ID: nht76-3.10

DATE: 08/19/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: William K. Rosenberry Esq.; Attorney at Law

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 14, 1976, to George Shifflett of the Office of Standards Enforcement, on behalf of a client who intends to install a different type of seat, carpeting, and headliner in a pick-up truck, which would then be sold to the general public. You asked whether a fabric supplier must test each fabric lot for flammability before certification to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302 can be given, and whether your client "may rely on the warranty of a fabric manufacturer that the fabric sold meets the requirements" of Standard No. 302.

You are correct in your understanding that the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq) apply to your client. His basic responsibility is to ensure that the vehicles he modifies are in compliance with the Federal standards when delivered to dealers for sale to the public. (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) A temporary noncompliance during modifications is permissible if the vehicle is not used on the public roads while noncompliant (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). Standards which would appear to be affected by your client's modifications include: Standard No. 207 Seating Systems, No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection, No. 210 Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages and No. 302 Flammability of Interior Materials.

As a person who alters a certified vehicle other than by the addition of readily detachable components, your client is also required to attach his own certification of compliance to each modified truck (49 CFR 567.7). Should a noncompliance be discovered as a result of an alterer's modification, the alterer would be liable for a civil penalty unless he could establish that he did not have actual knowledge of the non-compliance, and that he did not have reason to know in the exercise of due care that the vehicle did not comply (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(2)).

With respect to Standard No. 302, there is no requirement that a fabric supplier "test each fabric lot for flammability before certification." In point of fact, 49 CFR 571.302 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302 does not apply to suppliers but only to vehicle manufacturers (or alterers) and it is they who are required to certify compliance with Standard No. 302. Generally, at a minimum, a vehicle manufacturer will require by contract with the supplier that the fabric meets Standard No. 302. In the exercise of "due care" the manufacturer may wish to examine the basis for the supplier's assurance of compliance, and to require periodic testing of the fabric being supplied him. Since there is no requirement that each fabric lot be tested, such testing as is conducted should be sufficient to demonstrate in the event of a noncompliance that the vehicle manufacturer has exercised due care. As to whether your client may rely on the "warranty" of his supplier, it has been our experience that simple reliance is insufficient to establish a "due care" defense. That manufacturer should examine the supplier's test results to insure that the margin of compliance of the test fabric is great enough that production variables do not result in noncompliance. Some manufacturers even conduct their own tests independent of the supplier.

Your client would also be responsible for conducting a notification and remedy campaign (15 U.S.C. 1411 et seq) if a noncompliance or safety-related defect occurs in the truck as a result of the alternations.

I enclose copies of the Act, 49 CFR Part 567, and Standards Nos. 207, 208, 210, and 302 for your information.

ID: nht76-3.14

DATE: 04/14/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: National Automobile Theft Bureau

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 8, 1976, concerning "track sheets" and "autotels."

Section S4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, lists those components of a motor vehicle that must comply with burn resistance requirements. I have enclosed a copy for your information. An "autotel" under the back seat, between the frame and the body, or pasted to the top of the gas tank does not fall within the ambit of the standard. Consequently, it is our view that this most important and effective deterrent to vehicle theft is not discouraged by any existing motor vehicle safety standard.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has proposed that Standard No. 302 be amended to include all materials exposed to the occupant compartment air space. If this amendment is adopted, an "autotel" under the seat presumably would fall within the purview of the standard. In this case, the "autotel" could not burn at a rate of more than 4 inches per minute. We believe that this would not prove an impediment to the continuation of the "autotel" program as flame-retardant paper is readily available.

If I can be of further assistance in this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

SINCERELY,

NATIONAL AUTOMOBILE THEFT BUREAU

January 8, 1976

Dr. James Gregory, Administrator NYTSA Department of Transportation

We are writing this on behalf of our own investigative efforts as well as for law enforcement generally.

Each auto manufacturer in the United States when assembling a car uses what is called a track sheet or autotel. This piece of paper, and in some cases two pieces of paper, contains detailed information on the identification of various parts of the car being assembled and contains the numbers and information necessary to positively identify that vehicle.

Over the years, auto theft investigators, including our own investigators and those in law enforcement, have been able to identify hundreds of stolen cars by use of this material even though the numbers stamped into the frames and affixed to the dashboard have been changed or obliterated by thieves.

This paper is usually secreted in some portion of the vehicle, sometimes put under the back seat, sometimes between the frame and the body, and in one particular make of car is Scotch taped onto the top of the gas tank.

We have been informed that there is a possibility that this practice might be regarded as adding to the flammability of the interior of a car and, to our knowledge, at least one manufacturer has discontinued this invaluable aid to automobile identification because of the possibility that these tracks might be prohibited by regulation.

I would request that you consider the extreme value of the inclusion of auto tel in the vehicles and, also, consider the very minimum possibility of these contributing to any fire hazard in the car.

We would like a clarification of your Agency's position in this matter in order that we may request the manufacturers to continue these tracks.

We would appreciate any consideration you can give our request.

Michael J. Murphy President

cc: HON. WILLIAM T. COLEMAN -- SECY. OF TRANSPORTATION; HON. EDWARD LEVY -- ATTY. GENERAL; JOHN CARSON -- BRANCH CHIEF, CONTROLS & DISPLAYS, NHTSA

ID: nht90-4.57

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: November 9, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: W.C. Glasscock -- Sun-Cool & Co.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-4-90 from W.C. Glasscock (OCC 5237)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter concerning the installation of aftermarket tinting on motor vehicle windows. According to your letter, you have been involved in the window tinting business for many years but only recently became aware of the fact that Fede ral law prohibits businesses from adding tinting film to motor vehicle windows if it reduces the level of light transmittance below that required by the Federal standard. You expressed concern that there appears to be a conflict between Federal and stat e law in this area and that there has been a lack of enforcement of the Federal requirement.

We are pleased that you have become aware of the Federal requirement in this area and that you are apparently now complying with it. As you may have heard, we have brought suit against six tint businesses in Florida. Those cases are pending in Federal c ourt. We also plan to take appropriate steps to enforce the Federal requirement in other parts of the nation.

I will now discuss the relationship between Federal and state law in this area. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") is responsible for issuing Federal motor vehicle safety standards that establish requirements for specific level s of safety performance for new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR S571.205), which has been in effect since 1968, imposes a minimum level of light transmittance of 70 per cent in all areas requisite for driving visibility (which includes all windows on passenger cars). The purpose of this requirement is to ensure adequate visibility through the windows, thereby reducing the risk of a motor vehicle crash.

Although Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply directly only to new vehicles and equipment, Federal law also imposes limits on the addition of tinting materials to motor vehicle glazing after vehicles have been purchased by consumers. Pursuant to section 108(a)(2) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2), manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses may not "render inoperative" any equipment or element of design installed in complianc e with a Federal safety standard. Thus, those businesses may not install tinting that reduces the light transmittance of windows covered by Standard 205 to a level below the Federal requirement of 70 percent, since that would make the windows "inoperati ve, within the meaning of Standard 205.

You stated that state laws differ from the Federal law, citing as an example an Illinois law which, according to your letter, allows tinting on the rear and sides of vehicles as long as the vehicle's owner has a letter

from a physician licensed to practice in the state of Illinois that explains the medical basis for the need.

The "render inoperative" provision of Federal law does not apply to actions by individual vehicle owners. Therefore, each State may regulate the extent to which after market tinting may be applied by vehicle owners to their own vehicles.

However, no state has the authority to grant any exemptions from the "render inoperative" prohibition of Federal law that applies to commercial entities. Hence, regardless of any provisions of state law, no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor ve hicle repair business may legally install window tinting film on a vehicle, unless the vehicle continues to comply with the Federal light transmittance requirements.

I hope this information is helpful.

ID: 86-1.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/12/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ray August -- Auto Trends

TEXT:

Mr. Ray August Auto Trends 9818 Grinnell Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48213

This is in reply to your letter of December 12, 1985, to Mr. Vinson of this office asking "what is the law pertaining to the new brake light at or by the rear window of the vehicle, and what effect, if any, would it have on After Market trunk racks."

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 requires each passenger car manufactured on or after September 1, 1985, to be equipped with a supplementary stop lamp mounted on the centerline of the vehicle not lower than three inches below the rear window (six inches if it is a convertible). The standard specifies that the lamp shall have a signal visible to the rear through a horizontal angle from 45 degrees to the left to 45 degrees to the right of the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle, and that it shall meet minimum candela values at certain specified test points. Under Federal law, the lamp must meet these requirements at the time the new car is sold. Thus, if the vehicle manufacturer or new car dealer equips a passenger car with a trunk rack, care must be taken to insure that the requirements are still met (obviously this depends both upon the location of the lamp and the configuration of the rack). If the rack prohibits the lamp from meeting its photometric output at any test point, the standard does allow a supplementary center-mounted stop lamp to be added, provided that it complies with all requirements of the standard.

After the sale of the vehicle, the owner may modify his car without reference to Federal law but a dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business cannot make modifications that "render inoperative in whole or in part" any equipment relating to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. We would view dealer installation of a trunk rack on a used car with an original equipment center stop lamp as subject to this prohibition if the rack affects compliance with photometric and visibility requirements.

The question is frequently asked us whether a deck-mounted rack loaded with luggage would cause a violation. The answer is no: compliance is determined without the load in place, even if the lamp would be blocked when the rack is in use.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones

Chief Counsel

Dec. 12, 1985

Taylor Vinson Legal Consul NHTSA Room 5219 U.S. Dept. of Transportation 400 7th St. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Subject: New Brake Light - Rear Window

Dear Mr. Vinson:

In my discussion with Mr. Kagy of the U.S. Dept. of Transportation, he recommended I write to you for a legal opinion in this matter.

Auto Trends is a manufacturer of luggage racks, both roof racks and trunk racks. What is the law pertaining to the new brake light at or by the rear window of the vehicle, and what effect, if any, would it have on After Market trunk racks?

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Sincerely yours,

Ray August, Plant Manager RA:ks cc:ra

ID: 86-3.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/27/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. H. Moriyoshi

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

May 27, 1876 Mr. H. Moriyoshi Executive Vice President and General Manager Mazda (North America), Inc. 24402 Sinacola Court Farmington Hills, MI 48108 Dear Mr. Moriyoshi: This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of the requirements of Part 541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard. You asked two separate questions, which are discussed in detail below. Your incoming letter has been granted confidential treatment i accordance with 49 CFR Part 512, so it will not be forwarded to the docket along with this response. First, you asked whether your marking system would be subject to the performance requirements for labels, set forth in 541.5(d)(1), or the performance requirements for other means of identification, set forth in 541.5(d)(2). You indicated in your letter that this marking system would affix the required marking to engines and transmissions. Section 541.5 expressly states that the required markings "must be affixed by means that comply with paragraph (d)(1 0 of this section or inscribed by means that comply with paragraph (d)(2) of this section" (Emphasis added). this requirement means that all markings that are affixed to a part, whether by means of adhesive, screws, rivets, or welding, must satisfy the performance requirements for labels set forth in 541.5(d)(1). Second, you asked whether your marking system would appear to satisfy the theft prevention standard's performance requirements for labels. You stated in your letter that you know it is your company's responsibility to certify compliance with the standard, but that this agency's "opinions and comments" on whether the marking system appears to comply with the theft" prevention standard would be highly appreciated. As you noted in your letter, section 606(c) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 2026(c))requires each manufacturer to certify that its vehicles comply with the theft prevention standard. Therefore, this agency does not approve, endorse, or certify that any manufacturer's markings system complied with theft prevention standard. We will, however, state whether a particular marking system appears to comply if we are provided with sufficient information on which to base that opinion. In this case, your letter simply does not provide sufficient information for us to offer an opinion. You sought NHTSA's opinion as to whether your marking system appears to comply with the "footprint" requirement specified for labels in 541.5(d)(v)(B). that section requires that removal of the label must "discernibly alter the appearance of that area of the part where the label was affixed by leaving residual parts of the label or adhesive in that area, so that investigators will have evidence that a label was originally present." For us to offer an opinion in this area, we must have some way to determine what remains on a part after the affixed label is removed. Ideally, we would have several labels affixed to a metal section by the means described in your letter. We could then remove the labels and examine the metal section for a "footprint". At a minimum, we need some means of determining what the "footprint" would be if these labels were removed, and whether such "footprint" would give investigators evidence that a label was originally present. Please feel free to contact me if you need some further explanation of our theft prevention standard or if you wish to provide additional information so that we can offer an opinion as to whether your labels appear to comply with the requirements set forth in 541.5(d)(v)(B). Sincerely, Original Signed by Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: 2743y

Mr. W. C. Glasscock
Sun-Cool & Co.
2201 North Fifth Street
Springfield, Illinois 62702

Dear Mr. Glasscock:

This responds to your letter concerning the installation of aftermarket tinting on motor vehicle windows. According to your letter, you have been involved in the window tinting business for many years but only recently became aware of the fact that Federal law prohibits businesses from adding tinting film to motor vehicle windows if it reduces the level of light transmittance below that required by the Federal standard. You expressed concern that there appears to be a conflict between Federal and state law in this area and that there has been a lack of enforcement of the Federal requirement.

We are pleased that you have become aware of the Federal requirement in this area and that you are apparently now complying with it. As you may have heard, we have brought suit against six tint businesses in Florida. Those cases are pending in Federal court. We also plan to take appropriate steps to enforce the Federal requirement in other parts of the nation.

I will now discuss the relationship between Federal and state law in this area. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") is responsible for issuing Federal motor vehicle safety standards that establish requirements for specific levels of safety performance for new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205), which has been in effect since 1968, imposes a minimum level of light transmittance of 70 percent in all areas requisite for driving visibility (which includes all windows on passenger cars). The purpose of this requirement is to ensure adequate visibility through the windows, thereby reducing the risk of a motor vehicle crash.

Although Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply directly only to new vehicles and equipment, Federal law also imposes limits on the addition of tinting materials to motor vehicle glazing after vehicles have been purchased by consumers. Pursuant to section 108(a)(2) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2), manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses may not "render inoperative" any equipment or element of design installed in compliance with a Federal safety standard. Thus, those businesses may not install tinting that reduces the light transmittance of windows covered by Standard 205 to a level below the Federal requirement of 70 percent, since that would make the windows "inoperative" within the meaning of Standard 205.

You stated that state laws differ from the Federal law, citing as an example an Illinois law which, according to your letter, allows tinting on the rear and sides of vehicles as long as the vehicle's owner has a letter from a physician licensed to practice in the state of Illinois that explains the medical basis for the need.

The "render inoperative" provision of Federal law does not apply to actions by individual vehicle owners. Therefore, each State may regulate the extent to which after market tinting may be applied by vehicle owners to their own vehicles.

However, no state has the authority to grant any exemptions from the "render inoperative" prohibition of Federal law that applies to commercial entities. Hence, regardless of any provisions of state law, no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may legally install window tinting film on a vehicle, unless the vehicle continues to comply with the Federal light transmittance requirements.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:205 d:ll/9/90

ID: 8317

Mr. Milford R. Bennett
Acting Director
Automotive Safety Engineering
GM Environmental and Energy Staff
Box 9055
Warren, MI 48090-9055

Dear Mr. Bennett:

We have received the petition by General Motors (GM) for temporary exemption of a fleet of approximately 50 GM electric vehicles (GMEVs) from several Federal motor vehicle safety standards. GM would retain title to and ownership of the GMEVs which would be provided to private individuals and used for demonstration purposes over a 2-year period. The exemptions would be effective October 1, 1993. For the reasons set forth below, we are unable to consider the petition in its present form, and recommend that you either supplement it or withdraw and resubmit it when it has been revised in accordance with our procedures.

First, we have comments on several of the Safety Standards from which GM has requested exemption. With respect to Standard No. 105, GM appears to have requested exemption from the standard in its entirety, commenting that until "resolution of remaining EV regulatory issues associated with FMVSS 105 . . . GM is unable to certify the GMEV . . . as being fully compliant . . . ." We suggest that GM restrict its request for exemption to the specific sections of Standard No. 105 that may be affected by the pending resolution of issues involving brakes for electric vehicles and that this will facilitate GM's argument that an exemption would not unduly degrade the safety of the GMEV.

We also prefer the use of objective data to subjective terms where practicable. GM has requested exemption from some of the photometric requirements of Standard No. 108 because the possibility exists that candlepower values may be "slightly below" the minimum requirements "at a few test points". Is it possible to identify the test points and to quantify the potentially lower candela at those points?

Similarly, GM has argued that "preliminary testing has indicated that" the GMEV will "substantially comply" with Standards Nos. 208, 212 and 219. Under section 555.6(c)(2), a petitioner shall provide ". . . testing documentation establishing that a temporary exemption will not unreasonably degrade the safety of the vehicle . . . ." Therefore we ask GM to submit the preliminary test reports in substantiation of its petition.

Finally, GM has also failed to set forth the arguments required by 49 CFR 555.5(b)(7) as to why an exemption would be in the public interest and consistent with the objectives of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

We note in passing the unusual use in the petition of the argument that "the GMEV will provide an overall level of safety that is substantially equivalent to the level of safety of nonexempted vehicles." The argument of overall safety equivalence is the basis for exemption provided by Section 555.6(d), not Section 555.6(c) where a petitioner must demonstrate that an exemption would not unreasonably degrade the safety of the vehicle. However, we interpret GM's argument to mean that it views its failures to meet Standards Nos. 201, 208, 212, and 219, as technical in nature with essentially no degradation in safety, let alone a degradation that approaches unreasonableness. For this reason, we believe all the more strongly that GM should provide the preliminary test report results mentioned above.

When we have received GM's new petition, we shall prepare a Federal Register notice requesting public comment. If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:555 d:3/15/93

ID: 2840yy

Mr. Samuel Yk Lau
Kenwo Industries Ltd.
Unit 20, 10/F, Block A,
Hi-Tech Ind. Center,
5 Pak Tin Par Street, Tsuen Wan
Hong Kong

Dear Mr. Lau:

This is in reply to your letter of January 24, 1991, asking the agency for an opinion with respect to an "additional brake lamp" that you manufacture and intend to export to the United States. You ask "if there are any regulations, standards, or approval for this kind of product", and, further, "does this product need to have any certificate or approval before it can be sold or installed?"

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, has required the additional stop lamp on all passenger cars manufactured on and after September 1, l985. The Standard specifies performance and minimum lens area requirements for the lamp, and these requirements must be met by any lamp that is used as original equipment on passenger cars, and by any lamp that is intended to replace a lamp orignally installed on a car manufactured on and after September 1, l985. If the lamp is intended as replacement equipment, its manufacturer must provide certification to the distributor or dealer of the lamp that the lamp meets Standard No. l08. For lighting equipment this certification may be in the form of a DOT symbol on the product, or a written statement on the packaging that the lamp meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, or such other written certification as the lamp manufacturer may choose (e.g., an invoice). In addition, the lamp manufacturer must file an Identification Statement with the agency, and a foreign manufacturer must designate an agent in the United States upon which the agency may serve legal process should that be required. However, there is no requirement that a manufacturer obtain approval from the agency before exporting its certified product to the United States and selling it here.

However, Standard No. l08 does not apply to an additional stop lamp that is intended for use in a passenger car manufactured before September 1, l985, and there is no requirement that it be certified as meeting Standard No. l08. Under this circumstance, we advise that the packaging for any such lamp should clearly state that it is not intended to replace an original equipment center lamp so that legal questions regarding its conformity with Federal requirements do not arise. Even though the lamp is not subject to Standard No. l08, its foreign manufacturer must designate an agent in the United States, as mentioned in the previous paragraph.

An additional stop lamp for passenger cars manufactured before September 1, l985, is also subject to the laws of the individual States in which the lamp is sold and used. We are unable to advise you on these laws, and suggest that you write for an opinion to the American Association of MOtor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203, USA.

We enclose a copy of Standard No. l08 and of the SAE standard on supplementary stop lamps that is incorporated by reference. We are also enclosing copies of the Manufacturer Identification and Designation of Agent regulations, and of other materials that our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance provides in response to inquiries of this nature. Questions on these materials should be addressed to that Office.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:556#551#l08 d:2/22/9l

ID: 5927Carraway

Mr. Bruce H. Carraway, Jr.
Carraway Safety Belt Company
14 Kings Bridge
Atlanta, GA 30329

Dear Mr. Carraway:

This responds to your letter in which you follow-up on our earlier correspondence regarding belt minder systems. In your recent letter, you requested that the agency require vehicles to be equipped with a belt minder system which relies on a voice synthesizer to provide an audible alarm. As explained below, the agency does not have authority to require a system as you have described.

In your letter, you requested that the agency require vehicles to be equipped with a belt-minder system developed by your company. You explained that the system would transmit a message through a vehicle’s audio system when a vehicle’s ignition is turned to the “on” position. Additionally, you stated that your system would use a voice synthesizer to state, “Thank you for fastening your seat belt.” You further explained that the duration of the message would be 4 or 5 seconds, and would repeat after a period of approximately 100 seconds. From your letter, it appears that the audible warning would sound regardless of whether the safety belt at the driver’s seat is buckled.

I want first to thank you for your continued interest in motor vehicle safety. As explained in our previous letter to you, Congress has provided the agency with specific direction with respect to certain types of vehicle-based safety belt incentives. 49 U.S.C. § 30124 states that:

A motor vehicle safety standard … may not require or allow a manufacturer to comply with the standard by using a safety belt interlock designed to prevent starting or operating a motor vehicle if an occupant is not using a safety belt or a buzzer designed to indicate a safety belt is not in use, except a buzzer that operates only during the 8-second period after the ignition is turned to the “start” or “on” position. (Emphasis added.)

Under this provision, the agency is prohibited from establishing a standard based on the system you described. Specifically, the agency is prohibited from requiring a belt minder system that sounds after the initial 8-second period. As your system has a second audible alarm 100 seconds after a vehicle’s ignition is turned to the “on” position, a standard mandating your system would not comply with the congressional directive.

While the agency is unable to mandate your system, we continue to encourage vehicle manufacturers to consider voluntarily introducing belt-minder systems and other innovative technologies that could increase seat belt use in ways acceptable to their customers. As explained in our previous letter to you, manufacturers may provide a voluntary audible signal that sounds after the 8-second period specified in S7.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant crash protection, so long as they provide some means for differentiating the voluntarily provided signal from the required signal. Further, i n a previous interpretation letter to MMC Services, we stated that an audible “voice” signal would be permitted under the standard (January 13, 1981; copy enclosed).

However, we have concerns with a system such as you described, in which the audible signal operates regardless of whether an individual is buckled-up. Under your system, an occupant that has not fastened his/her safety belt would still be “thanked” for buckling-up. This may minimize the incentive to buckle-up that a belt-minder system is intended to provide. Further, it could both confuse and aggravate drivers and passengers because an occupant would receive the same signal no matter what action is taken.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures

fef:208

d.11/12/04

ID: 6952

Mr. Arthur J. Kuminski
Design Engineer
Eberhard Manufacturing Co.
21944 Drake Road
Cleveland, Ohio 44136-6697

Dear Mr. Kuminski:

This responds to your letter of February 3, 1992 concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components. You asked about the standard's test requirements for sliding doors on cargo vans (sections S4.3 and S5.3). Your three questions and the response to each follow.

1. I will need specifications on how to perform this test on a test fixture using the striker assembly and the door latch only.

Standard No. 206 "specifies requirements for side door locks and side door retention components including latches, hinges, and other supporting means, to minimize the likelihood of occupants being thrown from the vehicle as a result of impact." The standard's requirements for sliding doors are set forth in sections S4.3 and S5.3.

Section S4.3 specifies that the track and slide combination or other supporting means for each sliding door shall not separate when a total transverse load of 4,000 pounds is applied, with the door in the closed position. Section S5.3 states, "(c)ompliance with S4.3 shall be demonstrated by applying an outward transverse load of 2,000 pounds to the load bearing members at the opposite edges of the door (4,000 pounds total). The demonstration may be performed either in the vehicle or with the door retention components in a bench test fixture."

Under section S5.3, the same basic procedure is conducted whether the test is conducted in a vehicle or with the door retention components in a bench test fixture, i.e., an outward transverse load of 2,000 pounds is applied to the load bearing members at the opposite edges of the door (4,000 pounds total). The details of the procedure using a bench test fixture will necessarily vary for different designs of sliding doors, since the door retention components themselves vary. The test should be conducted in such a manner that the same loads are applied to the door retention components as would occur in a vehicle test.

You specifically asked about how to perform the test on a test fixture using the striker assembly and door latch only. I note that since the requirement in section S4.3 applies to the "track and slide combination or other supporting means" for a sliding door, the striker assembly and door latch of a sliding door are tested only if they are part of the supporting means for the door. I also note that the entire supporting means for a sliding door is tested under section S5.3 and not merely one part.

I have enclosed for your information a copy of a May 13, 1975 interpretation letter to Toyota (including the incoming letter) which discusses various demonstration test fixtures which might be used to test sliding doors under Standard No. 206.

2. What load must the system withstand in the primary locked position to pass the test?

3. Is there a load requirement that the system must withstand in the secondary locked position to pass the test?

Section S4.1.1 of Standard No. 206 requires hinged doors, other than cargo-type doors to have both a fully latched position and a secondary latched position. There is not a similar requirement for sliding doors. Section S4.3 requires only one test, with a total load of 4,000 pounds, for sliding doors. This test would be performed with the door latched.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:206 d:3/30/92