the Council's concern that the triangular warning device described in Standard 125 would lessen the effectiveness of the triangular reflective Slow Moving Vehicle emblem presently in use because of the similar configuration of the two devices.; The Council's comments were considered, along with all comment submitted, in the promulgation of the final rule. The agency as well as several commenters supported the dual use of the triangular device because the triangular shapes would be used for similar purposes: To alert oncoming traffic that a reduction of speed is necessary due to a vehicle ahead. In other words, it is our position that the warning device and the SMV emblem will be complementary, rather than conflicting.; We appreciate your interest in motor vehicle safety. Sincerely, J. Volpe, Secretary of Transportation

ID: nht68-1.8

DATE: 04/24/68

FROM: NHTSA

TO: Utility Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of March 6, 1968, to Mr. George C. Nield, concerning the additional clearance lamps and reflectors that you have been requested to install on vehicles shipped to Hawaii.

Referring to the drawing attached to your letter, the use of clearance lamps as shown does not appear to impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, provided (1) the two lamps on front of the body are amberin color, and (2) the lamp on the rear of the body is red in color. Also, use of the amber reflex reflector on front of the body would not appear to impair the effectiveness of the required equipment. Paragraph S3.1.2 of the Standard states: "No additional lamp, reflective device, or associated equipment shall be installed if it impairs the effectiveness of the required equipment." This requirement applies to all applicable vehicles, including those owned by a State.

On your drawing, it appears that you have inadvertently indicated a red color for the clearance lamps on the front of the body. Use of red lamps at the locations shown would impair the effectiveness of the required equipment, since red lamps are used, in accordance with the standard, to designate the rear of the vehicle.

With respect to the requirements of Standard No. 108, I must point out that this Bureau does not issue approvals on items of lighting equipment or on vehicle designs incorporating this equipment. Therefore, the above comments are for your information only and in no way relieve the vehicle manufacturer from his responsibility for certifying that the assembled vehicle meets the requirements of the Standard.

Thank you for writing.

Sincerely,

March 6, 1968

George C. Nield -- Deputy Director, Motor Vehicles Safety Performance Services, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration National Highway Safety Bureau

Dear Mr. Nield:

I certainly enjoyed the meeting held in Washington last week concerning the new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards as sponsored by the Truck Body & Equipment Association.

I particularly enjoyed the afternoon panel discussion that you moderated.

If I may, I would like to request an interpretation on lighting, as covered under Standard 108.

Section 103 (D) of Public Law 89-563, of course, spells out that no state shall require additional lamps unless they are identical to the Federal standards. Standard S.3.1.1 confirms this fact in spelling out the "in the number" or quantity. Section S.3.1.2 states no additional lamps from Standard 108 unless, of course, the vehicle is owned by the state.

You will find enclosed a copy of our drawing describing lighting on an open bed service line construction body which we manufacture. Item 10, as shown, is the rear face clearance lamp. Item 11, rear marker reflector. Item 12, rear red marker lamp.

On units we ship to the State of Hawaii, we are still being asked to furnish lighting per their state law, which was written basically around the ICC standard. They have asked that we add additional clearance lamps, as shown in the three red rectangular boxes that I have added as No. 10. One on the front face of the body at the top corner; one at the front side top of the body corner; and one at the rear side face of the body. They have also asked that we add an additional reflector, as shown as Item No. 8 at the lower side front corner of the body.

Of course, the same lighting configuration would be duplicated on the other side of the vehicle.

In your interpretation, by the addition of these three lights and one reflector per side, are we impairing the effectiveness of the Motor Vehicle Standards as specifically spelled out by number and location under Standard 108?

I would appreciate your comments.

Yours very truly,

UTILITY BODY COMPANY

Dick Romney,

Sales Manager

Enclosure - Drawing

TYPICAL EQUIPMENT INSTALLED

(Graphics omitted)

ID: aiam1798

Dear Mr. Chairman: This is in response to your letter of January 31, 1975, in which yo asked whether the question of a lowering of the bumper impact requirements had been prejudged, and also requested our position on the question of cost-effectiveness of bumper designs.; With respect to your first question, I give you my unqualifie assurance that the question of what bumper impact level should be required has not been prejudged. My mind is certainly still open, and we are examining with keen interest the comments we are receiving on the proposal before any final decision is made. The statement you quoted, that certain factors lead us to believe that the proposed action 'appears to be necessary,' reflects the attitude of tentative judgment that we normally have at the time a proposal is issued. The comments we receive help us to determine whether the 'appearance' of the necessity of an action is realistic.; The problem of obtaining the most cost-effective bumper designs i response to a performance standard is a difficult one. With most standards the problem has not been as significant, because the interest of manufacturers in keeping their costs down generally has coincided with the best interest of the consumer. A bumper that provides significant protection can be such a major weight factor, however, that the cheapest design from a manufacturer's standpoint may not be the least costly to the consumer if lifetime fuel and maintenance costs are figured in.; We are studying the possibility of putting a limit on bumper weight a an explicit requirement of the bumper standard. We have no doubt that the Motor Vehicle Information and Costs Savings Act gives us the legal authority to do this, since weight and the attendant fuel penalty is a major factor in consumer cost. The questions we have at this time involve technology (*e.g.*, how to identify the systems in question so that their weight can be objectively limited without undue design restriction) and policy (*e.g.*, whether weight limitations may lead to new cost-effectiveness problems if manufacturers choose to use exotic materials); I deeply appreciate the interest you have shown in this matter. I a sure our interests coincide: obtaining the greatest net benefits from the bumper systems that consumers buy.; Sincerely, James B. Gregory, Administrator