ID: 24388.drn

Mr. Brian Barrington
President
Liberty Bus, Inc.
P.O. Box 449
Lima, OH 45802-0449

Dear Mr. Barrington:

This responds to your letter requesting information about sales of your companys vehicles to child care centers. You explain that your company manufactures new vehicles that meet the school bus crashworthiness Federal motor vehicle safety standards, but do not have the school bus flashing lights and stop arms. You wish to know whether child care providers may purchase and use these vehicles.

By way of background, it might be helpful to keep in mind that Federal law restricts the types of new buses that may be sold for school transportation purposes but does not restrict the use of vehicles. Your customers State laws regulate how school age children in a State are to be transported. NHTSA has revised its interpretation of "school" to exclude Head Start Programs. However, sales of new buses to child care centers that provide transportation to or from school must involve a school bus.

Sales of New Buses to Child Care Centers

Your question regarding sales of new buses to child care centers has been addressed for the most part in the enclosed interpretation letter of May 9, 2001, to Collins Bus Corporation (Collins letter). In the Collins letter, we explain dealers responsibilities in selling new buses to day care centers that will be using the vehicles to transport children to or from schools. All the enclosures mentioned in the letter are provided.

The Collins letter discusses prohibitions on sales of new buses that do not meet the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations (NHTSAs) school bus standards. Briefly, any person selling a new 'school bus" must sell a bus that meets our school bus standards. Our statute defines a "schoolbus" as any vehicle that is designed for carrying a driver and more than 10 passengers and which NHTSA decides is likely to be "used significantly" to transport "preprimary, primary, and secondary" students to or from school or related events. 49 U.S.C. 30125. By regulation, the capacity threshold for school buses corresponds to that of buses -- vehicles designed for carrying more than ten (10) persons (49 CFR 571.3(b)).

NHTSAs longstanding position has been that day care centers in and of themselves are not 'schools" within the meaning of our statute because of their primarily custodial, rather than educational, emphasis. However, when a day care center is providing transportation to or from school or school- related events, then the transportation constitutes the described action-- transporting students to or from school--contemplated by the statute. In a letter of July 23, 1998, to Mr. Don Cote of Northside Ford (copy enclosed), we advised that when a dealership sells or leases a new bus to a child care facility to drop off and pick up school children from school "on regular school days," the dealership must sell or lease only a bus that meets the Federal motor vehicle safety standards for school buses.

The Collins letter stated that NHTSA currently does not presume that day care centers universally are engaged in the transportation of children to or from school. However, where the purchaser or lessor of a new bus is a day care center, in light of the widespread publicity that has surrounded the issue, we expect a dealer to inquire as to whether the vehicle would also be used to drop off or pick up students from school. If it appears that a vehicle will be used significantly for student transportation, the requirement to sell a certified school bus that meets the Federal motor vehicle safety standards for school buses would apply.

Sales of New Buses to Head Start Programs

Your letter also stated: "Head Start and Child Care providers operate vehicles under identical conditions. In other words, children are picked up and released off of thoroughfares and usually in parking lots and drive ways." For these reasons, you ask whether you can sell to child care centers an "allowable alternate vehicle" (AAV) as defined by the Head Start Bureau. The answer is no.

Head Start defines an AAV as "a vehicle designed for carrying eleven or more people, including the driver, that meets all the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable to school buses, except 49 CFR 571.108 and 571.131." (See 45 CFR Section 1310.3) Standard No. 108 (49 CFR 571.108) establishes requirements for lamps and associated equipment, and Standard No. 131 (49 CFR 571.131) establishes requirements for stop arms.

Sales of new buses to child care centers that provide to and from school transportation can be distinguished from sales of new buses to Head Start Programs. The latter type of sale has been the focus of recent Congressional and administrative action that have led us to reconsider our previous determinations in this area. In an interpretation letter of August 3, 2000 to Helen H. Taylor, Associate Commissioner of the Head Start Bureau (copy enclosed), NHTSA agreed to Head Starts request to revise our interpretation of "school" to exclude Head Start Programs. NHTSA made this revision after being informed that in 1998, Congress amended section 636 of the Head Start Act by employing the term "school readiness," thereby distinguishing Head Start Programs from school programs. In the letter to the Head Start Bureau, NHTSA stated in part:

Accordingly, we are revising our interpretation of "school" to exclude Head Start. Consistent with the evident intent of section 636, we conclude that a Head Start agency is not operating a "school" for the purposes of the Vehicle Safety Act. This means that buses sold to transport children to and from a Head Start site will no longer be required under the Vehicle Safety Act to meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses. In revising our interpretation, we act with the knowledge that HHS intends to implement a rule requiring that Head Start children be transported in vehicles meeting the Federal school bus safety standards other than those for traffic control devices. This will serve to ensure the childrens safety.

As you are aware, in a final rule of January 18, 2001, the Head Start Bureau established 45 CFR Part 1310, Head Start Transportation, which includes the definition of "allowable alternate vehicle."

Conclusion

Sales of new buses to child care centers that provide to and from school transportation have not been affected by the recent Congressional activity on Head Start buses. Sales of new buses to child care centers to transport students to or from school are still subject to the Vehicle Safety Act mandate to sell complying school buses. However, you may be interested to know that on March 21, 2001, NHTSA granted a petition from the Rabun-Gap Nacoochee School of Rabun-Gap, Georgia, to conduct a rulemaking proceeding to create a new school bus classification known as the "school activity bus." The petitioner asked that this classification "consist of buses which are used for transporting school children to or from school related activities, but are not used to transport children between home and school." Among other issues, the petitioner asked that school buses meeting this new category be exempted from the requirement for school bus warning lights (S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108) and the requirement for school bus pedestrian safety devices (Standard No. 131). The agency is presently in the rulemaking process.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's programs, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama at this address, or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:VSA#571.3
d.6/14/02

ID: 24393.rbm

Donald S. Litman, Esq.
The Mayerson Law Offices, P.C.
3540 Schuylkill Road
Spring City, PA 19475

Dear Mr. Litman:

This responds to your question as to whether plastic exterior door handles are prohibited by any Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs). The short answer to your question is no, exterior plastic door handles are not prohibited under any of the safety standards.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers a statute requiring that motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States or imported into the United States be manufactured so as to reduce the likelihood of motor vehicle crashes and of deaths and injuries when crashes do occur. We refer to that statute as the Vehicle Safety Act. It is codified at 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq.

One of the agencys functions under the Vehicle Safety Act is to issue and enforce FMVSSs. These standards specify safety performance requirements for motor vehicles and/or items of motor vehicle equipment. FMVSS No. 206, Door locks and door retention components, most closely addresses your question regarding exterior door handles. FMVSS No. 206 does not directly regulate either interior or exterior door handles. It does, however, impliedly require both interior and exterior door handles or other release mechanisms in its regulation of door locks (see generally, 49 CFR 571.206, S4.1.3 and S4.4.2). FMVSS No. 206 does not prohibit or require that the door handles or release mechanisms be composed of any particular material. Rather, it specifies performance requirements.

Should you require any additional information or assistance, please contact Rebecca MacPherson, of my staff, (202) 366-2992 or at the address given above.

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel
ref:206
d.6/24/02

ID: 24394_Gen_TestingLabs

Mr. Alan Aylor
President
General Testing Laboratories, Inc.
1623 Leedstown Rd.
Colonial Beach, VA 22443

Dear Mr. Aylor:

This responds to your letter dated May 1, 2002, which you e-mailed to our office on May 7, asking six questions about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 225, "Child Restraint Anchorage Systems" (49 CFR 571.225). This letter also follows up on a May 22, 2002 telephone conversation between you and Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff. Each of your questions is restated below, followed by our response.

BACKGROUND

On March 5, 1999, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) published a final rule establishing Standard No. 225. The rule required vehicle manufacturers to equip vehicles with new child restraint anchorage systems that are standardized and independent of the vehicle seat belts. Each new system has two lower anchorages and one tether anchorage.

A number of manufacturers submitted petitions for reconsideration of various aspects of the new standard, including the strength requirements for the anchorage system. In response to concerns of several of the petitioners about leadtime for and the stringency of the anchorage strength and other requirements in the March 1999 final rule, NHTSA permitted vehicle manufacturers to meet alternative requirements during an interim period (64 FR 47566). Manufacturers were permitted to meet either: (a) the requirements in the March 1999 final rule; or (b) alternative Canadian requirements for tether anchorages and, for lower anchorages, requirements in a draft standard developed by a working group of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). NHTSA later extended that period until September 1, 2004 (65 FR 46628).[1]

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS

Question 1.  S4.1 states: "Each tether anchorage and each child restraint anchorage system installed, either voluntarily or pursuant to this standard, in any new vehicle manufactured on or after September 1, 1999, shall comply with the configuration, location and strength requirements of this standard. " Does the phrase "any new vehicle" refer to all vehicles regardless of type and gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR)?

Answer:  The answer is Standard No. 225 does not apply to tether anchorages and child restraint anchorage systems installed in vehicles not listed in the Application section of the standard (S2). (This issue was discussed in the agencys August 31, 1999 response to petitions for reconsideration. 64 FR at 47578.) Anchorage systems voluntarily installed in vehicles not listed in S2 are not subject to the standard=s requirements. They will, of course, be subject to our defect authority.

Question 2.  If tether anchorages and/or child restraint anchorage systems are voluntarily installed in side facing or rear facing designated seating positions, do the requirements in S4.1 apply? If so, in what directions should the test loads be applied?

Answer:  Our answer is the requirements of Standard No. 225 would apply to anchorages installed in side- or rear-facing seating positions in vehicles subject to the standard. The standard requires only forward-facing rear designated seating positions to have the anchorage systems (S4). Side- or rear-facing seating positions are not factored into the determination of how many anchorage systems a vehicle must have. However, if a manufacturer voluntarily installs a tether anchorage or a child restraint anchorage system in a side- or rear-facing designated seating position in a vehicle subject to the standard, the configuration, location, marking, and strength requirements apply (S4.1). The loads for the strength test would be applied (1) along a longitudinal axis toward the front of the vehicle for LATCH anchorages installed in side-facing seating positions, and (2) along a longitudinal axis toward the rear of the vehicle for LATCH anchorages installed in rear-facing seating positions. The loads would be applied in this manner to side-facing seats to replicate loads likely to be imposed on the anchorages in a frontal crash. For rear-facing seats, testing in this manner ensures that the anchorages will be able to sustain loads from rear impacts.

The installation of LATCH in side- and rear-facing seats should be carefully considered, however. As far as we know, all child restraint manufacturers recommend against use of child restraints in side- or rear-facing seating positions.

Question 3.  Which certification options are available for voluntarily installed tether and/or child restraint anchorage systems for vehicles built before September 1, 2004?

Answer:  There are several options available to manufacturers of vehicles manufactured before September 1, 2004. These are outlined below. Manufacturers must select the option prior to, or at the time of, certification of the vehicle. (See answer to question 6 for further discussion.)

--As noted above, manufacturers are permitted to meet (a) either the tether anchorage strength requirements in the March 1999 final rule or alternative strength requirements that are based on Canadian requirements (S6.3); and (b) for lower anchorages, either the strength requirements in the March 1999 final rule or the strength requirements developed by the ISO working group (see introductory paragraph of S9).

--There is also an option available to manufacturers of passenger cars manufactured before September 1, 2004 relating to the strength of tether anchorages and how they are tested (a load of 5,300 N may be applied by way of a belt strap)(S6.3.2).

--Until September 1, 2004, manufacturers may meet alternative requirements as to the number of tether anchorages and child restraint anchorage systems they have to install in a vehicle, and where those systems must be located within a vehicle (S4.5).

There are some options concerning the location of the tether anchorage relative to the seating reference point of a designated seating position (S6.2).

Question 4.  Paragraph S6.3.3(b) states: A tether anchorage of a particular child restraint anchorage system will not be tested with the lower anchorages of that anchorage system if one or both of those lower anchorages have been previously tested under this standard. Paragraph S9.4.2(b) states: The lower anchorages of a particular child restraint anchorage system will not be tested if one or both of the anchorages have been previously tested under this standard. [Emphases added.]

Do these paragraphs mean that for a given designated seating position, a manufacturer certifies compliance with the tether anchorage requirements of FMVSS 225 in accordance with paragraph S6.3.4(a)(2), which specifies testing with SFAD-2 to apply the test loads to both the tether and lower anchorages, that he has satisfied all of the strength requirements for the child restraint anchorage systems at that designated seating position?

Answer:  No. The child restraint anchorage system must be capable of meeting both the requirements of S6.3.4 (strength of tether anchorage) and those of S9.4 (strength of lower anchorages alone). NHTSA has the option of choosing which test to conduct. Any tether anchorage could be tested, and must meet the requirements of S6.3.4 if and when the anchorage is tested. Any pair of lower bars of a child restraint anchorage system could be tested to the requirements of S9.4. Manufacturers must ensure that their anchorages comply with both requirements of the standard.

Question 5.  Does "this standard" as used in paragraph S6.3.3(b) and S9.4.2(b) refer to the entire standard or to the individual paragraphs S6 and S9 respectively?

Answer:  I believe our answer to question 4 responds to this question.

Question 6.  What interactions with NHTSA, if any, are required by a manufacturer to irrevocably select the various compliance options in FMVSS 225?

Answer:  Manufacturers must select an option prior to, or at the time of certification of the vehicle. Manufacturers are required to identify the option to which a particular vehicle has been certified. In practice, prior to conducting a compliance test on a vehicle, NHTSA will ask the manufacturer which option was selected for that vehicle and will test the vehicle in accordance with the manufacturers response.

I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Ms. Fujita at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:225
d.12/9/02





---

[1] NHTSA was petitioned to reconsider other aspects of the rule as well. We will be responding to those petitions in the near future.

ID: 24416ogm

Mr. William McAlister
McAlister Electronics Service Center
926 E. Fremont Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA 94087




Dear Mr. McAlister:

This responds to your letter requesting information regarding Federal regulations that govern seat belts in vehicles. You ask if vehicle manufacturers are required to provide a "lifetime" warranty for seat belts and seat belt assemblies and, if such a warranty is required, the procedures that would be employed to enforce that warranty.

Federal law authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised that authority and established Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection (49 CFR 571.208), which requires safety belts to be installed at certain seating positions in new motor vehicles. In addition, Standard No. 209, Seat belt assemblies (49 CFR 571.209), contains minimum performance requirements for seat belt assemblies installed in new vehicles and sold as "aftermarket" equipment, and Standard No. 210 (49 CFR 571.210), Seat belt assembly anchorages, sets minimum standards for anchorage location and performance. Each new vehicle must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including the requirements in Standards No. 208, 209 and 210. Federal law does not, however, require vehicles to comply with these standards after the first purchase for purposes other than resale.

None of the regulations or statutes administered by NHTSA require manufacturers to provide a lifetime warranty for seat belts. However, NHTSA has the authority to require manufacturers to replace seat belts under certain circumstances. If a vehicle or item of equipment is not more than ten years old and is determined to have a safety-related defect or fails to meet an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard, NHTSA can compel the manufacturer to remedy the defect or noncompliance without charge to the vehicle owner.

Your letter indicates that the automatic belt assemblies on your 1990 Ferrari Testarossa have ceased to function. A search of our recall database indicates that NHTSA or Ferrari have not determined that the automatic belt system of the 1990 Testarossa contains a safety-related defect. In the absence of such a determination, Ferrari is not required to repair or replace the belts by the statutes and regulations administered by NHTSA.

I hope that this is responsive to your request. If you have any questions, please contact Otto Matheke of my staff at 202-366-5253.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:208
d.8/22/02

ID: 24421safeline_LATCH_buckle

Mr. Keith Poulson
Vice President of Product Development
Safeline Kids, Inc.
475 W. 115^th Avenue, Suite 3
Northglenn, CO 80234

Dear Mr. Poulson:




This responds to your letter and follow-up e-mail asking about a design concept for components on a child restraint that attach to the lower anchorages of a child restraint anchorage system on a vehicle.The components are required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213 (S5.9) for child restraints manufactured on or after September 1, 2002.The child restraint anchorage system, which you refer to as the LATCH system, is required to be installed in vehicles by Standard No. 225. [1]You ask if the concept you have developed would meet our requirements.With certain caveats, our answer is yes.

Background

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment.Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to ensure that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts you provided in your letter, and addresses some or all of the specific issues you raised as necessary to render this interpretation.If we have not addressed an issue, you should not assume that we have concurred with a position you have expressed on that issue.Likewise, this interpretation may not discuss every requirement of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that might apply to your product.It is your responsibility as a manufacturer to determine the requirements that apply and certify the compliance of your product with those requirements.NHTSA determines the compliance of products with the safety standards in the context of an agency enforcement proceeding.

You explain that your letter concerns the Sit' n 'Stroll, which converts from a child restraint to a stroller.You have designed LATCH attachments for the restraint system keeping in mind that the Sit' n 'Stroll will be removed from the vehicle several times a day for use as a stroller.You state:

As standard equipment on each product the Sit' n 'Stroll would have permanently attached to the seat shell, a snap hook and also a quick release buckle latch clip.Both are permanently attached to the product on the same piece of webbing [2]

As an option, a consumer could then purchase as an accessory a buckle(s) with a snap hook attached to it, that could be secured to the anchor point in the vehicle seat, allowing the consumer to quickly release the Sit' n 'Stroll from the vehicle seat using the buckle.The buckle will remain secured to the anchor point in the vehicle using the snap hook, but can be easily removed should the consumer decide to transfer the Sit' n 'Stroll and this accessory to a different vehicle. [3]

Discussion

S5.9(a) of Standard No. 213 requires child restraint systems of the type you manufacture to have components permanently attached to the system that enable the restraint to be securely fastened to the lower anchorages of a LATCH system.Your child restraint would have snap hooks permanently attached to the child restraint that enable the restraint to fasten to the lower LATCH anchorages.As such, the restraint provides the components required by S5.9(a).The standard does not prohibit a child restraint from having other components attached to it.However, the other components must not make inoperative the LATCH snap hooks that are installed in compliance with Standard No. 213.Further, under S5.6.1, each child restraint system that has components for attaching to a child restraint anchorage system must include a step-by-step procedure for properly attaching to that anchorage system.This means that the installation instructions you provide must include instructions for properly attaching the buckle with snap hook to the LATCH anchorage system.In addition, child restraint systems are tested to Standard No. 213's performance requirements when attached to a LATCH anchorage system "in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions provided with the system pursuant to S5.6.1."(S6.1.2(1)(i)(C)).Thus, your child restraint must meet the standard's performance requirements when attached by the buckle with snap hook component.

Note also that S5.9(d) specifies an additional requirement for child restraint systems other than systems with hooks for attaching to the lower LATCH anchorages.Such systems must provide an indication when each attachment to the lower anchorages becomes fully latched or attached.Because the "buckle Latch (sic) clip" is a part of your system, the child restraint must meet S5.9(d).We consider an audible "click" of the buckle LATCH clip connecting to the "quick release buckle" as satisfying S5.9(d).

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:213
d.11/8/02





---




[1] "LATCH" is a term used by industry and retail groups referring to the child restraint anchorage system required by Standard No. 225.LATCH stands for "lower anchorages and tethers for children." For convenience, we will use the term in this letter.

[2] The snap hook and buckle latch clip are shown in the attachment as "A."(Footnote added.)

[3]

The buckle(s) with a snap hook are shown in the attachment as "B."(Footnote added.)

ID: 24423-2

Alvaro Ughini Junior
Marcopolo SA
Unidade Ana Rech
Av. Rio Branco, 4889
Caixa Postal 238
95060-650 Caxias do Sul - RS / Brazil

Dear Mr. Ughini:

This responds to your e-mail of May 10, 2002, in which you ask several questions about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, "Flammability of Interior Materials." Your questions are addressed below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards 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.

Vehicle manufacturers certifying compliance with the safety standards are not required to follow the compliance test procedures set forth in the applicable standard. The standards specify the procedures NHTSA would use in compliance testing. However, vehicle manufacturers must exercise reasonable care in certifying that their products meet applicable standards. It may be simplest for a manufacturer to establish that it exercised "reasonable care" if the manufacturer has conducted testing that strictly followed the compliance test procedures set forth in the standard. However, "reasonable care" might also be shown using modified test procedures if the manufacturer could demonstrate that the modifications were not likely to have had a significant impact on the test results. In addition, it might be possible to show "reasonable care" using engineering analyses, computer simulations, and the like.

Standard No. 302, like other standards, specifies the procedure NHTSA would use in compliance testing. The agency may test any material subject to Standard No. 302 in any way specified by the standard.

If NHTSA testing shows that an apparent noncompliance exists with a vehicle or item of equipment, the agency asks the manufacturer to show the basis for its certification that the vehicle or item of equipment complies with Standard No. 302. If there is a noncompliance, the manufacturer must conduct a recall campaign to remedy the problem, without charge.

In addition, the manufacturer is subject to civil penalties unless it can establish that it exercised reasonable care in the design and manufacture of the product and in the checks (through actual testing, computer simulation, engineering analyses, or other means) to ensure compliance, but nevertheless did not have reason to know that the vehicle or item of equipment did not comply with Standard No. 302. Please note that, while the exercise of "reasonable care" may relieve a manufacturer of liability for civil penalties in connection with the manufacture and sale of noncomplying vehicles, it does not relieve a manufacturer of the responsibility to discontinue sales of vehicles or notify purchasers of the noncompliance and remedy the noncompliance without charge to the purchasers, if either the manufacturer or this agency determines that vehicles do not comply with all applicable safety standards.

I will now address your specific questions.

Complex Surfaces

You asked:

Should the test specimen be made by cutting the component itself in the dimensions required? If so, how can we proceed when dealing with a complex surface or "amorphous" solid, since the test specimen must be as flat as possible?

The test specimen is made by cutting the component itself into the specified dimensions. S5.2.2 of Standard No. 302 specifies: "The specimen is produced by cutting the material in the direction that provides the most adverse test results." S5.2.1 specifies that the test specimen be 102 mm wide by 356 mm long by 13 mm thick, wherever possible. S5.2.1 also specifies: "Where it is not possible to obtain a flat specimen because of surface curvature, the specimen is cut to not more than 13 mm in thickness at any point." Thus, when dealing with a "complex" surface, the specimen is cut, wherever possible, so that it is 102 mm wide, 356 mm long, and not more than 13 mm thick at any point.

Rubber, PVC, and PS Profiles

You asked:

When dealing with rubber, PVC and PS profiles, how is the test specimen supposed to be made? If it is simply cutted (sic), in what position shall it be installed in the test equipment? If we must extrude a flat sample, what thickness should we consider, since the profile has a variable thickness along the transversal section?

As noted above, the test specimen is made by cutting the component itself into the required dimensions, wherever possible. The test specimen is then installed in the metal test cabinet according to the conditions and procedures specified in S5.1 through S5.3 of Standard No. 302. S5.1.3 specifies that the test specimen is inserted between two matching U-shaped frames of metal stock 25 mm wide and 10 mm high. S5.3(a) specifies that the test specimen is mounted so that both sides and one end are held up by the U-shaped frame, and one end is even with the open end of the frame. S5.3(b) specifies that the mounted test specimen is placed in a horizontal position, in the center of the test cabinet.

As noted above, if the material being tested has a variable thickness, the test specimen is cut so that it is not more than 13 mm thick at any point.

Same Material/Different Thickness and/or Same Material/Different Colors

You asked:

In the case where we work with many flat (or almost flat) covers extruded from the same ABS resin but with different thickness, may we test the lower thick sample only?

You also asked:

Must we consider that components made from the same raw-material but with different colors (pigmented resin not painted) need tests for each color, or can we test any one of the colors to certify that the resin complies with the requirements so this result will be applicable to every colors (sic).

As noted above, NHTSA may test in any way specified by Standard No. 302. The agency may test any sample of your flat covers that are extruded from ABS resin and/or any different colors of the same material.

I note that the agency has long stated that it is unable to judge what efforts would constitute reasonable care in advance of the actual circumstances in which a noncompliance occurs. Thus, we cannot provide an opinion of the number or types of tests that you would need to conduct to ensure that you exercised reasonable care in certifying that your product complies with Standard No. 302. What constitutes reasonable care in a particular case depends on all relevant facts, including such things as the limitations of current technology, the availability of test equipment, the size of the manufacturer, and, above all, the diligence exercised by the manufacturer.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any further questions on Standard No. 302, please contact Mr. Dion Casey of this office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel
Ref:302
d.6/24/02

ID: 24439Suzuki_tether_anchor_zone

Mr. Kenneth M. Bush
American Suzuki Motor Corporation
3251 East Imperial Highway
P.O. Box 1100
Brea, CA92822-1100

Dear Mr. Bush:




This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 225, "Child Restraint Anchorage Systems" (49 CFR 571.225).I regret the delay in responding.You ask whether a certain user-ready tether anchorage location would meet the location requirements of S6.2.1 of the standard. Our answer is yes.

S6.2.1 of Standard No. 225 states: " the part of each tether anchorage that attaches to a tether hook must be located within the shaded zone shown in Figures 3 to 7 of this standard."Figure 3 shows the front edge of the zone as extending along the torso line reference plane under the seat and then following the contour of the vehicle seat bottom and seat back up to a point on the seat back.You ask about locating an anchorage in a recessed area of the seat back.You do not believe that the standard intended to disallow locating the tether anchorage in that area.

With one exception, a recessed area in the seat back is acceptable for locating the tether anchorage. Figures 3 to 7 do not provide dimensions as to the location of the front edge of the shaded zone, except with regard to the "strap wrap-around area" at the top of a vehicle seat back.The agency did not intend to exclude part of the seat back from the shaded zone; thus, a tether anchorage that is recessed in the seat back is permitted.However, the shaded zone does not include the strap wrap-around area at the top of the vehicle seat back.Thus, the anchorage must not be located in that wrap-around area. We will be issuing a technical amendment to include in the shaded zone the part of the seat back that is below the strap wrap-around area.

You also ask for confirmation that, for the area under the vehicle seat, the forwardmost edge of the shaded zone is defined by the torso line reference plane.Your understanding is correct.

Please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:225
d.11/8/02

ID: 244424aogm

Mr. Martin Krenn
Concept Technologic GmbH
Fischeraustrasse 13
A-8051 Graz Austria




Dear Mr. Krenn:

This is in response to several questions contained in your electronic mail message to Ms. Karen Nuschler regarding test procedures under the head impact protection provisions contained in Standard No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact. Your electronic mail message states that your company is developing a motorhome. The development of this vehicle has raised questions regarding the location of targets and target zones and test procedures under Standard No. 201.

Under the provisions of Standard No. 201, vehicles must meet certain performance criteria when specific targets in the interior are struck by an instrumented headform representative of a human head. The targets are located by a mapping procedure found in the Standard. Once a target point is located, a 12.7 mm target circle centered on the target point serves as the test target. Any part of that target circle may be struck by the headform during a test.

Your first question relates to the proper procedure for locating targets on the upper roof. The head protection requirements of Standard No. 201 require manufacturers to meet performance requirements only at those targets that are located using the procedures found in S10 of the standard. In the case of the upper roof, S10.9 specifies that the upper roof target (target UR) may be located anywhere within the upper roof zone. Therefore, once the boundaries of the upper roof zone are established as set forth in the standard, UR may be located at any point within those boundaries. Your message contains a photograph of the interior of a vehicle. Referring to the photograph, you ask if a point on an area of the vehicle depicted in the photo represents the proper location of the transverse vertical plane described in S8.15(b).

The boundaries of the upper roof are located through use of the procedures set forth in S8.15(a) through (h). S8.15(b) directs that a transverse vertical plane, plane B, be located at the rearmost point where it contacts the interior roof (including trim) at the vehicle centerline. Once located, plane B serves as the rearmost boundary of the upper roof. The photograph incorporated into your electronic mail message depicts what appears to be the cab area of a motorhome and shows the passenger side B-pillar and what appears to be the rear of the front outboard passenger seat. The photograph also depicts that the interior roof of the vehicle is comprised of at least two sections. The first section is located over the driver and front passenger seat and continues from the front header to the rear edge of the B-Pillar. This section meets a transverse vertical panel that extends upward until it contacts the remainder of the roof, which then continues to the rear of the vehicle. A drawing of the vehicle also embedded in your message indicates that this front section of the interior roof also serves as the floor of a storage compartment that is enclosed on the sides and top by the raised exterior roof of the vehicle.

A notation and arrow on the photograph point to an area on the rearmost section of the interior roof segment located over the driver and passenger seats. You ask if this point is the proper location for plane B under S8.15(b). The answer is no. The area depicted in your photograph is not located at the rearmost point where a the transverse plane "B" contacts the interior roof. The photographs and drawings in your email message indicate that the point you have marked is located at what appears to be the rearmost point of a section of the interior roof. However, the interior roof of the vehicle does not terminate at this point. Although the interior roof is bisected by a transverse vertical section that serves as the door for an overhead storage compartment, the interior roof extends rearward from the aft edge of this door to the rear of the vehicle. For the purposes of defining the upper roof under S8.15(b), the entire interior roof, not just the rearmost point of a discontinuity in the interior roof, must be considered when locating plane B.

It should be noted, however, that because the vehicle in question is a motorhome, the range of potential targets within the upper roof is restricted by S6.3(c). S6.3(c) provides that the performance requirements found in S6.1 and S6.2 do not apply to any target located rearward of a vertical plane 600 mm behind the seating reference point of the driver's seating position in an ambulance or a motor home. As the vehicle described in your message appears to be a motorhome for the purposes of Standard No. 201, it must only comply with the performance requirements of S6.1 and S6.2 for those targets located forward of the transverse vertical plane located less than 600 mm to the rear of the seating reference point.

Your message also indicates your concern about the location of the side rail target known as SR3 within your vehicle. You correctly observe that the procedure for locating this target is set forth in S10.7 of Standard No. 201. However, you note that if you follow this procedure to locate the target in your companys product, the particular configuration of the roof results in the SR3 target being located well above the actual side rail. As indicated by the photographs incorporated in your message, the use of the procedure in S10.7 results in the target being located some distance above the side rail. You further indicate that these target locations are so high in the vehicle that it is unlikely that they would even be struck by a standing person in the event of a crash. As it appears unlikely that an occupant might strike this target location, you ask what procedure the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) would follow in locating and testing this target.

When NHTSA performs compliance testing, it does so in accordance with the procedures and requirements found in the applicable standard. In the case of the vehicle depicted in your electronic mail message, or a similar vehicle, the agency would perform testing using the target location dictated by S10.7.

Your last question regards the proper procedure for determining the proper vertical approach angles for testing. Your message notes that the procedure for determining the maximum vertical approach angle is found in S8.13.4.2 of Standard No. 201. You ask what the proper procedure would be in a case where a target was relocated to a point where rotation of the free motion headform (FMH) in accordance with S8.12.4.2(a) does not result in any contact between the lower portion of the FMH and the vehicle. In such a case, you ask if the target must be relocated again or if the test should be performed without rotating the FMH downward by 5 degrees as set forth in S8.12.4.2(b)(1).

S8.13.4 specifies a range of permissible horizontal and vertical approach angles that constrain the direction of the FMH when approaching a particular type of target. If an approach angle for a particular target is within the range of permissible approach angles, that angle may be used in testing a target area. S8.13.4.2(b) directs that one step in determining the maximum vertical approach angle is to rotate the FMH while keeping the forehead impact zone in contact with the target until the lowerportion of the FMH contacts the vehicle. Once this angle is derived, S8.13.4.2(b)(1) and S8.13.4.2(b)(2) direct that the maximum vertical approach angle is the angle that results from rotating the FMH downward by either 5 or 10 degrees from the angle found by following S8.13.4.2(b).

In a case where the configuration of the vehicle is such that the rotation of the FMH specified in S8.12.4.2(b) does not result in any contact between the lower portion of the FMH and the vehicle, the FMH should be rotated upward until the forehead impact zone is no longer in contact with any part of the target. For the purposes of S8.12.4.2(b), NHTSA considers the angle at which the forehead impact zone loses contact with any part of the target to be equivalent to the angle found when the FMH can no longer be physically rotated upward. If a target is located above a window opening or is otherwise located where there is no vehicle structure to impede upward rotation, the lack of an impediment to this upward rotation should not, in NHTSAs view, require relocation of an otherwise valid target.

As your company is apparently in the process of developing a motorhome, you should be aware that the Recreation Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA) filed a petition for rulemaking on October 4, 2001, requesting that the agency modify Standard No. 201 to exclude conversion vans and motor homes with gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less, from the application of the upper interior head protection requirements of the Standard. The National Truck Equipment Association (NTEA) filed a petition for rulemaking on November 27, 2001, seeking similar relief for multi-stage vehicles. Both petitions requested that NHTSA extend the existing phase-in for manufacturers of multi-stage vehicles from September 1, 2002, to March 1, 2004. By letters dated March 28 and April 5, 2002, NHTSA indicated it was granting the petitions. The agency is currently embarking on a rulemaking proceeding to address the issues raised in the petitions and anticipates issuing a notice regarding its response to the petitions in the near future. In the interim, the agency published a notice in the Federal Register on June 18, 2002, (67 FR 41348) providing final stage manufacturers and alterers with an additional year to comply with the upper interior head protection requirements.

I hope that this is responsive to your inquiry. If you have any questions, please contact Otto Matheke of this office at (202) 366-5263 or by electronic mail at omatheke@nhtsa.dot.gov.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:201
d.8/22/02

ID: 24459.ztv

Mr. Steve Karcz
Helmetlight, Inc.
P.O. Box 190151
Anchorage, AK 99519

Dear Mr. Karcz:

This is in reply to your letter of May 20, 2002, with reference to your "Lead-Dog Helmet Light" intended for motorcycle operators.You asked whether there are "Federal issues" involved with it.

You related that the Helmet Light "is wired to the motorcycles existing headlight, taillight, and brake light wires," and then, "attached to the riders helmet with VELCRO." You stated further that "our headlight is wired into the high beam wire of the motorcycle and controlled by the high/low beam switch." When the Helmet Light is on, "our housing illuminates red creating a second, more visible taillight atop the helmet." Finally, "our brake light is wired to the motorcycles brake light wire and activated by the brake light switch. . . ." We note from your website that the light source is described as a "35 watt halogen spotlight."

I enclose a copy of an interpretation of this Office dated May 22, 1992, to Larry Nunn of Automotive Lighting Technologies regarding a similar invention. This letter will provide you with our views on the relationship to your invention of the laws that we administer. Our views remain the same today. However, the relevant statute was recodified in 1994. As a result, the statutory references in the 1992 letter have changed."Section 102(4) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(4))" defining "motor vehicle equipment," is now 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(7). "Section 108(a)(2)(A)" relating to post-sale vehicle modifications has become 49 U.S.C. 30122. Finally, "sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419)" concerning recall and remedy are now 49 U.S.C. 30117-30121.

In brief, Helmet Light is considered "motor vehicle equipment" under the Safety Act. There are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) that directly apply to motor vehicle equipment that is designed to be attached to a motorcycle helmet and connected with the wiring system of a motorcycle. We are concerned, however, about the potential effects of Helmet Light on compliance of the helmet to which it is attached, with FMVSS No. 218, Motorcycle Helmets, and of the motorcycle with FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, when Helmet Light is connected with the wiring system.

Specifically, FMVSS No. 218 (S5.5) prohibits a motorcycle helmet from having a rigid projection on the outside of a helmet shell, except for "those required for operation of essential accessories, and shall not protrude more than 0.20 inch (5 mm)." We do not regard Helmet Light as an "essential accessory" within the meaning of the phrase. This means that a motorcycle helmet to which Helmet Light is attached would not comply with FMVSS No. 218. Under 49 U.S.C. 30112(a), it is a violation to manufacture for sale, sell, or offer for sale a motorcycle helmet that fails to comply with FMVSS No. 218. This means that a helmet may not be sold with Helmet Light attached, or as part of the sale of a new helmet. Whether it is legal for a person to operate a motorcycle while wearing a helmet with Helmet Light attached is not a Federal question, but a question to be answered under the laws of each jurisdiction in which Helmet Light is used.

Individual items of lighting equipment on motor vehicles are required to meet specified minimum candela at certain specified test points. We would have a safety concern if connection of Helmet Light to the motorcycle lighting system in some manner reduced candela at any test point of any lamp below the minimum specified in the standard so that the motorcycle no longer complied with the specifications of FMVSS No. 108 when Helmet Light was operating.

We are also concerned about the potential glare effects of the use of Helmet Light, which you further describe as a "35 halogen watt spot lamp." You advise on your web site "NEVER point spot lamp at another persons eyes, you may temporarily affect their vision."This caution indicates that there is a distinct possibility of glare when a motorcyclist wearing a Helmet Light turns his or her head side to the side when approaching a crossroads or corner, or when the light is projected into the interior and exterior rearview mirrors of a vehicle ahead. Glare is a current issue of great public concern, and the agency has received several hundred letters relating to headlamps and daytime running lamps.

We would be especially concerned if the "35 halogen watt spot lamp" were distracting to the point that an oncoming driver would fail to notice the motorcycles front turn signals when they were operating. Lighting equipment other than that specified by FMVSS No. 108 is not permissible as original equipment if it impairs the effectiveness of required lighting equipment such as turn signal lamps. Although Helmet Light is not an item of original motorcycle lighting equipment, it becomes part of the overall motorcycle lighting and conspicuity package when it is used and there are sound safety reasons that the same principle should apply, that it not impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment.

However, there is no Federal prohibition on the sale of Helmet Light as a vehicle accessory independent of the sale of a motorcycle helmet. As noted above, State laws determine whether it is legal to operate a motorcycle while wearing a Helmet Light.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:108
d.9/23/02

ID: 24460_CE_White_built-in

Mr. Scott Hiler
The C.E. White Co.
417 Kibler Street
P.O. Box 308
New Washington, OH 44854-0308




Dear Mr. Hiler:

This responds to your May 3, 2002, letter asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 225, "Child Restraint Anchorage Systems" (49 CFR 571.225). We understand that your company manufactures seating systems for school buses and other vehicles. You ask whether the "C.E. White Co.s Child Restraint seat" can be "substituted for all required LATCH locations in a vehicle?" ^[1] Our answer is the seat can be substituted for one, but not all, LATCH systems.

Background

Standard No. 225 requires vehicles to be equipped with a specified number of "child restraint anchorage systems." "Child restraint anchorage system" is defined in S3 of the standard as:

a vehicle system that is designed for attaching a child restraint system to a vehicle at a particular designated seating position, consisting of:

(a) Two lower anchorages meeting the requirements of S9; and

(b) A tether anchorage meeting the requirements of S6.

Stated briefly, S4 of the standard requires vehicles to have a "child restraint anchorage system" at not fewer than two forward-facing rear designated seating positions. ^[2] S5(b) of the standard specifies that a vehicle may be equipped with a built-in child restraint system conforming to the requirements of Standard No. 213 (49 CFR 571.213), instead of one of the required child restraint anchorage systems. ^[3]

Discussion

You ask: "Since the C.E. White Co.s Child Restraint seat is considered a "Child Restraint Anchorage" as per S3, Definitions, could it be used as a substitution for all required LATCH locations in a vehicle?" Our answer is no. As stated above, the standard has a specific definition of a "child restraint anchorage system." While your child restraint seat may have certain features meeting the definition in S3 of a "child restraint anchorage," it does not possess the necessary features to meet the definition of a "child restraint anchorage system" under FMVSS No. 225. Since it is not a child restraint anchorage system, it cannot be substituted for all equired LATCH systems. Accordingly, a vehicle manufacturer must install the standards LATCH system on its vehicles. However, S5(b) of Standard No. 225 permits the manufacturer to substitute one of the required LATCH systems (or tether anchorages) with your built-in child restraint, provided that the seat meets the requirements of Standard No. 213.

We believe that requiring one type of attachment system on vehicles better standardizes the anchorage system. Standardizing the system reduces the potential for confusion on the part of consumers who might look for or expect one type of anchorage system and find another. Standardizing the system increases the likelihood that consumers will be familiar with the anchorage system and correctly use it. Standardizing the system also maintains better control over the compatibility between child restraints and the vehicle anchorage system. For these reasons, the LATCH system is required to be installed on all vehicles.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:225
d.8/22/02

---

^[1] "LATCH" stands for "Lower Anchors and Tethers for Children," a term that was developed by child restraint manufacturers and retailers to refer to the standardized child restraint anchorage system required by Standard No. 225. For convenience, this letter uses the term "LATCH system" in describing the Standard No. 225 anchorage system.

^[2] A tether anchorage is also required at a third forward-facing rear designated seating position, if the vehicle is equipped with at least three forward-facing rear designated seating positions. S5(a) excludes convertibles and school buses from the requirement to be equipped with tether anchorages.

^[3] A built-in system may also be substituted for the third tether anchorage that must be installed in vehicles equipped with at least three forward-facing rear designated seating positions (S5b).