ID: nht80-4.7

DATE: 10/03/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood for F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: William Blythe

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

October 3, 1980 NOA-30

Mr. William Blythe 1545 University Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301

Dear Mr. Blythe:

This responds to your recent letter asking questions concerning the test procedures of Safety Standard No. 216 Roof Crush Resistance (49 CFR 571.216). Specifically, you are concerned with the proper applications of the test block forces specified in paragraphs S6.3 and S6.2(d) of the standard.

Your first question asks whether paragraph S6.3 allows the force on the test block to be applied "essentially opposite the initial contact point of the roof to the block." Paragraph S6.3 specifies that the force required by the standard shall be applied in a downward direction to the lower surface of the test device. Figure 1 of the standard illustrates this procedure and indicates that the force is to be centrally applied to the loading block. This procedure will be followed during tests by the agency to determine the compliance of particular passenger cars with Safety Standard No. 216. Therefore, we would not recommend that you apply the force opposite the initial contact point of the test block with the roof.

Paragraph S6.2(d) of the standard specifies that the initial contact point (with the roof) is on the longitudinal centerline on the lower surface of the test device and 10 inches from the forwardmost point of the centerline. Your second question asks whether this 10-inch dimension should be maintained if this places the leading edge of the test device behind the leading edge of the roof and the A-pillars. You state that this would occur with certain roof configurations which tend to be high in the center (i.e., in which the leading edge of the roof is not the highest point of the roof). A manufacturer should adhere to the 10-inch dimension even if this means the leading edge of the test device will not be forward of the A-pillar and the roof's forward edge. The test procedures specified are standardized procedures which the agency applies to all passenger cars regardless of roof configuration. Thus, the agency would maintain the 10-inch dimension even when testing a roof with a higher center than its leading edge.

I would like to point out, however, that the test procedures specified in the safety standards only document how the agency will conduct its compliance tests. Manufacturers are not required to test vehicles according to the procedures specified. A manufacturer's responsibility is to exercise due care to ascertain that its vehicles are in fact in compliance with the standards (15 U.S.C. 1397). If you are convinced that the procedures mentioned in your letter would accurately test the compliance of a particular vehicle with Safety Standard No. 216, you are certainly permitted to use those procedures. It is up to the manufacturer, however, to determine whether it has in fact exercised due care to determine compliance.

I hope this has been responsive to your inquiry.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

August 24, 1980

Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Streee, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Attention: Mr. Huyh Oates, Esq.

Reference: Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 216, "Roof Crush Resistance--Passenger Cars"

Gentlemen:

This letter is pursuant to my telephone conversation with Mr. Hugh Oates, on August 7, 1980. I am writing at the suggestion of Mr. Ed Jettner, NHTSA Project Engineer for MVSS 216, in an attempt to clarify certain aspects of that Standard. My organization is preparing to conduct tests in accordance with MVSS 216, and we perceive certain apparent ambiguities in the Test Procedure (paragraph S.6 of MVSS 216), for which we need clarification. Essentially, we have two questions to which we seek answers.

1. What should be the location of the applied force with respect to the upper surface of the test block?

Paragraph S6.3 reads: "Apply force in a downward direction to the lower (sic) surface of the test device...," but does not specify the location of the force on the surface of the block. Figure 1 seems to imply that the applied force should be centered in the upper surface of the block, but the location of the force is not dimensioned. Clearly, if the applied force could be located directly opposite the point of initial contact of the test block with the roof, the load transmitted to the roof would be unchanged, and at the same time the loading frame needed to maintain the block at its specified angles would be much simpler to construct. Thus the question is, can the applied force on the block be located essentially opposite the initial contact point of the roof to the block? This location is much preferred over the control location implied in Figure 1 of the specification because the test frame is thereby greatly simplified and no change results in the loads transmitted to the roof.

2. Should the ten-inch dimension from the leading edge of the loading block to the initial contact point be maintained even if this locates the leading edge of the block aft of the A-pillar (or leading edge of the roof)?

Paragraph S6.2(d) specifies that the "initial contact point ... is ... 10 inches from the forwardmost point..." of the loading block. Also, Figure 1 implies that the forward edge of the block is forward of the leading edge of the roof. For some roof configurations (which tend to be high in the center), holding the ten-inch requirement will move the leading edge of the block to a position aft of the leading edge of the roof. In such a situation, should the ten-inch dimension be maintained, or should the leading edge of the loading block remain forward of the A-pillar, thus increasing the ten-inch dimension? In order to simulate, even approximately, the actual loading which might be encountered in a roll-over, it would seem desirable to keep the leading edge of the loading block forward of the A-pillar so that the A-pillars are loaded directly.

Because of our test program schedule, we would appreciate your response at the earliest possible time.

Very truly yours,

William Blythe, Ph.D.

WB:gh

ID: nht95-2.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 10, 1995

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

TO: Darlene Skelton -- President, National Institute of Emergency Vehicle Safety, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/16/94 LETTER FROM DARLENE E. SKELTON TO BARRY FELRICE

TEXT: Dear Ms. Skelton:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Barry Felrice, Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards of this agency, in which you asked the applicability of our Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) to three specific scenarios. I apologi ze for the delay in responding.

By way of background information, under the provisions of Chapter 301 of Title 49 U.S. Code, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has authority to issue FMVSSs applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipmen t. All new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment must comply with all applicable FMVSSs in effect on the date of manufacture, and manufacturers must certify such compliance by affixing to each vehicle a manufacturer's certification lab el. Among other requirements, the certification label must contain the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of each vehicle and the gross axle weight rating (GAWR) of each axle on the vehicle, identified in order from front to rear.

a. Your first question referred to a situation in which the GVWR exceeded the tire load ratings. Specifically, you alluded to the-case of a fire truck with four rear mounted tires, each rated at 7,000 pounds (lb), that were installed on a 31,000 lb. axle. You stated that the final stage manufacturer received a letter from the tire manufacturer raising the tire inflation pressures from 100 to 110 or 115 pounds per square inch and limiting the driving to not more than 7 miles at a speed not to excee d 55 miles per hour. You asked whether such practices violated the FMVSSs.

Paragraph S5.1.2 of FMVSS No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars, provides in pertinent part:

[The] sum of the maximum load ratings of the tires fitted to an axle shall be not less than the gross axle weight rating (GAWR) of the axle system as specified on the vehicle's certification label required by 49 CFR part 567.

In other words, the load ratings of the tires on motor vehicles other than passenger cars must be at least equal to the weight ratings of the axles on which the tires are installed. The standard makes no provision for changing the tire inflation pressur es or driving at restricted speeds or limiting the distances the vehicle may travel to compensate for discrepancies in the load and weight ratings.

The facts you provided us, however, are not sufficient on which to base an opinion as to whether there has been a noncompliance in that instance. We would have to know all the facts and circumstances relevant to the tire manufacturer's alleged actions, including input from the manufacturer itself, before we could arrive at a conclusion in that regard.

b. Your second question referred to vehicles in which axles had been rerated. You cited a situation in which a manufacturer increased the GAWR of fire trucks because fire trucks do not cycle as much as tractor trailer trucks. Thus, the manufacturer increased the GAWR of fire trucks from 22,000 to 24 000 lbs.

NHTSA defines the GAWR as:

[The] value specified by the vehicle manufacturer as the load-carrying capacity of a single axle system, as measured at the tire-ground interface (emphasis added).

A manufacturer's assigning different GAWRs to axles on different vehicles is not prohibited by our FMVSSs. In fact, manufacturers routinely assign different GAWRs and GVWRs to different vehicles based on the various equipment options and add-ons, partic ularly with respect to emergency vehicles. In any case, NHTSA expects that the GAWR(s) stated on the vehicle's certification label correctly reflects the manufacturer's certification that the vehicle complies with all FMVSSs applicable to that vehicle.

c. Your final question asked whether it was a violation of the FMVSS for manufacturers to take the air supply for their vehicle horns off the air supply for the vehicle's brakes. The answer is, in general, no.

FMVSS No. 121, Air brake systems, specifies performance and equipment requirements for braking systems on motor vehicles other than passenger cars that are equipped with air brake systems. The standard does not prohibit the use of air pressure from the brake air supply for the horn, but doing so could affect the vehicle's compliance with the standard.

If the horn operating off the brake air supply is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the manufacturer is required to certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSSs, including FMVSS No. 121. If the horn is added to a previous ly certified new vehicle, the person so modifying the vehicle would be an alterer who would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the FMVSSs affected by the alteration. If the horn were installed on a used vehicle by a vehicle repair business, that business would not be required to attach a label or recertify the vehicle. It would, however, have to make sure that it did not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in the vehicle in compliance with an applicable FMVSS.

In addition, hoses connected to air horns could be subject to Safety Standard No. 106, Brake hoses. They are subject to the standard if they transmit or contain the brake air pressure used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes, i.e., if a failure of the h ose would result in a loss of air pressure in the brake system. If this would be the case, the hoses are "brake hoses" and must comply with Standard No. 106. If a check valve or other device is used to prevent loss of pressure, then the hose would not contain or transmit the air pressure and would not be required to comply with the brake hose standard. o I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht75-1.17

DATE: 10/15/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Motor Vehicle Inspection

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your May 29, 1975, letter to Mr. Vincent Esposito of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in which you indicate your desire that a "second independent means of stopping be made mandatory" on newly-manufactured motor vehicles.

Federal motor vehicle safety Standard No. 105-75 (49 CFR 571.105-75) becomes effective January 1, 1976, for passenger cars, and it establishes requirements for the service and parking brake systems of these vehicles (copy enclosed). The test procedures for parking brake testing specify that the service brake control be released in testing the parking brake system. This has the practical effect of requiring a separate parking brake similar to that specified by the Iowa law you cited in your letter.

Federal motor vehicle safety Standard No. 121, (49 CFR 571.121) became effective January 1, 1975, for air-braked trailers and March 1, 1975, for air-braked trucks and buses (copy enclosed). It establishes requirements for the service and parking brake systems of these vehicles. Section S5.6.4 of the standard states that "The parking brake control shall be separate from the service brake control."

Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) provides that no State or political subdivision of a State may promulgate or continue in effect standards applicable to an aspect of motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment performance which is covered by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, unless the standards are identical.

As noted, Standard No. 105-75 and Standard No. 121 include requirements for the parking brake control aspect of braking performance. The Federal requirements must be regarded as conclusive with regard to this aspect of performance in order to maintain the uniformity necessary in a Federal regulatory scheme. If States were permitted to impose additional requirements in an area regulated by a Federal safety standard manufacturers would be confronted with an impossible task of compliance. This reasoning formed the basis of a recent decision rendered in a case brought by the Motorcycle Industry Council, Inc. against the State of California in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California concerning the preemption of a California State requirement that motorcycle headlamps be wired to operate when the engine is running. The Court held that the California requirement is preempted by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 since the NHTSA intended to cover all aspects of performance directly involving motorcycle headlamps.

Therefore, requirements such as those described in your letter would be preempted by Standard No. 105-75 in the case of passenger cars, since the aspect of performance that would be affected is covered by the Federal standard. The same is true for motorcycles, covered by Standard No. 122, Motorcycle Brake Systems, and trucks, buses, and trailers equipped with air brake systems, covered by Standard No. 121.

With regard to trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles that are equipped with hydraulic brake systems, the NHTSA is in the process of developing a hydraulic brake standard. I have forwarded a copy of your letter to the NHTSA Office of Crash Avoidance for consideration in developing the standard in this area.

SINCERELY,

May 29, 1975

Vincent J. Estosito, Director Office of Vehicle Safety Research and Development U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

A letter from Mr. George W. Crise of Danville, Ohio that was sent to Mr. Robert F. Tyson, Director of Office of Planning and Programming, Des Moines, Iowa has been referred to this office.

It called our attention that the 1975 cars and trucks are being built without a second means of stopping feature as required by the laws of Ohio and other states.

I have enclosed a copy of the Iowa statutes pertaining to brake requirements and brake performance which clearly indicates that the Iowa law specifies two seperate means of applying the brakes. Each of which means shall be affective to apply the brakes to at least two wheels. If these two seperate means of applying the brakes are connected in any way, they shall be so constructed that failure of one part of the operating mechanism shall not leave the motor vehicle without brakes on at least two wheels.

I was not aware that the 1975 model cars and trucks were not equipped with the means to comply with the Iowa statute.

It is our desire that a second independent means of stopping be made mandatory on new motor vehicles.

Lowell E. Schellhase Supervisor Motor Vehicle Inspection

BRAKES

(Illegible Words) Brake requirements.

Every motor vehicle, other than a motorcycle, when operated upon highway shall be equipped with brakes adequate to control the (Illegible Words) of and to stop and hold such vehicle, including two separate (Illegible Word) the brakes, each of which means shall be effective (Illegible Word) the brakes to at least two wheels. If these two separate means applying the brakes are connected in any way, they shall be so (Illegible Word) that failure of any one part of the operating mechanism shall (Illegible Word) the motor vehicle without brakes on at least two wheels.

Every motorcycle, and bicycle with motor attached, when operated a highway shall be equipped with at least one brake, which may be (Illegible Word) by hand or foot.

Every trailer or semitrailer of a gross weight of three thousand (Illegible Word) or more, and every trailer coach or travel trailer of a gross (Illegible Word) of three thousand pounds or more intended for use for human (Illegible Word) shall be equipped with brakes adequate to control the (Illegible Word) and to stop and hold such vehicle, and so designed as to be (Illegible Word) by the driver of the towing motor vehicle from its cab, or with (Illegible Word) brakes, and weight equalizing hitch with a sway control type approved by the commissioner of public safety. Every (Illegible (Illegible Words) travel trailer, or trailer coach of a gross weight of three thousands or more shall be equipped with a separate, auxiliary means (Illegible Word) the brakes on the semitrailer, travel trailer, or trailer from the cab of the towing vehicle. This Act shall apply to all and used travel trailers sold at July 1, 1971 and on all registered (Illegible Word) trailers after December 1, 1973. Trailers or semitrailers with (Illegible Word) or truck tractor need only comply with the brake requirements. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, every new motor (Illegible Word) trailer, or semitrailer hereafter sold in this state and operated the highways shall be equipped with service brakes upon all wheels every such vehicle with the following exceptions:

Any motorcycle. Any trailer or semitrailer of less than three thousand pounds gross (Illegible Word) need not be equipped with brakes.

Trucks and truck tractors having three or more axles need not brakes on the front wheels, except that such vehicles equipped two or more front axles shall be equipped with brakes on at least of such axles; provided that the service brakes of such vehicle (Illegible Word) with the performance requirements of section 321.431.

Only such brakes on the vehicle or vehicles being towed in a driveaway-towaway operation need be operative as may be necessary be necessary to insure compliance by the combination of vehicles with the performance requirements of section 321.431. The term "driveaway-towaway" operation as used in this subsection means any operation in which any motor vehicle or motor vehicles, new or used, constitute the commodity being transported, when one set or more of wheels of any such motor vehicle or motor vehicles are on the roadway during the course of transportation, whether or not any such motor vehicle furnishes the motive power.

Referred to in sections 321.181, 321.196, 321.210, 321.464, subsection 1

321.431 Performance ability

1. The service brakes upon any motor vehicle or combination of motor vehicles, when upon dry asphalt or concrete pavement surface free from loose material where the grade does not exceed one percent, when traveling twenty miles an hour shall be adequate:

a. To stop such vehicle or vehicles having a gross weight of less than five thousand pounds within a distance of thirty feet.

b. To stop such vehicle or vehicles having a gross weight in excess of five thousand pounds within a distance of forty-five feet.

2. Under the above conditions the hand brake shall be adequate to hold such vehicle or vehicles stationary on any grade upon which operated.

3. Under the above conditions the service brakes upon a motor vehicle equipped with two-wheel brakes only, and when permitted hereunder shall be adequate to stop the vehicle within a distance of forty-five feet and the hand brake adequate to stop the vehicle within a distance of fifty-five feet.

4. All braking distances specified in this section shall apply to all vehicles mentioned, whether such vehicles are not loaded or are loaded to the maximum capacity permitted under this chapter.

5. All brakes shall be maintained in good working order and shall be so adjusted as to operate as equally as practicable with respect to the wheels on opposite sides of the vehicle.

(Illegible Words)

MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT

321.432 Horns and warning devices. Every motor vehicle when operated upon a highway shall be equipped with a horn in good working order and capable of emitting sound audible under normal conditions from a distance of not less than two hundred feet, but no horn or other warning device shall emit an unreasonably loud or harsh sound or a whistle. The driver of a motor vehicle shall when reasonably necessary to insure safe operation give audible warning with his horn but shall not otherwise use such horn when upon a highway.

ID: nht94-3.51

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 30, 1994

FROM: Trevor Buttle -- McLaren Cars Limited

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Council

TITLE: FMVSS 208 -- Seating Reference Points

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10/31/94 FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO TREVOR BUTTLE (A42; STD. 208; REDBOOK 2)

TEXT: My responsibility within McLaren Cars at the moment is for the homologation within Europe of the F1 road car.

I have been asked to generate a programme and budget for a possible Federal version of this vehicle, and in that context, I have a specific query on Standard 208. I have been told by Mr. Taylor Vincent that you are the man to contact for this.

My reading of the standard is that passive restraints are required only for the front outboard designated seating positions, and that the front centre designated seating position is required to be fitted with a type 1 or type 2 (active) seat belt. The c onfiguration of the F1 places the driver exactly on the longitudinal centre line of the vehicle, and two rear seats (each provided with a type 2 belt) either side of this position. I believe therefore, that although the driver's seating position is prov ided with a four point harness (i.e. not a type 1 or type 2 belt) for Europe, compliance with the standard is generally demonstrated.

Could you please process this enquiry.

FAX

To Ms. Mary Versailles

Office of Chief Council

FROM Trevor Buttle

DATE 8/9/94

SUBJECT FMVSS 208-SEATING REFERENCE POINTS

With reference to our discussion just now, I am 'faxing drawing 1P0004 which should help with my enquiry.

To clarify, the driver seating reference (R) point is shown as X2175 and the passenger seating reference points are shown as X2495, being therefore 320 mm rearward of the driver reference point. The driver 'R' point is described as "(rearmost)" because the seat has 100mm forward travel from that point, unlike the passenger seats, which are fixed with no adjustment.

For all type approval purposes, the passenger seating positions have been regarded and certified as rear row seats.

Please let me know if you require any further information or back-up data for the enquiry. As I mentioned, I will be on vacation from August 24 until September 7, and in my absence, you should contact Mr. Barry Lett for any technical data.

Thank you for your help thus far.

Best regards

ENCLOSURE

(DRAWING OMITTED)

ID: nht95-4.59

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 16, 1995

FROM: William Shapiro -- Manager, Regulatory Compliance and Environmental Affairs, Volvo Cars of North America, Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Request for Interpretation

ATTACHMT: 12/11/95 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to William Shapiro (A43; Part 581)

TEXT: Volvo Cars of North America, Inc., Rockleigh, New Jersey and Volvo Car Corporation, Gothenburg, Sweden, requests confirmation of our interpretation of CFR 49 Section 581.

In Part 581.5 "Requirements" it is stated:

"Each vehicle shall meet the damage criteria of S581.5(c)(1) through 581.5(c)(9) when impacted by . . ."

S581.5(c)(1) through (6) give criteria for components and systems that may not be damaged or shall remain in adjustment in a low speed impact. This covers lamps, hood, trunk, fuel and cooling systems, exhaust systems, propulsion, suspension, steering, b raking systems.

S581.5(c)(7) requires that the vehicle shall not touch the test device with a force exceeding 2000 pounds except on the impact ridge.

S581.5(c)(8) requires that there shall be no separation of surface materials, paint polymeric coatings or other covering materials from the surface to which they are bonded, and no permanent deviations from their original contours . . ., EXCEPT WHEN SUCH DAMAGE OCCURS TO THE BUMPER'S FACE BAR AND ASSOCIATED FASTENERS THAT DIRECTLY ATTACH THE BUMPER FACE TO THE CHASSIS FRAME.

S581.5(C)(9) states that there shall be no breakage or release of fasteners or joints.

Volvo is, at the moment, contemplating a device that will be attached to the bumper face bar. This device has no function as to mitigate the effects of a low speed collision but is used for other purposes.

In a low speed collision, this device may be damaged or destroyed.

Volvo believes that this is in compliance with the requirements in Part 581 for the following reasons:

the device is not a component or system described in S581.5(c)(1) through 581.5(c)(6) and therefore it being damaged or destroyed will not lead to any change in performance of the above components or system.

the device will be touched only by the impact ridge. This complies with S581.5(c)(7).

the device is, for this definition, part of the bumper face bar. This means for compliance with S581.5(c)(8) and S581.5(c)(9).

If additional information is required on this matter, do not hesitate to contact me at 201-767-4772 or Stephen Kraitz of my staff at 201-768-7300, extension 7249 at your convenience.

ID: nht92-4.29

DATE: August 20, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Robert A. Dewey -- Captain, Rochester (NY) Police Department, Research and Evaluation Section

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/6/92 from Robert A. Dewey to NHTSA, Office of Chief Counsel (OCC 7505)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of July 6, 1992, inquiring whether a device on your newly acquired police vehicles "which requires the operator to depress the brake pedal in order to remove the car from the park position with the shift lever" is required by Federal law or regulation, and whether you may deactivate the device.

You explained in your letter that the Rochester Police Department has recently acquired 46 new police vehicles, each equipped with a device that requires the brake pedal to be depressed before the transmission can be shifted out of the park position. You stated that you were told by a local Ford dealer that the device was required by a Federal safety standard. You indicated that you recognize the safety advantage of such a feature for the general public, but you see some negative safety implications for police vehicle operators. For example, you believe that an officer under fire could be delayed by this device in responding to the situation. You are also concerned that the presence of the device on some but not all of your vehicles may cause confusion among your officers who drive different cars every day.

Please be advised that the device in question is not required by Federal law or regulation. However, the vast majority of new passenger cars have this safety feature, which is intended to ensure that the driver's foot is on the brake pedal before the automatic transmission can be shifted from the "park" position. I have enclosed for your information a copy of a recent article concerning these devices which appeared in the Detroit News.

Since these devices are not required by any Federal motor vehicle safety standard, there is no Federal requirement that prohibits you or a dealer from deactivating the device. If you decide to deactivate the device, however, we suggest that you consult with the manufacturer concerning how the device can be deactivated without otherwise affecting the vehicle.

I trust this will clarify the matter for you. If you have any further questions on this issue, feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Attachment

Detroit News article entitled Automakers Quietly Add Safety Feature. (Text omitted)

ID: nht91-2.9

DATE: March 5, 1991

FROM: Binichi Doi -- NSK Representative, NSK Corporation

TO: Mr. Kratzke -- NHTSA, Office of Chief Counsel

TITLE: Re Safety Belt Labelling

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-9-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Binichi Doi (A37; Std. 209)

TEXT:

This request for ruling is per our telephone communication on March 1, 1991. On March 1, you were kind enough to listen to my rather poorly composed explanation of the situation. Briefly, the problem is as follows:

1. NSK's safety belts which in this subject case are symmetrical in construction for LH and RH seats of vehicles in that both are made of the same material/part composition.

2. If these belts go into regular passenger cars for export to this market, the belt for LH seats would have a switch for restraint system display whereas RH belts have no switch, however, the subject vehicle type is that it sometimes is used for mail delivery. In such case RH belts should have the switch also.

3. Model nos. of LH belts and RH belts are different from each other because of presence/nonpresence of the switch. Therefore, if we are to cover the limited case of "mail delivery" applications separately from regular passenger cars we need to prepare two separate labels for RH belts, one showing a model no. indicating a belt with a switch and another without although these belts are exactly the same in all aspects other than the switch.

4. We would like to receive your ruling whether one type label showing both belt model nos. with and without switch can be attached to all RH seat belts shipped from us to our customer, auto manufacturer, who produces this subject model vehicles.

5. As for the necessary identification of belts for mail delivery vehicle applications the presence of a switch on a belt for RH seats should clearly indicate to car manufacturers that it be installed in mail delivery vehicles and as for the test report for certification, which in our case is prepared by the US Testing Lab, it would indicate that the subject RH seat belt would carry a label with two belt model nos., one for a belt with the switch and the other without the switch.

Hoping that the above explanation is sufficient in explaining the reason for our request for your ruling and looking forward to hearing from your office as soon as possible.

P.S. - If further clarification is needed please contact me at 1-800-521-0605 in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

ID: nht95-7.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 16, 1995

FROM: William Shapiro -- Manager, Regulatory Compliance and Environmental Affairs, Volvo Cars of North America, Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Request for Interpretation

ATTACHMT: 12/11/95 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to William Shapiro (A43; Part 581)

TEXT: Volvo Cars of North America, Inc., Rockleigh, New Jersey and Volvo Car Corporation, Gothenburg, Sweden, requests confirmation of our interpretation of CFR 49 Section 581.

In Part 581.5 "Requirements" it is stated:

"Each vehicle shall meet the damage criteria of S581.5(c)(1) through 581.5(c)(9) when impacted by . . ."

S581.5(c)(1) through (6) give criteria for components and systems that may not be damaged or shall remain in adjustment in a low speed impact. This covers lamps, hood, trunk, fuel and cooling systems, exhaust systems, propulsion, suspension, steering, braking systems.

S581.5(c)(7) requires that the vehicle shall not touch the test device with a force exceeding 2000 pounds except on the impact ridge.

S581.5(c)(8) requires that there shall be no separation of surface materials, paint polymeric coatings or other covering materials from the surface to which they are bonded, and no permanent deviations from their original contours . . ., EXCEPT WHEN SUCH DAMAGE OCCURS TO THE BUMPER'S FACE BAR AND ASSOCIATED FASTENERS THAT DIRECTLY ATTACH THE BUMPER FACE TO THE CHASSIS FRAME.

S581.5(C)(9) states that there shall be no breakage or release of fasteners or joints.

Volvo is, at the moment, contemplating a device that will be attached to the bumper face bar. This device has no function as to mitigate the effects of a low speed collision but is used for other purposes.

In a low speed collision, this device may be damaged or destroyed.

Volvo believes that this is in compliance with the requirements in Part 581 for the following reasons:

the device is not a component or system described in S581.5(c)(1) through 581.5(c)(6) and therefore it being damaged or destroyed will not lead to any change in performance of the above components or system.

the device will be touched only by the impact ridge. This complies with S581.5(c)(7).

the device is, for this definition, part of the bumper face bar. This means for compliance with S581.5(c)(8) and S581.5(c)(9).

If additional information is required on this matter, do not hesitate to contact me at 201-767-4772 or Stephen Kraitz of my staff at 201-768-7300, extension 7249 at your convenience.

ID: nht87-1.63

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/10/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Karl-Heinz Ziwica -- Manager, Environmental Engineering, BMW of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 5/10/74 letter from Lawrence R. Schneider to city of Philadelphia; 12/15/78 letter from J.J. Levin, Jr. to Bud Shuster

TEXT:

Mr. Karl-Heinz Ziwica Manager, Environmental Engineering BMW of North America, Inc. Montvale, NJ 07645

This letter concerns your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components, as it applies to the antitheft device BMW intends to install on the Carline 7 passenger car line for model year 1988. We apologize for the delay in responding to your inquiry.

On October 9, 1986, NHTSA published a notice in the Federal Register granting BMW's petition for an exemption from the marking requirements of the vehicle theft prevention standard, based on its determination that an effective antitheft device will be in stalled on those lines as standard equipment. (51 FR 36333.) However, because NHTSA wished to further consider the compliance of the double-lock aspect of the central locking system with Standard No. 206, we granted the petition while reserving decision on that issue. We have completed our evaluation of the double-lock system and have determined it is permitted by the standard.

In its petition for the marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard, BMW described an antitheft device which, among other things, prevents entry into the vehicle by affecting the door locks in the following manner:

The inside locking mechanism operating means is a vertical plunger on each door, and the plungers on the front doors override the two rear door plungers. To prevent locking the keys in the car upon exiting, the front doors can only be locked with a key. for convenience, this also locks all the other doors; if they are open at the time of locking, they lock when closed.

The locks in the front doors have three-position cylinders - off, 45 degrees, and 90 degrees. Upon exiting, if the key is turned 45 degrees and removed from the lock, the doors, trunk and gas filler door are locked. If, however, the key is rotated 90 deg rees and removed, the car's burglar alarm is armed and the doors are "double locked"; after the plungers move downward, the central locking system is deactivated and the door locks are mechanically inhibited. Thus locked, neither an outside nor inside ha ndle, nor a locking plunger can be used to unlock a door - the doors can only be unlocked and the alarm disarmed using a key in a front door lock... Disconnecting the battery does not unlock the doors or change the "double locked" mode... In the event of an accident, an inertia switch automatically unlocks all doors.

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.

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 inadvertent door openi ngs 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 inside the vehicl e (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 operating means to disengage requisite door locking mechanisms. As explained below, based on our review of the purpose of Standard No. 20 6 and past NHTSA interpretations of the standard, we conclude that the standard prohibits only additional locking systems which interfere with the capability of the operating means to engage the locking system required by the standard. Since according to your letter of September 24, 1986, BMW's double-lock feature does not interfere with the interior operating means' engagement of the required door locks, the secondary locking system is permitted.

The answer to your question about the double lock system is dependent on whether the system interferes 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 of the standard are written in terms of what must occur when the required locking system is engaged and impose no requirements for 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 m echanism is engaged. Since we have determined that S4.1.3 through S4.1.3.2 do not address the effects of disengaging the required door locks, we conclude that the required aspect of performance in S4.1.3 for door locking mechanisms is that the interior o perating means be capable only of engaging the locks. We thus conclude that the standard permits an additional door locking device which might interfere with the disengagement of the required locking system. The additional system, however, must not inter fere with the capability of the operating means to engage the required door locks.

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.

This letter interprets Standard No. 206 in a manner that clarifies past agency statements on issues raised by secondary locking systems. To the extent that the statements contained herein conflict with interpretations issued in the past, the previous int erpretations are overruled.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Mr. Brian McLaughlin, NHTSA

RE: BMW Petition for Exemption from Part 541 - Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard

Dear Mr. McLaughlin:

In our recent telephone conversation, you informed us of NHTSA's reservation about BMW's double-lock feature as described in our petition for exemption from Part 541.

In particular, you indicated concern about the compliance aspect of this feature with FMVSS 206, S4.1.3.

We ask that you consider the following, which shows why the door lock and anti-theft system is in compliance, is safe, and has potential for saving lives by deterring theft.

DESCRIPTION OF DOOR LOCKING SYSTEM IN NEW BMW CARLINE 7

The new BMW Carline 7 passenger car is a four-door sedan with a standard central locking system and an auxiliary anti-theft system incorporating, among other things, a double-lock feature. This additional feature ensures significantly greater security ag ainst attempts of unauthorized persons to open the doors when the car is parked. While the double-lock feature is separate from the central locking system, it is natural to combine it into the total locking system for convenient but distinct operation.

CENTRAL LOCKING SYSTEM

The locks in the front doors have three-position cylinders - off, 45 degrees, and 90 degrees. The locking mechanism of the central locking system is activated by rotating the key 45 degrees in either the driver's door or the front passenger door lock. Th e inside locking mechanism operating means is a vertical-moving plunger on each of the four doors. If raised, the plunger allows opening the door via either inside or outside door handle. In the lowered position, the door cannot be opened by using either the inside or outside door handle.

If any of the four plungers is pushed down into the lowered position by an occupant of the car, it can easily be raised again by that person inside the car. Occupants can lock and unlock the back doors individually via the door plungers, or all doors sim ultaneously using the plunger on either front door.

To prevent locking the key in the car upon exiting, the car can only be locked by using the ignition key in a front door after the door has been closed.

Upon exiting, if the key is turned 45 degrees in the lock and removed in the conventional manner, all four door plungers are lowered, the doors are locked and the door plungers remain operable.

ANTI-THEFT LOCKING

If the key is rotated twice as far as the normal locking position, past the detent to the 90 degree position and removed from the lock, the doors are "double-locked"; the plungers remain lowered and, additional to the central locking system, the door loc ks are mechanically inhibited. In this mode, the door plungers cannot be moved from their lowered position, and neither an outside nor inside handle, nor a locking plunger can be used to deactivate the theft system - it can only be deactivated by using t he key in a front door lock. This prevents use of a slimjim, or slipping in a wire to lift a plunger, and prevents opening a door by breaking a window and reaching in to use a door handle or plunger.

SYSTEM COMPLIES WITH STANDARD AND ITS INTENT

FMVSS 206, 54.1.3 requires each door to have a locking mechanism with an operating means in the interior of vehicle.

S4.1.3.1 defines the function of the operating means to be the engaging of the locking mechanism by requiring the front door locking mechanism to make the outside door handle inoperative. From the disengaged condition, the BMW door lock can be engaged at all times, thus locking the outside door handle as required by S4.1.3.1.; the double-lock feature, then, in no way interferes with the lock's capability of being engaged at any time.

The stated purpose, "S1 ... to minimize the likelihood of occupants being thrown from the vehicle as a result of impact.", shows that the standard was not intended to ensure occupant egress, but to prevent the occupant from being ejected from the vehicle under certain circumstances. Further support for this is provided by NHTSA's May 10, 1974 letter of interpretation to the City of Philadelphia, wherein it is stated that FMVSS 206 does not require inside door handles, and that no federal standard requir es window handles.

The entire history of this rulemaking points toward this objective. In 34FR158 of Aug. 19, 1969 the Agency stated the standard's purpose succinctly, "... retaining the driver and passengers in case of collision...", and in 36FR1913 of Feb. 3, 1971, "... intended to afford protection against ejection through side doors ...". The agency thus has demonstrated that FMVSS 206 does not address egress from the vehicle, but rather the prevention of being thrown from the vehicle during an accident. NHTSA has not in the intervening 12 years since provided otherwise by amending this standard.

Our lock fully complies with this intention. In the engaged position, the BMW door lock disables the outer door handle to prevent occupants from being ejected during impact and the double-lock in no way interferes with the lock's capability of being enga ged to make the outside door handle inoperative.

Also, the requirement of the standard to have an operating means inside the vehicle presupposes that there is someone inside the vehicle to operate this means. Our door lock system complies with that requirement of FMVSS 206. When a vehicle is parked and left unattended, the driver may activate, in addition to the vehicle's normal locking mechanism, a vehicle anti-theft system. This system, which has an integrated double-lock feature, is not used when the vehicle is occupied. The Owner's Handbook will c aution the vehicle operator to activate the anti-theft system only when the vehicle is parked and left unattended, much the same as the Handbook warns against removal of the ignition key when the vehicle is in motion, because the anti-theft steering lock would be engaged and the vehicle rendered unsteerable.

It is further our position that the double-lock is an additional feature that does not prevent the primary lock from complying, much like the child safety lock, which, although it does not interfere with the operation of the locking mechanism per se, pre vents the opening of the door. In that respect the child safety lock has greater egress consequences, since it is intended to be in operation when the vehicle is occupied.

GUARDED AGAINST ENTRAPMENT

The operating means of the anti-theft system also provides security against entrapment. In order to activate the anti-theft system from inside the vehicle, the ignition key is required. For the vehicle to be driven with the anti-theft system activated, t he driver would have to use the key to start the engine, open a window, turn off the engine, remove the key from the ignition switch, open,and close the door, reach through the open window, insert the key in an outside door lock, turn the key past the de tent to the 90 degree position, remove the key, and reinsert it in the ignition switch and restart the engine - A MOST IMPROBABLE SCENARIO.

Further when the engine is running, or the key is in the accessory position, the doors cannot be double-locked, even if a second key is used in a door lock cylinder. The double-lock system cannot be engaged until the key is removed from the ignition and the driver's door is then opened and reclosed.

The lock inhibit position can only be achieved by inserting the ignition key in the outside keyhole of a front door and rotating the key past the detent through 90 degrees. In this condition, for anti-theft purposes, all plungers are lowered, and plunger s and inside and outside door handles are locked in position, and no door can be opened. Standing at the side of the car while locking the door with the key. a person can easily see the entire inside of the vehicle, including any person inside and a blin king warning light on top of the dashboard indicating that the anti-theft system is engaged. Thus, the probability of a person accidently being locked inside is virtually nil.

Because a passerby can also see into the passenger compartment, intentional entrapment in the passenger compartment is equally unlikely considering the availability of the car's trunk for that purpose. In this connection, we note that in 49FR47276 of Dec ember 3, 1984, NHTSA denied a petition for rulemaking that would have required a handle on the inside of a car's trunk lid, on the basis that entrapment is extremely unlikely. We submit that entrapment inside the passenger compartment is even less likely and therefore not a real concern.

DOUBLE-LOCK SYSTEM WILL SAVE LIVES

In the letter of interpretation of December 15, 1978 to Congressman Bud Shuster, NHTSA conceded that there are competing safety considerations involved with front door locks.

During the rulemaking process for FMVSS 114, Theft Protection, NHTSA made the point that stolen cars are much more likely to be involved in accidents than unstolen cars. In 43FR18578 of May 1, 1978, and again in 45FR85450 of December 29, 1980, NHTSA stat es that stolen cars are 47 to 200 times more likely to be in an accident.

There is no question that the double-lock system will make it extremely difficult for an unauthorized entry into the vehicle and therefore will significantly reduce auto theft. Based on NHTSA's own accident analysis of stolen vs. unstolen vehicles, we ca n only conclude that the BMW door lock system will save more lives than a vehicle without such a feature. Further, this anti-theft device has received no objection in Europe, Japan, Australia and other countries having a type-approval procedure and we st rongly believe that the effectiveness of the system together with the overall safety benefit it provides, due to the reduced theft rate, should not be compromised for some perceived negative impact the system might have in the unlikely event of misuse.

Since this is such an important issue to us, we ask you to hold our petition in abeyance if you still have concern.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Very truly yours,

Karl-Heinz Ziwica, Manager Environmental Engineering

See 5/10/74 letter from Lawrence R. Schneider to City of Philadelphia and 12/15/78 letter from J.J. Levin, Jr. to Bud Shuster.

ID: nht89-2.52

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/01/89

FROM: MICHAEL E. KASTNER -- DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT RELATIONS NTEA WASHINGTON OFFICE

TO: SAMUEL K. SKINNER SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/24/89 EST; FROM JEFFREY R. MILLER -- NHTSA TO MICHAEL E. KASTNER -- NATIONAL TRUCK EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATION; REDBOOK A34; STANDARD 204; LETTER DATED 08/26/87 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO TAK FUJITANI; LETTER DATED 06 /29/89 FROM SAMUEL K. SKINNER -- DOT TO ERNEST F. HOLLINGS -- SENATE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Secretary:

I am writing on behalf of the National Truck Equipment Association ("NTEA"), which represents over 1,400 companies involved in the manufacture and distribution of commercial and vocational trucks, to express our concern with the Department of Transpor tation's ("DOT" or the "Department") intention to extend regulations that currently apply only to passenger vehicles to the full range of light trucks including those that are not used for family transportation.

Recently you received from Senator Hollings, Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, and others on the Committee, a letter requesting that the Department, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA" or the "Agency") in particula r, take steps to apply certain passenger car Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards ("Safety Standards" or "FMVSS") to light trucks, vans and sport-utility vehicles. In response, you indicated that the Department would make recommendations to the White House concerning such rulemaking initiatives. Senator Hollings' request was based on the fact that such vehicles "are being used primarily for transporting families rather than hauling freight."

In light of two rulemaking proceedings completed by NHTSA within the past 18 months, in which the Agency failed adequately to distinguish between vehicles used for "transporting families" from those used for "hauling freight," the NTEA questions wheth er the Agency has sufficient understanding of the relevant facts and law to pursue such new rulemaking initiatives fairly and objectively. Although the Agency has made an effort to understand the multi-stage manufactured truck industry, we fear that, unt il the Agency fully appreciates the manner in which trucks are produced, it will continue to adopt regulatory requirements that impose impossible burdens on the small- and medium-sized companies in the truck body and equipment industry.

In November 1987, the Agency published two final rules that resulted in the dynamic testing (i.e., crash testing) requirements of FMVSS 204 (steering column rearward displacement) and 208 (occupant crash protection) being applied to a wider array of l ight-truck types and an increased population of multi-stage truck manufacturers. The NTEA submitted a petition for reconsideration of each final rule. NHTSA denied the NTEA's petitions for reconsideration for FMVSS 208 in December 1988 and for FMVSS 20 4 in June 1989.

NTEA argued in its petitions for reconsideration that dynamic testing cannot reasonably and practicably be applied to the small- and medium-sized businesses that produce work-related light trucks manufactured in two or more stages. NHTSA rejected the NTEA's arguments, primarily on the basis that, under the present Safety Standard certification requirements, final-stage manufacturers could effectively avoid certifying to Safety Standards that include dynamic testing requirements. NHTSA expressly ackn owledged that final-stage manufacturers "do not have the engineering or financial resources to conduct dynamic testing."

The alternatives to dynamic testing offered by NHTSA to the truck body and equipment industry demonstrate that the Agency misunderstands its own regulations and the manner in which commercial vehicles are produced in the United States. These misunder standings, which we believe render the Agency's rulemaking arbitrary and capricious, include the following threshold issues:

1. NHTSA has Misinterpreted its Certification Regulations

According to NHTSA, "[t]he final-stage manufacturer need not conduct any crash testing or engineering analyses if it completes its vehicles within the limits specified by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer. . . . When the vehicle is completed within the incomplete vehicle manufacturer's specification, the final-stage manufacturer need only so state on its certification label and the responsibility for the vehicle's conformity with the standards rests entirely on the incomplete vehicle manufacturer. " 54 Fed. Reg. 24348 for FMVSS 204 and similarly at 53 Fed. Reg. 50225 for FMVSS 208.

In the denial of NTEA's petition for reconsideration of FMVSS 208, NHTSA states that "[t]hose provisions [the certification regulations of 49 C.F.R. Parts 567 and 568] require the incomplete vehicle manufacturers (companies such as Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors) to certify the compliance of their incomplete vehicles, and require the final-stage manufacturers to certify the compliance of the components they mount on the vehicle and the effect of the mounting, and thus obtain effective certificati on of the completed vehicle without imposing unreasonable burdens on either incomplete or final-stage manufacturers." 53 Fed. Reg. 60226. (Emphasis added.)

NHTSA mistakenly concludes that small businesses completing vehicles need not certify to Safety Standards that include dynamic testing requirements. This conclusion is based in part on NHTSA's incorrect belief that the incomplete vehicle manufacturer is required to certify compliance with FMVSS 204 and 208 in all cases, and that the final- stage manufacturer need not certify to these Safety Standards if vehicles are completed within the limits established in the incomplete vehicle document. This co nclusion is contrary to the plain language of NHTSA's own regulations.

The small businesses that complete commercial and vocational vehicles on chassis other than a chassis-cab, (i.e., chassis without an enclosed cab compartment, including cut-aways, chassis cowls and stripped chassis) are required to certify the complia nce of the completed vehicle to all applicable Safety Standards, including those which require dynamic testing. 49 C.F.R. 567; See, also, letter from Erika Jones, NHTSA Chief Counsel, to Tak Fujitani, Project Manager, Inspection Services, Office of Flee t Administration, State of California (Aug. 6, 1987). Accordingly, final-stage manufacturers cannot escape the certification obligation when completing vehicles on these types of chassis. Final-stage manufacturers cannot, as NHTSA suggests, merely "pass through" the incomplete vehicle manufacturer's certification for non-chassis-cab incomplete vehicles because none exists. As the NHTSA Chief Counsel has pointed out, "the [incomplete vehicle] document is not a certification." Id. Incomplete vehicle ma nufacturers need only certify incomplete vehicles that are chassis-cabs (See 49 C.F.R. 567 and 568.), and provide an incomplete vehicle document for all incomplete vehicles, which "document is not a certification."

Thus, NHTSA's suggestion that small businesses involved in the production of trucks can avoid certifying to Safety Standards that include prohibitively costly, crash testing and/or engineering analyses (such as required by FMVSS 204 and 208) by comple ting vehicles within the parameters of the incomplete vehicle document is simply not correct for a substantial population of commercial and work-related vehicles.

2. NHTSA Operates Under a Clear Misunderstanding of the Truck Body and Equipment Industry

In its denials of the NTEA's petitions for reconsideration, NHTSA states: "When a final-stage manufacturer is unable to complete the vehicle within the specifications established by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer, the final-stage manufacturer can build the vehicle on a heavier chassis, and remain within the limits specified for that heavier chassis. Again, the final-stage manufacturer would not have to conduct any dynamic testing or engineering analyses prior to certifying that the vehicle compl ies with the safety standards." (53 Fed. Reg. 50225 and 54 Fed. Reg. 24348). NHTSA further states that "[i]t is also possible that the switch to a higher rated chassis would result in the completed vehicle not being subject to the dynamic testing require ments . . . (54 Fed. Reg. 24346-24347)."

NHTSA's statement that small businesses can avoid certifying to Safety Standards that include dynamic testing requirements by building on a heavier chassis demonstrates that NHTSA does not understand how commercial and vocational vehicles (i.e., all l ight trucks other than unmodified pickups and vans) are produced. In virtually all cases, the customer and the chassis dealer, without input from the final-stage manufacturer, select the chassis to be used for the work-related vehicle and the specificat ions for the completion of the vehicle. With respect to the sale of new commercial and vocational vehicles, the final-stage manufacturer is typically a subcontractor to the dealer. The final-stage manufacturer does not have the option to change the cus tomer's vehicle specifications so as to avoid a certification obligation. NHTSA obviously does not fully appreciate the fact that commercial and vocational vehicles are custom ordered and built to buyer specifications in virtually all cases, and that the small businesses that complete such vehicles act almost exclusively as subcontractors. NHTSA's suggestion that building on a heavier chassis as an alternative to certifying compliance with Safety Standards has absolutely no basis in the reality of the marketplace.

Thus, as the foregoing demonstrates, both of the alternatives NHTSA offers to small businesses to avoid the dynamic testing obligation -- completing vehicles within the incomplete vehicle documentation specifications or building on a heavier chassis - - fail to provide adequate relief to the small businesses that complete commercial and vocational light trucks. In light of NHTSA's acknowledgement that intermediate-and final-stage manufacturers and vehicle alterers cannot, as a group, comply with dyna mic testing requirements, the absence of meaningful alternatives places these businesses in an untenable position. A safety standard that cannot be complied with is neither reasonable nor practicable.

Although this letter has focused only on two inadequacies in the rulemaking record of FMVSS 208 and 204, other significant flaws exist. These include, but are not limited to, NHTSA's failure to conduct any comprehensive study of the multi-stage manuf acturing truck industry and the work-related vehicles produced (other than NHTSA's apparent reliance on limited data submitted nearly a decade ago by a now defunct trade association) in the course of its rulemaking.

We trust that the issues raised in this letter demonstrates the validity of the truck equipment industry's concern over continued rulemaking that would extend passenger-car Safety Standards to all light trucks. We fear that such rulemaking will resul t in Safety Standards that are overly broad and arbitrarily reach commercial/vocational trucks.

The NTEA agrees with Senator Hollings that vehicles designed, marketed, manufactured and used primarily as passenger or family transportation vehicles should be subject to Safety Standards adopted for passenger cars regardless of whether the vehicles are commonly thought of as automobiles, light trucks, vans or sport-utility vehicles. However, vehicles designed, marketed, manufactured and used primarily for commercial, work-related, vocational or emergency purposes, and not for personal transportati on should not be regulated in the same manner as passenger-oriented cars or trucks. While the users of such commercial vehicles should be assured of their safety, in the absence of accident and fatality data suggesting that identical regulation is neces sary and appropriate, the Safety Standards that apply to passenger-oriented vehicles should not be applied arbitrarily to work-related trucks. Moreover, where it is determined that particular Safety Standards should apply to all passenger-oriented vehic les and work-related trucks, the dynamic testing requirements that are imposed and may be appropriate for single-stage, assembly-line produced cars and trucks cannot and should not be imposed on multi-stage produced trucks because of the nature of the mu lti-stage manufacturing truck industry. We believe that this view is consistent with the sentiments of the Senate and is consistent with the spirit of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

We recognize that you must make recommendations to the White House concerning the application of passenger car Safety Standards to light trucks, vans and sport utility vehicles. We urge you, however, to reexamine the previous two rulemaking proceedin gs and conduct a comprehensive study of the unique problems encountered by multi-stage manufacturers in certifying compliance with applicable Safety Standards before undertaking any of these new rulemaking initiatives.

Representatives from the NTEA would be happy to meet with you to provide more detail on the truck body and equipment industry and its concerns. Please feel free to contact me in Washington, D.C. at 628-2010.

Sincerely yours,