ID: nht95-5.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 10, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Winston Sharples -- President, Cantab Motors, Ltd.

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Sharples

We have received the application of Cantab Motors for temporary exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 208 and 214. The application meets our procedural requirements, and a Federal Register notice requesting comment is being prepared for publication.

We shall inform you when the Administrator has reached a decision on this matter, which we estimate will be between the middle of September and the middle of October.

Cantab's previous exemption from Standard No. 208 expired on May 1, 1993. Accordingly, Cantab may be in violation of 49 U.S.C. 30112(a) if it has manufactured for sale and sold vehicles manufactured after that date. Its application states that "[in] the preceding twelve months, Cantab has manufactured nine Morgans for sale in the United States." Within 30 days of your receipt of this letter, please furnish the total number of Morgans that Cantab has manufactured for sale after May 1, 1993, and sold in the United States, between May 1, 1993, and the date of your response. Cantab should be aware that any sales of nonconforming vehicles before a grant of its application may be in violation of 49 U.S.C. 30112(a). If Cantab determines that it has manufactured and sold noncomplying vehicles, then it is required to notify and remedy the noncompliance according to statute. Alternatively, it may file an application for a determination pursuant to 49 CFR Part 556 that its noncompliance is inconsequential to safety. If this application is granted, Cantab would be excused from the statutory requirement to notify and remedy.

As a final matter, the application indicates Cantab's belief that it would be exempt from the phase-in requirements of Standard No. 214 for 1995 since only .75 car would be subject to the requirement. Although .75 car is less than one vehicle, the agency rounds up from .50 vehicle in its calculations of compliance. For the same reason, the 1.87 vehicle estimated for 1996 compliance would be two vehicles, not one. The application is sufficient to cover both years.

If you have any questions on this matter, you may discuss them with Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

ID: nht95-5.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 10, 1995

FROM: Ricardo Martinez -- M.D., NHTSA

TO: Shih-Chiang Chen -- President, Top World Traffic Equipments Co., Ltd.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/15/95 LETTER FROM SHIN-CHIANG CHEN TO DOT MINISTER

TEXT: Dear Sir:

This is in reply to your letter of June 15, 1995, to the Department of Transportation regarding your invention, the "brake condition warning sensor." You ask whether such an invention is permissible in this country.

The sensor causes flashing in "the third brake light" keyed to the rate of deceleration.

Under the Federal regulations in the United States, motor vehicles must be manufactured so that the third brake light (or "center highmounted stop lamp" as we call it) and all other stop lamps are steady-burning when they are in use.

After the vehicle is sold, Federal law prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business from installing the sensor to modify the performance of the third brake light and cause it to flash.

However, Federal law does not prohibit the owner of the car from installing the sensor. In this circumstance, the law of the State in which the vehicle is operated must be consulted to determine whether a flashing third brake light is permissible. We are not able to answer questions about State laws. If you wish an opinion on State laws governing flashing third brake lights, you should write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

If I can be of further assistance, please contact me or Mr. John Womack Acting Chief Counsel (202) 366-9511.

ID: nht95-5.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 12, 1995

FROM: Lewis H. Goldfarb -- Assistant General Counsel, Chrysler Corp.

TO: Kenneth Weinstein -- Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSS 210 Compliance - 1995 Cirrus

ATTACHMT: 12/21/95 letter from Kenneth N. Weinstein to Lewis H. Goldfarb

TEXT: As we discussed last week, I am attaching a memorandum setting forth Chrysler's legal position regarding the above compliance review. I am also submitting a summary report of a compliance test performed on December 8, 1995 in accordance with the procedu res specified in FMVSS 210 and the published test protocol.

The test data confirm that the Cirrus satisfied the 3000 load requirement with a 20% margin at NHTSA's slower onset speed of 25 seconds. We believe this demonstrates full compliance with FMVSS 210.

As you know, the non-compliance found by OVSC staff in July was the result of a laboratory test that placed the pelvic body block 4 inches forward from the seat back. Our tests are conducted with the block positioned against the seat back. We advised OV SC staff in September that this alteration in the pelvic body block location significantly altered the stresses imposed on the rear seat anchorages as compared with the stresses imposed when the body block is positioned against the seat back. Since neit her the procedures specified in the standard nor the published laboratory test protocol specify the location of the body block, our compliance test represents a valid demonstration of compliance with the standard and should be accepted by OVSC.

The attached memorandum provides a legal analysis in support of our position. In essence, it shows that NHTSA's interpretation of the standard as requiring that compliance be achieved regardless of the placement of the body block is contrary to the Safet y Act mandate that standards "be stated in objective terms."

I would appreciate an opportunity to discuss this further after your review.

Attachments (2)

Enclosures

SEAT BELT ANCHORAGE (Summary Report)

Test Information

Test Number: 21095137 Test Type: FMVSS 210 Dev Date: 12/8/95 Time: 13:40:50 Technician/Engineer G. D. Redd/H. Farrah Model Year & Body: 1995 JA Body Component Description: 3-Passenger Rear Bench Seat; VIN # 1B3EJ56C1TN100005 Comments: Weldnuts For O/B Anchors, Anchor Brkts Str. Rrwd., Trailing Arm Brkts. Installed, Lap Belt Body Block Against Seatbacks, Lab Seat Belts Were Used. Units: English Sample Rate (Hz): 50 Sampling Duration (sec): 70

Required 10 sec. Actual Max. 10 sec. Peak Load Channel Name Load (lbs.) Load (lbs.) and % Achieved Lt. Shoulder, S/N-68869 3000.0 3626.2 + 20.9% 3632.1 Rt. Shoulder, S/N-68864 3000.0 3624.6 + 20.8% 3633.3 Lt. Lap. S/N-68860 3000.0 3624.4 + 20.8% 3632.4 Ct. Lap. S/N-68830 5000.0 6044.5 + 20.9% 6054.6 Rt. Lap. S/N-68820 3000.0 3626.6 + 20.9% 3632.5

(Charts omitted.)

MEMORANDUM

December 13, 1995

TO: Kenneth Weinstein, Esq.

FROM: Lewis Goldfarb, Esq.

RE: FMVSS 210 Compliance

This memorandum summarizes Chrysler's legal analysis in support of its position that the 1995 Cirrus LX vehicles comply with FMVSS 210.

A. The Chrysler Cirrus LX Complies with FMVSS 210.

In July 1995, Chrysler was notified by NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance that a 1995 Chrysler Cirrus LX apparently failed a compliance test measuring conformity with FMVSS 210 S4.2.2. The OVSC staff informed Chrysler personnel that the rear outboard driver-side anchorage bolt weld-nut did not sustain the 3,000 lb. load required by the referenced subsection of FMVSS 210.

After careful analysis by Chrysler, the company has confirmed its position that the 1995 Cirrus LX complies with FMVSS 210 when tested in accordance with the procedures specified in the standard and the published laboratory test protocol. Chrysler ha s also concluded that the NHTSA test result appearing to show noncompliance was attributable to the location of the pelvic body block during the NHTSA test. NHTSA's laboratory acknowledged that it placed the pelvic body block in the Cirrus test approxim ately 4 inches forward from the seat back. As the OVSC staff was advised by letter dated September 28, 1995, Chrysler has determined that this alteration in the pelvic body block location significantly altered the stresses imposed on the rear seat ancho rages, as compared with the stresses imposed when the body block is positioned against the seat back.

Although Chrysler initially believed that the apparent noncompliance was attributable to differences between NHTSA's comparatively slow load application rate (approximately 25 seconds) and Chrysler's faster load application rate (approximately 10 seco nds), Chrysler has now confirmed that the Cirrus meets the requirements of FMVSS 210 S4.2.2, even at the slower NHTSA load application rate, with the pelvic body block positioned against the seat back.

Chrysler has therefore determined that the only remaining issue is whether NHTSA's test can form the basis of a finding of noncompliance. In light of the obvious influence of the location of the pelvic body block -- a variable that is not specified i n the Standard or in the accompanying test procedures -- Chrysler respectfully submits that NHTSA's test does not demonstrate a noncompliance with FMVSS 210, and that NHTSA cannot sustain a finding of noncompliance on the basis of an unspecified test pro cedure.

B. NHTSA Cannot Lawfully Base a Noncompliance Determination on an Unspecified Test Procedure.

NHTSA's statutory authority to promulgate standards is governed by the provisions of Title 49 of the United States Code, Chapter 301 (Motor Vehicle Safety) (formerly the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act). Chapter 301 provides that a moto r vehicle safety standard "shall be practicable, meet the need for motor vehicle safety, and be stated in objective terms." 49 U.S.C. @ 30111(a).

These statutory criteria for motor vehicle safety standards have been construed by the Federal courts to require NHTSA to specify objective criteria and test procedures for measuring compliance with each safety standard. In one of the first cases con struing NHTSA's safety standard-setting authority, the Court found as follows:

"The importance of objectivity in safety standards cannot be overemphasized. The Act puts the burden upon the manufacturer to assure that his vehicles comply under pain of substantial penalties. In the absence of objectively defined performance requirem ents and test procedures, a manufacturer has no assurance that his own test results will be duplicated in tests conducted by the Agency. Accordingly, such objective criteria are absolutely necessary so that 'the question of whether there is compliance wi th the standard can be answered by objective measurement and without recourse to any subjective determination.'

Objective, in the context of this case, means that tests to determine compliance must be capable of producing identical results when test conditions are exactly duplicated, that they be decisively demonstrable by performing a rational test procedure, and that compliance is based upon the readings obtained from measuring instruments as opposed to the subjective opinions of human beings."

Chrysler Corporation v. Department of Transportation, 472 F.2d 659, 675-676 (6th Cir. 1972) (two footnotes omitted) (quotation in first paragraph is from the House Report accompanying enactment of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, H.R. 1 776, 89th Cong. 2d Sess. 1966 at p. 16).

The court went on to conclude that the provisions of FMVSS 208 under review at that time were not objective, because they permitted too much variability in the results of compliance tests conducted in literal compliance with the specified procedures.

Here, NHTSA has specified extensive test procedures for demonstrating compliance with FMVSS 210 within the text of the standard itself (S5. Test Procedures), and has supplemented those regulatory test procedures with a published laboratory test protoc ol, the latest version of which is TP-210-09. Neither the test procedures within the standard nor the accompanying test protocol makes any provision for locating the pelvic body block in the test vehicle for the anchorage loading compliance test. In the absence of a specification, Chrysler has consistently placed the body block against the seat back, which is the most natural and representative location for the body block. As far as Chrysler could ascertain from a review of prior NHTSA compliance tests , the agency has also customarily located the pelvic body block against the seat back during FMVSS 210 compliance tests.

On July 27, 1995, Chrysler representatives met with NHTSA compliance engineer Jeff Giuseppe and representatives of NHTSA's contractor, General Testing Laboratory. At that meeting, the Chrysler representatives were informed that NHTSA's contractor; GT L, moved the pelvic body block several inches forward of the seat back in order to prevent breaking the seat belt buckle during the load application test on the Cirrus.

This relocation of the pelvic body block away from the rear of the seat is not authorized by FMVSS 210 or its published test protocol. The rationale offered for the relocation - that the relocation was necessary to avoid breakage of the seat belt buc kle during the compliance test -- is inconsistent with the 1990 amendments to FMVSS 210 and the implementing instruction in the published test procedure.

In 1990, NHTSA addressed the very issue of the potential for breakage of the buckle or webbing during the anchorage loading test, and decided to resolve the potential breakage problem by authorizing the use of cables, chains or high strength webbing t o impose the load on anchorages during FMVSS 210 compliance testing, as long as the material used to apply the load to the anchorages duplicates the geometry of the original equipment webbing at that seating position at the initiation of the compliance t est. Final Rule amending FMVSS 210, 55 Fed. Reg. 17970 at 17980 (April 30, 1990); Final Rule responding to Petitions for Reconsideration, 56 Fed. Reg. 63676 at 63677 (December 5, 1991). In the 1990 Final Rule, NHTSA emphasized that its decision was inte nded to assure that "compliance testing should not result in unrealistic loading for the anchorages."

In the published test protocol, NHTSA implemented this amendment to FMVSS 210 by directing laboratories to address potential buckle or webbing breakage by replacing seat belt webbing and/or buckles in the area of the body blocks with wire rope. (See Sect ion 12, Compliance Test Execution.) At no time in the rulemaking or in the implementing test protocol has NHTSA ever suggested that the hardware breakage problem could or should be addressed by relocating the pelvic body block to some unspecified locatio n away from the seat back of the test vehicle.

In any event, it does not matter whether the relocation of the body block is helpful to the agency in avoiding compliance test difficulties. The important point is that the contractor's relocation of the pelvic body block has adversely affected the o utcome of the compliance test, by introducing a variable in the compliance test procedure that is not authorized by the NHTSA standard or its implementing published test protocol.

On its face, FMVSS 210 requires demonstration of anchorage strength under certain specified test conditions. Chrysler has demonstrated compliance with those requirements. It is only after NHTSA's contractor relocated the pelvic body block to a locat ion not specified in the standard and not consistent with NHTSA's own prior laboratory test reports, that the laboratory was able to show an apparent noncompliance in the case of the Cirrus.

NHTSA is required to specify objective requirements in its safety standards, and to specify repeatable test procedures by which compliance can be demonstrated. Chrysler Corp. v. Department of Transportation, 472 F.2d at 676. In the Cirrus matter, the NHTSA laboratory's relocation of the pelvic body block was not authorized by the FMVSS 210 test procedure or the published test protocol. Thus, NHTSA is attempting to demonstrate noncompliance on the basis of an unspecified test variable, which it cann ot do consistent with its obligation to specify repeatable test procedures. "Manufacturers are entitled to testing criteria that they can rely upon with certainty." Paccar, Inc. v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 573 F.2d 632, 644 (9th C ir., 1978), cert. den. 439 U.S. 862 (1978).

Furthermore, NHTSA is not free to make changes in its compliance test procedures if those changes can affect the outcome of the compliance test, unless NHTSA provides adequate notice to the regulated industry. Absent such notice, NHTSA cannot retroac tively interpret FMVSS 210 to require compliance with the anchorage strength requirements with a relocated pelvic body block. General Electric Company v. U.S. EPA, 15 F.3d 1324, 1333-1334 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (even if agency interpretation of a standard is r easonable and entitled to deference on a prospective basis, it cannot be enforced retroactively if the standard does not "fairly inform" the regulated industry of the agency's perspective).

C. Conclusion.

NHTSA cannot base a determination of noncompliance with FMVSS 210 on a variable test procedure that is not specified in the Standard. To hold otherwise would sanction a wholesale departure from the fundamental requirement in Chapter 301 for "objectiv e" standards, compliance with which can be measured in accordance with repeatable, producible test procedures. Chrysler has demonstrated the Cirrus' compliance with FMVSS 210 in accordance with the regulatory test procedures and published test protocol. NHTSA's compliance investigation should be closed.

(Copy of page 64469 of the Federal Register (vol. 60, No. 241, 11-15-95) omitted here.)

ID: nht95-5.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 13, 1995

FROM: George E. Walton -- International Manufacturer's Consultants Inc.

TO: Mr. John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Reference: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 205, Glazing Materials - Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Vehicles, Motorcycles, Trucks and Buses.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 08/04/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO GEORGE W. WALTON (REDBOOK 2; STD. 205)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

We represent a client who wishes to obtain your written comment on the use of the following glazing material in a motor vehicle:

Our client wishes to use laminated "AS-1" Glass for motorcycle windshields.

A motorcycle is described as a "Motor Vehicle", and the FMVSS-205 standard indicates by reference in the ANSI Z26.1 standard that "AS-1" glazing for use "Anywhere in a Motor Vehicle".

Our client would like to have your written comment prior to producing several thousand motorcycle windshields from AS-1 glazing.

Would you kindly address your comment to the undersigned.

ID: nht95-5.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 13, 1995

FROM: D. L. O'Connor -- Manager, Government And Customer Compliance, The Goodyear Tire And Rubber Company

TO: Walter K. Myers -- Office Of The Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/9/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK (STEPHEN WOOD) TO D. L. O'CONNOR (A43; PART 571)

TEXT: Dear Walt:

Goodyear is encountering difficulties in importing tires that meet all of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) into Colombia, South America. It appears that Colombia is attempting to regulate the quality and safety of all products being imported into the country which is certainly a worthy goal.

Colombia recognizes and accepts the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards as adequate to meet the quality and safety levels they desire. The problem Goodyear is encountering is verification that we are a company that complies with all the safety standards when we place the DOT symbol on a tire.

The Colombian Institute of Technical Standards (ICONTEC) requires a Certificate of Conformity which we provide. A copy of this Certificate is attached.

Per our conversation on July 12, 1995, reference this subject, we believe that Goodyear-U.S.A. will be permitted to continue exporting tires to Colombia if NHTSA would recognize/endorse the fact that Goodyear is a U.S. tire manufacturer in good standing and the DOT stamping on our tires is valid.

Thank you in advance for your help.

Attachment

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company

Akron, Ohio 44316-0001

July 13, 1995

CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMITY

We certified that all tires manufactured by Goodyear-USA which are exported into Colombia are of first quality, and in compliance to the United States Department of Transportation Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, either FMVSS # 109 for new pneumatic tires for passenger cars, or FMVSS # 119 for new pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars.

J C Whiteley Vice President Government Compliance & Product Quality

D L Knight Director, Tire Technology Latin America Region

ID: nht95-5.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 13, 1995

FROM: Yvonne Anderson -- Todd Wans

TO: Mary Versailles, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/31/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO YVONNE ANDERSON (A43; VSA 108 (A) 2))

TEXT: Dear Ms Versailles:

Our company, Todd Vans in the state of Minnesota does handicap van conversions. We are currently converting a van for a school system. The van was purchased by the school system at a local car dealer and was then brought to us to raise the roof, extend the side door, install wheelchair tiedowns and a wheelchair lift. The original manufacturers rating of the vehicle is that of a "Bus". When the handicap equipment is installed and a seat removed it would change the vehicle to a MPV and thus reducing the seating in a 12 passenger van.

My question is this, "Does this vehicle have to be recertified by us or anyone else to conform with Federal guidelines?"

I would appreciate an answer as soon as possible, as they want the vehicle in use by the end of August.

ID: nht95-5.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 13, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Michael A. Norman

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/30/95 LETTER FROM MICHAEL A. NORMAN TO JOHN WOMACK

TEXT: Dear Mr. Norman:

This responds to your letter of June 30, 1995, with respect to the "Auto Truckers Courtesy Light." This is the device that you discussed with Taylor Vinson of this Office on June 29. You have applied to the Virginia Department of Transportation for evaluation of this product who will make a decision on July 13. We assume that you wish to know whether the product is permitted by Federal regulations.

As we understand it from the description, photos, and drawings that you enclosed, the device consists of a large sign with a "thank you" message that would be illuminated by two small amber lamps in the upper corners. The device could be mounted on the rear underride guard of a large truck or trailer, or on the rear cargo door. The purpose of the device is to enable the driver of the vehicle on which it is installed to show appreciation "to a trailing motorist for blinking his lights to assist the truck operator in changing back to the right hand lane after passing." In addition "[the] device operates with audio and visual indicators with three second automatic delay cut off."

You told Taylor Vinson that the intent is to sell this product in the aftermarket. As Mr. Vinson indicated, the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on motor vehicle lighting (Standard No. 108) contains no specifications applicable to the manufacture and sale in the aftermarket of supplementary motor vehicle lighting equipment such as this. This means that the device may be manufactured and sold without violating any Federal law administered by the Department of Transportation.

There remains, however, the issue of whether its installation and use would violate a Federal proscription that forbids manufacturers, dealers, distributors, and motor vehicle repair businesses from "making inoperative" motor vehicle lighting equipment installed in accordance with Standard No. 108 (or equipment installed that was necessary to comply with any other Federal motor vehicle safety standard). With respect to supplementary lighting equipment, we generally ask ourselves whether the "message" sent by required lighting equipment is likely to be made less effective if it and the device are used simultaneously. The effectiveness of the required lighting equipment is especially important with respect to oversized vehicles such as large trucks and trailers. With respect to your device, we foresee the possibility that the driver of a large vehicle on which it is installed might have to apply the brakes at the moment that the two small amber lamps are activated that illuminate the "thank you" sign, thus impairing the effectiveness of the stop lamps (we would probably reach a different conclusion if the message was related to the brake lamps, i.e., if it said "Stop"). Therefore, the installation of your device by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business would appear to violate the Federal proscription against making safety equipment inoperative.

The proscription, however, does not apply to the owner of the vehicle which, if a company, could have the device installed in its own private repair facilities, or if the owner is a person, by the owner. This means that the individual States in which the device is to be used may accept or reject the device as they determine to be appropriate. We are unable to advise you how the laws of the individual States would apply to the device, and suggest that you write for an opinion to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

If you have further questions, Taylor Vinson will be pleased to assist you (202-366-5263).

ID: nht95-5.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 13, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Douglas Miyashiro -- Northrop Grumman

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/22/95 LETTER FROM DOUGLAS MIYASHIRO TO DOROTHY NAKAMA (OCC 11011)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Miyashiro:

This is in response to a memo dated June 22, 1995 that you faxed to Coleman Sachs of my staff on July 12, 1995. Your memo states that Northrup Grumman's System Engineering Department is defining design requirements for an Advance Technology Transit Bus (ATTB), and, as part of that effort, researching whether the Federal Bumper Standard found in 49 CFR Part 581 would apply to such vehicles.

As noted in your memo, 49 CFR 581.3 states that the standard "applies to passenger motor vehicles other than multipurpose passenger vehicles." The standard itself does not define the term "passenger motor vehicle," but does state, in section 581.4, that "all terms defined in the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act . . . are used as defined therein." Section 2(1) of that Act (now codified at 49 U.S.C. @ 32101(10)), defines "passenger motor vehicle" as "a motor vehicle with motive power, designed for carrying twelve persons or less . . ."

In light of this definition, the ATTB would not have to comply with the Bumper Standard unless it is designed to carry twelve persons or less.

If you have any further questions regarding this issue, feel free to contact Mr. Sachs at the above address, or by telephone at (202) 366-5238.

ID: nht95-5.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 15, 1995

FROM: Charles Holmes

TO: Office of Chief Council -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/25/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO CHARLES HOLMES (A43; REDBOOK 2; STD. 206)

TEXT: Letter of Interpation:

On May 24, 1995 my minor son Justin Holmes, Fell out of a Ford 1 ton truck. This was an 1989 Ford 1 ton with a gross weight of 33,000 lbs. Upon entering the truck, Justin was placed in a seat belt, and I locked the door. Some where along the ride he unhooked the belt, I was in a curve when the door opened, I looked up and Justin was falling out the truck.

When Justin was asked what happen he stated, I had my hand over the door handle when daddy started going around, I was tring to hold on and the door came open.

Ryder trucks are Rental trucks, Which rents to Families. I had no warning the look was not a safety lock.

Ryder said they are not in any way responsible, and Ford has not answered. I would like to know what Regulations you have on a truck that carries the gross weight of 33,000 lbs, the safety regulations which governs door locks and handle? By this being a Rental Vehicle would the regulations fall under passenger vehicles? What Federal Case Laws Reverse or OverRules your Regeulations? And a list of people ever injured in a simular accidents. That is there Names and Addresses.

ID: nht95-5.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 18, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Yoshiaki Matsui -- Manager, Automotive Equipment, Legal & Homologation Section, Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 06/23/95 LETTER FROM YOSHIAKI MATSUI TO CHIEF COUNSEL (OCC 11017)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Matsui:

This responds to your letter of June 23, 1995, asking questions about neon high mounted stop lamps.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration answered these questions in the preamble to a notice of proposed rulemaking that was published on June 19, 1995. We assume that you had not received it by the 23rd, and enclose a copy for your information.

You will see (center column, page 31940) that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108 allows neon tubes as light sources for the center highmounted lamp. Under our interpretation of paragraph S5.1.1.16, FMVSS No. 108 also allows testing of a neon lamp with or without its ballast, in accordance with the directions of that paragraph.

If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office.