ID: aiam4290

Dear Ms. Black: This responds to your December 11, 1986 to me concerning Federal Moto Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, *Door Locks and Door Retention Components*. I apologize for the delay in responding. You ask whether we interpret Standard No. 206 to permit installation of a particular type of door locking system which you referred to as a 'child safety lock.' The answer to your question is yes.; You explain that a 'child safety lock' is a special locking syste installed in addition to the locking system mandated by Standard No. 206. You state that the required locking system (hereinafter referred to as 'the primary locking system') is operated by a vertical plunger located in the door top trim roll (window sill). The child safety lock (which I will refer to as a 'secondary locking system') consists of a lever that is located in the shut face of the rear door which can only be reached when the door is open. When the lever is set in the 'active' position, it renders the inside rear door handle incapable of opening the door. The outside door handle is operative and can be used to open the door.; The requirements of Standard No. 206 for door locks are as follows: >>>S4.1.3 Door locks. Each door shall be equipped with a lockin mechanism with an operating means in the interior of the vehicle.<<<; >>>S4.1.3.1 Side front door locks. When the locking mechanism i engaged, the outside door handle or other outside latch release control shall be inoperative.<<<; >>>S4.1.3.2 Side rear door locks. In passenger cars and multipurpos passenger vehicles, when the locking mechanism is engaged both the outside and inside door handles or other latch release controls shall be inoperative.<<<; As you know, the standard was amended on April 27, 1968, to include th door lock requirements described above. An objective of the amendment was to ensure retention of occupants within the vehicle during and subsequent to an impact by reducing inadvertent door openings due to impact upon movement of inside or outside door handles. Other objectives were to protect against children opening rear door handles, and to afford occupants of the rear of a vehicle a method of unlocking the rear door from inside the vehicle (i.e., a reasonable means of escape) in the postcrash phase of an accident.; Your inquiry raises the issue of the permissibility under S4.1. through S4.1.3.2 for negating the capability of the interior latch release controls (door handles) to operate the door latches when the door locking mechanism is disengaged. As explained below, based on our review of the purpose of Standard No. 206 and past agency interpretations of the standard, we conclude that the standard prohibits only secondary locking systems which interfere with the *engagement* of the primary locking system. Since your child locking systems do not interfere with the manner in which the primary locking system engages, their installation on the vehicles you manufacturer is permitted.; The answer to your question about the child locking systems i dependent on whether the systems interfere with an aspect of performance required by Standard No. 206. We have determined that the answer is no, because the requirements of S4.1.3.1 and S4.1.3.2 are written in terms of what must occur when the primary system is engaged and impose no requirements regarding the effects of disengaging the system. Thus, the aspect of performance required by S4.1.3 for the interior operating means for the door locks is that it be capable only of *Engaging* the required door locking mechanisms. The aspect of performance required by S4.1.3.2 for door locks on the rear doors is that the inside and outside door handles be inoperative when the locking mechanism is *engaged*. Since we have determined that S4.1.3.1 and S4.1.3.2 do not address the effects of disengaging the required door locks--i.e., S4.1.3.2 does not require that the inside rear door handles be operative (capable of releasing the door latch) when the required locking system is disengaged--a child locking system may be provided on a vehicle if it does not negate the capability of the door lock plunger (the operating means) to engage the door locks.; While the agency stated in its April 1968 notice amending Standard No 206 that one purpose of requiring an interior means of operating door locks was to allow a reasonable means of escape for vehicle occupants, the agency did not go further in facilitating escape by also including a provision to require in all circumstances that door handles be operative when the primary locking system are disengaged. Since the agency could easily have included such a provision to address this reverse situation, but did not do so, the implication is that the agency did not intend to impose requirements regarding that situation. In fact, the notice included a contemporaneous interpretation that the standard permits a secondary locking device which rendered the inside rear door handle inoperative even when the primary locking mechanism was disengaged. This affirms that NHTSA did not even intend to impose a requirement that the handles always be operative when the primary locking mechanism is disengaged.; In determining that the performance requirements of Standard No. 20 address only the effects of engaging the required door locks, we noted that the purpose of the standard is to 'minimize the likelihood of occupants being thrown from the vehicle as a result of impact.' Throughout the rulemaking history of the standard, NHTSA has limited application of the standard's performance requirements only to doors that are provided for the purpose of retaining the driver and passengers in collisions. Because the standard is narrowly focused on occupant retention in a vehicle and specifies no performance requirements of occupant egress, we concluded that there is no requirement in the standard that prohibits a device which negates the capability of the inside operating means for the door locks to disengage the locks, provided that the device does not interferer with the engagement of the required door locking system.; Another issue related to your inquiry is whether the location of th operating means for the child locks is regulated by Standard No. 206. We have determined that the answer is no. Secondary locking mechanisms discussed in the final rule adopting the door lock requirements and in past agency letters all were designed so that the operating means for the secondary mechanism was inaccessible when the door was closed. In none of those documents did the agency take exception to that location of the operating means, much less suggest that those means, like the means for the primary locking mechanism, must be located in the vehicle's interior.; This letter interprets Standard No. 206 in a manner that clarifies pas agency statements concerning issues raised by secondary locking systems such as 'child safety locks.' To the extent that the statements contained herein conflict with interpretations made by NHTSA in the past, the previous interpretations are overruled.; Please contact my office if you have further questions. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: 77-1.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/28/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Fleming Metal Fabricators

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your December 3, 1976, letter concerning the relationship between Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity, and the fuel tanks that you manufacture for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less.

Standard No. 301-75 applies to whole vehicles rather than to fuel tanks. Therefore, the responsibility under Federal law for compliance with the standard lies with the vehicle manufacturer. He must exercise due care in certifying that the vehicle will, if tested by the NHTSA as specified in S6 and S7 of the standard, meet the fuel spillage requirements set out in S5. What constitutes "due 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 evidenced by the manufacturer.

The vehicle manufacturer who installs a fuel tank manufactured by you may, in order to meet his duty to exercise due care, rely on assurances from you concerning the tank's performance characteristics, to the extent that such reliance is reasonable. Your assurances, in turn, need not necessarily be based on actual crash testing of vehicles equipped with your fuel tanks under the exact conditions prescribed in the standard.

You should both note, of course, that the ability of a vehicle to conform to the standard depends not only on the performance capabilities of the fuel tank itself, but also on other factors including the manner and location in which it is mounted. The fact that your fuel tanks conform with Federal Highway Administration requirements (49 CFR @@ 393.65 and 393.67), therefore, does not by itself imply that vehicles equipped with such tanks are capable of passing the crash test requirements of Standard No. 301-75.

Similarly, the fact that your company's manufacturing procedures and its mounting and installation instructions conform to established industry practices is not sufficient evidence of due care, unless it is reasonable to conclude from it that the vehicles will conform.

SINCERELY,

FLEMING METAL FABRICATORS

3 December, 1976

Frank Berndt Office of Chief Council Dept. of Transportation SUBJECT: 571, 301-75 Fuel System Integrity with certification per Part 567 -- by auxilliary gasoline tank installers (Truck Body Builders, New Truck Dealer, Truck Repair Facility, Etc.). To discover bases for responsible certifying to Safety Standard 301 without performing actual tests or without reference to factory vehicle tests.

Pursuant to our telecon of 2 December, 1976, we present the following information hoping that some answer can be found to this very perplexing problem.

We are strictly manufacturers, and if you will make reference to FMF 76 Minilog our total product line will be clearly presented.

Many of FMF customers are bogged down by the Safety Standard 301 (they currently will not install tanks on vehicles 10,000# or less); and, their attitude is that FMF is responsible for providing a certification basis to them (which of course is not true). Many large manufacturers in the east are providing their dealers (installers) with installation diagrams and stating that a product once installed per their instructions may be certified by the installer. It is highly doubtful that these manufacturers actually performed barrier impact tests, but, rather are relying on the Truck Manufacturers Test Information (Ford, Chev., Etc.), and this information is not available to FMF or to our customers.

It appears to us that by furnishing our customer with a fully representative installation diagram (which would parallel factory procedures), it would provide a clear cut basis to the tank installer to provide a responsible certification. (It should be noted that the installation of an auxilliary gasoline tank does require connecting into existing lines for the supply and vent lines, but it is difficult to see that such additions would in any way create a situation that would be less safe than the vehicle as originally certified by the Truck Factory.

As you probably noted, all of FMF tanks are made to comply with FHWA 393.65 & 393.67; further, the mounting of these tanks has been statically tested far beyond the traditional 5 to 1 safety factor. Our products are in many cases deliberately overdesigned and we do not have product failures. Product failures cannot be tolerated in today's marketplace -- if a company's product liability insurance was every used, it is doubtful that replacement insurance would be available -- even at vastly increased premiums.

Many of our customers are Mom & Pop organizations with up to 10 employees; This type of organization as well as many much larger companies are not able to get involved with extensive testing because of the following reasons; economic, personnel, time and inadequate facilities -- to name just a few.

Since all truck chasses (some with bodies mounted and some without) must be certified by the truck manufacturer -- It would seem reasonable that installers of component parts or auxilliary parts to the truck chassis or body (knowing that their additional certification is to be on that vehicle) will proceed responsibly and especially if fully representative installation diagrams are provided.

Your immediate attention to this letter will be greatly appreciated, & we remain,

Robert I. Fleming, Pres.

ID: 77-1.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/04/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Jack Gromer -- Vice President, Timpte

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Timpte's January 11, 1977, question whether NHTSA regulations prohibit sale and delivery of a trailer to the first purchaser equipped with two used tires in place of the eight tires that are specified for the vehicle and which would form the basis of certification under Part 567, Certification and the basis of compliance with Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.

As you are aware, Part 567 of regulations requires a statement by the vehicle manufacturer of the gross axle weight rating (GAWR) for each axle on any motor vehicle it manufactures (@ 567.4(g)(4)). The term "GAWR" is defined in @ 571.3 of our regulations as the value specified by the manufacturer as the load-carrying capacity of the axle system, measured at the tire-ground interfaces. This clearly means that the tires and wheels on an axle must be taken into account in assigning a GAWR value for certification purposes.

Standard No. 120 specifies that "each vehicle . . . shall be equipped with tires that meet [specified requirements]" (S5.1.1) but makes provision for the installation of used tires owned by the purchaser if the maximum load ratings of the tires on an axle system are at least equal to the GAWR assigned to the axle system by the vehicle manufacturer (S5.1.3). Section S5.1.3 reflects the agency's view that existing commercial practices for the delivery of vehicles with safe used tires has not created a significant safety problem to date.

In recognition of varying commercial practices for the delivery of vehicles, the agency has interpreted S5.1.1 of Standard No. 120 to prohibit the installation of tires that do not meet certain performance requirements, but not as a requirement that tires be fitted to every axle of a vehicle prior to certification and sale. A copy of this interpretation is enclosed for your information. The interpretation makes clear that, while the agency interprets Standard No. 120 (and by implication Part 567) to permit the assignment of a GAWR on the basis of tires listed on the certification plate, the assignment of an arbitrarily high (or low) GAWR for purposes such as avoiding a Federal motor vehicle safety standard could constitute a violation of law.

With regard to the practice you describe of delivering an empty new trailer to the purchaser on fewer tires that necessary to conform to the GAWR listed on the certification plate and the minimum requirements of S5.1.1 and S5.1.2 of Standard No. 120, the agency interprets its motor vehicle safety standard and @ 567.4(g)(4) to permit such a good faith delivery practice. In the event any pattern of avoidance of Federal requirements becomes apparent, however, the agency would reconsider this interpretation.

SINCERELY, TIMPTE, INC.

JANUARY 11, 1977

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE

AS MANUFACTURERS OF SEMI-TRAILERS, WE ARE CERTIFYING VIRTUALLY 100% OF OUR PRODUCTION TO ALL APPLICABLE STANDARDS CURRENTLY IN EFFECT. ONE PROBLEM DEVELOPS OCCASIONALLY AND WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE AN INTERPRETATION ON THIS MATTER.

THE CONDITION IS ONE WHERE WE HAVE BUILT A SEMI-TRAILER FOR A PARTICULAR CUSTOMER AND THAT CUSTOMER CHOOSES TO FURNISH THE TIRES. IN OUR MANUFACTURE, WE WILL SPECIFY THE AXLE SUSPENSION AND OTHER COMPONENTS AS WELL AS INDICATING THE TIRE SIZE WHICH THE CUSTOMER WILL FURNISH. OCCASIONALLY, THE NEW TIRES ARE NOT SENT TO OUR MANUFACTURING FACILITY HERE, BUT RATHER, TIRES ARE INSTALLED BY THE CUSTOMER AT THE TIME HE TAKES THE TRAILER TO HIS OWN FACILITY. PICK UP OF THE TRAILER IS ACCOMPLISHED BY A DRIVER WITH A TRUCK TRACTOR BELONGING TO THE CUSTOMER AND HE MAY BRING WITH HIM ONLY TWO WHEELS AND TIRES WHICH ARE ON THE "RUN OUT" VARIETY. THEY REQUEST US TO INSTALL THESE ON THE VEHICLE AND CHAIN UP THE REAR AXLE OF THE TANDEM SO THAT THE DRIVER CAN THEN TAKE THE NEW TRAILER EQUIPPED WITH ONLY TWO WHEELS AND TIRES IN LIEU OF EIGHT BACK TO HIS FACILITY. NOW, OUR CERTIFICATION WOULD NORMALLY BE FOR THE FULL COMPLEMENT OF TIRES AND THE GAWR RATINGS AS WELL AS THE GVWR RATINGS WOULD BE STAMPED ON THE CERTIFICATION LABEL AS IF THE TRAILER WERE EQUIPPED WITH THE INTENDED RUBBER.

BY COMPLYING WITH THE CUSTOMER'S REQUEST AND INSTALLING OLD TIRES AID FEWER TIRES THAN INTENDED FOR THE TRAILER AND ALLOWING HIM TO TAKE DELIVERY FROM OUR PREMISES, ARE WE MAKING OURSELVES LIBEL IN ANY WAY FOR NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE CERTIFICATION REGULATIONS OR WHATEVER? UNDERSTAND PLEASE, THAT THIS WOULD BE DONE AT CUSTOMER REQUEST AND INSTRUCTION WITH HIS FULL INTENTION BEING TO EQUIP THE TRAILER WITH A FULL SET OF GOOD TIRES, POSSIBLY RECAPS, AT THE TIME THAT HE GETS IT TO HIS FACILITY.

CERTAINLY, WE DON'T WANT TO PUT OURSELVES IN A COMPROMISING POSITION AND IT WOULD NOT BE OUR INTENT TO DEVIATE OR BE IN NON-COMPLIANCE WITH ANY OF THE NHTSA REGULATIONS; AT THE SAME TIME WE WOULD LIKE TO ACCOMODATE OUR CUSTOMERS SO WE WOULD APPRECIATE AN OPINION FROM YOU REGARDING THIS TYPE OF CONDITION. IT IS AN INFREQUENT ONE; HOWEVER, WE HAVE BEEN CONFRONTED WITH THIS TYPE OF REQUEST.

JACK GROMER VICE PRESIDENT - ENGINEERING

ID: 77-3.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/01/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin Jr.; NHTSA

TO: American Trailers Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of June 10, 1977, concerning a vehicle manufacturer's responsibilities with regard to overloading.

You make reference to a November 10, 1976, letter from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) which stated that manufacturers must take reasonable steps to ensure that the vehicles they produce will not be overloaded by their users. Although we acknowledge that a manufacturer does not have direct control over the actual use of its vehicles, it does exercise indirect control over use through the vehicle's design.

The NHTSA has stated in the past that a vehicle's gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) is determined by the sum of its unloaded vehicle weight, 150 pounds for each designated seating position, and its rated cargo load. It is the cargo load rating that is most relevant to the problem of overloading. The rated cargo load should represent the manufacturer's assessment of the vehicle's cargo-carrying capacity and the maximum load at which the vehicle may be safely operated. A manufacturer must consider the maximum load capacity of the vehicle when it designs its cargo-carrying portion. If this is not done, the rated cargo load, and thus the GVWR, may be meaningless since the vehicle may have a cargo-carrying chamber which, if filled, would cause the vehicle to exceed its stated weight ratings. An illustration of such a situation would be a tanker truck which exceeds its GVWR when the tank is filled with a type of material appropriate for carrying in that cargo area. If the manufacturer could reasonably have anticipated that such cargo would be carried in the tanker, yet rated the vehicle with a GVWR which was less than the vehicle's weight when fully loaded with that cargo, a safety-related defect for which the manufacturer is responsible may be considered to exist.

The NHTSA does not expect manufacturers to be omniscient when it comes to the use of the vehicles they produce. It does, however, expect the stated weight ratings to reflect the design of the vehicles and the uses to which they can reasonably be anticipated to be put. Where the manufacturer has reason to know the specific commodity intended to be carried in its vehicles and those vehicles have a totally enclosed cargo area, as with a tanker, the rated cargo load is relatively easy to determine.

In your particular case, your responsibility for any subsequent overloading of the vehicles you manufacture would be determined by the reasonableness of your GVWR's and gross axle weight ratings (GAWR), given the size and configuration of your vehicles and the types of loads which they could reasonably be expected to carry. In the case of flat beds (no enclosed cargo area) a manufacturer would obviously not be able to provide weight ratings sufficiently high to prevent overloading in all instances. The design of flat beds necessarily permits overloading since the cargo area is unrestricted. Thus if the weight ratings specified appear to have been arrived at by a good faith determination based upon the types of loads the manufacturer anticipates will be carried, its responsibility with regard to weight rating specifications will have been satisfied and no safety-related defect will be attributable to it.

SINCERELY,

American Trailers, Inc.

June 10, 1977

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Admin. U. S. Department of Transportation

We have received a copy of your legal interpretation to Mr. Jackson Decker of E. D. Etnyre & Company (copy attached) in regards to GAWR rating and overloading of the same. Excerpts from your interpretation which is of concern to us is:

"A vehicle whose axle weight ratings are likely to be exceeded under the manufacturer's 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 rememdy 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 must take to insure 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."

Since we are a manufacturer on several different types of General Purpose vehicles, i.e. Dry Freight Vans, Insulated Vans, Grain Vans, and etc. which can haul a vary of array products, we would like some suggestions on how to eliminate GAWR and GVWR overloading. Obviously, we cannot control what type of commodities or density of commodities that can be "stuffed into a box." Your reasoning on a specific vehicle designed to haul a specific density load is understood, but to insist on a general purpose vehicle manufacturer to control overloading "short of refraining from production" is unreasonable.

Can the auto manufacturers control how many people you haul in your automobile or how much sand you haul in your pickup bed?

Your prompt answer on any suggestions would be appreciated.

Jerry W. McNeil Director of Engineering

ID: 10419

Mr. Roger W. Cole
Vice President, Sales
Twin Tire U.S.A., Inc.
335 Phoenixville Pike
Malvern, PA 19355

Dear Mr. Cole:

This responds to your letter of October 18, 1994, received by facsimile transmission, addressed to Walter Myers of my staff. You asked whether passenger car tires that have the DOT symbol and the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS) ratings molded on the sidewalls may legally be sold in the United States. The short answer is yes, provided that the tires in fact comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS).

By way of background information, 49 U.S.C. '30101, et seq. (hereinafter referred to as Safety Act), directs the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue FMVSSs applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment prior to the first retail sale of such vehicles or equipment. Tires are considered motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act provides at 49 U.S.C. '30112(a) that no person may manufacture, sell, offer for sale, or import into the United States any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless that vehicle or equipment complies with applicable FMVSSs and is covered by a certification to that effect issued in accordance with 49 U.S.C. '30115. The latter section provides in pertinent part that "Certification of equipment may be shown by a label or tag on the equipment . . . ." Thus, any new tire sold by Twin Tire must comply with all applicable FMVSS's, and be certified as doing so.

FMVSS No. 109, New pneumatic tires, a copy of which is enclosed for your information, specifies the minimum standards applicable to new passenger car tires. This standard specifies labeling and performance requirements applicable to passenger car tires, which include tubeless tire resistance to bead unseating, tire strength, tire endurance, and high speed performance. If the tires in question fail to comply with

Standard No. 109, the manufacturer (or importer of noncomplying tires) must notify the purchasers of the product and remedy the noncompliance without charge to the purchaser(s). Failure to comply with any FMVSS can also result in civil penalties of up to $1,000 per violation, up to a maximum of $800,000 for a series of related violations.

With regard to the situation you present, 49 U.S.C. 30112(b) provides two exceptions to the prohibition of 30112(a) against selling noncomplying equipment, such as tires. The first exception is that the prohibition does not apply to a person who had no reason to know, despite exercising reasonable care, that an item of equipment does not comply with applicable FMVSS's. The second exception is for a person who holds a certificate issued by the equipment manufacturer stating that the equipment complies with applicable FMVSS's, provided that the person does not know about the noncompliance. However, if Twin Tire were to sell the tires in question and those tires failed to comply with applicable FMVSS's, it is unlikely that Twin Tire could successfully argue that it qualifies for these exceptions, as a defense to an enforcement action for selling the noncomplying equipment.

You state in your letter that the tire manufacturer "breached their contract to manufacture these tires under the premise of US regulations." If the breach concerned the ability of the tires to conform to the requirements of the applicable FMVSS's, Twin Tire would be on notice that there is a reasonable possibility that the tires in question, while labeled with a DOT mark certifying compliance, do not in fact comply. In a situation where a seller has reason to believe the equipment it is selling might not comply with applicable FMVSS's, the seller must ascertain if the certification is bona fide before selling the item.

The following discussion relates to the "DOT" and other markings that you describe on the tires. Paragraph S4.3.1 of FMVSS No. 109 provides that:

Each tire shall be labeled with the symbol DOT in the manner specified in Part 574 of this chapter, which shall constitute a certification that the tire conforms to applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (emphasis added).

Similarly, the UTQGS, also applicable only to passenger car tires, found at 49 CFR 575.104 (copy enclosed), provides at 49 CFR 575.104(d)(1)(i)(A):

Except for a tire of a new tire line . . . , each tire shall be graded with the words, letters, symbols, and figures specified in paragraph (d)(2) of this section, permanently molded into or onto the tire sidewall . . . .

Finally, 49 CFR 574.5 requires each tire sold in the United States have a tire identification number (TIN) molded into or onto the tire sidewall by the manufacturer to facilitate recall in the event of a noncompliance or defect.

To summarize, the answer to your question is the tires in question can be sold only if they comply with all applicable FMVSSs (including Standard No. 109's labeling and performance requirements) and are so labeled in the prescribed locations with the DOT symbol, the UTQGS grades, and the TIN.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any additional questions or need further information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

ref:109#575.105 d: 12/7/94

ID: 10491

Mr. Howard J. Levy
Used Tire International
837 S.E. 8th Avenue, Suite 202
Deerfield Beach, FL 33441

Dear Mr. Levy:

This responds to your letter to Dr. Ricardo Martinez, Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), referring to a bill before the Puerto Rico Senate. The bill would require all used tires imported into Puerto Rico to have a minimum of 5/32 inch tread depth and would impose a tax of $10 per tire.

You stated that the proposed requirement is 3/32 inch more than is "required by U.S. law," and that if the proposal became law it "would mean the end of the Used Tire industry on the island." You asked, "Does the NHTSA have jurisdiction over these laws in Puerto Rico or does the Puerto Rican Senate control the regulations over highway safety," and requested this agency's help in this matter.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain the laws and regulations that we administer. As discussed below, however, those laws and regulations will not be of help to you with respect to your concerns about the proposed Puerto Rico law.

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized by Federal law (Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S. Code (hereinafter referred to as the Safety Act)) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing, selling or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. It also prohibits commercial businesses from rendering inoperative the compliance of a vehicle or item of equipment with a safety standard.

NHTSA's safety standards do not, however, apply to used vehicles or equipment. (I note that if a used tire is imported as motor vehicle equipment, the tire must have complied with the safety standards at the time of its manufacture.) Instead, the individual states have the authority to regulate used vehicles and equipment. Also, the Office of Motor Carriers within the Federal Highway Administration has the authority to regulate commercial vehicles and equipment operated in interstate commerce. (Your statement that the proposed Puerto Rico tread depth requirement is 3/32 inch more than is "required by U.S. law" appears to be referring to a requirement specified by the Office of Motor Carriers, Federal Highway Administration, for commercial vehicles. See 49 CFR '393.75(c)).

I will now turn to your question concerning whether NHTSA has jurisdiction over the laws being considered by the Puerto Rican Senate. The Safety Act includes one provision which addresses Federal preemption of state laws. That provision (49 U.S.C. '30103(b)) specifies that when a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in effect, a state (including Puerto Rico) may maintain a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the Federal standard. (States may, however, specify higher standards for vehicles or equipment obtained for their own use.) Therefore, if a state specified a particular requirement for new tires that was different from one specified for the same aspect of performance as a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, the state law would be preempted. Moreover, a state law could be impliedly preempted if it frustrated the purposes of the Safety Act.

While we have not reviewed the specific text of the Puerto Rico bill, we do not believe the Safety Act is relevant to the particular concerns you raise in your letter. In order for a state law to be preempted under 49 U.S.C. '30103(b), it would have to apply to new vehicles or equipment. However, you are concerned about state requirements for used tires, not new tires. A state law which applied to used vehicles or equipment could be impliedly preempted if it had the same practical effect as a state law for new vehicles/equipment that would be preempted under 49 U.S.C. '30103(b), i.e., the law in question had the practical effect of requiring vehicles/equipment to be designed in a certain manner. However, neither a general tax on imported used tires nor a tread depth requirement that applied only to imported used tires would have any practical effect on the design of new tires.

Based on consideration of the laws and regulations that we administer, we have therefore concluded that the proposed bill that you describe would not raise any preemption issues relevant to the importation of used tires. Since this opinion is limited to consideration of the laws and regulations that we administer, you may wish to consult a private attorney concerning whether the proposed Puerto Rico bill raises other legal issues that are relevant to your concerns.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

ref:109#119 d:1/17/95

ID: 11155b

Hugh J. Bode, Esq.
Reminger & Reminger
The 113 St. Clair Building
Cleveland, OH 44114

Dear Mr. Bode:

This responds to your letter concerning whether 49 U.S.C. ''30101 et seq. (formerly the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act) requires a motor vehicle manufacturer to ensure that its vehicle continues to comply with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) after the first retail purchase of the vehicle.

You specifically ask about FMVSS No. 124, "Accelerator Control Systems," and its application to a 1988 Dodge Ram 50 pickup truck. It appears from the questions you ask that corrosion developed inside the carburetor of the pickup truck at some point during the life of the vehicle, such that the carburetor would not return to idle in accordance with the requirements of Standard No. 124.

You asked us to "confirm the accuracy" of a number of statements. Your first statement, concerning the application of the FMVSSs generally, is as follows:

As we understand it, former '108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. '30112(a), prohibits any person from manufacturing, selling or introducing into commerce any new motor vehicle unless the vehicle is in conformity with all applicable FMVSS. However, the Safety Act further provides that the requirement that a vehicle comply with all applicable FMVSS does not apply after the first purchase for purposes other than resale, i.e., the first retail sale of the vehicle. Safety Act former '108(b)(1), 49 U.S.C. '30112(b)(1). After the first retail sale, the only provision in the Safety Act that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable FMVSS is set forth in former '108(a)(2)(A), 49 U.S.C. '30122(b), which prohibits certain persons from knowingly rendering inoperative a device installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable FMVSS.

Your general understanding is correct. However, a manufacturer has responsibilities in addition to those in '30112, that may bear upon on "continuing compliance" of its vehicle. Under ''30118-30122 of our statute, each motor vehicle manufacturer must ensure that its vehicles are free of safety-related defects. If NHTSA or the manufacturer of a vehicle determines that the vehicle contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the defective vehicle and remedy the problem free of charge.

This is not to say that the development of the corrosion in the carburetor necessarily constitutes a safety-related defect. Rather, we acknowledge the possibility of such a finding in certain circumstances, such as where the corrosion developed unreasonably quickly in the vehicle and the problem was such that it could lead to crashes involving injuries or fatalities.

State law could also be relevant to this issue. For example, as part of its vehicle inspection requirements, a State could require that the accelerator control systems on vehicles "continue to comply" with the requirements of Standard No. 124.

With the above discussion in mind, I will now address your other four questions on Standard No. 124.

Question 1. We ask that NHTSA confirm that FMVSS 124 is a standard that a given vehicle must comply with only at the time of the first retail sale of the vehicle.

As explained in our answer above, your understanding is correct with regard to our requirements (49 U.S.C. '30112). There may be State requirements that apply.

Question 2. We ask NHTSA to confirm that if a carburetor installed in a 1988 Dodge Ram 50 pickup truck met all the requirements of FMVSS 124 at the time of the truck's first retail sale, but, after the sale, due to in- service conditions, corrosion developed inside the carburetor so the carburetor would not return to idle in accordance with the requirements of S5.1, S5.2, and S5.3 of FMVSS 124, that circumstance would not render the vehicle in violation of FMVSS 124.

Your understanding is essentially correct. As permitted by Federal law, Chrysler sold the truck based upon its own certification of compliance with FMVSS No. 124. That corrosion developed in the system may or may not be relevant with respect to the existence of a safety-related defect.

Question 3. We ask NHTSA to confirm that all of the performance standards imposed by FMVSS 124 are contained in S5.1, S5.2 and S5.3 of FMVSS 124 and that S2 headed PURPOSE does not impose any separate regulatory obligation beyond those contained in S5.

While your understanding is essentially correct, note that Standard No. 124 and other motor vehicle safety standards are minimum performance standards.

Question 4. We ask you to confirm that the performance standard set forth in FMVSS 124 does not contain any requirement relating to durability or corrosion resistance.

Standard No. 124 does not specify a test for corrosion resistance. It is unclear what you mean by "durability." The requirements of the standard must be met when the engine "is running under any load condition, and at any ambient temperature between -40N F. and +125N F. ...." (S5) In addition to the performance regulated by Standard No. 124, each manufacturer must ensure that its motor vehicle does not have a safety-related defect.

If you have any questions about the information provided above, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:VSA#124 d:10/26/95

ID: 16689b.nhf

Mr. George W. Hicks
Ingenium Services
3889 Mildred Avenue
Rochester Hills, MI 48309-4269

Dear Mr. Hicks:

This responds to your letter requesting permission from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to modify a 1996 Braun Windstar II (Windstar) for a client who has progressive muscular dystrophy (MD). I apologize for the delay in my response. You explain that you need to replace the power seat base originally installed in the Windstar with the smaller power seat base from a 1989 Kneelcar your client drove for six years. You explain that the size of the Windstar's power seat base interferes with your client's ability to drive and requires her to exert considerable physical effort transferring to and from the driver's seat, which you state is problematic due to your client's physical condition. You explain that, with the smaller power seat base from the Kneelcar, your client will only have to exert minimal physical effort transferring to and from the driver's seat. Further, you explain that, due to its smaller size, the Kneelcar's power seat base does not interfere with your client's ability to drive.

While NHTSA cannot provide the specific relief you seek, since we are not authorized to grant waivers of safety standards under these circumstances, we can assure you that we will not institute enforcement proceedings against a commercial entity that modifies the seat base on a vehicle to accommodate the condition you described.

We would like to begin by explaining that NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. After the first sale of the vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition (49 U.S.C. 30122) requires businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil penalties of up to $1,100 per violation.

There is no procedure by which businesses petition for and are granted permission from NHTSA to modify a motor vehicle. Businesses are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to the make inoperative provision of 49 U.S.C. 30122. In certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our requirements to provide some allowances to a business which cannot conform to our requirements when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities.

Removing the original power seat base and replacing it with the power seat base from the 1989 Kneelcar could affect compliance with four standards: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. For example, Standard No. 208 requires vehicles to be equipped with specific manual and automatic restraint systems (e.g. seat belts and air bags) and to meet specified injury criteria during a test. Removing the original power seat base and replacing it with a smaller one could affect the vehicle's ability to meet the injury criteria specified in Standard No. 208. In situations such as yours where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider any violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition to be justified by public need. As I have already noted above, NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a business that replaces the original power seat base with the Kneelcar's power seat base to accommodate the condition you describe.

We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made. In addition, you should consult with the manufacturer to determine how to safely install and secure the power seat base to the Windstar. The manufacturer should be able to provide information on how the modification can be safely performed. Finally, if the vehicle is sold, we urge the owner to advise the purchaser that the vehicle has been modified and consider reinstalling the removed safety equipment if appropriate.

You may be interested in knowing that the agency is working on a proposal to regulate the aftermarket modification of vehicles for persons with disabilities by setting out exemptions from the make inoperative prohibition only for certain standards, including Standard 208, and under certain conditions. In place of the agency's current approach where each request for exemption from the make inoperative prohibition is reviewed case-by-case, this proposal would give clear guidance to modifiers about principles to follow when considering vehicle modifications to accommodate someone's disabilities. We intend to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking shortly.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions or need some additional information in this area, please contact Nicole Fradette of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:VSA
d.5/113/98

ID: 06-007052rls

ID: 0697

Mr. Brad Rourke
Director, Government and Community Affairs
The Electric Bicycle Company
27426 Pacific Coast Highway
Malibu, CA 90265

Dear Mr. Rourke:

Thank you for your letter of February 4, 1995. I am pleased to answer your questions about the applicability of the regulations of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to your electric-assisted bicycle.

We have reviewed Adam Englund's memorandum of January 26, 1995, which you enclosed. In general, it is a complete and accurate statement of the applicability of our regulations to motor driven cycles. We have the following comments which I hope you will find helpful.

Certification label. The appropriate regulation is 49 CFR Part 567. The statutory authority that it implements, 15 U.S.C. 1403, was recodified last summer as 49 U.S.C. 30115 without any substantive change.

Vehicle Identification Number. "15 USC 565" should be 49 CFR Part 565.

Lighting. While the analysis is correct, we note that Tables III (required equipment) and IV (location of required equipment) give a reader an immediate ready reference to motorcycle lighting equipment.

Horn. This section can be included in the one following, on controls and displays. The reference to 49 CFR "571.125 Warning Devices" is incorrect. The warning device covered by that standard is a retroreflective triangle, not a horn.

We note also that if a motorcycle is equipped with a windshield, it must comply with Standard No. 205 Glazing Materials, and that motorcycles with hydraulic brake systems are required to be furnished with brake fluid meeting Standard No 116 Brake Fluids.

You also have asked three specific questions. The first relates to the requirement of Standard No. 123 Motorcycle Controls and Displays that the rear brake be operable by the left hand (or right foot) control and the front brake operable by the right hand control. This is the opposite of bicycle brake systems. You believe that most riders will expect the electric bicycle to brake like a conventional one and that accidents may occur as a result of confusion. For this reason, you would like to place the rear brake control on the right handlebar, and the front brake control on the left.

The purpose of Standard No. 123 is "to minimize accidents caused by operator error . . . by standardizing certain motorcycle controls and displays" so that a motorcycle operator can instinctively respond to threatening situations no matter what the machine. Your question raises the possibility that the purpose of the standard might be defeated with respect to the electric bicycle by strict application of Standard No. 123 when it is operated by those who are familiar with bicycle braking systems (though this would not be the case if the operator is switching from a motorcycle to an electric bicycle). We do have authority to exempt manufacturers for up to two years from a requirement if it would promote the development or field evaluation of a low-emission vehicle, or if compliance would prevent the manufacturer from selling a vehicle whose overall level of safety equals or exceeds that of a complying vehicle. The exemption procedures are contained in 49 CFR Part 555. Taylor Vinson of this Office will be glad to answer any questions you have (202-366-5263). You also may petition for rulemaking, as provided in 49 CFR Part 552, for an appropriate amendment to Standard No. 123. However, in the absence of an exemption or a change in Standard No. 123, the braking system of the electric bicycle must operate as provided in this standard.

Your second question relates to headlighting requirements for motor driven cycles. You believe that the headlamp specified by Standard No. 108 will reduce the ability of the electric bicycle to perform at night, and, for this reason, would like to use "a high- power bicycle-type headlamp." SAE J584, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108, permits a motor driven cycle to be equipped with a single beam headlamp. If you wish to use a headlamp that does not comply with Standard No. 108's requirements for motor driven cycle headlamps, you must petition for an exemption, and/or for rulemaking, as discussed in the prior paragraph. In addition to allowance of a single beam headlamp, paragraphs S5.1.1.21 and S5.1.1.22 of Standard No. 108 recognize the limitations of low- powered motorcycles and permit motor driven cycles whose top speed is 30 mph or less to omit turn signal lamps, and to be equipped with a smaller less powerful stop lamp.

Your final question relates to Standard No. 123 and your wish to use a spring-loaded thumb-lever throttle. This is permissible, and no requirements are prescribed for it by Standard No. 123. Your interpretation of Standard No. 123 is correct; a twist- grip throttle is not required, but if it is provided, it must operate in the manner set forth in the standard.

If you have any further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:108#123 d:3/30/95