ID: nht88-1.56

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/26/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Federal Bureau of Investigation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Federal Bureau of Investigation P.O. BOX 709 Portland, OR 97207

Dear Mr. Bendig:

This responds to your letter, as supplemented by the information you provided in a November 19 telephone conversation with Deirdre Hom of my staff, requesting this agency to approve the Bureau's acquisition of one M-151 series vehicle for occasional off- road surveillance work. I regret the delay in responding. We continue to recommend against the sale of M-151 vehicles to civilians.

As you might know, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) was first contacted by Department of Defense (DOD) personnel in May 1971, for comments and recommendations concerning sale of M-151 series vehicles to the public. After a serie s of meetings between DOD and NHTSA staff, NHTSA recommended against the sale of these vehicles to the public under any circumstances. This recommendation, in fact, followed DOD policy which only allowed persons to drive these vehicles after a specialize d training program.

The reason for the DOD policy and NHTSA recommendation concerning the M-151 series is the definite tendency of these vehicles to turn over without warning when operating limits are exceeded. This tendency results from the unique independent rear suspensi on system of the military design, coupled with the vehicle's short wheelbase, narrow tread width, and high center of gravity. Accident statistics maintained by the Department of the Army after the 1971 recommendation, for the period of july 1972 through December 1977, indicate that the M-151 series vehicles were involved in 1,703 rollovers, 105 fatalities and 1,546 disabling injuries to D.S. Army personnel. Over 80 percent of these rollovers reportedly occurred due to driver error despite the required i ntensive driver training program.

NHTSA believes that the M-151 series vehicles present a clear safety hazard if not driven within specific operating limits. Control of such vehicles, once sold to the public even for "off road" use, appears to pose unique hazards. NHTSA is concerned for the safety of Bureau personnel who would operate M-151 series vehicles if we were to recommend that the Bureau be permitted to acquire such a vehicle, and we are concerned also for the safety of other motorists who would share the road with these vehicle s. NHTSA continues to recommend against disposal of the vehicles to the public until the DOD can provide evidence that the M-151 series is safe.

Thank you for your inquiry. If you have further questions, please let us know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Department of Transportation Chief Council 400 7TH ST. S.W., N.O.A.-20 Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sirs,

Our office is requesting four (4) Military Jeeps model A1 from surplus. These vehicles will be used for surveillance work only in dense wooded areas.

In the past we have been using our own BUCARS, which have received damages, costing the bureau not just monies, but also vehicle down time.

The vehicles will be used in Bend, Coos Bay, and Eugene, Or. the forth one will be used in our Seattle Wa. field office.

The only time these vehicles would be on main roads and/or highways, would be the time required to get from the office to the sight.

If approved please send a copy of the letter to DRMO-Ogden 500 W. 12TH ST. Ogden, Ut. 84407-5001 Attn: Jim Marsh (Ph.# 801-399-7033)

Raymond E. Bendig

Property Clerk Portland Office

ID: nht88-1.57

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: FEBRUARY 26, 1988

FROM: SHIMAZU, KUNIO -- TOYOTA GENERAL MANAGER

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TITLE: INTERPRETATION -- FMVSS 208 -- AUTOMATIC SAFETY BELT PLACEMENT

ATTACHMT: OCTOBER 3, 1988 LETTER FROM JONES TO SHIMAZU

TEXT: Toyota seeks NHTSA's concurrence with its interpretation of the belt placement requirement of FMVSS 208 applicable to automatic safety belts during dynamic testing.

Sec. 10.5.2, setting forth the belt path requirement, states:

S10.5.2 Automatic safety belts. Ensure that the upper torso belt lies flat on the test dummy's shoulder after the automatic belt has been placed on the test dummy.

However, this section does not clearly specify the belt path or how the belt is to be positioned on the dummy's shoulder. We are concerned that test personnel may feel that they are prohibited from adjusting the belt path after the door has been shut , unless the belt fails to lie flat on the test dummy's shoulder.

Compliance tests should not only be repeatable, but conducted under conditions which simulate as closely as possible those of

2

the real world. However, the belt path, immediately after the door has been shut, may not be appropriate for compliance testing if it differs from the real world belt path.

This difference occurs because a human occupant moves to operate controls (ignition key, transmission lever, seat adjustment, door lock, etc.) and adjusts the belt for optimum comfort after the belt has first been positioned across the torso. As show n in the video tape and Appendix attached to this letter, the initial belt path after the door closing is changed by occupant movement, and afterward the belt path remains in this new position.

NHTSA recognizes this in the note at the end of FMVSS 208 which states;

NOTE: The concept of an occupant protection system which requires "no action by vehicle occupants," as that term is used in Standard No. 208, is intended to designate a system which will perform its protective restraining function after a normal proce ss of ingress or egress without separate deliberate actions by the vehicle occupant to deploy the restraint system. Thus, the agency considers an occupant protection system to be automatic if an occupant has to take no action to deploy the system but wo uld normally slightly push the seat belt webbing aside when entering or exiting the vehicle or would normally make a slight adjustment in the webbing for comfort.

3

Therefore, automatic belts that need slight adjustment by the occupant upon entry or for comfort, are recognized as such under this standard. Accordingly, in the case of this type automatic belt (where slight adjustment is needed) the initial belt pa th immediately after the door is shut differs from that after it is adjusted by the occupant.

For these reasons, we believe that the belt path on the test dummy should be adjusted by test personnel in the manufacturer's and NHTSA's compliance tests to ensure that the belt path simulates that of the real world.

There may be several methods to adjust the belt on the dummy to simulate a real world position. For example, moving the upper torso by grasping the dummy's head, pulling the belt some inches forward from the dummy's chest and releasing it, etc.

However, based on our experience, the results obtained through those procedures may vary. Accordingly, in order to achieve consistency before conducting a compliance test, NHTSA could request the manufacturer to provide its belt position procedure (a s it already now does in specifying its "normal design riding position" of an adjustable seat back).

Incidentally, we believe the most appropriate objective method is to place the belt over an imaginary straight line running from the upper to lower anchorage as seen from head on.

4

To test an automatic safety belt vehicle after merely closing the door is not only not repeatable but is not representative of real world conditions and, therefore, would not accurately measure the crashworthiness of the vehicle's occupant protection system.

Enclosures

INVESTIGATION OF BELT PATH

Using a TOYOTA Cressida and a Volkswagen Golf, we investigated whether the belt path on a dummy (the Hybrid III dummy) would differ from that of a human occupant. The Cressida is equipped with a typical motorized automatic belt system, whose shoulder an chorage is motor-driven along the roof side rail. The Golf, on the other hand, is equipped with a typical non-motorized belt system whose non-movable shoulder anchorage is attached to the door frame.

The video tape which accompanies this letter shows the results of our investigation.

Golf

Dummy

The Volkswagen Golf is shown first. After the dummy has been positioned according to the standard, the door is then shut to place the belt across the dummy's torso (please note test personnel made no adjustment to the dummy or the belt after the closing of the door). As the video shows, the belt catches on the dummy's upper shoulder.

2

Human Occupant

The same test is then carried out using a human occupant, equivalent to a 50th percentile adult male. Although the belt may lie improperly across the shoulder immediately after the door is shut, when the occupant moves forward to turn the ignition key, operate heater controls, etc. the belt will then move from that position to the middle of the shoulder. Under the same conditions, using a 95th percentile adult male, the belt lies across the middle of the shoulder after the door is shut.

This demonstrates that the unadjusted belt position on the dummy does not represent the normal riding belt position on a human occupant.

Cressida

The Cressida was tested under the same conditions as the Golf.

Dummy

After door closing, the belt lies higher on the dummy than the typical position marked on the chest based on our real world experience. The belt moves more than 30mm downward and stop when test personnel move the dummy's upper torso back and forth by gr asping the head.

3

Human Occupant

In the case of the human occupants equivalent to the 50th and 95th percentile adult males, the belts initially lie on the body at high positions. However, through body movement the belt moves to a lower position.

Summary

1. The belt path on a human body right after the door has been closed is, in most cases, quickly changed by occupant movement.

2. The belt path on a test dummy right after the door has been closed differs substantially from the belt path on a human occupant after movement.

ID: nht88-1.58

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: FEBRUARY 26, 1988

FROM: GARY EVANS -- PRESIDENT, WESTEX

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 7-18-88, TO GARY EVANS, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES-NHTSA

TEXT: I have had 3 conversations with individuals in different departments within the NHTSA. These conversations have resulted in a recommendation to contact the NHTSA Legal Department for advice.

Westex is an Importer and Distributor of automotive parts for German made vehicles. Among the many manufacturers we do business with are several companies which produce original equipment taillights, side reflectors and headlight assemblies. These firm s are very familiar with DOT, SAE, etc.

One of these firms produces Warning Triangles as described in FMVSS-125. As you may know, Warning Triangles are required in all vehicles (including cars) in Germany. This company has a new innovative patented technique which allows a Warning Triangle t o be attached to the side window of a car. This side-mounted Triangle is about 20% smaller than the specification shown in FMVSS-125.

This idea has evolved for use by the elderly, handicapped or individuals who are afraid or unable to leave their car. It does not give advanced warning as the Triangles placed along the road do. However, it does give motorists a warning (day or night) that the vehicle is stopped and advises the Police someone needs help.

I would like to import and sell this item here in the U.S. Before I do so, I would like to have some degree of comfort that the Triangle complies with any standards which may affect it.

FMVSS-125 states it does not deal with devices attached to the vehicle. Logically, I guess I am looking for the standard(s) which deals with warning devices that are attached to the vehicle without self-contained energy sources, if indeed such standards exist.

I would appreciate your earliest reply so I may proceed with the sales of this item.

ID: nht88-1.59

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/26/88

FROM: JOHN S. CROCKENBERG

TO: ERICA Z. JONES -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/01/88 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO JOHN S CROCKENBERG; REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 205

TEXT: CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

Dear Ms. Jones,

I am writing to you after speaking with Joan Tillgham regarding a device I am developing. Ms. Tillgham suggested I obtain and research Volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 400 through 999; Section 571.103 and 571.111. I have read this vo lume and cannot find any information that applies.

I will describe this device and its purpose to enable you to understand my device and answer my questions.

The device is an antiglare shield for automobiles. It is a 4" x 6" x 1/8" parallelogram with rounded corners made of transparent bronze plexiglass with an attached 1/2" diameter suction cup. It adheres to the interior of automobile windows.

The development of this product was necessitated by the need to deflect obstructive sunglare where conventional sun visors could not be placed.

My questions are:

1) What standards if any apply to this type of product?

2) If no standards apply what might I need to concern myself with before proceeding with the manufacturing and marketing of this device.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

ID: nht88-1.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/01/88 EST

FROM: JOSEPH P. FAIA

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/19/88 TO JOSEPH P. FAIA FROM ERIKA Z. JONES

TEXT: This letter is in reference to a vehicle lighting accessory for trucks. But its use is not limited to trucks.

On June 3, 1988 I met with Susan Schruth and Richard Van Iderstine, they advised me on questions of legality and design.

The description below is from my patent application.

ABSTRACT

A system for illuminating two-dimensional displays on the sides of vehicle trailers includes a plurality of reflector light assemblies disposed about the perimeter of a side of a trailer. Each light assembly includes a base which is affixed to the si de of the trailer and carries a light source. A housing formed of both a transparent section and semi-translucent sections is joined to the base and encloses the light source. The transparent housing section faces generally tward the center of the trai ler side surface. A concave reflector in the housing together with lens portions in the transparent housing section act to focus light across the trailer side surface to illuminate the two-dimensional display thereon. A lesser quantity of light passes through the semi-translucent section which are tinted and arranged to function as the running lights commonly seen on trailers.

I have also sent the drawings attached to further help explain.

My questions about the use of this light are:

-- Can this light be used as described, as a combonation side illumination and marker light.

-- As a back-up light and parking light, to be used only in these situations.

-- As a stop light, To come on only when brake is applied.

-- As a light to illuminate the side of trailer only. not in combibnation with marker light.

[DRAWING IMITTED])

(DRAWING OMITTED)

ID: nht88-1.60

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/01/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Telex Communications, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Bill Hunt, Project Engineer Telex Communications, Inc. 8601 Northeast Highway 6 Lincoln, NE 68505

Dear Mr. Hunt:

This letter responds to your inquiry of November 3, 1987, in which you enclosed a diagram to show the relationship between your company, Telex Communications, Inc. (Telex or your company), and a Telex customer you designated as Company XYZ (or your custo mer). As I understand your diagram, Telex manufactures a trailer which it sells to Company XYZ. Company XYZ then delivers the trailer to its subcontractors, Companies ABC and DEF, who install items such as generators and communications equipment. Your l etter suggests that you are uncertain about your company's certification responsibility. It is your company's position that as an incomplete vehicle manufacturer, you should provide the document specified in 49 CFR @568.4(a). On the other hand, your cust omer asserts that as the incomplete vehicle manufacturer, Telex must assume legal responsibility for the incomplete vehicle under 49 CFR @568.7(a), and certify the vehicle's compliance under Part 567. On a number of occasions, you spoke with Joan Tilghma n of my staff on the matters raised in your letter.

On the diagram enclosed with your letter, you state that the trailers Telex delivered to Company XYZ are equipped with "running gear, brakes, lights, etc." Telex assigns a VIN, gross axle weight rating, and a gross vehicle weight rating to each railer it delivers to Company XYZ. You are concerned because two contractors with whom you have no relationship add equipment to the trailer after you deliver it to your customer.

First, having reviewed the drawing of the trailer and the narrative information in your letter it is not clear to me whether your trailers are, in fact, incomplete vehicles. You may wish to provide me with information that more completely describes your trailer so that I may give a more definitive answer to your question. A photograph showing the trailer as it is delivered to Company XYZ would be helpful. However, I shall be as responsive as I can be given the information you supplied in your letter.

If the trailers are incomplete vehicles, then Part 568 would not compel your company to certify the trailers' compliance with all applicable Federal safety standards. Under @568.7, Telex may elect to assume legal responsibility for all the certification duties and liabilities imposed on a manufacturer under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and affix the certification label as specified in @567.5(e). But if Telex decides against assuming certification responsibility, then it must supply the incomplete vehicle document specified in @568.4.

If the trailers are completed vehicles which are converted to a different use by Company XYZ through its subcontractors, you must certify them irrespective of whether your customer contracts to have other equipment added to the vehicles after delivery. T he fact that your customer contracts to have a generator and communications equipment added does not mean that the vehicle requires further manufacturing operations to perform its intended function. The determination of whether a vehicle requires further manufacturing operations to perform its intended functions is not a subjective inquiry into what use the particular person to whom the vehicle is delivered intends to make of the vehicle. In previous interpretations, we have explained that the question is whether the particular vehicle type (e.g., trailer, van) requires further manufacturing operations to perform the customary functions that an ordinary purchaser would expect of this vehicle type.

For example, a van that is delivered to a dealer ready for road use is a completed vehicle, even if the dealer intends to send it to a van converter to have different equipment (seats, refrigerators, etc.) installed before selling the van to a retail cus tomer. Similarly, the trailer your company delivers to Company XYZ is a completed vehicle if it needs no further manufacturing operations to perform the functions an ordinary purchaser would expect of a trailer.

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Vehicle Safety Act), a complete vehicle manufacturer's certification responsibilities apply up to the vehicle's first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale. It appears from your let ter that Company XYZ purchases your trailers for purposes other than resale, and that after its purchase, Company XYZ subcontracts with two other companies to add a generator and communications equipment to the trailers. If my assumptions are correct, th en the two subcontracting companies have no certification responsibilities under the Vehicle Safety Act, because they are modifying vehicles after their first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale.

The only limitations on the modifications those subcontractors can make to the trailers is set out in S108(a) (2) (A) of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a) (2)(A)). That section states that:

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

If Company XYZ's subcontractors are "manufacturers," "distributors," "dealers," or "motor vehicle repair businesses" within the meaning of @108 (a) (2) (A), they may not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment or designs that T elex installed in the trailers in compliance with an applicable Federal safety standard.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any further questions on this subject, or wish to provide additional information about the particular relationships that here the subject of this letter, please feel free to contact Ms. Tilghman at th is address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

November 3, 1987

Chief Counsel - NHTSA 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Attention: Ms. Erika Z. Jones

Dear Ms. Jones:

I am writing to you concerning the interpretation of CFR 567 and 568 regarding ultimate responsibility for DOT certification.

I have spoken with Joan Tilghman concerning this. She suggested I write to you explaining the circumstances. Please review the enclosed information. I will call soon to discuss this further. Thank you.

Sincerely,

TELEX COMMUNICATIONS, INC. Hy-Gain Division

Bill Hunt Project Engineer

TELEX COMMUNICATIONS,INC.

The parties:

Telex Communications - Trailer manufacturer Customer: Company XYZ

Company ABC - Generator Manufacturer & Installer Customer: Company XYZ

Company DEF - Radio Equipment Manufacturer & Installer Customer: Company XYZ

Company XYZ - Buyer of trailer & additional Installed equipment.

TELEX COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Lincoln, NE.

Manufactures a trailer with running gear, brakes, lights, VTN, etc. Total vehicle wt = 8000/9000#

Axle rating - 9000# ea., 18,000# total

Telex work is complete.

Telex' Customer, XYZ has permanent components added to trailer by two other sub contractors (after delivery from Telex). There are items such as generators (1) & communications equipment (2). Telex is aware of general nature and weight and location of added equipment. These factors have been used to determine trailer design. However, Telex does not have any contractual relationship with the other subcontractors. Telex does not install and is not responsible for the installation of the added equipment.

The problem: Certification of trailer.

Telex' position:

Telex is an incomplete vehicle manufacturer and should provide documentation as stipulated in CFR 568.4a.

XYZ's position:

Telex is an incomplete vehicle manufacturer that assumes legal responsibility as in CFR 568.7a. and is responsible for final vehicle certification per 567.5e.

ID: nht88-1.61

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/01/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

TITLE: ACTION: ACCEPTABILITY OF ADVANCED BRAKE LIGHT DEVICE AS AN AFTERMARKET UNIT

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 04/01/88 EST, FROM MICHAEL M. FINKELSTEIN, TO CARL KAPLAN, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 11/30/81, FROM FRANK BERNDT, TO KENNETH G. MOYER; LETTER DATED 05/02/84, FROM FRANK BERNDT TO LAWRENCE F. HENNEBERGER

TEXT: This is in reply to your memorandum of February 19, 1988, with respect to an advanced brake light device developed by ATAT Technology of Israel. You have described the device as one which activates "the stoplamps of a vehicle upon release of the acceler ator and before actual application of the service brake". You attached a draft of a letter to ATAT for our comment, and you have asked for our opinion of the acceptability of the device for aftermarket installation.

We have made minor changes to the draft. As you know, Standard No. 108 contains no requirements directly applicable to vehicles in use, and the sole prohibition of the Vehicle Safety Act directed to vehicles in use is that no manufacturer, dealer, or ve hicle repair business may render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed in accordance with a safety standard. As the device in question appears to involve the wiring of lighting equipment, it does not appear to be a m odification of a nature easily done by a vehicle owner.

The threshold question for the aftermarket is, does a modification of this nature render inoperative in whole or in part a device or element of design installed in accordance with Standard No. 108. We equate "in accordance with" to mean "necessary for c ompliance with". From your description, we know only one thing about the device: the stoplamps are activated by means other than application of the service brakes.

Both Standard No. 108 and agency interpretations indicate that the device would create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108, and hence be unacceptable as either original or aftermarket equipment. Paragraph S4.5.4 of Standard No. 108 states:

"The stoplamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes. The high-mounted stoplamp on each passenger car shall be activated only upon application of the service brakes."

We assume that all stoplamps on new passenger cars are wired to activate simultaneously. Because activation of the center lamp may only be accomplished by activation of service brakes, and the Israeli device would activate the lamp without brake applica tion, its use would create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108. Although the first sentence of S4.5.4 in contrast with the second does not expressly prohibit application of the lower mounted stoplamps by means other than brake application, the agency has taken the position that all stoplamps on a vehicle must be activated simultaneously (Letter of Oct. 21, 1985 to Kenneth Deane opining that a 35 millisecond delay would be considered "simultaneous"). This means that the vehicle could not be wired so t hat the lower mounted stoplamps would activate upon release of the accelerator but the center lamp would not. For vehicles equipped with the center high-mounted stop lamp, the Israeli device would create a noncompliance with new vehicle requirements, an d, for the aftermarket, result in a wiring and use of lamps noncompliant with new vehicle requirements, hence rendering that system partially ineffective within the meaning of the statute.

With respect to aftermarket installation on vehicles not equipped with center high-mounted lamps, different considerations obtain. In 1981 Kenneth Moyer wrote us about an "alert device which automatically turns on the stop lamps of the vehicle when the accelerator is released". We responded on November 30, 1981, citing paragraph 2.1 of SAE Standard J586d, Stop Lamps, which defines the lamp as one whose operation indicates the "intention of the operator of a vehicle to stop or diminish speed by braking ". Because Mr. Moyer's device would activate the stop lamp under a condition indicating an intent other than the above, we informed him that this device would create an "impairment" and a lack of effectivity as well, and that it would be prohibited. I attach a copy of this letter for your information, as it appears directly on point with the ATAT system, and because some of the agency's comments about the inventor's assumptions appear to remain relevant.

In contrast is the agency's opinion regarding use of the Jacobs brake retarder system, in which the stoplamps are activated when the retarder is in use (see letter of May 2, 1984, to Lawrence Henneberger). The manufacturer argued that use of the stoplam ps when the retarder was activated would indicate "that the vehicle is diminishing its speed by braking. . . ." In Mr. Henneberger's view two 1974 agency interpretations allowing combination of retarder controls with foundation brake controls impliedly r equire activation of the stoplamps when supplementary braking devices are used. The agency agreed with both these arguments.

I hope that this information is useful to you.

Attachments

ID: nht88-1.62

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/01/88

FROM: DAVE TAYLOR -- REGIONAL MANAGER/FIELD ENGINEERING BRIDGESTONE

TO: JOHN FORTH -- STANISLAUS COUNTY D.A. OFFICE MODESTO, CA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/09/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO DONALD N. STAHL RE MCCOY TIRE SERVICE CENTER D.A. NO CF696 REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 119, PART 574; UNDATED LETTER FROM JOHN T. FORTH AND DONALD N. STAHL TO ERIKA Z. JONES NHTSA RE M CCOY TIRE SERVICE CENTER D.A. NO CF696, OCC 1749; LETTER DATED 07/13/87 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO JACK DENIJS EXHIBIT 2; LETTER DATED 05/19/87 FROM JACK DENIJS TO ERIKA Z. JONES, SUBJECT COVERED DOT NUMBERS ON REMANUFACTURED TRUCK CASINGS; DRAWING OF TIRE DATED 01/14/88, MODESTO CITY SCHOOLS TIRE INFORMATION, EXHIBIT 3

TEXT: Dear Mr. Forth,

Attached is the N.H.T.S.A. letter which I referred to.

The 'E12R22.5 V-Steel Express' is not sold in N. America, however we have confirmed that this tire was specifically designed for rubber tired subway trains in Japan and therefor is not suitable by any means for highway use.

We appreciate the diligence of your office and those people involved in discovering them and removing them from the school bus.

We would definitely like to know the source or importer of these casings, or any other information which would assist us in taking the necessary steps to prevent these casings from being sold & used in N. America.

For your information we do not consider these used tires to be 'grey market' tires. All new truck tires imported to the U.S. must meet the requirements of FMVSS 119 and therefor have D.O.T. markings molded into one sidewall of the tire.

Sincerely yours,

ID: nht88-1.63

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/02/88

FROM: RONALD R. MITCHELL -- MORAN TOWNSHIP SCHOOLS SUPERINTENDENT

TO: VAN STRATEN HEATED TAIL LIGHT LENS CO.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 05/16/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO THOMAS C. GRAVENGOOD; REDBOOK A33; STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 04/03/89 FROM THOMAS C. GRAVENGOOD TO NHTSA; REF FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO 108 - HEATED SAFETY LIGHT S FOR VEHICLES DRIVEN IN WINTER WEATHER; OCC 3348; LETTER DATED 01/28/87 FROM GLENN M. MAKI -- COUNTY OF BARAGA MICHIGAN; LETTER DATED 04/02/87 FROM ARVON TOWNSHIP SCHOOL SKANNE MICHIGAN; UNDATED LETTER FROM KENNETH R. HAMMERBERG; BROCHURE OF VAN STRATEN HEATED TAIL LIGHT CO FOR HEATED SAFETY LIGHT; BROCHURE FROM 3M ON DUO PACK ADHESIVES; DYMAX UV CURING ADHESIVES PRODUCT DATA SHEET; SPECIFICATION OF GENERAL PURPOSE WIRE AND CABLE FROM CONSOLIDATED ELECTRONIC WIRE AND CABLE

TEXT: Gentlemen:

We are just finishing our first winter with your heated lens on the flashing hazard lights on one of our buses.

The snow that accumulates on these lights has always posed a problem that required our drivers to stop the bus and clean them off periodically during adverse conditions.

The use of your heated lens has alleviated this problem and we will definitely be replacing the regular lens, with yours, on our entire fleet.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-1.64

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/07/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Robert L. Bernard

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Robert L. Bernard Attorney at Law 12342 Wrenthrope Drive Houston, TX 77031

Dear Mr. Bernard:

This letter responds to your inquiry of August 21, 1987, where you asked for this agency's opinion on whether Federal motor vehicle safety standard 115 (49 CFR S571.115) requires a manufacturer's chrome script name on the trunk of vehicles it manufacture s. It does not.

Standard 115, Vehicle Identification Number- Basic Requirements, directs a vehicle manufacturer to place a discrete vehicle identification number (VIN) on each vehicle it manufactures. Under paragraph S4.5, the VIN for any motor vehicle must appear indel ibly on a Dart of the vehicle other than the glazing, that is not designed to be removed except for repair. Paragraph S4.6 states that the VIN for passenger cars must appear inside the passenger compartment. Title 49 CFR Part 565, VIN-Content Requirement s, states that among other things, the VIN's first three characters must identify the vehicle manufacturer. However, neither Standard 115 or 565 require a manufacturer's name plate to appear on the vehicle.

I hope you find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief of Counsel

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel N.H.T.S.A. 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 Re: FMVSS-115

I have purchased a AC Mark IV motor vehicle manufactured by Autokraft in England which complies with all D.O.T. and E.P.A. rules and regulations and is imported and sold through Ford Motor Company franchised dealers with Ford warranty.

Enclosed please find a copy from the company brochure.

I have requested the deletion of the chrome script name "Autokraft" from the trunk from the manufacturer.

I request your opinion that the above standard and regulation does not require the chrome script name "Autokraft" on the trunk because there is the name and data plate affixed to the body in the engine compartment.

I have discussed this matter with Joan Tilghman and she requested that I write to you.

Please advise.

Very truly yours,

Robert L. Bernard

RLB/kmr/ed

cc: Joan Tilghman