ID: 1982-1.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/12/82; JANUARY 13, 1982

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Pathfinder Auto Lamp Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your November 25, 1981, letter to Roger Tilton of this Office regarding the applicability of vehicle identification number (VIN) requirements to trailer kits manufactured by your company.

It is our view that these trailer kits must comply with the VIN requirements of FMVSS 115. Your kits contain all components necessary to assemble a complete trailer, and are advertised as capable of being readily assembled with simple tools such as screwdrivers and wrenches. We see no relevant basis for distinguishing between such kits and completed trailers for purposes of determining the applicability of FMVSS 115.

While the VIN requirements do provide anti-theft benefits, they also are important to this agency in administering the defect recall program as well as to State motor vehicle departments and insurance companies. Further, even if this agency exempted trailer kits from VIN requirements, purchasers of your kits would likely face difficulties when they attempt to register their trailers with the States. We expect most states to soon begin checking VIN's as part of the vehicle registration process, and vehicles without a VIN or with a nonconforming identification number might face rejection by the state motor vehicle departments notwithstanding a technical exemption from NHTSA. We feel that in the long run, the best and simplest solution is for vehicle manufacturers to assign a VIN which meets the requirements of FMVSS 115.

Should you still wish to seek an exemption from the standard, procedures for obtaining exemptions are set forth in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 555, a copy of which is enclosed. Such exemptions are available for not more than three years.

You should also be aware that certification labels must contain both the month and year of a vehicle's manufacture. See 49 CFR 567.5(b)(5). The copy of the label you sent us contains only the year of manufacture.

If you have further questions on this matter, feel free to contact us again.

Sincerely,

Enclosure

ATTACH.

Pathfinder Auto Lamp Company

November 25, 1981

Roger Tilton -- Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

RE: V.I.N. REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPACT UTILITY TRAILER KITS

Dear Mr. Tilton:

In accordance with our telephone conversation of November 24, 1981, I have enclosed information on our trailer kit consisting of the following:

- Sales Brochure

- Picture of the Unit

- Copy of the Nameplate Label

- Copy of the M.S.O. (C.O.)

A question has occurred in one state regarding the application of FMVSS 115 (576.115) requirements for Vehicle Identification Numbers (V.I.N.) to these trailer kits. The problem being that to comply with the requirements of 115 would impose a workload on us that cannot be justified based on the unit volume and low selling cost of these units.

We have no problems in working with the various agencies in the several states and meeting their various legal, administrative, taxing, and construction requirements for these units, even though they represent a new or separate category in some cases. However, the 115 requirements present a burden which can cause restricted availability in jurisdictions imposing them. This is unfortunate for consumers in those locales, particularly since these units are a natural adjunct to down size cars with limited trunk space.

While the requirements of 115 are a definite improvement in regard to protecting motor vehicles and other high dollar items from theft, we feel that the requirements are not completely logical for these kits. The reason being that these units are low in dollar value at retail and are not a theft prone item. The latter is true especially prior to assembly since the kit still in the box is not very mobile due to the size and weight of the box. We therefore seek your assistance in resolving this matter since our customers are anxious to sell these units in all states.

I appreciate your assistance in this matter. Please feel free to call me if I may be of further help to you.

Very truly yours,

James S. Nasby -- Director of Engineering

enclosures (4)

COMPACTUTILITY TRAILER 1/2 TON CAPACITY

(Graphics omitted)

STORAGE

Unique design of recessed tail lights permits trailer to be easily stored in an upright position. This exclusive feature saves considerable storage space in garage, shed or basement.

CLAM SHELL

The 48 x 41 trailer frame is designed to accommodate most clam shell car top carriers. The rear cross member of the trailer frame adjusts to fit the various mounting spans of manufactured clam shell carriers.

FLAT BED

A versatile flat bed trailer can be built in minutes by simply bolting on a 48' x 41' plywood board to the trailer frame. Additional mounting holes are provided on all four sides of the frame to accommodate tie down cords.

EASY TO ASSEMBLE

All that is required to assemble the trailer is a screwdriver a (Illegible Word) allen wrench and two adjustable wrenches. The assembly time can be greatly reduced with the use of a 1/4" socket set and several open and wrenches.

(Graphics omitted)

Demountable wheel permits easy tire changing and lubrication. Spare tire available separately CT-1010 (02010)

This beautifully designed consumer oriented package contains self selling features which includes explicit application information and product specifies. The entire unit is packaged in a surprisingly compact box and measures 49 1/2" x 21 1/2" x 5 5/8".

Optional fenders constructed of heavy gauge steel are available as separate item. CT-1020(02020)

BOX

The versatility of the frame is enhanced to its utmost when converting the unit to a box trailer. Complete building plans are provided in the instruction manual which will make this an easy job for the "do it yourselfer."

WINTER USE

The 1,000 lb. load capacity of the trailer gives it a wide assortment of winter season uses ranging from hauling a snowblower to most snowmobiles. This added feature gives truth to the fact that it is truly an item for all four seasons.

MOTORCYCLE

The trailer frame can be easily converted to transport most motorcycles and bicycles. It is ideal for off road dirt bikes as well as family bicycle outings.

GARDEN TRACTOR

In whatever configuration the trailer frame is transformed, it can be used with most garden tractors. The compact utility trailer is at least less than 1/2 the cost of most standard garden tractor trailers and yet has greater universal application.

* Each trailer comes complete with easy to read assembly instructions.

* A certificate of origin, which is required in most states for title and licensing, is included with each trailer.

* The trailer is equipped with DOT approved class "A" lighting which meets legal requirements in all 50 states and Canada.

* Pathfinder's hub and sprindle are fully assembled with bearings and seal factory greased and installed.

Master Master Model IBM Carton Carton Carton No. No. Pack Weight Cube CT-1000 02001 1 125 3.39

MANUFACTURED BY Pathfinder Niles, IL, U.S.A. 60648

Date of Manufacturer: 1980

Model No.: CT 100

Serial No: 2275

GVWR 1100 LBS. WITH 480/400x8 TIRES AT 60 P.S.I. COLD

GAWR 1100 LBS. WITH 480/400x8 TIRES AT 60 P.S.I. COLD

MAXIMUM LOAD CARRYING CAPACITY 1000 LBS.

THIS VEHICLE CONFORMS TO ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE STANDARDS IN EFFECT ON THE DATE OF MANUFACTURE SHOWN ABOVE.

Manufacturer's Statement or Certificate OF ORIGIN TO A UTILITY TRAILER

The undersigned manufacturer hereby certifies that the new Trailer kit described below, the property of said manufacturer has been transferred this day of 19 on Invoice No. to whose address is

Trade Name of Trailer kit: Compact Utility Trailer

Serial No.

Shipping Weight: 123 lbs.

Maximum Load Carrying Capacity: 1,000 lbs.

G.A.R.W.: 1,100 lbs.

Date of Manufacture (and Model Year)

MONTH

YEAR

Series or Model Name: CT1000

No. Wheels: 2

Width: 40 (Illegible Word)

Length: 44"

G.V.W.R.: 1,100 lbs.

Other Data: Steel Construction Black

(Illegible Line)

Said manufacturer hereby certifies that this written instrument constitutes the first conveyance of said vehicle after its manufacture and that the manufacturer's serial number set forth above has not been and will not be used by the manufacturer on any other vehicle manufactured by said manufacturer, and that there are no other manufacturer's certificates issued by the manufacturer for the vehicle described above.

PATHFINDER AUTOLAMP CO. NILES, ILLINOIS 60648

MANUFACTURER

By:

(SIGN NAME TITLE OR POSITION)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: 86-6.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/20/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: H. Tsujishita

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter dated October 30, 1986, seeking an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 581, Bumper Standard and seeking our comments on sample reports required under several of our regulations. This letter addresses your question about our bumper standard first, and then comments on your sample reports.

You asked about one of the protective criteria specified in section 581.5(c) of Part 581. Part 581 requires vehicles to meet the damage criteria of that section after specified test impacts.

Section 581.5(c)(8) states:

The exterior surfaces shall have no separations of surface materials, paint, polymeric coatings, or other covering materials from the surface to which they are bonded, and no permanent deviations from their original contours 30 minutes after completion of each pendulum and barrier impact, except where such damage occurs to the bumper face bar and the components and associated fasteners that directly attach the bumper face bar to the chassis frame. (Emphasis added.)

You stated that you understand "exterior surfaces" to refer to the exterior body surface which can be observed without the removal of any components, and that it does not mean the body surface which cannot be observed unless components are removed. Based on this understanding, you stated that you believe that two areas of a car, identified in an attached drawing as Area A and Area B, need not conform to the no damage requirement. Both Area A, a radiator support panel located directly under the headlamp, and Area, B, a fender apron located below the headlamp but along the side of the car, cannot be observed unless the bumper assembly is removed.

Your understanding of "exterior surface," with respect to Areas A and B of your drawing, is correct. Those areas are not exterior surfaces, because they are located behind the bumper assembly and cannot be observed unless that assembly is removed.

Sample Reports

1. 49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number - Content Requirements

Assuming that the Daihatsu is the only make and type of vehicle you will sell in the United States, the submission of the unique identifier would comply with @ 565.5(b). If you are planning to sell other makes, you would also have to include information on those makes in this submission.

The deciphering information would be sufficient under @ 565.5(d) except for the information about the engine type. The information you suggest providing describes the engine only as a "CB". The term "engine type" is defined at @ 565.3(d) as "a power source with defined characteristics such as fuel utilized, number of cylinders, displacement, and net brake horsepower." None of these factors can be deciphered from your "CB" marking. The deciphering information should indicate whether this is a gasoline or diesel engine, the number of cylinders, engine displacement, and net brake horsepower. With this modification, the sample report would comply with the requirements of Part 565.

2. 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification

The sample identifying information from Daihatsu is sufficient for the purposes of Part 566.

You also asked how accurate this identification must be with respect to the GVWR ranges of the vehicles. As you noted, @ 566.5 (c) requires manufacturers to submit the "approximate ranges" of GVWR for each type of motor vehicle produced by the manufacturer. The agency explained in the notice of proposed rulemaking for this rule that it was seeking only basic information on the vehicles produced by the manufacturer. See 36 FR 7970, at 7971; April 28, 1971. Thus, if you wish to state that you produce passenger cars with a GVWR between 2300 and 2500 pounds, as suggested in your letter, that information would satisfy the requirements of Part 566.

You also asked the purpose of requiring the Part 566 report. The purpose was explained as follows in the notice of proposed rulemaking:

In order to carry out the provisions of the Act, it is often necessary to have certain basic information about the manufacturers of motor vehicles or vehicle equipment subject to the Act. This is particularly so in the area of enforcement and in carrying out the several requirements for communication, inspection, and reporting. It is necessary to have centrally organized and collected information regarding the manufacturer's corporate status, mailing address, items manufactured, and manufacturing location. Moreover, it is necessary to assemble this information so as to make it readily accessible to those having enforcement responsibility under the Act, and provide a means for identifying and classifying manufacturers according to the types of motor vehicles or equipment which they manufacture. A system is also needed whereby NHTSA can provide information to manufacturers of various types of vehicles or equipment. 36 FR 7971; April 28, 1971.

3. 49 CFR @ 551.45 Designation of Agent

You first asked whether your sample designation of agent conforms with the requirements of 49 CFR @ 551.45. It does not. Section 551.45 specifies that a designation of agent must include the following six items of information:

1. A certification by the person or persons signing the designation that it is valid in form and binding on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made.

Your sample contains no such certification.

2. The full legal name, principal place of business, and mailing address of the manufacturer.

This information is set forth only on the letterhead of your stationery. If the corporate name set forth on your stationery is the full legal name, it would satisfy this requirement. If that is not the full legal name, however, the full legal name must be separately shown. The same principle applies to the requirements to submit your principal place of business and mailing address.

3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origins of any of the manufacturer's products which do not bear its legal name.

It is impossible for us to determine whether there are no such marks, if the Daihatsu symbol on your letterhead is the only such mark, or if you have not satisfied this requirement.

4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer.

There is no such statement in your sample.

5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed by the manufacturer.

Your sample would satisfy this requirement.

6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent. Your sample would satisfy this requirement. Your sample would satisfy this requirment.

You then asked what the designated agent does, and whether all reports had to be submitted to this agency via the designated agent. The designated agent acts as the agent for foreign manufacturers upon whom service of process, notices, orders, and decisions may be made for and on behalf of the manufacturer. Please note that both your designation of agent and acceptance erroneously state that such service may be made by or on behalf of the agent. Under the due process clause of our Constitution, a party cannot be bound by the outcome of a legal proceeding unless he or she has been given notice of such proceeding and an opportunity to be heard. Since we cannot go into a Japanese court, the U.S. government must have some device by which it can ensure that a foreign manufacturer is given proper notice of any proceedings affecting it in the United States. Thus, the designation of an agent by Daihatsu helps to ensure that the company will be fully and promptly apprised of any governmental action involving the company.

Hence, foreign manufacturers are not required to submit reports through their designated agents - the designated agent is only a means for this agency to serve process and so forth on the foreign manufacturer. In fact, we recommend that foreign manufacturers submit reports and other correspondence directly to NHTSA, so as to facilitate the exchange of information.

4. 49 CFR Part 575.104, Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards

The sample report you submitted is exactly that which is specified in Figure 2 of @ 575.104. It would therefore comply with @ 575.6(a) and @ 575.104(d)(1)(iii). Please note that there are typographical errors for the words "treadwear" and "passenger" in the sample you submitted.

5. 49 CFR @ 575.101, Vehicle Stopping Distance

Your stopping distance sample report is in the format specified in Figure 1 of @ 575.101. Accordingly, it would satisfy the requirements of @ 575.101((c).

6. 49 CFR Part 537, Automotive Fuel Economy Reports

Your sample fuel economy report, including the statement as to representativeness, satisfies the requirements of Part 537. Please note that the timing for submitting the reports is set forth in @ 537.5(b), and that your 1988 pre-model year report is due in December 1987, while your 1988 mid-model year report is due in July 1988.

7. 49 CFR Part 542, Procedures for Selecting Lines to be Covered by the Theft Prevention Standard

Your sample Part 542 submission would satisfy the requirements of that Part.

Please feel free to contact us if you need any further information on our regulatory requirements.

ID: 3275yy

Mr. Edward M. Klisz
Chief, Light Tactical Vehicle Branch
Department of the Army
United States Army Tank-Automotive Command
Warren, MI 48397-5000

Dear Mr. Klisz:

This responds to your letter regarding foreign-made tires that the Army procured in Southwest Asia. You indicated that your office is trying to ascertain the suitability of these tires, not all of which are marked with a "DOT" certification, for Army use. You enclosed a list of the tires and, for those marked with "DOT", requested this office to "determine if the DOT codes are accurate according to [our] records." You also requested that we verify your understanding of the general requirements applicable to foreign tire manufacturers, and the process by which such manufacturers certify their tires as complying with our standards. I am pleased to have this opportunity to answer your questions.

For your information, I have enclosed a copy of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act). Section 103 of the Safety Act authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act defines a motor vehicle safety standard as, "a minimum standard for motor vehicle performance, or motor vehicle equipment performance, which is practicable, which meets the need for motor vehicle safety and which provides objective criteria." [See 102(2)].

The Safety Act then requires that all motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment sold or imported into the United States, regardless of whether the product is manufactured in the U.S. or abroad, must comply with the safety standards adopted by NHTSA. Specifically, 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act provides:

no person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver into introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard and is covered by a certification issued under 114...

In the case of tires, this provision of the Safety Act means that a foreign tire manufacturer would be prohibited from exporting its new tires to the United States unless the manufacturer certified that the tire complies with the applicable U.S. safety standards. All new tires for use on passenger cars must be certified as complying with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 (49 CFR 571.109), and all new tires for use on other motor vehicles must be certified as complying with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119 (49 CFR 571.119). These standards specify performance requirements (strength, endurance, high speed performance, and, for passenger car tires only, resistance to bead unseating), marking requirements (treadwear indicators and labeling information), and tire and rim matching information requirements that must be met by all tires to be sold in the United States.

The process of certifying compliance with the applicable safety standards under the Safety Act is substantially different than that used in many other countries. For instance, the European nations require manufacturers to deliver tires to a governmental entity for testing. After the governmental entity itself tests the tires, the government approves those tires for use and assigns an approval code to the tires. In place of this sort of process, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process for tires sold in the United States. Under this self-certification process, the tire manufacturer, not any governmental entity, certifies that its tires comply with the applicable safety standards.

Further, the Safety Act does not require that a manufacturer base this certification on a specified number of tests or any tests at all; a manufacturer is only required to exercise due care in certifying its tires. It is up to the individual tire manufacturer to determine in the first instance what test results, computer simulations, engineering analyses, or other information it needs to enable it to certify that its tires comply with the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Once a manufacturer has determined that its tires meet the requirements of the applicable standard, it certifies that compliance by molding the letters "DOT" on one sidewall of each certified tire.

As stated above, NHTSA does not do any pre-sale approval or testing of tires. Instead, the agency routinely tests certified tires that have been sold to determine whether the tires do in fact comply with applicable standards. For these enforcement checks, the agency purchases new tires and tests them according to the procedures specified in the standard. If the tires pass the tests, no further steps are taken. If the tires fail the tests and are determined not to comply with the standard, the tire manufacturer is required to recall the tires and remedy the noncompliance. Turning now to your particular situation, it is not clear how helpful these requirements will be in assessing the current safety performance of the tires procured during Operation Desert Storm/Desert Shield. In the case of such tires that are marked with "DOT", that mark means the tire manufacturer certified that, when new, the tires complied with all applicable safety standards. However, the presence of a "DOT" symbol on a used tire does not mean that the tire in its current condition would still comply with the new tire standards. There are many instances in which used tires would be unlikely to comply with the new tire standards, simply because of normal environmental factors and without any fault in the construction of the tire. Such environmental factors include, but are not limited to, a hole larger than a nail suffered by the tire while in service, damage to the inner liner of the tire from being run flat, damage to the bead area of the tire during mounting, damage to the sidewall from running against rocks, curbs, and so forth. In each of these instances, the vehicles on which the tires have been used and the conditions in which those vehicles have been operated would be at least as important in determining the tire's current performance capabilities as would the tire's capabilities when it was new.

Further, the absence of a "DOT" symbol on a tire purchased outside of the United States does not necessarily mean that the tire, when new, would not have complied with the applicable tire safety standard. On the contrary, it is possible that the new tire would have, if tested, actually been found to comply with those safety standards. The only definitive conclusion you may draw about a tire without a "DOT" symbol that is purchased outside the United States is that the tire's manufacturer, for whatever reason, did not certify that tire's compliance. It could be that the tire did not comply when new, or it could be that the manufacturer did not produce the tire for importation and eventual sale in the U.S., and therfore felt no need to certify the tire.

You noted in your letter that this agency has established a requirement in 49 CFR Part 574 that all tire manufacturers, both foreign and domestic, must obtain an identification mark from NHTSA and label each of their tires with that mark. Before NHTSA will assign an identification mark to a tire manufacturer headquartered outside the United States, the manufacturer must designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of process in this country. However, the designated agent of the manufacturer only acts as the agent for service of process; the manufacturer's designated agent is not responsible for the certification of the tires. Only the manufacturer certifies that the tires comply with all applicable standards and, as explained above, that certification must be made (and indicated with a DOT symbol) before the tire would be allowed to enter the United States.

Finally, you requested in your letter that we review the list of tires you submitted and verify the accuracy of the "DOT" marks shown. I believe this request was based upon a misunderstanding of NHTSA's role in the certification process. Since manufacturers are not required to deliver their tires to NHTSA for testing, or register their products with the agency, the agency has no way to "verify the accuracy" of the DOT codes you submitted. To repeat, the DOT code molded into the sidewall of a tire represents the manufacturer's self-certification that the tire complies with applicable standards; the DOT code is not a statement or certification by NHTSA that the tire complies with our standards.

NHTSA would only have information about the "accuracy" of the DOT codes (i.e., whether the tires so marked actually meet the standards), in the event that the agency had conducted one of its random enforcement checks on a new tire like the one in question. Accordingly, we reviewed our enforcement records to determine whether NHTSA performed compliance tests on new versions of any of those tires. Having searched the agency's data base for the brands, types, and years of the listed tires, we found that the agency did not conduct compliance tests on any of these tires.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact Stephen Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure

/ref: Std 119, Part 574 d:1/17/92

ID: 77-1.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/04/77

FROM: FRANK A. BERNDT -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: FRANK W. ALLEN -- ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL, General Motors Corp.

TITLE: N40-30[TWH]

TEXT: Dear Mr Allen:

General Motors Corporation advised the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in a March 16, 1976, letter that it disagrees with the agency's construction of the phrase "a minimum standard for motor vehicle performance" as it is found in @ 102(2) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1391 (2)). The construction appeared in the preamble to an amendment of Standard No. 105-75, Hydraulic Brake Systems, (41 FR 2392, January 16, 1976) and stated:

"Minimum" performance standards do not equate with "minimal" performance standards, as implied by General Motors and Wagner. The word "minimum" in the statutory definition of motor vehicle safety standards (15 U.S.C. 1391(2)), does not refer to the substantive content of the standards but rather to their legal status -- that the products covered must not fall short of them.

Your letter stated that GM disagrees and believes that the word "minimum" in the definition of "motor vehicle safety standards" refers solely to the substantive content of the safety standards and not to their legal effect.

As the term "minimum" concerns this discussion, it is found in two places in the Act. "Motor vehicle safety standards" are defined in @ 102(2) to mean (in relevant part) "a minimum standard for motor vehicle performance." Section 103(i)(1) (A) directs the proposal of school bus standards that "include minimum standards" for enumerated aspects of performance. While the adjective "minimum" has both of the meanings that our constructions would give it, it cannot, in the agency's opinion, be used in the sense of "least possible" or "minimal," given the context of the Act's provisions and their legislative history.

2

Your argument that the "minimum" performance standards contemplated by the Act should be the "least possible" levels of performance that accomplish a stated safety goal is not logically supportable because of the nature of the stated goal. That goal, meeting the need for motor vehicle safety, is not unitary or otherwise bounded in such a way that certain actions (or a level of action) can accomplish the goal. Rather, "meeting the need" is a goal that admits of a virtually infinite number of actions that meet the need in part but don't accomplish the need in its entirety. Thus, in the agency's view, no "minimum" standard is conceptually able to constitute the "least possible" requirement or level of performance that carries out the purposes of the Act.

Beyond this logical difficulty, it is our opinion that various aspects of the Act and its legislative history make clear that "minimum standards" were conceived of as legal thresholds that a manufacturer would be required to meet or exceed. This view also conforms to the general approach to consumer safety regulation utilized in the United States.

The hearings on motor vehicle and tire safety that preceded enactment of the Safety Act demonstrate that witnesses and legislators generally viewed "minimum standards for performance" as thresholds of performance to be met or exceeded by the manufacturers. Senator Nelson and Federal Trade Commission Chaiman Paul Rand Dixon discussed the "proper interpretation of minimum safety" contemplated for tires and appeared to that no absoulute safety level could be required for each safety need but that a threshold should be established, permitting competition in premium tires for greater levels of safety (Hearings on S. 1643 Before the Committee on Commerce, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. Ser. 89-37, at 27, 28 (1965)) (hereinafter referred to as Hearing 1643).

On page 31 of Hearing 1643, the National Bureau of Standards representative discussed "certain minimum specifications which are substantially more stringent than, for example, [industry] specifications for tires." In this context, "minimal" or "least possible" cannot logically be substituted for "minimum" as your construction would require. The General Services Administration (from which many NHTSA initial standards derive) used the term "minimum" in the sense of "least allowable" in describing its requirements for tires with a "minimum tread life" (page 51 of Hearing 1643). These examples are not intended to imply that no other construction can be put on other references to "minimum" in the hearings. The majority of references, however, support the agency's construction.

3

In other hearings, Senator Magnuson discussed two-stage implementation of "interim minimum safety standards" that must be upgraded within two years (Hearings on S. 3005 Before the Committee on Commerce, 89th Cong., 2nd Sess., ser 89-49, at 1, 2. (1965) (hereinafter referred to as Hearing 3005)). It is clear that use of the term "minimum standards" for the second series of requirements contemplated a level of requirement greater than "minimal" or "least possible". Society of Automotive Engineers standards, in contrast, were described by the Department of Commerce as "minimal in nature" (Hearing 3005, at 64).

The Secretary of Commerce, then contemplated as the person who would administer the Act, expressed the view that the vehicle "meets or exceeds the established safety performance standards." (Hearing 3005, at 67). The Secretary, in discussing economic practicability, noted the definition of standards as "minimum standards" and stated "I would think that it would be impracticable for the Secretary to determine upon a minimum standard that would up the price of the total automobile to such an amount that most Americans wouldn't be able to afford to buy it". This consideration of a stringent and expensive "minimum standard" can only mean that more than minimal changes were considered possible.

The Automobile Manufacturers Association (the AMA, and now the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association) accepted the view that improvement in safety performance evolves continually, with the implication that minimal standards were not contemplated. For example, the Chairman of the AMA's safety administrative committee testified: "While the safety standards of American automobiles have improved significantly over the years, the present traffic accident problem requires that the pace of achievement be further accelerated." (Hearing 3005, at 384). This AMA representative noted that "The aim of title I [of the Act] is to get safety performance standards that guarantee an optimum safety in the vehicles . . . ." (Hearing 3005, at 411).

The Senate and House Reports confirm the agency's view that "minimum" standards refer to "least allowable" performance levels. In the Senate Report, the statement is made that, while American cars were among the world's safest and demonstrated marked improvement over earlier models, further improvement would be needed (S. Rep. No. 1301, 89th Cong. 2nd Sess., at 2-5 (1966). Your construction of the term "minimum standard" as the "least possible" level of safety performance that meets a safety

need is not consistent with the Senate finding. On page 5 of the House Report is a description of the two-stage statutory provision for the imposition of "interim" standards followed by "new and revised" standards as "safety research and development mature." This statement is followed by the building code analogy cited in your letter:

. . . . Such standards will be analogous to a building code which specifies the minimum load-carrying characteristics of the structural members of a building wall, but leaves the building free to choose his own materials and design.

Our conclusion is that the analogy is directed to the concept of minimum standards as a "threshold" specifying a level of performance to be met or exceeded. It is apparent from the quoted material that the minimum "thresholds" of performance were considered as a means to avoid stifling design.

The House report also emphasises the concept of initial standards that would be followed by "new and revised" standards at a later date (H.R. Rep. No. 1776, 89th Cong, 2nd Sess., at 19 (1966)). Finally, of course, @ 103 (h) of the Act mandates issuance of interim standards to be followed by upgraded standards.

It is also meaningful that the criteria for a "minimum standard" set forth in @ 103 (a) do not include the concept of their being the "minimal" or "least possible" level that meets a safety need. Sections 103(d) and 103(f) dealing with Federal preemption of State and other regulations both discuss a "higher standard of performance" that implies the "threshold" or "least possible" meaning for minimum standards. A similar construction can be put on the grounds for statutory exemption in @ 123 of the Act that refer to a higher "overall level of safety performance" as grounds for exemption.

While it is arguable that a "minimal" standard can also convey logically the idea of a "threshold" that can be exceeded, the agency finds it difficult to accept that the word "minimum" was intended by Congress to carry both meanings simultaneously. If it is assumed that "minimum" only carries the concept of "least possible", one would then have to accept that the standards are stated as exact "minimal" values. While this line of reasoning is possible, its logical conclusion is that a vehicles only "complies" in the sense of @ 108(a)(1)(A) if it conform exactly to the performance values stated, and that it

5 neither falls short of nor exceeds them. This construction runs counter to the general statutory opinions and interpretations rendered by the NHTSA and accepted by the manufacturers since the Act went into effect. Moreover, making a certification (as required by @ 114 of the Act) that each vehicle complies exactly with the stated requirements would be a physical impossibility, given material, assembly, test condition, and instrumentation variations.

The NHTSA concludes, therefore, that a reasonable construction of the various provisions of the Act does not support the construction put forward by General Motors in your March 16, 1976, letter.

Sincerely,

ID: nht79-3.3

DATE: 08/28/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt for Joan Claybrook; NHTSA

TO: Honorable David Boren - U.S. Senate

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

AUG 28 1979

Honorable David Boren United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Boren:

This responds to your letter of August 2, 1979, on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Thomas J. Weaver, regarding problems he is having with the automatic belt system on his Volkswagen Rabbit. Apparently, the belt system does not properly fit Mr. Weaver, and Volkswagen has stated it cannot lower the driver's seat to correct the problem because of Federal regulations.

Before getting into the details of this matter, I want to express my admiration for Mr. Weaver in his efforts to obtain the benefits of his safety belts. It is discouraging to hear that a person wishing to use his belts is unable to do so. However, I must stress that we have no authority to compel a manufacturer to alter a vehicle in a situation like this. The most we can do is attempt to clarify whether it is federal law or other factors that led to Volkswagen's reluctance to make the alterations desired by Mr. Weaver.

The discussion in the letter you received from Mr. Kenneth Adams, Volkswagen's Washington representative, needs some clarification. Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208), requires passenger cars to be equipped with safety belts that adjust to fit drivers ranging in size from a 5th-percentile adult female (weighing about 102 pounds) to a 95th-percentile adult male (weighing about 215 pounds). Therefore, the regulation requires safety belts to fit at least 90 percent of the driving population. Of course, nothing prohibits manufacturers from designing their belts to fit 100 percent of the population, and the agency encourages manufacturers to do so. The standard is only a minimum requirement, allowing manufacturers some leeway because of unusual body sizes at either end of the spectrum.

Mr. Adams also stated in his letter to you that lowering the seat would change the performance characteristics of Volkswagen's belt system and would make it necessary "to begin the entire testing process for certification again." This statement too requires clarification. At the present time, Safety Standard No. 208 does not require safety belts as installed in motor vehicles to meet dynamic performance requirements. Dynamically testing safety belts would entail restraining a test dummy with a vehicle's safety belts and testing their performance by crashing the vehicle into a test barrier. In such testing, the position of the seat in relation to the belts would be important. However, the current requirements do not involve testing safety belts inside the vehicle. They require that the belts meet certain laboratory tests and that belts capable to passing those tests be installed in new vehicles.

Further, regardless of the type of performance standards involved, lowering the seat of a used vehicle could not raise any question about recertification. Certification relates to new vehicles exclusively. The only question which lowering the seat would lose under our statute, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, would be whether lowering the seat would cause equipment installed pursuant to Federal safety standards to no longer be in compliance. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative safety equipment. If this prohibition is the concern of Mr. Adams of Volkswagen, perhaps he can clarify for your constituent how Volkswagen believes lowering the seat would violate that prohibition. Mr. Adams does not state that lowering the seat would preclude the belt system from adjusting to fit the range of people specified in the standard.

It may be that Volkswagen's reluctance to lower the seat stems from a concern about products liability. Lowering the seat could very well alter the performance of the Volkswagen automatic belt system.

In an effort to promote further clarification of Volkswagen's position, I am sending a copy of this letter to Mr. Adams. The only further thing I can do is suggest that Mr. Weaver contact Mr. Adams again and obtain his reaction to my letter. Perhaps we can then see what other alterations are available. I hope some adjustment can be made to accommodate Mr. Weaver.

Sincerely,

Joan Claybrook

Enclosure Constituent's Correspondence

cc: Kenneth R. Adams Deputy Washington Representative Volkswagen of America, Inc. 475 L'Enfant Plaza, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20024

August 2, 1979

The Honorable Joan Claybrook, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S. W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Ms. Claybrook:

Enclosed are copies of a letter from a constituent concerning a problem he is experiencing with his new car seat belts and the corresponding answer from the government relations department of the car manufacturer.

As evidenced from the letter from the car manufacturer, the Federal Government requires that the car be equipped with seat belts that will fit more than 90% of the population. What is to be done for those other 10% who must try to cope with the regulations on seat belts, but do not want to do anything violative of the law and are unable to get any relief from the car manufacturer?

I would appreciate it if you could give me some information that would be helpful to Mr. Weaver. If you know of any special waiver to the regulations that can be granted on an individual basis such as this, it would be very helpful in assuring that Mr. Weaver is given full satisfaction while still obeying the regulations under which he must operate his car.

Thank you in advance for any assistance you may be able to give in this matter. Your full attention to this problem is respectfully requested.

Sincerely,

David L. Boren United States Senator

Enclosures

July 3, 1979

The Honorable David Boren United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Boren:

Thank you for the inquiry from Mr. Thomas J. Weaver regarding the seat belt system in his Volkswagen 4-door Rabbit-L Diesel vehicle.

I have personally checked with our safety engineers regarding the possibility of modifying Mr. Weaver's seat belt system. The system in Mr. Weaver's Rabbit is 100 percent in compliance with Federal standards for occupant crash protection. In fact, it is the Federal government that requires our seat belts to fit more than 90 percent of the American population.

To comply with these Federal standards, Volkswagen employs an integrated passive belt system in the model that Mr. Weaver owns. The occupant is protected by a combination of design features in the car which include the belt itself, a kneebar, the wheel and a special type of seat. If we were to lower the seat, the performance characteristics of our belt system would change, and it would be necessary to begin the entire testing process for certification again.

Therefore, because of the requirements of Federal laws in this area, we are unable to recommend an adjustment in the height of the seat.

If I can be of any further assistance, please don't hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Kenneth R. Adams Deputy Washington Representative

KRA:hk

025 N. Sherry Avenue Norman, Oklahoma 73069 21 April 1979

The Honorable David Boren United States Senate Washington, D. C.

Dear Senator:

I recently purchased a Volkswagon 4-door Rabbit-L diesel automobile. The seat belts in the front seats are attached to the front doors so the seat belts "put themselves on" as the driver and front seat passenger enter the car. When I am driving the seat belt should come over my left shoulder. Instead it comes across my left arm. In an emergency situation where the seat belt mechanism became locked, this would severly restrict the use of my left arm in turning the steering wheel and could cause an accident.

Due to the large backlog of orders, I was not able to test drive this model car before purchase. Soon after delivery I notified the local dealer, Thunderbird Imports, of this problem and requested the front seats be lowered which would eliminate the problem. I was told the local dealer could not modify any of the safety system without the authorization of at least the regional office.

On 3 April 1979 I sent letters to the San Antonio Regional Office and the national headquarters in Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, stating the problem and requesting that the front seats be lowered. On 19 April a representative from the San Antonio Regional Office, Jack Atwood, observed the situation but stated the car was made to specifications and no modifications could be made. The seat belts fit him properly--but he doesn't drive my car! Mr. Atwood passed the buck stating that only the U.S. Government could authorize changes to an approved automobile design. Today I recieved a letter from the San Antonio Regional Office confirming they would do nothing to correct this safety hazard.

Is there anything you can do have them lower the front seats of my car? I realize this is a lot of difficulty to make my car safer to drive. In their current position, I feel the seat belts are more likely to contribute to accidents and injury than to prevent them.

Sincerely,

Thomas J. Weaver

Copy to: Thunderbird Imports

ID: nht92-9.48

DATE: January 17, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Edward M. Klisz -- Chief, Light Tactical Vehicle Branch, Department of the Army, U.S. Army Tank-Automotive Command

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/30/91 from Edward M. Klisz to Paul Jackson Rice

TEXT:

This responds to your letter regarding foreign-made tires that the Army procured in Southwest Asia. You indicated that your office is trying to ascertain the suitability of these tires, not all of which are marked with a "DOT" certification, for Army use. You enclosed a list of the tires and, for those marked with "DOT", requested this office to "determine if the DOT codes are accurate according to (our) records." You also requested that we verify your understanding of the general requirements applicable to foreign tire manufacturers, and the process by which such manufacturers certify their tires as complying with our standards. I am pleased to have this opportunity to answer your questions.

For your information, I have enclosed a copy of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act). Section 103 of the Safety Act authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act defines a motor vehicle safety standard as, "a minimum standard for motor vehicle performance, or motor vehicle equipment performance, which is practicable, which meets the need for motor vehicle safety and which provides objective criteria." (See S102(2)).

The Safety Act then requires that all motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment sold or imported into the United States, regardless of whether the product is manufactured in the U.S. or abroad, must comply with the safety standards adopted by NHTSA. Specifically, S108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act provides:

no person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver into introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard and is covered by a certification issued under S114...

In the case of tires, this provision of the Safety Act means that a foreign tire manufacturer would be prohibited from exporting its new tires to the United States unless the manufacturer certified that the tire complies with the applicable U.S. safety standards. All new tires for use on passenger cars must be certified as complying with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 (49 CFR S571.109), and all new

tires for use on other motor vehicles must be certified as complying with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119 (49 CFR S571.119). These standards specify performance requirements (strength, endurance, high speed performance, and, for passenger car tires only, resistance to bead unseating), marking requirements (treadwear indicators and labeling information), and tire and rim matching information requirements that must be met by all tires to be sold in the United States.

The process of certifying compliance with the applicable safety standards under the Safety Act is substantially different than that used in many other countries. For instance, the European nations require manufacturers to deliver tires to a governmental entity for testing. After the governmental entity itself tests the tires, the government approves those tires for use and assigns an approval code to the tires. In place of this sort of process, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process for tires sold in the United States. Under this self-certification process, the tire manufacturer, not any governmental entity, certifies that its tires comply with the applicable safety standards.

Further, the Safety Act does not require that a manufacturer base this certification on a specified number of tests or any tests at all; a manufacturer is only required to exercise due care in certifying its tires. It is up to the individual tire manufacturer to determine in the first instance what test results, computer simulations, engineering analyses, or other information it needs to enable it to certify that its tires comply with the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Once a manufacturer has determined that its tires meet the requirements of the applicable standard, it certifies that compliance by molding the letters "DOT" on one sidewall of each certified tire.

As stated above, NHTSA does not do any pre-sale approval or testing of tires. Instead, the agency routinely tests certified tires that have been sold to determine whether the tires do in fact comply with applicable standards. For these enforcement checks, the agency purchases new tires and tests them according to the procedures specified in the standard. If the tires pass the tests, no further steps are taken. If the tires fail the tests and are determined to not comply with the standard, the tire manufacturer is required to recall the tires and remedy the noncompliance.

Turning now to your particular situation, it is not clear how helpful these requirements will be in assessing the current safety performance of the tires procured during Operation Desert Storm/Desert Shield. In the case of such tires that are marked with "DOT", that mark means the tire manufacturer certified that, when new, the tires complied with all applicable safety standards. However, the presence of a "DOT" symbol on a used tire does not mean that the tire in its current condition would still comply with the new tire standards. There are many instances in which used tires would be unlikely to comply with the new tire standards, simply because of normal environmental factors and without any fault in the construction of the tire. Such environmental factors include, but are not limited to, a hole larger than a nail suffered by the tire while in service, damage to the inner liner of the tire from being run flat,

damage to the bead area of the tire during mounting, damage to the sidewall from running against rocks, curbs, and so forth. In each of these instances, the vehicles on which the tires have been used and the conditions in which those vehicles have been operated would be at least as important in determining the tire's current performance capabilities as would the tire's capabilities when it was new.

Further, the absence of a "DOT" symbol on a tire purchased outside of the United States does not NECESSARILY mean that the tire, when new, would not have complied with the applicable tire safety standard. On the contrary, it is possible that the new tire would have, if tested, actually been found to comply with those safety standards. The only definitive conclusion you may draw about a tire without a "DOT" symbol that is purchased outside the United States is that the tire's manufacturer, for whatever reason, did not CERTIFY that tire's compliance. It could be that the tire did not comply when new, or it could be that the manufacturer did not produce the tire for importation and eventual sale in the U.S., and therfore felt no need to certify the tire.

You noted in your letter that this agency has established a requirement in 49 CFR Part 574 that all tire manufacturers, both foreign and domestic, must obtain an identification mark from NHTSA and label each of their tires with that mark. Before NHTSA will assign an identification mark to a tire manufacturer headquartered outside the United States, the manufacturer must designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of process in this country. However, the designated agent of the manufacturer only acts as the agent for service of process; the manufacturer's designated agent is NOT responsible for the certification of the tires. Only the manufacturer certifies that the tires comply with all applicable standards and, as explained above, that certification must be made (and indicated with a DOT symbol) before the tire would be allowed to enter the United States.

Finally, you requested in your letter that we review the list of tires you submitted and verify the accuracy of the "DOT" marks shown. I believe this request was based upon a misunderstanding of NHTSA's role in the certification process. Since manufacturers are not required to deliver their tires to NHTSA for testing, or register their products with the agency, the agency has no way to "verify the accuracy" of the DOT codes you submitted. To repeat, the DOT code molded into the sidewall of a tire represents the manufacturer's SELF-CERTIFICATION that the tire complies with applicable standards; the DOT code is not a statement or certification by NHTSA that the tire complies with our standards.

NHTSA would only have information about the "accuracy" of the DOT codes (i.e., whether the tires so marked actually meet the standards), in the event that the agency had conducted one of its random enforcement checks on a new tire like the one in question. Accordingly, we reviewed our enforcement records to determine whether NHTSA performed compliance tests on new versions of any of those tires. Having searched the agency's data base for the brands, types, and years of the listed tires, we found that the agency did not conduct compliance tests on any of these tires.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact Stephen Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have further questions.

ID: nht94-7.33

DATE: March 21, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Wolf Ebel -- President, Schroth Restraint Systems Biomatik USA Corp.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/5/94 to Mary Versailles from Stephen M. Monseu (OCC-9550)

TEXT:

This responds to a September 22, 1993, letter from Mr. Stephen M. Monseu of your company, asking whether the products manufactured by Schroth Restraint Systems (the Rally 3, Rally 4, and Autocontrol harness belt systems) meet the requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. The September 22 letter stated that these are after-market belt systems, intended for installation in addition to the factory-installed occupant protection system. This also responds to a January 5, 1994, letter asking whether the Schroth restraint systems would meet the requirements of Standard No. 208 if they were installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle.

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. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. Thus, while I cannot advise concerning whether or not the Schroth restraint systems comply with applicable safety standards, I can explain how the standards would apply to these products.

NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish four safety standards that may be relevant to the Schroth restraint systems.

The first is Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR S571.208), which sets forth requirements for occupant protection at the various seating positions in vehicles. The second relevant standard is Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR S571.209), which sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies. The third relevant safety standard is Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, which establishes strength and location requirements for seat belt anchorages. The final relevant safety standard is Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. This standard specifies burn resistance requirements for materials used in the occupant compartment of motor vehicles.

Because federal law operates differently depending on when the installation of the Schroth restraint system occurs, I will separately discuss three possible scenarios.

Installation as Original Equipment

Standards No. 208, No. 210, and No. 302 apply, with certain exceptions that are not relevant to your product, to vehicles and, not directly to items of equipment. Thus, the vehicle manufacturer, and not the equipment manufacturer, would be responsible for certifying that the vehicle complies with these standards with the Schroth restraint system installed in the vehicle.

Standard No. 208 requires seat belts to be installed at all designated seating positions in many, but not all, vehicles. Different belt installation requirements apply depending on the vehicle type, seating position within the vehicle, and the gross-vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of the vehicle. The belt installation requirements can be divided into three categories:

. Automatic crash protection systems which protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the automatic crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, in a 30 mph barrier crash test. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used). A new Federal statutory requirement makes air bags accompanied by manual Type 2 seat belts mandatory in all passenger cars and light trucks by the late 1990's.

. Type 2 seat belt assemblies, defined in Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, as "a combination of pelvic and upper torso restraints."

. Type 1 seat belt assemblies, defined in Standard No. 209 as "a lap belt for pelvic restraint."

The Schroth restraint-systems would not be considered automatic safety belts, and therefore could not be used in place of an air bag to satisfy the requirements of Standard No. 208 for seating positions requiring automatic crash protection.

The Schroth restraint systems would be considered Type 2 seat belt assemblies. Therefore, if the Schroth restraint systems meet the requirements of Standard No. 209 (discussed later in this letter), and if the anchorages for the Schroth restraint systems meet the requirements of Standard No. 210, they could be installed to satisfy the requirements of Standard No. 208 for any seating position requiring a Type 2 seat belt assembly. This would include installation of the Schroth restraint system with an air bag. Please note, however, that the dynamic testing requirement must be met both with and without the Schroth restraint system. In addition, because Standard No. 208, like all safety standards, is a minimum standard, the Schroth restraint systems could be installed to

satisfy the requirements of Standard No. 208 for any seating position requiring a Type 1 seat belt assembly. Please note however, that the Schroth restraint system does not appear to comply with certain sections of Standard No. 208, specifically:

. S7.1.1.3, which requires emergency locking retractors on the lap belt portion of safety belts in the front outboard seating positions.

. S7.1.2, which requires the intersection of the upper torso belt with the lap belt to be at least six inches from the vertical centerline of a 50th percentile adult male occupant.

. S7.2(c), which requires release at a single point.

Unlike the other three standards, Standard No. 209 applies to seat belt assemblies as separate items of motor vehicle equipment, regardless of whether the belts are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as replacements. Standard No. 209 defines a "seat belt assembly" as "any strap, webbing, or similar device designed to secure a person in a motor vehicle in order to mitigate the results of any accident, including all necessary buckles and other fasteners, and all hardware designed for installing such seat belt assembly in a motor vehicle."

Because the Schroth restraint systems would be considered "seat belt assemblies," the systems must be certified as complying with Standard No. 209 before they can be sold.

Installation Prior to First Sale

Because your September 22 letter indicated that the Schroth restraint systems might be installed in addition to existing belt systems, I would like to also discuss such an installation prior to the vehicle's first sale. If a Schroth restraint system was added to a new vehicle prior to its first sale, e.g., by the dealer, the person who modified 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. If the Schroth restraint system were installed in addition to the safety belts required by Standard No. 208, and provided that the installation did not interfere with the required safety belts, such installation would not affect the compliance of the vehicle with Standard No. 208, since the standard's requirements would be fully met by the original belts.

Installation After First Sale

After the first purchase of a vehicle for purposes other than resale, the only provision in Federal law that affects the vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That section provides that:

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.

This provision would prohibit any of the named commercial entities from installing a Schroth restraint system if such installation rendered inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any applicable safety standard. For example, if the material used in the system did not meet the burn resistance requirements of Standard No. 302, installation of the system would render inoperative compliance with that standard. Any violation of the "render inoperative" prohibition is subject to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. Please note that this provision does not prohibit owners from modifying their vehicles, even if such modification adversely affects the compliance of the vehicle with safety standards. However, this agency encourages vehicle owners not to make any modifications which would negatively affect the occupant protection systems installed in their vehicles. Also, vehicle modifications by owners may be regulated by state law.

I have enclosed an information sheet that identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers, and explains how to obtain copies of these materials.

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: nht94-1.89

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 21, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Wolf Ebel -- President, Schroth Restraint Systems Biomatik USA Corp.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/5/94 to Mary Versailles from Stephen M. Monseu (OCC-9550)

TEXT:

This responds to a September 22, 1993, letter from Mr. Stephen M. Monseu of your company, asking whether the products manufactured by Schroth Restraint Systems (the Rally 3, Rally 4, and Autocontrol harness belt systems) meet the requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. The September 22 letter stated that these are after-market belt systems, intended for installation in addition to the factory-installed occupant protection system. This al so responds to a January 5, 1994, letter asking whether the Schroth restraint systems would meet the requirements of Standard No. 208 if they were installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle.

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. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial produc ts. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. Thus, while I cannot advise concerning whether or not the Schroth r estraint systems comply with applicable safety standards, I can explain how the standards would apply to these products.

NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish four safety standards that may be relevant to the Schroth restraint systems.

The first is Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR S571.208), which sets forth requirements for occupant protection at the various seating positions in vehicles. The second relevant standard is Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CF R S571.209), which sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies. The third relevant safety standard is Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, which establishes strength and locatio n requirements for seat belt anchorages. The final relevant safety standard is Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. This standard specifies burn resistance requirements for materials used in the occupant compartment of motor vehicles.

Because federal law operates differently depending on when the installation of the Schroth restraint system occurs, I will separately discuss three possible scenarios.

Installation as Original Equipment

Standards No. 208, No. 210, and No. 302 apply, with certain exceptions that are not relevant to your product, to vehicles and, not directly to items of equipment. Thus, the vehicle manufacturer, and not the equipment manufacturer, would be responsible f or certifying that the vehicle complies with these standards with the Schroth restraint system installed in the vehicle.

Standard No. 208 requires seat belts to be installed at all designated seating positions in many, but not all, vehicles. Different belt installation requirements apply depending on the vehicle type, seating position within the vehicle, and the gross-veh icle weight rating (GVWR) of the vehicle. The belt installation requirements can be divided into three categories:

. Automatic crash protection systems which protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the automatic crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a v ehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, in a 30 mph barrier crash test. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used). A new Federal statutory requirement makes air bags accompanied by manual Type 2 seat belts mandatory in all passenger cars and light trucks by the late 1990's.

. Type 2 seat belt assemblies, defined in Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, as "a combination of pelvic and upper torso restraints."

. Type 1 seat belt assemblies, defined in Standard No. 209 as "a lap belt for pelvic restraint."

The Schroth restraint-systems would not be considered automatic safety belts, and therefore could not be used in place of an air bag to satisfy the requirements of Standard No. 208 for seating positions requiring automatic crash protection.

The Schroth restraint systems would be considered Type 2 seat belt assemblies. Therefore, if the Schroth restraint systems meet the requirements of Standard No. 209 (discussed later in this letter), and if the anchorages for the Schroth restraint system s meet the requirements of Standard No. 210, they could be installed to satisfy the requirements of Standard No. 208 for any seating position requiring a Type 2 seat belt assembly. This would include installation of the Schroth restraint system with an air bag. Please note, however, that the dynamic testing requirement must be met both with and without the Schroth restraint system. In addition, because Standard No. 208, like all safety standards, is a minimum standard, the Schroth restraint systems co uld be installed to

satisfy the requirements of Standard No. 208 for any seating position requiring a Type 1 seat belt assembly. Please note however, that the Schroth restraint system does not appear to comply with certain sections of Standard No. 208, specifically:

. S7.1.1.3, which requires emergency locking retractors on the lap belt portion of safety belts in the front outboard seating positions.

. S7.1.2, which requires the intersection of the upper torso belt with the lap belt to be at least six inches from the vertical centerline of a 50th percentile adult male occupant.

. S7.2(c), which requires release at a single point.

Unlike the other three standards, Standard No. 209 applies to seat belt assemblies as separate items of motor vehicle equipment, regardless of whether the belts are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as replacements. Standard No. 209 defines a "seat belt assembly" as "any strap, webbing, or similar device designed to secure a person in a motor vehicle in order to mitigate the results of any accident, including all necessary buckles and other fasteners, and all hardware designed for installing such seat belt assembly in a motor vehicle."

Because the Schroth restraint systems would be considered "seat belt assemblies," the systems must be certified as complying with Standard No. 209 before they can be sold.

Installation Prior to First Sale

Because your September 22 letter indicated that the Schroth restraint systems might be installed in addition to existing belt systems, I would like to also discuss such an installation prior to the vehicle's first sale. If a Schroth restraint system was added to a new vehicle prior to its first sale, e.g., by the dealer, the person who modified 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. If the Schroth restraint system were installed in addition to the safety belts required by Standard No. 208, and provided that the installation did not interfere with the required safety belts, suc h installation would not affect the compliance of the vehicle with Standard No. 208, since the standard's requirements would be fully met by the original belts.

Installation After First Sale

After the first purchase of a vehicle for purposes other than resale, the only provision in Federal law that affects the vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That sect ion provides that:

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.

This provision would prohibit any of the named commercial entities from installing a Schroth restraint system if such installation rendered inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any applicable safety standard. For example, if the material used in the system did not meet the burn resistance requirements of Standard No. 302, installation of the system would render inoperative compliance with that standard. Any violation of the "render inoperative" prohibition is subject to a potential civil pen alty of up to $1,000 for each violation. Please note that this provision does not prohibit owners from modifying their vehicles, even if such modification adversely affects the compliance of the vehicle with safety standards. However, this agency encou rages vehicle owners not to make any modifications which would negatively affect the occupant protection systems installed in their vehicles. Also, vehicle modifications by owners may be regulated by state law.

I have enclosed an information sheet that identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers, and explains how to obtain copies of these materials.

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: 1982-3.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/22/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Rynex Industries

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 15, 1982, detailing a plan of business and asking our comments on its legality under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and how you might accomplish your plan.

In essence, your wish is to import newly-manufactured Volkswagen Beetles which are complete except for the engine, and which do not meet Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Your intended customers are owners of older model Beetles the engines of which would be installed in the new Beetles, while the older cars would be scrapped.

Notwithstanding the lack of engine, we would view importation of the newly-manufactured Beetles as importation of "motor vehicles" which would have to be brought into conformance with all standards applicable to new motor vehicles. If you wished simply to install a new body on the old chassis, the resulting assemblage would nevertheless have to meet the standards in effect when the original vehicle was manufactured, i.e., if the vehicle being modified is a 1971 model, it would have to continue to meet the standards that were in effect in 1971 when the new body was installed but if the chassis were manufactured before January 1, 1968, none of the standards applicable to vehicles would have to be met. If no standards applied to the vehicle, nevertheless the Federal standards that currently apply to equipment items would have to be met by those items for them to be validly imported into the country.

You have asked about these standards. They are found at Part 571 of the Code of Federal Regulations and they are: No. 106 (brake hoses), No. 108 (lighting equipment and reflectors), No. 109 (tires), No. 116 (brake fluid), No. 205 (glazing materials), No. 209 (seat belt assemblies), and No. 211 (wheel covers and nuts).

In essence, while you term your business the "repair and restoration" of Beetles, you are neither repairing nor restoring an older motor vehicle, but simply planning to sell a vehicle that is entirely new except for its engine. It must therefore be treated as a new motor vehicle.

SINCERELY,

Rynex INDUSTRIES

September 15, 1982

Frank A. Berndt, Esquire Chief Counsel, Office of the Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Rynex Industries, an individual proprietorship which is the d/b/a of the undersigned and is registered with the Saratoga County Clerk, Ballston Spa, NY 12020, desires to begin a business project as an importer of new motor vehicle parts and equipment with a view toward providing a unique repair and restoration service for a specialized group of Volkswagen Beetle owners. We apply herewith for a legal determination in terms of which we will become able to complete and implement our business plan in a manner such that we would remain characterized by NHTSA as an importer of new automotive parts and equipment for the repair and restoration of existing VW Beetles, and not become characterized instead as an importer of new VW Beetles for resale.

OUR CUSTOMERS

Members of the customer group we wish to serve regard their Beetles not as mere transportation until they are no longer dependable, but as "members of the family" whose welfare, function, and concept must be perpetuated. They are hard-core Beetle Buffs who begin where others give up in their attempts to continue driving their faithful but aging Beetles.

Each such customer would like most of all to purchase a bew Beetle, but cannot because none have been imported here since 1979. Some have taken their Beetles to re-conditioning ("re-con") shops for restoration, but have been quoted prohibitive prices there without credible guarantees of quality results commensurate with the prices. Therefore, Rynex desires to fill this obvious need for repair and restoration service in a very economical manner by importing the necessary new body-chassis assemblies from countries where the Beetle is still being manufactured.

OUR PROPOSED BUSINESS PROCEDURE

We are tentatively planning to conduct our importing business according to the following basic procedures:

1) Upon receipt of a customer order for a Beetle body-chassis assembly, Rynex would forward the order to the foreign manufacturer.

Rynex would simultaneously forward to the customer an acknowledgement of the order together with complete instructions for the service garage designated by the customer.

2) The manufacturer would ship the assembly with Rynex's Customs declaration directly to the customer's service garage for us by dropshipment, through a suitable freight-forwarding firm if necessary, on and for the account of, and in the name of, Rynex Industries.

3) Upon receipt of the new assembly, the garage would remove the engine from the customer's old Beetle and install it in the new assembly.

4) In compliance with applicable state regulations, the garage would also transfer the chassis number from the old assembly to the new one, together with the license number plates.

5) The garage would then make all necessary modifications to the new assembly to bring it into full compliance with applicable NHTSA Equipment Standards, and with applicable state inspection standards for the condition and performance of automotive equipment.

6) The garage would then apply a complete undercoating treatment to the new assembly to prevent the recurrence of rust damage.

7) The garage would then road-test the restored Beetle and return it to the customer.

8) The garage would then take possession of the customer's old body-chassis assembly and dismantle it for parts and scrap metal, because the customer would no longer need it, because it would no longer have an identification number, and because it would probably have become unsafe for continued use by anyone.

9) The customer would then apply to his underwriter for "stated amount" comprehensive, fire, theft, and collision (Coverage D) insurance to protect the larger equity he or she would then have in the restored Beetle.

10) The customer would then contact his or her state motor vehicle bureau concerning changes in registration. However, this step would be unnecessary unless the color of the restored Beetle were different, inasmuch as the customer would have legally the very same car described on his registration certificate or title. He would have the same engine and engine number, same license number plates, same chassis number in particular; and of course the make, year, model, and all other required information would be the same.

WHY BODY AND CHASSIS MUST BE REPLACED TOGETHER

We must point out why it would be necessary to restore a VW Beetle in this manner by replacing the body and chassis as a unit, and never by attempting to replace just one or the other. It is a fact that an aging Beetle is subject to severe and irreparable rust damage to both members all around the bottom edge precisely where the body is joined to the chassis. This rust damage, once it appears in an aging Beetle, continues until the entire assembly is unsafe -- the driver's seat and/or the battery might begin to come through the floor pan, for example.

Therefore, to render worthwhile and thoroughgoing service to the customer and in the public interest of highway safety, Rynex must replace the entire body-chassis assembly for each customer, and must provide undercoating to prevent rust damage to the new assembly. However, the customer would benefit not only from gaining this essential safety, but also from having his or her repaired and restored Beetle become as much like a new car as possible, as it would indeed become with a complete new body-chassis assembly.

THE LEGAL HELP WE THINK WE NEED

Desiring as we do to comply with all Federal regulations which would apply to this business project, it appears to the undersigned that we would need to learn at least the following through a legal determination:

1) On Form HS-7, 39 CFR 12.80, the Customs declaration, we would check paragraph 7 and the box therein to declare that our automotive equipment was being imported for repairs and alterations, in accordance with the statement to be attached to the HS-7, which statement would describe fully the use and final disposition to be made of the merchandise. We would need advice concerning, in view of our business procedure described above, the exact content our attached statement should have in order to satisfy Customs officials so that they could admit our shipments without delay.

2) Our proposed business plan calls for the importing-to-order of a VW Beetle complete except for the engine, which we have called herein a "body-chassis assembly". Our question about doing this would be whether we could do precisely that, or whether we would have to import a less-complete body-chassis assembly and have the customer retain and re-use more of the parts from his old car, in order that we sustain our characterization as an importer of automotive equipment for repair and restoration; in this latter event, we would need to know which parts in addition to the engine the customer would have to retain and re-use.

3) We would need a list of the NHTSA Equipment Standards which the body-chassis assemblies we would import would have to meet -- such as those for lamps, tires, brake fluid, window glass, and the like. These equipment items could be brought into compliance after being imported, or be specially ordered to be in compliance when imported, if necessary.

We therefore request a legal determination concerning the viability of our plans as described above for conducting our importing business for the repair and restoration of VW Beetles, and concerning changes which you might decide that we would have to make in our plans before we proceed further.

Donald F. Conine President

ID: 20778.drn

Jacqueline Glassman, Esq.
Senior Staff Counsel
DaimlerChrysler Corporation
1000 Chrysler Drive   CIMS 485-14-18
Auburn Hills, MI 48326-2766






Dear Ms. Glassman:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of S4.5 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114, Theft Protection. I apologize for the delay in responding. You ask whether a warning referenced in S4.5 is required when the driver's door is opened and the metal key is in the "accessory" position of a vehicle's ignition switch when that position is not between the "on" and "lock" positions. Our answer is yes.

The purpose of Standard No. 114 is to reduce the incidence of crashes resulting from unauthorized operation of a motor vehicle, and from the rollaway of parked vehicles with automatic transmissions as a result of children moving the shift mechanism out of the "park" position. To further these purposes, S4.5 of the standard provides that: "A warning to the driver shall be activated whenever the key required by S4.2 has been left in the locking system and the driver's door is opened." ⁽¹⁾ The purpose of the provision is to prevent, as far as possible, drivers from inadvertently leaving the key in the ignition lock when the car is unoccupied. See, e.g., 34 FR 9342 (June 13, 1969).

There are three exceptions to the general requirement of S4.5 that a warning must be activated whenever the key has been left in the locking system and the driver's door is opened. The exceptions set forth in S4.5(a) through (c), which were promulgated after the general requirement was adopted, provide that the warning to the driver need not operate:

(a) After the key has been manually withdrawn to a position from which it may not be turned;

(b) When the key-locking system is in the "on" or "start" position; or

(c) After the key has been inserted in the locking system and before it has been turned.

Your letter refers to vehicles manufactured by DaimlerChrysler in which the warning referenced in S4.5 does not operate when the key is in the "accessory" position. A drawing you provided of the ignition switch system in these vehicles shows the ignition switch aperture in the center, surrounded by the positions, in clockwise order from the left, "accessory" (at approximately the 7:00 position, if you imagine the round aperture as the face of a clock), "lock" (at 9:00), "off" (at 11:00), "on" (at 1:00), and "start" (at 2:00).

Your letter asserts that "the key is removed from the key locking system when it is turned to the 'accessory' position of the ignition switch." You suggest that this is because the key, in the "accessory" position, "does not permit normal activation of the vehicle's engine or motor, nor does it permit steering or forward self-mobility of the vehicle" (you refer to the words of S4.2 of the standard, which states that removal of the key must have such an effect on the vehicle). Yet you acknowledge that the key remains in the ignition switch.

We do not agree that the key has been withdrawn from the key-locking system when it is in the "accessory" position. The fact that the key would have to be turned to activate the engine or to allow steering or forward self-mobility does not mean that the key is not in the key-locking system. The key would also have to be turned from the "lock" position, which you acknowledge is part of the key-locking system. Similarly, the fact that the "accessory" position is beyond the "lock" position is irrelevant, since the standard does not refer to the relative locations of the various positions in a key-locking system. The risks that Standard No. 114 is designed to protect against (theft and rollaway) are no less real when the key is in the "accessory" position than when it is left in other positions in the vehicle's ignition switch.

In asserting that the key-locking system includes only positions between "on" and "lock," you quote the following sentences from the preamble to the amendment to Standard No. 114 that added the exceptions to S4.5 (34 FR 9342, 9343 (June 13, 1969)):

It was the purpose of this provision to require activation of the warning device whenever the key is left in the lock in a position from which the lock can be turned. Once the driver has withdrawn the key beyond the position, he is presumably aware of the location of the key, and no warning need be given to him. (Your emphasis.)

However, contrary to your assertion, this language demonstrates that the standard applies when a key is left in the "accessory" position, since it is not disputed that "the lock can be turned" from that position. Indeed, the Federal Register notice from which you quote specifically refers to a situation when ". . . the key is so far removed as to be dangling from the locking mechanism" (34 FR at 9343), a position from which it could not be turned at all. Further, to the extent that your letter could be construed as suggesting that the exemption in S4.5(a) applies to this situation, we interpret the phrase "has been manually withdrawn" in S4.5(a) as referring to the action of removing, or attempting to remove, a key from the switch (resulting in, for example, a dangling key), not the turning of the key to a position that is within the switch, such as the "accessory" position. Interpreting the wording this way is consistent with the purposes of the amendment and with the standard itself.

NHTSA's denial of a 1969 petition for rulemaking from General Motors (GM) to amend the S4.5(a) exemption is illustrative. GM wanted us to allow the warning to be inoperative "after the key has been manually withdrawn from the normal operating position." It sought the amendment because on some then-manufactured GM vehicles, a driver could manipulate the ignition key into a position at which the warning buzzer would be deactivated, but the key would be able to turn the lock.

In denying GM's petition, NHTSA stated that the suggested amendment was contrary to the purpose of the requirement, which was:

. . . to make it virtually impossible for a driver inadvertently to leave his key in the ignition lock when he exits and thereby to reduce car thefts along with the high potential for accidental injury and death that stolen cars have. If it were possible for a driver to manipulate the key so as to render the warning inoperative while, at the same time, to continue to operate the vehicle with the key in the lock, the salutary purpose of the warning requirement would be defeated.

34 FR 19547 (December 11, 1969).

You present an analogous situation. A key in the "accessory" position is a "key in the lock." Allowing the warning to be inoperative in such a position, from which the key may be turned, would be contrary to the purpose of the warning requirement.

We also note that the legal position that you advocate in your letter is belied by the long-standing understanding by Chrysler Corporation (a predecessor of DaimlerChrysler) of the requirements of Standard No. 114. For example, Compliance Procedure CP-383, issued on February 18, 1988, "describes the method to be used in verifying compliance of the ignition and steering column key in-lock warning with the vehicle theft protection requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (MVSS) 114 . . . ." That document states, "The Warning [to the driver] must operate when the ignition key is in the accessory, lock or off positions." (boldface type and underlining in original).

Similarly, DaimlerChrysler's Manufacturing Assurance Standards Safety/Emissions (MASSE) 11-3002, entitled "Seat Belt and Key-In Lock Warning Systems - All Vehicles," specifies in Section 1.1 (which explicitly refers to Standard No. 114), "A warning to the driver will be activated whenever the ignition key has been left in the locking system, the ignition is in the "OFF", "LOCK", or "ACC" position and the driver's door is opened." This is reiterated in the "Manufacturing Assurance Requirements," of MASSE 11-3002, which state (in Section 2.2) that the applicable "Vehicle Conditions" include placing the "Ignition key in ignition and in 'OFF' or 'Accessory' position." Moreover, the "Verification Sequence" for this requirement described in Section 2.3 specifies the following procedure: "Open the driver's door. THE BUZZER OR CHIME SHOULD ACTIVATE AN AUDIBLE WARNING." (emphasis in original). Thus, Chrysler's Compliance Procedure and MASSE unequivocally demonstrate that the company has long understood that Standard No. 114 applies when the key is left in the "accessory" position.

Ultimately, even apart from DaimlerChrysler's past understanding and its internal documents, the position advocated in your letter is inconsistent with common sense and experience. One primary purpose of the "accessory" position in automobiles is to allow drivers who have reached their destination to listen to the radio or perform a task requiring use of the vehicle's electrical system without running the engine. It is certainly foreseeable that a forgetful driver in that situation might inadvertently leave the key in the vehicle upon exiting if he or she were not alerted by a warning. It was to prevent such an occurrence that Standard No. 114 was adopted.

If you need further assistance, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.





Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel





ref:114
d.9/25/00

---

1. S4.2 requires each vehicle to have a key-locking system that, whenever the key is removed, prevents: (a) the normal activation of the vehicle's engine or motor; and (b) either steering or forward self-mobility of the vehicle or both.