ID: nht89-3.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/27/89

FROM: SCOTT K. HILLER -- CE WHITE COMPANY

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 01/12/90 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO SCOTT K. HILLER -- CE WHITE COMPANY; REDBOOK A35; STANDARD 210

TEXT: Dear N.H.T.S.A.:

I request a written, legal interpretation of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210 with regard to test procedures involving multi-passenger, passenger seats for school buses under 10,000 GVWR.

The situation is as follows:

1. The seat belts are mounted to the frame itself via a 1 1/4" angle bar running the width of the seat. (See photographs)

2. Each seating position has an individual set of seat belt mounting holes punched into the angle iron bar. (See photographs)

My question is does each seating position, when tested per @ 5.1 of FMVSS 210, have to be pulled simultaneously or should they be pulled individually?

I will be looking forward to your letter. Thank you for your help in this matter.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURES

(Photo Omitted)

Two passenger school bus passenger seat frame with seat belts attached. Front View.

(Photo Omitted)

Back view of a two passenger school bus seat with frame attached seat belts.

(Photo Omitted)

Top view of a 2 passenger school bus seat with seat belt bar mounted on seat frame for frame mounted seat belts. Note two separate sets of holes.

(Photo Omitted) Front view of a two passenger school bus seat with seat belts attached to seat frame.

(Photo Omitted)

Top forward view of a two passenger school bus seat frame which illustrates the seat belt attachment bar as frame mounted.

ID: nht89-3.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/28/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: WILLIAM E. ALKIRE -- CEO, BRAKELIGHT ENHANCER, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 08/24/89 FROM WILLIAM E. ALKIRE -- BRAKELIGHT ENHANCER, TO TAYLOR VINSON -- NHTSA, RE BRAKELIGHT ENHANCER; OCC 3876; SENATE BILL NO 684, CHAPTER 410; APPROVED 07/27/83; SENATE BILL NO 1317, AMENDED IN SENATE MARCH 8, 1982; INTRODUC ED BY SENATOR JOHNSON ON 01/07/1982

TEXT: Dear Mr. Alkire:

This is in response to your letter of August 24, 1989, in care of Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking for our comments on your "Brake Light Enhancer". This device flashes the stop lamps of a vehicle three times within the first two seconds after actuat ion of the stop lamp system, the lamps remaining illuminated thereafter.

Our comments on your device are restricted to its acceptability under the Federal regulatory scheme as either original or aftermarket equipment.

The Federal motor vehicle safety standard applicable to lighting equipment on new vehicles is Standard No. 108. This standard must be met when the vehicle is manufactured, and when it is sold to its first purchaser (i.e., dealer-installed equipment must not affect compliance of the vehicle with the safety standards). Section S5.510(e) of Standard No. 108 requires stop lamps to be wired to be steady burning in use, and your device's initial cycle of three flashes in two seconds would create a noncomplia nce with this requirement. Accordingly, your device is not permissible as an item of original equipment.

There is no aftermarket Federal standard applicable to your device. Equipment intended for vehicles in use are subject to the restriction of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act that they may not render inoperative, in whole or in part, equ ipment installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, if they are installed by a person other than the vehicle owner. In our view, if a modification creates a noncompliance with a standard that applies to a new motor vehicle, it is the equivalent of creating a partial inoperability of original safety equipment when that modification is performed on a motor vehicle in use. Installation of the Brake Light Enhancer by a person other than the vehicle owner would have this effect, and thus would be subject to the prohibition of the Act.

Use of the device is also subject to the laws of the various States in which the device will be sold and operated. Although California may permit its use, per Calif. Senate Bill 1317 that you enclosed, other States may not. We are unable to advise on State laws, and recommend that you write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators for an opinion. Its address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-3.47

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: November 28, 1989

FROM: Jonathan P. Reynolds -- Corporate Attorney, Cosco

TO: Steve Kratzke -- Office of Chief Councel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re Cosco Dream Ride-Convertible Infant Restraint/Car Bed

ATTACHMT: Attached to Cosco restraint system labels and instruction sheets (graphics and text omitted); Also attached to letter dated 9-13-90 from P.J. Rice to J.P. Reynolds (A36; Std. 213)

TEXT:

On October 6, 1989, we sent a prototype of the Dream Ride-Convertible infant restraint/car bed to George Chiang with Cosco's proposed labels and instruction sheet. We requested that NHTSA review the product and the written material regarding compliance with FMVSS 213 and advise us of any suggestions or recommendations.

In a later conversation with Richard Jasinski, it was suggested that Cosco should submit its analysis of the FMVSS 213 and how it applies to this product when used in the car bed position. Following are our comments in this regard. These comments do no t include any mention of the product as used in the rear-facing infant position, as such use requires no clarification in terms of compliance with the standard.

S4. Definitions. The following three definitions appear to be the most relevant concerning the car bed.

"Car bed" means a child restraint system, designed to restrain or position a child in the supine, or prone position, on a continuous flat surface.

The Dream Ride meets this definition, as shown in the enclosed copies of the labels and instruction sheet. Based upon our analysis, testing and input from our outside consultants, we have determined that the most favorable position for the car bed is th e right rear seat. The car bed is designed so that it can only be installed in that seating location with the child's head toward the center of the vehicle.

"Contactable surface" means any child restraint system surface (other than that of a belt, belt buckle, or belt adjustment) that may contact any part of the head or torso of the appropriate test dummy, specified in S7, when a child restraint system is te sted in accordance with S6.1.

When tested in accordance with S6.1, the "contactable surface" of the Dream Ride is that side of the restraint to the infants left when the infant is properly positioned face-up in the unit.

"Torso" means the portion of the body of a seated anthropomorphic test dummy, excluding the thighs, that lies between the top of the restraint system seating surface and the top of the shoulders of the test dummy.

This definition refers to traditional forward-facing or rear-facing restraints. Cosco and its outside consultants have concluded that the "torso" of the test dummy applicable to the traditional rear-facing restraint is also applicable to the Dream Ride c ar bed, and the harness

system of the Dream Ride and the dynamic test criteria for the Dream Ride in the car bed position rely on this definition of "torso" which is generally from the crotch to the top of the shoulders of the test dummy.

S5.1.1 Child-restraint system integrity. The Dream Ride complies with sub-part (a) and (b) as the Dream Ride exhibits no separation and remains in the initial adjustment position when tested in accordance with S6.1.

S5.1.2. Injury criteria, is not applicable, as the Dream Ride is recommended for use by children weighing 17 pounds or less.

S5.1.3.3 Occupant excursion-car beds. "In the case of car beds, all portions of the test dummy's head and torso shall be retained within the confines of the car bed."

Cosco interpreted the phrase "confines of the car bed" to mean the horizontal plane formed by the top edge of the entire shell of the Dream Ride, when installed in conformance with Cosco's instructions. When tested in accordance with S6.1, all portions of the test dummy's head and torso are retained within this horizontal plane.

S5.2.3.2 Head impact protection. All surfaces which are contactable by the test dummy in any direction are covered with slow-recovery, energy-absorbing material with the required characteristics.

S5.2.4 Protrusion limitation. The Dream Ride complies with the protrusion limitations of this section.

S5.3 Installation.

S5.3.1 The Dream Ride car bed complies with the attachment limitations. The vehicle belt is intended to be threaded through two car bed belt loops when installed in accordance with Cosco's labels and instructions.

S5.3.3 Car beds. "Each car bed shall be designed to be installed on a vehicle seat so that the car beds longitudinal axis is perpendicular to a vertical longitudinal plane through the longitudinal axis of the vehicle."

The Dream Ride car bed complies with this requirement, as shown on the enclosed labels and instruction sheet.

S5.4 Belts, belt buckle, and belt webbing. The Dream Ride complies with each of the requirements of this section.

S5.5 Labeling. The enclosed labels for the Dream Ride reflect an exhaustive effort on the part of Cosco to not only meet the specific requirements of this section, but to also impart to the consumer the information necessary to properly use this child-r estraint as a car bed and a conventional, rear-facing infant restraint.

The large label contains the information required in S5.5.2 (a) through (f). The warning language of S5.5.2 (g) is found on both labels.

The required language of of S5.5.2 (h) is identified as statement # 2 on

the large label.

The language required by S5.5.2 (k), concerning use in the rear-facing position, required certain modification. In order not to confuse the consumer, Cosco determined that it was necessary to expand on the required language of this section, as shown on the section denoted as number 3 on the large label, which states as follows:

Place this infant restraint in a rear-facing position when using it in the vehicle as a car seat. This infant restraint must face sideways when used as a car bed; see label inside shell.

Throughout the instruction sheet and labels, Cosco has elected to refer to the two positions that this restraint may be used in as the car seat position (traditional rear-facing position) and the car bed position. Cosco believes that this provides the cl earest guidelines to the consumer concerning the proper use of the restraint in each position.

S5.5.2 (1) requires installation diagrams showing the child restraint in the right-front and center-rear seating positions. For the traditional rear-facing restraint, Cosco has provided these diagrams on the large label. Cosco's research and testing of the child-restraint in the car bed position resulted in the determination that the center-rear seating positions is not recommended for the car bed position and may be potentially unsafe. In testing the performance of the car bed in a simu- lated side- impact on the drivers side of a vehicle, it was determined that a car bed, when properly installed in the center seating position may move in the direction of the impact to the extent that the "head" of the car bed (that area of the car bed where the chi ld's head would be positioned) may strike the interior of the left-rear door or body panel of many newer vehicles with small rear seats. While Cosco has engineered the Dream Ride to provide the best possible protection for the child from this type of im pact by the use of energy absorbing foam and by introducing a flexible grid at the head of the shell, intrusion from a severe side-impact could result in serious head and neck injuries to infants if the car bed was installed in the center seating positio n. Cosco has thus warned through-out its labeling and instructions that the car bed should only be installed in the right-rear seat, or the right-front seat. Cosco and its consultants believe that this provides the best possible protection for the crit ical head and neck area of an infant.

The large label contains the required language of S5.5.2 (m).

S5.6 Printed instructions for proper use. Cosco complies with each of the applicable sub parts of this section, specifically S5.6.1.4, which requires that instructions for each car bed shall explain that the car bed should be positioned in such a way th at the child's head is near the center of the vehicle. The above explanation concerning the installation diagrams is applicable to Cosco's instructions that the car bed be installed only in the right-rear and right-front seating positions.

The specific language concerning the installation of the car bed so that the baby's head is toward the center of the vehicle is found on page 5 of the instruction sheets under the warning section at the top, paragraph number two.

Cosco has sled-tested the Dream Ride in the car bed position not only as required in S6.1, but also to simulate side-impacts and various misuse configurations. The reports and films of these tests are available for your review upon request.

Cosco looks forward to your comments regarding the Dream Ride.

(Attached are copies of Cosco restraint system labels and instruction sheets (graphics and text omitted).)

ID: nht89-3.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/29/89 EST

FROM: JEFFREY R. MILLER -- NHTSA ACTING ADMINISTRATOR

TO: JOHN D. DINGELL -- CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 09/22/89 FROM JOHN D. DINGELL -- HOUSE TO JEFFREY R. MILLER; LETTER DATED 08/25/89 FROM CONSTANCE A. MORELLA -- HOUSE TO NORMAN Y. MINETA -- HOUSE; LETTER DATED 07/31/89 FROM W. MARSHALL RICKERT -- MVA TO CONSTANCE A. MORELLA; LETT ER DATED 07/08/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO NORMAN D. SHUNWAY -- CONGRESS; STANDARD 205; LETTER DATED 11/01/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO BEVERLY B. BYRON -- HOUSE; STANDARD 205

TEXT: Dear Mr. Chairman:

Thank you for your letter of September 22, 1989, forwarding Representative Morella's letter inquiring about the requirements of Federal law and regulations as they apply to the tinting of motor vehicle windows for medical reasons. We recently began a ru lemaking proceeding on the issue of tinting, and I welcome this opportunity to discuss the matter.

The enclosures to Ms. Morella's letter described a case in which a person suffers from a skin disease called vitiligo and was advised to avoid exposure to the sun's rays. The presumption is that this person needs more protection from the sun than that a fforded by vehicle windows that conform to the Federal standard.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, establishes a minimum 70 percent light transmissibility for glazing at levels "requisite for driving visibility," which includes all windows in passenger cars. When a requirement is estab lished in a Federal safety standard, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing, selling, or importing a new vehicle that does not comply with that requirement. The Safety Act does not provide for individua l medical exemptions.

Similarly, the Safety Act prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from "rendering inoperative" an element of design required by a safety standard, such as minimum light transmissibility. This "render inoperative" prohibition applies to vehicles after sale to purchasers. Neither this "render inoperative" provision nor any other Federal requirement would prohibit an individual vehicle owner from modifying their own vehicles, even if the modifications cause the vehicle to no l onger comply with the Federal safety standards. Thus, an individual vehicle owner can make whatever modifications he or she likes, for medical or any other reasons, without violating Federal law. However, the individual States have the authority to regu late modifications that owners may make to their vehicles, and

2 many States have chosen to regulate window tinting. For your reference, I have enclosed copies of our July 8, 1988 letter to Representative Shumway and our November 1, 1988 letter to Representative Byron on this subject.

The minimum light transmissibility requirement in Standard No. 205 represents a balancing of legitimate competing interests. On the one hand, safety considerations dictate that drivers must be able to see and analyze the traffic situation in which the v ehicle is being operated and react to that situation properly and promptly. To the extent that some of the available light is not transmitted through the vehicle glazing, the driver's ability to react to the traffic situation is potentially delayed. Th is is especially true under low light conditions, such as occur at night and on very overcast days.

On the other hand, there are legitimate reasons for allowing some tinting of vehicle windows. These include avoiding excessive heat for all vehicle occupants, reducing glare for the driver, preserving the vehicle interior, and helping persons with medic al conditions that are sensitive to the sun's rays.

NHTSA balanced these competing interests by establishing the current 70 percent minimum light transmissibility requirement in Standard No. 205. However, the agency was asked in a petition for rulemaking to reexamine this balance and to permit darker tin ting of windows, by lowering the minimum light transmissibility requirement. We decided to reexamine whether the current minimum light transmibility requirement continues to represent the most appropriate and reasonable balance of the competing interest s.

Accordingly, on July 20, 1989, this agency published a request for comments on a comprehensive review of the 70 percent light transmissibility requirement for side and rear window glazing in passenger automobiles. One of the issues raised was the light transmissibility standard's effect on those who need more protection from the sun's ultraviolet rays. The comment period for this notice closed on September 18, 1989. The agency received nearly one hundred comments on this issue and is currently review ing those comments. We will notify you and Ms. Morella when we announce our decision.

I have placed a copy of your letter and this response in the public docket for this rulemaking action. I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURES

ID: nht89-3.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: DECEMBER 1, 1989

FROM: THOMAS D. TURNER -- MGR., ENGINEERING SERVICES, BLUE BIRD BODY CO.

TO: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 3-20-90 TO THOMAS D. TURNER, BLUE BIRD BODY CO., FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD, NHTSA; [REDBOOK A35; STDS. 202 AND 208]

TEXT: Attached is an illustration of a typical seating arrangement for a small bus that we manufacture. The vehicle has a 10,000 pound GVWR. It is our understanding that the driver's seat is a outboard front designated seating position and that a passenger s eat if located in a similar position on the right side of the vehicle would be an outboard front designated seating position. However, as shown on the attached illustration, our vehicle has an entrance door and stepwell in the area on the right side oppo site the driver's seat. The forwardmost outboard passenger seating position on the right side is approximately in line (3 inches forward on the attached example) with the forwardmost outboard passenger seating position on the left side.

It is our understanding that these forwardmost attached passenger seating positions are not outboard front designated seating position for the purpose of the recently published final rule on Standard 202, 49CFR, Part 571, Docket Number 88-24; Notice 02, Federal Register Volume 54, Number 184, Monday, September 25, 1989 or for the occupant protection requirements of 49 CFR Part 571.208 Occupant Crash Protection.

We request your confirmation that our understanding is correct and that the forwardmoset outboard passenger seating positions of a bus, as shown on the illustration, are not outboard front designated seating positions.

attachment

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht89-3.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/28/89

FROM: MARK F. HOLMES

TO: STEVE WOOD -- ASST. CHIEF COUNSEL N.H.T.S.A.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10/31/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO MARK F. HOLMES; REDBOOK A34-VSA 108[A][2][A]; STANDARD 108 LETTER DATED 09/28/89 FROM MARK F. HOLMES TO STEVE WOOD -- NHTSA; OCC 3980

TEXT: Dear Mr. Wood:

Prior to our phone conversation, enclosed please review a bit of information concerning two new multi-purpose products, THE STROBALARM, and THE SPOTLIGHT ALARM that may be of interest to your Company.

For a number of years, I have studied all the car alarm systems that are sold on the market today. During my studies, I have learned that all of these alarms are basically the same with just a bit of variation. There similarity begins with the sounding of a ordinary siren that cannot be seen or detected in a crowded parking lot, or on a dark street covered or uncovered by light. These sirens do very little to ward off a thief, and they offer no real protection for the vehicle, it's valuables, and it' s owner.

The Strobalarm, with it's bright strobe light and 12-volt filament, can be incorporated into any existing alarm system. This unique concept will easily ward off a potential thief by exposing him to the people in his immediate surrounding. The Strobalar m attracts attention like bees to honey. It allows the endangered vehicle to be seen by many in any given area during the course of an evening. It is just as effective in the rain, snow, and fog, as it is on sunny days!

*An example of just how powerful and noticeable a strobe light is can be seen by viewing an airplane in flight during the night. The unique feature of the Strobalarm is that it uses very little energy to produce it's flash.*

The Strobalarm has been reconstructed and redesigned a number of times with the automobile and it's owner in mind. The incorporation of a CAR LOCATOR with its remote control key case is evidence of that. The car locator will allow an owner to locate hi s or her vehicle from a far away distance of 400 feet. The 12-volt filament can be turned on and remain on with the same key case. This will allow the owner to see who may be standing around the vehicle.

The Carfinder, which is the latest device for finding cars, only allows the head lights to blink off and on. But in a crowded parking lot, and if you happen to have a small vehicle surrounded by larger vehicles these blinking lights will not be seen. T he blinking head lights may also be mistaken for something else such as, an alarm going off, someone parked with their headlights on, or the simple switching of headlights to high beams. The Carfinder does not work with vehicles that have hidden headlig hts, such as Corvettes, Porches 928, 944, and Texas AMs.

The DISTRESS EMERGENCY FLARE SIGNAL, would serve useful during emergencies, such as highway break-downs. With the use of pink color lens the Distress flare Signal will eliminate the danger of having to use those pink colored torches that are seen on hig hways at night. Most insurance companies offer premiums on cars equipped with passive alarm, the Strobalarm is such an alarm.

The Spotlight Alarm, which is designed for smaller vehicles with a little less headroom, is equipped with Halogen Beam Lights that blink off and on with the assistance of the key case control. The Spotlight, like the Strobalarm, can be used only as a ca r locator and/or it can be connected to any alarm system.

The STROBALARM and the SPOTLIGHT ALARM are ideas of today and with newer cars having more windshield, side and rear window, these ideas would certainly be items of interest in the future.

Mr. Wood, if you find the alarm or just the Car Locator with or without the built-in Distress to be of interest, feel free to notify me. I would be more than willing to come to your office at my own expense to present the technical drawing for the simpl e to use, easy to install and cost efficient alarm device. A device that is easy to build and does not exceed the cost of systems already on the market.

A preliminary patent search has already been concluded and a disclosure document has been filed with the U.S. Patent Office for Patentability of these concepts.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-3.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/05/89

FROM: RICHARD A. KULICS

TO: TAYLOR VINSON -- NHTSA

TITLE: REQUEST FOR RULING IMPORTING VEHICLES MODIFIED IN FTZ AS "CONFORMING"

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 02/22/90 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO RICHARD A. KULIGS; RE REQUEST FOR RULING IMPORTED VEHICLES - FTZ; REDBOOK A35; PART 591; VSA 108

TEXT: This letter is written on behalf of Mr. Peter DiBernardi, a principal of the entities "Liphardt Associates" and "Pierre Enterprises, Inc.", located at 15 Trade Zone Drive, Ronkonkoma, New York 11779. Liphardt Associates is an Independent Commercial Impo rter ("ICI") under the EPA regulations. The vehicles imported under Liphardt's certificate are modified at Pierre Enterprises, 15 Trade Zone Drive, Ronkonkoma, New York 11779. (Liphardt/Pierre Enterprises will be applying for status as "Registered Impo rters" under 49 CFR 592). The location is within the LI/MacArthur FTZ #52 (Islip FTZ Authority). Pierre Enterprises has been approved as a bonded cartman, i.e., a "Custodian" of bonded merchandise, by the U.S. Customs Service. (Exhibit 1)

The method of operation of Liphardt/Pierre Enterprises (hereafter "L/PE) is as follows: (1) Nonconforming vehicles are unladen from vessel; (2) Vehicles are transported directly into Foreign Trade Zone as "nonprivileged foreign" merchandise (Exhibit 2 , FTZ entry); (3) Appropriate modifications are performed on the vehicles in order to bring them into conformity with U.S. law; (4) Consumption entry filed (as "nonconforming" vehicle), bond posted, conformity package submitted to DOT; (5) After release by EPA and DOT, custody of vehicle given to owner.

REQUEST

L/PE requests you to rule that it be allowed to submit conformity packets to your agency prior to the submission of the consumption entry package, i.e., upon submission of the FTZ entry (step 2, above), so that it may enter the vehicles as "conforming ".

SUPPORT FOR REQUEST

The obvious reason for the request is to eliminate the costs associated with posting a special bond purely for DOT purposes. It would also have the effect of speeding up the process of importation, thus reducing the costs associated with storage.

The purpose of the bond is to "assure that he vehicle has been or will be brought into conformity." (DOT HS 807 144, rev. 12/87, at 3). It is a "promise that you will modify the vehicle to Federal Standards". (id., 5). In regard to DOT, the obligat ion of the importer is to bring the vehicle into conformity and submit an appropriate statement of conformity when it is due (id. 5). If this is not accomplished, Customs is required to issue a redelivery notice (id., 5).

It is apparent, then, that the obligation is to either conform the vehicle or return it to Customs custody. The bond is the method of enforcing that obligation. What L/PE proposes is that it be allowed to close out the obligation while the vehicle i s still in the custody of the Customs Service.

Though established under the Foreign Trade Zones Act (19 U.S.C. 81a), and generally under governed by 15 CFR 400 ("Foreign Trade Zones Board"), for purposes of this request, the appropriate regulatory language is contained in 19 CFR 146 ("Foreign Trad e Zones", i.e.. "admission of merchandise into a foreign trade zone, manipulation, manufacture, or exhibition in a zone; exportation of the merchandise from a zone; and transfer of merchandise from a zone into Customs territory).

146.2 states the "district director [of Customs] in whose district the zone is located shall be in charge of the zone as the representative of the Board. Section 146.4 outlines the criteria for supervision, storage and handling of merchandise by the o perator of the zone. He must permit any customs officer access to a zone, he must maintain records, he must scure the merchandise in accordance with Customs standards and specifications. He must provide guard service. He is also responsible for comply ing with all requirements for "admission, manipulation, manufacture, exhibition or destruction, shortage or overage . . . transfer to Customs territory, and "other requirements as spcified in this part."

146.10 provides:

The district director may cause any merchandise to be examined before or at the time of admission to a zone, or at any time thereafter, if the examination is considered necessary to facilitate the proper administration of any law, regulation, or instr uction which Customs is authorized to enforce.

146.31 Conditionally admissible merchandise provides "the admission of this merchandise into a zone is subject to the regulations of the Federal agency concerned.

There is no question, then, that should DOT want to physically inspect the vehicles on the premises of L/PE, they could readily do so.

It cannot be overemphasized that the entire time the vehicles are in the foreign trade zone, they are under the custody and control of the U.S. Customs Service. They cannot be moved out of the zone unless a consumption entry is filed or a special per mit allows movement for a particularized purpose. Even then they must be moved via a Customs bonded carrier.

Regulations are one thing, however, and sometimes reality is another. Please look at the established integrity of L/PE when reviewing this proposal. L/PE have been conforming vehicles for years. They have had no outstanding claims for liquidated da mages. They are one of the very few entities that is not required to post triple value bonds for nonconforming vehicles. This is because they have established a "track record". They are recognized as an ICI, permitted to import vehicles for EPA purpos es. They have qualified to be issued a warranty policy by their insurance company to meet their EPA obligations. Your own records should reflect that they have been conforming a huge number of vehicles in the most professional manner. They are able to withstand the most stringent scrutiny by the three government agencies with which they have constant contact-DOT, EPA and Customs.

PROPOSED METHODOLOGY OF OPERATION

The current method of operation would remain substantially intact, save for the following: L/PE would prepare an HS-7 at the time of filing the FTZ entry. Each HS-7 would have a unique number (provided by L/PE's Customhouse Broker), which would also b e placed in block 17 of the FTZ entry (Form 214). This number could probably be the same as the actual Customs Entry Number if you feel that is necessary. This HS-7 would be submitted to DOT along with a conformity package. DOT would then review the p ackage and issue a release letter, if appropriate.

When the actual consumption entry is filed, the vehicle would be entered as a "conforming" vehicle, with the release letter attached to the entry. No bond need be posted specifically for DOT purposes. (In most cases, save for an "informal" entry, a bond would be posted anyway, to assure compliance with all other requirements. There is quite a difference in cost, however, between a bond for a "conforming" as opposed to a "nonconforming" vehicle.

Please consider this request and issue a ruling as soon as possible. This is essentially a duplicate of a request I had prepared earlier which somehow became lost. Since L/PE fully intends to be a registered importer under your new regulations, we t rust any ruling you issue would have future application under the new regulations.

Please send any response to this office at the address indicated in the letterhead. [ATTACHED CUSTOMS BOND FORM OMITTED]

ID: nht89-3.51

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/08/89

FROM: HOWARD KOSSOVER -- CMI TRAILER DIVISION

TO: TAYLOR VINSON -- LEGAL COUNCIL - FMVSS - 108 N.H.T.S.A.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 01/09/90 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO HOWARD KOSSOVER -- CMI TRAILER DIVISION; REDBOOK A35; STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Mr. Vinson:

I am writing to you in regard to the FMVSS Lighting Code. We are in process of building a semi-trailer for highway use and would like to know if we are in violation of the code with respect to the location of the rear stop, turn & tail lights.

This unit is a Rear Discharge trailer designed to haul hot mix asphalt. As the asphalt is discharged out it tends to build up on the rear components. We have recessed the lights approximately 27" from the rear so they will stay clean. I have enclosed some pictures.

Does this violate the lighting code? Please let me know.

Thank you,

PHOTOGRAPHS OMITTED

ID: nht89-3.52

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/09/89

FROM: LOWELL W. SUNDSTROM

TO: OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL -- NHTSA

TITLE: 571.302 STANDARD NO. 302; FLAMMABILITY OF INTERIOR MATERIALS.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 3-22-90 TO LOWELL SUNDSTROM FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD, NHTSA; [A35; VSA 108 (A)(2); STD. 302]

TEXT: I am Lowell W. Sundstrom Jr., inventor of several products, one of which may require your approval. It is named the "HOOD LOCKER" (HL). Two pictures of the HL are enclosed.

The HL box will be made of Polyethelene or Polypropolene, the same plastics used in making a battery case. The unit has a tightly fitted lid to keep water and dust out of the box as well as to keep the unused tissue paper inside, dry and clean.

The purpose of the HLis to allow the consumer to have at his or her optimum location, a small tissue paper dispenser wherein the tissues may be used for wiping off the engine crankcase dipstick when checking the crankcase oil.

The HL can be mounted near or on the vehicle fender well, onto the under side of the hood, onto the side or top of the air cleaner, etc. in order to place the HL as conveniently to the crankcase oil dip-stick as is possible.

I have researched the NHTSAdmin., DOT: 571.302. It appears to me that it does not refer to this product because:

1- it will not be placed within the occupant compartments of motor vehicles.

2- it will not be placed within 1/2" of any occupants air space.

I hope your findings are similiar to mine as I feel this is a helpful and safe product that will give the consumer considerable convenience at little expence.

If you think, for any reason, that I can help to expedite your research of the HOOD LOCKER, please feel free to call any time.

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht89-3.53

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: DECEMBER 11, 1989

FROM: JOE DABROWSKI -- VP ENGINEERING TMC/MCI, TRANSPORTATION MANUFACTURING CORP. TO: FRANK BERNDT -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 4-9-90 TO R. W. SCHREYER FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD; (A35; STD. 210). ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 3-5-90 TO HARRY THOMPSON FROM R. W. SCHREYER, LETTER DATED 3-22-89 TO KEITH A. MCDOWELL FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, AND LETTER DATED 3-25-77 TO ROBERT B. KURRE, WAYNE CORPORATION, FROM FRANK BERNDT. TEXT:

During the 1989 SAE Truck & Bus meeting held in Charlotte, N.C., I met with a Dale Guthrie, Engineering Manager for Thomas Built Buses. During the course of our meeting, our conversation turned to seat belts and he advised me of a letter (copy attached) he received from you responding to his inquiry as to an interpretation of the requirements of Standard 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages.

In particular, my inquiry addresses how much force must be used when testing seat belt anchorages in Intercity coaches to certify compliance with the standard and whether it is necessary to test simultaneously all seat belt assemblies as called out in St andard No. 207, Seating Systems.

If we can use the same interpretation that the referenced letter addresses, we would be able to comply with some of the requests we are receiving for seat belts in intercity buses.

Your attention to this matter and prompt reply are appreciated.