ID: 86-2.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/23/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Delta Radio Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Delta Radio Co. P.O. Box 531 Spring Valley, N.Y. 10977

Gentlemen:

The enclosed publicity on the "Attention Getter" motorcycle accessory lighting device has come to our attention. It is represented as "Approved by the NHTSA". We do not know whether that is your characterization or that of the publication in which it appeared. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not "approve" or endorse products. Upon request, it will provide an interpretation of whether a lighting device is regulated, permitted, or not permitted by the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on lighting. If a device is deemed permitted by the standard, in no sense should that be construed as "approved by NHTSA".

As a matter of fact, we have never been asked for an opinion of the "Attention Getter" but its installation could be viewed as impairing the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the Federal standard (Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108), and prohibited by paragraph S4.1.3 of that standard. A stop lamp is required to be steady-burning in use, and not flash as does your device, and its intensity must not exceed the maximum limits imposed by SAE Standard J586c, which is incorporated by reference into Standard No. 108. The fact that "Attention Getter"s intensity goes from "normal intensity to extra bright" raises the possibility that the maxima may be exceeded.

If you have any questions regarding your further responsibilities under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, I shall be happy to answer them.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Subject: Advertisement for "Attention Getter" Date: Mar 14 1986 Motorcycle Taillight Flasher From: George L. Reagie Associate Administrator, TSP

To: Erica Z. Jones Chief Counsel, NHTSA

The attached advertisement was sent to us by Mr. Niel Tolhurst, Assistant Manager of Motorcycle Safety and Recreation for American Honda Motor Company. Mr. Tolhurst questioned the reference to "Approved by the NHTSA" in relationship to the "Attention Getter" motorcycle tail light flasher.

Since NHTSA does not approve or endorse products, I wanted to bring the advertisement to your attention so that appropriate action might be taken with the manufacturer of the product to correct the erroneous information.

Attachment

October 31, 1985

Administrator

National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator U. S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sir:

Enclosed is a sketch of a proposed motorcycle rear turn signal lamp positioning for some models of motorcycles. Reference is made to part 571.108, Title 49 of the CFR.

Table IV of the above cited reference specifies a minimum 9 inch horizontal separation distance. As indicated by dimension "A" this distance is 12 inches. This table also specifies that minimum edge to edge separation distance between lamp and tail or stop lamp is 4 inches. Dimension "B" indicated as 5.00 inches satisfies this requirement.

Your timely confirmation that our interpretation of this standard is correct will allow us to initiate tooling orders for 1987 model vehicles.

I will be happy to answer any questions you may have concerning the attached sketch and provide any additional information required. I may be reached at

Please receive this information as "Confidential business information" as described in 5 U.S.C. 552(6)(4). The release of details from the correspondence may provide vehicle styling information that could benefit our competitors.

Sincerely,

rn Enc.

ID: 1985-02.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/23/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Barbara Zirpoli -- Director, Jelly Bean Nursery School

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Barbara Zirpoli Director Jelly Bean Nursery School 96 Westside Avenue Bergenfield, New Jersey 07621

This responds to your January 24, 1985 letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Technical Reference Division asking about the school bus regulations issued by our agency. Your letter was referred to my office for reply.

I would like to explain that our agency has two sets of regulations, issued under different Acts of Congress, that affect school buses. The first of these, the motor vehicle safety standards issued under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. In a 1974 amendment to the Act, Congress expressly directed us to issue standards on specific aspects of school bus safety, including floor strength, seating systems, and crashworthiness. The standards we issued apply to all new school vehicles designed to carry 11 or more persons. Under the requirements of the Vehicle Safety Act and our regulations, manufacturers who sell such vehicles to schools must certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards, including the safety standards specifically issued for school buses.

In a February 28, 1985, telephone conversation with Ms. Hom of my staff, you said that the new school bus you purchased was certified as meeting all applicable safety standards. If the bus actually meets those standards, the manufacturer and dealer who sold you the bus have met their responsibilities under our regulations . Of course, as you are aware, there may be additional State requirements that school buses must meet in order to be properly licensed in New Jersey.

The second set of regulations issued by this agency was promulgated under the authority of the Highway Safety Act. These regulations, which are " actually more in the nature of guidelines, are called Highway Safety Program Standards, and apply to state highway safety programs. Highway Safety Program Standard (HSPS) No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, applies to school buses, and contains specifications on the color, identification, maintenance, and operation of school vehicles. Individual States have chosen to adopt some or all of our guidelines as their own policies governing their highway safety programs. Since HSPS No. 17 will affect you only if New Jersey has adopted it, you should check to see what State requirements are set for the operation of your school vehicles.

Mr . Barry Skokowski, Director of the Division of Local Government Services in Trenton, should be able to provide you with more information about New Jersey's requirements. He can be contacted at the following address:

Mr. Barry Skokowski Director, Division of Local Government Services Department of Community Affairs CN 803 363 West Street Trenton, New Jersey 08625 (609) 292-6613

Enclosed you will find copies of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 217, 220, 221, and 222, and HSPS No. 17, as you requested. I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Original Signed by

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Enclosures January 24, 1985

Technical Reference Div. 900 7th. Street SW Room 5109 Washington, DC 20590

Dear Sir:

Horace Jones from the Division of Youth and Family Services in Trenton, told me to write to you to request from this office, cost free, the rules and requirements for a 16 children passenger school bus to transport nursery school children. Not one person, in Trenton, Dept. of Human Services, Div. of Youth & Family Services, Dept. of Motor Vehicles, U.S. Dept. of Transportation, salesman and school bus dealer can give me a straight answer. They all differ on many details and no one seems to be able to agree on the regulations.

I have a nursery school, only transport my own children and have S2 School busses. I just purchased a new 1985 Chevy Sturdivan, 16 children passenger school bus, Model S-O-16 to meet all N.J. Regulations. Now the inspectors at Motor Vehicle do not agree with Sturdivan Bus Co. on the regulations and requirements in New Jersey. Everybody seems to have their own set of rules.

Does anybody know?

Thank you for your help in this matter.

Sincerely,

Barbara Zirpoli DIRECTOR JELLY BEAN SCHOOL

ID: aiam0914

Dear Mr. Dougherty: This is in reply to your letter of October 23, 1972, requestin information on the use of sample testing for determining conformity to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213. You ask if there are sampling provisions to which manufacturers should currently be adhering.; There is no specified sampling provision for manufacturers to follow i testing their products for conformity to Standard No. 213. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires each item of motor vehicle equipment (for example, each child seat) to conform to the applicable safety standard in effect on its date of manufacture. It is the manufacturer's responsibility to decide what type of testing program is necessary to be reasonably certain that each item complies. The extent of his sampling should depend on such factors as the margin by which typical samples pass the performance requirements, the amount of variation in production that is present, and the degree to which substandard items can be detected by non-destructive techniques.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0284

Dear Mr. Graham: This is in reply to your letter of December 30, 1970, requesting a interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, 'Glazing Materials,' as it applies to the forward-facing window above the windshield of a particular bus, a picture of which you enclosed.; Because the window in question is a forward-facing window, we canno conclude that it is an 'opening in the roof' under the standard. We apologize for the inconvenience caused by any implication to the contrary that you may have been given on your visit here.; Based upon the picture submitted, and your statement that the windo 'is not adjacent to passenger seating,' we conclude that this location is one that is not specifically designated by the standard. As such, the use of AS2 glazing, which you indicated you plan to use, or alternatively AS1, AS3, AS10, or AS11 glazing, would be appropriate.; If you have further questions, we will be happy to answer them for you. Sincerely, Rodolfo A. Diaz, Acting Associate Administrator, Moto Vehicle Programs;

ID: nht89-2.51

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/31/89

FROM: W. MARSHALL RICKERT -- MVA

TO: CONSTANCE A. MORELLA -- HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/29/89 ESTIMATED, FROM JEFFREY R. MILLER -- NHTSA TO JOHN D. DINGELL -- HOUSE; REDBOOK A34; STANDARD 205; LETTER DATED 09/22/89 FROM JOHN D. DINGELL -- HOUSE TO JEFFREY R. MILLER; LETTER DATED 08/25/89 FROM CONSTANCE A. MORELLA -- HOUSE TO NORMAN Y. MINETA -- HOUSE; LETTER DATED 07/08/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO NORMAN D. SHUNWAY -- CONGRESS; STANDARD 205; LETTER DATED 11/01/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO BEVERLY B. BYRON -- HOUSE; STANDARD 205

TEXT: Dear Congresswoman Morella:

I am writing in response to your letter of July 6, 1989, regarding Katherine M. Dante's letter to you requesting assistance in obtaining a waiver to permit tinted windows on her automobile. You may recall that Mrs. Dante suffers from a skin disease c alled Vitaligo, and has been advised to avoid exposure to the sun's rays.

Unfortunately, the Motor Vehicle Administration has limited authority under present Federal law and regulations to waive standards for window tinting. Title 15, Section 1397(a) of the U.S. Code provides the standards for light transmittance permitted in a new vehicle's window glazing. That Section also makes it a violation of federal law for a car manufacturer, distributer, dealer or repair business to "render inoperative" the glazing installed in the new vehicle. Thus, after the new car is sold, a used car dealer or motor vehicle repair business cannot add tinting to a vehicle which would result in a light transmittance level which did not meet the federal standards for durability and opacity.

Current federal law does not allow for any medical exemptions from this prohibition. Federal law does not, however, prohibit an individual from applying window tinting to his or her own vehicle, even if such application results in a light transmittan ce level which does not conform with the federal standard. Maryland's regulations, however, do prohibit an individual from applying any tinting to a vehicle.

I am informed by my staff and the State Police that there are no window tinting products currently on the market which, when applied, would still meet the federal standard. I am attaching two explanations of this law - one from my counsel and one con tained in a letter from the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, to Congresswoman Beverly Byron.

It seems to me there are two things that can be done. On the State level I will explore with the State Police the possibility of amending Maryland's regulation to allow an individual to apply tinting to his or her own vehicle for medical reasons. Ho wever, I believe that federal law should also be amended to allow a motor vehicle repair business to apply tinting which does not conform with federal standards if the tinting is needed for medical reasons. I frankly do not know how difficult it is to a pply tinting, but it seems ludicrous to state that an individual can apply tinting, but that that individual cannot hire someone else to apply it.

I hope my explanation and suggestions are helpful. Mrs. Dante is not alone in her frustration with this law. I intend to do all I can to provide for a medical waiver, but I think it is going to take a joint Federal/State effort to accomplish this g oal. I would be happy to pursue this further with you.

With kindest personal regards.

Sincerely,

Attachments

The abortion issue is now gone beyond "Right to(Illegible Word) It now threatens our Basic Bill of Rights and the Constitutes who is to say that in the future the table would be turned and mandatory abortions for population control, ie. China would be law. I urge you to side with "Freedom of Choice" and protect our Democracy.

2) Tinted Glass on Motor Vehicles

In the state of Maryland, the law states that only RV, Trucks, Vans, Mini Vans, Limo's are legally allowed to have tinted glass. This I find confusing. The operators of these Vehicles have to visualize traffic conditions the same as the operator of a passenger car. The MVA reason for permitting the tinted glass on the above vehicles, is that they posses a Rear View mirror on the passenger side of the Vehicle. As you are well aware this option is very easily attainable on a passenger car also.

I was informed that the statute stems from a federal law passed in early 1960's, however each state has the ability to ammend this statute. With current advances in technology since 1960's, both in the tinted films, and(Illegible Word) tint manufactu red into the glass, The Visual acuity is unaltered. Tinted glass decreases harmful Ultra Violet Rays, that cause glare for and heat within the automobile. This is especially noticed on those Hot, Humid, Washington D.C. Days, especially for passengers ( Illegible Word) in 3rd seats of STATION wagons. I feel there is no reason why passenger cars should be excluded from possessing tinted glass as long as it meets current industry specifications and the vehicle is properly equiped.

ID: nht88-3.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/26/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: R. C. ROST -- PRESIDENT MINNESOTA BODY & EQUIPMENT CO.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 03/18/88 TO CHIEF COUNCIL -- NHTSA, FROM R&C ROST RE REQUEST THAT HEADSTART BUSES NOT BE REQUIRED TO HAVE ROOF WARNING LIGHTS IF A COLOR OTHER THAN SCHOOL BUS YELLOW IS USED, OCC - 1763; LETTER DATED 12/21/77, TO JAMES TYDINGS FROM JOSEPH J LEVIN; LETTER DATED 02/11/88 TO SHANON L FOND FROM JERRY SMITH RE FEDERAL INTERPRETATION OF SCHOOL BUS USER; LETTER DATED 02/25/88 TO SHARON FORD, FROM JERRY SMITH; UNDATED BROCHURES ON SCHOOLBUS BY WAYNE CORPORATION

TEXT: Dear Mr. Rost:

This is in reply to your letter of March 18, 1988, bringing our attention to a conflict between a Federal motor vehicle safety standard applicable to school bus lighting, and State requirements applicable to these vehicles.

You have informed us that at least two States, Iowa and Wisconsin, prohibit Head Start buses in effect from being identified as a school bus, either by words or by color, and from having the warning lamp system required by Standard No. 108. Paragraph S4. 1.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment requires each school bus to be equipped with a four or eight lamp signal system, in addition to other required lighting equipment. You also indicat e that some regional Headstart authorities reportedly do not recognize the interpretations and regulations of this agency regarding school bus safety. You have asked that Head Start buses be exempted from the warning law requirement if a color other tha n school bus yellow is used.

In 1974, Congress amended the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to require the issuance of certain Federal motor vehicle safety standards for school buses. The amendments defined "school bus" as:

a passenger motor vehicle which is designed to carry more than 10 passengers in addition to the driver, and which the Secretary determines is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school stud ents to or from such schools or events related to such schools." (15 U.S.C. 1391(14)) (Emphasis added.)

On December 29, 1977, the then Chief Counsel of this agency issued an opinion under 15 U.S.C. 1391(14) that Head Start facilities are considered preprimary schools and that buses transporting children to and from those schools are defined as school buses under Federal law and accordingly are subject to the Federal school bus safety standards. Specifically, the letter stated:

The NHTSA interprets the term "school" broadly, because the agency believes that this is the intent of the Motor Vehicle and School Bus Safety Amendments of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-492) which directed the creation of the school bus safety standards. Since t his head start program is basically an educational program for preprimary students, the agency had determined that those facilities are schools and buses transporting children to and from them must comply with the Federal school bus safety requirements i f they transport 10 or more passengers.

I am sorry to inform you that we cannot grant your request for an exemption. The 1977 opinion of this agency regarding Congress' 1974 mandate remains operative. The Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to buses defined under Federal law as school buses continue to apply in all respects to buses used to carry preprimary school pupils such as those in the Head Start program. Any manufacturer who omits the warning lamp system required by paragraph S4.1.4 of Standard No. 108, or who delivers a bus with the warning lamp system inoperative, is in violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and subject to civil penalties. The manufacturer is also subject to the provisions of the Act for notification and remedy of the noncom pliance with Standard No. 108.

The effect of the preemption provision in section 103(d) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) is that a State may not adopt or enforce a standard or requirement that regulates the same aspect of safety performance as one of the Federal standards unless that St ate standard or requirement is identical to the Federal one. While the statute also permits a State to establish a higher standard of performance for vehicles procured for its own use, we would not view an exemption from the warning light requirement as a "higher standard of performance." Thus, regardless of how a State defines "school bus," a State cannot prohibit a van, with seating capacity large enough to be defined as a school bus under Federal law, from being equipped with a school bus warning sys tem that is designed and wired as required by paragraph S4.1.4 of Standard No. 108. Although each State has the authority to establish laws for the use of vehicles on its roads, those State laws may not override Federal laws. The effect of Federal pree mption is that the school bus warning system must continue to operate as required by paragraph S4.1.4(b) (ii), and a State may not directly or indirectly require tampering with that equipment in order to comply with State usage laws.

We are providing copies of this letter to the officials in Iowa and Wisconsin mentioned in your letter.

Sincerely,

ID: 1983-1.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/26/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 7, 1982, to Mr. Vinson of this office asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 with respect to a new option for school buses permitted by Wisconsin. This option would allow two additional red lamps, front and rear, as a supplement to the red warning lamp system required by paragraph S4.1.4(a) of the standard.

As a general rule, supplemental lighting is permitted by Standard No. 108 as long as it does not "impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment" required by the standard (paragraph S4.1.3). In our opinion, the separate lamps that would be permitted by Wisconsin on the front of the school bus, between the bottom of the windshield and the top of the highest headlamp, would not impair the effectiveness of the front lighting equipment. The lamps on the rear, however, according to Wisconsin, could be incorporatedn "in an existing lamp" provided that such incorporation "shall not interfere with or override the existing unit's function." We believe that the language both of Standard No. 108 and the Wisconsin specification would effectively prohibit incorporation of the warning lamp into the stop lamp of the school bus. However, we believe that this language would allow its combination with the tail lamp, or its addition as a separate lamp.

We trust that this is responsive to your request.

SINCERELY,

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

December 7, 1982

Taylor Vinson Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Taylor:

I am writing for an interpretation of FMVSS 108 based on the attached copy of the new Wisconsin School Transportation Specifications. You will note that Wisconsin is asking for an additional warning light on each side, front and back, tied into the existing warning light flasher system in order to make school buses more visible to vehicular traffic.

It is the opinion of Blue Bird that this does not affect the requirements of FMVSS 108 providing the basic requirements of this standard are not altered by the addition of the additional two (2) lights front and rear.

I am looking forward to your prompt response.

Thank you.

Thomas D. Turner Manager Engineering Services

C: DEWEY BRUNNER; JIM MOORMAN

Wisconsin School Transportation Specifications

(a) The bus shall be equipped with alternating red flashing lamps.

1. The bus shall be equipped with 2 red warning lamps at the rear of the vehicle and 2 red warning lamps at the front of the vehicle, which shall be controlled by a manually actuated switch and shall flash alternately at rate of 60 to 120 cycles per minute. A brake or door operated switch shall not be permitted. The "on" period shall be long enough to permit bulb filament to come up to full brightness.

a. An option is permitted, whereby, 2 additional alternating flashing red lights may be mounted on both the front and rear of the bus. The additional front facing lights shall be located between the bottom of the windshield and the top of the highest headlamp. They may be mounted on the fender or the cowl.

b. The additional rear facing lights may be separate lamps mounted within 12 inches above or below the directional turn signals or may be incorporated in an existing lamp. Any incorporation with an existing unit shall not interfere with or override the existing unit's function.

c. The optional system shall have units with a red lens of at least the same diameter as the required alternating lights. The alternating "on," "off" positions shall be opposite from those of the required alternating lights. The effect will produce the required top mounted flashing light and an optional mid-height mounted light to flash on opposite sides simultaneously. The result can be described as a "wig-wag" or "cross-arm" effect.

2. The red warning lamps shall be of seal beam construction or other improved type such as strobe, not less than 5 inches in diameter and visible from a distance of at least 500 feet along the axis of the vehicle in bright sunlight.

3. There shall be a visible or audible means of giving clear and unmistakable indication to driver when the signaling system is turned on.

4. Each red warning signal lamp shall be mounted with its axis substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis of vehicle.

5. The front and rear red warning signal lamps shall be spaced as far apart laterally as practicable, and in no case shall the spacing between lamp centers be less than 3 feet.

6. The front red warning signal lamps shall be located so that they can be clearly distinguished when headlamps are lighted on lower beam.

7. The warning signal lamps shall be mounted at the front above the windshield and at the rear so that the lower edge of the lens is not lower than the top line of the side window openings.

8. The front and the rear signal lamps shall be unobstructed by any part of the vehicle from 5 degrees above to 10 degrees below horizontal and from 30 degrees to the right and 30 degrees to the left of the centerline of the vehicle.

9. The area around the lens of each alternately flashing red signal lamp and extending outward approximately 3 inches shall be painted black on all school buses. This subdivision shall not apply to vehicles not specifically manufactured as school buses and which have red warning signal lamps mounted above the roof top. Red warning signal lamps on such vehicles shall be equipped with black hoods at least 3 inches long.

10. Except as provided in sub. (9) above, red warning signal lamps may be equipped with hoods to shield from rays of sun for improved visibility.

ID: aiam4026

Dear Ms. Nedoba: Your letter of September 4, 1985, to the Consumer Product Safet Commission was forwarded to our agency for reply, since we issue safety standards for motor vehicles under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq*.). You asked if there are regulations that would apply to a safety belt used in a race car.; Our agency has issued Safety Standard No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies* which sets performance requirements for safety belts used in motor vehicles. A copy of the standard is enclosed. Section 102(3) of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(B)) defines a motor vehicle as 'any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for the public streets, roads, and highways,....' Whether a race car would be considered a motor vehicle covered by our standard would be determined by whether it was used on the street or whether it was intended and sold solely for off-road use. If the race car was manufactured for off-road (or non-public road) use, the standard would not apply.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: 008062.rbm

Mr. Dietmar K. Haenchen
Volkswagen
Safety Affairs and Vehicle Testing
Mail Code 3C02
3800 Hamlin Road
Auburn Hills, MI 48326

Dear Mr. Haenchen:

This responds to your letter requesting clarification of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door locks and door retention components. Specifically, you have asked whether the back door requirements apply to latch systems on a hinged window that is integrated into the back door. For the system described in your letter, the answer is no. This system is not subject to FMVSS No. 206s back door requirements because the standard is designed to address latch systems on doors rather than windows.

As you are aware, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers a statute requiring that motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States or imported into the United States be manufactured so as to reduce the likelihood of motor vehicle crashes and of deaths and injuries when crashes do occur. We refer to that statute as the Vehicle Safety Act. It is codified at 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq.

One of the agencys functions under the Vehicle Safety Act is to issue and enforce FMVSSs. These standards specify safety performance requirements for motor vehicles and/or items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of motor vehicles must certify compliance with all applicable safety standards and permanently apply a label to each vehicle stating that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSSs.

FMVSS No. 206 specifies certain performance requirements for door retention components, including those on back doors. The definition of a back door, contained in S3 of the standard, states:

Back door means a door or door system on the back end of a motor vehicle through which passengers can enter or depart the vehicle, or cargo can be loaded or unloaded; but does not include:


(a) a trunk lid; or
(b) a door or window that is composed entirely of glazing material and whose latches and/or hinges are attached directly to the glazing material.

Your question relates specifically to a system consisting of a back door that would fully comply with the requirements of FMVSS No. 206, but which has a window integrated into the door that rotates away from the vehicle when opened. The window would be supported by a thin metal or plastic frame and have hinges or latches that are attached to either the thin frame or directly to the piece of glazing.

You are concerned that because the window would incorporate a latch/hinge design, it would be considered a back door under the standard, and the latch would be regulated by FMVSS No. 206 unless exempt under subpart (b) of the back door definition. As explained more fully below, based on the information you have provided, it appears that the window would not be considered a back door.

In excluding doors and windows "composed entirely of glazing material" NHTSA was referring to large pieces of glazing that act as a back door, not window glazing that is mounted in and framed by a metal door (see letter of interpretation to General Motors Corporation, dated May 6, 1996). NHTSA decided to exempt windows composed entirely of glazing because many back doors incorporate a design whereby the back door system consists of a lower, metal tailgate and an upper piece of glazing that is not surrounded by a metal frame sufficiently strong to retain a door latch or hinge component in a crash. The piece of glazing is joined directly to the vehicle structure via a set of hinges and the latch is married to a striker positioned in the tailgate or the frame of the vehicle. As originally proposed, such a design would have required each piece of attachment hardware to meet the newly proposed back door requirements (59 FR 44691, August 30, 1994). In response to industry comments, NHTSA acknowledged that it was unreasonable to expect retention hardware to meet the requirements of the standard when the glazing surrounding such hardware could not reasonably be expected to restrain an occupant in a crash. Thus, the exemption for doors or windows consisting entirely of glazing was crafted.

As discussed in the May 1996 letter of interpretation to General Motors referenced above, the relevant criterion in determining whether the latches or hinges are directly attached to glazing is if the glazing constitutes the principal structural component of the door or window. Based on the information provided in your letter, we believe the design you have presented is entirely glazing material with a small frame added solely for structural support fro the glazing. Because the thin metal or plastic frame described in your letter would not be the principal structural component of the door or window, the latches and/or hinges would be considered directly attached to the glazing structure. Thus, the latch of this design is not subject to the standard.

Because the window system discussed in your letter would not qualify as a type of glazing considered by NHTSA to constitute a door, there is no need to further evaluate whether the window could be used to load or unload cargo, or whether the attachment hardware is attached directly to the piece of glazing. However, I caution you that the standard does not speak to doors that are typically used to load cargo, as indicated in your letter, but rather to doors through which cargo "can be loaded or unloaded".

Should you require any additional information or assistance, please contact Rebecca MacPherson, of my staff, (202) 366-2992 or at the address given above.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:206
d.2/12/04

ID: aiam1065

Dear Mr. Milby: This is in reply to your letter of March 16, 1973, requesting a interpretation of the words ...unobstructed openings for emergency exit which collectively amount in total square inches...' in S5.2 of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release'.; We believe your paragraph stating, The area credited to an emergenc exit must be the clear opening less the projected area of any obstruction in front of the exit', to be an appropriate interpretation of the phrase. We do not believe that the existence of some obstruction prevents an otherwise unobstructed opening from being used to fulfill the requirements of paragraph S5.2. You are correct in stating that whether such a window is unobstructed can be determined by utilizing the ellipsoid specified in paragraph S5.4.; You indicate in your letter you believe that if your interpretatio were applied to school buses it would result in a significant loss of seating capacity. It does not appear to us, however, that the reduction of the area of the unobstructed opening by the projected area of the obstruction, as shown in your photograph, will be significant.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel