ID: 1985-01.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/16/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: M. Leon Hart -- State Supervisor of School Transportation State of Delaware

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. M. Leon Hart State Supervisor of School Transportation State of Delaware The Townsend Building P.O. Box 1402 Dover, Delaware 19903

This responds to your letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) which concerned the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards relating to school bus safety. You asked whether a public or nonpublic school can purchase and use a bus to transport school children to or from school related events if that vehicle does not meet the requirements for school buses established by NHTSA.

There are two Federal laws that have a bearing on your situation. The first of these is the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-563; hereinafter "the Vehicle Safety Act"), under which our agency issues safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles. In 1974, Congress amended the Vehicle Safety Act to direct us to issue standards on specific aspects of school bus safety, such as emergency exits, seating systems, windows, and body strength. These standards became effective for buses manufactured after April 1, 1977. The second law is the Highway Safety Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-564), under which we have issued highway safety program standards applicable to State highway safety grant programs.

Under the definitions section of our motor vehicle safety standards, "school bus" is defined as a bus that is sold, or introduced in interstate commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events (buses used as common carriers in urban transportation excluded). A "bus" is defined as a motor vehicle designed for carrying more than 10 persons.

The Vehicle Safety Act prohibits dealers or distributors from selling new school buses to schools or school districts if those buses do not comply with the Federal school bus safety standards. Any new van which carries 11 persons or more that is sold for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events is a school bus, and must comply with the standards for school buses issued by this agency. A dealer or distributor who sells a new non-complying bus to a school or school district is subject to substantial penalties under the Vehicle Safety Act.

You indicated in your letter that the color of the school bus in question is white. The Highway Safety Act, which deals with the safety of vehicle operation through a grant program to the States, specifies requirements for the color, lighting, and other operational criteria for school buses in Highway Safety Program Standard (HSPS) No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, (23 CFR 1204.4). Among the criteria in this standard are that a school bus should be painted yellow, equipped with special mirrors and lights, and marked "School Bus." In the case of a 15-passenger van, classified under the standard as a "Type II school vehicle," the identification criteria would have to be met if the van were equipped with school bus lights. If the State law conformed exactly to the standard, and if the bus in question were equipped as a school bus, then it would have to be painted yellow and signed as a school bus.

We wish to stress that HSPS No. 17 would affect the operation of your school buses only to the extent that Delaware has incorporated it into State law. Unlike the Vehicle Safety Act, which gives NHTSA direct regulatory authority over the manufacture and sale of motor vehicles, the Highway Safety Act gives us authority only over the content of the States' highway safety grant programs. Whether the 15-passenger school bus would have to be painted yellow is therefore determined by State law.

Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION THE TOWNSEND BUILDING DOVER, DELAWARE 19903

October 30, 1984

Mr. Frank A. Berndt Chief Counsel, NHTSA-NOA-30 U.S. Department of Transportation Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

As the State Supervisor of School Transportation for the State of Delaware, it is important that I provide accurate information regarding the use of vehicles by school districts for the tranportatinn of children for other than home to school and return transportation.

Specifically, a school district has contacted this office to determine if they are permitted to purchase and use a Dodge Maxi van, painted white, and with the capacity of 15 persons to transport small groups of children to or from various school-related activities. Other school districts are currently using this type of vehicle which may compound the problem.

Question: May a public or nonpublic school purchase and use a vehicle with a capacity of 11 or more to transport school children or other persons to or from school-related activities if that vehicle does not meet the requirements of a school bus as established by the National School Bus Standards plus those required by the State of Delaware?

Your prompt reply to this question and information to support this position will be appreciated. I may be contacted by calling 302-736-4697.

Sincerely,

M. Lean Hart State Supervisor School Transportation

MLH:mk

cc: James C. Phillips, Superintendent Sussex County Vo-Tech District Robert J. Vashell , Director Division of Motor Vehicles

ID: 8478

Mr. Jose M. Gonzalez
Engineering Manager
Kustom Fit
8990 Atlantic
Box 3004
South Gate, CA 90280

Dear Mr. Gonzalez:

This responds to your letter of March 25, 1993, regarding testing for Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. You are a manufacturer of seating products for the recreation vehicle industry. You propose to perform a baseline HYGE sled test using all OEM hardware and seats and then to perform a second test using OEM hardware and the seats you manufacture. You asked:

If the results of the test using our seats are equal or better than those obtained values with the OEM seats and hardware, does this test prove that our seats are safe to use instead of OEM? Can these results and procedures be acceptable as do diligent (sic) and can our seats then be certified for use in these vehicles regarding FMVSS 208?

Some background information may be helpful. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208), which specifies performance requirements for the protection of vehicle occupants in crashes. (I note that a number of other safety standards also include requirements relevant to seats, including Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, and Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials.)

The Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. Standard No. 208, the subject of your inquiry, is applicable to vehicles and not to individual items of equipment (except for pressure devices and explosive devices used in air bags). Therefore, if one of your seats is installed in a vehicle during manufacture, the vehicle manufacturer is responsible for certifying that the completed vehicle complies with all applicable standards, including Standard No. 208. If the seat is added to a new, previously certified, motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer. An alterer is required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration.

Finally, if the seat is sold as aftermarket equipment to be installed in a used motor vehicle, the seat, as a piece of equipment, does not have to comply with any Federal standards. However, 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act provides, in pertinent part:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair 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. . . .

Therefore, none of these entities could install one of your seats if it caused the vehicle to no longer comply with any of the safety standards.

In all of these situations, you, as the seat manufacturer, would have no certification responsibilities under Standard No. 208. Therefore, with respect to that standard, the remainder of the discussion in this letter is applicable to vehicle manufacturers (including alterers).

Each of this agency's safety standards specifies the test conditions and procedures that this agency will use to evaluate the performance of the vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) precisely follows each of the specified test procedures and conditions when conducting its compliance testing. However, a manufacturer is not required to test its products only in the manner specified in the relevant safety standard, or even to test the products at all. A manufacturer may choose any means of evaluating its products to determine whether the vehicle complies with the requirements of the safety standards, provided, however, that the manufacturer assures that the vehicle will comply with the safety standards when tested by the agency according to the procedures specified in the standard.

Under certain circumstances, particularly if the agency testing shows an apparent noncompliance exists in a vehicle, the manufacturer may be asked to show the basis for its certification that the vehicle complies with the relevant safety standard or standards. If in fact there is a noncompliance, the manufacturer is subject to civil penalties under the Safety Act unless it can establish that it exercised "due care" in the design and manufacture of the product and in the evaluation (through actual testing, computer simulation, engineering analyses, or other means) to ensure compliance, but nevertheless did not have reason to know that the vehicle did not in fact comply with the safety standards.

This agency has long said that it is unable to judge what efforts would constitute "due care" in advance of the actual circumstances in which a noncompliance occurs. What constitutes "due care" in a particular case depends on all relevant facts, including such things as the limitations of current technology, the availability of test equipment, the size of the manufacturer, and, above all, the diligence exercised by the manufacturer.

You should also note that, while the exercise of "due care" may relieve a manufacturer of liability for civil penalties in connection with the manufacture and sale of noncomplying vehicles, it does not relieve a manufacturer of the responsibility to notify purchasers of the noncompliance and remedy the noncompliance without charge to the purchasers, if either the manufacturer or this agency determines that vehicles do not comply with all applicable safety standards.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:VSA#208 d:5/6/93

ID: nht93-3.35

DATE: May 6, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Jose M. Gonzalez -- Engineering Manager, Kustom Fit

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-25-93 from Jose M. Gonzalez to NHTSA (OCC 8478)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of March 25, 1993, regarding testing for Standard No. 208, OCCUPANT CRASH PROTECTION. You are a manufacturer of seating products for the recreation vehicle industry. You propose to perform a baseline HYGE sled test using all OEM hardware and seats and then to perform a second test using OEM hardware and the seats you manufacture. You asked:

If the results of the test using our seats are equal or better than those obtained values with the OEM seats and hardware, does this test prove that our seats are safe to use instead of OEM? Can these results and procedures be acceptable as do diligent (sic) and can our seats then be certified for use in these vehicles regarding FMVSS 208?

Some background information may be helpful. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 ET SEQ.; the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 208, OCCUPANT CRASH PROTECTION (49 CFR S571.208), which specifies performance requirements for the protection of vehicle occupants in crashes. (I note that a number of other safety standards also include requirements relevant to seats, including Standard No. 207, SEATING SYSTEMS, Standard No. 209, SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES, Standard No. 210, SEAT BELT ASSEMBLY ANCHORAGES, and Standard No. 302, FLAMMABILITY OF INTERIOR MATERIALS.) The Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. Standard No. 208, the subject of your inquiry, is applicable to vehicles and not to individual items of equipment (except for pressure devices and explosive devices used in air bags). Therefore, if one of your seats is installed in a vehicle during manufacture, the vehicle manufacturer is responsible for certifying that the completed vehicle complies with all applicable standards, including Standard No. 208. If the seat is added to a new, previously certified, motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer. An alterer is required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration.

Finally, if the seat is sold as aftermarket equipment to be installed in a used motor vehicle, the seat, as a piece of equipment, does not have to comply with any Federal standards. However, S108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act provides, in pertinent part:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair 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 ....

Therefore, none of these entities could install one of your seats if it caused the vehicle to no longer comply with any of the safety standards.

In all of these situations, you, as the seat manufacturer, would have no certification responsibilities under Standard No. 208. Therefore, with respect to that standard, the remainder of the discussion in this letter is applicable to vehicle manufacturers (including alterers).

Each of this agency's safety standards specifies the test conditions and procedures that this agency will use to evaluate the performance of the vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) precisely follows each of the specified test procedures and conditions when conducting its compliance testing. However, a manufacturer is not required to test its products only in the manner specified in the relevant safety standard, or even to test the products at all. A manufacturer may choose any means of evaluating its products to determine whether the vehicle complies with the requirements of the safety standards, provided, however, that the manufacturer assures that the vehicle will comply with the safety standards when tested by the agency according to the procedures specified in the standard.

Under certain circumstances, particularly if the agency testing shows an apparent noncompliance exists in a vehicle, the manufacturer may be asked to show the basis for its certification that the vehicle complies with the relevant safety standard or standards. If in fact there is a noncompliance, the manufacturer is subject to civil penalties under the Safety Act unless it can establish that it exercised "due care" in the design and manufacture of the product and in the evaluation (through actual testing, computer simulation, engineering analyses, or other means) to ensure compliance, but nevertheless did not have reason to know that the vehicle did not in fact comply with the safety standards.

This agency has long said that it is unable to judge what efforts would constitute "due care" in advance of the actual circumstances in which a noncompliance occurs. What constitutes "due care" in a particular case depends on all relevant facts, including such things as the limitations of current technology, the availability of test equipment, the size of the manufacturer, and, above all, the diligence exercised by the manufacturer. You should also note that, while the exercise of "due care" may relieve a manufacturer of liability for civil penalties in connection with the manufacture and sale of noncomplying vehicles, it does not relieve a manufacturer of the responsibility to notify purchasers of the noncompliance and remedy the noncompliance without charge to the purchasers, if either the manufacturer or this agency determines that vehicles do not comply with all applicable safety standards.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 7687

Ms. Patti Aupperlee
5961 St. Barbara St.
West Palm Beach, FL 33415

Dear Ms. Aupperlee:

This responds to your letter asking about the Federal requirements that apply to the "Cool Cover," an accessory for child restraint systems.

According to your letter, the purpose of the Cool Cover is to prevent a restraint system from becoming so hot from sun and heat in a vehicle that it can burn a child. The Cool Cover would shield the restraint while the restraint is not being used. You explain that when the restraint is used, the Cool Cover can be partially stored in a pouch. The pouch would be positioned at the top of the restraint for the child to use as a pillow.

By way of background information, 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act," 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes NHTSA to issue 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. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards.

In response to your question, there are currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) that directly apply to the product you wish to manufacture. Under the authority of the Safety Act, NHTSA has issued Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, which specifies requirements for child restraint systems used in motor vehicles and aircraft. However, Standard No. 213 applies only to new child restraint systems and not to aftermarket components of a child restraint system, such as an aftermarket cover for the restraint.

I note, however, that there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect your manufacture and sale of the Cool Cover. Under the Safety Act, 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 in 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your cover contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which states: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ...." It appears unlikely from the nature of your product that it would be placed in vehicles by persons in the aforementioned categories. However, if your product were to be installed by these persons, they should ensure that its installation does not compromise the safety protection provided by a child restraint system.

A child restraint has elements of design that could be rendered inoperative by the Cool Cover. Standard No. 213 sets flame-retardant performance requirements for materials used in a child restraint system. (See S5.7 of Standard No. 213, referencing Standard No. 302, "Flammability of Interior Materials.") Installation of rapidly burning materials could vitiate the compliance of the child restraint with Standard No. 213. Also, Standard No. 213 sets crash performance requirements for all new child restraint systems. Persons in the categories listed in 108(a)(2)(A) would have to ensure that the Cool Cover does not impair the function of the restraint's belts or other operating parts. (We note the statement in your letter that the Cool Cover does not impair the restraint's belts, etc.) Section 109 of the Safety Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of 108.

The "render inoperative" prohibition of 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. Thus, if the Cool Cover were placed on restraints by the restraint owners, your product need not meet any FMVSS. Nevertheless, in the interest of safety, we suggest you consider conforming your product to a flammability resistance standard equivalent to Standard No. 302. Also, you might consider providing consumer instructions that would reduce the likelihood that the Cool Cover might be used in a way that could interfere with the safety of the restraint. This might include an instruction on how to position the Cool Cover so that the restraint's belts would perform properly in a crash.

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:213 d:10/28/92

ID: nht92-3.2

DATE: 10/28/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: PATTI AUPPERLEE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 8-14-92 FROM PATTI AUPPERLEE TO DEE FUJIDA (OCC 7687)

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking about the Federal requirements that apply to the "Cool Cover," an accessory for child restraint systems.

According to your letter, the purpose of the Cool Cover is to prevent a restraint system from becoming so hot from sun and heat in a vehicle that it can burn a child. The Cool Cover would shield the restraint while the restraint is not being used. You explain that when the restraint is used, the Cool Cover can be partially stored in a pouch. The pouch would be positioned at the top of the restraint for the child to use as a pillow.

By way of background information, @ 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act," 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes NHTSA to issue 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. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards.

In response to your question, there are currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) that directly apply to the product you wish to manufacture. Under the authority of the Safety Act, NHTSA has issued Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, which specifies requirements for child restraint systems used in motor vehicles and aircraft. However, Standard No. 213 applies only to new child restraint systems and not to aftermarket components of a child restraint system, such as an aftermarket cover for the restraint.

I note, however, that there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect your manufacture and sale of the Cool Cover. Under the Safety Act, 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 in @@ 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your cover contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to @ 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which states: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative . . . any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . ." It appears unlikely from the nature of your product that it would be placed in vehicles by persons in the aforementioned categories. However, if your product were to be installed by these persons, they should ensure that its installation does not compromise the safety protection provided by a child restraint system.

A child restraint has elements of design that could be rendered inoperative by the Cool Cover. Standard No. 213 sets flame-retardant performance requirements for materials used in a child restraint system. (See S5.7 of Standard No. 213, referencing Standard No. 302, "Flammability of Interior Materials.") Installation of rapidly burning materials could vitiate the compliance of the child restraint with Standard No. 213. Also, Standard No. 213 sets crash performance requirements for all new child restraint systems. Persons in the categories listed in @ 108(a)(2)(A) would have to ensure that the Cool Cover does not impair the function of the restraint's belts or other operating parts. (We note the statement in your letter that the Cool Cover does not impair the restraint's belts, etc.) Section 109 of the Safety Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation of @ 108.

The "render inoperative" prohibition of @ 108(a) (2)(A) does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. Thus, if the Cool Cover were placed on restraints by the restraint owners, your product need not meet any FMVSS. Nevertheless, in the interest of safety, we suggest you consider conforming your product to a flammability resistance standard equivalent to Standard No. 302. Also, you might consider providing consumer instructions that would reduce the likelihood that the Cool Cover might be used in a way that could interfere with the safety of the restraint. This might include an instruction on how to position the Cool Cover so that the restraint's belts would perform properly in a crash.

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

ID: nht71-1.20

DATE: 06/26/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Clue D. Ferguson; NHTSA

TO: D.C. Transit System, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 15, 1971, to Mr. Roy J. Dennison, concerning the use of Abcite coated acrylics in side windows of D.C. Transit buses.

Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials-Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Motorcycles, Trucks and Buses presently allows the use of AS-4 or AS-5 rigid plastics in the side wiodows of buses when the side windows are readily removable. Readily removable windows are defined in ANSX Standards ZZ6.1-1966 as "windows that can be quickly and completely removed from the motor vehicle without tools."

If this provision of the Standard is not adequate to satisfy your needs, we will be pleased to meet with you to discuss the matter further.

Office of the General Counsel D.C. Transit System. Inc.

June 15, 1971

Roy A. Dennison,

Safety Standards Engineer

Code 41-42

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Dennison:

Pursuant to our conversations regarding the use of acrylic coated with Aboite, I enclose herewith for your consideration two letters from the Dupont Company relative to certain tests made.

I wish to request that you give this matter your prompt consideration for the reason that this organization would like to be able to use this material in certain new buses that it intends to order as part of its fleet together with the use of same in windows on our used buses. I am arranging for a sample of the material to be sent to you under separate cover.

What we hope to obtain from you is a statement to the effect that the material does meet the safety standards of your department and in turn this would allow us to take this matter up with the District of Columbia authorities in order to be able to use this material as windows in our fleet.

I will await your reply after your investigation of this matter.

Very truly yours,

May 28, 1971

R. Dennison, Office of Crash Injury Reduction, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, National Highway Safety Bureau,

Dear Mr. Dennison,

I have been having difficulty trying to contact you over the last two weeks, probably because of your vacation, but hope that you can give me a very quick answer to two questions arising out of the proposed modifications to Standard 205.

The first question concerns the date when the marking modifications become effective. My own reading of the Standard is that, since it is a Standard for glazing materials, then the effective date applies to the manufacture of the glazing material and not to the fitting of the glazing material into the automobile. If I am wrong in my assumption, then we have to bring our whole modification process very much more forward, because a glass to be, fitted in January must have been made by September, because of the large number of glasses already in the pipe line.

The second problem concerns the actual form in which the DOT certification appears. Triplex has been allocated symbol DOT 17 and that is the symbol which we put on the glass. The proposed modification to 205 calls for a hyphen to be placed between DOT and the number (17 in our case). Will you accept the marking DOT 17 without the hyphen, because all our stencils and master plates have been made in this form and we should be put to both considerable expense and delay in getting all the master plates modified.

I am sending a copy of this letter to Mr. Clue to Mr. D. Ferguson in case you are still on vacation, as I am urgently needing advice.

With kind regards,

Yours sincerely,

A. J. HOLLAND--TRIPLEX SAFETY GLASS CO. LTD.

E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Company

PLASTICS DEPARTMENT

May 7, 1971

H. T. Smyth

Vice President Purchasing - Contracts

D. C. Transit System, Inc.

Dear Mr. Smyth:

In your letter of March 25, 1971, you asked me to certify to the following:

Du Pont Abcite abrasion resistant sheet - acrylic satisfies the requirements of Items 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the ASA Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for glazing motor vehicles operating on land highways - Z26.1 - 1966.

I am pleased to advise that our tests and investigations are now completed to an extent where we certify our material (Abcite abrasion resistant sheet - acrylic) does meet all of the ASA Z26.1 - 1966 requirements for the above items.

I hope this certification is in time for you to specify Abcite for your new coaches, and you will now proceed with additional usage on your current fleet.

If you have questions or need additional information, please contact me.

Sincerely,

Russell H. Berry, Jr.--

Development Specialist

Abcite Venture

E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Company

PLASTICS DEPARTMENT

March 29, 1971

H. T. Smyth

Vice President, Purchasing - Contracts

D. C. Transit System, Inc.

Dear Mr. Smyth:

Thank you for your letter of March 25, and we are pleased to hear of the satisfactory results of your tests with windows of acrylic coated with Abcite (Registered). Your decision to convert your fleet to Abcite (Registered) pending governmental approval is also exciting news.

You asked for a letter "stating that this material satisfies the requirements of: Items 4, 5, 6 & 7 of the ASA Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for glazing motor vehicles operating on land highways - Z26.1 - 1966".

All our data indicate that acrylic coated with Abcite (Registered) abrasion resistant coating satisfies all of the requirements in the above items of the ASA Code. We are submitting sample material to an outside testing laboratory for certification to verify our data. Tests run by an independent testing laboratory at the request of the Department of Transportation show a non-compliance in the weathering tests with which we seriously disagree. All our weathering data, both in lab tests and outside weathering tests, show essentially no change in optical quality, light transmission and haze levels. (See Page 3 of attached product bulletin.) However, as I stated, we are having these tests run at our request for certification.

I hope the above satisfies your requirements but if there are any questions or if you need additional information, please contact me. My telephone number is 302//4-4639.

Sincerely,

Russell H. Berry, Jr. --

Development Specialist

Abcite (Registered) Venture

Enclosure

ID: 10829-1

Ms. Mary J Gazich
Owner - Clever Kids, Inc.
4091 Vermont Avenue
Eagan, MN 55123

Dear Ms. Gazich:

This responds to your letter asking about how this agency's regulations might apply to your product, the "Smart Rider." In your letter, you described the Smart Rider as a "new automobile accessory for children." It is a vinyl seat back protector that slips over one or both of the front seats and secured, we assume, with the two 3/4 inch elastic bands.

The answer to your question is that there are no standards that apply directly to the Smart Rider, but there are Federal requirements that may affect it. I summarize below the relevant safety standards and laws you should consider.

As you recognized in your letter, the Smart Rider is an accessory, a type of motor vehicle equipment under our regulations. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in sections 30118-30122 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

NHTSA has not issued any standards for an accessory such as the Smart Rider. For that reason, you should not place any label on your packaging to the effect that it meets Federal standards.

Although no standards apply directly to the Smart Rider, its installation may affect vehicle compliance with certain safety standards. NHTSA has issued a safety standard (Standard No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact) that requires, among other things, that seat backs have a certain amount of cushioning to provide protection when struck by the head of rear seat passengers during a crash. Installation of your product on the back of front seats could have an impact on compliance with that standard. If the vinyl of the Smart

Rider is stiff enough, it might distribute the impact of the occupant's head over a larger area of the seat back than the vehicle manufacturer intended. As a result, the foam in the seat back might not compress as deeply as the manufacturer intended, and the requisite amount of cushioning might not be achieved. We do not know how stiff the vinyl is, and this may not be a problem, but it is something of which you should be aware.

Another standard that you might want to consider is Standard No. 302, Flammability of interior materials. That standard requires that seat backs not burn or transmit a flame front across their surface at a rate of more than 4 inches per minute. If the Smart Rider were installed as part of a new vehicle, it would be considered part of the seat back.

Which legal requirements apply depend to some extent on how your product is marketed. If your product were installed by a vehicle manufacturer as original equipment, the vehicle manufacturer would have to certify that the vehicle with the Smart Rider installed complies with all FMVSS's, including Standards No. 201 and 302. In addition, although we recognize it would be unlikely that your product would be installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, section 30122(b) of title 49 prohibits those commercial businesses from "knowingly mak[ing] inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . ." For instance, compliance with Standard No. 201 might be degraded if the Smart Rider were mounted in front of rear seat passengers. Any violation of this "make inoperative" prohibition would subject the installer to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation.

The "make inoperative" prohibition does not apply to modifications that vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, our standards would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners install the Smart Rider in their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade any safety device or system installed in their vehicles. In addition, individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their vehicles, so you might wish to consult State regulations to see whether the Smart Rider would be permitted.

I want to emphasize that NHTSA has not made a determination regarding the safety of the Smart Rider. NHTSA has not done any testing of your product. I am merely informing you of the applicable law and identifying a few potential problem areas for your consideration.

I hope this information is helpful. I am also enclosing a copy of a fact sheet titled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment." If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Mr. Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:VSA d:5/19/95

ID: nht95-2.88

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 19, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Mary J Gazich -- Owner - Clever Kids, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 3/23/95 LETTER FROM MARY J. GAZICH TO PHILLIP RECHT (OCC 10327)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Gazich:

This responds to your letter asking about how this agency's regulations might apply to your product, the "Smart Rider." In your letter, you described the Smart Rider as a "new automobile accessory for children." It is a vinyl seat back protector that sli ps over one or both of the front seats and secured, we assume, with the two 3/4 inch elastic bands.

The answer to your question is that there are no standards that apply directly to the Smart Rider, but there are Federal requirements that may affect it. I summarize below the relevant safety standards and laws you should consider.

As you recognized in your letter, the Smart Rider is an accessory, a type of motor vehicle equipment under our regulations. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in sections 30118-30122 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifyin g purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

NHTSA has not issued any standards for an accessory such as the Smart Rider. For that reason, you should not place any label on your packaging to the effect that it meets Federal standards.

Although no standards apply directly to the Smart Rider, its installation may affect vehicle compliance with certain safety standards. NHTSA has issued a safety standard (Standard No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact) that requires, among oth er things, that seat backs have a certain amount of cushioning to provide protection when struck by the head of rear seat passengers during a crash. Installation of your product on the back of front seats could have an impact on compliance with that sta ndard. If the vinyl of the Smart Rider is stiff enough, it might distribute the impact of the occupant's head over a larger area of the seat back than the vehicle manufacturer intended. As a result, the foam in the seat back might not compress as deepl y as the manufacturer intended, and the requisite amount of cushioning might not be achieved. We do not know how stiff the vinyl is, and this may not be a problem, but it is something of which you should be aware.

Another standard that you might want to consider is Standard No. 302, Flammability of interior materials. That standard requires that seat backs not burn or transmit a flame front across their surface at a rate of more than 4 inches per minute. If the S mart Rider were installed as part of a new vehicle, it would be considered part of the seat back.

Which legal requirements apply depend to some extent on how your product is marketed. If your product were installed by a vehicle manufacturer as original equipment, the vehicle manufacturer would have to certify that the vehicle with the Smart Rider in stalled complies with all FMVSS's, including Standards No. 201 and 302. In addition, although we recognize it would be unlikely that your product would be installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, section 30122(b ) of title 49 prohibits those commercial businesses from "knowingly mak[ing] inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . ." For instance, compliance with Standard No. 201 might be degraded if the Smart Rider were mounted in front of rear seat passengers. Any violation of this "make inoperative" prohibition would subject the installer to a potential civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation.

The "make inoperative" prohibition does not apply to modifications that vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, our standards would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners install the Smart Rider in their own vehicles, even if t he installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade any safety device or system installed in their vehicles. In addition, individual vehicle owners may mak e to their vehicles, so you might wish to consult State regulations to see whether the Smart Rider would be permitted.

I want to emphasize that NHTSA has not made a determination regarding the safety of the Smart Rider. NHTSA has not done any testing of your product. I am merely informing you of the applicable law and identifying a few potential problem areas for your consideration.

I hope this information is helpful. I am also enclosing a copy of a fact sheet titled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment." If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free t o contact Mr. Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-3.100

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 28, 1995

FROM: Joseph J. Smith -- Assistant Chief Maintenance Officer, Technical Services & Maintenance Support, Department of Buses, New York Transit Authority

TO: John Womack -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/29/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO JOSEPH J. SMITH (A43; STD. 302)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

I am requesting interpretation of NHTSA Standard No. 302; Flammability of interior materials (49 CFR Ch. V, 10-1-94 Edition, para. 571.302).

The Department of Buses, MTA New York City Transit, has been notified by a supplier of air conditioning (A/C) return air filters that their filters do not meet Standard No. 302.

The A/C filters that the DOB utilizes on RTS 04 and 06 model buses are located on the top of A/C evaporator coil. Although the A/C filters are not mentioned in para. S4.1 of the Standard No. 302, they may, in our opinion, be affected by requirements of para. S4.2, being separated from the bus interior only by a louvered panel. This area (which the filters occupy) cannot be clearly defined whether it falls into the category of occupant compartment air space.

The copies of some selected pages from the bus service and parts manuals are attached for your reference.

It would be greatly appreciated if you could clarify whether the A/C return air filters must conform to the Standard No. 302. If you need any additional information, please contact Sol. Zhodzishsky of my staff at tel. 718 927-7634 (fax 718 927-8079)

I would like also to thank Mr. Marvin Shaw for his expedient response to our verbal inquiries.

(MANUALS OMITTED.)

ID: nht95-6.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 28, 1995

FROM: Joseph J. Smith -- Assistant Chief Maintenance Officer, Technical Services & Maintenance Support, Department of Buses, New York Transit Authority

TO: John Womack -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/29/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO JOSEPH J. SMITH (A43; STD. 302)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

I am requesting interpretation of NHTSA Standard No. 302; Flammability of interior materials (49 CFR Ch. V, 10-1-94 Edition, para. 571.302).

The Department of Buses, MTA New York City Transit, has been notified by a supplier of air conditioning (A/C) return air filters that their filters do not meet Standard No. 302.

The A/C filters that the DOB utilizes on RTS 04 and 06 model buses are located on the top of A/C evaporator coil. Although the A/C filters are not mentioned in para. S4.1 of the Standard No. 302, they may, in our opinion, be affected by requirements of para. S4.2, being separated from the bus interior only by a louvered panel. This area (which the filters occupy) cannot be clearly defined whether it falls into the category of occupant compartment air space.

The copies of some selected pages from the bus service and parts manuals are attached for your reference.

It would be greatly appreciated if you could clarify whether the A/C return air filters must conform to the Standard No. 302. If you need any additional information, please contact Sol. Zhodzishsky of my staff at tel. 718 927-7634 (fax 718 927-8079)

I would like also to thank Mr. Marvin Shaw for his expedient response to our verbal inquiries.

(MANUALS OMITTED.)