Mr. James D. Carroll

4608 Oakwood Circle

Gastonia, NC 28056

Dear Mr. Carroll:

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

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment.  Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA selects a sampling of new vehicles and equipment each year to determine their compliance with applicable FMVSSs.  If our testing or examination reveals an apparent noncompliance, we may require the manufacturer to remedy the noncompliance, and may initiate an enforcement proceeding if necessary to ensure that the manufacturer takes appropriate action.

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

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

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

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter unless the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business reasonably believes the vehicle or equipment will not be used (except for testing or a similar purpose during maintenance or repair) when the device or element is inoperative.

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

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

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

ref:218

d.11/20/08

Mr. Michael H. Bai

Littleton Joyce Ughetta Park & Kelly LLP

39 Broadway

34^th Floor

New York, NY 10006

Dear Mr. Bai:

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

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

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment.  Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA selects a sampling of new vehicles and equipment each year to determine their compliance with applicable FMVSSs.  If our testing or examination reveals an apparent noncompliance, we may require the manufacturer to remedy the noncompliance, and may initiate an enforcement proceeding if necessary to ensure that the manufacturer takes appropriate action.

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

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

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

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

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

ref:139

d.8/25/08

Ms. Ramona Hutton

167 Deep Woods Way

Ormond Beach, FL 32174

Dear Ms. Hutton:

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

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act)). NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA selects a sampling of new vehicles and equipment each year to determine their compliance with applicable FMVSSs. If our testing or examination reveals an apparent noncompliance, we may require the manufacturer to remedy the noncompliance, and may initiate an enforcement proceeding, if necessary, to ensure that the manufacturer takes appropriate action. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment.

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

Under the Safety Act, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you would have to ensure that your product is free of safety-related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your seat cover contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

In addition, 30122 of the Safety Act specifies: A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard ... The flammability resistance of the original vehicle is an element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with FMVSS No. 302. Further, some motor vehicles have sensing systems in front seats installed in compliance with FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and seat-mounted side air bags in compliance with FMVSS No. 214, Side Impact Protection. While it appears unlikely that persons in the aforementioned categories would be installing your product, installation of an item that made inoperative the vehicles compliance with flammability resistance, side or frontal impact protection requirements may subject the commercial entity to penalties for violating 30122.

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

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

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

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

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:302

d.11/20/08

Patricia Mandarino, President

Angel Guard

1049 Larkin Road

Spring Hill, FL 34608

Dear Ms. Mandarino:

This responds to your letter asking about the requirements of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for the Angel Guard, an aftermarket product you have developed that would prevent children in child restraint systems from pressing a vehicles seat belt release button. As explained below, no Federal motor vehicle safety standard specifically applies to your product. However, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment you have certain responsibilities under our laws.

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301; 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, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment or pass on the compliance of a vehicle or item of equipment outside the context of an actual enforcement proceeding. Instead, our statute establishes a self-certification process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects. The following represents our opinion based on our understanding of the information provided by your letter.

Description of the Angel Guard

You enclose a sample of the Angel Guard and describe it as a seat belt release cover which deters small children from disengaging the seat belt which is holding their car or booster seat in place. The Angel Guard appears to be a plastic box-like cover. You state that the device is one piece-no moving parts, and would be secured on existing seat belt assembly systems in motor vehicles. You did not provide instructions on how the device is attached to the seat belt.

Discussion

There is currently no Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) that applies to your product. FMVSS No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, sets forth requirements for new seat belt assemblies. Your product does not meet the definition of a seat belt assembly, so the standard would not apply. FMVSS No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, generally does not apply to aftermarket equipment items.

Although we do not have any standards that directly apply to your product, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you would be responsible for ensuring that your product is free of safety-related defects (see 49 U.S.C. 30118-30121). I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities.

There are other requirements of this agency of which you should be aware. Section 30122 of 49 U.S.C. (Making safety devices and elements inoperative) prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly making inoperative devices or elements of design installed in a motor vehicle or on an item of motor vehicle equipment, such as a vehicle seat belt assembly, in compliance with the FMVSSs. There are several seat belt elements of design that could be affected by your product, which we will discuss below. The make inoperative provision does not apply to individual owners installing aftermarket equipment on their own vehicles. However, it is our policy to encourage vehicle owners not to tamper with or otherwise degrade the performance of safety systems.

Subparagraph (d) Buckle release of S4.3 Requirements for hardware, of FMVSS No. 209 requires the pushbutton release for any buckle on a seat belt to have a minimum area for applying the release force. Subparagraph (d) also requires the buckle to release when a specified maximum force is applied. It appears that, by design, your product would cover the button and not allow the buckle to release under the amount of force specified by FMVSS No. 209. If your device would interfere with the vehicles compliance with these requirements, commercial establishments installing your device on customers seat belt assemblies would be subject to fines for violating the make inoperative provision.

Manufacturers of devices that interfere with the operation of the seat belt release should carefully evaluate the effect of the product on the performance of vehicle safety belts. For example, you should ensure that your product would not interfere with seat belt retraction or release in an emergency, that any sharp edges that your product has would not cause deterioration of the seat belt webbing, that your product would not obscure the information required by FMVSS No. 209 to be labeled on the webbing, and that the buckle will be able to be released should emergency egress from the vehicle be necessary. Further, seat belt webbing is designed to have some "give" to help absorb crash forces. If your product were to present a design that could harm an occupant, it would raise safety concerns. Finally, you should be aware that originally-installed safety belts must meet the flammability resistance requirements of FMVSS No. 302. Again, we would encourage you to evaluate your product against the requirements of these standards.

State Law May Apply

Additionally, the States have the authority to regulate the use of vehicles, and may have restrictions on the use of devices that restrict the release of seat belt buckles. We suggest that you check with your attorney or insurance company about State law considerations.

Enclosed is the sample of your product that you sent us. If you have any further questions please call Ms. Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:209#213#302

d.9/30/08

Kenneth N. Weinstein, Esq.

Mayer Brown LLP

1909 K Street, NW

Washington, DC 20006-1101

Dear Mr. Weinstein:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 305, Electric-powered vehicles; electrolyte spillage and electrical shock protection. Specifically, you asked that we confirm that a vehicle will be deemed to be in compliance with S5.3 of FMVSS No. 305 if there is no measurable voltage following the crash tests specified in S6 of the standard. Based on the information you have provided and the analysis below, we agree that where there is no measurable voltage following the crash tests, the vehicle will have passed S5.3 of the standard.

Paragraph S5.3 of FMVSS No. 305, Electrical isolation, currently states that Electrical isolation between the battery system and the vehicle electricity-conducting structure after each test must not be less than 500 ohms/volt. The electrical isolation test procedure, specified in S7.6 of FMVSS No. 305, requires that two voltage measurements be taken after the vehicle is crash-tested: the first measurement (V1) must be taken between the negative side of the propulsion battery and the vehicle chassis, and the second measurement (V2) must be taken between the positive side of the propulsion battery and the vehicle chassis. Electrical isolation is then determined by means of an equation: if V1 is greater than or equal to V2, the equation is:

Ri = Ro (1 + V2/V1 ) [(V1-V1)/V1]

where Ri is electrical isolation, Ro is a known resistance, and V1 is the voltage measured between the negative side of the propulsion battery and the vehicle chassis after the known resistance Ro is inserted between the negative side of the propulsion battery and the vehicle chassis.

If V2 is greater than V1, the equation for measuring electrical isolation is:

Ri = Ro (1 + V1/V2) [(V2-V2)/V2]

where Ri and Ro are the same as above, and V2 is the voltage measured between the positive side of the propulsion battery and the vehicle chassis after the known resistance Ro is inserted between the positive side of the propulsion battery and the vehicle chassis.

These equations are relevant to your question because they both require one voltage measurement to be divided by another. As your letter states, many current electric vehicle designs use electrical contactors to disconnect high voltage sources from the vehicles propulsion system in the event of a crash or other loss of isolation. If the high voltage source is immediately disconnected, there would be no voltage to measure. If there is no voltage to measure, a value of zero could end up in the denominator of an equation used to determine electrical isolation. Mathematically, a value of zero in the denominator of a fraction results in an undefined value, which has no meaning and cannot be used, in this case, to actually calculate electrical isolation. Thus, technically speaking, the equations in S7.6 could not be used to certify compliance with FMVSS No. 305s electrical isolation requirement.[1]

We have decided that a sensible and simple approach is warranted in response to the issue you raise. We do not believe that the mathematically impossible must be a bar against a certification of compliance in this situation. Accordingly, we will interpret FMVSS No. 305 such that a voltage reading of zero will constitute compliance with the electrical isolation requirement.[2]

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

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

ref:305

d.11/20/08

Mr. Lance Tunick

Vehicle Services Consulting, Inc.

P.O. Box 23078

Santa Fe, NM 87502-3078

Dear Mr. Tunick:

This responds to your letter concerning a February 6, 2007, final rule amending Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components. You ask whether the amendments continue to permit a double pull door handle found on some rear side door locking systems. The first actuation of the interior rear door handle unlocks the door and the second pull releases the latch to open the door. As discussed below, our answer is yes, FMVSS No. 206 will continue to permit the double pull door handle you described in your letter.

The February 6, 2007, final rule added to and updated requirements and test procedures of FMVSS No. 206, and harmonized with the worlds first global technical regulation for motor vehicles (72 FR 5385). (The effective date of the final rule is September 1, 2009; there are pending petitions for reconsideration of the final rule. Docket No. NHTSA-2006-23882.) To prevent inadvertent rear door openings, the standard specifies in S4.3.1:

S4.3.1 Rear side doors. Each rear side door shall be equipped with at least one locking device which has a lock release/engagement mechanism located within the interior of the vehicle and readily accessible to the driver of the vehicle or an occupant seated adjacent to the door, and which, when engaged, prevents operation of the interior door handle or other interior latch release control and requires separate actions to unlock the door and operate the interior door handle or other interior latch release control.

As noted in your letter, NHTSA stated in the final rule that the requirement in S4.3.1 for separate actions to unlock the door and operate the interior door handle or other interior latch release control have been in place for the interior rear door locks of every new car and light truck sold in the United States since 1968. (72 FR at 5395) A review of past agency interpretations on the double pull design is thus instructive.

Past interpretations have been issued by NHTSA permitting the double pull door locking design (see March 28, 1996 letter to you and an October 7, 1993 letter to Karl-Heinz Ziwica)[1] under current FMVSS No. 206 requirements. The current FMVSS No. 206 requirement (S4.1.3.2) states:

In passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles, when the locking mechanism is engaged both the outside and inside door handles or other latch release controls shall be inoperative.

In those letters, NHTSA interpreted the word inoperative to refer to the operation of opening the door, rather than that of disengaging the lock. For the double pull rear side door lock systems, when the locking mechanism is engaged, actuation of the door handle cannot open the door, which NHTSA stated met the requirement of current S4.1.3.2.

The new S4.3.1 reflects current S4.1.3.2 in the second clause of the amended standard (and which, when engaged, prevents operation of the interior door handle or other interior latch release control). Thus, for the double pull rear side door lock systems described in the March 28, 1996 and October 7, 1993 letters, this second clause of S4.1.3.2 is met, since actuation of the door handle cannot open the door.

The new S4.3.1 has a further provision in its last clause (and requires separate actions to unlock the door and operate the interior door handle or other interior latch release control). We believe that the double pull door locking design described in the March 28, 1996 and October 7, 1993 letters meets the last clause of the new S4.3.1. For the double pull rear side door lock system you described, two separate actions are needed to open the door: the first pull unlocking the door and the second pull which activates the latch release control and opens the door. This design is distinguished from a system in which a door can be unlocked and unlatched with a single pull of the door handle, which is not permitted under the new S4.3.1. 72 FR at 5395.

In conclusion, the new FMVSS No. 206 door locks requirements continue to permit the double pull rear side door lock system described in the letters you referenced. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Sarah Alves of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

ref:206

d.1/16/08

Mr. Warren Duvall

Sentry Compliance Solutions, LLC

2620 Centenary Blvd.

Bldg. 2 Suite 212

Shreveport, LA 71104

Dear Mr. Duvall:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether there are any National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requirements which your product, the Driver Alert System, must meet. You state that the device is intended for commercial vehicles or school buses.

According to your letter, the driver alert system sounds an audible alert inside the cab of the vehicle when the vehicle crosses the white line on the shoulder of the road, crossing the center line, or crosses specially marked school zones. You stated that your product does not render any other function of either a commercial or non-commercial vehicle inoperable in any way. The sensors cause an audible alert to sound inside the vehicle when the vehicle crosses any of the lines mentioned. You state that you were directed to NHTSA by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA).

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor

vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards. Manufacturers must also ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects.

Your product is an item of motor vehicle equipment and is regulated by NHTSA as such. This agency has not issued any FMVSS that directly applies to your product. However, beyond compliance with relevant Federal safety standards, manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment have additional responsibilities, including a requirement to notify purchasers about safety-related defects and to provide a remedy free of charge, even if their equipment is not covered by a safety standard. 49 U.S.C. 30118-30120.

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

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter unless the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business reasonably believes the vehicle or equipment will not be used (except for testing or a similar purpose during maintenance or repair) when the device or element is inoperative.

Under the make inoperative provision, if your product were installed in a vehicle by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, the installer would have responsibilities relating to ensuring that the vehicle met, or continued to meet, all FMVSSs with the product installed.

With the make inoperative provision in mind, I would like to bring to your attention a provision in FMVSS No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release, relating to an audible alarm system. The standard specifies at S5.3.3.1 that for each emergency exit door on school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) over 10,000 pounds, when the release mechanism is not in the position that causes an emergency exit door to be closed and the vehicles ignition is in the on position, a continuous warning sound shall be audible at the drivers seating position and in the vicinity of the emergency exit door. Any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business installing your product must ensure that the product does not make inoperative the compliance of the school bus with S5.3.3.1.

The make inoperative provision does not apply to vehicle owners modifying their own vehicles. However, we encourage owners not to degrade the safety systems of their vehicles.

As you are aware, other governmental entities may have authority over your product. We note from your letter that you have contacted the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) for information about FMCSA regulations that may apply to your product. In addition, States have the authority to regulate the use and licensing of vehicles operating within their jurisdictions. Therefore, you may wish to check with the Department of Motor Vehicles in any State in which the product will be sold or used regarding any such requirements.

I hope this information is helpful. I have enclosed a fact sheet entitled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment." 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 yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:101#217#VSA102(4)

d.12/15/08

Ms. Mary Well

California Suntops

3309 Ladrillo Aisle

Irvine, CA 92606

Dear Ms. Well:

This responds to your letter asking about the applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards to fabric used to manufacture convertible tops. You explain that your company will be manufacturing the fabric.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act). NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA selects a sampling of new vehicles and equipment each year to determine their compliance with applicable FMVSSs. If our testing or examination reveals an apparent noncompliance, we may require the manufacturer to remedy the noncompliance, and may initiate an enforcement proceeding, if necessary, to ensure that the manufacturer takes appropriate action. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment.

The Safety Act defines the term motor vehicle equipment in relevant part as follows: 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 a system, part, or component, or as an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle ..." (49 U.S.C. 30102). This definition includes a convertible top, since convertible tops are components manufactured and sold either as original equipment on new vehicles or as a replacement or improvement of the convertible top. Since a convertible top is an item of motor vehicle equipment, the manufacturer of the convertible top must ensure that the convertible tops comply with all applicable FMVSSs and contain no safety-related defects.

Keep in mind that there is no FMVSS that applies to the fabric only. However, as explained below, there are requirements that apply to convertible tops, and the characteristics of the fabric would affect the convertible tops compliance with those requirements.

Convertible Tops for New Vehicles

If the convertible top were added to a new vehicle, i.e., before the vehicle is sold for the first time to a consumer, then it must meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 302, Flammability of interior materials (49 CFR 571.302). FMVSS No. 302 applies to certain vehicle occupant compartment components, including convertible tops, on new completed motor vehicles. Persons selling new vehicles equipped with the convertible top made from your fabric must ensure that the vehicles, including the top with your fabric, conform to FMVSS No. 302. There are other FMVSSs that apply to convertible tops, such as aspects of FMVSS No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact (49 CFR 571.201). The vehicle manufacturer using your fabric would have to certify compliance of the vehicle with FMVSS No. 302, No. 201, and with all other applicable FMVSS. The manufacturer might ask you for information that would assist it in making its certification, such as the burn rate of your fabric when subjected to FMVSS No. 302 test procedures. Nonetheless, the manufacturer would be responsible for ensuring that its reliance on your assurances were reasonable and that the assurances were bona fide. Also, our requirement that the vehicle must be free of safety related defects has a bearing on the materials used in the manufacture of the vehicle.

For Used Vehicles

If your fabric were used to manufacture convertible tops for use in used vehicles (i.e., vehicles previously purchased in good faith for purposes other than resale), the fabric need not meet FMVSS No. 302. FMVSS No. 302 only applies to new vehicles.

However, you should be aware of 30122 of the Safety Act. That section specifies: A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard ... The flammability resistance of the original vehicle is an element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with FMVSS No. 302. Installation of an item that degraded the flammability resistance of a vehicle may subject the commercial entity to penalties for violating 30122.

Again, the Safety Act requires all vehicle and equipment manufacturers to ensure that their products contain no defects relating to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, the manufacturer of the convertible tops would be obligated to recall and remedy convertible tops that are determined to contain a safety related defect, even if the convertible tops were installed by the vehicle owners themselves.

Other Considerations

State or local jurisdictions have their own traffic safety laws which could affect the flammability resistance of certain items. For information about those requirements, you should contact the State departments of motor vehicles. You also mentioned private tort liability. For information on that matter, we suggest you contact your private attorney or insurance carrier.

I hope this information is helpful. Enclosed is an information sheet describing generally your responsibilities under the Safety Act. If you have further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:302

d.11/20/08

David M. Mihalick, Standards Compliance Manager

Thor Industries, Inc.

419 West Pike Street,

P.O. Box 629

Jackson Center, OH 45334-0629

Dear Mr. Mihalick:

This responds to your letter in which you asked about certain labeling requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) Nos. 110, Tire selection and rims and motor home/recreation vehicle trailer load carrying capacity information for motor vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less, and 120, Tire selection and rims and motor home/recreation vehicle trailer load carrying capacity information for motor vehicles with a GVWR of more than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds), with respect to motor homes. You wrote your letter in light of amendments made to the standards in a final rule published in December 2007.[1] You asked whether the number of safety belt-equipped seating positions and their resulting occupant weight can be greater than the stated occupant and cargo carrying capacity (OCCC). For reasons discussed below, the answer to this question is no.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue and enforce Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. See 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301. FMVSS Nos. 110 and 120 are two of the standards we have issued. Manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products.

FMVSS Nos. 110 and 120 require motor homes to have OCCC labels that, among other things, include the following information:

THE COMBINED WEIGHT OF OCCUPANTS AND CARGO SHOULD

NEVER EXCEED XXX KG OR XXX LBS

and

Safety belt equipped seating capacity: XXX.

Under NHTSA's certification regulation, Part 567, manufacturers must assign a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) to a new vehicle. The term GVWR is defined in 49 CFR Part 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 safety standards to which the vehicle must be certified, and at which NHTSA conducts any relevant compliance testing.

Under Part 567, vehicle manufacturers cannot specify a GVWR that is less than the sum of (1) the unloaded vehicle weight (including maximum capacity of all fluids necessary for operation of the vehicle),[2] (2) the rated cargo and luggage load, and (3) 150 pounds times the number of the vehicles designated seating positions.[3] See 567.4(g)(3), 567.5(b)(2)(iii) and 567.5(d)(2)(iii). The combined weight for occupants (calculated by multiplying 150 pounds times the number of the vehicles designated seating positions) and cargo cannot, therefore, be more than the GVWR of the vehicle minus the unloaded vehicle weight.

You specifically asked whether the number of safety belt-equipped seating positions and their resulting occupant weight can be greater than the stated occupant and cargo carrying capacity (OCCC). We assume that each safety belt-equipped seating position would be consistent with the definition of designated seating position set forth at 49 CFR 571.3. Thus, the requirements of Part 567 would prohibit any design where the sum of the vehicles unloaded vehicle weight plus 150 pounds times the number of safety-belt equipped seating positions exceeded the GVWR, irrespective of the rated cargo and luggage load.

The requirements of FMVSS Nos. 110 and 120 serve to reinforce these requirements of Part 567.

Standard No. 110 - In the December 2007 final rule, a new S9 was added to FMVSS No. 110. For motor homes and recreation vehicle (RV) trailers, the single stage or final stage manufacturer must affix either a motor home occupant and cargo carrying capacity (OCCC) label (Figure 3) or a RV trailer cargo carrying capacity (CCC) label (Figure 4) to its vehicles that meets specified requirements, including the following:

S9.3.2 The weight value for load carrying capacity on the RV load carrying capacity labels (Figures 3 and 4) must be displayed to the nearest kilogram with conversion to the nearest pound and must be such that the vehicle does not exceed its GVWR when loaded with the stated load carrying capacity. The UVW and the GVWR used to determine the RVs load carrying capacity must reflect the weights and design of the motor home or RV trailer as configured for delivery to the dealer/service facility.

Moreover, S9.3.6 states:

For RVs, the vehicle capacity weight values and the seating capacity values (motor homes only) on the placard required by S4.3 or S4.3.5 must agree with the load carrying capacity weight values and the safety belt equipped seating capacity (motor homes only) on the RV load carrying capacity labels. (Figures 3 and 4).

To clarify, FMVSS No. 110, paragraph S.4.3, requires that vehicles including motor homes be labeled with a value for the vehicle capacity weight on the vehicle placard. The vehicle capacity weight is defined as, the rated cargo and luggage load plus 68 kilograms (150 pounds) times the vehicle designated seating capacity.

The requirement that these various values must agree with each other means that for motor homes with GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less, the number of designated seating positions (at 150 pounds per position, as specified in 49 CFR Part 567) must equal the number of safety belt-equipped seating positions. The occupant weight subtotal added to the cargo carrying capacity must equal the load carrying capacity weight on the OCCC label. In addition, the load carrying capacity weight values must be the same on both labels required by FMVSS No. 110. Finally, as provided in S9.3.2, the vehicle must not exceed its GVWR when loaded with the stated load carrying capacity weight.

Standard No. 120 In the December 2007 final rule, a new S10. was added to FMVSS No. 120. For motor homes and recreation vehicles, the single stage or final stage manufacturer must affix either a motor home occupant and cargo carrying capacity (OCCC) label (Figure 1) or a RV trailer cargo carrying capacity (CCC) label (Figure 2) to its vehicles that meets specified requirements, including the following:

S10.4.2 The weight value for load carrying capacity on the RV load carrying capacity labels (Figures 1 and 2) must be displayed to the nearest kilogram with conversion to the nearest pound and must be such that the vehicles weight does not exceed its GVWR when loaded with the stated load carrying capacity. The UVW and the GVWR used to determine the RVs load carrying capacity must reflect the weights and design of the motor home or RV trailer as configured for delivery to the dealer/service facility.

Standard No. 120 does not include a provision comparable to S9.3.6 of Standard No. 110, since it does not include a separate placard requirement for information about vehicle capacity weight values and seating capacity values. However, given the fact that Standard Nos. 110 and 120 use the same terminology for the OCCC labels, as well as the relationship between the OCCC label requirements and those of Part 567, we interpret these terms to have the same meaning. Thus, the load carrying capacity weight on the Standard No. 120 OCCC label must reflect the sum of the rated cargo and luggage load plus 68 kilograms (150 pounds) times the number of designated seating positions. As noted earlier, we assume that each safety belt-equipped seating position would be consistent with the definition of designated seating position set forth at 49 CFR 571.3. Finally, as provided in S10.4.2, the vehicle must not exceed its GVWR when loaded with the stated load carrying capacity weight.

We note that, in your letter, you stated that Giving a vehicle owner the flexibility to choose between the amount of cargo and number of people they transport is a definite advantage to that customer. FMVSS No 110 and 120 permit this type of flexibility. The OCCC labels provide owners with a load carrying capacity value that they may use for various combinations of number of occupants and cargo. However, vehicles may not have a GVWR that is less than the sum of (1) the unloaded vehicle weight (including maximum capacity of all fluids necessary for operation of the vehicle), (2) the rated cargo and luggage load, and (3) 150 pounds times the number of the vehicles designated seating positions.

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 yours,

Stephen P. Wood

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:110#120#567

d.7/24/09

Ms. Amy Sanford

Recaro North America, Inc.

4120 Luella Lane

Auburn Hills, MI 48326

Dear Ms. Sanford:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of S5.2.1.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, with regard to an infant carrier that you would like to bring to the U.S. market. We regret to inform you that we cannot interpret the standard in the manner you suggest.

According to your letter, your infant seat incorporates an adjustable back rest with an integral harness. The child restraint enables the consumer to adjust (raise) the restraints shoulder harness by a lever mechanism to adjust to a growing child without having to remove the harness from the seat back. When the shoulder harness is raised by the lever, the infant seat back is also raised. When the seat back is adjusted to the lowest position, it has a height of 410 millimeters (mm). You state that when it is raised to the full up position, the seat back is at least 500 mm.

S5.2.1 of FMVSS No. 213 specifies requirements for the minimum head support surface for child restraints other than car beds. S5.2.1.1 requires each child restraint to provide restraint against rearward movement of the head of the child (rearward in relation to the child) by means of a continuous seat back of a specified height. For child restraints recommended by their manufacturer for use by children of not more than 18 kilograms (40 pounds), S5.2.1.1(a) specifies that the height of the portion of the seat back providing head restraint must not be less than 500 mm.

From the information you provided, it appears your restraint does not meet S5.2.1.1(a) of the standard. In the lowest adjustment position, the seat back height is 410 mm, which is less than the minimum height requirement of 500 mm. The requirement does not provide for adjustable seat backs. We note that your restraint requires action on the part of the consumer to raise the seat back height. There is a risk that consumers who neglect to raise the harness straps (and thus raise the seat back) or who attempt to raise the straps but do so incorrectly could use the child restraint with the seat back at the 410 mm height with older infants. In short, we cannot interpret S5.2.1 as permitting a seat back height of less than 500 mm.

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

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

ref:213

d.11/20/08