ID: nht93-6.22

DATE: 08/26/93

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by Kenneth N. Weinstein

TO: Kenneth G. Koop -- Risk Control Representative, Intergovernmental Risk Management Agency

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/3/93 from Kenneth G. Koop to John Wolmack (Womack) (OCC 8768)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of June 3, 1993, requesting information on a modification for police vehicles. You seek permission to remove the passenger seat and passenger air bag from police vehicles, and to permanently mount equipment where the passenger seat had been. As explained below, this type of modification would be permitted under Federal law.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1381 et seq.; Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, 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. Among the standards that NHTSA has issued are two which could be affected by the modification you propose: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, (49 CFR S571.207), which requires each vehicle to have an occupant seat for the driver and sets strength and other performance requirements for all occupant seats in a vehicle, and Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR S571.208), which specifies occupant protection requirements based on vehicle type and seating position within the vehicle.

If your contemplated modification is made before a vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration (See 49 CFR Part 567.7).

Once the front passenger seat is removed, Standard No. 208 would not require an air bag for that location since an occupant restraint is only required if a seating position is there.

After a vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale, i.e., the first retail sale of the vehicle, the presence and condition of devices or elements of design installed in the vehicle under applicable safety standards is affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

NHTSA does not consider there to be a violation of the "render inoperative" prohibition with respect to occupant restraints if, after one of the named types of commercial entities modifies a used vehicle, the vehicle is equipped with occupant restraints at every seating position and those occupant restraints are the type that Standard No. 208 permitted when the vehicle was new. Again, if a seating position were removed from a used vehicle, the removal of the air bag as well would not violate the render inoperative provision because the presence of the air bag was originally premised on the presence of the seating position. However, the render inoperative prohibition would be violated if removal of the passenger side air bag caused the driver side air bag to malfunction or deploy. I would like to caution you to contact the vehicle manufacturer concerning the proper procedure for any air bag removal. Removing an air bag could cause it to deploy and injure the mechanic. In addition, removal of the passenger side air bag could cause the driver side air bag to malfunction or deploy.

You should also note that the "render inoperative" prohibition applies only to the named entities. Therefore, vehicle owners are permitted to make any modifications to their vehicles, even if the vehicle would no longer comply with applicable safety standards. However, we encourage vehicle owners not to tamper with the occupant protection systems installed in their vehicles.

You should be aware that S4.5.2 of Standard No. 208 requires a readiness indicator for an air bag system which is clearly visible from the driver's seating position. NHTSA believes that most manufacturers install one indicator for both air bags. After the passenger side air bag is removed, this indicator would show that the air bag system is not operative. NHTSA is concerned that the driver would then be unable to tell if the driver side air bag were functional. Therefore, I urge you to contact the manufacturer to determine how the indicator could be altered to monitor the readiness of the driver side air bag only.

As a final caution, I note that the purpose of the "render inoperative" provision is to ensure, to the degree possible, current and subsequent owners and users of the vehicle are not deprived of the maximum protection afforded by the vehicle as newly manufactured. Your letter states that you will "place permanently mounted policing equipment in the seat's place." It is our understanding that it is common for police cars to be sold after a few years of service. Presumably any police equipment would be removed before such a sale. I urge you to either reinstall the passenger seat and occupant restraint or to make these modifications in a way that will discourage reinstallation of the passenger seat, so that future users of the vehicle are unlikely to use a seating position that does not have any occupant restraint.

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

ID: nht95-5.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 31, 1995

FROM: Dennis G. Moore -- President, Sierra Products Inc.

TO: Chief Council -- NHTSA

TITLE: Legal Interpretation Request for FMVSS # 108

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/20/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO DENNIS G. MOORE (A43; REDBOOK 2; STD. 108)

TEXT: Around 1985 * , NHTSA significantly reduced the Amber (Yellow) Photometric output minimals for all Rear Amber Turn Signal Lights. This reduction was implemented, I believe, partially as an act of Common Sense and partially as a positive Harmonization gesture to European Vehicle Safety people. Whereas these European Safety people did then and still do require "significantly less" Amber Photometric Output area, which was not correspondingly reduced when NHTSA reduced the required Photometric Output. Further, the Europeans still require significantly less Area for Amber lenses than the U.S. still requires.

* Presently I can't find the Federal Register Announcement with Details on this issue, however, I will attempt to send it later. I do know this data is readily available from your Docket Files.

European Safety leaders, I've been told, have "tests" that substantiate their position that a "Smaller" and less bright Amber Turn Singal yields "less conspicuosity", which is a desirable feature when compared to the Conspicuosity demanded by the Very Important Red Brake Lights . . . and rightfully so. As one can see for themselves . . . just the fact that a Turn Signal is Amber and not Red (as are all other Rear Safety Lights) makes it adequately "conspicuous", even if it is "smaller" and significantly less bright compared to the Brake Lights.

Also, European Scientists contend they have always had a "safer system" than the U.S. System as they have always required Two Brightly Lit Brake Lights, whereas the U.S. System allows only One Brake Light to be illuminated, leaving the other as a "Red" Turn (Blinking) Signal -- They contend that the U.S. approach can confuse the human mind and in fact, perhaps be comprehended as an Impending Turn and "not specifically" as a Braking Action whereas their system using. Two Brake Lights - both clearly Lit - means nothing but "Braking . . . Danger!"

They indicate that their smaller in size and brightness, Rear Amber Turn Signal "clearly indicates" to following traffic the situation when a Turn is occurring by itself or simultaneously with the Braking Action.

In any case, I believe our U.S. NHTSA Rulemakers of several years past were in error or experienced an oversight when they reduced and Harmonized the U.S.'s Rear Amber Turn Singal's required output but at the same time did not reduce the "Area" of output which would have kept the "Density * "of U.S. Amber Lights output about the same as the Europeans have found to be effective . . . thus making the U.S. more or less completely Harmonized with the New EU Specifications effective January 1, 1996.

* "Density", a better layman's term than getting into Luminesec and Luminous intensity . . . at this time.

Any American that is actively involved in the Manufacturing of Vehicle Lights knows it is ludicrous to require U.S. Manufacturers to Design Amber Turn Singal lenses in the 12in<2> range * , and then ask them to try and Balance our Trade by attempting to sell larger than necessary (therefore more expensive Lights) in Europe whereas European Manufacturers enjoy the advantage over U.S. Manufacturers of less expense simply because of size.

* which is what is now required for Big Rig and RV Rear Amber Turn Signals

I am asking that a better Trade Balance Policy be adopted as well as seeing that Common Sense reasoning prevails at NHTSA by asking that this situation be corrected.

If NHTSA's Legal Council feels this error should be corrected through the Petitioning Process, I ask that this writing be considered a "Petition for Change of FMVSS # 108 Request" and given consideration for "rapid processing" through the Public Commenting period. I seriously doubt if any American Company or Engineer is in possession of any Scientific Data that would refute what reasoning and facts I have presented here. By reducing the minimal area of the Amber Turn Signal light lens from 12 in<2> to approximately 8 in<2> or 6 in<2>, the U.S. would have more practical Rules for U.S. Exports at no expense to Safety.

Please handle this expendiently!

Yours truly,

Dennis G. Moore President

P.S. Please understand that I believe I speak primarily for the "Big Rig", Small Trailer and RV Type Lighting Manufacturers in the U.S., not for the typical S.A.E. Detroit Auto Designer and/or Auto Engineer.

My type of manufacturing is forced, through extreme competition pressure, to make Multi-purpose Rear Lights for about $ 3.00 each in order to be competitive here in the U.S., whereas, Detroit Auto Stylists know that small Amber Turn Signal Lights on Autos look puny and degrading to their potential customers. They know the bigger these Amber Lenses are, the better they look, the more they cost, and, therefore, the more overall profit is made on them as they are broken and replaced during the life of the Vehicle. Therefore, Detroit stylists and economists don't really want small sized Amber Turn Signals even if they know that small ones do the Safety Job they're intended to do -- they must compete in "Styling" whereas larger and more elaborate lights sell cars and makes them more money in the long run than what would be saved on small lights, whereas this is not at all true with "Other" Vehicle Lighting Manufacturers like I represent who are trying to Compete in the U.S. and Europe in the Non-Auto Vehicle Lighting business.

I believe, and apparently so do most European Safety people, that Location, Color and the Density * Output of a Safety Light is more important for "Conspicuosity" than a large lens with low output.

ID: nht95-3.64

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 31, 1995

FROM: Dennis G. Moore -- President, Sierra Products Inc.

TO: Chief Council -- NHTSA

TITLE: Legal Interpretation Request for FMVSS # 108

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/20/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO DENNIS G. MOORE (A43; REDBOOK 2; STD. 108)

TEXT: Around 1985 * , NHTSA significantly reduced the Amber (Yellow) Photometric output minimals for all Rear Amber Turn Signal Lights. This reduction was implemented, I believe, partially as an act of Common Sense and partially as a positive Harmonization ge sture to European Vehicle Safety people. Whereas these European Safety people did then and still do require "significantly less" Amber Photometric Output area, which was not correspondingly reduced when NHTSA reduced the required Photometric Output. Fu rther, the Europeans still require significantly less Area for Amber lenses than the U.S. still requires.

* Presently I can't find the Federal Register Announcement with Details on this issue, however, I will attempt to send it later. I do know this data is readily available from your Docket Files.

European Safety leaders, I've been told, have "tests" that substantiate their position that a "Smaller" and less bright Amber Turn Singal yields "less conspicuosity", which is a desirable feature when compared to the Conspicuosity demanded by the Very Im portant Red Brake Lights . . . and rightfully so. As one can see for themselves . . . just the fact that a Turn Signal is Amber and not Red (as are all other Rear Safety Lights) makes it adequately "conspicuous", even if it is "smaller" and significantl y less bright compared to the Brake Lights.

Also, European Scientists contend they have always had a "safer system" than the U.S. System as they have always required Two Brightly Lit Brake Lights, whereas the U.S. System allows only One Brake Light to be illuminated, leaving the other as a "Red" T urn (Blinking) Signal -- They contend that the U.S. approach can confuse the human mind and in fact, perhaps be comprehended as an Impending Turn and "not specifically" as a Braking Action whereas their system using. Two Brake Lights - both clearly Lit - means nothing but "Braking . . . Danger!"

They indicate that their smaller in size and brightness, Rear Amber Turn Signal "clearly indicates" to following traffic the situation when a Turn is occurring by itself or simultaneously with the Braking Action.

In any case, I believe our U.S. NHTSA Rulemakers of several years past were in error or experienced an oversight when they reduced and Harmonized the U.S.'s Rear Amber Turn Singal's required output but at the same time did not reduce the "Area" of output which would have kept the "Density * "of U.S. Amber Lights output about the same as the Europeans have found to be effective . . . thus making the U.S. more or less completely Harmonized with the New EU Specifications effective January 1, 1996.

* "Density", a better layman's term than getting into Luminesec and Luminous intensity . . . at this time.

Any American that is actively involved in the Manufacturing of Vehicle Lights knows it is ludicrous to require U.S. Manufacturers to Design Amber Turn Singal lenses in the 12in<2> range * , and then ask them to try and Balance our Trade by attempting to sell larger than necessary (therefore more expensive Lights) in Europe whereas European Manufacturers enjoy the advantage over U.S. Manufacturers of less expense simply because of size.

* which is what is now required for Big Rig and RV Rear Amber Turn Signals

I am asking that a better Trade Balance Policy be adopted as well as seeing that Common Sense reasoning prevails at NHTSA by asking that this situation be corrected.

If NHTSA's Legal Council feels this error should be corrected through the Petitioning Process, I ask that this writing be considered a "Petition for Change of FMVSS # 108 Request" and given consideration for "rapid processing" through the Public Commenti ng period. I seriously doubt if any American Company or Engineer is in possession of any Scientific Data that would refute what reasoning and facts I have presented here. By reducing the minimal area of the Amber Turn Signal light lens from 12 in<2> to approximately 8 in<2> or 6 in<2>, the U.S. would have more practical Rules for U.S. Exports at no expense to Safety.

Please handle this expendiently!

Yours truly,

Dennis G. Moore President

P.S. Please understand that I believe I speak primarily for the "Big Rig", Small Trailer and RV Type Lighting Manufacturers in the U.S., not for the typical S.A.E. Detroit Auto Designer and/or Auto Engineer.

My type of manufacturing is forced, through extreme competition pressure, to make Multi-purpose Rear Lights for about $ 3.00 each in order to be competitive here in the U.S., whereas, Detroit Auto Stylists know that small Amber Turn Signal Lights on Auto s look puny and degrading to their potential customers. They know the bigger these Amber Lenses are, the better they look, the more they cost, and, therefore, the more overall profit is made on them as they are broken and replaced during the life of the Vehicle. Therefore, Detroit stylists and economists don't really want small sized Amber Turn Signals even if they know that small ones do the Safety Job they're intended to do -- they must compete in "Styling" whereas larger and more elaborate lights se ll cars and makes them more money in the long run than what would be saved on small lights, whereas this is not at all true with "Other" Vehicle Lighting Manufacturers like I represent who are trying to Compete in the U.S. and Europe in the Non-Auto Vehi cle Lighting business.

I believe, and apparently so do most European Safety people, that Location, Color and the Density * Output of a Safety Light is more important for "Conspicuosity" than a large lens with low output.

ID: nht68-1.15

DATE: 09/12/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert M. O'Mahoney; NHTSA

TO: California Highway Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of August 19 inquiring as to the certification responsibility of manufacturers or assemblers of dune buggy kits with respect to conformance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. But the issue you raise is far broader and involves the whole area of owner-assembled motor vehicles.

You have stated:

"It is our interpretation that Federal Standard 108 is not applicable to dune buggies that are owner-constructed or reconstructed for the builders personal use."

This interpretation is incorrect. It is a violation of section 108(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 for any person to:

". . .introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce . . .any motor vehicle. . manufactured (or assembled) on and after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect . . .unless it is in conformity with such standard . . ."

This means that the final assembler of a dune buggy whoever he is, must insure that the completed vehicle conforms to all applicable Standards including No. 108. In the case of dune buggies, this means Standards applicable to multipurpose passenger vehicles since a dune buggy is "constructed. . .with special features for occasional off-road operation." (23 C.F.R. @ 255.3(b)).

It is our understanding that a dune buggy consists of a newly manufactured body mounted on the modified chassis of a passenger car previously in use. An issue is raised by the facts that dune buggies are assembled from both new and used items of motor vehicle equipment and that there is language in the Act which appears to exempt "any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment after the first purchase of it in good faith for purposes other than resale" (section 108(b)(1). However, since the modification involving used components goes far beyond customizing a used vehicle and results in the end product having a different classification under the Federal Standards and a different purpose than the original vehicle a dune buggy is a "new" motor vehicle for purposes of the Act.

Continuing your interpretation you further state:

"However, those sold as kits or by a manufacturer are required to comply with Federal Standard 108."

Only assembled vehicles are required to conform to most Federal Standards including No. 108, and there is no legal requirement under the Act that a kit seller furnish lighting equipment meeting the various SAE requirements specified in that Standard. Some Federal Standard however, do establish requirements applicable to equipment items as well as to assembled vehicles. If a kit manufacturer furnishes hydraulic brake hoses (Standard No. 105), new pneumatic tires (Standard No. 109), glazing materials (Standard No. 205), seat belt assemblies (Standard No. 209), and wheel discs, wheel covers, or hub caps (Standard No. 211), then these items must conform to the applicable Standard.

Finally, there appears to be some misunderstanding of the certification required by section 114 of the Act. This certification is required to be furnished only by a manufacturer or distributor, and only to a distributor or dealer upon delivery of a motor vehicle or equipment item to which a Standard or Standards are applicable. No certification is required to be given by a manufacturer to a party not a distributor or dealer. Nor is there any requirement that the assembler per se certify the vehicle. This of course, does not relieve the assembler of his independent obligation to insure that the assembled vehicle meets Federal Standards.

I hope this answers your questions.

Sincerely

Robert M. O'Mahoney

Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations

August 19, 1968

Ref: 61.A1117.A518

David Fay Office of Standards on Accident Avoidance Motor Vehicle Safety Performance National Highway Safety Bureau

Dear Mr. Fay:

A question has arisen on the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to certain types of constructed dune buggies.

Dune buggies are constructed from various vehicle chassis and bodies but most commonly from Volkswagens. The three basic methods of constructing a dune buggy are:

1. New and used vehicle bodies and chassis are converted into a dune buggy by changing the chassis.

2. New and used vehicle bodies and chassis are converted to dune buggies by modifying both the body and chassis.

3. Dune buggy kits are sold which are comprised of various modified vehicle components.

Vehicle owners have been converting their cars into dune buggies and then, after they are through using them, sell them. Kit manufacturers sell kits to a customer, who in turn assembles the vehicle himself. These are the usual methods of making dune buggies other than buying them directly from a dune buggy manufacturer who assembles the entire vehicle from his own plans.

It is our interpretation that Federal Standard 108 is not applicable to dune buggies that are owner-constructed or reconstructed for the builders personal use. However, those sold as kits or by a manufacturer are required to comply with Federal Standard 108.

A question has arisen concerning whether or not it is the responsibility of the kit seller to certify that the kit, when assembled, will comply with the Federal standards or if the assembler must certify that the completed vehicle complies with the Federal Standards. There is no question of the necessity to certify the vehicle if it is manufactured or assembled by a dune buggy manufacturer. The California Vehicle Code requires dune buggies to comply with the equipment and lighting requirements of California. Inasmuch as the effect of Federal Standard No. 108 on these types of vehicles has been questioned, we request your opinion or concurrence on our interpretation of the applicability to the standard of these vehicles.

Very truly yours,

WARREN M. HEALTH --

Commander

Engineering Section,

DEPT. OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL

ID: nht91-3.10

DATE: April 4, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: DS America, Inc.; Attn: Messrs. Riani and Mitchell

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-6-90 from Anthony Riani and David Mitchell to To Whom it May Concern (OCC 5841)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of March 6, "1990" with respect to your interest in importing for resale Volkswagen Beetles manufactured in Mexico. You've asked for information on "all relevant requirements for cars being imported to the United States."

A motor vehicle must conform with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) in order to be imported permanently into the United States. The authority for this requirement is The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended by the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988, which became effective January 31, 1990. I enclose a copy of the 1966 Act for your information; the amendments effectuated by the 1988 Act are found at section 108 (1397), subsections (c) through (j).

In brief, a nonconforming motor vehicle may not be imported into the United States unless the Admininstrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has determined that the vehicle complies or is capable of conformance to the FMVSS. Determinations are made pursuant to petitions received from manufacturers or registered importers. A "registered importer" is one that NHTSA has officially recognized as capable of performing the conformance work. After an affirmative determination, the vehicle may be imported by the registered importer, or by any other person who has a contract with the registered importer to perform the conversion work. Certain performance bonds and fees payable to the government have been established. I enclose a copy of the most current list of registered importers. For the text of the FMVSS and other agency regulations, you may contact the outlet of the Government Printing Office closest to you, and obtain "Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 400-999 Effective October 1, 1990". NHTSA regulations are parts 501-594 inclusive. You will be particularly interested in Parts 571 (the FMVSS), 591 (import regulation), 592 (registered importer requirements), 593 (vehicle eligibility determinations), and 594 (fees).

The Administrator has made no determination with respect to the conformance capability of Mexican Beetles with the FMVSS. If you wish to petition for such a determination, you must either become a registered importer or contract with one to act in your behalf. NHTSA would be especially concerned about the capability of Beetles manufactured on and after September 1, 1989, to be conformed to meet the automatic restraint requirements of FMVSS No. 208 (49 CFR 571.208), Occupant Restraint Systems.

You have asked for any information the Department may have about conformance problems. During the mid-1980s, Mexican Beetles were imported

for resale by commercial enterprises in Texas and California. The Texas enterprise was able to satisfy the importation requirements that were effective before the stringent amendments of the 1988 Act. The California enterprise was unable to meet our requirements. We do not view the Texas experience in conversion of vehicles as particularly relevant today in light of the extensive changes made by the 1988 Act.

Finally, you have asked whether "documentation by Volkswagon of Mexico certifying these crash requirements can replace a crash tested vehicle or vehicles." Under our regulations, the registered importer must certify that the converted vehicle conforms to all applicable FMVSS, and, with the initial vehicle, provide NHTSA with documents in substantation. Certainly, if Volkswagen de Mexico had conducted successful barrier impact tests exactly in the manner set forth in the FMVSS, the test results would appear to afford a basis upon which the registered importer could certify compliance. But because conformance modifications could alter vehicle structure or weight, and hence potentially affect the test results previously obtained, your question cannot be answered simply yes or no. However, a registered importer is not legally obliged to conduct a crash test to demonstrate conformance, but could verify that the converted Mexican Beetles continue to conform with the Mexican test results through the use of computer simulations, engineering studies, or mathematical calculations.

If you have further questions, we shall be pleased to consider them.

Attachment

Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment dated September 1985. (Text omitted)

Attachment

U.S. Department of Transportation

NHTSA

FISCAL YEAR 1991 REGISTERED IMPORTERS OF NON-CONFORMING MOTOR VEHICLES 49 CFR PART 592

The following firms have been approved as Registered Importers of non-conforming motor vehicles under the provisions of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 592, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1991. Additional applications have been received, and if there are further approvals, this list will be updated. The agency does not endorse or recommend any firm listed herein, and does not guarantee or imply that any work or service performed for any individual customer will necessarily be satisfactory.

REGISTERED IMPORTER ADDRESS TELEPHONE

A. Eastern United States

Bonair USA 500 Hollister Rd. 201-288-5333 Teterboro, NJ 07608

Champagne Imports of 200 West 5th St. 215-361-1304 Pennsylvania Lansdale, PA 19446

ICI International 4490 35th Street 407-839-3663 Orlando, FL 32811

J.K. Motors P.O. Box 178 301-366-6332 Kingsville, MD 21087

Liphardt & Associates 15 Trade Zone Dr. 516-588-8288 Ronkonkoma, NY 11779

B. Western United States

Europa International 1570 B-2 Pacheco St. 505-984-8888 Santa Fe, NM 87501

G&K Automotive 1061 N. Grove St. 714-632-8100 Conversion Anaheim, CA 92806

Wallace Environmental 2140 Wirtcrest 713-956-7705 Testing Laboratories Houston, TX 77055

(Revised Jan. 18, 1991)

cc: US Customs Service, Washington, DC Environmental Protection Agency Department of the Army, DALO-TSP

ID: 005431rls

ID: 11345WKM

Mr. Lance Tunick
Manager, Special Projects
Vehicle Science Corporation
Post Office Box 1015
Golden, CO 80402-1015

Dear Mr. Tunick:

This responds to your letter asking whether your rear side door locking system would meet the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door locks and door retention components (49 CFR 571.206). The answer is a qualified yes.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. The following represents our opinion based on the facts set forth in your letter.

You stated that on your locking system, the first pull of the inside rear door handle unlocks the door but does not release the latch to open the door. The second pull releases the latch to open the door. These features are in addition to a "child safety lock." You asked whether your rear side door locking system would comply with the requirements of S4.1.3 and S4.1.3.2 of FMVSS No. 206.

Paragraph S4.1.3, FMVSS No. 206 provides:

Door Locks. Each door shall be equipped with a locking mechanism with an operating means in the interior of the vehicle.

We have interpreted S4.1.3 to require the following features. Each door must have a locking mechanism, and there must be an interior operating means for engaging the locking mechanism. (See April 10, 1987 letter to Karl-Heinz Ziwica of BMW, copy enclosed.) In your letter, there is an implication that your system has an interior means for engaging each door lock. Assuming such a means is provided, the requirement of S4.1.3 would appear to be met. Because the aspect of performance required by S4.1.3 is that the interior operating means for the door locks be capable only of engaging the door locking mechanism, S4.1.3 does not address what means must be provided to unlock the locking mechanism, and thus does not prohibit unlocking a locking mechanism by means of the "inside rear door handle."

Paragraph S4.1.3.2 of FMVSS No. 206 provides:

Side Rear Door Locks. In passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles, when the locking mechanism is engaged both the outside and inside door handles or other latch release controls shall be inoperative.

Your letter did not specifically state that when your locking system is engaged both the inside and outside latch release controls would be inoperative. Assuming that they would be, the question is whether the inside door handle on your system is "inoperative" when the handle can still operate to disengage the locking mechanism. We conclude that the answer is yes. This issue was addressed in an October 7, 1993 letter to Mr. Ziwica of BMW (copy enclosed), concerning a side rear door lock and latch mechanism similar to yours. The BMW system consisted of a door handle that served the dual function of acting as a door locking mechanism and door latch release. When the side door is locked, the door handle would be pulled once to disengage the locking mechanism. The handle would be pulled a second time to open the side rear door.

In NHTSA's response to BMW, the agency stated that S4.1.3.2 is intended, in part, to reduce inadvertent door openings due to impact on or movement of inside or outside door handles. Thus, the agency concluded that "inoperative," as used in S4.1.3.2, refers to the operation of opening the door, rather than that of disengaging the lock. Accordingly, NHTSA determined that the BMW system met the requirement of S4.1.3.2.

The door handle of your system serves the same "dual function" as that of the BMW system, and thus would be permitted. The door handle of your system cannot open the door when the locking mechanism is engaged.

You asked whether the second pull unlatching the door could occur at any time after the first pull, or only within a specific time frame after the first pull. The standard does not specify that a door can only be unlatched after a certain amount of time from disengagement of the door lock. The second pull unlatching the door can thus occur at any time after the first pull.

Finally, you stated that you were concerned about the final rule of April 27, 1968, 33 FR 6465, which promulgated the rear door lock requirements discussed today. You quoted that portion of the preamble to the final rule which stated that the requirement for rear door locks was a child-protection device because it prevents opening the rear door by movement of the inside rear door handle by children. You asked us to "address this issue."

As explained above, your locking system would meet S4.1.3.2 because, when the locking mechanism is engaged, the inside door handle cannot open the door. Since the inside door handle cannot open the door when the door is locked, that aspect of performance serves as a child protection measure. However, we agree with your decision to equip the door with a child safety lock. A child safety lock, when engaged, 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 lever deactivating the child safety lock is typically inaccessible to the child passenger. A child safety lock may be appropriate as an added child protection measure.

Notwithstanding the foregoing discussion, the system you describe raises serious safety concerns, in that a child could disengage the lock and then open the door by playing with the handle. The fact that your proposed system would also be equipped with a Atraditional child lock@ reduces but does not eliminate such concerns.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:206 d:3/28/96

The capability of the operating means to engage the required door locks must not be interfered with by any additional door locking device.

ID: 11503WKM

Mr. Jiro Doi
Vice President and General Manager
Mitsubishi Motors America, Inc.
1111 19th Street, NW
Suite 600
Washington, DC 20036

Dear Mr. Doi:

This responds to your letter to me requesting interpretation of paragraph S4.4.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, ADoor locks and door retention components.@ You raised a number of issues that I will discuss below in the order presented.

The latch, hinge, and lock requirements of FMVSS No. 206 were extended to the back doors of passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less, including hatchbacks, station wagons, sport utility vehicles, and passenger vans, by a final rule published in the Federal Register on September 28, 1995 (60 FR 50124) (copy enclosed). S4.4.2 was added to the standard by that final rule and provides:

Each back door system equipped with interior door handles or that leads directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommodations shall be equipped with a locking mechanism with operating means in both the interior and exterior of the vehicle. When the locking mechanism is engaged, both the inside and outside door handles or other latch release controls shall be inoperative.

Question 1.

You first ask about a vehicle with a back door leading directly into a compartment containing seating accommodations. The back door system on such a vehicle must be equipped with a locking mechanism meeting the location and performance requirements of S4.4.2. Under S4.4.2, engagement of the locking mechanism must make the door handles or other latch release controls inoperative.

You ask whether your understanding is correct that an "interior door handle" means "a handle located directly on the door," and not a back door latch release located next to the driver's seat or front passenger's seat. You believe that a back door release next to the driver's seat need not be inoperative when the locking mechanism is engaged.

You are correct that "interior door handle" means a handle attached directly to the interior side of a vehicle door. The door lock and handle requirements were originally imposed on rear side doors to reduce "inadvertent door openings due to impact upon or movement of the inside or outside door handle" (33 FR 6465, April 27, 1968). The agency reasoned that with the door lock engaged - that is, in the locked position - and the door handles thereby "inoperative" - that is, unable to open the door - unintentional door openings would be reduced. The rule was also intended as a child protection device by preventing the opening of the rear door by movement of the inside rear door handle. It is clear, therefore, that in establishing these requirements, the agency envisioned handles mounted directly onto the door. The agency reaffirmed and relied on that rationale in extending S4.4.2 to back doors (60 FR 50124, 50130).

However, with respect to a back door release mechanism located next to the driver's or the front passenger's seat, S4.4.2 provides that when the back door locking mechanism is engaged, the interior and exterior door handles or other latch release controls must be inoperative. Thus, a remote latch release mechanism located in the front of the vehicle, clearly an "other latch release control," must, like the handles mounted on the doors, also be inoperative when the locking mechanism is engaged.

Question Two.

Your next issue, also involving S4.4.2, asks whether back doors "that lead directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommodations" would include vehicles in which a passenger would have to climb over the back of the rear seat in order to reach a designated seating position. You state that "leading directly into a compartment" means that the seats are "easily accessible" and if one must climb over the seat back to reach a seating position, the seating position would not be easily accessible.

Your understanding is correct. The agency qualified the back door lock requirements by providing that, unless equipped with a door handle, only a back door "that leads directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommodations" need comply with S4.4.2. That means a door through which vehicle occupants enter from outside the vehicle directly into a vehicle compartment in which occupant seats are located, or exit the vehicle directly from a compartment in which they have been seated to the outside of the vehicle. That does not include doors leading into a compartment, such as a cargo compartment, in which there are no seating positions and that would require an occupant to climb over the back of a seat in order to reach a seating position.

Question Three. You ask whether a configuration in which half or all of the rear seat is removable would be subject to S4.4.2. Where the seats are removable, as with the vehicle depicted in your enclosed picture, the back door leads into a cargo space and removal of the seats merely extends the cargo space. Thus, unless that back door was equipped with a door handle, it would not need to meet S4.4.2, whether or not the seats were removed.

Question Four. Your final issue refers to the requirement in S4.4.2 that applicable vehicles be equipped with "a locking mechanism with operating means in both the interior and exterior of the vehicle." You believe that a vehicle equipped with an electronic central door lock mechanism operable from the driver's seat or the front passenger seat does not need any other interior door lock operating means. You also believe that an exterior key lock without a handle, such as on a hatchback, suffices as the required exterior operating means.

You are correct on both counts. The requirement in S4.4.1 originates from an identical requirement in S4.1.3, which applies to side door locks. In interpreting S4.1.3, NHTSA stated that a central system that engages all door locks but that is controlled from the front door arm rests constitutes an interior operating means in satisfaction of such requirement (see letter to BMW of North America, Inc., dated October 7, 1993, copy enclosed). Following this interpretation, we conclude that the operating means for the locking mechanism on your vehicle may be operable from the driver=s seat or the front passenger seat. A key-operated lock on the outside of the door would meet the requirement, whether or not equipped with a handle, since all that is required is an "operating means" to engage the lock.

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,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:206 d:4/26/96

ID: 1983-2.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/08/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Merchant's Inc. -- Buck Burwell, Vice President

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Buck Burwell: Vice President Merchant's, Inc. 9073 Euclid Ave. Manassas VA 22110

Dear Mr. Burwell:

This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff, asking questions about a group of trucks tires you wish to sell. Specifically, your company received a large shipment of truck tires from Tong Shinn Chemical Company in Korea. Some of those tires did not have the D.O.T. symbol and other information labelled on the sidewall, as required for all new truck tires by Safety Standard No. 119, New pneumatic tires for motor vehicles other than passenger cars (49 CFR S571.119). Your company tried to return the tires to the Korean manufacturer, because tires which do not meet the requirements of Standard No. 119 may not be legally sold in this country. However, the Korean manufacturer has gone out of business, leaving your company with $15,000 worth of tires which may not be sold legally in this country unless appropriate information is labelled on the sidewalls.

You indicated in your letter that you would be willing to label the appropriate information onto the sidewalls of the tires. Tong Shinn has indicated that those tires are of the same quality as the tires it shipped to you with the DOT markings. Further, you indicated that your company would be willing to store the names and addresses of the purchasers of these tires, in the event a safety-related recall is necessary. After considering these facts and representations, I believe you may label the tires with the necessary information and sell them, provided that you get some more information from the Korean manufacturer.

This agency has previously allowed the marking of truck tires by a party other than the manufacturer in only one instance. That case, which also involved imported truck tires, included four factors which led the agency to make an exception to the policy that only a tire manufacturer can label the necessary information on the sidewall of the tires. Those factors were:

(l) The manufacturer certified that the unmarked tires met the requirements of Standard No. 119, except for the labelling requirement;

(2) The manufacturer provided the appropriate information to be labelled on the tires;

(3) The manufacturer agreed to be responsible for the tires in the event of a safety-related recall; and

(4) The manufacturer agreed that the marking method to be used by the importer would not weaken the tires and destroy their compliance with Standard No. 119.

In this case, Tong Shinn has already provided the first item listed above. It will be necessary for you to contact Tong Shinn to learn what information should be labelled on the tires for purposes of section S6.5 of Standard No. 119 (copy enclosed) and also the appropriate codes and information for the tire identification number, which must be labelled on the sidewalls of the tires per 49 CFR 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping (copy enclosed). Please furnish Mr. Kratzke with a copy of the information you receive from Tong Shinn on this subject.

As to the third item above, you indicate that your company would be willing to be responsible for the tires in the event of a safety-related recall. To do so, it will be necessary for your company to record the names and addresses of the purchasers of these tires, and store that information for a three year period. For further information on the responsibilities you will have to undertake, see section 574.7 for tire registration requirements for tire manufacturers.

It will also be necessary for you to contact Tong Shinn and explain how you propose to make the information on the side-walls of these tires, and get them to agree that this method of marking the tires will not affect their compliance with Standard No. 119. Again, please furnish a copy of that agreement to Mr. Kratzke of this office.

After you have received this additional information, this agency has no objection to your company marking the tires and selling them. Please understand that this is permitted only because of the unique circumstances of this particular situation, and that if the Korean manufacturer had not gone out of business, you would not be allowed to mark these tires. However, in these circumstances, some flexibility in the requirements is necessary to help you avert a financial loss, while maintaining the necessary safety assurances for purchasers of these tires. If you have any further questions or need additional information, please contact Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosures

June 29, 1983

Dear Mr. Kretzke:

We have received in our latest shipment, 142 Truck Tires without D.O.T. markings, from Tong Shinn Chemical Company, in Korea.

These tires were mixed in with other tires of the same size that were properly D.O.T. marked. Since discovering the problem we have learned that the manufacturing company has gone out of bus-iness. As a result, we are left with approximately $15,000.00 worth of truck tires that we are at this point, unable to sell. Under normal circumstances we would return the tires to the supplier at their expense.

We know these tires meet D.O.T. standards and have attached notarized correspondence to that effect. We are asking that D.O.T. authorize us to sell these tires after stamping them with any marking that you may require. We can also record the purchasers, should any problems arise with the tires.

This would be a considerable loss to our company if we were unable to resolve the problem.

Thanking you very much for your help in this matter.

Sincerely yours,

Buck Burwell Vice President

BB/cg

Enclosure Omitted.

ID: 1983-2.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/20/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company -- Tom Caine, Law Dept.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 2/24/83 letter from Frank Berndt to Garvin-Fram Inc.

TEXT:

Tom Caine, Esq. Law Department The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company Akron, Ohio 44316-0001

Dear Mr. Caine:

This responds to your request for a clarification concerning a letter of interpretation issued by the agency with respect to the responsibilities of various parties after tires have been damaged by a fire and the manufacturer has determined that the DOT certification on the sidewall is no longer valid. Specifically, I stated in a February 24, 1983, letter to Mr. Jack Garvin that, in the event of fire damage to tires, the manufacturer whose certification appears on the sidewall must determine whether that certification is still valid after the fire damage. Further, I stated that if the certification is no longer valid, the manufacturer must remove its DOT symbol from the sidewall of the tires, and those tires cannot be sold.

You stated that you understand this duty exists when the damaged tires are still within the control of the manufacturer. However, you have a problem with the interpretation when control of the damaged tires has passed from the manufacturer to a third party, such as an independent dealer or a salvage company. You noted that Goodyear has had a continuing problem with common carriers, insurance companies, and salvage companies which try to sell tires after Goodyear has determined that the certification on those tires is no longer valid.

I certainly did not mean to imply in my previous interpretation that a tire manufacturer is required to physically seize fire-damaged tires in situations where physical control over those tires has passed to some third party. In those situations, the tire manufacturer can simply notify the controlling party that the tires can no longer be certified as complying with the applicable safety standard (Standard No. 109 for passenger car tires and Standard No. 119 for all other tires for use on motor vehicles), and the tires cannot legally be sold. It would be helpful for enforcement purposes if the tire manufacturer were to forward a copy of any such notification to a controlling party to this agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.

As you correctly noted in your letter, section 108 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1397), prohibits any party from offering for sale or introducing into commerce any tire which the party knows does not conform to the requirements of the applicable safety standards. A party which has been directly informed by a tire manufacturer that a group of tires no longer complies with the applicable safety standard could not sell those tires or otherwise introduce them into commerce without violating section 108. Section 109 of the Safety Act subjects a party to a civil penalty of up to $1000 for a violation of section 108, and each tire sold in these circumstances would be a separate violation of section 108. Additionally, section S6 of Standard No. 109 prohibits the sale or introduction into commerce for any purpose of tires designed for use on passenger cars if those tires do not comply with all the requirements of Standard No. 109. This would make it illegal for a third party to sell fire-damaged passenger car tires as farm-use tires or non-highway tires.

Please note that this letter does not address any responsibilities which the tire manufacturer or salvager/seller may have to a consumer who in good faith buys a fire-damaged tire. If you have any further questions in this area, please contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

March 22, 1983

Mr Frank Berndt -- NHTSA

Your recent opinion letter (copy attached) addressed to Mr Jack Garvin, Schaumburg, Illinois, concerning highway tires damaged by fire has come to my attention.

You indicate that if the tire manufacturer determines that its original certification is no longer valid because of fire damage, then it is the manufacturer's responsibility to remove the DOT symbol from the sidewall of the damaged tires.

We have no problem with the position you spell out so long as the damaged tires are within the control (title and possession) of the manufacturer. However, we do have a problem with respect to tires which have been sold (title passed) to independent dealers or resold by dealers to salvage companies or in the possession of a common carrier or its salvage company.

We have had a continuing problem with common carriers, insurance companies and salvage companies who insist that there is a salvage value even though we have determined that the tires are no longer certifiable and should be scrapped.

It appears to me that the basic law 15 USCA S1397(a)(1) prohibits any person from selling a non-certifiable highway tire for resale unless the person did not have reason to know the tire was not certifiable. Accordingly, it would seem that when the manufacturer notifies a salvage company or common carrier that a tire is no longer certifiable, the responsibility for compliance with the law has shifted to the salvage company or common carrier involved. In addition, I have to assume that 49 CFR 571.109 S6. (nonconforming tires) applies in this situation and would prohibit a salvage company or common carrier from reclassifying a highway auto tire as a "farm use only" tire or "non-highway" tire.

Will you please advise me as to your position concerning the tire manufacturer's responsibility under the circumstances set forth above.

Sincerely

Attorney

T D Caine ph Attachment (2/24/83 letter from Frank Berndt to Garvin-Fram Inc. omitted here.)