ID: 77-3.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/01/77

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

TO: Great Dane Trailers Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of May 5, 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. Since some of your vehicles are flat beds (no enclosed cargo area) you 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 you specify appear to have been arrived at by a good faith determination based upon the types of loads you anticipate will be carried, your responsibility with regard to weight rating specifications will have been satisfied and no safety-related defect will be attributable to you.

SINCERELY,

Great Dane Trailers, Inc.

May 5, 1977

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

In reference to your letter of November 10, 1976, you made some interpretations which we feel are unreasonable and find that it is impractical to meet compliance.

You indicated that "A vehicle whose axle weight ratings are likely to be exceeded under the manufacturer's intended or reasonably foreseeable conditions of usage would probably be considered to contain a safety related defect." You further stated "The NHTSA expects the vehicle manufacturer to take reasonable steps, short of refraining from production, to minimize the likelihood of vehicle misuse through overloading."

We, as a manufacturer, construct flat platform trailers and van type trailers. When these units are manufactured we certify both a GVWR and GAWR. We however, in most cases, have no way of knowing what products or mix of products will be carried on or in these vehicles.

We do know that most users of this type equipment will carry the maximum allowable payload by State and/or Federal laws. If we construct a vehicle with 10:00 X 20 tires our GAWR will be 19,040# per axle. The present Federal law will allow up to 20,000# per axle and states up to 22,000# per axle. From this we could conclude that many axles could be overloaded as compared to our GAWR. However, we have no real knowledge that this condition does exist but have strong suspicions that it may. We furthermore have no means of controlling how the vehicle is used during its lifetime.

It is definitely unreasonable for NHTSA to expect a vehicle manufacturer to be responsible for the actions and operations of truck lines and other trucking operations.

We feel that placing a specific GVWR and GAWR on the vehicle by the manufacturer is warning enough and that problems of overload is the responsibility of the user and should be controlled by Federal and State weight limits and the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety.

John Storz Director of Engineering

CC: DON VIERIMAA -- TTMA

ID: nht72-6.48

DATE: 12/15/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Douglas W. Toms; NHTSA

TO: Chester H. Smith; United States Senate

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of October 26, 1972, forwarding the National Tire Dealers & Retreasers Association's (NTDRA) Resolution of October 2, 1972, regarding the Federal Regulation on Tire Identification and Recordkeeping.

The idea of attaching a return card on each tire at the factory to be filled out and returned by the purchaser was given serious consideration during rule making but no practical method was known for attaching a card that would assure retention through delivery to the dealer. Also, the suggestion that the consumer fill out the record card gave no promise of return as far as we could determine from our studies. However, we believe a dealer can be relied upon to record the data in a matter of a few minutes at minimum cost. These factors prevent us from accepting the NTDRA proposal as a reasonable compromise unit would still maintain the needed public interest.

With respect to effectiveness, we believe that the pay-off potential of the regulation, though rather poor in the first year of operation, is continuing to show improvement as time goes on. Although we have no precise count, many tires manufactured prior to May 22, 1971, were in stock and were put on the market during the past 17-month period. As time goes on these pre-regulation tires will gradually disappear from the market and be replaced entirely by the "identified" tires. We would expect that the effectiveness of Part 574 would not reach its full potential until a 3-year period had elapsed.

You may be interested in the following data concerning tire recalls: No. of Tires Recalled NHTSA Voluntary 1970 160,899 28,823 1971 78,050 157,143 1972 (incomplete) 100,000 76,915 338,949 262,881 Grand Total 601,830

These statistics show that almost 45 percent of tire recalls have been initiated on a voluntary basis by the tire manufacturer, and that voluntary recalls during 1971 and 1972 appear to have increased considerably over 1970. Although we have no exact figures on percentage of returns, we take this as an indication that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's tire safety program is removing dangerous tires from the road and the system we are using is showing considerable success toward reaching ultimate objectives. We are very much encouraged in the trend of Part 574 toward effectiveness of recalls.

We want to assure you that although the rule making docket reflects exploration of many ideas concerning tire identification and recordkeeping, we are still receptive to any new proposal that would appear promising in improving the present system.

Sincerely,

Enclosure

ATTACH.

United States Senate SELECT COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS

October 26, 1972

Douglas W. Toms -- Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Dr. Toms:

We enclose a copy of a Resolution adopted by the 52nd annual convention of the National Tire Dealers & Retreaders Association, Inc.

Could you inform us, please, of the consideration being given by your Administration to the NTDRA's proposal? Do you think their plan might represent a reasonable compromise between the public interest in tire safety and the obvious interest of tire dealers in lessening their burden of wholly uncompensated Federal paperwork?

With best wishes,

Sincerely,

Chester H. Smith Staff Director - General Counsel

cc: Thomas J. McIntyre -- Chairman, Subcommittee on Government Regulation

October 16, 1972

Chester H. Smith -- Staff Director & General Counsel, Senate Small Business Committee

Dear Mr. Smith:

We believe the attached Resolution adopted at our recent Convention on Tire Identification and Record Keeping will be of interest to you.

Sincerely,

NATIONAL TIRE DEALERS AND RETREADERS ASSOCIATION, INC.; Philip P. Friedlander -- Director of Communications

enc.

RESOLUTION

52ND ANNUAL CONVENTION NATIONAL TIRE DEALERS & RETREADERS ASSOCIATION INC. OCTOBER 2, 1972 WHEREAS the National Tire Dealers and Retreaders Association has received a number of complaints from its members on the difficulties of registering the name and address of each purchaser of tires as required by the Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulation as well as the attendant costs for the retailer without recovery, and;

WHEREAS the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has failed to provide a uniform form for such records in spite of requests by tire dealers and others in the industry;

WHEREAS some of the recalls that were conducted during nineteen hundred and seventy two have been for tires manufactured prior to the registration requirement of May of nineteen hundred and seventy one;

WHEREAS the burden on the retailer and consumer alike has not been offset by appropriate advantages to the consumer;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the National Tire Dealers and Retreaders Association in Annual Convention assembled this second day of October, nineteen hundred and seventy two, that this Association urges the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to re-examine its current program which requires the seller to register the first purchaser of a new tire and retreaded tire and that it consider a voluntary system of registration by the tire purchaser utilizing an uniform form supplied by tire manufacturers and distributed at the time of sale for the consumer to fill out and mail back to a designated place rather than to leave the entire burden with the individual tire dealer.

ID: nht78-3.8

DATE: 05/12/78

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

TO: Susan H. Soodek

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter asking whether Federal Safety Standard No. 205 specifies requirements limiting the reflectivity of glazing materials. You are concerned with the lack of uniformity in state laws that prohibit nontransparent or reflective windows in motor vehicles.

The stated purpose of Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, is to reduce injuries resulting from impact to glazing surfaces, to ensure a necessary degree of transparency in motor vehicle windows for driver visibility, and to minimize the possibility of occupants being thrown through the vehicle windows in collisions. The standard does not prohibit reflective glazing, nor does it specify requirements that would limit the degree of reflectivity of glazing materials.

Since reflectivity is not an aspect of performance governed by Federal safety standards, state laws concerning glazing reflectance would not be preempted by Standard No. 205. Safety Standard No. 205 does, however, specify requirements for the luminous transmittance of glazing materials for use in motor vehicles. Therefore, state laws prohibiting nontransparent windows would be preempted if they attempted to regulate the glazing manufacturer or the vehicle manufacturer (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)). State regulations applicable to the vehicle owner or user would not be preempted, on the other hand, since the Federal regulation is only applicable to the manufacturer. Therefore, a state law could prohibit the application of a nontransparent decal on a window by a vehicle owner, for example.

I am enclosing a copy of the California Highway Patrol petition for rulemaking regarding glazing abrasion requirements and glazing reflectivity. A notice concerning this petition will be issued at some time in the near future.

I must point out that our statutory authority requires all safety standards to be reasonable, objective and to meet the need for motor vehicle safety. The agency cannot, therefore, regulate an aspect of motor vehicle performance or design if there is no data or evidence indicating that a safety problem exists.

I hope this has been responsive to your inquiry. Please contact Hugh Oates of my office if you have any further questions.

SINCERELY,

AUTOMOTIVE PARTS & ACCESSORIES ASSOCIATION

March 30, 1978

Joseph Levin Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Dear Mr. Levin:

This letter is to request a formal interpretation of FMVSS #205, Glazing Materials, as to the permissibility of reflective material. In addition, we have posed specific questions under #205 regarding federal jurisdiction and applicability of the Standard. Our desire is to prevent the possible emergence of fifty varying state laws governing reflectance.

May we provide an explanation of our interest, and previous communication with the NHTSA on the subject.

APAA is a national trade association representing nearly 1400 manufacturers, retailers, wholesale distributors, and independent sales agents doing business in the volume aftermarket industry. Among our members are manufacturers of a variety of window covering materials, including screens, reflective materials, and tinted materials.

As a service to these manufacturers and our retailers, we attempt to keep abreast of state laws bearing upon the sale and use of various window covering materials. The following states have enacted regulations prohibiting nontransparent or reflective windows: Colorado, Florida, Kansas, Nebraska, Ohio, Utah, and Virginia. The states of California and Pennsylvania are considering the same. Lesser restrictions exist in Maryland, New Mexico, and Texas. With only two exceptions, the terms "nontransparent" and "reflective" are undefined and enforcement is left to the judgement of police, the Highway Patrol, or an inspection official. (See enclosed APAA prepared summary bulletin). This lack of definition has resulted in violations for windows which actually complied with federal visibility requirements as defined by ANSI Z26.

Yet, some of the states have demanded recall of reflective windows, the related costs and logistical problems of which severely disrupt interstate commerce and can drive a small manufacturer out of business. Uniformity, through federal preemption, would allow our manufacturers to comply in "good faith" with reflectance requirements.

On March 13, Mr. Guy Hunter (engineer) and Mr. Hugh Oates (legal adviser) to FMVSS # 205 met with Mr. Russ Simmons of West Custom Windows, an APAA-member company, Mr. Julian C. Morris, APAA President, and myself to discuss the association's request for an amendment to the standard to address reflectance levels.

We were advised the NHTSA may be considering the reflectance issue in response to a petition filed last year by the California Highway Patrol. May we be furnished with a copy of the CHP's petition and be apprised of rulemaking status?

Presumably, the Administration has not previously addressed reflectivity in FMVSS #205 because reflective windows have not created an established safety hazard. However, could not an amendment be made on the basis of benefits in safety from filtering out glare or benefits in fuel economy from the insulation properties of reflective material? What type of data is acceptable to demonstrate that establishing an acceptable percentage reflectance level would result in safety and fuel economy benefits?

A legal opinion from your office would provide clarification that the federal standard does not prohibit reflective material. The crux of the problem, it would appear, lies in applicability of FMVSS #205. At the March 13 meeting at NHTSA headquarters, staff advised us that the standard applies to the vehicle manufacturer, not the motorist. Are the states then on sound legal ground to regulate the vehicle owner, even a state's interpretation of "nontransparency" is stricter than the visibility definition incorporated by #205?

Your response to these questions will, hopefully, provide reasonable guidelines for dealing with the existing ambiguities.

Susan H. Soodek Assistant Director, Government Affairs & Liaison

[ENC. OMITTED]

ID: 86-1.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/12/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Jack H. McDaniel, Jr. -- President, Trim Plus

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Jack H. McDaniel, Jr. President Trim Plus P.O. Box 490811 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33349

This is in reply to your letters of November 18, 1985, and January 9, 1986, to the former Chief Counsel of this agency, Jeffrey Miller, asking questions about the relationship of the center high-mounted stop lamp provisions of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to the installation of deck-mounted luggage racks.

You have stated that you install accessories on new motor vehicles before their delivery by their dealers. You have asked whether deck-mounted racks that have cross bars violate the safety standards? It is not possible to give a definitive answer. When a passenger car leaves the factory, its center high-mounted stop lamp must meet certain specified minimum design photometrics at certain test points, and be installed so that it has 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 axis of the vehicle. It must continue to meet these requirements at the time of delivery to the first purchaser, even if a deck rack has been installed. If the rack prevents the lamp from meeting its photometric output at any test point, the standard does allow a supplementary center high-mounted stop lamp to be added, provided that it meets all applicable photometrics. If no such lamp is added, and the rack affects the photometric compliance of the lamp, we would view the installer (if a manufacturer, distributor, dealer of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, or a motor vehicle repair business) as a possible violator of 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A) which forbids those commercial entities from rendering partially inoperative equipment that is installed in accordance with a Federal safety standard.

You have also asked whether a deck-mounted rack loaded with luggage would cause a violation. The answer is no; compliance with Standard No. 108 is determined without luggage 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

January 9, 1986

Mr. Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Councel U. S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Miller:

Mine is a company specializing in the sales and installation of automotive trim accessories with a clientele essentially being the franchised dealers of new American made automobiles.

Recently there has been some confusion among myself customers, and colleagues regarding one of the new motor vehicle safety standards which, I understand, is number 108 involving the center high-mounted stop lamp. Since one of the specialties of my company is the installation of rear deck-mounted luggage racks on new cars, I was wondering if you would give me some information as to how the new safety standards might infect this. Here is what I am particularly concerned about.

1. Would installing a rear deck-mounted luggage rack that has a cross bar on a 1986 automobile for a dealer cause a violation of the center high-mounted stop lamp provision of the new safety standard?

2. It seems to me that on most cars a deck-mounted luggage rack can be positioned so that the center high- mounted stop lamp can still be clearly seen from the rear. Are there any provisions of the new safety standards that I should know about that would help insure prevention a violation?

3. Would a deck-mounted rack loaded with luggage cause a violation?

Mr. Miller, this does make the second of my requests to your department for this information that I have yet to receive. I know how busy you department must be, but please let me hear from you at your earliest convenience. I shall await your reply with great interest, as it will make considerable difference in my sales and operation.

Respectfully, Jack McDaniel, President

November 18, 1985

Mr. Jefferey R. Miller Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Miller:

Ours is a company specializing in the installation of automotive trim accessories. Most of our services are to the franchised dealers of the major automobile makers, installing accessories on their pre-delivered cars.

Recently there has been some confusion among myself and colleagues regarding the new safety standards for 1986 vehicles concerning the center high-mounted stop lamps which, I have been told, is Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Since some of my orders are for installing deck-mounted luggage racks with cross bars on 1986 vehicles, I wonder if you could give me some information about how the new safety standards might affect this. I will list the things I am particularly concerned about.

1. Will deck-mounted racks that have cross bars violate the new safety standards? It seems to me that many racks can be mounted and positioned so that the high-mounted stop lamp is still clearly visible from the rear. How can we determine if one would cause a violation?

2. Would a deck-mounted rack loaded with luggage cause a violation?

I shall await your answers with great interest, Mr. Miller. Many thanks for any information you can give me. May I please here from you as soon as possible?

Respectfully,

Jack H. McDaniel, Jr. President

ID: 9433

Mr. David Fabrycky
1633 W. Willeta St.
Phoenix, AZ 85007

Dear Mr. Fabrycky:

This responds to your letter about an aftermarket product you wish to manufacture. The product is a child safety seat buckle shield, which is intended to prevent a child from opening the buckle on a child restraint system. You state that your device would cover the buckle and prevent the child from gaining access to the pushbutton of a child seat buckle. To depress the pushbutton, the device requires that a latch be actuated and the cover pivoted away from the buckle. You indicated that the device requires "manual dexterity to exert the forces in many directions simultaneously."

Although we understand your concern that young children not be able to easily unbuckle a child safety seat, we have reservations about devices that interfere with the unbuckling of the seats. I hope the following discussion explains those reservations and answers the questions in your letter about the effect of our regulations on your product.

Our agency has the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Safety Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems," which applies to all new child restraint systems sold in this country. However, Standard 213 does not apply to aftermarket items for child restraint systems, such as your buckle shield. Hence, you are not required to certify that this product complies with Standard 213 before selling the product.

Additionally, you are not required to get "approval" from this agency before selling the buckle shield. NHTSA has no authority to "approve" motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial product. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet our safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates alleged safety-related defects.

Although we do not have any standards that directly apply to your product, there are several statutory provisions that could affect it. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as your buckle shield are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. The agency does not determine the existence of safety defects except in the context of a defect proceeding, and thus is unable to say whether your product might or might not contain such a defect. However, the agency is concerned that people be able to easily and quickly operate a child safety seat buckle in an emergency. As the agency said in a rule on the force level necessary to operate child restraint buckles:

The agency's safety concerns over child restraint buckle force release and size stem from the need for convenient buckling and unbuckling of a child and, in emergencies, to quickly remove the child from the restraint. This latter situation can occur in instances of post-crash fires, immersions, etc. A restraint that is difficult to disengage, due to the need for excessive buckle pressure or difficulty in operating the release mechanism because of a very small release button, can unnecessarily endanger the child in the restraint and the adult attempting to release the child. (50 FR 33722; August 21, 1985)

It appears that your product could significantly increase the difficulty of using the buckle release and thus hinder a person attempting to release the belt in an emergency.

In addition, use of your product could be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly tampering with devices or elements of design installed in an item of motor vehicle equipment, such as a child safety seat, in compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. In determining the effect of a buckle shield on a child seat's compliance with Standard 213, NHTSA would evaluate the performance of the seat with the buckle shield installed. Standard 213 specifies several elements of design with which a child restraint system is unlikely to comply if your buckle shield were installed. Section S5.4.3.5 of Standard 213 requires the pushbutton release for any buckle on a child restraint to have a minimum area for applying the release force. Since your device will completely cover the buckle when installed, the buckle shield would cause the child restraint to no longer comply with this requirement. That section also requires the buckle to release when a specified maximum force is applied. Your device will not allow the buckle to release when the force is applied because it will cover the buckle and require force to be applied "in many directions simultaneously." Your device would thus cause the child restraint to no longer comply with that requirement. Therefore, commercial establishments cannot legally install your device on customers' child safety seats. In addition, section S5.7 of Standard 213 requires each material used in a child restraint system to comply with the flammability resistance requirements of Standard 302, "Flammability of Interior Materials." If your buckle shield does not comply with the requirements of Standard 302, commercial establishments cannot legally install your device.

The prohibition of section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who may install or remove any items on child restraint systems regardless of the effect on compliance with Standard 213. However, our policy is to encourage child restraint owners not to tamper with or otherwise degrade the safety of their child restraints.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:213#VSA d:5/12/94

ID: gustback_doorlatch

Dr. Peter Gust
Kirchhoff GmbH & Co. KG
Oststrasse 1
58553 Halver
Germany

Dear Dr. Gust:

This letter responds to your e-mail and fax inquiries into the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door locks and door retention components. You asked a question about how a specific back door latch configuration is tested under the procedures specified in the standard. We have addressed your question below.

Your letter describes a back door that opens upward, with a single latch at the bottom of the door with a single striker on the back door sill. According to the diagrams sent with your letter, the latch is comprised of two sections. When the latch is engaged, (1) the portion of the latch that is attached to the door is oriented perpendicular to the vehicle floor plane (the "upper section"), and (2) the portion of the latch face that interacts with the striker is oriented along a plane that is roughly 45 degrees to the vehicle floor plane (the "lower section"). The diagrams also show that the striker plate is parallel to the lower section, with the striker oriented perpendicular to the striker plate. You asked how the test procedures in Load Test One and Load Test Two of FMVSS No. 206 apply to your latch assembly.

FMVSS No. 206 specifies requirements for door locks and door retention components including latches, to minimize the likelihood of occupants being thrown from their vehicle as a result of an impact. Under FMVSS No. 206, hinged back doors must comply with several load requirements, including:

S4.4.1.1  Load Test One. The primary door latch and striker assembly, when in the fully latched position, shall not separate when a load of 11,000 Newtons (2,500 pounds) is applied in the direction perpendicular to the face of the latch (corresponding to the longitudinal load test for side door latches) such that the latch and the striker anchorage are not compressed against each other. When in the secondary latched position, the primary latch and striker assembly shall not separate when a load of 4,450 Newtons (1,000 pounds) is applied in the same direction.

S4.4.1.2  Load Test Two. The primary door latch and striker assembly, when in the fully latched position, shall not separate when a load of 8,900 Newtons (2,000 pounds) is applied in the direction of the fork-bolt opening and parallel to the face of the latch (corresponding to the transverse load test). Figure 1 depicts the loading direction for this test. When in the secondary latched position, the primary latch and striker assembly shall not separate when a load of 4,450 Newtons (1,000 pounds) is applied in the same direction.

As indicated in S4.4.1.1 and S4.4.1.2, the orientation of the latch face dictates the direction of the loads. FMVSS No. 206 does not define latch face, but we have stated that SAE J839, Passenger car side door latch systems (JUN91), provides guidance on its meaning (see 60 FR 50124, 50128; September 28, 1995). While SAE J839 does not define latch face, it defines "latch plate" as "the main body or frame for supporting working components, appendages and transmitting or distributing loads to the door structure" (S3.1.1).

Based on the specifications in S4.4.1.1, Load Test One would be oriented with the lower section of the latch face in question. While S4.4.1.1 does not specifically address testing a latch face that aligns with more than one plane, the section does specify that the latch and striker anchorage should not compress upon application of the load. The intent of Load Test One is to apply the load such that there is no engagement of the latch face by the striker. This is accomplished with your latch assembly by applying the test load in a direction perpendicular to the lower portion of the latch face. By contrast, application of the test load perpendicular to the upper portion of the test face would result in some compression; i.e. , the striker would engage the latch face to some extent, and would thus not test the latch as specified by the standard.

Regarding the application of Load Test Two to your latch system, again the standard indicates that the direction of force should be oriented with the lower section of the latch face. Load Test Two specifies application of the load in the direction of the fork-bolt opening, parallel to the face of the latch. Figure 1 of FMVSS No. 206 illustrates that Load Test Two is applied in a direction that is parallel to the portion of the latch face that interacts with the striker. On the latch face in question, this corresponds to the lower section. Testing in this manner is consistent with the intent of the standard to test the latch in a manner representative of opening the door.

Further, applying Load Test One and Two as described would test your latch in a manner consistent with the longitudinal and transverse testing specified for side door latches, respectively. Additionally, orienting the test loads to the lower portion of the latch face would permit testing in accordance with SAE J934, as intended by the agency (see 60 FR 50128).

I hope that you find this information helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:206
d.11/19/04

ID: nht95-6.56

DATE: October 26, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Hugh J. Bode, Esq. -- Reminger & Reminger

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/21/95 LETTER FROM HUGH J. BODE TO JOHN WOMACK

TEXT: 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 - 40 degrees F. and + 125 degrees 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.

ID: nht95-7.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 26, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Hugh J. Bode, Esq. -- Reminger & Reminger

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/21/95 LETTER FROM HUGH J. BODE TO JOHN WOMACK

TEXT: 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 - 40 degrees F. and + 125 degrees 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.

ID: nht95-7.56

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 11, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Dorothy Jean Arnold, -- M.D.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 9/01/95 (est.) letter from Dorothy Jean Arnold, M.D., to Safety Administration

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking whether the air bags in your car can be disconnected. You explained that you are physically impaired by the effects of osteomyelitis, a disease of the bones; cannot use a seatbelt with comfort; and were "granted dispensation from such usage several years ago." In a telephone conversation with Richard Reed of this agency, you indicated that you are 74 years old 45 feets three inches tall, and must sit close to the steering wheel because of your medical condition.

As explained below, our answer is that NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that disconnects an air bag on your vehicle to accommodate your condition.

Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protect [Illegible Word] requires that cars be equipped with automatic crash protection at the front outboard seating positions. The air bags in your car were installed as one means of complying with that requirement. The removal or deactivaxion of one of those air bags by a vehicle dealer is governed by a provision of Federal law, 49 U.S.C. @ 30122. The section provides that provi

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard.

However, in limited situations in which a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a person with a particular disability or a person's special medical needs, NHTSA has in the past stated that it would consider violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition as purely technical ones justified by public need, and that it would not institute enforcement proceedings.

I would like to caution you that both safety belts and air bags are very important items of safety equipment. Safety belts are the primary means of occupants restraint, and work in all types of crashes. NHTSA estimates that in 1994, safety belts saved almost 9,200 lives and prevented more than 211,000 moderate to critical injuries. The combination of wearing safety belts and having an air bag installed at a seating position provides vehicle occupants with maximum safety protection in all types of crashes. Also, air bags are designed to offer some protection even when safety belts are not used. Since 1987, air bags are estimated to have saved 911 lives.

NHTSA strongly encourages vehicle occupants to wear their safety belts, since we are concerned about the much higher safety risk faced by unbelted occupants. We understand, however, that you cannot wear your safety belt for medical reasons, and that you are concerned about a possible safety risk from the air bag in such a situation.

While air bags have an impressive overall performance record and are designed to provide some protection even for unbelted occupants, NHTSA has become aware of situations in which current air bags have undesired side effects. These include situations in which an air bag appears to have contributed to serious injuries and even death to vehicle occupants, in minor-to-moderate severity crashes. Information indicates that an air bag might pose a risk of serious injury to unrestrained small statured and/or older people, in particular. I note that NHTSA has recently issued a request for comments (copy enclosed) concerning the agency's actions to minimize the adverse side effects of air bags and to invite the public to share information and views with the agency.

Since your disability prevents you from wearing your safety belt, and given your age and size, the disability places you in a situation where there may be a risk of serious injury from the air bag. While this particular risk can be addressed by disconnecting the air bag, there are trade-offs: Disconnecting the air bag subjects you to a higher risk in crashes, especially higher-speed crashes, where the air bag would provide protection. We urge you to carefully weigh the trade-offs in making your decision.

If you decide that the risk to you from the air bag offsets the potentially life-saving benefits of the air bag, and you wish to have your air bag deactivated, we would regard the deactivation a purely technical violation of the "make inoperative" prohibition justified by public need. Accordingly, we would not institute enforcement proceedings against any person listed in section 30122 who deactivated the air bag. I would recommend that the manufacturer of the vehicle and/or air bag be consulted on the safest way to disconnect the air bag. I also note that the air bag should only be disconnected from a position where you would be seated. In addition, I strongly encourage you to ensure that every person in your vehicle who can use his or her safety belt does so.

I want to add a caution. The purpose of the "make inoperative" prohibition is to ensure, to the greatest degree possible, current and subsequent owners and users of your vehicle are not deprived of the maximum protection afforded by the vehicle as newly manufactured. Accordingly, if you were to sell your vehicle later, we urge that the air bag be reactivated for the subsequent driver.

I hope that this letter resolves your problem. If you have any other questions, please contact Edward Glancy of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-4.67

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 26, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Hugh J. Bode, Esq. -- Reminger & Reminger

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/21/95 LETTER FROM HUGH J. BODE TO JOHN WOMACK

TEXT: 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 veh icle 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 duri ng 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 conformi ty 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 vehicl e. 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 unreason ably 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 develo ped 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 exi stence 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 - 4 0 degrees F. and + 125 degrees 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.