ID: nht92-2.31

DATE: 11/13/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: MARK W. STEVENS -- CHAIRMAN, SEATMORE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10-2-92 FROM MARK W. STEVENS TO PAUL J. RICE (OOC 7809)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of October 2, 1992 requesting information on standards applicable to an "after market 3rd rear facing seat for the Ford- Taurus and Mercury Sable station wagons 1986-1993." During an October 20, 1992 phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff you explained that in most instances these seats are sold for installation in used vehicles, by either the owner or by a dealer or repair business. You also stated that the seat might be installed by a dealer prior to the vehicle's sale. Your three questions and the answer to each follows.

Before I address the substance of your letter, I note that your letter requested that the product information enclosed with your letter be treated as confidential. Your request for confidentiality was denied in an October 27, 1992 letter signed by Kathleen DeMeter, our Assistant Chief Counsel for General Law. Accordingly, the product information enclosed with your letter has been placed in NHTSA's public docket, along with your letter and this reply.

1. Does the aftermarket 3rd rear facing station wagon system have to be tested in compliance with FMVSS 207, 209, & 210?

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. Section 108 (a) (1) (A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397 (a) (1) (A) prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products.

Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish five safety standards which could be applicable to a 3rd rear facing vehicle seat: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, and Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials.

Standard No. 209 sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies. This standards applies to all seat belt assemblies for use in motor vehicles, regardless of whether the belts are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as replacements. Hence, any seat belts installed on the 3rd rear facing seat have to be certified as complying with Standard No. 209.

The remaining four standards apply only to new vehicles. If the 3rd rear facing seat were installed before the vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale, the vehicle would have to be certified as complying with all applicable standards, including these four, with the 3rd rear facing seat installed. Standard No. 207 establishes strength and other performance requirements for vehicle seats. Standard No. 208 sets forth requirements for occupant protection at the various seating positions in vehicles. Standard No. 210 establishes strength and location requirements for seat belt anchorages. Finally, Standard No. 302 specifies burn resistance requirements for materials used in motor vehicles, specifically including seat cushions, seat backs, and seat belts.

After a vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale; i.e., the first retail sale of the vehicle, 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 vehicle safety standard.

Any violation of this "render inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation. Please note that the "render inoperative" prohibition does not require manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses to certify that vehicles continue to comply with the safety standards after any aftermarket modifications are made. Instead, "render inoperative" prohibits those entities from performing aftermarket modifications that they know or should know will result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards.

Please note also that the "render inoperative" prohibition does not apply to modifications vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners install your company's 3rd seat in their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their own vehicles.

2. The seat belt anchorages are Ford factory anchorages built into the car at the factory and designed for the Ford factory 3rd seat and seat belts. We will be using the same anchorages with aftermarket seat belts already in compliance. Is a test required for this system?

As noted above, if these 3rd seats are installed in a vehicle prior to the vehicle's first sale for purposes other than resale, the vehicle must be certified as complying with all applicable safety standards with the 3rd seat installed. NHTSA's position on what steps manufacturers must take before certifying that their vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards has been often stated and applies with equal force in your situation. The compliance test procedures set forth in the safety standards must be followed by this agency during our compliance testing. With respect to your company's 3rd seats, this means that NHTSA's compliance testing for the vehicle would be conducted using the test procedures set forth in the relevant safety standard or standards.

Manufacturers certifying compliance with the safety standards are not required to follow exactly the compliance test procedures set forth in the applicable standard. In fact, manufacturers are not required to conduct any actual testing before certifying that their products comply with applicable safety standards. However, to avoid liability for civil penalties if the vehicle were determined not to comply with a safety standard, the Safety Act requires the certifying manufacturer to exercise "due care" to assure compliance and in making its certification. It may be simplest for the manufacturer to establish that it exercised "due care" if the manufacturer has conducted testing that strictly followed the compliance test procedures set forth in the standard. However, "due care" might also be shown by using modified test procedures, engineering analyses, computer simulations, and the like. Thus, the entity that installs your company's 3rd seat in a vehicle prior to the vehicle's first sale will have to decide for itself, in the first instance, what information it needs to make its certification in the exercise of "due care."

If the 3rd seat were installed after the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale, no certification would be required. Instead, any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair shop that performed the installation would have to ensure that the installation did not "render inoperative" compliance with any applicable safety standard. Actual testing is not required to avoid violating the "render inoperative" prohibition. Instead, your company could carefully examine your product and the proposed installation instructions and compare those with the requirements of the safety standards, to determine if installing your product in accordance with your instructions would result in the vehicle no longer complying with the standards.

3. If testing is required, must they be specifically Static Tested or Dynamic Crash Tested?

Testing is required only in agency compliance testing, as explained above. Agency testing must be conducted in accordance with the test procedures specified in the applicable standard. I note, however, that the dynamic crash testing requirement in Standard No. 208 applies only to the front outboard seating positions.

For your information, I have enclosed a sheet for new manufacturers that identifies the basic requirements of our standards and regulations, as well as how to get copies of those standards and regulations. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-2.32

DATE: 11/13/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNCEL, NHTSA; UNDER SECRETARY -- MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, KUWAIT

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER FROM UNDER SECRETARY, KUWAIT MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY TO PAUL J. RICE

TEXT: Due to some information received by the ministry that there are some companies who were dumping some defected and regected tyres in the area and for the safety of vehicles passengers the Ministry of Commerce & Industry had issued the Ministrial Degree no 3/1982 requiring that all imported vehicles tyres must be brand new and complying with international standards and that every shipment of such tyres must be accompanied by quality certificate issued by independent officially recognize body as an authority which has an ability of testing and prooving the quality of these tyres in accordance with these standards.

Accordingly we have received the certificates of quality from many authorized agencies from different countries and most of these certificates are valid for aperiod of time (One year - two years)

For U.S.A. we have not been able to obtain such certificate and the only certificate we are receiving now from a company named Societe Generale de Surveillance (SGS) which issued certificate for each shipment separetally and which does only visual test and not actual labrotary testing.

In order to obtain information concerning regulations and standards for motor relicles we have contacted the USA embassy in kuwait who has supplied us with standards NO, 569, 571.109, 571.110, 571.117, 571.119, 571.120, 571.129, 574.1 - 6, 575.1 - 7, 575.101 - 104, which have been issued by your administration.

This responds to your letter concerning United States tire regulations. You stated that some companies have been reported to be dumping defective and rejected tires in your country. In response to that situation, the Ministry of Commerce and Industry issued a decree requiring that all imported tires must be new, must comply with international standards, and must be accompanied by a quality certificate issued by an independent, officially recognized authority which has the capability of testing and proving the quality of the tires in accordance with the standards. You stated that you have been unable to obtain such a certificate from the United States, but have received one from a company called Societe Generale de Surveillance, which issues a certificate for each shipment separately and does only visual tests and not laboratory testing. You stated that you have studied this agency's tire standards and posed a series of questions to us which I will endeavor to answer below.

By way of background information, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, ("Safety Act," 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. Tires are considered motor vehicle equipment. All motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards. Manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must certify that their products meet all applicable safety standards.

All new tires sold in the United States for use on passenger cars must be certified as complying with Standard No. 109 (49 CFR Part 571.109), and all new tires sold for use on other motor vehicles must be certified as complying with Standard No. 119 (49 CFR Part 571.119). These standards specify performance requirements (strength, endurance, high speed performance, and for passenger car tires only, resistance to bead unseating), marking requirements (treadwear indicators and labeling information), and tire and rim matching information requirements.

The process of certifying compliance with the applicable safety standards under the Safety Act is considerably different in the United States than in other countries. For example, the European nations require manufacturers to deliver tires to a governmental entity for testing. After the governmental entity tests the tires, the government approves those tires for use and assigns an approval code to the tires. The Safety Act, on the other hand, establishes a "self-certification" process for tires sold in the United States. Under this process, the tire manufacturer, not a governmental entity, certifies that its tires comply with applicable safety standards.

The Safety Act does not require that a manufacturer base its certification on a specified number of tests. A manufacturer is only required to exercise due care in certifying its tires. It is the responsibility of the individual tire manufacturer to determine initially what test results, computer simulations, engineering analyses, or other information it needs to enable it to certify that its tires comply with Federal tire safety standards. Once a manufacturer has determined that its tires meet all requirements of the safety standards, it certifies such compliance by molding the letters "DOT" onto at least one sidewall of each certified tire.

This agency does not perform any pre-sale testing or approval of tires. Rather, NHTSA randomly tests certified tires to determine whether the tires do, in fact, comply with applicable standards. For these enforcement checks, NHTSA purchases tires "off the shelf" from retail tire dealers and tests those tires according to the procedures specified in the standards. If the tires pass the tests, no further action is taken. If the tires fail the tests and are determined not to comply with the standards, the tire manufacturer is required to recall the tires and remedy the noncompliance without charge.

With the above background in mind, I now turn to your specific questions:

1. Must all tires manufactured and sold in the United States bear the "DOT" mark? Answer: Yes, assuming that the tires are intended for use on motor vehicles. The "DOT" symbol molded onto at least one side of the tire is the manufacturer's certification that that tire complies with all applicable safety standards.

2. What are the bases for granting the right to use the "DOT" mark by tire manufacturers? Answer: The use of the "DOT" symbol on tires is a requirement imposed on tire manufacturers and not a right which is granted.

3. Is the "DOT" symbol required for tires intended both for domestic consumption and for export? Answer: NHTSA's safety standards do not apply to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment which are intended solely for export. Therefore, the "DOT" symbol is required only for tires intended for use in the United States.

4. Is there a validity time for the use of the "DOT" symbol? Answer: No. The symbol constitutes the manufacturer's certification that, at the time a new tire is manufactured, that tire complies with all applicable Federal safety standards.

5. What is the relationship between your administration and the Department of Transportation concerning the implementation of the "DOT" symbol? Answer: NHTSA is a subordinate agency of the United States Department of Transportation.

6. What are the legal responsibilities of manufacturers by using the "DOT" symbol? Answer: As indicated above, by placing the "DOT" symbol on a tire the manufacturer certifies that, under the provisions of the Safety Act, the tire complies with all applicable Federal safety standards.

7. What are the responsibilities of manufacturers in case of violations of the "DOT" symbol's role? Answer: If a tire is determined not to comply with a safety standard, the manufacturer is required to remedy the noncompliance without charge. In addition, violations of Safety Act provisions may result in civil fines.

I hope that the information in this letter is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions, however, please feel free to contact Mr. Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992, FAX (202) 366-3820.

ID: nht92-2.33

DATE: 11/13/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: EDNA SUTLIEF -- PROJECT CONCERN

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER (NHTSA AUTO SAFETY HOTLINE) DATED 9-30-92 FROM EDNA SUTLIEF TO CHARLES GAUTHIER (OCC 7810)

TEXT: This responds to your request to the NHTSA's Auto Safety Hotline for information on Federal regulations concerning safety belts and tiedowns for vans used for transporting disabled and senior citizens. Your specific concerns relate to whether Federal law mandates safety belt use in these vans. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations to you.

Federal laws administered by this agency regulate the manufacture and sale of new vehicles. It leaves the individual States free to address questions about the registration and operation of vehicles within their borders. Questions about whether persons are required to use their safety belts while riding in a motor vehicle relate to the operation of a vehicle, and are thus addressed by the individual States, not the Federal government. Accordingly, your question about whether passengers riding in your vans must use their safety belts is one that should be addressed to the State of Kansas. I note, however, that while the Federal government leaves these questions of requirements in this area to the individual States, this agency strongly encourages the use of safety belts by all persons in a vehicle every time they ride in a vehicle.

In addition, if your organization is subject to the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act, regulations implementing that Act require installation of wheelchair securement devices and passenger seat belts and shoulder harnesses. For further information concerning the regulations implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act you should contact: Robert C. Ashby, C-50, Office of the General Counsel, Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh St. SW, Washington, DC 20590.

It might be helpful for me to set out the Federal requirements for new motor vehicles. A provision of Federal law, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act), authorizes this agency to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, which set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. It is a violation of Federal law for any person to manufacture or sell any new vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that does not comply with all applicable safety standards.

Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, requires safety belts to be installed at "designated seating positions." The specified requirements for belt installation vary, depending on the particular vehicle type and seating position within the vehicle. However, Standard No. 208 would not require installation of a safety belt at a wheelchair securement location, because such a location would not be a "designated seating position," as that term is defined in 49 CFR 571.3. Furthermore, none of the other Federal motor vehicle safety standards require installation of, or set forth performance requirements for, wheelchair securement devices.

If a safety belt is installed at a wheelchair securement location, either voluntarily or pursuant to another state or federal requirement, the safety belt must comply with the requirements of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. Standard No. 209 sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies as separate items of motor vehicle equipment.

The Safety Act also requires that manufacturers of "motor vehicle equipment" notify purchasers and repair at no cost to the purchasers equipment that is determined to contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety. Wheelchair securement devices are items of "motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of the Safety Act. Hence, manufacturers of wheelchair securement devices are obliged to notify and remedy without charge any defects related to motor vehicle safety that occur in their products. You may also be interested to learn that this agency currently has a rulemaking pending to set forth performance requirements for wheelchair securement devices. While this proposal relates only to wheelchair securement devices installed in school buses, I am enclosing a copy of the notice of proposed rulemaking for your information.

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

ID: nht92-2.34

DATE: November 12, 1992

FROM: P.R. Smorra -- Group Vice President, Chrysler Corporation

TO: Administrator -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/9/93 from John Womack to Patrick R. Smorra (A40; Part 555)

TEXT:

Chrysler Corporation is considering a program in which a foreign national could purchase a Chrysler vehicle through a dealer in their country but take delivery of it in the United States so they could use it while on vacation in the States. At the conclusion of their vacation the vehicle would be shipped to them in their home country.

In order to implement this program and export a Chrysler product which is certified in our customer's home market the vehicle would not comply with all U.S. regulations (including EPA and FMVSS). Chrysler International is requesting a variance to these vehicle requirements for the purpose of temporary use by our vacationing customers.

Chrysler has been very aggressive in relaunching our international efforts over the past five years. In 1993 we expect to sell over 100,000 vehicles overseas. We are confident that this program will further contribute to our international growth.

Please advise me if you require additional information in order to grant this variance. Relative to this variance, please clarity two issues: If, upon the expiration of the variance, the vehicle has not left the U.S., who is responsible for the delinquency? In the unlikely event that this vehicle has an accident in which it is deemed undriveable, who is responsible for its disposition?

Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to your reply.

ID: nht92-2.35

DATE: 11/11/92

FROM: DAVID KENNEDY -- W.Y. MOBERLY, INC.

TO: OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-10-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO DAVID KENNEDY (A40; STD. 120); ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-30-82 FROM FRANK BERNDT TO KENNETH M. BUSH

TEXT: I am respectfully requesting an interpretation on a specific regulation that deals with Motorcycles and Other Three Wheeled Vehicles.

My client, Lehman Industries from Westlock Alberta Canada, manufactures a "Gold Wing Trike Conversion Kit". The "Kit" consists of a prefabricated fiberglass rear end assembly, complete with brakes, drums, brake lines, 15" tires and rims. The prefabricated fiberglass rear end assembly, is attached to a specific year of Honda Gold Wing Motorcycle. The rear end of the Honda Gold Wing motorcycle is taken apart, and my clients rear end assembly is attached in place of the existing one. When the rear end assembly is attached, certain modifications must be made, the drive shaft is removed, the entire rear wheel is taken off the seat, and all of the moulding etc. that was originally supplied with the Honda. In their place, my clients prefabricated rear end assembley is installed, by bolting, and changing the frame. Once the prefabricated rear end assembly is installed, a rear differential is installed as well, allowing the utilization of regular 15" automotive tires and rims. I have enclosed a picture of a completed "Trike" to show the automotive tires and rims.

Please note that my client in Canada only sells the kits, I have also enclosed a parts list for the "Kits" which shows all of the parts that are included to the purchaser. It is up to the purchaser to install the "Kit" onto the existing Honda Gold Wing. Leheman Industries normally do not do the installation. When Lehaman Industries do the installation they supply the purchaser with a "modified vehicle label" certifing that the modified vehicle conforms to all applicable Motor Vehicle Safety Standards in effect on the date of modification.

The "Kits" are shipped to the actual "end users" they are not shipped to a wholesale [Illegible Word] they are shipped in a disassembled condition, except the rims and tires are attached to the rear differential, and the prefabricated rear end assembly is attached to the differential. The rubber brake hose has the DOT certification on it, as prescribed by law, the tail light lenses have the DOT certification on it as prescribed by law, the 15" automotive tires of the DOT certification on it as prescribed by law, the rims however do not, as they are actually 15" automotive rims. They are not actual motorcycle rims. I understand that motorcycle rim have got to have the DOT certification on them, but in this circumstance, do these specific rims need it? I have enclosed a statement from Lehmans supplier of the wheels as well as a technical data sheet. I relize that it is mostly in German, I was unable to obtain one that in English.

Thank you for your attention in this matter, any clarification that you can give will be greatly appreciated. Lehaman Industries are waiting to continue shipping to their customers in the U.S. based on your reply. Please contact myself if you require any additional information.

ATTACHMENTS (PHOTOS, PARTS LIST AND STATEMENT OMITTED.)

ID: nht92-2.36

DATE: 11/10/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY JOHN WOMACK

TO: WILBUR D. OWENS, III, ESQUIRE -- BOUHAN, WILLIAMS & LEVY, ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 9-15-92 FROM WILBUR D. OWENS, III TO OFFICE OF VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS, NHTSA (OCC 7761)

TEXT: This responds to your letter dated September 15, 1992, to the Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), regarding Phelps v. General Motors, et al. Reference is also made to your telephone conversation with Mr. Walter Myers of my staff on October 15, 1992.

You stated in your letter that your firm represents defendant Grumman Olson in the Phelps lawsuit which arose out of injuries suffered by the plaintiff while operating a 14-foot Grumman Kurbmaster manufactured in 1977. After explaining the theory of the plaintiff's cause of action, you stated that you have looked at current regulations, your main areas of interest being 49 CFR 571.201 through 571.220, and requested our assistance in obtaining those regulations from 1977. You pointed out that in those regulations there are a number of exceptions for walk-in vans, and you asked whether the 14-foot Kurbmaster would be considered a truck or a walk-in van, or both.

Please find enclosed, as requested, copies of 49 CFR 571.201 through 220 that were in effect as of October 1, 1977, duly certified as official Federal government documents to make them admissible in Federal court. As Mr. Myers explained to you by telephone, the cost for these copies, as certified, is $ 30.72. Pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR Part 7, this charge represents one hour of search time at a cost of $ 22.22 per hour, plus copying fee of ten cents per page x 85 pages. Please remit a check in that amount, payable to Treasurer of the United States, to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Office of Financial Management, Room 6134, 400 Seventh Street S.W., Washington, D. C. 20590. To ensure that your account will be properly credited, please annotate your check with "NCC-20."

Before responding to your question about the classification of the 14-foot Kurbmaster, a bit of background information is in order. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. @ 1381, et seq. (Safety Act), authorizes the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. All motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards. In accordance with 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must certify that their products comply with all such standards.

Motor vehicles are, and were as of 1977, classified according to six basic types: passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, and motorcycles. Each type is defined in 49 CFR 571.3. Each safety standard applies to specified types of motor vehicles and/or motor vehicle equipment. Thus, manufacturers must first classify their vehicles in order to ascertain which safety standards apply and then certify that those vehicles meet all applicable standards. For that reason, NHTSA neither classifies vehicles nor does it approve or endorse any vehicle classification before the manufacturer has done so. NHTSA may, however, reexamine the manufacturer's classification during the course of enforcement proceedings. I note that, in the case of the 1977 14-foot Kurbmaster, there have been no enforcement proceedings.

The classification given the 1977 14-foot Kurbmaster by the manufacturer will be found on the certification label required by 49 CFR 567.4(a), and NHTSA has not reviewed or taken issue with that classification. Assuming it was classified as a truck, a truck was in 1977, and still is, defined in 49 CFR 571.3 as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment."

As you noted in your letter, certain of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards exclude "walk-in vans" from their coverage. See, e.g., paragraph S2, Standard 203, Impact Protection for the Driver from the Steering Control System (49 CFR 571.203). The term "walk-in van" is commonly used and understood within the motor vehicle industry, and for many years the Federal motor vehicle safety standards did not include any definition of the term. I note, however, that in a recent rulemaking which extended Standard No. 214, Side Impact Protection, to light trucks, buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles, the agency added a definition of "walk-in van" to that standard. Effective September 1, 1993, Standard No. 214 defines "walk-in van" as "a van in which a person can enter the occupant compartment in an upright position." See S2.1.

I hope this information will be helpful to you. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-2.37

DATE: 11/10/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY JOHN WOMACK

TO: TIM BOHN -- PORTEC, INC., CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT DIVISION

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 9-17-92 FROM TIM BOHN TO CHIEF COUNCILS OFFICE, NHTSA (OCC 7765)

TEXT: This responds to your inquiry about whether portable construction equipment that you manufacture would have to comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, particularly those standards related to brakes. You explained that your construction equipment is transported over public roads, but only between job sites and from the factory. In a telephone conversation with Marvin Shaw of my staff, you further described your equipment as a portable conveyor belt that typically spends extended periods of time at a single construction site but is occasionally towed over the public roads to other construction sites. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

This agency interprets and enforces the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act under which the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards are promulgated. The Act defines the term "motor vehicle" as follows:

"any 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."

Whether the agency will consider a construction vehicle to be a motor vehicle depends on its use. It is the agency's position that this statutory definition does not encompass mobile construction equipment, such as cranes and scrapers, which use the highway only to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site. In such cases, the on-highway use of the vehicle is merely incidential and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured. In instances where vehicles, such as dump trucks, frequently use the highway going to and from job sites, and stay at a job site for only a limited time, such vehicles are considered motor vehicles for purposes of the Safety Act, since the on-highway use is more than "incidental."

Based on the above considerations, it appears that your portable conveyer belt is not a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of the Safety Act. Therefore, it would not be subject to our Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. This conclusion is based on your statements that your equipment spends extended periods of time at a single construction site and only uses the public roads infrequently to move between job sites. Thus, the agency would consider the use of your portable conveyor belt on the public roads to be incidental and not its primary purpose.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, plese feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-2.38

DATE: 11/10/92

FROM: BARRY FELRICE -- ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR RULEMAKING, NHTSA

TO: DENNIS T. JOHNSTON -- ENGINEERING PLANNING AND LIAISON MANAGER, ROVER GROUP NORTH AMERICAN ENGINEERING OFFICE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 8-12-92 FROM DENNIS T. JOHNSTON TO NHTSA ADMINISTRATOR

TEXT: This responds to your document dated August 12, 1992, which was characterized as either a petition for reconsideration or a request for interpretation, depending on our response. The document concerned a final rule published in the Federal Register (57 FR 30917) on July 13, 1992, which responded to petitions for reconsideration concerning the extension of Standard No. 214's quasi-static side door strength requirements to light trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles (collectively referred to as LTV's). As discussed below, we are treating your document as a comment on a related January 1992 notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), and not a petition, because your concerns relate to a possible future final rule based on that NPRM.

By way of background information, NHTSA extended Standard No. 214's quasi-static side door strength requirements to LTV's in a final rule published on June 14, 1991. In the preamble to the final rule, the agency stated that it intended to propose amendments to the standard in the near future to clarify the test procedure for two types of doors, double-opening doors and doors without windows. NHTSA's NPRM was subsequently published in the Federal Register (57 FR 1716) on January 15, 1992.

As discussed in the January 1992 NPRM, the agency determined that clarification of the test procedure was needed for certain contoured doors, as well as for double-opening doors and doors without windows. Standard No. 214's test procedure works well when a door's lower edge is essentially horizontal along its entire length, or only a small portion of the door's lower edge deviates from that description by being contoured upward. Almost all passenger cars have doors of these types. However, as discussed in the January 1992 NPRM, the standard's test procedure is not appropriate when only a small portion of a door's lower edge is horizontal and the edge is contoured significantly upwards for a large part of the door. Some LTV's have such doors.

The NPRM therefore proposed amendments to clarify the test procedure for contoured doors.

The comments closing date for the January 1992 NPRM was March 16, 1992. The agency has not yet reached a decision concerning a possible final rule. On July 13, 1992, however, NHTSA published its response to a petition for reconsideration of the initial final rule extending Standard No. 214's side door strength requirements to LTV's. The petition requested that the agency phase-in the new requirements instead of applying them to all of the newly covered vehicles simultaneously. As part of its response to that petition, NHTSA delayed by one year the effective date for double opening cargo doors, doors with no windows, and certain contoured doors on those vehicles.

In your August 12, 1992 letter, you noted that the July 1992 final rule delayed the effective date of the side door strength requirements for doors for which the ratio of the width of the lowest portion of the door to the width of the door at its widest point is not greater than 0.5. You expressed concern that, in a possible final rule based on the January 1992 NPRM, the agency might use a discriminator other than the 0.5 ratio for determining which contoured doors must conform to particular tests. You stated that this could have significant cost impacts on your company.

While you characterize your document as a possible petition for reconsideration of the July 1992 final rule, the only concerns you raise relate to a possible final rule based on the January 1992 NPRM. Therefore, we do not consider your document to be a petition for reconsideration.

I note that the use of the 0.5 ratio in the July 1992 final rule was not intended as a signal concerning the final action the agency may take on the January 1992 NPRM. As indicated above, the current Standard No. 214 test procedure only creates problems for contoured doors which have a significant degree of contour. In order to delay the effective date for those doors and not ones that have only a small degree of contour, it was necessary to specify a definition. The agency selected the 0.5 ratio to ensure that the effective date was delayed for contoured doors which have a significant degree of contour.

We will consider your August 1992 submission as a comment on the January 1992 NPRM. A copy of this correspondence is being placed in the public docket.

ID: nht92-2.39

DATE: November 10, 1992

FROM: Duane Bartels -- Commercial Vehicle Inspector III, MN State Patrol

TO: Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-21-93 from John Womack to Duane Bartels (A41; Part 566; Part 567)

TEXT: A person in the State of Minnesota has requested to change the seating in a 12 or 15 passenger van to a maximum of 10 passenger. This would change the original manufacturers rating of a "Bus" because the vehicle carries more than 10 to a vehicle classification of "MPV" which is designed to carry 10 or less persons.

His proposal to do this type of work is to remove and or modify seats so the van can only carry a maximum of 10 people. When seats are removed all fastening devices and holes in the floor will be removed or covered as not to allow a seat to be readily put back in the vehicle. When a seat is modified he either modifies the seat frame or does upholstery work to reduce the number of people that can sit in the seat. (ie: a 3 passenger seat to a 2 passenger seat or a 4 passenger seat to a 3 passenger seat). Extra seat belts are removed to comply with the new seating. There is no other work done to the structure of the vehicle.

This person will then affix an additional label of the type and in the manner as prescribed in 49 CFR 567.4.

By doing the above work to a vehicle, this person believes he is allowed to do such work and recertify the vehicle according to 49 CFR 567.7. 49 CFR 567.7 are requirements for persons who alter a certified vehicle by other than addition, substitution or removal of readily attachable components.

Before he is given permission to do this type of work, some questions need to be answered.

1. By doing this altering to seats, is he doing enough work to the vehicle to qualify under 49 CFR 567.7?

2. Will this person become a manufacturer and if so, does he need to comply with 49 CFR 566.5?

3. Can he purchase a new vehicle, do the altering and resell the vehicle or must an owner bring the vehicle to him and have the altering done?

4. Can this altering and recertifying be done only to a new vehicle or can this be done to a used vehicle?

Please review 49 CFR 567.7 and return back to me your opinion on the questions I have listed.

Thank you in advance for your help in this matter.

ID: nht92-2.4

DATE: 11/25/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: KEVIN MITCHELL -- GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 9-21-92 FROM KEVIN MITCHELL TO PAUL J. RICE (OCC 7759)

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking about the hydraulic brake hose labeling requirements (S5.2) of FMVSS 106, Brake Hoses. You indicated that your current brake hoses have two stripes, on opposite sides of the hose. Each of the stripes is interrupted by a line of information. One line, which you call the "DOT print line," contains the information required by FMVSS 106. The other line, which you call the "SAE print line," contains certain information not required by FMVSS 106, including "batch and shift" information.

You asked whether it is permissible to place the batch and shift information (consisting of a mark such as "AA") on the DOT print line. You stated that moving the batch and shift mark to the DOT print line would improve the legibility of the SAE print line. This is because better print materials could be used in the SAE print line if that legend did not contain a mark that must be updated on a daily or more frequent basis, such as the batch and shift mark. As discussed below, the batch and shift information may not be placed on the same line as the required information.

NHTSA's longstanding position, stated in past rulemaking notice preambles (e.g., 39 FR 7425, February 26, 1974; 39 FR 24012, June 28, 1974), is that the DOT print line may only contain the required information. The striping requirement (S5.2.1) of FMVSS 106 states that one of the requisite stripes on a brake hose "may be interrupted by the information required by S5.2.2, and the other stripe may be interrupted by additional information at the manufacturer's option." We interpret this to mean that the stripe that is interrupted by the required information may not be interrupted by information voluntarily provided by the manufacturer. This conclusion is consistent with the preamble for the final rule establishing S5.2.1 (38 FR 31302, November 13, 1973), which refers to optional additional information as not being permitted in the legend that interrupts the first stripe. (That rule modified the labeling requirements to permit interruption of the second stripe with the optional information.) NHTSA did not permit optional information to be mixed with the required information because the mixture of optional and required labeling could obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information, or interfere with the appearance of complete labeling on some hose assemblies.

For your information, we have enclosed the Federal Register documents cited above. Please contact Ms. Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions.