ID: 11135r

Mr. Charles de Saint Martin
Project Manager
The Fairchild Corporation
P.O. Box 10803
Chantilly, VA 22021

Dear Mr. de Saint Martin:

This replies to your letter of August 10, 1995, with reference to "Securiflash". Taylor Vinson of this Office phoned you on August 21 for a clarification.

We understand that, in the event of a deceleration of 0.8 g, such as caused by emergency braking, "Securiflash" automatically activates a vehicle's hazard warning system lamps; after 5 seconds, the lamps go off.

Enclosed is a copy of a letter that we sent Saline Electronics on April 24, 1995, which provides our views that a deceleration system that operates through the hazard warning system is impermissible under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

However, we are interested in your remark that the product "was developed after different European studies showed that 60 percent of rear end collisions would be avoided if the brakes had been applied one second earlier." We are unaware of such studies, and would like to receive copies of them so that the agency may enhance its knowledge of the conditions under which rear end collisions occur.

If you have any further questions, please call Taylor Vinson at (202) 366-5263.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure NCC20:Vinson:6-2992:9-6-95:Lyn OCC# 11135 cc: NCC-0l Subj/Chron NCC-20 Vinson Interps. 108; Redbook (3) U:\ncc20\interp\108\11135r.ztv

ID: 11153-3

Mr. Saburo Inui, Vice President
Toyota Motor Corporate Services
of North America, Inc.
1850 M. Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036

Dear Mr. Inui:

This responds to Toyota's August 22, 1995, letter regarding the test procedures in this agency's June 7, 1995, amendment to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114 (60 FR 30006). You were concerned that the test procedure seems to say that the service brake should be applied at two different steps during the test procedure, without specifying when the service brake should be released in between those two steps. You suggested a revised procedure that specifies a step for releasing the service brake, and asked if that procedure conforms with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) test requirement.

After reviewing the issues raised by your letter, we have concluded that a technical amendment should be issued to clarify the test procedure. We expect to issue such an amendment shortly.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:114 d:10/13/95

ID: 11154

Karen Coffey, Esq.
Chief Counsel
Texas Automobile Dealers Association
1106 Lavaca
P.O. Box 1028
Austin, Texas 78767-1028

FAX: 512-476-2179

Dear Ms. Coffey:

This responds to your letter asking whether a dealer would violate Federal law by disconnecting a malfunctioning motor in an automatic seat belt system of a 1990 model vehicle. You state,

"a consumer has brought their vehicle to a dealership with an automatic seat belt in which the motor on the automatic seat belt continues to run. This continuous running of the seat belt motor causes the battery on the vehicle to run down, rendering the vehicle inoperable."

In a telephone conversation with Edward Glancy of this office, you indicated that the automatic seat belt is stuck in one position. The consumer has requested that the dealership disconnect the motor in lieu of repairing it. You also stated that, in the event of such disconnection, the seat belt may still be connected manually.

As discussed below, it is our opinion that, under the facts stated above, a dealer would not violate Federal law by disconnecting the malfunctioning motor.

By way of background information, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, required 1990 model cars to be equipped with automatic crash protection at the front outboard seating positions. Automatic seat belts were one means of complying with that requirement.

Federal law (49 U.S.C. 30122, formerly section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act) provides that:

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard . . .

It is our opinion that this requirement does not prohibit a dealer from disconnecting a malfunctioning seat belt motor in the factual situation described above. Since the seat belt motor would already be inoperative when the vehicle was brought to the dealer, we would not consider the subsequent disconnection of the motor as making it inoperative. I note, however, that in servicing the vehicle, the dealer must not make another part of the vehicle or element of design inoperative with respect to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

While Federal law does not require dealers or owners to repair a malfunctioning seat belt motor, NHTSA strongly urges such repair, so that the vehicle continues to provide maximum safety protection. We also note that dealers and owners may be affected by State laws in this area, including ones for vehicle inspection and tort law.

In closing, we suggest that the dealer urge the consumer to contact NHTSA's toll-free Auto Safety Hotline about this problem, at 800-424-9393. The agency uses this type of information in performing its safety mission.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Glancy of my staff at (202)366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:208#VSA d:8/31/95

ID: aiam1376

Dear Senator Percy: This is in reply to your communication of January 3, 1974, forwardin to us correspondence dated November 29, 1973, from Mr. Bruce Motyka of Des Plaines. Mr. Motyka requests information regarding laws relating to pickup trucks and camper weight limits, laws or studies relating to the sale of trucks exceeding GVW (Gross Vehicle Weight) rate minimums, and regulations or studies regarding maximum weights for tires.; The NHTSA has issued regulations relating to the installation o campers onto pickup trucks. Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 126 'Truck camper loading' (49 CFR S571.126) requires each camper to bear a permanent label containing information on its maximum loaded weight. The standard also requires each camper to be furnished with an owner's manual that contains information on total camper weight, the selection of an appropriate pickup truck, appropriate methods of camper loading, how to determine the camper's center of gravity and where it should be placed on the truck cargo area. A companion 'Consumer Information' regulation, 'Truck camper loading' (49 CFR S575.103) requires that written information be provided at the sale of each truck capable of being equipped with a slide-in camper that deals with the correct installation of a slide-in camper in that vehicle. This information is also required to be available in dealers' showrooms for retention by prospective purchasers of such trucks.; Other NHTSA regulation (49 CFR Part 567, 'Certification') require ever motor vehicle, including pickup trucks, to be labeled usually on the driver's door or door jam, with its gross vehicle weight rating, and the gross axle weight rating for each axle. Each of these ratings is intended to be based on the weight of a fully loaded vehicle, as determined by the vehicle's manufacturer. While it is possible for manufacturers to be incorrectly rate vehicles, and thus be in noncompliance with the regulations, we have not found this practice to occur in the case of pickup trucks.; There are also Federal requirements requiring motor vehicle tires t carry a load rating. Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 applies to passenger car tires and has been in effect since January 1, 1968. Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119 applies to tires for all other types of motor vehicles (trucks, trailers, buses, motorcycles, and multipurpose passeng r(sic) vehicles) and will become effective September 1, 1974. This agency has conducted a study of the overloading of tires on recreational vehicles, and information regarding this study as well as copies of the safety requirements referred to above are enclosed.; We did not receive Mr. Motyka's earlier letter to us. As his question are of a general nature we have provided him with general answers. If his questions involved a particular problem we would be happy to provide further assistance.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4174

Dear Ms. Boriskie: Thank you for your letter of June 2, 1986, asking for approval of device you have invented which is designed to prevent children from inadvertently or intentionally opening the buckle of a safety belt. As you requested, the agency will not disclose the details of your proprietary product. Although we understand your concern that young children should not be able to easily get out of a safety belt, we have significant reservations about your product. I hope the following discussion explains those reservations and the effect of our regulations on your product.; Our agency has the authority to issue safety standards applicable t new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet our safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates other alleged safety-related defects.; Although we do not have any standards that directly apply to you product, we do have several statutory provisions that could affect it. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as your product are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. The agency does not determine the existence of safety defects except in the context of a defect proceeding, and thus is unable to say whether your product might or might not contain such a defect. However, the agency has reservations about your product because of our concern that people be able to easily and quickly operate a safety belt in an emergency. As the agency said last year on the related topic of the force level necessary to operate buckles in child restraints:; >>>The agency's safety concerns over child restraint buckle forc release and size stem from the need for convenient buckling and unbuckling of a child and, in emergencies, to quickly remove the child from the restraint. This latter situation can occur in instances of post-crash fires, immersions, etc. A restraint that is difficult to disengage, due to the need for excessive buckle pressure or difficulty in operating the release mechanism because of a very small release button, can unnecessarily endanger the child in the restraint and the adult attempting to release the child. (50 FR 33722, August 21, 1985).<<<; Your product could significantly increase the difficulty of using th buckle release and thus hinder a person attempting to release the belt in an emergency.; In addition, use of your product can be affected by sectio 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly tampering with devices or elements of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. One requirement of Standard No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*, is that the pushbutton release for a safety belt must have a minimum area for applying the release force. Installation of your device by a commercial business could be prohibited since it apparently would substantially reduce the minimum area available for applying the release force to the safety belt pushbutton. In addition, Standard No. 302, *Flammability of Interior Materials*, requires new safety belts to meet a flammability resistance requirement. Thus, although Standard No. 302 does not directly apply to aftermarket equipment, commercial businesses could not install your device if it would mean that the safety belt no longer met the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302.; The prohibition of section 108(a)(2(A) (sic) does not apply t individual vehicle owners who may install or remove any items of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, our policy is to encourage vehicle owners not to remove or otherwise tamper with vehicle safety equipment. Installation of your product by any person could be inconsistent with that policy.; I am returning, under separate cover, the samples of your device tha you sent the agency. If you have any further questions, please let me know.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1726

Dear Mr. Donnelly: This responds to your letter of May 30, 1975, concerning the standard applicable to a tire which you manufacture and sell with the designation L78-15LT, Load Range C.; You are mistaken in your assumption that a station wagon is classifie as a multi-purpose passenger vehicle. Because it is constructed neither on a truck chassis nor with special features for occasional off-road operation, a station wagon is a passenger car rather than a multi-purpose passenger vehicle.; If, despite this misunderstanding, the L78-15LT tire in question i designated by you as primarily intend for use on lightweight trucks or multi-purpose passenger vehicles, then it is a light truck tire subject to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, *New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars*.; Because a station wagon is a passenger car, Standard No. 110 require that its original equipment tires comply with Standard No. 109. Standard No. 110 is not applicable to used cars, so there is no prohibition on the use of the L78-15LT tire as replacement equipment on a station wagon. However, because the informational placard on a station wagon would suggest to its owner the use of inflation pressures which are dangerously inadequate for light truck tires, we do not wish to encourage the sale of such tires as replacement equipment for use on station wagons.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2809

Dear Mr. Shapiro: This is in reply to your letter of May 3, 1978 asking whether there i any legal objection to Volvo's installation of red rear fog lamps on passenger cars it sells in the United States.; As you have noted, 'the only possible objection' to these lamps is th prohibition of S4.1.3 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 against the installation of lamps that impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment mandated by the standard. We have no basis for disagreeing with your opinion that the red 'rear fog lamps do not impair the effectiveness of other lighting equipment.' However, the lamps would be subject to the laws of the individual States.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0834

Dear Mr. Bynum: This is in reply to your letter of July 31, 1972, concerning Moto Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials'.; You ask whether your client is justified in assuring its customers tha the mattress ticking it manufactures complies with Standard No. 302 after a testing company has reported that it does. Whether a product must meet the requirements of a federal motor vehicle safety standard is determined by the 'application' section of each standard. Standard No. 302 is by its terms applicable to specific types of motor vehicles, and individual items of motor vehicle equipment are not included. Of course, components which are incorporated into motor vehicles covered by the Standard will normally be required by contract with the motor vehicle manufacturer to conform to all relevant standards before the first purchase by a user.; The basis upon which a manufacturer makes a determination that vehicle or component conforms to a standard is within his own discretion. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approval of any item of motor vehicle equipment as conforming to any motor vehicle safety standards.; You ask further, 'to what extent, if any, will the manufacturer of product which in its original state complies with federal law be held responsible for noncompliance despite alteration of the product by the ultimate consumer'. Generally, a manufacturer is not liable for the noncompliance of its product resulting from the alterations of a consumer. However, if the manufacturer could reasonably expect consumers to perform the alteration, then the NHTSA might consider the resultant nonconformity to be a safety related defect under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.; Finally, you are correct in assuming that the NHTSA views 15 U.S.C S1397(b)(2) to mean that a 'manufacturer may escape the penalties contained in S1398 of title 15 upon a showing that it 'did not have reason to know in the exercise of due care' that its product was substandard'.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4524

"Dear Mr. Reeser: I am writing in response to your December 4, 198 letter in which you described Caterpillar Inc.'s worldwide program to review lighting used on Caterpillar product lines in order to standardize the devices. You specifically asked if any of Caterpillar's lighting devices were covered by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 108. You enclosed descriptive literature on the Caterpillar product line. I regret the delay in responding to your question. It must be noted at the outset that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues safety standards for 'motor vehicles.' Therefore, Standard 108 and all of our other regulations apply to a vehicle and its manufacturer only if the vehicle qualifies as a 'motor vehicle' under the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.). Section 102(3) of the Act defines 'motor vehicle' as: any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails. We have interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Agricultural equipment, such as tractors, are not motor vehicles because Congress clearly did not intend to include them in its coverage. Further, vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., Airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) 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 interpreted 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. As noted above, this agency has consistently interpreted 'motor vehicle' to exclude vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel. Therefore, the track-type tractors, excavators, track-type loaders, tracked pavement profilers PR-450, PR-750B and PR-1000, concrete slipform pavers & auxiliary equipment, finegraders, front shovels, swing machines, tracked skidders D4H and D5H are not considered to be 'motor vehicles.' In your letter, you described the Caterpillar line of construction and industrial equipment as basically for off-highway use: 'There are occasional uses on the highway for such equipment as motor graders, but obviously none of this equipment is designed for normal highway use or for the transportation of people.' Despite their use of the highway, some vehicles are excepted from the motor vehicle classification. Highway maintenance and construction equipment, lane stripers, self-propelled asphalt pavers, and other vehicles whose maximum speed does not exceed 20 miles per hour and whose abnormal configuration distinguishes them from the traffic flow are not considered 'motor vehicles.' Although many items in the Caterpillar product line have an abnormal configuration that readily distinguishes them from other vehicles, the product literature enclosed with your letter did not provide sufficient information on the maximum speed capabilities or intended uses (i.e., strictly off highway or occasional on-highway use) of the motor graders, off-highway tractors, articulated dump trucks, wheel tractors, compactors, landfill compactors, wheel loaders, integrated toolcarriers, backhoe loaders, pavement profilers PR-75, PR-105 and PR-275, asphalt pavers & auxiliary equipment, compaction equipment, skidders, pipelayers, scrapers, and off-highway trucks to enable me to make a determination whether these would be considered 'motor vehicles.' However, I believe that the guidelines for classifying vehicles that are set forth above will allow you to determine if these are 'motor vehicles.' If they are, they must comply with safety standards, including Standard 108, applicable to trucks. The lighting devices and other features of 'motor vehicles' would be required to comply with the FMVSS (49 CFR Part 571). As you are aware, Standard No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment (49 CFR 571.108) specifies requirements for original and replacement lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment necessary for signaling andfor the safe operation of motor vehicles during darkness and other conditions of reduced visibility. Finally, the product literature included several items which did not appear to be self-propelling, including the asphalt drum mixers, aggregate bins, and compaction equipment items TSF-54 and TSM-54. These products fall within NHTSA's jurisdiction if they are 'trailers' as that term is defined at 49 CFR 571.3. That section defines 'trailer' as 'a motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle.' Based on the depiction in the brochure, the equipment appear to be designed for carrying property (drum mixers, aggregate bins, and compaction equipment) and for being drawn by another vehicle. Therefore, whether the equipment are trailers depends on whether they are 'motor vehicles' within the meaning of the Safety Act and on whether the vehicles the equipment are designed to be drawn by are 'motor vehicles.' Specific information has not been provided about the intended uses of the equipment. If they make frequent use of the highways, and stay at one particular job site for a limited amount of time, the items mentioned above would be motor vehicles, and would fall within the definition of 'trailers.' Trailers are subject to Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. If, on the other hand, the equipment are intended to be drawn by vehicles that are not motor vehicles, or the equipment stays at a job site for extended periods of time and it travels on the highways only to move to another job site for an extended stay, the equipment would not be considered motor vehicles. It is important to note that NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse commercial products. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a 'self certification' process under which each manufacturer is required to certify that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits the manufacture or sale of a noncomplying product. I hope the information provided above will be useful to you and to Caterpillar, Inc. If there are any further questions or if you need further information, please do not hesitate to write to me. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam2223

Dear Mr. Evans: This is in response to your February 10, 1976, letter concerning th determination of Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) and Gross Axle Weight Rating (GAWR) for boat trailers.; You have presented the following two examples: >>>GVWR -- 3300, GAWR -- 2970 and GVWR -- 3000, GAWR -- 2700. <<< Assuming that 10 percent of the trailer's loaded weight is carried b the towing vehicle, each example reflects a permissible relationship between the GVWR and the GAWR. Your letter indicates that your client presently provides a GVWR figure of 3000 pounds,; >>>based on the load carrying capacity determined when the trailer i *not* connected to a towing vehicle.<<<; If by this you mean that the boat trailer's axle system has a loa carrying capacity of 3000 pounds, then the trailer would actually be entitled to a GAWR of 3000 pounds and a GVWR of 3333 pounds. Your client is free, of course, to establish more conservative load ratings. However, the GAWR should not be less than 9/10 of the accompanying GVWR.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel