November 10, 2008

Mr. Joseph Brennan

President

Trinity-Noble LLC

12 Scarlet Oak Drive

Doylestown, PA 18901

Dear Mr. Brennan:

This responds to your letter asking about the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) in connection with a product you have developed called Celltinel. According to your letter, this device would disrupt cell phone signals while the vehicle engine is running. You stated that it could be used to prevent the use of cell phones during driving by school bus drivers and also by teenage drivers.

In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you explained that you plan to market the Celltinel both as original equipment for new motor vehicles and as after-market equipment. You also explained that since it would be hard-wired into the motor vehicle, the product is not portable. You asked whether the product would interfere with any motor vehicle safety equipment on board a bus or car. The issues raised by your letter are addressed below.

By way of background information, Congress has authorized the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue FMVSSs applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve or endorse motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the statute establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

Your device would be considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. None of our safety standards would apply directly to your product. However, if a device such as the Celltinel was installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer would be required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable FMVSSs. If the device was added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modified the vehicle would be an

alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continued to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. In addition, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses modifying a new or used vehicle are prohibited by 49 U.S.C. 30122 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.

Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment are subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30118-30121 concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. In the event the manufacturer or NHTSA determined that your product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. See also 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Non-Compliance Responsibility and Reports.

In your letter, you asked whether your product would interfere with any motor vehicle safety equipment on board a bus or car. We are not able to provide analysis in this area, but would encourage you to carefully analyze this issue. We also suggest that you consider the devices effect on the ability to place 911 emergency calls from vehicles, which may be necessary when the engine is running.

Finally, I note that because your product would use a weak disruptive signal to jam cell phones, laws enforced by the Federal Communications Commission may apply.

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

Sincerely yours,

[signed by Stephen P. Wood for]

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

Enclosure

cc: Matthew Berry, Esq.

Deputy General Counsel

Federal Communications Commission

445 12^th Street, SW

Washington, DC 20554

ref:VSA

d.11/10/08

Mr. Rolf Bergmann

Process Leader

Safety Affairs

Volkswagen of America, Inc.

3800 Hamlin Road

Auburn Hills, MI 48326

Dear Mr. Bergmann:

This is in response to your letter, in which you requested an interpretation of the passenger air bag off telltale requirement of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (S19.2.2). Specifically, you seek confirmation of your interpretation that FMVSS No. 208 does not prohibit the addition of a supplementary telltale image adjacent to the automatic suppression system status telltale. As discussed below, we agree with your interpretation that FMVSS No. 208 does not prohibit the symbol #K.05 for passenger air bag off or not available in the International Standard, ISO 2575, Road Vehicles Symbols for Controls, Indicators and Telltales, from being placed adjacent to the textual automatic suppression system telltale required by FMVSS No. 208, S19.2.2.

By way of background, on May 12, 2000, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) published a final rule requiring all light passenger vehicles to be equipped with advanced air bag systems. 65 FR 30680. These requirements are codified in FMVSS No. 208. One of the advanced systems contemplated by the passenger side air bag is an automatic suppression system, whereby the air bag is turned off when a small child is present in the front passenger seat. One of the required elements of such a system is a telltale that informs the vehicle occupants that the air bag has been suppressed when the passenger seat is occupied by a person that the suppression system identifies as a child. The requirements for the telltale are specified in paragraph S19.2.2 of FMVSS No. 208. The agencys December 18, 2001 response to various petitions for reconsideration of the final rule made some minor changes to S19.2.2. 66 FR 65376 (Dec. 18, 2001).

S19.2.2 requires that each vehicle equipped with an automatic suppression system have at least one telltale that emits a light when the air bag is deactivated and does not emit light when the air bag is activated, except when the passenger seat is not occupied. The

telltale must meet requirements further detailed in paragraph S19.2.2. Specifically, S19.2.2(b) requires the specific identifying words PASSENGER AIR BAG OFF or PASS AIR BAG OFF on the telltale or within 25 mm (1.0 in) of the telltale. However, nothing in FMVSS No. 208 prohibits the use of supplemental identifying symbols. Accordingly, NHTSA takes the position that the automatic suppression system telltale requirements of FMVSS No. 208 S19.2.2 do not prohibit the additional identification by the symbol specified by the ISO standard.

We observe that while the agency rejected DaimlerChryslers 2000 request in its petition for reconsideration of the May 2000 advanced air bag final rule, that manufacturers be allowed to use a universal symbol representing the status of the air bag rather than specified words, this was because the agency believed it was premature to allow a universal symbol in lieu of the written warning. The agency did not state its position on the use of a universal symbol indicating that the passenger air bag is off in addition to the written warning required by FMVSS No. 208 S19.2.2. See 66 FR 65376, 65400.

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Sarah Alves of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

ref:208

d.11/7/08

James C. Chen, Esq.

Crowell & Moring LLP

1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20004

Dear Mr. Chen:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of the air bag warning label requirement for infant seats. You ask whether a specific child seat design is compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, with regard to the placement of a required warning label. Judging from your description of the warning label, the photographs you provided, and the intended purpose of the warning label, we believe that the answer is no.

Paragraph S5.5.2(k)(3) of FMVSS No. 213 specifies the warning label on a rear-facing child seat be located on the outer surface of the cushion or padding in or adjacent to the area where a childs head would rest, so that the label is plainly visible and easily readable. The rationale for the location of the label was set forth in the final rule establishing that requirement, which stated: The label can be either where the child's head rests or adjacent to that area. The purpose of the new location is to ensure that parents see the label each time they place the seat in a vehicle. 61 FR 60206, 60214 (November 27, 1996).

As you know, when NHTSA issued the air bag warning label, it was the most important issue to communicate to consumers. Id. NHTSA required the label to be where the childs head rests or adjacent to that area to ensure that parents see the label each time they place the seat in a vehicle. Id. The warning is still highly important. By virtue of its being covered up by the removable cushioning pad, even if partially so, the warning is not plainly visible or easily readable as required by FMVSS No. 213.

In your letter, you argue that previous interpretation letters can be distinguished from your clients situation because in the previous scenarios, there was a complete obstruction of the required labeling (see June 6, 2006 letter to Cristina M. Offenberg, a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business that obscures the warning label by covering it with a car seat cover may be subject to penalties for violating 30122; January 3, 1991 letter to Tom Wiatrak, a pad covering information required by FMVSS No. 213 would be acceptable if the required information were permanently labeled on the pad and the information is visible when the seat is installed). We do not agree that a partial obstruction of the air bag warning label meets the standard when the warning is not plainly visible or easily readable.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

ref:213

d.11/20/08

Michael McAvey, CEO

U-Fill, LLC

175 Rock Rd.

Glenn Rock, NJ 07452

Dear Mr. McAvey:

This responds to your letter regarding the Fuel-Tool, an onboard gasoline refueling system you have developed. You ask us to evaluate your product with respect to our laws and regulations.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment.  Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA selects a sampling of new vehicles and equipment each year to determine their compliance with applicable FMVSSs.  If our testing or examination reveals an apparent noncompliance, we may require the manufacturer to remedy the noncompliance, and may initiate an enforcement proceeding if necessary to ensure that the manufacturer takes appropriate action. We also investigate safety-related defects.

In your letter, you describe the Fuel-Tool as an onboard gasoline refueling system. You state that the Fuel-Tool allows a user to refuel auxiliary equipment and vehicles directly from the host vehicles fuel tank. Your website (www.fueltool.com) shows the Fuel-Tool system consisting of a pump that is attached directly and permanently to the fuel line, and a hose and nozzle stored in the vehicle. Once the Fuel-Tool is activated, the fuel pump sends fuel through the fuel line at a rate of two gallons per minute through the nozzle and directly into the item the consumer wishes to refuel (for example, your website appears to show the refueling of an all terrain vehicle using the Fuel-Tool). You state that the Fuel-Tool will not be installed as original equipment on motor vehicles, but will be installed by a U-Fill certified technician or by the retail customer as an aftermarket item.

We appreciate your effort to contact NHTSA about your product. However, as stated above, NHTSA is unable to evaluate individual products for compliance with the FMVSSs. We can provide some general information about our requirements.

In addition, the Department of Transportations Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) administers regulations that relate to, among other things, the transportation and discharge of gasoline for fueling auxiliary equipment. For information on this subject, you may contact PHMSAs Office of Hazardous Materials Safety at (202) 366-0656.

NHTSA Regulations

There currently are no FMVSSs that directly apply to the Fuel-Tool as an aftermarket item of equipment. Our standard for Fuel System Integrity, FMVSS No. 301, applies to new complete motor vehicles, and not to aftermarket components that attach to the fuel system.

While no FMVSS applies to the Fuel-Tool as an aftermarket item, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety-related defects (49 U.S.C. 30118-30121). I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those and other manufacturer responsibilities. In the event you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

In addition, a relevant statutory provision for determining the legality of modifications to motor vehicles is 49 U.S.C. 30122, Making safety devices and elements inoperative. This section reads, in part:

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter .

If the Fuel-Tool were installed in the aftermarket by a U-Fill technician or any other manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business, the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 30122 would apply. Under 49 U.S.C. 30122, the commercial installer of the U-Fill would need to be sure that the installation of the U-Fill does not bring the vehicle out of compliance with the FMVSSs. As you correctly identified in your letter, FMVSS No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, would be the most likely standard impacted by the installation of the Fuel-Tool, since it limits fuel spillage and other failure modes in vehicle crashes. However, the commercial installer would also need to ensure that compliance with other FMVSSs is not adversely affected by installation of the Fuel-Tool.

49 U.S.C. 30122 does not apply to individual owners that are modifying their own vehicles. Thus, under NHTSAs regulations, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles or motor vehicle equipment.

You indicated that you intend to eventually partner with a vehicle manufacturer to include your product as an option on new vehicles. If the Fuel-Tool were added to a new vehicle, i.e., before the vehicle is sold for the first time to a consumer, then the vehicle must meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 301 and all other FMVSSs with the Fuel-Tool installed. Also, as noted above, the vehicle manufacturer would have to ensure that the vehicle is free of safety-related defects.

Other Considerations

In addition to the requirements outlined above, individual States are free to establish requirements for vehicles used in the State, and may have laws that apply to the installation of a device such as the Fuel-Tool. For information about those requirements, you should contact the Department of Motor Vehicles in any state in which the equipment will be sold or used. Further, for information on private tort liability, we suggest you contact your private attorney or insurance carrier.

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

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:301

d.11/20/08

Mr. Thomas Betzer

Global Engineering Manager

Keykert USA

46941 Liberty Drive

Wixom, MI 48393

Dear Mr. Betzer:

This responds to your email asking whether a certain theft deterring double-lock function will meet the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components, as amended by a February 6, 2007 final rule. As discussed below, our answer is no.

You did not describe the double-lock system in detail, but we assume for the purposes of this letter that the system has features described in the agencys April 10, 1987 letter to Karl-Heinz Ziwica of BMW (copy enclosed). With that system, the driver locks the doors with a key. If the key is rotated to a certain point and removed, the vehicles burglar alarm is armed and the doors are double locked, such that after the plungers move downward, the outside handle, the inside handle, and the locking plunger cannot be used to unlock a door. When double locked, the doors can only be unlocked using a key in a front door lock.[1] In your letter, you stated that the double-lock function disables the interior unlocking mechanisms to prevent car theft by reaching into the vehicle to open a locked door.

The February 6, 2007 final rule amended and updated requirements and test procedures of FMVSS No. 206, and harmonized with the worlds first global technical regulation (GTR) for motor vehicles (72 FR 5385). (The effective date of the final rule is September 1, 2009; there are pending petitions for reconsideration of the final rule. Docket No. NHTSA-2006-23882.) The amended door locks requirements of the current standard are located in paragraphs S4.3 (door locks), S4.3.1 (rear side doors), and S4.3.2 (back doors) of the amended standard, as follows:

S4.3 Door Locks. Each door shall be equipped with at least one locking device which, when engaged, shall prevent operation of the exterior door handle or other exterior latch release control and which has an operating means and a lock release/engagement device located within the interior of the vehicle.

S4.3.1 Rear side doors. Each rear side door shall be equipped with at least one locking device which has a lock release/engagement device located within the interior of the vehicle and readily accessible to the driver of the vehicle or an occupant seated adjacent to the door, and which, when engaged, prevents operation of the interior door handle or other interior latch release control and requires separate actions to unlock the door and operate the interior door handle or other interior latch release control.

S4.3.2 Back doors. Each back door equipped with an interior door handle or other interior latch release control, shall be equipped with at least one locking device that meets the requirements of S4.3.1.

These provisions changed some requirements of current FMVSS No. 206. The new S4.3 specifies that each door have an operating means and lock release/engagement device located within the interior of the vehicle, whereas current FMVSS No. 206 door locks requirements only specify that the door locking mechanism have an operating means in the interior of the vehicle. The current requirements read as follows:

S4.1.3 Door Locks. Each door shall be equipped with a locking mechanism with an operating means in the interior of the vehicle.

S4.1.3.1 Side Front Door Locks. When the locking mechanism is engaged, the outside door handle or other outside latch release control shall be inoperative.

S4.1.3.2 Side Rear Door Locks. In passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles, when the locking mechanism is engaged both the outside and inside door handles or other latch release controls shall be inoperative.

With regard to these existing requirements which the 2007 final rule changed, NHTSA had interpreted current S4.1.3, S4.1.3.1 and S4.1.3.2 to permit a double-lock system such as the one you describe (April 10, 1987 letter to Kark-Heinz Ziwica of BMW). In the BMW letter, we explained that the permissibility of the system was dependent on whether the system interfered with an aspect of performance required by FMVSS No. 206. We interpreted the requirement for an interior operating means for the door locks to require only an operating means to engage the required door locking mechanisms, and not an operating means to disengage the locking mechanism. Therefore, NHTSA concluded that FMVSS No. 206 did not prohibit an additional locking device that negated the capability of the inside operating means for the door locks to disengage the locks, provided that the device does not interfere with the engagement of the required door locking system.

Those FMVSS No. 206 requirements changed under the new door locks requirements set forth in the February 2007 final rule. Under the amended standard, each door will require an operating means and a lock release/engagement device (a device that both releases and engages the locking mechanism) located within the interior of the vehicle (new S4.3). A secondary locking device that negates the capability of the inside operating system for the door locks to disengage the locks will not meet the requirement in S4.3 that each door have a lock release device within the interior of the vehicle.

NHTSAs intent to mandate locking devices with interior means to both release and engage the lock was made clear in the preambles to the February 6, 2007 GTR final rule and to the preceding December 15, 2004 notice of proposed rulemaking. In the preambles, the agency said that it sought to require interior door locks to be capable of being unlocked from the interior of the vehicle by means of a lock release device that has an operating means and a lock release/engagement device located in the interior of the vehicle. See 72 FR at 5394-5395; 69 FR 75020, 75027. Thus, the agency at S4.3 and S4.3.1 adopted requirements for a lock release/engagement device located within the interior of the vehicle.

After reviewing the preambles of the GTR rulemaking and the regulatory text of current and amended FMVSS No. 206, we have determined that a double-lock system such as that described in the BMW letter will no longer be permitted under the standard because it interferes with the interior lock release device of the door. Since neither the inside nor the outside door handle can open the door, it is presumed that the lock is engaged and that the interior lock release device was unable to unlock the door.

Child Safety Locks

Conversely, we interpret the amended FMVSS No. 206 to continue to permit child safety locks that only disable the interior latch release (door handle) of rear side doors. When such a child safety lock is engaged on a rear side door, the interior lock release/engagement device can continue to engage and release the door lock. In addition, when the door lock is released, the door can be opened by operating the exterior door handle even when the child safety lock is engaged.

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Sarah Alves of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

Stephen P. Wood

Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:206

d.7/24/07

Mr. Jack Jay McCracken

Assistant Secretary

Cooper Tire and Rubber Company

701 Lima Avenue

Findlay, OH 45840-2315

Dear Mr. McCracken:

This responds to your letter concerning laser-etched[1] date codes in the tire identification number (TIN) required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 139, New pneumatic radial tires for light vehicles, and Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 574 (49 CFR Part 574), Tire identification and recordkeeping. You ask whether FMVSS No. 139 and Part 574 would permit laser-etched date codes in the TIN at a minimum depth of 0.010 inches. Based on the information you provided and the analysis below, the answer to your question is yes, as FMVSS No. 139 and 49 CFR Part 574 do not specify a minimum depth for laser-etched date codes. However, please note that the agency is considering addressing in an upcoming rulemaking whether a minimum depth should be required for laser-etched date codes.

By way of background, your letter states that you currently use traditional molded date codes to comply with the TIN requirement, but that you are considering switching to laser etching for the date codes for both technician safety and time-saving reasons. You believe that a laser-etched date code at a depth of 0.010 inches is at least as legible as a traditional molded date code with a depth of 0.020 inches. Further, you note that a depth of 0.020 inches for laser etching may create an undesirable cosmetic effect for some whitewall tires, in that at this depth, the white layer of rubber inside the sidewall would sometimes show through in one or more of the date code numbers.

Discussion

FMVSS No. 139, at paragraph S5.5.1(b), states that each tire manufactured on or after September 1, 2009 must be labeled with the TIN required by 49 CFR Part 574 on the intended outboard sidewall of the tire. 49 CFR Part 574, at 574.5, states that the TIN

must be permanently molded into or onto the sidewall, in the manner and location specified in Figure 1. Figure 1 specifies at Note 1: Tire identification number shall be in Futura Bold, Modified Condensed or Gothic characters permanently molded (0.020 to 0.040) deep. Section 574.5 also states that: at the option of the manufacturer, the information contained in paragraph (d) of this section [the date code section of the TIN] may, instead of being permanently molded, be laser etched into or onto the sidewall in the location specified in Figure 1. The question you raise is whether a date code laser-etched in the location specified in Figure 1 may have a minimum depth of 0.010 inches.

Our answer is yes. Section 574.5 states that molding must be done in the manner and location specified in Figure 1, but states for etching only that it must be done in the location specified in Figure 1. In addition, Note 1 of Figure 1, as written, specifies the 0.020-0.040 inch depth only for permanent molding. Because 574.5 and Note 1 do not clearly specify that laser etching must be to the same depth as molding, you may laser etch the date codes at a shallower depth than 0.020 inch.

Keep in mind, however, that we believe a depth requirement for laser etching should be considered to ensure sufficient long-term legibility of the TIN and date code. We plan to address the issue in an upcoming rulemaking on Part 574.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Rebecca Schade of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

ref:574

d.5/8/08

Ms. Diana D. Smith

Belly Pad Buddies

1795 N. Fry Rd., #148

Katy, TX 77449

Dear Ms. Smith:

This responds to your letter about a product you market called the Belly Pad Buddy, which you describe as a type of pad designed for use with an infant child restraint (infant seat) with a 5-point harness restraint. You ask for information about Federal and state requirements that apply to your product.

According to your letter, the Belly Pad Buddy was designed to help prevent pinching caused by the 5-point harness buckle when securing the infant in the car seat carrier. Other benefits can be that it helps prevent against a hot buckle and provides a cushion to protect the infant from the hard buckle. The pad is attached to the infant seat by strapping a part of it around the infant seat crotch strap. The Belly Pad Buddy consists of a 4- by 6-inch pad that is about to 1 inches thick.^[1] You state that the product is sold in the aftermarket for installation by the owner of the infant seat in his or her own vehicle.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA selects a sampling of new vehicles and equipment each year to determine their compliance with applicable FMVSSs. If our testing or examination reveals an apparent noncompliance, we may require the manufacturer to remedy the noncompliance, and may initiate an enforcement proceeding, if necessary, to ensure that the manufacturer takes appropriate action.

There currently are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that directly apply to the Belly Pad Buddy. Our standard for "child restraint systems," FMVSS No. 213, applies to "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 65 pounds or less." (We currently are considering a proposal to increase this weight limit to 80 pounds.) The standard does not apply to accessory items, such as a pad that is used with a child restraint system.

While no FMVSS applies to the Belly Pad Buddy, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety-related defects (49 U.S.C. 30118-30121). I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those and other manufacturer responsibilities. In the event you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

In addition, while it is unlikely that the Belly Pad Buddy would be installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, 49 U.S.C. 30122 prohibits those businesses from installing the device if the installation "makes inoperative" compliance with any safety standard.

You state in your letter that you believe that the Belly Pad Buddy does not interfere with the infant seats buckle restraint system. Because we do not approve or certify products, we cannot agree or disagree with your assessment. Instead, we note for your consideration that FMVSS No. 213 requires specific levels of performance for infant seats as a system and also for seat webbing and buckles as components of the child restraint system, whose performance could be affected by aftermarket accessory pads. Further, an aftermarket pad inserted between the webbing and the child passenger could compress in a crash and degrade the ability of the belt system to properly restrain the infant in a crash. In addition, FMVSS No. 213 specifies flammability resistance requirements for child restraints. Any person listed in 30122 who installs a Belly Pad Buddy must not make inoperative the flammability resistance of the child restraint system.

The prohibition of 30122 does not apply to individual owners who install equipment in their own vehicles. Thus, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles or motor vehicle equipment.

State or local jurisdictions might have their own requirements for products such as the Belly Pad Buddy. For information about those requirements, you should contact the Department of Motor Vehicles in any state in which the equipment will be sold or used.

If you have any other questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:213

d.4/17/08

William E. Otto, Esq.

Sebring & Associates

2735 Mosside Boulevard

Monroeville, PA 15146

Dear Mr. Otto:

This responds to your letter asking two questions about the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, regarding outside rearview mirrors.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects. The agency does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment.  Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA selects a sampling of new vehicles and equipment each year to determine their compliance with applicable FMVSSs.  If our testing or examination reveals an apparent noncompliance, we may require the manufacturer to remedy the noncompliance, and may initiate an enforcement proceeding if necessary to ensure that the manufacturer takes appropriate action.

In your letter, you ask about an outside drivers side rearview mirror that would contain two parts. You state that on the right portion of the mirror, a section of the mirror would contain a FMVSS No. 111-compliant flat mirror, while the left portion of the mirror would contain a curved or aspheric component. You also suggested that this additional section may cause the mirror to extend farther than the widest part of the vehicle body. You ask two questions relating to this design, which are restated below.

Q1. You ask whether a single drivers side mirror containing both a flat portion and curved or aspherical portion located to the left of said flat portion would be permitted by S5.2.1 of Standard No. 111, provided that the flat portion of the mirror otherwise complies with Section S5.2.1.

Our answer is yes. FMVSS No. 111, S5.2.1, Field of view, states that [e]ach passenger car shall have an outside mirror of unit magnification, which requires a flat mirror. However, if this requirement is met, there is no specific prohibition on additional mirrored surfaces, which can be convex or aspheric.

In a previous letter of interpretation from 1995, NHTSA answered a similar question in the affirmative. In that letter, we stated, [v]ehicle manufacturers may install mirror systems that combine a portion of the mirror with a straight angle with a portion of the mirror that is at a slight variance, provided that the straight mirror portion by itself complies with the requirements in FMVSS No. 111 that are applicable to the vehicle on which the mirror system is installed.[1] Similarly, in a 1998 letter, NHTSA stated that [v]ehicle manufacturers may install mirror systems that combine flat and convex mirrors on their new vehicles, provided that the flat mirror portion by itself meets FMVSS No. 111 requirements applicable to the vehicle on which the mirror system is installed.[2]

Therefore, assuming your drivers side flat mirror meets the field of view requirements, we can confirm that an additional aspheric portion would not be prohibited.

Q2. You ask whether a drivers side mirror which protrudes farther than the widest part of the vehicle body is permitted under S5.2.2 of FMVSS No. 111, if the extent of the protrusion is limited to the minimum necessary to accommodate a mirror which exceeds the requirements of Section S5.2.1 by the following characteristics: (1) the flat portion of the mirror complies with the requirements of Section S5.2.1 and (b) a curved or aspheric portion of the mirror located to the left of the flat portion of the mirror results in an increase in the field of view.

Assuming that the aspheric portion of your mirror produces a field of view that exceeds S5.2.1, our answer is yes. Paragraph S5.2.2 reads, in part, neither the mirror nor the mounting shall protrude farther than the widest part of the vehicle body except to the extent necessary to produce a field of view meeting or exceeding the requirements of S5.2.1. (Emphasis added.) S5.2.2 as originally adopted (then S3.2.1.2) specified that neither the mirror nor the mounting shall protrude farther than the widest part of the vehicle body, except to the extent necessary to meet the requirements of the field view requirements (32 FR 2408, 2413). Shortly thereafter, the exception was expanded to include the words meeting or exceeding in an early amendment to the standard (32 FR 5498, April 4, 1967, copy enclosed). Since the exception was revised to accommodate mirrors and mountings that produce a field of view exceeding the requirements of S5.2.1, we believe a protrusion to accommodate that part of the mirror is permitted. However, this exception does not extend to protrusions beyond the widest part of the body to accommodate items such as decorations or lights near that part of the mirror. Moreover, the mirror and mounting must be free of sharp points or edges that could contribute to pedestrian injury, as specified elsewhere in S5.2.2.

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

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:111

d.1/16/09

Mr. Paul Witkowski

VCA North America

41000 West Seven Mile Road

Suite 140

Northville, MI 48167-2664

Dear Mr. Witkowski:

This responds to your letter asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release. You ask for guidance on 50 articulated hybrid-driveline buses that a United Kingdom bus manufacturer is manufacturing for sale in Nevada. These buses will be used as transit buses and will include a separate, lockable compartment for the bus driver that is partitioned off from the rest of the vehicle. You wish to know whether FMVSS No. 217 permits the design, i.e., whether under the standard the driver would have adequate access to the buss emergency exits. As explained below, FMVSS No. 217 does not prohibit the separate, lockable compartment specifically described in your letter. However, there are other requirements and safety considerations of which you should be aware.

Background

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. The following is an interpretation of our requirements based on the information you provided.

You describe the drivers compartment as having:

a full height tinted glass partition that separates the driver from the main passenger compartment. Access to the drivers compartment is gained from the main passenger compartment through a centrally mounted full depth tinted glass door, that when opened, allows the driver to ascend the two steps to his elevated workplace.

You explain that the cab door is spring loaded and will close behind the driver entering the compartment. The driver has two ways of locking the door. The first way is by manually operating a handle on the door to lock the door. To release the lock and open the door, the driver rotates the handle 90 degrees clockwise. The second way is by pushing a button from the drivers seat that electrically operates a shoot bolt which mechanically extends a steel bar into a mating hole in the door. To release the lock, the button is pressed again. You state that the electronic locking feature requires constant electrical power to remain locked, and will open upon loss of electrical power.

You also state that the drivers compartment has one side window to the left of the driver that has a sliding portion that can open for ventilation and to allow the driver to adjust the exterior mirror. The glass on the right side of the drivers compartment does not open.[1] We assume that neither of these two side windows meets the requirements for emergency window exits of FMVSS No. 217.

Discussion

FMVSS No. 217 applies to buses, except buses manufactured for the purpose of transporting persons under physical restraint. (See S3.) Among other purposes, FMVSS No. 217 is intended to provide a means of readily accessible emergency egress. (See S2.) FMVSS No. 217 states in part at S5.2.2.1: Buses other than school buses shall provide unobstructed openings for emergency exit which collectively amount, in total square centimeters, to at least 432 times the number of designated seating positions on the bus.

The main question presented by your letter is whether the bus provides the driver unobstructed openings for emergency exit. In your design, the driver is separated from the passenger compartment that has the emergency exits but still is able to readily access those exits. The driver can manually unlock and open the door in one or two motions, and the lock will also automatically disengage the locking mechanism in the event of an electrical failure. Because of these features, in our opinion FMVSS No. 217 does not prohibit your design. Keep in mind that the bus drivers seating position must be counted in the S5.2.2.1 calculation of required unobstructed openings for emergency exit.

There are other requirements and safety considerations of which you should be aware. Because you describe the compartment as made of tinted glass, the bus manufacturer must ensure that the compartment meets all applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 205, Glazing materials. FMVSS No. 205 applies to buses and to glazing materials used in those vehicles. (See S3.1(a).)

States have the authority to regulate the use of vehicles and may have laws pertaining to the drivers access to an emergency exit or to other aspects relating to your vehicle. You should check State law to see how they affect your vehicles.

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

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

ref:217

d.11/20/08