Harry C. Gough

Vehicle Modification Engineer

Easter Seals Connecticut Mobility Center

158 State St.

Meriden, CT 06450

Dear Mr. Gough:

This letter responds to your request for an interpretation of the threshold warning signal requirement of S6.1 and the associated testing procedure in S7.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 403 (Standard 403), Platform Lift Systems For Motor Vehicles. See

49 C.F.R.  571.403.

You describe a particular Braun lift model in which the platform is stored under the vehicles floor. When the lift is deployed, the platform is extended out from underneath the vehicle approximately 12 inches below the level of the floor and then is brought upward to come to the floor level. You observed that, if the platform is only partially deployed, the threshold warning system is not activated and that it is only activated after the platform initially reaches floor level. You note that in the preamble to the final rule, the agency adopted the threshold warning requirement because of the risk involved in backing off a vehicle when the lift is not properly positioned. You acknowledge that the wheelchair lift design that you describe would not fail the compliance test procedure set forth in S7.4.2 of Standard 403, but ask whether the design is consistent with the intent of the threshold warning system.

By way of background, the agency established Standard 403 in order to protect individuals who are aided by canes, walkers, wheelchairs, scooters, and other mobility devices and rely on platform lifts to enter/exit a motor vehicle. Standard 403 is an equipment standard that specifies minimum performance requirements for platform lifts designed for installation on motor vehicles.

We read your letter as asking the general question of whether Standard 403 requires the threshold warning system to be activated before a lift is fully deployed. We interpret S6.1 to require that the threshold warning signal activate only after the lift has been fully deployed. Our interpretation is supported by the testing procedure set forth in S7.4.2. The testing procedure requires that the lift platform be maneuvered to the vehicle floor loading position before the test device is placed in the threshold area. Accordingly, we do not interpret S6.1 to require the threshold warning system to be activated before the lift is fully deployed.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact David Jasinski of my office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

O. Kevin Vincent

Chief Counsel

Dated: 7/19/2010

Makoto Yoshida, Senior Manager

Government Affairs Office

Nissan North America, Inc.

11921 Freedom Drive

Two Fountain Square, Suite 550

Reston, VA 20190

Dear Mr. Yoshida:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of 49 CFR  571.10(b)(1) and (2). Those paragraphs include formulas for determining the required number of designated seating positions (DSPs) in a seating surface area. In your letter, you ask us to confirm your belief that the formulas used to calculate the number of DSPs within a seating surface location prescribe the minimum number of permissible DSPs within that seating surface location, and that the manufacturer is not prohibited from designating a number of DSPs within a seating surface that is greater than the value N calculated in  571.10(b)(1) and (2). The issues raised by your letter are addressed below.

By way of background, for the purpose of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, NHTSA has defined a designated seating position as a location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5^th percentile adult female. On June 22, 2005, NHTSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for a revised definition of designated seating position that would be more objective. NHTSA had identified a problem of three people occupying a seat with only two DSPs. It was believed that providing a more objective definition of designated seating position would help alleviate this problem.

In the October 2008 final rule, NHTSA amended the definition of designated seating position for vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2011.[1] The new definition states that a seat location that has a seating surface width of at least 330 mm is a designated seating position. The final rule also established a procedure, codified at 49 CFR 571.10, for measuring seating surface width and calculating the number of DSPs at a seat location. For seat locations with a seating surface width of less than 1400 mm, the number of DSPs required is equal to the seating surface width divided by 350, rounded down to the nearest whole number. For seat locations with a seating surface width of 1400 mm or greater, the number of DSPs required is equal to the seating surface width divided by 450, rounded down to the nearest whole number.

In your letter, you put forth a scenario where the total width of a seating surface area, as calculated under  571.10(c)(2), is 1700 mm. You observe that, under the formula used to calculate the number of DSPs for a seating surface width of at least 1400 mm, there would be three DSPs at the seating area. You ask whether, under the new DSP definition set forth in the October 2008 final rule, you are prohibited from designating four DSPs in that seating surface area instead of the result of the calculation in  571.10(b)(2).

As indicated above, we changed the definition of designated seating position because of a concern that, in certain situations, more people were occupying a seating surface area than the number of DSPs. You put forward a scenario in the opposite direction, where a manufacturer wants to designate more DSPs than the number required by the formulas in section 571.10(b), and also where the seating area is specifically designed for that greater number of occupants. However, the definition of designated seating position was also revised to be more objective. NHTSA developed a procedure, set forth in section 571.10(b)(1) and (b)(2) to calculate the number of DSPs for a seating location.

Our rulemaking was not intended to limit manufacturers from designating more DSPs than specified by the formulas or to permit manufacturers to designate a smaller number of designated seating positions than the number they actually intend to be used by occupants. In light of the issue you have raised, we will consider clarifying the language of section 571.10(b) in a future rulemaking or in the responses to petitions for reconsideration of the new DSP definition. Nothing in this letter should be construed as a response to any of the petitions for reconsideration.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact David Jasinski of my office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

O. Kevin Vincent

Chief Counsel

Ref: Std. 571

8/5/2011

David E. Barnhart

Chief Engineer

The Vehicle Production Group

1355 Combermere Drive

Troy, MI 48083

Dear Mr. Barnhart:

This letter responds to your request for an interpretation regarding the applicability of certain Federal motor vehicle safety standards (Standards) to a vehicle location with a wheelchair tie-down position in lieu of an installed front passenger seat. This also follows up on the meeting you had requested with agency staff, in which you explained your interpretation requests and showed us a prototype of the vehicle you plan to manufacture.

Your vehicle will have numerous features designed to make it accessible to persons in wheelchairs. Pertinent to your request, the vehicle will have a wheelchair tie-down position in the front of the vehicle to the right of the driver where a front passenger seat would ordinarily be located. In your letter, you ask us to confirm two specific conclusions that you have reached regarding this feature. First, you ask us to confirm that the wheelchair tie-down position in the front passenger location is not a designated seating position, as defined by

49 CFR section 571.3, such that Standard 208, Occupant crash protection, does not require the installation of an air bag at that position. Second, you ask us to confirm that portions of Standard 214 (Side impact protection), which do not refer to designated seating positions, but instead to front and rear outboard seating positions, do not apply to the wheelchair tie-down position. See 49 CFR  571.214.

We note that, in your letter, you stated your belief that the performance requirements of the Standards that apply to designated seating positions, or to seating positions in general, do not apply to vehicle locations at which there is no seat installed at that position, but only tie-downs used for securing a wheelchair. Our interpretation letter is limited to the particular Standards that you raise in your letter.

You cite three interpretations letters in support of your belief that this position is not a designated seating position under both the old definition applicable to vehicles manufactured before September 1, 2011 and the new definition to vehicles manufactured after that date.[1] First, in a March 19, 1992 letter to Mr. Wm. Richard Alexander of the Maryland State Department of Education, we addressed a requirement in Standard 222, Schoolbus passenger seating and crash protection. We stated that Standard 222s requirement for a restraining barrier within 24 inches of a seating reference point did not apply to a wheelchair position because a wheelchair position is not technically a designated seating position.

Second, in a November 13, 1992 letter to Mrs. Edna Sutlief, we addressed Standard 208, which requires safety belts to be installed at designated seating positions. In our letter, we stated that Standard 208 did not require installation of a safety belt at a wheelchair securement location because such a location would not be a designated seating position, as that term is defined in 49 CFR section 571.3.

Third, in a February 4, 1999 letter to Mr. Jerry G. Sullivan, Jr., of the Braun Corporation, we addressed a requirement in Standard 208 that trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles be equipped with air bags at the driver and passenger designated seating positions. We stated that a passenger side air bag would not be required in a vehicle that was modified by removing the right front passenger seat and installing a permanent ambulatory walk-through entrance door. We reasoned that, once the front passenger seat is removed, Standard 208 would not require an air bag for that location because an air bag is only required if a seating position is there.

We confirm that, for the vehicle you ask about, because there would be no seat installed in the front passenger seating position, that position would not constitute a designated seating position, under both the old and new definitions of that term as defined by 49 CFR section 571.3. Under the old definition, a designated seating position exists if a position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion. The new definition of designated seating position, which is intended to be more objective, is based upon seating surface width. Because the wheelchair tie-down position has no seating surface, it is not a designated seating position. Therefore, consistent with our prior interpretations, you are correct to conclude that Standard 208 would not require the installation of an air bag at the wheelchair tie-down position because that position is not a designated seating position.

You also ask for confirmation that the dynamic performance requirements of Standard 214 do not apply to the wheelchair tie-down position. By way of background, a multipurpose passenger vehicle with the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 6,000 pounds must generally meet the requirements of S6 (door crush resistance) and S9 (pole test) of Standard 214. 49 CFR 571.214, S4(c). S7 of Standard 214, the moving deformable barrier test requirements, would not apply to your vehicle because it will be categorized as a multipurpose passenger vehicle with a GVWR greater than 6,000 pounds.[2] See also S5(b)(4).

Regarding S9 of Standard 214, the vehicle-to-pole test requirements, you note that S5(c)(4) excludes from meeting the requirements of S9 vehicles in which the seat for the driver or right front passenger has been removed and wheelchair restraints installed in place of the seats. You believe that this exclusion would be applicable to your vehicle, even though you are not removing a seat but, instead, would be manufacturing the vehicle without the seat. We agree with you that the rationale supporting this exclusion would apply to the front passenger position in your vehicle, even though, strictly speaking, you have not removed the seat. The end result is the same: the right front passenger seat is nonexistent. Therefore, we interpret S5(c)(4) as excluding your vehicle from the requirement to meet S9 at the front passenger seating position.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact David Jasinski of my office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

O. Kevin Vincent

Chief Counsel

cc: Erika Z. Jones, Mayer Brown LLP

Dated:7/19/10

Mr. Jonathan Weisheit

Project Engineering

J.K. Technologies, L.L.C.

3500 Sweet Air Street

Baltimore, MD 21211

Dear Mr. Weisheit:

This responds to your question asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release. You ask about S5.2.3.2(b) of that standard, as it applies to an open top double decked bus that your client Ensign Bus, a bus importer, wishes to import into the United States. As explained below, it appears that the bus does not comply with certain provisions of FMVSS No. 217.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 to issue and enforce safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products.

Description of the Double Decker Bus

In your letter, you write that the double decker bus that Ensign Bus wishes to import has two stairways that access the open top upper deck of the bus. You describe one stairway as midway between the center of the bus and the front of the bus, to the left of center. You describe the other stairway as midway between the center of the bus and the rear of the vehicle to the right of center.[1] Because of the engines location, there is neither a rear emergency window exit nor a rear emergency door exit on the lower deck.

You provided schematics, showing the seating positions on both the upper and lower decks of the bus, and the locations of the stairways in relation to the seating positions. The schematic of the bus states that the lower deck has 30 seating positions (apparently not counting the drivers seat) and that the upper deck has 46 seating positions. You also provided photographs of the interior of the lower deck. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you stated that the double decker bus is over 10,000 pounds (lb) gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR).

S5.2.3.2(b) Requirements

Under S5.2.1 of the standard, manufacturers of buses other than school buses may meet FMVSS No. 217 requirements for the provision of emergency exits by meeting either S5.2.2, Buses other than school buses, or S5.2.3, School buses. You seek confirmation that the bus at issue would satisfy the requirements of S5.2.3.2(b) of FMVSS No. 217 (the school bus requirements) with the two stairway exits to the roof/upper deck.

S5.2.3.2(b), Emergency roof exit, states, in relevant part:

(1) Each emergency roof exit shall be hinged on its forward side, and shall be operable from both inside and outside the vehicle.

(2)

(3) In a bus equipped with two emergency roof exits, one shall be located as near as practicable to a point equidistant between the midpoint of the passenger compartment and the foremost limit of the passenger compartment and the other shall be located as near as practicable to a point equidistant between the midpoint of the passenger compartment and the rearmost point of the passenger compartment.

(4)

(5) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(6) of this section, each emergency roof exit shall be installed with its longitudinal centerline coinciding with a longitudinal vertical plane passing through the longitudinal centerline of the school bus.

(6) In a bus equipped with two or more emergency roof exits, for each roof exit offset from the longitudinal vertical plane specified in paragraph (b)(5) of this section, there shall be another roof exit offset from that plane an equal distance to the other side.

A question presented by your inquiry is whether S5.2.3.2(b) requires a cover or hatch of some sort for the roof exit. If these school bus roof emergency exit requirements require a cover, your exits (the staircases) would not meet the requirements, since they are not covered.

After consideration of the standard and its history, our conclusion is that S5.2.3.2(b) does not contemplate this particular kind of roof exit (uncovered stairways to the roof of a double decker bus). In stating that the roof exit shall be hinged on its forward side, and shall be operable from both inside and outside the vehicle, S5.2.3.2(b)(1) assumes the existence of a cover or hatch. We do not construe the language of S5.2.3.2(b)(1) as an indirect requirement that a roof exit consisting of a staircase to the upper level of a double decker bus be covered. Covering the staircase poses challenges for a double decker bus, given how passengers are intended to move between the lower and upper levels of the vehicle. (If the staircase had a cover, the cover must meet the requirements in the standard for emergency exit covers, including their release.)

With regard to other provisions in S5.2.3.2(b), it appears from your enclosures that the roof exits would meet them. One roof exit appears to be located as near as practicable to a point equidistant between the midpoint of the passenger compartment and the foremost limit of the passenger compartment and the other appears to be located as near as practicable to a point equidistant between the midpoint of the passenger compartment and the rearmost point of the passenger compartment, as specified in S5.2.3.2(b)(3). From your enclosures, it also appears that for each of the roof exits offset from the longitudinal vertical plane specified in paragraph S5.2.3.2(b)(5), the other roof exit is offset from that plane an equal distance to the other side. Thus, S5.2.3.2(b)(6) appears satisfied.

However, there are other requirements in S5.2.3 with which it appears the bus does not comply. These are discussed below.

Other Requirements in S5.2.3

S5.2.3, the section of the standard you have elected to meet, states:

S5.2.3 School buses. Except as provided in S5.2.3.4, each school bus shall comply with S5.2.3.1 through S5.2.3.3.

S5.2.3.1. Each school bus shall be equipped with the exits specified in either S5.2.3.1(a) or S5.2.3.1(b), chosen at the option of the manufacturer.

(a) One rear emergency door that opens outward and is hinged on the right side (either side in the case of a bus with a GVWR or 10,000 pounds or less), and the additional exits, if any, specified in Table 1 [of Standard No. 217].

(b) One emergency door on the vehicles left side that is hinged on its forward side and meets the requirements of S5.2.3.2(a), and a push-out rear window that provides a minimum opening clearance 41 centimeters high and 122 centimeters wide and meets the requirements of S5.2.3.2(c), and the additional exits, if any, specified by Table 2 [of Standard No. 217].

* * * * *

In order to comply with S5.2, Provision of emergency exits, the bus must meet either all of the requirements in S5.2.2 or all of the requirements in S5.2.3. Based on the schematics of the bus you have provided, it appears that the bus does not have a rear emergency door or an emergency door on the vehicles left side. Thus, the bus does not appear to comply with S5.2.3.1 and, as a result, would not satisfy S5.2.3.

If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

O. Kevin Vincent

Chief Counsel

Dated: 4/27/10

Mr. Glenn Aaron

Infant Product Engineer

3226 Quitman Street

Denver, CO 80212

Dear Mr. Aaron:

This responds to your letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) asking our approval of a front-facing and a rear-facing harness restraint system you would like to sell to transport children in motor vehicles. You state that the harnesses are designed to attach to a vehicle seat by way of tethers attaching to the anchors of a child restraint anchorage system[1] and not by the vehicles belt system. You state that you ceased offering your harnesses for sale after being contacted by Mr. Zack Fraser of NHTSAs Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC). Mr. Fraser informed you that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child restraint systems, requires harnesses to meet the dynamic test requirements of FMVSS No. 213 when attached to a vehicle seat assembly using a vehicle lap belt. You ask whether Mr. Frasers statement about FMVSS No. 213 is correct.

As explained below, we confirm Mr. Frasers statement. FMVSS No. 213 requires harnesses to attach to a vehicle seat by way of the vehicle lap (Type 1) belt. It appears from the information available to us that your harnesses can not be certified as meeting FMVSS No. 213 since, among other reasons, the restraint systems are attached by a tether system and not by the vehicle lap belt. NHTSA prohibits persons from offering for sale or selling new child restraint systems that are not certified as meeting FMVSS No. 213.

Background

NHTSA administers Federal safety requirements for the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and items of new motor vehicle equipment. We are authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards under 49 U.S.C. Sections 30101, et seq. (the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act)). Under the authority of the Safety Act, we issued FMVSS No. 213 (49 CFR 571.213), which establishes requirements for child restraint systems, i.e., any device designed for use in a motor vehicle to restrain, seat or position children who weigh 65 pounds or less. (We currently are considering a proposal to increase this weight limit to 80 pounds. Notice of proposed rulemaking, August 31, 2005,

70 FR 51720; supplemental notice, January 23, 2008, 73 FR 3901.)

Child restraint system manufacturers must certify that each of their new child restraints satisfies all requirements of FMVSS No. 213. NHTSA does not approve or certify child restraints.

OVSC enforces manufacturers compliance with the Safety Act and with the FMVSSs, including FMVSS No. 213. Among other activities, OVSC purchases and tests child restraints according to the procedures specified in the standard. If the child restraint fails the test and is determined not to comply with FMVSS No. 213, the manufacturer of the child restraint is subject to the recall responsibilities of our statute (49 U.S.C. 30120). NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects.

Discussion

In your letter to us, you do not describe your harnesses in detail or include photographs of the restraint systems. You instead generally state that your Rear-facing system is designed to attach to three rearward child restraint anchorage systems and, the evidently approved Swedish System (Britex) [sic] under the front seat.

From your description, we believe your harnesses do not meet FMVSS No. 213. Section 5.3.2 of FMVSS No. 213 requires each child restraint system to comply with the standards performance requirements when installed solely by each of the means indicated in the following table for the particular type of child restraint system. The table for S5.3.2 shows that for the type of harness you wish to produce, the harnesses must be capable of meeting the requirements of the standard when installed with a Type 1 seat belt assembly (i.e., a vehicle lap belt). (The table indicates that, for harnesses, a top tether may be used, if needed.) Your harnesses are not capable of being installed on a vehicle seat by the lap belt system. As such, they do not meet the requirements of the standard, and can not be certified as meeting FMVSS No. 213.

It appears that your harnesses would not meet other requirements of FMVSS No. 213.[2] You refer to a Britex [sic] anchor under the front seat. Note that the requirement in S5.3.2 that harnesses must meet FMVSS No. 213 performance criteria when installed solely by the Type 1 belt system also means that, in our compliance test, we will not use a supplementary anchoring system forward of the child restraint. Your restraint must meet the performance requirements of FMVSS No. 213 when attached to the test seat assembly as specified in the standard. OVSC will use only a lap belt and the top tether of the standard seat assembly specified in FMVSS No. 213 to attach your harness to the assembly (see S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(A) of the standard).

We would like to comment on some additional matters. At one time, you had a website (www.grandmaknows.org or www.grandmaknows.com, both presently defunct) that showed a rear-facing child restraint system positioned in a vehicles rear seat. It appeared to NHTSA staff viewing the website that the top of the rear-facing restraint was slung like a hammock from the head restraint of the front passenger seat to a ceiling anchor in the rear. Anchoring a restraint to or hanging it from the head restraint is not permitted by FMVSS No. 213. S5.3.1 of the standard specifies that each add-on child restraint system (including a harness) must not have any means designed for attaching the system to a vehicle seat cushion or vehicle seat back. This requirement is intended to ensure that a child restraint is easy to install and does not impose excessive force on the seat in front of it. We are also concerned about the crash protection afforded a child when suspended from the head restraint of the vehicle seat in front of it. Forces imposed by the seat and/or by an occupant of the seat could degrade the safety of the child in a crash.

There appear to be a number of potential problems with this rear-facing restraint meeting FMVSS No. 213. For instance, NHTSA would not test a rear-facing restraint by suspending it from a ceiling anchor; a ceiling anchor does not exist on our test seat assembly. Further, it does not appear that the rear-facing system meets S5.1.4 of FMVSS No. 213, which limits the angle between the systems back support surface and the vertical. You as the manufacturer are responsible for ensuring compliance of your product with each of the applicable requirements of the Safety Act and FMVSS No. 213.

If you have further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

O. Kevin Vincent

Chief Counsel

Dated: 2/16/10

Mr. Louis Siegel

VP Dometic Automotive, USA

P.O. Box 15299

Richmond, VA 23227-0699

Dear Mr. Siegel:

This responds to your letter asking about the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, to a refrigerator mounted in a cabinet in the sleeper of a Class 8 truck (a truck with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 14,969 kilograms (33,000 pounds)). You ask whether the standard would have to be met by just the front of the refrigerator door, and not the other exterior surfaces of the refrigerator. As explained below, our answer is yes.

Background

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act). NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA selects a sampling of new vehicles and equipment each year to determine their compliance with applicable FMVSSs. If our testing or examination reveals an apparent noncompliance, we may require the manufacturer to remedy the noncompliance, and may initiate an enforcement proceeding, if necessary, to ensure that the manufacturer takes appropriate action. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment.

You provide the following description of the refrigerator. [T]he refrigerator is mounted in such a manner such that the front door is the only surface actually in the refreshable air space; the other surfaces are contained within a cabinet whose outer surfaces are in the refreshable air space, and the other surfaces of the refrigerator are greater than 13 mm from the cabinets inner surface. You ask: Does the standard apply only to the front door? Does the standard apply to the other five surfaces (not in the refreshable air space)?

The following response is based on our understanding of your letter and the description you provided.

Discussion

FMVSS No. 302 applies to particular components, listed in S4.1 of the standard, on new completed motor vehicles, including trucks of all GVWRs. The following components are listed in S4.1:

Seat cushions, seat backs, seat belts, headlining, convertible tops, arm rests, all trim panels including door, front, rear, and side panels, compartment shelves, head restraints, floor coverings, sun visors, curtains, shades, wheel housing covers, engine compartment covers, mattress covers, and any other interior materials, including padding and crash-deployed elements, that are designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash.

Of these components, any portion of a single or composite material which is within 13 millimeters (mm) of the occupant compartment air space shall meet the flammability resistance requirements (S4.2).

A component such as a refrigerator door is not specifically enumerated in S4.1 of FMVSS No. 302. However, there are several considerations to bear in mind when answering your question. NHTSA has previously determined that a glove box door is not a component included in S4.1, unless it is designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash[1] or describes a component that closely resembles an enumerated component.[2] Further, a component that is incorporated into an enumerated component could be considered part of the enumerated component.[3]

We understand from your letter that the refrigerator is stored in a built-in cabinet, such that the front door [of the refrigerator] is the only surface actually in the refreshable air space. Applying the above considerations, the refrigerator door could be subject to the flammability resistance requirements if it is incorporated into a listed component. The built-in cabinet and refrigerator face could be considered part of the vehicles trim panels, which is enumerated in S4.1. The refrigerator door could be subject to the flammability resistance requirements if it is designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash. We are unable to be more specific with our answer without more detailed information about the configuration and appearance of the refrigerator and cabinet.

Even if the standard applies to the front door, it does not appear that the standard would apply to the other five surfaces of the refrigerator. According to your letter, those surfaces are more than 13 mm from the occupant compartment air space. Under S4.2 of the standard, only portions of material that are within 13 mm of the occupant compartment air space are subject to FMVSS No. 302.

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

Sincerely,

O. Kevin Vincent

Chief Counsel

Enclosures

Dated: 2/15/2010