ID: 9640

R. Mark Willingham, Esquire
Thornton, Summers, Biechlin, Dunham & Brown, L.C.
114 Lost Creek Boulevard, Suite 215
Austin, TX 78746

Dear Mr. Willingham:

This responds to your February 1, 1994, letter to me about the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) consumer information regulation for utility vehicles (49 CFR 575.105, Utility Vehicles). The regulation, Part 575.105, requires manufacturers to permanently affix a prescribed sticker in a prominent location of each utility vehicle to alert drivers of the handling differences between utility vehicles and passenger cars.

You asked about the meaning of the word "permanent" as used in Part 575.105. In a May 1984 final rule establishing Part 575.105 (copy enclosed), NHTSA said that the label "should be of a permanent nature" and concurred with a comment on the proposed rule that the label should be permanently affixed so that, among other reasons, subsequent vehicle owners are made aware of the utility vehicle's handling characteristics. NHTSA believed specifying precisely how the label is to be permanently affixed would be design restrictive. However, we stated in the enclosed final rule that stickers such as the placard required by paragraph S4.3, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims, would be considered adequate.

You also asked "to whom is Part 575.105 directed (i.e., manufacturer, distributor, dealership)...[or] a seller of a used vehicle." The regulation applies to the manufacturer and seller of a new vehicle, not to a seller of a used vehicle. The regulation was issued under sections 103, 112 and 119 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. '1381, et seq. (hereinafter Safety Act). Section 103 authorizes NHTSA to issue and amend Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 112(d) (15 U.S.C. '1401(d)) authorizes NHTSA:

"[T]o require the manufacturer (of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment) to give such notification of such performance and technical data as the Secretary determines necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act in the following manner -- (1) to each prospective purchaser of a motor vehicle or item of equipment before its first sale for purposes other than resale . . .; and

(2) to the first person who purchases a motor vehicle or item of equipment for purposes other than resale . . . .

Section 119 confers general rulemaking authority to issue rules to effectuate the express grants of authority and the obligations imposed by the Safety Act.

Sections 103, 112 and 119 of the Safety Act authorize NHTSA to require the consumer information label up to the delivery of the new vehicle to the consumer who first purchases the vehicle "for purposes other than resale". NHTSA cannot require sellers of used vehicles to restore missing labels prior to sale of the used vehicles, or prohibit a vehicle owner from removing or defacing the label.

You also asked for documents regarding the drafting and interpretation of Part 575.105. Please find enclosed copies of the following: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, dated December 30, 1982 (47 FR 58323); final rule, dated May 11, 1984 (49 FR 20016); final rule, response to petitions for reconsideration, dated August 10, 1984 (49 FR 32069); and letter to Lawrence F. Henneberger, Esq., dated August 15, 1984. For future reference, copies of NHTSA's interpretation letters can be obtained from the agency's docket section. The address for the docket is 400 Seventh St., S.W., room 5108, Washington, D.C., 20590, telephone (202) 366-4949.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:575 d:4/l/94

ID: 8199

Christopher J. Daniels, Esquire
Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough
1330 Lady Street
P. O. Box 11070
Columbia, SC 29211

Dear Mr. Daniels:

This responds to your letter to Paul Jackson Rice, our former Chief Counsel, in which you referred to a tire manufactured in Canada that had had the "DOT number" obliterated. Because you think the tire was improperly sold in that condition, you asked whether it was illegal to import a tire from Canada without a DOT number and whether it was illegal to sell or use a tire on the highway without a "DOT serial number."

By way of background information, under the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq., as amended (hereinafter Safety Act), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and items of new motor vehicle equipment, the latter of which includes tires. All new motor vehicles and items of new motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards. This requirement is found at Section 1397 (a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act which provides "No person shall . . . import into the United States, any . . . item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect . . . unless it is in conformity with such standard . . . ." The effect of that language is to require that tires manufactured on or after the effective date of applicable Federal safety standards must comply with those standards before they can be legally imported into the U.S. Pursuant to Standard 109 (49 CFR 571.109, New Pneumatic Tires) and Standard 119 (49 CFR 571.119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars), tire manufacturers must certify compliance therewith by molding the symbol "DOT" onto the tire sidewalls. Further, 49 CFR 574.5 requires that all tires sold in the U.S. have tire identification numbers (TIN) molded into or onto the tire sidewalls by the manufacturers to facilitate recall in the event of a noncompliance or defect.

With that background in mind, your specific questions are answered as follows:

1. Is it illegal to import a tire from Canada without a DOT serial number? Answer: Yes. Each tire imported into the U.S. for highway use must have molded into or onto the sidewall a TIN and a DOT symbol or in the alternative, be accompanied by proof that the tire was manufactured prior to the effective date of applicable safety standards. The only exception to these requirements is that used truck tire casings which have less than 2/32 inch tread remaining and which are being imported solely for retreading prior to on-road use may be imported without displaying the TIN or the DOT symbol.

2. Is it illegal to sell or use a tire for highway use without the DOT serial number? Answer: It is illegal for a manufacturer, distributor, or dealer to sell a new or retreaded tire to the first customer for purposes other than resale without the DOT symbol and the TIN molded into or onto the sidewall. There are no Federal requirements for the use of such tire once it has been sold to the first customer. There may, however, be state safety requirements pertinent to the use of motor vehicle equipment. For that information you should check with appropriate state officials.

If the tire in question is intended for or capable of being used on a commercial vehicle, you may want to check also with the Office of Motor Carrier Standards (Room 3404), of the Federal Highway Administration, at this address. (Telephone (202) 366-1790.)

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:109#119#574 d:2/11/93

ID: 2526y

Mr. John W. Garringer
158 E. Center Street
Shavertown, Pennsylvania 18708

Dear Mr. Garringer:

This responds to your letter asking whether Federal law permits the installation of tinted plastic film on the bottom of motor vehicle windshields. The purpose of this film would be to reduce glare for the driver and any front seat passengers. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain how our laws and regulations apply to such a product.

Our agency is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; the Safety Act) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products or processes. Instead, the Safety Act specifies that each manufacturer itself must certify that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards, and also investigates alleged defects related to motor vehicle safety and alleged violations of other statutory provisions.

Pursuant to this authority, NHTSA has issued Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205), which sets forth performance requirements for windows and other glazing items installed in motor vehicles. Among the requirements set forth in Standard No. 205 are specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance. A minimum of 70 percent light transmittance is required in glazing areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars. In trucks and buses, the windshield and windows to the immediate right and left of the driver and the rearmost window, if the latter is used for driving visibility, are considered to be requisite for driving visibility, and therefore subject to the 70 percent minimum light transmittance requirement.

Your letter did not provide any information on the light transmittance that would be measured through glazing with your Hood Glare product installed on it. The combination of the glazing material and your tinting film must allow at least 70 percent light transmittance to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205. No manufacturer or dealer would be permitted to install your tinting film on the glazing materials on new vehicles, unless the manufacturer or dealer certifies that the vehicle continues to comply with the 70 percent minimum light transmittance and other requirements of Standard No. 205.

After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to the vehicle are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with any safety standard. This provision of the law means that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business could install tinting film if the addition of the tinting film to the glazing would result in a light transmittance of less than 70 percent, or otherwise cause the vehicle to no longer comply with the applicable requirements of Standard 205. Violations of this "render inoperative" prohibition can result in Federal civil penalties to the manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business of up to $1000 for each noncomplying installation.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act does not affect vehicle owners. Hence, vehicle owners themselves may install tinting film or any other product on the glazing of their vehicle, regardless of whether the installation causes the vehicle to no longer comply with Standard No. 205. Individual States have the authority to regulate the operational use of vehicles by their owners, and, therefore, have the authority to regulate or preclude individual owner modifications to the glazing of their vehicles.

I have enclosed an information sheet that summarizes the relationship between Federal auto safety laws and motor vehicle window tinting. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need any additional information about this topic, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:205#VSA d:6/l8/90

ID: 3269yy

Mr. Joe S. Brito
Preferred Custom Concepts, Inc.
4107 Kaufman County Road
P.O. Box 0069
Crandall, TX 75114

Dear Mr. Brito:

This responds to your letter asking about recent changes in this agency's safety standards as they apply to conversion vans. You stated that, "The recent changes that have occurred in the truck and van conversion industry regarding seats and seat belt restraints have also sparked rumors that this new law will also regulate the use of wood in the interior of a converted vehicle." You asked if in fact there is some new NHTSA regulation of "the use of wood in the interior of a converted vehicle." I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; Safety Act) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to issue Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. As of September 1, 1991, Standard No. 208 requires, among other things, "dynamic testing" of manual lap/shoulder safety belts installed at front outboard seating positions of multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less. "Dynamic testing" means that, after fastening the safety belts around a test dummy, a test dummy occupying a seating position must comply with specified injury criteria in a 30 miles per hour barrier crash test. The specified injury criteria are the head injury criteria (HIC), chest acceleration and deflection, and femur loading. For your information, I have enclosed a copy of our November 23, 1987, final rule adopting the dynamic testing requirements for light trucks.

Nothing in the dynamic testing requirements of Standard No. 208 explicitly prohibits the installation of wood in the interior of conversion vans. Indeed, some 1992 luxury passenger cars, which are also subject to crash testing, have wood installed in the vehicle interior. However, wood is a relatively hard surface in a vehicle interior, especially when compared with the padded dashboard, steering wheel, seats, and other components the head may contact in a crash. It would be very difficult for a vehicle to satisfy the injury criteria during dynamic testing if wood were installed in an area contacted by the dummy head during the crash test. Thus, the dynamic testing requirements for conversion vans may effectively limit the interior areas where wood can safely be installed.

In addition, van converters are generally small entities that would not have the resources needed to independently certify that their conversion vans comply with the dynamic testing requirements. The simplest way for these van converters to certify compliance with the dynamic testing requirements is to convert the vans in accordance with the specifications provided by the original manufacturer of the van (e.g., Chrysler, Ford, or General Motors). Because of the difficulties in complying with the dynamic testing requirements if wood were installed in an area contacted by the dummy head during the crash test, the original manufacturers of vans may have advised converters in the van specifications not to add wood in the interior areas of the vans. You may wish to contact van converters or original manufacturers to learn if this is the case.

Another safety standard that might limit the interior areas where wood can be installed is Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact. Standard No. 201 specifies performance requirements for certain areas of the vehicle interior compartment, including portions of the instrument panel. Again, while Standard No. 201 does not explicitly prohibit the use of wood, it may be difficult to comply with the requirements of this standard if wood is added to areas subject to Standard No. 201's performance requirements. I have enclosed a current copy of Standard No. 201 for your information.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any more questions about this issue, feel free to contact Mary Versailles at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures

/ref:201#208 d:l/3/92

ID: 2839yy

The Honorable John D. Dingell
Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight
and Investigations
Committee on Energy and Commerce
House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Your letter of July 10, 1990 about the applicability of NHTSA's safety standards to replacement parts was misplaced. This is indeed unfortunate, embarrassing, and I can assure you extraordinary. You asked me to review an April 9, 1990 interpretation letter from our Office of Chief Counsel to Mr. Rowghani, which indicated that Standard No. 214, Side Door Strength, applies only to new vehicles, and not to doors sold as replacement parts.

In view of your concern about replacement parts, we have reviewed that interpretation, and our authority regarding replacement parts. Many of our safety standards apply only to complete vehicles, while others apply only to the individual components (whether original or replacement equipment). Some apply both to vehicles and to the components involved. Each of our standards includes an "Application" section, which clearly defines the scope of coverage, based on the nature of the safety issue and the vehicle/equipment items involved.

NHTSA's standards which apply to equipment (both original and replacement equipment) generally cover those types of items which can be used in many different vehicle lines, which are frequently replaced or sold separately, and which can be independently tested. These include such items as brake hoses (Standard 106), lamps and reflectors (Standard 108), tires (Standards 109, 117 and 119), windows and windshields (Standard 205), safety belt assemblies (Standard 209), child safety seats (Standard 213), and motorcycle safety helmets (Standard 218). Other safety systems require testing in a full-vehicle context, and our safety standards are applied to the vehicle rather than the component. Examples include brake performance (Standards 105 and 121), occupant crash protection (Standard 208), head restraints (Standard 202) and roof-crush resistance (Standard 216), as well as side-door strength.

As noted in the April 9 letter, Standard 214 applies only to whole cars, not to replacement parts, as stated in the application section (see S2 of Standard 214, copy enclosed). While most manufacturers have chosen to meet the Standard by adding reinforcement beams, we are aware of at least one vehicle (a gray-market imported Mercedes-Benz) which passed the standard's compliance test without such a beam. Further, while intuitively it seems that doors without a reinforcement beam are not as safe as ones with a beam, efforts to document a safety problem have been unsuccessful.

The current compliance procedures specify testing a door as part of a new vehicle (see S4 of Standard 214), since it does not appear feasible to specify an appropriate procedure for testing an individual new door (whether original or replacement) by itself. The reason for this is that a door's performance in resisting intrusion is dependent not only on the structure of the door itself, but also other factors such as the vehicle frame into which the door fits, and the hinges and latches which hold the door in place within the frame. In addition, vehicle seats may help resist intrusion and protect occupants. The current standard reflects these factors.

While the current standard does not apply to replacement doors, NHTSA has full authority to pursue any alleged safety problems with doors or any other vehicle components under the "defects" provision of the Safety Act. If evidence demonstrated that certain replacement doors presented an unreasonable risk to motor vehicle safety, the agency could order the manufacturer of such doors to repair or replace such doors. At the present time, however, we are not aware of a safety problem with replacement doors that would warrant the commencement of a defects investigation.

I appreciate your interest in the safety of vehicle parts and hope this information is helpful. For further discussion of the legal issues regarding the applicability of standards, your staff should feel free to contact our Chief Counsel, Mr. Paul Jackson Rice, at 366-9511.

Sincerely,

Jerry Ralph Curry

Enclosure /ref:214 d:2/l5/9l

ID: 77-2.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/29/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: U. S. Suzuki Motor Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 23, 1977, letter asking whether three proposed labels satisfy the requirements for label identification found in Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not issue advance approval of compliance by manufacturers with motor vehicle safety standards or regulations. The agency, however, will give an informal opinion as to whether your sample labels appear to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 120. A review of the labels you supplied indicates that you have used a different format than illustrated in our notice of February 7, 1977 (42 Federal Register 7140). For example, the amended Standard No. 120 does not require the words "with the tires listed below" or even the word "with" before the tire size. The deletion of such superfluous words from the label requirements of Standard No. 120 resulted from comments by manufacturers, particularly motorcycle manufacturers, that unnecessary words needlessly increase the size of the label.

The example of label information shown in S5.3 of the standard is intended only as a guide to manufacturers. A manufacturer can vary the illustrated format somewhat as long as the requirements of S5.3 are satisfied. Since the additional words on your labels do not obfuscate the certification statement, the labels appear to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 120 and Part 567.

SINCERELY,

U.S. SUZUKI Motor Corporation

February 23, 1977

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U. S. Department of Transportation

Having reviewed the notice published in a recent issue of the FEDERAL REGISTER covering FMVSS no. 120 we are submitting examples of our proposed certification labels for your inspection. For this purpose please see attachment. We believe that any of these three proposals meet the requirements of 49 CFR ss571.120 S5.3 (label information) as amended.

Since the notice cited above did not address motorcycle certification labels specifically (the notice gave an example for trucks) we felt it is important that we have some clarification on this subject. The effective date, September 1, 1977, is fast approaching. Your response will be greatly appreciated.

Jeffrey L. Link Supervisor, Product Safety Safety and Legislation Department

MFD BY: SUZUKI MOTOR CO., LTD MFD IN: (Illegible Word)/76 THIS VEHICLE CONFORMS TO ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS IN EFFECT ON THE DATE OF MANUFACTURE SHOWN ABOVE. GVWR 847 LBS WITH THE TIRES LISTED BELOW GAWR/FRONT 315 LBS WITH 3.25H19-4PR TIRES, 19X1.85B RIM AT 18PSI COLD. GAWR/REAR 532 LBS WITH 4.00H18-4PR TIRES, V.I.N. (Illegible Word) 18X2.15B RIM AT 25PSI COLD. GT750-(Illegible Word) MOTORCYCLE MADE IN JAPAN

MFD BY: SUZUKI MOTOR CO., LTD

MFD IN: (Illegible Word)/76

GVWR 847 LBS WITH THE TIRES LISTED BELOW GAWR/FRONT 315 LBS WITH 3.25H19-4PR TIRES, 19X1.85B RIM AT 18 PSI COLD. GAWR/REAR 532 LBS. WITH 4.00H18-4PR TIRES, 18X2.15B RIM AT 25 PSI COLD. THIS VEHICLE CONFORMS TO ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS IN EFFECT ON THE DATE OF MANUFACTURE SHOWN ABOVE. V.I.N. GT750 (Illegible Word) MOTORCYCLE MADE IN JAPAN

MFD BY: SUZUKI MOTOR CO., LTD MFD IN: (Illegible Word)/76 GVWR 847 LBS WITH THE TIRES LISTED BELOW GAWR/FRONT 315 LBS WITH 3.25H19-4PR TIRES, 19X1.85B RIM AT 18 PSI COLD. GAWR/REAR 532 LBS WITH 4.00H18-4PR TIRES, 18X2.15B RIM AT 25 PSI COLD. THIS VEHICLE CONFORMS TO ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS IN EFFECT ON THE DATE OF MANUFACTURE SHOWN ABOVE. V.I.N. (Illegible Word) GT750 - (Illegible Word) MOTORCYCLE MADE IN JAPAN

ID: 1984-1.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/03/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: U.S. Postal Service

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

May 3, 1984

Mr. Joel S. Premack Research and Development Laboratories U.S. Postal Service Rockville, MD 20852-8101

Dear Mr. Premack:

This responds to your March 7, 1984 letter to Roger Fairchild of this office regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 111, Rearview Mirrors. In particular, you asked whether the covering of the rear and rear-side windows on Postal Service Vehicles would be consistent with the requirements of FMVSS 111.

FMVSS 111 (copy enclosed) establishes requirements regarding rearview mirror systems on new motor vehicles. New Postal Service vehicles would be required to employ one of three optional mirror systems. The first system is a system permitted for use on passenger cars, and includes an inside review mirror with a specified field of view and a plane, driver's side exterior mirror also having a specified field of view. The second permissible system is also a passenger car system and is identical to the first system, except that the inside mirror need not provide the specified field of view and an additional passenger side plane or convex rearview mirror must be provided to compensate for the more restricted field of view of the inside mirror. The third system has two plane mirrors of 19.5 square inches reflective surface area each, one mounted on each side of the vehicle.

Based on the materials you provided with your letter, it appears that Postal Service DJ-5G Models employ the second system described above. In that case, further reduction of the field of view of the inside rearview mirror would not affect compliance with our standard, since an additional passenger side mirror is provided.

If the proposed covering of the rear windows is to be accomplished as a modification to vehicles already delivered to the Postal Service, these modifications may not be subject to FMVSS 111 at all. Modifications to vehicles must be consistent with safety standards only to the extent those modifications are performed by a vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or private motor vehicle repair business which knowingly renders inoperative safety equipment installed on the vehicle. See 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A). Thus, if the window covering is done by the Postal Service itself, FMVSS requirements are not applicable.

If you have any further questions on this matter, please feel free to contact us.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

March 7, 1984

Mr. Roger Fairchild National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Fairchild:

The Engineering Support Center of the U.S. Postal Service has been requested to consider covering over windows identified as items 1, 2, and 3 in the enclosed figure. A set of mirrors would be installed to minimize the impact on rear and side viewing. He are interested in knowing whether such a retrofit is consistent with the existing vehicle certification.

We would appreciate your review of the proposed change in window area as it pertains to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 111 and related effectiveness of the rear viewing mirrors. Please contact Mr. Joel Premack on 443-3257 with your assessment of this issue.

Joel S. Premack Mechanical Engineer, Program Engineer Mechanical Design/Development Branch Engineering Support Center 11711 Parklawn Drive Rockville, MD 20852-8101

Enclosure

********INSERT GRAPHIC********

AM General Corporation MODEL KJ-5G

ID: nht79-3.36

DATE: 03/06/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Lifetime Foam Products, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of February 8, 1979, requesting confirmation of your understanding of an October 7, 1976, letter of interpretation by our office concerning Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems. You are correct in your assumption that the standard applies only to completed vehicles and not to vehicle seats as individual equipment.

SINCERELY,

LIFETIME Foam Products, Inc.

February 8, 1979

Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Gentlemen:

Attached is a copy of our inquiry to your office dated September 10, 1976, and the response from your office dated October 7, 1976.

Although we make every effort to build our merchandise to meet the provisions of Standard No. 207, we have understood your response to mean that our seating pieces did not have to meet the provisions of that standard if the pieces are sold to customers who purchase them out of retailer's catalogs to install in their own vehicles.

I would appreciate your confirming our understanding of your response.

Frank Tedesco PRESIDENT

September 10, 1976

Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Gentlement:

Cortification of Optional Accossory Seats for Recreational Vehicles and Multipurpose Vehicles per FMVSS207

Lifetime Foam Products is proceeding toward the furbrication of custom, recreational vehicle seating accossories which would be marketed to the public through the catalog division of our parent organisation, Sears, Roobuck and Co. The following list of consumer-installed seating accessories is representative of this new product line.

1. Convertible bad/bench/dinette set.

2. Convertible couch/bed.

3. Tower-back seat.

4. Recliner chair.

Because we are entering a new aspect of our operations, we are most eager that the structural designs meet our high standards of quality as well as applicable operational standards. During the preliminary stages of our activitions, I talked with Mr. Robert Gardner of NHTSA on July 29, and he recommended that I contact your office. Therefore, the purpose of this inquiry is to obtain approval from DOT for certification of these seats according to the applicable sections of FMVSS207 using only "bench tests" (out-of-vehicle) which will certify everthing except the seat-to floor attachment. The reason for excluding the seat-to-floor attachment is that these optional accessory seats will eventually be installated by the consumer in many types of recreational vehicles, in numerous configurations and on floors whose structural integrity cannot be predicted (Illegible Word). These certification tests would be conducted in accordance with NHTSA approval "Laboratory Procedured for Seating Systems: Passenger Cars, Trucks, Buses and Multipurpose Vehicles, TP207-06" or subsequent update of the procedure when they (Illegible Word) available.

As a result of this unknown condition of the floor structure in the user's vehicle, we plan to include in the installation instructions a cautionary statement to the following effect:

"Install per instructions using large area washers furnished in the installation kit. Those washers are to be installed on the underneath side of the floor pan between the attachment not and the vehicle floor. The washers will componsate for an (Illegible Word) 10% reduction in floor strength. In the event that the floor has detolorated beyond this point, it is recommended that the owner contact a qualified shop for assistance."

I would appreciate a reply to this request for approval as soon as possible. If approval is granted, we will then proceed with the certification tests as outlined above.

Frank Tedesco

cc: W. J. ANTLEFORD/SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE; L. C. CODKIN; S. A. WELLER/SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO.

ID: nht94-3.55

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 5, 1994

FROM: Lawrence Farhat -- President/CEO, Neon Riders of America, Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/9/94 from John Womack to Lawrence Farhat (VSA 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

My name is Lawrence Farhat, President/CEO of NEON RIDERS of America, Inc., Jacksonville, Florida. Please accept this as an official written inquiry, regarding under-carriage neon lights, which we have been manufacturing and shipping, both nationally and internationally, for approximately three years.

Unfortunately, there has been some confusion, on a state by state level, as to the acceptability and/or legality of the under-carriage neon lights. There are a very few local and state officers that have issued citations for "improper lighting." To the best of our knowledge, when fought in court, these citations have been dismissed by the judge.

We offer 10 colors in our product line: purple, pink, green, aqua, orange, tangerine, yellow, white, red and blue. It has been deemed by the State of Florida, that displaying red or blue lights, even under the vehicle and concealed, to be illegal when v isible from the front. Granted, this is a gray area of the law, since most all police and rescue vehicles have blue and red lights. However, police and rescue/emergency vehicles display their lights mounted on top of the vehicle, always flashing and ve ry visible. Our product is mounted under the vehicle, and is concealed to the point where you cannot see the neon light bulb itself. Instead, all you see is the reflection of the light onto the ground. Please see the enclosed photograph, which shows e xactly what the lights look like when installed. There are four tubes, (front, rear and both sides), giving the vehicle the appearance of floating on a cloud of light! Hopefully, you have already seen at least one vehicle with these neon lights under it . Neon light ground effects are considered an accessory to all motor vehicle (cars, trucks, vans, tractor-trailers, motorcycles, boats, ATV's, snowmobiles, and even bicycles). These lights not only serve an aesthetic value, but also, and most important ly, as a safety feature. It is obvious that these neon lights are an innocuous accessory, when installed

2

correctly, under the vehicle.

The Jacksonville Sheriff's office has installed blue neon on all of the motorcycles in the department, and their reports have been very, very favorable. A contact name and phone number is available at your request. The New Orleans Police Department, as well as several other city police departments, are also interested in putting neon on their vehicles for safety purposes.

We do not feel that our product falls under the description in your Section 108. Neon is not a poisonous gas, nor can it explode . . . this is a fallacy. We consider our manufacturing process to be THE HIGHEST in the industry for quality and safety. I have enclosed a cut-away section of a tube for your inspection. This will give you an idea of how the tubes are assembled, and how well protected the neon bulb itself is. The tube fits inside a metal shield to conceal the tube from direct visual contact . The neon operates off any 12v battery system, with a transformer that produces 9000v, secondary for neon. This transformer, which is about the size of a beeper, has it's own safety factor built into each unit, causing it to automatically shut off if i t detects any problems. Every tube that we distribute is quality control tested prior to shipping.

Please inquire with your colleagues as to the validity of our existance as a Florida Corp., manufacturing and distributing these neon light ground effects within the continental United States and abroad. I am looking forward to your response. If you ha ve any questions, or you need any additional information or technical data regarding the lights, please do not hesitate to contact me at the toll-free number printed below.

Thank you in advance for your time and consideration.

LF/klp

ID: nht92-9.56

DATE: January 7, 1992 EST

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Joe S. Brito -- Preferred Custom Concepts, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/1/91 (est) from Joe S. Brito to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 6640)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking about recent changes in this agency's safety standards as they apply to conversion vans. You stated that, "The recent changes that have occurred in the truck and van conversion industry regarding seats and seat belt restraints have also sparked rumors that this new law will also regulate the use of wood in the interior of a converted vehicle." You asked if in fact there is some new NHTSA regulation of "the use of wood in the interior of a converted vehicle." I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1381 et seq.; Safety Act) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to issue Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. As of September 1, 1991, Standard No. 208 requires, among other things, "dynamic testing" of manual lap/shoulder safety belts installed at front outboard seating positions of multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less. "Dynamic testing" means that, after fastening the safety belts around a test dummy, a test dummy occupying a seating position must comply with specified injury criteria in a 30 miles per hour barrier crash test. The specified injury criteria are the head injury criteria (HIC), chest acceleration and deflection, and femur loading. For your information, I have enclosed a copy of our November 23, 1987, final rule adopting the dynamic testing requirements for light trucks.

Nothing in the dynamic testing requirements of Standard No. 208 explicitly prohibits the installation of wood in the interior of conversion vans. Indeed, some 1992 luxury passenger cars, which are also subject to crash testing, have wood installed in the vehicle interior. However, wood is a relatively hard surface in a vehicle interior, especially when compared with the padded dashboard, steering wheel, seats, and other components the head may contact in a crash. It would be very difficult for a vehicle to satisfy the injury criteria during dynamic testing if wood were installed in an area contacted by the dummy head during the crash test. Thus, the dynamic testing requirements for conversion vans may effectively limit the interior areas where wood can safely be installed.

In addition, van converters are generally small entities that would not have the resources needed to INDEPENDENTLY certify that their conversion vans comply with the dynamic testing requirements. The simplest way for these van converters to certify compliance with the dynamic testing

requirements is to convert the vans in accordance with the specifications provided by the original manufacturer of the van (e.g., Chrysler, Ford, or General Motors). Because of the difficulties in complying with the dynamic testing requirements if wood were installed in an area contacted by the dummy head during the crash test, the original manufacturers of vans may have advised converters in the van specifications not to add wood in the interior areas of the vans. You may wish to contact van converters or original manufacturers to learn if this is the case.

Another safety standard that might limit the interior areas where wood can be installed is Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact. Standard No. 201 specifies performance requirements for certain areas of the vehicle interior compartment, including portions of the instrument panel. Again, while Standard No. 201 does not explicitly prohibit the use of wood, it may be difficult to comply with the requirements of this standard if wood is added to areas subject to Standard No. 201's performance requirements. I have enclosed a current copy of Standard No. 201 for your information.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any more questions about this issue, feel free to contact Mary Versailles at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.