ID: nht94-7.16

DATE: March 29, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Tom Delapp -- Executive Coach Builders, Inc. (Springfield, MO)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to undated letter from Tom Delapp to Chief Council, NHTSA (OCC 8868)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, "Door locks and door retention components," as it pertains to the locking mechanism of a so-called "5th" door installed on your limousines. I apologize for the delay in responding. We conclude that the locking mechanism on the 5th door is not prohibited by Standard 206.

Based on your letter and a conversation with David Elias of my office, I understand that you have replaced the extra panel on the right side of a 1993 Lincoln Town Car based limousine with a passenger door (i.e., the 5th door). The door consists completely of the original equipment manufacturer's materials and hinges. The 5th door is a supplementary door, and does not replace or effect in any way the two side rear doors with which your vehicles are normally equipped.

When the 5th door is closed, its locking mechanism engages automatically, and the door cannot be opened from the inside or the outside. A solenoid locking mechanism that unlocks the 5th door is located inside the vehicle in a "privacy panel" behind the driver's seat. For the driver to unlock the 5th door, the car must be stopped and the driver must then get out of the car and reach through a window into the area behind the driver's seat. The locking mechanism cannot be reached by the driver while seated in the driver's seat, and cannot be reached by the passengers in the rear seats. The 5th door cannot be accidentally opened; unless the locking mechanism has been actively disengaged, the door remains locked. Disengaging the locking mechanism for the 5th door allows the driver to open the door from the outside, although passengers could push the door open from the inside, as well.

There are two pertinent requirements of FMVSS No. 206 to your situation. First, S4.1.3 (Door Locks) states that:

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

In two prior letters, to Mr. Charles Murphy on May 10, 1974, and to Mr. Gary Hackett on April 11, 1988, the agency interpreted S4.1.3 to mean that the locking mechanism must also be OPERABLE from within the vehicle.

The first question to be addressed is whether the 5th door meets the requirement of S4.1.3. We believe the answer is yes, the door is equipped with a locking mechanism with an operating means in the interior of the vehicle that is operable from within the vehicle. The operating means for the locking mechanism is in the interior of the vehicle in that the locking mechanism engages automatically when the 5th door is closed. While the means to

disengage the operating mechanism is not accessible to occupants in the vehicle, Standard 206 does not require the locking mechanism to be capable of being disengaged by an occupant. This is because the purpose of the standard is to minimize the chance that occupants of the vehicle will be ejected in a collision. Thus, the thrust of the standard is to ensure that occupants are retained within the vehicle, such as by requiring doors to have door locks that occupants are capable of locking.

The second pertinent requirement is S4.1.3.2 (Side Rear Door Locks), which states that:

... when the locking mechanism is engaged both the outside and inside door handles or other latch release controls shall be inoperative.

The 5th door appears to comply with S4.1.3.2, in that it cannot be opened from the outside or inside when the locking mechanism is engaged.

In a letter to Ms. C.D. Black, dated April 10, 1987, the agency interpreted a question on child safety locks that is relevant to your situation. The child safety lock operated as a "secondary locking system" that, when activated, rendered the inside rear door handle incapable of opening the door. (It had no effect on the outside door handle.) As we stated in that letter, our conclusion was that Standard 206 permitted the child safety lock because the standard prohibits only secondary locking systems that interfere with the ENGAGEMENT, but not with the DISENGAGEMENT, of the primary locking system. In that letter, we wrote:

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... S4.1.3.2 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 locks 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 ENGAGED. Since we have determined that... S4.1.3.2 do(es) 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 required 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.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any further questions, feel free to contact Mr. Elias at the above address or by phone at (202)366- 2992.

ID: 8868

Mr. Tom Delapp
Executive Coach Builders, Inc.
One Executive Boulevard
Springfield, MO 65802

Dear Mr. Delapp:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, "Door locks and door retention components," as it pertains to the locking mechanism of a so-called "5th" door installed on your limousines. I apologize for the delay in responding. We conclude that the locking mechanism on the 5th door is not prohibited by Standard 206.

Based on your letter and a conversation with David Elias of my office, I understand that you have replaced the extra panel on the right side of a 1993 Lincoln Town Car based limousine with a passenger door (i.e., the 5th door). The door consists completely of the original equipment manufacturer's materials and hinges. The 5th door is a supplementary door, and does not replace or effect in any way the two side rear doors with which your vehicles are normally equipped.

When the 5th door is closed, its locking mechanism engages automatically, and the door cannot be opened from the inside or the outside. A solenoid locking mechanism that unlocks the 5th door is located inside the vehicle in a "privacy panel" behind the driver's seat. For the driver to unlock the 5th door, the car must be stopped and the driver must then get out of the car and reach through a window into the area behind the driver's seat. The locking mechanism cannot be reached by the driver while seated in the driver's seat, and cannot be reached by the passengers in the rear seats. The 5th door cannot be accidentally opened; unless the locking mechanism has been actively disengaged, the door remains locked. Disengaging the locking mechanism for the 5th door allows the driver to open the door from the outside, although passengers could push the door open from the inside, as well.

There are two pertinent requirements of FMVSS No. 206 to your situation. First, S4.1.3 (Door Locks) states that:

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

In two prior letters, to Mr. Charles Murphy on May 10, 1974, and to Mr. Gary Hackett on April 11, 1988, the agency interpreted S4.1.3 to mean that the locking mechanism must also be operable from within the vehicle.

The first question to be addressed is whether the 5th door meets the requirement of S4.1.3. We believe the answer is yes, the door is equipped with a locking mechanism with an operating means in the interior of the vehicle that is operable from within the vehicle. The operating means for the locking mechanism is in the interior of the vehicle in that the locking mechanism engages automatically when the 5th door is closed. While the means to disengage the operating mechanism is not accessible to occupants in the vehicle, Standard 206 does not require the locking mechanism to be capable of being disengaged by an occupant. This is because the purpose of the standard is to minimize the chance that occupants of the vehicle will be ejected in a collision. Thus, the thrust of the standard is to ensure that occupants are retained within the vehicle, such as by requiring doors to have door locks that occupants are capable of locking.

The second pertinent requirement is S4.1.3.2 (Side Rear Door Locks), which states that:

... when the locking mechanism is engaged both the outside and inside door handles or other latch release controls shall be inoperative.

The 5th door appears to comply with S4.1.3.2, in that it cannot be opened from the outside or inside when the locking mechanism is engaged.

In a letter to Ms. C.D. Black, dated April 10, 1987, the agency interpreted a question on child safety locks that is relevant to your situation. The child safety lock operated as a "secondary locking system" that, when activated, rendered the inside rear door handle incapable of opening the door. (It had no effect on the outside door handle.) As we stated in that letter, our conclusion was that Standard 206 permitted the child safety lock because the standard prohibits only secondary locking systems that interfere with the engagement, but not with the disengagement, of the primary locking system. In that letter, we wrote:

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... S4.1.3.2 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 locks 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 engaged. Since we have determined that... S4.1.3.2 do[es] 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 required 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.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any further questions, feel free to contact Mr. Elias at the above address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:206 d:3/29/94

ID: nht71-4.33

DATE: 10/26/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 13, 1971, concerning the Defect Reports regulations (49 CFR Part 573). You request a ruling concerning S573.7, which requires manufacturers to submit a copy "of all notices, bulletins, and other communications, other than these required to be submitted under #573.4(c)(8), sent to more than one dealer or purchaser of his vehicles regarding any defect, whether or not safety related, in such vehicles."

You ask wether this requirement includes letters that your company writes that are of a personal nature concerning possible defects, when the letters deal with more than one item, but have at least one item in common. If those letters are included in the requirement, you request that we specify a time span for which you would be responsible.

The intent of S573.7 is for manufacturers to provide the NHTSA with certain information each time a defect other than a defect under #573.4(c)(8) is found to exist in more than one vehicle. Thus, assuming the defect is not one on which information has been submitted pursuant to #573.4(c)(8), you may satisfy the requirement of S573.7 by submitting a copy of any one letter that pertains to a defect found in more than one vehicle, as long as the letter is approximately marked so that we can determine for which defect it is being submitted.

The regulation does not limit the time span for which manufacturers are responsible, and manufacturers must be sufficiently familiar with their repair programs so that if a defect appears at two or more points in time, the necessary information can be submitted.

ID: nht92-8.47

DATE: February 21, 1992

FROM: Masashi Maekawa -- Director, Technical Division, Ichikoh Industries, Ltd.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Request for the interpretation of photometric output requirements for tail/stop lamps on passenger cars

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/10/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Masashi Maekawa (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Thank you for your answering letter dated Dec. 18, 1991 to our questions concerning the interpretation of photometer output requirements for tail/stop lamps on passenger cars dated Nov. 27, 1991.

We had some questions as follows regarding positions stated in the letter from NHTSA.

1. NHTSA stated in the letter dated Dec. 18, 1991 as follows;

" It is not possible to consider the two adjacent lamps as one lamp for purpose of measuring the minimum photometrics required under standard No. 108."

But another letter from NHTSA dated June 28, 1985 addressed to Mazda (North America), Inc. stated as follows;

" We also discuss the implications of a stop lamp and tail lamp constructed so that a portion is fixed to the body of the vehicle adjacent to the decklid opening and the remaining portion is mounted on the outboard area of the decklid.

Compliance of a vehicle is determined with respect to its normal driving position, that is to say, with the tailgate, hatch, or decklid closed."

We realized the noticeable difference between those two letters. We have been designing and testing lamps until now according to the interpretation dated June 28, 1985.

2. As the interpretation of the testing method concerning photometer output requirements of lamps mounted onto both the moving vehicle part and the rigid vehicle part is not written in FMVSS No. 108, we have been designing those lamps to comply with photometer output requirements by using both lamps mounted onto the moving vehicle part (Lamp-B) and the rigid vehicle part (Lamp-A), in accordance with the sentence "The device shall be mounted in its normal operating position." of J (Photometry) of SAE J575e incorporated in FMVSS No. 108.

For the reason mentioned above, we would like to ask whether your stance concerning the interpretation of those lamps has been changed or not.

Kindly let us know your opinion concerning the above matters.

ID: aiam1536

Dear Mr. Riechel: This is in reply to your letter of June 18, 1974 informing us tha Volkswagen of America, Inc. has decided not to initiate a notification campaign as a result of a technical violation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110. You ask for our concurrence in your decision.; The designated seating capacity of the Dasher vehicle is 5 (2 in front 3 in rear) and you have informed us that 'some early production cars' bore tire inflation pressure labels stating that the capacity was 4 (2 in front, 2 in rear). The other required information (vehicle capacity weight, tire size designation, and recommended inflation pressures) are, you state, correctly indicated.; We agree with you that 'religious observance of the instruction contained on the placard would provide the car with additional load capacity that would go unused', and have concluded that the situation you describe does not indicate the existence of a safety-related defect.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel

ID: nht93-9.21

DATE: December 22, 1993

FROM: Wm. J. (Bill) Lee -- House of Representatives, State of Georgia

TO: Honorable Sam Nunn -- U. S. Senate

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/8/94 from John Womack to Sam Nunn (A42; Part 571.7), letter dated 1/11/94 from Sam Nunn to Jackie Lowey, and letter dated 12/17/93 from Tim Adamson to Bill Lee

TEXT:

Reproductions attached come to me from your constituent and mine, Tim Adamson, a highly respected businessman in Clayton County.

Tim and his family are very knowledgeable about surplus vehicles and equipment and in my judgement make some valid points about the Hum V series military trucks and the need to review current policy as to disposition.

It would certainly be appreciated if you would get into this with the military and D.O.T. to insure our government gets the best deal out of the surplus vehicles. Thank you.

ID: nht88-1.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/28/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Automotive Safety Testing, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. Billy S. Peterson President Automotive Safety Testing, Inc. Product Liability-Testing-Certification at TRC of Ohio East Liberty, OH 43319

Dear Mr. Peterson:

This is in reply to your letter of September 23, 1987, with respect to positioning of rear mounted lamps and reflectors in accordance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Your client has designed a vehicle in which the backup lamps and rea r reflex reflectors would be mounted on the deck lid, and you have asked whether there are any current or contemplated prohibitions that would preclude this design.

The lamps in question will be mounted on a rigid part of the vehicle as required by paragraph @4.3.1 of Standard No. 108, and the deck lid will be closed and the lamps and reflectors in full view under normal operating conditions. The visibility requirem ents of lamps and reflectors in Standard No. 108 are predicated on the normal driving or closed deck lid position. Since the use of motor vehicles, including driving with deck lids open or otherwise having the lamps and reflectors obscured by a particula r load on the vehicle is under the jurisdiction of the individual States, we do not anticipate rulemaking on this subject. Thus, this design is not prohibited by Standard No. 108.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

September 23, 1987 Administration National Highway Traffic Safety U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Steed:

Our client, Hyundai Motor Company, has asked us to inquire regarding the positioning of rear mounted lamps and reflectors in accordance with FMVSS 108 for a new model currently in the final design stages. The rear lighting design for the new model provides for mounting some of the lighting on the bottom edge of the trunk lid, similar to a design currently used on the Audi 5000.

Although FMVSS 108 Table IV only calls for paired lamps and reflectors that are required on the rear to be at the same height on each side of the vertical centerline and "...as far apart as practicable," Hyundai would like to know if there are any curren t specific prohibitions or future anticipated changes that would preclude or limit the mounting of rear lamps or reflectors on the trunk lid. A schematic of the rear lighting configuration for the new model is enclosed.

Sincerely,

Billy S. Peterson President

BSP/PLS/plm

Enclosure

ID: nht91-7.51

DATE: December 20, 1991

FROM: Robert W. Smith -- President, Auto Safety Corporation

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/23/92 (est) from Paul Jackson Rice to Robert W. Smith (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter of November 15, 1991 in which you confirmed the points of our earlier meeting with Mr. Vinson. Also, I would like to provide an answer to the question you raised as to "...the effect, if any, that the installation of your combination license plate frame/supplementary stop lamp(s) with requirements of Standard No. 108."

We recognize the prohibition specified in the Safety Act against tampering with the motor vehicle license plate lamps, and would call your attention to the fact that those license plate lamps are for the sole purpose of illuminating the license plate itself and are part of the motor vehicle electrical circuit that also includes the front headlights and rear red driving lights. Our device, the license plate frame with built-in supplementary flashing/steady burning stop lamp, is indeed an aftermarket device and is not connected to the aforementioned motor vehicle headlight/rear light electrical circuit and therefore, does not have any effect on that system. Furthermore, our engineering precludes any physical interference and obstruction of visibility of the vehicle's license plate.

In addition, our company recognized the above safety concerns and based its engineering of the license plate stop lamp device on our patented electronic circuitry. It received a patent, in large part, because of its fail-safe features which permit increased safety while operating the motor vehicle.

I hope this explanation clears up your uncertainty about the operation of our device and I would appreciate a response from your office to that effect.

ID: nht92-2.30

DATE: 11/16/92

FROM: M. K. CHAUDHARI -- DEPUTY DIRECTOR, THE AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH ASSOCIATION OF INDIA

TO: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

COPYEE: NAME ILLEGIBLE

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 2-9-93 FROM JOHN WOMACK TO M. K. CHAUDHARI (A40; REDBOOK (2); STD. 106)

TEXT: Thank you very much for the literature you have sent on breaking regulations issued by the NHTSA. This information will be very useful in our work.

I am interested to know about the procedure for obtaining DOT certification on Automotive Components in general and brake hose ends (Metallic ends in particular. I would request information on the following points:

1. No. of samples to be submitted for testing. 2. Time required for testing 3. Test theries 4. Periodicity of testing 5. In case of failure in the first attempt. No. of fresh samples to be submitted 6. Any agency has been authorized in India for certification as per DOT specs. 7. Any other relevant information.

Please send any printed catalogues or brochures on DOT testing and certification procedure.

With kind regards.

ID: nht79-4.22

DATE: 02/07/79

FROM: JOSEPH J. LEVIN -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY STEPHEN P. WOOD

TO: Leon Conner

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: We understand that a question has arisen concerning the testing of "P-type" tires under the traction grading procedures of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) Standards (49 CFR 575.104(f)(2)). Under the terms of the regulation, candidate tires are to be inflated to 24 psi prior to the traction test (49 CFR 575.104(f)(2)(i)(B) and (D), and (f)(2)(viii)), and are to be loaded to 85 percent of the load specified in Appendix A of FMVSS No. 109 (49 CFR 571.109), for the tires' size designation, at a cold inflation pressure of 24 psi (49 CFR 575.104(f)(2)(viii)). However, Appendix A lists cold inflation pressures for "P-type" tires in kilopascals, with no stated inflation pressure corresponding precisely to 24 psi.

NHTSA chose 24 psi as the stated inflation pressure for UTQG traction testing since it represents the recommended tire inflation pressure for most passenger cars. In the situation where no cold inflation pressure exactly equivalent to the specified pressure of 24 psi is stated in Appendix A of FMVSS No. 109 for a tire size designation, the tires to be tested are inflated to the pressure, listed for the tire size designation in Appendix A, which is nearest to 24 psi, i.e., 180 kPa for tires with inflation pressures measured in kilopascals. The tires are then loaded to 85 percent of the load specified in Appendix A for the inflation pressure thus determined. The agency plans to issue an interpretive amendment to the regulation clarifying this point.