ID: 11737JUM.JC2

Mr. J.H. Brown
President
Jumpin= Jac=s F.N.
P.O. Box 526146
Miami, FL 33152-6146

Dear Mr. Brown:

This responds to your March 11, 1996 letter to William Boehly, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration=s (NHTSA=s) Associate Administrator for Research and Development. Your letter was referred to my office for reply.

You ask for this agency=s Aappraisal and we hope NHTSA approval@ of a product that you are seeking to develop, which you call the APT-103 Child Protector Safety Harness.@ You enclosed a brochure on the PT-103 harness in your letter. I note that you marked the word AConfidential@ on the brochure. In an April 16, 1996 telephone conversation with Deirdre Fujita of my staff, you stated that you had no objections to our placing a copy of your letter and brochure in the agency=s public docket, which is a routine part of the interpretation process.

By way of background information, NHTSA does not approve 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 represents our opinion based on the information set forth in your letter.

According to the brochure, the PT-103 consists of a vest that would cover the child=s chest, a foam vest- like garment for the child=s neck (which looks like a Alife preserver@ used on

water), and a series of padded straps that would form a type of headgear for the child=s head. The brochure implies in several places that children are better protected using the PT-103 harness and a vehicle=s lap and shoulder belt than with the lap and shoulder belt alone.

In the telephone conversation with Ms. Fujita, you clarified an important point about your product. You explained that the PT-103 is not attached in any manner to the vehicle=s belt system, and is not intended to replace the vehicle belt system as the means of restraining the child. Instead, the PT-103 is simply a garment consisting of a padded vest, neckware and headgear, intended for a child restrained in the vehicle=s seat belts or in a child seat. The idea is for the child to be wearing a protective garment in the event of a crash.

NHTSA has the authority to regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Our statute (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) defines "motor vehicle equipment," in part, as ('30102(a)(7)):

(A) any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured; [or] (B) any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of a system, part, or component, or as any accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle ...

Your vest harness is plainly not a "system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured," nor is it a "similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement" of an original equipment part of a motor vehicle. The issue is whether the vest harness would be an "accessory" within the meaning of the statute. In determining whether an item of equipment is considered an accessory, NHTSA applies two criteria. First is whether a substantial portion of the expected uses of the product are related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. Second is whether the product is purchased or otherwise acquired, and principally used, by ordinary users of motor vehicles.

With regard to the first criterion, the product literature enclosed with your product emphasizes that the vest harness is meant to be used in motor vehicles. While you indicated that the PT-103 can also be used in boats and for contact sports, you informed Ms. Fujita that its major use will be in automobiles. Given this information, a substantial portion of the expected uses of the vest harness would be related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles, so the vest harness is considered an item of "motor vehicle equipment." This means that your product is subject to NHTSA=s authority.

There currently are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that directly apply to the PT-103. Our standard for "child restraint systems," Standard 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 padded garment that can be used with a child safety seat or with the vehicle=s belt system.

While no standard applies to the PT-103, under our statute all items of motor vehicle equipment must not contain any safety-related defects. 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.

I would like to note a few concerns about the brochure you enclosed on the PT-103. It describes the PT-103 as being available in a size that is suitable for use with children weighing 15 to 25 pounds (lb). This description implies that the harness is suitable for use by infants and small children, and that these children can be restrained using a vehicle=s lap and shoulder belt system. That practice may not be best for the child.

NHTSA believes, based on studies, that children should be restrained in rear-facing child seats until they are at least 12 months old (22 lb), and should not be placed in a restraint system that faces the child forward. A rear-facing child seat is needed so that, in a crash, the forces are spread evenly across the infant's back and shoulders, the strongest part of the child's body. Similarly, we believe small children should use a child restraint system until they outgrow their child seat. To avoid possibly misleading consumers into moving their children into a vehicle belt system before the child is developed enough for it, the PT-103 should be recommended only for older children.

Another concern relates to the fact that the harnesses in a child seat works best when used snugly with minimal padding or heavy clothing between the child and the safety seat. Similarly, a safety belt system works best with minimum slack. Excessive padding can compress in crash, introducing too much slack in the belt system that can cause the child occupant to be fully or partially ejected in a crash. A vest system that consisted of too much padding may have that negative effect.

Another concern relates to the possibility that some consumers may think your device is supposed to replace a child seat or vehicle seat belt system as the means of restraining a child in a crash. We suggest you prominently label the device as not being intended for use as a child restraint system, and clearly instruct consumers of this in advertising and other literature included with the PT-103. Further, you refer to the device as a Asafety harness.@ The term Aharness@ has long been used in the child passenger safety community to refer to a type of child restraint system. We are concerned that calling your device a Asafety harness@ could possibly confuse consumers about its suitability as a child restraint system, which may result in some consumers attaching the PT-103 to the vehicle with the vehicle=s belts, as they would with other harnesses (which are Achild restraints@). With that possibility in mind, we suggest you avoid using the term "safety harness@ in naming the PT-103.

Finally, we also note the photograph on page five of the brochure, showing children restrained in vehicle lap and shoulder belts A(Without PT-103),@ apparently is intended to show Abefore@ and Aafter@ shots of what happens in a crash without your device, to illustrate a need for the PT-103. The Aafter@ shot shows the childrens= heads between their knees, apparently to depict that in a crash situation a child would have no upper torso restraint whatsoever. We wish to point out that this is probably misleading, because the shoulder portion of a lap and shoulder belt would provide restraint in the type of emergency situation presumably depicted in the photograph. Thus, the situation shown in the Aafter@ shot is not realistic.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please call Ms. Fujita at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:213 d:5/10/96

ID: 11738BBY.BLT

Mr. Edward C. Chen
Pacific Quest International
9 Egret Lane
Aliso Viejo, CA 92656

Dear Mr. Chen:

This responds to your April 9, 1996, letter concerning a product that you are seeking to develop, called Athe BabyBelt.@ You ask whether the BabyBelt is subject to any Federal standards or safety guidelines, and also ask if we have any safety concerns about the product.

You describe the BabyBelt in a letter and sketch to the agency. I note that you had marked the word AProprietary@ on the letter. In an April 11, 1996, telephone conversation with Deirdre Fujita of my staff, you stated that you had no objections to our placing a copy of your letter and sketch in the agency=s public docket, which is a routine part of the interpretation process.

According to your letter, the BabyBelt is a device designed for use with forward-facing child restraint systems, to Asafely secure a child safety seat to the front passenger bucket style auto seat.@ The BabyBelt consists of Aan automobile grade nylon web belt (approximately 52 inches long), a positive retention buckle system (two pieces, made out of stamped steel), and an adjustable velcro attachment sleeve.@ The BabyBelt is placed through the frame of a child seat, Aand then wrapped around the back rest of the passenger seat. The belt is then tightened down to prevent the baby seat [sic] from moving in the case of sudden deceleration.@ You state that the BabyBelt is to supplement, and not replace, the vehicle=s belt system as the means for attaching a child seat to the vehicle seat. The product will be permanently labeled with a warning that the BabyBelt is supplemental to the vehicle belt system.

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, approve 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 represents our opinion based on the information set forth in your letter.

There currently are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that directly apply to the BabyBelt. Our standard for "child restraint systems," Standard 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 supplemental belt that is used with a child safety seat. NHTSA also does not consider the BabyBelt to be a seat belt assembly subject to Standard 209, as it is a supplemental accessory to the existing seat belt assembly and not intended to be used alone.

While no standard applies to the BabyBelt, 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.

You ask us to discuss any concerns we might have about the BabyBelt. One concern we have relates to the strength of the vehicle seat back to which the BabyBelt would be attached. Vehicle manufacturers must ensure that their vehicles comply with the requirements of Standard 207, Seating Systems. Among other requirements, Standard 207 specifies strength requirements for the vehicle seat back, to minimize the likelihood of seat failure in a crash. When the BabyBelt is attached to the vehicle seat back as shown in your sketch, in the event of a crash the seat back will be subjected to forces resulting from the loading of the child seat and child occupant. In the absence of the BabyBelt, these forces are not normally imposed on the vehicle seat back, but are instead transferred to the vehicle structure through the seat belt anchorages. We suggest that you evaluate the strength of vehicle seats to ensure that they are strong enough for the loads imposed by the child seat and child occupant through the BabyBelt.

Another concern relates to where in the vehicle a child seat would have to be located to use the BabyBelt. Because the BabyBelt secures a child seat by wrapping around the back of the seat back on which the child seat is attached, the product can only be used with bucket style seats (as indicated on your sketch) or with a split back seat (as you informed Ms. Fujita). Using the BabyBelt with a bucket style seat necessitates placing the child restraint in the front seat of most passenger cars, because bucket seats are provided in the front, and not in the rear. Children are safer riding in the rear seats of vehicles than in the front seat. We recommend your instructions avoid encouraging consumers to place a child seat in the front seat if the child restraint can be placed in the rear. You might also consider informing them that, according to accident statistics, children are safer when properly restrained in the rear seating positions than in the front seating positions. Such a statement is required to be in the instructions for child restraints systems (49 CFR '571.213, S5.6.1.1).

Related to the concern discussed directly above, it appears the BabyBelt could possibly be used in the rear seat in a passenger car that has a split back seat, but even there it cannot be used in the center rear seating position. The rear center seating position is generally the safest.

Finally, you state in your letter that the BabyBelt will have a permanent warning label indicating that the belt is not to replace the vehicle=s belt system as a means of attaching a child seat to the vehicle seat. We agree that the warning is critical to reduce the likelihood that consumers may mistakenly use the BabyBelt as the primary means of attaching their child seats to the vehicle seat, and urge you to make the permanent warning clear and conspicuous. For your information, passenger vehicles manufactured since September 1, 1995, are required to have a locking mechanism for the lap belt or lap belt portion of lap and shoulder belts, to enable them Ato be capable of being used to tightly secure child safety seats without the necessity of the user=s attaching any device to the seat belt webbing, retractor, or any other part of the vehicle . . . .@ Enclosed is an October 13, 1993 final rule on this Alockability@ requirement. It appears that the requirement will address some of the same securement problems that you hope to address with the BabyBelt.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any other questions, please do not hesitate to contact Ms. Fujita at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:213 d:5/15/96

ID: 11763RLXS10

Lawrence H. Feder, Esq.
2450 Hollywood Blvd.
Suite 401
Hollywood, FL 33020

Dear Mr. Feder:

Thank you for your letter to Secretary Pena on behalf of your client, Mr. David Baret of Baby Comfort Inc., concerning the requirements of this agency for child restraint systems. Your letter was referred to my office for reply.

You explain in your letter that your client would like to sell child restraints manufactured abroad in the United States. However, the seats would apparently not be able to meet the dynamic performance requirements of Standard 213, AChild Restraint Systems,@ when tested according to the procedures of the standard. Those procedures specify that child seats such as those your client wishes to sell are to be secured to the test seat assembly with only a lap belt. You ask that the agency permit your client=s child seats to be tested with a lap and shoulder belt, instead of just the lap belt.

Your client wrote to my office in March asking whether the child restraints in question could be tested with a lap and shoulder belt. We explain in our response to Mr. Baret (copy enclosed) that Standard 213 requires his type of child seat to meet Standard 213's dynamic performance requirements when tested with only a lap belt. Certain types of child restraints are excepted from this testing requirement, but Mr. Baret=s restraint is not among these. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not have the authority to grant waivers from the testing or performance requirements of our safety standards, and can only change the requirements through a rulemaking proceeding.

I should note that we do not agree that testing the seat you describe with only a lap belt is inappropriate. Lap belts are provided in the rear seats of many older model vehicles still on the road, as well as in the rear center seating position of many newer model vehicles, which is generally the safest position for child seats. Because the restraint has its own harness system (unlike a belt-positioning seat), some consumers may not readily distinguish it from a conventional child seat and may mistakenly use it in a position that has a lap belt only. In view of such potential use, it would seem appropriate that the seat provide the minimum level of protection required by Standard 213 when restrained with a just a lap belt.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:213 d:4/29/96

ID: 11798.MLS

Mr. Michael J. Kroll
Safety Engineering Laboratories, Inc.
27803 College Park Drive
Warren, MI 48093-4879

Dear Mr. Kroll:

This responds to your April 16, 1996 letter asking about the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CFR '571.302), to various materials in the interior of a vehicle. You ask a number of questions about the standard which we have rephrased below, followed by our answers.

Question: Are materials located under the dash (instrument panel) required to meet the FMVSS 302 requirements? Examples of materials located under the dash are: defrost ducts, air distribution ducting, demister tubes and hoses, insulation on wiring, sound deadening materials, electronic and/or electrical component enclosures. Many of these materials are not visible directly but are accessible via heater/defrost outlets and radio speaker grills.

Answer: Section S4.1 of Standard No. 302 lists the components in the vehicle occupant compartment that must comply with the flammability resistance requirements of paragraph S4.3. The components listed are: 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, 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. Under S4.1 and S4.2 of the standard, any portion of these components that is within 2 inch of the occupant compartment air space must meet the standard=s requirements.

The materials you list are not included in S4.1. Thus, they do not have to comply with Standard No. 302.

Question: Are materials located within the passenger compartment on or near the fire wall required to meet Standard 302? These include heating/ventilation/air conditioning (HVAC) ducting, carpeting, sound deadening materials, and electronic or electrical component enclosures. On many vehicles, the HVAC ducting material below the dash is clearly visible and intimately associated with other exposed materials such as carpeting and sound deadening material.

Answer: Some materials located on or near the fire wall are subject to Standard 302. Among the items listed in S4.1 of the standard are floor coverings and engine compartment covers. The standard applies to HVAC ducting material that is part of carpeting used as a floor covering or part of the engine compartment cover. The standard also applies to foam directly under the dash coverings, since the agency considers such foam to be padding that is designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash. This assumes that the HVAC and foam material is within 2 inch of the occupant compartment air space.

Question: Section S4.2 states that AAny portion of a single or composite material which is in 2 inch of the occupant compartment air space shall meet the [flammability resistance] requirements of S4.3.@ Does S4.2 apply to all materials in the occupant compartment air space?

Answer: No, S4.2 only specifies which portions of those components listed in S4.1 must meet the flammability resistance requirements.

Question: Does S4.2 apply to: (i) materials located under the dash and exposed to the occupant compartment air space, (ii) on the fire wall near and/or on the floor of the occupant compartment, (iii) foams directly under vinyl or cloth coverings on seats, (iv) foam directly under dash coverings, and (v) foam used to line the interior of HVAC ducts?

Answer: Standard No. 302 applies to materials on the fire wall near or on the occupant compartment=s floor, foams directly under vinyl or cloth coverings on seats, and foam directly under dash coverings. It does not apply to materials (other than padding) located under the dash and exposed to the occupant compartment space, assuming these materials are not listed in S4.1, or to foam used to line the interior of HVAC ducts.

Question: Does S4.2 apply to composite materials, such as a foam backing on a vinyl headliner tested as a composite?

Answer: Yes, and the composite vinyl headliner is subject to S4.2.2. That section specifies that AAny material that adheres to other material(s) at every point of contact shall meet the requirements of S4.3 when tested as a composite with other material(s).

Question: Does S4.2 apply to a foam backing of a cloth headliner where the foam is not attached to the headliner?

Answer: Yes, and the headliner would be tested subject to S4.2.1, which specifies that AAny material that does not adhere to other material(s) at every point of contact shall meet the requirements of S4.3 when tested separately.@

Question: Does S4.2 apply to any material underneath the carpeting where the total thickness of the carpeting and backing is less than 2 inch?

Answer: Because S4.2 applies to any component in S4.1 that is within 2 inch of the occupant compartment air space, it applies to listed materials such as a floor covering, up to 2 inch.

Question: Under what basis or criteria are some materials within the occupant compartment air space excluded?

Answer: See answer to question one. Section S4.1 of Standard No. 302 provides a comprehensive list of materials subject to the standard. Any material not on this list is not subject to the standard.

I hope this answers your questions. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref:302 d:5/16/96

ID: 11799.MLS

Mr. Tom Byrne
Vice President
Goodridge (USA) Inc.
20309 Gramercy
Torrance, CA 90501

Dear Mr. Byrne:

This responds to your April 19, 1996 request for an interpretation of certain hydraulic brake hose labeling requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106, ABrake Hoses.@

You ask whether a hydraulic brake hose that is sold as part of a brake hose assembly would meet the requirements of S5.2.1 and S5.2.2 if it has the stripes specified in S5.2.1 but does not include the information in S5.2.2(a) through (e). The answer is yes.

Hydraulic brake hoses must be marked with: (1) two stripes meeting the requirements of '5.2.1 of Standard No. 106, unless the hose is of a type excluded under that paragraph; and (2) the information set forth in '5.2.2(a) through (e), until the hose is made into a brake hose assembly. After such assembly, the labeling information of '5.2.2(a) through (e) Aneed not be present on hose . . . .@ (See last sentence of '5.2.2.) However, the hose must continue to have the stripes required by '5.2.1. In addition, the hose assembly would have to be labeled in accordance with the requirements of '5.2.4 or '5.2.4.1 for labeling hydraulic brake hose assemblies.

If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of this office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref:106 d:5/10/96

ID: 11801-5.PJA

Ms. Jane L. Dawson
Thomas Built Buses, Inc.
P.O. Box 2450
1408 Courtesy Road
High Point, NC 27261

Dear Ms. Dawson:

This responds to your April 1, 1996, letter seeking clarification about some conclusions contained in an interpretation dated March 20, 1996 from this office to Mr. Tom Turner of the Blue Bird Body Company, concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release. You have correctly identified statements in the March 20, 1996, letter to Mr. Turner that should be corrected.

In the March 20 letter, we state that voluntarily installed left side emergency exit doors do not have to meet the location requirements of S5.2.3.2. You agree with that position. However, the March 20 letter then states:

voluntarily installed side exit doors would still be subject to prohibitions and requirements that apply to side exit doors generally. For example, S5.2.3.2(a)(4) prohibits installing two side exit doors "in whole or in part, within the same post and roof bow panel space." In addition, section S5.2.3.2(a)(1) requires "each" side exit door to be hinged on its forward side (not merely those doors installed pursuant to Table 1).

As you point out, the scope of all the requirements of S5.2.3.2 is limited by the introductory sentence of S5.2.3.2, which states "[a]ll emergency exits required by S5.2.3.1(a) and S5.2.3.1(b) shall meet the following criteria: . . ." (emphasis added).

You are correct that the scope of S5.2.3.2's requirements is limited by S5.2.3.2's introductory sentence, and that none of the requirements of that section apply to voluntarily installed exits. To the extent that the March 20 letter stated otherwise, it was incorrect. It would be preferable if voluntary exits conform to S5.2.3.2, so that there will be no differences in hinging, spacing and location that may confuse occupants in an emergency.

This letter also clarifies another point made in the March 20, 1996 letter to Mr. Turner. We state in the third paragraph that voluntarily installed exits on school buses "should" meet the requirements of Standard No. 217, to avoid confusing occupants who may choose the exit for emergency egress. The discussion may have implied that voluntarily installed exits are excluded from Standard No. 217's requirements, which would be incorrect.

Standard No. 217 establishes requirements "for bus emergency exits." (See section S1 of the standard.) Most of the standard's requirements apply generally to all school bus emergency exits, without regard to whether an exit is required or voluntarily installed. All the requirements that apply to exits generally, i.e., which use terms such as "each" or "any" when describing the exit to which the requirement applies, apply to voluntarily installed exits. In some instances, the standard's requirements only apply to a required school bus emergency exit (e.g., S5.5.3(a) and (c), emergency exit identification). Requirements that apply only to required exits do not apply to voluntarily installed exits.

Thank you for bringing the error to our attention. If you have further questions or concerns, please call Paul Atelsek of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin
Chief Counsel

cc: Mr. Thomas D. Turner
Blue Bird Body Company

ref:217
d:8/1/96

NCC-20:PAtelsek:6-2992:5/1/96: revised 7/22/96

OCC# 11801.pja
cc: NCC-01 Subject/chron
NCC-20 P.Atelsek
NRM-01; NSA-01

Interp. Std. 217, Redbook (2)

A:\11801­5.PJA

ID: 11804.ZTV

Mr. Donald W. Vierimaa
Vice President - Engineering
Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association
1020 Princess Street
Alexandria, VA 22314

Dear Mr. Vierimaa:

We have received your letter of April 15, 1996, asking for interpretations of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it relates to trailer lighting.

You have informed us of "lowbed trailers [with] narrow goosenecks that are attached to a wider load deck which may be less than 15 inches above the ground." Because Table II of Standard No. 108 requires side marker lamps on trailers whose overall width is 80 inches or more to be mounted at a height of not less than 15 inches, you have asked if the lamps may be mounted at a height of less than 15 inches if the height of the mounting location is "as high as practicable."

Your question is asked with reference to a combination clearance/front side marker lamp. As we explain below, this combination lamp cannot be used to meet the requirements of Standard No. 108 in the manner you posit.

The requirement of Standard No. 108 for front side marker lamps is that they be located "as far to the front as practicable" and, at the front, "not less than 15 inches" above the road surface. Thus, the minimum mounting height is expressed as an absolute rather than, like the horizontal location, in terms of practicability. It is our observation that the gooseneck on lowbed trailers is more than 15 inches above the road surface, and that it would be practicable to mount a side marker lamp there, thus complying with the location requirements of Table II.

You have also informed us that, on the typical lowbed trailer with a gooseneck, the combination front clearance/front side marker lamp is mounted at an angle on the front corners of the deck. The manufacturer chooses this location because "[i]f front clearance lamps were mounted on the front face of the deck directly behind the tires of the towing vehicle, they would likely be damaged by debris thrown by the towing vehicle's tires." Based upon certain NHTSA interpretations which you quoted, you asked for confirmation that a combination lamp mounted at such a location complies with Standard No. 108 "without needing to be visible at 45 degrees inboard."

Upon review, we did not find that the interpretations you quoted really provided confirmation of the interpretation that you seek. However, you also called our attention to the following:

"Clearance lamps may be mounted at a location other than on the front and rear . . . for protection from damage during normal operation of the vehicle, and at such a location they need not be visible at 45 degrees inboard." (49 CFR 571.108, S4.3.1.1.1)."

This provision (now renumbered as S5.3.1.1.1) does allow mounting clearance lamps "at a location other than on the front" if the manufacturer determines that the alternate location is needed to protect the lamp from damage during normal operation of the trailer. We believe that the lamps should also be protected from damage if the alternate location is chosen. It seems to us that mounting the clearance lamps at an angle on the front, rather than on the front involves a move of only a few inches at most, and might not provide any greater protection from road debris than mounting the clearance lamps on the front. We ask you to consider this in determining the appropriate location for the clearance lamps, keeping in mind that their primary purpose is to indicate the overall width of the trailer.

This means that a combination clearance/front side marker lamp will not meet the location requirements of Standard No. 108. A separate front side marker lamp must be provided and located on the gooseneck. A separate clearance lamp must be provided, and located in accordance with the views expressed in the preceding paragraph.

If you have any further questions you may refer them to Taylor Vinson (202) 366-5263.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:5/28/96

ID: 11806WKM

Mr. D. L. O'Connor
Manager
Government & Customer Compliance
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company
Akron, OH 44316-0001

Dear Mr. O'Connor:

This responds to your telephone conversation with Walter Myers of my staff on April 18, 1996, and your follow-up letter also dated April 18, 1996.

You state that Goodyear is encountering difficulties in exporting tires to Venezuela, South America, in that Venezuela wants verification from a U.S. governmental agency that Goodyear tires comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards when the DOT symbol is marked on them. You state that this is the same problem that Goodyear encountered in exporting tires to Colombia last year, and that Venezuela would accept the same type of letter from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that we issued to you last year for Colombia. You request, therefore, that we issue a letter to you similar to the one we issued last year regarding the Colombian imports.

As you requested, please find enclosed a "To Whom It May Concern" letter very similar to the one we provided you on August 9, 1995. As we explained to you at that time, the Federal government cannot and does not approve, certify or endorse vehicles and equipment as do many other countries, including the Central and South American countries. Accordingly, this statement is as far as we can go in describing the Federal government's role in what by law is essentially a manufacturer responsibility.

I hope the enclosed letter will be helpful to you. Should you have further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:571 d:4/30/96

ID: 11807A.SPW

Mr. John Hrabosky
Earth Tool Company LLC
Post Office Box 3
Oconomowoc, WI 53066

Dear Mr. Hrabosky:

This responds to your letter of April 9, 1996, addressed to Walter Myers of my staff, in which you ask what "D.O.T. safety standards [do you] need to be aware of" in producing a vehicle you refer to as a "winch trailer."

You enclosed pictures of your winch trailer, which can be described as a single-axle enclosed trailer whose dimensions are estimated to be approximately 6 to 8 feet long, 5 feet wide, and 4 feet high. The metal enclosure is equipped with side hatches and a back door that open to provide access to the winch and associated tools and equipment mounted inside. The pictures show the trailer hitched to a pickup truck in preparation for towing. You state that the purpose of the winch trailer is "to aid in utility replacement." You also state that the trailer is equipped with electric brakes, has a gross vehicle weight of approximately 4,000 pounds, and has a tongue weight of approximately 250 pounds.

In response to your question about applicable standards, we are enclosing a fact sheet entitled "Federal Requirements for Manufacturers of Trailers," which lists the standards and regulations applicable to trailers. Copies of the listed standards and regulations may be obtained by following the instructions in the enclosed fact sheet entitled "Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations." A copy of the cover of the volume you will need is attached to this fact sheet. The cost of the volume is approximately $40.00.

In addition, we are enclosing the following pertinent information for motor vehicle manufacturers:

a. Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S. Code (the statutory provisions under which NHTSA has issued its safety standards and regulations); and

b. Fact sheet entitled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment."

Should you have any further questions or need additional information, feel free to contact this office at the address shown above or at (202) 366-2992, FAX (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosures

Ref:VSA d:5/9/96

ID: 11814.ZTV

Mr. William J. Schultz
Principal Engineer
United States Motorcycle Manufacturers Association
Dept. 704
3700 W. Juneau Avenue
Milwaukee, WI 53208

Dear Mr. Schultz:

This is in reply to your letter of April 4, 1996, asking for an interpretation of Table IV of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it applies to the location of reflex reflectors on motorcycles.

You point out that agency interpretations permit front turn signal lamps and headlamps "to rotate about the steering axis as long as they are within the location limits specified in the regulation". You ask for confirmation that this interpretation is equally applicable to front side reflex reflectors.

The answer is yes. Table IV requires front side reflex reflectors to be located "on each side. . . as far to the front as practicable." Conformance is determined with the front wheel in the straight-ahead position. The determination of practicability of location is initially that of the motorcycle manufacturer and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will not question it unless it is clearly erroneous. Thus, a front side reflex reflector may be mounted on a portion of the motorcycle that turns if the manufacturer determines that that location is as far to the front as practicable, even though, during a turn, that reflector may not be visible from the side of the motorcycle.

If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref:108 d:5/10/96