ID: aiam4091

Dear Mr. Giberson: This responds to your request for an interpretation of FMVSS No. 121 *Air Brake Systems*. You asked whether vehicles equipped with 'Mini-Max' brakes, produced by Transquip Industries, Inc., comply with the standard. You stated that since the heavy spring is omitted and only a single diaphragm is used, there is no way the brake can function if the diaphragm ruptures. Your question is responded to below. We note that Motor Carrier Regulation 393.40 is administered by the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (BMCS) rather than by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). We have sent a copy of this correspondence to BMCS in order that they may respond to that part of your request.; By way of background information, NHTSA does not provide approvals o motor vehicles or equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.; Section S5.6.3 provides in relevant part: >>>The parking brake system shall be capable of achieving the minimu performance specified in either S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 with any single leakage-type failure, in any other brake system, of a part designed to contain compressed air or brake fluid (except failure of a component of a brake chamber housing). . . .<<<; The single diaphragm used in the Mini-Max brake is common to both th service and parking brake systems. As part of the service brake system, it is part of a brake system 'other' than the parking brake system. Therefore, since the diaphragm is not a component of a brake chamber housing, section S5.6.3 requires that a vehicle must be able to achieve the minimum performance specified either in S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 in the event of a diaphragm failure.; We do not have sufficient data to determine whether particular vehicle equipped with Mini-Max brakes would meet the requirements of S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 in the event of a diaphragm failure. The answer to that question could depend on the nature of the particular vehicle. It is possible, of course, that a vehicle could be capable of meeting the requirements of S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 as a result of the braking force provided by the other parking brakes whose diaphragms have not failed.; We note that the California Highway Patrol (CHP) has raised this issu and other issues relating to the compliance and overall safety of Mini-Max brakes in connection with a petition for rulemaking, and that International Transquip has submitted comments on CHP's analysis. We have enclosed for your information a notice granting the CHP petition and an interpretation letter to International Transquip. The CHP and Mini-Max submissions have been placed in the Petitions for Rulemaking (PRM) Docket for FMVSS No. 121. If you desire copies of those submissions, please contact: Docket Section, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Room 5109, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20590 (202-426-2768).; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5150

"Dear Mr. Burke: This responds to your letter requesting a interpretation of FMVSS No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205). This interpretation is based on my understanding of the statements in your letter as well as statements made by Mr. Greg Bragg of the California Highway Patrol (CHP) in a telephone conversation with Mr. Clarke Harper of this agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Standards and Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff. You ask about the marking responsibilities of glass installers who put replacement glass in school buses. CHP personnel have found school buses with replacement glass that is not marked. You ask whether an installer who cuts sections of glass from a larger, marked section is required by S6.4 of FMVSS No. 205 to mark each individual smaller section (if not already marked) prior to installing them as replacement windows. As explained below, the answer to your question is yes. The person who cuts a section of glazing to size for installation in a motor vehicle is considered a manufacturer of the glazing. This is because the item of glazing is not considered manufactured until it is in the form that it will actually be sold for installation into a motor vehicle. This position that the person cutting the glazing is a manufacturer was stated early in the history of Standard No. 205, in a letter to Donald Counihan (May 9, 1968). The agency has stated frequently since then that persons cutting sections of glazing are manufacturers, most notably in a preamble for a 1972 rule on Standard No. 205 adopting the requirements of S6.4. (37 FR 24035, November 11, 1972) NHTSA stated that S6.4 requires 'persons who cut glazing' to include the markings required by Standard No. 205 'on each cut piece.' S6.4 requires each person who cuts glazing to mark the piece with the markings required by section 6 of American National Standard (ANS) Z26. Section 6, ANS Z26 requires the following information: (1) the words 'American National Standard' or the characters 'AS,' (2) a number identifying the item of glazing, (3) a model number assigned by the manufacturer that identifies the type of construction of the glazing material, and (4) the manufacturer's distinctive designation or trademark. Section S6.5 of Standard No. 205 also requires that person to certify the material in accordance with section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. While your letter refers to persons cutting sections of glazing from larger sections, we note that it is possible that an item of replacement glazing was designed for a specific vehicle by a 'prime glazing material manufacturer' (i.e., 'one who fabricates, laminates, or tempers the glazing material,' see S6.1 of Standard No. 205). If the item was so designed by such a manufacturer, the item must be marked and certified in accordance with S6.1 and 6.2 of Standard No. 205. A person other than a prime glazing material manufacturer installing the glazing without cutting it would have no marking requirement under Standard No. 205. I hope that you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mr. Shaw at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam5356

"Dear Mr. Ozols: This responds to your February 8, 1994, letter askin about how this agency's regulations might apply to your product, the Serv-o-tray. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations. It appears from the enclosed technical description and photograph that the Serve-o-tray is a folding adjustable table designed to mount between the driver and passenger seats of a vehicle, and hold food, drinks, etc. As depicted, the Serv-o-tray is secured to the center console with an adhesive pad. The table is mounted on a swiveling, articulated, lockable arm that is composed of two horizontal and two vertical tubular support members. The Serv-o-tray is made of injection molded plastic and is capable of supporting up to 20 pounds, including a laptop computer. You explain that your product is intended to be used while the vehicle is stationary or moving. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the 'Safety Act') defines, in relevant part, the term 'motor vehicle equipment' as: 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 such system, part, or component or as any accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle ... (emphasis added). In determining whether an item of equipment is considered an accessory, NHTSA applies two criteria. The first criterion is whether a substantial portion of the expected use of the item is related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. We determine a product's expected use by considering product advertising, product labeling, and the type of store that retails the product, as well as available information about the actual use of the product. The second criterion is whether the product is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles. If the product satisfies both criteria, then the product is considered to be an 'accessory' and thus is subject to the provisions of the Safety Act. Applying these criteria to the Serv-o-tray, it appears that this product would be an accessory and thus an item of motor vehicle equipment. Based on our understanding of the product, it appears that a substantial portion of the expected use of the Serv-o-tray relates to motor vehicle operation, by allowing the occupants to eat while operating the car. Also, it appears that the product would typically be used by ordinary users of motor vehicles. While the Serv-o-tray is an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA has not issued any standards for such a device. Nevertheless, there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect the manufacture and sale of your product. You as the product's manufacturer are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. This agency is very concerned about the safety implications of the Serv-o-tray, especially if it is swiveled in front of the occupants in an air bag-equipped vehicle. Under the provisions of FMVSS No. 208, 'Occupant Crash Protection,' all new cars and trucks must be equipped with a driver side and passenger side air bag by September 1, 1998. Manufacturers are already producing ever increasing numbers of air bag-equipped cars and trucks. The enclosed document entitled 'Sudden Impact' describes the speed with which an air bag deploys. Should the Serv-o-tray be installed in an air bag-equipped vehicle, the occupants could be at risk of injury or death from the interaction of the deploying air bag and the Serv-o-tray or its contents. To protect the occupant, this agency will require that every new vehicle with an air bag be provided with a caution label that states, among other things, 'TO AVOID SERIOUS INJURY . . . Do not place any objects over the air bag or between the air bag and yourself.' As you can see, the installation of a Serv-o-tray could be contrary to this warning. There are other potential safety problems associated with the Serv-o-tray. Even without being propelled by an air bag, the Serv-o-tray or its contents could impact the occupant's head, abdomen or lower extremities during a collision. It also seems possible that the Serv-o-tray could interfere with the driver's use of the vehicle's transmission shift lever in an emergency situation. We ask that you consider these and all possible safety impacts of the Serv-o-tray. If the Serv-o-tray were installed by a vehicle manufacturer as original equipment, the vehicle manufacturer would have to certify that the vehicle, with the Serv-o-tray installed, complies with all FMVSS's. Among the FMVSS's that might be affected by the Serv-o-tray installation are Standard No. 201, 'Occupant Protection in Interior Impact' (copy enclosed), and Standard No. 208. A commercial business that installs the Serv-o-tray would also be subject to provisions of the Safety Act that affect modifications of new or used vehicles. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) provides that: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. This means that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business must not install your product if the Serv-o-tray renders inoperative the vehicle's compliance with the FMVSS's. For instance, installing the Serv- o-tray in front of the driver or passenger could degrade the performance of an air bag or the seat belts in the vehicle. Any violation of this 'render inoperative' prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. Please note also that the render inoperative prohibition does not apply to modifications that vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners install the Serv-o-tray in their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade any safety device or system installed in their vehicles. In addition, individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their vehicles, so you might wish to consult State regulations to see whether your product would be permitted. I hope this information is helpful. I have enclosed a fact sheet entitled 'Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment.' If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact us at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: aiam5322

"Dear Mr. Archer: This responds to your letter in which you asked i the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has any regulations affecting a vehicle that has an automatic engine shut-off device that operates when the vehicle remains idle for extended periods. I regret the delay in responding. By way of background information, NHTSA administers Federal requirements for the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ('Safety Act,' copy enclosed) establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's). This process requires each manufacturer to determine in the exercise of due care that its products meet all applicable requirements. NHTSA tests vehicles and equipment sold to consumers for compliance with the FMVSS's and investigates defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a noncompliance or safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem free of charge. A manufacturer of a noncomplying product is also subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each noncomplying item it produces. I have enclosed an information sheet that highlights these responsibilities. We cannot tell from your letter whether you seek to produce a vehicle that has a shut-off device installed as original equipment ('O.E.'), i.e., prior to a first sale to a consumer, or produce the device as an 'aftermarket' item of equipment, sold for installation in used vehicles. We will discuss both situations in this letter. A shut-off device may not be installed on a new vehicle if the device causes the vehicle not to comply with all applicable FMVSS's. Standard No. 102, 'Transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect,' states that 'the engine starter shall be inoperative when the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position.' (S3.1.3). NHTSA does not know of any shut-off device that would enable a vehicle to meet S3.1.3 of Standard 102. In 1984, NHTSA terminated rulemaking on an action that would have amended S3.1.3 to permit a shut-off device that restarted the vehicle's engine when the accelerator is depressed. A copy of the termination notice is enclosed. The agency terminated rulemaking citing a number of safety concerns with the particular features of the shut-off device that was the subject of the rulemaking. NHTSA stated in the notice that, if in the future a more effective and safe fuel saving device is developed, NHTSA would again consider amending Standard 102. However, given that S3.1.3 of Standard 102 was not amended, that section precludes the O.E. installation on a shut-off device such as the one described in the termination notice. With respect to the aftermarket installation of a shut-off device, there is currently no FMVSS that directly applies to the product. Standard 102 applies only to new motor vehicles and not to aftermarket components of a vehicle's transmission, such as a shut-off device. However, there are other Federal requirements that indirectly affect the manufacture and sale of a shut-off device. Under the Safety Act, the product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As explained above, each manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment is subject to the requirements in 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. In the event that the manufacturer or NHTSA determines 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. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which states: 'No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ....' This means that if a shut-off device were sold in the 'aftermarket,' no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business could install it if doing so would render inoperative any previously certified item of equipment in the vehicle. As explained above, each motor vehicle is certified as meeting Standard 102. A shut-off device that causes the vehicle to no longer comply with Standard 102 could not be installed by any person listed in section 108(a)(2)(A) without subjecting that person to civil penalties (section 109 of the Safety Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of 108). The 'render inoperative' prohibition of 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles. However, NHTSA urges all owners not to perform modifications that would degrade the safety of their vehicles, such as installing a fuel shut-off device that raises significant safety concerns. I hope this responds to your concerns. If you have any further questions, please contact David Elias of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures";

ID: aiam3903

Dear Mr. Marion: This responds to your letter regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safet Standard No. 222, *School Bus Seating and Crash Protection*. You asked whether a single, full width, 90 inch seat may be placed at the last row of the school bus and be designated as a four passenger seat. In telephone calls with Ms. Hom of my staff, you stated that these school buses have a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 10,000 pounds. Further, the next to last row of seats has two 39 inch, three passenger seats, on the left and right of the aisle.; I would like to separate your question into two parts. The first par deals with designating the full width seat as a four passenger seat even though, under S4.1 of Standard No. 222, the number of seating positions is six. The second part concerns the restraining barrier requirement of Standard No. 222.; We believe that designating a 90 inch, full width seat as a fou passenger seat would not comply with FMVSS No. 222. Paragraph S4.1 of the standard states that:; >>>The number of seating positions considered to be in a bench seat i expressed by the symbol W, and calculated as the bench width in inches divided by 15 and rounded to the nearest whole number.<<<; Thus, under S4.1, the number of seating positions on a 90 inch widt seat is six. Labeling a 90 inch width seat as a four passenger seat amounts to a disclaimer by the manufacturer that two seating positions are not to be used. This practice is prohibited since, despite the disclaimer, it is likely that passengers will use all six seating positions and, thus, each position should provide the level of occupant protection required by our standard. A manufacturer cannot escape its occupant protection responsibilities associated with a designated seating position simply by disclaiming that position.; The second part of your question deals with designating the 90 inc seat as a six passenger seat and the requirement in Standard No. 222 for restraining barriers. Standard No. 222 requires a restraining barrier of specified size in front of any designated seating position that does not have the rear surface of another school bus passenger seat within 24 inches of its seating reference point (SRP). From the information in your letter, we have determined that at least one of the designated seating positions in the center portion of the last row would not have the rear surface of another passenger seat within 24 inches of its SRP. A restraining barrier would have to be placed in front of these designated seating positions, and would block the center aisle. Such a barrier would obstruct access to the emergency exits.; FMVSS No. 217, *Bus Window Retention and Release*, regulates th number, size, and operation of school bus emergency exits. Paragraph S2 states that one of the purposes of Standard No. 217 is 'to provide a means of readily accessible emergency egress.' Paragraph S5.2.3.1 requires each school bus to be equipped with either a rear emergency door or a side emergency door and a rear window. Paragraphs S5.2.3.1 and S5.4 require unobstructed passage through these exits from the interior of the bus. If there is unobstructed access, as required by paragraphs S5.2.3.1 and S5.4, with the restraining barrier in place, then the buses you describe would not violate that requirement. However, even if the barrier and other aspects of the bus design would not violate the requirement, we would urge that the manufacturers of such buses ensure that the design not complicate efforts of the passengers to reach and use the emergency exits.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5659

"Dear Mr. Bakst: This responds to your request for the views of th National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) on two questions related to litigation in which you are currently involved, that refer to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 124, Accelerator control systems. The two questions and our responses are set out below. You advise us that you are 'dealing with a 1988 Dodge Ram 50 truck manufactured by Mitsubishi in Japan, sold in July, 1988.' You informed Dorothy Nakama of my staff that in December 1990, your client was injured while driving the Dodge Ram truck. You further informed Ms. Nakama that our October 26, 1995 interpretation letter to Hugh Bode, Esq. addressed Mr. Bode's questions stemming from the same accident and lawsuit as yours. Question 1. If the manufacturer discovers a safety-related problem after the vehicle has been sold to the first purchaser in good faith, does the manufacturer have a legal duty to notify NHTSA and/or the purchaser of this problem? If yes, what must a manufacturer do for the purchaser? The answer to the first part of this question is yes. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(c): A manufacturer of a motor vehicle . . . shall notify NHTSA by certified mail, and the owners, purchasers, and dealers of the vehicle . . . if the manufacturer -- (1) learns the vehicle contains a defect and decides in good faith that the defect is related to motor vehicle safety . . . Under 49 U.S.C. 30120, where such notification is required, the manufacturer 'shall remedy the defect . . . without charge when the vehicle is presented for remedy.' The vehicle manufacturer may choose to remedy the defect by repairing the vehicle, replacing it with an identical or reasonably equivalent vehicle, or refunding the purchase price, less a reasonable allowance for depreciation. The requirement that the remedy be provided without charge does not apply if the vehicle was bought by the first purchaser more than eight years prior to the manufacturer's defect determination. Question 2. Assume there is a safety-related defect in a brand new carburetor that results in engine overspeed. If the 'two sources of energy' are not sufficient to return the throttle to idle position when the driver removes the actuating force from the accelerator control in use, does the carburetor fail to comply with FMVSS 124? The relevant portion of FMVSS No. 124 (S5.1) provides as follows: There shall be at least two sources of energy capable of returning the throttle to the idle position within the time limit specified by S5.3 from any accelerator position or speed whenever the driver removes the opposing actuating force. In the event of failure of one source of energy by a single severance or disconnection, the throttle shall return to the idle position within the time limits specified by S5.3, from any accelerator position or speed whenever the driver removes the opposing actuating force. Under the standard, with either energy source severed or disconnected, the standard requires that the remaining energy source return the throttle to the idle position within the specified time from any accelerator position or speed whenever the driver removes the opposing actuating force. NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, (at (202) 366-2832), is the office within NHTSA which has the authority to investigate whether there is a noncompliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. We are not in a position to render an opinion as to whether the facts you describe indicate the existence of a safety-related defect. For your information, I am enclosing a copy of our October 26, 1995 letter to Hugh J. Bode, Esq. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: aiam4937

"Dear Ms. Russell: This responds to your letter of October 24, 1991 concerning Safety Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. You stated that Glaval Corporation, which you represent, recently notified NHTSA of its intention to conduct a notification and remedy campaign to respond to 'an apparent noncompliance with the safety belt anchorage strength requirements as they apply to the rear bench seat in Glaval vans.' According to your letter, these seats contain three designated seating positions, and each seat belt anchorage is 'mounted on the seat, not the floor.' You stated that in the course of evaluating potential remedies, you became aware of an April 9, 1990 interpretation letter sent by this agency to Mr. R.W. Schreyer of Transportation Manufacturing Corporation, in which the agency stated that only floor-mounted anchorages are subject to simultaneous testing. Because the Glaval van bench seat anchorages were tested simultaneously in NHTSA's compliance test, you asked the following questions: 1. Consistent with the Schreyer interpretation, should the seat-mounted anchorages of the Glaval bench seat have been loaded sequentially in NHTSA's test? If so, how does NHTSA's test on the Glaval bench seat, where the loads were applied simultaneously, affect NHTSA's tentative conclusion of noncompliance? You are correct that, consistent with the Schreyer interpretation, only floor-mounted anchorages are subject to simultaneous testing under current requirements. However, based on our understanding of the Glaval design, and as discussed below, we consider the anchorages in the Glaval van to be floor-mounted. Therefore, the Schreyer interpretation is not relevant to whether the Glaval van is in compliance with Standard No. 210. Based on photographs included in the Final Report of FMVSS 210 Compliance Testing of 1991 Glaval Van (Report No. 210-GTL-91-003), it appears that the seat belts are attached to a bar which runs along the floor behind the bench seat. The bar is directly mounted to floor brackets which run along each side of the seat. Section S4.2 of Standard No. 210 specifies that floor-mounted seat belt anchorages for adjacent designated seating positions are simultaneously tested. The term 'seat belt anchorage' is defined in section S3 as 'the provision for transferring seat belt assembly loads to the vehicle structure.' In the design at issue, the seat belt anchorage, or provision for transferring seat belt assembly loads to the vehicle structure, includes the seat belt bar. Since the seat belt bar is mounted to the floor by means of the two brackets along the sides of the seat, the seat belt anchorage is 'floor-mounted.' I note for your information that, on April 30, 1990, the agency published a final rule amending Standard No. 210 to, among other things, require simultaneous loading of all anchorages common to the same occupant seat. This amendment is effective on September 1, 1992. 2. Since Standard 207 requires simultaneous loading of the forces required by Standard 207 along with those required by Standard 210, does the Schreyer interpretation mean that, for a bench seat with seat-mounted anchorages, the proper loading for a test pursuant to FMVSS 207 should be 20 times the seat weight plus the proper load for one designated seating position on the bench seat? Your understanding of the Standard No. 207 test is correct. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ";

ID: aiam5157

"Dear Mr. Ryan: This responds to your letter of March 3, 1993 regarding a recent final rule amending Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection (58 FR 4586, January 15, 1993). This final rule requires buses designed to transport persons in wheelchairs to be equipped with wheelchair securement devices and occupant restraint systems meeting specified performance standards. You request confirmation of two statements that you believe correctly construe the new requirements. The statements and our response to each follows. 1. If a school bus is built or modified to accommodate one or more wheelchairs, after January 17, 1994, the restraint/securement system required by the regulation change must be complied with. This statement is partially correct. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (VSA) prohibits any person from manufacturing or selling a vehicle manufactured on or after the effective date of any applicable FMVSS that does not comply with each of those standards. The rule you ask about becomes effective on January 17, 1994, and would apply to all school buses manufactured on or after that date. Therefore, you are correct that a school bus manufactured on or after that date, and which has one or more locations designed for carrying a person seated in a wheelchair, must be equipped with a wheelchair securement device and occupant restraint system complying with the requirements of Standard 222 at each wheelchair location. Whether a modified school bus must meet the restraint/securement requirements depends, first, on the date of manufacture of the bus, and second, the date of the modification. Since the wheelchair restraint/securement requirements would not apply to a school bus manufactured before the effective date of the requirements, a pre-January 17, 1994, school bus modified to carry a person in a wheelchair need not meet the requirements of the new rule regardless of when the modification is made. A post-January 17, 1994, school bus that is modified before the vehicle's first sale to the consumer to carry a person in a wheelchair would have to meet the new requirements. This is because the person installing the securement system would be considered an 'alterer' under NHTSA's regulations (49 CFR 567.7) and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle conforms to all applicable FMVSS's, including Standard 222 and its restraint/securement requirements. If a school bus is modified after the vehicle's first sale, the restraint/securement system need not meet the new requirements. This is because none of our FMVSS's for vehicles (such as Standard 222) applies to a vehicle after the vehicle is sold to the consumer. After a vehicle's first sale, the only Federal requirement that would affect modifications of the vehicle is the 'render inoperative' prohibition in 108(a)(2)(A) of the VSA. That section provides that: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The 'render inoperative' prohibits commercial businesses from modifying a vehicle in a manner that would negatively affect the vehicle's compliance with applicable safety standards. However, the 'render inoperative' provision does not require commercial businesses to bring the vehicle into compliance with standards upgraded after the vehicle was manufactured. Therefore, a used school bus modified after January 17, 1994, does not have to be equipped with wheelchair securement/restraint systems complying with the new requirements of Standard 222. 2. A school bus built with no wheelchair seating positions, is not required to have a wheelchair position. This statement is correct. The January 14, 1993, final rule amended Standard 222 by adding a new section S5.4. That section requires a 'school bus having one or more locations designed for carrying a wheelchair' to be equipped with wheelchair securement devices and occupant restraint systems at those locations. If a school bus is not designed for carrying a wheelchair, wheelchair securement/restraint systems do not have to be provided. The agency's rationale for not requiring all school buses to be designed to transport persons in wheelchairs is stated in the preamble to the final rule on page 4586. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: 24333

Mr. Wayne Millson
Collins & Aikman
500 Laird Road
Guelph, Ontario N1G 3X7
Canada

Dear Mr. Millson:

This responds to your e-mail of March 22, 2002, in which you ask several questions about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 302, "Flammability of Interior Materials." Each of your questions is addressed below.

Frequency of Testing

First, you ask whether the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("the Safety Act," Title 49, United States Code, Chapter 301), specifies how frequently an item of motor vehicle equipment must be tested for the purpose of compliance with the FMVSSs. Specifically, you ask: "If a part is tested once, is there any requirement to re-test the part at a model year change if there has been no change to the part itself?"

The answer is the Safety Act does not specify how frequently an item of motor vehicle equipment must be tested. However, the Safety Act does require that manufacturers exercise "reasonable care" to ensure that their products conform to each applicable standard (49 U.S.C. 30115(a)). A manufacturer must take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that each part covered by FMVSS No. 302, if tested according to the requirements of the standard, would meet those requirements.

Surrogate Testing Requirement

Second, you ask about a provision in S5.2.1 for surrogate testing. You ask: "The end of paragraph S5.2.1 refers to a surrogate testing requirement under S4.1.1. S4.1.1 only says [Reserved]. What does this mean? How do I find out when it is acceptable to use surrogate data?"

The answer is there is no surrogate testing provision in FMVSS No. 302. As explained below, the reference in S5.2.1 to surrogate testing is an obsolete provision from a 1975 rulemaking, and should be disregarded.

S5.2.1 contains specifications for the preparation of test specimens. The last sentence of S5.2.1 reads: "The maximum available length or width of a specimen is used where either dimension is less than 356 mm or 102 mm, respectively, unless surrogate testing is required under S4.1.1." As you note, S4.1.1 is reserved.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration had added the surrogate testing option in a March 31, 1975 final rule (40 FR 14318) in response to comments suggesting that small components be exempted from the testing requirements of FMVSS No. 302. The agency denied the request to exempt small components, but added S4.1.1 to the standard to provide for surrogate testing of small components, e.g., switches, knobs, gaskets, and grommets, because they were too small to be effectively tested under the procedures in place at the time.⁽¹⁾ In a September 16, 1975 final rule (40 FR 42746), NHTSA deleted S4.1.1 (and "reserved" the paragraph for codification purposes) because several vehicle manufacturers wanted an opportunity to comment on the surrogate testing provision. NHTSA reissued the provision in the form of a notice of proposed rulemaking that same day (40 FR 42756). However, the agency did not later adopt the surrogate testing proposal. NHTSA also did not remove S4.1.1 or the reference to it in S5.2.1. Thus, the reference to a surrogate testing requirement in S5.2.1 remained even though the surrogate testing requirement was deleted.

Surfaces Created By Cutting a Test Specimen

Finally, you ask about the meaning of the last sentence in S4.3(a) of FMVSS No. 302. S4.3(a) reads:

When tested in accordance with S5, material described in S4.1 and S4.2 shall not burn, nor transmit a flame front across its surface, at a rate of more than 4 inches per minute. The requirement concerning transmission of a flame front shall not apply to a surface created by cutting a test specimen for purposes of testing pursuant to S5.

You ask how the last sentence would apply to:

a sectioned instrument panel where the sample consists of an outer PVC skin that is the finished surface the vehicle occupant sees and is only a couple of millimeters thick fully adhered to a polyurethane foam which comprises the remainder and bulk of the one-half inch sample being tested. In this instance, the PVC skin does not burn, but the flame is transmitted across the foam portion of the composite.

Our answer is that any surface not created by the cutting of the test specimen is required to comply with the burn-rate limit of S4.3(a). However, surfaces created by the cutting of the test specimen are excluded from this requirement because cutting certain materials to the prescribed thickness produces a tufted surface upon which a flame front may be propagated at a faster rate than it would be upon the surface of the material before cutting, thereby creating an artificial test condition.

Based on the information in your e-mail, this exclusion would not apply to the polyurethane foam portion of your test sample because that surface was not created by cutting the material to be tested to the prescribed thickness. Rather, the foam portion and the PVC outer skin should be tested as a composite material, as required by S4.2 of FMVSS No. 302. (S4.2 requires any portion of a single or composite material that is within 13 mm of the occupant compartment air space to meet the burn-rate requirements of S4.3. S4.2.2 specifies that any material that adheres to other materials at every point of contact shall meet the requirements of S4.3 when tested as a composite with the other materials.)

I hope you find this information helpful. For your convenience, I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes NHTSA's requirements and that tells you how you can obtain copies of our regulations. If you have any further questions, please contact Dion Casey of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:302
d.5/17/02

^1. S4.1.1 had read: "If a test sample at least 6 inches long cannot be produced from a component because of its size, a test sample or samples with composition identical to that of the component material(s) shall be produced in the shape of a rectangle 4 inches wide, 14 inches long, and as thick as the component, up to inch, and shall be used for testing pursuant to S5."

ID: aiam4732

"Dear Mr. Airola: This responds to your letter concerning Federal Moto Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 106, Brake Hoses. We understand that you are interested in supplying your products to a vehicle manufacturer (Saab-Scania), who specifies that you must 'register' with this agency as a brake hose manufacturer. You request information that would enable you to meet this product specification. I regret the delay in responding. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers Federal regulations for the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment (including brake hoses) sold in or imported into this country. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. This process requires each manufacturer to determine in the exercise of due care that its products meet all applicable requirements. NHTSA tests vehicles and equipment sold to consumers for compliance with the FMVSS's and investigates defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a noncompliance or safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem free of charge. (Note that this responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which your hoses are installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.) Any manufacturer which fails to provide notification of or remedy for a noncompliance or defect may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation. Saab-Scania's product specification appears to relate to the labeling requirements of Standard No. 106. Under S7.2.1(b) of Standard No. 106, air brake hose manufacturers must label their hose with a designation (consisting of block capital letters, numerals or a symbol) that identifies the manufacturer of the hose. The designation assists NHTSA in identifying the manufacturers of noncomplying or defective brakehoses. There is no NHTSA application form for the designation, instead, the manufacturer simply files the designation in writing with NHTSA's Crash Avoidance Division, at the address provided in S7.2.1(b) of the standard. From your letter, it appears that Saab-Scania also specifies that your brake hoses must meet all applicable FMVSS's. Standard No. 106 applies to new motor vehicles and to 'brake hoses' (which include plastic tubing), brake hose end fittings, and brake hose assemblies. The standard specifies labeling and performance requirements for these products to reduce the likelihood of brake system failure from ruptures in the brake hose or brake hose assembly. New brake hoses, end fittings and assemblies must meet these requirements to be sold in or imported into this country. If they don't comply, the manufacturers are subject to civil penalties of $1000 per violation, and the notification and remedy provisions of the Safety Act. I have enclosed a copy of the standard for your information, photocopied from the October 1, 1989 edition of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (49 CFR 571.106). In addition to the requirements described above, please note that your manufacture of brake hoses may also be affected by NHTSA's longstanding interpretation of our regulation on manufacturer identification (49 CFR Part 566, copy enclosed), if Saab-Scania sells vehicles equipped with your brake hoses in this country. This rule requires a manufacturer of equipment to which an FMVSS applies ('covered equipment'--e.g., brake hoses) to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the items of equipment it manufactures to NHTSA separately from the vehicle manufacturer to which the equipment manufacturer supplies its products. NHTSA has interpreted this regulation to require the information from foreign manufacturers of covered equipment supplying their products to a foreign vehicle manufacturer selling its vehicles in the United States. (Enclosed is a copy of the agency's January 26, 1972 letter to Mr. Nakajima of Toyota Motor Company on this issue.) Please note that Oy Toppi is not required to designate an agent for service of process under 49 CFR Part 551 (Subpart D), if Oy Toppi supplies its products only to a foreign vehicle manufacturer. This is the case even if the foreign vehicle manufacturer installs Oy Toppi's products on vehicles that will be sold in the United States. However, please keep in mind that Oy Toppi must designate an agent under Part 551 if Oy Toppi decides to offer its equipment for importation into the United States. I have enclosed a copy of this regulation for your information. I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you have further questions. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures";