ID: 17056niv.df

Patrick M. Raher, Esq.
Hogan & Hartson
555 Thirteenth St., N.W.
Washington, DC 20004-1109

Dear Mr. Raher:

This responds to your letter on behalf of your client, Sachs Automotive of America (Sachs), concerning how NHTSA would test vehicles equipped with Sachs's "Nivomat" vehicle leveling system to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 214, "Side Impact Protection." I apologize for the delay in responding.

You explain that Sachs's Nivomat leveling system is-

a compact, fully enclosed suspension unit that takes the place of a conventional shock absorber and assures a level ride to manufacturer specifications, even when the vehicle is fully loaded. . . . [T]he Nivomat senses the vehicle's load condition and levels the vehicle to the manufacturer's specification shortly after the vehicle is loaded and driven for a short distance (at most, 3 miles). . . .

The Nivomat is activated by relative motion between the vehicle's body and axle. Thus, as you state, the vehicle has to be driven (or otherwise bounced to achieve the relative motion between body and axle) to activate the Nivomat, to level the vehicle and to maintain the level height. The Nivomat is designed to maintain the manufacturer's ride height specification for the duration of the trip. When the vehicle is stationary for 4 hours, it will begin to lose its leveled condition. The Nivomat would be activated again when the vehicle is driven for a distance not exceeding 3 miles.

With regard to Standard 214 compliance testing, you believe that NHTSA should test vehicles equipped with Nivomat at "optimal vehicle attitude," i.e., with the Nivomat activated. You state that while testing at optimal vehicle attitude may not be required by the standard, you believe that NHTSA should test at this attitude because that "would ensure that the test vehicle is most reflective of real world situations in conformance with established NHTSA policy."

In asking about Standard 214, you note that NHTSA has previously issued an interpretation which you believe supports your position that vehicles should be tested at the optimal vehicle attitude. In an October 2, 1990, letter to Mr. Kadoya of Mazda, NHTSA discussed the issue of how compliance is determined in situations where a standard does not specify a particular test condition. The letter addressed Mazda's questions about how NHTSA would test vehicles equipped with an active suspension system that adjusts vehicles to variable heights.⁽¹⁾ At issue were standards that do not specify a suspension height that is to be used during compliance tests. NHTSA stated on page two of the letter:

In cases where a standard does not specify a particular test condition, we believe there are several relevant factors to consider in interpreting the standard. First, in the absence of a specification of a particular test condition, we believe there is a presumption that the requirements need to be met regardless of such test condition, since the standard does not include any language which specifically limits applicability of its requirements to such test condition. For example, where a standard does not specify suspension height, its requirements may need to be met at all heights to which the suspension can be adjusted. Before reaching such a conclusion, however, we also consider the language of the standard as a whole and its purposes. Even if a standard is silent as to a particular test condition, the language of the standard or its purposes may indicate limitations on such test condition. Finally, in situations where a limitation on a particular test condition may appear to be appropriate, we also must consider whether the limitation is sufficiently clear, both with respect to justification and specificity, to be appropriate for interpretation. For example, in a situation where it may appear to be reasonable to limit a particular test condition but it is not obvious what particular limitation should be adopted, it would be inappropriate to select a particular limitation by interpretation. Instead, such a decision should be reached in rulemaking.

You believe that the purpose of Standard 214 is to protect occupants during side impact collisions, which occur during operation of the vehicle. You also believe that during vehicle operation, the Nivomat system levels the vehicle to the manufacturer's specified optimal operational height. You therefore conclude that vehicle equipped with the Nivomat should be tested with the Nivomat activated to reflect real world situations. You ask (1) whether NHTSA agrees with this position, and (2) for the purposes of compliance testing to the requirements of Standard 214, whether your suggested means of maintaining the optimal vehicle attitude would be satisfactory to NHTSA.

Standard 214 specifies requirements for protection of occupants in side impact crashes. The standard requires each vehicle to protect its occupants in a full scale dynamic crash test. Even though the test vehicle is at rest, the test procedure simulates a crash of a vehicle which is traveling at 30 miles per hour (mph) into the side of the test vehicle traveling at 15 mph. There also is a static test that requires doors to resist a piston pressing a rigid steel cylinder inward against the door. While the standard specifies a number of test conditions for these tests, it does not specify vehicle operational height.⁽²⁾

The Mazda letter addressed frontal, side and other impacts, to the extent these are incorporated into Standards 204, 208, 212, 219 and 301. NHTSA concluded that the frontal test requirements of these standards need to be met only at the suspension heights that can occur at the speed used in the crash test (generally speeds up to 30 mph), even though the requirements have relevance at higher and lower speeds. The letter also determined that Standard 208's lateral moving barrier crash test requirements must be met at all suspension heights that can occur with the vehicle operational, i.e., at all vehicle heights that can occur during vehicle operation, regardless of speed. This is because Standard 208 specifies that the lateral moving barrier test is conducted with the vehicle at rest. Thus, the standard's evaluation of this aspect of safety performance is not limited to how vehicles perform at certain limited speeds (e.g., speeds up to 30 mph). For basically the same reason, NHTSA also concluded that Standard 301's side and rear moving barrier crash tests would have to be met at all suspension heights that can occur with the vehicle operational.

With respect to your inquiry and Standard 214, applying the language of the standard and the principles and conclusions of the Mazda letter leads us to conclude that crash testing of vehicles equipped with the Nivomat would be performed with the vehicle at all suspension heights that can occur with the vehicle traveling at a 15 mph vehicle speed. In issuing the dynamic side impact requirements of Standard 214, the agency decided to limit the standard's evaluation of occupant crash protection in side impacts to how vehicles perform in impacts between a vehicle traveling 15 mph (the test vehicle) and a striking vehicle traveling 30 mph. A vehicle equipped with the Nivomat could attain a speed of 15 mph before traveling the distance that is needed to activate the Nivomat, and could become involved in a side impact crash before activation of the Nivomat. Thus, while we agree that a vehicle could be tested to Standard 214 with the Nivomat activated, we also conclude that NHTSA should not exclude testing of the vehicle without activating the Nivomat. Testing a vehicle both prior to and after activation best ensures that the vehicle would provide the requisite level of safety protection at all ride heights that can occur with the vehicle operational.⁽³⁾ Thus, manufacturers must assure that the vehicle complies with the standard under both conditions; i.e., when the Nivomat is activated and when it is not.

Your second question relates to testing a vehicle with the Nivomat system in the activated mode.⁽⁴⁾ You suggest a means that NHTSA could take "to ensure that the Nivomat system's leveling action is taken into account during compliance testing."

You state on pp. 2-3 of your letter:

Specifically, the test facility would measure the test vehicle's attitude as follows. Pursuant to FMVSS 214, S6.2, the test facility would measure the test vehicle's attitude in the "as delivered" condition precisely as set forth in the standard. When measuring the test vehicle in the "fully loaded" condition, the test facility would add the appropriate ballast, and then bounce the vehicle up and down on both the front and back ends of the vehicle for several minutes. This bouncing will simulate the action of driving the vehicle on the road and activate the Nivomat system. Once bouncing is completed on both sides, the test facility would immediately measure the test vehicle's attitude. Once these test vehicle attitude parameters are obtained, the test facility may make appropriate adjustments prior to conducting the actual test.

For the dynamic test, FMVSS 214 requires the test vehicle attitude to be at or between the measurements mentioned above. If, due to time delays, the test vehicle is not at the appropriate attitude, the test facility is able to use standard, available means to adjust the test vehicle attitude. For example, the test facility may use after-market spacers placed between coils in the suspension springs as a means to easily maintain the measured attitude.

We understand you to be asking how a test vehicle can be adjusted (raised) to reflect the condition of the vehicle with the Nivomat in the activated mode. NHTSA typically does not specify in an interpretation a particular means for testing a vehicle when that means is not set forth in the standard. We stated in the Mazda letter, however, that the basic principle that should be followed in selecting a means for maintaining suspension height is that it should not result in different test results than would occur if testing could be conducted with suspension height being maintained as it would happen in the real world. NHTSA also stated, "For a crash test, it is important that a vehicle not be altered in any way that would change the vehicle's crash performance relevant to the aspect of performance being tested." We believe that the use of spacers could be a suitable way of maintaining the height of a vehicle to replicate an activated Nivomat system. Bouncing the vehicle to activate the Nivomat (and to measure the fully loaded condition) could be acceptable, if the bouncing action would not affect the vehicle being tested or the test devices (e.g., the side impact dummies) that were installed in the vehicle for the dynamic test. NHTSA may or may not use these suggested means in its compliance testing. The suitability of these means would have to be determined in the context of an actual compliance test, for the particular vehicle being tested.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff if you have other questions.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
d.7/24/98
ref:214

1. Mazda's vehicle had an active suspension system that was operational only when the vehicle's engine was operating. At vehicle speeds in excess of approximately 35 mph, the suspension height would be lowered a certain amount from the nominal or design position for vehicle operation. If the vehicle were not used for several days, the height may be lowered from the nominal or design position even more than the height attained at 35 mph. The suspension height would return to the nominal or design position for vehicle operation after such an extended period of inoperation almost immediately after starting the vehicle's engine.

2. As you indicate in your letter, the standard does specify that the vehicle attitude during the test must be at or between the "as delivered" and the "fully loaded" attitude (S6.2). Attitude is the vehicle position as measured from the ground to a reference point above each of the four wheels. Thus, attitude is a measure of vehicle position with respect to the ground and is a combination of both height and angle.

3. Further, it is unclear whether the Nivomat would be activated if the driver were alone in the vehicle.

4. Please note that, as stated in the previous paragraph, we could test a Nivomat-equipped vehicle with the Nivomat not activated, as well as with it activated.

ID: 18561graco.a

Steve Gerhart, Product Compliance Engineer
Graco Children's Products Inc.
51 S. Pine St.
P.O. Box 100
Elverson, PA 19520

Dear Mr. Gerhart:

This responds to your letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) asking several questions about S5.4.3.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems." I apologize for the delay in our reply.

Section S5.4.3.2 states, in pertinent part:

S5.4.3.2 Direct restraint. Except for a child restraint system whose mass is less than 4.4 kg, . . . each Type I and lap portion of a Type II vehicle belt that is used to attach the system to the vehicle shall, when [dynamically] tested in accordance with S6.1, impose no loads on the child that result from the mass of the system . . .

You ask about several final rules that amended S5.4.3.2, resulting in the text quoted above. Your questions relate to whether the agency has data showing a safety problem with child restraints having masses greater than 4.4 kg, and how NHTSA would test such a restraint to the requirement of S5.4.3.2.

The following background would be helpful in answering your questions.

Background

Prior to the amendment of S5.4.3.2, that section only applied to belts that were (a) part of a child restraint system; (b) designed to restrain a child using the system; and (c) designed to attach the system to the vehicle. These belts were prohibited from imposing any load on the child, resulting from the mass of the system, during the standard's dynamic test.

In a March 16, 1994 notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), NHTSA proposed to expand S5.4.3.2 to apply it also to each Type I (lap) and the lap portion of a Type II (lap/shoulder) vehicle belt that is used to attach the child restraint to the vehicle. These belts, which anchor the child restraint to the vehicle, function to absorb the forces of the crash into the frame of the vehicle. In the proposal, NHTSA tentatively concluded that, to protect the restrained child from the crash forces absorbed by these belts, the belts should be prohibited from transferring those crash forces to the child.

Several persons commenting on the proposal stated that the proposal would eliminate high-back belt-positioning booster seats from the marketplace. These boosters, which have backs supporting the head, neck and back of a child, are designed to restrain the child using a vehicle's Type II (lap/shoulder) belt. Some commenters stated that all belt-positioning boosters with seat backs will impose a load on the child through the lap belt portion (as well as the shoulder belt portion) of a Type II vehicle belt. The commenters were concerned that eliminating belt-positioning boosters was undesirable because there were no data showing a safety problem, and because the boosters were believed to perform well with Type II belts. Commenters also expressed concern that it was not practical to measure the load imposed on the test dummy. Some commenters suggested retaining the proposal but excluding any booster with a mass of less than 4 kilograms (kg) from the requirement. Four (4) kg was believed to be the maximum mass of belt-positioning boosters then on the market.

In a July 6, 1995 final rule, NHTSA responded to these commenters by stating that it did not intend to prohibit belt-positioning boosters with backs, nor did the agency believe there was a sufficient safety problem to warrant prohibiting current designs of such seats. Nonetheless, NHTSA further stated that it believed that limits on belt loading should be established to keep in check the potential for injury due to overloading a child occupant, such as from a "massive seat back" on a child restraint.

The agency adopted the approach suggested by some commenters of retaining the requirement, but excluding from it any restraint with a mass of less than 4 kg. The approach was consistent with requirements in Europe and with what the agency had believed to be the U.S. market at the time. NHTSA believed there was no data showing that a child restraint with a mass less than 4 kg imposes harmful loads on a child.

Gerry Baby Products petitioned for reconsideration of the amendment. Gerry said that NHTSA's belief that all the belt-positioning seats in the U.S. have a mass less than 4 kg was incorrect. Gerry stated that it sold seats with a mass of up to 4.4 kg, and had received no report of any problems or injuries associated with loads imposed on children by the booster seats.

In a June 18, 1996 response to the petition, NHTSA increased the 4 kg limit to 4.4 kg. NHTSA had been unaware that there were boosters with a mass greater than 4 kg (no commenter to the NPRM had indicated otherwise). The agency increased the limit based on Gerry's experience which had indicated that boosters with a mass up to 4.4 kg had not imposed unsafe loads on children.

The 1995 decision to limit the potential for overloading a child from elements such as a massive seat back on a belt-positioning seat departed from a July 21, 1994 rule that first established requirements for belt-positioning seats. In the 1994 rulemaking, the agency decided not to specify limits on seat back loading. The agency believed there was a lack of data indicating a safety problem and there was no procedure for measuring loads or for determining a threshold value for the loads imposed. In the 1995 rule, the agency explained that in 1994 it had not considered that a lap belt portion of a Type II belt system could transfer crash forces to a child from the back of a belt-positioning booster seat. The agency stated that after further consideration, in the context of S5.4.3.2, it had determined that a limit on the mass of the booster seat back was warranted to avoid potential injury to the child occupant.

With this background in mind, we turn to your questions, which we have restated below. Our answers follow each question.

Discussion

You first ask about NHTSA's 1995 decision to limit the mass of the seat back of belt-positioning seats after it had initially decided against doing so in 1994. You ask:

1. Was there any testing done after this [1994] rule was issued to confirm or deny [some commenters' beliefs that NHTSA ought to limit the weight of booster seats]? What was the outcome, or where could I find this information? Does NHTSA feel that higher booster seat weight would result in higher HIC's, G forces and excursions? Would this data be available also?

NHTSA did not conduct testing to confirm or deny the views that booster seats should be restricted in weight to limit overloading the child occupant. At the time of the rulemaking, and continuing to today, there are no test dummies that can reliably measure abdominal loading, nor is there an established injury criterion that correlates abdominal loads to the likelihood of injury. Also, there was, and is, no established test procedure in Standard 213 that measures seat back loads on the child dummy and that correlates those to injury. Yet, it was believed that seat back loads could, at some level, injure a child in a crash, when loads were excessive. In view of the confines at the time of the rulemaking on developing a test that would distinguish between excessive and acceptable loads on the child occupant, NHTSA adopted an alternative approach that limits loading by way of limiting the mass of the booster seat. The agency had insufficient data on which to determine whether we agreed or disagreed with the belief expressed by a commenter that increasing booster seat weights results in higher HIC's, G forces or excursions.

Your second question asks about the agency's 1995 decision to limit the potential for injury due to overloading the child from "a massive child seat back." You ask:

2. What does the agency see as massive? Is there any data or history on seats viewed as massive that injured a child due to back loading? If so, how much did the seat weigh? If there are no data, would there be an acceptable method to test the loads imposed on the back of the child, and how would threshold values be determined?

NHTSA has not identified a value above which injury could result from loading a child occupant and below which injury is not likely to occur. Yet, child restraints with a mass of less than 4.4 kg are viewed as not likely to injure, based on the field experience of Gerry Baby Products with its 4.4 kg booster seat.

We do not know of actual injuries caused by seat back loading. However, in 1996, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and NHTSA conducted a rulemaking relating to excessive seat back loads in the aircraft environment (61 FR 28423, June 4, 1996)(copy enclosed). FAA sought to prohibit the use of backless boosters seats on aircraft because it believed the seats were incompatible with aircraft seats that have a "breakover" seat back. (A breakover feature allows the seat back to rotate forward easily when impacted by an occupant from behind.) FAA determined that a child dummy restrained in a backless booster seat experienced an increase in abdominal loading when an adult dummy in the seat rearward of the child impacted the seat back. The increase in loading was unacceptable to FAA, although it was recognized that there are no accepted criteria to assess the relationship between differences in measured levels of abdominal loadings and any resulting risk of abdominal injury, and the type and severity of such injury. FAA's methodology for the research program is discussed in NHTSA's 1996 final rule, a copy of which is enclosed for your information.

3. How is a restraint tested if it is over 4.4 kg? How are loads measured in S6.1 if the restraint is over 4.4 kg?

A restraint that is over 4.4 kg is evaluated to ascertain compliance with the requirements of S5.4.3.2 in accordance with NHTSA's laboratory test procedure for that section, which you ask about in your fourth question. The evaluation is based on a visual inspection. NHTSA believes that all belt-positioning booster seats with a back will load the child through the lap belt portion of a Type II belt. Thus, a belt-positioning seat, unless excepted because it is less than 4.4 kg, generally will not meet S5.4.3.2. In essence, that section functions to limit the mass of belt-positioning boosters with backs.

4. In the Laboratory Test Procedure for FMVSS 213, the section 5.4.3.2 for Direct Restraint Belts (page 104) lists 3 yes/no questions as pass/fail criteria, with 3 yes answers failing the restraint. The questions are: (1) Belt/dummy contact for restraint; (2) Rigid structure behind dummy; and (3) Belt/child restraint slip possible. What does the third criterion mean? How does the 4.4 kg requirement within FMVSS 213 relate to this testing procedure?

The three criteria indicate the factors which NHTSA evaluates to determine whether a child restraint meets S5.4.3.2. A restraint fails if all three criteria are answered "yes." If only two of the questions result in a "yes," then we determine there is no loading of the child dummy. Under (1), to determine whether S5.4.3.2 applies, the agency checks to see if the belt in question contacts the dummy. Under (2), the agency checks to see if there is rigid structure between the dummy and the back of the standard seat assembly because that structure could impose excessive loads on the child. Under (3), NHTSA checks to see if the child restraint can move ("slip") relative to the belt system. A child restraint that moves forward against a relatively stationary belt can load the child occupant.

I hope this information is helpful. Again, my apologies for the delay in responding. If you have further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:213
d.2/22/99

ID: 1985-02.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/24/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. L. D. Pitts, Jr.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. L. D. Pitts, Jr P. O. Box 52592 Houston, Texas 77002

Thank you for your letter of March 12, 1985, asking about the effect of our regulations on a product you would like to manufacture. I hope the following discussion explains that effect.

You described your product, which you call a glare-shield, as a 1/8-inch thick sheet of "Lexan" plastic with a special scratch resistant coating. Your product is designed to be mounted inside a motor vehicle, as close to the windshield as possible, to reduce glare-related vision problems caused by the sun. You stated that your product would cover the entire windshield and is designed to be held in place by three or six latches. The latches can be released by the driver and the shield can be removed from the car.

Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, we have issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, (49 CFR 571.205) which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70% in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).

Any manufacturer, dealer or other person who installs tinting films or other sun screen devices, such as the one described in your letter, in new vehicles must certify that the vehicle as altered continues to comply with the requirements of the standard. Thus, for example, the light transmittance through the combination of the sun-screening material and the glazing must be at least 70 percent in the case of glazing used in windows requisite for driving visibility. Similarly, the combination must also meet the other applicable requirements of the standard, such as the abrasion resistance requirements.

After a vehicle is sold to the consumer, owners may themselves alter their vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. Under Federal law, an owner may install any device regardless of whether the installation adversely affects light transmittance. The agency does, however, urge owners not to install equipment which would render inoperative the compliance of a vehicle with our standards. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from using sun screens on their vehicles.

If a manufacturer, dealer, distributor or motor vehicle repair business installs the sun screen device for the owner of a used vehicle, then S108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act may apply. That section provides that none of those persons may 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 a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Violation of the "render inoperative" provision can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

P. O. Box 52592 Houston Texas 77002 March 12, 1985

Mr. George Berndt, Chief Counsel Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C., 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I am writing about a product that I would like to manufacture and market in the United States. Since the product is for use on vehicles being driven on public roads, I respectfully request your comments as to whether or not you think the product is in compliance with the laws as they are now written.

The product name is glare-shield. Its' purpose is to reduce motor vehicle accidents. It functions on the same principal as do sunglasses. except it has several advantages over sunglasses. Some people have vision defects for which prescription sunglasses cannot be made. Other people would prefer a glare-shield rather than sunglasses because of the fatigue caused by the physical discomfort of the sunglasses while being worn.

A glare--shield is made from a 1/8" thick sheet of "Lexan" plastic with a special scratch resistant coating. It is the same plastic manufactured by the General Electric Company and known as MR-50T4. Lexan MR-50T4 sheeting has been successfully tested for compliance with FMVSS-217 by bus manufacturers (A.M. General Corporation, General Motor Truck and Coach and Flxible/Rohr). MR-50T4 is approved by the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators. MR-50T4 meets or exceeds the requirements of items 4 and 5 of FMVSS-205.

A glare-shield can come in either one or two pieces, depending on the vehicle. A glare-shield is large enough in size to cover the entire area of the windshield of the vehicle it was designed to fit. A glare-shield is mounted on the inside of the vehicle as close to the windshield as possible. It is mounted in such a position that it does not interfere with the defroster device and can actually aid in its' operation, by directing more air toward the windshield. A glare-shield is not a permanent installation and can be removed for night driving in less than ten (10) seconds. Three or six stainless steel latches are used to hold the glare-shield in place. depending on whether it is a one or two piece unit. These latches are separately and permanently mounted to the vehicle using stainless steel rivets and rubber washers. Each latch has been designed to support the full weight of the glare-shield, should the other two latches not be functioning for some unknown reason. The latches cannot be accidentally opened by vibration, because they are mounted in rubber. Stainless steel sheet metal guards are attached to the edge of the glare-shield in the area where the latches make contact, in order to prevent damage to the coating on the Lexan. A vinyl molding is glued around the edge of the glareshield, to prevent the "Lexan" from coming in contact with any hard surface of the vehicle which could cause rattling from road vibration. The light transmission of various glare-shields will be equal to the various shades obtained from sunglasses found on the market today. The driver will decide which light transmission percentage is best for him, just as he now does when choosing sunglasses.

The main function of a glare-shield is to reduce the blinding glare from the sun at both sun-up and sun-down. The second important function is to reduce driver fatigue caused by reflections of shiny surfaces on a sunny day. An added benefit of using glare-shield is that windshields will no longer be tinted on their top part, or lightly tinted all over, which is a common practice today to reduce daytime glare. This tinting of windshields is bad, of course, because it reduces the driver's visibility at night. Another advantage of a glare-shield is that in the event of an accident, it will keep the driver's and passenger's heads from coming in contact with the windshield which usually results in facial lacerations. The glare-shield also helps in preventing a body being thrown through the windshield. The last advantage of a glare-shield, is that it acts as a protective shield against windshield glass fragments and foreign objects which strike and may penetrate the windshield.

Your immediate attention is requested on this project, as it appears to all those who have heard about glare-shields that they can reduce the number of accidents, and reduce bodily injuries and deaths, when accidents do occur.

Sincerely yours, L. D. Pitts, Jr. LDP/bjs

ID: 04-003224drn

Thomas D. Turner, Vice Chairman
School Bus Manufacturers Technical Council
6298 Rock Hill Road
The Plains, VA 20198-1916

Dear Mr. Turner:

This responds to your letter dated April 13, 2004, asking for a technical amendment to correct two errors in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release. We concur that the errors should be corrected.

You ask that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) revise the emergency exit window force application requirement at S5.3.3.2 of FMVSS No. 217, which reads in part: "In the case of windows with one release mechanism, the mechanism shall require two force applications to release the exit." You state that aJune 13, 1994, letter from former Acting Chief Counsel John Womack to the Blue Bird Body Company confirmed that the wording of S5.3.3.2 is in need of correction.

You are correct that in the June 1994 letter, the agency determined that the wording is susceptible to being misread as requiring two force applications to open the single release mechanism. In that letter, the agency said that the requirement should have been worded: "In the case of windows with one release mechanism, the exit shall require two force applications to open." (Emphasis added.) In a March 20, 1996, letter to Blue Bird, the agency affirmed the interpretation of the June 13, 1994, letter.

You ask that we proceed with issuing a technical amendment to correct S5.3.3.2. However, you ask that S5.3.3.2 be corrected by adding the words underlined in the following text: "In the case of windows with one release mechanism, the mechanism shall require one or two force applications to release the exit."(You also ask for an identical correction of a roof exit requirement in S5.3.3.3 that is similarly worded: "In the case of roof exits with one release mechanism, the mechanism shall require one or two force applications to release the exit.") Your suggested wording is different than the correction discussed in the previous letters.

Discussion

This letter affirms the position expressed in the agencys June 13, 1994, and March 20, 1996, letters that, under S5.3.3.2, in the case of windows with one release mechanism, the exit shall require two force applications to open. Similarly, under S5.3.3.3, in the case of roof exits with one release mechanism, the exit shall require two force applications to open.

However, we do not agree with your suggested wording. By stating that the mechanism shall require "one or two force applications to release the exit," it permits the mechanism to release (open) the exit upon a single force application. We believe that a single force application is insufficient because, for exits with one release mechanism, there is a potential for ejections through exits if the exit could be opened with just a single force. For example, passengers could be thrown against such a release mechanism in a rollover and accidentally ejected through the opening. (A discussion of NHTSAs concern about ejection through exits with a single action release mechanism can be found in the final rule issuing S5.3.3.2 and S5.3.3.3, 57 FR 49413; November 2, 1992.) Accordingly, the agency continues to interpret S5.3.3.2 and S5.3.3.3 as specifying, for windows and roof exits with one release mechanism, that the exit shall require two force applications to open.

We plan to conduct rulemaking to address this matter as resources permit. If you have any further questions at this time, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:217
d.6/16/04

ID: 11084

Mr. Charles Holmes
198 Holly Circle
Gulfport, MS 39501

Dear Mr. Holmes:

This responds to your letter asking about Federal requirements for door locks and handles on a 1989 truck with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 33,000 pounds. You state that you rented the truck from a rental company.

In your letter, you described an accident you had with the rented truck. You stated that your son fell out of the vehicle when one of its doors opened as you rounded a curve. You are sure that you had locked the door. (You also said you buckled your son in a seat belt, but believe that he had unbuckled the belt.) After the accident, your son told you he had his hand "over the door handle...[and] was tring [sic] to hold on and the door came open."

You ask several questions relating to requirements for "a safety lock" for the door of the truck. As explained below, our safety standards do not require trucks to have "safety locks."

Let me begin with some background information about our safety requirements. Federal law authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. One such standard is Safety Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components (copy attached). Standard No. 206 establishes certain requirements for door latches, hinges, and locks for new passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles, and new trucks of all weight ratings. Each new truck must meet Standard No. 206 when the vehicle is first sold at retail. With regard to the truck in question, this means that the truck had to meet the applicable door lock requirements of Standard No. 206 when it was sold "new" to the rental company.

Your first question asks whether we required the truck to have a "safety lock." Standard No. 206 requires each door on a new truck to be equipped with a lock, but without the features we believe you have in mind. When engaged, the lock has to

disable the outside door handle, but not the inside handle. Some manufacturers of passenger vehicles voluntarily install "child safety locks" on some doors, which when engaged, makes the inside door handle inoperative even when the lock is in the "unlocked" position. Child safety locks are not required by NHTSA.

Your next question asked whether the truck in question would be considered a passenger vehicle, since it is a "rental vehicle." The answer is no. A vehicle that is designed primarily for transporting property is a "truck" under our regulations, regardless of whether it is a rental vehicle.

Your third question asked what Federal case laws reverse or overrule our regulations. Although some of our regulations have been overruled or modified pursuant to court order, FMVSS No. 206 has not been affected by court action.

Your final question asked for the names and addresses of people injured in accidents similar to yours. We are unable to provide that information. Our data do not include instances in which occupants fall out of moving vehicles where there was no accident and where there were no fatalities or injuries.

I hope the above information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions of need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992, or FAX (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:206 d:9/25/95

ID: 1877o

Mr. Jay V. Wright
Page Avjet Corp.
2230 W. Southcross Blvd.
PO Drawer Z
San Antonio, TX 78211

Dear Mr. Wright:

This is in response to your letter of April 21, 1988, asking whether a vehicle produced by your company is a motor vehicle subject to the requirements of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This vehicle, referred to as a hydrant truck, consists of a chassis-cab with an equipment platform mounted on its rear. According to your letter, the platform would be equipped with accessories that allow the vehicle to be used to filter and meter aircraft fuels as fuel is pumped from airport storage tanks into aircraft.

Section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)) defines a "motor vehicle" as

any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

We have interpreted this language as follows. On the one hand, vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Agricultural equipment, such as tractors, are not motor vehicles. In addition, vehicles intended and sold solely for off-road use are not motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Examples include airport runway vehicles.

On the other hand, vehicles that use the public roads on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, jeep-type utility vehicles are plainly motor vehicles, even though they are equipped with special features to permit off-road operation. We have found vehicles to be motor vehicles if their on-road use is substantial, even though these vehicles' predominant intended use is off-road. Further, if a vehicle is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of vehicle owners, NHTSA has found that the vehicle is a "motor vehicle." This finding was made in the case of dune buggies, regardless of the manufacturers' stated intent that the vehicles were to be used off-road only.

You stated in your letter that this vehicle is not "perceived as being moved over public roads or from airport to airport in its daily use." It appears that this vehicle is intended and sold solely for off-road use, even though the vehicle appears operationally capable of highway travel. Based on the information provided in your letter, we conclude that your company's "Hydrant Truck" does not appear to be a motor vehicle. However, we will reexamine this conclusion if we learn that, for example, the vehicle is regularly being used on the public roads.

We note that if your vehicle ever came to be regarded as a motor vehicle, there are probably few changes that would have to be made to bring it into compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). NHTSA encourages (but cannot require) you to make these changes. The chassis-cab used to produce the hydrant truck already has been certified by its manufacturer as an incomplete vehicle. Therefore, in order to achieve compliance, it is likely that few standards would require any changes by your company. One such standard is FMVSS 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. Additional changes might also be required if the weight added by the equipment platform exceeds any weight maxima specified by the chassis-cab manufacturer in making his certification.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:VSA d:8/ll/88

ID: 1982-2.25

DATE: 07/26/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: P. S. Woolley

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

JUL 26 1982

Mr. Phillip S. Woolley 10769 63rd Way N. Pinellas Park, FL 33565

Dear Mr. Woolley:

This is in reply to your letter of July 8, 1982, to Mr. Vinson of this office asking what you must do pursuant to Federal regulations as a manufacturer of taillamps for boat trailers.

The Federal motor vehicle safety standard you must consider is Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflection Devices, and Associated Equipment. (Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, S571.108) Under its terms, every vehicle taillamp must meet the requirements of SAE Standard J585e Tail lamps (Rear Postion Lamps), September 1977, and the SAE materials referenced in J585e, except that paragraph S4.1.1.12 of Standard No. 108 establishes alternative photometric equipment. The standard does not establish per se a minimum lens area for a taillamp. However, a vehicle manufacturer is required to ensure that when a tail lamp is installed, "the lamp must provide an unobstructed projected illuminated area of outer lens surface, excluding reflex," at least 2 square inches in extent, measured at 45 deg. to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle" (paragraph 4, J585e).

As a manufacturer, you are required to certify compliance of each taillamp with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, which may be by labelling the lamp with the symbol DOT, or by a statement on the lamp or on its shipping container (paragraph S4.7.2, Standard No. 108). You are also required to file an identification statement with the agency (49 CFR Part 566). In the event any taillamp fails to comply with Standard No. 108, or incorporates a safety-related defect, you must notify purchasers and remedy the problem in the manner specified by 49 CFR Part 577, after filing a report with the agency (Part 573).

You may obtain a copy of all Federal requirements by sending a check for $8 to the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402 and asking for "Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations - Parts 400 to 999, revised as of October 1, 1981."

For further information on the SAE materials, write "Technical Division, SAE, 400 Commonweath Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096 (or call 412-776-4841). In addition to J585e, you will need copies of J575e Tests for Motor Vehicle Lighting Devices and Components, August 1970; J576d Plastic Materials for Use in Optical Parts Such as Lenses and Reflection of Motor Vehicle Lighting Devices, June 1976; and J578c Color Specification for Electric Signal Lighting Devices, June 1977.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Phillip S. Woolley 10769 63rd Way N. Pinellas Park, Fl. 33565

July 8, 1982

Mr. Taylor Vinson - F.M.V.S.S. - 108 Legal Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Assoc. Room 5219 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, DC. 20590

Dear Mr. Vinson:

Our company intends to manufacture tail lights for boat trailers and we need to know in laymans terms exactly what we have to do to comply with the rules and regulations set by the Federal Department of Transportations section 108. Are there any rules regarding square inches of lens surface area?

Thank you very much,

Phillip S. Woolley

P.S. Your name was referred to me by the National Highway Transportation Dept.

PSW/kw

ID: nht88-3.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/11/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: JAY V. WRIGHT -- PAGE AVJET CORP.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 04/21/88, TO CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA, FROM JAY V. WRIGHT, OCC - 1930

TEXT: Dear Mr. Wright:

This is in response to your letter of April 21, 1988, asking whether a vehicle produced by your company is a motor vehicle subject to the requirements of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This vehicle, referred to as a hydrant truck, consists of a chassis-cab with an equipment platform mounted on its rear. According to your letter, the platform would be equipped with accessories that allow the vehicle to be used to filter and meter aircraft fuels as fuel is pumped from airport storage tanks i nto aircraft.

Section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)) defines a "motor vehicle" as any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any veh icle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

We have interpreted this language as follows. On the one hand, vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Agricultural equipment, such as tractors, are not motor vehicles. In add ition, vehicles intended and sold solely for off-road use are not motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Examples include airport runway vehicles.

On the other hand, vehicles that use the public roads on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, jeep-type utility vehicles are plainly motor vehicles, even though they are equipped with special features to permit off-road oper ation. We have found vehicles to be motor vehicles if their on-road use is substantial, even though these vehicles' predominant intended use is off-road. Further, if a vehicle is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public road s by a substantial number of vehicle owners, NHTSA has found that the

vehicle is a "motor vehicle." This finding was made in the case of dune buggies, regardless of the manufacturers' stated intent that the vehicles were to be used off-road only.

You stated in your letter that this vehicle is not "perceived as being moved over public roads or from airport to airport in its daily use." It appears that this vehicle is intended and sold solely for off-road use, even though the vehicle appears operat ionally capable of highway travel. Based on the information provided in your letter, we conclude that your company's "Hydrant Truck" does not appear to be a motor vehicle. However, we will reexamine this conclusion if we learn that, for example, the ve hicle is regularly being used on the public roads.

We note that if your vehicle ever came to be regarded as a motor vehicle, there are probably few changes that would have to be made to bring it into compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). NHTSA encourages (but cannot require ) you to make these changes. The chassis-cab used to produce the hydrant truck already has been certified by its manufacturer as an incomplete vehicle. Therefore, in order to achieve compliance, it is likely that few standards would require any changes by your company. One such standard is FMVSS 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. Additional changes might also be required if the weight added by the equipment platform exceeds any weight maxima specified by the chassis-cab manufa cturer in making his certification.

Sincerely,

ID: 22040.drn

Mr. Robert Pitre
Nelson Technologies
200 E. Chestnut St. #1414
Chicago, Il 60611





Dear Mr. Pitre:

This responds to your letter asking about the applicability of Federal requirements to the windshield wiper blades that your company is developing. I am pleased to provide the information you requested.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. (The standards are codified at Volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 571.) This agency does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards. Also, it is unlawful for dealers to sell motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment that do not meet applicable standards.

Vehicle manufacturers wishing to install your windshield wiper blades in a new vehicle (before first sale of the vehicle to the customer) would be required to certify that their vehicles meet all applicable safety standards with the device installed. An FMVSS that might be relevant to the blades is Standard No. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems, which specifies a number of requirements for windshield wiping and washing systems. A vehicle manufacturer would need to ensure that if a vehicle had your windshield wiper blades, the vehicle's windshield wiping and washing system met all the requirements of Standard No.104.

No standards would apply to your windshield wiper blades to the extent they are sold as aftermarket equipment. However, Federal law prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from "making inoperative" a vehicle's compliance with any safety standard (Title 49 of the U.S. Code, section 30122). The blades could not be installed by such businesses if the installation adversely affected a vehicle's compliance with any safety standard.

The "make inoperative" provision does not apply to modifications made by owners to their own vehicles. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles. Also, individual States have authority to regulate modifications that a vehicle owner may make to his or her vehicle. We are not able to provide you with information on State laws. You should contact the individual States in which you intend to sell your product.

A source of information about State laws is the Automotive Manufacturers Equipment Compliance Agency, Inc. (AMECA), 1101 15^th St., N.W., Suite 607, Washington, DC 20005. Their telephone number is: (202) 898-0145, and their FAX number is: (202) 898-0148. The AMECA is a centralized voluntary agency that notifies government, industry and the public about items of motor vehicle safety equipment that have been tested by various laboratories in accordance with United States industry, state and federal standards.

Finally, the windshield wiper blades are considered to be "motor vehicle equipment" under Federal law. This means that you or whoever manufactures your blades would be subject to 49 U.S.C. sections 30118-30121 concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. If the manufacturer or NHTSA determined that the 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.

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





Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

ref:104#VSA
d.1/5/00

ID: GF000494

Ms. Erika Z. Jones
Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP
1909 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006-1101

Dear Ms. Jones:

This responds to your January 16, 2004, letter regarding applicability of 49 CFR 571.201, S6.3(b) to targets located near third row folding bench seats. Specifically, you ask whether targets located within 600 mm of a third row folding bench seat, which is not a split row bench seat, are excluded from the requirements of S6.1 and S6.2 of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 201, when the third row bench seat is in a stowed position. NHTSA will not test these target points for compliance if the seat, when stowed, is not likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion.

S6.3(b) excludes targets located rearward of a vertical plane 600 mm behind the seating reference point of the rearmost designated seating from the requirements of S6.1 and S6.2 of FMVSS No. 201. In your letter, you describe a vehicle featuring three rows of seats. The third row bench seat stows to in order to create an expanded cargo area. The third row seat has a latch system attached to the D-pillar that secures the seat back in its upright position. When the third row bench seat is stowed, the latch remains exposed. The latch is located within 600 mm of the seating reference point of the third row bench seat, but beyond 600 mm from the seating reference point of the second row seat. You ask if the second row seating position would be considered the rearmost designated seating position when the third row seat is stowed.

The term "designated seating position" is defined at 49 CFR 571.3 as "any plain view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats." The third row folding bench seat described in your letter is not an auxiliary seating accommodation because it is not a temporary or a jump seat but a permanent seat available for use by occupants.

When in the upright position, the third row seat described in your letter constitutes the rearmost designated seating position for the purpose of S6.1 and S6.2. In a 1993 interpretation letter to Michael Love of Porsche, the agency stated that a folding rear seat described in that letter would be considered a designated seating position at all times. We noted that the examples provided by Porsche were not precise enough for us to make a more specific determination as to whether the vehicle in question must comply with all requirements related to a specific designated seating position. In the present case, the third row seat, when in its stowed position, is unlikely to be used for anything other than cargo carrying, since it appears that all available leg room would be occupied by the folded seat back.

Accordingly, NHTSA would not test for compliance with S6.1 and S6.2 at the target point in question when the third row seat is in its stowed position. However, compliance with the requirements of S6.1 and S6.2 would be verified when the third row bench seat is in its upright position intended for occupant use.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:201
d.5/4/04