ID: nht94-2.84

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 12, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Martin M. Sackoff -- Executive Director Of Laboratories, International Testing Laboratories

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 2/7/94 FROM MARTIN M. SACKOFF TO NHTSA OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNCIL (OCC - 9646)

TEXT: Dear Dr. Sackoff:

This responds to your letter to this agency with reference to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires.

Your specific question addressed S 4.2.2.4, Tire strength, which states: "Each tire shall meet the requirements for minimum breaking energy specified in Table I when tested in accordance with S 5.3." You asked for an interpretation of the term "breaking, " whether it means a blowout of the tire or the breaking of the tire caused by the plunger used in the test specified in the standard.

The breaking energy test is a measure of the resistance of the tire to bruise or damage due to impact of the tire with road hazards. This agency tests such resistance in accordance with the procedures of S5.3, Tire strength, of the standard. In that te st, a cylindrical steel plunger is forced perpendicularly into the tire rib at the rate of 2 inches per minute at five test points equally spaced around the circumference of the tire. The inch-pounds of force required to push the plunger into the tire i s continuously monitored. As the plunger pushes into the tire, the resistance to the plunger force increases. That resistance requires ever-increasing force applied to the plunger to continue pushing it into the tire. Ultimately, one of two things wil l happen:

1. The plunger will push all the way to the rim; or

2. The tire cords, plies, innerliner, or other components of the tire will stretch, separate, crack or break so that the resistance pressure of the tire diminishes. The "breaking" of the tire at that point does not require an actual blow-out although , obviously, a blow-out would constitute a "breaking."

The plunger force is measured just prior to contact with the rim as in 1 above or just prior to the force reduction

2

described in 2 above. The measured force is then combined with the penetration of the plunger into the tire as specified in S5.3.2.3 and S5.3.2.4 of the standard. The breaking energy value of the tire is then determined by computing the average of the values obtained at the five test locations on the tire. Table I, Appendix A of the standard specifies the minimum breaking energy of tires based on tire type, size, composition, and inflation pressure.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-2.85

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: May 16, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Norman Duncan -- President, Study-Tech, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/10/94 from Norman Duncan to Rodney Slater (OCC-9882) and letter dated 10/22/93 from John Womack to Thomas G. Cehelnik

TEXT:

The Federal Highway Administration has forwarded your letter of March 10, 1994, for reply. You request "an interpretation of the existing vehicle code as it may apply to a safety warning system that our corporation has devised."

Our agency issues the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that apply to new motor vehicles, pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("the Act'). Our Standard No. 108 LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES, AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT is the regu lation that governs the performance of lighting equipment that is required on new motor vehicles and determines whether optional lighting equipment is acceptable. As you have described it, the "Early-Warning Slow Down Safety Light" will automatically be activated when a vehicle decelerates. The system will operate through the stop lamps, but, alternatively, it could employ separate lamps mounted on the rear deck.

Your system is similar to others which have been suggested over the years, and we therefore do not feel that a demonstration is necessary as you have offered. With respect to operation of your system through the stop lamps, as you will see from our lette r of October 22, 1993, to Dr. Cehelnik, a copy of which I have enclosed, automatic activation of the stop lamps is not permitted by Standard No. 108 which allows the stop lamps to operate only when the brake pedal is applied.

As for operation of your system through a separate lamp system, paragraph S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108 permits supplementary lighting equipment provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. Were your sep arate warning system to utilize red lenses, we believe that it could impair the effectiveness of the required stop lamps by sending at times a false signal; not every deceleration is followed by braking, and the operation of your system when not followed by brake application activating the stop lamps could be confusing to a following driver. On the other hands, if your system utilized amber lenses, we believe that impairment would be unlikely to exist because the public associates this color with the ne ed for caution.

The Act itself governs acceptability of your system in the aftermarket (i. e. , installed on vehicles in use). Section 108 (a) (2) (A) prohibits manufacturers, dealers, distributors, and motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly rendering inoperativ e, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed in accordance with Standard No. 108 and all other safety standards. We interpret this where possible as equating inoperability with impairment. Thus, we would view installation of your

system by the persons named above as violative of the Act if it operated through the stop lamp system or if it were a separate lamp system with red lenses.

Even where a supplementary lighting system may be permitted under Federal laws and regulations, it remains subject to the laws of the individual states where the system will be operated. We are unable to advise you on State laws, and suggest that you wri te for an opinion to: American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

ID: nht94-2.86

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 16, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Fred Carr -- Engineer, Utilimaster

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 4/21/94 From Fred Carr To John Womack (OCC-9912)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Carr:

This responds to your question asking whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 211, Wheel nuts, wheel discs, and hub caps, applies to "motor vehicle equipment relating to light duty, medium duty, and heavy duty trucks or truck manufacturers." As explained below, Standard No. 211 does not apply to trucks, or truck equipment.

S2. Application of Standard No. 211 states the following:

This standard applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and passenger car and multipurpose passenger vehicle equipment.

"Multipurpose passenger vehicle" is defined at 49 CFR @ 571.3 as a motor vehicle designed to carry 10 persons or less, which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation. Since Standard No. 211 appl ies only to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and their equipment, Standard No. 211 does not apply to trucks, or truck equipment. "Truck" is defined at 49 CFR @ 571.3 as a motor vehicle designed primarily for the transportation of propert y or special purpose equipment. Accordingly, manufacturers of trucks or truck equipment are not required to certify their trucks and truck equipment to the requirements of Standard No. 211.

I hope this information is helpful. If there are any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ID: nht94-2.87

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 16, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Fred Benford -- 100+ Motoring Accessories

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 4/18/94 From Fred Benford To John womack (OCC-9891)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Benford:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 211, Wheel nuts, wheel discs and hub caps. You wrote that your company manufactures aluminum wheel covers without "protruding objects." You requested confirmation that the wheel covers do not violate any FMVSS. Our response is provided below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles, or of motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act), it is the res ponsibility of the manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment to ensure that its equipment meet applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Standard No. 211 regulates wheel nuts, wheel discs, and hub caps. Since "wheel discs" encompasses wheel covers, your company's wheel covers are subject to Standard No. 211. S4. Requirements of Standard No. 211 states in part:

As installed on any physically compatible combination of axle and wheel rim, wheel nuts, wheel discs, and hub caps for use on passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles shall not incorporate winged projections . . .

In your letter, you stated that your wheel covers do not have any "protruding objects." Since Standard No. 211 prohibits wheel discs (covers) with "winged projections," if your company's wheel covers do not incorporate "winged projections," the wheel cov ers would satisfy Standard No. 211. "Winged projection" is defined at S3.2 of Standard No. 211 as an exposed cantilevered appendage that projects radially from a wheel disc and that typically has front, edge, and/or rear surfaces which are not in contac t with the wheel when the wheel disc is installed on the axle.

2

You also asked whether wheel covers made of aluminum violate any FMVSS. The answer is no, because Standard No. 211 does not specify materials for use in wheel covers. However, since wheel covers are "motor vehicle equipment," your company must ensure t hat the wheel covers are free of safety-related defects under the Safety Act. Sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concern the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that your company or NHTSA determines that the wheel covers have a safety-related defect, your company would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective wheel covers and remedying the problem free of charge.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ID: nht94-2.88

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 16, 1994

FROM: Alberto Negro -- Chief Executive Officer, Fiat Auto R&D U.S.A.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, United States Department Of Transportation, NHTSA

TITLE: Subject: 49 CFR 571.208 S4.5.1 Request For Interpretation

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 6/8/94 From John Womack To Alberto Negro (A42; Std. 208)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

I need to know whether NHTSA allows the advisory information required by 49 CFR 571.208 S4.5.1 to be printed in English and also in one or more foreign languages on the same sun visor label.

I look forward to your reply.

Sincerely,

ID: nht94-2.89

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 16, 1994

FROM: John A. Griffiths

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 6/3/94 From John Womack To John Griffiths (A42; Std. 102)

TEXT: Dear Sir,

I should be pleased if you would inform me whether or not motor vehicles post 1990 are required by law to have a [Illegible Word] safety switch so that the vehicles cannot be started in gear if they have automatic or manual transmissions.

Thankfully yours,

(804) 874-8039

DRN spoke to Mr. Griffiths on 5/26. Mr. Griffiths essentially wanted to know whether, on a manual transmission vehicle, there must be a neutral safety switch, i.e., making it impossible to start the vehicle unless the clutch is fully depressed. as the o wner of a MY93 Dodge, with a manual transmission, he was concerned about this.

ID: nht94-2.9

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 1, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jane L. Dawson -- Specifications Engineer, Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/22/93 from Jane L. Dawson to Walter Myers

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to Walter Myers of this office in which you posed two questions regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) 217, Bus Window Retention and Release.

Your first question related to the definition of "daylight opening" found in the final rule amending FMVSS 217, dated November 2, 1992, (57 FR 49413) (hereinafter Final Rule). Specifically, you asked "(w)hat constitutes an obstruction and how close to t he door does an object have to be in order to be considered an obstruction?"

The term "daylight opening" is defined in the Final Rule as "the maximum unobstructed opening of an emergency exit when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the plane of the opening." An obstruction in this context would include any obstacle or obje ct that would block, obscure or interfere with, in any way, access to that exit when opened. In determining the "maximum unobstructed opening of an emergency exit," we would subtract, from the total area of the opening, the area of any portions of the o pening that cannot be used for exit purposes as a result of the obstruction. The area measurements would be taken when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the plane of the opening. I have enclosed a copy of a March 24, 1994 letter to Mr. Bob Carve r of Wayne Wheeled Vehicles which provides an example of how the amount of area to be credited was determined for a specific design.

You should be aware that the agency published a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend Standard No. 217 on December 1, 1993, (58 FR 63321). The notice proposed two alternate means for determining the maximum amount of area that will be credited for all types of emergency exits on school buses. The agency is currently reviewing the comments received in response to this notice. I am enclosing a copy of this notice.

In your second question you referred to the current provisions of S5.2.3.1(b), FMVSS 217, which provides that a left-side emergency door must be located in the rear half of the bus passenger compartment. You then asked whether that requirement was chang ed in the Final Rule. The answer is yes.

Section S5.2.3.1 of FMVSS 217, as amended in the Final Rule, provides manufacturers two options for the provision of school bus emergency exits, S5.2.3.1(a) (Option A) and S5.2.3.1(b) (Option B). Option A requires a rear emergency door. If additional e mergency exit area is required, the first additional emergency exit must be a left side door located as near as practicable to the midpoint of the passenger compartment. Option B requires a left-side emergency door and a pushout rear window, but does no t designate a specific location for them. Thus, the amended standard does not specify a location for a left-side emergency door installed for Option B, the equivalent of current S5.3.3.2(b).

I hope this information will be of assistance to you. Should you have any further questions or seek additional information, please feel free to contact Walter myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-2.90

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 16, 1994

FROM: R.H. Goble -- President, R.H. Goble Enterprises, inc.

TO: Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/29/94 from John Womack to R.H. Goble (A42; STD 108; VSA 108(a)(2)(a))

TEXT: R.H. Goble Enterprises has developed a new lighting system to be added to motor vehicles. We are soliciting input from you as to the current rules and regulations and how they may apply to this new system. Specifically, can brake lights appear over the wheels and in the front of a vehicle?

Traffic and highway safety is a critical factor in our society. New ideas have evolved over the years to improve highway safety. The most recent innovation is the introduction of the eye-level rear view brake light. Rear-end collisions have been re duced by fifty two percent as a result.

This new concept worked because it introduced a change which was immediately apparent to drivers following a vehicle. We believe this same principle should be applied to the front and sides of a vehicle. The, other drivers could discern the braking intent of the operator from any direction. This is especially true in congested areas where one must watch for vehicles entering from side streets and on coming traffic. This can be accomplished by simply wiring the brake lights to the directional ligh ts with an ordinary bridging connector.

NOTE: When wiring the brake lights to the front directional and side marker lights the brake lights are over ridden by the directional lights.

Also, when the brake lights are applied both sides light up, with the directional light on one side flashing.

Brake lights will not interfere with the directional lights or hazard lights functions.

As seen in the enclosed packet we are introducing a further safety enhancement for vehicles. The Wheel Well lighting system provides indication of the drivers intent when viewing the vehicle

2

from any direction. This takes more of the guess work out of being a defensive driver.

The obvious awareness of another vehicle and the intentions of its operator are the keys to avoiding a collision. The Wheel Well lighting system provides complete illumination around the vehicle, with all light indications or signals being visible fr om any direction. Therefore, we can provide the same safety advantages for all drivers, not just those approaching from the rear. In addition, the reflection of the Wheel Well lights off of the wheels will draw attention to the vehicle even more.

This is not just an idea. Our lighting system is already being used on a few vehicles locally. Four hundred lights have been produced to perform a marketing trial and provide consumer feedback.

The Wheel Well lights utilize standard lights, bulbs, and wiring. They are inexpensive and simple to install. We believe this new patent pending product will do even more to revolutionize highway safety than even the eye-level rear view brake light.

Please understand that these new lights are standard vehicle lights already manufactured by Peterson Manufacturing. Our system merely provides for placement of the newly designed lights above the wheels. They are directly wired into the vehicle and provide the same signaling around the vehicle as can be seen from the rear of any standard vehicle.

Please advise us as to the legality of providing this new system in existing vehicles.

ID: nht94-2.91

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 16, 1994

FROM: Gianfranco Venturelli -- Director General, Automobile Lamborghini

TO: Christopher A Hart -- Deputy Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSS No. 214, Side Impact Standard Petition

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/5/94 from John Womack to John E. Gillick (Std. 214 and Part 555)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Hart:

Automobili Lamborghini S.p.A. (Lamborghini) hereby petitions the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to permit Chrysler Corporation (Chrysler) to include Lamborghini vehicles in its vehicle fleet for the purpose of compliance with t he side impact standard's phase-in calculation. n1 In the alternative, Lamborghini petitions NHTSA to grant the company a temporary exemption from the side impact standard requirements until September 1, 1996, pursuant to its authority under 49 C.F.R. @ 555.

n1 Automobili Lamborghini S.p.A., 40019 Sant'Agata Bolognese (BO)-via Modena, 12-Italy, is a joint stock company organized under the laws of Italy. Chrysler Corporation, on January 31, 1994, sold Lamborghini to a group of investors led by MegaTech Lt d., a Bermuda corporation.

Background

On October 30, 1990, NHTSA promulgated revisions to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 214 regarding side

2

impact protection. See 55 Fed. Reg. 45,722 (Oct. 30, 1990) (codified at 49 C.F.R. @ 571.214). Standard 214 specified vehicle crashworthiness requirements in terms of accelerations measured on anthropomorphic dummies in test crashes and specified streng th requirements for side doors. 49 C.F.R. @ 571.214(b). The standard included the following phase-in schedule: (1) at least 10% of a manufacturer's passenger cars produced on or after September 1, 1993, and before September 1, 1994, must comply; (2) at least 25% of passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1994, and before September 1, 1995, must comply; and (3) at least 40% of passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1995, and before September 1, 1996, must comply. 49 C.F.R. @ 571.214 S8. In promulgating the rule, NHTSA recognized that it could take single-line manufacturers up to three years to develop and implement the engineering changes necessary to comply with the standard. 55 Fed. Reg. at 45,749. Accordingly, Standard 214 provides an alternative to the phase-in option. The standard permits manufacturers to delay implementation of the side impact protection standard for one year (until September 1, 1994) if after that date all vehicles produced meet the standard's re quirements. 49 C.F.R. @ 5711.214 S1(d).

As noted supra, Lamborghini was sold by Chrysler on January 31, 1994. Chrysler, as the corporate parent of Lamborghini, had included Lamborghini vehicles in its vehicle fleet for side impact protection compliance purposes. Due to the number of differe nt Chrysler models that required modifications to meet Standard 214, Chrysler elected to comply through the phase-in alternative. Lamborghini vehicles were scheduled to be modified during the last year of the phase-in period because

3

of the relatively low number of vehicles the subsidiary produced and the lead time necessary for engineering and tooling modifications.

Discussion

Chrysler's sale of Lamborghini has placed Lamborghini in a difficult position regarding compliance with the side impact safety standard. Prior to the sale, Lamborghini had a good faith basis for believing that it would not need to meet the requiremen ts of Standard 214 until the production year beginning September 1, 1996 due to its status as part of Chrysler's vehicle fleet. Now that Lamborghini is not part of the Chrysler fleet, the company cannot utilize this flexibility. While the first segment of the phase-in requirement (10% compliance for all passenger cars produced on or after September 1, 1993) has already passed, Lamborghini still could elect Standard 214's alternative compliance date that requires full compliance by September 1, 1994. However, Lamborghini does not now have sufficient lead time to complete the engineering analysis and implement the tooling changes to comply with the standard for the production year beginning either September 1, 1994 or September 1, 1995. In addition, since Lamborghini only produces one model, it cannot phase in compliance even if this were technically possible and the first year of the phase-in period had not already begun. Accordingly, Lamborghini respectfully requests NHTSA to grant this petition to enable Chrysler to count Lamborghini vehicles in Chrysler's fleet for purposes of side impact compliance, or in the alternative, grant Lamborghini a temporary exemption from the requirements of Standard 214. Granting either request would be in the

4

public interest as it will not affect overall motor vehicle safety because Chrysler has agreed to include Lamborghini vehicles in its vehicle fleet for purposes of Standard 214 compliance, thereby ensuring that, consistent with the objectives of the Nati onal Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the total number of vehicles meeting the side impact requirements will be the same as if Chrysler had not sold its Lamborghini subsidiary.

I. FLEET AVERAGE CALCULATION.

As part of the contract with MegaTech, Ltd. for the sale of Lamborghini, Chrysler has agreed to include Lamborghini vehicles in its vehicle fleet for purposes of Standard 214 compliance. This action will ensure that the overall number of vehicles com plying with the standard through the phase-in period will be the same as if Chrysler had not sold its subsidiary. This approach gives Lamborghini, a single line manufacturer, the three-year lead time needed to develop and implement the engineering chang es necessary to satisfy the standard's requirement envisioned in the preamble to the final rule. All Lamborghini vehicles produced after September 1, 1996, will satisfy Standard 214.

II. TEMPORARY EXEMPTION.

In the alternative, Lamborghini requests NHTSA to grant the company a temporary exemption to Standard 214 through August 31, 1996, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. @ 555.6(a). In the meantime, as noted above, Chrysler will include, for purposes of production vo lume compliance, all Lamborghini vehicles in Chrysler's phase-in calculations. Beginning September 1, 1996, all Lamborghini vehicles produced will fully comply with the standard.

5

The application of Standard 214 to Lamborghini without adequate leadtime would subject the company to substantial economic hardship. In order to comply with this standard, Lamborghini must modify the door structure and redesign the aperture and door for its automobiles. In view of the extremely short lead time between now and the beginning of production for next year's model, it is simply not possible to complete the necessary engineering and related retooling necessary to meet the September 1, 199 4, target date in the regulations.

Lamborghini is confident, however, that it will be able to comply with the standard by September 1, 1996, but not sooner, in accordance with the following schedule:

1. May 1994 - 1995

- engineering, drawing and development of preliminary prototypes.

2. June 1995 - May 1996

- final tune-up tests, and modification of production tooling.

3. July 1996

- begin production of automobiles in compliance with new Standard 214.

4. September 1996

- delivery of automobiles in compliance with new Standard 214.

The estimated cost of the research and development and the tooling changes necessary to meet the new standards is estimated to be between

6

We would reiterate that the financial hardship this action would cause is primarily due to the absence of sufficient leadtime to implement this standard. Lamborghini had only recently begun analysis of the engineering changes necessary to meet the sta ndard and has not yet begun to implement the necessary tooling changes and purchasing because, until the sale occurred, Lamborghini had a good faith basis for believing it would not have to meet the standard until September 1, 1996.

* * *

Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Please contact Michael J. Grossman, our designated agent for U.S. certification and regulatory liaison (516-829-8694) or John Gillick of Winthrop, Stimson, Putnam & Roberts, our legal counsel (202-775- 9870), if you have any questions about this petition.

Enclosures

ID: nht94-2.92

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 16, 1994

FROM: Doris Hull -- Owner, Sikeston Trailer Sales, Inc.

TO: Robert Hellmuth -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attachment dated 8/12/94 Letter from John Womack to Doris Hull (Std. 109, 119 & 12)

TEXT:

This letter is in regards to a phone conversation with Mr. Walter Meyers on May 13, 1994 that David McCormick and I had. The conversation was concerning trailers with new and used tires. The understanding that we got that we are allowed to do is includ ed in this letter. I would appreciate a quick response from you.

We understood that we, as manufactures, can sell to a dealer, who picks up a load of trailers, the trailers being stacked on top of each other; we can install new tires on the bottom trailer that would meet the requirements of standard 120 and for the ot her trailers that are stacked we can sell the used tires and rims mounted but not installed on trailers. That if a tractor trailer loaded with trailers was sold we could sell the used tires and rims but not installed on the trailers. All used tires and rims would meet the D.O.T. Standard 120 qualifications. We understood that an individual can request used tires and rims, we can sell them to them and install them if requested by the individual.

Your prompt attention to this matter is greatly appreciated. We have also talked with George Shifflett concerning what Mr. Meyers informed us.

Please do not hestitate calling me at the number listed above if there are any questions I may be able to help with.