ID: nht94-3.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 24, 1994

FROM: Carmen Colet -- Vice President, John Russo Industrial, Inc.

TO: Dorothy Nakama, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/11/94 from John Womack to Carmen Colet (A42; VSA 102(3))

TEXT: WE ARE CONSTRUCTING AN AIRCRAFT RESCUE AND FIRE-FIGHTING VEHICLE TO SATISFY PROPOSED U.S.A.F. AND D.O.D. SPECS. FOR NEW TYPE YF AND YZ AIRCRAFT.

1. WE UNDERSTAND THAT FMVSS DOES NOT COVER THIS VEHICLE WHICH IS NOT PRIMARILY INTENDED FOR PUBLIC HIGHWAY USE. IT IS MADE TO OPERATE ON AIR FIELDS. ITS TIRES ARE 54" HIGH AND OVER 2 FT. WIDE AND MADE TO RUN FOR 20 MINUTES AR 65 MPH AS A GUIDELINE. T HE SMALL VEHICLE WEIGHS 20 TONS FULL OF WATER AND FOAM. BUMPERS ARE SPECIFIED AT 5 FT. HIGH. COCKPIT IS SIMILAR TO 117A STEALTH FIGHTER. IT CARRIES A POWER WATER TURRET ON TOP. ENCLOSED IS A CONFIDENTIAL PICTURE.

2. DO WE NEED TO USE THE 17 DIGIT FORMULA?

3. DO WE HAVE TO NOTIFY NHTSA SINCE THE VEHICLE IS NOT COVERED?

ID: nht94-3.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 30, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Blair Abraham -- Biomedical Manager, Mersco Medical

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/22/94 from Blair Abraham to NHTSA Public Affairs Office

TEXT: This responds to your letter requesting information about "the steps to take to certify a vehicle for a higher weight rating than what is issued by the manufacturer." I apologize for the delay in our response. As discussed in your letter and in a teleph one conversation with Edward Glancy of my staff, your company owns a 1989 or 1990 Chevy van which it uses to deliver products. You indicate that the GVWR assigned to the vehicle is 5,600 pounds. You modified the suspension to enable the vehicle to hand le an additional 1,000 pounds and "would like to certify the vehicle for 6,600 pounds." You asked us to send the information required for increasing the GVWR and also ask, if you cannot increase the GVWR, whether you are liable for noncompliance of a DOT regulation.

By way of background information, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are requir ed to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable safety standards.

Under NHTSA's certification regulations, manufacturers must assign a GVWR to new vehicles. The term GVWR is defined in 49 CFR Part 571.3 as "the value specified by the manufacturer as the loaded weight of a single vehicle." The GVWR informs vehicle owne rs how heavily the vehicle may safely be loaded. It also affects the vehicle's loading and other test conditions for the performance tests to ascertain whether the vehicle complies with applicable safety standards. NHTSA expects the GVWR to reflect a m anufacturer's good-faith evaluation of the vehicle's size, weight, load carrying capacity, and intended use.

NHTSA's regulation on GVWR only addresses the GVWR of new vehicles. This is because the agency's safety standards apply only to new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. There is a provision, @ 108(a)(2)(A), in the Vehicle Safety Act

2

that prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers and motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative in whole or in part any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. These parties would be subject to this provision if they were to modify your vehicle's suspension. However, the provision does not apply to individual owners modifying their own vehicles.

Because we do not regulate how individuals modify their own vehicles (and thus do not prohibit you from modifying your vehicle's suspension), we are unable to advise you about the specific modifications that must be made to a vehicle for it to safely car ry an additional 1,000 pounds. Among other things, however, you should carefully evaluate whether the vehicle's axles, brakes, tires, and frame can adequately handle the additional load. We suggest that you consult with the original vehicle manufacture r about this question. You may also wish to consult a local attorney concerning possible liability in the event your vehicle is involved in an accident.

Also, the individual states have the authority to regulate used vehicles, and changes in the GVWR of used vehicles may be addressed by state law. State law may also address the operation of a vehicle loaded above GVWR.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's regulations, please feel free to contact Mr. Glancy at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-3.51

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 30, 1994

FROM: Trevor Buttle -- McLaren Cars Limited

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Council

TITLE: FMVSS 208 -- Seating Reference Points

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10/31/94 FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO TREVOR BUTTLE (A42; STD. 208; REDBOOK 2)

TEXT: My responsibility within McLaren Cars at the moment is for the homologation within Europe of the F1 road car.

I have been asked to generate a programme and budget for a possible Federal version of this vehicle, and in that context, I have a specific query on Standard 208. I have been told by Mr. Taylor Vincent that you are the man to contact for this.

My reading of the standard is that passive restraints are required only for the front outboard designated seating positions, and that the front centre designated seating position is required to be fitted with a type 1 or type 2 (active) seat belt. The c onfiguration of the F1 places the driver exactly on the longitudinal centre line of the vehicle, and two rear seats (each provided with a type 2 belt) either side of this position. I believe therefore, that although the driver's seating position is prov ided with a four point harness (i.e. not a type 1 or type 2 belt) for Europe, compliance with the standard is generally demonstrated.

Could you please process this enquiry.

FAX

To Ms. Mary Versailles

Office of Chief Council

FROM Trevor Buttle

DATE 8/9/94

SUBJECT FMVSS 208-SEATING REFERENCE POINTS

With reference to our discussion just now, I am 'faxing drawing 1P0004 which should help with my enquiry.

To clarify, the driver seating reference (R) point is shown as X2175 and the passenger seating reference points are shown as X2495, being therefore 320 mm rearward of the driver reference point. The driver 'R' point is described as "(rearmost)" because the seat has 100mm forward travel from that point, unlike the passenger seats, which are fixed with no adjustment.

For all type approval purposes, the passenger seating positions have been regarded and certified as rear row seats.

Please let me know if you require any further information or back-up data for the enquiry. As I mentioned, I will be on vacation from August 24 until September 7, and in my absence, you should contact Mr. Barry Lett for any technical data.

Thank you for your help thus far.

Best regards

ENCLOSURE

(DRAWING OMITTED)

ID: nht94-3.52

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 1, 1994

FROM: Samson Helfgott -- Helfgott & Jaras, P.C.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice, Esq. -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Our Ref. No.: 12.065

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/20/94 from John Womack to Samson Helfgott (A42; STD 108), letter dated 3/30/89 from Ericka Z. Jones to Samson Helfgott, and letter dated 9/17/90 from Paul Jackson Rice to Samson Helfgott

TEXT: We represent Harold Caine, President of the S.A.F.E. Foundation (Safety Autodrivers Foundation for Education). This organization is actively working to promote highway safety through reduction of automobile accidents. Over the past years, they suggeste d the use of an amber lamp provided adjacent the rear end high mounted red brake lamp and positioned in a separate control and arrangement so as not to impede the operation of the brake lamp. The amber lamp remains on as a "day time driving lamp" as lon g as the car is being operated. When the brake is applied and the brake lamp goes on, the amber lamp goes off. This concept has been discussed with your office and I enclose copies of two previous letters from your office addressing this matter. This concept has already been tested on trucks and has been found to provide substantial reductions in rear end collisions.

Mr. Caine is considering the possibility of utilizing this combination of red and amber lighting arrangement to be placed along the sides of trucks and other vehicles. They would operate in conjunction with the red and amber lights on the rear of the vehicle. Thus, the amber lights on the

4

side would remain on in conjunction with the amber lights at the rear of the vehicle during normal driving of the vehicle. When the brake is applied, the amber lights would automatically turn off and the brake lights on the rear of the vehicle would go on and in conjunction therewith, the red lights on the side of the vehicle would also turn on. Please note that the operation of the brake light is not impaired by the presence of the amber lights so that the brake lights operate directly upon applicati on of the brake independent of the turning on and off of the amber lights.

I would appreciate knowing whether the presence of the red and amber lights on the sides of the vehicle would be permissible under Standard No. 108 and, to the best of your awareness, whether there are any prohibitions that might prevent utilization o f this structure on the sides of the vehicles.

I would appreciate hearing from you on this matter.

Enclosure

ID: nht94-3.53

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 1, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Dietmar R. Haenchen -- Manager Vehicle Regulations, Volkswagen of America, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/17/94 from Dietmar K. Haenchen to John Womack (OCC-10000)

TEXT: This responds to your request for an interpretation of marking requirements in 49 CFR part 541 Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard for high theft vehicle lines' replacement parts. The answer to both of your questions is VW is still required to mark the replacement parts in question.

In your letter, you explained that the Volkswagen Corrado line, a high theft line, was parts marked (pursuant to 49 CFR part 541) in model years 1990 through 1994. For model year 1995, NHTSA granted an exemption from parts marking for the Corrado line, based on the inclusion of an approved antitheft device as standard equipment on all models in the Corrado line. (58 FR 28434, May 13, 1993). However, you informed us in your letter that the Corrado will not be sold in the United States for MY 1995. Yo ur first question asks whether replacement parts for the Corrado line are exempted from the parts marking requirements of part 541.

The answer is no. Section 543.7(d) specifies that part 543 exemptions apply only to lines that are the subject of the grant, and are equipped with the antitheft device on which the line's exemption was based. You inform us that the Corrado will not be offered for sale in the U.S. in MY 1995. If the Corrado will not be offered for sale in this country, then no Corrrados sold in the U.S. will be equipped with the approved antitheft device. If no Corrado is so equipped, the part 543 exemption would not apply to the Corrado line. Thus, Volkswagen would be required to continue to mark any Corrado replacement parts, subject to part 541, offered for sale in the U.S.

In your letter, you cited an October 12, 1989 NHTSA interpretation letter to Saab-Scania of America to support your position that the Corrado's replacement parts need not continue to be marked. We do not believe that the letter to Saab supports your pos ition.

2

Saab received an exemption from parts marking for the Saab 9000 for the 1989 model year, and asked NHTSA to clarify the scope of the part 543 exemption. On page two of the letter to Saab, NHTSA stated that Saab was free to discontinue marking of origina l equipment and replacement parts for the Saab 9000 as soon as the part 543 exemption took effect, "provided that Saab actually installed the antitheft device described in its petition . . ." The letter to Saab establishes that if it does not install the antitheft device on the exempted line, a manufacturer is not free to discontinue marking replacement parts on the line.

Your second question was whether replacement parts marking may be terminated at some point after a high theft line subject to parts marking, is no longer produced. The answer is no. This issue was addressed in the final rule establishing 49 CFR part 54 1 (50 FR 43166, October 25, 1985):

Once a line is selected as a high theft line, each covered major replacement part designed for use on that line must be identified as a replacement part. That requirement remains in effect as long as those replacement parts are produced. (50 FR 43178).

Thus, as long as replacement parts are produced for a high theft line subject to parts marking, the replacement parts must continue to be marked.

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

ID: nht94-3.54

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 1, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: George W. Sudenga -- Esq., Johnson, Sudenga, Latham & Peglow

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/25/94 from George W. Sudenga to Marvin Shaw and letter dated 5/18/94 from John Womack to Neil Rowe.

TEXT: This responds to your letter following up on my May 18, 1994, letter to your client, Mr. Neil Rowe, about Mr. Rowe's product, the "Glad Grip." In my letter, I provided information about the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) requi rements for manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, and explained that NHTSA has not issued a Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) applicable to a product such as the Glad Grip. In your followup letter, you indicated we did not answer your re quest for "approval of NHTSA in advance of major marketing efforts," concerning your client's product.

I regret that my earlier letter was unclear on the issue of NHTSA "approval" of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment, nor does the agency endorse any commercial products. I nstead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. As I stated in the earlier letter, t he agency has not issued any safety standards for the Glad Grip. Even if there were an applicable FMVSS, NHTSA would not "approve" the Glad Grip; rather, Mr. Rowe would self-certify his product.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

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: nht94-3.56

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 5, 1994

FROM: Sally O'Cordan -- Legal Assistant, Ashley, Hannula & Halom

TO: Office of Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: Travel Trailer Standards

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/26/94 from John Womack to Sally O'Cordan (A42; Std. 205)

TEXT:

We are investigating an accident where an individual was severely injured by the glass of a travel trailer.

Does your office have any federal motor vehicle safety standards regarding the type of glass used in travel trailer windows? If not, do you know of any place where these might be regulated? Any information you can provide to us will be appreciated.

If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 1-800-477-7056.

ID: nht94-3.57

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 5, 1994

FROM: Barbara Pietra -- Dabble, Inc. (Los Angeles, CA)

TO: John Womack -- Chief Counsel, Office of National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/26/94 from John Womack to Barbara Pietra (A42; Std. 213)

TEXT:

Several months ago I spoke with you about the Cair Bag I was developing. This product is designed to be used by children in an automobile (or airplane) who have outgrown their child restraint system (car seat or booster seat). This product allows a chi ld to rest or sleep more comfortably, keeping their seat belt positioned properly.

In the course of consideration of this product the legal department of Toyota USA has asked me to obtain a letter from you stating that the Cair Bag is not a child restraint system as described in FMVSS No. 213. I spoke with Dee Fujita, Esq. and Susan S tack last Friday, who referred me to you.

In the course of the development of this product I spoke to Patricia Breslin, Veronica Ferguson, Carolyn Jeeter of NHTSA, Cheryl Neverman, Susan Stack and Paul Snodgrass of the Department of Transportation, Art Hayes of the FAA and Cecil Smith of the US Products Consumer Safety Commission. Mr. Cecil Smith stated I should state on the label that this product is not intended for use by children under the age of 24 months. Everyone else I spoke with felt this was a great product and the only requirement would be that it not interfere with the automatic locking mechanism of the seat belt, which it dos not do. I felt it was necessary to further state that it is not intended for use by children under 40 pounds, to make it clear that this product is not in tended to compete with or in any way replace child restraint systems (car seats and booster seats).

Great care was taken in designing the Cair Bag product; keeping foremost in mind the comfort, safety and reliability of this product. The Cair Bag is a very lightweight (approximately one pound), under-stuffed styrene pellet bag with a removable, washab le cotton fabric outer bag. The Cair Bag is attached to the lap portion of the seat belt with a reinforced velcro and nylon strap.

When the child gets tired, he can attach the Cair Bag and lean into it, keeping the shoulder and lap belts positioned properly. This product would help to prevent the child from lying down on the seat of the car with the seat belt improperly, uncomforta bly and dangerously positioned.

The weight of the Cair Bag is distributed over the lap of the child, eliminating its force on the lap portion of the seat belt. Because the filling is very moldable in nature, the Cair Bag adapts to the legs and upper body of the child maintaining the proper positioning of the seat belt; taught across the lap and shoulder of the child.

Several months ago a representative from NHTSA sent me the enclosed excerpts from the "Child Passenger Safety Resource Manual". At that time it was determined that the Cair Bag would not interfere with the automatic locking mechanism of the seat belt. Since that time, I have been informed that this product should be recommended for use by children over 50 pounds as to prevent it from being used as a child restraint system. All literature will be changed to show this recommendation.

In conclusion, this product is desparately needed to aid in the comfort and safety of children who rest or sleep in the car. It can be seen as a comfort pillow and direct claims will not be made about the safety factor.

I have enclosed a copy of the label which will be attached to the Cair Bag, several photographs showing how children lie down on the car seat and the literature designed for Toyota for you evaluation.

I look forward to hearing from you. Please do not hesitate to call me if you have any questions about this product at (310) 471-5242.

Attachments Cair Bag label. Cair Bag brochure.

ID: nht94-3.58

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 5, 1994

FROM: Michael Winzkowski -- CEO / Managing Director, Farmont Sunroofs Ltd., Odessa, FL

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: DOT Code 205 Manufacturer Certification

ATTACHMT: Attached to 9/21/94 letter from John Womack to Michael Winzkowski (A42; STD. 205)

TEXT: We are a US-based subsidiary of a german automotive sunroof manufacturer with a associated glass plant which produces the glass panels for our sunroofs. A number of years ago we have obtained a DOT number for our glass panels, used in the USA. Due to t he fact that the German TUV is certifying and testing such glass panels and the US-DOT is relying on manufacturer self certification, we sometimes have the problem to convey the certification differences between the two countries to the German Authoritie s. The DOT numbers which appear on the glass panels of our product are simply proof of the fact that the manufacturer has obtained a registered number with the US-DOT after complying with the applicable self certification procedures without having to go through a test by your Department similar to the test administered by the German Government Authorities. It would be of great help if you could provide us with a formal letter, citing the applicable procedures for manufacturers regulated by vehicle gla zing code 205 to identify that in fact no US-DOT testing or certification is conducted when DOT numbers are assigned to manufacturers. An attached copy of the latest edition of DOT Code 205 (Vehicle Glazing Code) would be most appreciated.

Our glass manufacturer is FABA Autoglas Produktion in Germany. Farmont Sunroofs Ltd. in Florida is the assigned agent in the US. Our current master DOT number is DOT 500 (followed by manufacturers glass type and model code). I would appreciate to rece ive a letter from your office addressed to FABA Autoglas Produktion c/o Farmont Sunroofs Ltd. (my attention).

Should you have any further question please call me at any time. Thank you very much for your help.