ID: 11737JUM.JC2

Mr. J.H. Brown
President
Jumpin= Jac=s F.N.
P.O. Box 526146
Miami, FL 33152-6146

Dear Mr. Brown:

This responds to your March 11, 1996 letter to William Boehly, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration=s (NHTSA=s) Associate Administrator for Research and Development. Your letter was referred to my office for reply.

You ask for this agency=s Aappraisal and we hope NHTSA approval@ of a product that you are seeking to develop, which you call the APT-103 Child Protector Safety Harness.@ You enclosed a brochure on the PT-103 harness in your letter. I note that you marked the word AConfidential@ on the brochure. In an April 16, 1996 telephone conversation with Deirdre Fujita of my staff, you stated that you had no objections to our placing a copy of your letter and brochure in the agency=s public docket, which is a routine part of the interpretation process.

By way of background information, NHTSA does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, Congress has established a "self- certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the information set forth in your letter.

According to the brochure, the PT-103 consists of a vest that would cover the child=s chest, a foam vest- like garment for the child=s neck (which looks like a Alife preserver@ used on

water), and a series of padded straps that would form a type of headgear for the child=s head. The brochure implies in several places that children are better protected using the PT-103 harness and a vehicle=s lap and shoulder belt than with the lap and shoulder belt alone.

In the telephone conversation with Ms. Fujita, you clarified an important point about your product. You explained that the PT-103 is not attached in any manner to the vehicle=s belt system, and is not intended to replace the vehicle belt system as the means of restraining the child. Instead, the PT-103 is simply a garment consisting of a padded vest, neckware and headgear, intended for a child restrained in the vehicle=s seat belts or in a child seat. The idea is for the child to be wearing a protective garment in the event of a crash.

NHTSA has the authority to regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Our statute (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) defines "motor vehicle equipment," in part, as ('30102(a)(7)):

(A) any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured; [or] (B) any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of a system, part, or component, or as any accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle ...

Your vest harness is plainly not a "system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured," nor is it a "similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement" of an original equipment part of a motor vehicle. The issue is whether the vest harness would be an "accessory" within the meaning of the statute. In determining whether an item of equipment is considered an accessory, NHTSA applies two criteria. First is whether a substantial portion of the expected uses of the product are related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. Second is whether the product is purchased or otherwise acquired, and principally used, by ordinary users of motor vehicles.

With regard to the first criterion, the product literature enclosed with your product emphasizes that the vest harness is meant to be used in motor vehicles. While you indicated that the PT-103 can also be used in boats and for contact sports, you informed Ms. Fujita that its major use will be in automobiles. Given this information, a substantial portion of the expected uses of the vest harness would be related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles, so the vest harness is considered an item of "motor vehicle equipment." This means that your product is subject to NHTSA=s authority.

There currently are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that directly apply to the PT-103. Our standard for "child restraint systems," Standard 213, applies to "any device except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 50 pounds or less." The standard does not apply to accessory items, such as a padded garment that can be used with a child safety seat or with the vehicle=s belt system.

While no standard applies to the PT-103, under our statute all items of motor vehicle equipment must not contain any safety-related defects. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. ''30118-30121 concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety-related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those and other manufacturer responsibilities. In the event you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

I would like to note a few concerns about the brochure you enclosed on the PT-103. It describes the PT-103 as being available in a size that is suitable for use with children weighing 15 to 25 pounds (lb). This description implies that the harness is suitable for use by infants and small children, and that these children can be restrained using a vehicle=s lap and shoulder belt system. That practice may not be best for the child.

NHTSA believes, based on studies, that children should be restrained in rear-facing child seats until they are at least 12 months old (22 lb), and should not be placed in a restraint system that faces the child forward. A rear-facing child seat is needed so that, in a crash, the forces are spread evenly across the infant's back and shoulders, the strongest part of the child's body. Similarly, we believe small children should use a child restraint system until they outgrow their child seat. To avoid possibly misleading consumers into moving their children into a vehicle belt system before the child is developed enough for it, the PT-103 should be recommended only for older children.

Another concern relates to the fact that the harnesses in a child seat works best when used snugly with minimal padding or heavy clothing between the child and the safety seat. Similarly, a safety belt system works best with minimum slack. Excessive padding can compress in crash, introducing too much slack in the belt system that can cause the child occupant to be fully or partially ejected in a crash. A vest system that consisted of too much padding may have that negative effect.

Another concern relates to the possibility that some consumers may think your device is supposed to replace a child seat or vehicle seat belt system as the means of restraining a child in a crash. We suggest you prominently label the device as not being intended for use as a child restraint system, and clearly instruct consumers of this in advertising and other literature included with the PT-103. Further, you refer to the device as a Asafety harness.@ The term Aharness@ has long been used in the child passenger safety community to refer to a type of child restraint system. We are concerned that calling your device a Asafety harness@ could possibly confuse consumers about its suitability as a child restraint system, which may result in some consumers attaching the PT-103 to the vehicle with the vehicle=s belts, as they would with other harnesses (which are Achild restraints@). With that possibility in mind, we suggest you avoid using the term "safety harness@ in naming the PT-103.

Finally, we also note the photograph on page five of the brochure, showing children restrained in vehicle lap and shoulder belts A(Without PT-103),@ apparently is intended to show Abefore@ and Aafter@ shots of what happens in a crash without your device, to illustrate a need for the PT-103. The Aafter@ shot shows the childrens= heads between their knees, apparently to depict that in a crash situation a child would have no upper torso restraint whatsoever. We wish to point out that this is probably misleading, because the shoulder portion of a lap and shoulder belt would provide restraint in the type of emergency situation presumably depicted in the photograph. Thus, the situation shown in the Aafter@ shot is not realistic.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please call Ms. Fujita at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:213 d:5/10/96

ID: 1985-01.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/28/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Verne L. Freeland

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Verne L. Freeland P.O. Box 693652 Miami, FL 33269

This responds to your letter to Mr. Radovich of the Rulemaking division of this agency, requesting an interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 213, Child restraint systems (49 CFR S571.213). Specifically, you stated that you had developed a child restraint system which was built into the vehicle seat, and asked how to proceed to have this child restraint certified as complying with Standard No. 213. As currently written, Standard No. 213 does not accommodate your type of restraint.

A manufacturer of a child restraint system is required to certify that each child restraint system manufactured by it complies with all of the requirements of Standard No. 213, and adding a statement to that effect to the label required by section S5.5 of the Standard. This certification need not be based on actual test results; NHTSA only requires that the certification be made with the exercise of due care on the part of the manufacturer. It is up to the individual manufacturer to determine what test results, engineering analysis, or other data would be sufficient to enable it to meet the due care requirement in certifying that its child restraints comply with the standard. Certainly, we would recommend that a manufacturer marketing a new child restraint design test that restraint in accordance with the test procedures specified in the standard.

As you will see from the enclosed copy of Standard No. 213, Section S5.3.1 of the standard requires each child restraint system to be capable of being restrained by a type 1 seat belt system. In addition, the test procedures in section S6 specify that the child restraint is to be tested by attaching it to a standard vehicle seat solely by the vehicle seat's lap belts. Your design, which incorporates the restraint into a vehicle seat, could not be attached to a standard vehicle seat by means of lap belts.

Standard No. 213 would have to be amended in order for you to be able to certify that your child restraint satisfies all the requirements of that standard. 49 CFR Part 552, Petitions for Rulemaking, Defect, and Noncompliance Orders (copy enclosed) gives interested persons the right to petition this agency for amendments a safety standard, and sets forth the required contents of the petition, the address to which it should be sent, and the procedures which will be followed by the agency in evaluating the petition. If you wish, you may file such a petition. Should such a petition be granted, this agency would follow its normal rulemaking procedures to amend Standard No. 213.

If you have some further questions or need further information on this subject, please contact Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosures

Verna L. Freeland PO Box 693652 Miami, Florida 33269 Tel(305)653-1882

July 4, 1984

Val Radovich, Safety Standards Engineer, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 7th Street, S.W., Room 5316 NRM 12, Washington, D.C., 20590

Re: Obtaining certification of "Built-In Childs Safety Seat" to U.S. Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 213-80 - Child Seating Systems

Dear Mr. Radovich,

I am the inventor of a built-in childs safety seat as described and depicted in the attached copy of my pending application for U.S. Letters Patent as/also the attached illustrative pictures of miniature model of same.

In April, 1984, I submitted a copy of the patent application and pictures, together with a sales pitch, entitled 'comment' (copy attached) to each of the 19 directors of Chrysler corporation in hopes of having Chrysler manufacture and incorporate the depicted child's safety seat in their vehicles.

On May 8th 1984, as a result of the submission of such material to Chrysler, I received, signed and delivered to Chrysler a 'Suggestion Agreement' as a prerequisite which, I believed, would expedite the consideration and implementation of the invention by Chrysler. (copy attached).

On May 29, 1984, I was advised by Chrysler that the built-in childs safety seat must be certified by NHTSA to meet the requirements of U.S. Motor Vehicle Standard No. 213-80 - Child Seating Systems, before the seat could be evaluated by Chrysler. This May 29th letter from Chrysler further advised me to obtain information as to such certification by contacting NHTSA at 400 7th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C., attention: Secretary Dole. (a copy of such letter is attached).

On June 4, 1984, I sent a letter to NHTSA at the address and to the attention of Secretary Dole, as advised by the letter from Chrysler. (copy of June 4th letter attached).

On July 3, 1984, having received no response to my letter of June 4th, I began telephoning to seek the requested information, commencing with first telephone call to Secretary Dole's offices, which referred me to another telephone number, which referred me to another telephone number, etc., etc., etc., which finally resulted in my being advised that you (or a member of your staff) would ultimately respond to my June 4th letter when the same had finally filtered down through the chain of command from Secretary Dole's office. (a procedure which was estimated as a 'month or two').

In view of the foregoing information, and seeking to expedite the matter, I telephoned your office and was advised to send a new letter directly to you. During such telephone conversation I attempted to describe my invention in order to secure some telephonic information as to the procedure, criteria, and time element involved in obtaining the desired certification and was advised that since my proposed seat is bolted to the regular auto seat (as a built-in integral part thereof) it did not have the required 'tether belting' necessary to meet the specifications of Standard 213-80 and hence, would probably require petition for variance or for an exemption from such requirement of the act.

Now then, Mr. Radovich, having given you all of the background information, with supporting documents, I ask for your assistance in obtaining the requested certification as expeditiously as is possible including but not limited to:

(a) Advising me as to the procedure or procedures necessary to effect certification of the depicted built-in childs safety seat.

(b) Advising me as to the necessity and, if so, the procedure for obtaining variance and/or exemption from the 'tether belt' requirement of 213-80.

(c) Advising me as to whether or not I must construct and furnish you with a full scale working model of the depicted built-in childs safety seat and, if so, where and when?

(e) Advising me as to the anticipated costs and expenses involved in obtaining certification, and

(f) Such other and further advice as you may be so kind as to suggest in order to obtain the requested certification as expeditiously as is possible.

In regard to the ultimate certification, I understand that the present certification requires that child seat safety equipment meet safety standards of a thirty (30) mile per hour impact test. It is my belief that the depicted built-in childs safety seat will meet much higher safety standards of 55 miles per hour impact, and higher. This, coupled with the elimination of injuries caused by improperly attached equipment, etc., (as suggested in the patent application and comments) may well give rise to further decreasing injuries to children in vehicles and, consequently, I am anxious to have the built-in childs safety seat tested to its maximum safety certification instead of the normal and minimal 30 miles per hour standards.

I apologize for the length of this letter but I sincerely believe that the depicted seat constitutes such a substantial improvement of the existing childs safety seats now on the market as to warrant consideration of getting it certified and on the market as soon as humanly possible.

Yours very truly,

Verne L. Freeland

xerox copy *to: R.E. Springer, Outside Suggestion Dept., Chrysler Corporation, CIMS 418-05-30, P. O. Box 1118 Detroit, Michigan, 48288

* without attachments

&: WIGMAN & COHEN, P.C., Suite 200, Crystal Square 3, 1735 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia, 22202 Serial No. 584, 402 Ref: 1589-A

ID: nht87-2.91

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/10/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: L. M. Short -- Chief, Enforcement Services Division, Dept. of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

L.M. Short, Chief Enforcement Services Division Department of California Highway Patrol P.O. Box 898 Sacramento, CA 95804

This responds to your letter to our office concerning our certification requirements for manufacturers of school buses. I apologize for the delay in responding to your inquiry.

According to your letter, California's school bus regulations require vehicles considered as "school buses" under state law to be certified as "school buses" under Federal law. Vehicles considered as "school buses" under state law include multipurpose pa ssenger vehicles (MPV's) used to carry two or more handicapped pupils confined to wheelchairs. Consequently, under California's school bus regulations, an MPV cannot be used to carry handicapped students unless it is certified as meeting our school bus s afety standards. Because manufacturers have informed you that NHTSA prohibits them from certifying an MPV as a school bus, you request that we remove this restriction by permitting the school bus certification for MPV's.

Your understanding is correct that our regulations prohibit MPV's to be certified as "school buses." Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and NHTSA regulations, manufacturers classify their new motor vehicles in accordance with the def initions we issued for our motor vehicle safety standards (49 CFR Part 571.31 and certify that their vehicles meet all Federal safety standards applicable to the vehicle type. Under the definitions of Part 571.3, the issue of seating capacity makes the s chool bus and MPV definitions mutually exclusive. The passenger seating capacity of an MPV must be 9 or less, while that of a school bus must be 10 or more. A manufacturer cannot certify a vehicle as a "school bus" in compliance with Federal school bus s afety standards unless the vehicle is of a size that puts it within the school bus category. Adopting your suggestion that we permit some MPV's to be certified as School buses could not be accomplished without changing either our "School bus" definition, our regulations for certifying vehicles, or the application of our school bus safety standards. As explained below, we must decline your implicit request to make these changes because of a statutory restriction and because we believe their adoption is n ot warranted by a safety need.

We are precluded from adopting the suggestion that we expand our school bus definition to include some MPV' s because our" school bus" definition is governed by legislation enacted by Congress. In the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974 , Congress added a "school bus" definition to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act which is based on the design and intended use of a "bus." Congress directed that upgraded school bus safety requirements be applied to buses that carry more t han 10 passengers and that are determined by NHTSA likely to be significantly used for the purpose of school transportation.

Your second implicit suggestion is that we change our certification regulations to permit manufacturers to certify a vehicle as both an "MPV" and a "school bus." Such a change would not be practical. A manufacturer's certification of a vehicle is a decla ration that the vehicle is manufactured to comply with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to the vehicle type. Since our performance requirements for MPV's are not identical to those for school buses, an MPV cannot be manufactured to m eet the standards applicable to both vehicle types.

The third suggestion implicit in your letter is that a dual certification can be effectuated by extending the application of our school bus safety standards to some MPV's. We are not aware of any data suggesting a safety reel for such a change. MPV's alr eady have their own safety standards to ensure adequate levels of safety performance for those vehicles. Because of those standards, we do not prohibit the sale of MPV's to transport school children. Further, we do not believe the change you suggest is n ecessary to address the issue raised in your letter. Federal law does not prohibit manufacturers from voluntarily manufacturing MPV's to meet school bus standards on aspects of performance that do not conflict with MPV standards, such as emergency exits and joint strength. California may thus specify performance standards now applicable to school buses for MPV's used to transport handicapped children, provided that the MPV's can continue to comply with MPV standards. Of course, the vehicles would still be certified only as MPV'S.

In your letter, you mentioned that you examined the definitions set forth in Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, for "Type I" and "Type II" school vehicles. As you know, Standard No. 17 was issued under the Highway Safety Act as a standard for State highway safety programs. Since the "standard" consists of our recommendations for the operation of school vehicles, the Type I and Type II School Vehicle definitions found in Standard No. 17 are relevant for determining the o perational recommendations applicable to different school vehicles. Those definitions do not, however, change the Vehicle Safety Act's definition of a school bus or the Act's requirements for a manufacturer to certify school buses to all applicable Feder al motor vehicle safety standards.

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590

The California Highway Patrol has been informed by a school bus manufacturer that a new vehicle originally designed to accommodate 12 seating positions but reduced to a seating capacity of ten or less must be certified as a multipurpose vehicle in accord ance with Federal standards. Mr. George Shifflet of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) verified this and added that NHTSA does not recognize a vehicle with seating for 10 or less persons as a school bus.

The school bus definition found in Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 571, Section 3. does not specify a minimum number of students to be transported.

Highway Safety Program Manual No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety. United States Department of Transportation, NHTSA was searched for relevant material. This document. which is a guide for all states to use in developing pupil transportation programs, st ates that a "Type II school vehicle -- is any motor vehicle used to carry 16 or less pupils to or from school. The minimum number of pupils is not specified and we note that the word "vehicle" is used rather than "bus".

The California school bus definition is identical to the NHTSA definition of a bus in that both specify a vehicle designed for "more than 10 persons" However. California Vehicle Code Section 545 (copy enclosed) also provides that a motor vehicle that tra nsports two or more handicapped pupils confined to a wheelchair is a school bus. Many of these special buses will transport some pupils "confined to wheelchairs and some ambulatory pupils for a total of less than 10. Even though this seating configuratio n does not meet the definition of a bus, we feel that the school pupils being transported should always be provided with all the safety features provided by Federal and State Law for school buses. Chief Counsel $5 September 16, 1986

There are school bus manufacturers that are willing to certify that a motor vehicle with a seating capacity for 10 or less meets school bus standards but they are prohibited from this certification due to the requirements of Title 49, CFR. Some school bu s operators have been unable to purchase small four-wheel-drive vehicles for use as school buses to operate in snow and rough terrain. They have been forced to purchase larger four-wheel-drive buses in order to obtain the school bus certification label. A smaller four-wheel-drive vehicle may be more appropriate in rural areas under certain driving conditions.

In view of the foregoing information, we respectfully request that the merits of this case be studied and that a decision be made to permit a bus manufacturer to certify a vehicle designed to seat 10 persons or less as a school bus. Perhaps a new vehicle definition or classification is needed, such as "special school bus". If this request is granted, we feel it would be a positive step to further ensure the safe transportation of school pupils. Very truly yours,

L. M. SHORT, Chief Enforcement Services Division

Enclosure

ID: 1985-04.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/23/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Isis Imports

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. William R. Fink President Isis Imports, Ltd. P.O. Box 2290 U.S. Custom House San Francisco, CA 9412

Dear Mr. Fink:

This is in reply to your letter of November 22, 1985, to the former Chief Counsel of this agency, Frank Berndt. Your company, Isis Imports, is an importer of Morgan passenger cars, and has heretofore imported pursuant to 19 C.F.R. 12.80(b)(1)(iii). Upon advice of your attorney you have concluded that you may instead import them pursuant to 12.80(b)(1)(ix), and wish to inform the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration of that fact.

More specifically, under 12.80(b)(1)(iii) an importer declares that his vehicle was not manufactured in conformity with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, but that it has been, or will be, brought into conformity: he also is required to furnish a bond for the production of a /conformity statement. Under 12.80(b)(1)(ix), the importer simply declares that the vehicle is an "incomplete vehicle" as defined by 49 CFR Part 568; no bond is required as it is assumed that the vehicle will be completed to conform to the Federal safety standards and bear the certification of its final-stage manufacturer. Because the Morgans are received from Morgan Motor Company without "major components of the fuel system; no fuel tank, fuel lines, carburetor, etc.," you believe that they are (incomplete vehicles," which are defined by S568.3 as "an assemblage consisting as a minimum of frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations...to become a completed vehicle."

We disagree with your conclusion. The rulemaking history of Part 568 clearly shows that the intent of the regulation is to cover vehicles whose manufacture has customarily been shared. As the agency commented in 1970, "A large number of heavy vehicles of all types, of recreational vehicles, and of special purpose vehicles are manufactured in two or more stages, of which the first is an incomplete vehicle such as a stripped chassis, chassis cowl, or chassis cab to which one or more subsequent manufacturers add components to produce a completed vehicle." (35 FR 4639) The Morgan, on the other hand, is a passenger car ordinarily manufactured in a single stage, and in this instance is nonetheless virtually complete when it arrives in the United States. It is therefore a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(iii), and the agency will not accept any HS-7 forms evidencing attempts to enter the vehicles pursuant to 12.80(b)(1)(ix).

I enclose copies of a couple of rulemaking proposals on Part 568 so that you might have a better understanding of its thrust. Were we to accept your interpretation, S568.4(a) would require Morgan Motor Company to furnish a document with each vehicle advising Isis how compliance with each applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard might be affected by its final manufacturing operations. Given the decision of Peter Morgan over the years not to conform his vehicles for the American market, we question whether he would furnish a document attesting that his product complies with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards, except 301, Fuel System Integrity.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

November 22, 1985 Frank Berndt, Esq. Chief Counsel NHTSA 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I write on the advice of counsel to inform NHTSA and your office of a change in our response to Form HS 7. As you may recall, Isis Imports Ltd. is the U.S. outlet for the Morgan motorcar of England. We sell fewer than twenty-five cars a year, and we complete the manufacture of these cars here in San Francisco. (For your reference, I enclose a copy of our earlier correspondence, a brochure and a magazine article.)

We have until now checked Box 3 on Form HS 7. A review by our attorney of our final manufacture of these cars in the context of the applicable regulations, tells us that only a response checking Box 9 is appropriate to our business.

The Morgan chassis, body and engine is received from the Morgan Motor Company less major components of the fuel system; no fuel tank, fuel lines, carburetor, etc. These vehicles are, therefore, according to our attorney, "incomplete vehicles as per 49CFR Part 568.3:

"Incomplete vehicle means an assemblage consisting, as a minimum of frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations, other than the addition of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, to become a completed vehicle.

To: Frank Berndt, Esq.

Since the Morgan cars we sell in the United States operate on a propane fuel system, which is of domestic origin, the addition to the vehicle of this fuel system, as well as implementation of required safety systems, necessitates "further manufacturing operations, other than the addition of readily attachable components" as per 49CFR Part 568.3.

The addition of the fuel tank, in particular, is a fairly detailed manufacturing procedure and without the entire fuel system we add, the car is not a complete vehicle, since it could not be operated. We are aware, of course, of the requirements for "Final Stage manufacturers" as stated in 49 CFR 566 and 49 CFR 568 and are forwarding to the Administrator our identification as a "Final Stage Manufacturer."

Please let us know if your office or your agency require any further information from us. Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation.

Yours sincerely,

W. R. Fink President

WRF:jb

File

CERTIFIED MAIL--RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Mr. William R. Fink President Isis Imports, Ltd. P. 0. Box 2290 US Custom House San Francisco, CA 94126

Dear Mr. Fink:

This is in response to your letter of October 21, 1983 requesting confidential treatment for information which was submitted to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) with statements of compliance and which pertained to vehicles imported by Isis Imports, Ltd. into the United States.

In telephone conversations with Heidi Lewis Coleman of my staff, you indicated that you had no objection to the release of HS Forms 189. You requested, however, that submitted drawings, diagrams, specifications and photographs showing the methods and extent of modifications made to Morgan vehicles be treated confidentially by this agency. After carefully reviewing the submitted materials and your justifications I have decided to grant your request in part and deny it in part.

All submitted materials will be afforded confidential treatment with the exception of the photographs. NHTSA does not believe that their release will cause substantial harm to Isis Imports. In order to determine whether release of information will cause such harm, courts consider "how valuable the information will be to the requesting competitors and how much this gain will damage the submitter." Worthington Compressors, Inc. v. Costle. 662 F. 2d 45, 51 (D.C. Cir. 1981).

You indicate that a presumption has been established by 49 CFR Part 512 with respect to blueprints and engineering drawings containing process of production data where the subject could not be manufactured without the blueprints or engineering drawings except after significant reverse engineering. This class determination, however, pertains only to blueprints and engineering drawings; it cannot be interpreted to apply to photographs. Additionally, release of the photographs will not be very valuable to the requesting competitor, and will therefore not cause substantial harm to Isis Imports. Since accompanying diagrams, text and other information will remain confidential, significant reverse engineering will still be required to determine the methods and extent of modifications necessary to bring Morgan vehicles into compliance with Federal standards.

If you wish to submit additional justification explaining why Isis is entitled to confidential treatment for the photographs you must do so within 10 days of your receipt of this letter. At the end of that period, they will be made publicly available. I will notify appropriate agency personnel of this decision, and they will treat your submissions accordingly. Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: nht94-8.7

DATE: February 21, 1994

FROM: Thomas D. Turner -- Manager, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Richard Kuykendall -- 3M

TITLE: 49 CFR Part 571.217; Docket No. 88-21; Notice No. 3; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 217; Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release; Federal Register Vol 57, No. 212, Monday, November 2, 1992

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/28/94 from John Womack to Thomas D. Turner (A42; Std. 217)

TEXT:

Section S5.5.3(c) of the referenced final rule requires that:

"Each opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter with a minimum 3 centimeters wide retro-reflective tape, either red, white or yellow in color that when tested under the conditions specified in S6.1 of 571.131, meets the criteria specified in Table 1."

In a May 17, 1993 letter, Blue Bird requested the following interpretations regarding the requirements of Section S5.5.3(c):

"Blue Bird requests interpretations that the tape outlining the perimeter of the exit shall be installed such that the edge of the tape closest to the emergency exit opening is not greater than 6 inches from the edge of the opening and that splits, interruptions, discontinuities and holes in the tape are allowed to avoid and/or accommodate rivets, rubrails, hinges, handle, curved surfaces, and other function components located around the exit opening."

In support of this request, the letter stated --

"The retro-reflective tape commercially available for this application is stiff and will not conform to rivet heads, curved surfaces, and other discontinuities. It must be located to avoid rivets, rubrails, hinges, or curved surfaces and/or must have relief holes punched in it to allow installation over rivet heads."

Your response to our May 17, 1993 letter dated July 7, 1993 documented a telephone conversation between Mary Versailles of your staff and myself in which I provided the following additional information in support of our request:

"In a June 22, 1993 phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff, you explained that applying the retro-reflective tape over rivets, rubrails, hinges, and other irregular surfaces would result in raised areas of the tape." You believe these raised areas would allow dirt and moisture to get under the tape and eventually result in the lifting of all or most of the tape. You also explained that you believed it was preferable to place the retro-reflective tape adjacent to rivets (as is seen in the photographs you enclosed of the roof exit viewed from the front of the bus), rather than punching holes in the tape to accommodate the rivets (as in the pictures of the rear pushout window or

rear door), for two reasons. First you explained that the tape is placed on the bus as one of the last steps in manufacturing a bus. If the tape must be placed over rivet, holes must be punched in the tape and the tape positioned over the rivets, which results in a very labor intensive process. Second, you explained that the edges of the tape are sealed to prevent raveling. Since holes punched into the tape for the rivets are not sealed, these holes make it easier for the tape to wear and peel off."

Your response of July 7, 1993 provided the following interpretations:

"NHTSA interprets S5.5.3(c) to allow interruptions in the tape necessary to avoid and/or accommodate curved surfaces and functional components, such as rivet, rubrails, hinges and handles, provided, however, that the following requisites are met. In the November 2, 1992 final rule, NHTSA indicated that the purpose of the retro-reflective tape would be to identify the location of emergency exits to rescuers and increase the on-the-road conspicuity of the bus. Accordingly, the retro-reflective tape may have interruptions if they satisfy both of these purposes. The occasional breaks in the tape you described would not appear to negatively affect a rescuer's ability to locate the exits, or reduce the conspicuity of the bus. However, the tape should be applied as near as possible to the exit perimeter. While we do not anticipate the nearest possible location for the tape to be further than your suggested distance of six inches from the exit, it seems that for most exits, the nearest possible location would be far less than six-inches."

Blue Bird sincerely appreciated the above timely and conscientious response which recognized the real world manufacturing problems we were facing and which provided reasonable flexibility in meeting the requirements while maintaining strict adherence to the requisites of the November 2, 1992 final rule. The above response enabled Blue Bird to design and incorporate into production acceptable retro-reflective tape installations for side door, side window, and roof emergency exits.

However, the installation of retro-reflective tape on the rear of the school buses is still a major problem because of the limited amount of area on the rear of school buses and the many features required by federal and state standards. These features include taillights, stop lights, turn signal lights, backup lights, license plate holder and light, reflectors, large windows, extended rubrails, exit door or windows, hinges, handles, labels, and a multitude of fasteners to meet FMVSS 221 School Bus Body Joint Strength.

Attached are two pages taken from our May 17, 1993 request for interpretation that illustrate these problems that require cutting, notching, and punching of holes in the tape around the rear school bus exits. Our supplier of retro- reflective tape, 3M, has been unable to provide us a product that is cut, notched, and/or punched with sealed edges that would help ensure the longevity, durability, and effectiveness of the retro-reflective tape. In order to provide ongoing safety, the retro-reflective tape must remain on the bus and retain its reflective properties. Without proper sealing of the holes and notches, the longevity of the tape is questionable.

Since January 1993, in order to enhance the conspicuity and thereby the safety of school buses, Blue Bird has been installing retro-reflective tape down the sides and around the perimeter of the rear of new school buses as part of

standard equipment. Attached are illustrations and an advertising flyer showing the standard equipment designs we have developed to minimize installation problems and maximize conspicuity of the vehicles. The materials and patterns used are compatible with the FMVSS 108 requirements NHTSA has established for large trailers. SINCE ALL SCHOOL BUSES ARE REQUIRED BY FMVSS 217 TO HAVE A REAR EMERGENCY EXIT, Blue Bird believes that outlining the rear perimeter of the buses rather than just the perimeter of the emergency exit opening is more practical, reasonable and in the best interest of safety. We, therefore, request an interpretation stating that RETRO-REFLECTIVE TAPE AROUND THAT PERIMETER OF THE REAR OF A SCHOOL BUS CAN BE USED TO SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF S5.5.3(C). Such an interpretation would meet the intent of the November 2, 1992 final rule by allowing the retro-reflective tape to continue to satisfy the requisite of identifying the location of the rear emergency exits to rescuers while substantially improving its ability to increase the on- the-road conspicuity of the bus. We believe such an interpretation is also consistent with your July 7, 1993 interpretation which said "....the tape should be applied as near as possible to the exit perimeter." Based on the problems we are having on the rear of the school buses, we now consider the locations chosen for our standard equipment perimeter marking "AS NEAR AS POSSIBLE" to the exit perimeter.

Thank you for consideration of this request for interpretation. Our purpose in making this request is to enhance the effectiveness of the material we install to meet S5.5.3(c) and make school buses safer. The length, width, and total area of reflective tape we are proposing to install on the rear of school buses by requesting the above interpretation is significantly greater than what would be required to outline only the perimeter of the exit opening. The new FMVSS 217 requirements become effective May 2, 1994 and therefore an early and favorable response is urgently requested. We believe our request can be resolved with an interpretation because it is compatible with both the wording and the intent of the standard. If, however, it cannot be handled as an interpretation, we request that this letter be treated as a petition for rulemaking per 49 CFR Part 552. Thank you.

ATTACHMENTS

Illustrations omitted.

ID: nht94-1.64

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: February 21, 1994

FROM: Thomas D. Turner -- Manager, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: 49 CFR Part 571.217; Docket No. 88-21; Notice No. 3; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 217; Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release; Federal Register Vol 57, No. 212, Monday, November 2, 1992

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/28/94 from John Womack to Thomas D. Turner (A42; Std. 217)

TEXT:

Section S5.5.3(c) of the referenced final rule requires that:

"Each opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter with a minimum 3 centimeters wide retro-reflective tape, either red, white or yellow in color that when tested under the conditions specified in S6.1 of 571.131, m eets the criteria specified in Table 1."

In a May 17, 1993 letter, Blue Bird requested the following interpretations regarding the requirements of Section S5.5.3(c):

"Blue Bird requests interpretations that the tape outlining the perimeter of the exit shall be installed such that the edge of the tape closest to the emergency exit opening is not greater than 6 inches from the edge of the opening and that splits, inter ruptions, discontinuities and holes in the tape are allowed to avoid and/or accommodate rivets, rubrails, hinges, handle, curved surfaces, and other function components located around the exit opening."

In support of this request, the letter stated --

"The retro-reflective tape commercially available for this application is stiff and will not conform to rivet heads, curved surfaces, and other discontinuities. It must be located to avoid rivets, rubrails, hinges, or curved surfaces and/or must have re lief holes punched in it to allow installation over rivet heads."

Your response to our May 17, 1993 letter dated July 7, 1993 documented a telephone conversation between Mary Versailles of your staff and myself in which I provided the following additional information in support of our request:

"In a June 22, 1993 phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff, you explained that applying the retro-reflective tape over rivets, rubrails, hinges, and other irregular surfaces would result in raised areas of the tape." You believe these raised areas would allow dirt and moisture to get under the tape and eventually result in the lifting of all or most of the tape. You also explained that you believed it was preferable to place the retro-reflective tape adjacent to rivets (as is seen in the photographs you enclosed of the roof exit viewed from the front of the bus), rather than punching holes in the tape to accommodate the rivets (as in the pictures of the rear pushout window or

rear door), for two reasons. First you explained that the tape is placed on the bus as one of the last steps in manufacturing a bus. If the tape must be placed over rivet, holes must be punched in the tape and the tape positioned over the rivets, which results in a very labor intensive process. Second, you explained that the edges of the tape are sealed to prevent raveling. Since holes punched into the tape for the rivets are not sealed, these holes make it easier for the tape to wear and peel off."

Your response of July 7, 1993 provided the following interpretations:

"NHTSA interprets S5.5.3(c) to allow interruptions in the tape necessary to avoid and/or accommodate curved surfaces and functional components, such as rivet, rubrails, hinges and handles, provided, however, that the following requisites are met. In the November 2, 1992 final rule, NHTSA indicated that the purpose of the retro-reflective tape would be to identify the location of emergency exits to rescuers and increase the on-the-road conspicuity of the bus. Accordingly, the retro-reflective tape may have interruptions if they satisfy both of these purposes. The occasional breaks in the tape you described would not appear to negatively affect a rescuer's ability to locate the exits, or reduce the conspicuity of the bus. However, the tape should be applied as near as possible to the exit perimeter. While we do not anticipate the nearest possible location for the tape to be further than your suggested distance of six inches from the exit, it seems that for most exits, the nearest possible location would be far less than six-inches."

Blue Bird sincerely appreciated the above timely and conscientious response which recognized the real world manufacturing problems we were facing and which provided reasonable flexibility in meeting the requirements while maintaining strict adherence to the requisites of the November 2, 1992 final rule. The above response enabled Blue Bird to design and incorporate into production acceptable retro-reflective tape installations for side door, side window, and roof emergency exits.

However, the installation of retro-reflective tape on the rear of the school buses is still a major problem because of the limited amount of area on the rear of school buses and the many features required by federal and state standards. These features i nclude taillights, stop lights, turn signal lights, backup lights, license plate holder and light, reflectors, large windows, extended rubrails, exit door or windows, hinges, handles, labels, and a multitude of fasteners to meet FMVSS 221 School Bus Body Joint Strength.

Attached are two pages taken from our May 17, 1993 request for interpretation that illustrate these problems that require cutting, notching, and punching of holes in the tape around the rear school bus exits. Our supplier of retro- reflective tape, 3M, has been unable to provide us a product that is cut, notched, and/or punched with sealed edges that would help ensure the longevity, durability, and effectiveness of the retro-reflective tape. In order to provide ongoing safety, the retro-reflective tap e must remain on the bus and retain its reflective properties. Without proper sealing of the holes and notches, the longevity of the tape is questionable.

Since January 1993, in order to enhance the conspicuity and thereby the safety of school buses, Blue Bird has been installing retro-reflective tape down the sides and around the perimeter of the rear of new school buses as part of

standard equipment. Attached are illustrations and an advertising flyer showing the standard equipment designs we have developed to minimize installation problems and maximize conspicuity of the vehicles. The materials and patterns used are compatible with the FMVSS 108 requirements NHTSA has established for large trailers. SINCE ALL SCHOOL BUSES ARE REQUIRED BY FMVSS 217 TO HAVE A REAR EMERGENCY EXIT, Blue Bird believes that outlining the rear perimeter of the buses rather than just the perimeter of the emergency exit opening is more practical, reasonable and in the best interest of safety. We, therefore, request an interpretation stating that RETRO-REFLECTIVE TAPE AROUND THAT PERIMETER OF THE REAR OF A SCHOOL BUS CAN BE USED TO SATISFY THE REQUIR EMENTS OF S5.5.3(C). Such an interpretation would meet the intent of the November 2, 1992 final rule by allowing the retro-reflective tape to continue to satisfy the requisite of identifying the location of the rear emergency exits to rescuers while sub stantially improving its ability to increase the on- the-road conspicuity of the bus. We believe such an interpretation is also consistent with your July 7, 1993 interpretation which said "....the tape should be applied as near as possible to the exit p erimeter." Based on the problems we are having on the rear of the school buses, we now consider the locations chosen for our standard equipment perimeter marking "AS NEAR AS POSSIBLE" to the exit perimeter.

Thank you for consideration of this request for interpretation. Our purpose in making this request is to enhance the effectiveness of the material we install to meet S5.5.3(c) and make school buses safer. The length, width, and total area of reflective tape we are proposing to install on the rear of school buses by requesting the above interpretation is significantly greater than what would be required to outline only the perimeter of the exit opening. The new FMVSS 217 requirements become effective May 2, 1994 and therefore an early and favorable response is urgently requested. We believe our request can be resolved with an interpretation because it is compatible with both the wording and the intent of the standard. If, however, it cannot be hand led as an interpretation, we request that this letter be treated as a petition for rulemaking per 49 CFR Part 552. Thank you.

ATTACHMENTS

Illustrations omitted.

ID: aiam3752

Dear Mr. Marcus: This responds to your letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff, asking for clarification of the requirements of Standard No. 217, *Bus Window Retention and Release* (49 CFR S 571.217). You stated that your company's transit bus models use eight large windows as large as emergency exits to satisfy the emergency exit requirements of Standard No. 217, and that the entrance and exit doors are not classified as emergency doors. Accordingly, you stated that the entrance and exit doors do not 'have to be tested for Standard No. 217 requirements.' This is not wholly correct.; Standard No. 217 sets forth two basic requirements. These are (1 window retention requirements, which must be met by *all* windows in a new bus, except for the windshield, and (2) requirements applicable to emergency exits. As I pointed out in a letter to Mr. Moss, of your staff, the window retention requirements apply to all front door glazing which exceeds 8 inches in diameter, and this agency does test such glazing for compliance with the standard. Hence, while you may be correct in asserting that a door not designated as an emergency door would not be tested for compliance with the emergency exit requirements, you are incorrect if you are asserting that the glazing on such a door would not be tested for compliance with the window retention requirements.; Your letter went on to state that, although your entrance and exi doors are not classified as emergency exits, most local transit authorities have requested you to add a decal instructing people how to open the doors in case of an emergency. You then stated your opinion that the addition of these decals would not change the status of the doors to emergency exits, so the doors would not be required to meet the Standard No. 217 push force requirements applicable to emergency doors. This conclusion is incorrect.; Standard No. 217 specifies minimum criteria for emergency exits whic must be met by all new buses, and your letter states that your transit bus models do not need to count the entrance and exit doors on the buses to satisfy these criteria. Thus, absent other factors, those doors would not be required to comply with the portions of the standard applicable to emergency doors. However, affixing a decal, such as the one enclosed with your letter, in the area of those doors is labeling the door as an emergency exit. It is reasonable for riders of the bus to assume that a door which is labeled by the manufacturer with instructions in case of an emergency and which is intended by the local transit authority to be used as an exit in case of an emergency is in fact a door which can be used as an emergency exit. Given the likelihood of the use of the door as an emergency exit when it is so labeled, it is important that the door comply with the requirements applicable to emergency doors in Standard No. 217, and this agency has uniformly required this of all doors labeled with instructions for use in case of an emergency.; For your information, I have enclosed a copy of a letter reaching thi same conclusion which was sent to another manufacturer. Contrary to the understanding expressed in your letter, this agency has never sent a letter to a manufacturer stating that doors labeled with emergency instructions were not subject to the requirements of Standard No. 217 applicable to emergency doors.; Should you need any further information or have further questions o this subject, please contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or at (202) 426-2992.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2067

Dear Mr. Sambucetti: This responds to your recent request for a discussion of wha constitutes the manufacture of a new trailer when used components from an existing trailer are utilized. As you are aware, a newly-manufactured air-braked trailer must, in all but a few cases, be equipped with an air brake system that conforms to Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*.; The use of components in combination with used components to assemble complete vehicle is a common practice in both truck and trailer operations. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has recognized this commercial practice by establishing that the use of a new body on a used 'chassis' that has already been certified does not constitute the manufacture of a new vehicle. In contrast, placing a used body on a new chassis that has never been certified as a vehicle has been determined to create a newly-manufactured vehicle that must be certified. This distinction did not present difficulty to trailer manufacturers in the past, when they were only required to meet the lighting requirements of Standard No. 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment*.; Since implementation of Standard No. 121, however, manufacturers hav had to determine whether the particular assembly they undertake contains a used 'chassis' which would not be required to meet the air brake standard. As a general matter, the NHTSA has stated that, as a minimum, the running gear (the axles, wheels, suspension, and related components sometimes known as a bogie) and main frame of the existing vehicle must be used to qualify as a used 'chassis'. However, the many different types of trailer construction make it difficult to determine what constitutes the main frame of some configurations. The NHTSA has concluded that the load-bearing structural member(s) which run the length of the vehicle and support the trailer will be considered to be the 'main frame'.; In the case of monocoque van construction, the trailer side walls whic constitute the main load-bearing members through the length of the vehicle must be reused as the main frame in addition to the running gear, or else the rebuilding operation will constitute manufacture of a new vehicle.; In the case of container chassis, the box frame that consitutes (sic the main load- bearing member through the length of the vehicle must be reused as the main frame in addition to the running gear, or else the rebuilding operation will constitute manufacture of a new vehicle.; In the case of a platform trailer, the main frame members which run th length of the trailer must be reused in addition to the running gear, or else the rebuilding operation will constitute manufacture of a new vehicle.; In the case of a tank trailer in which the tank serves the purpose o and replaces frame rails, the tank must be reused as the main frame in addition to the running gear, or else the rebuilding operation will constitute manufacture of a new vehicle. If a separate frame serves as the load-bearing member through the length of the vehicle, the tank could be replaced without the operation constituting the manufacture of a new vehicle. An inner tank may be replaced without certification as a new vehicle if the inner tank does not serve as a main load-bearing member.; Modifications of existing trailers to increase or decrease volumetri capacity or vehicle length are generally permitted without recertification. For example, the barrel of a tank trailer may be lengthened in response to the new weight limits without recertification of the vehicle.; In closing, it should be noted that Bureau of Motor Carrier regulation may differ on modification or rebuilding of vehicles in interstate commerce.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2371

Dear Mr. Rosenberry: This is in reply to your letter of July 14, 1976, to George Shifflet of the Office of Standards Enforcement, on behalf of a client who intends to install a different type of seat, carpeting, and headliner in a pick-up truck, which would then be sold to the general public. You asked whether a fabric supplier must test each fabric lot for flammability before certification to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302 can be given, and whether your client 'may rely on the warranty of a fabric manufacturer that the fabric sold meets the requirements ' of Standard No. 302.; You are correct in your understanding that the provisions of th National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq*) apply to your client. His basic responsibility is to ensure that the vehicles he modifies are in compliance with the Federal standards when delivered to dealers for sale to the public. (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) A temporary noncompliance during modifications is permissible if the vehicle is not used on the public roads while noncompliant (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). Standards which would appear to be affected by your client's modifications include: Standard No. 207 *Seating Systems*, No. 208 *Occupant Crash Protection*, No. 210 *Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages* and No. 302 *Flammability of Interior Materials*.; As a person who alters a certified vehicle other than by the additio of readily detachable (sic) components, your client is also required to attach his own certification of compliance to each modified truck (49 CFR 567.7). Should a noncompliance be discovered as a result of an alterer's modification, the alterer would be liable for a civil penalty unless he could establish that he did not have actual knowledge of the noncompliance, and that he did not have reason to know in the exercise of due care that the vehicle did not comply (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(2)).; With respect to Standard No. 302, there is no requirement that a fabri supplier 'test each fabric lot for flammability before certification.' In point of fact, 49 CFR 571.302 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302 does not apply to suppliers but only to vehicle manufacturers (or alterers) and it is they who are required to certify compliance with Standard No. 302. Generally, at a minimum, a vehicle manufacturer will require by contract with the supplier that the fabric meets Standard No. 302. In the exercise of 'due care' the manufacturer may wish to examine the basis for the supplier's assurance of compliance, and to require periodic testing of the fabric being supplied him. Since there is no requirement that each fabric lot be tested, such testing as is conducted should be sufficient to demonstrate in the event of a noncompliance that the vehicle manufacturer has exercised due care. As to whether your client may rely on the 'warranty' of his supplier, it has been our experience that simple reliance is insufficient to establish a 'due care' defense. That manufacturer should examine the supplier's test results to insure that the margin of compliance of the test fabric is great enough that production variables do not result in noncompliance. Some manufacturers even conduct their own test independent of the supplier.; Your client would also be responsible for conducting a notification an remedy campaign (15 U.S.C. 1411 *et seq*) if a noncompliance or safety-related defect occurs in the truck as a result of the alterations.; I enclose copies of the Act, 49 CFR Part 567, and Standards Nos. 207 208, 210, and 302 for your information.; Yours truly, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4860

"Dear Mr. Pacheco: This responds to your letter in which you aske about the application of Federal regulations to your client's product. This product, called a 'Walk Machine,' looks like a two-wheeled scooter, with a small 37cc engine attached to it. You stated that this product is designed for off-road use. NHTSA has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A), Safety Act) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 102(3) of the Safety Act defines 'motor vehicle' as: A ny vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails. NHTSA has interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining devices) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. On the other hand, vehicles that use the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, utility vehicles like the Jeep are plainly motor vehicles, even though they are equipped with special features to permit off-road operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, NHTSA has found the vehicle to be a 'motor vehicle.' Further, if a vehicle is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, NHTSA has found the vehicle to be a motor vehicle. This finding was made with respect to dune buggies and regardless of the manufacturer's stated intent regarding the terrain on which the vehicles were to be operated. Your letter did not indicate whether the 'Walk Machine' would be designed and sold solely for off-road use, or whether it would be used on-road for a substantial amount of time. However, based on your letter, this vehicle would not be a 'motor vehicle' even if it is regularly used on the public roads. This is because NHTSA has stated in many previous interpretations that vehicles that regularly use the public roads will not be considered 'motor vehicles' if such vehicles have a maximum attainable speed of 20 miles per hour (mph) and have an abnormal configuration which readily distinguishes them from other vehicles. The information provided for the 'Walk Machine' indicates that it has a top speed of 16 mph and a configuration that would readily distinguish it from motorcycles and other two-wheeled vehicles. Because this vehicle is not a 'motor vehicle,' none of this agency's standards apply to it. You may wish to contact the Consumer Product Safety Commission to learn if they have any Federal safety regulations that would apply to this vehicle. Their address is: Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 5401 Westbard Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland 20207. You may also wish to consider the possible application of State laws to your client's product. For additional information on State laws, you may contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators at: 4200 Wilson Blvd., Suite 600, Arlington, Virginia 22203. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";