ID: 9287

Judith Jurin Semo, Esq.
Squire, Sanders & Dempsey
1201 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20044-0407

Dear Ms. Semo:

This responds to your request for NHTSA's determination that certain former East German military trucks, ZIL model 131, are not motor vehicles, and exempt from the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). We are unable to make such a determination. As explained below, a ZIL model 131 truck imported into the United States is considered a "motor vehicle" for purposes of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act)(15 U.S.C. 1391 et seq.), and is subject to the FMVSS.

Your letter explained that a client plans to import over 500 ZIL model 131 trucks into the U.S. Apparently, your client plans to modify the trucks in the U.S. to use for nonmilitary purposes. Your client intends to send most of the modified trucks to buyers in other countries, but plans to sell some of the trucks in the U.S. Your letter states: "... [S]ome ZIL vehicles may be modified to meet DOT/NHTSA and EPA standards in order to satisfy those buyers who require vehicles conforming to those standards."

Under the Safety Act, any "motor vehicle," whether new or used, that is imported into the United States for sale in this country must be brought into conformity with all FMVSS that applied at the time of its manufacture. The question that must be answered is whether the ZIL 131 trucks, at the time of importation, would be considered "motor vehicles."

"Motor vehicle" is defined at section 102(3) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)) 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.

NHTSA has interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles designed and sold only for off-road use (such as airport runway vehicles and underground mining devices) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Vehicles that have an abnormal body configuration that readily distinguishes them from other highway vehicles and a maximum speed of 20 miles per hour (mph) are not considered motor vehicles, because their use of the public roads is intermittent and incidental to their primary intended off-road use.

On the other hand, vehicles that use the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, a utility vehicle like the Jeep is plainly a motor vehicle, even though it is equipped with special features to permit off-road operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, NHTSA has interpreted the vehicle to be a "motor vehicle." Further, the agency has determined that a vehicle such as a dune buggy is a motor vehicle if it is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, regardless of the manufacturer's stated intent regarding the terrain on which the vehicle is to be operated.

Applying the above criteria, and based on the information in your letter, the ZIL model 131 trucks are motor vehicles. You state that potential U.S. buyers would require vehicles that meet the FMVSS. This suggests that U.S. vehicle owners intend to use the ZIL model 131 trucks as they would other motor vehicles, on the public roads. Judging from your photographs, the trucks do not have abnormal body configurations that distinguish them from other vehicles on the road. You stated that the trucks have a top speed of almost 50 miles per hour, a speed suitable for public roads. These facts suggest that the ZIL model 131 truck is designed and intended to be routinely used on the public roads, and should be classified as a motor vehicle.

Assuming your client is still interested in importing the ZIL 131 trucks for resale in the U.S., the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act requires that the agency determine that the vehicles are capable of conversion to meet the FMVSS, and that the trucks be imported by a "registered importer." The agency makes determinations upon the basis of a petition by the manufacturer or registered importer (or upon its own volition). A "registered importer" is one whom NHTSA has recognized as capable of converting vehicles to meet the FMVSS. If you would like further details on eligibility determinations and import procedures, please let us know and we shall be pleased to provide them.

The Safety Act also addresses trucks your client wishes to import into the U.S. for modification for export. Under section 108(b)(3) of the Safety Act, the FMVSSs do not apply to vehicles intended solely for export. Thus, trucks brought into the U.S. for modification for export are not subject to the FMVSSs. Under 49 CFR 591.5, the importer would file a declaration under 591.5(c), that the vehicle does not comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety, bumper, and theft prevention standards, but is intended solely for export.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:VSA102(3)#591 d:4/19/94

ID: Heller2

ID: 86-4.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/04/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Brian Peck

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Brian Peck President Rearscope International (U.S.A.) Ltd. 15255 Hesperian Boulevard San Leandro, CA 94578

Dear Mr. Peck:

Thank you for your letter of May 19, 1986, asking how our regulations apply to your product, which is called the "Rearscope Wide Angle Lens." Your letter and the brochure you enclosed describes your product as a wide angle acrylic lens which mounts on the rear window of a bus and gives the driver a wider field of view to the rear of the vehicle. I hope the following discussion answers your questions.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet our safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates other alleged safety-related defects.

"We have issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70% in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars) as well as other performance requirements for glazing.

Standard No. 205 does not directly apply to add-on window coverings, such as tinting films, sunscreening devices, and lens. However, no manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install a device on the glazing, such as the viewing lens described in your letter, in new vehicles without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard.

After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to a vehicle are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from tampering with safety equipment installed on a vehicle in compliance with our standards. Thus, no dealer, manufacturer, repair business or distributor can install a device for the owner of the vehicle, if the device would cause the window not to meet the requirements of Standard No 205. Violation of section 108(a)(2)(A) can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not affect vehicle owners, who may themselves alter their vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner may install any type of device regardless of whether the installation adversely affects the performance of the window. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States to regulate the use of viewing devices in vehicles.

If you need further information, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

May 19, 1986

NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

REAR SCOPE WIDE ANGLE LENS

Dear Sirs,

As per letter dated 4/25/86 (copy enclosed) I am writing to determine the status of our product the "REARSCOPE WIDE ANGLE LENS" as to the requirements oF current Federal Glazing standards, Our product which mounts on the rear window of Bus r Coach is made of Diakon by I.C.I. Ltd. of Great Britain, This acrylic product is similar. to DuPonts "Lexan" with which you are undoubtedly familiar.

If you feel a need to examine the product I would be more than willing to mail you a lens for testing purposes, In the meantime I am enclosing a brochure so that you might evaluate the situation, I await your reply.

Sincerely,

Brian Peck President

April 25, 1986

Mr. Brian Peck Rearscope International Limited 15255 Hesperian Boulevard San Leandro, California 94578

Dear Mr. Peck:

This is in answer to your letter of April 2, 1986: concerning the use of the Rearscope Wide Angle Lense in Pennsylvania.

After receiving your letter, I contacted the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) to see if there were any applicable federal standards on glazing which had to be met. NHTSA indicated that they would review this request and suggested that you write to they for this information at the following address: NHTSA, Office of Chief Counsel, 400 7th Street S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.

If you have already contacted NHTSA for approval, please forward their response to this Department. Pending receipt of this written notification from NHTSA, this Department will determine if your lens meets all Pennsylvania requirements.

Sincerely,

John A. Pachuta, Director Bureau or Motor Vehicles

ID: vastatepat.ztv

Col. W. Gerald Massengill
Superintendent
Department of State Police
Commonwealth of Virginia
P.O. Box 27472
Richmond, VA 23261-7472





Dear Col. Massengill:

This is in reply to your letter of April 19, 2001, to Taylor Vinson of this Office regarding undercover or "hide-a-way" lights on Virginia state police patrol vehicles. You would like to equip unmarked patrol cars with a certain lighting system for use on Interstate highways within the Commonwealth if the lights comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You have asked two specific questions.

For the reasons discussed below, our answer is that you may equip your vehicles with this system without violating Federal law.

You write that "Ford Motor Company engaged a consulting firm, Crown North America, to install the Whelan lights in the taillight, four side marker lights, and possibly the parking lights of a new Crown Victoria for evaluation." The "Whelan lights" are apparently strobe lights. These appear to be part of a "Police Prep and Visibility Package" which forms the basis of a "Police Interceptor Police Package" marketed by Ford Motor Company. Under Ford's "Visibility Package," a strobe power supply is installed in the trunk of a vehicle "capable of controlling all strobe light heads."

You have asked:

"First, is whether the modification of the tail and marker lights to allow insertion of the strobe unit impairs the effectiveness of the equipment required by FMVSS 108, renders the equipment non-compliant or compromises the integrity of the original lighting devices?"

With respect to new vehicles, Standard No. 108 requires parking lamps, side marker lamps, and optional lighting to be steady burning in use (S5.5.10(d)). When parking lamps and side marker lamps are flashed by the strobe device, a noncompliance with Standard No. 108 would occur. Standard No. 108 also prohibits the installation of "other motor vehicle equipment . . . that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard" (S5.1.3). Strobe lights are "other motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of this phrase. We read the term "installation" to include use of the other vehicle equipment. Impairment of parking and side marker lamps will result if they are activated for a purpose other than to serve as parking and side marker lamps.

Traditionally, we defer to the judgment of States as to the installation and use of emergency lighting devices on its vehicles. In this instance, the strobe lights will be used on unmarked Ford Crown Victoria passenger cars, virtually identical to Ford Crown Victoria passenger cars available to the general public. We want to allow States to install and use strobe lights on unmarked vehicles yet we do not think it in the interest of safety to allow the general public to do the same on virtually identical vehicles.

We would distinguish police and private vehicles in this manner. The drivers that operate police vehicles will be instructed to use the strobe equipment only when it is required to alert a motorist to pull to the side of the road and thereafter to alert other motorists of the presence of stopped vehicles and law enforcement personnel at the side of the road. In all other circumstances, the parking lamps and side marker lamps will operate as they normally do. Thus, the noncompliance and impairment are temporary in nature and are necessary for the missions of the State police. We believe, then, that the strobe equipment is permissible because of the circumstances which are unique to law enforcement. This would not be the case for vehicles that are not specified by state or local laws to be emergency vehicles that may be required to have special, additional lighting.

"Second, once installed, if the strobes are removed and the hole plugged prior to auctioning the vehicle, would these modifications render the light noncompliant with FMVSS 108?"

We assume that you mean the tail and marker lamps to which you referred in your first question. If the strobes are removed from the tail and side marker lamps, and those lamps continue to perform as they originally did when the vehicle was certified by Ford Motor Company, then the removal of the strobes would not of themselves appear to render the light noncompliant with Standard No. 108. Care should be taken in plugging the holes to minimize the chance of environmental degradation (e.g., dust, moisture) of lighting performance.

Under Federal law (49 U.S.C. 30122), the State, as the owner of a vehicle, may itself modify the vehicle after its purchase even if this modification results in a noncompliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Further, there is no Federal requirement that the owner return the vehicle to compliance before selling it. However, we ask that the State Patrol ensure that lamps on vehicles it sells at auctions are properly wired and have the proper bulbs if these were affected by the installation or removal of the lamps used in undercover lighting schemes.

If you have further questions you may call Mr. Vinson (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.7/3/01

ID: 16689b.nhf

Mr. George W. Hicks
Ingenium Services
3889 Mildred Avenue
Rochester Hills, MI 48309-4269

Dear Mr. Hicks:

This responds to your letter requesting permission from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to modify a 1996 Braun Windstar II (Windstar) for a client who has progressive muscular dystrophy (MD). I apologize for the delay in my response. You explain that you need to replace the power seat base originally installed in the Windstar with the smaller power seat base from a 1989 Kneelcar your client drove for six years. You explain that the size of the Windstar's power seat base interferes with your client's ability to drive and requires her to exert considerable physical effort transferring to and from the driver's seat, which you state is problematic due to your client's physical condition. You explain that, with the smaller power seat base from the Kneelcar, your client will only have to exert minimal physical effort transferring to and from the driver's seat. Further, you explain that, due to its smaller size, the Kneelcar's power seat base does not interfere with your client's ability to drive.

While NHTSA cannot provide the specific relief you seek, since we are not authorized to grant waivers of safety standards under these circumstances, we can assure you that we will not institute enforcement proceedings against a commercial entity that modifies the seat base on a vehicle to accommodate the condition you described.

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

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

Removing the original power seat base and replacing it with the power seat base from the 1989 Kneelcar could affect compliance with four standards: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. For example, Standard No. 208 requires vehicles to be equipped with specific manual and automatic restraint systems (e.g. seat belts and air bags) and to meet specified injury criteria during a test. Removing the original power seat base and replacing it with a smaller one could affect the vehicle's ability to meet the injury criteria specified in Standard No. 208. In situations such as yours where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider any violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition to be justified by public need. As I have already noted above, NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a business that replaces the original power seat base with the Kneelcar's power seat base to accommodate the condition you describe.

We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made. In addition, you should consult with the manufacturer to determine how to safely install and secure the power seat base to the Windstar. The manufacturer should be able to provide information on how the modification can be safely performed. Finally, if the vehicle is sold, we urge the owner to advise the purchaser that the vehicle has been modified and consider reinstalling the removed safety equipment if appropriate.

You may be interested in knowing that the agency is working on a proposal to regulate the aftermarket modification of vehicles for persons with disabilities by setting out exemptions from the make inoperative prohibition only for certain standards, including Standard 208, and under certain conditions. In place of the agency's current approach where each request for exemption from the make inoperative prohibition is reviewed case-by-case, this proposal would give clear guidance to modifiers about principles to follow when considering vehicle modifications to accommodate someone's disabilities. We intend to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking shortly.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions or need some additional information in this area, please contact Nicole Fradette of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:VSA
d.5/113/98

ID: 1984-1.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/01/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: The Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. A. J. DiMaggio Manager, Gov. and Customer Relations The Firestone Tire a Rubber Co. 1200 Firestone Parkway Akron Ohio 44317

Dear Mr. DiMaggio:

This is in reply to your letter of December 8, 1983, to the Administrator, petitioning for a determination that a noncompliance with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117, Retreaded Pneumatic Tires, be deemed inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.

The noncompliance consists of omission of the "DOT" certification symbol. You have represented that tires so affected nevertheless meet Standard No. 117 in all other respects.

It has been the policy of this agency since 1977 to treat omissions of the DOT symbol ss failures to certify pursuant to Sections 114 and 108(a)(1)(C) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act rather than as failures to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standard that requires or allows that method of certification. The symbol is not considered to establish a minimum standard of motor vehicle performance. This means that manufacturers who fail to provide the symbol are not required to conduct a notification and remedy campaign, and that accordingly the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is not required to publish notices of petitions requesting inconsequentiality determinations.

Your petition is therefore moot. Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

December 8, 1983

Ms. Diane Steed, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

RE: PETITION FOR EXEMPTION FOR INCONSEQUENTIAL NONCOMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD 117

Dear Ms. Steed:

The Firestone Tire & Rubber Company hereby petitions, in accordance witn the provisions of 49CFR 556, for exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act for a noncompliance with the requirements of FMVSS 117 (49CFR 571.117). The basis for this petition is that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it pertains to motor safety.

Section S5.2.3 (a) of FMVSS 117 requires that the symbol DOT be permanently molded onto the sidewall of each retreaded tire. Section S6.1 states that this symbol certifies that the retreaded tire on which it appears meets tne requirements of FMVSS 117. One mold, number 49, put into production at our retread plant in Parkersburg, West Virginia, was found to have all the required stamping except the DOT symbol. The tire identification number area in this mold reads -R-DBL 49 XXX instead of DOT-R-DBL 49 XXX. All other molds in this size, L, LR7815 Town & Country were found to be correctly stamped.

The fact that the aforementioned symbol was missing was detected when a tire from the subject mold was submitted to our testing facility as part of our compliance surveillance program. The tire met all other requirements of FMVSS 117, indicating that the plant was eligible for continued certification of compliance insofar as the quality of the product was concerned.

Inventories in the plant of tires from the subject mold were impounded and branded correctly. It is estimated that in the period during which this mold could have been in use, a maximum of 1,340 retreaded tires could have been produced. During this period, weeks 320 to 373, the plant was producing product which was in compliance with the quality of product test requirements of FMVSS 117. Further, all casings used bore the DOT symbols indicating compliance of the original tire with the requirements of FMVSS 109. Only passenger casings with this DOT stamping are used by us for retreading.

The bases upon which this petition is being submitted are as follows:

1. The quality of the subject tires met the requirements of Firestone and NHTSA. Retreaded casings cured in the subject mold all were certified by the original tire manufacturer as being in compliance with FMVSS 109. The plant follows Firestone Retread Shop practices intended to produce high quality, safe retreads. These practices include submitting tires for compliance surveillance testing. 2. The symbol -R- is stamped in the mold in the vicinity of the serial, leaving no doubt that the tire can be identified as a retread. 3. The absence of the symbol DOT does not adversely affect the quality or safety capabilities of the tires cure in the subject mold.

In view of the above, we conclude that the stamping noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety and respectfully request exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of the Act.

Thank you for your consideration of this petition.

Very truly yours,

A. J. DiMaggio MANAGER, GOV. AND CUSTOMER RELATIONS

AJD:g

ID: 1982-2.6

DATE: 04/19/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: M.A.N. Truck & Bus Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your October 1, 1981, letter asking whether it would be permissible to attach a label to a door stating "To Open Door In Emergency Pull Down". You indicate that the door is not an emergency door in compliance with Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. You question whether the addition of the label in conformance to a contract with the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) would make the door an emergency door that would be required to comply with the standard. The CTA requires that door to be so labelled because it desires the door to be used as a means of escape.

The standard states that buses shall be equipped with a minimum number of emergency exits and that all emergency exits shall be labelled properly and comply with the requirements of the standard. One purpose of the standard is to provide sufficient emergency exits. Another purpose is to provide uniform emergency exit markings and operating instructions. You have stated that your vehicle has the requisite number of emergency exits, properly marked, so that the door in question is not required in counting the total number of exits for purposes of complying with the standard.

As you know, not all doors are required to be emergency exits. For example, the front entrance door of a vehicle need not be an emergency exit. If it is not labelled an emergency exit, it need not comply with the requirements of the standard relative to emergency exits. Similarly, the door to which you refer need not comply with the emergency exit requirements if it is not labelled as an emergency exit. However, since your proposed label refers to the emergency nature of the door, it appears to place the door within the category of an emergency exit that would be required to comply with the standard. The CTA intends the door to be used as an emergency exit and the label will indicate to riders that the door is suitable for such purposes. You may not, therefore, refer to the door as an emergency door unless the door complies with all of the requirements.

SINCERELY,

M.A.N. TRUCK & BUS CORPORATION

October 1, 1981

General Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation

Dear Sir:

I am writing today to ask for your interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 217 to the extent that it affects the language of an instructional decal that we intend to affix at the front and rear entrances of our new series of articulated transit buses.

As we understand it, FMVSS 217 is a standard whose intent is to prescribe the amount of emergency exit area to be provided on buses, the nature of the emergency exits to be provided, and the way in which such exits must be identified.

We further believe that the vehicles we are preparing to manufacture in the United States more than meet the requirements of the standard. That is, through a combined use of push-out side windows and escape roof hatches that function and are identified according to FMVSS 217, the escape area requirement is exceeded. Therefore, we believe that the main passenger doors are not also required as emergency exits to qualify the bus under the 217 standard.

However, the language of the specification describing the buses of our current contract with the Chicago Transit Authority demands that additional escape area be provided by the main entrances. Manual operation of the main doors is accomplished via a two-step procedure. First, an operator with a red ball handle, located overhead on the door engine compartment, is pulled to release the air pressure that keeps the door closed. Second, the door panels are pushed open by the passenger. (For a better idea of the conditions at the entrances, please refer to the enclosed sketch.)

CTA further requires that this manual operation of the main doors be described in the following way by an instructional decal that is placed in close proximity to the red-handled operator:

TO OPEN DOOR IN EMERGENCY PULL DOWN.

It is the language of this decal that concerns us. Specifically, though the bus easily exceeds requirements of FMVSS 217, without the inclusion of the main doors as emergency exits, we are unsure that those doors could qualify as emergency exits under 217, and we therefore seek assurance from your office that the use of the word "emergency" in the decal does not violate the standard, as you interpret it.

We thank you in advance for your early response to this question.

Joseph R. Karner Project Engineer

cc: M. R. HOWARD; L. K. MIKALONIS; G. E. PICKETT; L. ROGERS; K. M. SIMON

NOTE: THIS IS A GENERAL CONFIGURATION SKETCH, NOT INTENDED TO ACCURATELY PORTRAY THE DOOR AREA.

(Graphics omitted)

SKETCH OF DOOR ARRANGEMENT M.A.N. TRUCK & BUS CORP. (CTA) DRAWN BY: J. R. KARNER 10-1-81

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: 3147o

The Honorable Beverly B. Byron
Member of Congress
U.S. House of Representatives
Westminster District Office
6 North Court Street
Westminster, MD 21157

Dear Ms. Byron:

Thank you for your recent letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Joseph L. Ciampa, Jr., who received a citation from the Maryland State Police, Automotive Safety Enforcement Division, for noncomplying window tinting. You asked us to review Mr. Ciampa's letter and provide you with our comments and appropriate information. I am pleased to have the opportunity to do so.

Mr. Ciampa suffers from diabetes, which makes his eyes extremely sensitive to sunlight. Because of this, the side windows on his passenger automobile apparently were tinted such that the tinted glazing no longer complied with State of Maryland requirements. There is no indication whether Mr. Ciampa did the tinting on his own or had an aftermarket business do it. According to Mr. Ciampa's letter, he was previously given a medical exemption by the State of Maryland that permitted him to drive with windows tinted differently than Maryland law permits. However, Mr. Ciampa stated that Maryland officials have now told him that the Federal government will not allow Maryland to grant any more medical exemptions. This information is inaccurate.

Some background information on the Federal requirements in this area may be helpful. Our agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. The safety standard that specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles is Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205). These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70 percent in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars). Under Standard 205 no manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install solar films and other sun screen devices in a new vehicle, without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard. Federal law does not permit States to grant any exemptions, including medical exemptions, from the safety standards. Thus, we assume that Mr. Ciampa's car as delivered to him complied with Standard No. 205's requirement for at least 70 percent light transmittance in all of its windows, including the side windows that are now the subject of dispute.

The requirement that a car comply with all applicable safety standards applies only until the car is first sold to a consumer. After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, any modifications to the vehicle's windows, including the tinting performed on the side windows of Mr. Ciampa's car, are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That section prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with any safety standard. In the case of windows in a passenger car, this means that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business could install a sun screen device or window tinting that would result in a light transmittance of less than 70 percent for any window of the car, or otherwise cause the car to no longer comply with the other requirements of Standard No. 205. Violations of this "render inoperative" prohibition can result in Federal civil penalties to the manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business of up to $1000 for each noncomplying installation.

Again, Federal law does not permit States to grant any exemptions, including medical exemptions, from the "render inoperative" prohibition in Federal law. Thus, the State of Maryland does not have any authority to permit manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or repair businesses to install tinting on the side windows of passenger cars if such tinting causes those windows to have less than 70 percent light transmittance. Instead, the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business that installed such tinting on Mr. Ciampa's side windows would be liable for the civil penalty discussed above.

Please note that Federal law does not affect vehicle owners. Vehicle owners may alter their own vehicles and operate them on the highways as they please, even if the vehicle's windows no longer comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205. Hence, no provision of Federal law or this agency's regulations prevents Mr. Ciampa himself from tinting his side windows.

However, each of the individual States has the authority to regulate the modifications that may be made to vehicles by their owners and to establish requirements for vehicles to be registered or operated in that State. It would seem that the State of Maryland has exercised its authority to prohibit windows being tinted in the way that Mr. Ciampa's are. The wisdom and fairness of applying that prohibition to individuals with Mr. Ciampa's condition is something to be decided by the State of Maryland, not the Federal government. Contrary to the statement in Mr. Ciampa's letter, we have never told Maryland or any other State how to administer their laws and regulations with respect to the operational use of vehicles in the State. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some more information on this subject, please do not hesitate to contact Ms. Susan Schruth of my staff at this address, or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

cc: Washington Office Constituent's Correspondence

ref:VSA#205 d:l0/27/88

ID: 3317o

Mr. Clarence M. Ditlow III
Executive Director
Center for Auto Safety
2001 S Street, NW
Suite 410
Washington, DC 20009

Dear Mr. Ditlow:

This responds to your most recent letter to me concerning retrofitting of cars originally equipped with rear seat lap belts with rear seat lap/shoulder belts. In my November 1, 1988 letter to you, I explained that we have sought the voluntary cooperation of manufacturers to make retrofit kits available for those customers who desire them and that the vehicle manufacturers have responded positively to our efforts. I also explained that the fact that retofit kits are not available for all model lines produced by each manufacturer does not suggest some failure on the part of the vehicle manufacturers or of our policy to encourage the manufacturers to make such retrofit kits available.

In a November 7, 1988 letter, you asserted that my November 1 letter "reflects such callous disregard and ignorance of the facts as to defy belief that you are doing little more than covering up for a GM policy that will kill rear seat passengers." You stated that you would welcome a "substantive response" to this letter. I am happy to be able to give you such a response.

Let me begin by emphasizing that the lap belts in the rear seat of most vehicles on the road today are effective in reducing the risk of death and injury in a crash. Based on our analysis of a number of crash data files, we estimate that rear seat lap belts saved about 100 lives and prevented over 1500 serious injuries in 1987 alone. These figures would have been substantially higher if more rear seat occupants used their lap belts. In fact, if everyone had worn their rear seat lap belts each time they rode in a vehicle, those belts would have saved about 660 lives and prevented more than 10,000 serious injuries in 1987 alone.

These facts illustrate that the fastest and most effective way to save the greatest number of lives and prevent the greatest number of injuries is to convince the public to use the safety belts, including the rear seat lap belts, that are in their vehicles every time they ride in those vehicles. Because of these facts, I do not accept your assertion that GM's policy of not providing rear seat lap/shoulder belt retrofit kits for a few of their past models will "kill people." To the extent that reckless assertions like this tell the public that they should not wear their rear seat lap belts, it is unfortunate that you have chosen to divert attention away from the overriding issue of convincing the public to use their safety belts, and instead chosen to mislead the public about the quality of their safety belts.

Even though lap belts have been proven to be effective in reducing the risk of death and injury in a crash, we agree that properly designed lap and shoulder belts have the potential to offer even greater crash protection than lap belts alone. For this reason, we have proposed to require that all new passenger cars sold in the United States be equipped with rear seat lap and shoulder belts beginning in the 1990 model year. Additionally, we have actively sought the car manufacturers' cooperation in providing retrofit kits to interested consumers. As you may know, every domestic manufacturer and many foreign manufacturers now offer retrofit kits for many of their vehicle models.

You objected to General Motors' (GM) statement in its Information Bulletin that retrofit kits are not offered for its 1978-88 Oldsmobile Cutlass, Buick Regal, Chevrolet Monte Carlo, or Pontiac Grand Prix, "because GM safety engineers have concluded that in these cars, a rear seat lap/shoulder belt combination would not enhance the safety offered by the lap belt alone." You asserted that since Leonard Evans, a GM employee, has concluded that lap/shoulder belts are significantly more effective than lap belts and since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is proposing to require rear seat lap/shoulder belts, there is no "possible scientific basis" for GM's conclusion.

NHTSA's proposal reflects our tentative conclusion that rear seat lap/shoulder belts that are designed and installed at the factory have the potential to offer even greater crash protection than lap belts alone for vehicles in general. However, any particular vehicle model's floor pan design, seat stiffness, and seat design (as it relates to occupant posture) can affect the possibility of an occupant submarining under a lap/shoulder belt system in a crash. During the design and production of the vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer can take these factors into account to minimize the likelihood of such submarining and its associated consequences.

However, this is emphatically not true for vehicles that were not originally engineered and designed to use rear seat lap/shoulder belts as original equipment. With respect to these vehicles, the effectiveness of a retrofitted rear seat lap and shoulder safety belt system may well depend on the belt system's compatability with the vehicle and the installation of the belt system. The suitability of a particular vehicle for retrofitting is therefore a complex question. It is our view that the judgment as to whether a retrofit lap/shoulder belt system should be installed in a particular vehicle is best made by a vehicle manufacturer, which is most familiar with the detailed seat and structural design and crash performance of the car.

I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you have any further questions or would like some additional information on this subject.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:208 d:12/22/88