ID: nht79-3.27

DATE: 04/16/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: H. X. Jackson, F.A.C.H.A. Valley Presbyterian Hospital

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

April 16, 1979 NOA-30

H. X. Jackson, F.A.C.H.A. Administrator and Executive Vice-President Valley Presbyterian Hospital 15107 Vanowen Street Van Nuys, California 91405

Dear Mr. Jackson:

Thank you for your letter of March 7, 1979, concerning the computerized anti-theft device developed by the BBJ partnership.

As you know, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has been developing over the past several years an upgraded Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 114, Theft Protection. I have enclosed a copy of the standard now in effect and our recent proposed amendment. You should be aware, however, that in response to comments this proposal may be modified prior to its issuance in final form.

The approach of the NHTSA in issuing motor vehicle safety standards is to establish minimum standards with which all manufacturers must comply. It is our hope that manufacturers will exceed these minimum standards in a way which offers the public greater protection, either throughout an entire vehicle line or by optional equipment which a purchaser may buy. Your device appears to fall in this latter category.

The NHTSA does not provide evaluations or approvals of inventions, and we would be unable to advise you whether a vehicle equipped with your device would comply with Standard No. 114 without a more complete description. Based on the information you have provided, however, your device does not appear to conflict with the Standard as currently established. Should you have any specific questions in this regard after reading the enclosed material, please call (202-426-1834) or write Frederic Schwartz, Jr. of my office who will be able to assist you further. You should also be aware that if your device is meant to be installed by the owner of a vehicle after the vehicle is sold by the dealer, the Standard would not apply.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

March 7, 1979

Ms. Joan Claybrook, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Claybrook:

I believe that, at times, the best way is the most direct. Cognizant of your long and dedicated search for improvement in traffic safety, I am encouraged to address one important aspect of that search - automobile theft and its concommitant social and economic impact.

Congress Henry Waxman was king enough to establish the initial contact. I would like now to follow up in some detail to evoke your evaluation.

BBJ, a California partnership in which I am involved, has developed an anti-theft device known as the CAT* (Computerized Anti-Theft) system. Briefly, it is our representation that the device will totally protect against theft of any automobile, except by towing even though the key be left in the ignition. This is accomplished by employing the most advanced micro-processor technology to control the automobile's electric system. Use of the vehicle is restricted to the owner and those to whom he may have made the special coding feature known. The owner may elect to activate the device or not; if he chooses "no activation", the car will perform in an entirely normal manner. When activated, however, the vehicle cannot be "wired around" tampered with or moved by any of the conventional methods used by professional or amateur thieves. It does, in effect, guarantee against all known methodologies of theft. This complete security system comes packaged in a unit the size of a hand-held digital calculator.

* Patent applied for

During the course of a telephone conversation last month with Mr. Carl Nash, he was kind enough to agree to send a copy of the 1981 anti-theft requirements with which the automobile industry must comply. While I have not yet received them, my understanding is that they deal largely with peripherical modification such as recessed door latches, steering wheel locks, hood latches and the like. While these undoubedly act as deterrents, they are not fool-proof. We believe that our device, which will permit the hood, trunk and doors to remain open with the key in the ignition, meets and surpasses the intent of the regulations -which is to prevent car theft.

Increasingly sophisticated systems are appearing, all ranging from $250 to $1,000 - well beyond the practical reach of most car owners. Our device, in production quantities, will have a manufacturing cost of $30.00 - $40.00 and a retail cost of about $100. Furthermore, all other systems of which we are aware can be "wired around" or otherwise thwarted; we stipulate that ours cannot.

It would be most helpful in introducing the "CAT" system as the ultimate solution to car theft to have your administration's evaluation as to whether the device does indeed meet the 1981 regulations as we believe.

Any guidance you might give will be warmly appreciated not only by BBJ, but by the tens of thousands who each year are subjected to the trauma and inconvenience - both physical and economic - of automobile theft.

Sincerely,

H. X. Jackson, F.A.C.H.A. Administrator and Executive Vice-President

HXJ:dds

ID: 86-1.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/26/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Michael Love

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Michael Love Safety Compliance Manager Porsche Cars North America. Inc. 200 South Virginia Street Reno, NV 89501

Dear Mr. Love:

This is in reply to your letter of December 10, 1985, to Mr. Vinson of this office, with respect to an aftermarket center high-mounted stop lamp kit that Porsche wishes to offer through its dealer network.

You initially reference the preamble of August 31, 1984 (49 FR 34488) in which NHTSA stated that it would study the request of General Motors to supply an aftermarket kit "and consider whatever legal action may be required to remove impediments to the lamp's use". You ask the following questions:

"1) What is the result of NHTSA's study of GM's request?"

NHTSA has not proceeded to the study referenced because it subsequently decided such a study was unnecessary for the reasons set forth in our answer to your second question.

"2) What impediments are there to the sale, installation and use of an aftermarket CHMSL?"

NHTSA does not consider that any Federal impediments exist to the sale, installation, and use of such aftermarket devices, and further is not aware at this time of any State impediments to such sale, installation and use. However, we strongly recommend that these devices be designed to comply as closely as possible with those meeting Federal requirements. For example, a State may have a law prohibiting interior-mounted lamps that cause reflections on the rear window; Standard No. 108 requires original equipment center high-mounted stop lamps to be provided with means to minimize such reflections, and aftermarket lamps should also be so designed to minimize reflections in order to comply with the State requirement.

"3) Does NHTSA advocate the sale and installation in the aftermarket of CHMSL retrofit kits by original vehicle manufacturers for vehicles not covered by the requirements of FMVSS 108?"

NHTSA believes that retrofitting passenger cars with a center high-mounted stop lamp meeting original equipment specifications will prove to be as beneficial in reducing the incidence of low speed rear end collisions as in the population of passenger cars on which it has been installed as original equipment, and NHTSA encourages such retrofit. However, NHTSA's research study did not include other types of motor vehicles such as buses, trucks, and trailers though intuitively the concept would appear to have some merit.

(4) Does NHTSA know of or anticipate any States passing requirements for aftermarket CHMSL's that are more stringent than those required by FMVSS 108 for original equipment lights?"

No.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

December 10, 1985

Z. Taylor Vinson Office of Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Vinson,

Due to customer demand, Porsche AG is considering offering through Porsche Cars North America, Inc., a Center High Mounted Stop Light (CHMSL) aftermarket kit for sale and installation by its Dealer network.

This kit would be intended for installation on vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1985 and not originally equipped with a CHMSL. Porsche has several questions regarding the language in the supplementary information for the August 31, 1984 final rule on FMVSS 108, 49 FR 34488. It states:

"GM further commented that the proposal did not address the after market package which General Motors had intended to make available through our dealers, since it only speaks of passenger cars manufactured between September 1, 1989 and September 1, 1985".

Also,

"The agency was not aware that GM had intended to offer an aftermarket package until receiving its comment. Such an amendment would be outside the scope of the proposal, and accordingly, was not considered. Under paragraph S4.7.1, the standard covers the aftermarket only to the extent that GM (or any manufacturer) offers a lamp intended as replacement for an original equipment center high-mounted stop lamp. However, to encourage retrofit in the aftermarket, NHTSA will study GM's request and consider whatever legal action may be required to remove impediments to the lamp's use".

Specifically,

1) What is the result of NHTSA's study of GM's request?

2) What impediments are there to the sale, installation and use of an aftermarket CHMSL?

3) Does NHTSA advocate the sale and installation in the aftermarket of CHMSL retrofit kits by original vehicle manufacturers for vehicles not covered by the requirements of FMVSS 108?

4) Does NHTSA know of or anticipate any states passing requirements for aftermarket CHMSL's that are more stringent than those required by FMVSS 108 for original equipment lights:

Respectfully,

Michael Love Safety Compliance Manager

cc: Kurt Meier

ML/ma

ID: nht71-2.14

DATE: 03/12/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: The Bobby-Mac Company, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 4, 1971, in which you submitted for our review a draft of a label that you intend to use on your Bobby-Mac baby chair in accordance with paragraph S4.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213. We have restated the parts of your label whose compliance with the requirements of S4.1 is questionable, followed by our comments.

1. "In each position, reclining to upright, Bobby-Mac exceeds Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213 requirements for child seating systems."

We assume that you intend this statement to be your certification, pursuant to Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, that the Bobby-Mac seat complies with Standard No. 213. While certification is not required to be placed on the label by S4.1, placing it there is not inconsistent with either Section 114 of the Act or Standard No. 213. However, we do not consider the statement you have used to be an adequate certification statement. This is because when read literally, the statement deals only with the static force requirements of the standard, as the other requirements, such as those for labeling (S4.1), providing instructions (S4.2), adjustments (S4.3), and others, are neither concerned with the "position " of the child seat nor can they be "exceeded." You must certify compliance with all the requirements of the standard, and your statement should be changed accordingly. Should you wish to use it, the following statement, for child seats manufactured on or after April 1, 1971, would be satisfactory: "This child seating system conforms to all Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to it on the date of manufacture shown below."

2. "Bobby-Mac can only be used in ears with standard auto seat belt which must be used to secure Bobby-Mac safely on front or rear auto seat. In vehicles with seats more elevated from floor than usual passenger auto, thereby not permitting sufficient length in auto seat belt to loop around Bobby-Mac, or if for any reasons auto seat belt is short, auto dealer or auto belt manufacturer can supply belt lengthener."

You have apparently placed this statement on the label to comply with paragraph S4.1(e) of the standard which requires a statement describing in general terms the types of vehicles and designated seating positions in those vehicles in which the system is recommended or not recommended for use. It is your responsibility under the requirement to make cortain that the types of vehicles you recommend have seat belts that are long enough to use the Bobby-Mac as recommended. You have stated that the Bobby-Mac can be used with a standard auto seat belt, but you have also indicated that there are types of vehicles or belt conditions with which the Bobby-Mac should not be used without some modification. We believe that your exceptions should be stated more objectively, such as prescribing the minimum belt loop length above the seat cushion that is required, so that a consumer can more accurately determine whether you are recommending the Bobby-Mac for use in his vehicle.

With reference to your recommendation concerning seat belt lengtheners if these lengtheners are not available by April 1, 1971, your label would not comply with the requirement. If they are available, your label should describe them in sufficient detail, such as by part number, so that consumer will know precisely what they must obtain in order to properly install the Bobby-Mac child seat. Your seat would be required to meet the force requirement of the standard when tested in the vehicles in which you recommend it for use and using any of the seat belt modifiers that you recommend for use with it.

3. "When Bobby-Mac is used for older, taller youngster, it must be used auto seat whose seat back or head restraint extends at least 6" above top of Bobby-Mac seat bucket."

In this case, you indicate that a child of a certain height must be placed at only certain seating positions. In order to provide consumers with some objective criteria by which they can determine whether Bobby-Mac is appropriate for their vehicles, the minimum height of the child that needs the additional head restraint protection should be provided, rather than describing him as merely "older" or "taller." In addition, it would be preferable if you specified the total seat back height above the seat cushion that is necessary for the children you have in mind, rather than indicating this measurement as the distance from the top of the child seat bucket. The information would be more useful to consumers, as it would allow them to determine the appropriateness of the Bobby-Mac without first obtaining one.

4. Finally, based upon the photographs submitted with your letter, the Bobby-Mac seat does not appear to be a rearward-facing child seat. If this is the case, the statement, "For use only on forward-facing vehicle seats," as required by S4.1(g), must be included on the label.

Please write if you have further questions.

ID: aiam4018

Dear Mr. Friberg: This is to acknowledge receipt of your petition dated June 27, 1985 for a determination that a noncompliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110 is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.; Paragraph S4.3 of the standard requires that a specified placard sho the recommended tire size designation. Volvo has provided labels on approximately 3,200 passenger cars which show an incorrect recommended minimum tire size. Thus, these labels state '185/65R15' but the correct information is '185/70R15.' However, Volvo intends to mail correct placards 'to owners of all affected vehicles.'; By providing the corrective placard, Volvo will remedy th noncompliance. Because the noncompliance will no longer exist, the question of whether it has a consequential relationship to safety is moot. The remaining question is the adequacy of the notification which Volvo will provide owners of the affected vehicles. Because the corrective action is such that it may be easily accomplished by the owner (affixing the gummed placard to the car), the agency has concluded that any deviation of the text of the notice from the requirements of 49 CFR Part 577 would be a technical violation only. Therefore, NHTSA does not intend to seek re-notice or civil penalties for such a violation. Consequently, the agency intends no further action on your petition.; The agency's conclusions apply to the facts of this case only and d not necessarily represent the agency's posture in future cases involving forms of notification other than specified by Part 577, for noncompliances.; Our records indicate that Volvo is in technical noncompliance with 4 CFR Part 573, *Defect and Noncompliance Reports*, by failing to file a report within 5 days of its determination of the existence of the noncompliances. We will, however, treat the submission of information in your petition as a Part 573 report. Part 573 also requires 6 quarterly reports on the progress of recall campaigns. In your situation, the campaign will be accomplished in a single mailing. We ask that you furnish the agency with a report of the number of letters sent and the number of letters returned as undeliverable in lieu of the Part 573 quarterly reports.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4038

Dear Ms. House: Thank you for your letter of November 7, 1985, inquiring about th Federal safety standards that apply to two solar glare shading products you have developed. You described the first product as an 8 inch diameter acrylic disk which is of optical quality and tinted. The second product is a 4 inch by 4 inch sheet of opaque plastic. You explained that both products are designed to be attached to a vehicle's windows by suction cups. The following discussion explains how our safety standards apply to your products.; Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, we hav issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70% in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).; No manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install solar films and othe sun screen devices, such as the one described in your letter, in *new* vehicles without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard.; After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to a vehicl are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from tampering with safety equipment installed on a vehicle in compliance with our standards. Thus, no dealer, manufacturer, repair business or distributor can install a sun screen device for the owner of the vehicle, if the device would cause the window not to meet the requirements of Standard No. 205. Violation of the 'render inoperative' provision can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.; Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not affect vehicle owners, who may themselve alter their vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner may install sun screening devices regardless of whether the installation adversely affects the light transmittance. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from using sun screens in their vehicles.; If you need further information, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4393

Dear Mr. Long: This is in reply to your letter of August 20, 1987, to Taylor Vinson o this office. You have enclosed a decal intended to be affixed 'on the outside of the rear window of an automobile, directly in front of the high mounted stop light. You have asked about the relationship of the decal to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; Center highmounted stoplamps are required to be designed so that ligh output (candela) may be measured at 13 individual test points, at a distance of not less than 10 feet. With the decal applied to the rear window, it is possible that the requisite minimum or maximum candela specified by Standard No. 108 could not be met at all of the test points. Further, the effective luminous area of the lamp must be not less than 4 1/2 square inches. And while the decal would not be applied to the lens, nevertheless, the lens area when viewed from behind could be effectively reduced. Because a vehicle must meet Standard No. 108 at the time of its initial sale, the vehicle could be delivered to its purchaser with the decal attached only if the vehicle continued to meet the light output and effective luminous area requirements.; Even if a vehicle could not be delivered with the decal attached nothing in Standard No. 108 or the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits a vehicle owner from applying the decal to his own vehicle, or from taking any other action that might affect the compliance of his vehicle with any of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The Act does forbid other persons from such actions, so that after a vehicle is sold, the dealer (or a motor vehicle repair business) could still be prohibited from applying the decal. Regulation of a vehicle in use is a matter of the laws of the States where vehicles are registered and operated. Even though Federal law does not prohibit an owner from applying the decal, a State law might. For advice of State laws, you should write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 1201 Connecticut Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5490

"Dear Mr. Kreutziger: This responds to your letter of January 3, 1995 telefaxed to Walter Myers of my staff in which you asked whether the bottom edge of a flip-up school bus seat, when in the vertical position, could extend past the rearward edge of a side emergency exit door a maximum of 3/4 inch. The short answer to your question is no. You enclosed with your letter a copy of Figure 5B of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release, which shows the permitted positions of the seats forward and rearward of a school bus side emergency exit door. You drew in a depiction of the flip- up seat bottom showing the seat bottom extending into the access aisle a maximum of 3/4 inch. You stated that even with such intrusion, 11.75 inches of clear aisle space remains without obstruction of the door release mechanism. Paragraph S5.4.2.1(a)(2)(i) of FMVSS No. 217 provides that no seat or restraining barrier shall be installed within the area bounded by a vertical transverse plane tangent to the rearward edge of the door opening frame and a vertical transverse plane parallel to that plane at a distance of 30 centimeters forward of that plane. Paragraph S5.4.2.1(a)(2)(ii) then provides: A seat bottom may be located within the area described in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section if the seat bottom pivots and automatically assumes and retains a vertical position when not in use, so that no portion of the seat bottom is within the area described in paragraph (i) when the seat bottom is vertical. (See Figure 5B). (Emphasis added). This requirement for a specific minimum aisle space leading to side emergency exit doors on school buses was contained in the final rule issued by this agency on November 2, 1992 (57 FR 49413) to permit bus occupants unobstructed access to the emergency exit door. The language is very clear. No variation from that requirement is permitted. I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam2824

Dear Mr. VanderLinden: Administrator Claybrook has asked me to respond to your recent lette concerning the installation of safety belts in the cargo area of a van vehicle for the purpose of securing wheelchair patients. Apparently, your legal counsel has advised you that such installation might be prohibited by Federal law or might give rise to private litigation problems in the future.; In answer to your questions, there is nothing under Federal law or th Federal motor vehicle safety standards that would prevent the installation of safety belts in the cargo area of a van to secure wheelchairs. In fact, Administrator Claybrook and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration encourage you to make the installation requested by the senior citizens home. The safe transportation of disabled persons is currently a serious problem and every effort should be made to ameliorate the situation.; The only instance in which you would have any responsibilities unde Federal law would be an installation of additional safety belts prior to first purchase of the van by a consumer. In that case you would be a vehicle alteror (sic), and under our certification regulations you would be required to place an additional label on the vehicle specifying that, as altered, the vehicle is still in compliance with all applicable safety standards (49 CFR 567.7, copy enclosed). For example, you could not destroy the vehicle's compliance with our Fuel System Integrity standard by penetrating the gas tank with the safety belt anchorage bolts.; Concerning your liability in private litigation, the general provision of negligence law would be applicable, as with any maintenance, repair or alteration done by a motor vehicle repair business. I must defer to the advice of your own counsel on that matter, however.; Once again, the agency does encourage the installation of safety belt for the securement of wheelchairs, since the disabled are seriously endangered without some type of restraint to protect them in a crash. Further, I believe that your fears of liability should be minimal as long as the installation is accomplished with normal consideration and due care.; Please contact Hugh Oates of my office if you have any furthe questions (202-426- 2992).; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2501

Dear Mr. Whiston: This responds to the British Standards Institution's December 2, 1976 request to know what constitutes 'first purchase of a new motor vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale' as this phrase is used on (sic) S 108(b)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) (15 U.S.C. S 1397(b)(1) and S 567.7 of NHTSA regulations (*Part 567--Certification*). You also ask to know the legal basis for any distinction between 'original equipment' and 'replacement equipment' as those terms are used in regulation of motor vehicles and equipment in the United States.; I can confirm your understanding of S 567.7 of our regulations, as se forth in the statements which you designate as '(a)' and '(b)'. With regard to statement '(b)', S 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act prohibits, except in the process of repair, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative in whole or part, any device or element of design installed in a motor vehicle incompliance (sic) with an applicable standard. Thus a dealer could not make the sunroof alteration if he knew that installation rendered inoperative the minimum roof crush capabilities specified by Standard No. 216, *Roof Crush Resistance*.; Your statement designated '(c)' is not necessarily correct. The NHTSA' interpretation of the meaning of 'first purchase' relies substantially on the modifier 'in good faith.' Thus the agency evaluates the circumstances of the purchase with a view to whether or not there is an attempt to circumvent the requirements of law and applicable regulation. For example, when purchasers asked for disconnection of ignition interlock systems by dealers after contracting for the purchase of a vehicle, the agency required that bona fide physical delivery take place without an immediate return of the vehicle to the dealer for disconnection. As a practical matter, the new provision of the Act discussed above (S 108(a)(1)(A)) prohibits dealer action of this type in the future.; Since the 1974 amendments to the Act, there has been a distinctio between 'original equipment' and 'replacement equipment'. I have enclosed a copy of our proposal to implement this distinction for purposes of Federal regulation. I believe your question actually addresses the practices of the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators. You may wish to contact one or more of those organizations for an answer to your questions.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2429

Dear Mr. Decker: This is in belated response to your letters of June 22, 1976 concerning the availability of NHTSA interpretation letters and the assignment by vehicle manufacturers of Gross Axle Weight Ratings.; Letters written by this agency that interpret the Federal Motor Vehicl Safety Standards or accompanying regulations are regularly compiled by standard or regulation number and placed in a public file (the 'redbooks') in the Docket Section at Room 5108, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. Copies of these letters are distributed informally by various trade associations, as you have noted. However, there is currently no subscription service available directly from the NHTSA. I recommend that you periodically (bimonthly, perhaps) telephone the Docket Section (202 426-2768) to find out whether entries have recently been made in the Redbooks under the standards and regulations that are of particular concern to you.; You have also asked several questions concerning the relationshi between an axle's Gross Axle Weight Rating (GAWR) and the overloading of that axle when the vehicle is in use. GAWR is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 as; >>>the value specified by the vehicle manufacturer as the load carrying capacity of a single axle system, as measured at the tire-ground interfaces.<<<; It is thus a rating assigned by the manufacturer at the time o manufacture. A vehicle whose axle weight ratings are likely to be exceeded under the manufacturer's intended or reasonably forseeable conditions of usage would probably be considered to contain a safety-related defect. Such a vehicle would be subject to the notification and remedy provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1392 *et seq*.).; We cannot prescribe specific steps that a vehicle manufacturer mus take to ensure that a GAWR would not be found so low that it would be a safety-related defect. For example, if a warning in the owner's manual against loading in a certain manner is likely to be ignored, then such a warning would not, by itself, be sufficient. The NHTSA expects the vehicle manufacturer to take reasonable steps, short of refraining from production, to minimize the likelihood of vehicle misuse through overloading.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel