ID: 001851cmc

Mr. Agus The
Amsafe Commercial Products
240-C North 48^th Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85043


>

Dear Mr. The:

This is in response to your letter asking whether the Locktec child restraint buckle release meets the "two or more finger" requirement of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 209, Seat belt assemblies, as incorporated into FMVSS No. 213, Child restraint systems. As explained below, the two-finger standard is a width requirement, which is not satisfied simply by the use of two fingers in actuating the buckle release.

S5.4.3.5(c) of FMVSS No. 213 requires any buckle in a child restraint system to "[m]eet the requirements of S4.3(d)(2) of FMVSS No. 209, except that the minimum surface area for child restraint buckles designed for push button application shall be 0.6 square inch [387 mm²]." You state in your letter that: "The Locktec buckle has [a sliding mechanism for release] and not a push button or a lever application." Since your buckle release is not designed for push button application, the 0.6 square inch minimum surface area requirement in S5.4.3.5(c) does not apply.

S4.3(d)(2) of Standard No. 209 reads:

A buckle designed for pushbutton application of buckle release force shall have a minimum area of 452 mm with a minimum linear dimension of 10 mm for applying the release force, or a buckle designed for lever application of buckle release force shall permit the insertion of a cylinder 10 mm in diameter and 38 mm in length to at least the midpoint of the cylinder along the cylinder's entire length in the actuation portion of the buckle release. A buckle having other design for release shall have adequate access for two or more fingers to actuate release.(Emphasis added.)

Because your buckle release is designed for slide application rather than push button or lever application, your buckle release falls under the "other design for release" category.

Under the last sentence of S4.3(d)(2), your buckle must have adequate access for two or more fingers to actuate the release. In the photos you provided of the release being actuated, one finger is in the slide action release button and an additional finger is on the buckle base opposite of the sliding mechanism. The placement of the finger on the base merely provides support to the buckle while the release is actuated. Only one finger is accessing the slide action release button.

FMVSS No. 209 requires that a slide action release button be large enough to be accessed by a minimum of two fingers, placed side-by-side. While there is no clear indication of what is meant by "two fingers" in terms of a minimum width, the two-finger requirement of FMVSS No. 209 was included in FMVSS No. 213 to ensure that child restraint buckles are easy to operate.(See, 50 Federal Register 33722.)The buckle release mechanism must be sufficiently large enough to reduce the force to surface ratio required to actuate release. The need to conveniently unbuckle a child restraint system (CRS) is of particular importance in emergency situations when there is a need to quickly remove a child from a CRS.

The release mechanism on your buckle does not accommodate two fingers of a majority of adults. The width of the index finger of a small, 5^th percentile adult female at the knuckle nearest the hand is approximately 16 mm, and the width of the index finger of a 50^th percentile male at the same position is approximately 21 mm. [1] Given the normal reduction in finger width at the tip as opposed to the knuckle nearest the hand and approximating the combined width of the index and middle finger, "two or more fingers" for a 5^th percentile female is approximately 28 mm. The contactable surface for actuating the release on the Locktec buckle is less than 25 mm. As such, the vast majority of adults would be unable to place two fingers side-by-side to actuate the Locktec buckle.

We recognize that there is some ambiguity in the two-finger specification and that a more objective criteria, specifying a minimum linear width would be appropriate. We plan to address this requirement in future rulemaking. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Chris Calamita of this office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:213
d.4/25/03





---

[1] Stephen Pheasant, "Bodyspace: Anthropometry, ergonomics, and the design of work" 49 (Taylor & Francis) (1996).

ID: 04-005893drn1

Mr. S. Y. Hong
Dae Kwang Special Glass Ltd.
25-1, Palyong-Dong, Changwon-si
Kyeong-Nam
South Korea

Dear Mr. Hong:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing Materials.You inform us that on April 13, 1998, your company was assigned DOT glazing code mark number 660. You ask three sets of questions about the assignment of the DOT code mark number.

First Set of Questions

As background, you state that over the past 6 years, Dae Kwang Special Glass Ltd. (Dae Kwang) has not yet used its DOT code mark number. Therefore, you ask:

1. Does Dae Kwang need to apply to be assigned a DOT code mark number again?
2. Is there an expiration date for the DOT code mark number?

The answers are that Dae Kwang does not need to apply again for a DOT code mark number, and that there is no expiration date for the DOT code mark number.

3. Does Dae Kwang need to provide sample tests and test results to NHTSA in order to update "DOT code 660?"

The answer is no. Unlike the practice in many European and Asian countries, in the United States, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, before selling or offering to sell motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment to the public, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their vehicles or equipment meet applicable standards. The self-certification procedures for glazing manufacturers are specified in FMVSS No. 205 at S6, Certification and marking.

Each of NHTSAs safety standards specifies the test conditions and procedures that NHTSA will use to evaluate the performance of the vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard. NHTSA follows these specified test procedures and conditions when conducting its compliance testing. In the case of FMVSS No. 205, NHTSA will follow specified test procedures established for AS-1 or AS-2 glazing (depending on how your company certifies the glazing) when it tests the glazing for compliance with FMVSS No. 205.

To provide a basis for its certification of compliance, when self-certifying glazing material, a manufacturer may choose any valid means of evaluating its products to determine whether the glazing complies with FMVSS No. 205. However, NHTSA may require a manufacturer to provide its data in determining whether the glazing meets FMVSS No. 205 requirements.

Second Set of Questions

You state that Dae Kwang is presently manufacturing glazing materials for off-road vehicles, but in the future, would like to manufacture glazing materials for passenger cars or other motor vehicles that use highways. Therefore, you ask:

1. When Dae Kwang was assigned DOT code mark number 660, was the assignment of the code mark number only for off-road vehicles?

The answer is no. NHTSA assigned the DOT code mark number so that Dae Kwang can use this code mark number to mark glazing manufactured for "motor vehicles". "Motor vehicle" is defined in NHTSAs statute as: "a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads and highways "(Title 49 United States Code Section 30102(a)(6)).

2. What is the procedure to be assigned a DOT code for passenger cars and other motor vehicles using the highways?

The answer is that DOT code mark number 660 was assigned so that Dae Kwang could mark glazing that will be used in passenger cars or other motor vehicles using the highways.

Third Question

You state that Dae Kwang manufactures laminated glazing (AS-1) and tempered glazing (AS-2) for your customers. You therefore ask:

1. Does our "DOT code 660" include both items?

The answer is yes. Whenever Dae Kwang manufactures glazing for use in passenger cars or other motor vehicles using the highways, it must mark the glazing with:

1. the glazing type (i.e. , AS-1, AS-2 or whatever the glazing type is),
2. the symbol "DOT," and
3. Dae Kwangs code mark, "660".

These three marks mean that Dae Kwang is certifying that the glazing it manufactures meets NHTSAs requirements for that glazing type (at FMVSS No. 205, Glazing materials (49 CFR 571.205)).

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. Our office fax number is:(202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:205
d.10/21/04

ID: 77-1.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/25/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Ward School Bus Mfg., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your December 7, 1976 and January 8, 1977, questions whether 53 described intersections of bus body components qualify as "body panel joints" subject to the requirements of Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength. This also responds to your question whether the seating reference point in Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, can be located using nominal seat cushion deflection.

The terms which establish the applicability of the requirements of the standard to a particular section of a school bus body are defined in S4 of the standard. Read together, they establish the following test. If the edge of a surface component (made of homogeneous material) in a bus that encloses the bus' occupant space comes into contact or close proximity with any other body component, the requirements of S5 apply, unless the area in question is designed for ventilation or another functional purpose or is a door, window, or maintenance access panel. Applying this test to the 53 intersections of bus body components you describe, it appears that the areas corresponding to the following numbered paragraphs of your letter are bus body joints and therefore must meet the 60-percent joint strength requirements: 1 through 34, 36, 37, 39, 42, 44, 45, 46, 51. Additionally the joint described in your January 8, 1977, submission must comply with the standard.

The illustration accompanying paragraph 16 shows a second joint between a door post and exterior trim panel with the notation that this joint is "Not Required To Meet Std." The agency concludes that this joint also must meet the requirements of the standard, because it is a connection of a body component with a body panel that encloses occupant space.

The lower skirt section described in paragraph 35 is not a body panel that encloses occupant space, because it is located entirely below the level of the floor line and, therefore, is excluded from the standard's requirements.

In the control console area, the interior side panel described in paragraph 38 and the shoulder cap (wire cover) described in paragraph 43 are considered maintenance access panels, whose joining with the bus body is excluded from the requirements only if a wire is installed behind them.

The turn signal housings described in paragraph 40 and 41 are not considered to have a function in enclosing the occupant space and are therefore not considered body components for purposes of the requirements.

The front and rear headers described in paragraphs 47 and 48 are considered primarily structural and have only an incidental role in enclosing the occupant space and, therefore, are not considered "body panels" for purposes of the requirements.

The rubrail described in paragraph 49 is not considered to have a function in enclosing the occupant space and, therefore, is not considered a body component for purposes of the requirements. For purposes of testing the complex joints to which it is fastened, it should be modified as necessary to prevent it from affecting testing of the underlying joint.

Because the plywood described in paragraph 50 is attached to a floor panel and is only added to some buses for insulation purposes, it is not considered to have a function in enclosing the occupant space and is therefore not considered a body component for purposes of the requirements.

The NHTSA concludes that parts A, E, and F of paragraph 52 describe joints between maintenance access panels and the bus body. The heater ducts in parts B, C, and D are the type of ventilation space that is not subject to requirements for joint strength.

In response to your question concerning the effect of seat cushion deflection on the location of the seating reference point, the NHTSA has determined that the definition of seating reference point contemplates some deflection of seat cushions to simulate compression of padding material under the weight of a human torso and thigh. As noted in the preamble of the second proposal for a school bus seating standard (39 FR 27585, July 30, 1974), "It can be seen that the manufacturer's freedom to locate the point is sharply restricted by the definition which specifies that it actually simulate the position of the pivot center of the human torso and thigh, following SAE placement procedures." However, since the seating reference point is an approximation of the pivot center, the NHTSA permits the manufacturer to locate the point based upon nominal seat cushion deflection.

SINCERELY,

Ward SCHOOL BUS MFG., INC.

December 7, 1976

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMIN.

Subject: Interpretation of FMVSS 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength

We have interpreted FMVSS 221 and are currently working on design changes which will enable us to meet this specification in the future. Since there is some latitude for interpretation in the specification, the purpose of this letter is to convey to you exactly our interpretation of FMVSS 221 as it relates to our body design and request that you review the interpretation.

We ask that you reply to each item as to the validity of our interpretation. This review is being requested in order to eliminate the possibility of erroneous designs due to incorrect interpretation of the standard.

We have chosen a format which we feel is concise and will minimize the paperwork involved. The subject joints are numbered consecutively with the first group being those which we have determined must meet FMVSS 221. It should be noted that there are a few compound joints in this group which contain areas which we feel are not required to meet the standard. These situations are noted on the drawings.

The second group is those joints which we have determined as not being required to meet FMVSS 221. Our reasons for the classification are included with this second group. Drawings and photographs have been used to illustrate each joint. The drawings are not necessarily to scale but were drawn in a manner designed to best illustrate the joint configuration. Individual joint drawings and photographs have been numbered to correspond with the joint descriptions contained herein.

If you need any additional descriptive information, please let us know.

We ask that the drawings and photographs be given confidential treatment.

It should be noted that it is our understanding that any components which are completely below the bus floor level or forward of the windshield are not required to meet the provisions of FMVSS 221.

BY OUR INTERPRETATION OF FMVSS 221, THE FOLLOWING JOINTS (NUMBERS 1-34) ARE REQUIRED TO MEET THE 60% JOINT STRENGTH STANDARD.

1. Front cap joint to upper front cowl.

2. Upper front cowl joint to lower front cowl.

3. Rear cap joint to header and rear outside panel.

4. Rear panel (interior and exterior) joints to emergency door frame.

5. Rear exterior panel joint to rear bottom frame.

6. Rear cap inside lining joint to header.

7. Rear inside lining joint to header.

8. Rear interior lining joint to frame bottom channel.

9. Rear emergency door drip trough joint to header and end cap.

10. Rear inside lining joint to bow.

11. Side skirt joint to floor.

12. Skirt section joints.

13. Center skirt section joint to wheel well.

14. Floor section joints.

15. Wheel well joint to floor.

16. Exterior trim panel (immediately adjacent entrance door) joint to bow and side sheet.

17. Interior trim panel (immediately adjacent entrance door) joints to entrance door frame and bow.

18. Interior side sheet joint to rear interior lining and rear frame corner post.

19. Interior sheet joint to exterior side panel and sill.

20. Interior sheet joint to skirt and back-up angle.

21. Interior side sheet overlap and joint to bow.

22. Interior top lining joint to bow.

23. Interior front header lining joint to header.

24. Interior front header lining joint to interior top sheet and bow.

25. Side window header joint to inside and outside lining.

26. Exterior front cap joint to top skin and bow.

27. Top skin joint to top skin and bow.

28. Exterior side sheet joint to skirt.

29. Rear sheet joint to aft edge of exterior side sheet and reinforcing channel.

30. Exterior rear sheet joint to bow.

31. Left front exterior panel---top section joint to bottom section.

32. Left hand exterior panel forward edge joint to front cowl and post.

33. Left front exterior panel to driver window sill.

34. Aft edge of left front exterior panel joint to side sheet and bow.

BY OUR INTERPRETATION OF FMVSS 221, THE FOLLOWING JOINTS (NUMBERS 35-52) ARE NOT REQUIRED TO MEET THE 60% JOINT STRENGTH STANDARD.

35. Lower center skirt section joint to upper center skirt section.

Reason: In view of the joint configuration, the lower section does not act to enclose occupant space. The joint between the upper center skirt section and the floor is required to meet the standard.

36. Exterior bow cover joint to sill, side sheet, and bow.

Reason: This is a small panel which is insignificant in enclosing occupant space. The vertical edges of this panel are also curved around the bow edges and do not present a flat edge.

37. Exterior trim panel at driver's window joint to "Z" bar and bow.

Reason: This is a small panel which is insignificant in enclosing occupant space. The vertical edges of this panel are also curved around the bow edges and do not present a flat edge.

38. Control console area interior side panel joint to front framework.

Reason: This is considered a maintenance access panel because the bus body wiring passes through it and the control console is installed against it.

39. Front cowl leg, left and right hand, joint to front framework and cowl.

Reason: These legs are structural members.

40. Rear turn signal housing joint to rear panel.

Reason: The turn signal housing is not considered a panel and it does not join the rear panel at a panel edge.

41. Front body mounted turn signal housing joint to front cowl.

Reason: The turn signal housing is not considered a panel and it does not join the cowl at a panel edge. Also, these turn signals are optional items which are not installed on every bus.

42. Inside lining joint to outside lining at rear visibility windows.

Reason: The grazing rubber for glass mounting is installed along this joint. The window area is excluded from the 60% requirement in Section S4 of Standard 221. Also this is not a panel edge but rather a hole in the panel. The edges of the panel are required to meet the standard.

43. Shoulder cap (wire cover) joint to interior side sheet and window sill.

Reason: In most cases, bus body wiring is routed inside this cap thus making it a maintenance access panel and excluding it from the joint strength standard. It is understood that in cases where there are no wires beneath the cap, the subject joints are required to meet the 60% joint strength requirement.

44. Exterior side sheet forward end cap joint to side sheet and doorway trim panel.

Reason: As seen in the photo, this is a small piece which provides the transition from the formed body fairing to the flat doorway area and plays no significant role in "enclosing occupant space."

45. Interior "brite-kote" aluminum panel joint to side sheet (no photo available).

Reason: This is an optional decorative item which is furnished on only a limited number of buses.

46. Interior bow cap joint to bow.

Reason: This panel must be removed in order to replace the window, thus it is considered a maintenance access panel.

47. Rear header joints to bow.

Reason: The rear header is a structural member with only a small amount of surface area exposed to the inside of the bus occupant space.

48. Front header joint to upper front cowl and posts.

Reason: The front header is a structural member with only a small amount of surface area exposed to the inside of the bus occupant space.

49. Rub rail joint to side panel.

Reason: These exterior rails do not serve to "enclose occupant space."

50. Plywood floor on standard metal floor.

Reason: This is an optional insulating material.

51. License plate inset panel joint to exterior rear sheet.

Reason: The license plate inset panel is welded into a hole which is cut in the rear body panel, thus the edge of the rear body panel is not included in the joint.

52. Several items located primarily in the forward section of the bus are designed for functional purposes and are thus excluded from the standard. These items include the following (see photographs):

A) Left hand control console;

B) Left hand heater;

C) Heater duct;

D) Right hand heater;

E) Instrument panel;

F) Transmission cover plate.

We believe that these categorized lists illustrate the fact that we have tried to objectively interpret FMVSS 221. Your review of those items and subsequent reply will serve to indicate the accuracy of our interpretation.

Your cooperation is appreciated.

Raymond Titsworth, Project Engineer

ID: nht95-1.73

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 17, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Brigitte Neifer -- Sekurit Saint-Gobain Deutschland GmbH & Do. KG

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 10/4/94 TELEFAX FROM BRIGITTE NEIFER TO DAN COLHEN (OCC 10413)

TEXT: Your telefax to Mr. Dan Cohen of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) Office of Vehicle Safety Standards has been forwarded to my office for reply. I apologize for the delay in our response.

You asked about two topics: the agency's plans for further rulemaking related to Docket 89-15, and NHTSA's regulations related to testing for compliance with an industry standard that is incorporated by reference into a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Stand ard (FMVSS).

Issue One: Docket 89-15 You first asked whether NHTSA is planning any further rulemaking activity with respect to NHTSA Docket No. 89-15. Docket No. 89-15, which began January 22, 1992 (57 FR 2496), pertains to a notice of proposed rulemaking that addresses the light transmitt ance requirements for glazing materials used in motor vehicles. NHTSA has not reached a final decision on this proposed rulemaking. Any questions you may have about this rulemaking can be addressed to Mr. Patrick Boyd, Crash Avoidance Division, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington D.C. 20590. Mr. Boyd's telephone number is (202) 366-6346.

Issue Two: Establishing Compliance with FMVSS No. 205 You ask several questions about FMVSS No. 205, "Glazing Materials." You first ask for confirmation that the "5-year rhythm of renewal" was "an AAMVA [American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators] procedure and not an official requirement." Your u nderstanding is correct. Moreover, this program, which was administered by AAMVA and which was never "officially" NHTSA's, has been discontinued. You can contact the AAMVA at 4600 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22205, telephone (703) 522-4200 for further information.

You also requested information about NHTSA's requirements related to compliance with FMVSS No. 205 and the material it incorporates (ANSI Z26.1, "Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways"). You state that you "intend to have [your] products regularly tested by independent laboratories" and ask whether "DOT inspectors in [the] USA will accept (cars equipped with) our glazings when accompanied only with a test report."

Some background information about NHTSA would be helpful in answering your question. Congress has authorized NHTSA to issue FMVSSs applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. 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. Thus, there are no "DOT inspectors" that are charged with either accepting or rejecting vehicles or equipment certified as meeting the FMVSSs, prior to the first sale of the product.

NHTSA does test new vehicles and equipment for compliance with the FMVSSs by purchasing products on the market. Each of NHTSA's safety standards specifies the test conditions and procedures that this agency will use to evaluate the performance of the ve hicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard. NHTSA precisely follows each of the specified test procedures and conditions when conducting its compliance testing. n1 However, manufacturers are not required to test t heir products only in the manner specified in the relevant safety standard. A manufacturer may choose any means of evaluating its products to determine whether the vehicle or equipment will comply with the safety standards when tested by the agency acco rding to the procedures specified in the standard.

n1 Since FMVSS No. 205 incorporates ANSI's Z26.1 by reference, the test procedures and performance requirements set forth in ANSI Z26 are considered to be part of FMVSS No. 205.

If NHTSA testing shows that an apparent noncompliance exists with a vehicle or item of equipment, the manufacturer is asked to show the basis for its certification that the vehicle or equipment complies with the relevant safety standard or standards. If in fact there is a noncompliance, in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120, the manufacturer is required to notify owners and remedy the noncompliance at no cost to the owners. The manufacturer is also subject to civil penalties unless it can estab lish that it exercised "reasonable care" in the design and manufacturer of the product and in the evaluation (through actual testing, computer simulation, engineering analysis, or other means) to ensure compliance. n2

n2 While the exercise of "reasonable care" may relieve a manufacturer of liability for civil penalties for the manufacture and sale of noncomplying vehicles or equipment, it does not relieve a manufacturer of the responsibility to notify purchasers of the noncompliance and remedy the noncompliance free of charge.

Your use of independent test laboratories to evaluate the performance of your product could support an initial showing of "reasonable care." However, the agency is unable to determine what efforts constitute "reasonable care" outside of the course of a s pecific enforcement proceeding. What constitutes "reasonable care" in a particular case depends on many factors, including such things as the limitations of current technology, the availability of test equipment, the size of the manufacturer, and above all, the diligence exercised by the manufacturer.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information.

ID: 8830

Mr. Kenneth E. Ross
752 Hillpine Terrace
Atlanta, GA 30306

Dear Mr. Ross:

This responds to your letter requesting information about a product that attaches to an automobile's back window. In a telephone conversation with Marvin Shaw of my staff, you stated that your product is a two to three inch high LED sign that extends along most of the rear window. The sign displays any message that the driver chooses. While we do not have information about State or local laws, I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain the applicability of Federal law on your product.

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act") establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs).

In response to your question, NHTSA currently has no FMVSSs that directly apply to the product you wish to manufacture. I note, however, that there are other Federal requirements that indirectly affect you and 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 are subject to the requirements in 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety- related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Automotive accessory equipment that a dealer adds before sale of a vehicle must not create a noncompliance with the FMVSSs to which the vehicle manufacturer has certified compliance. For instance, your LED sign should be mounted so that it does not block the field of view required by FMVSS No. 111, Rearview Mirrors. Similarly, for the vehicle to remain in compliance, your system must not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. In particular, the placement of your sign might impair the effectiveness of the center highmounted stop lamp (CHMSL) if it can be operated simultaneously with the CHMSL or at a time when the turn signals are flashing.

In addition, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which states: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ...." It is conceivable that your product, when placed on a vehicle's rear window, could "render inoperative" the vehicle's ability to comply with FMVSS No. 108 and FMVSS No. 111. Persons in the aforementioned categories that install your product must ensure that such installation does not render inoperative the safety protection provided by the applicable standards. Specifically, your product should be mounted so that it does not interfere with the CHMSL or turn signal lamps nor block the field-of-view required by FMVSS No. 111.

The "render inoperative" prohibition of 108(a)(2)(A) 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 product were placed on a rear window by the vehicle owner, then the render inoperative provision would not apply. Nevertheless, in the interest of safety, you should ensure that your product does not adversely affect a vehicle's rear lamps or rearward visibility.

We are unable to advise you as to whether the laws of any State address this topic. You should consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators for an opinion. Its address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:108#111 d:8/13/93

ID: 06-005423as

ID: nht94-8.5

DATE: February 22, 1994

FROM: Robin L. Fennimore, Spectrum Engineering Group

TO: Office of Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: School Bus Safety Standards Our File: 94057

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/28/94 from John Womack to Spectrum Engineering Group (A42; STD 206; FMVSS 217)

TEXT: We are currently reconstructing a motor vehicle accident involving a 16-passenger, mini school bus. As a result of this investigation, several questions have risen concerning design modifications performed on the right front entrance door of the vehicle; specifically, whether they are controlled by and in compliance with any and all applicable FMVSS. We would appreciate your assistance in resolving these concerns.

A 1988 Ford Econoline Cargo Van was purchased as an incomplete vehicle and later fitted with a school bus body by Midbus of Lima, Ohio. A copy of the van's I.D. plate and a Mid Bus brochure is enclosed for your reference. This vehicle was outfitted with a remote door opening/closing apparatus and latching mechanism, although maintained the original Ford van door. The O.E.M Ford latch/hinge mechanism was disabled by removing the striker plate.

On January 13, 1989, the operator of the bus lost control of the vehicle, striking both a tree and a utility pole. The collision allegedly caused the operator to be ejected from the vehicle through the right front passenger door.

Given this information, would you please respond to the following questions:

1) Would this vehicle be classified as a "multi-purpose passenger vehicle", a "bus" or a "school bus"?

5

2) Does FMVSS 206 and/or FMVSS 217 apply to the right front entrance door of this vehicle?

3) Which FMVSS would apply to the right front entrance door, (particularly its loading requirements)? Can you provide copies of the versions of these documents effective in 1988?

4) Can you please provide copies of the 1988 FMVSS 206 and 217?

If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me at (203) 272-1111.

If there are any fees associated with this request, we will be happy to reimburse your office.

ID: 1984-3.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/10/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Kazuhiko Ohkochi, Manager, Quality Assurance Dept., Toyoda Gosei Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Kazuhiko Ohkochi, Manager Quality Assurance Department Toyoda Gosei Co., Ltd. 1550 Northwest Highway, Suite 200 Parkridge, Illinois 60068

This responds to your letter dated February 17, 1984, requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 106, Brake Hoses. In your letter, you asked several questions regarding the construction and labeling of hydraulic brake hoses for use in passenger cars. In a subsequent telephone call to this office, your associate, Mr. Kitayama, informed us that your brake hoses would be used in motorcycles as well as passenger cars.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not pass approval on the compliance of any vehicle or equipment with a safety standard before the actual events that underlie certification. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the manufacturer is required to determine whether its vehicles and equipment comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations, and to certify its products in accordance with that determination. Therefore, the following statements only represent the agency's opinion based on the information provided in your letter.

FMVSS No. 106 applies to brake hose, brake hose assemblies, and brake hose and fittings used in passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, and motorcycles. The requirements of the standard are the same regardless of whether your hoses are used in passenger cars or motorcycles.

Your first question asked whether a hydraulic brake hose may be constructed out of nylon. The answer to your question is yes. Nylon may be used to manufacture hydraulic brake hose, as long as the hose can meet the performance requirements of FMVSS No. 106.

Your second question asked whether the standard prohibits labeling hydraulic brake hoses which have inside diameters between 0.110 and 0.118 inches as "1/8." The answer to your question is no. S5.2.2(d) of FMVSSS No. 106 requires that a hose's nominal inside diameter be expressed in inches or fractions of inches.

We note that the constriction requirement for hydraulic brake hoses in section 5.3.1 of Standard No. 106 is, of course, applicable to your hoses. That section states that:

Except for that part of an end fitting which does not contain hose, every inside diameter of any section of a hydraulic brake hose assembly shall be not less than 64 percent of the nominal inside diameter of the brake hose.

Since the standard does not include tolerances for the labeling requirements for hydraulic brake hose, the standard does not prohibit you from labeling your hose "1/8." You should consider, however, how your brake hoses will be used in the industry and determine whether a safety problem might result from labeling your hose "1/8" when in fact they are smaller than 1/8 inch. One safety concern that you should consider is whether the tolerances you selected would result in the problem of mismatched hoses and end fittings. Another safety concern relates to the effect that cold weather has on the flow of fluid through the brake hose. Cold weather may thicken the fluid and restrict the flow through the hose. The thickened fluid and restricted flow through the hose may result in an increase in the time required for the brakes to respond.

Regardless of whether labeling your brake hose "1/8" is regulated by FMVSS No. 106, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act imposes general responsibilities on manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment regarding safety defects. Under Sections 151 et seq., manufacturers must notify purchasers about safety-related defects and remedy such defects free of charge. Section 109 of the Act imposes a civil penalty of $1,000 upon any person who fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect in motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Further, in addition to the provisions of Federal law discussed above, you should consider also the possibility for liability in tort should your products prove to be unsafe in operation.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

February 17, 1984

Office of Crash Avoidance Handling and Stability Div. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street SW. Washington D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Dear Sirs:

Re. Questionnaire of Hydraulic brake hose for automobiles.

We are a manufacturer of automotive parts including hydraulic brake hose assembly to Toyota Motor Corporation and other Japanese auto makers. Our company name is registered in your file as follows:

I.D. Mark as hydraulic brake hose maker

I.D. Mark as hydraulic brake hose assembler

We have been developing new type of hydraulic brake hose for automobiles shown as attached, and making sales promotions. And regarding such a new type, please let us have the attached information.

We would like to ask you to answer to us by March 15, 1984.

Thank you for your cooperation on this matter.

Very truly yours,

TOYODA GOSEI CO., LTD.

Kazuhiko Ohkochi Manager Quality Assurance Dept. KO/kk Encl. 2. QUESTIONNAIRE

2.1 The above structure shows that a tube is made of Nylon, and meets performance requirements of FMVSS 106. As FMVSS 106 does not stipulate that a tube shall not be made of Nylon, we think that such a Nylon hose is also included among hydraulic brake hose for automobiles. We would like to have your comments on this matter (such a hose can be certified as a hydraulic brake hose).

2.2 If such a Nylon hose is certified, the hose's inside diameter is between 0.110 and 0.118 inch, and a little smaller than 1/8 inch (0.125 inch). We are now scheduled to use the hose as 1/8 inch hose and to subscribe "1/8" to the hose surface. We would like to know as to whether this subscription has any problem.

ID: 08-003469drn-rev

ID: 24237.rbm

Robert Brown, President
Sensible Solutions, LLC
7301 Brookside Drive
Frederick, MD 21702

Dear Mr. Brown:

This responds to your letter asking about the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSAs) limited exemption concerning vehicles modified for persons with disabilities (49 CFR Part 595, subpart C) and its policy regarding the installation of air bag on-off switches (49 CFR Part 595, subpart B).

By way of background, NHTSA administers a statute requiring that motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States or imported into the United States be manufactured so as to reduce the likelihood of motor vehicle crashes and of deaths and injuries when crashes do occur. We refer to that statute as the Vehicle Safety Act. It is codified at 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq.

One of the agencys functions under the Vehicle Safety Act is to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs). These standards specify safety performance requirements for motor vehicles and/or items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of motor vehicles must certify compliance with all applicable safety standards and permanently apply a label to each vehicle stating that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSSs.

The Vehicle Safety Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment that is in compliance with any applicable FMVSS. NHTSA may assess a civil penalty to enforce this provision. NHTSA may also, through regulation, exempt a person or business from the prohibition if it decides that an exemption is consistent with motor vehicle safety and the Vehicle Safety Act.

The agency has issued two regulations exempting persons or businesses from the make inoperative prohibition. First, on November 21, 1997, NHTSA published a final rule allowing motor vehicle repair businesses to install retrofit air bag on-off switches in the vehicles of individuals who had written authorization from NHTSA to have such a switch installed. The authorization process requires individuals to submit an authorization request in which they have certified that they fall within one of the prescribed risk categories. Based upon a review of the authorization request, NHTSA can send a letter authorizing the installation of an air bag on-off switch. Based on that NHTSA letter, a motor vehicle repair business can install an air bag on-off switch as long as the switch meets the conditions specified in 49 CFR 595, subpart B.

Second, on February 27, 2001, NHTSA published a final rule setting forth a limited exemption from the make inoperative prohibition for businesses or individuals who modify vehicles for persons with disabilities (66 Federal Register 12638; Docket No. NHTSA-01-8667). This exemption is codified in 49 CFR Part 595, subpart C. Only portions of some Federal motor vehicle safety standards are covered by the exemption. Specifically, the exemption only applies to modifications that have the effect of rendering mandatory safety equipment or features inoperative and that cannot otherwise be done in a manner that would not render the mandatory equipment or features inoperative. Additionally, the exemption does not apply to those modifications where the risk to safety is so great that an exemption is not justified. Further, the exemption does not apply to any modification that does not have the effect of making safety equipment or an element of vehicle design inoperative. In such instances no exemption is needed. An example of such a modification would be the installation of a mechanical hand control with little or no cutting of the knee bolster and no modification of the steering wheel other than the attachment of a rim-mounted steering control device. Likewise, the attachment of a pedal extender or seat belt extender should not have the effect of making any required safety equipment or vehicle design element inoperative.

One of the Federal safety standards to which the subpart C exemption applies is FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash protection. Briefly stated, an air bag can be disconnected or removed if 1) a retrofit air bag on-off switch, alone, cannot accommodate the individual's disability and 2) the modified seating position is provided with Type 2 or Type 2A safety belts that meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 209, Seat belt assemblies, and FMVSS No. 210, Seat belt assembly anchorages.

You have asked whether individuals whose disabilities can be accommodated through the installation of retrofit air bag on-off switches in conjunction with pedal extenders, seatbelt extenders or hand controls are released from the requirement that they first receive NHTSA authorization to have an air bag on-off switch installed. The make inoperative exemption for FMVSS No. 208 can only be used to install an air bag on-off switch or disconnect an air bag if the switch installation or air bag deactivation is not the end goal of the modification affecting the air bag.

For example, when an individual's disability requires the use of a reduced diameter steering wheel, the original wheel must be removed. While the driver-side air bag is removed as part of the modification, its removal is not the intended goal of the modification. Another example is the installation of a six-way power seat base in a vehicle that has an air bag deployment sensor located under the seat. In the course of this modification, the sensor must be moved. If the modifier believes the sensor cannot be moved without making the air bag system inoperative, the portion of the Part 595, subpart C exemption addressing FMVSS No. 208 is available to the modifier, and the air bag can be disconnected.

An example of when the exemption could not be used would be the installation of a left-foot accelerator in which no other vehicle modifications were required. This installation would not, in and of itself, require the removal of the air bag or the installation of an air bag on-off switch. Accordingly, no exemption related to FMVSS No. 208 would be provided under Part 595, subpart C.

We stated in the preamble to the February 2001 final rule that if an air bag on-off switch will partially address an individual's disability but more extensive modifications are also required to accommodate the disability, there is no additional requirement for prior authorization for an on-off switch. This is because the modifier is already relying on the exemption in 49 CFR Part 595, subpart C to make the needed modifications. However, the additional modifications must be those affecting the vehicles compliance with the safety standards specified in Part 595, subpart C.^[1]

Modifications not covered by the limited exemption of 49 CFR Part 595, subpart C, continue to require prior agency authorization for the installation of an air bag on-off switch. Accordingly, with the exception of work performed for an individual with achondroplasia or atlantoaxial instability, if a vehicle modifier limits the modification on a particular vehicle to the installation of pedal extenders, seat belt extenders, or other minor modifications, with no other changes to the vehicle, it cannot rely on the exemption given in Part 595, subpart C to install an air bag on-off switch.

I hope this information is helpful. Should you require any additional information or assistance, please contact Rebecca MacPherson of my staff at (202) 366-2992 or at the address given above.

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel
ref:595
d.7/2/02

^[1] Exceptions are for when the individual disability was achondroplasia (drivers only) or atlantoaxial instability (passengers only). No prior authorization was required even when the only modification needed to address the disability was the installation of an air bag on-off switch. The reason these two conditions were exempted from the normal process is because these are the only two conditions that have been identified as always necessitating deactivation of the air bag. This determination was made by a panel of physicians at a national medical conference on evaluating the air bag risk. The report from this conference may be viewed at the NHTSA web site at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov.