ID: nht91-1.50

DATE: February 26, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jim Holperin -- State Representative, 34th Assembly District

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-3-91 from Jim Holperin to Taylor Vinson (OCC 5600)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of January 3, 1991, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, on behalf of your constitutent LeRoy E. Mueller. Mr. Mueller is a manufacturer of trailers, and is concerned that if he builds certain tilt deck trailers to specifications they will fail to conform to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Specifically, a stationary ramp "might obscure a clear view of the trailer's tail lights from a 45 degree angle . . . ." You have asked whether his concern "regarding an obstructed view of the tail light" is a legitimate one.

As Mr. Mueller indicates, Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, incorporates by reference SAE Standard J585e, Tail Lamps (Rear Position Lamps), Sept. 1977, which applies to trailers. This standard requires that "Signal from lamps on both side of the vehicle shall be visible through a horizontal angle from 45 deg. to the left to 45 deg. to the right. The SAE standard further specifies that "To be considered visible, the lamp must provide an unobstructed projected illuminated area of outer lens surface, excluding reflex, at least 2 square inches in extent, measured at 45 deg. to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle." We note that stop lamps and rear turn signal lamps must also meet this requirement.

You have enclosed a photocopy of a photograph of the rear of a trailer taken from what we assume represents a 45 degree angle to the left of the horizontal centerline of the trailer. Certain lamps, visible from another photocopy of a picture taken on the centerline, appear to be obscured at the 45 degree angle. Thus, it appears that Mr. Mueller's concern to be a legitimate one. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to determine whether his vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and to ensure that it does before affixing a certification of compliance to it upon completion of its manufacture. If this agency has reason to believe that a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment has been manufactured and/or certified in violation of the Vehicle Safety Act, this agency conducts an investigation and, if appropriate, an enforcement action.

However, we would like to point out that if trailer equipment prevents compliance of a required lamp, like a tail lamp, with any of Standard No. 108's requirements, paragraph S5.3.1.1 of the standard permits a manufacturer to install an auxiliary lamp meeting the standard's requirements.

ID: 15541.pad

Ms. Ginny Schafer
1790 Highgrove Dr.
Alpharetta, GA 30201

Dear Ms. Schafer:

This responds to your June 26, 1997, letter asking whether the "slipcover type product" you wish to make must meet Federal flammability standards. Your letter does not describe the product in detail, but presumably it would be used to protect the vehicle seat against wear and tear. You state that the slipcover "will be slipped on over the seat, and it will not interfere with seat belts or children's car seats. (There will be an opening in the fabric to accommodate seat belts.)" The product would be sold to consumers in the aftermarket for installation in their own vehicles.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, Congress has established a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the information set forth in your letter.

There currently is no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that directly applies to your product. Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, applies to new, completed vehicles and not to aftermarket items of equipment sold separately from a vehicle, such as a slipcover sold in the aftermarket. Thus, your aftermarket product need not meet Federal flammability requirements.

While no safety standard applies to your product, you should be aware that under 49 U.S.C. 30118-30121, each manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment (such as aftermarket vehicle seat slipcovers) is responsible for ensuring that its product is free of safety-related defects. If you or NHTSA determines that a safety related defect exists, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

In addition, 30122 of our statute prohibits motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative any part of a device or element of

design installed on or in a vehicle in compliance with the Federal safety standards. While it is unlikely that your product would be installed by persons listed in 30122, if a commercial entity does install it, it must ensure that the product does not undermine the vehicle's compliance with the flammability resistance requirements.

The prohibition of 30122 does not apply to individual owners who install equipment in their own vehicles. Thus, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles.

Because the slipcover is used with child seats and vehicle belts, you should ensure that the product not interfere with the performance of those safety systems. The opening on the slipcover for the belts must not restrict the belt's ability to remain taut or to tighten up in a crash. The slipcover should not have padding that can compress in a crash and introduce slack into the vehicle belt system. Excessive slack can cause the child seat to move too far out of the seating position in a crash, which can result in a greater likelihood the child's head would contact hard surfaces.

State or local jurisdictions might have their own requirements for the slipcover you wish to produce. For information about those requirements, you should contact the Department of Motor Vehicles in any state in which the equipment will be sold or used.

You identified two types of fabric by name and manufacturer and ask if they meet Federal flammability requirements. NHTSA does not test products before their sale, nor can we assure manufacturers that a particular supplier meets the Federal requirements. If you intend that your slipcovers meet flammability resistance requirements, which would be a decision we would encourage, you should contact the manufacturer of the fabric for information on conformance of the product.

If you have any other questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:213#302
d.8/21/97

ID: nht93-7.27

DATE: October 19, 1993

FROM: Jason Backs -- Engineering Department, Travis Body and Trailer, Inc.

TO: Taylor Vinson

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/18/93 from John Womack to Jason Backs (A41; Std. 108)

TEXT: Recently, I spoke with Patrick Boyd (Room 5307) concerning the conspicuity law and how it will affect the business at which I work. Mr. Boyd suggested that I direct my question to you. Allow me to fill you in on the details. I am an engineer at Travis Body & Trailer in Houston, TX. We manufacture aluminum and steel end dump trailers. We will be required to meet the trailer conspicuity law which becomes effective December 1. The law is very detailed about most aspects of its implementation. However, I would like to be sure that my suggested installation is indeed conforming to the law. The rubrail is the obvious placement for the reflective tape on a dump trailer. However, since our present extrusions have raised ridges on the outer surface, it is not convenient to apply the reflective tape to the rubrail. As the final alternative, we could order three new extrusion dies. This would be quite expensive. Presently, I propose that we apply fifteen separate 18" lengths of the tape (11" red, 7" white, made by 3M) to the side sheet directly above the rubrail and in between each side stake. Using these lengths yields 58% coverage of a 39' trailer. This installation places the tape in full view from a point normal to the side of the trailer. At approximately 30 degrees from normal to the side of the trailer, the edge of the tape begins to be obstructed by the side stake. At 45 degrees from normal to the side of the trailer, 1 1/2" (8.33%) of each 18" section of tape is obstructed by the side stake. At 60 degrees from normal to the side of the trailer, 4" (22.22%) of each 18" section of tape is obstructed by the side stake. At 60 degrees from the normal to the side of the trailer, the tailgate reflective tape is in view. This placement of the tape in a slightly recessed position on the trailer which causes obstruction at large angles from normal to the trailer side is why I question that it conforms to the law. We can comply to the application of the reflective tape on the full width of the tailgate (rear of the tailer) with no question. I would like from you in writing that this specific installation of the reflective tape is in fact in compliance to the law in every respect. This would be helpful to have on file in the future should any of our trailer's conformity to the conspicuity law ever arise. Should any of the drawings depicting the placement of the stickers be unclear, feel free to call me. If you deem that this installation is not in compliance to the full extent of the conspicuity law, please contact me to further discuss our options.

ID: 11594.MLS

Mr. Thomas D. Petru
Assistant Director -LP-Gas Section
Railroad Commission of Texas
Gas Services Division
1701 North Congress Avenue
P.O Box 12967
Austin, TX 78711-2967

Dear Mr. Petru:

This responds to your letter requesting information about the use of acoustic emissions for retesting certain types of Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) containers installed on transit buses. Your letter was referred to us by the Federal Transit Administration. You stated that a study comparing acoustic emissions testing with hydrostatic testing would be beneficial. You asked for views concerning the possibility of the Texas Railroad Commission suspending the retesting of CNG containers that have expired until after such a study could be completed.

By way of background information, Congress has authorized NHTSA to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.) NHTSA, however, does not approve or endorse motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the statute establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards

NHTSA has no authority to require the retesting of motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment after the vehicles or equipment are sold to consumers.

NHTSA has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 304, Compressed Natural Gas Fuel Container Integrity, (49 CFR 571.304), which specifies requirements for the integrity of new CNG containers used to fuel motor vehicles. The standard applies to all CNG containers manufactured on or after March 27, 1995 (the date the standard took effect), and requires that new CNG containers comply with a hydrostatic burst test. The manufacturers must certify that their containers meet the requirements at the point of sale. However, after the first consumer purchase of a motor vehicle or an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA's authority is much more limited and does not extend to periodic retesting of motor vehicles or such equipment.

NHTSA has no position on the relative merits of acoustic emissions or hydrostatic testing. Nor is this agency planning to conduct a study to evaluate the relative merits of these two retesting methods.

The U.S. Department of Transportation=s Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) is authorized by Congress to issue standards for containers used to transport hazardous materials, including CNG containers. Such CNG containers may carry RSPA=s DOT specification or exemption markings, including retest markings. RSPA, however, does not have the statutory authority to regulate CNG containers that are used to fuel a motor vehicle. In other words, there are no Federal requirements applicable to the periodic retesting of CNG containers designed to fuel a motor vehicle.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref: 304 d:4/29/96

ID: 11594MLS

Mr. Thomas D. Petru
Assistant Director -LP-Gas Section
Railroad Commission of Texas
Gas Services Division
1701 North Congress Avenue
P.O Box 12967
Austin, TX 78711-2967

Dear Mr. Petru:

This responds to your letter requesting information about the use of acoustic emissions for retesting certain types of Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) containers installed on transit buses. Your letter was referred to us by the Federal Transit Administration. You stated that a study comparing acoustic emissions testing with hydrostatic testing would be beneficial. You asked for views concerning the possibility of the Texas Railroad Commission suspending the retesting of CNG containers that have expired until after such a study could be completed.

By way of background information, Congress has authorized NHTSA to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.) NHTSA, however, does not approve or endorse motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the statute establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards

NHTSA has no authority to require the retesting of motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment after the vehicles or equipment are sold to consumers.

NHTSA has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 304, Compressed Natural Gas Fuel Container Integrity, (49 CFR 571.304), which specifies requirements for the integrity of new CNG containers used to fuel motor vehicles. The standard applies to all CNG containers manufactured on or after March 27, 1995 (the date the standard took effect), and requires that new CNG containers comply with a hydrostatic burst test. The manufacturers must certify that their containers meet the requirements at the point of sale. However, after the first consumer purchase of a motor vehicle or an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA's authority is much more limited and does not extend to periodic retesting of motor vehicles or such equipment.

NHTSA has no position on the relative merits of acoustic emissions or hydrostatic testing. Nor is this agency planning to conduct a study to evaluate the relative merits of these two retesting methods.

The U.S. Department of Transportation=s Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) is authorized by Congress to issue standards for containers used to transport hazardous materials, including CNG containers. Such CNG containers may carry RSPA=s DOT specification or exemption markings, including retest markings. RSPA, however, does not have the statutory authority to regulate CNG containers that are used to fuel a motor vehicle. In other words, there are no Federal requirements applicable to the periodic retesting of CNG containers designed to fuel a motor vehicle.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref:304 d:4/29/96

ID: nht78-2.27

DATE: 08/16/78

FROM: A. MALLIARIS FOR M. M. FINKELSTEIN -- NHTSA

TO: Department of Radiology and Nuclear Radiology

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of July 21, 1978, regarding the height of head restraints in U.S. manufactured cars.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 202, Head Restraints, Passenger Cars, copy enclosed, requires that when the head restraint is adjusted to its fully extended design position, the top of the head restraint shall not be less than 27.5 inches above the seating reference point. The 27.5 inches approximates the distance from the hip point to the occiput of a 95% percentile anthropometric male figure. The seating reference point in turn corresponds to the hip point. Therefore, head restraints would be expected to be adjustable to the normal sitting height of 95 percent of the male population.

On March 10, 1978, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued a notice of a draft plan for rulemaking, copy enclosed. Plans for rulemaking concerning head restraints are noted on page 11106 under Docket 74-13. To support future rulemaking regading the height of head restraints we would appreciate any data that you may have in your possession regarding cervical spine injuries in rear impact accidents. It may be forwarded to NHTSA, Docket 74-13.

A copy of your letter is being forwarded to the docket as a matter for the public record.

SINCERELY,

Orlando General Hospital

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Safety Administration Office of the Rule Making

July 21, 1978

Dear Sir:

It is my opinion that the headrest on U.S. manufactured cars are designed to prevent injury to the cervical spine and the skull. Through personal experience and experience as a Radiologist, I find that the maximum height of these headrests are not high enough to prevent injury to taller people.

I strongly encourage that the headrests installed in U.S. manufactured automobiles be adjustable by the occupant so that people over 6 foot 2 inches tall may have the benefit of safety. At the present time, the maximum height sometimes encourages more traumatic injuries of the cervical spine rather than preventing them in regards toward tall people.

Bodo E. Pyko, D.O. Chairman Department of Radiology and Nuclear Radiology

ID: 10-001612_Hansen_motorcycle_crs

ID: 004597drn

Michael E. Ogle, Sales Manager
Schiller International Corp.
120 Newsons Gait
Fayetteville, GA 30215

Dear Mr. Ogle:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether a Liebherr mobile construction crane that your company has imported into the United States is a "motor vehicle." This letter confirms that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not consider the mobile construction crane to be a "motor vehicle."

You have enclosed brochures (with a photograph and diagrams) describing the crane at issue, the Liebherr LTM 1090/2, 110 ton mobile crane.

By way of background information, NHTSA interprets and enforces the laws under which the Federal motor vehicle safety standards are promulgated. NHTSAs statute at 49 U.S.C. Section 30102(a)(6) defines the term "motor vehicle" as follows:

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

Further, if a vehicle is a "motor vehicle," it must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in order to be imported into the United States (49 U.S.C. 30112(a)). The question is whether the Liebherr LTM 1090/2 is a "motor vehicle."

Whether the agency will consider a construction vehicle, or similar equipment, 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 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 the literature provided in your letter, we believe the on-highway use of your equipment is merely incidental and not the primary purpose for which they were manufactured. Therefore, we do not consider it to be a "motor vehicle."

We note that our interpretations in this area are based on a court decision issued in 1978. Subsequent legal developments make the holding of that court decision open for reassessment. Moreover, some mobile construction equipment may be using the public roads with greater frequency than the equipment the court decided were not motor vehicles subject to our jurisdiction. At some point in the future, we may revisit the issue of whether certain mobile construction equipment should be considered motor vehicles. However, if we were to take such action, we would announce it publicly, and address such issues as what standards should apply to the vehicles and what effective date is appropriate.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:VSA 102(3)
d.10/20/03

ID: 14056dre.am

Ms. Carol Dingledy
Manager, Corporate Communications
Cosco Inc.
2525 State St.
Columbus, IN 47201

Dear Ms. Dingledy:

This responds to your January 27, 1997 letter concerning the air bag warning label requirement adopted in Standard 213 by a November 27, 1996 final rule (61 FR 60206). You ask whether you can revise the label for Cosco's "Dream Ride" car bed.

The November 1996 rule requires that beginning May 27, 1997, rear-facing child seats must have a specified label "that conforms in content to Figure 10...." Figure 10, also adopted by the rule, depicts a label with the word "Warning" and an alert symbol in the heading, and a message and pictogram under that heading. The text of the message appears as:

DO NOT place rear-facing child seat on front seat with air bag.

DEATH OR SERIOUS INJURY can occur.

The back seat is the safest place for children 12 and under.

You state that the Dream Ride can be used rear-facing, and side-facing as a car bed. According to the installation information you enclosed, Cosco believes that the Dream Ride "can be used as a car bed in seating locations where there is an air bag." You ask whether the standard would permit you to add a sentence at the beginning of the required text, stating:

Dream Ride can be used with an air bag in the car bed position ONLY.

You believe this sentence is needed "to make the intent crystal clear and prevent anyone from either facing the car seat forward or putting an infant who must be watched alone in the rear seat."

Our answer is that the standard does not permit the additional sentence on the label. S5.5.2(k)(4) requires a label that, among other things, "conforms in content to Figure 10." NHTSA provided flexibility in the final rule concerning the format and size of the label, but stated that "Manufacturers agreed that NHTSA should specify the label content and prohibit additional labels." 61 FR at 60210. Thus, flexibility as to the content of the label was not provided.

References to car bed use, while precluded from inclusion on the label, may be included in the installation instructions for the restraint. Please note, however, that the January 6, 1997 final rule extending the time period during which manual cutoff switches for the passenger-side air bag are permitted (62 FR 798) expressed the following concerns about car beds:

Given the limited information that is available [on the use of car beds], NHTSA is not prepared to recommend placing a car bed in front of an air bag. The agency did conduct a test in which the air bag deployed primarily over the top of a car bed, barely contacting the bed. However, NHTSA used an infant dummy that was not instrumented, and thus did not obtain measurements of the potential for injury.* * * The agency does not know how hard the air bag impacted the bed, or what the effect the impact would have on a four, five or ten pound infant, with or without a medical problem. Moreover, the agency does not know the extent to which that particular test was representative of current vehicle seats and air bags. Finally, NHTSA notes that car beds cannot fit on bucket seats. (62 FR at 804, column 3)

We would appreciate learning the basis for your determination that the Dream Ride is safe to use side-facing in front of an air bag.

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:213

d:3/31/97

ID: nht88-1.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/11/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: LLOYD J. OSBORN -- CHIEF, CUSTOMS AND QUARANTINE DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, GOVERNMENT OF GUAM

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 12-11-87, FROM LLOYD J. OSBORN, TO NHTSA, 20950

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 11, 1987, to the Office of Vehicle Safety Standards of this agency in which you request a "list of vehicles which have been determined by NHTSA to be excluded as motor vehicles."

The agency does not maintain a list of this nature. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act defines a "motor vehicle" as a vehicle, with or without motive power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways. This c ategory includes vehicles capable of off-road use but which are nevertheless generally licensed for use on the public roads. Over the years, NHTSA has provided interpretations that the following types of vehicles are not "motor vehicles": single seat ra cing cars; stock cars modified to the point that they are no longer licensable for use on the public roads; all-terrain vehicles, racing motorcycles and off-road motorcycles that are trailered over the public roads, golf carts, in-plant vehicles lacking doors and lighting devices, airport crash and rescue vehicles, and shuttle buses, snowmobiles, mobile homes, farm tractors, farm trailers whose use of the public roads is limited to crossing from one field to another, and trailers like mobile compressors which spend lengthy periods of time at an off road worksite and only infrequently travel by road to a new worksite. In addition, the agency does not consider construction cranes to be "motor vehicles". Finally, vehicles manufactured pursuant to militar y contracts, while "motor vehicles", are nevertheless exempted from compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

If you have any further questions we shall be happy to answer them, as well as furnish whatever other assistance you may require in formulating your Customs procedures.