ID: aiam5329

Dear Mr. McGlothan: This responds to your letter to me about the hea impact protection and protrusion limitation requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. We received under separate cover the three child seats you sent for illustration purposes, samples of Models 4560, 4590 and the STE 1000. You discuss in your letter a new method you would like to use to attach the head impact protection foam to the child restraint shell. The foam would be attached to the shell by means of two push-in pins, each 1/2 inch in length and with a 3/4 inch diameter head, as distinguished from the padding being glued to the shell as in the past. You stated that this change would better secure the foam padding to the shell and help your manufacturing process. You asked us whether the new method would meet the head impact protection requirement of S5.2.3 (for restraints recommended for children weighing less than 20 pounds) and the protrusion limitations of S5.2.4. As you know, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a self-certification system under which manufacturers are responsible for ensuring that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs. We do not approve, endorse, or give assurances of compliance of any product. NHTSA may examine the manufacturer's certification in the course of any enforcement action. In response to manufacturers' requests for interpretations of the FMVSS's, we try, to the extent possible, to provide information that will help them make their determinations of compliance. However, these responses are based on information provided by the manufacturer, and is subject to the findings of actual compliance testing by the agency. Should the agency, in the future, examine production units of these models and detect an apparent noncompliance or defect, those results will control. You first inquire, 'Please advise as to compression deflection,' which we understand as asking whether S5.2.3.2 would permit you to secure the foam with the pins. S5.2.3.2 states that each system surface, except for protrusions that comply with S5.2.4, which is contactable by a dummy head must be covered with slow recovery, energy absorbing material with specified characteristics. As explained in the next paragraph, the pins we examined appear to satisfy S5.2.4. Further, the pins might not be contactable by the dummy head in Standard 213's dynamic test. However, whether they are contactable can only be determined in the standard's dynamic test. S5.2.4 requires that any portion of a rigid structural component within or underlying a contactable surface, or any portion of a child restraint system surface that is subject to S5.2.3 shall meet specified limits on height and radius of exposed edge. Based on our visual inspection, the pins we saw appear to be within those limits. Again, however, the Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility for determining compliance in the first instance on you, the manufacturer of the child restraint. We still have the three seats that you sent us. We plan to dispose of them unless we hear from you. I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need further information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of this office at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam4801

"Dear Mr. Rusk: This responds to your recent inquiry concernin adjustment procedures for hydraulic brakes during testing in accordance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems. You asked whether, following the revisions effective September 1, 1991, the Standard will authorize manual brake adjustment on a vehicle equipped with duo-servo brakes and automatic brake adjusters following the initial burnish and three subsequent reburnishes. Although your letter did not specify that the focus of your inquiry is vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, based on the context of your letter, I am assuming that this is the case. The answer to your question is yes, if manual adjustment is the published procedure recommended by the vehicle manufacturer. Standard 105 currently provides that where automatic brake adjusters have been locked out during testing, the brakes may be manually adjusted following the initial burnish and each subsequent reburnish. Where the automatic adjusters have not been locked out, the Standard requires that the brakes be adjusted at these points by making stops in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. See, S7.4.1.2, S7.6, S7.12 and S7.14. On September 29, 1989, NHTSA published a final rule (54 FR 40080) which requires that as of September 1, 1991, for all vehicles equipped with automatic brake adjusters being tested to Standard No. 105, that the automatic adjusters be operational during the test. In addition, the rule revises the provisions in S7.4 governing brake adjustment after burnish to delete language requiring that vehicles equipped with automatic adjusters be adjusted by making stops in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. These provisions are revised to state that following each specified burnishing, the brakes are to be adjusted in accordance with the manufacturer's published recommendations (e.g. recommendations set forth in service literature). Thus, if the manufacturer recommends that the brakes be adjusted manually, notwithstanding the automatic adjusters, they are to be manually adjusted. Alternatively, if the manufacturer recommends that the brakes be adjusted by completing a series of specified stops, that procedure must be followed. In conclusion, under the new provisions in Standard No. 105, brakes on a vehicle with automatic brake adjusters and a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less should be manually adjusted at the end of the initial and subsequent burnishes if the manufacturer's published recommendations call for manual adjustment. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact David Greenburg of my staff, at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: 86-6.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/05/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood for Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Kunst

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Kunst Deutsche Tecalemit Deutsche Tecalemit GmbH P.O.B. 120128 D-4800 Bielefeld 12

Dear Mr. Kunst:

This letter responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses. We apologize for the delay in responding to your inquiry. You enclosed drawings of a brake hose end fitting and a vacuum brake hose assembly you manufacture, and asked whether the assembly would conform to the constriction requirements of S9.2.1. In our opinion, the answer is no.

Your letter did not clearly state the size of the inside diameter of the hose used in assembly 90 28B 758. That dimension is necessary in order to ascertain whether constriction requirements are met. We believe, however, based on the markings at the bottom your diagram -i.e., "TUBE 12.5x2.0 DIN 73 37B" - that the brake hose has an outside diameter of 12.5 mm, and a wall thickness of 2.0 mm. The hose would therefore have a nominal inside diameter of 8.5 mm. (If our assumptions are incorrect, please do not hesitate to contact us.) *

Paragraph S9.2.1 of Standard No. 106 states:

Except for that part of an end fitting which does not contain hose, every inside diameter of any section of a vacuum brake hose assembly shall be not less than 75 percent of the nominal inside diameter of the hose if for heavy duty, or 70 percent of the nominal inside diameter of the hose if for light duty.

To pass the constriction test of S9.2.1, a vacuum brake hose assembly (heavy duty) must have an inside diameter that is at least 75 percent of the nominal inside diameter of the brake hose. This, if the nominal inside diameter of the hose is 8.5 mm, the inside diameter of the assembly must be not less than 6.38 mm at any point. If the assembly is intended for light duty, under the 70 percent requirement its inside diameter must be not less than 5.95 mm at any point.

You stated that the inside diameter of end fitting 90 279 346 is 4 mm + 0.5 mm. Because of this size, the part of the fitting which is attached to the hose would not meet constriction requirements of S9.2.1 for either light or heavy duty applications.

If you have further questions, please contact my office.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Chief Council NHTSA 400 7th St. S.W. Washington DC 20590 USA

Subj.: Federal Safety Standards MVSS 106 Paragraph S 9.2.1, Constriction -

Dear Sirs,

In the a. m. matter we wrote to the Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, Crash Avoidance Division, Mr. Stanley R. Scheiner. Today we have received the information from Mr. Scheiner that your office is responsible in this case.

Herewith we would like to give you the following information:

In conjunction with a development for General Motors, we urgently require your interpretation of paragraph S 9.2.1, regarding the constriction of the size of any section of a vacuum brake hose assembly.

As you can learn from the enclosed drawing information, the end fitting 90 279 346 with an inside diameter of 4 mm + 0,5 mm tolerance will be used for the brake hose assembly, drwg. no 90 288 758.

Please confirm that this design comply with paragraph S 9.2.1.

We would deeply appreciate your short term reply.

Yours faithfully

DEUTSCHE TECALEMIT GMBH i.v. Kunst

SEE HARD COPY FOR GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATIONS

ID: aiam3983

Dear Corporal Browne: Thank you for your letter of July 5, 1985, concerning Federa regulations on safety belts in your patrol vehicles. You specifically asked about regulations affecting either the removal of the shoulder belt portion of a lap-shoulder belt system of the replacement of lap-shoulder belt systems with lap belt only systems. I hope that the following discussion answers your questions.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes our agenc to establish Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable to all new motor vehicles sold in the United States. We have issued Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*, which requires the installation of crash protection systems, such as safety belts, in the front and rear seats of motor vehicles. We have also issued Standard No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*, which sets performance requirements for safety belts used in motor vehicles. A copy of each standard is enclosed for your reference. As you know, each new motor vehicle sold to your Department must be certified by its manufacturer as complying with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, including Standards Nos. 208 and 209.; The alteration of a safety belt system in a used vehicle is affected b section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. A copy of that section of the Act is enclosed. That section provides, in part, that:; >>>No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repai business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, 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....<<<<; Thus, none of those commercial businesses could alter or replace th safety belts in your vehicles, if by doing so they would 'render inoperative' the compliance of the vehicle or the safety belt system with Standard Nos. 208 and 209. Removal of a portion of a belt system or the substitution of a lap belt for a lap-shoulder belt would have that effect. Note that Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners. Therefore, your Department can remove or alter your safety belts in any manner without violating Federal law. Such removals or alterations could be affected by State law.; I urge you to carefully consider the effects of altering or removin safety belts, even though Federal law would not prohibit you from making such modifications yourself. Our accident and test data show that lap-shoulder belts are very effective in reducing deaths and injuries in vehicle crashes. Particularly since your officers face the possibility of pursuit situations, we believe that it is important that they have safety belt systems that will effectively protect them in a crash.; I hope this information is of assistance. Please let me know if yo have any further questions.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3984

Dear Corporal Browne: Thank you for your letter of July 5, 1985, concerning Federa regulations on safety belts in your patrol vehicles. You specifically asked about regulations affecting either the removal of the shoulder belt portion of a lap-shoulder belt system or the replacement of lap-shoulder belt systems with lap belt only systems. I hope that the following discussion answers your questions.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes our agenc to establish Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable to all new motor vehicles sold in the United states. We have issued Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*, which requires the installation of crash protection systems, such as safety belts, in the front and rear seats of motor vehicles. We have also issued Standard No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*, which sets performance requirements for safety belts used in motor vehicles. A copy of each standard is enclosed for your reference. As you know, each new motor vehicle sold to your Department must be certified by its manufacturer as complying with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, including Standards Nos. 208 and 209.; The alteration of a safety belt system in a used vehicle is affected b section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. A copy of that section of the Act is enclosed. That section provides, in part, that:; >>>No manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repai business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, 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....<<<; Thus, none of those commercial businesses could alter or replace th safety belts in your vehicles, if by doing so they would 'render inoperative' the compliance of the vehicle or the safety belt system with Standard Nos. 208 and 209. Removal of a portion of a belt system or the substitution of a lap belt for a lap-shoulder belt would have that effect. Note that Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners. Therefore, your Department can remove or alter your safety belts in any manner without violating Federal Law. Such removals or alterations could be affected by State law.; I urge you to carefully consider the effects of altering or removin safety belts, even though Federal law would not prohibit you from making such modifications yourself. Our accident and test data show that lap-shoulder belts are very effective in reducing deaths and injuries in vehicle crashes. Particularly since your officers face the possibility of pursuit situations, we believe that it is important that they have safety belt systems that will effectively protect them in a crash.; I hope this information is of assistance. Please let me know if yo have any further questions.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5503

"Dear Mr. Gough: This responds to your letter to this office askin whether the retroreflective tape required to outline school bus emergency exits can, in the case of the rear emergency door, be placed on the door itself. The short answer is no. You stated that the State of Connecticut requires that school bus bumpers be black. You further stated that one school bus manufacturer supplied buses with the bottom piece of the retroreflective tape installed on the rear bumper. You then noticed that a number of school buses from a different manufacturer had the bottom part of the tape installed on the door itself. You asked whether the language of S5.5.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release, permitted the installation of the retroreflective tape on the door itself. Paragraph S5.5.3 of FMVSS No. 217 (49 CFR 571.217) provides: Each opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter with a minimum 3 centimeters wide retroreflective tape, either red, white, or yellow in color, . . . This requirement was imposed by amendment to FMVSS No. 217 promulgated by a final rule published in the Federal Register on November 2, 1992 (57 FR 49413). In discussing this requirement in the preamble portion of the final rule, we said at 57 FR 49421: Accordingly, the final rule requires a minimum 1 inch wide strip of retroreflective tape, either red, white, or yellow in color, to be placed around the outside perimeter of the emergency exit opening, not the emergency exit itself (emphasis added). As you may know, the buses with the tape on the emergency exit doors have been recalled by the manufacturer. For information about the recall, you can contact the bus manufacturer, Thomas Built Buses, P. O. Box 2450, High Point, NC 27261. Enclosed for your information are two interpretative letters issued by this office on related issues pertaining to the retroreflective tape requirement. See letter to Mr. Thomas D. Turner, Manager, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company, dated July 7, 1993, and letter to Mr. Turner dated March 28, 1994. I hope the above information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel Enclosures";

ID: aiam3665

Dear Mr. Wirffel: This is in reply to your letter of February 6, 1983, to Mr. Vinson o my staff regarding the legality under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 of your 'Safe-T- Signal' directional indicator. The signal, an 8-inch amber arrow, is located under the right side of a semi-trailer, approximately at mid point, and is intended to warn vehicles in the adjacent right traffic lane that the semi-trailer makes wide right turns. The system supplements the trailer's existing turn signal system, as we understand it.; There is nothing in Standard No. 108 that prohibits use of your syste as it does not appear to impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment, such as turn signals, required by Standard No. 108 as original equipment. However, you must insure that it is permitted in States in which the device is likely to be used.; We note the statement in your letter that the amber arrow is 'D.O.T approved' and in your descriptive sheet as well, plus the statement that it 'Conforms to applicable federal motor vehicle standards (C.H.P. approved).' This is legally incorrect, as the U.S. Department of Transportation does not 'approve' lighting equipment, nor does Standard No. 108 specify requirements with which a supplementary turn signal system conform. If you wish to assure prospective purchasers that Federal requirements are not being violated, we would prefer you use a phrase such as 'Permissible under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.'; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4788

"Dear Mr. Nishibori: This responds to your letter dated June 28, 199 requesting an interpretation of how the requirements of FMVSS 101, Controls and Displays, would apply to two vehicle systems Nissan is considering using. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter and during a discussion between Kazuo Iwasaki of your staff and Mary Versailles of my staff in our offices on July 13th. I. Car Phone Nissan is considering introducing a car phone in certain passenger cars which has five illuminated displays. The first display shows the number being dialed. The display is illuminated whether or not the phone is in use, and the number dialed continues to be displayed while the phone is in use. The second display illuminates the push buttons. The display becomes illuminated when the first button is pushed, and remains illuminated for 10 seconds. The remainder of the car phone displays are LED indicators. The first indicator (IU) is illuminated when the phone is 'in use'. The second indicator (NS) is illuminated when cellular phone service is not available. The third indicator (RM) is illuminated when outside the system's local operating area if the system is able to lock onto an available phone line. It is our understanding that there will be times when none of these three LED's will be illuminated and times when more than one of the LEDs could be illuminated (for example, both the IU and RM indicators). None of the car phone displays can be turned off while the ignition switch is in the 'ON' position. The illumination is not variable in any display. You asked whether the car phone displays are 'telltales' or other 'sources of illumination,' within the meaning of section S5.3.5, and whether the system is consistent with the requirements of FMVSS 101. Based upon our understanding of their functioning, the three LED indicators (IU, NS, and RM) would appear to be telltales. Both the IU and RM displays 'indicate the actuation of a device', while the NS display indicates 'a failure to function'. Because the displays are not listed in the standard, and because they are exempt from the requirements of section S5.3.5 because they are telltales, they are not subject to any illumination requirements. The other displays are not telltales. The functions of both the first display ('number dialed') and the second display ('push button') are not among those listed in the definition of a telltale. The 'number dialed' display provides information in much the same way as a fuel gauge. The illumination of the push buttons functions to facilitate dialing. Because these displays are not among those listed in Standard No. 101, and because they are not telltales, they are subject to the requirements of section S5.3.5. Therefore, these displays must 'have either (1) light intensity which is manually or automatically adjustable to provide at least two levels of brightness, (2) a single intensity that is barely discernible to a driver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions, or (3) a means of being turned off.' Based upon your description, none of these requirements are currently met. II. Air-conditioning Indicator Light In certain vehicles, Nissan uses an indicator light that is illuminated only if both the air-conditioning operating switch and the ignition switch are in the 'ON' position. You indicate that you believe the indicator is a telltale, and that if it is a telltale 'it would appear to meet the requirements of section 5.3.4, since the display is bright enough to be visible in all ambient lighting conditions.' Because the indicator light indicates actuation of a device, i.e., the air conditioner, you are correct that it is a telltale. NHTSA would like to clarify that, with the exception of the requirements of section S5.3.5, FMVSS 101 regulates only controls and displays listed in the standard. Since the air-conditioning indicator light you describe is not listed in the standard, and because telltales are exempt from the requirements of section S5.3.5, there are no illumination requirements. 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: aiam2504

Dear Mr. Clymer: This responds to your January 4, 1977, letter posing several question concerning the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) definition of school bus and its effect upon the use of transit buses to transport children to and from school.; You asked several questions in your letter: >>>(1) Are buses designed and sold for operation as common carriers i urban transportation prohibited from use in school transportation services under Federal Regulations?<<<; Buses sold for operation as common carriers in urban transportatio (transit buses) are not prohibited from use in school transportation. The definition of 'school bus' is not intended to include transit buses on regular common-carrier routes, although they mey be used in some circumstances to transport school students to and from school and related events. This type of bus has never been considered a school bus under the motor vehicle safety standards for school bus construction or under the Pupil Transportation Standarad No. 17 (43 CFR 1204) for school bus operation.; >>>(2) If the answer to (1) is no, must such buses when use incidentally in school transportation services comply with any safety standards required of 'school buses' under the Federal regulations and if so, from which are they exempt and to which must they comply? (of special concern is forward facing seats requirement of 49 CFR S 571.222 - s5.1).<<<; The answer to your question is no. As noted above, common carriers i urban transportation are excluded from the Federal definition of 'school bus' and need not comply with any Federal school bus construction regulation. While Kansas has chosen to define 'school bus' differently (and in a manner to include these transit buses), this state definition represents a voluntary decision to extend Federal construction requirements (such as forward facing seats) to a broader catagory of vehicles than dictated by Federal law and regulations.; >>>(3) Do federal regulations encourage or discourage the incidenta use of common carrier buses to help solve urban school transportation problems?<<<; Federal safety regulations promulgated under the authority of th National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act neither encourage nor discourage the incidental use of transit buses to transport children to and from school.; >>>(4) Is the Kansas law with regard to school buses, by its definitio in K.S.A. 8-1461 (Supp., 1976), and its requirements of under K.S.A. 8-2009 (Supp., 1976) (which include all safety requirements of the Kansas Transportation Manual, effective May 1, 1976) preempted, as applied to common carriers sold and designed for use in urban transportation, by federal law under 15 U.S.C. S 1392 (d)?<<<; The NHTSA responded to your question on preemption in our letter date June 15, 1976. That response is still valid. With regard to your question concerning the preemption of the Kansas definition of 'school bus,' only state motor vehicle safety standards in conflict with Federal standards are preempted. State definitions of terms are not preempted by Federal definitions.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: 11537.WKM

Mr. Francis R. Laux
Manager, Safety Standards
Safety Affairs & Regulations
General Motors Corporation
1660 L Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036

Dear Mr. Laux:

This responds to your letter to me in which you ask whether the back door glazing on two models of General Motors vehicles would be excluded from the definition of "back door" in the September 28, 1995 amendments to Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door locks and door retention components. The answer is yes as to the glazing half of both door designs.

The agency published a final rule on September 28, 1995, (60 FR 50124) extending the requirements of FMVSS No. 206 to the back doors of passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV), if so equipped, with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less. Exclusions from the definition of "back door," however, include:

[A] door or window composed entirely of glazing material whose latches and/or hinges are attached directly onto the glazing material (emphasis added).

Your questions address the meaning of the emphasized words as applied to the two MPV models in question.

Both MPV models you refer to are equipped with 2-part back doors. The top halves of the doors are composed of glazing that swings outward and upward. The bottom halves are all-metal tailgates that swing outward and downward. On one model the hinges are attached to the glazing by use of mechanical fasteners that are separated from actual contact with the glazing by a washer. The upper part of the door on the other model is composed of glazing, but the hinges are imbedded in the glazing, then covered by a decorative composite material that you refer to as ARIM@ (reaction injection molding). This door is also equipped with a high- mounted stop lamp centered at the top of the door.

You ask whether both windows would be deemed composed "entirely" of glazing material when both contain electric defroster elements and as pointed out above, one contains decorative surround and a high-mounted stop lamp. You suggest that "the agency's intent is to exempt those doors or windows whose latches and/or hinges are attached to glazing material which is the principal structural component of the door or window, rather than to mandate compliance of doors and windows that are not `composed entirely of glazing material'" (emphasis in original).

In excluding doors and windows "composed entirely of glazing material," the agency was referring to the very type doors you describe, that is, where the entire door itself is glazing as opposed to window glazing that is mounted in and framed by a metal door. As explained in the preamble to the final rule, a door composed only of glazing, be it glass, plastic, or glass/plastic, could be expected to fail in a crash before the latches or hinges would fail. In that case, it would be meaningless to require the latches and hinges to comply with the standard. It is immaterial that the glazing might contain defrosting elements, decorative material, or a high-mounted stop lamp, since those components do not strengthen the glazing. Thus, as you correctly pointed out in your letter, the agency intended to exclude from the requirements of the standard those doors and windows where glazing is the "principal structural component of the door or window."

Your other concern was whether the hinges on your upper door halves were attached "directly onto" the glazing. With respect to the model on which the door half is attached by mechanical fasteners separated from the glazing by a washer, the agency would still consider those hinges attached "directly onto" the glazing. It could reasonably be expected that the bare metal of the hinge would be separated from the bare glazing of the door or window by a washer, gasket, or some other cushioning material. The same consideration would apply to the model in which the hinge is embedded into the glazing and covered with decorative material for aesthetic purposes. Either way, the hinges are mounted directly to the glazing, as opposed to being attached to the metal frame into which the glazing is mounted. Accordingly, the agency considers the upper halves of both door designs as being composed entirely of glazing, and the hinges of both are mounted directly onto the glazing. Both doors, therefore, are excluded from the requirements of the standard.

The above discussion does not apply to the bottom halves of the doors in question. Since those doors are metal doors, the latches and hinges on them must comply with the requirements of the standard.

If you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref:206 d:5/6/96