Patricia Mandarino, President

Angel Guard

1049 Larkin Road

Spring Hill, FL 34608

Dear Ms. Mandarino:

This responds to your letter asking about the requirements of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for the Angel Guard, an aftermarket product you have developed that would prevent children in child restraint systems from pressing a vehicles seat belt release button. As explained below, 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.

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. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects. The following represents our opinion based on our understanding of the information provided by your letter.

Description of the Angel Guard

You enclose a sample of the Angel Guard and describe it as a seat belt release cover which deters small children from disengaging the seat belt which is holding their car or booster seat in place. The Angel Guard appears to be a plastic box-like cover. You state that the device is one piece-no moving parts, and would be secured on existing seat belt assembly systems in motor vehicles. You did not provide instructions on how the device is attached to the seat belt.

Discussion

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. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, generally does not apply to aftermarket equipment items.

Although we do not have any standards that directly apply to your product, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you would be responsible for ensuring that your product is free of safety-related defects (see 49 U.S.C. 30118-30121). I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities.

There are other requirements of this agency of which you should be aware. Section 30122 of 49 U.S.C. (Making safety devices and elements inoperative) 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 performance 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 specified by FMVSS No. 209. If your device would interfere with the vehicles compliance with these requirements, commercial establishments installing your device on customers seat belt assemblies would be subject to fines for violating the make inoperative provision.

Manufacturers of devices that interfere with the operation of the seat belt release should carefully evaluate the effect of the product on the performance of vehicle safety belts. For example, you should ensure that your product would not interfere with seat belt retraction or release in an emergency, that any sharp edges that your product has would not cause deterioration of the seat belt webbing, that your product would not obscure the information required by FMVSS No. 209 to be labeled on the webbing, and that the buckle will be able to be released should emergency egress from the vehicle be necessary. Further, seat belt webbing is designed to have some "give" to help absorb crash forces. If your product were to present a design that could harm an occupant, it would raise safety concerns. Finally, you should be aware that originally-installed safety belts must meet the flammability resistance requirements of FMVSS No. 302. Again, we would encourage you to evaluate your product against the requirements of these standards.

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.

Enclosed is the sample of your product that you sent us. 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

ref:209#213#302

d.9/30/08

Kenneth N. Weinstein, Esq.

Mayer Brown LLP

1909 K Street, NW

Washington, DC 20006-1101

Dear Mr. Weinstein:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 305, Electric-powered vehicles; electrolyte spillage and electrical shock protection. Specifically, you asked that we confirm that a vehicle will be deemed to be in compliance with S5.3 of FMVSS No. 305 if there is no measurable voltage following the crash tests specified in S6 of the standard. Based on the information you have provided and the analysis below, we agree that where there is no measurable voltage following the crash tests, the vehicle will have passed S5.3 of the standard.

Paragraph S5.3 of FMVSS No. 305, Electrical isolation, currently states that Electrical isolation between the battery system and the vehicle electricity-conducting structure after each test must not be less than 500 ohms/volt. The electrical isolation test procedure, specified in S7.6 of FMVSS No. 305, requires that two voltage measurements be taken after the vehicle is crash-tested: the first measurement (V1) must be taken between the negative side of the propulsion battery and the vehicle chassis, and the second measurement (V2) must be taken between the positive side of the propulsion battery and the vehicle chassis. Electrical isolation is then determined by means of an equation: if V1 is greater than or equal to V2, the equation is:

Ri = Ro (1 + V2/V1 ) [(V1-V1)/V1]

where Ri is electrical isolation, Ro is a known resistance, and V1 is the voltage measured between the negative side of the propulsion battery and the vehicle chassis after the known resistance Ro is inserted between the negative side of the propulsion battery and the vehicle chassis.

If V2 is greater than V1, the equation for measuring electrical isolation is:

Ri = Ro (1 + V1/V2) [(V2-V2)/V2]

where Ri and Ro are the same as above, and V2 is the voltage measured between the positive side of the propulsion battery and the vehicle chassis after the known resistance Ro is inserted between the positive side of the propulsion battery and the vehicle chassis.

These equations are relevant to your question because they both require one voltage measurement to be divided by another. As your letter states, many current electric vehicle designs use electrical contactors to disconnect high voltage sources from the vehicles propulsion system in the event of a crash or other loss of isolation. If the high voltage source is immediately disconnected, there would be no voltage to measure. If there is no voltage to measure, a value of zero could end up in the denominator of an equation used to determine electrical isolation. Mathematically, a value of zero in the denominator of a fraction results in an undefined value, which has no meaning and cannot be used, in this case, to actually calculate electrical isolation. Thus, technically speaking, the equations in S7.6 could not be used to certify compliance with FMVSS No. 305s electrical isolation requirement.[1]

We have decided that a sensible and simple approach is warranted in response to the issue you raise. We do not believe that the mathematically impossible must be a bar against a certification of compliance in this situation. Accordingly, we will interpret FMVSS No. 305 such that a voltage reading of zero will constitute compliance with the electrical isolation requirement.[2]

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Rebecca Yoon of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

ref:305

d.11/20/08

Mr. Lance Tunick

Vehicle Services Consulting, Inc.

P.O. Box 23078

Santa Fe, NM 87502-3078

Dear Mr. Tunick:

This responds to your letter concerning a February 6, 2007, final rule amending Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components. You ask whether the amendments continue to permit a double pull door handle found on some rear side door locking systems. The first actuation of the interior rear door handle unlocks the door and the second pull releases the latch to open the door. As discussed below, our answer is yes, FMVSS No. 206 will continue to permit the double pull door handle you described in your letter.

The February 6, 2007, final rule added to and updated requirements and test procedures of FMVSS No. 206, and harmonized with the worlds first global technical regulation for motor vehicles (72 FR 5385). (The effective date of the final rule is September 1, 2009; there are pending petitions for reconsideration of the final rule. Docket No. NHTSA-2006-23882.) To prevent inadvertent rear door openings, the standard specifies in S4.3.1:

S4.3.1 Rear side doors. Each rear side door shall be equipped with at least one locking device which has a lock release/engagement mechanism located within the interior of the vehicle and readily accessible to the driver of the vehicle or an occupant seated adjacent to the door, and which, when engaged, prevents operation of the interior door handle or other interior latch release control and requires separate actions to unlock the door and operate the interior door handle or other interior latch release control.

As noted in your letter, NHTSA stated in the final rule that the requirement in S4.3.1 for separate actions to unlock the door and operate the interior door handle or other interior latch release control have been in place for the interior rear door locks of every new car and light truck sold in the United States since 1968. (72 FR at 5395) A review of past agency interpretations on the double pull design is thus instructive.

Past interpretations have been issued by NHTSA permitting the double pull door locking design (see March 28, 1996 letter to you and an October 7, 1993 letter to Karl-Heinz Ziwica)[1] under current FMVSS No. 206 requirements. The current FMVSS No. 206 requirement (S4.1.3.2) states:

In passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles, when the locking mechanism is engaged both the outside and inside door handles or other latch release controls shall be inoperative.

In those letters, NHTSA interpreted the word inoperative to refer to the operation of opening the door, rather than that of disengaging the lock. For the double pull rear side door lock systems, when the locking mechanism is engaged, actuation of the door handle cannot open the door, which NHTSA stated met the requirement of current S4.1.3.2.

The new S4.3.1 reflects current S4.1.3.2 in the second clause of the amended standard (and which, when engaged, prevents operation of the interior door handle or other interior latch release control). Thus, for the double pull rear side door lock systems described in the March 28, 1996 and October 7, 1993 letters, this second clause of S4.1.3.2 is met, since actuation of the door handle cannot open the door.

The new S4.3.1 has a further provision in its last clause (and requires separate actions to unlock the door and operate the interior door handle or other interior latch release control). We believe that the double pull door locking design described in the March 28, 1996 and October 7, 1993 letters meets the last clause of the new S4.3.1. For the double pull rear side door lock system you described, two separate actions are needed to open the door: the first pull unlocking the door and the second pull which activates the latch release control and opens the door. This design is distinguished from a system in which a door can be unlocked and unlatched with a single pull of the door handle, which is not permitted under the new S4.3.1. 72 FR at 5395.

In conclusion, the new FMVSS No. 206 door locks requirements continue to permit the double pull rear side door lock system described in the letters you referenced. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Sarah Alves of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

ref:206

d.1/16/08

Mr. Warren Duvall

Sentry Compliance Solutions, LLC

2620 Centenary Blvd.

Bldg. 2 Suite 212

Shreveport, LA 71104

Dear Mr. Duvall:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether there are any National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requirements which your product, the Driver Alert System, must meet. You state that the device is intended for commercial vehicles or school buses.

According to your letter, the driver alert system sounds an audible alert inside the cab of the vehicle when the vehicle crosses the white line on the shoulder of the road, crossing the center line, or crosses specially marked school zones. You stated that your product does not render any other function of either a commercial or non-commercial vehicle inoperable in any way. The sensors cause an audible alert to sound inside the vehicle when the vehicle crosses any of the lines mentioned. You state that you were directed to NHTSA by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA).

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new 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 certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards. Manufacturers must also ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects.

Your product is an item of motor vehicle equipment and is regulated by NHTSA as such. This agency has not issued any FMVSS that directly applies to your product. However, beyond compliance with relevant Federal safety standards, manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment have additional responsibilities, including a requirement to notify purchasers about safety-related defects and to provide a remedy free of charge, even if their equipment is not covered by a safety standard. 49 U.S.C. 30118-30120.

The relevant Federal prohibition on the modification of vehicles or items of equipment is 49 U.S.C. 30112, Making safety devices and elements inoperative. This section reads, in part:

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.

Under the make inoperative provision, if your product were installed in a vehicle by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, the installer would have responsibilities relating to ensuring that the vehicle met, or continued to meet, all FMVSSs with the product installed.

With the make inoperative provision in mind, I would like to bring to your attention a provision in FMVSS No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release, relating to an audible alarm system. The standard specifies at S5.3.3.1 that for each emergency exit door on school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) over 10,000 pounds, when the release mechanism is not in the position that causes an emergency exit door to be closed and the vehicles ignition is in the on position, a continuous warning sound shall be audible at the drivers seating position and in the vicinity of the emergency exit door. Any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business installing your product must ensure that the product does not make inoperative the compliance of the school bus with S5.3.3.1.

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

As you are aware, other governmental entities may have authority over your product. We note from your letter that you have contacted the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) for information about FMCSA regulations that may apply to your product. In addition, States have the authority to regulate the use and licensing of vehicles operating within their jurisdictions. Therefore, you may wish to check with the Department of Motor Vehicles in any State in which the product will be sold or used regarding any such requirements.

I hope this information is helpful. I have enclosed a fact sheet entitled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment." If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:101#217#VSA102(4)

d.12/15/08

Ms. Mary Well

California Suntops

3309 Ladrillo Aisle

Irvine, CA 92606

Dear Ms. Well:

This responds to your letter asking about the applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards to fabric used to manufacture convertible tops. You explain that your company will be manufacturing the fabric.

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.

The Safety Act defines the term motor vehicle equipment in relevant part as follows: any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured; [or] any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of a system, part, or component, or as an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle ..." (49 U.S.C. 30102). This definition includes a convertible top, since convertible tops are components manufactured and sold either as original equipment on new vehicles or as a replacement or improvement of the convertible top. Since a convertible top is an item of motor vehicle equipment, the manufacturer of the convertible top must ensure that the convertible tops comply with all applicable FMVSSs and contain no safety-related defects.

Keep in mind that there is no FMVSS that applies to the fabric only. However, as explained below, there are requirements that apply to convertible tops, and the characteristics of the fabric would affect the convertible tops compliance with those requirements.

Convertible Tops for New Vehicles

If the convertible top were added to a new vehicle, i.e., before the vehicle is sold for the first time to a consumer, then it must meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 302, Flammability of interior materials (49 CFR 571.302). FMVSS No. 302 applies to certain vehicle occupant compartment components, including convertible tops, on new completed motor vehicles. Persons selling new vehicles equipped with the convertible top made from your fabric must ensure that the vehicles, including the top with your fabric, conform to FMVSS No. 302. There are other FMVSSs that apply to convertible tops, such as aspects of FMVSS No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact (49 CFR 571.201). The vehicle manufacturer using your fabric would have to certify compliance of the vehicle with FMVSS No. 302, No. 201, and with all other applicable FMVSS. The manufacturer might ask you for information that would assist it in making its certification, such as the burn rate of your fabric when subjected to FMVSS No. 302 test procedures. Nonetheless, the manufacturer would be responsible for ensuring that its reliance on your assurances were reasonable and that the assurances were bona fide. Also, our requirement that the vehicle must be free of safety related defects has a bearing on the materials used in the manufacture of the vehicle.

For Used Vehicles

If your fabric were used to manufacture convertible tops for use in used vehicles (i.e., vehicles previously purchased in good faith for purposes other than resale), the fabric need not meet FMVSS No. 302. FMVSS No. 302 only applies to new vehicles.

However, you should be aware of 30122 of the Safety Act. That section specifies: 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 ... The flammability resistance of the original vehicle is an element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with FMVSS No. 302. Installation of an item that degraded the flammability resistance of a vehicle may subject the commercial entity to penalties for violating 30122.

Again, the Safety Act requires all vehicle and equipment manufacturers to ensure that their products contain no defects relating to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, the manufacturer of the convertible tops would be obligated to recall and remedy convertible tops that are determined to contain a safety related defect, even if the convertible tops were installed by the vehicle owners themselves.

Other Considerations

State or local jurisdictions have their own traffic safety laws which could affect the flammability resistance of certain items. For information about those requirements, you should contact the State departments of motor vehicles. You also mentioned private tort liability. For information on that matter, we suggest you contact your private attorney or insurance carrier.

I hope this information is helpful. Enclosed is an information sheet describing generally your responsibilities under the Safety Act. If you have further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:302

d.11/20/08

David M. Mihalick, Standards Compliance Manager

Thor Industries, Inc.

419 West Pike Street,

P.O. Box 629

Jackson Center, OH 45334-0629

Dear Mr. Mihalick:

This responds to your letter in which you asked about certain labeling requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) Nos. 110, Tire selection and rims and motor home/recreation vehicle trailer load carrying capacity information for motor vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less, and 120, Tire selection and rims and motor home/recreation vehicle trailer load carrying capacity information for motor vehicles with a GVWR of more than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds), with respect to motor homes. You wrote your letter in light of amendments made to the standards in a final rule published in December 2007.[1] You asked whether the number of safety belt-equipped seating positions and their resulting occupant weight can be greater than the stated occupant and cargo carrying capacity (OCCC). For reasons discussed below, the answer to this question is no.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue and enforce Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. See 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301. FMVSS Nos. 110 and 120 are two of the standards we have issued. 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.

FMVSS Nos. 110 and 120 require motor homes to have OCCC labels that, among other things, include the following information:

THE COMBINED WEIGHT OF OCCUPANTS AND CARGO SHOULD

NEVER EXCEED XXX KG OR XXX LBS

and

Safety belt equipped seating capacity: XXX.

Under NHTSA's certification regulation, Part 567, manufacturers must assign a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) to a new vehicle. The term GVWR is defined in 49 CFR Part 571.3 as "the value specified by the manufacturer as the loaded weight of a single vehicle." The GVWR informs vehicle owners how heavily the vehicle may safely be loaded. It also affects the vehicle's loading and other test conditions for the safety standards to which the vehicle must be certified, and at which NHTSA conducts any relevant compliance testing.

Under Part 567, vehicle manufacturers cannot specify a GVWR that is less than the sum of (1) the unloaded vehicle weight (including maximum capacity of all fluids necessary for operation of the vehicle),[2] (2) the rated cargo and luggage load, and (3) 150 pounds times the number of the vehicles designated seating positions.[3] See 567.4(g)(3), 567.5(b)(2)(iii) and 567.5(d)(2)(iii). The combined weight for occupants (calculated by multiplying 150 pounds times the number of the vehicles designated seating positions) and cargo cannot, therefore, be more than the GVWR of the vehicle minus the unloaded vehicle weight.

You specifically asked whether the number of safety belt-equipped seating positions and their resulting occupant weight can be greater than the stated occupant and cargo carrying capacity (OCCC). We assume that each safety belt-equipped seating position would be consistent with the definition of designated seating position set forth at 49 CFR 571.3. Thus, the requirements of Part 567 would prohibit any design where the sum of the vehicles unloaded vehicle weight plus 150 pounds times the number of safety-belt equipped seating positions exceeded the GVWR, irrespective of the rated cargo and luggage load.

The requirements of FMVSS Nos. 110 and 120 serve to reinforce these requirements of Part 567.

Standard No. 110 - In the December 2007 final rule, a new S9 was added to FMVSS No. 110. For motor homes and recreation vehicle (RV) trailers, the single stage or final stage manufacturer must affix either a motor home occupant and cargo carrying capacity (OCCC) label (Figure 3) or a RV trailer cargo carrying capacity (CCC) label (Figure 4) to its vehicles that meets specified requirements, including the following:

S9.3.2 The weight value for load carrying capacity on the RV load carrying capacity labels (Figures 3 and 4) must be displayed to the nearest kilogram with conversion to the nearest pound and must be such that the vehicle does not exceed its GVWR when loaded with the stated load carrying capacity. The UVW and the GVWR used to determine the RVs load carrying capacity must reflect the weights and design of the motor home or RV trailer as configured for delivery to the dealer/service facility.

Moreover, S9.3.6 states:

For RVs, the vehicle capacity weight values and the seating capacity values (motor homes only) on the placard required by S4.3 or S4.3.5 must agree with the load carrying capacity weight values and the safety belt equipped seating capacity (motor homes only) on the RV load carrying capacity labels. (Figures 3 and 4).

To clarify, FMVSS No. 110, paragraph S.4.3, requires that vehicles including motor homes be labeled with a value for the vehicle capacity weight on the vehicle placard. The vehicle capacity weight is defined as, the rated cargo and luggage load plus 68 kilograms (150 pounds) times the vehicle designated seating capacity.

The requirement that these various values must agree with each other means that for motor homes with GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less, the number of designated seating positions (at 150 pounds per position, as specified in 49 CFR Part 567) must equal the number of safety belt-equipped seating positions. The occupant weight subtotal added to the cargo carrying capacity must equal the load carrying capacity weight on the OCCC label. In addition, the load carrying capacity weight values must be the same on both labels required by FMVSS No. 110. Finally, as provided in S9.3.2, the vehicle must not exceed its GVWR when loaded with the stated load carrying capacity weight.

Standard No. 120 In the December 2007 final rule, a new S10. was added to FMVSS No. 120. For motor homes and recreation vehicles, the single stage or final stage manufacturer must affix either a motor home occupant and cargo carrying capacity (OCCC) label (Figure 1) or a RV trailer cargo carrying capacity (CCC) label (Figure 2) to its vehicles that meets specified requirements, including the following:

S10.4.2 The weight value for load carrying capacity on the RV load carrying capacity labels (Figures 1 and 2) must be displayed to the nearest kilogram with conversion to the nearest pound and must be such that the vehicles weight does not exceed its GVWR when loaded with the stated load carrying capacity. The UVW and the GVWR used to determine the RVs load carrying capacity must reflect the weights and design of the motor home or RV trailer as configured for delivery to the dealer/service facility.

Standard No. 120 does not include a provision comparable to S9.3.6 of Standard No. 110, since it does not include a separate placard requirement for information about vehicle capacity weight values and seating capacity values. However, given the fact that Standard Nos. 110 and 120 use the same terminology for the OCCC labels, as well as the relationship between the OCCC label requirements and those of Part 567, we interpret these terms to have the same meaning. Thus, the load carrying capacity weight on the Standard No. 120 OCCC label must reflect the sum of the rated cargo and luggage load plus 68 kilograms (150 pounds) times the number of designated seating positions. As noted earlier, we assume that each safety belt-equipped seating position would be consistent with the definition of designated seating position set forth at 49 CFR 571.3. Finally, as provided in S10.4.2, the vehicle must not exceed its GVWR when loaded with the stated load carrying capacity weight.

We note that, in your letter, you stated that Giving a vehicle owner the flexibility to choose between the amount of cargo and number of people they transport is a definite advantage to that customer. FMVSS No 110 and 120 permit this type of flexibility. The OCCC labels provide owners with a load carrying capacity value that they may use for various combinations of number of occupants and cargo. However, vehicles may not have a GVWR that is less than the sum of (1) the unloaded vehicle weight (including maximum capacity of all fluids necessary for operation of the vehicle), (2) the rated cargo and luggage load, and (3) 150 pounds times the number of the vehicles designated seating positions.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

Stephen P. Wood

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:110#120#567

d.7/24/09

Ms. Amy Sanford

Recaro North America, Inc.

4120 Luella Lane

Auburn Hills, MI 48326

Dear Ms. Sanford:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of S5.2.1.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, with regard to an infant carrier that you would like to bring to the U.S. market. We regret to inform you that we cannot interpret the standard in the manner you suggest.

According to your letter, your infant seat incorporates an adjustable back rest with an integral harness. The child restraint enables the consumer to adjust (raise) the restraints shoulder harness by a lever mechanism to adjust to a growing child without having to remove the harness from the seat back. When the shoulder harness is raised by the lever, the infant seat back is also raised. When the seat back is adjusted to the lowest position, it has a height of 410 millimeters (mm). You state that when it is raised to the full up position, the seat back is at least 500 mm.

S5.2.1 of FMVSS No. 213 specifies requirements for the minimum head support surface for child restraints other than car beds. S5.2.1.1 requires each child restraint to provide restraint against rearward movement of the head of the child (rearward in relation to the child) by means of a continuous seat back of a specified height. For child restraints recommended by their manufacturer for use by children of not more than 18 kilograms (40 pounds), S5.2.1.1(a) specifies that the height of the portion of the seat back providing head restraint must not be less than 500 mm.

From the information you provided, it appears your restraint does not meet S5.2.1.1(a) of the standard. In the lowest adjustment position, the seat back height is 410 mm, which is less than the minimum height requirement of 500 mm. The requirement does not provide for adjustable seat backs. We note that your restraint requires action on the part of the consumer to raise the seat back height. There is a risk that consumers who neglect to raise the harness straps (and thus raise the seat back) or who attempt to raise the straps but do so incorrectly could use the child restraint with the seat back at the 410 mm height with older infants. In short, we cannot interpret S5.2.1 as permitting a seat back height of less than 500 mm.

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

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

ref:213

d.11/20/08

Mr. Mark Temple

Bikers of Lesser Tolerance

8790 Mellowdawn Way

Orangevale, CA 95662

Dear Mr. Temple:

This responds to your letter asking several questions related to motorcycle helmets and the testing required to certify to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 218, Motorcycle Helmets. We have addressed your questions below.

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.

You first ask if there has been a change in the Federal regulation regarding the certification process for motorcycle helmets in the last 10 years. On October 2, 2008, NHTSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register proposing to update the testing procedures and labeling requirements of FMVSS No. 218. A copy of the NPRM is enclosed.

Your second question asks if the Department of Transportation (DOT) certifies motorcycle helmets. As explained in the background paragraph to this letter, NHTSA does not provide approval (or certification) of motor vehicle equipment (a motorcycle helmet is considered motor vehicle equipment). Instead, we require that manufacturers certify that new motor vehicle equipment they produce complies with all applicable FMVSSs.

Your third question asks for clarification as to what is DOT-certified helmet. DOT-certified helmet commonly means a helmet that has been certified by its manufacturer as meeting all requirements of FMVSS No. 218.

Fourth, you ask if, short of testing as specified in FMVSS No. 218, there is any way to determine if the helmet will pass FMVSS No. 218. To assess a products conformance to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, NHTSA follows the test procedures specified in the applicable standard. Additionally, more detailed testing procedures that NHTSA-contracted laboratories use to test compliance are available on NHTSAs website. We do not require manufacturers to test their products in the manner described in the standard, but they must ensure that their product will meet the specified performance requirements when tested by NHTSA in the manner set forth in the standard.

Your next question asks why helmets are subjected to expensive and rigorous scientific testing if there is another, possibly less expensive method to determine compliance with FMVSS No. 218. Our performance tests are designed to be reasonable, practicable and objective. If you believe that NHTSAs testing requirements can be made less expensive and that adequate testing of the safety considerations can be met through less burdensome means, you are welcome to submit those ideas with supporting documentation to the agency.

Your final question asks if we are aware of any State enforcement agency that cites an end user/consumer of FMVSS regulated products for the use of a recalled product, other than motorcycle helmets? By recalled product, we assume you mean a product that does not meet applicable standards. For answers about specific State laws, you should direct your question to the State departments administering motor vehicle regulations. We do note that State agencies have the authority and the responsibility to regulate the use of motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment, ensuring motorists and taxpayers in their jurisdictions are protected to the best of the States ability. States have sought to optimize the safety of motorists by requiring the use of safety equipment, e.g., seat belts, child safety seats, see-through windows, motorcycle helmets, tires, and by specifying that the equipment be certified to the FMVSSs. NHTSA strongly recommends the use of such equipment, as equipment meeting the FMVSSs reduce the risk of involvement in a crash, the severity of injury or the likelihood of death in a crash.

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:218

d.11/20/08

Mr. Cris Morgan

Associate Automobile Equipment Standards Engineer

California Highway Patrol

Commercial Vehicle Section, 062

444 N. 3rd Street, Suite 310

Sacramento, CA 95814

Dear Mr. Morgan:

This responds to your email asking whether Item 5 glazing is permitted in the lower (curb side view) glazing on a 2008 Motor Coach Industries bus. As explained below, Item 5 glazing is not permitted in the location you described in your letter under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing Materials. Item 5 glazing is not permitted on buses in windows to the immediate right or left of the driver.

FMVSS No. 205 incorporates by reference American National Standard for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment Operating on Land Highways-Safety Standard ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 (ANSI Z26.1). FMVSS No. 205 and ANSI Z26.1 specify performance requirements for various types of glazing (called Items), and specify the locations in vehicles in which each item of glazing may be used. As you explain in your letter, California has adopted FMVSS No. 205 by reference in the California Vehicle Code as an in-use glazing standard that must be met by all vehicles that have been sold and registered for operation on highways in California. You state that the California Highway Patrol (CHP) thus considers National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) interpretations of FMVSS No. 205 for enforcement purposes.

In your letter, you explain that a recent CHP inspection noted that the right front, swing open, entry door, lower (curb side view) glazing on a 2008 Motor Coach Industries (MCI) bus was labeled AS-5 (indicating Item 5 glazing installed in this location). You state in your letter that you believe neither FMVSS No. 205 nor ANSI Z26.1 permit Item 5 glazing in this location. We agree with your understanding.

In ANSI Z26.1, 4.2, Item 5, Safety Glazing Material for Use in Motor Vehicle Only in the Following Specific Locations at Levels Not Requisite for Driving Visibility, subsection (m) permits Item 5 glazing in windows and doors in buses at levels not requisite for driving visibility, and does not permit the glazing for the windshields, windows to the immediate right or left of

the driver, and rearmost windows if requisite for driving visibility. The phrase, requisite for driving visibility, appears twice in the discussion of Item 5 in ANSI Z26.1. The first use of the phrase, in the introductory paragraph of the Item 5 section, modifies windows and doors in buses, such that Item 5 glazing may be used in windows and doors in buses at levels not requisite for driving visibility. The second use of the phrase, in subsection (m), modifies the reference to rearmost windows in (m). Those phrases do not modify the express provision in (m) that Item 5 glazing may not be used in windshields and windows to the immediate right or left of the driver. In addition, we note that Table A1 of ANSI Z26.1 (summarizing permissible glazing locations for various vehicle classifications) also indicates that bus glazing immediately to the left and right of the driver is presumably always requisite for driving visibility.[1] Accordingly, NHTSA interprets windows to the immediate right or left of the driver in subsection (m) under Item 5 of ANSI Z26.1 4.2 as including glazing encompassing the lower (curb side view) glazing panel on a right front, swing open entry door of a coach bus.

Enclosed is an April 23, 2001, interpretation (copy enclosed) that this office wrote to Thomas F. Brown, concerning peep windows in Mack Trucks. The peep window was a small, separate additional fixed window located below the passenger doors main window, near the bottom of the door, which could be used to view objects near the passenger door of a medium or heavy duty truck. The letter involved Item 3 glazing and the issue of whether the window was at a level requisite for driving visibility. While those are different issues that the ones you raise regarding Item 5 glazing, it should be noted that NHTSA determined that the peep window was at a level requisite for driving visibility. Thus, even if we were to consider whether MCIs window is at a level requisite for driving, our answer would likely be yes.

Your letter also stated that MCI believes that ANSI Z26.1 permits Item 5 glazing in the location in question because the swing open, entry door on the coach is a folding door and because such glazing locations are standee windows in buses.[2] Based on NHTSAs understanding of 2008 MCI bus models, we disagree with MCIs categorization of the 2008 MCI bus door as either a folding door or a standee window. A single panel, swing open door on a motorcoach is not a folding door because it does not consist of two leaves or panels which operate together. A single panel, swing open door on a motorcoach is not a standee door because there is not an expectation that a passenger would be standing near a single panel, swing open motorcoach door while the motorcoach is in motion.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Sarah Alves of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:205

d.1/14/09

Mr. Chad Hooper

Quality Eng Leader

Carlex Glass Company

77 Excellence Way

Vonore, TN 37885

Dear Mr. Hooper:

This responds to your inquiry asking whether the marking you are considering for your glazing would violate any Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS). You ask about the location of the AS1 mark with respect to the shade band area of a windshield. As explained below, the marking you suggest in your email is permissible under Federal law.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSS that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA enforces compliance with the standards by purchasing and testing vehicles and equipment, and we also investigate safety-related defects. The agency has established FMVSS No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205), which specifies performance requirements for various types of glazing. FMVSS No. 205 incorporates by reference American National Standard for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment Operating on Land Highways-Safety Standard ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 (ANSI Z26.1). The following is our interpretation of FMVSS No. 205 based on our understanding of the information provided in your email.

In your email, you explain that you would like to keep the AS1 mark in the same location on windshields that have a shade band and shade dot matrix between the visors and on windshields that only have dot matrix between the visors. You would like to print the AS1 mark at the edge of the windshield and below the shade band area (we assume you to mean that on windshields that only have dot matrix between the visors, the shade band area is where the shade band would appear on windshields that have a full shade band) and keep this consistent between all parts. That is, you would like to have the AS1 mark appear in this same location where the windshield only has a dot matrix between the visors as where it appears on windshields that have a shade band. You state, There is a 62 mm difference in the shade band and the dot matrix area between the visors, and ask if it would be acceptable for the AS1 mark to be 62 mm lower than the dot matrix area.

Our answer is yes. Requirements for shade bands and markings are found in FMVSS No. 205 in section S5.3 (shade band requirements) and section S6 (certification and marking requirements for glazing). Section S5.3 of FMVSS No. 205 requires that windshield shade bands comply with either the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Recommended Practice J100 (rev. June 1995), Class A Vehicle Glazing Shade Bands (SAE J100), or with other specific requirements in S5.3.2 establishing a lower boundary for windshield shade bands. There is no provision in S5.3 that requires the manufacturer marking to appear in any other specific position or area of the glazing. S6 of FMVSS No. 205 requires that glazing have the markings referred to in section 7 of ANSI Z26.1. Section 7 of ANSI Z26.1 requires that manufacturers mark the windshields to show the limits of the area having a luminous transmittance of less than 70 percent (e.g., shade bands). Regarding the location of this marking, section 7 specifies that [g]lazing materials, which in a single sheet of material are intentionally made with an area having a luminous transmittance of not less than 70% (Test 2), adjoining an area that has less than 70% luminous transmittance [i.e., shaded areas], shall be permanently marked at the edge of the sheet to show the limits of the area that is intended to comply with Test 2. (Emphasis added.) Assuming the markings and shade bands meet all requirements in section S6 of FMVSS No. 205 and section 7 of ANSI Z26.1, the AS1 mark may appear at the edge of the sheet of glazing 62 mm below the lowest edge of the dot matrix area or shade band.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Sarah Alves of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

ref:205

d.1/16/09