ID: nht95-1.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 4, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Dona B. Mann R.N., C.E.T.N. -- Fastrac Ideas, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 11/14/94 letter from Dona B. Mann to NHTSA Chief Consul

TEXT: Dear Ms. Mann:

This responds to your letter of November 14, 1994, concerning the "Koze Kover" seat belt holder. Your letter explains that "(the) Koze Kover seat belt holder will hold the descending shoulder strap away from the jugular area of the neck. It is made from a tri-laminate material of polyester Kodel, 1/4 inch foam and urethane coated pack cloth. It is fastened by a hook and loop closure." You asked whether this product would be affected by any Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards issued by this agency.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The agency does not approve, certify or endorse any vehicles or equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that would apply to your product. We do have a standard (Standard 209, Seat belt assemblies) that sets forth requirements for new seat belt assemblies. However, since your product would not be installed as part of a new seat belt assembly, the standard would not apply.

While no Federal motor vehicle safety standard applies to your product, your device is 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 con cerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those and other manufacturer responsibilities. In the event you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-r elated defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

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. I t 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 doe s 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. With a device such as yours, the realigning of the shoulder belt could increase the likelihood that the wearer would twist toward the middle of the v ehicle, so that the person could be partially or completely unrestrained by the shoulder belt. In addition, if the device introduced excessive slack into the belt system, the occupant's head would be more likely to contact the vehicle interior. Finally , 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.

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

Sincerely, Philip R. Recht

ID: nht95-1.80

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 27, 1995

FROM: Bill Lieb -- Regional Sales Mgr., Restech

TO: Philip Recht, Office Of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/10/95 LETTER FROM PHIL RECHT TO BILL LIEB (A43; STD. 108)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Recht,

I am a sales manager for Fel-Pro Chemical Products in Denver, CO. My company formulates epoxy adhesives for many different applications including the automotive industry.

We have formulated an adhesive that has been tested by a manufacturer of sealed beam automotive head lamps. The manufacturer was told by the current supplier of the adhesive that D.O.T. 'approval' is required prior to changing the adhesive used on the h ead lamps.

We have been referred to 'Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. '108' for the appropriate test requirements on the adhesive. However this standard does not say anything about adhesives.

I then contacted Mr. Laubis in the Office of Vehicle Safety & Compliance, Enforcement Section. Mr. Laubis told me that D.O.T. does not test, approve, or specify any adhesives, but just verifies that the completed unit meets the prescribed standards, and passes the appropriate tests. Is this correct?

If this information is correct, would it be possible for you to provide me with something in writing to confirm this information? As of today, it is my word against the word of the other adhesive vendor, who say's that D.O.T. 'approval' is required. I need something to give to the manufacturer to confirm the information that I have, and to let them know that they are not locked into an old material if they want to change.

Thank you very much for your help.

ID: nht95-1.81

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 28, 1995

FROM: Chong D. Lee -- President, TMR International, Inc.

TO: Mr. Philip Recht -- Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/10/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP RECHT TO CHONG D. LEE (A43; STD. 208)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Recht:

The purpose of this letter is to request the opinion and advice of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration on the legality and potential legal risks of an automotive product intended to increase occupant safety.

Our company, TMR International, Inc., plans to import, for North American sale, an aftermarket driver's side airbag. The intent is to offer this product as a safety improvement for customers whose cars and trucks were manufactured without an airbag as o riginal equipment. The airbag comes in assembly with a steering wheel and is intended for installation as a unit in replacement of the vehicle's OEM steering wheel.

We are requesting the opinion of NHTSA as to; a) Whether such a product as described is legal for U.S. sale; b) Legal procedures, testing or submissions required to certify the product for U.S. sale; c) Applicable Federal law (e.g., FMVSS 208) d) Actions or registrations required to reduce legal risks; e) Any other information of which we should be aware.

Thank you for prompt attention. We look forward to bringing to market, as soon as possible, this important safety improvement product.

ID: nht95-1.82

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 1, 1995 EST

FROM: Marshall S. Reagle -- Sate-Lite Mfg. Co.

TO: Pat Boyd -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/17/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP RECHT TO MARSHALL S. REAGLE (A43; STD. 108)

TEXT: Dear Pat:

As I stated in my telephone conversation on Monday, February 27, 1995, I would send you a confirming letter of my interpretation of FMVSS 108 and our discussion regarding retro-reflectors.

You stated that any retro-reflector would have to be made in intervals of 4 inches. The center or 0 degree would be at the two inch mark and the reflective reading would have to comply with S5.7.2.1 (b) and (c) of FMVSS 108.

Also, that regardless of size, 4, 8, or 12 inches in length, your testing requirements and standards are strictly for a 4 inches segment, (ie. you would mask off any area of a retro-reflector other than 4 inches and test the segment alone.) The width of the retro-reflector has not been established as with sheeting, therefore, as long as the photometric requirements are achieved, the width is a variable.

Below is a sketch of how NHTSA is asking the retro-reflector to function:

TOP VIEW

45 degrees L 30 degrees L 0 degrees 30 degrees R 45 degrees R

45L-30L, 30R-45R 30L-0-30RRED 75 MILLICANDELAS/LUX RED 300 MILLECANDILAS/LUX CLR 300 " " CLR 1250 " "

Please review this letter and sketch with legal counsel as soon as possible, we would like to begin work on this project immediately.

Thank you for your time and efforts in this. I appreciate all of your input.

ID: nht95-1.83

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 2, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Steve Anthony -- Product Manager, Structural Composites Industries

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 11/15/94 LETTER FROM STEVE ANTHONY TO MARVIN SHAW (OCC 10495)

TEXT: This responds to your inquiry about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 304, Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Fuel Container Integrity, which takes effect on March 27, 1995. I apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that you manuf acture CNG containers for OEMs. You further stated that some of your customers have requested that containers they purchase prior to FMVSS No. 304's effective date be labeled with a statement that they comply with FMVSS No. 304. Specifically, you asked whether your containers could be labeled with the statement "This CNG container meets the requirements of DOT FMVSS No. 304 effective March 27, 1995" or "DOT effective March 27, 1995." As explained below, prior to the effective date, you are prohibited from labeling a container with information that could appear to be a certification to the FMVSS.

In the preamble to the final rule establishing FMVSS No. 304, NHTSA stated that

a manufacturer may not certify a container as meeting the equipment standard until the standard goes into effect. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, a certification is a statement that a vehicle or item of equipment meets all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that are then in effect. Therefore, until a standard is effective, manufacturers may not certify compliance with it (59 FR 49010, 49020 September 26, 1994).

Based on this discussion, you acknowledge that it would be impermissible for a manufacturer to include the symbol DOT on CNG containers manufactured prior to March 27, 1995. Nevertheless, you wish to specify information on the container that the contain er will comply with the soon to be effective FMVSS.

As discussed in our September 1994 notice, a manufacturer may not certify a container as meeting the equipment standard until the standard goes into effect. Any label on a product about meeting a standard tends to create the appearance of a certification . It is therefore our opinion that, along with not using the symbol DOT, any such statement on a container label must affirmatively indicate that (1) no standard applies to the container, and (2) the statement is not a certification.

With these considerations in mind, your suggestion to include the statement "This CNG container meets the requirements of DOT FMVSS No. 304 effective March 27, 1995" would not be permissible because it might be read as constituting a certification. More over, the symbol DOT may not be included in your statement because its inclusion might be misinterpreted as implying that the container has been certified to an FMVSS that is in effect, since use of the DOT symbol is the usual method by which certificati ons are made.

You may, however, label a container with the following statement: "This CNG container would comply with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 304, that takes effect on March 27, 1995. However, since this container was manufac tured before the effective date of FMVSS 304, it cannot be certified to comply with that standard. No FMVSS applies to the container."

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

ID: nht95-1.84

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 2, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Steve Brooks -- General Manager, IAD West Coast, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 11/1/94 LETTER FROM STEVE BROOKS TO JOHN WOMACK (OCC 10473)

TEXT: This replies to your letter of November 1, 1994, to John Womack, former Acting Chief Counsel. IAD West Coast ("IAD") is converting a Subaru panel van from internal combustion to electric drive. The vehicle is currently a prototype but "will be modified in the state of California, to OEM build standards." You have asked for help "with the definition of crash testing for front and side impact for the vehicle for current and future production, also with the requirement for dual air bags if necessary."

Because we did not understand what you meant by "definition", Taylor Vinson of this office spoke with you on January 24, 1995. He learned that IAD is engineering the prototype for production by another company, and that your question related to the exte nt of crash testing that is required before production. He then explained to you that there is no legal requirement that prototype vehicles be crashed, but that production vehicles must conform with the performance requirements of standards with crash d emonstration procedures, and that the manufacturer's certification of compliance may be based upon good faith surrogates to crash testing such as computer simulation, engineering studies, and mathematical calculations. The Department of Transportation, however, tests in the manner specified in a standard, and if there is a test failure, will ask the manufacturer to supply the data upon which it based its certification.

Your letter also asks about "the requirement for dual air bags if necessary in the future." Manufacturers of light trucks will be required to install dual air bags in not less than 80% of vehicles produced between September 1, 1997, and September 1, 1998 , and in 100% of production from September 1, 1998, on.

Finally, you have asked whether we have information on approach and departure angles. These are not part of the FMVSS, and are established by the manufacturer in designing a vehicle.

I hope that this answers your questions.

ID: nht95-1.85

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 2, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jeffrey Echt -- President, Saline Electronics, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 1/12/95 LETTER FROM JEFFREY ECHT TO NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL (OCC 10649)

TEXT: This replies to your letter of January 12, 1995, with respect to Federal requirements for stop lamps as they affect a stop lamp system developed by Saline Electronics.

As you describe the system, "during and after episodes of high, braking-induced deceleration, the system flashes the stop lamps it controls on and off." The stop lamps could either be the original equipment lamps, or one or more supplementary ones.

You have asked the following questions, based upon your understanding of the letter sent by this Office to the Virginia Transportation Research Council ("Virginia") on July 30, 1993:

"1. May states specifically permit (by statute or regulation) the use of deceleration warning systems which are neither original equipment nor replacements for original equipment? For example, may states specifically permit the use of an aftermarket de celeration warning system which a) permits all original equipment stop lamps required by FMVSS No. 108 to operate in a normal steady burning mode, and b) flashes one aftermarket center-mounted stop lamp or two side-mounted stop lamps, on vehicles not req uired to be so equipped?"

A State may enact a statute or regulation that specifically permits the use of deceleration warning systems that are neither original equipment nor replacements for original equipment if these systems are permissible as original equipment under FMVSS No. 108. As we informed Virginia, a deceleration warning system that is not permissible as original equipment under FMVSS No. 108 would also not be permissible as an aftermarket system because its installation by a person other than the vehicle owner would be in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(2) (now recodified as 49 U.S.C. 30122(b)). This section prohibits manufacturers, dealers, distributors and motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative any part of a device installed on a motor vehicle in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

After careful review, it is our opinion that the system you describe is indirectly prohibited by two paragraphs of FMVSS No. 108. Because paragraph S5.5.10(d) of FMVSS No. 108 requires original equipment stop lamps to be steady burning in use, the addit ion of flashing aftermarket stop lamps make the original equipment stop lamps inoperative within the meaning of the prohibition because of the potential of a flashing lamp for detracting from the full effectiveness of the steady burning original equipmen t stop lamp signal by drawing an observer's attention away from it. A flashing aftermarket stop lamp also has the potential for confusion with the hazard warning system, whether the original equipment system operates through red or amber lamps.

The second paragraph of FMVSS No. 108 that would prohibit installation of your system as original equipment is S5.1.3. This paragraph prohibits the installation of supplementary lighting equipment that impairs the effectiveness of original lighting equi pment.

In summary, 49 U.S.C. 30122(b) effectively prohibits a State from enacting a law permitting the use of your system, unless that system is designed to be installed by the vehicle owner. However, a State may permit the use of any aftermarket deceleration warning system that is allowable under FMVSS No. 108.

"2. In the absence of state regulation of flashing deceleration warning systems, is it lawful for individuals, states or municipalities to install such systems on their vehicles, provided they do not alter the steady burning operation of the original eq uipment stop lamps required by FMVSS No. 108? For example, may mass transit districts operate buses with flashing deceleration warning lamps, if the systems are installed by their own mechanics and the steady burning operation of the original equipment stop lamps is not altered? May individuals install such equipment on their own vehicles?"

"3. May individuals, states or municipalities, who are not manufacturers, distributors or motor vehicle repairs businesses, lawfully install flashing deceleration warning systems which would prevent the original equipment stop lamps from steadily burnin g during and after episodes of high, braking-induced deceleration? For example, may a mass transit district install a deceleration warning system which would flash some or all of the original equipment stop lamps during and after rapid deceleration due to hard braking, if the system were installed by its own mechanics?"

The answer to all these questions is yes. As noted under Question 1, Sec. 30122(b)(1) does not prohibit vehicle owners or their employees from installing aftermarket equipment such as flashing lamps that may "make inoperative" (in the sense discussed ab ove) equipment that is required by FMVSS No. 108. In Question 2, the inoperability is created by an indirect effect upon the required lighting equipment, while in Question 3, the required equipment itself as well is made to operate in a manner different than prescribed by FMVSS No. 108. But the answer is the same under Sec. 30122(b)(1) in either case.

ID: nht95-1.86

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 2, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John E. Getz -- Director, Mobile Products Engineering, Ellis & Watts

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 10/27/94 LETTER FROM JOHN E. GETZ TO TAYLOR VINSON (OCC 10462; P.567)

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking whether certain operations that your company performs on used trailers result in the trailers being considered "newly manufactured" for purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You stated that you somet imes change the finishing and equipment of a used trailer for a new application. As an example, you stated that you recently took a 10-year old trailer, stripped the inside, and refinished it as a mobile marketing facility. You also stated that in some cases you may cut a hole in the side and install a door for a specific application. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you indicated that you have also changed trailers by adding heating or air conditioning units, or making th e trailer usable as an auditorium.

In your letter, you asked whether the trailers would be considered "newly manufactured" if the running gear, VIN and the basic trailer structure do not change, but the ownership does change. You asked this question in light of the fact that change of ow nership is relevant under 49 CFR part 571.7(f) in determining whether a trailer manufactured from new and used components is considered newly manufactured. As discussed below, it is our opinion that the operations you describe do not result in the trail ers being considered newly manufactured.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issues safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. The agency does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Ins tead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles or equipment meet all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Section 49 CFR part 571.7(f) reads as follows:

Combining new and used components in trailer manufacture. When new materials are used in the assembly of a trailer, the trailer will be considered newly manufactured for purposes of [the safety standards], unless, at a minimum, the running gear assembly (axle(s), wheels, braking and suspension) is not new, and was taken from an existing trailer --

(1) Whose identity is continued in the reassembled vehicle with respect to the Vehicle Identification Number; and

(2) That is owned or leased by the user of the reassembled vehicle.

This section only applies when new and used materials are used in the "assembly" of a trailer. It is our opinion that the operations that you describe, i.e., where the running gear, VIN and the basic trailer structure do not change, do not constitute tr ailer assembly. Therefore, this section, including its provision concerning transfer of ownership, does not apply. We consider your operations to be in the nature of repair or refurbishment of a used trailer, which does not result in the trailer being considered newly manufactured.

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

ID: nht95-1.87

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 3, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Patricia Jackson -- Patael Company

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 12/19/94 EST. LETTER FROM PATRICIA JACKSON TO MR. RACHT

TEXT: This responds to your letters asking about safety standards, particularly those about fire safety, for a product you call the Booster Buddy Cushion. According to promotional literature accompanying your letter, the Booster Buddy Cushion is placed under infant/toddler car seats to protect the car's upholstery and to provide additional comfort to young children. The literature also indicates that older children situated in booster seats (and on actual vehicle seats) could lean on this device.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, appro ve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, Congress has established a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represen ts our opinion based on the information set forth in your letter and promotional literature.

There currently are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that directly apply to the Booster Buddy Cushion. Our standard for "child restraint systems," FMVSS 213, 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 50 pounds or less." The standard does not apply to accessory items, such as a pad/cushion that is used with a child safety seat.

While no FMVSS applies to the Booster Buddy Cushion, your product is 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. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those and other manufacturer responsibilities. In the event you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

In addition, while it is unlikely that the Booster Buddy Cushion would be installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, 49 U.S.C. @ 30122 prohibits those businesses from installing the device if the installation "make s inoperative" compliance with any safety standard. Our FMVSSs require specific levels of performance for materials used in the occupant compartment of motor vehicles. Specifically, FMVSS No. 302 specifies flammability resistance requirements for vehic le interiors. Any person listed in @ 30122 who installs a Booster Buddy Cushion must ensure that the product does not undermine the vehicle's compliance with those flammability resistance requirements.

The prohibition of @ 30122 does not apply to individual owners who install equipment in their own vehicles. Thus, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles.

We note that the pad/cushion you wish to manufacture can be used without a child seat, to cushion and support the head of a sleeping older child. We do not consider the pad/cushion to "position children" in a manner that a child seat positions children to better use a vehicle's belt system. Rather, the Booster Buddy Cushion simply provides a surface that a child may lean on. However, we are concerned about the possibility that consumers might use your product, instead of a child seat, with a child wh o should be restrained in a car seat. We recommend that you inform consumers purchasing your product that the Booster Buddy Cushion is not a child restraint system and must not be used as one.

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

ID: nht95-1.88

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 6, 1995

FROM: Dirk Du Plooy -- Motorcycle Safety Consultant, Motorcycle Rider Advancement Centre

TO: Joe Pesci -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/10/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP RECHT TO DIRK DU PLOOY (A43; PART 571.3(B)

TEXT: Dear Sir,

I received your details from the Motorcycle Safety Foundation (I am an MSF Instructor), I request your assistance in acquiring information about the U.S. laws on motorcycle trailers. We are currently drafting legislation legalising motorcycle trailers. I understand that there could be a number of different U.S. states with different laws, but the most generally accepted standard is what we need as a guide. I hope you can find time to assist us - your help will be appreciated.

DIRK DU PLOOY MOTORCYCLE SAFETY CONSULTANT