Mr. David H. Bradley

Canadian Trucking Alliance

Butterworth House

324 Somerset St. West, Suite 100

Ottawa, ON Canada K2P 0J9

Dear Mr. Bradley:

This responds to your letter concerning an aerodynamic device manufactured by Advanced Transit Dynamics, Inc. (ATDynamics) called a boat tail or trailer tail that some of your member motor carriers would like to install on their van trailers to reduce the fuel consumption of their vehicles. (In this letter, we will refer to these aerodynamic devices generally as trailer tails and to the device manufactured by ATDynamics as the ATDynamics TrailerTail.) You state that use of trailer tail technology would help meet a California Air Resources Board regulation that requires all U.S. and Canadian 53-foot van trailers to achieve a 5 percent overall reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2016.

Background

In your letter, you ask for our acceptance of an October 10, 2008 letter from the Director of the Federal Highway Administrations (FHWAs) Office of Freight Management and Operations to ATDynamics, a copy of which you enclosed. (October 10, 2008 letter from Anthony Furst to ATDynamics Andrew Smith.)

In the letter, Mr. Furst discusses FHWA regulation 23 CFR 658.16, Exclusions from length and width determinations. Subsection (b) of 658.16 sets forth exclusions from either the measured length or width of commercial motor vehicles, as applicable, and lists aerodynamic devices in subpart (4).

Mr. Furst states in the letter that FHWA regulation 23 CFR 658.16(b)(4) excludes an aerodynamic device from the measured length of a commercial motor vehicle provided: (1) the device is not capable of carrying cargo; (2) the device does not extend beyond 5 feet of the rear of the vehicle; (3) the device does not obscure tail lamps, turn signals, marker lamps, identification lamps, or safety devices such as hazardous material placards or conspicuity markings; and, (4) the device has neither the strength, rigidity nor mass to damage a vehicle, or injure a passenger in a vehicle that strikes a vehicle so equipped from the rear.

Mr. Furst concludes that FHWA has determined that the ATDynamics TrailerTail meets the conditions of 23 CFR 658.16(b)(4). He states that FHWA--

acknowledges that ATDynamics Trailer Tail was tested by an independent laboratory, KARCO Engineering, and was found to be in compliance with all elements of 23 CFR 658.16(b) (4). Therefore, in accordance with Federal regulations, the ATDynamics Trailer Tail aerodynamic device should be excluded from the length measurements for commercial motor vehicles.

KARCO Engineering determined that the ATDynamics Trailer Tail aerodynamic device Passed all of the conditions listed in the regulation, and FHWA accepts those results.

Mr. Furst also states that FHWA shared the test results with staff from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for review. Mr. Furst states: NHTSA identified a conspicuity marking issue[and] ATDynamics has taken care of the issue in the manner NHTSA recommended.

With that background in mind, in your letter to us you ask for clarification from NHTSA with regard to the process for defining compliance with 23 CFR 658.16(b)(4) on aerodynamic devices. In other words, as we understand your letter, you ask us to confirm that use of the ATDynamics TrailerTail would not violate Federal laws administered by NHTSA.

We note that Transport Canada has also contacted us for our views on trailer tails.

NHTSAs Framework

It would be helpful in answering your question to begin with a discussion of NHTSAs authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, Vehicle Safety Act).

NHTSA is authorized under the Vehicle Safety Act to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applying to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable FMVSSs in effect on the date of manufacture. This agency does not provide approvals of new motor vehicles or of modifications of used vehicles.

NHTSA has exercised its rulemaking authority to establish a number of standards that apply to new trailers. Those standards include FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment (49 CFR 571.108), which requires trailers to have specified systems to provide adequate illumination of the roadway and to improve the conspicuity of the vehicles. Another standard applying to trailers is FMVSS No. 224, Rear impact protection (49 CFR 571.224). Standard No. 224 requires trailers to have rear impact guards to reduce the harm to occupants of light duty vehicles impacting the rear of the trailer. Each new trailer with a trailer tail sold in the U.S. must be certified by its manufacturer as complying with all applicable standards, including FMVSS No. 108 and No. 224.

After the first purchase of a vehicle for purposes other than resale, the Vehicle Safety Act limits modifications that may be made to the vehicle by commercial entities. 49 U.S.C. 30122 states:

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter.

In the case of the motor carriers mentioned in your letter, this provision would prohibit a commercial business from installing a trailer tail on a motor carriers new or used vehicle in a manner that would negatively affect the vehicle's compliance with FMVSS No. 108 or No. 224 or any other safety standard.[1]^, [2]

Discussion

The question posed by your letter is whether installing the ATDynamics TrailerTail on a new or used vehicle would be permitted under NHTSAs regulations.

Unfortunately, we cannot provide a sweeping answer that covers all installations of the ATDynamics TrailerTail. NHTSA assesses the compliance of new vehicles and administers the make inoperative provision of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning new or used vehicles independently from other agencies. We do not approve motor vehicles or processes undertaken by manufacturers.

A possible violation of the FMVSSs or the make inoperative provision is evaluated by NHTSA according to the facts of each particular case. Thus, NHTSA would evaluate, among other matters, the design and construction of a particular ATDynamics TrailerTail, the manner in which the trailer tail was attached, and whether the trailer tail impaired the effectiveness of the trailers lamps and other devices installed pursuant to FMVSS No. 108. We cannot prospectively and categorically affirm that all future uses of the ATDynamics device would be acceptable to this agency.

However, we recognize and appreciate the effort that has been made seeking the agencies input in exploring possible safety issues related to the ATDynamics TrailerTail. In view of those efforts, we make the following observations based on the KARCO Engineering (KE) test.

KE conducted a 35 mile per hour rear offsest crash test for ATDynamics. ATDynamics installed a TrailerTail on a 1991 Pine Trailer. The test vehicle and set-up was prepared by KE. The impacting vehicle was a 1994 Ford Econoline 350 Van. Two Hybrid III 50^th percentile adult male test dummies equipped with head triaxial accelerometers to measure head injury accelerations were placed in the driver and right-front passenger seating positions. KEs report on the test states (Laboratory Test Report, Rear-Mounted Aerodynamic Device, TrailerTail mounted to a 1991 Pine Trailer, Prepared for Advanced Transit Dynamics, Inc., July 22, 2008, KARCO Engineering):

(a) Inspection of pre- and post-test photographic data showed no appreciable deformation of any structural component of the impacting vehicle attributable to the trailer tail (not including glass, plastic lenses, or trim components);

(b) The head injury criterion of neither test dummy exceeded a value of 1,000 as a result of direct contact with the trailer tail; and

(c) There was no evidence from either post-test inspection of the transfer of chalk applied to the test dummies or from still or high speed photography that the trailer tail or any resilient component of the impacting vehicle made contact with any portion of the test dummies as a result of contact of the impacting vehicle with the trailer tail.

In addition, the report indicates that the open geometry of the ATDynamics TrailerTail does not allow it to carry cargo, and that the vehicles lamps and conspicuity markings would meet FMVSS No. 108.

The test data from the KE test indicate that the ATDynamics TrailerTail did not negate the vehicles ability to meet FMVSS No. 224[3] and that the rear impact guard on the vehicle was not made inoperative by the ATDynamic TrailerTail. Thus, there is no basis for NHTSA to conclude at this time that installation of the ATDynamics TrailerTail is prohibited.

Please note that NHTSA is interested in Transport Canadas on-going work evaluating the safety and performance of trailer tails. NHTSA will evaluate the outcome of Canadas research to see if we should undertake further work on trailer tails.

If you have any other questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

O. Kevin Vincent

Chief Counsel

1/24/2011

Arthur J. Killian, Jr.

Hit Concepts Group

P.O. Box 998

Sandusky, Ohio 44870

Dear Mr. Killian:

This responds to your letter requesting an exemption for your invention, a laminated area embedded into the front driver side and passenger side windows to reduce headlight glare from the outside rearview mirrors.

By way of background, NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment.  Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture.

You describe your invention as a laminated area embedded into the front windows on both the driver and passenger sides. You state that the purpose of this invention is to reduce headlight glare from the outside rearview mirrors and that the driver will view the outside rearview mirrors through the laminated area. Based on your description, we assume that glazing embedded with your product might be installed on a new motor vehicle or installed as an aftermarket item.

The following is a description of the relevant portions of the Safety Act and the FMVSSs that might apply to your invention, as well as exemption procedures.

NHTSA has issued FMVSS No. 205, Glazing Materials, which establishes performance and location requirements for glazing materials for use in motor vehicles, including glazing intended for aftermarket replacement. FMVSS No. 205 incorporates an industry standard, the American National Standards Institute American National Standard for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment Operating on Land Highways-Safety Standard (ANSI/SAE Z26.11996). FMVSS No. 205 and ANSI/SAE Z26.11996 include, among other things, specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance and require 70 percent light transmittance in areas of glazing that are requisite for driving visibility. Such areas of glazing include all windows in passenger vehicles.

Your invention would be embedded in glazing used in the front side windows on both the driver and passenger sides. Glazing embedded with the laminated area and intended to be installed in those locations must meet the 70 percent light transmittance requirement of FMVSS No. 205 and ANSI Z26.11996, as well as various other requirements. It appears from your description that the glazing would not meet the 70 percent light transmittance requirement. Specifically, you state, 65-35 to 70-30 light transmittance has gotten rave reviews by consumers who have viewed my after market part. We assume that this means that glazing embedded with your invention would have less than 70 percent light transmittance.

Section 30112 of the Safety Act provides that no person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States any item of new motor vehicle equipment unless the equipment complies with all applicable safety standards and is so certified by its manufacturer. It would be a violation of this section of Federal law for any person to manufacture or sell any glazing material for use in motor vehicles unless the products comply with the applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 205. Further, it would be a violation of Federal law for any person to manufacture or sell a motor vehicle whose glazing does not comply with the performance and location requirements of FMVSS No. 205.

The Safety Act permits vehicle manufacturers to petition for a temporary exemption from an FMVSS in specific limited situations. The procedures for applying for such an exemption can be found at 49 CFR Part 555. Accordingly, if eligible, an automobile manufacturer interested in equipping new motor vehicles with glazing embedded with the laminated area could apply for an exemption under this Part. However, this exemption is not available to equipment manufacturers.

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

Sincerely,

O. Kevin Vincent

Chief Counsel

Ref: Standard No. 205

Dated: 6/22/12

Mr. Michael X. Cammisa

Director, Safety

Global Automakers

1050 K St., N.W., Suite 650

Washington, D.C. 20001

Dear Mr. Cammisa:

This responds to your predecessor organizations (Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, Inc.) request for an interpretation of horn control identification requirements specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 101, Controls and Displays.

As you are aware, in a final rule of August 13, 2009 (74 FR 40760), we amended S5.2.1 of FMVSS No. 101 to read as follows:

S5.2.1 * * * No identification is required for any horn (i.e., audible warning signal) that is activated by a lanyard or by the driver pressing on the center of the face plane of the steering wheel hub; or for a turn signal control that is operated in a plane essentially parallel to the face plane of the steering wheel in its normal driving position and which is located on the left side of the steering column so that it is the control on that side of the column nearest to the steering wheel face plane. However, if identification is provided for a horn control in the center of the face plane of the steering wheel hub, the identifier must meet Table 2 requirements for the horn.

In the preamble to this final rule, NHTSA summarized a question raised by your organization in a comment as follows:

if a manufacturer provides a horn control activated by pressing on the center of the steering wheel and provides a second horn control off center, near the edge of the hub, to identify the supplemental horn control that operates by tilting the plane of the hub whether the second control must met the S5.4.3 requirement for color contrast. (See 74 FR at 40762)

NHTSA understood the AIAM comment as indicating that there would be two separate horn controls on the steering wheel and provided an answer based on that understanding. Subsequently, at a meeting with NHTSA staff[1], it became apparent that your organization was referring to one horn control on the steering wheel, which could be actuated by pressing anywhere on the steering wheel hub. In your follow-up letter to us of January 29, 2011, you state: In fact, the common designs provide a single control for activation, and that single control allows the horn to be activated by pressing anywhere on the steering wheel hub. The clarification that the horn is actuated by pressing anywhere on the steering wheel hub, including the center of the face plane of the steering wheel hub led you to ask the following questions:

1)      Do the horn controls commonly in use today, which activate the horn when any portion of the steering wheel hub is pushed (including the center of the hub), require identification?

In response to your question, I will assume that the steering wheel hub has only one horn control, and the horn controls location includes the center of the face plane of the steering wheel hub. Assuming this is the case, as long as the horn is actuated when the center of the face plane of the steering wheel hub is pressed, the horn control need not be identified.

However, if the steering wheel hub has more than one horn control, our answer in the preamble to the final rule of August 13, 2009, at 74 FR 40762 would apply:

As a result of todays final rule, identification is not required for those horn controls that are placed in the center of the face plane of the steering wheel hub. All other horn controls must meet all FMVSS No. 101 requirements that apply to horns.

2)      May manufacturers voluntarily affix a horn symbol that is embossed, but not color contrasting, to the hubs center or toward the edge of the hub, for horns that are activated by pressing the center of the steering wheel hub?

In the final rule of August 13, 2009, we amended S5.4.3 to read as follows:

S5.4.3 Each identifier used for the identification of a telltale, control or indicator must be in a color that stands out clearly against the background. However, this requirement does not apply to an identifier for a horn control in the center of the face plane of the steering wheel hub.

Thus, the color contrast requirement does not apply to an identifier for a horn control in the center of the face plane of the steering wheel hub. This would be true whether the identifier was placed in the hubs center or toward the edge of the hub.

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

Sincerely,

O. Kevin Vincent

Chief Counsel

ref: Std. No. 101

8/17/2011

Ms. Fiona Murphy

New Product Development Manager

L.M. INNOV8s 4-7 Steeple Industrial Estate

Antrim, County Antrim

N. Ireland, BT41 1AB

Dear Ms. Murphy:

This responds to your letter asking about the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release, to your product, the Firefly, which you describe as an emergency window breaker device for buses and coaches.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, Safety Act) to issue and enforce safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured for sale, sold, offered for sale or imported into the United States of America. Unlike the case in many countries, NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Thus, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet all applicable standards. Under the Safety Act, manufacturers also must ensure that their products are free from safety-related defects.

Your letter asks whether your emergency window breaker device meets FMVSS No. 217. Information attached to your letter describes the Firefly, as the only product in the world specifically designed to work on double glazing and it also breaks single glazing and as an alternative to emergency hammers. The Firefly can be retrofitted to windows by permanently fixing into position with an industrial strength adhesive. Graphics you provide show the Firefly placed on the upper left hand corner of a window. The Firefly is operated by pulling down on a cover, exposing a red button. Pushing the exposed red button breaks the glass. Your letter does not explain how the glass is broken.

With this background, I will now address your questions. I am enclosing a copy of FMVSS

No. 217 so that you can better understand our answers.

Question One: You ask whether FMVSS No. 217s window retention requirements restrict the types of glass that can be fitted in buses and coaches.

FMVSS No. 205, Glazing Materials, specifies requirements for glazing material used in all motor vehicles (including buses). The regulation allows laminated, tempered, multiple glazed and rigid plastic materials to be used in bus passenger side windows. The window retention test requirement of FMVSS No. 217 ensures that the glazing and bonding material used in the exit have minimum retention capabilities.

Question Two: Your second question asks whether the emergency exit window must be an open able window, or whether an emergency hammer can be fitted in the vehicle to be used to break the designated emergency exit window on the bus/coach.

The exit must be capable of being opened without an emergency hammer.

FMVSS No. 217 establishes operating forces, opening dimensions, and markings for bus emergency exits, (including emergency exit windows) to provide a means of readily accessible emergency egress. The standard specifies how many and what type of emergency exits must be provided at a minimum, where the exits must be located, and how they must be configured, opened, and identified to occupants.

For buses other than school buses, S5.3.1 states that each emergency exit shall be releasable by operating one or two mechanisms located within certain regions specified in the standard. S5.3.2 requires that each emergency exit shall allow manual release of the exit using certain force applications. S5.3.2 further states

Each exit shall have not more than two release mechanisms. In the case of exits with one release mechanism, the mechanism shall require two force applications to release the exit. In the case of exits with two release mechanisms, each mechanism shall require one force application to release the exit. At least one of the force applications for each exit shall differ from the direction of the initial motion to open the exit by not less than 90 degrees and no more than 180 degrees.

As you can see from these requirements, FMVSS No. 217 requires emergency exit windows to be releasable by release mechanisms. An emergency hammer is not considered a release mechanism of the exit. Among other concerns, the hammer might not be present when the occupant has to release the emergency exit, and the force needed to hammer open an exit might be excessive for some occupants.

With regard to the Firefly, it does not appear that a bus with the Firefly would meet FMVSS

No. 217 requirements. Even if we were to consider the Fireflys breaking of the glass as releasing the exit and the red button as the release mechanism, it appears that the number and type of force applications needed to release the emergency exit do not meet the standards requirements. Your website www.fireflysafety.com (Frequently Asked Questions) indicates that a pin must be removed from the red button to trigger the Firefly. FMVSS No. 217 does not permit complex motions to activate a release mechanism, such as those involved in removing a pin. We also note that a companion requirement in FMVSS No. 217 that applies to school buses

(see S5.3.3.2) states: Each release mechanism shall operate without the use of remote controls or tools. We would consider a pin to be a tool, and a release mechanism that is dependent on the removal of the pin would not meet S5.3.3.2.

Even if a pin were not part of the design, the mechanism must have two force applications to release the exit. The Firefly does not appear to meet this requirement.

In addition, an emergency exit must be operable for the life of a vehicle. Your website indicates that the Firefly breaks the window glazing by way of an armed firing mechanism that has a life of about ten years. Our understanding is that buses in the U.S. can have a service life of 20 years or longer. An emergency exit that was only operable for some portion of the on-the-road life of the vehicle would raise safety concerns.

If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

O. Kevin Vincent

Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Dated: 7/19/2010

Kerry Harris, Director

Angel 7 Industries, LLC

8111 Mainland Dr., Ste 104-422

San Antonio, TX 78240

Dear Mr. Harris:

This responds to your February 12, 2010 letter asking whether producing motorcycle helmets with built-in rear lighting in colors other than red (e.g., green, blue) violates DOT policy.  The issues raised by your letter are addressed below.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment.  NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment.  Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. 

The following is our interpretation of the Safety Act and relevant FMVSSs based on the description of your helmets and the built-in lighting system.  You indicate that the motorcycle helmets you produce are currently equipped with built-in front and rear lighting to increase rider visibility.  You state that the rear lighting is currently red, but you indicate that you would like to offer lighting in other colors, such as blue or green. 

Motorcycle helmets are regulated items of motor vehicle equipment and are required to comply with FMVSS No. 218, Motorcycle Helmets.  Your motorcycle helmets must meet all of the requirements of FMVSS No. 218, including, but not limited to, the impact attenuation, penetration, and retention system requirements.  Additionally, paragraph S5.5 of FMVSS No. 218 prohibits rigid projections inside the motorcycle helmet shell and also prohibits rigid projections on the outside of the helmet shell, except for those required for operation of essential accessories.  A helmet lighting system is not an essential accessory within the meaning of this phrase.  Accordingly, if a helmet lighting system creates a rigid projection as described above, the motorcycle helmet would not be in compliance with FMVSS No. 218.

There are no FMVSSs that address a self-contained lighting system that is part of a motorcycle helmet.  However, if the helmet lighting system is wirelessly or otherwise connected to the motorcycle, e.g., powered by the motorcycle electrical system or connected to its lighting circuits, it would be considered to be part of the overall motorcycle lighting and conspicuity package.  It is unclear from your letter whether your helmet lighting system is designed to be connected in any way to the motorcycle.  As explained below, we believe that the system, if it incorporated blue or green lamps, would impair the effectiveness of the required motorcycle lighting equipment, and, accordingly, commercial entities would be prohibited from connecting the device to a motor vehicle.

Under FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, the only permissible colors of light that may be emitted by original required lighting on new vehicles are red, amber, or white.  Accessory lighting equipment (i.e., equipment not required under the standard) is permissible on new vehicles, provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by FMVSS No. 108 (see S5.1.3).  We interpret this as a general prohibition on lamps of colors other than red, amber, or white because of the possibility that non-standard colors could cause confusion in other drivers, thereby diverting their attention from lamps that signal driver intention, such as stop lamps or turn signal lamps.  Regarding the alternative colors mentioned in your letter, the color green could cause confusion with the red or yellow lamps that seek to warn or caution.  Blue is a color that some States reserve for use on emergency vehicles, so drivers unexpectedly encountering blue lamps on other types of vehicles could take potentially inappropriate actions.

Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30122, if equipment is installed by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, that equipment, as installed, must not make inoperative any of the required safety equipment.  If an item of equipment impairs the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by FMVSS No. 108, we consider the installation of such equipment to have rendered the required lighting systems partially inoperative.  Accordingly, because a helmet equipped with a lighting system consisting of blue or green lights would impair the effectiveness of required motorcycle lighting systems, Section 30122 would prohibit a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from connecting the device to a new or used motor vehicle.  Another potential impairment issue would be if the connection to the motorcycle adversely affected the performance of the lamps on the motorcycle, e.g., by reducing the candela of required lamps so that they did not meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 108.

If a helmet lighting system is not connected to the vehicle, the make inoperative prohibition in Section 30122 would not apply.  However, the safety concerns about different colored lights would still be relevant.  Moreover, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles or motor vehicle equipment.

In addition to the Federal provisions outlined above, individual States may regulate your product.  We suggest that you contact State agencies to ascertain the legal status of your motorcycle helmets with regard to State regulation.

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

Sincerely,

                                                                                    O. Kevin Vincent

                                                                                    Chief Counsel

Ref: Standard Nos. 108 and 218

Dated: 6/22/12

Ms. Sara Hansen

RS Hansen Enterprises

N5804 Albany N

Mondovi, WI 54755-9608

Dear Ms. Hansen:

This responds to your letter asking whether a German motorcycle child seat for scooters or motorcycles is regulated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). You ask about the laws and regulations that would apply to this product.

By way of background, NHTSA is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, Safety Act) to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured for sale, sold, offered for sale or imported into the United States of America. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet all applicable standards. Under the Safety Act, manufacturers also must ensure that their products are free from safety-related defects. The term manufacturer includes not only persons who manufacture or assemble vehicles and equipment, but also persons who import them for sale in the U.S.

In your brief letter, you state that you would like to import the child seat. You attached a two-page instruction pamphlet produced by the child seat manufacturer. The instructions indicate that the child seat is fitted over the scooter or motorcycle seats back or sides, or is placed on top of the seat. It has a retaining strap that attaches the child seat to the vehicle seat. One strap attaches to the seat cushion, another strap attaches forward of the child seat to prevent the child seat from slipping backwards, and other straps loop around the scooters or motorcycles rack or bar behind the child seat. The child seat has no safety belts for the child. The instructions state: 1. Place the child in the child seat so that his/her back is flat against the backrest. 2. Place the feet in the footrests. 3. The driver then sits back on the vehicle seat until his/her behind is touching the child. This will prevent the child from sliding forwards.

The following is our interpretation based on the information you provided.

While the device you ask about is considered an item of motor vehicle equipment under the Safety Act, it is not subject to any FMVSS. NHTSA issued FMVSS No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, which applies to the manufacture and sale of new child restraint systems. Child restraint system is defined in S4 of the standard to mean any device, except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children

who weigh 30 kilograms (kg) or less. FMVSS No. 213 was not intended to apply to seats for motorcycles. Its requirements were developed and drafted with the intention that they apply to restraint devices used in the interiors of vehicle types like passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles.

Further, the device you describe is designed to seat children who weigh 30 kg (65 pounds) or less, but the seat is not designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft. (Emphasis added.)

Since the item of equipment is not a child restraint system regulated by FMVSS No. 213, the manufacturer would be prohibited from making any statements stating or implying that the seat is certified as meeting FMVSS No. 213. Under the Safety Act, an importer is a manufacturer. Accordingly, you would be prohibited from stating that the device meets FMVSS No. 213 or labeling the device as meeting the standard.

You should also be aware of several other matters.

As noted above, the Safety Act imposes responsibilities on manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment regarding safety-related defects. Manufacturers are responsible for ensuring that the vehicles and equipment they manufacture are free from safety-related defects and can perform their intended function safely. If the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer is obligated under the Safety Act to notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem free of charge.

Note that individual States are responsible for setting requirements for the operation of vehicles in their jurisdictions, including requirements for restraining and otherwise transporting children. We suggest you check State law as to whether the equipment item you described would be permitted to be used in the various States.

Finally, in addition to the provisions discussed above, there is a possibility of liability in tort should your device prove to be unsafe in operation. You may wish to consult a local lawyer concerning liability in tort.

We would like to take this opportunity to highlight the following about transporting children on motorcycles. There is a significantly greater risk of death and injury to motorcycle riders and passengers than that to occupants of passenger cars. The fatality rate per vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in a motorcycle is 39 times greater than that in a passenger car, and the injury rate per VMT in a motorcycle is 8 times greater than that in a passenger car. In 2008, the fatality rate per 100 million VMT was 36.52 in a motorcycle, compared to 0.92 in a passenger car. Similarly, the injury rate per 100 million VMT was 663 in a motorcycle, compared to 83 in a passenger car. These data show that children are much safer transported in cars than on motorcycles.

We are interested in reviewing any data you have on how the motorcycle child seat has performed in the field, such as data showing whether the device has had a bearing on the incidents, extent or nature of injuries and fatalities to child passengers on motorcycles. Please send the information to NHTSAs Office of Crashworthiness Standards, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, Washington, D.C. 20590.

If you have further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

O. Kevin Vincent

Chief Counsel

11/19/2010

Mr. Tracy Risner

The C. E. White Co.

7272 Boundary Road

P.O. Box 308

New Washington, OH 44854-0308

Dear Mr. Risner:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of whether C.E. Whites proposed seat back and seat back barrier configurations would meet minimum area requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection. The answer is yes.

As you know, NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. This opinion is based on our understanding of the facts presented in your letter.

Description of C.E. Whites Seat Back and Barrier

You ask about a school bus barrier (shown as B1 in the sketch you enclosed) that has an inward taper as it extends vertically. You state that the barrier meets the area requirement of S5.1.2 of FMVSS No. 222. The school bus seat immediately rearward of the barrier (S1 in your sketch) has no inward taper as it extends vertically. You state that the height of both the seat back and the barrier are 610 millimeters (24 inches) above the seating reference point, as required by FMVSS No. 222. However, with the tapered edges, the barrier does not coincide 100 percent with the seat back in the front projected view.

Discussion

The requirements for restraining barrier surface area are found in S5.2.2 of FMVSS No. 222. That section states:

S5.2.2 Barrier height, position, and rear surface area. The position and rear surface area of the restraining barrier shall be such that, in a front projected view of the bus, each point of the barriers perimeter coincides with or lies outside of the perimeter of the minimum seat back area required by S5.1.2 for the seat immediately rearward of the restraining barrier. (Emphasis added.)

NHTSA answered your question in an August 11, 1987 letter to Mr. Larry Wort (copy enclosed). In that letter, we explained that a restraining barrier must only coincide with or lie outside of the seat back surface required by S5.1.2 of FMVSS No. 222. If a seat back surface exceeds the size required in Standard 222, the size of the restraining barrier need not coincide.

Similarly, in the situation you present, the seat back for the seat immediately rearward of the restraining barrier exceeds the minimum dimensions specified in S5.1.2 of FMVSS No. 222. It is acceptable to us that barrier B1 does not coincide with the perimeter of seat back S1 in this situation, as long as B1 provides rear surface area equal to the minimum area specified for seat back S1 in S5.1.2.

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

Sincerely yours,

O. Kevin Vincent

Chief Counsel

Enclosure

11/19/2010

Mr. Matt Miller

DMJ Corporation

P.O. Box 299

Hamel, MN 55304-0299

Dear Mr. Miller:

This responds to your letter asking whether DMJ Corporation (DMJ) would be considered a brake hose assembly manufacturer subject to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 106, Brake Hoses (49 CFR 571.106), if it assembles brake hose and end fittings for its own use. The answer is no.

In your letter, you explain that DMJ owns trucks and trailers. You wish to know whether, when the brake hoses on those vehicles must be replaced, they can be replaced by brake hose assemblies manufactured by DMJ itself. You plan to take rubber hose and end fittings manufactured by other companies and completing them into brake hose assemblies for use on your vehicles. You provided printouts (from what appears to be www.Gates.com) of air brake hose and air brake end fittings that you are considering using.

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to issue and enforce the FMVSSs for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects.

NHTSA has issued FMVSS No. 106 specifying labeling and performance requirements for motor vehicle brake hose, brake hose assemblies, and brake hose end fittings. In response to your question, brake hose assembly is defined in S3 of FMVSS No. 106 as follows:

Brake hose assembly means a brake hose, with or without armor, equipped with end fittings for use in a brake system, but does not include an air or vacuum assembly prepared by the owner or operator of a used vehicle, by his employee, or by a repair facility, for installation in that used vehicle.

Based on the information you provided, we understand that DMJ will be preparing air brake hose assemblies for installation in its used vehicles. You have advised us that you are making the air brake hose assemblies only to replace hose on trucks and trailers owned by DMJ.

Thus, the definition of brake hose assembly would not include DMJs assemblage of the hose and end fitting. DMJ would thus not be considered a brake hose assembler and would not have to meet FMVSS No. 106 requirements for air brake hose assemblies at S7.2.3.

Note that the assemblies you manufacture are considered motor vehicle equipment under the Safety Act. Manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects.

In addition, if DMJs trucks and trailers are commercial motor vehicles, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) and appropriate State Department of Transportation agencies may have requirements for your brake hose assemblies. For information about FMCSA requirements, please contact that agency at: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, 20590, telephone 1-800-832-5660, www.fmcsa.dot.gov.

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

Sincerely yours,

O. Kevin Vincent

Chief Counsel

Dated: 6/24/2010

Jay Joseph, Senior Manager

Product Regulatory Office

American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

1919 Torrance Boulevard

Torrance, CA 90501-2746

Dear Mr. Joseph:

This responds to your letter asking whether your method of presenting the designated seated capacity of a vehicle meets a labeling requirement in S4.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110.[1] Our answer is yes.

S4.3 of the standard requires each vehicle to show certain information, specified in S4.3(a) through (g) of the standard, on a placard permanently affixed to the vehicle at a specified location. Your question pertains to the information specified by S4.3(b). That section states:

(b) Designated seated capacity (expressed in terms of total number of occupants and number of occupants for each front and rear seat location)[.]

In addition, among other things S4.3 states: This information shall be in the English language and conform in color and format, not including the border surrounding the entire placard, as shown in the example set forth in Figure 1 in this standard. Figure 1 of the standard shows that for SEATING CAPACITY, the terms set forth on the depicted label are: TOTAL, FRONT, AND REAR.

Hondas Placard

You ask about the placard from a Model Year 2010 Odyssey LX, which has one front row and two rear rows. For this vehicle, the placard sets forth SEATING CAPACITY information for the TOTAL capacity, and for the FRONT, SECOND, and THIRD rows. Unlike the example placard shown in Figure 1 of the standard, your placard for this vehicle does not provide a single number for rear seats.

The question you present is whether presenting the seating capacity information for the second and third rows in the vehicle, rather than for the entire rear, meets S4.3 of FMVSS

No. 110.

You believe that presenting the Odysseys rear seating capacity information by rows meets S4.3(b) and is the most beneficial method of providing this information to consumers due to variations in rear seating capacity and configuration among a vehicles models and trim levels. You explain that a vehicle such as the Honda Odyssey minivan has different trim levels, including LX, EX, EX-L, and Touring models. The LX model has a seating capacity of 7 occupants, with two designated seating positions each in the front and second rows, and three in the third row. The EX, EX-L, and Touring models are configured for 8 occupants, two in the front row and three designated seating positions each in the second and third rows. You believe that providing the maximum seating capacity per row of seating gives the consumer valuable information about the safe operation of the vehicle.

Response

Our response is that your method of providing the vehicles designated seated capacity, expressing the number of occupants for each of the two rear rows rather than for the entire rear, meets S4.3.

Under S4.3(b), the placard must provide the designated seated capacity, expressed in terms of total number of occupants and number of occupants for each front and rear seat location. We believe that the Odysseys placard, specifying the seating capacity for each row of seats, satisfies the requirement to express the vehicles designated seating capacity in terms of the number of occupants for each front and rear seat location. In this instance, specifying the number of seats in each rear row will help a consumer determine whether the second row of seats has either two or three designated seating position depending on the vehicles trim level.

We recognize that in a preamble responding to a petition for reconsideration, NHTSA interpreted S4.3(b) as not permitting the placard to indicate the rear seating capacity by row.[2] The agency sought to limit information that could overcrowd the placards rich content. For example, a vehicle with many rows of seating would make the placard difficult to read if it had text describing the vehicles seating capacity for individual rows. However, with regard to the Odysseys placard, we believe that your manner of expressing the number of occupants for each rear row expresses the number of occupants for each rear seat location, in accordance with S4.3(b).

Further, the sample Odyssey placard you provide in your letter shows the information for the seating capacity in a single line of legible text. This is important because S4.3 of FMVSS No. 110 states that This information [set forth in S4.3(a) through (g)] shall be in the English language and conform in color and format, not including the border surrounding the entire placard, as shown in the example set forth in Figure 1 in this standard. We believe format as used in this context refers to features such as the size, shape, layout and arrangement of the information. Your placard appears to preserve the format and relative size of the information shown in the example placard shown in Figure 1. The rear capacity of the Odyssey is shown in a single line of text in the location where Figure 1 shows the REAR capacity. We conclude that your placards seating capacity information conforms to the format provided in Figure 1.

If you have any further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

O. Kevin Vincent

Chief Counsel

5/31/2011

Tom Stricker

Director-Corporate Manager

Toyota Motor North America, Inc.

Suite 910 South

601 13^th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005

Dear Mr. Stricker:

This responds to your letter dated June 10, 2010 concerning the definition of the term transfer, as used in relation to Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) credits. You asked several questions relating to the revision to the definition of transfer in the April 2010 final rule establishing CAFE standards for model years 2012-2016.

By way of background, credits are earned by automobile manufacturers for over-compliance with passenger car and light truck CAFE standards, and may be used by the manufacturer to make up shortfalls in different model years and different compliance categories, subject to certain statutory and regulatory constraints, and may also be provided to or acquired from other manufacturers. Manufacturers have been able to carry-forward[1] and carry-back[2] CAFE credits since the early 1980s, but NHTSA only gained authority to permit credit trading and transferring as part of the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007.[3]

NHTSA established 49 CFR Part 536 in 2009 to implement a program pursuant to this authority, and defined credit transfer as

the application by a manufacturer of credits earned by that manufacturer in one compliance category [domestic passenger cars, imported passenger cars, light trucks] or credits acquired by trade (and originally earned by another manufacturer in that category) to achieve compliance with fuel economy standards with respect to a different compliance category. For example, a manufacturer may purchase light truck credits from another manufacturer, and transfer them to achieve compliance in the manufacturers domestically manufactured passenger car fleet.[4]

As a way to improve the transferring flexibility mechanism for manufacturers, as part of the rulemaking establishing CAFE standards for MYs 2012-2016, NHTSA clarified its interpretation of EISA, saying that EISA allowed the banking of credits for use in later model years. The agency amended the definition of transfer accordingly. Specifically, we added the following sentence to the end of the above definition of transfer:

Subject to the credit transfer limitations of 49 U.S.C. 32903(g)(3), credits can also be transferred across compliance categories and banked or saved in that category to be carried forward or backward later to address a credit shortfall.[5]

You have asked several questions with regard to this revision to the definition of credit transfer, which we will answer in turn below.

1.      Does the revised definition apply to MY 2011 and later credits, and may such credits be transferred across compliance categories in the same or later model year and banked or saved in that compliance category, subject to the limitations specified by 49 U.S.C. 32903(g)(3) and the adjustment factor specified at 49 CFR 536.4(c)?

Answer: Yes, this is correct. We note that credits are not adjusted until they are actually used for compliance purposes. See 49 CFR 536.4(c) and 536.5(d)(5).

2.      Once transferred, are such credits considered to be credits within the compliance category to which they were transferred, and may they be applied without further adjustment, in the same manner as a credit that was generated as a result of over-compliance in that compliance category?

Answer: No, this is incorrect. 49 CFR 536.4(c) states clearly that the adjustment factor is applied to credits when traded or transferred and used, and 536.5(d)(5) similarly states that the value of traded or transferred credits is adjusted when used for compliance. (Emphasis added.) Thus, when credits are transferred and banked, they are simply stored in the compliance category to which they are transferred, but they retain their original character and value until they are used for compliance, at which time they are adjusted.

3.      Does 49 U.S.C. 32903(g)(3) limit the credits that can be transferred into a compliance category in a given model year?

Answer: 49 U.S.C. 32903(g)(3) limits the maximum CAFE increase in any compliance category attributable to the application of credits earned in a different compliance category to 1.0 mpg for model years 2011-2013; to 1.5 mpg for model years 2014-2017; and to 2.0 for model years 2018 and beyond. The statute does not limit how many credits may be transferred in a given model year, rather it limits the application of transferred credits to improve fuel economy in a compliance category. Thus, manufacturers may transfer as many credits into a compliance category as they wish, but transferred credits may not increase a manufacturers CAFE level beyond the statutory limits.

4.      Given the transfer cap in 32903(g)(3), is there a limit on how many credits can be transferred out of a compliance category in a given model year, or a limit on transferring credits from one compliance category to multiple compliance categories in the same model year or across model years, as long as the transfer cap in 32903(g)(3) and the adjustment factor in 49 CFR 536.4(c) are not violated?

Answer: Again, manufacturers may transfer as many credits out of a compliance category to either of the other compliance categories as they wish, but transferred credits may not increase a manufacturers CAFE level beyond the statutory limits. Furthermore, the adjustment factor is only relevant when the transferred credits are used for compliance; they are not applied at time of transfer.

5.      Is the expiry date of transferred credits established by the model year in which such credits are originally earned, regardless of the model year or compliance category to which they are transferred?

Answer: Yes, this is correct. Please see the definitions for credits and expiry date in 49 CFR 536.3.

6.      When a compliance category has a shortfall in a given model year, is there any restriction on the order in which available banked credits and available transfer credits must be applied? E.g., could a manufacturer meet a shortfall by carrying forward available credits banked in that compliance category, and then transfer additional credits into that compliance category to be banked or saved, subject to the limitations of 32903(g)(3) and the adjustment factor in 49 CFR 536.4(c)?

Answer: Your example is correct. Part 536 is intended to give manufacturers maximum flexibility to apply credits in the manner that they deem most appropriate, thus there is no restriction on the order in which available banked credits and available transferred credits can be applied to a shortfall. As long as the credit transfer cap of 32903(g)(3) is not violated, and as long as the adjustment factor in 49 CFR 536.4(c) is properly applied when the banked credits are used, the situation described should be permissible.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Rebecca Yoon of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

/s/

O. Kevin Vincent

Chief Counsel

Ref: Part 536

7/6/11