ID: nht93-3.18

DATE: April 26, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Arvind V. Rajan -- Vice President, Marketing and Planning, Solectria Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-30-93 from Arvind V. Rajan to John Womack (OCC 8505)

TEXT: We have received your letter of March 30, 1993, asking for confirmation that Solectria Corporation is permitted to import nonconforming motor vehicles for conversion to electric power, provided that the vehicles will be exported immediately following conversion. The vehicle you wish to import is the Suzuki Swift, similar to the Suzuki Swift that has been certified by its manufacturer for sale in the United States, except that the steering column is on the right hand side, and that it has not been certified.

There is no section of the importation provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) that directly permit the importation of nonconforming vehicles for purposes of repair or alteration. Obviously, the failure of such vehicles to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards poses no risk of traffic accidents, or deaths and injuries resulting from such accidents if these vehicles are never driven on the public roads. In these instances, the agency tries to provide an interpretation of the Act that is consistent with both the purpose of the Act and the facts at hand.

Section 108 (b)(3) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(3)), in effect, allows importation of a nonconforming motor vehicle "intended solely for export, and so labeled or tagged on the vehicle ... and on the outside of the container, if any, which is exported." As the legislative history of this section makes clear, "(t)his legislation does not purport to establish standards for motor vehicles ... to be used entirely outside the United States." (House Report 1776, page 24). Section 108(b)(3) has been implemented by 49 CFR 591.5(c). We believe that, under the facts as described in your letter, it would be appropriate for Solectria to import nonconforming Suzuki Swifts for conversion to electric power pursuant to paragraph 591.5(c). The vehicles have not been imported for use on the American roads, but solely for export following their conversion. We assume that Solectria will label the converted vehicles and their containers, if applicable, in accordance with the regulatory requirement.

If we may help you in any other way, please let us know.

ID: nht93-3.19

DATE: April 26, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Brett J. Higgins

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-25-93 from Brett J. Higgins to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 8493)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of March 25, 1993 to former Chief Counsel Paul Jackson Rice seeking information on how the laws and regulations administered by this agency would apply to an item of equipment you wish to sell. According to your letter, the item is a

special clamp that is applied to the shoulder strap of a seatbelt as an after-market item. The purpose of this clamp is to allow for slack in the shoulder harness section of a seatbelt thus allowing it to be worn more comfortably.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations to you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 ET SEQ.; the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 208, OCCUPANT CRASH PROTECTION (49 CFR S571.208). This standard requires new motor vehicles to be equipped with safety belts and requires that those belts meet specified fit and comfort requirements, as set forth in S7 of the standard. However, Standard No. 208 does not apply to aftermarket items that seek to alter belt fit and/or comfort. Hence, you are not required to certify that this device complies with Standard No. 208 before offering the device for sale.

In addition, you are not required to get some sort of "approval" from this agency before offering this device for sale. NHTSA has no authority to "approve" motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self- certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. As stated above, this device is not subject to any safety standard, so you do not have to make any certification.

Although none of our safety standards directly apply to this device, there are several provisions in the Safety Act that are relevant. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as your belt positioning device are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety.

In addition, use of your product could be affected by section 108 (a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits manufacturer, distributors, dealers, and repair shops from knowingly "rendering inoperative,"

in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. There are two elements of design in a vehicle that might be "rendered inoperative" by the use of your belt positioning device. One is the occupant protection afforded by belts that meet the specified fit and comfort requirements. The other element of design that could be rendered inoperative by the use of your device is the burn resistance required by Standard No. 302, FLAMMABILITY OF INTERIOR MATERIALS (49 CFR S571.302). The materials used in the interior of vehicles, including the seat belts, seat backs and cushions, trim panels, and headliner must comply with the burn resistance requirements of Standard No. 302 to reduce deaths and injuries in the event of a fire in the vehicle's interior. If your device renders inoperative the belt fit and comfort requirements specified in Standard No. 208 or does not comply with burn resistance requirements, it could not be installed in a vehicle by any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair shop.

I note that NHTSA has received a number of inquiries about devices similar to the one you plan to sell. As we have advised others, this agency is concerned that a belted occupant could inadvertently use such products to introduce excessive slack in the upper torso belt and thereby reduce the effectiveness of that belt. We encourage you to provide instructions with the product that warn users not to introduce excessive slack and provide detailed guidance for users on what is an excessive amount of slack.

I have enclosed a general information sheet for new manufacturers that gives a thumbnail sketch of NHTSA's regulations and provides information on how to obtain copies of those regulations.

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

ID: nht93-3.2

DATE: April 14, 1993

FROM: Lanny Kness -- Coach Design Engineer, Chance Coach, Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Interpretation of S5.1 and S5.3.3 of FMVSS 101

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/7/93 from John Womack to Larry Kness (A41; Std. 101; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Chance Coach is a manufacturer of transit buses, and we are soliciting a written interpretation of two parts of FMVSS 101.

First, S5.1 divides specific motor vehicle controls into three categories: hand-operated controls, foot-operated controls, and displays. If a specific control is furnished, then is it required to be operated per the category's operation? For example: the turn signal control would be hand-operated, the service brake would be foot-operated and the highbeam control could be either hand- or foot-operated. Or should S5.1 be interpreted to mean: if a control is furnished and it is operated in this manner (hand- or foot-), then the following sections of S5.2 and S5.3 apply?

Currently, the turn signal controls of transit buses are mounted to the floor. This position has been used in the transit bus industry since FTA (then UMTA) issued the BASELINE ADVANCED DESIGN TRANSIT COACH SPECIFICATION (referred to as the "White Book"). As stated in the White Book, the turn signals are to be foot-operated momentary contact switches. Do foot-operated turn signals meet S5.1 of FMVSS 101?

A second interpretation is required on S5.3.3 of FMVSS 101. In a transit bus, the furnished controls are located on the dash, and they are illuminated by back lighting their identification. A dimmer switch provides illumination of the identifications over a continuous range. Typically, the windshield wiper/washer controls are provided by a vendor, and they are also installed on the dash. The windshield wiper/washer identifications are located on the control knobs, and they are not backlit. At night, the control knob's identifications are barely discernible from the indirect lighting coming from the other identifications and displays, and very discernible by turning the overhead driver's controlled light on. Does this comply with S5.3.3 of FMVSS 101?

Please contact me at (316) 941-1614, if additional information is needed.

Enclosure

Department of Transportation Urban Mass Transportation Administration BASELINE ADVANCED DESIGN TRANSIT COACH SPECIFICATIONS A Guideline Procurement Document for New 35- and 40-Foot Coach Designs November 1978 (pages II-35 through II-37) (TEXT OMITTED)

ID: nht93-3.20

DATE: April 26, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: T. Kouchi -- Director, Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-2-93 from T. Kouchi to Paul Jackson Rice

TEXT: This responds to your letter of April 2, 1993, to Paul Jackson Rice, the former Chief Counsel of this agency.

You refer to Mr. Rice's letter of December 30, 1992, which you interpret as saying that "any device that contains more than three lighted sections, or LEDs, need only comply with the requirements prescribed for three lighted sections." You consider "that the lamps having three lighted sections described in the attached drawing No. 1 & No. 2 need only comply with the photometric requirements prescribed for three lighted sections." You ask "if our idea is appropriate."

We confirm your interpretation with respect to drawing No. 1, which appears essentially the same as covered by Mr. Rice's interpretation. With respect to drawing No. 2, this lamp appears to be composed of a panel of LEDs flanked by two incandescent bulbs. When the LED panel alone is operated, or when it is operated in conjunction with either one or both of the incandescent bulbs the requirements applicable to three lighted sections will apply. However, each bulb is regarded as being a single light source so that if the bulbs are operated individually, only the requirements for single lighted sections apply.

If the bulbs are operated simultaneously to perform the same function, the requirements for two lighted sections apply. However, if the bulbs are operated simultaneously to perform different functions, the single lighted section requirements apply and all other requirements such as contrast ratios (e.g., the 1:5 for tail and stop lamps) must be met.

ID: nht93-3.21

DATE: April 26, 1993

FROM: Donald J. Crane -- ARVIN, Calspan Corporation

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

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-25-93 from John Womack to Donald J. Crane (A41; Std. 207).

TEXT: Recently, a customer of Calspan Corporation inquired whether or not their vehicle was exempt from the test requirements in S4.3.2.2, Acceleration of Standard No. 207; Seating Systems. This test subjects the restraining device to an acceleration of 20 g., in the longitudinal direction opposite to that in which the seat folds. The seat types exempt from this requirement are a passenger seat in a bus or a seat having a back that is adjustable only for the comfort of its occupant.

A summary of the seat types and vehicle type for Calspan's customer are in the following table.

Front Seat (Drv. & Pass.) Rear Seat (Bench Seat)

Seat Back Angle 24 degrees 26 degrees

Reclining Angle * Forward: 39 degrees 30' +/- 3 degrees No

Rearward: 58 degrees +/- 2 degrees

Sliding Distance 220 mm No

Folding Forward No Split Seat Back folded

Vehicle Type 4-Door Sedan

* 24 degrees + 58 degrees = 82 degrees

With this information, can you please provide a written interpretation of S4.3.2.2 of Standard 207. Also, is this a full-flat seat? What would the interpretation be if the vehicle was a 2-door type?

I thank you for your attention and assistance in this inquiry. Please call me at (716)631-6854 if you have any questions.

ID: nht93-3.22

DATE: April 26, 1993

FROM: Shintaro Nakatsuka -- Vice President, Environment & Safety, Mazda (North America), Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Barry Felrice -- Associate Administrator for Rulemaking

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/29/93 from John Womack to Shintaro Nakatsuka (A41; Std. 102; Std. 114)

TEXT:

Mazda, like many other manufacturers, is relying more and more upon the use of electronics in the development of future vehicles. In the course of examining some applications of these technologies, we discovered some ambiguity between the requirements of FMVSS 102 and FMVSS 114. There appears to be an unintended inconsistency between the two regulations.

We believe that it is possible to interpret the provisions of FMVSS 102 along with the provisions of FMVSS 114 so as to eliminate this ambiguity. We are requesting that you consider the possible interpretations discussed herein and advise us whether we are correct.

In 1989, NHTSA amended FMVSS 102 in order to permit the use of electronic gear shift sequence displays. The agency replaced the requirement that the gear shift sequence be PERMANENTLY displayed with a requirement that it be displayed only when the ignition is in a position where the transmission can be shifted or when the transmission is not in park (49CFR102 S3.1.4.1).

In 1991, NHTSA amended FMVSS 114 to accommodate electrical transmission shift lock systems. Here the standard was amended to allow override systems to be incorporated in vehicles that permitted the transmission to be shifted out of park in the case of a power failure. The amendment that was added permits the transmission to be shifted out of park in the case of a power failure provided that the key is removed and the vehicle cannot be steered (49CFR114 S4.2.2(b)(1)). This permits towing when the vehicle is otherwise disabled.

In the course of examining electrical systems for future vehicle programs, we encountered some ambiguity between the two provisions discussed above. There appears to be what can best be described as unintended inconsistency between the two provisions. The agency clearly contemplated power failures and the need to deal with them when it added the override provisions to FMVSS 114. This standard permits the incorporation of features in a vehicle that allows the transmission to be moved out of park, provided first, that the key is not in the ignition so as to prevent vehicle operation, and second, that the vehicle cannot be steered.

These safeguards assure that moving the transmission out of park does not inadvertently present an unsafe situation.

However, when we turn to the requirements of FMVSS 102, that standard does not explicitly address the situation where the transmission has been moved out of park in the case of a power failure (as contemplated under the provisions of FMVSS 114). It is the safeguards that are incorporated in FMVSS 114 that allow a manufacturer to design and sell a vehicle with an electrical shift lock system.

We presume that reading FMVSS 102 alongside FMVSS 114 allows a similar situation with respect to electronic shift sequence displays. We believe that the provisions of S3.1.4.1(b) of FMVSS 102 would not have to be satisfied in a vehicle equipped with an electronic gear shift sequence display were that vehicle to suffer the same power failure that necessitated the application of the shift lock override provision of FMVSS 114, provided that the same safeguards pertained, minimizing any possible safety risk.

An alternative interpretation of this issue may be equally valid. Under this interpretation, we advance the position that the agency never intended that the provisions of FMVSS 102 would apply in situations where a manufacturer elected to use an electronic transmission shift sequence display and there was a power failure.

It is clear that the 1989 amendments were promulgated only to permit manufacturers to offer electronic displays. In amending the regulation to allow those types of displays, the agency clearly recognized that its requirements could not be satisfied under conditions where there was a power failure. Thus, compliance testing was never intended to be conducted in such a situation.

In fact, only where the agency has a particular safety concern in cases where there is a power failure, such as those conditions addressed by FMVSS 114, does NHTSA explicitly establish requirements that apply in such a situation. The absence of any such requirements in FMVSS 102 is a further indication that the standard is not meant to apply when there is no power.

We would appreciate an early response to this request for interpretation. If NHTSA does not believe that there is a suitable interpretation that permits FMVSS 102 to be read consistently with FMVSS 114, we respectfully request that this letter be treated as a petition for rulemaking and that it receive expedited treatment.

Please feel free to contact me or Mr. M. Ishibashi of this office should you have any questions.

ID: nht93-3.23

DATE: April 27, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Raymond S. Byers -- Engineering Manager, Research, Testing, and Certification, Utilimaster Motor Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-1-92 from Raymond S. Byers to Administrator, NHTSA (OCC 8258)

TEXT: This letter responds to your inquiry regarding the alternate placement of a vehicle certification label in your "Aeromate" van. I apologize for the delay in responding.

As you noted in your letter, 49 CFR S567.4 requires that a motor vehicle manufacturer affix a certification label to each vehicle it makes, and permits the manufacturer to place the label in any one of the places listed in that provision. If none of the listed locations is practicable, S567.4 directs the manufacturer to suggest an alternate position for the affixed label, and to request National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) approval for that position.

You explain in your letter that in your "Aeromate" vehicle, the driver's door slides between an inner and outer metal panel, thus making it impossible to affix the label to the hinge pillar, door-latch post, or the door edge that meets the door-latch post. Based on the photographs you included with your letter, affixing the label to the inside of the driver's side door would be unacceptable because, when opened, the door slides between the two metal panels. Thus, when the door is in the open position, the label would be obscured from the view of any observer. You propose installing the label on the inner metal panel in front of the driver's side door opening, to the left of the driver's legs under the instrument panel, and include photographs showing the label affixed to the proposed position. You state, and your photographs appear to confirm, that the location would be visible from the driver's position, and for inspection by officials.

In directing a manufacturer to put its certification label in those places set out in S567.4, NHTSA's purpose is to make these labels easy to see and read. Based on the information you supplied, the agency determines that for this particular vehicle design, installing the certification label as you propose will facilitate seeing and reading the label. On the other hand, placing the label as specified in S567.4 may not be practicable and might interfere with unobstructed viewing of the label. Therefore, on the condition that your company's label complies in all other respects with S567.4, NHTSA grants your request to install the certification label on the inner metal panel in front of the driver's door opening as shown in the photographs that you provided to us.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, feel free to contact David Elias of my office at the above address or by phone, at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht93-3.24

DATE: April 27, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: John B. White -- Industry Standards & Government Regulations, Michelin

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-13-93 from John B. White to General Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 8292)

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to clarify our certification procedures for the information of some of your customers. Specifically, you stated that some customers believe that you are required to test your tires for compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) and the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS), and that this agency then certifies your tires after reviewing and evaluating your test results.

Those impressions are incorrect. All new tires sold in the United States for use on passenger cars must be certified by the manufacturer as complying with FMVSS 109, NEW PNEUMATIC TIRES, found at 49 CFR 571.109, while all new tires sold for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars must be certified as complying with FMVSS 119, NEW PNEUMATIC TIRES FOR VEHICLES OTHER THAN PASSENGER CARS, found at 49 CFR 571.119. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. S1381, ET SEQ. (Safety Act) establishes a self-certification procedure applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment, which includes tires. This means that the tire manufacturer, and not a governmental agency such as NHTSA, certifies that its tires comply with applicable FMVSSs. Each new tire must be certified as meeting the applicable FMVSSs regardless of whether the tire meets an equal or higher standard in another country.

The UTQGS are set forth in 49 CFR 575.104. Those standards do not require certification in the same manner as the FMVSSs. The UTQGS require that manufacturers mold onto or into the sidewalls of their tires the comparative ratings of those tires for treadwear, traction, and temperature resistance for the use and benefit of consumers. Again, that is the manufacturers' responsibility and NHTSA neither reviews nor approves the ratings prior to their assignments by the manufacturers.

Neither the Safety Act nor NHTSA standards and regulations require that a manufacturer base its certifications on any specific tests, any number of specified tests or, for that matter, any tests at all. A manufacturer is only required to exercise due care in certifying its tires. It is the responsibility of each tire manufacturer to determine initially what test results, computer simulations, engineering analyses, or other information it needs to enable it to certify that its tires comply with applicable Federal safety standards. Once a manufacturer has determined that its tires meet all applicable Federal safety standards, it certifies such compliance by molding the letters "DOT" onto at least one sidewall of each certified tire. If manufacturers conduct any tests, they are not required by Federal law or regulation to release their test results to the public.

This agency does not perform any pre-sale testing, approval, or certification

of tires, whether of foreign or domestic manufacture, before introduction into the U.S. retail market. Similarly, NHTSA does not approve or certify manufacturers' test results. Rather, NHTSA randomly tests certified tires to determine whether the tires do, in fact, comply with applicable standards. For such enforcement checks, NHTSA purchases tires "off the shelf" from retail tire dealers and tests those tires according to the procedures specified in the standards. If the tires pass the tests, no further action is taken. If they fail the tests and are determined not to comply with any applicable standard or standards, the manufacturer is responsible for recalling the tires and remedying the noncompliance without charge to the consumer. Government compliance test results are available to the public upon request from the NHTSA Technical Reference Division (NAD 52), 400 Seventh Street SW, Room 5108, Washington, D.C. 20590; (202) 366-2768.

I hope this information will assist you in clarifying tire certification requirements to the satisfaction of your customers. If you have any further questions or desire further clarification, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-4.36

DATE: August 16, 1992

FROM: Robert N. Moore -- No. 203048, Iowa State Penitentiary

TO: Mr. Curry

TITLE: Re: Safety Act; 15 U.S.C., Section 1381 et seq.; F.M.V.S.S. #208

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/28/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Robert N. Moore (A39; Std. 208)

TEXT:

I'm pleased to make your acquaintance.

This is a request for information, in the form of an official statement from your agency, concerning an interpretation of the above-caption statute and Safety Standard.

Before going further I should inform you that my prison I.D. No., given above, must follow my name on the face of your reply envelope.

The circumstances surrounding this request is a lawsuit I am prosecuting in the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois. That court is in Peoria, and the suit is captioned as MOORE V. GREEN, CV89-4129.

The factual basis of this action concerns my transportation in a law enforcement vehicle which was a regular, passenger van, with modifications to change it into a "paddy wagon" type of vehicle. The defendants admit that the device did not contain any type of occupant restraint system for my safety. I did sustain injury in the vehicle.

I have based one cause of action upon an alleged violation of the Safety Act and F.M.V.S.S. #208. The suit is presently at the discovery stage; and upon my receipt of answers to Interrogatory questions, both parties have informed the Magistrate of the intention to file motions for summary judgment. I am assuming that the defendants will rely as heavily upon the Interrogatory answers as I plan to do.

It thus appears that our first battle will focus upon the question of whether or not I have been bestowed the equivalent of a right or privilege under the Act to have been provided with a seat belt. And following that question, is that right enforceable under the remedial authority of 42 U.S.C., Section 1983, which is the statute I am using to obtain compensation.

Of course I have no idea of the research capabilities of the Asst. State's Attorney who is defending, but I do know that I can find no legal authority, at least in the cases, which addresses the specific question of whether the Act does in fact create a right to have a restraint system; and the related question of whether or not Congress has either allowed, or foreclosed a remedy under Section 1983 to enforce that right.

It is at this point where I think everyone involved would benefit from an expert opinion.

I'm sure you are probably aware of the policy of the federal judiciary to defer to, or to at least consult a government agency's own interpretation of the relevant statutes and regulations in these types of cases.

During my research I've discovered several recent opinions where one of the parties wrote an agency, exactly as I am doing here, for opinions or interpretations of the law bearing upon the issues of those particular actions. The written replies were submitted to those courts and were well received by them. I believe your written opinion could also guide our court when I will be required to conduct an agency interpretation analysis in this case.

In case you are disposed towards providing something to clarify the issue in this case, I can offer the following examples as reference points.

The opinion of GOLDEN STATE TRANSIT CORP. V. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, 110 S.CT. 444, probably frames the entire problem much better than I can explain it.

From the viewpoint of that case, I suppose I could just ask two specific questions to make this an easier task for you:

1. Does the Safety Act, and F.M.V.S.S. #208, create a "binding obligation", as opposed to merely expressing a "congressional preference" as to the inclusion of seat belts in motor vehicles?

2. Do any provisions of the Act, or any regulations show that Congress specifically foreclosed a remedy under Section 1983?

I await your reply.

ID: nht92-4.37

DATE: 08/14/92

FROM: PATTI AUPPERLEE

TO: DEE FUJIDA -- OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10-28-92 FROM PAUL JACKSON RICE TO PATTI AUPPERLEE (STD. 213; A40)

TEXT: My name is Patti Aupperlee. My business partner, Beth Wiswell, and I have invented a product for childrens car seats. We would like to manufacture them and then sell them retail. We want to comply with all government regulations regarding products for front facing car seats for children.

Our product name is COOL COVER and has a patent pending number of 07/684,783. This product is not the same as the current covers on the market. An example is the Diplomat Juvenile Corporation makes an infant car seat cover which is a liner for use when the child is in the car seat and it leaves several areas of the car seat exposed to direct sunlight and heat when the car seat is in a parked and empty car. COOL COVER completely covers the car seat when the child is not in the car seat and it is exposed to direct sunlight. The cover absorbs the heat that builds up in a parked car. The car seat will not be burning hot when it is time to travel with the child. The product also comes with its own specially designed pouch that turns into a comfortable pillow for the childs head. The pillow also acts as a storage area for the cover. The pillow does not interfere with the safety purpose of the car seat, or any of its straps or buckles. The COOL COVER is unique in that it significantly reduces the heat build up on the car seat in a parked car.

I received your name from Dick Jasinski at (202) 366-5298. The Auto Safety Hotline recommended that I speak with him. He mentioned that we need to make sure we are following governmental standards on flame retardants and any intereferance of operation among others that your office would give us the necessary information of standards. I have received a copy of FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 213.

I am enclosing a description of the product, pictures, the materials used, and a sample of those materials. Please advise me of the regulations that apply to our product.

The COOL COVER was created out of concern for the comfort of all children who must ride in a HOT car seat. We are mom's who never thought a car seat could be "dangerous" until one of our children suffered a burn from the contact with a buckle after the car seat had been exposed to the sun in a parked car.

I can be contacted at (407) 478-5850. My address is 5961 St. Barbara St. West Palm Beach, Florida 33415. Thank you for your attention in this matter.

ATTACHMENT OMITTED.)