Mr. Perry Speevack

12286 Soaring Flight Drive

Jacksonville, FL 32225

Dear Mr. Speevack:

This is in response to your letter in which you ask about the requirements of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for the Detachable Seat Belt Release Button Protector, an aftermarket product you have developed that would prevent children in booster seats from pressing a vehicles seat belt release button. Based upon the information you provided this agency and as is explained more fully below, we have determined that no Federal motor vehicle safety standard specifically applies to your product. However, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment you have certain responsibilities under our laws.

In your submission, you claimed that the information you provided is privileged, confidential, and protected from disclosure. In a telephone conversation of April 27, 2007 with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you waived your claim to confidential treatment of the information you provided.

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301; Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment or pass on the compliance of a vehicle or item of equipment outside the context of an actual enforcement proceeding. Instead, our statute establishes a self-certification process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on our understanding of the information set forth in your letter.

Description of the Detachable Seat Belt Release Button Protector

Your device is designed to be secured on existing seat belt assembly systems in motor vehicles. You state that the aftermarket detachable prototype of your device consists of an upper section and a lower section. The upper section contains a hinge (similar to a door hinge) that measures two inches by one half inches. One side of the hinge is tacked, using adhesive liquid or tape, to the housing of the vehicle seat belt latch plate. The lower section of your product, consisting of a hook on a strap, is made to adhere to the housing of the seat belt buckle.

To use the product, when the seat belt is buckled, the unattached part of the hinge would be capable of flipping up and down over the seat belt release button. When this unattached part of the hinge is up, you state that the seat belt release button is exposed and the belt can be unfastened from the buckle. When the unattached part of the hinge is down and the seat belt assembly is latched, the unattached part of the hinge forms a cover over the release button. There is a ring on the upper section that the consumer would attach to the hook on the lower section of your product, when the consumer wants to prevent a child from unbuckling the belt. The consumer would attach this hook on the lower section to the one-inch ring on the upper section when the seat belt is buckled, thus keeping the cover closed over and covering the buckle release button.

Discussion

No FMVSS Currently Applies to Your Product

There is currently no Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) that applies to your product. FMVSS No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, sets forth requirements for new seat belt assemblies. Your product does not meet the definition of a seat belt assembly, so the standard would not apply. FMVSS No. 213 Child Restraint Systems, is NHTSAs standard for child restraints. It applies to 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 65 pounds or less (See S4 of FMVSS No. 213.) Since your product would not itself restrain, seat, or position a child, it would not be a child restraint system. Therefore, FMVSS No. 213 would not apply to your product. FMVSS No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, generally does not apply to aftermarket equipment items.

Making Inoperative the Compliance of a Vehicle With FMVSS No. 209

Although we do not have any standards that directly apply to your product, you should be aware that 49 U.S.C. 30122, Making safety devices and elements inoperative could affect its manufacture. That section prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly making inoperative devices or elements of design installed in a motor vehicle or on an item of motor vehicle equipment, such as a vehicle seat belt assembly, in compliance with the FMVSSs. There are several seat belt elements of design that could be affected by your product, which we will discuss below. The make inoperative provision does not apply to individual owners installing aftermarket equipment on their own vehicles. However, it is our policy to encourage vehicle owners not to tamper with or otherwise degrade the safety of safety systems.

Subparagraph (d) Buckle release of S4.3 Requirements for hardware, of FMVSS No. 209 requires the pushbutton release for any buckle on a seat belt to have a minimum area for applying the release force. Subparagraph (d) also requires the buckle to release when a specified maximum force is applied. It appears that, by design, your product would cover the

button and not allow the buckle to release under the amount of force typically required. If your device would interfere with the vehicles compliance with these requirements, commercial establishments cannot legally install your device on customers seat belt assemblies.

Responsibility to Ensure Your Device is Free of Safety-Related Defects

As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are responsible for ensuring that your product is free of safety-related defects (see 49 U.S.C. 30118-30121). The agency does not determine the existence of safety defects in motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment except in the context of a defect proceeding.

Concerns About Degrading the Performance of Vehicle Safety Belts

If you should decide to manufacture the Detachable Seat Belt Release Button Protector, we would urge you to evaluate carefully whether your product would in any way degrade the performance of vehicle safety belts. For example, you should ensure that your product would not interfere with safety belt retraction or release in an emergency, that any adhesive or sharp edges used with your product would not cause deterioration of the safety belt webbing, and that your product would not obscure the information required by FMVSS No. 209 to be labeled on the webbing. Safety belt webbing is designed to have some "give" to help absorb crash forces. If your product were to make the webbing too stiff, it could raise safety concerns. Finally, you should be aware that originally-installed safety belts must meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 302. Again, we would encourage you to evaluate your product against the requirements of these standards to ascertain whether your product would degrade the performance of seat belts.

State Law May Apply

Additionally, the States have the authority to regulate the use of vehicles, and may have restrictions on the use of devices that restrict the release of seat belt buckles. We suggest that you check with your attorney or insurance company about State law considerations.

I have enclosed a brochure for new manufacturers that discusses the basic requirements of our standards and regulations, including the provisions relating to manufacturers' responsibilities to ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects. If you have any further questions please call Ms. Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

Enclosure

d.8/17/07

ref:209#213#302

Ms. Lynn Schultz

SB Solutions LLC

1907 Brooks Ct.

West Bend, WI 53090-1789

Dear Ms. Schultz:

This responds to your letter regarding the disconnection of the front lights on trucks, when using an auxiliary attachment, under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Specifically, you asked whether it would be permissible for a motor vehicle repair business to modify a vehicle with a special plow that includes a set of auxiliary front vehicle lamps. When attached, this plow would disconnect the high and low beam headlights, the turn signals, and the front marker lamps on the truck. As discussed below, it would be acceptable to disconnect these lamps on trucks if the auxiliary lamps on the snow plow met all of the requirements of FMVSS No. 108 for the disconnected lamps.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). 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. NHTSA selects a sampling of new vehicles and equipment each year to determine their compliance with applicable FMVSSs.  If our testing or examination reveals an apparent noncompliance, we may require the manufacturer to remedy the noncompliance, and may initiate an enforcement proceeding if necessary to ensure that the manufacturer takes appropriate action.

A relevant provision of Federal law with respect to equipping a vehicle with a snow plow is 49 U.S.C. 30122(b), which specifies that:

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 unless the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business reasonably believes the vehicle or equipment will not be used (except for testing or a similar purpose during maintenance or repair) when the device or element is inoperative.

Ordinarily, if a motor vehicle repair business disconnected the front lights on trucks, it would be a violation of 30122. However, assuming the plow contains a set of auxiliary lamps that meets all of the requirements of FMVSS No. 108 for the lamps being replaced, it would be permissible to disconnect the lamps in this instance.

As you have not fully described the characteristics of the auxiliary[1] lamps, or the precise nature of the trucks you plan to install this snow plow on, we cannot say whether your specific design would comply with FMVSS No. 108. We note, however, that you state that the auxiliary lights would have the Hi and Lo beam headlamps, turn [signal] lamps, and marker lamps. Standard No. 108 requires headlamps, turn signals, and parking lamps on the front of the vehicle. If the vehicle is over 80 inches wide, clearance and identification lamps are also required on the front of the vehicle. All of these lamps must conform, when installed, to the performance and location requirements set forth in FMVSS No. 108.

Finally, we are enclosing a 1999 letter of interpretation issued by NHTSA to a different manufacturer of auxiliary lamps for use with vehicles on snow plows.[2] This letter explains in some detail the responsibilities and potential liabilities of manufacturers and installers with regard to the installation of these lighting devices, and it is our hope that it assists you with any further questions you may have.

If you have any further questions, please contact Ari Scott of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:108

d.4/29/08

Mr. Gary R. Greib

Manager, Product Investigations and Safety Affairs

Delphi Corporation

5825 Delphi Drive

Troy, MI 48098-2815

Dear Mr. Greib:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 302, Flammability of interior materials. You ask whether your companys Passenger Occupant Detection System (PODS) and certain interior electronics and switches must meet this standard if installed on a new vehicle. Based on the information you provided to the agency and the analysis below, our answer is that any material within 13 millimeters (mm) of and incorporated into a component listed in S4.1 of Standard No. 302 would be subject to that standards flammability requirements. Some, but not all, of the components of the PODS system and interior components you ask about would be subject to the standard.

Delphis Passenger Occupant Detection System (PODS)

You explain that the PODS consists of a silicone filled bladder, Electronic Control Unit (ECU), pressure sensor, and a Belt Tension Sensor (BTS). In the picture of the PODS that you provided with your letter, it appears that the bladder is located directly beneath and in contact with the seat cushion. You further state that the ECU and pressure sensor are attached to the bottom (underside) of the seat pan and/or frame. We assume, based on your picture, that the BTS is connected to the seat belt.

You ask several questions about the applicability of FMVSS No. 302 to the PODS, which we will answer in turn.

1) Does NHTSA consider the PODS bladder to be part of the seat cushion?

Our answer is yes, for the purposes of FMVSS No. 302, and that we would likely consider the PODS bladder subject to the standard. S4.2 of FMVSS No. 302 states that any portion of a single or composite material which is within 13 mm of the occupant compartment air space shall meet the flammability requirements. S4.1 further specifies which portions of materials shall meet the flammability requirements by listing a number of components of vehicle occupant compartments, specifically: seat cushions, seat backs, seat belts, headlining, convertible tops, arm rests, all trim panels including door, front, rear, and side panels, compartment shelves, head restraints, floor coverings, sun visors, curtains, shades, wheel housing covers, engine compartment covers, mattress covers, and any other interior materials including padding and crash-deployed elements, that are designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash. Thus, for example, an intact seat cushion would not be tested for flammability, but rather a section including the surface of the seat cushion exposed to the occupant compartment air space and all the material within 13 mm of that surface.

NHTSA has long interpreted these provisions to mean that a material is subject to FMVSS No. 302s flammability requirements if it is within 13 millimeters of a surface of a component listed in S4.1 and is incorporated into the listed component. Examples of incorporated components include a cable harness permanently attached to a seat cushion or seat back by electronic cables built into the seats internal foam,[1] an air bladder that is attached to a mattress cover,[2] and other materials that are intimately joined with a listed material.[3] It appears from the pictures you sent that the PODS bladder is incorporated into the seat cushion. Therefore, if any portion of the PODS bladder is within 13 mm of a surface of the seat cushion exposed to the occupant compartment air space, and it appears from the pictures you sent that a portion would be, we would consider that portion of the PODS subject to FMVSS No. 302s testing requirements.

2) Are PODS components (ECU and pressure sensor) that are attached to the bottom (underside) of the seat pan and/or frame considered part of the seat cushion?

It does not appear from your pictures that the ECU and pressure sensor are within 13 mm of a surface of a listed component or incorporated into a listed component. Therefore, we would likely not consider the ECU and pressure sensor to be subject to FMVSS No. 302. However, we cannot make a conclusive interpretation without more precise information.

3) Is the area/space underneath the seat considered part of the occupant compartment airspace?

Yes, we would consider this area to be part of the occupant compartment airspace, because it normally contains refreshable air.

4) Are components within that space required to meet FMVSS302?

If they are components listed in S4.1, or if they are within 13 mm of a surface of and incorporated into such components, they would be subject to FMVSS No. 302.

Delphis Interior Electronics and Switch Components

Your letter also described certain Delphi electronics and switches that are exposed to the occupant compartment airspace. You stated that they are not specifically called out in Section 4.1 and are not designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash. You asked that we confirm that these types of electronics and switches are excluded from the FMVSS302 requirement. As discussed below, some of these electronics and switches would be subject to the standard.

1) Interior display monitors

The picture included with your letter for this question shows the interior of a vehicle from the rear, looking toward the front. Interior display monitors are depicted installed in the front dash, in both head restraints for the front seats, and in the vehicle ceiling (a drop- or fold-down monitor). As discussed above, if the monitor is within 13 millimeters of and incorporated into a listed component, we would consider it subject to FMVSS No. 302s flammability requirements. Head restraints and the front dash[4] are components subject to the standard. Based on your picture, it would therefore appear that display monitors embedded in head restraints and the front dash are subject to the flammability requirements, but drop-down monitors or those installed in the ceiling would not be.

2) Door trim mounted switches

The picture included for this question shows what appears to be the front drivers side door viewed from inside the vehicle, and depicts the door trim with embedded door release handle and various mounted switches. We would consider the switches to be incorporated into the door trim; therefore, if they are within 13 mm of the door trim surface, which they appear to be, we would consider them subject to the flammability requirements.

3) Steering wheel mounted switches

The picture included for this question shows a close-up view of the front surface of a steering wheel, and depicts several switches embedded in the center panel of the steering wheel, close to the outer curved section. Because a steering wheel is designed to include padding elements that absorb energy in the event of a crash, we would consider switches mounted in it to be subject to FMVSS No. 302s flammability requirements.

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

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:302

d.10/19/07

Ms. Julie Laplante

Les Entreprises Michel Corbeil, Inc.

830, 12 ime Avenue

Saint-Lin-Laurentides (Qubec) J5M 2V9

CANADA

Dear Ms. Laplante:

This responds to your letter asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release. You ask for guidance whether Corbeil should follow the school bus floor plan of a potential customer, and place a wheelchair securement position in front of an emergency exit window.

We believe that school buses should not have a wheelchair anchorage position placed in a position that blocks an emergency exit. However, the exit you ask about is not a mandatory school bus emergency exit.

Background

In your letter, you state that a client wishes to purchase a new school bus with one emergency exit window on each side. A floor plan provided with your letter shows that the school bus is designed to have four wheelchair anchorage positions and two seat benches, both of which are 36 inches in length. You state that on the right hand side of the bus, there are only wheelchair positions (two wheelchair anchorage positions), so a wheelchair or wheelchair and passenger tiedowns must be placed in front of an emergency exit. You further state that neither FMVSS No. 217 nor State law requires the side emergency exit windows. You wish to know whether to agree with your clients request to place a wheelchair anchorage position in front of an emergency exit window, with the DO NOT BLOCK label.

The Emergency Exit Windows Are Beyond What Is Required

In response, I note that the seating capacity of the school bus at issue is fewer than 45 passengers because there are four wheelchair positions[1] plus two benches. Thus, no additional emergency exit beyond the rear emergency exit door is required. (See S5.2.3.1(a) and (b).) Any emergency exit windows provided on the school bus at issue would therefore be considered voluntarily provided.

Our longstanding interpretation of FMVSS No. 217 with regard to labeling requirements for voluntarily provided emergency exits in school buses can be found in an interpretation letter of July 6, 1979 to Mr. Robert B. Kurre (copy enclosed). In that letter, NHTSA stated that exits installed in school buses beyond those required by S5.2.3.1 need not comply with the exit requirements applicable to school bus exits. Instead, NHTSA interpreted the standard as requiring all additional exits to meet the requirement in the standard applicable to non-school buses.

Thus, for the school bus you ask about, any side emergency exit window provided need not be marked DO NOT BLOCK. However, if side emergency exit windows are provided, they must be marked in accordance with S5.5.1 of FMVSS No. 217, which requires the designation Emergency Exit followed by concise operating instructions describing each motion necessary to unlatch and open the exit, located within 16 centimeters of the release mechanism. In addition, S5.5.1 states that when a release mechanism is not located within an occupant space of an adjacent seat, a label meeting the requirements of S5.5.2 that indicates the location of the nearest release mechanism shall be placed within the occupant space.

If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Please note that our address has changed. Our new address is: Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Mail Code: W41-227, Washington, DC 20590.

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:217

d.7/24/07

Mr. Brian Latouf

Director, Safety Regulations & Consumer Information

General Motors North America

Mail Code: 480 111 E18

30200 Mound Road

Warren, MI 48090-9010

Dear Mr. Latouf:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 126, Electronic Stability Control Systems. You asked that we confirm your interpretations of four different aspects of the new electronic stability control (ESC) systems rule. Based on the information you provided and our analysis below, we generally agree with your suggested interpretations. Our analysis is divided into four parts as per your questions.

Whether ESC must operate during the ESC sensor initialization period

You first asked us to confirm that FMVSS 126 does not require ESC to be operational during the ESC sensor initialization period. You noted that subparagraph (6) of the definition of ESC and S5.1.2 of FMVSS No. 126 both indicate that ESC systems must be operational at vehicle speeds of 15 km/h and above. However, you argued that different vehicles and ESC systems have different diagnostic and sensor initialization periods, requiring different inputs, after the vehicle is first started, and that it is possible that on some vehicles sensor initialization might not be completed before the vehicle speed reaches 15 km/h. Therefore, you asked that we confirm that the 15 km/h operational requirement prescribed in the definition of ESC and in S5.1.2 applies after the system diagnostic and sensor initialization is completed.

We are able to confirm your interpretation that the 15 km/h low speed threshold prescribed in the definition of ESC and in S5.1.2 applies after the system diagnostic and sensor initialization is completed. We recognize that an ESC system may not be fully operational until after it completes system diagnostic and sensor initialization. While not directly applicable to the 15 km/h operational requirement, we note that it was in recognition of the fact that ESC systems may require a diagnostic and sensor initialization period that we included a diagnostic procedure in S7.10.2 of FMVSS No. 126, as part of the test procedure for evaluating the ESC systems ability to detect malfunctions. An ESC system may not be able to detect a malfunction, or the absence of a malfunction, if it is not yet fully operational, so we included this diagnostic and initialization procedure as part of that test procedure.

Whether compliance with the requirements prescribed in S5.3 and its subparagraphs is determined by testing the vehicle in accordance with S7.10

You next asked us to confirm that the performance requirements of S5.3 of FMVSS No. 126 apply specifically when evaluated according to the procedures of S7.10. You specifically asked about S5.3.3. That paragraph states, in relevant part, that the ESC malfunction telltale must illuminate only when a malfunction(s) exists and must remain continuously illuminated under the conditions specified in S5.3 for as long as the malfunction(s) exists, whenever the ignition locking system is in the On (Run) position. S7.10, which provides a procedure for testing the malfunction telltale, states that the telltale is to illuminate within two minutes of obtaining a specified speed (S7.10.2). You argued that While a possible reading of S5.3.3 is that it requires the malfunction telltale to illuminate instantaneously with the occurrence of the fault, this is neither practicable nor consistent with the test procedure specified in S7.10.

We note that the introductory paragraph of S5, Requirements, states that each vehicle must be equipped with an ESC system that meets the requirements specified in S5 under the test conditions specified in S6 and the test procedures specified in S7 of this standard. Thus, as a general matter, compliance with the requirements prescribed in S5 (of which S5.3 is a part) is evaluated under the test procedures specified in S7 (of which S7.10 is a part).

In terms of providing an interpretation, we will limit our interpretation to the specific issue you asked about, whether S5.3.3 has the effect of requiring the ESC malfunction telltale to illuminate instantaneously with the occurrence with the fault. The answer is no. We recognize that it may not be practicable for a malfunction telltale to illuminate instantaneously with the occurrence of a fault. As you noted, S7.10 provides a test procedure for evaluating ESC malfunction detection. After one or more malfunctions is simulated, a vehicle is subjected to a specified driving protocol. See S7.10.2.[1] Under the procedure, verification is made that the telltale is illuminated within two minutes of the vehicle obtaining a specified speed. This procedure accommodates the need for system diagnostic and sensor initialization (discussed above) and the fact that a malfunction telltale may not illuminate instantaneously with the occurrence of a fault.

Whether FMVSS No. 126 allows the same test protocol to clear ESC faults (and extinguish the malfunction telltale) as that which is specified to detect ESC faults (and illuminate the malfunction telltale)

You next asked us to confirm that the driving protocol of S7.10.2 is permissible for purposes of verifying that the ESC malfunction has been cleared under S7.10.4, which does not contain any specific protocol. You argued that As ESC systems are generally designed, the diagnostic procedures required to detect a fault (e.g., vehicle speed, steering-wheel inputs, etc.) are also required to determine that the fault has been cleared. Thus, not all ESC systems would necessarily be able to clear a fault just by restarting the vehicle, without any diagnostic procedures.

We recognize that just as a diagnostic procedure may be necessary for an ESC system to detect a fault, it may also be necessary to determine that the fault has been cleared. The lack of an identical driving protocol in S7.10.4 was an oversight. We expect to correct this in a forthcoming response to petitions for reconsideration to the ESC final rule. In the meantime, in testing a vehicle under S7.10.4, we would subject a vehicle to the S7.10.2 driving protocol if the telltale is not already extinguished after the engine has been started.

Whether FMVSS No. 126 permits the use of multi-mode ESC controls

You finally asked us to confirm that multi-mode controls are permitted under S5.4 of FMVSS No. 126. You argued that most vehicles are designed with multi-mode controls, which you described as potentially involv[ing] one activation to disable the vehicles traction control system, another activation to alter the ESC algorithm to an intermediate sport mode, another activation to fully disable ESC, and a final activation to restore traction control and ESC to full on. You further argued that these types of controls are widely used by manufacturers and work well for consumers.

S5.4 allows manufacturers to include in their ESC systems either an ESC Off control whose only purpose is to place the ESC system in a mode in which it will no longer satisfy the performance requirements of S5.2.1, S5.2.2 and S5.2.3, or controls for other systems that have an ancillary effect upon ESC operation. The agency made this distinction because of a difference in labeling requirements between the two types of controls. The labeling requirements at issue do not apply until September 1, 2011.

The multi-mode controls you ask about have attributes that overlap the two categories of controls identified in S5.4. We expect to clarify the regulatory text of S5.4 in a forthcoming response to petitions for reconsideration to the ESC final rule.

We confirm, however, that these multi-mode controls are permissible under S5.4. We note that S5.4 also states that Controls of either kind that place the ESC system in a mode in which it will no longer satisfy the performance requirements of S5.2.1, S5.2.2 and S5.2.3 are permitted, provided that the further requirements of S5.4s subparagraphs are met. Therefore, the multi-mode controls would also need to meet the requirements of S5.4.1, S5.4.2, and S5.4.3.

While S5.4.1 applies in the same manner to both categories of controls identified in S5.4, the other two subparagraphs specify different labeling requirements for the two types of controls. Since the multi-mode controls you ask about have attributes that overlap the two categories of control, we would expect to clarify in our response to petitions how the labeling requirements apply to multi-model controls. It is not necessary to resolve that issue in this interpretation since the requirements do not apply before September 1, 2011.

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

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

ref:126

d.8/29/07

Mr. Bruce Blocksom

VMI Chief Compliance Officer

Vantage Mobility International

5202 South 28^th Place

Phoenix, AZ 85040

Dear Mr. Blocksom:

This responds to your request for clarification as to the appropriate time to remove the Monroney label from the OEM manufactured van. You provided a specific vehicle processing sequence.

The labels you ask about are required by the Automobile Information Disclosure Act, which is commonly known as the Monroney Act or Price Sticker Act. Please be advised that although the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) safety rating information (also known as Stars on Cars) on the Monroney label, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), rather than NHTSA, generally administers and enforces the Monroney Act. Since we do not administer the Monroney Act with respect to the issue you ask about, we cannot provide an authoritative interpretation.

I am enclosing a page titled Automobile Information Disclosure Act from the DOJs website, which provides information that you may find helpful. I note that the page states, among other things, that The Act prohibits the sticker from being removed or altered prior to sale to a consumer.

If you have further questions about how DOJ administers and enforces the Monroney Act, please write to:

U.S. Department of Justice

Civil Division

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20530-0001

If you have questions about NHTSAs requirements, please feel free to contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama of my staff by telephone at (202) 366-2992

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:575

d.8/30/07

Mr. Larry J. Lisk

P.O. Box 3883

West Wendover, NV 89883

Dear Mr. Lisk:

This responds to your letter concerning a device that you call the Seat Belt Comforter. In the letter, you ask for the agencys permission to sell this product to others as an attachment to their seat belt, and for an endorsement of the product by this agency. As more fully explained below, no Federal motor vehicle safety standard specifically applies to your product. However, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you have certain responsibilities under our laws.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA does not provide approvals or endorsements 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. NHTSA selects a sampling of new vehicles and equipment each year to determine their compliance with applicable FMVSSs. If our testing or examination reveals an apparent noncompliance, we may require the manufacturer to remedy the noncompliance, and may initiate an enforcement proceeding, if necessary, to ensure that the manufacturer takes appropriate action.

We have examined the product sample and description that you have provided, and, as indicated above, have determined that no FMVSS specifically applies to this product. The Seat Belt Comforter consists of an eight-inch elastic band that has small suspender-like clips at each end. Apparently one clip would attach to the shoulder strap of a Type 2 seat belt assembly[1] and the other clip would attach to the lap belt. The elastic is intended to pull the shoulder belt downward, preventing the belt from coming in contact with the wearers neck. FMVSS No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, sets forth requirements for new seat belt assemblies. Your product does not meet the definition of a seat belt assembly, so the standard would not apply. FMVSS No. 213 Child Restraint Systems, is NHTSAs standard for child restraints. Since your product would not itself restrain, seat, or position a child, it would not be a child restraint system and thus not be subject to FMVSS No. 213. Likewise, FMVSS No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, does not apply to your product.

However, although we do not have any FMVSSs that directly apply to your product, there are several statutory provisions that could affect its manufacture. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are responsible for ensuring that your product is free of safety-related defects (see 49 U.S.C. 30118-30121). The agency does not determine the existence of safety defects except in the context of a defect proceeding.

In addition, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to 49 U.S.C. section 30122, which prohibits them from installing the device if the installation "makes inoperative" compliance with any safety standard. It appears unlikely from the nature of your product that it would be placed in vehicles by commercial businesses instead of consumers. However, if your product were to be installed by persons in those categories, they must ensure that its installation does not compromise the safety protection provided by the vehicle belt system. The prohibition of section 30122 does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment.

Please note that the addition of any device to a vehicle's belt system raises possible safety concerns. The realigning of the shoulder belt could increase the likelihood that the wearer would twist toward the middle of the vehicle, so that the person could be partially or completely unrestrained by the shoulder belt in a crash. In addition, if the device introduced excessive slack into the belt system, it would reduce its effectiveness. Also, aligning the lap belt off of the skeletal structure of the occupant could significantly increase the loading on the occupant's abdomen, a part of the body that cannot withstand the same loading levels as the skeletal structure.

If you should decide to manufacture the Seat Belt Comforter, we would urge you to evaluate carefully whether your product would in any way degrade the performance of vehicle safety belts. For example, you should ensure that your product would not interfere with safety belt retraction or release in an emergency, and that any adhesive or sharp edges used with your product would not cause deterioration of the safety belt webbing. Additionally, you should be aware that originally installed safety belts must meet the requirements of Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. We encourage you to evaluate your product against the requirements of this standard to ascertain whether it would degrade the flammability performance of safety belts.

Finally, while no FMVSS applies to your product, it is still considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment.  As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30118-30121 concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety-related defects.  In the event the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for, among other things, notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

If you have any further questions please call Mr. Ari Scott of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

ref:209#213#302

d.8/10/07

Mr. Michael D. Payne

One Thorton Court

Potomac Falls, VA 20165

Dear Mr. Payne:

This responds to your letter concerning the speedometer marking requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 101, Controls, telltales and indicators. You ask whether vehicles can have km/h primary and mph secondary.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. See 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301. FMVSS No. 101 is one of the standards we have issued.

FMVSS No. 101 requires speedometers to be labeled with MPH, or MPH and km/h. See Table 1. The intent of the standard is to require speedometer display in miles per hour (MPH), and to allow the addition of kilometers per hour (km/h) to MPH at the option of the manufacturer. The standard does not permit speedometers to be graduated in km/h only, since speed limits in the United State s are communicated on highway signs in MPH alone.

The standard specifies that if the speedometer is graduated in both miles per hour and in kilometers per hour, the scales must be identified MPH and km/h, respectively. The standard does not specify, in this situation, that MPH must be primary. However we would not provide a specific interpretation in this area outside the context of a specific design.

You state that this provision of FMVSS No. 101 appears to be in violation of Federal law since it was the intent of Congress to designate the metric system as the preferred system for the United States. Moreover, your letter states that you petition NHTSA to change the wording to comply with Federal law. We believe that FMVSS No. 101 is a legally valid exercise of NHTSAs regulatory authority and is not contrary to any Federal law.

We note that NHTSA ordinarily uses the metric system in its FMVSSs. However, the agency is not required to specify the FMVSSs in metric units only. In this particular instance, for reasons explained above, there is a safety reason why the agency does not permit speedometers graduated in km/h only.

Your letter does not meet minimum requirements for NHTSA to consider it a petition under 49 CFR Part 552 Petitions for Rulemaking, Defect, and Noncompliance Orders. Thus, your letter has not been treated as a petition.

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

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

ref:101

d.3/18/08

Mr. Rolf Bergmann

Safety Affairs and Vehicle Testing

Volkswagen of America, Inc.

Auburn Hills, MI 48326

Dear Mr. Bergmann:

This responds to your letter regarding requirements related to the spacing between daytime running lights (DRLs) and turn signals in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Specifically, you asked whether the provision in paragraph S5.5.11(a)(4)(iv) can be met by a system in which the intensity of the DRL (located less than 100 mm from the lighted edge of a turn signal) is reduced to the photometric output of a parking lamp when the turn signal or hazard warning signal is activated. As discussed below, the answer is no. In order to come within the provision at issue, the DRLs would need to be completely deactivated when the turn signals or hazard lights are on.

FMVSS No. 108 specifies requirements for original and replacement lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. Among other things, the standard specifies requirements related to spacing between DRLs and turn signals to ensure that the DRLs do not have the effect of masking the turn signals.

The provision you ask about, S5.5.11(a)(4)(iv), is one of the conditions for an option that is available for DRLs located less than 100 mm from the lighted edge of a turn signal. The condition is that:

The DRL is deactivated when the turn signal or hazard warning signal lamp is activated. (Emphasis added.)

In your letter, you argue that the intent of the option in subsection (iv) does not require that the DRL be totally extinguished when the turn signal or hazard warning is activated, and that reducing the illumination of the DRL to a parking lamp mode should be viewed as deactivation.

We disagree with your suggested interpretation based on the plain language of the standard. If the agency had intended to include dimming of the DRL as part of this option, it would have used language other than deactivated and would have specified the amount of light that could be emitted under the dimmed condition.

We also note that the Federal Register notice adding the language of paragraph S5.5.11(a)(4)(iv) to Standard No. 108 also indicates that dimming the DRL is not a correct interpretation of the standard. In devising the precise requirements of the standard, NHTSA conducted testing of the turn signal masking effect in order to determine appropriate spacing and luminosity regulations. NHTSA tested the masking effect using two variables spacing and relative luminosity. The agency found that increasing the spacing between the DRL and the turn signal was a highly effective means of allowing subjects to see the turn signals while the DRLs were active. On the other hand, the agency found that increasing the intensity of the turn signals (thereby making them brighter relative to the DRLs) had almost no effect on turn signal masking.[1] In its explanation of the rule, the agency explained:

The alternative of brighter turn signals does not resolve the issue. The only effective alternative to prevent turn signal masking would be to extinguish the DRLs during signaling.[2] [Emphasis added]

If you have any further questions, please contact Ari Scott of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

ref:108

d.10/19/07

Bret de St. Jeor, President

Royal Summit, Inc.

1617 South Yosemite Ave

P.O. Box 2112

Oakdale, CA 95361

Dear Mr. Bret de St. Joer:

This responds to your letter concerning how the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations (NHTSAs) regulations apply to your companys invention, Charlie Choo-Choos Party Train (CCCPT).

By way of background, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). 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.

Based on your letter, an accompanying information packet, and the information on your website, the CCCPT has several relevant features and characteristics. The product is designed to resemble an 1800s style steam train. It consists of a six-wheeled engine carrying one person, the driver, and three coaches or trailers, each of which carries up to nine children or six adults. The engine weighs 2,250 pounds, and the coaches weigh 600 pounds. The product has pneumatic tires and can operate on any hard surface. The product is intended to be used at birthday parties, social events, community events, weddings, malls, fairs, etc. The information packet states that the speed of the CCCPT is 7 mph. Your letter, however, also states that the speed could be more than 20 mph but less than 25 mph and also suggests use on public streets. Given these two speed ranges, as well as questions in your letter related to low speed vehicles, it appears you are considering at least two versions of this product: one model with a speed capability of 7 mph; and another with greater speed capabilities and intended for on-road use.

Are the vehicles comprising the CCCPT motor vehicles?

In considering how NHTSAs regulations may apply to the CCCPT, a threshhold issue is whether the vehicles comprising the CCCPT are considered motor vehicles. Our agency does not regulate vehicles that are not considered motor vehicles under our statute. Section 30102(a)(6) defines "motor vehicle" as:

"[A] vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line."

NHTSA has issued a number of interpretations of this language. For example, we have stated that vehicles equipped with tracks, agricultural equipment, and other vehicles incapable of highway travel are not motor vehicles. We have also determined that certain vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not motor vehicles, even if they may be operationally capable of highway travel.

We believe that there are a number of products similar to the one you describe which are designed and sold solely for off-road use, e.g., at amusement parks, fairs, etc. If you as the manufacturer marketed the product in this manner, i.e., making it clear by labeling and other means that the product is not intended to be used on the public streets and roads, it would be our opinion that engine and coaches comprising the product are not motor vehicles. If this was the case, our regulations would not apply. We note, consistent with other interpretations, that this is a position that we would reconsider if, despite such marketing, the product was used on the public streets and roads by a substantial number of its owners.

Your letter suggests, however, that you may wish to market the higher speed version of the CCCPT for use on the public streets and roads. We say this because you ask about whether the engine would qualify as a low speed vehicle or LSV under FMVSS No. 500, and also ask a number of other questions about how various NHTSA requirements may apply to the product. If the manufacturer indicated that one of the uses of this product was use on the public streets and roads, it is our opinion that the engine and coaches would be considered motor vehicles subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The coaches would be classified as trailers under our regulations. Whether the engine would qualify as an LSV is discussed next.

Issues related to LSVs

In your letter, you ask if the engine of the CCCPT would qualify as an LSV. 49 C.F.R. 571.3 defines an LSV as a motor vehicle that: (a) is four wheeled; (b) has a top speed attainable in one mile that is more than 32 kilometers per hour (20 miles per hour) and not more than 40 kilometers per hour (25 miles per hour); and (c) has a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) that is less than 1,361 kilograms (3,000 pounds). The vehicle must meet all three criteria to qualify as a LSV.

Given the language of this regulation, the engine of the CCCPT would not qualify as an LSV. As you noted in your letter, the engine has six wheels. Moreover, the photos of the engine depict all of the wheels in contact with the traveling surface. The regulation provides that all three criteria identified above must be met to qualify as an LSV. Because the engine does not qualify as an LSV, we will not address your other specific questions regarding its compliance with our LSV standard. We note that since the engine of the CCCPT would not qualify as an LSV, given advertised usage on public streets and roads at speeds as high as 20 to 25 mph it would be classified as a truck under our regulations and would have to meet all applicable FMVSSs and other regulations.

As noted above, the coaches would be classified as trailers. While NHTSA has not established occupant protection requirements for trailers, we refer you to State rules that may restrict the transportation of passengers in trailers.

Additional considerations

We addressed above relevant legal issues including the circumstances under which the engine and coaches comprising the CCCPT would, or would not, be considered motor vehicles subject to our standards, and whether the engine would qualify as a low speed vehicle. Irrespective of those issues, however, we would like to express a general safety concern about the use of this type of product on the public streets and roads in the higher speed configuration referenced above. Of particular concern in this regard is the risk of collision with other vehicles given that the product could be carrying up to 27 passengers in a series of light trailers, in addition to the driver in the towing vehicle.

We are not aware of any considerations by this agency in the development of its motor vehicle safety standards of any particular safety matter issues relevant to a light weight train vehicle such as you present here and are considering for on-road use. This is certainly the case with regard to the establishment of the special LSV category of motor vehicles. NHTSA designed this category of motor vehicles, which is subject to very limited safety requirements, to accommodate the use of certain small vehicles, including small golf cars, in controlled, low-speed environments, such as retirement communities. We were not contemplating products carrying large numbers of passengers such as the CCCPT. As such, we must note that there has been no full and formal consideration of all of the safety issues relevant to products such as the CCCPT.

We also would point out that safety concerns related to carrying passengers in a series of light trailers on the public streets and roads would be relevant even if the engine was redesigned to qualify as an LSV or to meet the safety standards that apply to trucks. We therefore recommend that you consider and analyze closely the safety of this type of product on the public streets and roads as you decide whether to develop an on-road version.

We are enclosing additional information about our regulations that you may find helpful. If you have any further questions, please call Ari Scott of my staff at (202)-366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

ref:500

d.4/8/08