ID: aiam1288

Dear Mr. Levine: This is in reply to your inquiry of October 18, 1973, concerning th legal consequences of disconnecting the seat belt interlock systems in the new cars your department is purchasing.; The dealer or distributor from whom you buy the cars is required unde subsection 108(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, Public Law 89-563 (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)), to deliver them to you with the interlocks operational. However, subsection 108(b)(1) of the act provides that the requirements of subsection 108(a)(1) do not apply after the first purchase of a vehicle for purposes other than resale. As a purchaser who intends to use the cars, rather than resell them, your department is therefore not obliged to keep the interlocks operational.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: 21478.ztv

The Honorable Richard S. Lugar
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510-1401

Dear Senator Lugar:

I am responding to your recent letter to Rosalyn Millman, Acting Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, on behalf of your constituent, Mark Steele of Goshen. You have enclosed a copy of Mr. Steele's letter to you of February 29, 2000, and asked that we address his additional concerns. Mr. Steele appears to have sent you copies of our correspondence with him dated December 6, 1999, and February 25, 2000, as well as copies of interpretive letters sent to Safety Alert Company in 1983 and Mazda Motors Corporation in 1990.

Mr. Steele believes that it would be in the interest of motor vehicle safety to introduce his proprietary device that would automatically activate a vehicle's hazard warning system lamps when a vehicle is rapidly braking. We have corresponded with Mr. Steele on this subject, not only on December 6, 1999, and February 25, 2000, but initially on October 7, 1999. I enclose a copy of this letter because it is necessary for an understanding of our position vis-a-vis his invention, and why it is not permitted under the relevant regulation, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Mr. Steele's device would activate the hazard warning system lamps when "a vehicle [is] trying to brake at a rate of deceleration above the vehicle's current capability and the vehicle has automatically initiated its ABS to help maintain some control." Standard No. 108 requires a vehicle's stop lamp system to be activated when the brakes are applied so that, in the situation posited by Mr. Steele, a following driver will already have received a signal that the vehicle ahead is braking before the hazard warning system begins to flash. We therefore do not understand how safety would be improved by this device. We note, too, that Mr. Steele has submitted no data derived from tests of his device demonstrating that it would reduce either the frequency or severity of rear end crashes. His belief that it would enhance safety is speculative.

It is our conviction and that of motor vehicle safety authorities in other countries that motor vehicle safety is best served by standardization of lighting performance, including that on the rear of vehicles. Over the years we have come to believe that lamps must perform only their assigned function, and our interpretations of Standard No. 108 have become more conservative. We did advise Safety Alert Company in 1983 and Mazda in 1990 that the hazard warning system could be used for purposes other than originally intended. We are no longer of that opinion, and our letter of October 7, 1999, to Mr. Steele should be viewed as reversing those interpretations. We believe that S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108 prohibits new uses for required lighting equipment like hazard warning lamps. That section prohibits additional equipment that "impairs the effectiveness" of required lighting equipment. Since Mr. Steele's idea confuses following drivers about the hazard warning lamps, it is expressly prohibited by our standard.

Our position remains as explained in our October 7 letter. When stop lamps are activated, a following driver must react instinctively to the signal. Hazard warning signals are provided through a vehicle's turn signal system. If the stop lamps suddenly begin to flash (as would be the case where the rear turn signals are red and optically combined with the stop lamp) or are supplemented by flashing hazard lights (as would occur when the turn signal lamps are amber) there is the potential of confusing, at least momentarily, the driver following. To be sure, a driver can activate the hazard warning system at any time, but, in general, does so to indicate either that (s)he is proceeding at a slower rate than surrounding traffic, or that the vehicle is stopped on or off a roadway. Activation of the hazard warning lamps should depend on the driver's evaluation of the driving environment and not occur involuntarily simply because the vehicle is decelerating.

I hope that this responds to your concerns. Should you have any further questions, please contact Charlotte Hrncir, NHTSA's Director of Intergovernmental and Congressional Affairs, at (202) 366-2111.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:108
d.5/9/00

ID: nht93-9.17

DATE: December 15, 1993

FROM: Perry McGlothan -- Quality Assurance Test Specialist, Century Products Co.

TO: Chief Council, NHTSA

COPYEE: Jerry Chickini; Ken Collins; Dave Galambos; Jim Gilkey -- NHTSA; Mike Pine -- NHTSA; Craig White

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/8/94 from John Womack to Perry McGlothan (A42; Std. 213)

TEXT:

Per conversations with Mike Pine and Jim Gilkey at NHTSA, I am sending to you samples of three of our base car seats. The samples have the head impact protection foam attached with two push in pins (Christmas tree). We presently, and have always in the past, glue the head impact foam to the head area of the car seat shell. We would like to make this change to better secure the foam to the car seat shell and help our manufacturing process. Please evaluate these three samples (Models 4560, 4590 and Century STE series) for head impact protection (MVSS No. 213, S5.2.3) and protrusion limitation (MVSS No. 213, S5.2.4) and respond in writing to Century Products Company. Please advise as to compression deflection and head contact safety. Century Products feels the change will not diminish or change the head impact protection of the slow recovery energy absorbing foam.

Push In Pin Locations On Foam

Top Edge of Foam From Centerline of To Centerline of Foam to Centerline Push In Pin of Push In Pin

4560 4" 3 1/4" 4590 4" 3 1/4" STE Series 4" 4 1/2"

(See Attached Drawings)

Note: Push in pins have a 3/4-inch diameter head and are 1/2-inch in length from the underside of the head to the tip of the push in pin (see attached print).

If you have any questions, please contact me at (216) 468-2000, ext. 210.

(Drawings omitted.)

ID: NCC-230420-001 571.108 Angelina Twardawa Auxiliary Side Lamps Interpretation signed

April 16, 2025

U.S.Department of Transportation
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Office of the Chief Counsel
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE. Washington, DC 20590

Ms. Angelina Twardawa 4550 Gustine Ave
St. Louis, MO  63116
angelina@angiestrans.com 

Dear Ms. Twardawa: 

This responds to your letter, received December 5, 2022 in which you requested a letter of interpretation asking whether aftermarket auxiliary trifunctional side marker lights which illuminate red in the rear, amber in the side, and white in the front, and that attach to the rear of a 53-foot trailer on both sides are compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. We apologize for the delay in responding to your inquiry. Based on the information you provided in your letter, we have concluded that installing the device as described may conflict with FMVSS No. 108. However, an alternative color configuration should be permissible under that standard. 

Please note that our guidance below is based on our understanding of the specific information provided in your letter. The contents of this letter do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. This letter is only intended to provide clarity regarding existing requirements under the law at the time of signature. 

Background 

NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) to issue FMVSS that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act requires manufacturers to self-certify that their vehicles and equipment conform to all applicable FMVSS in effect on the date of manufacture.
NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects. After first purchase of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment other than for resale, section 30122 of the Safety Act requires that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, rental company, or motor vehicle repair business not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. This letter represents NHTSA's opinion concerning whether your design, as you describe it, would be permitted under FMVSS No. 108 and section 30122.

In your letter, you state that the device is a trifunctional light that attaches to the side of the rear guard of a 53-foot trailer on both sides with an open-ended connector. The lights have a red light designated at the rear, amber light designated at the side, and a white light designated at the front. You note that the piece that attaches to the trailer is rubber and flexible so it will not break, and that the device is stationary. You state the purpose of the device is to assist drivers with backing up, lane changes, and other maneuvers by providing increased visibility of the trailer at night. You ask whether the described design is permitted (both with regards to the device overall and the described lighting configuration), and if it is how far the devices can extend. 

FMVSS No. 108 specifies requirements for original and replacement lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment, including for trailers. For auxiliary lamps, the primary restriction imposed by FMVSS No. 108 is by S6.2.1, which states that "[n]o additional lamp, reflective device, or other motor vehicle equipment is permitted to be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard." Additionally, both original equipment and aftermarket lighting can run afoul of the "make inoperative" provision in 49 U.S.C. § 30122. These prohibitions bar installation by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, rental company, or motor vehicle repair business of lamps that would impair the effectiveness of required lighting, but do not apply to the owner of a vehicle. We note that whether there is an impairment is determined in the first instance by the manufacturer of the vehicle (or the entity installing the aftermarket lighting) when it is certified as compliant with FMVSS No. 108. 

Typically, the impairment determination is made on a case-by-case basis and looks at four main characteristics of the auxiliary lamp to analyze whether it impairs the effectiveness of required lighting. These are the brightness (photometric intensity), color, location, and activation pattern of the lamp.1 This list is not exhaustive and other considerations may be relevant to the analysis. NHTSA has long stated that highway traffic safety is enhanced by the familiarity of drivers with established lighting schemes, which facilitates their ability to instantly recognize the meaning the lamps convey and respond accordingly.2 Therefore, we have long interpreted the impairment provision to prohibit auxiliary lamps that are colors which are likely to cause confusion to other road users.3 Additionally, auxiliary lamps must be located such that they would not interfere or be confused with the lamps required by our standards. For example, we have stated that two auxiliary 

1 This letter is limited to the information provided in your request. Your request did not state the activation pattern or intensity of the device, which can be relevant to determining if a device causes impairment. For the purposes of this letter, we assume without finding that these aspects of your device do not cause impairment. The following information is provided for your reference regarding these elements. Regarding activation pattern, NHTSA interprets FMVSS No. 108 to require that all auxiliary lamps be "steady burning," with the sole exception being auxiliary lamps that supplement required lamps that flash, such as turn signals. Letter to Paul Schaye (Sept. 9, 2019), available at htqJs://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/571108-ama-schaye-front-color-changing-light. Regarding intensity, NHTSA interprets the impairment provision to prohibit auxiliary lamps that are so bright as to obscure or distract from a vehicle's required lamps. For example, NHTSA has in the past stated that supplemental lighting can impair the effectiveness of the required lighting if it is so intense that it glares other road users or masks required signal lamps. See Letter to Rusty Riggin, Aug. 2, 2002, available at htqJs://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/24179ztv, (explaining that a supplemental rear cornering lamp could violate the impairment provision if it was so intense that it "create[d] distracting glare"). Letter to Mark Wallach (Oct. 17, 2006) available at htqJs://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/wallach3.
2 Letter to Robert Clarke (July 28, 2005), available at htqJs://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/gID0255l3.
3 As an example, for auxiliary lamps located on the front of vehicles, these colors include red, which could be confused for a taillamp or stop lamp, and green, which typically conveys the message that one may proceed forward and could therefore impair required lighting that indicates caution. Letter to Paul Schaye (Sept. 9, 2019), available at htqJs://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/571108-ama-schaye-front-color-changing-light See also, Letter to Kerry Legg (Oct. 19, 2006), available at htqJs://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/leggl.

lamps located next to the three-lamp trailer identification lamp cluster would detract from the purpose of the cluster.4    '

For lighting relevant to your inquiry, FMVSS No. 108 requires that trailers have two amber side marker lamps as far to the front as practicable and two red side marker lamps as far to the rear as practicable. Trailers 30 feet or longer must also have amber intermediate side marker lamps and reflex reflectors on each side located at or near the midpoint between the front and rear side marker lamps.5, 6 

Discussion 

We now turn to your inquiry. Your lamp is not required equipment, and you correctly observe that it is auxiliary or supplemental lighting.7 Therefore, we turn to the question of impairment and look to the characteristics discussed. The factors which appear most relevant to your inquiry are the location and color of the lamps, which we analyze together. Due to the color and location of the lamp as described in your letter, it is likely to impair the effectiveness of the side marker lamps required to be installed on trailers by FMVSS No. 108, and, if installed by you or another entity subject to the "make inoperative" prohibition as aftermarket equipment, could make inoperative lighting required by FMVSS No. 108.8 However, an alternative color scheme would be permissible under FMVSS No. 108. 

Regarding side marker lamps, FMVSS No. 108 requires that intermediate side marker lamps be amber, and rear side marker lamps be red. Your design notes that your device will be mounted at the rear and that the side of the device will have amber lights. Therefore, in driving conditions
with poor visibility, such as at night or in heavy weather, your device may impair the effectiveness of the required intermediate side marker lamps by confusing nearby drivers about whether it indicates the rear or middle of the trailer, which could lead to unsafe driving decisions. 

4 Letter to Robert Clarke (July 28, 2005), available at htt;ps://www.nhtsa.gov/inter_pretations/gf00255l3.
5 We also note that S6.l.3.l of FMVSS No. 108 requires that each lamp, reflective device, and item of associated equipment must be securely mounted on a rigid part of the vehicle. The purpose,of this requirement is to ensure that lamps and reflectors do not sway in the wind on rigid hinges or flexible mud flaps when the vehicle is in motion. Letter from Frank Burndt to Dietmar K. Haenchen, (date unavailable), available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/inter_pretations/aiam3320. S6.l.3.1 is organized in S6.1 ofFMVSS No. 108, which contains requirements applicable to required lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. Although this provision does not explicitly apply to auxiliary lamps, an auxiliary device that is not securely mounted to a rigid part of the vehicle may impair the effectiveness ofrequired lighting because the motion of the light could distract drivers.  We have assumed for the purposes of this letter that your device is securely mounted to a rigid part of the vehicle and encourage you to ensure that this is the case.
6 49 CFR 571.108 Table 1-b. 49 CFR 393.11, which you referenced in communication with my staff, which requires commercial motor vehicles operated by motor carriers to be equipped with such lighting, contains similar specifications for color and placement of side marker lamps.
7 Your request describes your device as a "side marker lamp." Side marker lamps are a type of required equipment under FMVSS No. 108. Because your device is not required lighting, to avoid confusion this letter does not refer to your device as a side marker lamp.
8 Section 30122 applies to any "manufacturer, distributor, dealer, rental company, or motor vehicle repair business." We assume, for the purposes of this letter, that you are subject to this provision. 

Our opinion is based on the location and color of the lights as described in your letter. An alternative color scheme, with a red light facing the side in place of the amber light, is unlikely to have the same risk of impairing the effectiveness of the side marker lamps because it would
correspond to the color required for the required side marker lamps installed on each side as far to the rear as practicable, close to where you plan to install the device. We also encourage you to consider designs which mitigate any risk that a forward-facing white light could be perceived as a headlamp by other road users. 

Finally, you inquired about how far out the devices may extend from the trailer. NHTSA's regulations do not contain requirements specific to this question. Vehicle width is regulated by the Federal Highway Administration, who's regulation states that no State shall impose a width limitation of more or less than 102 inches (except Hawaii) for vehicles operating on the National Network.9 Five items are excluded regardless of how far they extend beyond the exterior of vehicles; rear view mirrors, turn signal lamps, handholds for cab entry/egress, splash and spray suppressant devices, and load induced tire bulge. Other excluded devices are: all non-property carrying devices or components at the front of a semitrailer or trailer, devices that do not extend more than 3 inches beyond each side or the rear of a vehicle, devices needed for loading or unloading that do not extend more than 24 inches beyond the rear of the vehicle, and aerodynamic devices that do not extend more than 5 feet beyond the rear of a vehicle, provided they have neither the strength, rigidity nor mass to damage a vehicle that strikes a trailer so equipped from the rear and provided also that they do not obscure tail lamps, turn signals, marker lamps, identification lamps, or any other required safety features, such as hazardous materials placards or conspicuity markings.10 

We also note that, because it is an item of motor vehicle equipment subject to the requirements of the Safety Act, it must be designed free from defects regarding motor vehicle safety. Additionally, truck tractors and trailers operated commercially in interstate commerce are subject to the regulations of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). Finally, States may have laws applicable to certain motor vehicle lighting. We are unable to advise you on those laws, but you should ensure your system complies with any and all applicable State laws.

We hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Eli Wachtel of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Peter Simshauser Chief Counsel

Dated: 4/16/25
Ref:  Standard No. 108
 

9 23 CFR 658.15.
1°FHWA Vehicle Size and Weight Q&A, available at https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/sw/fags/qa.cfin?categ01y=8. For
more excluded devices, see 23 CFR 658.16 and Appendix D to 23 CFR 658.

ID: 2853o

Mr. Leon Steenbock
Administrative Manager, Engineering
FWD Corporation
Clintonville, WI 54929-1590

Dear Mr. Steenbock,

This letter responds to your letter of last year asking whether it is permissible under Federal motor vehicle safety standard 124, Accelerator Control Systems (Standard 124), to install a locking hand throttle control in a new motor vehicle. I apologize for the delay in this response. The answer to your question is no.

While you do not describe what you mean by a "locking hand-throttle control" in your letter, I understood you to mean the following. Some vehicle design configurations have a hand-operated device on the steering column that connects to the throttle lever. In most design configurations, a driver may operate this device either by a turning or push-pull action. This device is commonly referred to as a "hand-throttle control."

These hand-throttle controls have two common applications. First, vehicles designed to be operated by physically disabled persons sometimes use a hand-throttle, rather than a foot-pedal, as the means for applying the actuating force that regulates the throttle valves and vehicle acceleration. Second, on some commercial vehicles, a hand-throttle control can be part of a system that allows a driver to use a hand control to regulate the engine fuel supply, and so to operate a power-driven accessory such as a generator while the vehicle is stationary with the transmission out of "drive." While the intended use of a hand-throttle control in a commercial vehicle may be only to power such an accessory, a driver still could use the throttle to control vehicle acceleration. Nothing in Standard 124 prohibits a manufacturer from installing a hand-throttle control in its vehicles.

Some hand-throttle controls have a mechanism that permits the driver to lock the throttle valves open in a position other than idle even after the driver removes the actuating force. When you asked about "locking hand-throttle controls," I understood you to be referring to this type of design.

These "locking hand throttle controls" are expressly prohibited by Standard 124. Paragraph S5.1 of that Standard requires that the throttle valves must be capable of returning to the idle position whenever the driver removes the actuating force. The purpose of Standard 124 is to minimize the risk of accident due to engine runaway. (37 FR 7097, April 8, 1972.) Consequently, a locking hand-throttle control would increase the risk of the very harm Standard 124 was adopted to address.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Joan Tilghman of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:124#571 d:3/17/88

ID: nht87-1.62

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/10/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: C. D. Black

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. C. D. Black Jaguar Cars, Inc. 600 Willow Tree Road Leonia, New Jersey 07605

Dear Ms. Black:

This responds to your December 11, 1986 letter to me concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components. I apologize for the delay in responding. You ask whether we interpret Standard No. 206 to permit inst allation of a particular type of door locking system which you referred to as a "child safety lock." The answer to your question is yes.

You explain that a "child safety lock" is a special locking system installed in addition to the locking system mandated by Standard No. 206. You state that the required locking system (hereinafter referred to as "the primary locking system") is operated by a vertical plunger located in the door top trim roll (window sill). The child safety lock (which I will refer to as a "secondary locking system") consists of a lever that is located in the shut face of the rear doors which can only be reached when the door is open. When the lever is set in the "active" position, it renders the inside rear door handle incapable of opening the door. The outside door handle is operative and can be used to open the door.

The requirements of Standard No. 206 for door locks are as follows:

S4.1.3 Door locks. Each door shall be equipped with a locking mechanism with an operating means in the interior of the vehicle.

S4.1.3.1 Side front door locks. When the locking mechanism is engaged, the outside door handle or other outside latch release control shall be inoperative.

S4.1.3.2 Side rear door locks. In passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles, when the locking mechanism is engaged both the outside and inside door handles or other latch release controls shall be inoperative.

As you know, the standard was amended on April 27, 1968, to include the door lock requirements described above. An objective of the amendment was to ensure retention of occupants within the vehicle during and subsequent to an impact by reducing inadverte nt door openings due to impact upon or movement of inside or outside door handles. Other objectives were to protect against children opening rear door handles, and to afford occupants of the rear of a vehicle a method of unlocking the rear door from insi de the vehicle (i.e., a reasonable means of escape) in the postcrash phase of an accident.

Your inquiry raises the issue of the permissibility under S4.1.3 through S4.1.3.2 for negating the capability of the interior latch release controls (door handles) to operate the door latches when the door locking mechanism is disengaged. As explained be low, based on our review of the purpose of Standard No. 206 and past agency interpretations of the standard, we conclude that the standard prohibits only secondary locking systems which interfere with the engagement of the primary locking system. Since y our child locking systems do not interfere with the manner in which the primary locking system engages, their installation on the vehicles you manufacture is permitted.

The answer to your question about the child locking systems is dependent on whether the systems interfere with an aspect of performance required by Standard No. 206. We have determined that the answer is no, because the requirements of S4.1.3.1 and S4.1. 3.2 are written in terms of what must occur when the primary system is engaged and impose no requirements regarding the effects of disengaging the system. Thus, the aspect of performance required by S4.1.3 for the interior operating means for the door lo cks is that it be capable only of engaging the required door locking mechanisms. The aspect of performance required by S4.1.3.2 for door locks on the rear doors is that the inside and outside door handles be inoperative when the locking mechanism is enga ged. Since we have determined that S4.1.3.1 and S4.1.3.2 do not address the effects of disengaging the required door locks--i.e., S4.1.3.2 does not require that the inside rear door handles be operative (capable of releasing the door latch) when the requ ired locking system is disengaged--a child locking system may be provided on a vehicle if it does not negate the capability of the door lock plunger (the operating means) to engage the door locks.

While the agency stated in its April 1968 notice amending Standard No. 206 that one purpose of requiring an interior means of operating door locks was to allow a reasonable means of escape for vehicle occupants, the agency did not go further in facilitat ing escape by also including a provision to require in all circumstances that door handles be operative when the primary locking systems are disengaged. Since the agency could easily have included such a provision to address this reverse situation, but d id not do so, the implication is that the agency did not intend to impose requirements regarding that situation. In fact, the notice included a contemporaneous interpretation that the standard permits a secondary locking device which rendered the inside rear door handle inoperative even when the primary locking mechanism was disengaged. This affirms that NHTSA did not even intend to impose a requirement that the handles always be operative when the primary locking mechanism is disengaged.

In determining that the performance requirements of Standard No. 206 address only the effects of engaging the required door locks, we noted that the purpose of the standard is to "minimize the likelihood of occupants being thrown from the vehicle as a re sult of impact." Throughout the rulemaking history of the standard, NHTSA has limited application of the standard's performance requirements only to doors that are provided for the purpose of retaining the driver and passengers in Collisions. Because the standard is narrowly focused on occupant retention in a vehicle and specifies no performance requirements for occupant egress, we concluded that there is no requirement in the standard that prohibits a device which negates the capability of the inside o perating means for the door locks to disengage the locks, provided that the device does not interfere with the engagement of the required door locking system.

Another issue related to your inquiry is whether the location of the operating means for the child locks is regulated by Standard No. 206. We have determined that the answer is no. Secondary locking mechanisms discussed in the final rule adopting the doo r lock requirements and in past agency letters all were designed so that the operating means for the secondary mechanism was inaccessible when the door was closed. In none of those documents did the agency take exception to that location of the operating means, much less suggest that those means, like the means for the primary locking mechanism, must be located in the vehicle's interior.

This letter interprets Standard No. 206 in a manner that clarifies past agency statements concerning issues raised by secondary locking systems such as "child safety locks." To the extent that the statements contained herein conflict with interpretations made by NHTSA in the past, the previous interpretations are overruled.

Please contact my office if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

December 11, 1986

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

We request your interpretation of the requirements of FMVSS 206 as it relates to child safety lock systems currently fitted to Jaguar sedans destined for U.K. and European markets and which we would like to fit to USA cars.

The Jaguar rear door primary locking system is activated or deactivated from a vertical plunger situated in the door top trim roll. It functions in the manner described in FMVSS 206, paragraph 4.1.3.2., (also pages 12 and 13 of the Jaguar drivers handboo k attached.)

To operate the additional child safety lock (special locking system), the door must first be opened and a small lever, situated in the door shut-face, activated. The door, when subsequently closed, cannot then be unlocked or opened from inside the vehicl e regardless of the position of the primary locking system vertical plunger. However, the door can be opened using the outside handle. The child safety lock can be deactivated only by opening the rear door using the outside door handle and then reversing the position of the lever in the door shut-face.

However, the preamble to FMVSS 206 amendment of 27 April 1968 (33 FR 6465) contains a phrase that we believe could be interpreted to preclude fitment of these locks for USA cars:

"At the same time, by affording occupants of the rear of a vehicle a method of unlocking the rear door from inside the vehicle, a reasonable means of escape is provided for such occupants in the post crash phase of an accident." (Emphasis added).

We would like a clear statement that such a system as described above would not contravene the requirements of FMVSS 206.

On behalf of Jaguar Cars Yours sincerely,

C.D. Black

Manager - Engineering CDB:as Legislation & Compliance

SEE HARD COPY FOR GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATIONS

Attach.

ID: aiam4441

"Dear Mr. Dahl: This responds to your letter concerning the tir marking requirements of Standard No. ll9, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. You asked whether the standard would prohibit the following size designations from being marked on the tire: 385/65R22.5 REPLACES l5R22.5 425/65R22.5 REPLACES l6.5R22.5 445/65R22.5 REPLACES l8R22.5 As discussed below, it is our opinion that the above markings are prohibited by Standard No. ll9. The marking requirements for tires subject to Standard No. 119 are set forth in section S6.5 of the standard. Section S6.5(c) requires that each tire be marked on both sidewalls with 'the tire size designation as listed in the documents and publications designated in S5.1.' As noted by your letter, NHTSA recently provided an interpretation letter to Michelin, dated July 9, l987, concerning one of the exact sizes included in your request. The agency stated the following: In a broader sense, the practice of labeling two tire sizes on one tire, as you requested in your letter, was once a fairly common practice and was referred to as 'dual-size markings.' Dual-size markings were a marketing effort by tire manufacturers to try to persuade consumers to change the size and/or type of tire on their vehicles, by representing that this particular tire size was an appropriate replacement for two different sizes of tires. However, the practice of using dual-size markings confused many consumers about the size of the tire on their vehicle. The only purpose of the Federally required markings on tires is to provide consumers, in a straightforward manner, with technical information necessary for the safe use and operation of the tire. The agency concluded that it was inappropriate to permit a marketing technique that was confusing many consumers to defeat the purpose of the required markings on tires. Accordingly, dual-size markings were expressly prohibited for passenger car tires subject to Standard No. 109, 36 FR 1195, January 26, 1971. While Standard No. 119 does not expressly prohibit dual-size markings, section S6.5(c) uses the singular when it refers to the 'tire size designation' to be labeled on the tire. Considering the past history associated with dual-size markings, this agency interprets section S6.5(c) of Standard No. 119 as prohibiting a manufacturer from marking a tire with two different size designations, even if a document or publication designated in S5.1 were to show two different size designations for the same tire size. The tire size marking at issue in the Michelin interpretation differs from your proposed marking in that it did not include the word 'replaces.' You stated the following: In the case at hand, the metric size tires are dimensionally equivalent to the sizes being replaced, and have equal or greater load capacity. There is bona fide intent that the replacement sizes will in due course supersede the replaced sizes in terms of production and marketing. We wish to emphasize that the markings in question are not intended as an effort by Goodyear to persuade consumers to change the size and/or type of tires mounted on their vehicles. As indicated in our letter to Michelin, the only purpose of the Federally required markings on tires is to provide consumers, in a straightforward manner, with technical information necessary for the safe use and operation of the tire. Any practice of using dual-size markings has the potential for confusing consumers about the size of the tire on their vehicle, since consumers may erroneously believe that a particular tire can be considered as meeting fully the criteria of more than one tire size designation. For example, a consumer seeing a tire marking that size A replaces size B might erroneously believe that it is appropriate to replace size A with size B. You cited a l974 notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for Standard No. l09 which stated that NHTSA believed that the providing of replacement size information on the tire itself was advantageous to consumers. See 39 FR l0l62. I would note several things about the background and subsequent history of that NPRM. The NPRM indicated that despite the clear language in Standard No. l09 that each tire must be labeled with 'one size designation, except that equivalent inch and metric size designations may be used,' NHTSA had previously taken the position in interpretation letters that replacement markings constituted an exception to this requirement. (Emphasis added.) The interpretation letters had not offered any basis for concluding that this exception existed. (See June 8, l97l letter to Mercedes-Benz, January l9, l972 letter to Kelly-Springfield, March 2, l973 letter to Samperit.) The NPRM sought to 'clarify the labeling requirements of Standard No. l09, to allow, subject to certain conditions, the labeling of replacement tire size designations.' However, the NPRM was not adopted as a final rule. We also note that while the l97l-72 interpretation letters cited above do not appear to have been expressly overruled, our February 7, l980 interpretation letter to Michelin (copy enclosed) concluded that Standard No. l09 prohibited replacement markings. NHTSA has never interpreted Standard No. ll9 to permit any type of dual size markings, including replacement markings. Based on the reasoning presented in our July 9, l987 interpretation letter to Michelin, and the additional discussion presented above, we conclude that Standard No. ll9 prohibits a manufacturer from marking a tire with two different size designations, even if the word 'replaces' is used. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: aiam3182

Dear Mr. Kalies: During our telephone conversation, I envisioned the device yo described being covered by our Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. By the description on the price sheet you enclosed in your letter of 1/8/80, I am now not too sure. This device may not be covered under our FMVSS 213, Child Restraint(sic); After a conversation with the NHTSA's Office of Chief Counsel, I a taking the liberty of forwarding your letter to them for their review and response. It would be helpful if a brochure or picture of this device could be sent to our Washington Office. If available, mail it to: NHTSA, Office of Chief Counsel (NOA-30), 400 7th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590, ATTN: Mr. Stephen L. Oesch.; Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. Sincerely, Irving Rodness, Motor Vehicle Program Specialist

ID: aiam3821

Dear Mr. Ablondi: This responds to your March 16, 1984 letter regarding the applicabilit of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 111 to an aftermarket rearview mirror which one of your clients proposes to market. This mirror would be attached to the original equipment inside mirror stalk in such a way that the view through the OEM mirror is unimpaired. Your client's mirror would permit the driver to view children in the rear seat of the vehicle.; FMVSS 111 (see 49 C.F.R. 571.111, copy enclosed) is directly applicabl to new motor vehicles only. However, that standard may apply indirectly to aftermarket mirrors through the operation of 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A). The latter provision prohibits any motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from rendering inoperative any 'device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle...in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard...' Thus, the installation of a replacement or even a supplemental rearview mirror in a motor vehicle could be unlawful if that installation resulted in a mirror system which did not comply with the requirements of FMVSS 111.; Based on your description of your client's mirror, it does not appea that the aftermarket installation of that mirror would be prohibited under 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A), since the operation of the OEM mirror system is unaffected by the addition of the aftermarket mirror.; If you have any further questions on this matter, please contact us. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: nht87-3.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/20/87

FROM: JIM SCHULD -- MILL SUPPLY INCORPORATION

TO: CHIEF COUNSEL SECRETARY -- OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HWY. TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMIN.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/26/88 TO JIM SCHULD FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 207

TEXT: DEAR SIR:

WE ARE INTERESTED IN CONSTRUCTING A PASSENGER SEAT (JUMP SEAT) FOR TEMPORATY SITUATIONS IN WALK IN VANS. THIS SEAT WOULD BE REMOVABLE AND ABLE TO TRANSFER FROM ONE TRUCK TO ANOTHER.

WHAT ARE THE GUIDELINES WE NEED TO FOLLOW TO BE SURE WE WILL COMPLY WITH NATIONAL HWY AND TRANSPORTATION SAFETY ADMIN. PLEASE MAIL THIS INFORMATION TO THE ADDRESS ABOVE. ATT:JIM SCHULD.

SINCERELY,