ID: aiam1142

Dear Mr. Humphreys: This is in reply to your letter of April 27, 1973, regarding th application of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials', to mattress covers. You ask whether 'mattress covers', listed under Paragraph S4.1 of the standard, includes a cover 'that is used generally to enclose a mattress for cleanliness or sanitary purposes *or* only the ticking which encloses the mattress filling or core *or* both items . . .'; We consider that mattress ticking and a cover enclosing a mattress fo sanitary purposes are both 'mattress covers' within the meaning of the standard, and both items must meet the requirements of the standard.; Thank you for sending us the copy of your memorandum, 'Department o Commerce Standards Issued Under the Flammable Fabrics Act.'; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0005

Dear Mr. Batten: This responds to your letter and telephon conversation with Ms. Fujita of my staff concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 124, Accelerator Control Systems. You asked about the standard's 'applicable mileage requirement or time domain' for a truck with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 10,000 pounds. You informed Ms. Fujita that, stated differently, your question is whether NHTSA requires a used vehicle to continue to meet an FMVSS, and if the answer is yes, for what mileage or amount of time the vehicle must meet the standard. Generally speaking, the answer is no. NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act requires a vehicle to comply with applicable FMVSS's until its first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale. However, you should be aware that manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses modifying a vehicle (new or used) are prohibited by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. Thus, in the context of Standard No. l24, a person in the aforementioned categories is prohibited from rendering inoperative an accelerator control system that has been installed in compliance with that standard. In addition, if the in-use deterioration of the performance of a vehicle or one of its components creates a safety risk, it could constitute a safety-related defect. Pursuant to sections l5l-l54 of the Safety Act, manufacturers are required to notify NHTSA and owners of such safety-related defects and to remedy such defects without charge. Thus, if the accelerator control systems on your vehicles deteriorate such that they no longer would comply with Standard No l24 and create an unsafe situation, that could be the basis for a defect determination, even though the vehicles met all applicable safety standards when they were new. I also note that our sister agency in the Department, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), has operational and equipment requirements for trucks used in interstate commerce. If you are interested in that agency's requirements, you can write to them at the following address: Office of Motor Carrier Standards Federal Highway Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam0006

Dear Mr. Batten: This responds to your letter and telephon conversation with Ms. Fujita of my staff concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 124, Accelerator Control Systems. You asked about the standard's 'applicable mileage requirement or time domain' for a truck with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 10,000 pounds. You informed Ms. Fujita that, stated differently, your question is whether NHTSA requires a used vehicle to continue to meet an FMVSS, and if the answer is yes, for what mileage or amount of time the vehicle must meet the standard. Generally speaking, the answer is no. NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act requires a vehicle to comply with applicable FMVSS's until its first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale. However, you should be aware that manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses modifying a vehicle (new or used) are prohibited by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. Thus, in the context of Standard No. l24, a person in the aforementioned categories is prohibited from rendering inoperative an accelerator control system that has been installed in compliance with that standard. In addition, if the in-use deterioration of the performance of a vehicle or one of its components creates a safety risk, it could constitute a safety-related defect. Pursuant to sections l5l-l54 of the Safety Act, manufacturers are required to notify NHTSA and owners of such safety-related defects and to remedy such defects without charge. Thus, if the accelerator control systems on your vehicles deteriorate such that they no longer would comply with Standard No l24 and create an unsafe situation, that could be the basis for a defect determination, even though the vehicles met all applicable safety standards when they were new. I also note that our sister agency in the Department, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), has operational and equipment requirements for trucks used in interstate commerce. If you are interested in that agency's requirements, you can write to them at the following address: Office of Motor Carrier Standards Federal Highway Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel;

ID: nht88-3.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/10/88

FROM: LARRY P. EGLEY

TITLE: REQUEST FOR EVALUATION/INTERPRETATION OF PROPOSED INVENTION: "SUDDEN STOP FLASHER (SSF)"

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/09/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO LARRY P. EGLEY; REDBOOK A33 [2]; STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 01/17/89 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO KATHLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA; OCC 3028; LETTER DATED 05/23/89 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO KAT HLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA; LETTER DATED 09/10/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO KATHLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA; OCC 2530; REPORT DATED 09/07/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY, AN APPEAL FOR VARIANT INTERPRETATION OF NHTSA STANDARDS AS THEY RELATE TO BRAKE LIGHTS AND THE SUDDEN STO P FLASHER [SSF]; LETTER DATED 07/13/88 FROM KATHLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA TO LARRY P. EGLEY; LETTER DATED 06/23/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO RALPH HITCHCOCK -- NHTSA; OCC 2256; LETTER DATED 06/20/88 FROM LEWIS S. BUCHANAN -- EPA TO LARRY P. EGLEY; OCC 2199; LET TER DATED 06/09/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO LEWIS BUCHANAN

TEXT: The Sudden Stop Flasher (SSF) would work in conjunction with standard automobile brake lights. During routine decelerations, the brake lights would function normally. However, at unusual or "unexpectedly" high deceleration rates, such as when a driver suddenly sees a dog on the road or an accident ahead, the SSF would utilize a pendulum-type accelerometer in conjunction with a special high-speed flasher to rapidly flash the brake lights automatically (such as drivers sometime attempt to do themselves to warn the driver behind but only when they have time).

To make the effective flash rate even higher, the high-mount light would flash in rapid sequence with the two lower brake lights, the two lower lights flashing simultaneously.

I believe this concept would be especially effective in preventing high-speed crashes such as on Interstate highways when separation intervals are greater and when rapid deceleration may be completely unexpected. These crashes too frequently result i n ruptured gas tanks and fatalities.

The SSF would be especially applicable, I believe, to automobiles equipped with anti-skid brakes. Ironically, cars with anti-skid brakes may become involved in accidents because of their superior braking performance when the car behind them crashes i nto them because the car behind is not equipped with anti-skid brakes and therefore cannot match the braking performance. The SSF could provide the extra 2-or 3- second warning which could be the difference between a controlled stop and a disastrous cra sh.

A special feature would be the "Crash Lock-Up Mode." This feature would cause the system to "lock-up" in the rapid warning flash sequence mode whenever an "impact-level" (i.e., an actual crash) is encountered. When drivers have an accident, they are often confused and disoriented and consequently fail to take measures to warn other drivers - such as turn on the hazard warning flashers. The Crash Lock-Up feature would automatically send out a continuous warning when an actual crash occurs, thus possi bly preventing yet another crash. The Crash Lock-Up would remain actuated until the ignition switch is recycled. This feature would be especially helpful if a crash occurred on a foggy night or when the visibility is otherwise poor.

The actual point or g-level at which the SSF would actuate would be determined by testing and the units would be preset and sealed at the factory. I do not believe any compensation would be necessary for up-grades or down-grades. The system would act uate somewhat later on an upgrade and somewhat earlier on a downgrade, which would be inherently appropriate. Likewise, I do not believe any compensation would be necessary for the size of the automobile because the deceleration level would be the criti cal factor, regardless of the size or weight of the automobile.

ID: nht88-1.70

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: MARCH 15, 1988

FROM: CARL C. CLARK -- INVENTOR CONTACT, NHTSA

TO: CLAIRE HAVEN--QUADWEST, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 11-22-88 TO CLAIRE HAVEN, QUADWEST, FROM ERICKA Z. JONES, NHTSA; REDBOOK A33; STDS. 209, 208, 302; VSA108 (A)(2)

TEXT: Thank you for sending your "Joyride" Seatbelt Pad, which you propose to sell as a comfort rather than a safety feature. This nylon covered foam pad device fits inside of the shoulder belt and is attached to the shoulder belt by nylon babs running the le ngth of the pad (about 16 inches) with velcro along the entire length. You have asked for my comments on its design prior to your writing to Ms. Erika Jones, Chief Counsel of this agency, for a formal letter as to whether the device would be expected to take a shoulder belt out of compliance with any applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard.

The pad has a thickness of about one inch of moderately soft foam, sufficient to spread the load of the retractor force over its width of about 3.5 inches but not sufficient to spread the load under crash conditions, which would require a much stiffer pa d. In the model sent to me, the nylon tabs were closer together than the one and seven eights inches width of the belt, and so did not wrap around the belt to allow complete overlapping of the velcro. You advised me that this was an early model and lat er models had the proper clearance for the belt. Once the pad is in place from the shoulder across the chest, it does make the belt a little more comfortable, particularly if the retractor has a continuous pull, without the "windowshade" feature.

On getting out of the car, the pad must either be removed from the belt or slid toward the latch plate, or it prevents the retractor from reeling up the belt completely or in part, so that the belt may become tangled and less easy to use on the next entr y. We have tried the pad with an automatic motorized passive belt, which has a motor that moves the belt along a track around the door when the door is closed, automatically positioning the shoulder belt across the body; since the retractor is near the center of the car, the pad simply slid along the belt and caused no jamming.

When the pad is in place, it does introduce a slight amount of additional shoulder belt length, but within the one inch or so of acceptable slack, expectedly similar to wearing a coat under a belt.

We do not provide certification tests for showing compliance with standards, nor do we endorse products. A manufacturer, in selling an automotive product, is by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act "self-certifying" that the product meets a ll aplicable federal safety standards. Your product is used in association with the belts, covered under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 208 and 209, but such a product is not specifically mentioned in these standards. Your device, if left on th e shoulder belt, retards or inhibits retraction, and so may inhibit subsequent belt use if the belt becomes tangled. But for those troubled by the slight retractor load on the shoulder (in some car models), the pad would expectedly increase the comfort o f using the belt. And for short people for whom the shoulder belt may rest flat on the neck, your pad may provide sufficient stiffness to hold the shoulder belt on the shoulder rather than on the neck, a potential safety benefit.

I see no technical safety objection to its use, but you should also request the formal review by the Chief Counsel as to whether there is any implication of interference of your device with an applicable standard.

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: aiam5336

"Dear Mr. McLauchlin: This responds to your January 25, 1994, lette asking about how this agency's regulations might apply to your product, the Automated Fire Extinguisher System (AFES). You state that your product's purpose is to allow the operators and occupants of a vehicle to exit safely in the event of a fire. Apparently, the AFES sensors will detect smoke and heat and respond by automatically opening some sort of control valve, whereupon a manifold assembly with 'strategically placed directional nozzles' will flood the passenger compartment with some sort of fire extinguisher/retardant. You do not state what kind of fire extinguisher/retardant is used. You explain that the automatic nature of this system will provide time to extract even an unconscious or incapacitated operator or occupant. Apparently, the AFES has wide applicability. You explain that the AFES proto- type can be installed in a car, truck, boat, RV, or bus or other vehicle running on a 12 volt battery. Apparently you will modify the AFES so that it will run off the 110 volt current in homes and commercial buildings. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the 'Safety Act') defines, in relevant part, the term 'motor vehicle equipment' as: any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component or as any accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle ... (emphasis added). In determining whether an item of equipment is considered an accessory, NHTSA applies two criteria. The first criterion is whether a substantial portion of the expected use of the item is related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. We determine a product's expected use by considering product advertising, product labeling, and the type of store that retails the product, as well as available information about the actual use of the product. The second criterion is whether the product is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles. If the product satisfies both criteria, then the product is considered to be an 'accessory' and thus is subject to the provisions of the Safety Act. Applying these criteria to the AFES, it appears that this product would be an accessory and thus an item of motor vehicle equipment under the Safety Act. Based on our understanding of the product, it appears that a substantial portion of the expected use of the AFES system relates to motor vehicle operation. The system is intended to protect anyone occupying a vehicle when a fire occurs. Also, it appears that the product would typically be used by ordinary users of motor vehicles. While it appears that the AFES system is an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA has not issued any standards for such a device. Nevertheless, there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect the manufacture and sale of your product. You as the product's manufacturer are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. We have some concerns about the safety impacts if the AFES were to activate while the vehicle is moving. Is it possible, for example, that a driver smoking in the car on a hot day could accidentally set off the sensors, or that they could malfunction spontaneously? Although we do not know what will be coming through the nozzles (fluid, foam, and inert gases are common fire extinguishing agents), we are concerned that AFES activation could cause the driver to lose control in what is otherwise a controllable situation. We urge you to thoroughly consider these and other factors that could affect the safety of motor vehicle operation. If the AFES were installed by a vehicle manufacturer as original equipment, the vehicle manufacturer would have to certify that the vehicle with the AFES installed complies with all FMVSS's. Among the FMVSS's that might be affected by certain AFES installations are Standard No. 201, 'Occupant Protection in Interior Impact,' and Standard No. 208, 'Occupant Crash Protection.' A commercial business that installs the AFES system would also be subject to provisions of the Safety Act that affect modifications of new or used vehicles. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) provides that: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. This means that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business must not install your device if the system renders inoperative the vehicle's compliance with the FMVSS's. For instance, compliance with Standard No. 208 might be degraded if it were necessary to mount the AFES manifold or directional nozzles in front of the driver or passenger. Any violation of this 'render inoperative' prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. Please note also that the render inoperative prohibition does not apply to modifications that vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners install the AFES in their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade any safety device or system installed in their vehicles. In addition, individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their vehicles, so you might wish to consult State regulations to see whether your device would be permitted. I hope this information is helpful. I am also enclosing a copy of a fact sheet titled 'Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment.' If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact us at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: aiam5160

"Dear Mr. Brown: This responds to your letter of March 15, 1993 inquiring 'whether modifying the throttle controls on a school bus so that a short person can operate it would jeopardize the manufacturer's certification that a bus is in compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards' (FMVSS's). By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., Safety Act) authorizes NHTSA to issue FMVSS's that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised its authority under the Safety Act to establish Standard No. 124, Accelerator Control Systems (49 CFR Part 571.124). Standard No. 124 'establishes requirements for the return of a vehicle's throttle to the idle position when the driver removes the actuating force from the accelerator control.' The Safety Act requires each vehicle manufacturer to certify that its vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 124. This certification process requires each manufacturer to determine in the exercise of due care that its products meet all applicable requirements. If the throttle control or other equipment on the new school bus were modified by the bus manufacturer, the bus manufacturer must ensure that the vehicle meets all applicable FMVSS's, including Standard No. 124. If the throttle control or other equipment were modified on a new bus prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would probably be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle. As an alterer, that person would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the modification. (See 49 CFR 567.7.) If the modification is made after the vehicle's first sale, the only NHTSA requirement that would affect the modification is the 'render inoperative' prohibition in 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides that: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The 'render inoperative' provision would prohibit a commercial business from modifying the throttle in a manner that would negatively affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 124. If the throttle control was built up in a way that prevented the throttle from returning to idle when the driver removed his or her foot, it would violate the render inoperative prohibition. You ask whether NHTSA could grant a waiver to allow a school bus company to modify the throttle control on its vehicles. The Safety Act provides that NHTSA may by regulation exempt a person from the 'render inoperative' prohibition if the agency determines that an exemption is consistent with motor vehicle safety and the purposes of the Act. Based on the information in your letter, we believe it would be unlikely that the agency would decide that an exemption is appropriate for any modification that would prevent the throttle from returning to idle. Such an exemption would increase the incidence of engine overspeed and the likelihood of possible crashes resulting from this condition. That the vehicle is question is a school bus makes the safety concerns even more compelling. You should be aware that the 'render inoperative' prohibition only applies to the commercial entities listed in 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. Owners may modify their vehicles without violating any laws or regulations administered by this agency. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to tamper with vehicle safety equipment if the modification would degrade the safety of the vehicle. I hope you find this information 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, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ";

ID: aiam5580

Dear Mr. Quinata: This responds to your letter asking whether use Nissan Truck Crane Lorries from Japan are subject to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). I apologize for the delay in our response, but we had difficulty contacting Nissan for some information we needed to answer your question. From your letter, I assume that Sanko Bussan Guam has imported this vehicle for use in the dock area, and that your agency is holding the vehicle pending this interpretation because the vehicle is not certified as complying with the FMVSS. The short answer to your question is that the truck crane is a motor vehicle, subject to the FMVSS. I will outline the applicable law and point out some of our regulations that you should consider. The issue you raise is whether the truck crane is a 'motor vehicle,' since the regulations you ask about apply only to motor vehicles. Title 49 of the U.S. Code, section 30102(a)(6), defines a motor vehicle as 'a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways . . . .' Work-related vehicles generally are 'motor vehicles' for purposes of our statute if they frequently use the highway going to and from job sites and stay at a job site for only a limited time. We believe the truck crane is a motor vehicle. Nissan Diesel North America informs us that this truck crane is a general purpose medium-duty crane that can be used for short-duty jobs and driven from site to site on the public roads. The photographs you enclosed show the crane mounted on what appears to be a conventional truck chassis. The vehicle appears to be manufactured for use on the highways, and is thus a motor vehicle. The vehicle is a 'truck' under our regulations, and must meet the FMVSSs for trucks that were in effect on the vehicle's date of manufacture. As you know, NHTSA has regulations related to the importation of vehicles. They appear in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), at parts 591 to 593. In particular, note the declarations in 49 CFR 591.5 that are required for importation. Since your letter says that you enforce the FMVSSs in 49 CFR Part 571, I assume you have a copy of Parts 591-593. If you do not, we can send one to you. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel NCC-20:PAtelsek:62992:OCC 10868:5/22/95:revised 7/3/95;

ID: aiam0502

Dear Mr. Fouche': This is in reply to your letter of November 2, 1971, concerning th application of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials,' to synthetic fabrics. You state that certain of these fabrics do not ignite when tested with a stationary flame as they melt and shrink away from the flame, but burn faster than the 4-inch-per-minute rate if the flame is moved to keep it in contact with the fabric. You ask whether materials that behave in this manner comply with the standard.; The standard requires that the vehicle components specified in S4.1 o the standard meet the burn rate requirements when tested as provided in S5.3 of the standard. This procedure specifies a stationary flame. Consequently, we would consider materials which melt and shrink away from the flame, but do not ignite, as long as the other aspects of the test procedure were followed, to comply with the standard.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel