ID: 571.111 -- Camera Obstruction -- Keller -- 18-0661

Richard A. Keller, III
27795 Oakachoy Loop
Daphne, AL 36526

Dear Mr. Keller:

This responds to your inquiry on behalf of Bruno Independent Living Aids, Inc., concerning the rear backup camera requirement (S6.2) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS)   No. 111, “Rear visibility.”  We apologize for the delay in responding.  You ask several questions on whether installation of the “Bruno ASL-700 Chariot” and “ALS-250 Outsider” by vehicle owners would be permitted under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.  As explained below, our answer is yes.    

In your letter, you state that the two products are “vehicle exterior-located platform lifts which can be temporarily attached to the vehicle.”  You state the products are sold to transport unoccupied personal mobility devices used by vehicle occupants with mobility impairments.  You describe the Bruno ASL-700 Chariot as a “trailer” that conforms to all applicable FMVSS trailer requirements.  You describe the Bruno ASL-250 Outsider as a “cargo carrier” that is supported entirely by a vehicle’s trailer hitch, and that does not touch the ground.  You state that both products are intended to be sold in the aftermarket, and that both would be attached to a vehicle’s trailer hitch by the vehicle’s owner.

You ask the following questions concerning the applicability of NHTSA’s requirements to the ASL-700 Chariot and ALS-250 Outsider.  We have restated your questions below, followed by our answers.  Our answers are based on our understanding of your descriptions of the products.

1.     Since the Bruno ASL-700 Chariot personal mobility device carrier is in compliance with all applicable FMVSS trailer regulations, and is a trailer, it is therefore not subject to the requirements of 49 CFR § 571.111, section S6.2 Rear visibility. As such, it is not required to provide a rear view [sic] camera.  Is that interpretation correct?

The answer is yes.  As set forth in S6.2, the rear visibility requirements apply only to a “multipurpose passenger vehicle, low-speed vehicle, truck, bus, and school bus with a GVWR of 4,536 kg or less.”  If, as you say, the Bruno ASL-700 Chariot is a trailer, it is not subject to FMVSS No. 111.

2.     Since the Bruno ASL-700 Chariot and Bruno ASL-250 Outsider are temporary equipment installed or removed, when needed, by the vehicle owner, the Agency Response to this issue in the Final Rule is that the rule (49 CFR § 571.111, section S6.2 Rear visibility) does not apply. Is that interpretation correct?

Our answer is S6.2 does not apply.[1]  As explained in our answer to question 1, if neither the Bruno ASL-700 Chariot nor the Bruno ASL-250 Outsider is a “multipurpose passenger vehicle, low-speed vehicle, truck, bus, [or a] school bus with a GVWR of 4,536 kg or less,” they are not subject to S6.2.  This answer is the same as “the Agency Response…in the Final Rule” to which you refer.  

(Please note that the installation of “temporary” products “by the vehicle owner” is not particularly germane to question 2 (which concerns the applicability of S6.2), but is germane to question 3.  Stated differently, if an FMVSS applies to the Chariot or the ASL-250, the fact that the products are meant to be temporarily installed or removed by the vehicle owner would not change the applicability of that standard to the product.)

3.  Since the Bruno ASL-700 Chariot and Bruno ASL-250 Outsider personal mobility device carriers are temporary equipment attached to the vehicle at the Class l, II, or III receiver hitch by the vehicle owner, and while they may when attached and loaded block the rearview camera, they are not making inoperative the OEM rearview camera under 49 USC § 30122 — Making safety devices and elements inoperative, as discussed in the Public Law 110-189 — 110th Congress and NHTSA-2010-0162-0256 Final Rule, since that prohibition is directed at a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, [rental company] or motor vehicle repair business modifying the vehicle.  Is that interpretation correct?

The Safety Act’s “make inoperative” prohibition (49 U.S.C. 30122) states:

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, rental company, 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 [FMVSS] unless the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, rental company, or repair business reasonably believes the vehicle or equipment will not be used (except for testing or a similar purpose during maintenance or repair) when the device or element is inoperative.

Our answer is the vehicle owner installing the Bruno ASL-700 Chariot or Bruno ASL-250 Outsider on his or her own vehicle is not subject to the “make inoperative” prohibition.[2]  We assume that the vehicle owner to whom you refer is not a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, rental company, or motor vehicle repair business.  In addition, because States have the authority to regulate the use of vehicles, you should check with State officials to see if State law would allow motorists to block the view of the camera of the primary vehicle.

In closing, we note that you have petitioned NHTSA to amend 49 CFR Part 595 (“Make inoperative exemptions”), Subpart C (“Vehicle modifications to accommodate people with disabilities”) to include the FMVSS No. 111 backup camera requirements, and that NHTSA informed you that the agency has granted your petition in a letter sent on November 5, 2018.  NHTSA is addressing your petition in the context of a rulemaking proceeding. 

We hope this answers your questions. 

Sincerely,

Jonathan C. Morrison
Chief Counsel

Dated: 5/3/19

Ref: FMVSS No. 111

[1] We would like to clarify that if the Bruno ASL-700 Chariot is a trailer, as you say, it is a “motor vehicle” under our regulations, and not “temporary equipment.” 

[2] Note also footnote 1, supra.  In addition, please be aware that the make inoperative provision also applies to rental companies. 

ID: 571.208--Center seat--Glickenhaus--19-1007

Mr. Jesse Glickenhaus

Managing Director

Scuderia Cameron Glickenhaus LLC

8 Kendall Avenue

Sleepy Hollow, NY 10591

Dear Mr. Glickenhaus:

This responds to your March 25, 2019 request for interpretation asking how the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208; Occupant crash protection, apply to a passenger car and multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV) with centrally located front seating positions.  Specifically, you ask us to confirm that FMVSS No. 208 does not require air bags for the central front seat(s) if they are not “outboard designated seating positions” as defined in 49 CFR § 571.3(b).  As we explain below, based on the information and representations provided in your request, FMVSS No. 208 does not require front air bags for the front seat(s) in these vehicles.    

Description of your vehicle designs and request for interpretation

 Your request concerns two different vehicle designs.  The first is a passenger car with the driver’s seat located at or near the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle.  You state that the driver’s seat will not meet the definition of an “outboard designated seating position” as defined in 49 CFR § 571.3(b).[1]  In the illustrations in your letter, the driver’s seat is depicted as the only front seat; there are two rear seats.  You state that the images accurately reflect the placement of the front driver’s seat, but that the shape and final placement of the rear passenger seats are not finalized.  You ask us to confirm that FMVSS No. 208 does not require a front air bag for the driver’s seat. 

The second vehicle you describe is an MPV.[2]  In a subsequent conversation with my staff, you indicated that this vehicle has a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of more than 8,500 pounds (lb) (and/or an unloaded vehicle weight greater than 5,500 lb) but not greater than 10,000 lb.  The MPV has a driver and front passenger seat, both of which are centrally located.  The accompanying illustrations also depict two rear seating positions.  You state that neither the driver’s seat nor the front passenger seat will meet the definition of an “outboard designated seating position.”  You ask us to confirm that FMVSS No. 208 does not require a front air bag for either of these seating positions.    

Requirements under FMVSS No. 208 for the front seats in these vehicles

FMVSS No. 208 sets out vehicle-level occupant protection requirements.  These include requirements or compliance options for seat belts, air bags, frontal crash tests, and static air bag tests. 

Passenger Cars

Whether or not the passenger car you describe is required to have a front air bag for the driver’s seat depends on whether that seat is an “outboard designated seating position.”  FMVSS No. 208 requires that each “[front] outboard designated seating position” be equipped with a Type 2 seat belt[3] and an air bag and certified to meet advanced air bag requirements.[4]  For example, passenger cars are required to certify, among other things, that they will meet injury criteria specifications when subject to a rigid barrier belted crash test with a 50th percentile adult male dummy,[5] but this requirement applies only to “each front outboard designated seating position[.]”[6]  We note that the standard is not completely consistent in using the term “front outboard designated seating position” to apply the advanced air bag requirements; the requirements referring to an out-of-position 5th percentile female dummy are specified in terms of the “driver position.”[7]  However, this “driver position” reference is most sensibly understood as applying to the driver’s side front outboard designated seating, consistent with the framework specified in the rest of the standard.[8]  If the front seat is not an “outboard designated seating position” then it is required to have a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly.[9]

MPVs with a GVWR greater than 8,500 lb (or with an unloaded vehicle weight greater than 5,500 lb) but not greater than 10,000 lb

FMVSS No. 208 (in S4.2.3 and S4.1.2) specifies several different compliance options for front seats in MPVs in this weight class.  These vehicles are not required to have air bags, and may provide protection with only a seat belt.[10] 

Discussion

Based on the information and representations provided in your interpretation request, FMVSS No. 208 does not require front air bags for the front seats in the vehicles you describe.[11]  If the centrally-located driver’s seat in your passenger car is not an outboard designated seating position, FMVSS No. 208 requires a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly, and not an air bag.  With respect to MPVs in the referenced weight class, FMVSS No. 208 does not require air bags for any front seats.  For example, the compliance option at S4.1.2.3 specifies only a belt and a seat belt warning for both front outboard and center seats.  More specifically, if the centrally-located driver’s and front passenger seats in the MPV are not outboard designated seating positions, then S4.2.3 requires that they be equipped with a Type 1 or Type 2 belt and, depending on the compliance option selected, a seat belt warning system.

In your letter, you indicate that you have “every intention of installing airbags [sic] as soon as possible” in your vehicles.  NHTSA strongly encourages that an air bag be provided for the driver’s designated seating position.  In establishing Standard No. 208's automatic protection requirements and later amending the standard to require air bags, NHTSA anticipated that applying the requirements to the front outboard positions would result in the driver's seating position being covered. The agency did not apply the requirements to the center seating position largely because that seating position is rarely used.  However, that would not be true if that position were also the driver's seating position.  Thus, we support your intention to install air bags in future models. 

This interpretation is limited to the facts and representations stated in your request.  In particular, this response assumes that the centrally-located front seat(s) are not “outboard designated seating position(s)” as defined in § 571.3(b) and that the rear seats depicted in the illustrations of the vehicles would in fact be classified as rear seats (and not front seats) under our regulations.  We also note that this letter is limited to answering your question about FMVSS No. 208.  Other FMVSS might necessitate use of air bag technologies, e.g., FMVSS No. 226, “Ejection mitigation,” which manufacturers typically meet by way of ejection mitigation side curtain air bags.  It would be your responsibility as a vehicle manufacturer to certify that your vehicles meet all applicable FMVSSs, including those not discussed in this letter. 

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

Sincerely,

Jonathan C. Morrison

Chief Counsel

Dated: 12/30/19

Ref: FMVSS No. 209

[1] “Outboard designated seating position means a designated seating position where a longitudinal vertical plane tangent to the outboard side of the seat cushion is less than 12 inches from the innermost point on the inside surface of the vehicle at a height between the design H-point and the shoulder reference point (as shown in fig. 1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210) and longitudinally between the front and rear edges of the seat cushion” (emphasis in original).

[2] An MPV is defined as “a motor vehicle with motive power, except a low-speed vehicle or trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation.”  § 571.3(b).

[3] S4.1.5.1(a)(3).  A Type 1 seat belt is a lap belt, and a Type 2 seat belt is a combination lap/shoulder belt.  FMVSS 209; Seat belt assemblies, S3.

[4] See S14 (“Advanced air bag requirements for passenger cars and for trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 3,855 kg (8500 pounds) or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 2,495 kg (5500 pounds) or less, except for walk-in van-type trucks or vehicles designed to be sold exclusively to the U.S. Postal Service[]”) and S4.1.5.4 (“Each passenger car certified to S14 shall, at each front outboard designated seating position, meet the applicable frontal crash protection requirements of S5.1.2(b) by means of an inflatable restraint system that requires no action by vehicle occupants.”).  See also the advanced air bag requirements specified in S14 through S29. 

[5] S14.4 and S14.5.1(b).

[6] S14.5.1(b).

[7] See S25.1-25.4.

[8] Cf. Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, Pub. L. No. 102-240, § 2508(a)(1), 105 Stat. 1914 (1991) (requiring the Department of Transportation to amend FMVSS No. 208 to require air bags at the “front outboard designated seating positions” in passenger cars and trucks, buses, and MPVs with a GVWR of 8,500 lb or less and an unloaded weight of 5,500 lb or less).

[9] S4.1.5.1(a)(2).

[10] See S4.1.2.3 (option of equipping the front outboard seats with Type 2 belts and a belt warning system, and any center front seat with a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt and a belt warning system).

[11] See also Letter from Philip Recht, Chief Counsel, to Trevor Buttle, McLaren Cars Limited (Oct. 31, 1994) (opining that a driver’s seat located at least 12 inches from the side of the vehicle is not an “outboard designated seating position”).

ID: 571.226--Conversion of vans--M Johnson

Mr. Michael Johnson Black Hills Transfer Inc.

P.O. Box 9472

Rapid City, SD 57709

Dear Mr. Johnson:

This responds to your email forwarded to us by U.S. Senator John Thune’s office, and to your September 4 and September 12, 2020 telephone conversations with Deirdre Fujita of my staff, asking whether a motor vehicle dealer may make certain modifications to your used 2019 passenger vans to convert them to cargo vans. You explain that the work would involve, among other things, removing all passenger seats, seat brackets, and seat belts rearward of the driver’s seat, installing a full partition behind the driver’s seat and right front passenger seat to separate a cargo area, and replacing the side curtain air bag on the driver’s side of the vehicle with a side curtain air bag specially designed for only the driver’s seating position. As discussed below, our answer is the vehicles may be modified as you describe, subject to certain conditions.

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) authorizes NHTSA to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Among other things, § 30112 of the Safety Act prohibits any person from selling any new motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment that does not meet all applicable FMVSSs. This requirement applies until the first purchase of the vehicle or equipment other than for resale (first retail sale). Following such first purchase of the vehicle or equipment, § 30122 of the Safety Act prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, rental company, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly making 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 FMVSS. It is this latter provision, § 30122, that bears on the questions you ask.

You explain in your email and phone calls that you purchased two used passenger vans with the intent of converting them to carry cargo for your business. Both vehicles are equipped with side curtain air bags of different designs. You describe the driver’s side curtain as extending from the windshield into the cargo space, and that “[t]he passenger side already has separate airbags [sic] for the passenger’s front seat and the cargo space.” You would like to retain functioning side curtain air bags for the driver and right outboard passenger seats, but given the installation of the partition and creation of the new cargo area, you wish to replace the driver’s full length side curtain air bag (which you call the “long” side curtain air bag) with an air bag that protects only the driver’s seat (a “short” side curtain air bag). You would like to remove the curtain air bag from the cargo space on the right front outboard passenger side rearward of the partition, and retain just the original separate “short” side curtain air bag designed for the front right seat. You are in contact with a dealer who can modify the vehicle in this way, but the dealer requests a “letter of authorization” from NHTSA before it will modify the vehicles.

Discussion 

Section 30122 of the Safety Act limits the modification of vehicles by persons listed in § 30122. That section prohibits those persons, including dealers, from knowingly removing, disabling or otherwise “making inoperative” the performance of equipment or elements of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with an FMVSS. Removing safety equipment such as seat belts and a side curtain air bag, and not replacing them, is generally impermissible by dealers under § 30122, as those items were installed in the vehicles in compliance with applicable FMVSSs.1 However, modifications that change a vehicle from one type to another present a unique circumstance regarding § 30122.

The Safety Act does not prohibit persons from changing a used vehicle from one type to another, e.g., from a passenger van to a cargo van.2 In the situation involving modification of a used vehicle, NHTSA views the determinative standards for the make inoperative provision to be those that would have applied to the vehicle had the vehicle been originally manufactured as the vehicle type to which it has been converted.3 This means that your dealer may modify your used vans, provided that the modified vehicles will have working safety systems installed that would have met the applicable FMVSS for vehicles with partitions and no designated seating positions rearward of the partition, if the vehicles were new.

The FMVSSs directly affected by installation of the partition and reconfiguration of the side curtain air bags are FMVSS No. 214, “Side impact protection,” and FMVSS No. 226, “Ejection mitigation.” In a passenger van that might be converted to a cargo van, the manufacturer likely installed side curtain air bags at the driver’s seating position and at the right front outboard seating position to meet FMVSS No. 214’s pole test requirement (S9). It is technically feasible

1 Presumably the seat belts were installed to meet FMVSS No. 208, and the side curtain air bags were installed in compliance with FMVSS No. 214 and/or No. 226.

2 While NHTSA does not have a definition for a “van,” passenger vans are considered “multipurpose passenger vehicles” (MPV) under NHTSA’s definitions (49 CFR § 571.3, Definitions).  An MPV is defined as “a motor vehicle with motive power, except a low-speed vehicle or trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation.” A cargo van (commonly understood as a van with no designated seating positions rearward of the driver’s position) could be considered an MPV, but could be a truck. “Truck” is defined as “a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment.” (Id.) Under NHTSA’s self-certification framework, manufacturers certify their vehicles as meeting all FMVSSs applicable to the vehicle type, and, in doing so, classify their vehicles for purposes of determining the applicability of the FMVSSs. NHTSA may take issue with that classification if the agency believes the manufacturer has misclassified the vehicle, and thus failed to certify the compliance of the vehicle with applicable FMVSSs.

3 See, e.g., August 17, 1979 letter to Mike Champagne, https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/aiam/aiam3072.html, April 21, 1993 letter to Jeffrey Kester, https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/8439.html (“we have not interpreted Section [30122] as forbidding modifications that result in the inapplicability of one or more of the FMVSS with which a vehicle originally complied”); May 21, 2003 letter to Teresa Stillwell, https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/001646drn.html. Please note that the Safety Act was amended in 2015 to include “rental companies” in the entities subject to the “make inoperative” provision.

for the pole test to be met by installing the short side curtain air bag at the driver’s seating position in place of the long air bag, and by retaining just the short side curtain air bag at the right front outboard seating position, which are modifications planned by your dealer. If the short side curtain air bags at the driver’s seating position and at the right front outboard seating position would deploy in a manner meeting the pole test requirement, the modification would not constitute a § 30122 violation as regards FMVSS No. 214.

FMVSS No. 226 has requirements for vehicles with a fixed partition behind which there are no designated seating positions (S5.2.1.2(c)). For such a vehicle, it is technically possible to meet FMVSS No. 226 with just a short side curtain air bag at the driver’s position and a short side curtain air bag at the right front outboard seating positions. Under S5.2.1.2(c), no ejection mitigation side curtain air bag is required rearward of the partition for such a vehicle.

Accordingly, this means--with regard to FMVSS No. 226 S5.2.1.2(c)--it is possible for your dealer to modify the side curtain air bags as you describe without violating § 30122, assuming the short air bags would continue to deploy in a rollover as contemplated by the standard, and in the manner meeting the ejection mitigation requirements for the seats forward of the partition.

We note that it may not necessarily be a simple matter of stripping the van, installing different side curtain air bags, and reinstalling a cut headliner and original side pillar trims. For example, the replacement short curtain air bag would need to fit the structure of the vans being modified and matched to the crash sensing system. The original manufacturer of your vehicles should be able to inform the dealer which additional components and modifications, if any, may be needed to avoid making inoperative the front row side curtain air bags.

Please keep in mind that the dealer also must not knowingly make inoperative devices or elements of design required by other FMVSS provisions not included in the above discussion. Thus, for example, the modification must not make inoperative the side curtain air bag monitoring system required by S4.2.2 of FMVSS No. 226, which informs the driver of the readiness of the side curtain air bag system.

As for removing the rear seats and accompanying belts, removing vehicle seats on a passenger van to convert it to a cargo van is not prohibited by § 30122. While FMVSS No. 2084 requires rear designated seating positions to have seat belts, if the designated seating position were removed, there would be no designated seating position to equip with the seat belt.5 Accordingly, your dealer’s removal of the rear seats and seat belts to convert the passenger van to a cargo van would not, by itself, violate § 30122.

In sum, your dealer may modify your vans as you describe, provided that the short air bags would deploy as specified by FMVSS No. 214 and 226, and that the work does not make inoperative devices or elements of design required by other provisions of the applicable FMVSS, such as the readiness indicator required by S4.2.2 of FMVSS No. 226.

4 FMVSS No. 208, “Occupant crash protection,” 49 CFR § 571.208.

5 See, e.g., December 22, 1995 letter to Fred Prizker, https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/11210.html. Removal of rear seat belts as part of converting a passenger van to a cargo van by removing the rear seat does not violate the make inoperative provision.

We trust this letter provides the information you need. Please contact us if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

JONATHAN CHARLES MORRISON

Digitally signed by JONATHAN CHARLES MORRISON

Date: 2020.10.23 19:11:26 -04'00'

Jonathan C. Morrison Chief Counsel

Signed: 10/23/20

Ref: FMVSS 226

ID: 571.205 Plexiglass Barriers (002)

Mr. Mike Collingwood

Illinois Department of Transportation

2300 South Dirksen Parkway, Room 305

Springfield, IL 62764                       

August 11, 2020

Dear Mr. Collingwood:

This responds to your two inquiries to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) about the installation of barriers in school buses to minimize the spread of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). In your June 16, 2020 email, you ask about the installation of “plexiglass barriers” installed to the right of, and behind, the driver’s seating position. In a later email, you ask about the installation of clear plastic “soft shields” that would be installed to the immediate right of and behind the driver, and/or installed throughout the passenger compartment by attachment to the interior roof of the school bus and to the seat backs of the passenger seats. As explained below, NHTSA’s regulations would permit the installation of the barriers, subject to the requirements discussed in this letter.

Please note that our answer below is based on our understanding of the specific information provided in your email. This interpretation letter does not have the force and effect of law and is not meant to bind the public in any way. This letter is intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding existing requirements under the law, and represents the opinion of the agency on the questions addressed in your email at the time of signature.

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.

Based on your description of the barriers and the photos you provided, the plexiglass material of the barrier and transparent flexible material of the shield would be motor vehicle “glazing” that must comply with FMVSS No. 205, “Glazing materials.” 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). FMVSS No. 205 and ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 specify performance requirements for various types of glazing, called “Items,” and specify the locations in vehicles in which each item of glazing may be used. As motor vehicle glazing, the transparent material of the barrier or shield must meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 205 and be certified as meeting that standard by the prime glazing manufacturer, and, if applicable, the manufacturer or distributor who cuts the glazing into components for use in motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. If an entity, in assembling the barrier or shield, cuts the glazing, it must ensure the glazing meets the requirements of FMVSS No. 205, and must certify its compliance pursuant to S6.3 of FMVSS No. 205.1 Anyone who assembles and markets an aftermarket barrier or shield would be a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment and be responsible for ensuring the product is free from safety-related defects. If the assembler or NHTSA finds the product to contain a safety-related defect, the assembler would be responsible for conducting a recall campaign as required under 49 U.S.C. §§ 30118-30120. 

Discussion 

Plexiglass Barriers. You ask about plexiglass barriers installed in school buses to the right of and just behind the driver. Assuming the barriers are comprised of plexiglass (or similarly rigid transparent material), NHTSA would consider them to be “interior partitions.”2 This classification is important as it, along with the location of the glazing in the vehicle, determines which types of glazing may be used.

Depending upon where the glazing is placed, it may be considered “requisite for driving visibility” and subject to heightened requirements. On buses, the windows deemed requisite for driving visibility are windows to the immediate right or left of the driver and the front windshield.3 (Any portion of glazing that the driver would have to see through to view the windows requisite for driving visibility would also be considered requisite for driving visibility.) You describe the barriers as being located to the right of the driver and immediately behind the driver. Of these locations, only the first would be considered requisite for driving visibility on buses.

Glazing for interior partitions on buses in areas requisite for driving visibility must be of one of the following types of glazing: Items 1, 2, 4, 4A, 10, 11A, 11C, 14, 15A, or 15B. This means the part of the barrier to the right of the driver must be of the items listed above.  Interior partitions in areas not requisite for driving visibility have additional compliance options, and may also be made of one of following types of glazing: Items 3, 5, 11B, 12, 13, 16A, or 16B. This means the part of the partition immediately behind the driver may be any of the above items.

1On the other hand, if the entity only assembles the barrier using pre-cut glazing that has been certified by a glazing manufacturer, it is not required to certify the glazing.

2 See letter to Ms. Lee Ann Sparks, (June 4, 2020) available at https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/571-205- Driver%20Shield%20for%20Buses%20and%20Vans_final%20signed%20(002).htm.

3 In a letter to Cris Morgan (January 14, 2009), NHTSA concluded that low-level glazing on doors to the right or left of the driver are considered windows that are requisite for driving visibility. Therefore, glazing through which the driver would view these windows would be considered requisite for driving visibility. https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/08-004149--19%20Nov%2008--sa.htm.

Soft Shields. You ask about “soft shields” installed in school buses that would be installed to the right of and behind the driver or installed in the passenger compartment by attachment to the interior roof of the school bus and to the seat backs of the passenger seats. Based on photos of the soft shields, and assuming they are comprised of flexible transparent material, NHTSA would consider them to be “flexible curtains.” Again, this classification is important for FMVSS No. 205, as it, along with the location of the glazing in the vehicle, determines which types of glazing may be used.

The photos you provide show that the shields would be installed to the right of the driver or immediately behind the driver, and/or installed between each row of seats by attachment to the interior roof of the school bus and to the seat backs of the passenger seats. Of these locations, only the location to the right of the driver would be considered requisite for driving visibility.

Glazing for flexible curtains on buses in areas requisite for driving visibility must be of one of the following types of glazing: Items 1, 2, 4, 4A, 6, 10, 11A, 11C, 14, 15A, or 15B. This means the soft shield to the right of the driver must be of the items listed above. However, although these Items of glazing are permitted for use as flexible curtains, the only appropriate Item for the pliable plastic shown in the photos may be Item 6. Some of the requirements for certain Items may necessitate a level of rigidity that a soft plastic cannot provide. Some Items of glazing, such as Item 6, have requirements that were designed specifically for flexible plastics.

Glazing for flexible curtains in buses in areas not requisite for driving visibility must be one of the following types of glazing: Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 4A, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11A, 11B, 11C, 12, 13, 14, 15A, 15B, 16A, or 16B. Accordingly, the part of the flexible curtain for any location behind the driver and in the passenger compartment must be of these items. Of these permissible Items of glazing, Items 6, 7, and 13 may be the only appropriate ones for the soft, pliable plastic shown in the photos you provide. Soft, pliable glazing may not be able to meet the requirements for certain Items of glazing because they do not provide a level of rigidity that is necessary for meeting some of the requirements. However, Items 6, 7, and 13, have requirements that were designed specifically for flexible plastics.

Other requirements. There may be additional requirements applying to the installation of the partition or curtain (“glazing”) depending on the entity installing it. If the glazing is installed on a new bus prior to first vehicle sale for purposes other than resale, the installer must ensure that, with the glazing installed, the vehicle complies with FMVSS No. 205 and all other applicable FMVSS, and must certify the vehicle as complying with all FMVSS affected by the installation. If the glazing is installed as aftermarket equipment by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, rental company, or motor vehicle repair business, that entity would be subject to 49 U.S.C. 30122, which prohibits the entity from knowingly making 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 FMVSS.

In both cases, the entity installing the glazing must ensure that installation of the partition does not: (1) take the vehicle out of compliance with or make inoperative systems installed pursuant to FMVSS No. 222, “School bus passenger seating and crash protection;” (2) impact the vehicle’s compliance with or make inoperative systems installed pursuant to FMVSS No. 302, “Flammability of interior materials;” (3) prevent the driver and passengers from readily accessing emergency exits installed in compliance with or make inoperative systems installed pursuant to FMVSS No. 217, “Bus emergency exits and window retention and release;” (4) obstruct the driver’s view of the mirrors and/or rearview image required under FMVSS No. 111, “Rear visibility;” or (5) impede the driver’s ability to see through the windows needed for driving visibility. Visibility is particularly important for school buses, as not only are school buses engaged in the transportation of children, they also make frequent stops. Installers should ensure that installation of a partition or curtain, particularly one situated in an area requisite for driving visibility, does not create glare or otherwise reduce the driver’s ability to see embarking and disembarking students and other road users.

Regarding how the installation of the glazing affects compliance with FMVSS No. 222’s head protection requirements, S5.3.1 of FMVSS No. 222 establishes head protection requirements for “contactable surfaces” within the head protection zone defined by S5.3.1.1. The head protection zone is determined based on seating references points. This means that each seat in a school bus has its own head impact protection zone. As an example, a partition that is installed directly behind the driver is likely to fall within the head protection zone for the seat directly behind the driver. Partitions installed to the right of the driver may also partially fall within the head protection zones for the seat directly behind the driver.

If the partition is installed prior to first purchase, the installer must ensure that the vehicle will meet FMVSS No. 222 with the glazing installed. If the head impact protection requirements cannot be met for that first row of seats with the partition installed, the installer might have to remove the first row and move the FMVSS No. 222 restraining barrier rearward such that the bus provides proper compartmentalization for what would be the new (reconfigured) first row. This modification would ensure that the partition is no longer within the head protection zone of any of the school bus seats.

If the partition is installed after first purchase by an entity subject to the make inoperative provision in 49 U.S.C. 30122, the installer may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in the school bus pursuant to FMVSS No. 222. School buses are required to have passenger seating systems designed to afford impact protection to occupants. Installation of the partition may affect this element of design (compartmentalization) for the front row of seats by impairing the seat’s head impact protection. To avoid this result, the installer may need to remove the first row of seats and move the FMVSS No. 222 restraining barrier rearward such that the bus provides proper compartmentalization for what would be the new (reconfigured) first row.

Entities modifying their own school buses are not subject to Federal restrictions on “making inoperative” the safety systems on their vehicles. However, NHTSA recommends that owners not degrade the safety systems provided on their vehicles. Thus, we recommend that schools take measures to ensure that students will not occupy seats that have compromised head protection zones. For example, if a school installs a partition that will be in the head impact zone, the school can mitigate risk by not allowing students to sit in those first-row seats.

It appears from the photos you sent that the flexible curtain is a “soft shield” made from pliable plastic. Even though the curtains would likely fall within the head protection zones when installed forward of each passenger seat, it does not appear to have an adverse effect on school bus compliance with FMVSS No. 222’s head protection requirements.

In addition to the above, please note that the installation of the barrier may be subject to State laws or regulations. School bus operators should contact their local highway safety office for information governing how school children should be transported.

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,

JONATHAN CHARLES MORRISON

Digitally signed by JONATHAN CHARLES MORRISON

Date: 2020.08.11 15:21:29

-04'00'

Jonathan C. Morrison

Chief Counsel

Dated: 8/11/20

Ref: FMVSS No.205

ID: 571.125 -- Warning Devices - Anderson

Ms. Vivian P. Anderson

10575 Bell Fountain Road

Dawson, IL 62520

Dear Ms. Anderson:

Thank you for your letter dated March 9, 2020, following up our February 26, 2020, Compliance Assistance Program (CAP) response about a type of warning device you are interested in producing.

You ask whether there are any Federal regulations regarding the size or reflective coloring for distress signals that may be used in the case of a vehicle emergency. In our original CAP response, we noted that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 125, “Warning devices,” which covers warning devices “that are designed to be carried in buses and trucks that have a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 10,000 pounds” (49 CFR §571.125). We noted that distress signals like the one described in your CAP question may be considered warning devices for the purposes of FMVSS No.125 if they are intended to be carried in buses or trucks with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds.

In your follow-up letter, you provide greater detail on your product, which you call the Distress Bandana. You describe your product as a reflective flag that can be hung from a disabled vehicle’s window to signal distress. You further state that your product is intended for use only on vehicles with a GVWR less than 10,000 pounds, and on motorcycles. 

Discussion 

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) authorizes NHTSA to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve or certify vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a self-certification process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable FMVSS. The agency tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards. NHTSA also investigates safety- related defects.

2

At this time, there are no FMVSS pertaining to your product.1 FMVSS No. 125 applies to devices designed to be carried in buses and trucks with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds. As long as the Distress Bandana is designed for use only in vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, FMVSS No. 125 would not apply to your product.2 In determining whether a warning device is designed for use in a bus or truck with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds, we may look to product advertising, labels, and instructions (e.g., specifying intended use), as well as how the product is actually used by motorists.

Please be aware that even if your product is not covered by FMVSS No. 125, products like the Distress Bandana are items of “motor vehicle equipment” and subject to Safety Act requirements. Manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the product and remedying the problem free of charge. More information can be found in the NHTSA New Manufacturers Handbook, which can be downloaded on NHTSA’s website https://vpic.nhtsa.dot.gov/.

Please note that our answer above is based on our understanding of the specific information you provided. This interpretation letter does not have the force and effect of law and is not meant to bind the public in any way. This letter is intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding existing requirements under the law, and represents the opinion of the agency on the questions addressed in your letter at the time of signature.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Paul Connet of my office at (202) 366-5547.

Sincerely yours,

JONATHAN CHARLES MORRISON

Digitally signed by JONATHAN CHARLES MORRISON

Date: 2020.10.02 09:15:13

-04'00'

Jonathan C. Morrison Chief Counsel

Date: 10/2/20

Ref: FMVSS No. 125

1 The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has requirements that commercial vehicles be equipped with warning devices and requirements related to their use. For information about FMCSA requirements, please contact www.fmcsa.dot.gov.

2 FMVSS No. 125 was issued on August 2, 1974. 39 FR 28636. The standard then applied to “devices, without self- contained energy sources, that are designed to be carried in motor vehicles and used to warn approaching traffic of the presence of a stopped vehicle, except for devices designed to be permanently affixed to the vehicle.” On September 29, 1994, NHTSA further amended the standard to be applicable only to those devices designed to be carried in buses or trucks that have a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds.

ID: 571.108 -- Parking Lamp Activation -- Mazda 1-- 17-0655.docx_sig (003)

Mr. David Robertson

Environmental and Safety Engineering

Mazda North America Operations

1025 Connecticut Ave NW, Suite 910

Washington, DC 20036

Dear Mr. Robertson,

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of the “steady burning” requirement for parking lamps under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. You ask how the steady burning requirement for parking lamps applies to an optically combined LED parking/turn signal lamp while the turn signal is activated.1

You describe in your letter an optically combined LED parking/turn signal lamp which contains two discrete LED light sources: one that is amber and one that is white. When the LED lamp operates as a parking lamp only, the amber LED is off and the white LED is steady burning.  However, you ask about the permissibility of two alternative ways in which these LEDs could possibly operate once the turning signal is activated. Under the first alternative (“Alternative A”), the amber and white LEDs flash in an alternating pattern. To an observer of Alternative A, the lamp would alternate its color between amber and white for the duration of the turn signal’s activation, then would return to steady-white. Under the second alternative (“Alternative B”), the white LED turns off for the duration of the turn signal’s activation. To an observer of Alternative B, the LED lamp would alternate between amber and “off” for the duration of the turn signal’s activation, then would return to steady-white. This interpretation assumes that your lamp’s LEDs do not fluctuate in intensity while activated.

As explained below, our answer is it would be permissible for an optically combined parking/turn signal lamp to alternate its parking lamp and turn signal lamp LEDs while the turn signal is activated (which is the case under Alternative A), but it would not be permissible for the lamp to completely deactivate the parking lamp LED while the turn signal is activated (Alternative B).

1 We note that, while you originally requested confidential treatment of portions of your interpretation request, you withdrew that request in a subsequent communication with Daniel Koblenz of my staff, so your entire interpretation request is now publicly releasable.

In addition, as explained at the end of this letter, our interpretation about the permissibility of Alternative A applies only to lamps that use LEDs, and not to vehicles using traditional incandescent lamps.

Requirements for optically combined lamps

FMVSS No. 108 governs signal lamp performance. Under S4 of the standard, “optically combined” is defined, in relevant part, as: “a lamp having… two or more separate light sources that operate in different ways, and has its optically functional lens area wholly or partially common to two or more lamp functions.” Because your lamp meets this definition, we consider it to be an “optically combined” lamp.2 Under S6.3 of the standard, optically combined lamps are only permissible “if the requirements for each lamp, reflective device, and item of associated equipment are met.”

The specific requirements that apply to turn signal lamps are found in S7.1, and the requirements that apply to parking lamps are found in S7.8. We assume for purposes of our analysis that your lamp would meet these general requirements for both its turn signal and parking lamp functions.3

According to FMVSS No. 108, parking lamps must be activated with a vehicle’s headlamps, and they must be “steady burning” at all times.4 In past interpretations, we have understood the “steady burning” requirement for vehicle lighting to be met if the lamps is “is perceived as being steady-burning” by an observer even if, as a technical matter, the lamp is not steady burning.5

Discussion

Because your parking lamp’s LEDs are not, technically, steady burning in either of the alternatives you describe, the key question is whether the parking lamp in the alternatives would appear to be “steady burning” to an observer while the turn signal is activated.

In our view, Alternative A is permissible, while Alternative B is not.  This is because only Alternative A would give an observer the perception that the parking lamp is steady burning throughout the operation of the turn signal. Under Alternative A, an observer would see the turn signal alternate between two states: amber and white.  From the observer’s standpoint, at no point is the lamp completely off; whenever the amber LED is on, the white LED is off, whenever the amber LED is off, the white LED is on. Because there is no gap in LED illumination, an observer would perceive that the white LED is on for the entire time that the turn signal is activated, and that the white light it produces is combined with the amber LED’s light while the

2 S4.

3 Please note that there are luminosity requirements for optically combined turn signal and parking lamps that are different than the luminosity requirements for turn signal lamps and parking lamps that are not optically combined. These requirements are set out in S7.1.1.12.

4 Table I-a.

5 See letter to Kiminori Hyodo (Nov. 5, 2005), available at https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/Koito.2followup.html.

amber LED flashes. Because the white LED would appear to be illuminated at all times, the lamp in Alternative A would meet the “steady burning” requirement for parking lamps.6 (Please note that, because FMVSS No. 108 requires that the parking lamp be steady burning, if the lamp’s amber LED becomes inactive or is otherwise unable to meet the performance requirements for turn signals, the white LED must remain steady burning at all times, including when the turn signal is activated.)

Conversely, under Alternative B, when the amber LED is off, the lamp produces no light whatsoever. Thus, an observer would perceive that the lamp deactivates for the duration of the turn signal’s activation, which, as noted earlier would violate the “steady burning” requirement for parking lamps.

Applicability

Please note that this interpretation applies only to optically combined parking and turn signal lamps that use LEDs. This is because, unlike traditional incandescent lamps, LEDs are capable of turning on and shutting off almost instantaneously. Traditional incandescent lamps take some time to power up and shut off, which means that if an optically combined incandescent lamp were to flash according to Alternative A, there would be observable gaps in illumination while the lamp is powering up. Because an observer would be able to perceive these gaps, an observer would not perceive the lamp to be steady-burning. Therefore, Alternative A would not be permissible for an incandescent lamp.

If you have any questions, please contact Daniel Koblenz of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

JONATHAN CHARLES MORRISON

Digitally signed by JONATHAN CHARLES MORRISON

Date: 2020.06.11 14:16:32

-04'00'

Jonathan C. Morrison Chief Counsel

Dated: 6/11/20

Ref: FMVSS No. 108

6 It is NHTSA’s understanding that, due to the photometric differences between LEDs and incandescent light sources, if the white LED were to stay illuminated while the amber LED flashed, the combined light of the two LEDs would appear to be pink in color, rather than amber.

ID: 571.213--detachable base--crs3

Dear [                    ]:

This responds to a January 7, 2020, letter from [               ] that [      ] emailed to us on [   ]. We apologize that we were unaware of the January 7 letter prior to your contacting us. The letter asks about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213 (FMVSS 213), “Child restraint systems,” as applied to a child restraint system (CRS) consisting of a “shell” 1 and a separate, detachable base. [  ] asks us to confirm that the shell and base “need only meet the requirements of FMVSS 213 when evaluated together as a system.” As explained below, we disagree with this view.

[      ] asks about a CRS design concept it calls the “Z Project.” The Z Project child restraint system has the following three components: (1) a rear-facing-only infant car seat shell (the “Z Infant Shell”); (2) a convertible2 shell that is used both rear-facing and forward-facing (the “Z Convertible Shell”); and (3) a detachable base with permanently attached components for securing it to the vehicle with either the lower anchors of the LATCH3 system or a vehicle’s Type 1 or 2 belt system (the “Z Base”).4

[      ] would like to offer the Z Project for sale in the United States in the following variations, which it calls “Sales Variations”: (1) a Z Infant Shell and Z Base, packaged together at retail and sold as a system; (2) a Z Base sold separately at retail; (3) a Z Convertible Shell and Z Base, packaged together at retail and sold as a system; and (4) the Z Convertible Shell purchased separately upon verification that the consumer is in possession of a Z Base.

[     ] asks about the permissibility of Sales Variations 3 and 4 where the “Shell” of the convertible child restraint is a separate component from the base. According to [    ], the Shell and Base are separate parts and may not even be sold together. As explained below, we believe Sales Variations 3 and 4 are not permitted by Standard 213.

Sales Variations 3 and 4
Standard 213 (section S4) defines a “child restraint system” as “any device, except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 36 kilograms (kg) (80 lb) or less.” Standard 213 requires “child restraint systems” to meet performance requirements to minimize the risk of injury in a crash and ease-of- use requirements to increase the likelihood of consumers correctly using and installing CRSs.

Any device meeting the standard’s definition of a “child restraint system” must be certified to Standard 213’s requirements.

Because the Z Convertible Shell (without the Z Base) consists of a molded frame structure that also has the padding, padding cover, harness belt straps, belt buckles and labeling of a conventional convertible CRS, the Z Convertible Shell (without the Z Base) is a device designed to “restrain, seat or position children who weigh 36 kg (80 lb) or less” in motor vehicles. Based on this information, we believe the Z Convertible Shell meets the definition of a “child restraint system” and is a child restraint system in and of itself, without the Z Base. As a CRS, the Z Convertible Shell must meet the applicable requirements of Standard 213 standing alone, without use of a separate part or accessory like the Z Base.

Apparent Non-Compliances
It does not appear that the Z Convertible Shell would meet all applicable requirements of Standard 213. We discuss two apparent non-compliances below.

a.    S5.3.2 of Standard 213 requires each convertible CRS to meet the requirements of the standard when installed solely by each of the following means: (1) a Type 1 seat belt assembly (lap belt);5 (2) a Type 1 seat belt assembly plus a tether anchorage, if needed; and (3) the child restraint anchorage system specified by FMVSS No. 225 (LATCH system).

As [       ] describes the Z Convertible Shell (p. 3 of your letter), “there is no belt path for vehicle belt installation and there are no lower anchor LATCH attachment mechanisms.” As such, it appears the Z Convertible Shell would not meet S5.3.2 as it has no means of attaching to a vehicle by a seat belt or by the child restraint anchorage system. The Z Convertible Shell depends on the Z Base for vehicle attachment, but the Z Base is wholly separate from the Z Convertible Shell. A CRS that cannot be installed solely by a belt and by a child restraint anchorage system will not meet S5.3.2.6

[    ] believes that Standard 213’s requirements apply to the “entire system” and not to the Z Convertible Shell alone. This view does not accord with the language of the standard. The Z Convertible Shell alone restrains, seats or positions children weighing 36 kg (80 lb) or less in motor vehicles and thus is a “child restraint system” in and of itself. It must meet S5.3.2 solely by the belt and LATCH system without having to depend on an added separate part.

[     ] view is also at odds with the purposes of S5.3.2, which is to standardize the means of vehicle attachment and increase the likelihood of a correct and safe installation. The standard requires CRSs to provide at least a minimum level of safety without use of additional parts, to ensure that the restraint will provide an adequate level of protection in the event the additional parts are not used.7 A CRS design whose minimal crash protection is dependent on a consumer’s using supplemental parts is contrary to this purpose and is not permitted unless explicitly provided for by the standard.

b.    S5.9(a) of Standard 213 requires each child restraint system to have permanently attached components that enable the CRS to be securely fastened to the lower anchorages of a child restraint anchorage system.8 The Z Convertible Shell attaches to the Z Base and the Z base is equipped with said components, but the Z Base is not a permanent part of the Z Convertible Shell. S5.9(a) states: “The components must be attached by use of a tool, such as a screwdriver.” The Z Convertible Shell does not have the child restraint anchorage system components attached to it by use of a tool like a screwdriver and so does not meet the requirements of S5.9(a).

One of NHTSA’s goals in establishing a child restraint anchorage system is to increase correct CRS use by ensuring that child restraint systems are convenient to install and use and are accepted by consumers.9 NHTSA adopted the “permanently attached” requirement in S5.9(a) to better ensure that the components on a CRS that attach to the child restraint anchorage system will be present and available for use by consumers through the life of the CRS.10 This is especially important with regard to child restraints, as it is common for child restraint systems to be handed down to others or otherwise re-used.

This interpretation is consistent with an April 26, 2007, interpretation addressing whether a CRS could be designed so that it attached to the child restraint anchorage system using a part that was called an “ISOFIX platform.”11 The ISOFIX platform appears similar to the Z Base: it alone had the child restraint anchorage system attachment and the CRS would attach to the ISOFIX platform. NHTSA stated the CRS design would not meet the requirements of Standard 213 because, although the CRS was designed to attach to the ISOFIX platform, FMVSS 213 requires the components attaching to the child restraint anchorage system to be permanently attached to the CRS. The agency did not regard the CRS and the ISOFIX platform as together comprising the “child restraint system.” Accordingly, NHTSA determined that the sale or importation of the CRS into the U.S. would be prohibited.

[    ] believes that the aforementioned Mercedes-Benz (MB) letter (footnote 7, supra) supports its view that NHTSA should apply FMVSS No. 213 to the Z Convertible Shell and the Z Base “together as a system.” The letter related to MB’s built-in12 booster seat that had a separate, non- integral “impact shield” and whether NHTSA would test the booster seat together with the impact shield. NHTSA said no, the booster seat must meet Standard 213’s requirements without use of the shield, because the impact shield was not part of the built-in CRS. We believe this outcome is consistent with our view in this letter that the Z Convertible Shell is a CRS unto itself and must meet Standard 213 without use of a separate part like the Z Base.

In answering MB, NHTSA also analyzed the applicability of the standard to various components of the MB system. [    ] focuses on the part of the MB letter that discusses whether the impact shield would be subject to the standard as an “add-on” child restraint system but, in doing so, [ ] appears to have misunderstood the context of and reasons for the agency’s statements. NHTSA’s statements related to its determination that the impact shield was not an add-on CRS due to the shield design and MB’s intention to sell the shield as part of the vehicle’s built-in system. NHTSA’s statement that the MB shield is “merely a component of a child restraint system and is not intended to be used separately from the other parts of the restraint system” was among those explaining why we concluded that the shield was not an add-on CRS that had to meet FMVSS 213 in its own right. The statements you quoted pertained to our decision that the MB shield was not an add-on CRS, and do not relate to how NHTSA would test an add-on system that had a separate part.

There are circumstances in which Standard 213 permits a child restraint to meet a requirement by way of a detachable base, but those situations are explicitly recognized in the standard and do not apply to your situation. For example, Standard 213 recognizes that some installation information may be on a detachable base (see, S5.5.3, which refers to the installation diagrams that must be visible when the CRS is installed).13 Another provision, discussed in a section below and one you ask about, relates to the last sentence of S5.9(a).

Your Question about the Last Sentence of S5.9(a)
The last sentence of S5.9(a) states: “In the case of rear-facing child restraints with detachable bases, only the base is required to have the components [that are permanently attached to the CRS that enable the restraint to be securely fastened to the lower anchorages of the child restraint anchorage system].” You believe this provision would permit the Z Convertible Shell to have the anchorage system components attached only to the detachable base (the Z Base).

Your understanding is incorrect. The provision only applies to rear-facing child restraints and does not apply to a convertible child restraint system like the Z Convertible Shell, because a convertible CRS is also a forward-facing child restraint system. If a child restraint could also be used forward-facing, the provision does not apply. NHTSA drafted the last sentence of S5.9(a) envisioning the provision as applying to “infant-only restraints with detachable bases.”14 The provision was adopted out of a concern at the time about the cost impacts of the rule on infant carriers (i.e., CRSs that are used rear-facing only).

Sales Variation 1
Please note that it appears the Z Infant Shell described in Sales Variation 1 must have a belt path for a vehicle belt installation (S5.3.2). The Z Infant Shell is a “child restraint system” under FMVSS No. 213 and, unless excepted by the standard,15 must meet the requirements of the standard standing alone without use of a separate part like the Z base. We cannot tell from materials whether there is a belt path on the Z Infant Shell itself. Please ensure that the Z Infant Shell in Sales Variation 1 has the required means of attaching by way of a vehicle seat belt assembly without the detachable base (Z base), as required by FMVSS No. 213 S5.3.2.

If you have other questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Digitally signed by ANN ELIZABETH CARLSON

Date: 2022.05.31

11:46:31 -04'00'

Ann Carlson

Chief Counsel

Dated: 5/31/22

Ref: FMVSS No. 213

1 Based on your letter and submissions, the shell consists of a molded plastic frame structure and the padding, padding cover, harness belt straps, belt buckles and labeling of a conventional child restraint.

2 As defined on NHTSA’s website, a “convertible” CRS is a type of CRS that “converts from rear-facing for babies and smaller children to forward-facing for older and larger children.” https://www.nhtsa.gov/car-seats-and-booster- seats/car-seat-glossary. [Footnote added.]

3 “LATCH” refers to the child restraint anchorage system that FMVSS 225, “Child restraint anchorage systems,” requires to be installed in motor vehicles. Industry and advocates have developed the term “LATCH” to refer to Standard 225’s child restraint anchorage system.

4 According to [   ] letter: “The Z Infant Shell installed with the Z Base will accommodate children from 4 to 35 lbs. The Z Convertible Shell installed with the Z Base will accommodate children from 4 to 50 lbs. rear-facing and 22 to 65 lbs. forward-facing.”

5 NHTSA has proposed to amend Standard 213 to refer instead to a Type II belt (lap-shoulder belt). Notice of proposed rulemaking, 85 FR 69388, November 2, 2020. This proposal does not affect our determination here that the Z Convertible Shell must have a means to attach to the vehicle seat by way of the belt system.

6 The Z Convertible Shell would have to meet other performance requirements of FMVSS 213 without use of the Z Base. For instance, the Z Convertible Shell would have to meet the head and knee excursion requirements without the use of a tether strap.

7 Mercedes-Benz letter, https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/17513mer.b-i.htm. “Add-on, nonpermanent components can be lost or misplaced and may not be accessible when the restraint has to be used.” This interpretation concerns an “impact shield” that was not “formed as a unit” with the built-in CRS.

8 FMVSS 213 S5.9(a) inadvertently refers to a child restraint “anchorage” system instead of a “child restraint

system.” As indicated by the context of S5.9(a) and by the final rule adopting S5.9(a) (64 FR 10786, 10816; March 5, 1999), reference to “anchorage” is incorrect. NHTSA plans to correct the word soon.

9 LATCH final rule, 64 FR at 10797, col. 2.

10 In the rulemaking establishing FMVSS 225, NHTSA considered the merits of allowing vehicle manufacturers the option of installing an anchorage system that some CRSs could use only through an adapter that interfaced between the CRS and the anchorage system. Commenters overwhelmingly opposed an adapter, believing that the adapter would likely be lost or misused by consumers. The agency agreed and decided to adopt an anchorage system that would be universal to all vehicles and all CRSs. The Z Convertible Shell is contrary to NHTSA’s purpose in developing FMVSS 225 and the related requirements of FMVSS 213 S5.3.2 and S5.9(a), as the Z Base acts as an adapter that must be used for the CRS to attach to the anchorage system.

11 Gazza letter, https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/005431rls.htm.

12 FMVSS No. 213 (S4) defines a “built-in child restraint system” as “a child restraint system that is designed to be an integral part of and permanently installed in a motor vehicle.” An “add-on” system is a portable child restraint system (S4).

13 In a January 16, 2003, letter (Meyer letter, https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/00070cmc.html), the agency addressed whether a CRS with a detachable base must have information labeled on the base if the seating portion of the CRS was already properly labeled. The agency said no, “a detachable base is part of a child restraint system” so “[a]s

long as the labeling requirements are met by the system as a whole, the base is not required to be labeled.” We do not give weight to this letter as it was narrowly focused on labeling, did not analyze S4’s CRS definition, S5.3.2, and S5.9(a), and was overtaken by the April 26, 2007 Gazza letter, supra, that found an ISOFIX platform not to be part of the child restraint. To the extent the Meyer letter is inconsistent with this and the Gazza letter, we consider the Meyer letter superseded.

14 Final rule preamble, 64 FR at 10806 (col.3). The discussion of the provision begins with: “Several commenters addressed the requirements that would apply to infant-only restraints with detachable bases.”

15 E.g., as noted above, the last sentence of S5.9(a) permits the rear-facing child restraint to use the Z Base to attach to the child restraint anchorage system, and S5.5.3 provides for some labeling to be on a detachable base.

ID: 571.205--Low Speed Windshield Clarification --Burgess

October 28, 2022

Mr. Dave Burgess
Burgess Consulting
Unit 6, Benford Court
Warwick CV34 5DA
United Kingdom

Dear Mr. Burgess,

I write in response to your email to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) asking about federal requirements for windshields in low-speed vehicles (LSVs). Please note that our answer below is based on our understanding of the specific information provided in your initial and subsequent email correspondence.

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.

Your email correspondence, dated June 17, 2022, laid out several questions relating to LSVs and FMVSS 500, including: (1) whether LSVs must be fitted with a windshield; (2) if fitted with a windshield, whether LSVs must comply with 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)

§ 571.500; and (3) if a fitted windshield is required, what, if any, are the size and position requirements for the windshield?

In response, on July 25, 2022, NHTSA asked via email for further clarification on the number of wheels and maximum capable speed for the specific vehicle referenced in your correspondence. You provided written confirmation to NHTSA that the vehicle at issue has four wheels, is capable of a maximum speed of no more than 25 miles per hour, and subsequently confirmed that the vehicle has a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) that is less than 1,361 kilograms (3,000 pounds).

Discussion

49 CFR § 571.3 defines an LSV as a motor vehicle that: (1) is four wheeled; (2) has a speed attainable in 1.6 kilometers (1 mile)1 that is more than 32 kilometers per hour (20 miles per hour) and not more than 40 kilometers per hour (25 miles per hour) on a paved level surface; and (3) has a GVWR that is less than 1,361 kilograms (3,000 pounds). A vehicle must meet all three criteria to qualify as an LSV.

A vehicle that meets the definition of an LSV must be manufactured to conform to 49 CFR § 571.500, which, among other things, requires LSVs to be equipped with a windshield that conforms to paragraph S5.4 of FMVSS No. 205 on glazing materials. Specifically, FMVSS No. 205 applies to glazing installed in motor vehicles prior to first purchase and also 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). FMVSS 205 S5.4 specifically notes that windshields of LSVs must meet the ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 specifications for either AS-1 or AS-4 glazing.

In summary, if a vehicle qualifies as an LSV under the definition laid out in 49 CFR § 571.3, it must meet the requirements outlined in 49 CFR § 571.500, which include a windshield that conforms to paragraph S5.4 of FMVSS No. 205. Specifically, LSV windshields must meet the ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 specifications for either AS-1 or AS-4 glazing. No specific federal requirements exist concerning the size or position of windshields for LSVs.

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

Sincerely,

John Donaldson
Acting Chief Counsel

Dated: 10/28/22

Ref: FMVSS No. 205

1 See 49 CFR 571.500 S7. Test Procedure, stating that “[e]ach vehicle must meet the performance limit specified in S5(a) under the following test procedure. The maximum speed performance is determined by measuring the maximum attainable vehicle speed at any point in a distance of 1.6 km (1.0 mile) from a standing start and repeated in the opposite direction within 30 minutes.”

ID: 571.108--Convertible CHMSL Beam Angle--Magna

April 3, 2023

Doris C. Schaller 

Homologation

Magna Steyr Engineering AG & Co KG

Liebenauer Hauptstrasse 317

8041 Graz Austria 

Dear Ms. Schaller:

This responds to your request for an interpretation regarding the permissibility, under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment, of two proposed variants for mounting the center high-mounted stop lamp (CHMSL) on a soft top convertible. Based on the information you provided in your letter, as explained in more detail below, we have concluded that mounting the CHMSL on the “service lid” is permissible under FMVSS No. 108, whereas mounting the CHMSL on the “soft top cover” is not.

Background
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA does  not provide approval of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, and NHTSA does not determine compliance of a vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment outside the context of an actual enforcement proceeding. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. The following represents NHTSA’s opinion regarding the applicability FMVSS No. 108 requirements to your CHMSL designs based on the information you have provided.

FMVSS No. 108 specifies requirements for original and replacement lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. Paragraph S6.1.3.1 of FMVSS No. 108 contains requirements for the mounting location of all required lamps, including CHMSLs, and states specifically that:

Each lamp, reflective device, and item of associated equipment must be securely mounted on a rigid part of the vehicle, other than glazing, that is not designed to be

removed except for repair, within the mounting location and height limits as specified in Table 1, and in a location where it complies with all applicable photometric requirements, effective projected luminous lens area requirements, and visibility requirements with all obstructions considered.

You ask how S6.1.3.1 applies to two possible lighting design variations. Although you ask that certain information in your interpretation request be treated as confidential, we do not need to reveal or reference the information other than in general descriptive terms in order to answer your questions. What follows is our interpretation based on our understanding of the facts you provided.

Variant 1: CHMSL mounted on the “service lid”
The first variant you describe places the CHMSL on the vehicle’s “service lid,” which we understand to be an access panel that is fixed in place during normal vehicle operation and that can be opened only with a specialized tool by technicians at certified repair shops. From the illustrations provided with your request, it appears that the service lid is located between the trunk and the passenger cabin at the rear of the vehicle.

You state that you believe that a configuration in which the CHMSL is located on the vehicle’s service lid complies with the mounting location requirement in S6.1.3.1 of FMVSS No. 108. We agree. As noted above, S6.1.3.1 of FMVSS No. 108 states that required lamps “must be securely mounted on a rigid part of the vehicle, other than glazing, that is not designed to be removed except for repair.” NHTSA believes that the service lid is “a rigid part of the vehicle,” based on the information that you have provided, which suggests that the service lid is similar (albeit adjacent) to a trunk lid. NHTSA has previously interpreted a vehicle’s “deck lid” (i.e., trunk lid) as a rigid part of the vehicle,[1] and while the service lid you describe is not a trunk lid, we believe that interpretation covers other similar lids on a vehicle, such as the service lid, that are solid and cannot be easily removed. Additionally, you expressly describe the service lid as “only [able to] be moved with special tools in qualified garages,” which is consistent with the “not designed to be removed except for repair” requirement.  Therefore, so long as the CHMSL meets all photometric and other requirements, NHTSA believes that it would be permissible under FMVSS No. 108 to mount the CHMSL on the vehicle’s service lid.

Variant 2: CHMSL mounted on the “soft top cover”
The second variant you describe places the CHMSL on the “soft top cover,” which we understand to be the lid that covers the compartment at the rear of the vehicle in which the convertible soft top is stored while it is open (i.e., retracted). In this variant, the CHMSL would comply with all applicable photometric requirements while the soft top cover is fully open or closed.  However, for the approximately 20-second duration of the soft top opening or closing process, the soft top cover tips backward, causing the CHMSL to be temporarily out of compliance with photometric requirements. The driver can initiate the opening or closing process when the vehicle is traveling at speeds of up to 50 kilometers per hour. From your description, there is no auxiliary CHMSL in operation while the soft top cover is in the process of opening or closing.

Based on the information you have provided, this second variant is not permissible. As noted above, S6.1.3.1 of FMVSS No. 108 states that a required lamp must be mounted “in a location where it complies with all applicable photometric requirements, effective projected luminous lens area requirements, and visibility requirements with all obstructions considered.” If there are obstructions that would cause the lamp to fail to meet photometric and visibility requirements, S6.2.2 of FMVSS No. 108 requires that “the vehicle must be equipped with an additional lamp or device of the same type which meet[s] all applicable requirements of this standard, including photometry and visibility.”

In a past interpretation request, a vehicle manufacturer sought to install a CHMSL on a movable rear spoiler, such that it would occasionally not comply with the photometric requirements for CHMSLs. The manufacturer stated that it would employ an additional CHMSL that met the requirements when the “primary” CHMSL on the movable spoiler did not. NHTSA responded[2] that this approach to compliance would be permissible under what is now S6.2.23 of FMVSS No. 108, which states that “If any required lamp…is obstructed by motor vehicle equipment…, and cannot meet the applicable photometry and visibility requirements, the vehicle must be equipped with an additional lamp … which meet[s] all applicable requirements of the standard, including photometry and visibility.”4 The situation you describe, where the CHMSL on the soft top will occasionally not comply with FMVSS No. 108, is similar to the one described above, except that it does not appear that your vehicle is equipped with an auxiliary CHMSL. Accordingly, it is our conclusion that the “soft top cover” CHMSL mounting variant is not permissible under FMVSS No. 108.

If you have further questions, you may refer them to Eli Wachtel of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Ann Carlson

Chief Counsel

Dated: 4/3/23

Ref: FMVSS No. 108

[1] See letter to M. Iwase (Sept. 15, 1988), available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/2954o

[2] Letter to Michael Love (July 7, 1992), available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/nht92-528. 3 The original reference was to S5.3.1.1.

ID: 571.141 NCC-230601-001 Nagaraj-Superhorn