William E. Otto, Esq.

Sebring & Associates

2735 Mosside Boulevard

Monroeville, PA 15146

Dear Mr. Otto:

This responds to your letter asking two questions about the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, regarding outside rearview mirrors.

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 also investigates safety-related defects. The agency 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.

In your letter, you ask about an outside drivers side rearview mirror that would contain two parts. You state that on the right portion of the mirror, a section of the mirror would contain a FMVSS No. 111-compliant flat mirror, while the left portion of the mirror would contain a curved or aspheric component. You also suggested that this additional section may cause the mirror to extend farther than the widest part of the vehicle body. You ask two questions relating to this design, which are restated below.

Q1. You ask whether a single drivers side mirror containing both a flat portion and curved or aspherical portion located to the left of said flat portion would be permitted by S5.2.1 of Standard No. 111, provided that the flat portion of the mirror otherwise complies with Section S5.2.1.

Our answer is yes. FMVSS No. 111, S5.2.1, Field of view, states that [e]ach passenger car shall have an outside mirror of unit magnification, which requires a flat mirror. However, if this requirement is met, there is no specific prohibition on additional mirrored surfaces, which can be convex or aspheric.

In a previous letter of interpretation from 1995, NHTSA answered a similar question in the affirmative. In that letter, we stated, [v]ehicle manufacturers may install mirror systems that combine a portion of the mirror with a straight angle with a portion of the mirror that is at a slight variance, provided that the straight mirror portion by itself complies with the requirements in FMVSS No. 111 that are applicable to the vehicle on which the mirror system is installed.[1] Similarly, in a 1998 letter, NHTSA stated that [v]ehicle manufacturers may install mirror systems that combine flat and convex mirrors on their new vehicles, provided that the flat mirror portion by itself meets FMVSS No. 111 requirements applicable to the vehicle on which the mirror system is installed.[2]

Therefore, assuming your drivers side flat mirror meets the field of view requirements, we can confirm that an additional aspheric portion would not be prohibited.

Q2. You ask whether a drivers side mirror which protrudes farther than the widest part of the vehicle body is permitted under S5.2.2 of FMVSS No. 111, if the extent of the protrusion is limited to the minimum necessary to accommodate a mirror which exceeds the requirements of Section S5.2.1 by the following characteristics: (1) the flat portion of the mirror complies with the requirements of Section S5.2.1 and (b) a curved or aspheric portion of the mirror located to the left of the flat portion of the mirror results in an increase in the field of view.

Assuming that the aspheric portion of your mirror produces a field of view that exceeds S5.2.1, our answer is yes. Paragraph S5.2.2 reads, in part, neither the mirror nor the mounting shall protrude farther than the widest part of the vehicle body except to the extent necessary to produce a field of view meeting or exceeding the requirements of S5.2.1. (Emphasis added.) S5.2.2 as originally adopted (then S3.2.1.2) specified that neither the mirror nor the mounting shall protrude farther than the widest part of the vehicle body, except to the extent necessary to meet the requirements of the field view requirements (32 FR 2408, 2413). Shortly thereafter, the exception was expanded to include the words meeting or exceeding in an early amendment to the standard (32 FR 5498, April 4, 1967, copy enclosed). Since the exception was revised to accommodate mirrors and mountings that produce a field of view exceeding the requirements of S5.2.1, we believe a protrusion to accommodate that part of the mirror is permitted. However, this exception does not extend to protrusions beyond the widest part of the body to accommodate items such as decorations or lights near that part of the mirror. Moreover, the mirror and mounting must be free of sharp points or edges that could contribute to pedestrian injury, as specified elsewhere in S5.2.2.

I hope this answers your questions. 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:111

d.1/16/09

Mr. Paul Witkowski

VCA North America

41000 West Seven Mile Road

Suite 140

Northville, MI 48167-2664

Dear Mr. Witkowski:

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 on 50 articulated hybrid-driveline buses that a United Kingdom bus manufacturer is manufacturing for sale in Nevada. These buses will be used as transit buses and will include a separate, lockable compartment for the bus driver that is partitioned off from the rest of the vehicle. You wish to know whether FMVSS No. 217 permits the design, i.e., whether under the standard the driver would have adequate access to the buss emergency exits. As explained below, FMVSS No. 217 does not prohibit the separate, lockable compartment specifically described in your letter. However, there are other requirements and safety considerations of which you should be aware.

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

You describe the drivers compartment as having:

a full height tinted glass partition that separates the driver from the main passenger compartment. Access to the drivers compartment is gained from the main passenger compartment through a centrally mounted full depth tinted glass door, that when opened, allows the driver to ascend the two steps to his elevated workplace.

You explain that the cab door is spring loaded and will close behind the driver entering the compartment. The driver has two ways of locking the door. The first way is by manually operating a handle on the door to lock the door. To release the lock and open the door, the driver rotates the handle 90 degrees clockwise. The second way is by pushing a button from the drivers seat that electrically operates a shoot bolt which mechanically extends a steel bar into a mating hole in the door. To release the lock, the button is pressed again. You state that the electronic locking feature requires constant electrical power to remain locked, and will open upon loss of electrical power.

You also state that the drivers compartment has one side window to the left of the driver that has a sliding portion that can open for ventilation and to allow the driver to adjust the exterior mirror. The glass on the right side of the drivers compartment does not open.[1] We assume that neither of these two side windows meets the requirements for emergency window exits of FMVSS No. 217.

Discussion

FMVSS No. 217 applies to buses, except buses manufactured for the purpose of transporting persons under physical restraint. (See S3.) Among other purposes, FMVSS No. 217 is intended to provide a means of readily accessible emergency egress. (See S2.) FMVSS No. 217 states in part at S5.2.2.1: Buses other than school buses shall provide unobstructed openings for emergency exit which collectively amount, in total square centimeters, to at least 432 times the number of designated seating positions on the bus.

The main question presented by your letter is whether the bus provides the driver unobstructed openings for emergency exit. In your design, the driver is separated from the passenger compartment that has the emergency exits but still is able to readily access those exits. The driver can manually unlock and open the door in one or two motions, and the lock will also automatically disengage the locking mechanism in the event of an electrical failure. Because of these features, in our opinion FMVSS No. 217 does not prohibit your design. Keep in mind that the bus drivers seating position must be counted in the S5.2.2.1 calculation of required unobstructed openings for emergency exit.

There are other requirements and safety considerations of which you should be aware. Because you describe the compartment as made of tinted glass, the bus manufacturer must ensure that the compartment meets all applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 205, Glazing materials. FMVSS No. 205 applies to buses and to glazing materials used in those vehicles. (See S3.1(a).)

States have the authority to regulate the use of vehicles and may have laws pertaining to the drivers access to an emergency exit or to other aspects relating to your vehicle. You should check State law to see how they affect your vehicles.

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

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

ref:217

d.11/20/08

James C. Chen, Esq.

Crowell & Moring LLP

1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20004

Dear Mr. Chen:

This responds to your letter asking about requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, that manufacturers label their products with a date of manufacture. A date of manufacture is required to be labeled on add-on child restraints (S5.5.2(c)), built-in child restraints (S5.5.5(c)), and on the child restraint registration card required by S5.8.1(c) of the standard. When describing the date of manufacture that manufacturers must provide, the standard refers to month and year (S5.5.2(c) and S5.5.5(c)), month, year (S5.8.1(c) and S5.8.2(a)(2)), or ZZ-ZZ-20ZZ (Figure 9a depicting registration form). You ask whether your client, Graco Childrens Products, Inc., may depict the date of manufacture as:

You state that Graco would include the clarifying text that explains the meaning of the numerals. For instance, a typical label would appear as follows in the shaded area of the registration form (the area outside of the space for the consumer to fill in) (you provided this example in a letter to us dated May 16, 2008):

Our answer is yes, Graco may use the above format to provide the date of manufacture on the child restraints and on the registration card.

Discussion

FMVSS No. 213 requires that the month and year of manufacture be identified. It is our opinion that Gracos year-month-day format satisfies the requirements of FMVSS No. 213, provided that the words year, month, and day accompany the numerals. The words are important to explain the meaning of the numerals, since the U.S. typically uses a month, day, year format. With the accompanying text your clients format is readily

understood as providing the month and year of manufacture. Accordingly, Gracos labeling would satisfy the standards requirement that a date of manufacture be provided.

We would like to make the following observations about use of the format on the registration form. FMVSS No. 213 strictly controls the appearance of the form. We have found that the appearance of the form affects the likelihood that a consumer will participate in the owner registration program. S5.8(b)(2) requires that the registration form conform in size, content and format to forms depicted in the standard. Each form must be preprinted with the restraints model name or number and its date of manufacture. Under S5.8 no other information is permitted to appear on the postcard, except information that distinguishes a particular restraint from another restraint system may be preprinted in the shaded area of the postcard, as shown in figure 9a. (S5.8.1(b)(3)).

Gracos year-month-day format does not affect the overall appearance of the registration form. It provides the month and year of manufacture, and distinguishes a particular restraint from another restraint system. According to the example you provided, the year-month-day grid will be placed on the shaded area of the postcard. All of these factors lead us to conclude that the year-month-day format would satisfy S5.8.1(b)(3) of the standard.

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

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

ref:213

d.11/20/08

Mr. Guy Dorleans

International & Regulatory Affairs

Valeo Lighting Systems

34, rue Saint-Andr

93 012 Bobigny Cedex

France

Dear Mr. Dorleans:

This responds to your letter, in which you ask about the activation of daytime running lamps (DRLs) under the administrative rewrite version of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Specifically, you ask whether various LED (light-emitting diode) lamp designs, incorporating a parking lamp function in addition to other functions, can be used as DRLs under the new version standard. Our answer is that the new version of FMVSS No. 108 does not affect that opinion we provided in our April 29, 2008 letter to you.

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.

On December 4, 2007, NHTSA published an administrative rewrite of FMVSS No. 108 (72 FR 68234). This rewrite was intended to present the existing regulatory requirements in a simpler, more straightforward manner, and to reduce the need to consult outside documentation. As we stated in the summary of the notice:

This document amends the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108 on lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment by reorganizing the regulatory text so that it provides a more straightforward and logical

presentation of the applicable regulatory requirements, which includes the agencys interpretation of the existing requirements. This final rule does not impose any new substantive requirements on manufacturers.

In a letter of interpretation we mailed to you on April 29, 2008, we stated:

For the purpose of S5.5.11(a) [of the current version of FMVSS No. 108], the array of LEDs that you described in your letter, which can serve the function of parking lamps or other lamps depending on how they are activated, would not be considered parking lamps in either of the scenarios that you described. In DRL mode, the lamps would be substantially brighter than the parking lamps, and according to your letter, their photometric output would comply with the requirements of S5.5.11(a)(1), which sets minimum and maximum output for DRLs. This would result in effective DRLs, which is the intent of the requirement in FMVSS No. 108.

This relayed our opinion that your lighting system was permissible under FMVSS No. 108. This opinion is not changed by the fact that the standard has been reworded. For reference, as you stated in your letter, the rewritten language (now in paragraph S6.1.1.4) reads:

Daytime running lamps. A passenger car, multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck, or bus may be equipped with a pair of daytime running lamps (DRLs) as specified in Table I and S7.10 of this standard. DRLs may be any pair of lamps on the front of the vehicle, whether or not required by this standard, other than parking lamps or fog lamps.

Therefore, the opinion expressed in our previous letter, that the lighting system that you propose is permissible under the standard, will still hold true when the new language for FMVSS No. 108 comes into effect.

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

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

NCC-112:Ascott:5/23/08:OCC 08-002063:62992

Final AScott:mar:11/25/08

Cc: NCC-110 Subj/Chron, Redbook, Docket Std. 108

S:\INTERP\108\08-002063as.docref:108

d.1/16/09

Robert Babcock, Senior Manager

Regulation and Certification Department

Hyundai-Kia America Technical Center Inc.

6800 Geddes Road

Superior Township, MI 48198

Dear Mr. Babcock:

This responds to your letter asking about an exemption from vehicle parts marking pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543, Exemption from Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard. As we understand your letter, you ask about optional antitheft device equipment for a car line that has received an exemption for standard equipment where the optional equipment is equivalent in capability to the standard equipment that received the exemption. Our answer is we cannot provide the exemption you request.

49 U.S.C. Section 33106, Exemption for passenger motor vehicles equipped with anti-theft devices, permits manufacturers to petition the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for an exemption for a line of passenger motor vehicles equipped as standard equipment with an anti-theft device that [NHTSA] decides is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard. (Emphasis added.) (See 49 U.S.C. Section 30166(b)(2)).

Your letter states that: HATCI [Hyundai-Kia America Technical Center, Inc.] requests the consideration of the agency to the extension of this [exemption] provision to optional equipment where the option would be concluded to be as likely to be effective in reducing and deterring vehicle theft as would the standard equipment that the agency had previously provided an exemption where all vehicles in the car line would employ one or the other equivalent system.

We are unable to comply with your request. By statute, the exemptions are to apply only to motor vehicle lines with antitheft devices as standard equipment. Standard equipment is defined at 49 U.S.C. Section 33106(a)(2) as: equipment already installed in a motor vehicle when it is delivered from the manufacturer and not an accessory or other item that the first purchaser customarily has the option to have installed.

Your letter states that: HATCI believes that section 543.9(ii) provides the appropriate mechanism for this extension 49 CFR Part 543 establishes procedures for filing and processing petitions to exempt lines of vehicles from the parts-marking requirements of the theft prevention standard. Section 543.2 specifies that the purpose of Part 543 is to specify the content and format of petitions for vehicle lines which include certain antitheft devices as standard requirement. Section 543.9 establishes procedures for NHTSA to terminate or modify an exemption provided under Part 543. There is no section 543.9(ii) in Part 543; we believe that you meant section 543.9(c)(2)(ii). At any rate, section 543.9 applies to procedures to terminate or modify an exemption for high theft motor vehicles lines that include antitheft devices as standard equipment.

If you have questions about this or related issues, please feel free to contact my office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

ref:543

d.11/20/08

Damian J. Pelegrino, President

Top Cargo Inc.

9869 NW 79^th Avenue

Miami, FL 33016

Dear Mr. Pelegrino:

This responds to your letter, in which you inquired about the classification of vehicles. Specifically, you requested this agencys opinion of whether certain electric scooters would be considered motor vehicles and subject to the regulatory requirements of this agency. Our answer is that, based on the information you provided in your letter and subject to the caveats included below, none of the vehicles you described would appear to be classified as a motor vehicle.

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 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.

To begin, the definition of a motor vehicle is provided in 49 U.S.C. 30102, and reads:

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

All six of the vehicles that you described in your letter are two-wheeled, electric scooters that, according to your letter, have a rated speed of less than 20 mph.

Congress has created a special category of vehicles called low-speed electric bicycles that is relevant to the classification of one of your vehicles. In the Consumer Product Safety Act (Pub. L. 107-319, December 4, 2002; codified at 15 U.S.C. 2085), Congress defined a low speed electric bicycle as a:

[T]wo- or three-wheeled vehicle with fully operable pedals and electric motor of less than 750 watts (1 HP), whose maximum speed on a paved level surface, when powered solely by such a motor while ridden by an operator who weighs 170 pounds, is less than 20 mph.

Based on the information in your letter, one of the vehicles you described (the Model TDR48k41) would likely be classified as a low speed electric bicycle under this statute. Your letter stated that this vehicle has a 350 watt electric motor and a rated speed of 19.8 mph. While you did not indicate exactly how you calculated the rated speed, if its top speed was attained using the method indicated by Congress, it would be classified as a low speed electric bicycle, and therefore not a motor vehicle.

The other vehicles you described do not have pedals, and so would not be classified as low speed electric bicycles. However, based on your descriptions, we do not believe that any of those vehicles would be considered motor vehicles either. In a draft notice of interpretation (70 FR 34810, copy enclosed) addressing low speed two- and three-wheeled vehicles, NHTSA articulated a method to distinguish those vehicles that fall under the statutory definition of motor vehicle from other vehicles. In that notice, we stated:

Consistent with the Congressional definition of low speed electric bicycle, we have tentatively concluded that if a two- or three-wheeled vehicle were to have a maximum speed capability of less than 20 mph (32 km/h), regardless of on-road capabilities, it would not be a motor vehicle, except in very limited circumstances[1].

We have examined the information you sent us regarding the other five vehicles. All of them appear to be electric two-wheeled vehicles, with top speeds ranging from 18.64-19.8 mph (30-32 km/h). Therefore, based on our draft notice of interpretation referenced above, we would likely not consider any of them to be motor vehicles under 49 U.S.C. 30102, and therefore not subject to regulation by NHTSA (this assumes that the rated speed you identified is consistent with the method we described in our draft notice of interpretation). We note, however, that all six of these vehicles would be regulated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Furthermore, the vehicles are subject to State laws.

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:571

d.1/16/09

Mr. James D. Carroll

4608 Oakwood Circle

Gastonia, NC 28056

Dear Mr. Carroll:

This responds to your letter regarding the permissibility of an owner removing a label required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 218, Motorcycle Helmets, from a certified motorcycle helmet. Specifically, you ask us to confirm whether certain statements made by the agency in a 1988 letter are still current. Our answer is yes.

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.

In your letter, you quote a statement we made in a December 8, 1988 letter to Mr. Wayne Ivie regarding the removal of the helmet label, and ask if that statement still reflected NHTSAs view. The statement is as follows:

Please note that Federal law does not prohibit the helmets owner or any other person that is not a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from removing the label from motorcycle helmets. Thus, the owner of a motorcycle helmet is permitted to remove the label from his or her helmet for any reason without violating any provision of Federal law. The individual States are free to establish requirements for motorcycle helmets used in their State, and could prohibit an owner from removing the label.

The relevant Federal prohibition on the modification of vehicles or items of equipment is 49 U.S.C. 30112, Making safety devices and elements inoperative.[1] This section reads, in part:

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.

Because the certification label is an element of design installed on the helmet in compliance with FMVSS No. 218 (specifically, paragraph S5.6 of FMVSS No. 218), manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or repair businesses are prohibited by 49 U.S.C. 30122 from removing the label. However, this prohibition does not apply to an individual owner modifying his or her own equipment. Nonetheless, NHTSA discourages owners from reducing the safety effectiveness of their vehicles or items of equipment by, for example, removing required labeling. The labeling is an indication to consumers, including secondhand purchasers, that the helmet provides a minimum level of safety protection. Generally, uncertified helmets provide a lesser level of head protection for riders involved in crashes. Furthermore, as stated in the Ivie letter, individual States are free to establish requirements for motorcycle helmets used in their State, and are free to prohibit an owner from removing the label from his or her own helmet.

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:218

d.11/20/08

Mr. Michael H. Bai

Littleton Joyce Ughetta Park & Kelly LLP

39 Broadway

34^th Floor

New York, NY 10006

Dear Mr. Bai:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of one of the labeling requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 139, New pneumatic radial tires for light vehicles. You ask whether, if your client Kumho Tires incorporates lyocell fibers in the cord materials for the tires plies, it would be permissible under S5.5(e) of FMVSS No. 139 to label the tire sidewall with either lyocell or rayon.

Our answer is a qualified yes. We have made a few assumptions in answering your letter. First, we assume that the cord material in question is in fact lyocell and that you simply ask if reference to lyocell or rayon may be used to describe the material. Second, you state that under Federal Trade Commission (FTC) regulations, lyocell and rayon are generic names for lyocell; for the purposes of this letter, we assume your understanding is correct. However, for a complete answer to your question, you should contact the FTC to obtain its concurrence that you have correctly understood the FTC regulation.

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.

Paragraph S5.5 of FMVSS No. 139 specifies tire markings for new pneumatic radial tires for use on motor vehicles (other than motorcycles and low speed vehicles) that have a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less. Among the information required by S5.5 to be marked on the tire sidewall, S5.5(e) requires The generic name of each cord material used in the plies (both sidewall and tread area) of the tire. NHTSA requires this information to help tire purchasers select the characteristics they want in a given tire, because the many different cord materials that exist and their many different characteristics enable a tire to be specially geared to its anticipated use.

Your letter states that FTC regulations (16 CFR 303.7(d)) permit the use of the generic name lyocell or rayon where the fabric used is lyocell. NHTSA has previously favorably cited FTC-established generic names for cord materials. In a January 20, 1976 letter of interpretation, NHTSA advised that if Kevlar was used as a cord material in a tire, it must be identified by its generic name, which, NHTSA stated, the FTC established as Aramid pursuant to the Textile Fiber Product Identification Act.

Assuming you are correct that the FTC has established that lyocell fibers may be identified by either the generic name lyocell or the generic name rayon, and because we have previously accepted FTC-established generic names for tire cord material labeling required by the FMVSSs, in our opinion using either lyocell or rayon as the generic name for lyocell tire cords would be acceptable under FMVSS No. 139. However, our answer is conditional on FTC concurrence that the generic names lyocell and rayon are properly applicable to your clients tire cord material. We suggest that you follow up with the FTC on this matter.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Rebecca Schade of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

ref:139

d.8/25/08

Ms. Ramona Hutton

167 Deep Woods Way

Ormond Beach, FL 32174

Dear Ms. Hutton:

This responds to your letter asking about requirements applying to aftermarket slip-on seat covers for motor vehicles. In particular, you were interested in flammability requirements that would be applicable to the product.

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, National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act)). 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. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment.

There is currently no FMVSS that directly applies to aftermarket slip-on seat covers. There are a number of FMVSSs that apply to vehicle seating systems. However, these apply to new complete motor vehicles and not to aftermarket slip-on seat covers. Nonetheless, there are Federal requirements that indirectly affect the manufacture and sale of your product.

Under the Safety Act, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you would have to ensure that your product is free of safety-related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your seat cover 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, 30122 of the Safety Act specifies: 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 ... The flammability resistance of the original vehicle is an element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with FMVSS No. 302. Further, some motor vehicles have sensing systems in front seats installed in compliance with FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and seat-mounted side air bags in compliance with FMVSS No. 214, Side Impact Protection. While it appears unlikely that persons in the aforementioned categories would be installing your product, installation of an item that made inoperative the vehicles compliance with flammability resistance, side or frontal impact protection requirements may subject the commercial entity to penalties for violating 30122.

The make inoperative prohibition of 30122 does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. Thus, if your seat cover were installed in vehicles by the vehicle owners, your product need not meet any FMVSSs. Nevertheless, we urge consumers not to degrade the safety of their vehicles. Further, for information on private tort liability, we suggest you contact your private attorney or insurance carrier.

State or local jurisdictions have their own traffic safety laws which could affect the flammability resistance of certain items. For information about those requirements, you should contact the State departments of motor vehicles.

In your letter, you provided data sheets of a product you are considering using to fire-retard the seat covers. As explained above, we regret to inform you that NHTSA is not able to approve or make any recommendations about the use of the product.

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

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:302

d.11/20/08