ID: nht88-1.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/09/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Karen Hastie Williams -- Crowell & Moring

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Karen Hastie Williams Crowell & Moring 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20004-2505

This is in reply to your letter of December 1, 1987, on behalf of your client, LTV Aerospace, and its predecessor, AM General. You have asked that we reconsider our letter of January 12, 1987, in which we informed AM General that we would consider certai n military vehicles "motor vehicles" for purposes of notification and remedy in the event they are discovered to have safety related defects. You have also asked for the opportunity to meet with us at our earliest convenience.

Because AM General had stated that the vehicles in question are designed to be used 60% of the time on primary and secondary roads, our letter concluded that tactical military vehicles such as the M998 Series 1 1/4 ton truck, the 2 1/2 ton M44 Series, an d the 5-ton M809 and M939 Series trucks are "motor vehicles". You believe that this interpretation was based upon "inadequate and misleading information", for the following reasons, paraphrased as follows:

1. The trucks are designed to military specifications and built for the military alone.

2. The government rejects a warranty concept and substitutes its own inspection and quality control standards.

3. Under the inspection clause, AM General must deliver trucks that meet contractual performance requirements and correct problem areas identified by the government.

4. AM General must comply with a performance safety standard (MIL-STD-1180B) comparable to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

5. No safety purpose is served by "superimposing" a notification and remedy requirement where there is only a single purchaser, where no warranty relationship exists, and where remedies for defective products are identified by the government and remedy i mplemented by the company under the terms of the contract.

6. The vehicles are defined in part as "seldom capable of maintaining normal highway speeds" and "usually operated in convoy on public highways".

In consideration of the foregoing you have asked for an interpretation that concludes that military tactical vehicles are specifically designed to meet military specifications and are not manufactured primarily for highway use, that they are not subject to the notice and remedy provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the "Act"), and that they are exempt from compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

We have reconsidered our interpretation in light of the arguments you have presented. For both legal and policy reasons we affirm that the trucks in question are "motor vehicles" as defined by 15 U.S.C. 139113), that vehicles produced to military specifi cations are exempt from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (49 CFR 571.7(c)), but that they are subject to statutory notification and remedy provisions in the event that they incorporate a safety related defect.

Specifically, the sole legal criterion that the Act establishes to determine its jurisdiction is whether a vehicle is manufactured primarily for use on the public roads. From the information presented to us by AM General we concluded that the trucks in q uestion spend 60% of their operational life on primary and secondary roads, and that therefore they have been manufactured primarily for use on such public roads. You have not contested that assertion. It is immaterial to the Act's definition of "motor v ehicle" that a truck is produced under military specifications, without an express warranty, and for only a single purchaser.

Although Congress expressed no intent that military vehicles be excluded from the coverage of the Act, the agency determined for reasons of policy that vehicles manufactured pursuant to military specifications should be exempted from conformance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards issued under the authority of the Act. Comments received at the end of 1966 in response to the proposals for the initial standards raised the possibility that compliance in some instances could affect the capabilit y of equipment to fulfill its military mission, and therefore when the standards were adopted military vehicles were exempted under 49 CFR 571.7(c), but the agency relinquished no other jurisdiction over them. Indeed, the Department of Defense in apparen t recognition that its vehicles are "motor vehicles" has attempted to ensure that they conform with the Federal safety standards to the extent practicable, as evidenced by MIL-STD-1180B which you enclosed.

Finally, we cannot agree with your contention that no additional benefit would flow to the government by requiring notification and remedy for safety related defects in these vehicles. We understand that AM General is required to deliver vehicles free of defects and which meet contractual specifications, but we are uncertain whether, under the inspection clause, the government has a right to demand remedy once it has accepted delivery of the vehicle in the event that safety related defects manifest them selves in service. Such a right exists independently under the notification and remedy provisions of the Act (i.e. the Department of Defense may petition this agency for a determination that a safety related defect exists). Further, the manufacturer itse lf has a good faith obligation imposed by the Act to determine the existence of a safety related defect when the facts so indicate, and to effectuate notification and remedy. Such an obligation appears absent from the contractual responsibilities of a ma nufacturer in the materials you have quoted to us and the arguments you have made.

Because your letter contains information sufficient for us to affirm our earlier letter, we have concluded that a meeting will not be required to clarify any of the points you have made.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

December 1, 1987

Erika Z. Jones, Esq. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219 400 - 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 0590

Dear Ms. Jones:

On behalf of AM General and its successor, LTV Aerospace, this letter seeks further clarification of your January 12, 1987, communication to Donald Weiher, of AM General's Product Assurance Division. The January letter discussed the applicability of the notification and remedy provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, Pub. L. No. 89-563, S113, 80 Stat. 718 (amended 1974)(codified as amended at 15 U.S.C. SS1411-1420 (1976)) with respect to safety-related defects discovered in tactical, military vehicles.

AM General currently manufactures only military tactical vehicles for use by one customer, the Federal Government.1/ As we understand your decision, you base your conclusion as to the applicability of the Safety Act to military tactical vehicles on two g rounds.

1/ In June, 1987, AM General was terminated as a member of the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association ("MVMA") because ceased to meet the membership criteria. AM General failed to report the sale of any qualifying vehicles in its current fiscal year. T he MVMA Bylaws identify members as "corporations actually engaged in the manufacture and sale of motor vehicles in the United States" and define motor vehicles as "passenger cars, commercial cars, trucks, buses and similar self-propelled vehicles suitabl e for use on public highways, but not . . . combat or tactical vehicles sold for military purposes."

First, the generalization in Mr. Weiher's September 8, 1986 petition that states without documentation: ". . . all tactical vehicles are designed for cross-country (40%), secondary (30%) and primary (30%) roads . . ." Second, the Federal Highway Adminis trator's interpretation of the Safety Act definition of a motor vehicle in 34 Fed. Reg. 15416 (1969) that states: "that in the absence of clear evidence that as a practical matter a vehicle is not being, or will not be, used on the public streets, roads or highwa ys the operating capability of a vehicle is the most relevant factor in determining whether or not that vehicle is a motor vehicle under the Act."

We respectfully submit that the January interpretation of the regulation was based on inadequate and misleading information. We ask further that you reconsider that interpretation in light of the additional data and information presented herein:

1. The M998 Series, a 1 1/4-ton truck, and other tactical military trucks such as the 2 1/2-ton M44 Series and the 5-ton M809 and M939 Series are designed to military specifications and built for the military customer alone.

2. The Government rejects the warranty concept in its contractual arrangement and instead substitutes its own inspection and quality control standards (MIL-STD-1180). Attachment A.

3. Under the inspection clause, AM General must deliver trucks that meet the contractual performance requirements and correct problem areas identified by the Government.

4. Under the Government contract, AM General must comply with a performance safety standard (MIL-STD-1180) comparable to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

5. No federal regulatory or safety purpose is served by superimposing a notification and remedy requirement under Section 113 of the Safety Act (amended 1974) (current version at 15 U.S.C. 551411-1420), on these tactical military vehicles that must satis fy the federal specification.

. The Government is the only customer for these military tactical vehicles.

. No warranty relationship exists between the Government and seller.

. Remedy for performance failures or defective products are identified by the Government and implemented by the company under the terms of the contract.

. No additional benefit would flow to the Government.

. Expense of notification to the individual Government users would be significant and a waste of resources since any problems will be corrected under the contract.

While a theoretical generalization about operating capability may serve as an adequate generic description of tactical vehicles, the AM General military tactical vehicles are bought exclusively by the Government primarily for off-road, cross-country use. This fact is supported by the description of the vehicle contained in the contractual document, System Specification 3.1. (See Attachment B). The performance standards required by the contract also attest to the actual type of roads on which this milita ry tactical vehicle is used. Specifically, Section 3.1.2 of MIL-STD-1180B (the current version of MIL-STD-1180) states:

"High mobility tactical wheeled vehicles are expressly designed and built to Government specifications for the purpose of handling cargo while negotiating very rough terrain.... They are capable of operating in deep mud or snow, are often articulated, an d are seldom capable of maintaining normal highway speeds. They are usually operated in convoy on public highways. (emphasis added)

The reality of these circumstances overrides any theoretical operating capability characterization. Accordingly, the actual usage experience of these vehicles confirms that they are not designed, manufactured or intended for use primarily on public roads .

Based on the information and data presented herein, LTV Aerospace respectfully requests that you reconsider your January 12, 1987 guidance and reinstate the decisions of National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act non-applicability of February 19, 1986 and March 5, 1986 from the Office of Defects Investigation. Namely, with respect to the appropriate treatment of tactical military vehicles, we request that upon further consideration you issue a concurrence with the earlier decisions by the Office of D efects Investigation. We believe that the determination should conclude that:

o Military tactical vehicles are specifically designed to meet military specifications and are not manufactured primarily for highway use.

o These vehicles are not subject to the notice and recall provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 551411-1420 and are exempt from compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, 49 C.F.R. 5571.7(c) (1986).

Should you need any additional information, please contact me at the above number.

We would appreciate the opportunity to meet with you at your earliest convenience and await your affirmative action in support of this request.

Sincerely,

Karen Hastie Williams Counsel for AM General/LTV Aerospace

cc: Mr. Taylor Vinson, Office of the Chief Counsel

ID: nht88-1.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/01/88 EST

FROM: N. BOWYER -- LAND ROVER UK LIMITED

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

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10/14/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES TO N. BOWYER; REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 208, 209 LETTER DATED 04/19/88 FROM D. BRUCE HENDERSON TO OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL, NHTSA; OCC 1908

TEXT: Dear Sir,

I am writing on behalf of Land Rover UK Limited to request, from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 and No. 209. Land Rover UK Limited is a British company which markets its Range Rover model in the United States of America via its subsidiary, Range Rover of North America Inc.

On November 23, 1987, the NHTSA published a final rule amending FMVSS 208 - occupant crash protection. This final rule introduced dynamic test requirements for manual seat belts in both light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles. Part of this fina l rule introduced a new labelling requirement into FMVSS 209 - seat belt assemblies, and it is this requirement which we would like your interpretation on.

Paragraph S4.6.3. of FMVSS 208 is amended to read "a type of 2 seat belt assembly subject to the requirements of S4.6.1 or S4.6.2. (i.e. the dynamic test requirements) of this standard does not have to meet the requirements of S4.2(a) - (c) and S4.4. of Standard No. 209 (49CFR 571.209) of this part".

2

Paragraph S4.6(b) of FMVSS 209 is amended to read "a seat belt assembly that meets the requirements of S4.6. of the Standard No. 208 (49CFR 571.208) shall be permanently and legibly marked or labelled with the following statement: This dynamically tested seat belt assembly is for use only in (insert specific seating position(s), e.g. "front right") in (insert specific vehicle make(s) and model(s))".

These requirements appear to state that a manufacturer, at his option, can choose to fit seat belts which do not comply with some of the technical requirements of FMVSS 209, provided that they meet the dynamic test requirements of FMVSS 208. However, th ese amendments also imply that all seat belts which meet the dynamic test requirements must be labelled, in line with the amended FMVSS 209 requirements, regardless of whether or not they comply with all of the technical requirements of FMVSS 209.

Obviously, the NHTSA intended to ensure that seat belts which do not meet all the technical requirements of FMVSS 209, as allowed for in FMVSS 208, should be labelled, thereby ensuring that they are not installed into inappropriate vehicles. However, ou r reading is that the NHTSA did not intend the labelling requirements of FMVSS 209 to be applied to seat belts which comply with both the dynamic test requirements of FMVSS 208 and all of the technical requirements of FMVSS 209. After all, seat belts wh ich only comply with FMVSS 209 are not required to be labelled, so there is no reason to require seat belts which additionally meet the dynamic test requirements of FMVSS 208 need to be labelled. Is this not the correct interpretation of these requireme nts?

3

In considering this question, we would like to refer you to an NPRM which was issued by the NHTSA on December 29, 1987. This NPRM covers modifications to the headlamp requirements of FMVSS 108 and introduces a similar situation. The NPRM proposes simpl ifications to the headlamp requirements and also introduces a requirement that manufacturers supply information (i.e. part numbers) concerning the headlamps to the first purchaser. However, this NPRM proposes that the information is only supplied with v ehicles whose headlamps take advantage of the simplified requirements.

This example clearly indicates the intention to only require information on parts taking advantage of the relaxed requirements. Therefore, the labelling requirement of FMVSS 209 must be interpreted as follows:- 1) Dynamically tested seat belts which do not meet certain FMVSS 209 technical requirements, as allowed for in FMVSS 208, must be labelled in accordance with FMVSS 209 paragraph S4.6(b). 2) Dynamically tested seat belts which also comply with all of the technical requirements of FMVSS 209 need not meet the labelling requirements of FMVSS 209 paragraph S4.6(b).

If your interpretation is contrary to our understanding of the requirements, will you please treat this letter as a petition for rulemaking.

ID: nht88-1.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/10/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ms. Laura C. Boniske

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Laura C. Boniske 2928 Coconut Grove Drive Coral Gables, FL 33134

This responds to your letter asking for an interpretation of the

requirements of Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, as they apply to "materials used in the manufacture of an aftermarket product which will be utilized in the occupant compartment of a vehicle." In an October 27, 1987 telephone convers ation with Ms. Hom of my staff, you mentioned in particular an item of equipment consisting of a pad for cushioning safety belts. Generally speaking, items of motor vehicle equipment are not covered by Standard No. 302.

Standard No. 302 is a vehicle standard and as such applies to completed vehicles. No vehicle can be manufactured unless the materials used in it comply with the requirements of the standard. The general rule is that aftermarket products may be added to v ehicles, even if the addition of those products causes the vehicle to no longer comply with the requirements of Standard No. 302, without violating the requirements of Federal law.

This general rule is, however, limited by the application of the provisions of Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed). That section specifies: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repa ir 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 applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . ."NHTSA would consider t he installation of safety belt pads that do not meet the requirements of Standard No. 302 as "rendering inoperative" an element of design (flammability resistance) installed in accordance with an applicable Federal safety standard. Thus, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business that installed a safety belt pad which did not comply with the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302 would be rendering inoperative that element of design, and thereby violating sec tion 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. We note also that, since safety belts are safety devices installed in accordance with Safety Standards No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, those commercial businesses would be prohib ited from installing the safety belt pad if its installation would impair the effective operation of the belts. Section 109 of the Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of S108.

The prohibitions of S108(a)(2)(A) do not apply to the vehicle owner rendering inoperative some element of design in his or her vehicle. Therefore, aftermarket safety belt pads may be sold to a vehicle owner for installation in his or her vehicle regardle ss of whether the pad complies with the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302.

There are two factors which ought to be considered by the manufacturers of safety belt pads which do not satisfy the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302. First is the possibilities of liability under State and common law if those pad s were to catch fire in a situation where a pad complying with Standard No. 302 would not have caught fire, or if those pads burn much more rapidly than pads that comply with Standard No. 302. Second is the possibility of a finding of a safety-related de fect in your products. Sections 151-154 of the Safety Act require that, when an item or motor vehicle equipment contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer of the item must recall and repair or replace the defective equipment without charge to the purchaser. In any event, we urge you to ensure that your products would not negatively affect the safety provided by the underlying belt assembly.

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

LAURA CROVO BONISKE 2928 Coconut Grove Drive Coral Gables, Florida 33134

July 13, 1987

Erika Z. Jones, Esq. Chief Counsel, NHTSA 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Room 5219 Washington D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

Mr. Robert Williams suggested that I contact you regarding a legal interpretation as to Standard 302. Specifically, I need to know whether or not materials used in the manufacture of an aftermarket product which will be utilized in the occupant compartme nt of a vehicle are required by law to be fire retardant. The product will be detachable from the vehicle and when in use, a portion of the product will touch the body of the passenger or operator of the vehicle.

The favor of an early reply will be most appreciated.

Yours very truly,

Laura Crovo Boniske

LCB:jb

ID: nht88-1.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/11/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: MTD Products Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. J.V. McFadden President MTD Products Inc. P.O. Box 36900 Cleveland, Ohio 44136

Dear Mr. McFadden:

This responds to your letter concerning the applicability of Federal on State requirements to a hydraulic logsplitter mounted on a frame carriage equipped with highway high speed wheels and a trailer towing hitch. While we can not answer your question co ncerning applicable State requirements, we provide the following information on the applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

By way of background information, our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 D.S.C. 1381 et seq.), 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 commercial products. Instead, the Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is required to certify that its p roducts meet all applicable safety standards. The Vehicle Safety Act prohibits the manufacture or sale of a noncomplying product unless, despite the exercise of due care, the manufacturer doesn't have reason to know that the noncompliance exists.

Any vehicle that falls within the statutory definition of the term "motor vehicle" must comply with all applicable safety standards. Section 102(3) of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 D.S.C. 1391(3) defines a "motor vehicle" as any vehicle driven or drawn by m echanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

We have interpreted this language as follows. The definition does not include equipment which uses the highways only to move between job sites and which typically spends extended periods of time at a single job site. In this case, the on-highway use of t he vehicle is merely incidental, and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured.

On the other hand, when a vehicle frequently uses the highway going to and from job sites, and stays at the job site for only a limited time, it is the agency's position that the vehicle in question is a "motor vehicle" in the statutory sense, since the on-highway use is more than "incidental".

Notwithstanding the foregoing, a vehicle is not classified as a motor vehicle if it is of such an unusual configuration that it is easily distinguished from normal traffic and it has a top speed of not more than 20 miles per hour.

A determination of whether or not a vehicle falls within the definition of motor vehicle is based upon a consideration of all of the above factors. Given the information that you have provided us, it appears that the hydraulic log-splitter is a motor veh icle. From the picture in the brochure, it is clear that the vehicle has an unusual configuration. This alone, however, is not adequate to prevent a determination that the vehicle is a motor vehicle within the meaning of the statute. More important is th e fact that the vehicle may make frequent use of the highway, staying at one particular job site a limited amount of time. The provision of highway speed tires indicates the manufacturer's intention to produce a vehicle which is suitable for driving at h ighway speeds.

Because the tow-behind logsplitter is equipped with a trailer tow hitch, we would consider the vehicle a trailer, defined in the agency's regulations as:

a motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle.(See 49 CFR 571.3.)

The safety standards which apply to all trailers are Standard No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment: Standard No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars: and Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identificati on Number--Basic Requirements. The content requirements for the vehicle identification number are found at Part 565. In addition, if the trailer is equipped with brakes, it must meet Standard No. 106, Brake hoses, Standard No. 116, Motor vehicle brake fl uids, and applicable requirements of Standard No. 121, Air brake systems. All of these standards are found in 49 CFR Part 571.

We regret the delay in responding to your request. If you have further questions on this matter, please contact us.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of Chief Counsel 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, DC 20590

RE: Applicability of Highway Rules - Tow Behind Logsplitter

Gentlemen:

Your advice is requested relative to whether there are any federal or state requirements which would pertain to a hydraulic log-splitter mounted on a frame carriage equipped with highway high speed wheels and a trailer towing hitch.

We enclose product literature produced by Duerr Incorporated who inform us that this particular application does not fall within any regulations which would require lights, license plates, etc.

Very truly yours,

J.V. McFadden President

JVM/djm Enclosure: Product brochure

ID: nht88-1.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/11/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Joanne Salvio -- Fire Research Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 8/13/80 letter from F. Berndt to FWD Corporation (Std. 206)

TEXT: Ms. Joanne Salvio Fire Research Corporation 26 Southern Blvd. Nesconset, NY 11767

This responds to your November 10, 1987, letter asking whether the "Guardian Gate" your company manufactures for firefighting vehicles is subject to Safety Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components. The answer to your question is yes, if the Gate is installed on new vehicles and if the area into which the door leads contains one or more seating positions.

The advertising material you enclosed states that the Guardian Gate "is designed to help firefighters while they are riding to fires in the jump seat of apparatus (sic)." The advertisement said that the unique feature of the Guardian Gate is its locking mechanism which enables the gate to be locked "on both its sides to the vehicle; the cab side, as well as the pump panel side." The advertisement said this "dual locking" feature is intended to minimize the likelihood that the gate will be opened either unintentionally or because of "hazardous conditions" (an explanation of which the advertisement did not include).

Paragraph @4 of Standard No. 206 states: "Components on any side door leading directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommodations shall conform to this standard. 206, but these are doors that are readily removable or that are not provided for retaining occupants. Since the Guardian Gate falls into neither of these two categories, the exemptions are not relevant to your inquiry.)

From the information you provided in your letter and in telephone calls between you and Ms. Hom of my staff, we understand that the standing area on the firefighting vehicle enclosed by the Guardian Gate contains a jump seat. Because "seating accommodati ons" referred to in @4 include jump seats, a Guardian Gate that is installed to enclose a jump seat area on a new firefighting vehicle must comply with Standard No. 206. This determination is consistent with an August 13, 1980 letter from NHTSA to Mr. L. Steenbock of the FWD Corporation (copy enclosed), in which this agency stated that a door leading to a standing area that contains no seating position would not have to comply with Standard No. 206.

Because Standard No. 206 applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks (e.g., firefighting vehicles), and not to replacement parts for installation in used vehicles of these types, you may sell the Guardian Gate to vehicle owners without regard as to whether the Gate complies with the performance requirements of the standard. However, we urge you to consider meeting those requirements voluntarily, to ensure that the Gate will perform to specified levels for the safety of firefigh ters riding in the "jump seat area" of the vehicle. You should also be aware that you are responsible under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, to ensure that your product contains no defect re lating to motor vehicle safety. If you or this agency determines that a safety related defect exists, you must notify purchasers of your product of the defect and remedy the problem free of charge.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure - see 8/13/80 letter from Frank Berndt to FWD Corporation

TO: Ericka Jones, Chief Counsel, NHTSA

DATE: November 10, 1987

SUBJECT: Guardian Gate

As per my telephone conversation with Ms. Hom, I am enclosing a copy of our Guardian Gate literature. We are trying to determine whether it is necessary for us to meet Regulation #206 or whether it does not apply to our product.

Any help you can give us will be greatly appreciated.

Thank you,

Fire Research Corp. after year of development announces a new product for the fire service. This new gate is designed to help firefighters while they are riding to fires in the jump seat of apparatus. This new design, PAT. PENDING, has a unique feature n ot available on any other door or gate. That is a dual locking concept. This gate actually locks on both its sides to the vehicle; the cab side, as well as the pump panel side. Thus, minimizing the chances for the gate to open up under hazardous conditio ns. The new locking mechanism actually lifts the gate up out of dual catches which allows it to be swung open. The gate handle with its unique design minimizes the possibility of inadvertently opening the gate unintentionally.

INTRODUCTORY PRICE $575 PER FAIR

MEASURING INSTRUCTIONS FOR ORDERING

LOCATE HINGE LOCKS M1 & M2 AND SECONDARY LOCK M3 ON VEHICLE SO THAT TOP RAIL IS LOCATED AT A SAFE HEIGHT. M3 SHOULD BE LOCATED AS HIGH AS POSSIBLE.

ID: nht88-1.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/11/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Roderick A. Boutin

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Roderick A. Boutin, Esq. 960 One Main Place 101 S.W. Main Street Portland, Oregon 97204

Dear Mr. Boutin:

This responds to your letter to Steve Kratzke, of my staff, asking for a statement of the legal requirements that would apply to a new product one of your clients plans to introduce. You provided no description of this product in your letter, other than to state that it "alters the alignment of an upper torso restraint to the increased comfort of the wearer." You also stated in the letter that the product would initially be sold as an aftermarket accessory to be installed by consumers, but that it might eventually be sold to manufacturers to be installed in new vehicles. In a telephone conversation with Mr. Kratzke on November 20, 1987, you stated that this product would clip the shoulder belt to the lap belt near the middle of wearer's abdomen.

Although we understand your concern that safety belts be comfortable for the wearer, we have significant reservations about this product. I hope the following discussion explains those reservations and the effect of our regulations on the product.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) gives this agency the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standards No. 208 s Occupant Crash Protection, and No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages (49 CFR 5571.208 and 5571.210, respectively), applicable to new vehicles, and to establish Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR @5 7l. 209), applicable to new seat belt assemblies. It does not appear that any of these regulations would apply to your client's product, however.

Additionally, you are not required to get some "approval" from this agency before selling the product. NHTSA has no authority to approve or endorse motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" proc ess under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment to ensure their compliance with the safety standards, and also investiga tes other alleged safety-related defects.

While none of our safety standards appear to apply directly to your client's product, there are several statutory responsibilities your client must assume when it manufactures the product. All manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment are subject to the r equirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. The agency does not determine the existence of defects except in the context of a defect pr oceeding, so we are unable to say at this time whether this product might or might not contain such a defect.

However, this product raises a host of safety concerns that we would advise your client to carefully consider. Section @7.1.2 of Standard No. 208 specifies that the intersection of the shoulder belt with the lap belt shall be at least 6 inches from the f ront vertical centerline of a 50th percentile adult male occupant with the seat in its rearmost and lowest adjustable position. Attaching the shoulder belt to the lap belt in the middle of the abdomen, instead of joining the belts at the latchplate off t o the side of the occupant, would cause the belts to no longer comply with this requirement of Standard No. 208 and would significantly alter the distribution of crash forces on the occupant. The lap and shoulder belts as currently installed distribute t he crash forces over the skeletal structure of the occupant. The proposed device to attach the shoulder belt to the lap belt near the middle of the abdomen would significantly increase the loading on the occupant's abdomen, a part of the body that cannot withstand the same loading levels as the skeletal structure. This increase in abdominal loading could have serious safety implications for the wearer of the belt. Additionally, by realigning the shoulder belt, the device would seem to increase the likel ihood that a wearer of the belt would twist toward the middle of the vehicle, so that the person could be partially or completely unrestrained by the shoulder belt. Further it is possible that the device attaching the shoulder belt to the lap belt near the middle of the wearer's abdomen could not withstand the forces of the crash, and would allow the shoulder belt to detach. Since the shoulder belt could have an exc essive amount of slack in it, the occupant's head would be likely to contact the vehicle interior. All of these possibilities raise serious safety concerns with respect to this proposed device.

In addition, use of this product could be affected by section 108 (a) (2) (A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a) (2) (A)) . That section prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly tampering with devices or elements of design installed in a motor ve hicle in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Shoulder belts are installed in the front seating positions of most vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less in compliance with Standard No. 208. If the install ation of this product causes the shoulder belts to offer less effective occupant protection, commercial establishments could not legally install the product on customers' vehicles.

The prohibition in section 108(a) (2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who may install or remove any items on safety belt systems regardless of the effect on compliance with Standard No. 208. However, our policy is to encourage consumers no t to tamper with the safety belts installed in their vehicles. Installation of this product by any person would be inconsistent with that policy.

If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

October 9, 1987

Mr. Steve Kratzke Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Admin. 400 Seventh St. S.W., Room 5219 Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Automobile Seatbelt Standards

Dear Mr. Kratzke:

I represent an Oregon company involved in the development of a device which alters the alignment of an upper torso restraint to the increased comfort of the wearer. Initially, the product would be sold as an after-market accessory to be installed by the consumer. However, if favorably received, there is the potential for licensed sales to automotive manufacturers for use in new vehicles. Would you please be so kind as to provide an opinion addressing which, if any, federal standards (either statutory or regulatory) guide, govern or control the design standards, testing, sale or use of such devices. It is hoped that you will be able to pr ovide such an opinion without the necessary of detailed descriptions or drawings disclosing confidential business information. However, should you require information about the device more detailed than is set forth herein, I would be pleased to answer y our request, pursuant to 49 CFR Part 512. Please let me know what additional information you need, if any.

Thank you for your assistance and courtesies. I await your reply. Sincerely,

Roderick A. Boutin Attorney at Law

ID: nht88-1.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/11/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: LLOYD J. OSBORN -- CHIEF, CUSTOMS AND QUARANTINE DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, GOVERNMENT OF GUAM

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 12-11-87, FROM LLOYD J. OSBORN, TO NHTSA, 20950

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 11, 1987, to the Office of Vehicle Safety Standards of this agency in which you request a "list of vehicles which have been determined by NHTSA to be excluded as motor vehicles."

The agency does not maintain a list of this nature. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act defines a "motor vehicle" as a vehicle, with or without motive power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways. This c ategory includes vehicles capable of off-road use but which are nevertheless generally licensed for use on the public roads. Over the years, NHTSA has provided interpretations that the following types of vehicles are not "motor vehicles": single seat ra cing cars; stock cars modified to the point that they are no longer licensable for use on the public roads; all-terrain vehicles, racing motorcycles and off-road motorcycles that are trailered over the public roads, golf carts, in-plant vehicles lacking doors and lighting devices, airport crash and rescue vehicles, and shuttle buses, snowmobiles, mobile homes, farm tractors, farm trailers whose use of the public roads is limited to crossing from one field to another, and trailers like mobile compressors which spend lengthy periods of time at an off road worksite and only infrequently travel by road to a new worksite. In addition, the agency does not consider construction cranes to be "motor vehicles". Finally, vehicles manufactured pursuant to militar y contracts, while "motor vehicles", are nevertheless exempted from compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

If you have any further questions we shall be happy to answer them, as well as furnish whatever other assistance you may require in formulating your Customs procedures.

ID: nht88-1.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/11/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: MARTIN CHAUVIN -- CHIEF, CARRIER SAFETY BUREAU STATE OF NEW YORK, DOT

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 6-29-87, FROM MARTIN V. CHAUVIN, TO ERIKA Z. JONES-NHTSA, OCC-745

TEXT: This is a response to your letter of last year where you asked us to address a statement allegedly made by an unidentified "school bus" manufacturer that a school bus driver's seat equipped with an "upper torso restraint" or "shoulder harness" violates, "head impact protection", requirements contained in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. I apologize for the delay in this response. Nothing in our Federal standards prohibits a manufacturer from installing a seat belt assembly that includes a " lap belt" and upper torso restraint at the driver's seat of a school bus.

Standard 208, Occupant Crash Protection, specifies "occupant protection" requirements for the driver's seat of all buses. Section S4.4 of that standard gives a manufacturer the choice of equipping a bus driver's seat either with a complete automatic res traint system, a Type 1 seat belt assembly (which consists of a lap belt), or a Type 2 seat belt assembly (which consists of a lap and shoulder belt). There are no, "head impact protection", requirements in Standard No. 208 for the driver's seating posi tion in a bus. Thus, the driver's seat of all buses may be equipped with a lap and shoulder belt if the manufacturer chooses to do so.

Standard 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, sets forth additional requirements for occupant crash protection for school buses. Section S5.3 of standard 222 refers to a "head protection zone," and establishes head impact requirements within the head protection zones. However, the head protection zones are established with respect to passenger seats in the school bus. Standard 222 does not contain any head impact protection requirements for the driver's seat in school buses.

I hope you find this information helpful.

ID: nht88-1.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: FEBRUARY 11, 1988

FROM: GARRY GALLAGHER -- VICE PRESIDENT, METZELER MOTORCYCLE TIRE

TO: LARRY COOK -- NHTSA OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNCIL

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO MAY 31, 1988 LETTER FROM JONES TO GALLAGHER

TEXT: Thank you for your help, over the phone on February 9, 1988 in regards to additional wording to be added to the sidewall of our ME88 Marathon model motorcycle tire. To refresh your memory, I inquired as to adding the word "reinforced" to the sidewall. Your verbal response, after checking with legal council, was that there is no problem with adding the word "reinforced".

I would now like to request a written confirmation and approval to add the word "reinforced" to the sidewall of our ME88 Marathon rear tire model. Please let me know if you need any further information on this matter.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-1.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/11/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA

TO: BETH WHITMAN -- MARKETING SERVICES MANAGER KEN-TOOL

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 07/09/87 FROM LEO CAREY TO BETH WHITMAN; LETTER DATED 01/21/87 FROM SL LEPOSKY TO DISTRIBUTORS; UNDATED LETTER FROM SL LEPOSKY TO ALL DISTRIBUTORS AND SALESMEN RE NON USE OF DUCK BILL STEEL TIRE HAMMERS

TEXT: Dear Ms. Whitman:

This responds to your letter of September 25, 1987, concerning the use of "steel duck-billed hammers" to change farm and truck tires. You expressed concern that a competitor is using a safety chart produced by NHTSA to support its claim that the use of these tools is prohibited.

The NHTSA safety chart, "Safety Precautions for Mounting and Demounting Tube Type Truck/Bus Tires," includes two specific references to hammers/hammering. Under the heading "Deflation and Assembly," the chart states: "Never use a steel hammer to assemble or disassemble rim components--Use a lead, brass, or plastic type mallet. Proper tools are available through rim/wheel distributors." Under the heading "Assembly and Inflation," the chart states: "Never hammer on components of an inflated or partially inflated assembly." These precautions apply to steel hammers and hammering in general, and the chart does not state that steel duck billed hammers should not be used for other applications in changing tires.

We note that you enclosed a copy of a July 13, 1987 letter from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), stating the following:

[OSHA] does not prohibit the proper use of a steel duck billed hammer for servicing wheels used on large vehicles such as trucks, tractors, trailers, buses and off-road machines.

Under the OSHA regulations at 29 CFR 1910.177(d)(6), employers are required to furnish and assure that only tools recommended in the rim manual for the type of wheel being serviced are used to service rim wheels. Further, under 29 CFR 1910.177(f)(8), the regulations specify that: No attempt shall be made to correct the seating of side and lock rings by hammering, striking or forcing the components while the tire is pressurized.

You state that you are concerned that your competitor's tool may not meet OSHA regulations and may be less than safe to use. We suggest that you

contact OSHA about this concern. You may also wish to contact the Federal Trade Commission concerning your belief that your competitor's advertising is misleading.

I hope this information is helpful.