ID: nht93-7.40

DATE: October 25, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Greg Biba

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/21/93 Est. from Greg Biba to Office of Chief Council, NHTSA (OCC-9137)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking about safety regulations for a device you would like to sell. The device is an "infant observation mirror" that would allow parents to see their baby's face when the infant restraint is installed in the rear seat of a vehicle. The mirror is on a stand that sits under the infant restraint.

By way of background information, S103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act," 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any 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 safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards.

In response to your question, there is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) that directly applies to the product you wish to manufacture. Under the authority of the Safety Act, NHTSA has issued Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, which specifies requirements for child restraint systems used in motor vehicles and aircraft. However, Standard No. 213 applies only to new child restraint systems and not to aftermarket components of a child restraint system, such as an observation mirror.

I note, however, that there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect your manufacture and sale of the device. Under the Safety Act, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in S151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your mirror 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, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to S108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which states: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ...." It appears unlikely from the nature of your product that it would be placed in vehicles by

commercial businesses instead of child restraint owners. However, if your product were to be installed by persons in those categories, they should ensure that its installation does not compromise the safety protection provided by a child restraint system. The prohibition of S108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment.

The "render inoperative" prohibition of S108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. However, NHTSA urges owners not to undertake modifications that would reduce the efficacy of any safety device or element of design. We note that an observation mirror could be struck by an infant in a crash, such as during the "rebound" phase of a frontal impact. In the interest of safety, we suggest you manufacture your mirror so that the risk of head injuries in a crash is minimized.

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

ID: nht93-7.41

DATE: October 26, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Richard Campfield -- President, Ultra B-O-N-D. Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/22/93 from Richard Campfield to John Womack or Marvin Shaw

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter in which you address the repair of motor vehicle windshields. You explain that, as president of a window repair business, you are concerned with recent actions taken by the window replacement industry to form a committee to set a voluntary "standard" for window repair. According to your letter, the anticipated standard will be "archaic in its structure" because the committee is "prejudicial," in that virtually all the committee's members are in the windshield replacement industry. You contend that the effort to adopt the standard is intended to reduce competition from the window repair industry. You request that NHTSA recommend ways to prevent the window replacement industry from enacting the industry standard.

We read your letter with great interest. However, industry groups are free to adopt any voluntary standard they believe is appropriate for their needs. NHTSA does not become involved with the adoption of voluntary standards unless a voluntary standard raises safety issues that the agency ought to address. We are unaware of safety issues pertaining to the voluntary standard you described. While we are not aware of safety problems with the bonding process you describe, we do not have information to support your claims or those of your competitors.

Nevertheless, to keep our information on window glazing current, we will keep your letter on file in NHTSA's public docket dealing with Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR S571.205). In addition, the agency's engineers have been briefed on the issues you raise in your letter.

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

ID: nht93-7.42

DATE: October 27, 1993

FROM: Larry R. Lynch -- General Manager, AT&D Corporation

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/10/94 from John Womack to Larry R. Lynch (A42; Std. 121)

TEXT:

I have enclosed data describing a new product developed by our Company for the trucking industry. I am requesting that you peruse the information about the product and advise us as to how the current safety standard might be applicable.

Our product has been named the AeroCon System. It was developed from the original concept of typical air deflectors seen on most tractor trailer vehicles. The AeroCon could be referred to as an atypical air deflector/fairing. It incorporates aerodynamic principles to create a stable slipstream and provide aerodynamic braking to the vehicle. By opening doors on the fairing unit, the full force of the relative wind speed is redirected to strike the trailer face, greatly decreasing the stopping distance. The pneumatic power required to actuate the system's doors utilizes the auxiliary air system of the tractor.

Should you require additional data or information for your interpretation, please call us at (904) 588-2700 or FAX (904) 588-2701. Our physical address is: One Pasco Center 30435 Commerce Drive San Antonio, Florida 33576

Please return the enclosed materials, upon the completion of your interpretation.

Your attention to our request is greatly appreciated.

ID: nht93-7.43

DATE: October 28, 1993

FROM: Jelly, Rachel -- Executive Engineer, Legislation and Certification., Lotus Cars Ltd.

TO: Womak, John -- Acting Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached To A Letter Dated 5/9/94 From John Womack To John Bloomfield (A42; PART 525)

TEXT: Lotus / Bugatti, request for clarification regarding CAFE petition(s) for alternative CAFE standards.

Since January 1986 General Motors has owned 100% of Group Lotus. Under GM ownership the fuel economy data from the Lotus vehicles has been included with the GM import fleet for the purposes of CAFE fines and reporting. As GM had enough fuel efficient vehicles in its import fleet to offset the shortfall of the Lotus vehicles fuel economy-performance, no fines were required and thus no waiver petition for an alternative CAFE value was necessary.

On the 27th August 1993 General Motors sold 100% of Group Lotus Ltd to Bugatti International. Bugatti is also a vehicle manufacturer and plans to market passenger cars in the USA commencing with the 1994 model year. Both companies actual/projected sales volumes when taken individually, and combined, will make the companies eligible for classification as a small volume manufacturer. Please see the supporting data on page 3 of this letter for sales projections and fuel economy information.

Lotus now finds itself in the position where it needs to apply for an alternative CAFE standard for the 1994 thru 1997 (and possibly subsequent) model years. Also Bugatti is planning to submit a petition for alternative standards in the near future.

Please could you officially advise me if Lotus will be permitted to petition for its own CAFE value for its vehicles and Bugatti will be able to petition for another value for its fleet, or will Lotus and Bugatti have to combine sales projections and fuel economy data and petition for a joint value? The two manufacturing companies are run as separate entities within the group to maintain the individual identity of the products.

If you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact me, my direct line telephone and fax numbers are 44 953 608131 (tel) and 44 953 608132 (fax).

CONFIDENTIAL.

Lotus and Bugatti US manufacturing and fuel economy data:-

ID: toyo.ajd

Mr. Harold van der Meijden
Toyo Tire (USA) Corporation
6261 Katella Avenue
Suite 2B
Cypress, CA 90630

Dear Mr. van der Meijden:

This is in reply to your telefaxed note of August 29, 2003, to Taylor Vinson of the Office of Chief Counsel and your e-mail of September 2, 2003, to Jonathan White of the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) asking for a clarification of certain provisions of the early warning reporting (EWR) regulation, 49 CFR Part 579 Subpart C, and certain provisions of ODIs EWR Compendium that track the EWR regulation.

In your fax to Mr. Vinson, you advised that Toyo Tire Corporation (Toyo), in its warranty provisions, handles claims for "early ride" complaints and warrants projected mileages on certain tire lines. You assert that tires subject to such claims do not have a failure condition other than they did not meet the subjective expectancy for comfort or warranted mileage projections. You would like to know whether these types of claims have to be reported under component code 98 (other) for ride disturbances or 71 (tread) for mileage, respectively?

Also in your fax, you cited the preamble to the final rule, 67 FR 45822 at 45853 (July 10, 2000), where we stated that we did not think warranty claims that merely concern "cosmetic, ride or wear concerns or did not concern a failure would be useful to early detection of safety-related tire defects." You stated that it was your understanding that "claims with no failure condition fall into the category of tires that would not be useful in the early detection of safety-related tire defects."

We concur with your understanding that you do not have to report warranty adjustments that do not involve the component categories specified in 49 CFR 579.26(c). As we explained in our response to the Rubber Manufacturers Associations (RMA) August 26, 2002 Petition for Reconsideration, "we adhere to our view that we do not want to receive data on warranty adjustments that do not relate to one or more of the four identified component categories." 68 FR 35132 at 35137 (June 11, 2003).

I now address your questions raised in your e-mail to Mr. White regarding the EWR Compendium. At the outset, we note that the EWR Compendium is not an interpretation of Part 579 or the terms used therein, but merely is intended to assist manufacturers in submitting information to NHTSA pursuant to the requirements of the EWR regulation. In addition, the Compendium was updated on September 18, 2003, after your e-mail to Mr. White. In the future, any interpretive questions that you may have concerning substantive reporting regulations should be sent to the Office of Chief Counsel.

Your first question concerns Section IV A of the Compendium. You stated that:

Section IV A. Note reads: &"For tires that are produced or imported in quantities less than 15,000 annually..., the manufacturer need only report information on incidents involving deaths." Toyo interprets the term &"tires&" to mean all those products within a complete tire line with various SKU's whose production or importation is less that 15,000 units annually.

Your understanding is incorrect. We refer you to the introductory paragraph of Section 579.26 for clarification. See 49 CFR 579.26, as amended at 68 FR 35132. That section states:

For each group of tires with the same SKU, plant where manufactured, and year for which the volume produced or imported is less than 15,000, or are deep tread, winter-type snow tires, space saver or temporary use spare tires, tires with nominal rim diameters of 12 inches or less, or are not passenger car tires, light truck tires, or motorcycle tires, the manufacturer need only report information on incidents involving a death or injury, as specified in paragraph (b) of this section.

We note that the regulation refers in part to groups of tires with the same SKU. Therefore, if a tire line has SKUs, if fewer than 15,000 tires with a given SKU are produced (or expected to be produced) in a given year, only incidents involving a death or injury have to be reported.

Second, in connection with Compendium Section IV B.1 Reporting Production Data, you state:

"g.) Manufacturing Plant - code as appearing within the TIN per 574.5 and 574.6, and&" Referencing the Federal Register/ Vol. 68, No. 112 / Wednesday, June 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations - page 35144/Section 579.26 Reporting requirements for manufacturers of tires states: &"For purposes of this section, the two-character DOT alphanumeric code for production plants located in the United States assigned by NHTSA in accordance with 574.5(a) and 574.6(b) of this chapter may be used to identify plant where manufactured. If the plant is located outside the United States, the full plant name must be provided&". Toyo's interpretation is since many of our tires are produced in foreign plants for distribution and sale in the United States, we must report the full plant name in our data. What is the requirement criteria for the &"plant name&" that will be noted in the Plant Code field of the template?

Pursuant to 49 CFR 571.109 and 571.119, every tire manufactured for use on the roads and offered for sale in the United States must have a Tire Information Number (TIN) in accordance with 49 CFR Part 574. However, if the tire is manufactured outside of the United States, the TIN need not include the plant name. If a tire that is the subject of an EWR report has a TIN that does not include the plant name of a foreign plant, the manufacturer is required to type in the name of the plant where it is manufactured, up to 25 characters. In typing the name of the plant, the manufacturer may either abbreviate or truncate the name of the plant to fit within the 25 character limitation so long as it uses the same abbreviation or truncation in all EWR reports, including future ones. This approach will satisfy 49 CFR 579.26. When a manufacturer provides the plant name in this manner, it indicates to NHTSA that the tire is manufactured in a foreign plant. We also note that manufacturers are allowed to provide the country of origin (and date of importation), rather than plant and date of manufacture, when the TIN is unknown. See Letter from Jacqueline Glassman, Chief Counsel, NHTSA, to Ann Wilson, Senior Vice President, RMA, of October 10, 2003, at 3.

Third, in connection with Compendium Section IV B. 3, you stated:

Reporting Numbers of Warranty Adjustments (including Extended Warranty and Good Will) reads: &"A warranty adjustment need not be reported when: c.) The claim/adjustment is denied&". Toyo's interpretation is that any claim that fails to meet the adjustabilility requirements that are explicitly stated in the applicable warranty, and is therefore denied to the dealer or consumer, need not be reported.

We concur in your understanding that you would not have to report a warranty claim/adjustment that is denied in its entirety. In applying the EWR definition of warranty adjustment, a tire manufacturer would only report warranty adjustments when it paid or provided other reimbursement to a consumer pursuant to a warranty program offered by a manufacturer or goodwill. See 49 CFR 579.4, as amended at 68 FR 35132 at 35142. Therefore, under the circumstances suggested in your e-mail, Toyo would not have to report any claim that was denied because it failed to meet the "adjustability" requirements that are explicitly stated in the applicable warranty.

Fourth, in connection with Compendium Section IV B. 4, you stated:

Reporting Claims and Notices of Death and Injury reads: &"A manufacturer need not file a report for a claim or notice of death and injury when: b.) The claim alleges one or more deaths in a foreign country involving a tire that is identical or substantially similar to one offered for sale in the United States&". This seems to contradict the statement on page 16 (paragraph 2): &"Similar reporting is also required when a claim alleging or proving that one or more deaths in a foreign country was caused by a defect in a tire that was identical or substantially similar to one offered for sale in the United States&". Toyo's interpretation is that we will need to report on any identical or substantially similar tire involved with a foreign death if it meets minimal specificity requirements.

In connection with the Section IV B. 4, the Compendium (Version 1.0) inadvertently left out the word "not" in the sentence you reference. The Compendium should have read:

A manufacturer need not file a report for a claim or notice of death and injury when:

b.) The claim alleges one or more deaths in a foreign country involving a tire that is not identical or substantially similar to one offered for sale in the United States.

This omission has been corrected in "Version 2.0" of the Compendium.

Lastly, in connection with one-time historical reporting section in the Compendium you wrote:

Section V One-Time Historical Reporting Requirements B. What To Report: reads: &"Historical data concerning production totals, number of warranty adjustments for the preceding 12 quarters (July 1, 2000 through June 30, 2003) covering production year 1998 and later tires (see 579.28(c))&". Referencing the Federal Register/ Vol. 68, No. 112 / Wednesday, June 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations - page 35148/Section 579.28 Due date of reports and other miscellaneous provisions. (c) (iii) reads: &"Each manufacturer of tires covered by 579.26 of this part shall file separate reports covering the number of warranty adjustments recorded in the manufacturer's warranty adjustment system for tires that it received in each calendar quarter from July 1, 2000 to June 30, 2003, for tires manufactured from July 1, 2000 to June 30, 2003&". Toyo interprets this to mean that the production data for the one-time historical report should only include production numbers for the 3rd and 4th quarters of 1998 to June 30, 2003 and not the entire calendar production for 1998.

We do not agree with your understanding.The historical reports are expected to provide a baseline so that we will be able to compare current rates to historical rates. In order for NHTSA to evaluate the EWR information, we need annual production for the five previous years. Our intent is for tire manufacturers to provide annual production for all of 1998 until 2003 is complete and we have first quarter 2004 production. See 49 CFR 579.28, as amended at 68 FR 35132 at 35148. Therefore, when reporting for each quarter from July 1, 2000 to June 30, 2003, for tires manufactured from July 1, 1998 to June 30, 2003, a manufacturer should include the total annual production of tires produced from the beginning of each calendar year included in the report until the close of the quarter that is the subject of the report.

If you have any questions, you may phone Andrew DiMarsico of my staff at (202) 366-5263.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:579
d.11/19/03

ID: toyota

Mr. Yaichi Oishi
General Manager
Government Affairs Division
Toyota Technical Center, USA, Inc.
1850 M Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036

Dear Mr. Oishi:

This responds to your December 22, 1997 letter concerning the telltale requirement for air bag retrofit on-off switches adopted in 49 CFR Part 595 by a November 21, 1997 final rule (62 FR 62406). You ask whether you may use a telltale design which contains the required words "DRIVER AIR BAG OFF" and "PASSENGER AIR BAG OFF," but in a different word order.

Part 595.5(b)(3)(ii)(B) states that "the telltale for an air bag shall have the identifying words "DRIVER AIR BAG OFF" or "PASSENGER AIR BAG OFF" as appropriate, on the telltale or within 25 mm of the telltale."

You state that your proposed design would consist of three sections: a top section in which the word "AIRBAG" will be centrally located and illuminated in green, a middle portion which will have two telltales each consisting of the word "OFF" which would be illuminated when an air bag had been deactivated by the on-off switch, and a bottom portion consisting of the words "Driver" or "Passenger" in white lettering and under the appropriate telltale. You do not state whether the words "AIRBAG", "Driver" and "Passenger" will all be within 25 mm of their respective telltales.

The proposed design contains all of the words required in the final rule, although in a different order. NHTSA generally requires the exact wording as set forth in the regulatory text where warning labels are concerned. The Agency is concerned that allowing significant flexibility in warning label designs could lead to consumer confusion as to the meaning of the warning label. Thus, while there may be some flexibility regarding the size and format of lettering, depending on the specific regulatory text, the word order generally cannot be changed.

Nevertheless, NHTSA has decided to interpret Part 595 more broadly in this instance in light of several factors. First, it believes the telltale at issue is easily understandable. Second, the agency does not wish to unduly delay the introduction of a retrofit on-off switch. However, the agency wishes to make it clear that its opinion concerning diversion from exact word order is limited to this interpretation request and should not be construed as precedent for how we would interpret other requirements in this or other regulations. This includes the requirement that the words "AIRBAG", "Driver" and "Passenger" be within 25mm of the words "OFF" which serve as the telltale.

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

Sincerely,
John Womack,
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:595
d.1/20/98

ID: TOYOTA2002.drn

Chris Tinto, Director
Toyota Motor North America, Inc.
Washington Office
1850 M Street, NW
Suite 600
Washington, DC 20036

Dear Mr. Tinto:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays, with respect to a push button "Power" control that would activate a hybrid electric/gasoline vehicle. As explained below, we agree that the standard's requirements for labeling "Engine Start" and "Engine Stop" controls would not apply to your hybrid vehicles "Power" button, and that identification of the button would be at the option of the manufacturer.

In your letter, you describe a planned Toyota Hybrid System (THS) vehicle that would provide motive power by using both an electric motor and a gasoline engine. This vehicle would be turned on by the driver inserting the key and depressing a "Power" button. "Turning on" this vehicle would mean that the vehicle was activated to be propelled by the electric motor, not that the engine was actuated. After such activation of the vehicle, the engine would automatically start when the ECU determines that the vehicle needs extra power. Similarly, the engine would automatically stop when the ECU determines that the vehicle does not need the engine to provide additional power.

You noted in your letter that Toyota is aware that Standard No. 101 specifies that if a vehicle has an "engine start" and/or "engine stop" control that is separate from the key locking system, the control(s) must be labeled "Engine Start" and "Engine Stop." You stated that Toyota believes these requirements would not apply to this vehicle's "Power" button, because the engine is neither started nor stopped by this button. You also stated that Toyota plans to use the word "Power" along with the ISO power symbol (specified in ISO 2575:2000(E)) to label the button.

We agree that since the button at issue on Toyota's THS vehicle would neither start nor stop the engine, it is not covered by Standard No. 101's requirements for engine start and engine stop controls. Since the standard does not otherwise specify requirements for this control, its identification is at the option of the vehicle manufacturer. Toyota is therefore free to identify it by means of the word "power" and the ISO power symbol.

I note that it is possible that the agency could in the future specify labeling requirements for this type of control. As noted in our most recent semi-annual agenda of regulatory actions, published in the December 9, 2002 Federal Register, we are considering various amendments to Standard No. 101. If we did propose to specify identification requirements for the type of control at issue in your letter, Toyota would, of course, have the opportunity to submit comments.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:101
d.1/30/03

ID: Toyota_knee_bolster

Chris Tinto, Director, Technical & Regulatory Affairs
Toyota Motor North America, Inc.
1850 M Street, NW Suite 600
Washington, DC 20036

Dear Mr. Tinto:

This responds to your request for an interpretation regarding the definition of "air bag system" as it pertains to test procedures specified in our occupant crash protection standard. Your letter asked if an inflatable knee bolster would be considered part of the "driver frontal air bag system" under the procedure for low risk deployment (LRD) tests of the driver air bag. As explained below, for purposes of LRD tests, the driver frontal air bag system refers to the steering wheel hub-mounted inflatable restraint and does not include an inflatable knee bolster.

On May 12, 2000, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) amended Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208 to minimize the risk of injury from deploying air bags for small adults and children (65 Federal Register 30680; Advanced air bag rule). The Advanced Air Bag Rule adopted a LRD test to address the risk air bags pose to out-of-position occupants, particularly those of small stature. The test is performed by activating a frontal air bag system with a test dummy in "worst case" positions: placing the dummys chin on the module and for the 5^th percentile adult female test dummy, also placing the dummy's chin on the steering wheel.

In your letter you stated that Toyota has equipped some of its vehicles with a knee air bag (knee bolster), which deploys in a frontal crash along with the driver air bag located in the steering wheel hub. You further stated that Toyota considers a knee bolster part of the frontal air bag system and therefore, it should be deployed during a LRD test. Your letter also noted that both the knee bolster and the air bag located in the steering wheel hub deploy in the rigid barrier test described in S22.5 of FMVSS No. 208, which determines the deployment stage for the LRD procedure in S26.

In a November 19, 2003, final rule, the agency specifically addressed which air bag system components are fired in a LRD test. The agency stated that:

While neither "air bag [system]" or "inflatable restraint [system]" is defined in FMVSS No. 208 or any other place in 49 CFR Part 571, the intent of the term "air bag" is to describe the components that make up the passenger- side dash-mounted and driver-side steering wheel hub-mounted, inflatable restraints used for occupant protection in a frontal impact. This does not refer to any other pyrotechnic system such as a belt pretensioner or inflatable knee bolster (68 Federal Register 65179, 65186; emphasis added).

We further stated that the agency has no data on the effect deploying devices other than the frontal air bag will have on the LRD test procedure. We also do not have any data on the performance of any of these other pyrotechnic devices for out-of-position occupants in the field. Specifically, we are concerned that inflatable knee bolsters could negatively impact the repeatability of the LRD tests, even though they would inflate in a real crash. Therefore, when the agency performs a LRD test on a vehicle equipped with inflatable knee bolsters, the knee bolsters are not inflated.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:208
d.7/19/04

ID: ToyotaLSA_cmcv2

Chris Tinto, Director, Technical & Regulatory Affairs
Toyota Motor North America, Inc.
1850 M Street, NW Suite 600
Washington, DC 20036

Dear Mr. Tinto:

This responds to your request for an interpretation regarding the proper positioning of a leg support system during a crash test specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant crash protection. As explained below, Toyota is correct in its understanding that the leg support system described in your letter is to be adjusted as an "other seat adjustment" under FMVSS No. 208.

On May 12, 2000, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) published a final rule in the Federal Register requiring advanced air bags in all passenger cars, multi-purpose vehicles, light trucks and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 8,500 lb or less (65 FR 30680; Advanced air bag rule). That final rule established new, advanced air bag performance requirements to minimize the risk of injury to children, as well as new requirements to enhance the protection of small and mid-size adults. The advanced air bag rule established a rigid barrier dynamic crash test using a 5^th percentile adult female test dummy. Since the advanced air bag rule was established, the agency has amended FMVSS No. 208 on several occasions, in part to provide clearer and more objective test procedures for use of the 5^th percentile adult female in testing.

In your letter, you explained that the Toyota Motor Corporation (Toyota) has developed a "leg support adjustment system (LSA)," which extends the forward edge of a seat cushion to provide additional support to the thighs of taller occupants. As further described in a conversation between Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff and Ms. Christina Mullen of Toyota, the system extends the front trim of the seat by mechanical means. As additionally explained in your letter, the LSA is engaged by an occupant through an adjustment switch on the side of a seat. Your letter then asked if the LSA would be adjusted according to S16.2.10.2, Other seat adjustments, under the FMVSS No. 208 test procedure for the rigid barrier 5^th percentile female crash test.

S16.2.10 of FMVSS No. 208 provides the specifications for the driver and passenger seat set-up conditions for the rigid barrier 5^th percentile female crash test. S16.2.10.1, Lumbar support adjustment, specifies the proper position for lumbar support adjustments. S16.2.10.2 specifies the proper positioning of seat adjustments that provide additional support, other than a lumbar support adjustment. As originally adopted in the advanced air bag rule, this provision specifically referred to seat cushion and seat back side bolster adjustments.

In response to the advanced air bag rule, a manufacturer asked what would be required for vehicles with seat cushions that could be lengthened or shortened. In response, the agency amended the seat positioning procedure to specify the position for adjustable seat parts that provide the occupant additional support (66 FR 65376; December 18, 2001). The December 2001 final rule amended S16.2.10.2 to read:

Other seat adjustments. Position any adjustable parts of the seat that provide additional support so that they are in the lowest or most open adjustment position.

The LSA, as described in your letter, performs the same type of function as the seat cushion which gave rise to the amended S16.2.10.2. Therefore, that section specifies the position of the LSA.

Based on the diagrams you provided, it appears that the forwardmost edge of the seat cushion is higher in relation to the floor pan when the LSA is extended as opposed to when the LSA is fully retracted. S16.2.10.2 specifies that a vehicle equipped with an LSA would be tested with the LSA in the lowest position. Therefore, if we were to test a vehicle equipped with a LSA, we would place the LSA in its shortest and lowest position.

I hope you find this helpful. If you have any additional questions please contact Mr. Calamita at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:208
d.8/27/04

ID: tractor23131

Mr. Mark Ireland
Senior Engineer - Engineering Standards and Legislation
JCB Research
Rocester Saffordshire
England ST 1 4 5JP





Dear Mr. Ireland:

This responds to your letter received on May 18, 2001, asking for information about the application of glazing marking requirements to a range of construction, industrial and agricultural equipment. More specifically, you ask whether you should use "uniform/zone Toughened or Laminated glazing in the windshield and other cab areas in your machines and, also, whether glazing requirements change with the design speed of the machine." The following generally discusses:1) the applicability of our laws to your machines, and 2) glazing requirements based on the facts set forth in your letter. However, without specific information on a particular machine, we cannot provide an opinion as to whether our glazing standard is applicable to a particular machine as a "motor vehicle."

Motor Vehicle

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Administration (NHTSA) issues and enforces the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). NHTSA's statute defines the term "motor vehicle" as follows:

[A] vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line. 49 USC' 30102(a)(6).

Whether NHTSA considers various pieces of construction, industrial or agricultural equipment to be motor vehicles depends on their use. In the past, we have concluded that this statutory definition does not encompass mobile construction equipment, such as cranes and scrapers, which use the highway only to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site. In such cases, the on-road use of the equipment is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which they were manufactured. Other construction vehicles, such as dump trucks, frequently use the highway going to and from job

sites, and stay at a job site for only a limited time. Such vehicles are considered motor vehicles, since the on-highway use is more than "incidental."

Based on the information provided in your letter, we do not have sufficient information about the use of the equipment to determine whether they are motor vehicles. If, however, certain equipment is used frequently on the highways, they would be considered motor vehicles and would be required to comply with all applicable FMVSSs, including that pertaining to glazing as discussed below. If you write us again with more information about a particular vehicle, we would be happy to provide an interpretation as to whether it is a motor vehicle.

FMVSS No. 205

FMVSS No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205), establishes performance, location, certification, and marking requirements for all glazing installed in motor vehicles. The standard incorporates by reference the requirements of Standard ANS Z26, "Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways," of the American National Standard Institute (Standard ANS Z26). Standard ANS Z26 specifies performance requirements for various types of glazing (called "items") and specifies the locations in vehicles in which each item of glazing may be used.

Standard ANS Z26 requires that glazing for windshields must pass a specified group of test requirements. ANS Z26 specifies that glazing materials that comply with these test requirements for windshields must be marked with AS1. To date, the only glazing materials that have been marked with AS1 have been laminated safety glass. Unless the non-laminated glazing material cited in your letter can meet the requirements for AS1 glazing and are marked AS1, they do not comply with the requirements for windshields specified in Standard ANS Z26 or FMVSS No. 205. Finally, you should also be aware that FMVSS No. 205 permits glass-plastic glazing.

For your further information, I am enclosing a fact sheet we prepared entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment, and Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Nancy Bell of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:205
d.6/26/01