James C. Chen, Esq.

Crowell & Moring LLP

1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20004

Dear Mr. Chen:

This responds to your letter asking about requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, that manufacturers label their products with a date of manufacture. A date of manufacture is required to be labeled on add-on child restraints (S5.5.2(c)), built-in child restraints (S5.5.5(c)), and on the child restraint registration card required by S5.8.1(c) of the standard. When describing the date of manufacture that manufacturers must provide, the standard refers to month and year (S5.5.2(c) and S5.5.5(c)), month, year (S5.8.1(c) and S5.8.2(a)(2)), or ZZ-ZZ-20ZZ (Figure 9a depicting registration form). You ask whether your client, Graco Childrens Products, Inc., may depict the date of manufacture as:

You state that Graco would include the clarifying text that explains the meaning of the numerals. For instance, a typical label would appear as follows in the shaded area of the registration form (the area outside of the space for the consumer to fill in) (you provided this example in a letter to us dated May 16, 2008):

Our answer is yes, Graco may use the above format to provide the date of manufacture on the child restraints and on the registration card.

Discussion

FMVSS No. 213 requires that the month and year of manufacture be identified. It is our opinion that Gracos year-month-day format satisfies the requirements of FMVSS No. 213, provided that the words year, month, and day accompany the numerals. The words are important to explain the meaning of the numerals, since the U.S. typically uses a month, day, year format. With the accompanying text your clients format is readily

understood as providing the month and year of manufacture. Accordingly, Gracos labeling would satisfy the standards requirement that a date of manufacture be provided.

We would like to make the following observations about use of the format on the registration form. FMVSS No. 213 strictly controls the appearance of the form. We have found that the appearance of the form affects the likelihood that a consumer will participate in the owner registration program. S5.8(b)(2) requires that the registration form conform in size, content and format to forms depicted in the standard. Each form must be preprinted with the restraints model name or number and its date of manufacture. Under S5.8 no other information is permitted to appear on the postcard, except information that distinguishes a particular restraint from another restraint system may be preprinted in the shaded area of the postcard, as shown in figure 9a. (S5.8.1(b)(3)).

Gracos year-month-day format does not affect the overall appearance of the registration form. It provides the month and year of manufacture, and distinguishes a particular restraint from another restraint system. According to the example you provided, the year-month-day grid will be placed on the shaded area of the postcard. All of these factors lead us to conclude that the year-month-day format would satisfy S5.8.1(b)(3) of the standard.

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

Mr. Guy Dorleans

International & Regulatory Affairs

Valeo Lighting Systems

34, rue Saint-Andr

93 012 Bobigny Cedex

France

Dear Mr. Dorleans:

This responds to your letter, in which you ask about the activation of daytime running lamps (DRLs) under the administrative rewrite version of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Specifically, you ask whether various LED (light-emitting diode) lamp designs, incorporating a parking lamp function in addition to other functions, can be used as DRLs under the new version standard. Our answer is that the new version of FMVSS No. 108 does not affect that opinion we provided in our April 29, 2008 letter to you.

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.

On December 4, 2007, NHTSA published an administrative rewrite of FMVSS No. 108 (72 FR 68234). This rewrite was intended to present the existing regulatory requirements in a simpler, more straightforward manner, and to reduce the need to consult outside documentation. As we stated in the summary of the notice:

This document amends the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108 on lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment by reorganizing the regulatory text so that it provides a more straightforward and logical

presentation of the applicable regulatory requirements, which includes the agencys interpretation of the existing requirements. This final rule does not impose any new substantive requirements on manufacturers.

In a letter of interpretation we mailed to you on April 29, 2008, we stated:

For the purpose of S5.5.11(a) [of the current version of FMVSS No. 108], the array of LEDs that you described in your letter, which can serve the function of parking lamps or other lamps depending on how they are activated, would not be considered parking lamps in either of the scenarios that you described. In DRL mode, the lamps would be substantially brighter than the parking lamps, and according to your letter, their photometric output would comply with the requirements of S5.5.11(a)(1), which sets minimum and maximum output for DRLs. This would result in effective DRLs, which is the intent of the requirement in FMVSS No. 108.

This relayed our opinion that your lighting system was permissible under FMVSS No. 108. This opinion is not changed by the fact that the standard has been reworded. For reference, as you stated in your letter, the rewritten language (now in paragraph S6.1.1.4) reads:

Daytime running lamps. A passenger car, multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck, or bus may be equipped with a pair of daytime running lamps (DRLs) as specified in Table I and S7.10 of this standard. DRLs may be any pair of lamps on the front of the vehicle, whether or not required by this standard, other than parking lamps or fog lamps.

Therefore, the opinion expressed in our previous letter, that the lighting system that you propose is permissible under the standard, will still hold true when the new language for FMVSS No. 108 comes into effect.

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

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

NCC-112:Ascott:5/23/08:OCC 08-002063:62992

Final AScott:mar:11/25/08

Cc: NCC-110 Subj/Chron, Redbook, Docket Std. 108

S:\INTERP\108\08-002063as.docref:108

d.1/16/09

Robert Babcock, Senior Manager

Regulation and Certification Department

Hyundai-Kia America Technical Center Inc.

6800 Geddes Road

Superior Township, MI 48198

Dear Mr. Babcock:

This responds to your letter asking about an exemption from vehicle parts marking pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543, Exemption from Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard. As we understand your letter, you ask about optional antitheft device equipment for a car line that has received an exemption for standard equipment where the optional equipment is equivalent in capability to the standard equipment that received the exemption. Our answer is we cannot provide the exemption you request.

49 U.S.C. Section 33106, Exemption for passenger motor vehicles equipped with anti-theft devices, permits manufacturers to petition the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for an exemption for a line of passenger motor vehicles equipped as standard equipment with an anti-theft device that [NHTSA] decides is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard. (Emphasis added.) (See 49 U.S.C. Section 30166(b)(2)).

Your letter states that: HATCI [Hyundai-Kia America Technical Center, Inc.] requests the consideration of the agency to the extension of this [exemption] provision to optional equipment where the option would be concluded to be as likely to be effective in reducing and deterring vehicle theft as would the standard equipment that the agency had previously provided an exemption where all vehicles in the car line would employ one or the other equivalent system.

We are unable to comply with your request. By statute, the exemptions are to apply only to motor vehicle lines with antitheft devices as standard equipment. Standard equipment is defined at 49 U.S.C. Section 33106(a)(2) as: equipment already installed in a motor vehicle when it is delivered from the manufacturer and not an accessory or other item that the first purchaser customarily has the option to have installed.

Your letter states that: HATCI believes that section 543.9(ii) provides the appropriate mechanism for this extension 49 CFR Part 543 establishes procedures for filing and processing petitions to exempt lines of vehicles from the parts-marking requirements of the theft prevention standard. Section 543.2 specifies that the purpose of Part 543 is to specify the content and format of petitions for vehicle lines which include certain antitheft devices as standard requirement. Section 543.9 establishes procedures for NHTSA to terminate or modify an exemption provided under Part 543. There is no section 543.9(ii) in Part 543; we believe that you meant section 543.9(c)(2)(ii). At any rate, section 543.9 applies to procedures to terminate or modify an exemption for high theft motor vehicles lines that include antitheft devices as standard equipment.

If you have questions about this or related issues, please feel free to contact my office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

ref:543

d.11/20/08

Damian J. Pelegrino, President

Top Cargo Inc.

9869 NW 79^th Avenue

Miami, FL 33016

Dear Mr. Pelegrino:

This responds to your letter, in which you inquired about the classification of vehicles. Specifically, you requested this agencys opinion of whether certain electric scooters would be considered motor vehicles and subject to the regulatory requirements of this agency. Our answer is that, based on the information you provided in your letter and subject to the caveats included below, none of the vehicles you described would appear to be classified as a motor vehicle.

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). 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.

To begin, the definition of a motor vehicle is provided in 49 U.S.C. 30102, and reads:

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

All six of the vehicles that you described in your letter are two-wheeled, electric scooters that, according to your letter, have a rated speed of less than 20 mph.

Congress has created a special category of vehicles called low-speed electric bicycles that is relevant to the classification of one of your vehicles. In the Consumer Product Safety Act (Pub. L. 107-319, December 4, 2002; codified at 15 U.S.C. 2085), Congress defined a low speed electric bicycle as a:

[T]wo- or three-wheeled vehicle with fully operable pedals and electric motor of less than 750 watts (1 HP), whose maximum speed on a paved level surface, when powered solely by such a motor while ridden by an operator who weighs 170 pounds, is less than 20 mph.

Based on the information in your letter, one of the vehicles you described (the Model TDR48k41) would likely be classified as a low speed electric bicycle under this statute. Your letter stated that this vehicle has a 350 watt electric motor and a rated speed of 19.8 mph. While you did not indicate exactly how you calculated the rated speed, if its top speed was attained using the method indicated by Congress, it would be classified as a low speed electric bicycle, and therefore not a motor vehicle.

The other vehicles you described do not have pedals, and so would not be classified as low speed electric bicycles. However, based on your descriptions, we do not believe that any of those vehicles would be considered motor vehicles either. In a draft notice of interpretation (70 FR 34810, copy enclosed) addressing low speed two- and three-wheeled vehicles, NHTSA articulated a method to distinguish those vehicles that fall under the statutory definition of motor vehicle from other vehicles. In that notice, we stated:

Consistent with the Congressional definition of low speed electric bicycle, we have tentatively concluded that if a two- or three-wheeled vehicle were to have a maximum speed capability of less than 20 mph (32 km/h), regardless of on-road capabilities, it would not be a motor vehicle, except in very limited circumstances[1].

We have examined the information you sent us regarding the other five vehicles. All of them appear to be electric two-wheeled vehicles, with top speeds ranging from 18.64-19.8 mph (30-32 km/h). Therefore, based on our draft notice of interpretation referenced above, we would likely not consider any of them to be motor vehicles under 49 U.S.C. 30102, and therefore not subject to regulation by NHTSA (this assumes that the rated speed you identified is consistent with the method we described in our draft notice of interpretation). We note, however, that all six of these vehicles would be regulated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Furthermore, the vehicles are subject to State laws.

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:571

d.1/16/09

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