ID: aiam0787

Dear Mr. Lundstrom: This is in reply to your letter of July 17, 1972, concerning th application of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials,' to radio speaker cones. You request clarification of an interpretation we sent to American Motors dated June 9, 1972, wherein we stated that 'stereo speaker . . . cones incorporated into a door or rear shelf would be considered part of a 'trim panel' and 'compartment shelf,' respectively.' You particularly request clarification of the phrase 'incorporated into.'; The NHTSA's position is that a speaker cone, while not generall subject to Standard No. 302 (we assume that it is not an 'energy-absorbing' component), will be subject to the standard if it is 'incorporated into' a component that is subject to the standard. We would consider a speaker cone to be 'incorporated into' a trim panel or compartment shelf if the cone forms a portion of the surface of the panel or shelf. We would not consider a speaker cone merely attached to an enumerated component, but situated wholly underneath (shelf) or behind (trim panel) its surface to be subject to the standard.; I trust this clarifies our position. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: nht94-4.88

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 28, 1994

FROM: Melinda Dresser -- Manager Contracts/Transportation, Carlin Manufacturing

TO: Mary Versailles -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: RE: Swivel Seats

ATTACHMT: Attached to 1/13/95 (est.) letter from Philip Recht to Melinda Dresser (A43; Std. 207)

TEXT: Carlin Manufacturing, Inc. is a manufacturer of custom mobile kitchens and specialty vehicles, using manufacturing license #23791. We are currently manufacturing two (2) Command Post Vehicles for the California Highway Patrol. We are installing a driver and front passenger seat with a swivel base. We were informed from several seat manufacturers and vendors, that swivel bases on seats are not allowed per 49 C.F.R. part 571 section 207 and 208.

On November 4, 1994, you were kind enough to fax me a letter regarding a similar type of application. The letter dated November 25, 1992, stated there wasn't a Federal law prohibiting a person from adding a swivel base to a seat. However, installation must be done in such a way that the seats and safety belts continue to provide the safety protection mandated by the safety standards.

Even though I still don't find any restrictions in section 207 and 208, we are requesting a current written determination from your office.

If you should have any questions or need clarification, please feel to call contact me at 209/276-0123. Thanking you in advance.

ID: 008938drn

Randy Dukek, Coordinator of Transportation
Department of Transportation
Independent School District 196
15180 Canada Avenue
Rosemount, MN 55068-1758

Dear Mr. Dukek:

This responds to your November 20, 2003, letter and subsequent telephone conversation with Ms. Dorothy Nakama of my staff about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release. You ask whether a school bus that provides more emergency exits than those required by FMVSS No. 217 can be modified to provide just the exits required by the Federal standard. Our answer is such modification is not prohibited by our requirements.

You state a concern about buses that have removable seating to accommodate wheel chairs. When placed in certain positions, a wheelchair may block a window exit. To avoid blocking a window exit in school buses that have more window emergency exits than are required by FMVSS No. 217, you wish to know whether your school district can replace the optional extra emergency exit windows with non-emergency exit windows and remove all "exit" markings. [1]

The relevant National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) statutory provision is 49 U.S.C. Section 30122, "Making safety devices and elements inoperative," which states in part:

(b) Prohibition. A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business [2] may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard .

Section 30122 prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from removing or making inoperative a window emergency exit that was installed to assure compliance with FMVSS No. 217. Because the emergency exits you want to remove were not installed to enable the vehicles to meet FMVSS No. 217, an entity listed in Section 30122 is not prohibited from removing them, provided that the school buses continue to meet FMVSS No. 217 after the modification.

You informed Ms. Nakama that the school district itself might be modifying its own vehicles. The make inoperative provision does not apply to vehicle owners modifying their own vehicles. However, we encourage your school district to ensure that after any changes, the school buses continue to meet all school bus FMVSSs.

We recommend that you check with State officials as to whether there are any Minnesota state requirements applying to the modification of the school buses. For further information, we suggest you contact Minnesotas State Director of Pupil Transportation:

Captain Ken Urquhart
Minnesota State Director of Pupil Transportation
Department of Public Safety
1110 Centere Pointe Curve, Suite 410
Mondota Heights, MN 55120
Telephone: (651) 405-6180.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:217
d.1/22/04





---

[1] On April 19, 2002 (67 FR 19343, DOT Docket No. NHTSA-99-5157), NHTSA published a final rule amending FMVSS No. 217 that, among other matters, specifies a "DO NOT BLOCK" label to be placed directly above or beneath each emergency door or emergency exit (including windows). The final rule is slated to take effect on April 21, 2004. The agency is considering three petitions for reconsideration of this final rule.

[2] Defined at 49 U.S.C. Section 30122(a) as "a person holding itself out to the public to repair for compensation a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment."

ID: nht90-4.79

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: December 11, 1990

FROM: Robert H. Jones -- President, Triple J Enterprises, Inc.

TO: Clive Van Orden -- Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance Enforcement, NHTSA

TITLE: Re Ref O-3J005

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-11-90 from Robert H. Jones to Congressman Ben Blaz; Also attached to letter dated 7-6-89 from Bob Jones to Congressman Ben Blas; Also attached to letter dated 7-5-90 from Robert H. Jones to Director, Office of Vehicl e Safety Compliance Enforcement, NHTSA; Also attached to letter dated 3-11-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Robert H. Jones (A37; VSA Sec. 103(8)); Also attached to letter dated 1-22-91 from Robert H. Jones to Clive Van Orden (OCC 5733)

TEXT:

I am indebted to Congressman Ben Blaz for your name and area of responsibility.

I am enclosing some correspondence that will give you some details of our problem. In a nut shell, we want the Federal Government to enforce the FMVSS and FMCSR regulation in the CNMI or wave them completely until such time they are ready and able to im plement and enforce them.

As you may know, there are no pollution problems on Saipan, Tinian or Rota and the speed limit is 25 in most places, 35 maximum. I doubt that it is advantageous to the CNMI residents to pay the extra 3 or $400 for automobile EPA and Safety features that are not needed.

Governor Guerrero has taken a position that these regulations are not needed or desired. I agree with that position 100%. But, I have bigger problems with the regulations being, so called, applicable and not monitored or enforced.

ID: 8159

James E. Schlesinger, Esquire
Schlesinger, Arkwright & Garvey
3000 South Eads Street
Arlington, VA 22202

Dear Mr. Schlesinger:

This responds to your letter addressed to Walter Myers of this office, requesting an opinion concerning the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS).

You stated in your letter that two tire manufacturers, A and B, both with production facilities in both Canada and the United States, produced tires for a brand name owner, Company C, in Canada. A, B, and C agreed that in the event of overproduction or if some of the tires were "blems" (Company C refuses to accept blems, which are tires with minor cosmetic blemishes but structurally sound), A and B were free to market their tires elsewhere, including the United States. The tires manufactured for Company C contain the DOT number and the Canadian National Tire Safety Mark, but not the UTQGS information, which is not required in Canada. You stated that over a period of 1 1/2 years, A imported 10,622 tires into the United States while B imported 12,856 tires, including 4,644 blems, into the country. All were passenger tires and all sales occurred in 1990 and 1991. You then posed three questions based on those facts, which I will answer below in the order presented.

First, by way of background information, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381) et seq., as amended (hereinafter Act), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to all new motor vehicles and items of new motor vehicle equipment, which includes tires. Section 203 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1423) directs the Secretary to prescribe, through standards established under Title I of the Act, a uniform quality grading system for motor vehicle tires. NHTSA issued the UTQGS under the authority of 203 and 112(d) (15 U.S.C. 1401(d)), which authorizes the Secretary to require manufacturers to provide performance and technical data to the first purchasers of motor vehicle equipment for purposes other than resale. The UTQGS may be found at 49 CFR 575.104.

The penalties for violation of the UTQGS are set forth in the Act. Section 108(a)(1)(E) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(E)) prohibits any failure to comply with any rule, regulation, or order issued under 112. Sanctions for violation of 108 are set forth in 109 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1398(a)), which provides civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation of 108, up to a total maximum civil penalty of $800,000 for "any related series of violations." In addition, 110(a) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1399(a)) gives U.S. district courts the jurisdiction to restrain any violation of Title I of the Act, or any rule, regulation, or order issued thereunder, which include the UTQGS.

With that background in mind, I turn now to your specific questions:

1. Is it unlawful to import, sell or distribute in the United States tires which do not have the UTQG information on the sidewall of the tire and/or on the paper tread label for the tire? ANSWER: Subject to the exceptions discussed in the answer to your question No. 3 below, 49 CFR 575.6(b) provides that: At the time a motor vehicle tire is delivered to the first purchaser for a purpose other than resale, the manufacturer of that tire or, . . . the brand name owner, shall provide to that purchaser the information specified in Subpart B of this part that is applicable to that tire.

Subpart B includes 575.104 which, at (d)(1)(i)(A), requires that the UTQG information be molded onto or into the tire sidewall. Where a new tire line is introduced into the United States for the first time, however, the tire manufacturer or brand name owner may, for the first six months after the tire's introduction, provide the UTQG information by means of a paper label affixed to the tread surface of the tire. After that six-month grace period, the required information must be molded onto or into the tire sidewall.

Although both the Act and the UTQGS are silent as to whether tires can be imported or distributed without the UTQGS information, there would be no point in doing so since the tires cannot legally be sold without that information.

2. If it is unlawful to import, distribute and sell tires in the United States without said UTQG information, what penalties are imposed on the manufacturer and/or brand name owner?

ANSWER: As discussed above, civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation of 575.6(b) may be imposed, up to a maximum of $800,000. In addition, U.S. district courts have jurisdiction to restrain any such violations. 3. Would any of the exceptions of 49 CFR 575.104(c) apply in this case, and, if so, in what way? Is there any legislative history or interpretation of the meaning of "limited production tires" as noted in this section, and what effects, if any, this limitation might have on the above fact situation?

ANSWER: 49 CFR 575.104(c) provides that the UTQGS apply to new pneumatic passenger car tires. The standards do not apply, however, to deep tread, winter type snow tires, space-saver or temporary use spare tires, tires with nominal rim diameters of 10 to 12 inches, or "limited production" tires. In order to qualify as a limited production tire, 575.104(c)(2) establishes four criteria, all of which the tires must meet:

(i) The manufacturer's annual domestic production or importation into the U.S. of tires of the same size and design as the tire does not exceed 15,000 tires;

(ii) The annual domestic purchase or importation by a brand name owner into the U.S. of tires of the same size and design as the tire does not exceed 15,000 tires;

(iii) The tire's size was not listed as a vehicle manufacturer's recommended tire size designation for a new motor vehicle produced in or imported into the U.S. in quantities greater than 10,000 during the calendar year preceding the year of the tire's manufacture; and

(iv) The total annual production or importation into the U.S. by the manufacturer or, if the tire is marketed under a brand name, the total annual domestic purchase or purchase for importation into the U.S. by the tire's brand name owner, of tires meeting the criteria of (i), (ii), and (iii) above, does not exceed 35,000 tires.

Section 575.104(c) also states that "tire design" is "the combination of general structural characteristics, materials, and tread pattern, but does include cosmetic, identifying or other minor variations among tires."

The factual scenario you described in your letter would suggest that the tires in question might meet the numbers criteria of (c)(2)(i) and (ii), but there is not sufficient information on

which to base an opinion as to whether they meet the other two criteria. There is likewise insufficient information to determine whether the exceptions relating to deep tread, winter-type snow tires, space-saver or temporary use spare tires, or tires with nominal rim diameters of 10 to 12 inches may apply to any or all the tires in question. The manufacturer(s) seeking to import those tires into the U.S. must make those determinations.

For your additional information, I am enclosing a copy of 45 FR 23442, dated April 7, 1980, the final rule which initially exempted limited production tires from the UTQGS. That notice explains the rationale for exempting limited production tires and other background information you may find helpful.

I hope the above information will be of assistance to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Walter Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:575 d:2/23/93

ID: nht93-1.47

DATE: 02/23/93

FROM: JOHN WOMACK -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: JAMES E. SCHLESINGER -- SCHLESINGER, ARKWRIGHT & GARVEY

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-23-92 FROM JAMES E. SHLESINGER TO WALTER MYERS (OCC 8159)

TEXT: This responds to your letter addressed to Walter Myers of this office, requesting an opinion concerning the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS).

You stated in your letter that two tire manufacturers, A and B, both with production facilities in both Canada and the United States, produced tires for a brand name owner, Company C, in Canada. A, B, and C agreed that in the event of overproduction or if some of the tires were "blems" (Company C refuses to accept blems, which are tires with minor cosmetic blemishes but structurally sound), A and B were free to market their tires elsewhere, including the United States. The tires manufactured for Company C contain the DOT number and the Canadian National Tire Safety Mark, but not the UTQGS information, which is not required in Canada. You stated that over a period of 1 1/2 years, A imported 10,622 tires into the United States while B imported 12,856 tires, including 4,644 blems, into the country. All were passenger tires and all sales occurred in 1990 and 1991. You then posed three questions based on those facts, which I will answer below in the order presented.

First, by way of background information, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. @@ 1381) et seq., as amended (hereinafter Act), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to all new motor vehicles and items of new motor vehicle equipment, which includes tires. Section 203 of the Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1423) directs the Secretary to prescribe, through standards established under Title I of the Act, a uniform quality grading system for motor vehicle tires. NHTSA issued the UTQGS under the authority of @ 203 and @ 112(d) (15 U.S.C. @ 1401(d)), which authorizes the Secretary to require manufacturers to provide performance and technical data to the first purchasers of motor vehicle equipment for purposes other than resale. The UTQGS may be found at 49 CFR @ 575.104.

The penalties for violation of the UTQGS are set forth in the Act. Section 108(a) (1) (E) of the Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a) (1) (E)) prohibits any failure to comply with any rule, regulation, or order issued under @ 112. Sanctions for violation of @ 108 are set forth in @ 109 of the Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1398(a)), which provides civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation of @ 108, up to a total maximum civil penalty of $ 800,000 for "any related series of violations." In addition, @ 110(a) of the Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1399(a)) gives U.S. district courts the jurisdiction to restrain any violation of Title I of the Act, or any rule, regulation, or order issued thereunder, which include the UTQGS.

With that background in mind, I turn now to your specific questions: 1. Is it unlawful to import, sell or distribute in the United States tires which do not have the UTQG information on the sidewall of the tire and/or on the paper tread label for the tire?

ANSWER: Subject to the exceptions discussed in the answer to your question No. 3 below, 49 CFR 575.6(b) provides that:

At the time a motor vehicle tire is delivered to the first purchaser for a purpose other than resale, the manufacturer of that tire or, . . . the brand name owner, shall provide to that purchaser the information specified in Subpart B of this part that is applicable to that tire.

Subpart B includes @575.104 which, at (d) (1) (i) (A), requires that the UTQG information be molded onto or into the tire sidewall. Where a new tire line is introduced into the United States for the first time, however, the tire manufacturer or brand name owner may, for the first six months after the tire's introduction, provide the UTQG information by means of a paper label affixed to the tread surface of the tire. After that six-month grace period, the required information must be molded onto or into the tire sidewall.

Although both the Act and the UTQGS are silent as to whether tires can be imported or distributed without the UTQGS information, there would be no point in doing so since the tires cannot legally be sold without that information.

2. If it is unlawful to import, distribute and sell tires in the United States without said UTQG information, what penalties are imposed on the manufacturer and/or brand name owner?

ANSWER: As discussed above, civil penalties of up to $ 1,000 for each violation of @ 575.6(b) may be imposed, up to a maximum of $ 800,000. In addition, U.S. district courts have jurisdiction to restrain any such violations.

3. Would any of the exceptions of 49 CFR @ 575.104(c) apply in this case, and, if so, in what way? Is there any legislative history or interpretation of the meaning of "limited production tires" as noted in this section, and what effects, if any, this limitation might have on the above fact situation?

ANSWER: 49 CFR @ 575.104(c) provides that the UTQGS apply to new pneumatic passenger car tires. The standards do not apply, however, to deep tread, winter type snow tires, space-saver or temporary use spare tires, tires with nominal rim diameters of 10 to 12 inches, or "limited production" tires. In order to qualify as a limited production tire, @ 575.104(c) (2) establishes four criteria, all of which the tires must meet:

(i) The manufacturer's annual domestic production or importation into the U.S. of tires of the same size and design as the tire does not exceed 15,000 tires;

(ii) The annual domestic purchase or importation by a brand name owner into the U.S. of tires of the same size and design as the tire does not exceed 15,000 tires;

(iii) The tire's size was not listed as a vehicle manufacturer's recommended tire size designation for a new motor vehicle produced in or imported into the U.S. in quantities greater than 10,000 during the calendar year preceding the year of the tire's manufacture; and

(iv) The total annual production or importation into the U.S. by the manufacturer or, if the tire is marketed under a brand name, the total annual domestic purchase or purchase for importation into the U.S. by the tire's brand name owner, of tires meeting the criteria of (i), (ii), and (iii) above, does not exceed 35,000 tires.

Section 575.104(c) also states that "tire design" is "the combination of general structural characteristics, materials, and tread pattern, but does include cosmetic, identifying or other minor variations among tires."

The factual scenario you described in your letter would suggest that the tires in question might meet the numbers criteria of (c) (2) (i) and (ii), but there is not sufficient information on which to base an opinion as to whether they meet the other two criteria. There is likewise insufficient information to determine whether the exceptions relating to deep tread, winter-type snow tires, space-saver or temporary use spare tires, or tires with nominal rim diameters of 10 to 12 inches may apply to any or all the tires in question. The manufacturer(s) seeking to import those tires into the U.S. must make those determinations.

For your additional information, I am enclosing a copy of 45 FR 23442, dated April 7, 1980, the final rule which initially exempted limited production tires from the UTQGS. That notice explains the rationale for exempting limited production tires and other background information you may find helpful.

I hope the above information will be of assistance to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Walter Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: aiam4740

"Dear Mr. Kelly: This responds to your request for an interpretation o Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release as it applies to roof exits. You asked four specific questions which I have addressed below. First, you asked for confirmation that the only specification in Standard No. 217 concerning the size of roof exits is the requirement that the exit be able to accommodate an ellipsoid with a major axis of 20 inches and a minor axis of 13 inches pushed horizontally through the exit opening. Your understanding is not entirely correct. The ellipsoid requirement to which you refer, set forth in S5.4.1 of Standard No. 217, is the only provision in the standard that specifies a minimum size requirement for roof exit openings. Although there is no maximum size limit, you should be aware that S5.2 of Standard No. 217 provides that, in determining the total unobstructed openings for emergency exit provided by a bus, no emergency exit, regardless of its area shall be credited with more than 536 square inches of the total area requirement. Thus, if a roof exit is larger than 536 square inches, only 536 square inches will be counted for the exit in determining whether the bus complies with the unobstructed openings requirement of S5.2 of Standard No. 217. Second, you asked for confirmation that Standard No. 217 does not permit the use of escape hatches or ventilators in the roof of school buses as a substitute for any of the emergency exits required on school buses by S5.2.3 of Standard No. 217. This understanding is correct. Additionally, you should be aware that the agency has a longstanding position that any emergency exits, including any roof exits, installed on a school bus in addition to the emergency exits required by S5.2.3 must conform to the requirements of Standard No. 217 for emergency exits installed on buses other than school buses. See the enclosed July 6, 1979 interpretation to Robert Kurre on this issue. Third, you asked for confirmation that Standard No. 217 permits the use of roof exits as a substitute for the rear exit door on buses other than school buses. This statement is not entirely correct. S5.2.1 of Standard No. 217 requires the use of a rear exit door on all non-school buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 lbs., except where the configuration of the bus precludes the installation of an accessible rear exit. In that case, S5.2.1 requires the installation of a roof exit in the rear half of the bus in lieu of the rear exit. This substitution of a roof exit for a rear exit door is allowed only where the bus design precludes the use of a rear exit (such as on rear-engine buses). It is not an option allowing the substitution of a roof exit for the rear door in any design. Fourth, you asked whether the addition of more than one roof exit on a non-school bus would allow a manufacturer to delete any other required exits in addition to the rear door. It is possible that increasing the total exit space on the bus by adding roof exits could enable a manufacturer to reduce the number or size of other emergency exits on the bus and still comply with the unobstructed openings requirement of S5.2. You should be aware that exit space provided by roof exits is not counted in determining compliance with the requirement in S5.2 that 40 percent of the total unobstructed openings be located on each side of the bus. Whether this substitution of additional roof exits could be made on any particular non-school bus would depend upon whether the bus complied with the exit space and location requirements of S5.2.1 (if the bus has a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds) and the applicable requirements of S5.2.2 (if the bus has a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less). I hope you have found this information helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact David Greenburg of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: nht92-3.4

DATE: 10/28/92

FROM: MARK V. SCHWARTZ -- ACCOUNT EXECUTIVE, ENTRAN DEVICES, INC.

TO: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- U.S. DOT, NHTSA

TITLE: 49CFR PART 572, ANTHROPOMORPHIC TEST DUMMIES, YOUR LETTER OF 9/29/92

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-7-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO MARK V. SCHWARTZ (A40; PART 572)

TEXT: We have received subject letter and read it with great interest. We are extremely disappointed with the contents of this letter. By taking no position on the equivalency issue, you are dictating that the market be sole sourced with the 7231C from Endevco.

Though your letter states that the users of the accelerometers are free to define equivalence, the reality is that they will take no unnecessary course of action that varies from your compliance testing. I have talked with technical decision makers from GM, Ford, and Chrysler and have received the same feedback from all three. They will not use an accelerometer to do development and certification work, when they know that you have legislated that a different accelerometer be used for compliance testing.

I am no lawyer, but it is my understanding that the U.S. Government is not allowed to legislate that a specific supplier be used. By refusing to address the definition of equivalency in paragraph 572.36 (g), that is exactly what you are doing.

This action is not only unfair to Entran Devices and other accelerometer manufacturers, but it adds to the cost of the test. The published one piece price for the 7231C is $ 750, while the published one piece price for Entran's EGE-72C-750 is $ 545. How is a 27% price premium justified?

Entran's position is unchanged from my original letter of July 9, 1992. We feel that Entran's EGE-72C-750 is "equivalent" to Endevco's 7231C. I am again requesting a clarification of the regulation that will either confirm that we are equivalent or define specific reasons why we are not.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation on this matter. If there should be any questions or requirements for additional information, please do not hesitate to call me at 800-635-0650.

Very truly yours

ENTRAN DEVICES, INC.

ID: nht72-3.27

DATE: 01/01/72 EST.

FROM: Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Brockway Motor Trucks

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 12, 1972, regarding the application of S4.3 of Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, to an auxiliary folding seat installed in Brockway trucks.

As shown in your drawings and photographs, the seat faces forward and has a hinge at the rear of the lower cushion. An upward force at the front of the lower cushion will move the cushion upward and rearward until it presses against the seat back.

The intent of S4.3 is to reduce the forces acting on an occupant in an accident by preventing the seat or seat back from folding onto him. It does not appear from the material you have submitted that any motion of the lower seat cushion will impose such additional forces on an occupant. The folding action is therefore not of the type contemplated by the standard and no restaining device would be required for this seat.

ID: 2810yy

Mr. Jack Barben
President
Custom Form Mfg. Inc.
2100 Industrial Pkwy.
Elkhart, IN 46516

Dear Mr. Barben:

This replies to your letter of October 8, l990, with respect to a lighted side rail for pickup trucks that you wish to sell in the aftermarket. The rail would be offered in colors of amber, hot pink, and hot yellow. Your literature shows the rails as mounted immediately above the right and left longitudinal sides of the pickup bed. You would like to know our position on compliance of this product.

Aftermarket lighting equipment is permissible under the statutes and regulations of our agency as long as its installation by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business does not render inoperative, in whole or in part, any element of design or device installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. You have informed us that your literature warns against installation of the device in any manner that would orient it towards the front or rear of the vehicle, rather than along its sides. Also, you would provide instructions "for separate fusing of the electrical supply lines." Under these circumstances, we believe that there would not be any rendering inoperative of the lighting equipment required by Motor Vehicle Standard No. l08. Further, the lighted side rails would appear to enhance the conspicuity of the vehicle from the side, even though the colors you intend to offer are not the red of the vehicle's rear side marker lamp and reflector.

We are not in a position to advise whether the lighted side rails would comply with the laws of any State in which a vehicle so equipped is registered or operated. We recommend that you ask the opinion of the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203 on this issue.

You have commented that "This is a proprietary product and would appreciate your treatment as such." However, based upon a telephone conversation between you and Bill Fox of my staff, I understand that you do not expect confidential treatment of any of the information in your letter. Therefore, both your letter and our reply will be made available for inspection by the public in accordance with our policy on interpretations.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:l/25/9l