ID: nht90-1.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/09/90

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: ALLEN R. ANDRLIK -- AUSTRALIAN TRADE COMMISSION AUSTRALIAN CONSULATE GENERAL

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 08/28/89 FROM ALLEN R. ANDRLIK -- AUSTRALIAN TRADE COMMISSION TO DEE FUJITA -- NHTSA; OCC 3896

TEXT: Dear Mr. Andrlik:

This responds to your letter asking about Federal regulations that would apply to the "Milford Cargo Barrier" that Milford Industries, an Australian company, manufactures. Your enclosure indicates that the barrier is a type of wire screen that is genera lly anchored to the sides and floor of a vehicle directly behind the front seat(s). The barrier is intended to protect occupants in a crash from impact with objects carried in the rear of cars, trucks and vans.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new moto r vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with our Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Instead, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicl e Safety Act (copy enclosed), each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the information pro vided in your letter.

There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that is directly applicable to the product you describe. Our standard for glazing materials (Standard No. 205) applies only to interior barries or partitions that contain glazing, and not to wi re screens.

However, there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect the manufacture and sale of Milford's barriers. If the barrier were installed as original equipment on a new motor vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer would be required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable safety standards. Installation of the barrier could affect a vehicle's compliance with various safety standards. For example, installation of the barrier could affect complianc e with Standard No. 201, Occupant

2 Protection in Interior Impact, which sets energy-absorption requirements for the back of the front seat, to protect occupants in the rear seat who may be thrown forward in a crash. The barrier could also affect compliance with Standard No. 208, Occupa nt Crash Protection, (safety belts and other restraint systems), and Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors (driver field of view). Copies of each of these standards are enclosed.

If the barrier were added to a previously certified new motor vehicle (e.g., a completed van) prior to the vehicle's first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle may have certification responsibilities as an "alterer" under 49 CFR @ 567.7. This would occur if the installation of the barrier constituted something other than a "readily attachable" component (such as tires or rim assemblies). To determine whether installation of the barrier involves a readily attachable component, the agency considers factors such as the intricacy of installation, and the need for special expertise in installing the barrier.

The advertising brochure you enclosed states: "Expert installation available Australia wide." It also indicates that the barriers are "designed . . . to the individual dimensions" of the consumer's motor vehicle and are "load rated" (which we understand to mean that the barrier and its attachment are capable of withstanding a rated load). These factors appear to indicate that a degree of special expertise and analysis are needed to install the barrier so that it will perform in the manner intended. In light of these considerations, the barrier appears to be something other than a readily attachable component under @ 567.7. (If Milford would like to send us information indicating otherwise, we would be happy to review it.)

If the cargo barrier were installed in a new or used vehicle by a commercial business such as a motor vehicle dealer or repair shop, the installer would be subject to Safety Act considerations affecting the installation. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act states: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative . . . any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicabl e Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . ." Thus, the commercial installer would have to make sure that the addition of the apparatus would not negatively affect the compliance of any component or design on a vehicle with applicable Federal safety s tandards (such as Standards 111, 201 and 208). Section 109 of the Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation of @ 108.

In addition to the FMVSS considerations, manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment should also be aware that they are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to m otor vehicle safety. I have enclosed a copy of our regulation for defect responsibility of motor vehicle equipment manufacturers (49 CFR Part 579) for your information. Any manufacturer which fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 per violation.

3

In addition to the regulations described above, we also bring to your attention a procedural rule which applies to all manufacturers subject to the regulations of this agency. Subpart D of 49 CFR Part 551, Procedural Rules, requires all manufacturers he adquartered outside of the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of all process, notices, orders and decisions. This designation should be mailed to the Chief Counsel, National Highw ay Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590, and must include the following information:

1. A certification that the designation of agent is valid in form and binding on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate-by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made;

2. The full name, principal place of business and mailing address of the manufacturer;

3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of the manufacturer's products which do not bear its name;

4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer;

5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed, which may be an individual, a firm or a United States Corporation; and,

6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent.

In addition, the designation must be signed by a person with authority to appoint the agent. The signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his or her signature.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact us if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURES

ID: nht90-1.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/09/90

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: LINDA B. KENT -- SENIOR MARKET DEVELOPMENT FASSON SPECIALTY DIVISION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 07/06/89 FROM LINDA B. KENT -- FASSON SPECIALTY DIVISION TO STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA; OCC 3724

TEXT: Dear Ms. Kent:

Thank you for your letter requesting an interpretation of whether the use of a product on motor vehicles would violate Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR @ 571.205). This product, called "Contra Vision," is designed to display messages or adver tising materials on windows and other clear surfaces, so that viewers on one side of the clear surface will see the message displayed, while viewers on the other side of the surface will see an essentially transparent surface without any message visible. According to your letter, this product "will be used for promotional signage in store windows, but also has application in rear taxicab windows, as well as rear and side windows of city buses." You asked for our opinion of whether this product complies with Standard No. 205.

Some background on how Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulation affect this product may be helpful. Our agency is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and n ew items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products or processes. Instead, the Safety Act specifies that each manufacturer itself must certify th at its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards, and also investigates alleged defects related to motor vehicle safety and alleged violations of other statutory provisions.

Your letter indicates that you are already aware that NHTSA has issued a safety standard that applies to the windows installed in motor vehicles. Specifically, Standard No. 205 requires that all new vehicles and all new glazing materials for use in moto r vehicles must comply with certain performance requirements. Among the requirements set forth in Standard No. 205 are specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance. A

minimum of 70 percent light transmittance is required in glazing areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars. In trucks and buses, the windshield and windows to the immediate right and left of the driver and t he rearmost window, if the latter is used for driving visibility, are considered to be requisite for driving visibility, and therefore subject to the 70 percent minimum light transmittance requirement.

Your letter did not provide any information on the light transmittance that would be measured through glazing with Contra Vision installed on it. The combination of the glazing material and the Contra Vision must allow at least 70 percent light transmit tance to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205. No manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install Contra Vision on the glazing materials on new vehicles, unless the manufacturer or dealer certifies that the vehicle continues to comply with th e 70 percent minimum light transmittance and other requirements of Standard No. 205.

After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to the vehicle are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397 (a)(2)(A)). 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. This provision of the law means that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business could install Contra Vision if the addition of Cont ra Vision to the glazing would result in a light transmittance of less than 70 percent, or otherwise cause the vehicle to no longer comply with the applicable requirements of Standard 205. Violations of this "render inoperative" prohibition can result i n Federal civil penalties to the manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business of up to $ 1000 for each noncomplying installation.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act does not affect vehicle owners. Hence, vehicle owners themselves may install Contra Vision or any other product on the glazing of their vehicle, regardless of whether the installation causes the vehicle to no longe r comply with Standard No. 205. Individual States have the authority to regulate the operational use of vehicles by their owners, and, therefore, have the authority to regulate or preclude individual owner modifications to the glazing of their vehicles.

I have enclosed an information sheet that summarizes the relationship between Federal auto safety laws and motor vehicles window tinting. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need any additional information about thi s topic, please fee free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht90-1.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/09/90

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: JAMES A. COWAN, DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING CROWN COACH INCORPORATED

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 11/24/89 FROM JAMES A. COWAN -- CROWN COACH INC TO ERIKA JONES -- NHTSA; RE FMVSS 217, BUS WINDOW RETENTION AND RELEASE; OCC 2847; LETTER DATED 11/29/88 FROM JAMES A. COWAN -- CROWN COACH INC; RE FMVSS 217, BUS WINDOW RETENTION AND RELEASE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Cowan:

This is in response to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217: Bus Window Retention and Release. I apologize for the delay in responding to your inquiry.

Your letter explained that Crown plans to sell one prototype school bus model which was developed but not produced, and which contains a side emergency exit which is wider than required under Standard No. 217. Because of the wider door, the seatback of the passenger seat located immediately forward of the emergency exit door intrudes into the emergency door exit opening. You have requested an interpretation as to whether this is consistent with Standard No. 217. The answer to your question is no.

Standard No. 217 specifically requires that "[a] vertical transverse plane tangent to the rearmost point of a seatback shall pass through the forward edge of a side emergency door." S5.4.2.1(b). This requirement prohibits the forward seat or seatback fr om extending into the door opening regardless of the size of the door opening. Therefore, as it is now configured, the bus you have described in your letter is not in compliance with Standard No. 217.

I hope you have found this information helpful. Please contact David Greenburg of this office at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions concerning this issue.

Sincerely,

ID: nht90-1.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: JANUARY 9, 1990

FROM: MEHDI ROWGHANI -- DALLAS EUROPEAN PARTS DISTRIBUTORS

TO: TAYLOR VINSON -- OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 4-9-90 TO MEHDI ROWGHANI FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD; (A35; STD. 214; PART 541) TEXT:

We are importers/distributors of parts for European cars. We are repeatedly asked by our customers if importation and sale of European doors (without reinforcement bars) is in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Department of Transportation . May we request you to clarify this point for us.

ID: nht90-1.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/12/90

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: SCOTT K. HILER -- MANAGER, R & D LAB C. E. WHITE CO.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 11/27/89 FROM SCOTT K. HILER -- CE WHITE COMPANY TO NHTSA; OCC 4212

TEXT: Dear Mr. Hiler:

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages (49 CFR @571.210). Specifically, you asked if the strength test set forth in that standard requires simultaneous testing of all the safety belt an chorages for a passenger seat in school buses wiht a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds orless, when those anchorages are installed on the seat frame, or whether those anchorages can be tested individually. The answer is that such ancho rages are tested individually under the current provisions of the strength test in Standard No. 210.

Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection (49 CFR @ 571.222) establishes the occupant protection requirements for passenger seating positions in school buses. Section S5(b) of Standard No. 222 provides that school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less shall meet the requirements of Standard No. 210, among other standards. Section S4.2 of Standard No. 210 sets forth the strength test for anchorages. Section S4.2.4 reads as follows: "Except for common seat belt anchorages for forward-facing and rearward-facing seats, floor-mounted seat belt anchorages for adjacent designated seating positions shall be tested by simultaneously loading the seat belt assemblies attached to those anchorages."

Note that the only anchorages subject to a simultaneous testing requirement are floor-mounted anchorages. The anchorages described in your letter and shown in the photographs enclosed with that letter are mounted on the seat frame. Therefore, those anch orages would not be tested simultaneously to determine compliance with Standard No. 210.

I should aslo point out that NHTSA has proposed to amend section S4.2.4 of Standard No. 210 so that all seat and floor-mounted anchorages common to one seat would be tested simultaneously during the strength test. I have enclosed a copy of that proposal for your information. The interpretation in this letter may no longer be correct after the effective date of any final rule adopting that proposal.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht90-1.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: JANUARY 12, 1990

FROM: SAMUEL KIMMELMAN -- ENGINEERING PRODUCT MANAGER, IDEAL CORPORATION

TO: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: N

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 3-30-90 TO SAMUEL KIMMELMAN FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD; (A35; STD. 108) TEXT:

Several vehicles manufactured in the last several years contain dash board turn signal indicators in the shape of arrows that increase in size, through three (3) growth stages, during the "on" time of the corresponding flashing turn signal lamps. When th e turn signal lamps go "off" the dash board arrow goes "off" and begins the next growth cycle when the turn signal lamps go "on". The dash board turn signal arrow follows the "on-off" cycling of the corresponding turn signal lamps.

In turn signal operation when a turn signal lamp fails the original equipment flasher changes to a higher flash rate, shorter "on" and "off" times, thereby preventing the corresponding dash board indicator arrow from reaching the 3rd growth stage. This is an indication to the driver that a turn signal lamp has failed.

We manufacture aftermarket variable load turn signal flashers and hazard warning flashers, certified as meeting the requirements of FMVSS-108, for use as replacements to original equipment flashers. However, due to differences in operating characteristi cs between our variable load flashers and the original equipment flashers used in these vehicles, we cannot guarantee our flashers will provide sufficient "on" time to allow the dash board indicator arrows to reach the 3rd stage as the corre- sponding tu rn signal lamps flash within the requirements of FMVSS-108.

Can we list our valuable load flashers as replacement flashers for vehicles having three (3) growth stage dash board turn signal arrows?

ID: nht90-1.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: JANUARY 16, 1990

FROM: SATOSHI NISHIBORI -- VICE PRESIDENT, INDUSTRY-GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS

TO: ROBERT F. HELLMUTH -- DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF VEHICLE SAFETY COMPLIANCE, NHTSA

TITLE: NEF-31 GEN/NCI 3092

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 3-15-90 TO SATOSHI NISHIBORI FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD; [A35 REDBOOK; STD. 120]

TEXT: This responds to your October 31, 1989, letter regarding the compliance of 1989 Nissan pickup trucks with FMVSS 120. In my December 19th letter to you, I confirmed an extension until January 16, 1990, to respond to your request.

Nissan's responses to your questions regarding the 1989 Nissan truck are set forth in the Attachment. We wish to emphasize, however, that, based on our reading of FMVSS 120, it is not clear that the vehicles in question fail to comply with that stand ard. Nissan has followed a procedure whereby tire inflation pressures specified on FMVSS 120 tire/rim information labels are determined based on the tire's ability to support their share of the vehicle's gross axle weight rating (GAWR). The load carryi ng capacity of the tires at various pressures is determined by reference to data in tire industry standarization manuals; such as the Tire and Rim Association (TRA) Yearbook. Once a minimum pressure that is adequate to carry the GAWR is determined, Nissa n considers other factors, such as vehicle ride characteristics, to select the recommended pressure. This process results in the selection of a recommended pressure that will permit the tires to carry safely GAWR loads and will provide good vehicle ride characteristics. Nissan believes that the procedure it followed resulted in the recommendation of a tire pressure that is consistent with safe vehicle operation and is permitted under FMVSS 120.

Based on our reading of the Agency contractor's test report on this matter, it appears that the contractor has interpreted FMVSS 120 in a manner different from Nissan. However, we believe that our own reading of FMVSS 120 is consistent with the langu age used in that standard. In particular, based on our reading, we conclude that:

1. the tire label need not show the tire's maximum inflation pressure; and

2. the 1.1 adjustment factor in section 5.1.2 of the standard applies for tire selection purposes only. Nothing in FMVSS 120 requires that the relationships between tire inflation pressure and load, as specified by tire manufacturers in standardizat ion manuals or otherwise, must be universally adjusted by use of this factor. We read FMVSS 120 to require, in practical terms, that when a passenger car tire is to be used on a truck, a slightly larger capacity tire must be selected than would be the c ase if the tire were to be used on a similar size passenger car. Based on Agency statements in Federal Register notices regarding FMVSS 120, the standard apparently requires this difference in tire selection due to the greater potential for off-road use and heavy load operation (perhaps above the vehicle's rated load capacity) for trucks than for passenger cars, and not due to any inherent difference in load-pressure relationships for the vehicles.

It is our understanding that the Agency's test report concludes that the 1989 Nissan truck that was inspected by the Agency's contractor does not conform to S.5.3.5 of FMVSS 120. Section 5.3.5 specifies that the vehicle's tire/rim selection label mus t show the "cold inflation pressure for [the] tires". This provision does not specify how the "cold inflation pressure" is to be determined, or for which driving conditions the pressure must be appropriate. FMVSS 120, as originally proposed, specified t hat the label must show the "maximum cold inflation pressures of the tires with which the vehicle is equipped, as marked on the tires. . ." See 36 Federal Register 14273-4, August 3, 1971, emphasis added. In a subsequent proposal, the requirement was re vised to specify that the label must show the "maximum tire inflation pressure", deleting the reference to the tires actually on the vehicle at the time of sale. See 39 Federal Register 19505, 19507, June 3, 1974. This revision was made to recognize and continue to permit the practice of dealers changing tire sizes prior to delivery of trucks to the purchaser. 39 Federal Register 19505. The final rule establishing FMVSS 120 adopts the current language of

section 5.3.5 (as paragraph 5.3(c)), i.e., "cold inflation pressure", but the preamble does not explain the deletion of the term "maximum" with regard to the inflation pressure. See 41 Federal Register 3480, January 23 1976. Nevertheless, the change in wording suggests that the tire label must reflect some pressure other than the maximum pressure.

We believe that the context of section 5.3.5 may provide some additional guidance as to which pressure must appear on the label. Section 5.3.1 specifies that the information required under section 5.3.3 through 5.3.5 must appear either "after each GA WR" in the case of a certification label or must be "appropriate for each GVWR-GAWR combination", if a combined certification/120 label format is used. Thus, the "cold inflation pressure" selected should be consistent with the GAWR of the vehicle. This conclusion is supported by a subsequent NHTSA preamble, which states that the section 5.3.5 pressure need not be the maximum pressure, "but, the pressure specified by the tire manufacturer as sufficient to carry the load specified by the vehicle manufac turer as the tire's share of the assigned GAWR". 42 Federal Register 7143, February 7, 1977.

The 1989 Nissan truck inspected by the Agency is equipped with Firestone WR-12, P 195/75R14 M+S tires. The tires have a maximum load rating of 1400 pounds. The certification label on the vehicle specifies a cold inflation pressure of 34 psi for the rear tires and a GAWR of 2544 pounds for the rear axle. The key issue raised by NHTSA is whether the 34 psi pressure on the label is a pressure "specified by the tire manufacturer as sufficient to carry" half the GAWR, or 1272 pounds.

The regulations do not specify a procedure by which the tire manufacturer must articulate whether the tire, inflated to 34 psi, will support a 1272 pound load. For example, we believe this information could be obtained from tire industry standardizat ion manuals or from direct discussions between the vehicle and tire manufacturers.

Data in the 1989 Tire and Rim Association (TRA) yearbook show that the tires in question will support a load of 1279 pounds at 29 psi, with higher loads supportable at higher pressures. Therefore, the 1989 Nissan truck would appear to comply with sec tion 5.3.5. Moreover, the manufacturer of the tires used as original equipment on the vehicle has confirmed that the tires inflated to 34 psi, will carry 1383 pounds (which is more than half the GAWR) on this vehicle (see Enclosure 1).

However, NHTSA has apparently interpreted the required calculation procedure differently. As we understand the procedure used by NHTSA's contractor in its test report, it first calculated a "tire load limit" at 34 psi by interpolating between the loa d limits at 32 psi and at 35 psi, as specified in the TRA tables. Assuming that a linear interpolation is appropriate, the 34 psi maximum load would be 1381.67 pounds. NHTSA's contractor then proceeds to divide the interpolated load by 1.1, yielding 125 6.06 pounds. Since this figure is less than the tire's share of the GAWR (1272 pounds), the contractor concludes that a violation has occurred. Assuming that linear interpolation between the table values is appropriate and the contractor's procedure is correct, a pressure of 34.956 pounds would be required to support 1272 pounds.

We believe that the procedure followed by the contractor is not specified in FMVSS 120. In particular, we object to the contractor's application of the 1.1 adjustment factor to intermediate tire loads and for purposes other than tire selection, since the standard does not specify these procedures.

The use of a 1.1 factor is specified in section 5.1.2 of the standard for tire selection purposes. That section provides that the sum of the load ratings of the tires fitted to an axle must be not less than the GAWR. Prior to calculating the sum, th e tire's load rating shall be reduced by dividing by 1.1 if the tire is listed in Appendix A of Standard 109 and is installed on a truck, bus, MPV, or trailer. However, no specific tires are listed in Appendix A of Standard 109. It is our understanding that prior to the early 1980s, that Appendix did list certain tire sizes for use on passenger cars. Therefore, section 5.1.2 may suggest that when passenger tires are used on trucks, the tire's load rating must be reduced by the 1.1 factor prior to det ermining whether the tires are adequate to support the GAWR. According to the 1977 preamble, the purpose of applying the 1.1 factor is "to account for the generally harsher treatment (impulse and surge loading in the case of MPV's off-road) to which the tires of a vehicle other than a passenger car are exposed that is not accounted for in passenger car tire rating". Supra. Thus, it appears that the purpose for the 1.1 factor is not to deal with a difference in the ability of a tire to support a given load at a particular pressure when the tire is used on a car as compared to use on a truck. Rather, the stated intent seems to be to deal with the greater off-road use (or possibly more frequent overload situations) to which vehicles other than passeng er cars are subjected. n1

n1 It is important to note that the 1989 Nissan truck meets the tire selection criteria of section 5.1.2. If the tires' maximum load rating (1400#) is divided by 1.1, and the adjusted sum (2545#) of the two tires' load ratings exceeds the GAWR (2544# ).

The use of the 1.1 factor for tire selection purposes only is also suggested by the language of section 5.3.3. That provision references section 5.1.2 (and, thereby, the 1.1 factor) in determining whether the tire size is appropriate for the GAWR. H owever, the absence of the parenthetical reference to section 5.1.2 in section 5.3.5 suggests that the application of the 1.1 factor is not required for determining whether the tire pressure on the label is appropriate for the GAWR.

To summarize, the language used in FMVSS 120 to describe the process to be used in determining the cold inflation pressure under section 5.3.5 is ambiguous at best, and contrary to the procedure used by NHTSA's contractor at worst. These deficiencies are exhibited with regard to the following determinations:

1. Whether the 1.1 adjustment factor is to be used for purposes other than tire selection;

2. Which tires are subject to the 1.1 factor (Appendix A, standard 109);

3. The source of information on the tire manufacturer's load limit for the tire, at various pressures; and

4. The procedure for interpolating information derived from the TRA tables.

Of these factors, we believe the first to be the most significant, but all contribute to the ambiguity of the standard.

It is our understanding that at least one other vehicle manufacturer has interpreted section 5.3.5 in a manner inconsistent with NHTSA's contractor. This suggests that a problem may exist with the wording of the standard and that more is involved than a single party's misreading of clear regulatory language. If the contractor's interpretation were the only acceptable interpretation, approximately 700,000 Nissan vehicles produced as far back as 1983 could be implicated (see Attachment).

Response 5 in the Attachment lists additional vehicle/tire combinations where Nissan's specified tire pressure differs from that determined under the contractor's procedure. Nissan is now conducting additional tests to verify that these tires will su pport higher test loads. We expect that the results of this testing will demonstrate that the tires used on Nissan's vehicles have

sufficient load capacity to support their share of the vehicles' GAWR at the recommended inflation pressures. The procedure being followed involves testing the tires to FMVSS 109 procedures, but increasing test loads by multiplying them by an overload f actor. The overload factor is calculated by multiplying the GAWR by 0.5 and dividing the product obtained by the tires' load rating at the pressure shown on the vehicle's tire label (calculated according to NHTSA's contractor's procedure, i.e., using th e 1.1 factor).

The results of this testing should be available by January 31st. However, one of the affected tires (7.00 x 14) is no longer in production; therefore, a special batch of those tires is being produced. The test results for this one tire size should b e available by mid-February.

Nissan wishes to work cooperatively with NHTSA to resolve this matter. However, we believe that the language of section 5.3.5 does not clearly provide a basis for finding the 1989 Nissan truck to be in noncompliance, or for conducting a notification a nd remedy campaign under the the Safety Act.

We request that NHTSA consider the issues raised above and the results of our ongoing testing, and that the Agency concur that the Nissan vehicles comply with FMVSS 120. We request the opportunity to meet with you after you have considered the matter s raised in this letter, so that we can answer any questions you may have and discuss a resolution of the matter.

If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Mr. Kazuo Iwasaki of my staff, at 202/466-5284.

Sincerely,

ENC.

ID: nht90-1.18

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 18, 1990

FROM: Robert E. Meadows -- Engineering Manager, Wayne Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-8-90 from R. Marion to C. Karl; Also attached to memo dated 11-28-8? from C. Karl to All School Bus LCR II's; Also attached to letter dated 11-27-90 from P.J. Rice to C. Karl (A36; Std. 217); Also attached to letter d ated 12-7-82 from F. Berndt to M.B. Mathieson; Also attached to letter dated 1-29-90 from C. Karl to M. Shaw (OCC 4403)

TEXT:

This certifies that Accessories KE06-08 and ME06-01, Vandal Locks, meet all requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, and Minnesota and Iowa standards.

The above options are comprised of:

1. A key lock for the front door

2. A rear slide bolt on the rear door (no rear key is required), hooked into starter interlock system so that the engine cannot be started 3. A buzzer in the driver's area tied in with the interlock that would warn the driver if anyone was trying to lock the door after the engine was started The above systems have been used by Wayne Corporation since 1977.

ID: nht90-1.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/19/90

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: LINDA L. CONRAD -- NIVES FORD, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED AUGUST 17, 1989 TO S. WOOD, NHTSA, FROM L. CONRAD, NIVES FORD, INC., ATTACHED; [OCC-3863]

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking what legal obligations are imposed on car dealers to replace air bags on used vehicles accepted as trade-ins. Your letter explained that your dealership has received, as a trade-in, a 1989 car that had a driver-side a ir bag as original equipment. According to your letter, the car had been in a crash and the air bag was deployed. Hence, when this car was taken in trade by your dealership, its air bag was not functional. You asked whether any law requires you to rep lace the deployed air bag with a new air bag before selling the car.

In response to your question, we can advise you as follows: (1) Federal law does not require a car dealer to replace a deployed air bag in a used vehicle; (2) a dealer may be required by State law to replace that equipment, or be liable for failure to do so; and (3) our agency strongly encourages dealers to replace deployed air bags whenever vehicles are repaired or resold, to ensure that the vehicles will continue to provide maximum crash protection for occupants.

We will first address the Federal legal issues, since our agency administers the Federal vehicle safety law. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to issue Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR @ 571.208). Among other things, Standard No. 208 requires that cars be equipped with automatic crash protection. "Automatic crash protection" means that a vehicle is equipped with occupant restraints that require no action by vehicle occupants. The performance of automatic crash protection is dynamically tested, th at is, the automatic systems are required to comply with certain injury reduction criteria as measured by test dummies in a barrier crash test at speeds up to 30 mph. The requirement for automatic crash protection was phased-in for passenger cars, begin ning with 1987

model year new cars. That phase-in is now completed, and a passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1989 are required to be equipped with automatic crash protection.

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) specifies that, "No person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor veh icle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard . . ." (Emphasis added) Because of this statutory r equirement, your dealership cannot legally sell or offer for sale a new car equipped with an air bag if you know that the air bag has been deployed.

However, section 108(b)(1) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1)) provides that the prohibitions in section 108(a)(1)(A) "shall not apply to the sale, offer for sale, or the introduction or delivery for introduction in interstate commerce of any motor vehicle after the first purchase of it in good faith for purposes other than resale." In other words, once the 1989 Chrysler LeBaron described in your letter was sold and delivered to its first retail purchaser, the vehicle was no longer required by Fede ral law to comply with Standard No. 208.

After the first purchase of a vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale, the only provision in Federal law that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor veh icle safety standard, unless such manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business reasonably believes that such vehicle . . . will not be used (other than for testing or similar purposes in the course of maintenance or repair) during the time such device or element of design is rendered inoperative.

In the case of passenger cars equipped with air bags pursuant to Standard No. 208, this section would prohibit any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from removing, disabling, or otherwise "rendering inoperative" the air bags, except a s needed to make repairs to the car. When any such repairs are completed, the car must be returned to the customer with the air bag capable of functioning at least as well as it was able to do when the car was received by the manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business. Any violations of this "render inoperative" prohibition in the Safety Act would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation.

Please note that the "render inoperative" provision does not impose an affirmative duty on dealers to replace equipment that was previously removed by someone else, or to repair equipment that was damaged in a crash. Thus, if your dealership purchases a used car that was originally equipped with an air bag pursuant to Standard No. 208, and the air bag was deployed before your dealership took possession of the car, Federal law does not require your dealership to replace the deployed air bag with a funct ioning air bag before you resell the car.

Despite the absence of any requirement in Federal law, dealers may still be required by State law to replace deployed air bags, or they may be liable for failing to do so. You should be aware that the individual States have authority to require that use d vehicles have certain equipment installed and functioning when the used vehicles are sold. You may wish to contact the State of Illinois to learn if there are any applicable laws or regulations that would apply in these circumstances. Additionally, y ou may wish to consult a private attorney familiar with the law in the State of Illinois regarding potential liability in tort for your dealership in these circumstances. While such issues are beyond this agency's area of legal expertise, we do note tha t every State provides for some degree of civil liability for consumer products and repair work. The potential for finding a car dealer liable may be greater when that dealer sells a used vehicle without one of the originally-installed safety systems in tact and functional.

As a final note, and in addition to the legal considerations, it is NHTSA's strong policy recommendation that dealers always replace air bags following deployment, unless the vehicle is to be junked. Indeed, we have long recommended the repair, restorat ion, or replacement of all safety systems that may have been damaged in a crash, including the safety belts and brakes, as well as the air bag systems now being installed in passenger cars.

While air bags are in some respects "supplemental" to safety belts, in that the air bags provide additional protection, the air bags are nevertheless vitally important to the vehicle's overall capability to protect occupants in a crash. Those vehicles ar e designed so that the air bag will always work, even if the safety belt is not worn; and the safety belt system is designed to work in conjunction with the air bag in serious frontal crashes. Additionally, the consumer information available to the purc haser of the used car described in your letter -- in the vehicle owner's manual, from the carmaker and insurance companies, and from NHTSA and other safety groups -- would identify the car as one equipped with a driver-side air bag. The purchaser may we ll expect a used car to provide the safety equipment that was provided by the original manufacturer.

In short, from the standpoints of auto safety, dealer risk management, consumer protection, customer relations, and good business practices, NHTSA strongly advocates the replacement of deployed air bags.

I hope this information is useful. If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht90-1.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/01/90 EST

FROM: DAVID R. MARTIN

TO: NHTSA OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 05/17/90 FROM STEPHEN D. WOOD -- NHTSA TO DAVID R. MARTIN; REDBOOK A35; STANDARD 301; STANDARD 217

TEXT: I have which to me, is a very urgent and important question. To preface my question, I'd like to tell you that I was in the Navy in the early 1940's and was aboard a ship that exploded, and burned fiercely when strucks by a tarpedo.

Unfortunately, at the present time, I'm in the custody of the Florida Department of Corrections, the reason for which I do not believe is pertenant to my question.

The Department of Corrections operates a huge fleet of vans. The inmates of the system, when transported in these vans, rear handcuffs, waist-chains, and leg-irons. The vans themselves have steel mesh welded to all the windows, and a steel mesh part ition between the passenger compartment and the driver area. The vans are also padlocked from the outside, when in transit.

Having had first hand experience with a fuel (Illegible Word) fire, I am wondering how could the compliance by the department of Corrections with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 301 be ascertained? Is thero any way that your department can verify compliance?

I would appreciate your checking this out for me, and advising me as to your findings. (Illegible Lines)