ID: 9063

Mr. John M. Tolliday
President
Dayman USA Inc.
P.O. Box 824
Bedford, VA 24523

Dear Mr. Tolliday:

We have received your letter of September 2, 1993, with respect to your wish to import "British Army Ferret Armored Cars". The armaments have been removed. You would be selling these vehicles "on the basis they would only be used for off road purposes." You ask whether the vehicles would be exempt from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You have enclosed two photos of the machine.

For purposes of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, a "motor vehicle" is a vehicle that has been manufactured primarily for use on the public roads. Given the configuration and original military character of the Ferret, we believe that its manufacturer intended that its use of the public roads would be incidental and not primary. Therefore, we have concluded that the Ferret was not a "motor vehicle" at the time of its manufacture.

The question arises whether removal of the Ferret's armament and its importation for civilian use cause it to become a "motor vehicle" for purposes of our regulations. At first blush, it would appear that the status of a vehicle is permanently determined at the time of its manufacture. This is true with respect to vehicles manufactured and operated exclusively in the United States no matter what modifications are subsequently made. The general provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act do not apply once a domestic vehicle has been sold. As a hypothetical example, the agency does not consider an all-terrain vehicle to have been manufactured primarily for use on the public roads, hence it is not a "motor vehicle". Were an owner to modify it so that it could be licensed for use, the original intent of the manufacturer would have been superseded by that of the modifier, but the Act does not impose any obligation upon the modifier to conform the all-terrain vehicle to any Federal safety standards that might apply to its type.

The situation differs with respect to imported vehicles. The status of a vehicle is judged as of the time of entry. Returning to our all-terrain vehicle hypothetical, if the vehicle has been modified before it enters the United States so that its primary use will be on the public roads, we would regard it as a "motor vehicle" subject to compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. With respect to the Ferret, we believe that more than removal of its armament is required to cause it to become a "motor vehicle". The issue of armament is essentially irrelevant to its character as an off-road or on-road vehicle. The Ferret remains an armored vehicle of limited visibility and of no apparent greater utility for on-road civilian purposes such as transportation of passengers and cargo than it possessed before removal of the armament. It retains the same high ground clearance as it has always possessed, supporting your statement that it will be sold for use on the public roads. We therefore conclude that, as modified, the Ferret will not be a "motor vehicle" subject to our regulations, and that they may be imported without the necessity of conforming them to the Federal standards.

Those military vehicles that are manufactured primarily for on-road use are "motor vehicles". However, in recognition of the fact that conformance with the Federal safety standards might compromise their ability to fulfill their military mission, the agency has exempted from compliance those motor vehicles that have been manufactured for the armed forces of the United States in accordance with contractual specifications. This exclusion does not apply to foreign military vehicles. Thus, for example, were you seeking to import for resale in the United States trucks of the British Army, they would have to be brought into conformance with applicable truck standards.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:591#VSA d:3/16/94

ID: 9064

Mr. and Mrs. Hal Sullivan
33891 Calle Borrego
San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675

Dear Mr. and Mrs. Sullivan:

This responds to your letter to David Elias, formerly of this office, requesting an interpretation of the term "rated cargo load" used in 49 CFR '567.5. I apologize for the delay in responding.

You state in your letter that you purchased a 1992 Pace Arrow motor home from Fleetwood Motor Homes of California, Inc. You state that, if this motor home is equipped with "the identical factory optional HWH hydraulic jacks," it will exceed its gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) when the available water tanks are filled to capacity. You characterize this as "seriously inadequate carrying capacity," and ask if this violates NHTSA's regulations. As explained below, if a vehicle exceeds its GVWR when loaded with its intended cargo, the manufacturer may be subject to civil penalties.

By way of background, '114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires each motor vehicle manufacturer to certify the compliance of its new vehicles with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. NHTSA issued its vehicle certification regulation (49 CFR Part 567) to implement '114. Section 108(a)(1)(E) of the Safety Act prohibits any person from failing to comply with any regulation issued under '114. Under '109 of the Safety Act, violations of '108(a)(1)(E) are subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation.

NHTSA's certification regulation specifies the content of the certification label, and requires manufacturers to assign a GVWR to its new vehicles. The term GVWR is defined in 49 CFR '571.3 as "the value specified by the manufacturer as the loaded weight of a single vehicle." The GVWR informs vehicle owners how heavily the vehicle may safely be loaded. It also affects the vehicle's loading and other test conditions for the performance tests to ascertain whether the vehicle complies with applicable safety standards. The only express regulatory limitation on the GVWR that manufacturers may assign to their vehicles is set forth in 49 CFR '567.4(g)(3), which provides that the assigned GVWR "shall not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity." (Emphasis added.)

There is no express definition for the term "rated cargo load" in Part 567 or elsewhere in NHTSA's regulations. However, NHTSA expects the GVWR (which includes rated cargo load) to reflect a manufacturer's good-faith evaluation of the vehicle's size, weight, load-carrying capacity and intended use. NHTSA is concerned about the potentially adverse effects on safety that might result from assigning too low a GVWR to a vehicle. NHTSA recognizes that vehicle overloading may create a serious safety problem and will take appropriate action against any manufacturer whose vehicle, when operated in its intended manner, exceeds the assigned GVWR.

Thank you for bringing this matter about the Pace Arrow to our attention. NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance will be contacting you for more information about your experience with the vehicle. Meanwhile, if you have further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:567#VSA d:6/8/94

ID: 9067

Dear :

This responds to your request for an interpretation of the theft prevention standard (49 CFR Part 541). You asked whether "embossing" is permitted to mark engines and transmissions for original and replacement parts. You also asked whether the symbol "DOT" and your company's logo may appear in identical locations on original and replacement parts. As explained below, embossing is permitted, but "DOT" may not appear on original parts.

The relevant Part 541 provisions are Sections 541.5 Requirements for passenger cars and 541.6 Requirements for replacement parts. Section 541.5(a) states that each passenger car subject to the theft prevention standard must have an identifying number "affixed or inscribed" on each of fourteen specified original parts.

Section 541.6(a) states that each replacement part must have the trademark of the replacement part manufacturer and the letter "R" "affixed or inscribed" on such replacement part. Section 541.6(f) states that each replacement part must bear the symbol "DOT," that is "inscribed or affixed."

In response to your first question about embossing, we note the required information on original and replacement parts must be "inscribed or affixed." To determine whether embossing is a means of "inscribing," we have reviewed the dictionary's definition. "Inscribe" means "to mark or engrave (words, symbols, etc.) on some surface." (See Webster's New World Dictionary, College Edition.) Since embossing is a means of marking on a surface, embossing would be included within the definition of "inscribing."

The preamble to the final rule that established Part 541 confirms the above interpretation. NHTSA then stated that it "has no authority to mandate the use of any particular marking system. NHTSA has authority only to establish performance criteria that will accomplish the purposes of the Theft Act. The manufacturers are free to select any marking system that satisfies those criteria." (See 50 FR 43166, at 43170; October 24, 1985.) Thus, if your company believes embossing satisfies Part 541 performance criteria, it may emboss.

Your second question asked whether "DOT" may be marked on original parts. The answer is no. Original parts must be marked with the vehicle identification number. If an original part includes "DOT," the part would be dual marked. "Dual marking" was discussed in Part 541's preamble:

... the agency cannot allow such dual markings under the theft prevention standard. Dual markings would give thieves the opportunity to present stolen original equipment parts as properly marked replacement parts. ... This would not serve the purpose of the Theft Act of "decreasing the ease with which certain stolen vehicles and their major parts can be fenced." (See 50 FR 43166, at 43179).

It would also be inappropriate to mark "DOT" on an original part because "DOT" is a manufacturer's certification that a replacement part conforms to Part 541. (See 49 CFR 541.6(f)). Since an original part would not conform to Part 541's requirements for replacement parts, it would be inappropriate for a manufacturer to certify compliance by placing "DOT" on the original part.

Finally, it was requested that your company not be identified in public copies of this letter, and that your incoming letter be purged of references to your company. In order to save time, we agree to do this. In the future, however, please note that 49 CFR Part 512 Confidential Business Information sets forth procedures for protecting information that your company believes is confidential.

I hope this satisfactorily responds to your concerns. If there are further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:541 d:10/5/93

ID: 9068

Mr. Joey Ferrari
Director Technical Sales
Grant Products
700 Allen Avenue
Glendale, CA 91201

Dear Mr. Ferrari:

This responds to your letter of August 31, 1993, concerning aftermarket steering wheels. Your questions concerned replacement of the steering wheel in a vehicle equipped with an air bag with an aftermarket steering wheel manufactured by your company. The steering wheel you manufacture is not equipped with an air bag.

Before answering your questions, some background information may be helpful. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to issue Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Among other things, Standard No. 208 requires that passenger cars be equipped with automatic crash protection. Light trucks will also be required to provide automatic crash protection beginning with the 1995 model year. Vehicles equipped with automatic crash protection protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the automatic crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, when tested by this agency in a 30 mph barrier crash test.

At this time, manufacturers are not required to use a specific method of automatic crash protection to meet the requirements of Standard No. 208. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered on new passenger cars are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used). However, a new Federal statutory requirement makes air bags mandatory in all passenger cars and light trucks by the late 1990's.

Your specific questions are addressed below. Where more than one question concerns a common issue, they are addressed by a single response. The responses to your questions explain: (1) Federal law does prevent a repair shop from removing an operating air bag; (2) Federal law does not require a vehicle to have a usable air bag for its life, prevent a private individual from removing the air bag in the vehicle, require a usable air bag before a used vehicle can be sold, or require replacement of an air bag deployed in an accident; (3) State law may address these issues; and (4) our agency strongly discourages owners from removing or modifying the safety systems in their vehicles, and urges the replacement of these systems when they are not functional, to ensure that the vehicles will continue to provide maximum crash protection for occupants.

1. If a vehicle is originally equipped with an air bag, must it have an operable air bag system for its entire useful life?

2. If a repair shop removes an operating air bag system and replaces it with a Grant product not having an air bag: A. Is this legal or illegal? B. If illegal which party is liable?

3. If a private individual removes an operating air bag system and replaces it with a Grant product not having an air bag: A. Is this legal or illegal? B. If illegal which party is liable?

6. Upon resale of a vehicle from the first owner (individual) to a second or subsequent owner, must the vehicle have an operable air bag system as originally equipped?

The Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing, 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. However, the Safety Act also provides that once a vehicle is sold and delivered to its first retail purchaser, the vehicle is no longer required by Federal law to comply with the safety standards. However, States have authority to require that used vehicles have certain equipment installed and functioning for the vehicles to be registered or sold.

After the first retail purchase of a vehicle, a provision in Federal law that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is the "render inoperative" provision of the Safety Act which 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.

In the case of a vehicle equipped with air bags pursuant to Standard No. 208, this section would prohibit any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from removing, disabling, or otherwise "rendering inoperative" the air bags. Any violation of this "render inoperative" provision would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. Please note that the "render inoperative" provision does not apply to modifications vehicle owners make to their vehicles.

I would like to caution anyone considering removal of an air bag to contact the vehicle manufacturer concerning the proper procedure for any air bag removal. Improper removal of an air bag could cause it to deploy and injure the person.

4. After an accident in which the air bag was deployed, must a repair shop or individual replace the air bag and/or system so that it is again operable as originally equipped?

5. After an accident in which the air bag was deployed, can a repair shop or individual replace the air bag with a Grant product not having an air bag?

The "render inoperative" provision does not impose an affirmative duty on repair shops to replace equipment that was previously removed by someone else, or to repair equipment that was damaged in a crash. Thus, a repair shop could replace the steering wheel after an accident that deployed the air bag with a steering wheel that was not equipped with an air bag. However, despite the absence of any requirement in Federal law, repair shops may still be required by State law to replace deployed air bags, or they may be liable for failing to do so.

7. If we have a potential liability exposure for someone using our products to replace an original air bag, what do we need to do to limit this exposure?

We suggest that you consult a private attorney familiar with the law regarding potential liability in tort for an answer to this question. While such issues are beyond this agency's area of expertise, we do note that every State provides for some degree of civil liability for consumer products and repair work.

As a final note, and in addition to the legal considerations, it is NHTSA's strong policy that air bags not be removed, and that air bags always be replaced following deployment, unless the vehicle is to be junked. While air bags are in some respects "supplemental" to safety belts, in that the air bags provide additional protection, the air bags are nevertheless vitally important to the vehicle's overall capability to protect occupants in a crash. Air bags provide some protection, even if the safety belt is not worn; and the safety belt system is designed to work in conjunction with the air bag in serious frontal crashes. Additionally, the consumer information available to a subsequent purchaser of the vehicle would identify it as one equipped with air bags. The purchaser may well expect a used car to include the safety equipment that was provided by the original manufacturer.

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

ref:VSA#208 d:10/6/93

ID: 9084

Mr. John P. Gach
Marketing Coordinator
North American Lighting, Inc.
P.O. Box 499
Flora, IL 62839

Dear Mr. Gach:

We are replying to your letter of September 1, 1993, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency with respect to the "Blu- Lite." You would like our views on this product "in both OEM and aftermarket applications."

The advertising circular which you enclosed shows Blu-Lite to be a three-compartment stop lamp that is mounted in the center of the parcel shelf adjacent to the rear window. The center compartment contains a blue light "that comes on immediately with heavy brake pressure and flashes quickly and independently from your regular brake lights." The center blue light compartment is flanked by compartments that contain a "red stop light."

It is clear that Blu-Light is intended as a substitute for the center highmounted stop lamp that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 has required to be installed as original equipment on passenger cars manufactured on and after September 1, 1985, (and light trucks and vans since September 1, 1993). Blu-Light does not meet the original equipment specifications of Standard No. 108 because, among other things, it is not a single red lamp mounted on the vertical centerline of the vehicle. Therefore, Blu-Light is impermissible under Federal law as original motor vehicle lighting equipment.

With respect to aftermarket applications, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from "knowingly rendering inoperative in whole or in part" any equipment installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Removal of the original equipment center lamp and replacement with Blu-Light would be a "rendering inoperative" as we interpret that term, and, hence, a prohibited act. However, the prohibition does not extend to persons outside the four named categories, such as the vehicle owner, and installation of Blu-Light by persons not named in the prohibition would not violate any Federal requirement. But the legality of the use of Blu-Light is determinable under the laws of each State in which the device is operated. As you note, many States reserve the color blue for lamps used to indicate emergencies. If you are interested in pursuing this question further, the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203, can advise you whether any State allows the use of blue lamps for other than emergency use.

Further, there is no violation of Federal law involved in installing Blu-Lite on vehicles that were not required by Standard No. 108 to be originally equipped with one, i.e., cars manufactured before September 1, 1985, and other vehicles manufactured before September 1 of this year. In this instance, too, legality of use is determinable under State law.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:10/22/93

ID: 9115

Mr. Cary Klingner
Trison Inc.
1414 Merryview Lane
Hibbing, MN 55746

Dear Mr. Klingner:

We have received your letter of July 12, 1993, with respect to Trison's "Daytime Running Lights" module. You have heard that "federal regulations were modified earlier this year that may affect this concept", and ask whether the device "complies with the regulations."

As you have described it, the product activates the lower beam headlamps whenever the engine is running, and may be overridden by the vehicle's headlamp switch. The module "can be installed by any car owner."

On January 11, 1993, we amended Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment to permit motor vehicles to be manufactured with front lamps (other than parking and fog lamps) wired to operate automatically during daytime. Before the amendment, paragraph S5.5.3 of Standard No. 108 required taillamps to be activated when the headlamps are activated. However, the amendment modified this requirement to state that taillamps "need not be activated if the headlamps are activated at less than full intensity" when in use as daytime running lamps. I enclose a copy of the amendment for your information. We have received petitions for reconsideration of aspects of the rule other than S5.5.3, and it is possible that the standard will eventually be amended in response to them.

The amendment does not establish requirements for aftermarket equipment such as your module. There is no Federal restriction on the sale of the module, but there are restrictions on its installation on new vehicles. A manufacturer, distributor, and dealer of a new motor vehicle must deliver it in full compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. As we understand it, your module would activate the lower beam headlamps at their full intensity, and the taillamps would not be activated until the main headlamp switch was used. This would create a noncompliance with S5.5.3, since the taillamps must be activated when the headlamps are activated at full intensity. In addition, the module also impairs the effectiveness of the taillamps within the meaning of a prohibition imposed by S5.1.3. For these reasons, a manufacturer or dealer could not legally install the module on a new motor vehicle before its sale to its first purchaser for purposes other than resale.

With respect to installation of the module in a vehicle after its first sale, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act), no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may "render inoperative, in whole or in part," lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. Because the taillamps apparently will not operate when the lower beam headlamps are activated at full intensity by the module, in our opinion, the taillamps have been rendered inoperative within the meaning of the statutory prohibition.

However, the module can be installed by the vehicle owner. The statutory prohibition does not apply to the vehicle owner, and modifications by the owner are subject only to State law. We are unable to advise you on State laws and recommend that you seek an opinion from the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

We do not understand your remark that "Minnesota law only requires that the headlamps be on so with our module no other lights or markers will be illuminated," and believe that your interpretation must be incorrect. Under the Act, if a State has a standard on lighting performance, it must be identical to the Federal standard.

I hope that you find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:108#VSA

ID: 9119

Ms. Angela R. Caron
892 Murray Rd.
Meridian, MS 39305

Dear Ms. Caron:

This responds to your letter asking about the safety of aftermarket belt positioning devices. The devices you ask about alter the positioning of vehicle lap and shoulder belts, for the advertised purposes of improving the fit of the belts on children and small adults.

Although NHTSA understands your view that safety belts should be comfortable for the wearer, we have significant concerns about aftermarket belt positioning devices. The following discussion explains those concerns and the effect of our regulations on such products.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) gives this agency the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. This agency does not have a safety standard that directly applies to belt positioning devices. Our safety standards for "Occupant Crash Protection," (Standard No. 208) and "Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages" (Standard No. 210) apply to new, completed vehicles. In addition, our safety standard for "Seat Belt Assemblies" (Standard No. 209) applies to new seat belt assemblies. Because a belt positioning device is neither installed as part of a completed vehicle nor as part of a seat belt assembly, none of these regulations apply to belt positioning devices.

While none of these standards applies to a belt positioning device, the manufacturer of the product is subject to the requirements of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. To date, there have been no defect proceedings concerning these products. In addition, while it is unlikely that a belt positioning device would be installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, the Safety Act prohibits those businesses from installing the device if the installation "rendered inoperative" compliance with any safety standard.

Belt positioning devices raise safety concerns you should consider in deciding whether to use these products. These devices could be used in a way that significantly affects crash forces on the occupant. Standard No. 208 includes requirements that have the effect of ensuring that the lap and shoulder belts distribute the crash forces to the occupant's skeletal structure, a part of the body that can better withstand the forces. For example, Standard No. 208 requires the shoulder belt and the lap belt to intersect off of the abdominal area. A device that moved that intersection from the side to the middle of the abdomen could greatly increase the loading on the occupant's abdomen. An increase in abdominal loading could have serious safety implications for the wearer of the belt.

There are other concerns about these devices. The realigning of the shoulder belt could increase the likelihood that the wearer would twist toward the middle of the vehicle in a crash, 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. Also, slack in the belt system generally introduces higher crash forces, which increase the risk of injury. We urge you to consider these factors when deciding whether to use a belt positioning device, or the manner in which to use one.

You also asked whether a "travel vest" can be used with your two and a half year old son, in place of a child seat. The travel vest is a "child restraint system" and is thus subject to our safety standard for child restraints (Standard No. 213). The manufacturer of the travel vest (which the standard refers to as a "harness") is responsible for determining the conformance of the vest to the requirements of Standard No. 213, and certifying that the vest so conforms. This agency periodically tests products for compliance with Standard No. 213. When properly used, harnesses that comply with Standard No. 213 provide good protection in a crash, similar to that provided by child seats. You should always follow the manufacturer's instructions for using the child restraint system, including the specifications for the weight of the child for whom the restraint is recommended.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Mary Versailles of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:208#213 d:3/16/94

ID: 9123

Mr. Jack McIntyre
Vice President
Tie Tech Inc.
Post Office Box 5226
Lynnwood, WA 98046-5226

Dear Mr. McIntyre:

This responds to your letter in which you withdrew your petition for rulemaking of August 18, 1993, and requested an agency interpretation instead.

You referred to the final rule issued by this agency on January 15, 1993 (58 FR 4585), which amended Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 222. Specifically, paragraph S5.4.2.(a)(1) of the amendment provides that wheelchair securement devices composed of webbing or straps must meet the requirements for Type I safety belt systems specified in S4.2, among others, of FMVSS 209. You stated that there is no need to specify a minimum width for wheelchair securement belts and that the current industry standard for securement belts is a 1-inch polyester belt. Finally, you stated that the 1-inch polyester belts have less stretch than the 1.8-inch nylon belts and that the 1-inch belts are easier and less cumbersome to connect to a wheelchair.

Paragraph S4.2(a), FMVSS 209, provides that seat belt webbing cannot be less than 1.8 inches wide, "except for portions that do not touch a 95th percentile adult male with the seat in any adjustment position and the seat back in the manufacturer's nominal design riding position . . . ." That means that seat belt webbing must be at least 1.8 inches wide whenever it touches the person of the seat occupant. The width of webbed wheel chair securement belts that do not touch the persons of the chair occupants is not specified in any standard. Therefore, wheel chair securement belts can be 1 inch or some other width, so long as they do not touch the persons of the chair occupants and meet the other requirements of applicable standards.

I hope this clarifies this matter for you. If you have any further questions or need any further information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:209#222#571 d:11/23/93

ID: 9128

Mr. Christopher S. Spencer
Engineering
4100 Troy Road #206
Springfield, Ohio 45502

This responds to your letter about the brake reservoir requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems (49 CFR 571.121). I apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that you are developing a new reservoir design to improve reservoir volume without increasing the need for space. You asked how to test your reservoirs since you believe that "(t)he safety standard does not clarify the test criteria specifically how the reservoir is to be sealed."

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

Standard No. 121 establishes performance and equipment requirements for braking systems on vehicles equipped with air brakes. The standard's reservoir requirements for trucks and buses are set forth in section S5.1.2. That section requires these vehicles to be equipped with one or more service reservoir systems that meet specified performance requirements. Section S5.1.2.2 specifies the following:

Each reservoir shall be capable of withstanding an internal hydrostatic pressure of five times the compressor cutout pressure or 500 psi, whichever is greater, for 10 minutes.

The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that an air brake system reservoir has a minimum level of structural integrity. NHTSA has long interpreted the term "withstand" to require that there be no rupture or permanent circumferential deformation of the reservoir exceeding one percent. At one point, the agency issued an interpretation concluding that the term "withstand" meant that a reservoir can deform only slightly and must contain the applied pressure with only a limited pressure drop at any time during the test. However, NHTSA later withdrew that interpretation because it inadvertently increased the severity of the requirement. See 42 FR 64630, December 27, 1977, and 43 FR 9149, March 6, 1978.

You asked about this requirement in connection with a reservoir design that includes a bushing on the inside of an endcap. A weld is placed around the bushing.

You describe two different procedures you have used to seal the reservoir. In what you describe as "Test Criteria 1," a socket head plug is put into the bushing with 3 full wraps of tape. With this first method, you state that as the pressure is applied to the reservoir, the endcap starts to expand out. The bushing stretches with the endcap, and as the bushing stretches the threads are pulled away from the plug. The plug must therefore be retightened several times before the required pressure is reached. In your "Test Criteria 2," you state that a rubber grommet or washer is placed on the inside of the bushing and forced to expand to seal the bushings from the inside. You stated that this method checks the weld but removes the threads from the test. With the second method, you state that there was no failure at over five times the working pressure.

While Standard No. 121 does not specify a particular test procedure for this requirement, the language of S5.1.2.2 makes it clear that a reservoir must "withstand" for 10 minutes a condition where the reservoir is pressurized at the specified level. Therefore, in conducting a compliance test, NHTSA would pressurize a reservoir to the specified level. This would necessitate sealing the reservoir.

In considering how a particular reservoir would be sealed, it is important to bear in mind that the purpose of the test is to evaluate the reservoir's structural integrity and ability to withstand pressurization. I can offer you the following comments on the two alternative test methods you described. The first method (Test Criteria 1) would appear to evaluate a reservoir's ability to withstand pressurization. The threaded plug would appear to reasonably approximate how the reservoir would be sealed in an actual use situation. I note that the mere fact that the plug needs to be tightened during the test to achieve the specified level of pressure would not indicate a failure but would simply reflect minor air leakage around the plug.

The second method (Test Criteria 2) would not fully evaluate a reservoir's ability to withstand pressurization, since it would, as you recognized, remove the threads from the test, thereby creating an artificial seal. It is our opinion that a reservoir would not be capable of "withstanding" the specified hydrostatic internal pressure if the threads failed under such pressurization. This would represent a structural failure equivalent to a rupture.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:121 d:4/25/94

ID: 9128_freshener

Mr. Robert V. Payne
Transcents, Inc.
11516 Gardenia Dr.
Pittsburgh, PA 15235




Dear Mr. Payne:

This responds to your letter and phone conversations with National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) staff regarding the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 302, Flammability of interior materials, to an air freshener system manufactured by your company. As explained below, FMVSS No. 302 does not apply to your product.

In your letter, you described your product as an air freshener system that is installed in the evaporator compartment of a buss ventilation system. You explained that the system automatically sprays a fragrance into the vehicles occupant compartment air space. In a phone conversation with Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff, you explained that your system is typically separated from a vehicles occupant compartment by a louvered vent cover. You asked whether FMVSS No. 302 would apply to your product, or to an aerosolized version of it, when installed in a vehicle.

FMVSS No. 302 applies to new motor vehicles, and specifies burn resistance requirements for particular components, listed in S4.1 of the standard, used in the vehicle occupant compartment. The components listed in S4.1 are:

Seat cushions, seat backs, seat belts, headlining, convertible tops, arm rests, all trim panels including door, front, rear, and side panels, compartment shelves, head restraints, floor coverings, sun visors, curtains, shades, wheel housing covers, engine compartment covers, mattress covers, and any other interior materials, including padding and crash-deployed elements, that are designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash.

Air freshener systems are not listed in S4.1 of the standard. Also, it appears that your air freshener system is not incorporated into any component listed in S4.1. Thus, your product, including an aerosolized version, is not subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 302.

Please note that there are other requirements that could affect your product. NHTSA has jurisdiction over defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem free of charge. (Note that this responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which your systems are installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.)In addition, there are other agencies in the U.S. Department of Transportation that might have requirements for your product. We suggest that you contact the Research and Special Projects Administration at (202) 366-4400 for information about pressure vessels, and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration at (202) 493-0349 concerning requirements for large trucks and buses.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Calamita at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:302
d.2/11/05