ID: nht93-7.25

DATE: October 15, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Michael F. Hecker -- Micho Industries

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/8/93 from Michael F. Hecker to John Womack (OCC-8882)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter concerning our June 29, 1993, letter to your associate, Mr. Michael Dunn, about the R-Bar Passenger Restraint System (R-Bar). The R-Bar, an item of motor vehicle equipment, is a padded restraining device designed to be mounted on the seat backs of school buses to fold down to restrain the passengers in the next rearward seats. You have further questions about the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) and NHTSA regulations, as applied to R-Bars.

In our letter to Mr. Dunn, we addressed several statements that we believed were potentially misleading that Micho made to school officials. These statements include, among other things, that NHTSA has "approved" R-Bars and that R-Bars are certified as complying with Federal safety standards. We noted that, while Micho indicated that it would refrain from suggesting that NHTSA has approved the R-Bars, we sought assurances that Micho would not continue to represent that it can "certify" the compliance of R-Bars.

You ask for clarification of that letter. You state that there "appears to be some confusion" resulting from past correspondence with this agency regarding certification of compliance with applicable FMVSSs. You believe, based on previous correspondence, that the R-Bar must comply with FMVSSs that apply to the school bus seat and "the general safety of school buses," such as school bus exits and flammability resistance. Accordingly, you believe that Micho can properly "certify" the R-Bar to these school bus FMVSSs.

I appreciate this opportunity to clarify our requirements. By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. S1381 et seq. (Safety Act), authorizes this agency to issue FMVSSs for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act establishes a self-certification system whereby the manufacturer of the vehicle or item of equipment is responsible for exercising due care in certifying that the product will, if tested as specified in the applicable FMVSSs, meet the safety requirements in the standards applicable to the product. What constitutes "due care" in a particular case depends on all relevant facts, including such things as the limitations of current technology, the availability of test equipment, the size of the manufacturer, and above all, the diligence of the manufacturer.

Because of the self-certification system established by law, NHTSA can neither approve, disapprove, endorse, nor offer assurances of compliance for any product in advance of the manufacturer's certification of the product. Rather, this agency enforces the standards after the fact by purchasing a vehicle or item of equipment in the retail market and conducting the compliance tests specified in the pertinent standards. The

agency also investigates safety-related defects. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a noncompliance or safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of its product and remedying the problem free of charge. The recall responsibility for noncomplying or defective vehicles is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which a product is installed on a new vehicle by that vehicle manufacturer.

As stated in our previous letters to your company, there are no FMVSSs specifically applicable to R-Bars. Our school bus FMVSSs apply to whole vehicles, rather than to individual items of school bus equipment. If R- Bars are installed as original equipment on a new school bus, the vehicle manufacturer is required by the Safety Act to certify that, with the devices installed, the vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards, including Standard 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection (49 CFR S571.222); Standard 217, Bus Window retention and Release (S571.217); Standard 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (S571.302); and, with regard to small school buses, the pertinent provisions of Standard 208, occupant Crash Protection (S571.208). 15 U.S.C. S1397(a)(1), 15 U.S.C. S1403, and 49 CFR Part 567. Because these FMVSSs apply to the vehicle there are no standards to which Micho can, or must, certify compliance.

If the R-Bars are added to a previously-certified new school bus prior to its first sale to a customer, the person who so modifies the vehicle would be an "alterer" of a previously certified new vehicle. As an alterer, the person would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continued to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. 49 CFR S567.7.

The vehicle manufacturer or alterer that installs an R-Bar may, in order to meet its duty to exercise due care, in part rely on information from you concerning the R-Bar's performance characteristics, to the extent such reliance is reasonable. Since compliance with Standard 222 appears to be a significant concern with respect to the installation of R-Bars, you might wish to test a bus or buses equipped with an R-Bar, using the test procedures set out in Standard 222. The results of such tests might be useful to a school bus manufacturer in determining whether it could certify a school bus equipped with R-Bars as complying with standard 222.

If R-Bars were installed on a used school bus, the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business would be required to ensure that by installing the R-Bars, the installer did not knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in the vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. See 15 U.S.C. S1397(a)(2)(A). In this case, the installer would be responsible for ensuring that the R-Bars did not cause the school bus to fail to comply with any safety standards, including but not limited to the standards enumerated above.

This agency has addressed various compliance issues and other safety concerns applicable to R-Bars and similar devices on a number of occasions in the past. As we stated in a letter to Mr. Kenneth A. Gallo dated

February 19, 1993, (copy enclosed) the agency believes that the concept of using "safety bars" as occupant restraining devices in school buses raises significant safety concerns, including whether the bar could result in excessive loads (e.g., abdominal, leg, or chest) on occupants during a crash, as a result of contact between the bar and the occupants. We explained in a July 14, 1992, letter to you (copy enclosed) that the vehicle in which R-Bars are installed must meet the requirements of Standard 222 with the device in any position in which it may be placed. We have said that if a padded restraining device similar to the R-Bar is attached to the seat back, it becomes part of the seat and the device, as folded into its position, must not intrude into the leg protection zone described in S5.3.2 of Standard 222 (NHTSA letter of January 31, 1991, to Mr. Scott Hiler, enclosed). Also enclosed are NHTSA letters of March 10, 1989, and November 3, 1988, to Mr. Joseph Nikoll, which discuss issues concerning installation of "safety bars" in small school buses in addition to or in lieu of the seat belts required by Standard 208.

You asked for our comments on two statements you intend to make to your customers. The first statement is that there are no FMVSSs directly applicable to R-Bars. As discussed above, that statement is correct. The second statement is that, when properly installed, R-Bars will not violate any standard or regulation or render inoperative any safety feature on a school bus. NHTSA lacks information on which to assess the accuracy of that statement. However, it appears unlikely that you could provide such assurances for school buses in general, since the question of whether adding R-Bars would result in a school bus no longer complying with safety standards is likely to depend, at least in part, on factors specific to a particular school bus, such as the seats, floor, etc. Accordingly, absent data to substantiate this statement for all bus configurations and potential installation procedures, we believe that it would not be proper for you to make such a statement.

I hope this resolves the issues raised in your letter.

ID: nht93-7.26

DATE: October 18, 1993

FROM: J. C. DeLaney -- Manager, Technical Programs, Motorcycle Industry Council, Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Request for FMVSS 123 Interpretation

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/23/93 from John Womack to J. C. DeLaney (A41; Std. 123)

TEXT:

The Motorcycle Industry Council (MIC) is a nonprofit national trade association representing manufacturers and distributors of motorcycles, motorcycle parts and accessories, and members of allied trades.

On behalf of its membership, MIC requests an interpretation of FMVSS 123 as it relates to motorcycle side stand retraction.

FMVSS 123, S5.2.4, states that "a stand shall fold rearward and upward if it contacts the ground when the motorcycle is moving forward.", but makes no reference to any compliance test criteria or procedure.

The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) has published two recommended procedures related to side stand retraction testing - SAE J1578 "Motorcycle Side Stand Retraction Test Procedure"; and SAE J1579 "Motorcycle Side Stand Retraction Performance Requirements." A third SAE Recommended Practice, J1846, establishes characteristics for the test surface used for testing in accordance with J1578 and J1579. Copies of these SAE documents are enclosed.

MIC's question is: Does a motorcycle side stand comply with FMVSS 123 if it passes the SAE J1578 test procedure?

MIC would appreciate your earliest possible response to the above request. Please contact me if there are any questions or if additional information is required.

ID: nht94-7.10

DATE: April 1, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: R. Mark Willingham, Esq. -- Thornton, Summers, Biechlin, Dunham & Brown, L.C. (Austin, TX)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/1/94 from Mark Willingham to John Womack (OCC 9640)

TEXT:

This responds to your February 1, 1994, letter to me about the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) consumer information regulation for utility vehicles (49 CFR 575.105, Utility Vehicles). The regulation, Part 575.105, requires manufacturers to permanently affix a prescribed sticker in a prominent location of each utility vehicle to alert drivers of the handling differences between utility vehicles and passenger cars.

You asked about the meaning of the word "permanent" as used in Part 575.105. In a May 1984 final rule establishing Part 575.105 (copy enclosed), NHTSA said that the label "should be of a permanent nature" and concurred with a comment on the proposed rule that the label should be permanently affixed so that, among other reasons, subsequent vehicle owners are made aware of the utility vehicle's handling characteristics. NHTSA believed specifying precisely how the label is to be permanently affixed would be design restrictive. However, we stated in the enclosed final rule that stickers such as the placard required by paragraph S4.3, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims, would be considered adequate.

You also asked "to whom is Part 575.105 directed (i.e., manufacturer, distributor, dealership)...(or) a seller of a used vehicle." The regulation applies to the manufacturer and seller of a new vehicle, not to a seller of a used vehicle. The regulation was issued under sections 103, 112 and 119 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C S1381, et seq. (hereinafter Safety Act). Section 103 authorizes NHTSA to issue and amend Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 112(d) (15 U.S.C. S1401(d)) authorizes NHTSA:

"(T)o require the manufacturer (of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment) to give such notification of such performance and technical data as the Secretary determines necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act in the following manner --

(1) to each prospective purchaser of a motor vehicle or item of equipment before its first sale for purposes other than resale . . .; and

(2) to the first person who purchases a motor vehicle or item of equipment for purposes other than resale . . . .

Section 119 confers general rulemaking authority to issue rules to effectuate the express grants of authority and the obligations imposed by the Safety Act.

Sections 103, 112, and 119 of the Safety Act authorize NHTSA to require the consumer information label up to the delivery of the new vehicle to the consumer who first purchases the vehicle "for purposes other than resale." NHTSA cannot require sellers of used vehicles to restore missing labels prior to sale of the used vehicles, or prohibit a vehicle owner from removing or defacing the label.

You also asked for documents regarding the drafting and interpretation of Part 575.105. Please find enclosed copies of the following: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, dated December 30, 1982 (47 FR 58323); final rule, dated May 11, 1984 (49 FR 20016); final rule, response to petitions for reconsideration, dated August 10, 1984 (49 FR 32069); and letter to Lawrence F. Henneberger, Esq., dated August 15, 1984. For future reference, copies of NHTSA's interpretation letters can be obtained from the agency's docket section. The address for the docket is 400 Seventh St., S.W., Room 5108, Washington, D.C., 20590, telephone (202) 366-4949.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any further information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-7.11

DATE: April 1, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: William J. MacAdam -- President and CEO, trans2 Corporation (Farmington Hills, MI)

COPYEE: James Freeman, Esq. -- Hogan and Hartson

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to two letters dated 11/3/93 from William J. MacAdam to John Womack (OCC 9283)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for an interpretation that an electric vehicle that trans2 plans to manufacture is not a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act). Your counsel, Mr. James Freeman, informed Ms. Dorothy Nakama of my staff that you do not object to the manner in which this letter describes the trans2 vehicle.

We have determined that the trans2 electric vehicle is not a "motor vehicle" under the Safety Act. "Motor vehicle" is defined at Section 102(3) of the Act as:

(A)ny vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

It is unclear from your letter whether the trans2 vehicle is manufactured for on-road use. However, NHTSA has stated in past interpretations that vehicles that regularly use the public roads will not be considered "motor vehicles" if such vehicles have a maximum attainable speed of 20 miles per hour or less and have an abnormal configuration that readily distinguishes them from other vehicles.

These criteria appear to be met by trans2's vehicle. You stated that the top speed of the vehicle is 20 miles per hour. Photographs of trans2's vehicle show that it is approximately the size and height of a golf cart. From the side, the passenger compartment appears to be an oval. From the rear, the vehicle has tail lights built into the two headrests. These unusual body features make the trans2 vehicle readily distinguishable from "motor vehicles."

Accordingly, we determine that trans2's vehicle is not a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of the Safety Act. Since the trans2 vehicle is not a motor vehicle, none of NHTSA's regulations or standards apply to it.

Please note that except for the features of the trans2's vehicle described herein, the remaining vehicle specifications described in your letter of November 3, 1993 are protected under Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act. The protection will continue until trans2 discloses details of its vehicle to the public.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-7.12

DATE: April 1, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Eric T. Stewart -- Engineering Manager, Mid Bus (Lima, OH)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/7/93 from John Womack to Thomas D. Turner; Also attached to letter dated 3/17/94 from Eric T. Stewart to Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 9792)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of March 17, 1994, regarding a final rule published November 2, 1992 (57 FR 49413) amending Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release. You requested clarification of the width requirement in S5.5.3(c) for retroreflective tape.

You are correct that there was a discrepancy concerning the size of the tape caused by the metric conversion in the final rule. Enclosed is a copy of a July 7, 1993 letter to Mr. Thomas D. Turner of the Blue Bird Body Company which discusses this issue. As explained in that letter, we plan to issue a correction notice of the November 2, 1992 rule that would specify a minimum size of 2.5 cm for the tape. Until the correction is issued, we will not take enforcement measures regarding tape size against a manufacturer who uses 1 inch wide retroreflective tape.

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

ID: nht94-7.13

DATE: March 31, 1994

FROM: Mark M. McGregor

TO: Office of Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/28/94 from John Womack to Mark M. McGregor (A42; Std. 108; VSA Sec. 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

I have been instructed to contact your office in an effort to determine any federal regulations that may apply to a new invention, which I wish to market in the United States.

This invention is a "Safe Driving Distance Indicator Light." It is a simple electric light that can either be built into the rear of an automobile or installed on the rear bumper. This light would emit one color (possibly green), which could be seen by the driver of a following automobile. If the following automobile is following closer than the "predetermined" safe distance, the indicator light that is attached to the lead automobile would change color, possibly from the original green color to red. This new color (red) would then be viewed by the following automobile, indicating that he is following at an unsafe (too close) distance.

The goal of this invention is to reduce the number of rear-end automobile accidents in the United States. The shape and size can vary from a small square device to a long, thin shape. The light would come on automatically as soon as the engine is started and automatically dimmed when the headlights are turned on. Refinements could be made by the manufacturer, such as incorporation of a manual or automatic adjustment for various road conditions or speeds. Although since the object of the apparatus is to act as a reminder or warning and not as an accurate measuring instrument, I feel that these would be unnecessary.

I am considering applying for a U.S. patent on this invention and would greatly appreciate it if you could advise me of any and all legal restrictions or regulations that would apply.

If further information is necessary, please feel free to contact me. Your prompt attention on this matter would be greatly appreciated.

ID: nht94-7.14

DATE: March 29, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Harry C. Gough, P.E. -- Automotive Engineering Professional Specialist, State of Connecticut, Department of Motor Vehicles

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/2/93 from Harry C. Gough to NHTSA Chief Counsel (OCC 9398)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of December 2, 1993, with respect to the term "alternately flashing" as it applies under Safety Standard No. 108 to school bus lamps. You ask for our opinion because a manufacturer of strobe lighting has supplied documentation indicating that the system complies with Standard No. 108.

According to your letter, in this system, the lamp on one side of the school bus (front and rear) "flashes on and off four times in a 255 millisecond period and then stays off for 745 milliseconds, then the lamp on the opposite side of the bus repeats the aforementioned pattern." You inquire as to whether "alternately flashing" refers to this pattern, "or do the four distinct on/off cycles on each side of the school bus defeat the intent of the term alternating."

As you know, paragraph S5.1.4 of Standard No. 108 incorporates by reference SAE Standard J887, School Bus Red Signal Lamps, July 1964, which requires that school bus warning lamp systems "flash alternately." We believe that the light emanating from a strobe lamp that flashes four times in 0.255 second will be perceived as a single flash of varying intensity and not as four separate flashes, and that when this is followed by an identical pattern on the other side of the bus, the system is one that is alternately flashing within the meaning of Standard No. 108.

Further, under this interpretation, the flash rate meets SAE J887's specification of 60-120 flashes a minute. Unlike other SAE materials incorporated by reference relating to signal lamps (e.g., J1133 School Bus Stop Arms in Standard No. 131 School Bus Pedestrian Safety Devices and J590b Automotive Turn Signal Flashers in Standard No. 108), J887 contains no "percent current 'on' time" requirements.

I hope that this answers your question.

ID: nht94-7.15

DATE: March 29, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: J.L. Steffy -- Triumph Designs Ltd. (England)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to fax dated 3/9/94 from J.L. Steffy to Dave Elias (OCC 9753)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of model year designations specified in 49 CFR part 565 Vehicle Identification Number - Content Requirements. You asked whether the vehicle identification number (VIN) for a 1994 model year vehicle may use the symbol "P" to designate model year. The answer is no.

You stated that Triumph wishes to use, in its VIN, a letter code designating the year of vehicle manufacture. Triumph marks the letter "P" in the VIN of a vehicle manufactured in November 1993. Triumph considers this a MY 1994 vehicle.

The format for VIN content information is specified in part 565. Table VI of part 565 specifies that MY 1993 is designated by the letter "P" and MY 1994 is designated by the letter "R." Designating a MY 1994 vehicle with the letter "P," as you wish to do, could engender confusion since it would represent that the vehicle is a MY 1993 vehicle. Such confusion could hinder the accuracy and efficiency of vehicle recall campaigns.

You also asked if Triumph may be permitted a modification of the part 565 model year designations and designate its MY 1994 vehicles as "P." The answer is no. NHTSA has no procedures to permit manufacturers to modify or waive any of part 565.

We note that Triumph could use the letter "P" to designate the vehicle as a 1993 MY vehicle. Section 565.3(h) defines "model year" as:

the year used to designate a discrete vehicle model irrespective of the calendar year in which the vehicle was actually produced, so long as the actual period is less than two calendar years.

Assuming the actual production period of the vehicle is less than two calendar years, a vehicle manufactured in November 1993 could be a MY 1993 vehicle, identified by the letter "P."

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

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: nht94-7.17

DATE: March 29, 1994

FROM: Michael E. Klima -- Managing Engineer, Failure Analysis Associates, Inc.

TO: Edward Jettner -- Safety Standards Engineer, Office of Rulemaking, NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSS 208 Compliance for 1988 Pickup Trucks

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/26/94 from John Womack to Michael E. Klima (A42; Std. 208)

TEXT:

Thank you in advance for your time and effort in responding to the following questions relating to the application of the dynamic requirements of FMVSS 208 to pickup trucks. The pickup truck in questions has a production date of April, 1988 and a GVWR of 4,400 pounds.

Specifically, does the S6 'Injury Criteria' requirements of 49 CFR 571.208, that includes the Head Injury Criteria (HIC), apply to this 1988 model pickup truck equipped with a Type 2 lap and shoulder belt protection system for the front outboard seating positions and complies with S7.1, S7.2, and S7.3?

Secondly, is a 35 mph fixed barrier crash test required for this 1988 model pickup truck to comply with all applicable portions of 49 CFR 571.208?

Finally, do all of the requirements listed in the 49 CFR 571.208 Standard apply to this truck? If not, which portions of 49 CFR 571.208 Standard apply to this truck? Is this truck in compliance with the 49 CFR 571.208 Standard if it meets or exceeds the portions that you have identified?

I would appreciate your timely written response with regard to this matter. For your convenience a copy of the standard is enclosed. Again, thank you for your time and effort. Please contact me at (810) 649-3775 if you have any questions.