ID: NCC-210420-001 - Retention Requirement 304

Mr. Ric Willard
Hyundai-Kia America Technical Center, Inc. 
6800 Geddes Road
Superior Township, MI 48198 

Dear Mr. Willard:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of how S5.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 305, Electric-powered vehicles: electrolyte spillage and electrical shock protection, would apply to low-mass, small-energy, high voltage electric vehicle (EV) components that store small amounts of electricity, such as small individual capacitors.1 Specifically, you ask whether these components are “electric energy storage/conversion devices” that are subject to S5.2, Electric energy storage/conversion device retention.
 
As explained below, our answer is no. Given that the purpose of S5.2 is to protect vehicle occupants from injury by heavy projectiles in a crash, we have determined that low-mass, low- energy, high voltage electronic subcomponents do not fall under the FMVSS No. 305 definition of “electric energy storage/conversion device,” and thus are not subject to S5.2(a).
 
Regulatory requirements
 
FMVSS No. 305 specifies requirements for, among other things, the “retention of electric energy storage/conversion devices during and after a crash” (S1). The primary requirement in FMVSS No. 305 relating to component retention is in S5.2(a), which states that, when tested in accordance with S6 of the standard, electrical energy storage/conversion devices “shall remain attached to the vehicle by at least one component anchorage, bracket, or any structure that transfers loads from the device to the vehicle structure,” and that electrical energy storage/conversion devices located outside the occupant compartment “shall not enter the occupant compartment.”
 
The standard defines the term “electric energy storage/conversion device” as “a high voltage source that stores or converts energy for vehicle propulsion. This includes, but is not limited to, a high voltage battery or battery pack, fuel cell stack, rechargeable energy storage device, and capacitor module” (S4).
 
Background
 
NHTSA first established the S5.2 retention requirement as part of a September 27, 2000 final rule that established FMVSS No. 305. 65 FR 57980. The original intent of S5.2 “was to ensure that the battery modules [i.e., energy storage/conversion devices] would not become unattached and become flying projectiles in a crash or subsequent rollover,” causing further damage outside the vehicle. In a later rulemaking, NHTSA added a second purpose to S5.2, which is “to reduce deaths and injuries during and after a crash that occur from the intrusion of electric energy storage/conversion devices into the occupant compartment.” 76 FR at 45442. NHTSA’s concern that an “electric energy storage/conversion device” could intrude into the occupant compartment stems from the fact that high voltage batteries that typically serve as an EV’s primary electric energy storage/conversion device are usually very massive, and therefore would have sufficient momentum to cause serious injuries if not secured in place in a collision.2
 
NHTSA discussed the applicability of the S5.2 retention requirement in its response to petitions for reconsideration of a June 14, 2010 final rule from Honda and the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers (AIAM). These petitions requested (among other things) that NHTSA clarify what vehicle components fall under the definition of “electric energy storage/conversion device,” and are thus subject to S5.2. As part of NHTSA’s response to these petitions, the agency explained that the S5.2 retention requirement was not intended to apply to low-mass components:
 
We also agree with Honda and the AIAM that the language of the June 14, 2010 final rule could be interpreted as unintentionally requiring low mass components, such as ducts and vents, to remain attached to the electric energy storage/conversion systems. As previously discussed, today's final rule adds a new definition for “electric energy storage/conversion device,” which includes a high voltage battery or battery pack, capacitor modules, fuel cell stacks, and rechargeable energy storage devices used for vehicle propulsion, but does not include low mass components, such as ducts, vents, and wiring harnesses.
 
76 FR at 45442. NHTSA has not elaborated on the applicability of the “electric energy storage/conversion device” definition since its response to the Honda and AIAM petitions.
 
Discussion
 
NHTSA has determined that small, low-mass and low-energy electronic subcomponents, such as individual capacitors, do not fall under the definition of “electric energy storage/conversion device,” and thus are not required to remain attached to the vehicle in a crash per FMVSS No. 305, S5.2.

As noted above, the term “electric energy storage/conversion device,” is defined, in part, through a non-exhaustive list of examples. One of the primary characteristics the devices included in this list have in common is that they are constructed from multiple subcomponents to enable them to potentially store a large amount of energy.3 For this reason, the devices in this list tend to be heavy, meaning they pose an unreasonable safety risk due to their momentum if they were to break free from the vehicle. While low-mass electronic subcomponents like individual capacitors could potentially store electrical energy, they are of sufficiently low-energy that they would not pose an unreasonable risk of electric shock in a crash, nor do they contain enough mass to pose an unreasonable risk of impact injury in a crash. Given this key difference between the low-mass items you describe and the components listed in the “electric energy storage/conversion device” definition, NHTSA does not believe low-mass and low-energy electronic subcomponents were intended to be covered by the definition. Thus, the components are not subject to S5.2.
 
NHTSA’s conclusion that the low-mass and low-energy electronic components you describe are not covered by the definition of “electric energy storage/conversion device” is consistent with the agency’s response to the AIAM and Honda petitions. Although NHTSA did not specifically identify low-mass, low-energy, high voltage electronic subcomponents as excluded from the “electric energy storage/conversion device” definition in its response to the petitions, such subcomponents are more similar to the non-electronic components listed in the petition response than they are to the devices listed in the definition. Like the non-electronic components listed in the petition response, a low-mass, low-energy, high voltage electronic subcomponent would be unlikely to pose a risk of electric shock or risk of impact injury to vehicle occupants in a crash. The fact that a low-mass and low-energy subcomponent is conductively connected to a device that does fall under the “electric energy storage/conversion device” definition does not mean the subcomponent itself falls under the definition.
Although NHTSA does not believe that small electronic components are subject to S5.2, retention methods that unreasonably allow entry of these electronic components into the passenger compartment in a crash could pose an unreasonable risk to safety. Efforts should be taken to prevent these components from entering the passenger compartment in a crash.
 
If you have further questions, you may refer them to Daniel Koblenz of my staff at (202) 366- 2992.
 
Sincerely,                                                                                                                                                               

Ann Carlson 
Chief Counsel

Dated: 5/31/22
Ref: FMVSS No. 305

 1 It is NHTSA’s understanding that these components would be small electrical subcomponents such as capacitors that are attached directly to a circuit board, and have a mass of 300 grams (0.7 pounds) at most.

2 This is well illustrated by the vehicle described in your interpretation request. According to the figures provided, the primary energy storage/conversion device (the high-voltage battery) has a mass of 473 kilograms (1,043 pounds). By contrast, all other high voltage components on the vehicle combined have a mass of 133.4 kilograms (294 pounds), and the heaviest individual component (the motor) has a mass of 64.5 kilograms (142 pounds).

 3 For example, a “capacitor module,” which is one of the illustrative examples listed in the definition of “Electric energy storage/conversion device,” is a device that is comprised of arrays of several capacitors.

ID: aiam1927

Dear Mr. Miyazawa: This responds to your letter of May 15, 1975, regarding Federal Moto Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108 requirements for Type 1A and 2A automotive headlamps.; The following answers are provided for your specific questions: >>>1. FMVSS No. 108 would not prohibit use of metal-back Types 1A an 2A headlamps that conform to all requirements of the standard.; 2. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not issu approvals on automotive equipment. The equipment manufacturer self certifies that the equipment conforms to the applicable FMVSS. The various states may, however, require equipment approval. Information on these approvals may be obtained from the America Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 1201 Connecticut Avenue, Washington, D. C. 20036.; 3. The drawings of the Type 1A and 2A headlamp submitted with you letter, indicate that aiming pads have been deleted. Aiming pads are required by FMVSS NO. 108.<<<; For your information enclosed is a copy of FMVSS No. 108, whic includes requirements for Types 1A and 2A headlamps, and a copy of Docket No. 75-8, Notice 1, that proposes to allow use of the four-lamp rectangular systems indefinitely.; Sincerely, E. T. Driver, Director, Office of Crash Avoidance, Moto Vehicle Programs;

ID: aiam3884

Dear Mr. O'Connell: This responds to your October 15, 1984 letter to the National Highwa Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) asking about an emergency door which is installed on a school bus in addition to the emergency exits required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, *Bus Window Retention and Release*.; Your first question asked whether this additional emergency exit i required to comply with Standard No. 217. In particular, you asked about the labeling requirements. FMVSS No. 217 requires that additional exits on school buses which are intended as emergency exits must comply with the emergency exit requirements applicable to exits in buses other than school buses. These additional emergency exits would be required to be labeled in accordance with the requirements for exits in non-school buses.; Your second question asked whether the door may be sealed shut. Yo also asked whether sealing the door would have any effect on the compliance of the bus with FMVSS No. 221, *School Bus Body Joint Strength*.; The answer to this question depends on who seals the door, and whe this work is performed. As you probably know, NHTSA does not have the authority to prohibit an owner, such as a school, from modifying its own vehicle. A school may modify its own vehicle in any manner without assuring that the vehicle remains in compliance with motor vehicle safety standards. Of course, it may be more difficult to insure a vehicle which does not conform to the safety standards. The school can also expose itself to increased liability in the event that one of their noncomplying vehicles is involved in an accident.; After the vehicle is sold to its first purchaser, manufacturers dealers, distributors or repair businesses are prohibited from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. The additional door could be sealed by a manufacturer or repair-type business as long as there were sufficient other emergency exits available on the vehicle so that it remains in compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 217. Moreover, if the door were sealed after the vehicle's first sale, FMVSS No. 221 would not be a factor. This is because doors are not considered 'body panel joints' subject to the requirements of the standard. Since the additional door was not regulated by Standard No. 221, there would be no rendering inoperative of the compliance of the door with that standard.; If you decide to seal the emergency exit shut, we would encourage yo to remove the labels to avoid possible confusion in the event of an accident.; If the door was made inoperable prior to the vehicle's first sale FMVSS No. 221 would be a factor. This is because the person sealing the door is an 'alterer,' and must attach a label indicating compliance of the altered vehicle with the standards. When the door is sealed, it becomes part of the bus wall structure. As such, any joints on the door that would fall within the ambit of Standard No. 221 would be required to comply with that standard. The alterer would also be required to remove any labels and operating instructions from the exit which was sealed, since labels indicating that a door can be used as an emergency exit when in fact the door is inoperative would not conform to Standard No. 217.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3883

Dear Mr. O'Connell: This responds to your October 15, 1984 letter to the National Highwa Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) asking about an emergency door which is installed on a school bus in addition to the emergency exits required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, *Bus Window Retention and Release*.; Your first question asked whether this additional emergency exit i required to comply with Standard No. 217. In particular, you asked about the labeling requirements. FMVSS No. 217 requires that additional exits on school buses which are intended as emergency exits must comply with the emergency exit requirements applicable to exits in buses other than school buses. These additional emergency exits would be required to be labeled in accordance with the requirements for exits in non-school buses.; Your second question asked whether the door may be sealed shut. Yo also asked whether sealing the door would have any effect on the compliance of the bus with FMVSS No. 221, *School Bus Body Joint Strength*.; The answer to this question depends on who seals the door, and whe this work is performed. As you probably know, NHTSA does not have the authority to prohibit an owner, such as a school, from modifying its own vehicle. A school may modify its own vehicle in any manner without assuring that the vehicle remains in compliance with motor vehicle safety standards. Of course, it may be more difficult to insure a vehicle which does not conform to the safety standards. The school can also expose itself to increased liability in the event that one of their noncomplying vehicles is involved in an accident.; After the vehicle is sold to its first purchaser, manufacturers dealers, distributors or repair businesses are prohibited from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. The additional door could be sealed by a manufacturer or repair-type business as long as there were sufficient other emergency exits available on the vehicle so that it remains in compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 217. Moreover, if the door were sealed after the vehicle's first sale, FMVSS No. 221 would not be a factor. This is because doors are not considered 'body panel joints' subject to the requirements of the standard. Since the additional door was not regulated by Standard No. 221, there would be no rendering inoperative of the compliance of the door with that standard.; If you decide to seal the emergency exit shut, we would encourage yo to remove the labels to avoid possible confusion in the event of an accident.; If the door was made inoperable prior to the vehicle's first sale FMVSS No. 221 would be a factor. This is because the person sealing the door is an 'alterer,' and must attach a label indicating compliance of the altered vehicle with the standards. When the door is sealed, it becomes part of the bus wall structure. As such, any joints on the door that would fall within the ambit of Standard No. 221 would be required to comply with that standard. The alterer would also be required to remove any labels and operating instructions from the exit which was sealed, since labels indicating that a door can be used as an emergency exit when in fact the door is inoperative would not conform to Standard No. 217.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4605

"Dear Mr. McCabe: Earlier this year you wrote to the Federal Highwa Administration (FHWA) asking for information concerning your plans to field test a 'rapid fueling system' on an existing truck fleet. The FHWA has asked us to review your letter with regard to the regulations we administer. I expect that the FHWA will contact you directly with information concerning their regulations. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) applying to the manufacture of new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with our FMVSS's. Instead, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed), each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. (A general information sheet describing manufacturer's responsibilities under the Vehicle Safety Act is enclosed.) There is currently no FMVSS that is directly applicable to parts of the fuel system retrofitted to a used motor vehicle. FMVSS No. 301, Fuel System Integrity (copy enclosed), applies only to completed new motor vehicles. (The standard applies to trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less.) If the rapid fueling system were installed as original equipment on new vehicles, the vehicle manufacturer would have to certify that the entire fuel system, with your product installed, satisfies the requirements of FMVSS No. 301. Also, if the item is added to a new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who adds the system would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. If the rapid fueling system is installed on a used vehicle by a business such as a garage or repair shop, the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, the installer would have to make sure that he or she did not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard, including Standard No. 301. This is required by /108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. The prohibition of /108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who alter their own vehicles. Thus, under Federal law, they may install or remove any items of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, the agency encourages vehicle owners not to remove or otherwise tamper with vehicle safety equipment if the modification would degrade the safety of the vehicle. Although Standard No. 301 would not directly apply to rapid fueling systems installed on used vehicles, you should be aware that manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, which would include your product, are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If you or NHTSA determines that a safety-related defect exists, you must notify purchasers of your product and remedy the problem free of charge. (Note that this responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which the system is installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.) Any manufacturer which fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation. We suggest that you contact the Environmental Protection Agency to see whether the EPA has any type of emissions requirements that might affect the manufacture and installation of the rapid fueling system. The general telephone number for the EPA is (202) 382-2090. I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if you have further questions. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures";

ID: aiam5291

Dear Mr. Henneberger: This responds to your letter in which you reques an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, on behalf of your client, MICO, Inc. I apologize for the delay in our response. You ask that the agency give you an interpretation that FMVSS 105 does not preclude the installation of MICO's product, an auxiliary hydraulic brake lock, under the circumstances you have described. As you note in your letter, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. According to your letter, MICO's auxiliary hydraulic brake lock operates as follows. The device permits hydraulic system fluid to pass from the master cylinder to the brakes when the brake pedal is applied, thereby increasing hydraulic brake pressure. The device then blocks the return of the hydraulic fluid to the master cylinder when pressure is removed from the brake pedal. The device is not designed to be used when the vehicle is in motion, but only when the vehicle has been brought to a full stop, and the mechanical parking brake applied. At that point, the vehicle operator activates the auxiliary brake lock by means of a separate control switch. The device is deactivated prior to moving the vehicle. FMVSS 105 specifies requirements for hydraulic brake service brake and associated parking brake systems. The standard applies to vehicles with hydraulic service brake systems. In the case of an auxiliary hydraulic brake lock, there is no applicable standard for it as a separate item of motor vehicle equipment. However, since installation of the device requires cutting into a vehicle's braking system, it may affect a vehicle's compliance with safety standards. If MICO's auxiliary brake lock is installed as original equipment on new vehicles, the vehicle manufacturer would be required to certify that the entire brake system satisfies the requirements of FMVSS 105. If the device is added to a new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. In particular, the vehicle would need to continue to comply with FMVSS 105. MICO, as the manufacturer of the device, would have no certification responsibilities. However, a vehicle manufacturer or alterer might require information from MICO in order to make its necessary certification. Much of the information that you provided to us in your request for an interpretation might be useful in this regard. Should the auxiliary brake lock be installed on a used vehicle by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, the installer would not have to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard. I note that while we do not have any opinion about the safety of MICO's product, it is our understanding that certain vehicle manufacturers have stated that hydraulic brake locking devices should not be used on their vehicles. I enclose an example from a GMC service bulletin. MICO may wish to consult with these manufacturers concerning whether the use of its product in these vehicles would raise any safety concerns. Enclosed is an information sheet which identifies Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers. I note that the Safety Act's provisions concerning defects are applicable to motor vehicle equipment manufacturers even if their equipment is not covered by a safety standard. I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact David Elias of my office at the above address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures;

ID: aiam4053

Dear Mr. Moens: This responds to your October 10, 1985 letter to this agency requestin an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, *Bus Window Retention and Release*. You asked whether FMVSS No. 217 allows the use of sliding roof emergency exits. The answer to your question depends on the location of the release mechanism and the direction in which the mechanism operates relative to the surface of the closed exit. As explained below, if the release mechanism falls in the area of high force application, i.e., the area of the bus in which high operating forces may be used, then the answer to your question is no.; According to your letter, you provide two roof hatches on your buses in the front and rear of the vehicles, although the front roof hatch is not needed to meet the unobstructed openings requirement of Standard No. 217. The roof hatches would slide open rather than push out, and would be opened by a handle which is located in the region of high force application as shown in Figure 3B of the standard.; Standard No. 217 requires buses to be equipped with emergency exits an specifies requirements that all emergency exits must meet. Paragraph S5.2.1 of Standard No. 217 provides that a roof exit may be installed on buses with gross vehicle weight ratings of more than 10,000 pounds when the bus configuration precludes installation of an accessible rear exit. The roof exit must meet the requirements of paragraphs S5.3 through S5.5. Under S5.3.2, the direction of required force application in the high force access region is straight and perpendicular to the exit surface. Since your exit is designed so that the force is applied parallel to the exit surface, it does not comply with S5.3.2.; Of course, your roof emergency exit must meet all applicabl requirements in FMVSS No. 217. You should note that under S5.3.1, a roof exit must provide for a release mechanism, located within the regions depicted in Figure 3B of the standard. The release mechanism must be operated by one or two force applications which comply with S5.3.2. Further S5.5 sets certain identification requirements for roof emergency exits.; You stated that the roof exit installed in the forward half of the bu does not need to be counted to satisfy the unobstructed openings requirement of Standard No. 217. Exits that are not labeled or intended as emergency exits need not meet the emergency exit requirements of FMVSS No. 217.; You asked what consequences would follow if we determine that you sliding roof exit does not comply with FMVSS No. 217. That standard was issued under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The Act requires manufacturers to comply with all applicable safety standards. It also requires them to notify purchasers of their motor vehicles of safety- related defects and failures to comply with the safety standards, and to remedy such defects and noncompliances without charge. Violations of the Act's requirements are punishable by civil fines of up to $1,000 per violation, with a maximum $800,000 for a related series of violations. Under the regulations set forth in Part 556 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (copy enclosed), manufacturers may petition NHTSA for an exemption from the Act's notice and remedy requirements if they believe that the defect or noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. However, if the agency denies such a petition, *all* duties relating to notice and remedy of the defect or noncompliance contained in the Vehicle Safety Act are continued in force against the manufacturer.; Mr. Sebastian Messina of the New Jersey Department of Transportatio has contacted us concerning the sliding emergency exits on your buses. We are sending him a copy of this letter for his information.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5087

"Dear Mr. Mitchell: This responds to your letter asking about th hydraulic brake hose labeling requirements (S5.2) of FMVSS 106, Brake Hoses. You indicated that your current brake hoses have two stripes, on opposite sides of the hose. Each of the stripes is interrupted by a line of information. One line, which you call the 'DOT print line,' contains the information required by FMVSS 106. The other line, which you call the 'SAE print line,' contains certain information not required by FMVSS 106, including 'batch and shift' information. You asked whether it is permissible to place the batch and shift information (consisting of a mark such as 'AA') on the DOT print line. You stated that moving the batch and shift mark to the DOT print line would improve the legibility of the SAE print line. This is because better print materials could be used in the SAE print line if that legend did not contain a mark that must be updated on a daily or more frequent basis, such as the batch and shift mark. As discussed below, the batch and shift information may not be placed on the same line as the required information. NHTSA's longstanding position, stated in past rulemaking notice preambles (e.g., 39 FR 7425, February 26, 1974, 39 FR 24012, June 28, 1974), is that the DOT print line may only contain the required information. The striping requirement (S5.2.1) of FMVSS 106 states that one of the requisite stripes on a brake hose 'may be interrupted by the information required by S5.2.2, and the other stripe may be interrupted by additional information at the manufacturer's option.' We interpret this to mean that the stripe that is interrupted by the required information may not be interrupted by information voluntarily provided by the manufacturer. This conclusion is consistent with the preamble for the final rule establishing S5.2.1 (38 FR 31302, November 13, 1973), which refers to optional additional information as not being permitted in the legend that interrupts the first stripe. (That rule modified the labeling requirements to permit interruption of the second stripe with the optional information.) NHTSA did not permit optional information to be mixed with the required information because the mixture of optional and required labeling could obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information, or interfere with the appearance of complete labeling on some hose assemblies. For your information, we have enclosed the Federal Register documents cited above. Please contact Ms. Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosures";

ID: aiam5448

"Dear Ms. Jones: This responds to your request for an interpretation o Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number (VIN). You explained that P.J.'s Fabrication (P.J.), which manufactures trailers, entered into a contract with Coulson Commander Trailers (Coulson) to manufacture trailers that will be marketed under Coulson's name. Skip Jones of your company has told Dorothy Nakama of my staff that he does not believe Coulson has any manufacturing capability or that Coulson manufactures trailers. You ask whether under Standard No. 115, P.J. assigns the VIN to the vehicles. The answer is yes. S4.1 of Standard No. 115 specifies that 'Each vehicle manufactured in one stage shall have a VIN that is assigned by the manufacturer.' The term 'manufacturer' is defined at 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(5)(A) as a person 'manufacturing or assembling motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment.' According to the information provided in your letter, P.J. fits this definition of a manufacturer. Moreover, you also state that 'P.J.'s accepts responsibility for warranty work and quality control to meet DOT specifications.' This statement indicates that P.J. is certifying the trailers' compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's), as a manfacturer must under our certification requirements. Accordingly, all the information presented to us indicates that P.J. is the trailer manufacturer, and it is therefore appropriate for P.J. to assign the VIN to the trailers. As noted above, you indicate that P.J. is certifying the trailers' compliance with all applicable FMVSS's. Since FMVSS No. 115 applies to the trailers and requires each new trailer to have a VIN, P.J. must assign a VIN to the vehicle in order to correctly certify that the vehicle meets the FMVSS's (namely, FMVSS No. 115). In other words, since the FMVSS's require a VIN, the trailers must have a VIN by the time P.J. certifies the vehicles as complying with the FMVSS's. You also asked which company issues the manufacturer's statement of origin (MSO), that your letter referred to as the 'Certificate of Origin.' Since MSOs are regulated by state law, for information about each state's requirements, you must contact the state's department of motor vehicles. A source of information about each state's requirements is the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), 4600 Wilson Blvd., Suite 1000, Arlington, Virginia 22203. The telephone number for the AAMVA is (703) 522-4200. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel";

ID: 571.205-Plexiglass Barriers Clarification-Klos

Mr. Thomas Klos 
AROW Global Corp. 
924 N. Parkview Circle Mosinee, WI 54455
 
Dear Mr. Klos:
 
This responds to your email to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) asking about a letter of interpretation NHTSA issued to Mr. Mike Collingwood of the Illinois DOT on August 11, 2020. The letter concerned the installation of plexiglass barriers installed to the right of the driver in school buses to help minimize the spread of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Please note that our answer below is based on our understanding of the specific information provided in your email.
 
Background
 
NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act requires manufacturers to self-certify that their vehicles and equipment conform to all applicable FMVSS in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA also investigates safety- related defects.
 
On August 11, 2020, NHTSA responded to Mr. Collingwood’s request regarding the installation of “plexiglass barriers” installed to the right of, and behind, the driver’s seating position on school buses.1 In the letter, NHTSA concluded that the barriers were items of motor vehicle “glazing” that must comply with FMVSS No. 205, “Glazing material.” FMVSS No. 205 applies to glazing installed in motor vehicles prior to first purchase and to aftermarket glazing for use in motor vehicles. The standard incorporates by reference an industry standard, the “American National Standards Institute American National Standard for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment Operating on Land Highways-Safety Standard” (ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996).
 
In the August 2020 letter, NHTSA stated that the barriers located to the right of the driver would be “interior partitions” located in an area requisite for driving visibility. As interior partitions located in an area requisite for driving visibility, the barriers would be required to be of one of the following types of glazing: Items 1, 2, 4, 4A, 10, 11A, 11C, 14, 15A, or 15B.
 
In your letter, you ask about Table A1 in the ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 standard, which provides a list of glazing types that may be used for “[g]lazing to the immediate right and left of the driver” for buses. You state that, because of this category, you historically have not used glazing with AS4 or AS4A designations (hereafter referred to as Item 4 and 4A glazing) on barriers installed to the right of the driver. You ask for guidance to ensure you are using the correct glazing types for interior barriers located to the immediate right and left of the driver.
 
Items 4 and 4A glazing may be used on barriers (partitions) installed to the right of the driver. Table A1 is located in the appendix to ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996, and the appendix, as stated in its heading, is not a part of the ANSI standard, but is included for information purposes only.2 Accordingly, when there is any disparity between the language in Table A1 and the standard, the information within the standard prevails.
 
Subsection 4.2 of the ANSI standard specifies that Item 4 and Item 4A glazing may be used in “interior partitions” and does not specifically address the category of “glazing to the immediate right and left of the driver.” Because NHTSA considered the plexiglass barriers referenced in the August 11, 2020 letter to be interior partitions, and because the standard does not exclude the use of Items 4 and 4A glazing in glazing located to the immediate right of the driver, NHTSA concluded that Items 4 and 4A glazing may be used in the partitions.
 
I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Callie Roach of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.
 
Sincerely,
 
                       Digitally signed by ANN
ANN ELIZABETH ELIZABETH CARLSON
  Date: 2022.05.31
  13:07:01 -04'00'
CARLSON
 
Ann Carlson 
Chief Counsel

Dated: 5/31/22
Ref: FMVSS No. 205
 
1 Letter to Mr. Mike Collingwood, (August 11, 2020) available at https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/571.205%20Plexiglass%20Barriers%20(002).htm. 
2 The ANSI standard states: “(This Appendix is not a part of American National Standard Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways, Z26.1-1996, but is included for information purposes only.)”