ID: nht92-3.24

DATE: October 5, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Takashi Odaira -- Chief Representative, Emissions & Safety, Isuzu Technical Center of America, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/23/92 from Takashi Odaira to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC-7556)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking about the side door strength test procedures of Standard No. 214, Side Impact Protection, as they apply to a certain pickup truck design. You described three alternative methods of fixing the vehicle in position and asked whether they are consistent with the standard's test procedure.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

S4(a) of Standard No. 214 sets forth the following procedures for fixing a vehicle in position for the quasi-static side door strength test:

Place the sill of the side of the vehicle opposite to the side being tested against a rigid unyielding vertical surface. Fix the vehicle rigidly in position by means of tiedown attachments located at or forward of the front wheel centerline and at or rearward of the rear wheel centerline. (Emphasis added.)

The side door strength test is then conducted by applying a loading device to the outer surface of the door, until the loading device travels 18 inches. See S4(d).

You asked about these procedures in connection with a certain pickup truck design, which can be described as follows. The cab of the truck is attached to the frame by means of flexible rubber mountings. The rear body is installed separately on the frame. The cab of the truck is over the front wheels, and the rear body is over the rear wheels.

You requested our comments on three alternative methods of testing the pickup truck at issue. The first would involve fixing the frame of the vehicle at or forward of, and at or rearward of, the front and real wheel centerlines. You stated, however, that the rear portion of the cab would not be rigidly fixed by this method, and that the application of the Standard No. 214 loading device would result in the stretching of the cab's rubber mountings and upward tilting of the cab as a whole.

Your second alternative would involve adding a third fixing of the vehicle, in addition to the front and rear fixings of Alternative 1. This

additional fixing would be at the rear of the cab, on both sides. You indicated that this would permit the side door strength test to be conducted without tilting the vehicle, but that the relative cab to frame fixing would not be the same as on an actual vehicle.

Your third alternative would involve fixing the cab alone to a test fixture, at three locations. You stated that a problem with this method may be that the cab itself, and not the vehicle, is tested.

In considering how the Standard No. 214 quasi-static test should be conducted for a particular vehicle, it is important to bear in mind that the purpose of the test is to measure the crush resistance of a side door. The agency is not measuring the extent to which a vehicle's suspension or other design features permit the vehicle to tilt when specified loads are applied. In order to measure the crush resistance of a door in a test, it is necessary that the vehicle be fixed rigidly in position. Otherwise, the application of a load to the side door could simply result in movement of the vehicle as a whole.

Standard No. 214's test procedure was developed initially for cars. As noted by your letter, the combination of tying the vehicle down at or forward of, and at or rearward of, the front and rear wheel centerlines and placing the sill of the side of the vehicle opposite to the side being tested against a rigid unyielding vertical surface is sufficient to rigidly fix a passenger car in position for test purposes. Your letter raises the issue of how the Standard No. 214 test should be conducted if the specified procedure does not result in a particular vehicle, such as one with a divided body, being rigidly fixed in position.

For purposes of compliance testing, NHTSA would take the following actions. First, the agency would examine whether the procedure set forth in S4(a) would result in the vehicle being rigidly fixed in position. This could involve considering various tiedown arrangements within the areas specified by S4(a). If the agency determined that the procedure was not sufficient to rigidly fix a vehicle in position, e.g., the entire cab of a pickup truck would tilt upward during a test, it would then follow the specified procedure but also add an additional tiedown attachment as necessary to rigidly fix the vehicle in position. In making this additional attachment, the agency would take care to ensure that the attachment did not interfere with the side door strength test.

I can offer the following comments on the three alternative test methods you described. NHTSA would not follow the Alternative 1 test procedure since the vehicle would not be rigidly fixed in position under that procedure. The agency would also not follow the Alternative 3 test procedure since it does not include one of the tiedown arrangements specified by S4(a). The agency might follow an approach along the lines of Alternative 2, assuming that it determined that the S4(a) procedure was not sufficient to rigidly fix the vehicle in position.

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

ID: aiam3554

Dear Mr. Clark: This responds to your March 23, 1982, letter asking whether it i permissible to install side-facing seats in school buses designed to transport the handicapped. The answer to your question is yes.; Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection* specifies the requirements for school bus passenger seats and, in general, requires those seats to be forward facing. However, the definition of 'school bus passenger seat' in section S4 of the standard excludes seats installed to accommodate handicapped or convalescent passengers as evidenced by installing those seats longitudinally. Therefore, seats installed in the buses to which you refer in your letter need not comply with the school bus seat requirements if they are designed to accommodate the handicapped and are side facing.; We caution, however, that side-facing seats afford less protection tha forward facing seats. Accordingly, only those seats necessary to accommodate the handicapped should be altered in this manner.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: 18050.nhf

Mr. Daniel J. Selke
Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.
One Mercedes Drive, P.O. Box 350
Montvale, NJ 07645-0350

Dear Mr. Selke:

This responds to your letter asking whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will exercise its discretion not to institute enforcement proceedings with

respect to special seat belt installations in a 1996 E320 Mercedes-Benz and a 1998 S420V Mercedes-Benz. I apologize for the delay in my response. In a telephone conversation with Nicole Fradette of my staff you explained that the extra-long belt assemblies were needed to accommodate two of your customers in the following circumstances. You explained that the owner of the 1998 S420V Mercedes-Benz has a driver and would like an extended length seat belt installed in the right-rear passenger seat so that he may lean forward to use the phone while seated in the back of the car. You also explained that the owner of the 1996 E320 Mercedes-Benz needed an extended length seat belt to accommodate a severely obese right front-seat passenger. You explained that the passenger is extremely obese and cannot use the passenger-side seat belt because of his large body size and that your special order 12-inch longer belt is still too short to fit him. You explained that your factory has supplied longer seat belts, but that the extra-long belt assembly will not comply with the following aspects of Standard No. 209:

• the seat belt will not completely roll up into the B-pillar due to excessive webbing on the spool;
• the seat belt has not been tested for retraction spring durability and therefore may not pass the retractor cycle test;
• no certification label is attached.

As explained below, our answer is that the extra-long seat belt assembly may be installed in the 1996 E320 Mercedes-Benz but may not be installed in the 1998 S420V Mercedes-Benz. The

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will not institute enforcement proceedings against a dealer that installs the longer seat belt assembly in the 1996 E320 Mercedes-Benz to accommodate an extremely obese passenger. A more detailed answer to your letter is provided below.

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

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

As you noted in your letter, removing the original seat belt assemblies and replacing them with the longer seat belt assemblies would affect the vehicles' compliance with Standard No. 209, Seat belt assemblies. In certain limited situations, such as with the 1996 E320 Mercedes-Benz, where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition to be justified by public need. As I have already noted above, NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a business that modifies the seat belt assembly in the 1996 E320 to accommodate the condition you describe as we equate the special needs of a severely obese individual with the needs associated with a disability.

We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made. We note that we expect manufacturers to provide complying seat belts that are appropriate for the normal range of occupant sizes, including large persons. Mercedes Benz appears to do this, as it provides a (presumably complying) special order 12-inch longer belt for large persons. We recognize that a severely obese individual is outside the normal range of occupant sizes. Finally, if the vehicle is sold, we urge the owner to advise the purchaser that the vehicle has been modified and consider reinstalling the removed safety equipment.

We do not believe that the installation of an extended-length seat belt assembly in the 1998 S420V Mercedes-Benz is justified by public need as there is no indication that the assembly is needed to accommodate a disability. It appears that the owner is requesting the installation of the extended length seat belt merely for personal convenience-so that he may more readily reach the telephone while seated in the back seat of the car. We would not, therefore, view the installation of an extended-length seat belt assembly in the 1998 S420V Mercedes-Benz as merely a technical violation of the make inoperative prohibition, justified by public need. We suggest that the customer consider having the phone relocated so he can more readily reach it with the rear seat belt secured.

If you have other questions or need some additional information, please contact Nicole Fradette of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:209#VSA
d.2/11/99

ID: nht92-1.37

DATE: 12/07/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: KENNETH W. WEBSTER II -- PROJECT ENGINEER, TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH CENTER INC.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10-15-92 FROM KENNETH W. WEBSTER, II TO PAUL J. RICE (OCC 7872)

TEXT: This responds to your letter to me dated October 15, 1992, seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims - Passenger Cars (49 CFR @ 571.110). More specifically, you were interested in a clarification of the test conditions for determining compliance with the requirement in S4.4.1(b) of Standard No. 110, which provides that each rim on a new passenger car shall "[in] the event of a rapid loss of inflation pressure with the vehicle traveling in a straight line at a speed of 60 miles per hour, retain the deflated tire until the vehicle can be stopped with a controlled braking application."

In your letter, supplemented by your November 2, 1992 telephone conversation with Mr. Walter Myers of my staff, you explained that your company, Transportation Research Center Inc., has conducted tests on a passenger car that is to be marketed in the United States. Two tire and rim configurations are available with the car: a steel rim mounted with a Goodyear tire, and a decorative aluminum rim mounted with a Michelin tire. I understand these tires and rims to be the same size and to have the same nominal dimensions. In addition, I understand the tires to be of the same type and construction. You stated that you tested both tires on both rims in accordance with this agency's test procedure for determining compliance with Standard No. 110 (TP-110-02). The tire/rim combinations being tested were mounted on the left front and right rear positions, but in some cases tires made by a different manufacturer, but of the same size, type, and composition as the tires at the test positions, were mounted at the other wheel positions. You asked whether all tire and rim configurations on the vehicle for testing under S4.4.1(b) of Standard No. 110 must be made by the same manufacturer and otherwise be exactly alike. The short answer to your question is no.

Before discussing your specific question, however, I would like to explain how the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) determines compliance in cases where a standard does not specify a particular adjustment position or test condition. In issuing Federal motor vehicle safety standards, NHTSA endeavors to specify all relevant adjustment positions or test conditions to ensure that our standards are objective and practicable. As a practical matter, however, it is not always possible to anticipate every conceivable adjustment position or test condition.

In those cases where a standard does not specify a particular adjustment or test condition, we consider several factors in interpreting the standard. We begin with the presumption that the requirements of the standard must be met regardless of such adjustment position or test condition, because the language of the standard does not limit the applicability of its requirements to any such adjustment position or test condition. NHTSA then examines the language of the standard as a whole and its purposes, to see if the language of the standard or its purposes indicate an implicit intent to limit such adjustment positions or test conditions and what limitation was intended.

Applying this approach in response to your inquiry, we believe that the language and the purpose of S4.4.1(b) of Standard 110 are clear, namely that the rim must retain the deflated tire until the vehicle can be stopped with a controlled braking application. The focus of the test is the ability of the rim to retain the deflated tire without unduly affecting the vehicle dynamics. Hence, the only limitation on the tire/rim combinations at the other wheel positions would be that those other tire/rim combinations that are not being tested must not unduly affect the dynamics of the vehicle (and, hence, the test result) when combined with the tire/rim combination being tested. Thus, unless testing the compact spare tire provided by the vehicle manufacturer, NHTSA would conduct its compliance testing for S4.4.1(b) of Standard 110 using tires of the same size, type (all-season, mud/snow, etc.), and construction (radial, bias-belted, etc.) as the tire being tested on the other three wheel positions. NHTSA would not, however, limit its testing to using only tires made by the same manufacturer as the tire being tested at the other three wheel positions.

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

ID: nht95-1.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 2, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jane L. Dawson -- Specifications Engineer, Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 8/8/94 letter from Jane L. Dawson to NHTSA Chief Counsel

TEXT: Dear Ms. Dawson:

This responds to your letter of August 8, 1994, regarding the test procedure in Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. I apologize for the delay in our response. Your letter asks whether a seat manufacturer can certify that a passenger seat c omplies with Standard No. 210 with the seat attached to a 1/2" steel plate test fixture rather than with the seat attached to a typical 14 gauge school bus floor. If the seat manufacturer can certify using 1/2" steel plate, your letter also asks whether the final stage school bus manufacturer must retest using a typical 14 gauge school bus floor to certify that the vehicle complies with Standard No. 210.

By way of background information, each of this agency's safety standards specifies the test conditions and procedures that this agency will use to evaluate the performance of the vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration precisely follows each of the specified test procedures and conditions when conducting its compliance testing. However, as your letter recognizes, manufacturers are not required to test thei r products only in the manner specified in the relevant safety standard, or even to test the product at all, as their basis for certifying that the product complies with all relevant standards. A manufacturer may choose any means of evaluating its produ cts to determine whether the vehicle or equipment will comply with the safety standards when tested by the agency according to the procedures specified in the standard.

Section S2 of Standard No. 210 states that the standard applies to "passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses." The standard does not apply to seats as items of equipment. Therefore, it is the vehicle manufacturer rather than th e seat manufacturer that is required to certify compliance with the standard. More specifically, the vehicle manufacturer must certify that the vehicle, with the seat installed, complies with Standard No. 210. Of course, one of the bases for the vehicl e manufacturer's certification may be test results and other information provided by the seat manufacturer.

If the agency testing shows that an apparent noncompliance exists in a vehicle or item of equipment, the manufacturer is asked to show the basis for its certification that the vehicle or equipment complies with the relevant safety standard or standards. If in fact there is a noncompliance, the manufacturer is subject to civil penalties unless it can establish that it exercised "reasonable care" in the design and manufacture of the product (through actual testing, computer simulation, engineering analys is, or other means) to ensure compliance, but nevertheless did not have reason to know that the vehicle or item of equipment did not in fact comply with the safety standards (49 U.S.C. 30112(b) (2) (A)).

Standard No. 210 includes strength requirements for seat belt anchorages. The test procedure requires the specified force to be applied through body blocks at specified angles and for specified periods of time. As you state in your letter, the procedur e allows the agency to replace the seat belt webbing with "material whose breaking strength is equal to or greater than the breaking strength of the seat belt assembly." If substitute material is used, the test procedure requires the material to "duplica te the geometry, at the initiation of the test, of the attachment of the originally installed seat belt assembly." This provision was included to ensure that the material was strong enough to pass the load to the anchorage during the test and, therefore, that the strength of the test anchorage rather than the seat belt was tested.

Your letter asks whether a seat manufacturer may base its certification on a test performed with the seat attached to a 1/2" steel plate test fixture rather than with the seat attached to a typical 14 gauge school bus floor. This, in effect, is a reques t for a determination of whether a vehicle manufacturer's reliance on the fact that the seat belt anchorages did not fail when a 1/2" steel plate test fixture is used would constitute "reasonable care" in assuring that the completed vehicle complied with the standard. This agency has long said that it is unable to judge what efforts would constitute "reasonable care" in advance of the actual circumstances in which a noncompliance occurs. What constitutes "reasonable care" in a particular case depends on all relevant facts, including such things as the limitations of current technology, the availability of test equipment, the size of the manufacturer, and, above all, the diligence exercised by the manufacturer. However, I would like to say that attac hment of a seat or anchorage to stronger material (whether 1/2" steel plate or some other material) than the material used in the construction of the vehicle in which it will actually be installed would not appear to provide a manufacturer with informati on on whether or not the anchorage, when attached to the vehicle structure, will withstand the specified loads.

You should also note that, while the exercise of "reasonable care" may relieve a manufacturer of liability for civil penalties in connection with the manufacture and sale of noncomplying vehicles, it does not relieve a manufacturer of the responsibility to notify purchasers of the noncompliance and remedy the noncompliance without charge to the purchasers, if either the manufacturer or this agency determines that vehicles do not comply with all applicable safety standards.

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.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht

ID: 2645o

Mr. Edgar G. Meyer
Bureau of Economic Analysis
Florida Department of Commerce
407 Fletcher Building
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2000

Dear Mr. Meyer:

This responds to your November 24, l987 letter asking about the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, to the manufacture of automobile seat cushions and seat backs. Specifically, you asked whether it would be permissible if the fabric (i.e., felt) from which the seat cushions and seat backs would be manufactured were made from "old clothes and rags." Standard No. 302 neither specifies nor prohibits any particular type of raw material used to manufacture seat backs and seat cushions. The felt must meet the flammability requirements of the standard if it is used for cushions and seat backs for new motor vehicles. Also, felt used to manufacture seat cushions and seat backs for new and used motor vehicles must contain no safety related defects.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and NHTSA regulations require manufacturers of new motor vehicles to certify that their vehicles comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including Standard No. 302. Standard No. 302 specifies burn resistance requirements for materials used to manufacture seat cushions and seat backs on new passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses. Thus, any person manufacturing a new vehicle with seat backs and seat cushions made from the felt material you described must ensure that the seat backs and cushions possess the burn resistance characteristics required by Standard No. 302. If the felt can meet those requirements, it may be used in new motor vehicles in satisfaction of Standard No. 302, regardless of the felt's raw materials.

The felt manufacturer should also be aware that the Vehicle Safety Act requires all vehicle and equipment manufacturers to ensure that their products contain no defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If it were determined by the manufacturer or this agency that the seat cushions and seat backs had a safety related defect, all purchasers of the vehicle containing the defective equipment would have to be notified and the defective item repaired or replaced without charge. If the felt material is used to manufacture items of motor vehicle equipment that are sold to vehicle owners for use in used vehicles (i.e., vehicles previously purchased in good faith for purposes other than resale), the felt need not meet Standard No. 302. In general, it would not violate Standard No. 302 to add aftermarket seat cushions to used vehicles, even if the addition of the seat cushions caused the vehicles to no longer comply with the standard.

This general rule is, however, limited by the application of the provisions of section l08(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That section specifies: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ..." The flammability resistance of the original vehicle is an element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with Standard No. 302. Thus, any person in the aforementioned categories that installed a seat cushion which did not comply with the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302 would be rendering inoperative that element of design, and thereby violating a section l08(a)(2)(A). Section l09 of the Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $l,000 for each violation of section l08.

Again, the manufacturer of the aftermarket seat cushions would be obligated to recall and remedy cushions that are determined to contain a safety related defect, even if the cushions were installed by the vehicle owners themselves.

You asked about other Federal laws that might have a bearing on the manufacture of the felt material. You might wish to contact the Occupational Safety and Health Administration at (202) 523-8148 and the Environmental Protection Agency at (202) 475-8040 for information about the applicability of any of their statutes and regulations.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel ref:302 d:1/1/88

ID: aiam0955

Dear Mr. Utsunomiya:#This is in reply to your letter of November 28 1972, asking for an interpretation of S5.2 of Safety Standard No. 105a.#The transmission you describe has a separate park position, and this position must be engaged before the ignition key can be removed. We confirm that a vehicle equipped in this manner may meet the parking brake system requirements if S5.2.2 rather than those of S5.2.1.#As for your second question, a vehicle with a manual transmission that must be placed in reverse gear before the ignition key can be removed would also meet the requirements of paragraph S5.2.2#Yours truly,Richard B. Dyson,Assistant Chief Counsel;

ID: 18981.wkm

Mr. Clive Glanville - PM
Italamec
Direzione Tecnica
Via R. Geymet, 25
10060 Campiglione Fenile (Torino)
Italy

Dear Mr. Glanville:

Please pardon the delay in responding to your letter telefaxed to Walter Myers of my staff in which you asked us to analyze the configuration of your back door latch system and provide you a "conformance certificate." You enclosed drawings of your latch system. Following a telephone conversation with Mr. Myers on February 12, 1999, you sent him another telefax in which you stated that you need "confirmation that when two tailgate latches are fitted to a tailgate, as to whether they both must have two safety positions and must meet the strength requirements." You further stated in this telefax that both latches are identical, therefore they do not constitute a "primary and secondary latch system." You attached a drawing to the February 12 letter depicting the back door of a multipurpose passenger vehicle. The drawing shows the latches located on either side of and near the bottom of the door. We have reviewed your latch system as you requested, but are not able to provide you a "conformance certificate," as discussed below.

This agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), has the statutory authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The basic statute, commonly referred to as the Safety Act, establishes a self-certification system in which the manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment themselves certify that their product complies with all applicable FMVSSs in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA checks compliance with the FMVSSs by purchasing motor vehicles and equipment and testing them. The agency also investigates defects relating to motor vehicle safety. Because of that self-certification system, NHTSA cannot issue certificates of conformance.

Paragraph S4.4.1, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (Standard) No. 206, Door locks and door retention components (copy enclosed), requires that "[E]ach back door system shall be equipped with at least one primary latch and striker assembly" (emphasis added). Also with respect to a back door or a back door system, a "primary door latch," as defined in S3, means "the latch or latches equipped with both the fully latched position and the secondary latched position"(emphasis added). The "fully latched position" is described in Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Recommended Practice J839, Passenger Car Side Door Latch Systems, June 1991, as "[T]he attitude that exists between the latch and striker when the door is securely positioned in the fully closed position." The "secondary latched position" is described in SAE J839 as "[T]he attitude that exists between the latch and striker when the latch holds the door in a position less than fully closed." The secondary latched position serves as a backup to the fully latched position in the event the latter is not properly engaged, and adds an additional level of protection in the event the latch fails while in the fully latched position.

Back doors may, but are not required, to have one or more auxiliary latches, which is a latch other than the primary latch or latches in a multi-latch door system. ⁽¹⁾

Auxiliary latches are typically used in double cargo door systems where the primary latch or latches directly connect the left and right segments of the door system to each other while the auxiliary latch or latches secure one segment of the door system to the roof and/or the floor of the vehicle.

Since a back door latch system is only required to have one primary latch, your dual latch system may consist of a primary latch and one or more auxiliary latches. However, if you have two primary latches, that is, ones with both the fully and secondary latched positions, then both must meet the strength requirements in both the fully latched and secondary latched positions as specified in S4.4.1.1 through S4.4.1.4.

I am enclosing for your additional information copies of fact sheets prepared by this agency entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment, and Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992, or by telefax at (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief counsel
Enclosure
ref:206
d.7/15/99

1. Standard No. 206 does not refer to multiple latch systems as "primary" and "secondary" but, as discussed above, to "primary" and "auxiliary." We assume, therefore, that you mean that your latch systems do not fall into the categories of "primary" and "auxiliary."

ID: aiam4771

"Dear Mr. Crawley: This responds to your letter seeking an explanatio of a manufacturer's responsibilities under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., 'the Safety Act'). I apologize for the delay in this response. You were particularly concerned with van converters' certifications of compliance with Standards No. 207, Seating Systems, and No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. You stated that, in a van conversion, the pedestal, the seat, and the safety belts may all be supplied by different manufacturers. You also stated that each of these components might be accompanied by test reports and engineering analyses showing that the component will, if properly installed, comply with the requirements of the safety standards. You asked whether the test reports and engineering analyses of each of the individual components could be combined to form the basis for certifying compliance with Standards No. 207 and 210, or whether the assembled seating system, as installed in the vehicle would have to be tested. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations for you. Each of this agency's safety standards specifies the test conditions and procedures that this agency will use to evaluate the performance of the vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard. NHTSA precisely follows each of the specified test procedures and conditions when conducting its compliance testing. However, the Safety Act does not require a manufacturer to test its products only in the manner specified in the relevant safety standard, or even to test the products at all. A manufacturer may choose any means of evaluating its products to determine whether the vehicle or item of equipment complies with the requirements of the safety standards, provided, however, that the manufacturer assures that the vehicle or equipment will comply with the safety standards when tested by the agency according to the procedures specified in the standard. If the agency testing shows an apparent noncompliance exists with a vehicle or item of equipment, the manufacturer is asked to show the basis for its certification that the vehicle or equipment complies with the relevant safety standard or standards. If in fact there is a noncompliance, the manufacturer is subject to civil penalties under the Safety Act unless it can establish that it exercised 'due care' in the design and manufacture of the product and in the checks (through actual testing, computer simulation, engineering analyses, or other means) to ensure compliance, but nevertheless did not have reason to know that the vehicle or item of equipment did not in fact comply with the safety standards. With respect to your question about whether additional testing needs to be done by your company for the vans you manufacture or if you can simply rely on the tests done by the component manufacturers, this agency has long said that it is unable to judge what efforts would constitute 'due care' in advance of the actual circumstances in which a noncompliance occurs. What constitutes 'due care' in a particular case depends on all relevant facts, including such things as the limitations of current technology, the availability of test equipment, the size of the manufacturer, and, above all, the diligence exercised by the manufacturer. NHTSA would look to such things as the test results for the individual components mentioned in your letter, the installation of those components by your company, the quality control procedures used by your company, and any other relevant factors to determine whether your company had exercised due care to ensure that your vans complied with all relevant safety standards. However, it is not clear that a manufacturer could show that it exercised 'due care' based solely on the test results for the individual components mentioned in your letter. As explained above, a van converter is required to assure that its vans will comply with the safety standards when tested by the agency in accordance with the procedures specified in the standards. It would be difficult to establish that a manufacturer had exercised 'due care' to satisfy its responsibilities under Standards No. 207 and 210, unless the manufacturer had some evaluation of the performance of the assembled seating systems and safety belts installed in the vehicles in question. Test results for the individual components of the seating systems may not give a van converter enough information about the seating system as a whole to make such an evaluation. You should also note that, while the exercise of 'due care' may relieve a manufacturer of liability for civil penalties in connection with the manufacture and sale of noncomplying vehicles or equipment, it does not relieve a manufacturer of the responsibility to notify purchasers of the noncompliance and remedy the noncompliance without charge to the purchasers, if either the manufacturer or this agency determines that vehicles or items of equipment do not comply with all applicable safety standards. I hope this explanation is helpful. Please contact Mr. Kenneth Weinstein, our Assistant Chief Counsel for Litigation, at (202) 366-5263 if you have any further questions or would like some additional information on this subject. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: 1985-02.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/01/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. L.R. Cederbaum

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. L.R. Cederbaum Project Engineer Sagaz Industries, Inc. 16241 N.W. 48th Avenue Miami, FL 33014

Dear Mr. Cederbaum:

This responds to your letter to Steve Kratzke of my staff, seeking an interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 302, Flammability of interior materials (49 CFR S571.302). Specifically, you asked if the flammability requirements set forth in section S4.3 for original equipment seat covers apply to "aftermarket" seat covers. The flammability requirements in Standard No. 302 must be met by aftermarket seat covers only if such seat covers are installed by manufacturers, dealers, distributors, or repair shops. Those aftermarket seat covers which are installed by the vehicle owner are not subject to the requirements of Standard No. 302.

Generally speaking, Standard No. 302 applies to motor vehicles prior to their first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale, and not to aftermarket accessories for use with or in the vehicle, i.e., not to accessories added to a vehicle after such purchase. The general rule is that aftermarket seat covers may be added to vehicles, even if the addition of those seat covers causes the vehicle to no longer comply with the requirements of Standard No. 302, without violating the requirements of the Act.

This general rule is, however, limited by the application of the provisions of Section 108 (a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (hereinafter "the Safety Act"; 15 U.S.C. 1397 (a)(2)(A)). That section specifies: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ..." The flammability resistance of the original seat covers is considered an element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with Standard No. 302. Thus, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business which installed a seat cover which did not comply with the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302 would be rendering inoperative that element of design, and thereby violating section 108 (a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a civil penalty of up to ,000 for each violation of section 108, and each installation of a noncomplying seat cover would be considered a separate violation.

You should note that the prohibitions of Section 108 (a)(2)(A) do not apply to the vehicle owner rendering inoperative some element of design in his or her vehicle, and therefore aftermarket seat covers which are sold to and installed by owners need not satisfy the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302.

There are two factors which ought to be considered by the manufacturers of seat covers which do not satisfy the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302. First is the possibility of liability under State and seat covers which complied with the flammability requirements would not have caught fire, or if those seat covers burn much more rapidly than seat covers which comply with Standard No. 302. Second is the possibility of a finding of a safety-related defect in those seat covers. Should such seat covers readily catch fire or burn very rapidly in situations where seat covers which satisfied the flammability requirements would not, the seat covers might well be found to contain a safety-related defect. Sections 151-154 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1414) require that, when an item of motor vehicle equipment contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer of the item must recall and repair or replace the defective equipment without charge to the purchaser.

If you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

February 19, 1985

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION Office of Chief Counsel Room 5219 407 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

ATTENTION Mr. Steve Kratzke Subject: Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302 Par. S 4. Requirements

Dear Sir: This letter confirms our telephone conversation of February 19, 1985 in which the applicability of subparagraph S 4.1, which lists various components of the vehicle occupant compartment that shall meet the flammability requirement as described in S4.3(a) of MVSS No. 302.

It is my understanding from your statement this Standard No. 302 and its subsequent requirements do not apply to "after market automobile seatcovers."

I would appreciate letter confirmation of this fact.

Thank you for your service.

Very Truly, SAGAZ INDUSTRIES, INC.

L.R. Cederbaum, Project Engineer

LRC/tr