ID: aiam5568

"Dear Mr. Maltzahn: This responds to your request for an interpretatio whether Standard No. 115, Vehicle identification number - basic requirements or any other Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) applies to your client's high pressure 'waterjet cutting and cleaning equipment' manufactured as a mobile trailer. As explained below, the answer is no. Your letter describe your client's product as 'manufactured for use in the construction industry for hydrodemolition and cleaning and for industrial use.' The letter states the equipment is mobile to facilitate towing from site to site, but is 'not used primarily on the roadways and highways of the United States.' In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you explained that the length of time the equipment is at a job site depends on the task. The equipment could be at a ship cleaning site for over a year, or at a hydrodemolition site for five days. You stated that the equipment very rarely stays at a job site for less than a week. The FMVSS's apply only to 'motor vehicles,' within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6). That section defines 'motor vehicle' as: 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. Whether the agency considers your trailer to be a motor vehicle depends on its use. It is the agency's position that this statutory definition does not encompass mobile construction equipment, such as cranes and scrapers, which use the highway only to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site. In such cases, the on-highway use of the vehicle is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured. In contrast are instances where vehicles, such as dump trucks, frequently use the highway going to and from job sites, and stay at a job site for only a limited time. Such vehicles are considered motor vehicles for purposes of the Safety Act, since the on-highway use is more than 'incidental.' Based on your description, it appears that your client's equipment is not a motor vehicle. This is because the equipment appears to stay on job sites for extended periods of time (ranging from a week to over a year). Therefore, your client's equipment need not meet Standard No. 115, or any other FMVSS. I note that, if the agency were to receive additional information indicating that your trailer used the roads more than on an incidental basis, then the agency would reassess this interpretation. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam0770

Dear Mr. Doe: This is in reply to your letter of June 12, 1972, asking certai questions concerning Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials.'; You ask if the standard applies to small components that have a maximu dimension of less than 4 inches, such as control knobs, and if so, how such components are to be tested. The standard applies to those components enumerated in S4.1. Control knobs and switches would not be subject to the standard unless they are 'designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash.' Such components may be tested using the heat resistant wires that are inserted in the U-shaped frame, as described in paragraph S5.1.3 of the standard. The NHTSA is currently considering an amendment to the standard, however, which would modify the requirements as they apply to small components.; In response to your second question, electrical wiring is not subjec to the standard.; Your third question is, if a headliner is glued to the roof, would th test specimen be taken from a finished vehicle in such a way as to include the exterior paintwork. The answer to this question is no. The application of the standard to headlining (S4.1) does not include the roof to which it is attached, as the roof is not part of the component.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: 11674MLV

Mr. Scott Junk
Junk Design
873 Deep Creek
Costa Mesa, CA 92626

Dear Mr. Junk:

This responds to your letter of March 8, 1996, concerning a new product called "Head Rest Travelers." Your letter explained that the product "is a lycra slipcover that fits over the existing headrest in a car to change the headrest into a stuffed character." You asked if there were any regulations that apply to this product. In particular, you expressed concern that, because the product extends three to six inches from the existing headrest it could reduce visibility.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is authorized under 49 CFR Chapter 301 to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. 49 CFR Section 30112 prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, Federal law establishes a "self- certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

Your product may be affected by five safety standards: Standard No. 111, "Rearview Mirrors," Standard No. 201, "Occupant Protection in Interior Impact," Standard No. 202, "Head Restraints," Standard No. 208, "Occupant Crash Protection," and Standard No. 302, "Flammability of Interior Materials."

These five standards apply only to new vehicles, not to items of individual equipment. If your product were installed before the vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale, the installer would have to certify that the vehicle complied with all applicable standards, including these five, with the product installed. However, based on the information you provided, it appears that your product is intended to be an item of after-market equipment.

After a vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale; i.e., the first retail sale of the vehicle, the only provision in Federal law that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in 49 U.S.C. '30122. The provision provides:

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.

Any violation of this "make inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator (a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business) to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation.

The "make inoperative" prohibition does not, however, apply to modifications vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners install your product in their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. The agency, however, recommends that owners not make modifications to their vehicles which would degrade the safety performance of the vehicle, such as installing a product that degraded the field of view of a vehicle's mirror system.

Your letter also asks about "safety restrictions." In addition to the foregoing, your product would be considered "motor vehicle equipment" for purposes of federal law protecting the public against products which have safety defects. Therefore, if your product proved to contain a defect (either in manufacture, design, or performance) that relates to motor vehicle safety, you would be required to conduct a recall campaign to notify owners and to remedy the defect free of charge.

We also recommend that you check state regulations. Individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their own vehicles.

I have enclosed an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment that briefly explains the responsibilities imposed on manufacturers, and tells how to get copies of the relevant laws and regulations.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref:202 d:4/23/96

ID: nht87-2.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/08/87

FROM: ROSE TALISMAN -- JOAN FABRICS CORP

TO: DOUG COLE -- NATIONAL VAN CONVERSION ASSOC., INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/01/88 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO DOUG COLE; REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 302; LETTER DATED 06/29/87 FROM JONATHAN JACKSON TO DOUG COLE; LETTER DATED 06/22/87 FROM ROSE M. TALISMAN TO DOUG COLE; LETTER DATED 06/23/87 FROM DOUG CO LE TO STEVE KRANTZKE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Cole:

In accordance with our understanding from Mr. Irving Brown of C.M.I. Automotive, we are sending to your attention the specifications from both Ford Motor Company and General Motors in Detroit regarding the specific testing procedures required for meeting their codes for fire retardancy.

As you are well aware, we have run correlation studies on our pattern Passport with your recommended testing agency, Commercial Testing Company of Dalton Georgia. The test results have indicated a specific difference in correlation depending on the test method utilized. The method utilized and recommended to us by both Ford Motor Company and General Motors which requires the use of heat resistance support wires as stated on the attached specification are the direct guidelines we utilized in testing al l fabric designated for motorized product from our mill.

We certainly would be happy to discuss the rational and our specific methods for testing based on Detroit's specific requirements. Do not hesitate to call if you have any questions or need additional information.

Ford Laboratory Test Methods;

FLAMMABILITY TEST FOR AUTOMOTIVE INTERIOR MATERIALS

II. Small Parts (contd.)

A surrogate test plaque specimen made with a composition identical to that of the component material(s) shall be produced in the shape of a rectangle 4 inches (100 mm) wide, 14 inches (356 mm) long and the minimum thickness of the component up to 1/2 inch (12.7 mm) maximum, employing the same or equivalent process as used to produce the component part. The thickness of the plaque is that of the material as utilized in the vehicle except where it exceeds 1/2 inch (12.7 mm). In those applications, th e plaque is to be reduced to a uniform thickness of 1/2 inch (12.7 mm) to include the surface material exposed to the occupant compartment air space.

Test Procedure 1. Prior to testing, each specimen is conditioned for 24 hours at a temperature of 73.4 +/- 3.6 degrees F (23.0 +/- 2.0 degrees C) and 50 +/- 5% relative humidity and the test is conducted under those conditions.

2. Material is placed in the specimen holder as indicated below and tested in the direction (transverse or longitudinal) that produces the most adverse results. The specimen is oriented so that the surface closest to the occupant compartment air spa ce faces downward on the test frame.

(a) The standard test specimen (4 x 14 in (100 x 356 mm) x thickness) is inserted between two matching U-shaped frames (specimen holder) so that both sides of the specimen are held by the frames. The temperature of the frame in Figure 4 at the start of each test shall not exceed the conditioned temperature as stated above in Paragraph 1 of Test Procedure.

(b) Where the maximum available width of the specimen is 2 in (50 mm) or less so that the sides of the specimen cannot be held in the two matching U-shaped frames, it is to be supported by the use of 10 mil (0.25 mm) wires spanning the top surface of the bottom U-shaped frame at 1 in (25 mm) intervals, keeping such specimens from bending away from the horizontal at the flaming end, thereby allowing a more uniform and constant burn rate (see Figure 5). The bottom U-shaped frame shall always be positi oned so that the wires are "sandwiched" between the top and bottom frames.

(c) Samples tested with support wires: Flexible specimens, such as genuine leather, supported and unsupported vinyls, textile and backing fabrics, foams, textile padding[Illegible Word] compounds, etc., that frequently soften and bend at the flaming e nd so as to cause a non-uniform, uneven burn rate.

Samples tested without wires: Less flexible materials such as paperboard, carpets, rigid plastics, etc., seldom soften and bend at the flaming end; therefore, do not justify or necessitate support wires.

(d) Adjust ventilation hood door opening to approximately 23 in (580 mm) and regulate ventilation up to 110 CFM (0.052 m<3>/s) maximum air flow to prevent smoke and fumes from entering room.

ID: nht89-2.60

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/08/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: LARRY P. EGLEY

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 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 KATHLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA; LETTER DATED 09/10/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO KATHLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA; OCC 2530; REPORT D ATED 09/10/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY, REQUEST FOR EVALUATION / INTERPRETATION OF PROPOSED INVENTION SUDDEN STOP FLASHER [SSF]; 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 STOP 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. EG LEY; OCC 2199; LETTER DATED 06/09/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO LEWIS BUCHANAN

TEXT: Dear Mr. Egley:

This is in reply to your letters with respect to the Sudden Stop Flasher (SSF), your invention, now registered with the U.S. Patent Office. Your first letter is a "Request for Evaluation/Interpretation" of your invention; your second is "An Appeal for V ariant Interpretation." I regret the delay in responding.

You have explained that the SSF operates as follows: when a vehicle reaches a certain high rate of deceleration, the SSF automatically flashes all three of the stop lamps on passenger cars at a rapid rate. If the vehicle has crashed, the SSF continues t o flash until the ignition switch is recycled. You recognize that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, requires stop lamps to be steady burning. You nevertheless ask for a favorable interpr etation because the SSF will be actuated only rarely, and "the concept of flashing tail lights to get the attention of drivers has already been approved in the hazard warning system." Because of the expense of developing the SSF, you state that you are n ot willing to undertake it "unless NHTSA would indicate at least tentative acceptance, subject to demonstration and testing of a working model."

You are correct that Standard No. 108 requires stop lamps to be steady burning, and hazard warning signal lamps to flash (generally through the turn signal lamps). The primary reason for the distinction is that stop lamps are intended to be operated whi le the vehicle is in motion, while the hazard warning lamps are intended to indicate that the vehicle is stopped. Each lamp is intended to convey a single, easily recognizable signal. If a lamp which is ordinarily steady burning begins to flash, the ag ency is concerned that the signal will prove confusing to motorists, thereby diluting its effectiveness.

Even if we did not have this reservation about the SSF, we could not change the steady burning requirement through interpretation. A change could be made through rulemaking only.

We do not currently have information indicating that a flashing signal would be be superior to a steady burning one. The SSF is based upon the concept that a flashing lamp increases vehicle conspicuity, and hence should shorten the reaction time of foll owing drivers. As you noted, "whether the SSF could significantly improve safety is the primary consideration." In research sponsored by this agency that led to the adoption of the center high-mounted stop lamp, a field study was conducted using 600 tax icabs in San Diego and Sacramento. The cabs were equipped with one of three kinds of center lamps, a steady-burning one, or one that flashed at 2.5 Hz, or one that flashed at either 1.5, 2.5, 4.5, or 7.0 Hz depending on the degree of deceleration. The test fleet accumulated 41 million miles. The study found that there was no statistically significant differences among the lamps (Mortimer, R.G., Field test evaluation of rear lighting deceleration signals: II - Field test. Final Report, DOT-HS-806-125 , 1981).

The agency would be unlikely to issue grants or fund research for the SSF, a proprietary device. Most of its vehicle safety research is devoted to obtaining data to support the development of standards that are more performance-oriented.

I am sorry that we cannot be more positive in our response, but we do appreciate your interest in reducing traffic accidents, and deaths and injuries associated with them.

Sincerely,

ID: 21489vest

Ms. Kathy Durkin
Hold Me Tight Products
P.O. Box 7272
San Jose, CA 95150-7272





Dear Ms. Durkin:

This responds to your letter concerning a "passenger support vest" for use on school buses. I apologize for the delay in responding. You state that "the vest is used during transport to insure that the child stays in the seat and in an upright position." You ask whether your product is subject to the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. Our answer is yes.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and items of new motor vehicle equipment to reduce highway crashes and deaths and injuries resulting from crashes. Under that authority, we issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213 (49 CFR '571.213), which sets forth requirements which must be met by any device designed for use in a motor vehicle to restrain, seat or position children who weigh 50 pounds or less. I have enclosed an information sheet that describes how you can obtain a copy of the standard.

Your passenger support vest is a device that is designed to restrain children in motor vehicles. It is thus a "child restraint system" subject to the requirements of Standard No. 213. Standard No. 213 requires, among other things, that child restraints provide protection in a 30 mile-per-hour (mph) crash, that the restraint meet the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302, that the belts and buckles meet certain performance requirements, and that the manufacturer provide detailed instructions on the proper use of the restraint. In addition, S5.3.1 of the standard states: "Except for components designed to attach to a child restraint anchorage system, each add-on child restraint system shall not have any means designed for attaching the system to a vehicle seat cushion or vehicle seat back...." While you did not describe your system in detail, you stated that the "straps on the vest wrap the seat back and are independent of the seat belt." Since your restraint is designed to attach to a vehicle seat back (by means of the strap which wraps around the vehicle seat back), the restraint would not meet S5.3.1. NHTSA adopted the prohibition against attaching child restraints to vehicle seat backs because the agency was concerned that a vehicle seat back would not be able to withstand the additional load on it from an attached child seat in a crash. It appears that your vest design would add a load on the vehicle seat back in a crash, and is therefore the type of design that is intended to be prohibited by S5.3.1 of the standard.

Every child restraint system for use in motor vehicles sold in or imported into the United States must be certified as complying with Standard No. 213. For purposes of enforcement, this agency purchases and tests the child restraints according to the procedures specified in the standard. If the restraints fail any of the required tests and are determined not to comply with Standard No. 213, the manufacturers of the child restraints are subject to the recall responsibilities of our statute. Manufacturers must also ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects. Our statute specifies that, in the case of a child restraint which fails to comply with Standard No. 213 or contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer must notify purchasers and provide a cost-free remedy.

You asked for a list of laboratories that test child restraint systems. NHTSA does not endorse particular test laboratories. However, I can provide you with a list of laboratories we are aware of that conduct child restraint compliance tests (see enclosed). There may be other laboratories that can test child restraint systems.

I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes the responsibilities of manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. In addition, please note that we frequently amend Standard No. 213 to keep the standard as up-to-date as possible. Manufacturers are responsible for keeping current on the requirements of the standard.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosures

ref:213
d.8/31/01

ID: nht91-7.55

DATE: December 30, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Wallace F. Forbes -- Planar Support Systems, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-11-91 from Wallace F. Forbes to Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TEXT:

This responds to your November 11, 1991 letter in which you asked whether there are any standards that apply to a product you are developing. The product is a "portable back support product which people would be likely to use in their automobiles as well as in other environments."

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act), it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its motor vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements. The following provides our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Your product would fall within NHTSA's jurisdiction if it is an item of "motor vehicle equipment" as that term is defined in S102(4) of the Safety Act. Section 102(4) defines "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 is an "accessory ... to the motor vehicle," NHTSA applies two criteria. The first criterion is whether a substantial portion of the expected uses of the item are related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. The agency determines the expected uses 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 (E.G., items normally used by professional vehicle repair and maintenance personnel would not qualify). If the product satisfies both criteria, the product is considered to be an "accessory" and this is subject to the provisions of the Safety Act.

While your letter does not provide sufficient information for us to determine whether your product would satisfy the first criterion, you should be able to make a determination based on the factors set forth above. If your product did satisfy the first criterion, it would appear to satisfy the second criterion.

If your product is an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA has not issued any safety standards that would directly apply to your product. However, there are two statutory provisions of which you should be aware. First, S108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act states 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 or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard...

These commercial entities could sell your product, but could not install it if the installation would negatively affect the vehicle's compliance with the safety standards. The standards your product would be most likely to affect are those for occupant protection in interior impacts (Standard No. 201), head restraints (Standard No. 202), and flammability resistance (Standard No. 302). (The safety standards are found in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 571.) Please note however, that the render inoperative prohibition would NOT apply to vehicle owners who install your product in their own vehicles.

Second, if your product is an item of motor vehicle equipment, Planar Support Systems would be a motor vehicle equipment manufacturer. As a manufacturer, you would be subject to the requirements of S151-159 of the Safety Act, concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. If you or the agency determined that your product had a defect related to motor vehicle safety, you would have to notify all product purchasers of the defect, and either repair or replace the product. An information sheet for new manufacturers is enclosed.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any more questions about this issue, feel free to contact Mary Versailles at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht93-1.4

DATE: January 5, 1993

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signed by John Womack

TO: Daniel Cassese

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/19/92 from Daniel Cassese to Paul J. Rice (OCC 8034)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of November 19, 1992. Your letter describes your invention called a "Head Rest Extension." You asked if this invention would comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 201, 202, and 208.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1381 ET SEQ.) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self- certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish four safety standards which could be relevant to a head rest extension: Standard No. 201, OCCUPANT PROTECTION IN INTERIOR IMPACT, Standard No. 202, HEAD RESTRAINTS, Standard No. 208, OCCUPANT CRASH PROTECTION, and Standard No. 302, FLAMMABILITY OF INTERIOR MATERIALS.

These four standards apply only to new vehicles, not to items of individual equipment. If the head rest extension were installed before the vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale, the vehicle would have to be certified as complying with all applicable standards, including these four, with the head rest extension installed. However, as you have explained in a phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff, your product is intended to be an item of after-market equipment.

After a vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale; i.e., the first retail sale of the vehicle, the only provision in Federal law that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in section 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 devise or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

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 not that the "render inoperative" prohibition does not require manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses to certify that vehicles continue to comply with safety standards after any aftermarket modifications are made. Instead, "render inoperative" prohibits those entities from performing aftermarket modifications that they know or should know will result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards.

Please note also that the "render inoperative" prohibition does not apply to modifications vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners install your head rest extension in their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their own vehicles.

You should also note that a head rest extension would be considered "motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of the Safety Act. Therefore, if it contained a defect (either in manufacture, design, or performance) that relates to motor vehicle safety, you would be required to conduct a recall campaign to notify owners and to remedy the defect free of charge.

I have enclosed an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment that briefly explains the responsibilities imposed on manufacturers, and tells how to get copies of the relevant laws and regulations. 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.

ID: nht71-1.45

DATE: 12/02/71

FROM: ROBERT L. CARTER -- NHTSA ACTING ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR MOTOR VEHICLE PROGRAMS

TO: LOUIS C. LUNDSTROM DIRECTOR, AUTOMOTIVE SAFETY ENGINEERING GENERAL MOTORS TECHNICAL CENTER

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Lundstrom:

This is in reply to your petition of September 10, 1971, requesting that Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, "Flammability of Interior Materials," be amended by (1) substituting a 12-inch-per-minute burn rate for the 4-inch-per-minute burn rate presently specified in the standard and (2) making certain specified changes in the test cabinet and test procedure. For the reasons stated below, your request for a 12-inch-per-minute burn rate is hereby denied.

The arguments you offer as a basis for your petition are stated below, and are followed by our responses. Generally, your position is that while you admit that "the available data may provide justification for a standard on flammability," you claim there is no evidence in the docket that supports the basis for, or establishes any safety benefit of, a 4-inch-per-minute burn rate. You argue also that the number of non-fuel fires is too small to warrant a 4-inch-per-minute burn rate. Finally, you claim that using materials having a 4-inch-per-minute burn rate would add an average retail cost of $ 10 to vehicles you manufacture, which cannot be justified under your analysis of the safety need. You indicate, however, that your present materials will or can be made to meet a 12-inch-per-minute burn rate.

"The 4-inch-per-minute burn rate was incorporated into the standard as a result of the agency's determination that it provided a flammability rate sufficiently low to provide adequate escape time from a vehicle in the event fire should occur." At no point in your petition do you present any data that shows that the 4-inch-per-minute burn rate is unreasonable or excessive from a safety standpoint. Moreover, despite your statement to the contrary, the Administration believes there is sufficient data on the number and degree of non-fuel fires in motor vehicles to justify the 4-inch-per-minute rate.

Much of the argument in your petition concerns a variability in the burn rate of materials you have tested. You apparently maintain that the variability makes it difficult for a manufacturer to know whether or not the material he uses in fact complies with the standard. The Administration realizes that the burn rate of any particular material may vary. This fact will be taken into account, along with the frequency and extent of any test failures, in assessing whether a manufacturer has exercised due care. It would not be appropriate, however, to respond to the problem of variability by raising the overall burn rate requirement. Such an action would probably result simply in manufacturers choosing cheaper and less safe materials.

You also argue that, under the specified test procedure, there may also be variations in burn rate results caused by inconsistencies of interpretation.

You provide data showing that GM and its suppliers obtained different results using adjacent material on the same roll. We find this argument to be without merit. General Motors is completely free to specify to its suppliers the method which it considers satisfactory under the standard to measure burn rates, or to test the materials themselves. This is no less than NHTSA itself does when it monitors test laboratories that are contracted to perform compliance tests.

You also provide data showing the effects of aging on a specific fire retardant additive. The evidence available to the NHTSA does not, however, indicate that it is necessary to use flame-retardant treatments that display these undesirable characteristics in order to comply with the standard.

Finally, while you present arguments against the retention of a 4-inch-per-minute rate, your petition lacks significant substantive arguments for the 12-inch-per-minute rate you wish to substitute. At no point do you show how a 12-inch-per-minute burn rate will allow sufficient time for the driver to stop the vehicle, and if necessary for occupants to leave it, before injury occurs. Based on the Administration's findings, such a 12-inch-per-minute rate will not provide the necessary escape time.

Your request for changes in the test cabinet and test procedure is presently being evaluated, and you will be notified when a decision concerning them has been made.

Sincerely,

ID: aiam5300

"Dear Ms. Dawson: This responds to your questions about a December 2 1992, rule that amended Standard No. 111, Rear-view mirrors, by establishing field-of-view requirements around school buses (57 FR 57000). The rule amended Standard No. 111 to require a bus driver to be able to see, either directly or through mirrors, certain specified areas in front of and along both sides of school buses. I apologize for the delay in responding. Your first question asks: Are we required to certify that the mirror system has the ability to be adjusted for viewing of the cylinders by a 25th percentile female or to certify that the mirror system has been adjusted? Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, each new vehicle manufacturer must certify that its vehicle complies with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's). NHTSA evaluates a vehicle's compliance with the safety standards using the test procedures and conditions specified in the FMVSS's. Standard 111 requires that specified areas must be visible when viewed from the eye location of a 25th percentile adult female (S9, S13). The test procedures of S13 state that, when testing a school bus, NHTSA will adjust an adjustable mirror to the eye location of a 25th percentile adult female before the test, in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations (S13.3). Of course, to comply with Standard 111, the mirror will have to be able to be adjusted to the required location at the time NHTSA tests the vehicle. Your second question asks: Are the outside rearview mirrors required to view the area straight down from the mirrors and 200 feet rearward? In an October 21, 1993, telephone conversation with Marvin Shaw of my staff, you explained that you ask whether S9.2 of Standard 111 requires measurement beginning at the ground below the System A mirror (and extending at least 200 feet behind that plane). The answer is yes, the mirror must provide a view of the area straight down from that mirror and extending 200 feet rearward. Section S9.2 states that each school bus must have two outside rearview mirror systems: A System A driving mirror and a System B convex cross view mirror. The System A mirror on the left side of the bus is required by S9.2(b)(2) to provide a view of 'the entire top surface of cylinder M in Figure 2, and of that area of the ground which extends rearward from the mirror surface not less than 60.93 meters (200 feet)' (emphasis added). Please note that the agency is currently reviewing a rulemaking petition in which Blue Bird Body Company has requested that the agency amend Standard No. 111, with respect to System A driving mirrors. I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";