ID: nht80-2.11

DATE: 04/22/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: MPI, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This confirms your April 9, 1980, telephone conversation with Roger Tilton of my staff in which you asked whether a styrofoam board that lies beneath a layer of polyurethane foam would be required to comply with the flammability requirements of Standards No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials.

As Mr. Tilton explained to you, the standard applies to seating components such as yours only to the extent that they fall within 1/2 inch of the occupant compartment air space. This requirement is specified in paragraph S4.2 of the standard. You indicated that your styrofoam board would not fall within 1/2 inch of the compartment because the polyurethane cover will always be thicker than 1/2 inch. Assuming this is true, your styrofoam board would not be required to comply with the standard.

ID: 12626.MLS

Mr. Eric M. Zimelman
6920 S.W. 44th Street, Suite 210
Miami, FL 33155

Dear Mr. Zimelman:

This responds to your letter asking whether your invention would "pose a problem" with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. You met with our technical staff, including Mr. Jerome Kossar, Mr. George Mouchahoir, and Ms. Lori Summers, to discuss your invention, which is a retractable shield placed over safety seats for children up to 20 pounds. You state that the retractable shield "would be far enough away from the child's head that the child would not pitch forward enough to come in contact with it." You further state that the shield's material is a tough, flexible plastic that is transparent and has holes for breathing.

I note that you marked "confidential" on your letter. In a November 4, 1996, telephone conversation with Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff, you stated that as long as the diagrams remain confidential, you had no objection to our placing your letter in the public docket.

By way of background information, this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. The following represents our opinion based on the information in your letter.

There is currently no FMVSS that directly applies to your product. Our standard for "child restraint systems," FMVSS No. 213, applies to "any device except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 50 pounds or less." (S4 of FMVSS No. 213) The standard does not apply to child seat accessories that are sold separately from the child seats, such as an aftermarket retractable shield.

While no Federal safety standard applies to the retractable shield, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements of 49 United States Code 30118-30121 concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those and other manufacturer responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

In addition, a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business is prohibited by our statute from installing the retractable shield if the installation "makes inoperative" compliance with any safety standard, such as FMVSS No. 213.

You should be aware that some elements of design incorporated in child restraint systems in compliance with FMVSS No. 213 might be affected by adding your retractable shield. In particular, under section S5.7, all child restraint systems are required to incorporate the flammability resistance requirements of S4 of FMVSS No. 302. Also, child restraint systems recommended for use by children weighing less than 20 pounds must comply with paragraph S5.2.3.2 of FMVSS No. 213. That paragraph requires that each child restraint surface contactable by the child dummy's head during the crash test shall be covered with slow recovery energy absorbing materials with specified characteristics. This requirement ensures that children riding in these child restraints will not suffer unnecessary head injuries during crashes. If the installation of your retractable shield by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business would impair features provided in compliance with these or other provisions of the standard, then the entities would make inoperative a Federally required element of design in violation of the statute.

The "make inoperative" prohibition does not apply to individual owners who install equipment on their own child restraints systems. Thus, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages owners not to degrade the safety of their child restraints.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any other questions, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:213

d:12/2/96

ID: aiam0139

Dear Mr. Niguma: Thank you for your letter of November 30, 1968 (your reference No GSAE-26) requesting information to a number of questions reletod (sic) to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. I regret that we did not receive your October 5, 1968 letter and that the pressure of work has delayed my answer to your most recent letter.; I am glad to send you the following information: >>>a. MVSS No. 112 - Headlight Concealment Devices. 1. It is stipulated in S.4.6 that 'each headlamp concealment devic shall, within an ambient temperature range of -20 to +120 degrees F., be capable of being fully opened in not more than three seconds after actuation of the mechanism described in S.4.3.' With regard to the temperature condition at the time of a test, if only the ambient temperature satisfies the said temperature conditions, is it all right to pay no regard to other conditions, such as the sticking of frost, ice, etc.?; ANSWER: It is only necessary that the ambient temperature condition (-20 to +120 degrees F.) be satisfied at the time of the test.; b. MVSS No. 114 - Theft Protection. 1. With regard to the stipulation in 5.4.2 that 'The prime means fo deactivating the car's engine or other main source of motive power shall not activate the deterrent required by S.4.1(b),' we have provided the ignition switch with four stages as shown in the sketch below: our key-locking system is of the mechanism that the system does not activate at the stage 'Off', activates only at the stage, 'Lock' and satisfies S.4.4. Does this mechanism conform to S.4.2?; ANSWER: The system as you describe it appears to conform to S4.2 however, the Bureau does not issue approvals of any specific system, and the development of equipment to comply with this requirement is the responsibility of the individual manufacturer.; 2. With reference to the stipulation in S.4.1. 'Each passenger ca shall have a key-locking system that, whenever the key is removed, will prevent ----.', we would like to know whether or not we must provide such a mechanism as the key can be removed only at the stage 'Lock' and cannot at the stage 'Off'.; ANSWER: A locking system having such a position that the key may b removed without activating either the cars' steering lock or its self-mobility lock would not conform to the standard in its present form, since paragraph S4.1 of the standard requires each car to have a key locking system that, whenever the key is removed, will prevent either steering or self-mobility of the car, or both.; c. MVSS No. 201 - Occupant Protection in Interior Impact 1. With regard to the interpretation of the stipulation in S.3.1 '___ the deceleration of the head form shall not exceed 80 g for more than 3 milliseconds,' when the deceleration wave -- shown in the chart below -- is obtained.; in case delta t sub 1 < 3 milliseconds, we interpret that the standard is satisfied even when delta t sub 1 delta t sub 2 + delta t sub 3 + ___ = sigma delta t sub i > 3 milliseconds.; Is our interpretation correct? (Illustration omitted) ANSWER: Your interpretation is correct. The standard permits more tha one peak that exceed 80g which, cumulatively, may add to more than 3 milliseconds. No single peak may continuously exceed 80g for more than a 3 millisecond duration.; 2. When the areas stipulated in S.3.1.1.(d) --' Areas outboard of an point of tangency on the instrument panel of a 6.5 inch diameter head form tangent to an inboard of vertical longitudinal plane tangent to the inboard edge of the steering wheel,' -- are illustrated, which of the following hatched portions in the figures below is in conformity to the stipulation? (Illustration omitted); ANSWER: Figure (a) is correct for the inboard side. Presen requirements do not apply to the area outboard of the steering wheel on the instrument panel.; d. MVSS No. 207 - Anchorage of Seats. S.3.3 Folding and hinged seats. Except for folding auxiliary *seats an seats with backs which are adjustable for occupant comfort only*.; 1. Is it correct to interpret that the underlined part is referring t seats with backs of reclining mechanism enabling to adjust the angle of the back?; ANSWER: Yes. 2. Or, should we interpret that the seats with reclinable backs com under the hinged seats?; ANSWER: No. 3. a. In the case of car with four doors, if the front seats are thos with reclinable backs, these are presumed to be the ones corresponding to (1). Is this interpretation correct?; ANSWER: Yes. S.3.3.1 The release control shall be readily accessible to the occupan of that seat and *to the occupant of any seat immediately behind that seat*.; 1. The above stipulation is presumed to be laid down for the egress o the passengers on the rear seat. Therefore, when the reclining seats are installed in a four-door car, we would like to consider it unnecessary to pay regard to the underlined part. Is this interpretation correct?; ANSWER: Yes. 2. In the case of a two-door car, if the control which can be easil operated by passengers on the rear seat is installed only on one side (the right side), the passengers on the rear seat can operate the control by moving to the right side. Consequently, we consider it sufficient to install only on the right side the control which is easily accessible to the passengers on the rear seat. Is this interpretation correct?; ANSWER: In the case of a two-door car, for a split back or bucket sea arrangement, where both seat backs fold, a release control should be provided on the outboard side of each folding seat back. If the seat back is split and only one seat back folds, only one release control is required on the outboard side.; e. MVSS No. 210 - Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages 1. We judge that the fastening strength of the seat belt anchorage wil change, depending on the shape of the eye bolt attaching the seat belt to the seat belt anchorage point.; If an anchorage is tested by using our designed seat belt assembly an the strength of the anchorage can be assured, we understand that the anchorage fully conforms to the standard, and also understand that it is not necessary to guarantee the owners of Mazda vehicles if they attach a seat bolt assembly other than the one designated by us. Is our interpretation correct?; We, of course, will specify in our Operation Manual that the seat bel assembly designated by our company must be used.; ANSWER: Under Paragraph S.5.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standar No. 210, anchorages are to be tested by using a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly as defined in FMVSS No. 209. If you follow this procedure, using a belt which complies to No. 209, and your anchorages meet the requirements of Standard No. 210, then you are in compliance with this standard.<<<; I must point out that this Bureau does not issue approvals on items o equipment or on vehicle designs. Therefore, the above comments are for your information only and in no way relieve the vehicle manufacturer from his responsibility for certifying that the assembled vehicle meets the requirements of the Standards.; Sincerely, H. M. Jacklin, Jr., Acting Director, Motor Vehicle Safet Performance Service;

ID: nht93-1.1

DATE: 01-01-93 EST

FROM: A. F. Zang, III

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-18-93 from John Womack to A. F. Zang, III (A41; Std. 213; FMVSS 302)

TEXT: I am planning to produce a product for children. I am concerned about meeting all governmental rules concerning products for children. The product is made out of a fabric that is plastic coated, and is an after market child's car seat cover. My main concern is the flammability restrictions that the government places upon fabrics that are used for children's goods. I am writing to your agency because my product will be used on the highways.

Where can I go to get the fabric tested? What are the test specifications? Are these questions something that are already available from the factory? I want to be able to state on the packaging that the fabric has been tested and found to be within governmental regulations. I feel that it is important for parents to feel safe about the products they are purchasing for their children.

Any information that you could send me concerning governmental regulations for children's products would be greatly appreciated, thank you.

ID: aiam4556

"Dear Mr. Ivie: This responds to your letter seeking information abou the labeling requirements in Standard No. 218, Motorcycle Helmets (49 CFR 571.218). You noted that Oregon recently enacted a mandatory helmet use law which adopted Standard No. 218 as the minimum standard for helmets. You correctly noted that section S5.6.1 of Standard No. 218 requires subject motorcycle helmets to be permanently and legibly labeled with specified information, including the symbol 'DOT' as a certification that the helmet complies with Standard No. 218. However, you stated that you have received reports that the labeling required by Standard No. 218 is not present on many helmets, either because it has fallen off or been removed by someone. You said that there is often no other identification of the manufacturer or brand name on the helmet. Accordingly, it is not possible for the owner of a helmet without the Standard 218 label present to contact a dealer or manufacturer for information about the helmet. You then asked several questions about the labeling requirements set forth in Standard No. 218. Before answering your specific questions, I would like to provide some general background information on Standard No. 218. Prior to October 3, 1988, Standard No. 218 applied only to helmets that could be placed on the size C headform. The helmet manufacturers estimated that approximately 90 percent of all motorcycle helmets were subject to Standard No. 218, because they could be placed on the size C headform. However, helmets manufactured before October 3, 1988 that could not be placed on the size C headform (these were typically smaller sizes of helmets) were not subject to Standard No. 218. Hence, manufacturers of helmets that could not be placed on the size C headform were not required by Standard No. 218 or any of our other regulations to label any information on these helmets. In fact, manufacturers could not label the DOT certification symbol on those helmets that were not subject to Standard No. 218. See the enclosed December 4, 1987 letter to Mr. Hoppe for more information on this subject. We published a final rule on April 6, 1988 that extended the requirements of Standard No. 218 to all motorcycle helmet sizes (53 FR 11280). This rule became effective on October 3, 1988. Accordingly, all motorcycle helmets manufactured on or after October 3, 1988 are subject to Standard No. 218 and must be labeled in accordance with the requirements of S5.6 of that standard. With this background, your question can be answered as follows. For the approximately 10 percent of helmets manufactured before October 3, 1988 that could not be placed on the size C headform, Standard No. 218 did not apply to them, so there was no requirement for any information to be labeled on these helmets. Any such helmets would not display a 'DOT sticker' because they were not required or permitted to display such a sticker when they were new, not because the sticker 'fell off' or was removed. However, Standard No. 218 applied to approximately 90 percent of all helmets manufactured before October 3, 1988 and applies to every motorcycle helmet manufactured on or after that date. For those helmets, S5.6.1 of Standard No. 218 requires that: 'Each helmet shall be permanently and legibly labeled . . .' with the manufacturers name or identification, the precise model designation, the size, the month and year of manufacture, the DOT certification mark, and warning instructions. (emphasis added) In an October 16, 1973 letter to the Cycraft Co., NHTSA stated that the requirement that helmets be permanently labeled prohibits the use of labels that can be removed easily by hand without tools or chemicals. You stated that you have heard of two reasons why helmets that originally had a DOT certification label would no longer have such a label. One of the reasons was that the affixed label was a 'sticker' and it 'fell off.' Standard No. 218 permits manufacturers to label the required information on the helmet by means of a 'sticker,' provided that the label is permanent and legible and contains all the information required by S5.6. A 'sticker' that falls off the helmet would not appear to be permanent within the meaning of Standard No. 218, so this would be an apparent noncompliance with the standard. If you have any evidence that 'stickers' are falling off helmets, please forward that information to our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance at this address, and we will take appropriate actions. The second reason that you have heard for helmets no longer having the labeling required by Standard No. 218 is that someone removed the label to paint the helmet and failed to put the label back on the helmet. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C 1397(a)(2)(A)) prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from 'knowingly render ing 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.' In this case, the label on motorcycle helmets is a device or element of design installed on the helmet in compliance with Standard No. 218. If a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business removed that label and failed to put it back on the helmet, then those entities would be rendering the label inoperative, in violation of Federal law. Again, if you have any evidence that violations of Federal law have occurred in your State, please forward that evidence to our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance and we will take appropriate actions. Please note that Federal law does not prohibit the helmet's owner or any other person that is not a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from removing the label from motorcycle helmets. Thus, the owner of a motorcycle helmet is permitted to remove the label from his or her helmet for any reason without violating any provision of Federal law. The individual States are free to establish requirements for motorcycle helmets used in their State, and could prohibit an owner from removing the label. You suggested that the problem of missing labels could be solved if this agency were to require that the DOT symbol be embossed on or in the helmet. NHTSA considered and rejected this suggestion 15 years ago when it established Standard No. 218. In the August 20, 1973 preamble to the final rule that established FMVSS 218, we said: With respect to providing important safety information in the form of labeling, one comment recommended that, due to possible label deterioration, both the manufacturer's identification and the helmet model designation should be permanently marked by etching, branding, stamping, embossing, or molding on the exterior of the helmet shell or on a permanently attached component so as to be visible when the helmet is in use. The NHTSA has determined that the practical effect of this recommendation is accomplished by requiring each helmet to be permanently and legibly labeled. The method to be used to permanently and legibly affix a label for each helmet is therefore left to the discretion of the manufacturer. (38 FR 22391) You finally asked if other jurisdictions have informed NHTSA of similar problems and sought suggestions on methods to resolve the situation where an apparently undamaged helmet would be in compliance with the standard except that it is not properly labeled. As noted above, approximately 10 percent of the motorcycle helmets manufactured before October 3, 1988 were not subject to Standard No. 218 and were not required to be labeled. To my knowledge, no other jurisdictions have informed this agency of problems akin to those raised in your letter aside from more general questions about labeling. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some more information on this subject, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address, or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: 07-007038 Schonberger magnets and strap holders

ID: nht76-4.36

DATE: 03/19/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Almac Plastic Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 26, 1976, to Mr. Guy Hunter of my staff, concerning the use of Lucite AR (plastic) glazing materials in rear windows of buses.

Your state that a rubber harness has been designed to allow the plastic glazing to be inserted into the rear window openings of the bus. You further state that once inserted into the rubber harness, the glazing can be easily pushed out and therefore would fall within the definition of readily removable windows. Thus, plastic glazing could be used in such windows.

It is not clear whether the rear bus window you described in your letter would be classified as a readily removable window as defined in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing Materials. However, if the glazing can be pushed out as easily as you say, it is clear that it would not meet the window retention requirements specified in FMVSS No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release.

Standard No. 205 specifies requirements for glazing and the vehicle locations in which various types of glazing may be used. The standard prohibits the use of plastic glazing in rear windows of buses unless they are readily removable as defined in the standard. However, in response to a petition submitted by General Motors Corporation, we are currently preparing a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) that would amend the standard to permit the use of plastic glazing in all bus windows except windshields and windows to the immediate left and right of the driver. We anticipate that this NPRM will be published in the Federal Register in the near future.

A copy of Standard No. 205 and Standard No. 217 were previously mailed to you. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

February 26, 1976

Guy Hunter -- NHTSA

Dear Mr. Hunter:

This is to thank you for the courtesy shown to the writer on the phone. The subject of discussion that we had, was concerning the usage of Lucite AR material on the rear windows of buses.

As discussed, the original window on the rear of most buses is quite expensive and due to vandalism, the windows are cracked by rocks and bottles are extremely dangerous to passengers due to the splintering.

I am enclosing herewith a schematic brochure that we have created which will more clearly indicate this subject.

To accommodate the AA, AC, AD, AB and AE windows a rubber harness has been designed that allows these windows to be inserted. These windows, once inserted into a rubber harness can be easily pushed out with pressure and therefore, can fall into the classification of readily removable windows.

This is the major point that I tried to make over the phone. I feel that rear windows can comply with your regulation of usage of Lucite AR windows and are identical to the regulations that permit the usage of Lucite AR on your side windows.

If any of this information need further clarification, feel free to call upon Mr. Russell H. Berry of DuPont, the manufacturers of Lucite AR, whose telephone number is 302-774-4639. Or feel free to call the writer Mr. Jack Manne, Engineering Department of Almac Plastics at 212-937-1300.

Mr. Berry is extremely knowledgable on this total subject and I am sure that you would find him extremely helpful in any interpretation that is required.

Either he or I would be pleased to visit with you in Washington, DC if a meeting would assist your decision in this subject.

Thanking you kindly for any attention you give this matter, we beg to remain

Very truly yours,

Jack Manne -- Engineering Department, ALMAC PLASTICS INC.

Enc.

CC: R. H. Berry -- DuPont

(Brochure Omitted)

ID: aiam4494

"Dear Mr. Martin: This is a response to your letter of last year wher you stated your concern respecting the installation of 'latches' on the rear doors of a school bus of 10,000 lbs or less GVWR (small school bus), and asked a number of questions on release mechanisms for required rear emergency doors on these small school buses. I regret the delay in this response. You said that the State of Texas has a school bus specification that requires 'the first-closed (left-hand) door)' to have a latching mechanism at the top and bottom. Your supplier tells you that this specification conflicts with provisions of Federal safety standard 217, Bus Window Retention and Release (Standard 217). You go on to express your concern that a single mechanism would hold both doors closed, and that this feature increases the risk of injury from accidental or intentional opening. You believe that where a small school bus has two rear doors, if each door is secured independently, then there is a decreased risk of a student's falling through a door opened inadvertently. Let me begin my answer with some general information on the requirement for a rear emergency door in a small school bus. As your supplier suggests, there can be instances where independently securing the rear doors on a small school bus would violate Standard 217. Paragraph S5.2.3.1 requires a manufacturer of these buses to install either (1) one rear emergency door, or (2) one emergency door on the vehicle's left side and one push-out rear window. Where a manufacturer chooses to meet this requirement by installing one rear emergency door, the door may be hinged on either side of the vehicle. When a manufacturer installs more than one rear door exit, the question of whether both exits are 'emergency doors' under paragraph S5.2.3.1 of Standard 217 depends upon whether one or both doors must be opened for unobstructed passage of a specified parallelepiped under paragraph S5.4.2.2. The purpose of the school bus emergency exit requirements is to facilitate quick and safe rider exit from the vehicle in the event of an emergency. (44 FR 7961, 7962, February 8, 1979.) Question 1: Are both of the rear doors on small school buses (with GVWR of 10,000 lbs or less) considered 'emergency doors' in the context of Paragraph S5.2.3.1 of FMVSS 217? If a manufacturer installs more than one rear door on a small school bus, and intends one door to be a rear emergency door under S5.2.3.1 and one to be a regular door for loading and unloading passengers, then the designated rear emergency door is a sufficient rear emergency exit so long as it will permit unobstructed passage of the device specified in paragraph S5.4.2.2 of the Standard. In a case such as this one, the manufacturer must label the emergency door appropriately, and otherwise ensure that the designated rear emergency door meets the performance, accessibility, and release requirements for a rear emergency door on a small school bus. On the other hand, if the manufacturer installs two rear doors on a small school bus, and if both of those doors must be open to accommodate the parallelepiped, then both doors constitute a rear emergency exit under S5.2.3.1. In this case, the two doors together must meet the applicable provisions of Standard 217. There is yet another possibility that a manufacturer may install a second rear exit and designate it as an emergency exit. Assuming that at least one exit meets Standard 217's requirements for a rear emergency door exit, NHTSA would not prohibit installing this additional emergency exit. However, as the agency long has held, that 'extra' emergency exit must comply with Standard 217 provisions applicable to emergency exits in buses other than school buses. Question 2: Does Paragraph S5.3.3 require separate, independent operation, that is, must one be able to open the left-hand door without first opening the right-hand door from outside of the passenger compartment? Again, the answer to this question depends upon whether one door can meet the unobstructed test measurement for a required rear emergency door. Let me begin this answer by explaining the release requirements for a rear emergency door on a small school bus. Under paragraph S5.3.3, a required small school bus rear emergency door generally must have a release mechanism that allows (1) a single person (2) to operate the door manually (3) from in or outside the vehicle's passenger compartment without the use of remote controls or tools (4) irrespective of whether the vehicle's power system fails. (Paragraph S5.3.3 also sets the maximum permissible magnitude of force and the permissible direction in which a force must be applied to operate the release mechanism.) In an interpretation of March 17, 1982, this agency stated that the release mechanism is the mechanism that keeps the door from opening. In other words, the release mechanism is what you refer to in your letter as the door 'latch.' If the test device described in my answer to your first question passes through unobstructed only when both doors are open, then the door release mechanism must be operable for both doors from inside the vehicle passenger compartment irrespective of whether a person outside the vehicle operates the outside release mechanism. Further, this same release mechanism must be operable from outside the vehicle. In this circumstance, a separate release mechanism for each door would not comply with the Standard. If only one door needs to be open, and the manufacturer has designated the second door as an emergency exit, then this additional emergency door still must be operable from inside the passenger compartment. In this case, independent release mechanisms may be appropriate, but a release mechanism on an additional emergency exit need not be operable from outside the vehicle. (S5.3.2.) If only one door needs to be open to accommodate the parallelepiped, and the manufacturer neither intends the second door to be an emergency door, nor designates it as an emergency exit, then the second door is a regular door for loading and unloading passengers. Standard 217 would be inapplicable to this second door. Question 3: Does Paragraph S5.3.3 require a warning system to indicate an opened position of any latch or latches on the left-hand door even though this door cannot be opened until after the right-hand door is opened, provided both doors must be opened to insert the 45' high by 22' wide x 6' deep parallelepiped? If both doors must be opened for unobstructed passage of the specified parallelepiped, then there must be a single emergency release mechanism (or latch) for both doors. In a case such as this, there must be an audible alarm under S5.3.3 whenever the release mechanism is not closed and the vehicle ignition switch is 'on.' That alarm should sound if either door is unsecured. Question 4: Would a warning system be required to indicate opened latch or latches on the left-hand door as in 3 above, provided the parallelepiped could be inserted into the passenger compartment through the opened right-hand door with the left-hand door closed? In your question, the manufacturer may designate either door as the required S5.2.3.1 emergency exit if the door accommodates the test device. The warning system then must sound when the release mechanism on the designated rear emergency door is open and the vehicle ignition switch is 'on.' For example, if in your question, the manufacturer designated the right-hand door as the required rear door emergency exit, then the warning system must sound whenever the release mechanism for that door is open and the vehicle ignition position is 'on.' As I stated in Question 1, the second rear door could be an 'additional' emergency exit, or a regular means for loading and unloading passengers, then the additional door would have to meet such other requirements as may apply to these exits. Question 5: Would a latch or latches be required on the left-hand door if both doors had to be opened to insert this parallelepiped even though the left-hand door is close by the latches of the right-hand door? In this circumstance, Standard 217 would prohibit installing a separate release mechanism on each door. Recall that S5.2.3.1 requires on a small school bus, 'one rear emergency door,' or one side door and one push-out window. If the manufacturer chooses to install the rear emergency door, then under S5.4.2.2, the specified parallelepiped must pass through that rear emergency door without obstruction. If both doors must be open to accommodate the test device, then both doors constitute the single, rear emergency door which the Standard requires. Under paragraph S5.3.3, the required rear emergency door must have its own release mechanism. I hope you find this information helpful. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel";

ID: GF009385

Mr. Karl Genest
518 Jodoin
St-Bruno, Quebec
CANADA
J3V 6G8




Dear Mr. Genest:

This responds to your letter of December 9, 2004, asking if any Federal regulations apply to your invention, which you describe generally as an accessory that attaches to the seatback of a vehicles front seat. You did not provide a description of your product except to note that it attaches to the seatback, and that "when attached to the back of a cars front seat, [my device] would intrude somewhat into the space occupied by passengers of the back seat". You state that the intrusion would be similar to those of two "car seat organizers," the photographs of which you enclose in your letter. In a phone conversation with George Feygin of my staff, you indicated that you intend to market your product in stores directly to consumers (in the "aftermarket").

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards applying to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment sold in or imported into this country. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements.

Because you did not describe your product, we are unable to provide an interpretation of the standards that could apply. However, we have the following general observations. Most of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) apply to the completed motor vehicle. Some FMVSSs apply to aftermarket equipment, including lamps and reflective devices, seat belt systems, and child restraints. Even if an FMVSS does not directly apply to your aftermarket product, there are several requirements that may affect you.

First, 30122 of the Safety Act (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from "making inoperative, in whole or in part" any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. That is, your device could not be installed by such businesses if they determine that the installation of your invention would adversely affect the vehicles compliance with any safety standard.

With regard to your question about "possible intrusion zone" requirements affecting your product, it is possible that installation of this device could affect compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact. This standard establishes performance requirements designed to reduce the risk of injury in the event an occupant strikes the interior of a vehicle during a crash. S5.2 of FMVSS No. 201 specifies that an area of the seat back that is within the "head impact area," as defined in 49 CFR 571.3 (enclosed), is subject to the head impact protection requirements of the standard. In addition, installation of your product could affect the vehicles compliance with the flammability resistance requirements of FMVSS No. 302, Flammability of interior materials (enclosed). That standard establishes flammability resistance requirements for certain vehicle components, including seat backs.

The make inoperative provision does not apply to vehicle owners modifying their own vehicles. However, we recommend that owners not degrade the safety of their vehicles.

Second, please note that motor vehicle accessories are items of "motor vehicle equipment" subject to the notification and remedy (recall) provisions of 49 U.S.C. 30118-30120. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of the product and remedying the problem free of charge.

Third, I am enclosing a copy of a procedural rule that applies to all manufacturers subject to the regulations of this agency. 49 CFR Part 551, Procedural Rules, Subpart D, requires all manufacturers headquartered outside of the United States to designate an agent for service of all process, notices, orders and decisions. This designation should be mailed to the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590, and must include the following information:

1. A certification that the designation of agent is valid in form and binding on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate-by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made;
2. The full legal name, principal place of business and mailing address of the manufacturer;
3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of the manufacturer's products which do not bear its name;
4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer;
5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed, which may be an individual, a firm or a United States corporation; and,
6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent.

In addition, the designation must be signed by a person with authority to appoint the agent. The signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his or her signature.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:201
d.2/16/05

ID: 2967yy

Mr. Howard "Mac" Dashney
Pupil Transportation Consultant
Michigan Department of Education
P.O. Box 30008
Lansing, Michigan 48909

Dear Mr. Dashney:

This responds to your letter of February 19, 1991. In your letter you asked several questions regarding the purchase, sale, and use of motor vehicles used to transport students to and from school and related events. Where two or more questions concern a common issue, they are addressed by a single response.

Question 1: Do Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) apply to multi-purpose vehicles with seating positions for more than 10 passengers, passenger vans, used to transport students to and from school and related events?

Question 5: Are there FMVSS's in effect for occupants of sedans, station wagons, or mini-vans with seating positions for fewer than 10 passengers used to transport students to and from school and related events?

The answer to both questions is yes. NHTSA has issued FMVSS covering all of the types of motor vehicles mentioned in your questions. The application section of each FMVSS indicates which types of motor vehicles are required to comply with its provisions.

The motor vehicles you refer to in Question 1 are considered "schoolbuses" by this agency. A "school bus" is a motor vehicle designed to carry 11 or more persons, including a driver, and sold for transporting students to and from school and school-related events (49 CFR 571.3). New school buses must comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) for "buses" and also those for "school buses." The following is a list of the FMVSS that include requirements for school buses:

Standards No. 101 through No. 104; Standard No. 105 (school buses with hydraulic service brake systems); Standards No. 106 through No. 108; Standards No. 111 through 113; Standard No. 115; Standard No. 116 (school buses with hydraulic service brake systems); Standard No. 119; Standard No. 120; Standard No. 121 (school buses with air brake systems); Standard No. 124; Standards No. 201 through No. 204 (school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less); Standard No. 205; Standards No. 207 through No. 210; Standard No. 212 (school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less); Standard No. 217; Standard No. 219 (school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less); Standard No. 220; Standard No. 221 (school buses with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds); and Standards No. 222, 301, and 302.

These standards are part of 49 CFR 571. I have enclosed information on how you can obtain copies of the FMVSS.

Regarding the motor vehicles mentioned in Question 5, definitions of other motor vehicle types are also found in 49 CFR 571.3. For instance, "multipurpose passenger vehicle" is defined as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation" (49 CFR 571.3(b)). "Passenger car" is defined as " a motor vehicle with motive power, except a multipurpose passenger vehicle, motorcycle, or trailer, designed for carrying 10 persons or less" (49 CFR 571.3(b)).

Question 2: Is it legal for automobile manufacturers or dealers to lease or sell passenger vans to school districts or private fleet operators when the purpose of those vehicles is to transport students to and from school and related events?

Question 6: Is it legal for automobile manufacturers or dealers to lease or sell sedans, station wagons, and mini-vans to school districts or private fleet operators for the purpose of transporting students to and from school and related events?

Assuming that the particular vehicle manufactured or sold complies with all FMVSS that apply to that type of vehicle, the answer to your question is yes. Note however, that unlike other motor vehicle types, a school bus is defined by both the vehicle's seating capacity and its intended use. If a manufacturer or dealer is aware that the intended use of a vehicle is to transport students to and from school and related events, it is a violation of Federal law to sell a vehicle with a capacity of 11 or more persons, including the driver, unless the vehicle complies with all FMVSS applicable to school buses.

Question 3: Does a school district or private fleet operator increase its liability risk if it purchases passenger vans to transport students to and from school and related events?

Question 4: Does a school district or private fleet operator increase its liability risk if it uses passenger vans to transport students to and from school and related events?

Question 7: Does a school district or private fleet operator increase its liability risk if it purchases sedans, station wagons, or mini-vans to transport students to and from school and related events?

Question 8: Does a school district or private fleet operator increase its liability risk if it uses sedans, station wagons, or mini-vans to transport students to and from school and related events?

Liability risk is a question of state, not Federal law. I am not qualified to offer an opinion on how these issues would be resolved under Michigan law. I suggest that you contact the Attorney General for the State of Michigan for an opinion on the application of Michigan law to these situations. You may also wish to consult your agency's attorney and insurance company for more information.

I must emphasize, however, NHTSA's position that a vehicle meeting Federal school bus regulations is the safest way to transport students. In addition, I encourage your school districts to give their most careful consideration to the possible consequences of transporting students in vehicles other than school buses.

I hope that 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

Enclosures ref:VSA#571.3 "school bus" d:4/l2/9l