Mr. Tommy Nordkil

Volvo Technology Corporation

Corporate Standards

M1.6, Dept. 6857

405 08

Gteborg, Sweden

Dear Mr. Nordkil:

This responds to your email requesting information about whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has issued any regulations addressing the retention of records regarding certification test data. Your question arises in the context of testing procedures set forth in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CFR 571.302). As explained below, the answer is no, but a manufacturer would be well-advised to retain such records in case its motor vehicle or item of equipment does not comply with an applicable safety standard.

By way of background, NHTSA is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). 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 follows the test procedures and conditions established in the safety standards when conducting its own compliance testing, and the results of NHTSA's compliance tests are always recorded and made available to the public through the agency's Technical Information Services division. However, the Safety Act does not require a manufacturer to test its products only in the manner specified in the relevant safety standard, or even to test its products at all. A manufacturer may choose any means of certifying that its products comply with the requirements of the safety standards. If the manufacturer chooses to conduct testing, there is no requirement that the manufacturer retain those results.

However, where a manufacturer submits a noncompliance report, it must submit to NHTSA the test results and other information on which it based its determination of noncompliance. (49 CFR 573.6(c)(7).) Moreover, if NHTSA testing shows that an apparent noncompliance exists with a vehicle or item of equipment, the manufacturer is asked to show the basis for its certification that the vehicle or equipment complies with the relevant safety standard or standards. If, in fact, there is a noncompliance, the manufacturer is subject to recall provisions, and is subject to civil penalties unless it can establish that it exercised reasonable care" in certifying the product and had no reason to know that its motor vehicle or item of equipment did not comply with the safety standards. (49 U.S.C. 30112). Given the potential for civil penalties, it is in a manufacturer's best interests to retain its testing records in case it must establish reasonable care.

NHTSA has issued a regulation addressing recordkeeping, 49 CFR Part 576, Record Retention, which establishes requirements for the retention by motor vehicle manufacturers of complaints, reports, and other records concerning motor vehicle defects and malfunctions that may relate to motor vehicle safety. However, nothing in this provision requires retention of information generated during compliance testing.

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

NCC-112:EGross:5/18/07:62992:OCC 07-001810

Cc: NCC-110 Subj/Chron, Docket Std. 302

S:\INTERP\302\07-001810 Nordkil--draft (18 May 07).doc

Mr. Howard Seligman

Velosolex America, LLC

501 Kennedy Blvd.

North Bergen, NJ 07047

Dear Mr. Seligman:

This responds to your letter in which you ask whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is the regulating authority for the Velosolex pedal assisted bicycle (the Velosolex). Based on your description of the product and the analysis presented below, the Velosolex would not be considered a motor vehicle. Therefore, it is subject to the jurisdiction of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) rather than NHTSA.

By way of background, NHTSA regulates the manufacture, importation, and sale of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. The definition of motor vehicle is given is 49 USC 30102, and reads:

[M]otor vehicle means a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.

In your letter, you describe the Velosolex as driven primarily by muscular power, and indicate that the engine only supplements the primary driving force. You state that it has a small internal combustion engine, which does not activate until the bicycle reaches a speed of five miles per hour. Furthermore, you state that if the rider does not continue to pedal after the engine is running, the Velosolex will eventually stop, as the engine is not powerful enough to keep the Velosolex moving on its own.

Based on your description, including the fact that the engine is not powerful enough to keep the Velosolex moving on its own, it is our opinion that the primary motive force for the Velosolex is muscular power, not mechanical power within the meaning of the definition of motor vehicle. Therefore, the Velosolex is not a motor vehicle under 30102, and it is subject to the jurisdiction of CPSC rather than NHTSA. We note that your product could also be subject to the jurisdiction and regulations of other Federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency.

If you have any further questions relating to NHTSA, please contact Ari Scott of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

ref:571

d.9/17/07

Mr. Melissa Brooke

Safety & Compliance

ICI International Carriers (Tilbury) Inc.

42 Mill Street West

Tilbury, Ontario

N0P 2L0

Canada

Dear Ms. Brooke:

This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. You stated that you would like clarification on additional factory installed lamps that are in a horizontal line with the required cluster of three amber identification lamps. You stated that the lamps in question would not be spaced at a distance that is at least twice the distance that separates each lamp in the required cluster, and would be on a separate switch from the cluster. As discussed below, it is our opinion that such a design would not be permitted by FMVSS No. 108. You also asked whether this would be a violation of 49 CFR 391.11(d) if the additional lamps remained off while a vehicle was in the United States. As that regulation was promulgated and is enforced by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), we are referring that question to that agency.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). 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. FMVSS No. 108 specifies requirements for original and replacement lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment.  

In your letter, you requested clarification on additional factory installed lamps that are in a horizontal line with the required cluster of three amber identification lamps. You added that the lamps in question are not spaced at a distance that is at least twice the distance that separates each lamp in the required cluster. Based on your description, this lamp design would not be permitted by FMVSS No. 108.

We have explained in past interpretation letters that additional lamps placed in the vicinity of and in a horizontal line with the required cluster of three identification lamps impair the functioning of the identification lamp cluster, and are therefore not permitted by FMVSS No. 108.[1] We have also explained that this problem is avoided if the additional lamps are spaced at a distance of at least twice the distance that separates each lamp in the identification cluster.[2] Because the lamps you describe are in the horizontal line with the identification lamps, and are not spaced far enough apart from the cluster, they are not permitted by FMVSS No. 108. The fact that the lamps would be on a separate switch from the required cluster would not change this result, as the lamps would impair the effectiveness of the required lamps whenever they were turned on.

You also asked a question about 49 CFR 393.11(d). Specifically, you asked if the additional lamps placed on a separate switch from the identification cluster remained off while the vehicle was in the United States, whether there would be a violation of section 393.11(d). Again, we are referring that question to FMCSA.

If you have any further questions about NHTSAs regulations, please contact Ari Scott of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:108

d.9/18/07

Mr. Dick Sabath

Senior Manager, Compliance

Country Coach, LLC

135 East First Avenue

P.O. Box 400

Junction City, OR 97448

Dear Mr. Sabath:

This responds to your letter concerning testing of driver and front row passenger bucket seats and seat belt systems to the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) No. 207 and 210. Specifically, you asked whether a longitudinal movement of - to -inch of these seats during testing constitute[s] an out-of-compliance or safety concern under FMVSS No. 207. Based on the information you provided and the analysis below, we would not consider this amount of movement to constitute a test failure under FMVSS No. 207.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and 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.

In your letter, you stated that all three anchorage points of both seats (type 2 seat belts) are on the seat. You further describe the forward and rearward movements of these seats as being motorized with a single electric motor. It appears that the electric adjustment motor affects the performance of your seats in the compliance tests for FMVSSs No. 207 and 210. You explain that During the (repetitive) forward pull tests . . . we have observed a consistent and repetitive forward travel of to -inch in the longitudinal adjusted position due to the backlash of the electric adjustment motor. You further state that:

Once the backlash has occurred, the entire seat and seat belt assembly holds the prescribed test loads for the time specified in the FMVSS 207/210. No other movement or breakage was observed during the four different tests we conducted on the same seat models to verify the cause of the to inch forward displacement. The to -inch of travel remains consistent throughout all tests.

S4.2.1 of FMVSS No. 207 states that Except for vertical movement of nonlocking suspension type occupant seats in trucks or buses, each seat shall remain in its adjusted position when tested in accordance with the test procedures specified in S5. (Emphasis added.) We have long interpreted S4.2.1 to allow some deformation of the seats during the force test, provided that structural integrity of the seats is maintained.[1] For example, we have stated that bending and twisting of the seat or seat components during the force test would not result in non-compliance with FMVSS No. 207, unless the bending or twisting resulted in the seat moving from one adjustment position to another, which would violate S4.2.1s requirement that the seat remain in its adjusted position when tested.

You indicate that the movement of the seat is due to backlash in the electrical adjustment motor. The term backlash in this context typically refers to the gap between mechanical elements such as mating gears used to drive or move a device.[2] As such, backlash may also be present in a manual seat adjustment, such as the detents in a typical seat fore-aft adjustment mechanism. As such, forward movement of a seat during the application of the required loading strictly due to backlash, whether or not the mechanism of adjustment is an electrical motor, would not be considered in violation of the requirement in S4.2.1 that the seat remain in its adjusted position when tested. Thus, in terms of the specific factual situation described in your letter, we would not consider such movement a test failure under FMVSS No. 207. However, if any of the seat movement were due to a factor such as movement of the driving mechanism, such as rotation of the gear providing the seat adjustment, S4.2.1 would be violated. In addition, as we have previously stated, if a change in the adjusted position of the seat back is caused by the gear mechanism being destroyed, the seat would also not comply with S4.2.1.[3] Thus, in terms of the specific factual situation described in your letter, we would not consider such movement a test failure under FMVSS No. 207.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Rebecca Schade of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:207

d.11/13/07

Mr. Perry Speevack

12286 Soaring Flight Drive

Jacksonville, FL 32225

Dear Mr. Speevack:

This is in response to your letter in which you ask about the requirements of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for the Detachable Seat Belt Release Button Protector, an aftermarket product you have developed that would prevent children in booster seats from pressing a vehicles seat belt release button. Based upon the information you provided this agency and as is explained more fully below, we have determined that no Federal motor vehicle safety standard specifically applies to your product. However, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment you have certain responsibilities under our laws.

In your submission, you claimed that the information you provided is privileged, confidential, and protected from disclosure. In a telephone conversation of April 27, 2007 with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you waived your claim to confidential treatment of the information you provided.

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301; Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment or pass on the compliance of a vehicle or item of equipment outside the context of an actual enforcement proceeding. Instead, our statute establishes a self-certification process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on our understanding of the information set forth in your letter.

Description of the Detachable Seat Belt Release Button Protector

Your device is designed to be secured on existing seat belt assembly systems in motor vehicles. You state that the aftermarket detachable prototype of your device consists of an upper section and a lower section. The upper section contains a hinge (similar to a door hinge) that measures two inches by one half inches. One side of the hinge is tacked, using adhesive liquid or tape, to the housing of the vehicle seat belt latch plate. The lower section of your product, consisting of a hook on a strap, is made to adhere to the housing of the seat belt buckle.

To use the product, when the seat belt is buckled, the unattached part of the hinge would be capable of flipping up and down over the seat belt release button. When this unattached part of the hinge is up, you state that the seat belt release button is exposed and the belt can be unfastened from the buckle. When the unattached part of the hinge is down and the seat belt assembly is latched, the unattached part of the hinge forms a cover over the release button. There is a ring on the upper section that the consumer would attach to the hook on the lower section of your product, when the consumer wants to prevent a child from unbuckling the belt. The consumer would attach this hook on the lower section to the one-inch ring on the upper section when the seat belt is buckled, thus keeping the cover closed over and covering the buckle release button.

Discussion

No FMVSS Currently Applies to Your Product

There is currently no Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) that applies to your product. FMVSS No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, sets forth requirements for new seat belt assemblies. Your product does not meet the definition of a seat belt assembly, so the standard would not apply. FMVSS No. 213 Child Restraint Systems, is NHTSAs standard for child restraints. It 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 65 pounds or less (See S4 of FMVSS No. 213.) Since your product would not itself restrain, seat, or position a child, it would not be a child restraint system. Therefore, FMVSS No. 213 would not apply to your product. FMVSS No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, generally does not apply to aftermarket equipment items.

Making Inoperative the Compliance of a Vehicle With FMVSS No. 209

Although we do not have any standards that directly apply to your product, you should be aware that 49 U.S.C. 30122, Making safety devices and elements inoperative could affect its manufacture. That section prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly making inoperative devices or elements of design installed in a motor vehicle or on an item of motor vehicle equipment, such as a vehicle seat belt assembly, in compliance with the FMVSSs. There are several seat belt elements of design that could be affected by your product, which we will discuss below. The make inoperative provision does not apply to individual owners installing aftermarket equipment on their own vehicles. However, it is our policy to encourage vehicle owners not to tamper with or otherwise degrade the safety of safety systems.

Subparagraph (d) Buckle release of S4.3 Requirements for hardware, of FMVSS No. 209 requires the pushbutton release for any buckle on a seat belt to have a minimum area for applying the release force. Subparagraph (d) also requires the buckle to release when a specified maximum force is applied. It appears that, by design, your product would cover the

button and not allow the buckle to release under the amount of force typically required. If your device would interfere with the vehicles compliance with these requirements, commercial establishments cannot legally install your device on customers seat belt assemblies.

Responsibility to Ensure Your Device is Free of Safety-Related Defects

As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are responsible for ensuring that your product is free of safety-related defects (see 49 U.S.C. 30118-30121). The agency does not determine the existence of safety defects in motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment except in the context of a defect proceeding.

Concerns About Degrading the Performance of Vehicle Safety Belts

If you should decide to manufacture the Detachable Seat Belt Release Button Protector, we would urge you to evaluate carefully whether your product would in any way degrade the performance of vehicle safety belts. For example, you should ensure that your product would not interfere with safety belt retraction or release in an emergency, that any adhesive or sharp edges used with your product would not cause deterioration of the safety belt webbing, and that your product would not obscure the information required by FMVSS No. 209 to be labeled on the webbing. Safety belt webbing is designed to have some "give" to help absorb crash forces. If your product were to make the webbing too stiff, it could raise safety concerns. Finally, you should be aware that originally-installed safety belts must meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 302. Again, we would encourage you to evaluate your product against the requirements of these standards to ascertain whether your product would degrade the performance of seat belts.

State Law May Apply

Additionally, the States have the authority to regulate the use of vehicles, and may have restrictions on the use of devices that restrict the release of seat belt buckles. We suggest that you check with your attorney or insurance company about State law considerations.

I have enclosed a brochure for new manufacturers that discusses the basic requirements of our standards and regulations, including the provisions relating to manufacturers' responsibilities to ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects. If you have any further questions please call Ms. Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

Enclosure

d.8/17/07

ref:209#213#302

Ms. Lynn Schultz

SB Solutions LLC

1907 Brooks Ct.

West Bend, WI 53090-1789

Dear Ms. Schultz:

This responds to your letter regarding the disconnection of the front lights on trucks, when using an auxiliary attachment, under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Specifically, you asked whether it would be permissible for a motor vehicle repair business to modify a vehicle with a special plow that includes a set of auxiliary front vehicle lamps. When attached, this plow would disconnect the high and low beam headlights, the turn signals, and the front marker lamps on the truck. As discussed below, it would be acceptable to disconnect these lamps on trucks if the auxiliary lamps on the snow plow met all of the requirements of FMVSS No. 108 for the disconnected lamps.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). 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.

A relevant provision of Federal law with respect to equipping a vehicle with a snow plow is 49 U.S.C. 30122(b), which specifies that:

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter unless the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business reasonably believes the vehicle or equipment will not be used (except for testing or a similar purpose during maintenance or repair) when the device or element is inoperative.

Ordinarily, if a motor vehicle repair business disconnected the front lights on trucks, it would be a violation of 30122. However, assuming the plow contains a set of auxiliary lamps that meets all of the requirements of FMVSS No. 108 for the lamps being replaced, it would be permissible to disconnect the lamps in this instance.

As you have not fully described the characteristics of the auxiliary[1] lamps, or the precise nature of the trucks you plan to install this snow plow on, we cannot say whether your specific design would comply with FMVSS No. 108. We note, however, that you state that the auxiliary lights would have the Hi and Lo beam headlamps, turn [signal] lamps, and marker lamps. Standard No. 108 requires headlamps, turn signals, and parking lamps on the front of the vehicle. If the vehicle is over 80 inches wide, clearance and identification lamps are also required on the front of the vehicle. All of these lamps must conform, when installed, to the performance and location requirements set forth in FMVSS No. 108.

Finally, we are enclosing a 1999 letter of interpretation issued by NHTSA to a different manufacturer of auxiliary lamps for use with vehicles on snow plows.[2] This letter explains in some detail the responsibilities and potential liabilities of manufacturers and installers with regard to the installation of these lighting devices, and it is our hope that it assists you with any further questions you may have.

If you have any further questions, please contact Ari Scott of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:108

d.4/29/08

Mr. Gary R. Greib

Manager, Product Investigations and Safety Affairs

Delphi Corporation

5825 Delphi Drive

Troy, MI 48098-2815

Dear Mr. Greib:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 302, Flammability of interior materials. You ask whether your companys Passenger Occupant Detection System (PODS) and certain interior electronics and switches must meet this standard if installed on a new vehicle. Based on the information you provided to the agency and the analysis below, our answer is that any material within 13 millimeters (mm) of and incorporated into a component listed in S4.1 of Standard No. 302 would be subject to that standards flammability requirements. Some, but not all, of the components of the PODS system and interior components you ask about would be subject to the standard.

Delphis Passenger Occupant Detection System (PODS)

You explain that the PODS consists of a silicone filled bladder, Electronic Control Unit (ECU), pressure sensor, and a Belt Tension Sensor (BTS). In the picture of the PODS that you provided with your letter, it appears that the bladder is located directly beneath and in contact with the seat cushion. You further state that the ECU and pressure sensor are attached to the bottom (underside) of the seat pan and/or frame. We assume, based on your picture, that the BTS is connected to the seat belt.

You ask several questions about the applicability of FMVSS No. 302 to the PODS, which we will answer in turn.

1) Does NHTSA consider the PODS bladder to be part of the seat cushion?

Our answer is yes, for the purposes of FMVSS No. 302, and that we would likely consider the PODS bladder subject to the standard. S4.2 of FMVSS No. 302 states that any portion of a single or composite material which is within 13 mm of the occupant compartment air space shall meet the flammability requirements. S4.1 further specifies which portions of materials shall meet the flammability requirements by listing a number of components of vehicle occupant compartments, specifically: 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. Thus, for example, an intact seat cushion would not be tested for flammability, but rather a section including the surface of the seat cushion exposed to the occupant compartment air space and all the material within 13 mm of that surface.

NHTSA has long interpreted these provisions to mean that a material is subject to FMVSS No. 302s flammability requirements if it is within 13 millimeters of a surface of a component listed in S4.1 and is incorporated into the listed component. Examples of incorporated components include a cable harness permanently attached to a seat cushion or seat back by electronic cables built into the seats internal foam,[1] an air bladder that is attached to a mattress cover,[2] and other materials that are intimately joined with a listed material.[3] It appears from the pictures you sent that the PODS bladder is incorporated into the seat cushion. Therefore, if any portion of the PODS bladder is within 13 mm of a surface of the seat cushion exposed to the occupant compartment air space, and it appears from the pictures you sent that a portion would be, we would consider that portion of the PODS subject to FMVSS No. 302s testing requirements.

2) Are PODS components (ECU and pressure sensor) that are attached to the bottom (underside) of the seat pan and/or frame considered part of the seat cushion?

It does not appear from your pictures that the ECU and pressure sensor are within 13 mm of a surface of a listed component or incorporated into a listed component. Therefore, we would likely not consider the ECU and pressure sensor to be subject to FMVSS No. 302. However, we cannot make a conclusive interpretation without more precise information.

3) Is the area/space underneath the seat considered part of the occupant compartment airspace?

Yes, we would consider this area to be part of the occupant compartment airspace, because it normally contains refreshable air.

4) Are components within that space required to meet FMVSS302?

If they are components listed in S4.1, or if they are within 13 mm of a surface of and incorporated into such components, they would be subject to FMVSS No. 302.

Delphis Interior Electronics and Switch Components

Your letter also described certain Delphi electronics and switches that are exposed to the occupant compartment airspace. You stated that they are not specifically called out in Section 4.1 and are not designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash. You asked that we confirm that these types of electronics and switches are excluded from the FMVSS302 requirement. As discussed below, some of these electronics and switches would be subject to the standard.

1) Interior display monitors

The picture included with your letter for this question shows the interior of a vehicle from the rear, looking toward the front. Interior display monitors are depicted installed in the front dash, in both head restraints for the front seats, and in the vehicle ceiling (a drop- or fold-down monitor). As discussed above, if the monitor is within 13 millimeters of and incorporated into a listed component, we would consider it subject to FMVSS No. 302s flammability requirements. Head restraints and the front dash[4] are components subject to the standard. Based on your picture, it would therefore appear that display monitors embedded in head restraints and the front dash are subject to the flammability requirements, but drop-down monitors or those installed in the ceiling would not be.

2) Door trim mounted switches

The picture included for this question shows what appears to be the front drivers side door viewed from inside the vehicle, and depicts the door trim with embedded door release handle and various mounted switches. We would consider the switches to be incorporated into the door trim; therefore, if they are within 13 mm of the door trim surface, which they appear to be, we would consider them subject to the flammability requirements.

3) Steering wheel mounted switches

The picture included for this question shows a close-up view of the front surface of a steering wheel, and depicts several switches embedded in the center panel of the steering wheel, close to the outer curved section. Because a steering wheel is designed to include padding elements that absorb energy in the event of a crash, we would consider switches mounted in it to be subject to FMVSS No. 302s flammability requirements.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Rebecca Schade of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:302

d.10/19/07

Ms. Julie Laplante

Les Entreprises Michel Corbeil, Inc.

830, 12 ime Avenue

Saint-Lin-Laurentides (Qubec) J5M 2V9

CANADA

Dear Ms. Laplante:

This responds to your letter asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release. You ask for guidance whether Corbeil should follow the school bus floor plan of a potential customer, and place a wheelchair securement position in front of an emergency exit window.

We believe that school buses should not have a wheelchair anchorage position placed in a position that blocks an emergency exit. However, the exit you ask about is not a mandatory school bus emergency exit.

Background

In your letter, you state that a client wishes to purchase a new school bus with one emergency exit window on each side. A floor plan provided with your letter shows that the school bus is designed to have four wheelchair anchorage positions and two seat benches, both of which are 36 inches in length. You state that on the right hand side of the bus, there are only wheelchair positions (two wheelchair anchorage positions), so a wheelchair or wheelchair and passenger tiedowns must be placed in front of an emergency exit. You further state that neither FMVSS No. 217 nor State law requires the side emergency exit windows. You wish to know whether to agree with your clients request to place a wheelchair anchorage position in front of an emergency exit window, with the DO NOT BLOCK label.

The Emergency Exit Windows Are Beyond What Is Required

In response, I note that the seating capacity of the school bus at issue is fewer than 45 passengers because there are four wheelchair positions[1] plus two benches. Thus, no additional emergency exit beyond the rear emergency exit door is required. (See S5.2.3.1(a) and (b).) Any emergency exit windows provided on the school bus at issue would therefore be considered voluntarily provided.

Our longstanding interpretation of FMVSS No. 217 with regard to labeling requirements for voluntarily provided emergency exits in school buses can be found in an interpretation letter of July 6, 1979 to Mr. Robert B. Kurre (copy enclosed). In that letter, NHTSA stated that exits installed in school buses beyond those required by S5.2.3.1 need not comply with the exit requirements applicable to school bus exits. Instead, NHTSA interpreted the standard as requiring all additional exits to meet the requirement in the standard applicable to non-school buses.

Thus, for the school bus you ask about, any side emergency exit window provided need not be marked DO NOT BLOCK. However, if side emergency exit windows are provided, they must be marked in accordance with S5.5.1 of FMVSS No. 217, which requires the designation Emergency Exit followed by concise operating instructions describing each motion necessary to unlatch and open the exit, located within 16 centimeters of the release mechanism. In addition, S5.5.1 states that when a release mechanism is not located within an occupant space of an adjacent seat, a label meeting the requirements of S5.5.2 that indicates the location of the nearest release mechanism shall be placed within the occupant space.

If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Please note that our address has changed. Our new address is: Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Mail Code: W41-227, Washington, DC 20590.

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:217

d.7/24/07

Mr. Brian Latouf

Director, Safety Regulations & Consumer Information

General Motors North America

Mail Code: 480 111 E18

30200 Mound Road

Warren, MI 48090-9010

Dear Mr. Latouf:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 126, Electronic Stability Control Systems. You asked that we confirm your interpretations of four different aspects of the new electronic stability control (ESC) systems rule. Based on the information you provided and our analysis below, we generally agree with your suggested interpretations. Our analysis is divided into four parts as per your questions.

Whether ESC must operate during the ESC sensor initialization period

You first asked us to confirm that FMVSS 126 does not require ESC to be operational during the ESC sensor initialization period. You noted that subparagraph (6) of the definition of ESC and S5.1.2 of FMVSS No. 126 both indicate that ESC systems must be operational at vehicle speeds of 15 km/h and above. However, you argued that different vehicles and ESC systems have different diagnostic and sensor initialization periods, requiring different inputs, after the vehicle is first started, and that it is possible that on some vehicles sensor initialization might not be completed before the vehicle speed reaches 15 km/h. Therefore, you asked that we confirm that the 15 km/h operational requirement prescribed in the definition of ESC and in S5.1.2 applies after the system diagnostic and sensor initialization is completed.

We are able to confirm your interpretation that the 15 km/h low speed threshold prescribed in the definition of ESC and in S5.1.2 applies after the system diagnostic and sensor initialization is completed. We recognize that an ESC system may not be fully operational until after it completes system diagnostic and sensor initialization. While not directly applicable to the 15 km/h operational requirement, we note that it was in recognition of the fact that ESC systems may require a diagnostic and sensor initialization period that we included a diagnostic procedure in S7.10.2 of FMVSS No. 126, as part of the test procedure for evaluating the ESC systems ability to detect malfunctions. An ESC system may not be able to detect a malfunction, or the absence of a malfunction, if it is not yet fully operational, so we included this diagnostic and initialization procedure as part of that test procedure.

Whether compliance with the requirements prescribed in S5.3 and its subparagraphs is determined by testing the vehicle in accordance with S7.10

You next asked us to confirm that the performance requirements of S5.3 of FMVSS No. 126 apply specifically when evaluated according to the procedures of S7.10. You specifically asked about S5.3.3. That paragraph states, in relevant part, that the ESC malfunction telltale must illuminate only when a malfunction(s) exists and must remain continuously illuminated under the conditions specified in S5.3 for as long as the malfunction(s) exists, whenever the ignition locking system is in the On (Run) position. S7.10, which provides a procedure for testing the malfunction telltale, states that the telltale is to illuminate within two minutes of obtaining a specified speed (S7.10.2). You argued that While a possible reading of S5.3.3 is that it requires the malfunction telltale to illuminate instantaneously with the occurrence of the fault, this is neither practicable nor consistent with the test procedure specified in S7.10.

We note that the introductory paragraph of S5, Requirements, states that each vehicle must be equipped with an ESC system that meets the requirements specified in S5 under the test conditions specified in S6 and the test procedures specified in S7 of this standard. Thus, as a general matter, compliance with the requirements prescribed in S5 (of which S5.3 is a part) is evaluated under the test procedures specified in S7 (of which S7.10 is a part).

In terms of providing an interpretation, we will limit our interpretation to the specific issue you asked about, whether S5.3.3 has the effect of requiring the ESC malfunction telltale to illuminate instantaneously with the occurrence with the fault. The answer is no. We recognize that it may not be practicable for a malfunction telltale to illuminate instantaneously with the occurrence of a fault. As you noted, S7.10 provides a test procedure for evaluating ESC malfunction detection. After one or more malfunctions is simulated, a vehicle is subjected to a specified driving protocol. See S7.10.2.[1] Under the procedure, verification is made that the telltale is illuminated within two minutes of the vehicle obtaining a specified speed. This procedure accommodates the need for system diagnostic and sensor initialization (discussed above) and the fact that a malfunction telltale may not illuminate instantaneously with the occurrence of a fault.

Whether FMVSS No. 126 allows the same test protocol to clear ESC faults (and extinguish the malfunction telltale) as that which is specified to detect ESC faults (and illuminate the malfunction telltale)

You next asked us to confirm that the driving protocol of S7.10.2 is permissible for purposes of verifying that the ESC malfunction has been cleared under S7.10.4, which does not contain any specific protocol. You argued that As ESC systems are generally designed, the diagnostic procedures required to detect a fault (e.g., vehicle speed, steering-wheel inputs, etc.) are also required to determine that the fault has been cleared. Thus, not all ESC systems would necessarily be able to clear a fault just by restarting the vehicle, without any diagnostic procedures.

We recognize that just as a diagnostic procedure may be necessary for an ESC system to detect a fault, it may also be necessary to determine that the fault has been cleared. The lack of an identical driving protocol in S7.10.4 was an oversight. We expect to correct this in a forthcoming response to petitions for reconsideration to the ESC final rule. In the meantime, in testing a vehicle under S7.10.4, we would subject a vehicle to the S7.10.2 driving protocol if the telltale is not already extinguished after the engine has been started.

Whether FMVSS No. 126 permits the use of multi-mode ESC controls

You finally asked us to confirm that multi-mode controls are permitted under S5.4 of FMVSS No. 126. You argued that most vehicles are designed with multi-mode controls, which you described as potentially involv[ing] one activation to disable the vehicles traction control system, another activation to alter the ESC algorithm to an intermediate sport mode, another activation to fully disable ESC, and a final activation to restore traction control and ESC to full on. You further argued that these types of controls are widely used by manufacturers and work well for consumers.

S5.4 allows manufacturers to include in their ESC systems either an ESC Off control whose only purpose is to place the ESC system in a mode in which it will no longer satisfy the performance requirements of S5.2.1, S5.2.2 and S5.2.3, or controls for other systems that have an ancillary effect upon ESC operation. The agency made this distinction because of a difference in labeling requirements between the two types of controls. The labeling requirements at issue do not apply until September 1, 2011.

The multi-mode controls you ask about have attributes that overlap the two categories of controls identified in S5.4. We expect to clarify the regulatory text of S5.4 in a forthcoming response to petitions for reconsideration to the ESC final rule.

We confirm, however, that these multi-mode controls are permissible under S5.4. We note that S5.4 also states that Controls of either kind that place the ESC system in a mode in which it will no longer satisfy the performance requirements of S5.2.1, S5.2.2 and S5.2.3 are permitted, provided that the further requirements of S5.4s subparagraphs are met. Therefore, the multi-mode controls would also need to meet the requirements of S5.4.1, S5.4.2, and S5.4.3.

While S5.4.1 applies in the same manner to both categories of controls identified in S5.4, the other two subparagraphs specify different labeling requirements for the two types of controls. Since the multi-mode controls you ask about have attributes that overlap the two categories of control, we would expect to clarify in our response to petitions how the labeling requirements apply to multi-model controls. It is not necessary to resolve that issue in this interpretation since the requirements do not apply before September 1, 2011.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Rebecca Schade of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

ref:126

d.8/29/07

Mr. Bruce Blocksom

VMI Chief Compliance Officer

Vantage Mobility International

5202 South 28^th Place

Phoenix, AZ 85040

Dear Mr. Blocksom:

This responds to your request for clarification as to the appropriate time to remove the Monroney label from the OEM manufactured van. You provided a specific vehicle processing sequence.

The labels you ask about are required by the Automobile Information Disclosure Act, which is commonly known as the Monroney Act or Price Sticker Act. Please be advised that although the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) safety rating information (also known as Stars on Cars) on the Monroney label, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), rather than NHTSA, generally administers and enforces the Monroney Act. Since we do not administer the Monroney Act with respect to the issue you ask about, we cannot provide an authoritative interpretation.

I am enclosing a page titled Automobile Information Disclosure Act from the DOJs website, which provides information that you may find helpful. I note that the page states, among other things, that The Act prohibits the sticker from being removed or altered prior to sale to a consumer.

If you have further questions about how DOJ administers and enforces the Monroney Act, please write to:

U.S. Department of Justice

Civil Division

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20530-0001

If you have questions about NHTSAs requirements, please feel free to contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama of my staff by telephone at (202) 366-2992

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:575

d.8/30/07