ID: 04-003879-2drn

Rod Nash, P.E.
Vice President of Engineering
Collins Industries, Inc.
15 Compound Drive
Hutchinson, KS 67502-4349

Dear Mr. Nash:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection.You ask how the standard applies to school bus seats that are adjoining, yet have individual sized backs for each passenger" and "unique cushions for each student."You enclosed copies of product literature from Freedman Seating Company that indicates that each seat is 17 inches wide, and that two seats together are 35 inches.

You first ask about the test procedure in S5.1.3, Seat performance forward. S5.1.3 specifies that school bus passenger seats must deflect in a specified manner when force is applied through a loading bar that is centered behind the seat back. The loading bar is described in S6.5 of FMVSS No. 222. S6.5 specifies, "the length of the loading bar is 102 mm less than the width of the seat back in each test. "

You ask whether the "width of the seat back" as stated in S6.5 refers to the width of one seat back or the width of both seat backs together. Our answer is that in this situation the two seats would be considered as a single "seat" for the purposes of FMVSS No. 222. Our answer is consistent with an August 16, 2004, interpretation letter to American Suzuki Motor Corporation, on FMVSS No. 214, Side Impact Protection. In the letter to Suzuki, we noted that the term "bench seats" is not defined in FMVSS No. 214 and stated:"However, seats are commonly considered bench seats when their separate sections are side-by-side, as shown in your photographs, even when they are separately adjustable. "

Therefore, the width of the seat back used in the determination of the length of the loading bar would be the overall width of both seat backs together. The seat back width would be measured on a horizontal plane 406 mm above the seating reference point across both seat backs and the loading bar would be 102 mm shorter than this measurement.

Your second question asks about the correct method of determining the necessary projected surface area of the seat back under S5.1.2 of FMVSS No. 222. S5.1.2 states:

Seat back height and surface area. Each school bus passenger seat shall be equipped with a seat back that, in the front projected view, has a front surface area above the horizontal plane that passes through the seating reference point, and below the horizontal plane 508 mm above the seating reference point, of not less than 90 percent of the seat bench width in millimeters multiplied by 508.

Although your letter asks about "the correct place to determine seat back width," in fact the requirement for projected surface area is based on seat bench width. Thus, the required projected surface area is calculated by multiplying 508 times the seat bench width, which in this case encompasses both adjoining seats, and then multiplying by 0.9. In your example, the seat bench width is 889 mm (35 inches). The projected area is calculated excluding the V-shaped notch area in the back seat in the same manner that the area of the radius of the corners of conventional seat backs is removed (reference TP-222-03).

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:222
d.9/21/904

ID: 04-004216drn

Mr. Larry Medina
101 East Whipple Extension St.
Prescott, AZ86301

Dear Mr. Medina:

This responds to your request for an interpretation concerning National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requirements that your product, the "Emergency Vehicle Warning," must meet. Your product is designed to provide to drivers visual warning of the approach of emergency vehicles.

Your letter describes the "Emergency Vehicle Warning" as follows:

The concept is simple, sensors are placed on the outside of a car, sensors detect the sound of a siren (emergency vehicle), sensors then transmit a signal to a receiver, this receiver is placed on the instrument panel or rear view mirror or visor. The receiver is approximately 2 inches long and 1/12 wide with two or more light emitting diodes (lights). Its placement can be clipped or mounted with adhesive tape. Once the receiver detects a signal from the sensors, the lights flash giving the driver a visual alert of an approaching emergency vehicle.

In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you stated that you intend the "Emergency Vehicle Warning" to be provided on new motor vehicles and to be installed as aftermarket equipment. In my response to you, I will assume that the outside sensors described in your letter do not incorporate any type of lighting.

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to issue the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards.

We have previously addressed motor vehicle equipment similar to the "Emergency Vehicle Warning."Enclosed is an interpretation letter of May 4, 2000 to Mr. Lou McKenna (McKenna letter).

The McKenna letter addressed a system inside the vehicle that consisted of an audible alarm and a flashing red display of the words "Emergency Vehicle." The alarm and the red display are triggered by a signal from an emergency vehicle. We make clear in the McKenna letter that:

None of the laws and regulations that we administer preclude a flashing red message on the instrument panel or an audible siren in or on a motor vehicle. This means that the legality of such devices must be determined under state and local laws.

Similarly, in your case, none of NHTSAs laws or regulations would preclude a receiver with light-emitting diodes to be placed on an instrument panel, interior rearview mirror or visor, if installed in such a way that it would not interfere with any required safety function. NHTSA has not issued any FMVSSs that are directly applicable to your product. However, something placed on the reflective surface of a mirror could affect its compliance with the field of view requirements of FMVSS No. 111, Rearview mirrors.

If your "Emergency Vehicle Warning" were installed by a vehicle manufacturer as original equipment, i.e., on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer would have to certify that the vehicle with the product installed complies with all applicable FMVSSs. Also, if your product were installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business on a new or used vehicle, that commercial entity would be prohibited by 49 U.S.C. 30122 from knowingly making inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in the vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. When your product is installed by the vehicle owner, our safety standards would not affect the sale or installation of your product.

Beyond compliance with relevant Federal safety standards, manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment have additional responsibilities, including a requirement to notify purchasers about safety-related defects and to provide a remedy free of charge, even if their equipment is not covered by a safety standard. 49 U.S.C. 30118-30120.

In addition, you should be aware that other governmental entities may have authority over your product. States have the authority to regulate the use and licensing of vehicles operating within their jurisdictions. Therefore, you may wish to check with the Department of Motor Vehicles in any State in which the equipment will be sold or used regarding any such requirements.

I have enclosed a fact sheet entitled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment." I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:VSA102(4)
d.7/21/04

ID: 04-004377drn

Jock Marlo, Esq.
Hart, King & Coldren
P.O. Box 2507
Santa Ana, CA 92707

Dear Mr. Marlo:

This responds to your request for an interpretation concerning National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requirements that your clients product, the "Smart Shift," must meet. The "Smart Shift" permits drivers to shift gears by a push button system, replacing transmission shift gear levers.

You described the "Smart Shift" as follows:

The Smart Shift is an automotive aftermarket product. It is sold to vehicle owners for installation by the vehicle owner or his designee. The Smart Shift is an electronically controlled shifter that attaches to an automatic transmission which allows the user to shift the transmission gears by the touch of a button, thereby eliminating the transmission gear selector rod or cable. It features a neutral safety device, a built in reverse light relay, a safety button to prevent accidental shifts, and back lit buttons and LCD display for positive gear selection.

You also provided a copy of the "Smart Shift Preliminary Users Manual." The manual shows, on page 5, a schematic of the "Smart Shift" system that includes the shift position keyboard. From left to right, in a row, the buttons are: "P," "R," "N." Slightly above this row is a button, "D+." Slightly below the row is a button, "D-." I will assume that "P" stands for "park," "R" for "reverse," "N" for "neutral," "D+" for a higher drive and "D-" for a lower drive. The schematic also includes a "Display" which you explained in your letter displays the "positive gear selection."

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to issue the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor

vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards.

NHTSA has issued FMVSS No. 102, Transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect, which specifies requirements for the transmission shift lever sequence, a starter interlock, and for a braking effect of automatic transmissions, to reduce the likelihood of shifting errors, starter engagement with vehicle in drive position, and to provide supplemental braking at speeds below 40 kilometers per hour. FMVSS No. 102 applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses.

Among FMVSS 102s provisions are the following:

• a neutral position must be located between forward drive and reverse drive positions (see S3.1.1);
• the engine starter must be inoperative when the transmission shifting device is in a forward or reverse drive position (see 3.1.3);
• for a transmission shift sequence that includes a park position, identification of the shift positions, including the positions in relation to each other and the position selected, must be displayed in view of the driver whenever any of the following conditions exist: (a) the ignition is in a position where the transmission can be shifted; (b) the transmission is not in park (see S3.1.4.1); and
• the information required to be displayed by S3.1.4.1 must be displayed in view of the driver in a single location (see S3.1.4.4).

Although the standard makes references to "transmission shift levers," no provision in FMVSS No. 102 would preclude a device that allows the user to shift the transmission gears by the touch of a button.

Since FMVSS No. 102 applies to motor vehicles, not to aftermarket automatic transmission shifting devices, your client would not be required to certify compliance with FMVSS No. 102. However, if the "Smart Shift" is installed by certain parties, 49 U.S.C. Section 30122 would be relevant. Section 30122 provides that:

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.

Section 30122 would prohibit any of the above-named commercial entities from installing a "Smart Shift" if such installation makes inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any applicable safety standard, including FMVSS No. 102. For example, if the "Smart Shift" caused the vehicle to no longer comply with any of the requirements noted under the bullets above, installation of the system would make inoperative compliance of the vehicle with that standard.

You also write that your clients product may be installed by vehicle owners. In this situation, our safety standards would not affect the sale or installation of the product. The "make inoperative" provision does not prohibit owners from modifying their vehicles, even if the modification adversely affects the compliance of the vehicle with the FMVSSs. However, we encourage all persons to avoid making vehicle modifications that have an adverse effect on safety.

Beyond compliance with relevant Federal safety standards, manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment have additional responsibilities, including a requirement to notify purchasers about safety-related defects and to provide a remedy free of charge, even if their equipment is not covered by a safety standard. 49 U.S.C. 30118-30120.

In addition, you should be aware that other governmental entities may have authority over your product. For example, the States have the authority to regulate the use and licensing of vehicles operating within their jurisdictions. Therefore, you may wish to check with the Department of Motor Vehicles in any State in which the equipment will be sold or used regarding any such requirements.

I have enclosed a fact sheet titled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment." I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:102#VSA102(4)
d.8/11/04

ID: 04-004579drn

Stephen E. Selander, Esq.
Senior Counsel
Warner Norcross & Judd LLP
2000 Town Center, Suite 2700
Southfield, MI 48075-1318

Dear Mr. Selander:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether your clients (Morbarks) products, portable brush chippers, are "motor vehicles" for purposes of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, including the TREAD Act. We will identify the relevant factors that should be considered in making such determinations.

Title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to prescribe Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 30102(a)(6) defines "motor vehicle" as:

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

We have issued a number of interpretations of this language. We have stated that vehicles equipped with tracks, agricultural equipment, and other vehicles incapable of highway travel are not motor vehicles. We have also determined that certain vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not motor vehicles, even if they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Finally, we have concluded that items of mobile construction equipment that use the highways only to move between job sites and that typically spend extended periods of time at a single site are not motor vehicles. However, we do consider vehicles that use the public roads on a necessary and recurring basis to be motor vehicles.

You provided information about several models of brush chippers. You write that:"Eight of the models have axles, tires and wheels, and can be easily moved around a site or from site-to-site by towing."

You stated that Morbark believes that its portable brush chippers are not covered by the Vehicle Safety Act or the TREAD Act. You stated that Morbark brush chippers are designed primarily for use off-highway in helping to clear sites of trees and brush by chipping the brush, tree limbs, and small tree trunks.

You also stated that Morbark believes that its portable brush chippers are not trailers as defined in 49 CFR 571.3. That regulation defines trailer as "a motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle."

We have reviewed the videotape you enclosed with your letter. We note that in some instances, the Morbark brush chipper and vehicle towing the chipper were depicted as parked on the side of the road in what appears to be a residential area. We also understand from the information you provided that some of these products are used by tree service and landscape companies. We have also reviewed information provided at Morbarks web site: www.morbark.com.

Whether Morbarks portable brush chippers are considered motor vehicles under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act depends on their use, i.e., whether they typically spend extended periods of time at a single site or, by contrast, use the public roads on a necessary and recurring basis. By way of example, in a letter to DuraTech dated June 4, 1997, we took the position that mobile tub grinders are not motor vehicles because they stay on job sites for extended periods of time (usually for months and very rarely for less than a week). Similarly, we have concluded that mobile waterjet cutting and cleaning equipment was not a motor vehicle, based on the fact that it appeared to stay on job sites for extended periods of time ranging from a week to over a year.

We do not have information concerning the specific usage patterns of each of Morbarks brush chippers to determine whether they are motor vehicles. Moreover, while we seek to be helpful in providing opinions about our statutes, we do not have the resources to provide a detailed review of the products of each company. However, if the brush chippers use the public roads on a necessary and recurring basis, they would be motor vehicles. We would think that would likely be the case for at least some of Morbarks portable brush chippers, since tree service and landscape companies would tow the portable brush chippers by trucks to jobs, park them along the curb during work, and then tow them to the next job or, at the end of the day, return them to the companys facilities. Tree service company crews commonly complete one to two jobs per day. We also note that, in a letter to Lindig Manufacturing Corporation dated January 5, 1984, we took the position that brush chipper trailers are motor vehicles.

As to your question concerning the definition of trailer, we would consider the brush chipper itself to be the property being transported.

I have enclosed a fact sheet entitled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment."I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:VSA102(4)
d.8/27/04

ID: 04-005462drn

Major R. E. Brooks
Commander
Ohio State Highway Patrol
1970 West Broad Street
P.O. Box 182074
Columbus, OH 43118-2074

Dear Major Brooks:

This responds to your letter to Ms. Lisa Sullivan of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA’s) Vehicle Research and Test Center. Your letter was referred to my office for reply. You have two questions. First, you ask whether there is a conflict between 49 U.S.C. §30122, Making safety devices and elements inoperative, and an Ohio Revised Code (ORC) provision requiring school buses no longer used for school transportation purposes to have their rear flashing lamps and stop arms removed. Second, you ask for our opinion on whether Ohio could consider school buses without the flashing rear lamps and school bus stop arms to be “multifunction school activity buses.”

Background

In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, Lieutenant John Boster of your office stated that the Ohio School Bus Construction Standards Committee (the Committee) is considering recommending a state law that would reclassify school buses with their rear flashing lamps and stop arms removed to be “multifunction school activity buses.” Apparently, during the Committee’s discussion, a question arose as to an existing provision in the ORC regarding removing equipment from school buses. You provided a copy of the provision that states in part:

§ 4511.762. School bus no longer used for school purposes.

(A) Except as provided in division (B) of this section, no person who is the owner of a bus that previously was registered as a school bus that is used or is to be used exclusively for purposes other than the transportation of children, shall operate the bus or permit it to be operated within this state unless the bus has been painted a color different from that prescribed for school buses by section 4511.77 of the Revised Code and painted in such a way that the words “stop” and “school bus” are obliterated.

(B) Any church bus that previously was registered as a school bus and is registered under section 4503.07 of the Revised Code may retain the paint color prescribed for school buses by section 4511.77 of the Revised Code if the bus complies with all of the following: . . .

(2) The automatically extended stop warning sign required by section 4511.75 of the Revised Code is removed and the word “stop” required by section 4511.77 of the Revised Code is covered or obliterated;

(3) The flashing red and amber lights required by section 4511.771 of the Revised Code are covered or removed.

Is There a Conflict Between 49 U.S.C. §30122 and ORC 5411.762?

Your first question asks whether there is a conflict between the “make inoperative” provision of 49 U.S.C. §30122 and ORC 4511.762. Our answer is no.

49 USC §30122(b) states, in pertinent 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….”

Although the state law would contemplate the removal of school bus safety equipment, the equipment would be removed from vehicles that are no longer used as school buses. The buses will no longer have the school bus flashing lights required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment, or the stop arm required by FMVSS No. 131, School bus pedestrian safety devices. The agency has stated in the past that modifications that change a vehicle from one type to another (e.g., from a hardtop to a convertible) do not violate the “make inoperative” prohibition, as long as the converted vehicle meets those safety standards that would have applied if the vehicle had been originally manufactured as the new vehicle type. (See June 3, 1994, letter to Michael Marczynski, copy enclosed.) Similarly, we conclude that there would be no violation of §30122 if the bus’s function was changed from that of a school bus to that of a multifunction school activity bus, and the vehicle, as modified, met the FMVSSs applicable to multifunction school activity buses.

Note also that §30122 does not apply to owners making changes to their own vehicles. If the buses were being modified by their owners, §30122 would not be an issue.

Are TheyMultifunction School Activity Buses?

You also asked whether Ohio could consider school buses without the flashing rear lamps and school bus stop arms to be “multifunction school activity buses.” It is my understanding that the Ohio statute’s provisions would apply only to used school buses. NHTSA’s vehicle classification system (See definitions at 49 CFR §571.3) pertains to our certification requirements (at 49 CFR Part 567 Certification), which apply to the manufacture and sale of new vehicles. Manufacturers of new vehicles must certify their vehicles as meeting all FMVSSs applicable to that vehicle type, and persons selling new vehicles must sell properly certified vehicles. The agency’s certification regulation and vehicle classification system do not apply to used vehicles. Thus, Ohio may characterize these used vehicles as “multifunction school activity buses” under State law, as long as State law does not conflict with Federal law. Based on the information you provided, it appears that Ohio’s definition of a multifunction school activity bus would be virtually the same as NHTSA’s definition, and we see no conflict between the two regulatory schemes.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman

Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:VSA: 222

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: 04-005908drn

Mr. Clemens Kaiser
President and CEO
Exatec, LLC
31220 Oak Creek Drive
Wixom, MI 48393




Dear Mr. Kaiser:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing Materials. You ask us whether the Exatec 900, a "coated plastic glazing material", may be used in vehicle areas specified for Item 2 glazing (safety glazing material for use anywhere in a motor vehicle except windshields) if it meets the prescribed groups of tests in the standard. The answer to your question is yes.

FMVSS No. 205 specifies at S5.1:"Glazing materials for use in motor vehicles must conform to ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 unless this standard provides otherwise".ANSI Z26 specifies performance requirements for various types of glazing (called "Items"), and specifies the locations in vehicles in which each item of glazing may be used. Section 4 of ANSI Z26 states: "The groups of tests listed in this subsection and shown in Table 1, item by item, are deemed adequate for determining the locations in the motor vehicle for which the various safety glazing materials that qualify under this standard may be suitable."The section further states: "Safety glazing materials in motor vehicles shall comply with the applicable requirements listed in this subsection and shown in Table 1, item by item, in definite groupings of tests that are appropriate for the safety glazing material in question, and the location in the motor vehicle in which it is intended to be used. (Emphasis added. )

For Item 2 glazing, Table 1 specifies the following safety glazing materials: laminated glass, tempered glass, class 1 multiple glazed unit and class 2 multiple glazed unit. However, in the "Note:" at the bottom of Table 1, the following is stated:

For convenience, each column on this table (as well as the text of the tests that follow) designates the specific type of material that will meet the enumerated tests if it is of satisfactory quality. If and when other materials are developed that possess properties so that they also meet one or another of the prescribed groups of tests, they may be used interchangeably with the corresponding materials specified in this table. (Emphasis added.)

The second sentence in the "Note:" to Table 1 permits Exatecs certifying the Exatec 900 as AS-2. It provides that if another material such as plastic glazing can be shown to "meet one or another of the prescribed groups of tests," the plastic glazing may be used interchangeably with the corresponding materials (i.e. , laminated glass) specified in Table 1.

We note, however, there are issues--including weathering, chemical resistance, and flammability--particular to the use of a "coated plastic glazing material" such as the Exatec 900 that are not addressed in the grouping of tests for the certification of AS-2 glazing. Thus, the second sentence in the "Note:" to Table 1 results in removing the consideration of weathering for plastics being used for the first time in locations critical to visibility as substitutes for laminated glass. This is a concern because the loss of visibility due to haze caused by weathering is a typical failure mode of polycarbonate plastics under exposure to sunlight that does not occur at all in glass glazing.

However, we also note that Exatec 900 is an advanced glazing material consisting of a core layer of polycarbonate which is surrounded by multiple layers of plasma deposited materials designed specifically to provide protection from the effects of solar radiation. Exatec states that the advanced technology incorporated into its Exatec 900 material provides significant weathering resistance protection that results in a useful life span of at least 10 years. The weathering resistance of EXATEC 900 has been independently evaluated by Batelle Laboratories of Columbus, Ohio. Batelle concurred with Exatecs predicted life span for its glazing material.

We plan to undertake rulemaking to propose additional tests for polycarbonate glazing. We request that Exatec provide details for its accelerated aging test methodology for public comment in the rulemaking proceeding.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:205
d.9/23/05

ID: 04-005953_Airpumpdf

Mr. Michael J. Gidding
Brown & Gidding
3201 New Mexico Avenue, NW
Suite 242
Washington, DC 20016

Dear Mr. Gidding:

This responds to your e-mail inquiry asking whether we would consider a rechargeable electric air pump manufactured by your client, Intex Recreation Corporation, to be an item of motor vehicle equipment under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act), 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301. As explained below, our answer is no.

The Intex pump is a small, electronic, portable air pump that appears to be primarily used to inflate or deflate air mattresses and other similar inflatable items. The product can be powered by either: (a) plugging a power cord into a household 110-120 volt AC electrical outlet; (b) attaching a 12 volt DC power cord into a 12 Volt DC "automobile cigarette lighter or accessory outlet" (the pump includes a 12-volt DC adaptor that is designed for use with a vehicles cigarette lighter); or (c) using rechargeable batteries that are recharged by plugging the pump into the household 110-120 Volt AC outlet. There is no indication that the pump may be used to inflate a tire. My understanding is that the pump is sold by Wal-Mart and by some camping stores.

We understand that at an earlier point in time, the product literature included an instruction that the rechargeable battery could be recharged by attaching the pump to the vehicles cigarette lighter outlet. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) was informed by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) that there have been two complaints that allege that the pumps rechargeable batteries exploded while the pump was being charged by way of the vehicle cigarette lighter. No injuries were reported. As a result of these reports, Intex revised its instructions to indicate that the pump may only be charged or recharged by household 110-120 AC voltage only. The instructions also state: "Do not charge pump with DC power cord," and "Do not charge/recharge with DC power source."

The term "motor vehicle equipment" is defined in the Safety Act as (49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(7)):

(A) any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured;
(B) any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of a system, part, or component, or as an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle [emphasis added]; or
(C) any device or an article or apparel (except medicine or eyeglasses prescribed by a licensed practitioner) that is not a system, part, or component of a motor vehicle and is manufactured, sold, delivered, offered, or intended to be used only to safeguard motor vehicles and highway users against risk of accident, injury, or death.

The agency uses two criteria in determining whether an item is an "accessory" under the Safety Act. The first criterion is whether a substantial portion of the expected use of the item is related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. The second is whether the product is purchased or otherwise acquired, and principally used, by ordinary users of motor vehicles. If a product satisfies both criteria, then the product would be an accessory. In determining a products expected use, NHTSA considers product advertising, product labeling, and the type of store that retails the product, as well as available information about the actual use of the product.

Although Intexs pump is depicted on its packaging material and instructions as being used in motor vehicles and includes as a standard feature a 12-volt adapter enabling its use in a vehicle, we do not conclude that a substantial portion of the expected use of the pump is related to the operation or maintenance of a motor vehicle. The pump is not exclusively powered by the vehicles automobile lighter. It has two other power sources which enable its use by a consumer outside the vehicle. In addition, the pump only functions to inflate items such as air mattresses. This function (inflating air mattresses and the like) does not constitute a suitable nexus to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. That is, there is hardly a nexus between the pump and the operation, maintenance, care, ease of or enhanced use of a vehicle. Because the first prong of the two-part test for an accessory is not met, we conclude that the Intex pump is not an item of motor vehicle equipment.

We note that the Intex pump is a consumer product subject to regulation by the CPSC. We are informing CPSC of the outcome of this letter.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:vsa
d.12/9/04

ID: 04-006330drn

Mr. Robert L. Douglas
Director of Product Integrity
IC Corporation
751 South Harkrider
Conway, AR 72032

Dear Mr. Douglas:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of a provision in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release. You wish to know whether the provision at S5.2.3.2(a)(4), “No two side emergency exit doors shall be located, in whole or in part, within the same post and roof bow panel space” applies only to side emergency exit doors located on the same side of the bus. The answer is that this restriction applies to all side emergency exit doors located “within the same post and roof bow panel space,” including those on the left and right sides of the bus.

You believe that the restriction should not apply to emergency exit doors located on opposite sides of the bus from each other. You do not believe that the structural integrity is compromised when the doors are mounted on opposite sides of the bus and in the same section.

We have considered your suggestion but conclude that S5.2.3.2(a)(4) also applies to side emergency exit doors located on the opposite sides of the bus. The issue was discussed and decided in a rulemaking proceeding. A notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on S5.2.3.2(4)(under Option B)(March 15, 1991 (56 FR 11153, at 11163)) did not propose to restrict side emergency exit doors from being located, in whole or in part, within the same post and roof bow panel space. In commenting on the NPRM, Thomas Built Buses stated that the left and right side emergency exit doors should not be within the same post and roof bow panel space. In the final rule, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration adopted Thomas Built’s recommended language at S5.2.3.2(a)(4). Thus, S5.2.3.2(a)(4) was specifically adopted with the intent to exclude left and right side emergency exit doors from being “within the same post and roof bow panel space.”

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman

Chief Counsel

ref:217

ref:217

d.11/12/04

ID: 04-006678drn

Mr. Robert Strassburger
Vice President Safety and Harmonization
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
1401 Eye Street, NW, Suite 900
Washington, DC20005

Dear Mr. Strassburger:

This responds to your request of August 26, 2004 that we extend the date at which the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will begin enforcing a May 6, 2003 interpretation letter, addressed to Jaguar Cars, on the meaning of "daylight opening" in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 104, Windshield wiping and washing systems. As explained below, we have decided to grant your request.

In our letter to you of March 31, 2004, in which we denied your request for reconsideration of the May 6, 2003, interpretation, we acknowledged that there has been some confusion in industry regarding the proper interpretation of the term "daylight opening". We stated that we would begin enforcing FMVSS No. 104 consistent with our May 6, 2003 interpretation letter beginning with motor vehicles manufactured on September 1, 2005.

In your letter of August 26, 2004, you stated that "substantial work" will be needed on some vehicle models to meet the May 6, 2003 interpretation letter. You stated that some wiper systems may have to be redesigned to increase the wiped area and that windshield redesign may be required. You indicated "substantial costs can be avoided" if, for those models that need reworking, the wiper system and windshield redesigns can be accomplished at the same time as scheduled platform changes. You asked that the agency provide manufacturers until September 1, 2007, to permit an orderly transition to designs that comply with the interpretation.

Two vehicle manufacturers subsequently submitted additional information in support of your organizations request. They focused on the work that will be needed for some vehicle models to meet FMVSS No. 104s requirement that windshield wiping systems wipe at least 94% of "Area B".

One manufacturer indicated that, taking account of the agencys May 6, 2003 interpretation letter, seven of its vehicles will not meet the 94% requirement. The other manufacturer indicated that five of its vehicles will be below 94% (but at or above 93.2%) for the wiped Area B. That manufacturer stated that it is not easy to increase the 93.2% area because the wiped areas have already been optimized to maximize the wiped surfaces. Even the small increases required to bring the wiped Area B to meet 94% cannot be done with simple changes in the wiper system. The manufacturer stated that some vehicles will require a complete redesign of the wiper geometry, including changes to the sheet metal stampings. Such changes are normally only done when a complete redesign of a model is scheduled because changes to the stamping tools are always expensive.

After carefully considering your request and the additional information provided by the two manufacturers, and to minimize the costs of compliance, we agree to provide the requested additional time. While we believe the original date of September 1, 2005 was sufficient to enable manufacturers to make simple changes in wiper systems, we are persuaded that more significant design changes will be needed for a number of vehicles. Therefore, we will begin enforcing FMVSS No. 104 consistent with our May 6, 2003 interpretation letter beginning with motor vehicles manufactured on September 1, 2007.

If you have any further questions, please contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:104
d.1/7/05