Ms. Mary Well

California Suntops

3309 Ladrillo Aisle

Irvine, CA 92606

Dear Ms. Well:

This responds to your letter asking about the applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards to fabric used to manufacture convertible tops. You explain that your company will be manufacturing the fabric.

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

The Safety Act defines the term motor vehicle equipment in relevant part as follows: any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured; [or] any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of a system, part, or component, or as an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle ..." (49 U.S.C. 30102). This definition includes a convertible top, since convertible tops are components manufactured and sold either as original equipment on new vehicles or as a replacement or improvement of the convertible top. Since a convertible top is an item of motor vehicle equipment, the manufacturer of the convertible top must ensure that the convertible tops comply with all applicable FMVSSs and contain no safety-related defects.

Keep in mind that there is no FMVSS that applies to the fabric only. However, as explained below, there are requirements that apply to convertible tops, and the characteristics of the fabric would affect the convertible tops compliance with those requirements.

Convertible Tops for New Vehicles

If the convertible top were added to a new vehicle, i.e., before the vehicle is sold for the first time to a consumer, then it must meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 302, Flammability of interior materials (49 CFR 571.302). FMVSS No. 302 applies to certain vehicle occupant compartment components, including convertible tops, on new completed motor vehicles. Persons selling new vehicles equipped with the convertible top made from your fabric must ensure that the vehicles, including the top with your fabric, conform to FMVSS No. 302. There are other FMVSSs that apply to convertible tops, such as aspects of FMVSS No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact (49 CFR 571.201). The vehicle manufacturer using your fabric would have to certify compliance of the vehicle with FMVSS No. 302, No. 201, and with all other applicable FMVSS. The manufacturer might ask you for information that would assist it in making its certification, such as the burn rate of your fabric when subjected to FMVSS No. 302 test procedures. Nonetheless, the manufacturer would be responsible for ensuring that its reliance on your assurances were reasonable and that the assurances were bona fide. Also, our requirement that the vehicle must be free of safety related defects has a bearing on the materials used in the manufacture of the vehicle.

For Used Vehicles

If your fabric were used to manufacture convertible tops for use in used vehicles (i.e., vehicles previously purchased in good faith for purposes other than resale), the fabric need not meet FMVSS No. 302. FMVSS No. 302 only applies to new vehicles.

However, you should be aware of 30122 of the Safety Act. That section specifies: A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard ... The flammability resistance of the original vehicle is an element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with FMVSS No. 302. Installation of an item that degraded the flammability resistance of a vehicle may subject the commercial entity to penalties for violating 30122.

Again, the Safety Act requires all vehicle and equipment manufacturers to ensure that their products contain no defects relating to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, the manufacturer of the convertible tops would be obligated to recall and remedy convertible tops that are determined to contain a safety related defect, even if the convertible tops were installed by the vehicle owners themselves.

Other Considerations

State or local jurisdictions have their own traffic safety laws which could affect the flammability resistance of certain items. For information about those requirements, you should contact the State departments of motor vehicles. You also mentioned private tort liability. For information on that matter, we suggest you contact your private attorney or insurance carrier.

I hope this information is helpful. Enclosed is an information sheet describing generally your responsibilities under the Safety Act. If you have further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:302

d.11/20/08

David M. Mihalick, Standards Compliance Manager

Thor Industries, Inc.

419 West Pike Street,

P.O. Box 629

Jackson Center, OH 45334-0629

Dear Mr. Mihalick:

This responds to your letter in which you asked about certain labeling requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) Nos. 110, Tire selection and rims and motor home/recreation vehicle trailer load carrying capacity information for motor vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less, and 120, Tire selection and rims and motor home/recreation vehicle trailer load carrying capacity information for motor vehicles with a GVWR of more than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds), with respect to motor homes. You wrote your letter in light of amendments made to the standards in a final rule published in December 2007.[1] You asked whether the number of safety belt-equipped seating positions and their resulting occupant weight can be greater than the stated occupant and cargo carrying capacity (OCCC). For reasons discussed below, the answer to this question is no.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue and enforce Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. See 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301. FMVSS Nos. 110 and 120 are two of the standards we have issued. Manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products.

FMVSS Nos. 110 and 120 require motor homes to have OCCC labels that, among other things, include the following information:

THE COMBINED WEIGHT OF OCCUPANTS AND CARGO SHOULD

NEVER EXCEED XXX KG OR XXX LBS

and

Safety belt equipped seating capacity: XXX.

Under NHTSA's certification regulation, Part 567, manufacturers must assign a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) to a new vehicle. The term GVWR is defined in 49 CFR Part 571.3 as "the value specified by the manufacturer as the loaded weight of a single vehicle." The GVWR informs vehicle owners how heavily the vehicle may safely be loaded. It also affects the vehicle's loading and other test conditions for the safety standards to which the vehicle must be certified, and at which NHTSA conducts any relevant compliance testing.

Under Part 567, vehicle manufacturers cannot specify a GVWR that is less than the sum of (1) the unloaded vehicle weight (including maximum capacity of all fluids necessary for operation of the vehicle),[2] (2) the rated cargo and luggage load, and (3) 150 pounds times the number of the vehicles designated seating positions.[3] See 567.4(g)(3), 567.5(b)(2)(iii) and 567.5(d)(2)(iii). The combined weight for occupants (calculated by multiplying 150 pounds times the number of the vehicles designated seating positions) and cargo cannot, therefore, be more than the GVWR of the vehicle minus the unloaded vehicle weight.

You specifically asked whether the number of safety belt-equipped seating positions and their resulting occupant weight can be greater than the stated occupant and cargo carrying capacity (OCCC). We assume that each safety belt-equipped seating position would be consistent with the definition of designated seating position set forth at 49 CFR 571.3. Thus, the requirements of Part 567 would prohibit any design where the sum of the vehicles unloaded vehicle weight plus 150 pounds times the number of safety-belt equipped seating positions exceeded the GVWR, irrespective of the rated cargo and luggage load.

The requirements of FMVSS Nos. 110 and 120 serve to reinforce these requirements of Part 567.

Standard No. 110 - In the December 2007 final rule, a new S9 was added to FMVSS No. 110. For motor homes and recreation vehicle (RV) trailers, the single stage or final stage manufacturer must affix either a motor home occupant and cargo carrying capacity (OCCC) label (Figure 3) or a RV trailer cargo carrying capacity (CCC) label (Figure 4) to its vehicles that meets specified requirements, including the following:

S9.3.2 The weight value for load carrying capacity on the RV load carrying capacity labels (Figures 3 and 4) must be displayed to the nearest kilogram with conversion to the nearest pound and must be such that the vehicle does not exceed its GVWR when loaded with the stated load carrying capacity. The UVW and the GVWR used to determine the RVs load carrying capacity must reflect the weights and design of the motor home or RV trailer as configured for delivery to the dealer/service facility.

Moreover, S9.3.6 states:

For RVs, the vehicle capacity weight values and the seating capacity values (motor homes only) on the placard required by S4.3 or S4.3.5 must agree with the load carrying capacity weight values and the safety belt equipped seating capacity (motor homes only) on the RV load carrying capacity labels. (Figures 3 and 4).

To clarify, FMVSS No. 110, paragraph S.4.3, requires that vehicles including motor homes be labeled with a value for the vehicle capacity weight on the vehicle placard. The vehicle capacity weight is defined as, the rated cargo and luggage load plus 68 kilograms (150 pounds) times the vehicle designated seating capacity.

The requirement that these various values must agree with each other means that for motor homes with GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less, the number of designated seating positions (at 150 pounds per position, as specified in 49 CFR Part 567) must equal the number of safety belt-equipped seating positions. The occupant weight subtotal added to the cargo carrying capacity must equal the load carrying capacity weight on the OCCC label. In addition, the load carrying capacity weight values must be the same on both labels required by FMVSS No. 110. Finally, as provided in S9.3.2, the vehicle must not exceed its GVWR when loaded with the stated load carrying capacity weight.

Standard No. 120 In the December 2007 final rule, a new S10. was added to FMVSS No. 120. For motor homes and recreation vehicles, the single stage or final stage manufacturer must affix either a motor home occupant and cargo carrying capacity (OCCC) label (Figure 1) or a RV trailer cargo carrying capacity (CCC) label (Figure 2) to its vehicles that meets specified requirements, including the following:

S10.4.2 The weight value for load carrying capacity on the RV load carrying capacity labels (Figures 1 and 2) must be displayed to the nearest kilogram with conversion to the nearest pound and must be such that the vehicles weight does not exceed its GVWR when loaded with the stated load carrying capacity. The UVW and the GVWR used to determine the RVs load carrying capacity must reflect the weights and design of the motor home or RV trailer as configured for delivery to the dealer/service facility.

Standard No. 120 does not include a provision comparable to S9.3.6 of Standard No. 110, since it does not include a separate placard requirement for information about vehicle capacity weight values and seating capacity values. However, given the fact that Standard Nos. 110 and 120 use the same terminology for the OCCC labels, as well as the relationship between the OCCC label requirements and those of Part 567, we interpret these terms to have the same meaning. Thus, the load carrying capacity weight on the Standard No. 120 OCCC label must reflect the sum of the rated cargo and luggage load plus 68 kilograms (150 pounds) times the number of designated seating positions. As noted earlier, we assume that each safety belt-equipped seating position would be consistent with the definition of designated seating position set forth at 49 CFR 571.3. Finally, as provided in S10.4.2, the vehicle must not exceed its GVWR when loaded with the stated load carrying capacity weight.

We note that, in your letter, you stated that Giving a vehicle owner the flexibility to choose between the amount of cargo and number of people they transport is a definite advantage to that customer. FMVSS No 110 and 120 permit this type of flexibility. The OCCC labels provide owners with a load carrying capacity value that they may use for various combinations of number of occupants and cargo. However, vehicles may not have a GVWR that is less than the sum of (1) the unloaded vehicle weight (including maximum capacity of all fluids necessary for operation of the vehicle), (2) the rated cargo and luggage load, and (3) 150 pounds times the number of the vehicles designated seating positions.

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

Sincerely yours,

Stephen P. Wood

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:110#120#567

d.7/24/09

Ms. Amy Sanford

Recaro North America, Inc.

4120 Luella Lane

Auburn Hills, MI 48326

Dear Ms. Sanford:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of S5.2.1.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, with regard to an infant carrier that you would like to bring to the U.S. market. We regret to inform you that we cannot interpret the standard in the manner you suggest.

According to your letter, your infant seat incorporates an adjustable back rest with an integral harness. The child restraint enables the consumer to adjust (raise) the restraints shoulder harness by a lever mechanism to adjust to a growing child without having to remove the harness from the seat back. When the shoulder harness is raised by the lever, the infant seat back is also raised. When the seat back is adjusted to the lowest position, it has a height of 410 millimeters (mm). You state that when it is raised to the full up position, the seat back is at least 500 mm.

S5.2.1 of FMVSS No. 213 specifies requirements for the minimum head support surface for child restraints other than car beds. S5.2.1.1 requires each child restraint to provide restraint against rearward movement of the head of the child (rearward in relation to the child) by means of a continuous seat back of a specified height. For child restraints recommended by their manufacturer for use by children of not more than 18 kilograms (40 pounds), S5.2.1.1(a) specifies that the height of the portion of the seat back providing head restraint must not be less than 500 mm.

From the information you provided, it appears your restraint does not meet S5.2.1.1(a) of the standard. In the lowest adjustment position, the seat back height is 410 mm, which is less than the minimum height requirement of 500 mm. The requirement does not provide for adjustable seat backs. We note that your restraint requires action on the part of the consumer to raise the seat back height. There is a risk that consumers who neglect to raise the harness straps (and thus raise the seat back) or who attempt to raise the straps but do so incorrectly could use the child restraint with the seat back at the 410 mm height with older infants. In short, we cannot interpret S5.2.1 as permitting a seat back height of less than 500 mm.

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

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

ref:213

d.11/20/08

Mr. Mark Temple

Bikers of Lesser Tolerance

8790 Mellowdawn Way

Orangevale, CA 95662

Dear Mr. Temple:

This responds to your letter asking several questions related to motorcycle helmets and the testing required to certify to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 218, Motorcycle Helmets. We have addressed your questions below.

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

You first ask if there has been a change in the Federal regulation regarding the certification process for motorcycle helmets in the last 10 years. On October 2, 2008, NHTSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register proposing to update the testing procedures and labeling requirements of FMVSS No. 218. A copy of the NPRM is enclosed.

Your second question asks if the Department of Transportation (DOT) certifies motorcycle helmets. As explained in the background paragraph to this letter, NHTSA does not provide approval (or certification) of motor vehicle equipment (a motorcycle helmet is considered motor vehicle equipment). Instead, we require that manufacturers certify that new motor vehicle equipment they produce complies with all applicable FMVSSs.

Your third question asks for clarification as to what is DOT-certified helmet. DOT-certified helmet commonly means a helmet that has been certified by its manufacturer as meeting all requirements of FMVSS No. 218.

Fourth, you ask if, short of testing as specified in FMVSS No. 218, there is any way to determine if the helmet will pass FMVSS No. 218. To assess a products conformance to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, NHTSA follows the test procedures specified in the applicable standard. Additionally, more detailed testing procedures that NHTSA-contracted laboratories use to test compliance are available on NHTSAs website. We do not require manufacturers to test their products in the manner described in the standard, but they must ensure that their product will meet the specified performance requirements when tested by NHTSA in the manner set forth in the standard.

Your next question asks why helmets are subjected to expensive and rigorous scientific testing if there is another, possibly less expensive method to determine compliance with FMVSS No. 218. Our performance tests are designed to be reasonable, practicable and objective. If you believe that NHTSAs testing requirements can be made less expensive and that adequate testing of the safety considerations can be met through less burdensome means, you are welcome to submit those ideas with supporting documentation to the agency.

Your final question asks if we are aware of any State enforcement agency that cites an end user/consumer of FMVSS regulated products for the use of a recalled product, other than motorcycle helmets? By recalled product, we assume you mean a product that does not meet applicable standards. For answers about specific State laws, you should direct your question to the State departments administering motor vehicle regulations. We do note that State agencies have the authority and the responsibility to regulate the use of motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment, ensuring motorists and taxpayers in their jurisdictions are protected to the best of the States ability. States have sought to optimize the safety of motorists by requiring the use of safety equipment, e.g., seat belts, child safety seats, see-through windows, motorcycle helmets, tires, and by specifying that the equipment be certified to the FMVSSs. NHTSA strongly recommends the use of such equipment, as equipment meeting the FMVSSs reduce the risk of involvement in a crash, the severity of injury or the likelihood of death in a crash.

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

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:218

d.11/20/08

Mr. Cris Morgan

Associate Automobile Equipment Standards Engineer

California Highway Patrol

Commercial Vehicle Section, 062

444 N. 3rd Street, Suite 310

Sacramento, CA 95814

Dear Mr. Morgan:

This responds to your email asking whether Item 5 glazing is permitted in the lower (curb side view) glazing on a 2008 Motor Coach Industries bus. As explained below, Item 5 glazing is not permitted in the location you described in your letter under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing Materials. Item 5 glazing is not permitted on buses in windows to the immediate right or left of the driver.

FMVSS No. 205 incorporates by reference American National Standard for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment Operating on Land Highways-Safety Standard ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 (ANSI Z26.1). FMVSS No. 205 and ANSI Z26.1 specify performance requirements for various types of glazing (called Items), and specify the locations in vehicles in which each item of glazing may be used. As you explain in your letter, California has adopted FMVSS No. 205 by reference in the California Vehicle Code as an in-use glazing standard that must be met by all vehicles that have been sold and registered for operation on highways in California. You state that the California Highway Patrol (CHP) thus considers National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) interpretations of FMVSS No. 205 for enforcement purposes.

In your letter, you explain that a recent CHP inspection noted that the right front, swing open, entry door, lower (curb side view) glazing on a 2008 Motor Coach Industries (MCI) bus was labeled AS-5 (indicating Item 5 glazing installed in this location). You state in your letter that you believe neither FMVSS No. 205 nor ANSI Z26.1 permit Item 5 glazing in this location. We agree with your understanding.

In ANSI Z26.1, 4.2, Item 5, Safety Glazing Material for Use in Motor Vehicle Only in the Following Specific Locations at Levels Not Requisite for Driving Visibility, subsection (m) permits Item 5 glazing in windows and doors in buses at levels not requisite for driving visibility, and does not permit the glazing for the windshields, windows to the immediate right or left of

the driver, and rearmost windows if requisite for driving visibility. The phrase, requisite for driving visibility, appears twice in the discussion of Item 5 in ANSI Z26.1. The first use of the phrase, in the introductory paragraph of the Item 5 section, modifies windows and doors in buses, such that Item 5 glazing may be used in windows and doors in buses at levels not requisite for driving visibility. The second use of the phrase, in subsection (m), modifies the reference to rearmost windows in (m). Those phrases do not modify the express provision in (m) that Item 5 glazing may not be used in windshields and windows to the immediate right or left of the driver. In addition, we note that Table A1 of ANSI Z26.1 (summarizing permissible glazing locations for various vehicle classifications) also indicates that bus glazing immediately to the left and right of the driver is presumably always requisite for driving visibility.[1] Accordingly, NHTSA interprets windows to the immediate right or left of the driver in subsection (m) under Item 5 of ANSI Z26.1 4.2 as including glazing encompassing the lower (curb side view) glazing panel on a right front, swing open entry door of a coach bus.

Enclosed is an April 23, 2001, interpretation (copy enclosed) that this office wrote to Thomas F. Brown, concerning peep windows in Mack Trucks. The peep window was a small, separate additional fixed window located below the passenger doors main window, near the bottom of the door, which could be used to view objects near the passenger door of a medium or heavy duty truck. The letter involved Item 3 glazing and the issue of whether the window was at a level requisite for driving visibility. While those are different issues that the ones you raise regarding Item 5 glazing, it should be noted that NHTSA determined that the peep window was at a level requisite for driving visibility. Thus, even if we were to consider whether MCIs window is at a level requisite for driving, our answer would likely be yes.

Your letter also stated that MCI believes that ANSI Z26.1 permits Item 5 glazing in the location in question because the swing open, entry door on the coach is a folding door and because such glazing locations are standee windows in buses.[2] Based on NHTSAs understanding of 2008 MCI bus models, we disagree with MCIs categorization of the 2008 MCI bus door as either a folding door or a standee window. A single panel, swing open door on a motorcoach is not a folding door because it does not consist of two leaves or panels which operate together. A single panel, swing open door on a motorcoach is not a standee door because there is not an expectation that a passenger would be standing near a single panel, swing open motorcoach door while the motorcoach is in motion.

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

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:205

d.1/14/09

Mr. Chad Hooper

Quality Eng Leader

Carlex Glass Company

77 Excellence Way

Vonore, TN 37885

Dear Mr. Hooper:

This responds to your inquiry asking whether the marking you are considering for your glazing would violate any Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS). You ask about the location of the AS1 mark with respect to the shade band area of a windshield. As explained below, the marking you suggest in your email is permissible under Federal law.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSS that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA enforces compliance with the standards by purchasing and testing vehicles and equipment, and we also investigate safety-related defects. The agency has established FMVSS No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205), which specifies performance requirements for various types of glazing. FMVSS No. 205 incorporates by reference American National Standard for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment Operating on Land Highways-Safety Standard ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 (ANSI Z26.1). The following is our interpretation of FMVSS No. 205 based on our understanding of the information provided in your email.

In your email, you explain that you would like to keep the AS1 mark in the same location on windshields that have a shade band and shade dot matrix between the visors and on windshields that only have dot matrix between the visors. You would like to print the AS1 mark at the edge of the windshield and below the shade band area (we assume you to mean that on windshields that only have dot matrix between the visors, the shade band area is where the shade band would appear on windshields that have a full shade band) and keep this consistent between all parts. That is, you would like to have the AS1 mark appear in this same location where the windshield only has a dot matrix between the visors as where it appears on windshields that have a shade band. You state, There is a 62 mm difference in the shade band and the dot matrix area between the visors, and ask if it would be acceptable for the AS1 mark to be 62 mm lower than the dot matrix area.

Our answer is yes. Requirements for shade bands and markings are found in FMVSS No. 205 in section S5.3 (shade band requirements) and section S6 (certification and marking requirements for glazing). Section S5.3 of FMVSS No. 205 requires that windshield shade bands comply with either the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Recommended Practice J100 (rev. June 1995), Class A Vehicle Glazing Shade Bands (SAE J100), or with other specific requirements in S5.3.2 establishing a lower boundary for windshield shade bands. There is no provision in S5.3 that requires the manufacturer marking to appear in any other specific position or area of the glazing. S6 of FMVSS No. 205 requires that glazing have the markings referred to in section 7 of ANSI Z26.1. Section 7 of ANSI Z26.1 requires that manufacturers mark the windshields to show the limits of the area having a luminous transmittance of less than 70 percent (e.g., shade bands). Regarding the location of this marking, section 7 specifies that [g]lazing materials, which in a single sheet of material are intentionally made with an area having a luminous transmittance of not less than 70% (Test 2), adjoining an area that has less than 70% luminous transmittance [i.e., shaded areas], shall be permanently marked at the edge of the sheet to show the limits of the area that is intended to comply with Test 2. (Emphasis added.) Assuming the markings and shade bands meet all requirements in section S6 of FMVSS No. 205 and section 7 of ANSI Z26.1, the AS1 mark may appear at the edge of the sheet of glazing 62 mm below the lowest edge of the dot matrix area or shade band.

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

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

ref:205

d.1/16/09

Mr. Matthew Daecher

Daecher Consulting Group

3780 Trindle Rd.

Camp Hill, PA 17011

Dear Mr. Daecher:

This responds to your question asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release. You ask whether, in determining emergency exits for a bus other than a school bus (non-school bus) over 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR), the main entrance/exit door and the driver seat door may be included.

The answer is yes. Requirements for the provision of emergency exits on buses are specified at S5.2 of the standard. S5.2 specifies that non-school buses with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds must meet the requirements of S5.2.1.1, S5.2.2, or S5.2.3. Apparently you have chosen to certify the vehicle to S5.2.2. S5.2.2.1 specifies that non-school buses must provide unobstructed openings for emergency exit which collectively amount, in total square centimeters, to at least 432 times the number of designated seating positions on the bus. Under S5.2.2.1, at least 40 percent of the total required area of unobstructed openings must be provided on each side of a bus. Further, in determining the total unobstructed openings, no emergency exit, regardless of its area, shall be credited with more than 3,458 square centimeters of the total area requirement.

In this answer, we assume that the main entrance/exit door and the driver seat door of your vehicle are on opposite sides of the bus. As long as all provisions of S5.2.2.1 specified above are met, both the main entrance/exit door and the drivers seat door may be used to meet FMVSS No. 217 requirements for emergency exits on non-school buses over 10,000 pounds GVWR.

However, if the main entrance/exit door and the driver seat door of your non-school bus will be counted toward the emergency exit requirement, each door must meet all FMVSS No. 217 requirements for door emergency exits, including those for labeling the exits. The labeling requirements are specified at S5.5.1 and S5.5.2. Basically, S5.5.1 specifies that each emergency exit door in non-school buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds must have the designation Emergency Door or Emergency Exit. We

assume there are no adjacent seats for either the main entrance/exit door or the driver seat door used as an emergency exit. S5.5.2.1 specifies that the marking must meet the legibility requirements of S5.5.2 for occupants standing in the aisle location nearest to the emergency exit. S5.5.2 specifies that each marking shall be legible, when the only source of light is the normal nighttime illumination of the bus interior, to occupants having corrected visual acuity of 20/20 (Snellen ratio).

In addition, we note that FMVSS No. 217 further states at S5.2.2.2 that buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds must meet the unobstructed openings requirements in S5.2.2.1 by providing side exits and at least one rear exit that conforms to S5.3 though S5.5. Under S5.2.2.2, the rear exit must meet the requirements of S5.3 though S5.5 when the bus is upright and when the bus is overturned on either side, with the occupant standing facing the exit. Further, S5.2.2.2 specifies that when the bus configuration precludes installation of an accessible rear exit, a roof exit that meets the requirements of S5.3 through S5.5 when the bus is overturned on either side, with the occupant standing facing the exit, must be provided in the rear half of the bus.

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

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

ref #217

d.1/16/09

Mr. Ric Marzolf

VP of R&D

TriMark Corporation

500 Bailey Avenue

New Hampton, IA 50659

Dear Mr. Marzolf:

This responds to your letter asking whether a new product TriMark is developing meets the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components. I apologize for the delay in responding. You ask whether the addition of two emergency release levers to the door latches on the rear and side doors of an emergency vehicle would meet certain provisions of a February 6, 2007 final rule amending FMVSS No. 206. As discussed below, our answer is yes.

As we understand your letter, the door system that TriMark is developing for side rear doors and back doors of emergency vehicles (ambulance and fire trucks) has door latches that, for purposes of this letter, we assume meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 206 as amended by the February 6, 2007 final rule. The locking system also has two single rotor latches with a primary and secondary position, with one latch located at the top of the door and the other at the bottom of the door. You explain that the top and bottom latches each contain a release lever, independent of the interior and exterior door handles, that protrudes through the door to the interior of the vehicle. You state that, in an emergency situation where some system binding occurs that does not allow the door to be opened via the interior or exterior handles, the levers can be actuated individually on the top latch and on the bottom latch to release and open the door. This function provides a direct emergency release for each latch.

The February 6, 2007, final rule added to and updated requirements and test procedures of FMVSS No. 206, and harmonized with the worlds first global technical regulation for motor vehicles. 72 FR 5385. (The effective date of the final rule is September 1, 2009; there are pending petitions for reconsideration of the final rule. Docket No. NHTSA-2006-23882.)

To prevent inadvertent rear door openings, the amended standard specifies, among other requirements:

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

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

The amended requirements for rear side doors are similar to the current FMVSS No. 206 requirement for rear side doors (S4.1.3.2), which states:

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

In your letter you state that your system requires separate actions to actuate each latch via their emergency release levers before the door can be opened. These release levers are about four feet apart. You believe that the door system feature should be permitted because two distinct operations are needed to open the door.

Discussion

The door system you describe in your letter has an interior latch release control. As such, per new S4.3.1 and S4.3.2, when the door is locked, there must be separate actions to unlock the door and operate the interior latch release control.

Although NHTSA did not address which types of actions are permissible separate actions, the agency has stated that the door lock requirements for rear and back doors are in place to reduce inadvertent door openings due to impact upon or movement of the inside or outside door handle. 72 FR at 5395; 33 FR 6465 (April 27, 1968). Thus, the safety concern this requirement intends to mitigate is risk of ejection from a moving vehicle through inadvertent rear and back door openings. We believe that the separate actions should be separate, discrete actions on the part of the consumer (separate from an action associated with a normal driving maneuver) indicating a definitive decision, or intent, to unlock the door and egress the vehicle.

We believe that opening a side or rear door using the emergency release levers you describe in your letter does require separate actions: actuation of the top emergency lever, and actuation of the bottom emergency lever. As we understand your letter, because the two emergency release levers are four feet apart and must be actuated independently before the door is opened, the relevant safety concern (ejection risk via inadvertent door openings) is reduced with the door system you describe. In part, this is because the emergency release levers cannot be reached simultaneously by a seated occupant.

Since the door requires separate actions to operate the latch release and open the door, NHTSA believes that the emergency door lock system described in your letter meets the amended side rear door lock requirement that a rear side door lock require[ ] separate actions to unlock the door and operate the interior door handle or other interior latch release control in S4.3.1 of FMVSS No. 206.

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

Sincerely yours,

Stephen P. Wood

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:206

d.4/27/09

Mr. Harley Holt

Harley Holt & Associates, Inc.

1704 Random Stone Court

Reston, VA 20190-3251

Dear Mr. Holt:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 126, Electronic Stability Control Systems. You asked when a manufacturer is required to certify compliance with this standard if it passes the small volume manufacturer threshold of 5,000 vehicles in the middle of one of the September 1 to August 31 phase-in years. As discussed below, a manufacturer is subject to the regular phase-in requirements for the entire phase-in year if it manufactures more than 5,000 vehicles in that period.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and 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. This letter interprets FMVSS No. 126 based on our understanding of the information you have provided.

You stated that you represent an importer of all-electric vehicles, and explained that the manufacturer of the vehicles has not yet begun to produce vehicles for the U.S., but will begin production sometime during 2009. You stated that the manufacturer did not anticipate producing more than 5,000 units during the first production year, i.e., September 1, 2008 through August 31, 2009. However, you stated further that production is expected to exceed 5,000 units sometime during the period from September 1, 2009 and August 31, 2011. You asked, therefore, on what date a manufacturer is required to certify compliance with FMVSS No. 126 if it exceeds the small volume limit of 5,000 units produced sometime during a production year from September 1 through August 31 of any of the three years of the phase-in period for that standard.

Paragraph S8.7 of FMVSS No. 126, Small volume manufacturers, states that

Vehicles manufactured during any of the three years of the September 1, 2008 through August 31, 2011 phase-in by a manufacturer that produces fewer than 5,000 vehicles for sale in the United States during that year are not subject to the requirements of S8.1, S8.2, S8.3, and S8.5.

49 CFR 571.126, S8.7. Thus, small volume manufacturers producing less than 5,000 vehicles for sale in the United States in a given phase-in year are not subject to the S8 phase-in requirements. However, if a manufacturer exceeds the 5,000 unit threshold for a phase-in year, it does not qualify as a small volume manufacturer for purposes of S8.7, and it is subject to the regular phase-in requirement for the entire phase-in year.[1] The 5,000-unit threshold was chosen to ensure that only manufacturers that are truly small volume are excluded from the phase-in requirements for ESC.

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

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

ref:126

d.1/16/09

Mr. Brian Latouf

Director, Safety Regulations and Consumer Information

General Motors North America

Mail Code 480-111-S56

30200 Mound Road

Warren, MI 48090-9010

Dear Mr. Latouf:

This responds to your letter concerning a February 6, 2007 final rule amending Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components. You ask about the door locks requirements for back doors, particularly S4.3.1 and S4.3.2s requirement for separate actions to unlock the door and operate the interior latch release control. You also ask about unlatching doors via a remote transmitter (key fob).

In your letter, you do not discuss in detail the back doors to which you are referring. For purposes of this letter, we assume, based on informal conversations with you and other General Motors (GM) representatives, that your questions about the door locks requirements are concerning hatchback/station wagon back doors and lift gates on sport utility vehicles, i.e., hinged back doors that open a cargo compartment that does not have a partition between the cargo space and the last row of forward-facing seats. As discussed below, these types of back doors are subject to current door lock requirements as well as to the amended door locks requirements for back doors.

The February 6, 2007 final rule amended and updated requirements and test procedures of FMVSS No. 206, and harmonized with the worlds first global technical regulation (GTR) for motor vehicles (72 FR 5385). (The effective date of the final rule is

September 1, 2009; there are pending petitions for reconsideration of the final rule. Docket No. NHTSA-2006-23882.) To prevent inadvertent rear side and back door openings, the amended standard specifies, among other requirements:

S4.3.1 Rear side doors. Each rear side door shall be equipped with at least one locking device which has a lock release/engagement mechanism located within the interior of the vehicle and readily accessible to the driver of the vehicle or an occupant seated adjacent to the door, and which, when

engaged, prevents operation of the interior door handle or other interior latch release control and requires separate actions to unlock the door and operate the interior door handle or other interior latch release control.

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

Paragraph S4 states that these amended requirements apply to all side and back doors, that lead directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommodations and the associated door components .

Back Doors

You state that, because the GM back doors at issue do not have interior door handles and do not lead directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommodations, hinged back doors that open a cargo compartment that does not have a partition between the cargo space and the last row of forward-facing seats should not be subject to amended FMVSS No. 206. We disagree. Where there is no partition between such a cargo compartment and the passenger compartment, there is a risk that unbelted passengers could be ejected through the gap and through the rear window (see, e.g., the definition of back door in S3 of the standard; the September 28, 1995 final rule extending FMVSS No. 206 to back doors of passenger cars and MPVs so equipped, including hatchbacks, station wagons, sport utility vehicles, and passenger vans with a [gross vehicle weight rating] of 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) or less (60 FR 50124, 50127); and a May 2, 2007 letter to Lance Tunick, copy enclosed). Since preventing injuries resulting from such an event is one of the primary purposes of FMVSS No. 206, the agencys position is that such back doors are considered leading directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommodations and, thus, such back doors must meet amended FMVSS No. 206 door lock requirements in paragraph S4.3.2.

Since the GM doors at issue must comply with door locks requirements for back doors (S4.3.2), the requisite interior lock release/engagement mechanism for a back door must, when engaged, require separate actions to unlock the door and operate the interior latch release control.

Separate Action to Unlock

You ask about the permissibility of a permanently mounted switch located in the proximity of the driver which when pushed results in the unlatching of the back door. This switch is only operable when the vehicle is stationary (i.e., placed in park for vehicles with automatic transmission), or moving less than 3 kilometers/hour (km/h) for vehicles with manual transmissions.

We would consider this driver-side back door release button to be an interior latch release control. As such, per S4.3.1 and S4.3.2, when the back door is locked, there must be separate actions to unlock the door and operate the interior latch release control. The question you raise is whether placing a vehicle in park (for vehicles with automatic transmissions), or moving less than 3 km/h (for vehicles with manual transmissions) satisfies this requirement.

Although NHTSA has not addressed which types of actions are permissible separate actions, the agency explained that the door lock requirements for rear and back doors are in place to reduce inadvertent door openings due to impact upon or movement of the inside or outside door handle. 33 FR 6465 (April 27, 1968); 72 FR at 5395. Thus, the safety concern this requirement intends to mitigate is risk of ejection from a moving vehicle through inadvertent rear and back door openings. We have analyzed your system with this safety risk in mind.

The following observations bear on the safety risks at issue. According to your letter, in a vehicle with an automatic transmission, the precondition for the driver-side button to be operable is that the vehicle must be placed in park. Since the vehicle will be in park, the relevant safety concern (ejection risk) is not present when this driver-side back door release button is operable (able to open the door) because the vehicle is not in motion. However, in vehicles with manual transmissions, the driver-side back door release button that you describe in your letter is operable when the vehicle is in motion (when the vehicle is going 3 km/h or less). Thus, ejection risk may still be present where a driver-side back door release button is operable by a single push when the vehicle is in motion.

We now turn to the requirement of separate actions to unlock the door and operate theinterior latch release control (driver-side back door release button). Because the requirement addresses a concern of inadvertent door openings, we conclude that S4.3.1 requires a separate, discrete action on the part of the consumer indicating a definitive decision, or intent, to unlock the door. The separate actions required by S4.3.1--particularly, for your letter, the action to unlock the door--should be distinct from the actions that a driver normally uses to drive a vehicle, and should be purposeful toward unlocking the door and consistent with an intent to egress. Otherwise, the consumer may not know that the door has been unlocked in the course of executing normal driving actions. If there is a discrete action separate from the normal motions of driving, it is less likely a door will be inadvertently opened.

Automatic Transmission Vehicles

For these reasons, we interpret the amended FMVSS No. 206 door lock requirements to permit the system you describe for the automatic transmission vehicles, where a vehicle is placed in park, and the driver-side single-hold switch unlatches the back door. Placing an automatic transmission vehicle in park is a distinct action done when the vehicle is parked and indicates intent to egress the vehicle. Placing an automatic transmission vehicle in park is not a driving motion.

We acknowledge that placing your vehicle in park does not actually unlock the back door of the vehicles you describe (i.e., if the back door is locked while the vehicle is in motion, it will remain incapable of being opened from inside or outside after the vehicle is placed into park).  However, the conventional understanding of separate actions to unlock the door and operate the interior door handle or other interior latch release control is the actuation of a plunger or other unlocking mechanism followed by the actuation of the door handle.  The first action (actuation of the plunger) is the action to unlock the door, and the second action (actuation of the door handle) is the action that operates the interior latch release control.  With your vehicle, the action of placing a vehicle in park is arguably a better indication that the relevant safety concern (ejection risk) is no longer present than the conventional first separate action, actuation of a plunger.  A vehicle can only be placed in park when it has come to a complete stop, whereas a conventional plunger can be actuated while the vehicle is in motion.  Accordingly, NHTSA considers placing a vehicle in park to be functionally equivalent to a separate action to unlock the door.  Thus, we conclude that the driver-side switch you describe in your letter meets the separate action requirements of S4.3.1 for automatic transmission vehicles where the driver-side back door release button is inoperable unless the vehicle is placed in park.

Standard Transmission Vehicles

In contrast, we do not interpret the door lock requirements to permit such a driver-side switch in the manual transmission vehicles you described, because we do not consider the mere act of braking to 3 km/h to be a distinct action separate from the common actions a driver engages in while operating a vehicle in normal use. Braking to 3 km/h is not a discrete, or individually distinct, action indicating that the vehicle is being parked. Additionally, braking to 3 km/h does not indicate any intent to egress the vehicle. It is a motion a driver engages in while operating a vehicle in normal use. Accordingly, we do not interpret the operability of a switch to unlatch a back door while moving less than 3 km/h to be compliant with S4.3.1s requirement for separate actions to unlock the door, and operate the interior latch release control.

Key Fobs

Regarding remote transmitters (key fobs), FMVSS No. 206 does not currently address key fobs and, thus, does not prohibit a single-hold function that both unlocks and unlatches a back door lock. However, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not rule out the possibility of such door lock controls being regulated in the future.

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

Sincerely yours,

Stephen P. Wood

Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:206

d.7/24/09