ID: nht87-1.62

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/10/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: C. D. Black

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. C. D. Black Jaguar Cars, Inc. 600 Willow Tree Road Leonia, New Jersey 07605

Dear Ms. Black:

This responds to your December 11, 1986 letter to me concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components. I apologize for the delay in responding. You ask whether we interpret Standard No. 206 to permit inst allation of a particular type of door locking system which you referred to as a "child safety lock." The answer to your question is yes.

You explain that a "child safety lock" is a special locking system installed in addition to the locking system mandated by Standard No. 206. You state that the required locking system (hereinafter referred to as "the primary locking system") is operated by a vertical plunger located in the door top trim roll (window sill). The child safety lock (which I will refer to as a "secondary locking system") consists of a lever that is located in the shut face of the rear doors which can only be reached when the door is open. When the lever is set in the "active" position, it renders the inside rear door handle incapable of opening the door. The outside door handle is operative and can be used to open the door.

The requirements of Standard No. 206 for door locks are as follows:

S4.1.3 Door locks. Each door shall be equipped with a locking mechanism with an operating means in the interior of the vehicle.

S4.1.3.1 Side front door locks. When the locking mechanism is engaged, the outside door handle or other outside latch release control shall be inoperative.

S4.1.3.2 Side rear door locks. In passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles, when the locking mechanism is engaged both the outside and inside door handles or other latch release controls shall be inoperative.

As you know, the standard was amended on April 27, 1968, to include the door lock requirements described above. An objective of the amendment was to ensure retention of occupants within the vehicle during and subsequent to an impact by reducing inadverte nt door openings due to impact upon or movement of inside or outside door handles. Other objectives were to protect against children opening rear door handles, and to afford occupants of the rear of a vehicle a method of unlocking the rear door from insi de the vehicle (i.e., a reasonable means of escape) in the postcrash phase of an accident.

Your inquiry raises the issue of the permissibility under S4.1.3 through S4.1.3.2 for negating the capability of the interior latch release controls (door handles) to operate the door latches when the door locking mechanism is disengaged. As explained be low, based on our review of the purpose of Standard No. 206 and past agency interpretations of the standard, we conclude that the standard prohibits only secondary locking systems which interfere with the engagement of the primary locking system. Since y our child locking systems do not interfere with the manner in which the primary locking system engages, their installation on the vehicles you manufacture is permitted.

The answer to your question about the child locking systems is dependent on whether the systems interfere with an aspect of performance required by Standard No. 206. We have determined that the answer is no, because the requirements of S4.1.3.1 and S4.1. 3.2 are written in terms of what must occur when the primary system is engaged and impose no requirements regarding the effects of disengaging the system. Thus, the aspect of performance required by S4.1.3 for the interior operating means for the door lo cks is that it be capable only of engaging the required door locking mechanisms. The aspect of performance required by S4.1.3.2 for door locks on the rear doors is that the inside and outside door handles be inoperative when the locking mechanism is enga ged. Since we have determined that S4.1.3.1 and S4.1.3.2 do not address the effects of disengaging the required door locks--i.e., S4.1.3.2 does not require that the inside rear door handles be operative (capable of releasing the door latch) when the requ ired locking system is disengaged--a child locking system may be provided on a vehicle if it does not negate the capability of the door lock plunger (the operating means) to engage the door locks.

While the agency stated in its April 1968 notice amending Standard No. 206 that one purpose of requiring an interior means of operating door locks was to allow a reasonable means of escape for vehicle occupants, the agency did not go further in facilitat ing escape by also including a provision to require in all circumstances that door handles be operative when the primary locking systems are disengaged. Since the agency could easily have included such a provision to address this reverse situation, but d id not do so, the implication is that the agency did not intend to impose requirements regarding that situation. In fact, the notice included a contemporaneous interpretation that the standard permits a secondary locking device which rendered the inside rear door handle inoperative even when the primary locking mechanism was disengaged. This affirms that NHTSA did not even intend to impose a requirement that the handles always be operative when the primary locking mechanism is disengaged.

In determining that the performance requirements of Standard No. 206 address only the effects of engaging the required door locks, we noted that the purpose of the standard is to "minimize the likelihood of occupants being thrown from the vehicle as a re sult of impact." Throughout the rulemaking history of the standard, NHTSA has limited application of the standard's performance requirements only to doors that are provided for the purpose of retaining the driver and passengers in Collisions. Because the standard is narrowly focused on occupant retention in a vehicle and specifies no performance requirements for occupant egress, we concluded that there is no requirement in the standard that prohibits a device which negates the capability of the inside o perating means for the door locks to disengage the locks, provided that the device does not interfere with the engagement of the required door locking system.

Another issue related to your inquiry is whether the location of the operating means for the child locks is regulated by Standard No. 206. We have determined that the answer is no. Secondary locking mechanisms discussed in the final rule adopting the doo r lock requirements and in past agency letters all were designed so that the operating means for the secondary mechanism was inaccessible when the door was closed. In none of those documents did the agency take exception to that location of the operating means, much less suggest that those means, like the means for the primary locking mechanism, must be located in the vehicle's interior.

This letter interprets Standard No. 206 in a manner that clarifies past agency statements concerning issues raised by secondary locking systems such as "child safety locks." To the extent that the statements contained herein conflict with interpretations made by NHTSA in the past, the previous interpretations are overruled.

Please contact my office if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

December 11, 1986

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

We request your interpretation of the requirements of FMVSS 206 as it relates to child safety lock systems currently fitted to Jaguar sedans destined for U.K. and European markets and which we would like to fit to USA cars.

The Jaguar rear door primary locking system is activated or deactivated from a vertical plunger situated in the door top trim roll. It functions in the manner described in FMVSS 206, paragraph 4.1.3.2., (also pages 12 and 13 of the Jaguar drivers handboo k attached.)

To operate the additional child safety lock (special locking system), the door must first be opened and a small lever, situated in the door shut-face, activated. The door, when subsequently closed, cannot then be unlocked or opened from inside the vehicl e regardless of the position of the primary locking system vertical plunger. However, the door can be opened using the outside handle. The child safety lock can be deactivated only by opening the rear door using the outside door handle and then reversing the position of the lever in the door shut-face.

However, the preamble to FMVSS 206 amendment of 27 April 1968 (33 FR 6465) contains a phrase that we believe could be interpreted to preclude fitment of these locks for USA cars:

"At the same time, by affording occupants of the rear of a vehicle a method of unlocking the rear door from inside the vehicle, a reasonable means of escape is provided for such occupants in the post crash phase of an accident." (Emphasis added).

We would like a clear statement that such a system as described above would not contravene the requirements of FMVSS 206.

On behalf of Jaguar Cars Yours sincerely,

C.D. Black

Manager - Engineering CDB:as Legislation & Compliance

SEE HARD COPY FOR GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATIONS

Attach.

ID: nht87-2.82

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/28/87

FROM: BARRY NUDD -- SENIOR PROJECT ENGINEER, ATWOOD MOBILE PRODUCTS

TO: ERIKA JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/03/88 TO BARRY NUDD FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A32(3), STANDARD 207, VSA 108; LETTER DATED 07/14/88 EST TO S. ROBSON FROM FRANK BERNDT; STANDARD 207

TEXT: Dear Erika Jones,

Atwood Mobile Products is a manufacturer of seat adjusters serving the recreational and heavy duty vehicle markets. A majority of our customers use our product in an assembly consisting of a bucket seat mounted to a pair of seat adjusters which are in t urn attached to a pedestal that elevates the seat above the floor of a vehicle and generally incorporates the seat belt anchorages. The inclusion of the pedestal in the seating systems causes considerable confusion with some customers when testing to St andard No. 207. The main issue is whether the weight of the pedestal should be added to the weight of the seat when calculating the force to be applied to the seat back for testing the compliance of the seat adjusters when mounted between the seat and p edestal.

A letter from the Chief Counsel of NHTSA to Mack Trucks Inc. dated July 14, 1983 (copy enclosed) states [a combined test procedure that first tests the seat adjuster for its ability to stay in the adjusted position when subject to a force of 20 times the upper seat and adjuster weight and then subjects the entire seat assembly (seat, adjusters and pedestal) to a 20 g force as anchored to the vehicle structure] establishes due care in testing to FMVSS Standard No. 207.

We would conclude from this opinion that the first portion of the procedure outlined above, establishes that the seat adjusters meet the requirement of Standard No. 207 S4.2. (The second portion of the test then establishes the compliance of the seat st ructure from the seat adjusters down to the pedestal mounting in the vehicle to the general requirements of S1 that seat attachment assemblies and their installation meet the standard as well as the seat itself.)

We request your interpretation with regard to the test procedures required by Standard No. 207 for seat assemblies consisting of a trimmed seat mounted on seat adjusters which are in turn mounted to a pedestal which incorporate seat belt anchorages (S4.2 (c)), specifically as outlined in the two part test set forth (in figures 1 & 2).

Our questions are specific to the Mack Truck letter with the addition of the seat belt loads.

Question No. 1: Does a load applied as in figure 1 satisfy the requirements of Standard No. 207 concerning the seat adjusters remaining in their adjusted position?

Figure 1 tests the ability of the seat adjusters to remain in their adjusted position when subjected to 20 times the weight of all seat components mounted above the adjusters plus the Standard No. 210 belt load.

Question No. 2: Can the seat adjuster, having passed figure 1 loads be locked for the second part of the test as in figure 2.

The second portion of the test (figure 2) established the compliance of the seat structure from the bottom of the seat adjusters down to the connection of the pedestal to the floor. Because the forces in figure 2 do not accurately reflect the forces act ually imposed on the seat adjusters in an actual crash, the adjusters can be welded or otherwise locked together (the adjusters having been tested in figure 1, see paragraph three of the Mack Truck letter" ... the adjusters and upper seat section would n ever experience a loading of 20 times the weight of the entire seat in an actual crash.") while the rest of the seat assembly is tested to the requirements.

Question No. 3: Does the two part test procedure shown in figures 1 & 2 establish due care in meeting Standard 207 when applied to an upper seat and adjusters mounted on a pedestal assembly which incorporates seat belt anchorages?

There are several other questions of a more general nature that arise when applying Standard No. 207 to pedestal mounted seats as shown in figure 1.

Question No. 4: Can the 20 times seat weight load as required in Standard No. 207 S4.2 be applied at the center of gravity of the seat as more accurate alternative to application from a point outside the seat frame in the horizontal plane of the seats ce nter of gravity?

Section S5.1.1 of Standard No. 207 illustrates a bracing system apparently intended to insure that the force applied to the seat back remains in the horizontal plane of the center of gravity of the seat. If the seat frame were excessively flexible and t he braces not used, the deformation of the seat frame would raise the load application line above the plane of the center of gravity of the seat resulting in a larger moment being placed on the seat attachment. This condition is especially evident in buc ket seats mounted on pedestals which incorporate seat belt anchorages.

A simultaneous application of a type I seat belt load and a 20 times seat weight force causes deflections to the entire seat system resulting in the seat force acting significantly above the plane of the seat center of gravity. This condition can consid erably overstate the moment load on seat attachments that would occur in an actual 20g impact. To more accurately simulate a 20g impact load (which appears to be the intent

of the standard) the seat force should be applied at the seat center of gravity not at the seat back through the plane of the center of gravity. The current technique as outlined in S5.1.1 applied to pedestal mounted bucket seats is contrary to elem entary mechanical principles when significant deflections take place.

Another question related to testing for compliance to Standard No. 207 concerns paragraph S4.2(c), the simultaneous application of Standard No. 210 seat belt loads and the 20 times seat weight load.

Question No. 5: Can the seat belt load in figure 1 be eliminated based on the reasoning that an identical floor mounted seat and belt anchorage are not required to sustain the seat belt load and that the second part of the test, figure 2, subjects the se at assembly to the load to check the seat attachment assembly (pedestal) for compliance with Standard No 207?

On installations as previously described and shown in the attached figures, the seat belt anchorages are a part of the seat pedestal on which the seat adjusters and seat are fastened. If a bucket seat were to be mounted on the floor, and the seat belt a nchorages mounted to the floor with separate attachments, the seat and adjusters would not be subject to paragraph S4.2(c). Because the seat pedestal seems to be included in the definition of a seat, the pedestal mounted belt anchorages require the seat to be subjected to paragraph S4.2(c) loads with the seat remaining in its adjusted position during application of each force specified (S4.2). It can be shown that identical bucket seats can be mounted on a floor of a vehicle or on a pedestal and their respective belt anchorages can be located in identical positions, in relation to the seat adjusters.

A typical seat pedestal installation involve the seat belts wrapping around the sides of the seat. As the belts are loaded, considerable transfer of force occurs from the forward stretch of the belts to the seat frame and hence into the seat adjusters. Accepted lab techniques for applying the seat belt load include using steel cables to simulate belts and untrimmed or bare seat frames for applications of loads. The steel cable can bite into a bare seat frame and transfer a large load into a seat adju ster. This force is variable and subject to extremes when testing techniques vary within the limits set forth in Standard Nos. 207 and 210. In case of an identical bucket seat and adjusters mounted on the floor of a vehicle with the floor mounted belt anchorages located in the same position relative to the seat, this force is totally ignored (S4.2(c) is not required).

It is certainly essential that the 20 times seat weight load be applied simultaneously with the Standard No. 210 seat belt load to verify compliance with general requirements of S1 that the chance of failure of the seat attachment assemblies and their in stallation by forces acting on them as a result of vehicle impact be minimized. However, if the seat adjusters of an identical seat installation mounted on the floor are not subjected to loads induced by seat belts wrapping around the seat frame, a pede stal

mounted seat assembly should be permitted to have the tracks welded or locked together while the loads of 4.2(c) check the seat attachment assemblies to the general requirement of Standard No. 207. Of course if the seat belt anchorages were on the s eat frame itself (above the seat adjusters) then the seat adjusters would definitely have to remain in their adjusted position when subject to the simultaneous application of Standard No. 210 seat belt anchorage load and the 20 times seat weight load.

Respectfully Submitted,

TEST PROCEDURE PART 571 S207 SECTION S4.2

ALL LOADS TO BE APPLIED SIMULTANEOUSLY; FIGURE 1 AND 2

(DRAWINGS OMITTED)

ID: nht88-2.88

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/08/88 EST

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

TO: KOJI TOKUNAGA -- MANAGER, ENGINEERING, ISUZU MOTORS AMERICA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 4-27-87, FMVSS 124-ACCELERATOR CONTROL SYSTEMS, OCC-448, DET-87-063

TEXT: This letter responds to your inquiry in which you ask a number of questions concerning Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) 124 Accelerator Control Systems. I apologize for the delay in this response. In your letter, you describe a new acceler ator control system that operates through electrical rather than mechanical signals.

You state that the moving components of this system are the accelerator pedal, stepping motor arm, linkage, and the throttle lever. When a driver depresses the accelerator pedal, a pedal sensor converts the displacement into a proportional electric sign al. The signal goes through a control unit to a position switch, and then to a stepping motor. This stepping motor works to move the motor's arm and linkage, and they in turn work the throttle lever. Therefore, you say, the engine speed is controlled i n proportion to the amount of accelerator pedal displacement.

You further inform us that Isuzu already has distributed vehicles equipped with this system in Japan, and that the company would like to market this kind of vehicle in the United States. You present three questions and a diagram of the system components , and request an agency response.

First, please be aware that in issuing this interpretation, NHTSA is neither approving, certifying, nor endorsing your new accelerator control system. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, each manufacturer must certify that its produ ct meets agency safety standards, or other applicable standards. However, based on the information you supplied in your letter, I have the following responses.

Question 1: In this vehicle, Isuzu considers the battery that drives the stepping motor to be one of the energy sources under S5.1, and the return springs (accelerator pedal and throttle lever return springs) the other sources. Is this interpretation correct?

P2

We do not have enough information to state whether the battery that drives the stepping motor, or the return springs would be considered energy sources under S5.1. Section S5.1 of Standard 124 requires, among other things, that there be a minimum of two energy sources capable of returning the throttle to idle whenever the driver removes the opposing actuating force, or if there is a single severance or disconnection in the accelerator control system.

With respect to the battery, if all system elements are operating properly, then it would appear that removing the actuating force will cause the electrical circuit from accelerator pedal sensor to stepping motor to return the throttle to idle. On the o ther hand, if there is a failure caused by a severance or disconnection in the accelerator control system between the pedal and the stepping motor, it is not clear to me whether the stepping motor will return to zero, and bring the throttle springs back to idle; or lock the arm and linkage in an "open-throttle" position.

Similarly, it is not clear to me that the accelerator pedal and throttle return springs are capable of returning the throttle to idle in the event of a failure caused by an ACS severance or disconnection. (While you include the throttle lever in your des cription of the accelerator control system, the agency considers it as part of the fuel metering device. However, as NHTSA explained in the preamble to 124, an energy source under the Standard may be attached to the fuel metering device. [37 FR 20033, September 23, 1972.]) Ordinarily, the agency would have no difficulty in finding that either of the throttle return springs is an energy source capable of returning the throttle to idle. But I cannot tell from your description and diagram whether a seve rance or disconnection in the electrical system would cause the throttle to lock in a position other than idle.

I would make the same observation with respect to the accelerator pedal. I can not tell from the information you supplied what impact a severance or disconnection failure would have on the pedal. For example, it is not apparent whether some element in the electrical system senses a severance or disconnection in the accelerator control system, so that a sensor transmits a signal to the appropriate energy sources that the throttle should return to idle. If the pedal and return springs can operate mecha nically and in concert to return the throttle to idle in the event of a failure in the accelerator control system caused by a severance or disconnection, then together they may be an energy source under the Standard.

Question 2a: Is a severance in electric wires in this system a severance or disconnection within the meaning of S5.2? Isuzu considers negative because electric wires are not a moving part.

A severance or disconnection of the electric wires in this system would be a severance or disconnection within the meaning of S5.2 of Standard 124.

Section S4.1 of Standard 124 defines a "driver-operated accelerator control system" as

"all vehicle components, except the fuel metering device, that regulate engine speed in direct response to movement of the driver-operated control and that return the throttle to the idle position upon release of the actuating force."

You stated in your letter that, in this new system, when the driver depresses the accelerator pedal, the mechanical displacement is converted into electrical signals. These electrical signals are transmitted by wires to a control unit that regulates eng ine speed in direct response to pressure on the accelerator pedal, again by means of wires that connect the control unit's electrical signal to the appropriate components. Thus, the control unit, all of the components to which it is connected, and the w ires that make those connections are "vehicle components... that regulate engine speed in direct response to movement of the driver-operated control and that return the throttle to the idle position upon release of the actuating force." Under S4.1, then, the control unit, the components to which it is connected, and the wires that make the connection are components of the driver-operated accelerator control system.

Section S5.2 of Standard 124 requires that the throttle return to idle "from any accelerator position or any speed...whenever any one component of the accelerator control system is disconnected or severed at a single point." Please note that this languag e does not limit the requirement to disconnections or severances of components that are moving parts. Thus, all severances or disconnections of any component of the accelerator control system are within the ambit of the standard. In this case, since th e wires are a component of the accelerator control system, the throttle must return to idle whenever a wire is disconnected or severed.

Question 2b: If a severance in electric wires were a severance or disconnection under S5.2, what about a short-circuiting that may result from such a severance? Does the Standard require that the throttle returns to the idle position even in such a c ondition?

Yes. Section S5.2 of Standard 124 requires the throttle to return to the idle position whenever any component of the accelerator control system is disconnected or severed at a single point, regardless of the other consequences of the disconnection or se verance. In the case of this system, this language requires the throttle to return to idle when any wire is severed, even if the severance results in a short circuit.

Question 2c: Our understanding is that a failure (other than severance or disconnection) of a system component itself (i.e. a failure in the accelerator pedal sensor with pedal position switches, control unit, throttle valve position switch, or steppi ng motor) is not subject to the throttle return requirement under the Standard. Is this correct?

Your understanding is partially correct. Standard 124 addresses those circumstances where (1) the driver removes the opposing actuating force; and (2) a severance or disconnection in the ACS causes a failure. Therefore, you are correct that Standard 12 4 addresses only those

failures resulting from a severance or disconnection within the system. However, for electrical systems, shorted or open circuits are the consequence of a change in one or more of the electrical components in the system. The agency would consider such a change a disconnection or severance in the context of this Standard.

Question 3: It is our interpretation that the battery and the electric wires from the battery to the control unit are not a part of the accelerator control system under this definition. (That is, the definition of "driver-operated accelerator control system.") Is this interpretation correct?

No, your interpretation is incorrect. We have set out the definition of "driver-operated accelerator control system" in section S4.1 above, in response to your Question 2a. With respect to your electrical accelerator control system, the electrical impu lse that travels between the vehicle battery and the control unit is a direct consequence of the driver's applying an actuating force to the accelerator pedal. Given this aspect of your system's design, both the vehicle battery and the electric wires fr om the battery to the control unit fall within the definition of "driver-operated accelerator control system."

I hope you find this information helpful.

ID: nht90-4.75

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: December 5, 1990

FROM: Susan J. Otjen -- Spill Response Project, State Fire Marshal, State of Oregon

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2-5-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Susan J. Otjen (A37; Std. 208)

TEXT:

The State of Oregon, Office of the State Fire Marshal, is currently involved in setting up Regional Hazardous Material Emergency Response Teams around the state. At this time we have a bid out for Hazardous Material Emergency Response Vehicles. The spe cifications for that vehicle include a forward command center with a bench seat and seat belts for four passengers, also a seat with belt at the command center desk. I have received a call from a vendor who is concerned that this specification does not meet the regulations set out in Title 49. He was concerned that a crash test would be required in order to certify this seating arrangement.

I spoke recently with Mr. Charles Gathier, a technical specialist with the Office of Vehicle Safety Standards. He stated that limited production vehicles were exempt from these regulations. Also, that these regulations pertained only to the driver in v ehicle with a GVW of over 10,000 lbs. When I requested written documentation of this information, he directed me to Steve Wood of your office.

Mr. Wood suggested that I contact you directly with my request for written clarification of this question. I have enclosed a copy of the vehicle specifications for your information.

I would appreciate clarification on this matter. If you have any further questions, please contact me at (503) 373-1126. The bid closing date is set for December 11, 1990. We would like to be able to award the bid as soon as possible due to the extend ed delivery date for this type vehicle. Thank you for your prompt attention and assistance.

Attachment

SPECIFICATIONS

1. GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS:

A. It is the intent of these specifications to provide the State of Oregon, Office of the State Fire Marshal with Hazardous Material Emergency Response Vehicles.

B. The apparatus shall be constructed with due consideration to nature and distribution of the load to be sustained and the general character of the service which the apparatus is to be subjected when placed in service.

All parts of the apparatus shall be strong enough to withstand the general service under full load. The apparatus shall be so designed that the various parts are readily accessible for lubrication, inspection, adjustment and repair.

C. Details of construction and materials, not otherwise specified, are left to the discretion of the contractor, who shall be solely responsible for the design and construction of all features. The construction and materials must meet or exceed all stan dards set by N.F.P.A. 1901 and other mandatory regulatory standards. Contractor must be able to supply any certifications required by D.O.T. prior to award of bid.

D. Each bidder shall make statements in his proposal; principle dimensions, weight distribution of the fully loaded, completed vehicle.

E. Bidder must submit a proposal in full detail which covers the complete construction of the apparatus he proposes to furnish. Each bidder shall make accurate statements in his specifications as to weight, wheelbase, and principal dimensions. The bidd er shall furnish drawings and photographs of the bid apparatus with his bid, giving detail body compartments, sizes, and locations. These drawings will not preclude the necessity for the bidder to submit in writing any exceptions to these specifications .

F. Each bid shall be accompanied by a detailed description of the apparatus and equipment which it is proposed to furnish and to which the apparatus furnished under the contract must conform. It is the intent of these specifications to cover the furnish ing and delivering to the purchaser a complete and soundly-engineered apparatus equipped as hereinafter specified. Material thickness specified is the minimum to be accepted.

G. No experimental apparatus shall be considered. Each bid shall be accompanied by a statement covering the past two (2) year period giving locations where fire apparatus of like specifications have been sold by the manufacturer who is submitting the bi d.

H. Manufacturer shall furnish satisfactory evidence of his ability to construct the apparatus specified and shall state the location of the factory where the apparatus is manufactured. The manufacturer shall also state the number of years he has been bu ilding fire apparatus. Factory location must be within the continental U.S.A.

I. As a condition of the acceptance of the apparatus, the contractor shall furnish a comprehensive guarantee of the apparatus and equipment for ten (10) years. All warranty's must be supplied with the bid.

J. The manufacturer shall defend any and all suits, and assume all liability for any claims against the purchaser, or any of its officials or agents for the use of any patented process, device, or articles forming a part of the apparatus or any appliance furnished under the contract.

K. Total price on bidder's proposal sheet must include all items listed in these specifications. Listing any items contained in our specifications

as an extra cost item will automatically be cause for rejection.

L. Bidder's proposal must clearly list in detail all items requested in our specifications. Literature which conflicts with our specifications in material used or equipment to be supplied, will be cause for automatic rejection.

M. Contractor shall be responsible for having complied with the following: Dealer supplying equipment to this specification shall be responsible for having complied with all Federal and State safety and regulatory standards, applicable and effective on t he date of acceptance. Dealer must be licensed to do business in the State of Oregon.

N. Prior to preparation of the Purchase Order to the lowest qualified bidder, the Office of the State Fire Marshal may require a complete review of the bidder's ordering data and the agencies purchase specifications to insure that the ordering data fulfi lls the specification requirements.

If the conference is required, it will be held at the Office of the State Fire Marshal, 3000 Market Street Plaza, Salem, Oregon, in order to accomplish a thorough point-by-point understanding in obtaining a final product that complies with the purchase s pecification requirements.

NOTE: Contractors are required to respond to each item listed below. Failure to do so may result in rejection of the bid.

Attached are Dimensional Specifications; Chassis Specifications; Chassis Modification; Body Construction; Electrical; and Compartmentation check-off forms and engineering drawing. (Text and graphics omitted)

VII WARRANTY

1. A submission of a bid in response to this Invitation to Bid shall constitute the manufacturer's and bidder's warranty and ALL components, parts and accessories for a period of not less than one (1) year or 12,000 miles, whichever comes first after th e "in service date". The portions of the standard warranty on the truck chassis or any of the components that exceed these requirements shall apply. Each unit shall carry the manufacturers service and warranty policy in conjunction with the purchaser's stated warranty policy and shall include all inspection coupons, certicards or warranty identification cards furnished to the general trade. Said warranty shall be honored by all franchised dealers of that make in the State of Oregon.

2. If all or any parts of this unit should prove defective in workman- ship or materials, the manufacturer or bidders shall replace or repair the part or defect without cost to the State of Oregon.

3. The warranty shall exclude such components as batteries, tires and light, bulbs, except as warranted by the manufacturer of said items. It shall also exclude damage to the unit due to operator's abuse.

4. Warranty adjustments will not necessarily be confined to the above limits. Malfunction of parts or failures discovered beyond the above warranty period, which are reasonably attributable to a manufacturing fault not revealed during the initial perio d, shall be corrected at no cost, or on a cost-sharing basis, depending on the individual case.

5. The vendor shall not be responsible for damages caused by delay or failure to perform under the terms of the warranty where such delay or failure is due to strikes, Acts of God, legal acts of public authority or demands of the Government in time of w ar or national emergency.

6. The bidder shall be responsible for all warranty adjustments.

VIII DELIVERY REQUIREMENTS

1. All "make ready" services shall be performed prior to delivery. The vehicle shall be delivered ready to use.

2. Each vehicle shall have an operator's manual and other information and instructions.

3. At the time of, or before delivery, the following shall be furnished (in addition to the above):

(a) Two (2) current shop repair manuals covering ALL components and including electrical schematics.

(b) Two (2) current parts catalogs covering ALL components.

(c) Two (2) operator's manuals.

ALL - means the primary unit and any auxiliary equipment or components added to the truck to meet the requirements of this specification.

4. All manuals and catalogs shall be shall be individually assembled and bound.

5. Three complete sets of keys for all locks shall be furnished with each unit.

ID: 3275yy

Mr. Edward M. Klisz
Chief, Light Tactical Vehicle Branch
Department of the Army
United States Army Tank-Automotive Command
Warren, MI 48397-5000

Dear Mr. Klisz:

This responds to your letter regarding foreign-made tires that the Army procured in Southwest Asia. You indicated that your office is trying to ascertain the suitability of these tires, not all of which are marked with a "DOT" certification, for Army use. You enclosed a list of the tires and, for those marked with "DOT", requested this office to "determine if the DOT codes are accurate according to [our] records." You also requested that we verify your understanding of the general requirements applicable to foreign tire manufacturers, and the process by which such manufacturers certify their tires as complying with our standards. I am pleased to have this opportunity to answer your questions.

For your information, I have enclosed a copy of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act). Section 103 of the Safety Act authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act defines a motor vehicle safety standard as, "a minimum standard for motor vehicle performance, or motor vehicle equipment performance, which is practicable, which meets the need for motor vehicle safety and which provides objective criteria." [See 102(2)].

The Safety Act then requires that all motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment sold or imported into the United States, regardless of whether the product is manufactured in the U.S. or abroad, must comply with the safety standards adopted by NHTSA. Specifically, 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act provides:

no person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver into introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard and is covered by a certification issued under 114...

In the case of tires, this provision of the Safety Act means that a foreign tire manufacturer would be prohibited from exporting its new tires to the United States unless the manufacturer certified that the tire complies with the applicable U.S. safety standards. All new tires for use on passenger cars must be certified as complying with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 (49 CFR 571.109), and all new tires for use on other motor vehicles must be certified as complying with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119 (49 CFR 571.119). These standards specify performance requirements (strength, endurance, high speed performance, and, for passenger car tires only, resistance to bead unseating), marking requirements (treadwear indicators and labeling information), and tire and rim matching information requirements that must be met by all tires to be sold in the United States.

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

Further, the Safety Act does not require that a manufacturer base this certification on a specified number of tests or any tests at all; a manufacturer is only required to exercise due care in certifying its tires. It is up to the individual tire manufacturer to determine in the first instance what test results, computer simulations, engineering analyses, or other information it needs to enable it to certify that its tires comply with the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Once a manufacturer has determined that its tires meet the requirements of the applicable standard, it certifies that compliance by molding the letters "DOT" on one sidewall of each certified tire.

As stated above, NHTSA does not do any pre-sale approval or testing of tires. Instead, the agency routinely tests certified tires that have been sold to determine whether the tires do in fact comply with applicable standards. For these enforcement checks, the agency purchases new tires and tests them according to the procedures specified in the standard. If the tires pass the tests, no further steps are taken. If the tires fail the tests and are determined not to comply with the standard, the tire manufacturer is required to recall the tires and remedy the noncompliance. Turning now to your particular situation, it is not clear how helpful these requirements will be in assessing the current safety performance of the tires procured during Operation Desert Storm/Desert Shield. In the case of such tires that are marked with "DOT", that mark means the tire manufacturer certified that, when new, the tires complied with all applicable safety standards. However, the presence of a "DOT" symbol on a used tire does not mean that the tire in its current condition would still comply with the new tire standards. There are many instances in which used tires would be unlikely to comply with the new tire standards, simply because of normal environmental factors and without any fault in the construction of the tire. Such environmental factors include, but are not limited to, a hole larger than a nail suffered by the tire while in service, damage to the inner liner of the tire from being run flat, damage to the bead area of the tire during mounting, damage to the sidewall from running against rocks, curbs, and so forth. In each of these instances, the vehicles on which the tires have been used and the conditions in which those vehicles have been operated would be at least as important in determining the tire's current performance capabilities as would the tire's capabilities when it was new.

Further, the absence of a "DOT" symbol on a tire purchased outside of the United States does not necessarily mean that the tire, when new, would not have complied with the applicable tire safety standard. On the contrary, it is possible that the new tire would have, if tested, actually been found to comply with those safety standards. The only definitive conclusion you may draw about a tire without a "DOT" symbol that is purchased outside the United States is that the tire's manufacturer, for whatever reason, did not certify that tire's compliance. It could be that the tire did not comply when new, or it could be that the manufacturer did not produce the tire for importation and eventual sale in the U.S., and therfore felt no need to certify the tire.

You noted in your letter that this agency has established a requirement in 49 CFR Part 574 that all tire manufacturers, both foreign and domestic, must obtain an identification mark from NHTSA and label each of their tires with that mark. Before NHTSA will assign an identification mark to a tire manufacturer headquartered outside the United States, the manufacturer must designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of process in this country. However, the designated agent of the manufacturer only acts as the agent for service of process; the manufacturer's designated agent is not responsible for the certification of the tires. Only the manufacturer certifies that the tires comply with all applicable standards and, as explained above, that certification must be made (and indicated with a DOT symbol) before the tire would be allowed to enter the United States.

Finally, you requested in your letter that we review the list of tires you submitted and verify the accuracy of the "DOT" marks shown. I believe this request was based upon a misunderstanding of NHTSA's role in the certification process. Since manufacturers are not required to deliver their tires to NHTSA for testing, or register their products with the agency, the agency has no way to "verify the accuracy" of the DOT codes you submitted. To repeat, the DOT code molded into the sidewall of a tire represents the manufacturer's self-certification that the tire complies with applicable standards; the DOT code is not a statement or certification by NHTSA that the tire complies with our standards.

NHTSA would only have information about the "accuracy" of the DOT codes (i.e., whether the tires so marked actually meet the standards), in the event that the agency had conducted one of its random enforcement checks on a new tire like the one in question. Accordingly, we reviewed our enforcement records to determine whether NHTSA performed compliance tests on new versions of any of those tires. Having searched the agency's data base for the brands, types, and years of the listed tires, we found that the agency did not conduct compliance tests on any of these tires.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact Stephen Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure

/ref: Std 119, Part 574 d:1/17/92

ID: 1984-1.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/07/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nr. Karl-Heinx Faber -- Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Karl-Heinz Faber Vice President, Product Compliance and Service Administration Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. P.O. Box 350 Montvale, New Jersey 07645

This is in response to your September 14, 1983, letter in which you request that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration confirm that the Unimog vehicle produced by Mercedes-Benz is not a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1391(3). The agency stated in a March 9, 1972, letter that a previous version of the Unimog would not be classified as a "motor vehicle."

The principal differences between the 1972 version of the Unimog and the version expected to be sold in the near future are, based on your representations made in a September 8 meeting with agency staff increases in engine horsepower, gross vehicle weight rating, wheelbase, length, width, height, and certain ground clearance specifications. The anticipated sales level for the vehicle is slightly higher than the past level, as well.

It appears that none of these changes would affect the classification of the Unimog under the Safety Act. Therefore, we conclude that the vehicle is still not a "motor vehicle." This conclusion presumes that the Unimogs would still be marketed, as in the past, principally through farm machinery and heavy equipment dealers, and that the vehicle would have affixed in the cab a label stating that the Unimog is not manufactured for highway use.

Sincerely Original signed by Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel cc: Mr. J. Sonosky Hogan and Hartson 815 Connecticut Ave., N.W.

Washington, DC 20006

September 14, 1983

Mr. Frank Berndt 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, DC 20590

Subject: Classification of the Unimog Vehicle

Dear Mr. Berndt:

On March 9, 1972, after a thorough review, NHTSA advised us that the Mercedes-Benz Unimog was not a "motor vehicle" as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1391(3) and therefore was not subject to the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The letter also mentioned that the Agency's decision was subject to future review and reconsideration on the basis of any relevant information that might come to its attention.

On September 8, 1983, a meeting took place at the Agency with Messrs. Wood, Shifflet and Fairchild of your staff, Mr. Sonosky of Hogan & Hartson, counsel to MBNA, and members of my staff present. In this meeting, the planned expansion of the Unimog marketing program and technical changes in the vehicle were discussed in detail. A table showing specifications of the new Unimog models we intend to introduce as well as several brochures showing the intended uses of the vehicles were left with your staff. For your convenience, we enclose a duplicate set of that material. The number of models with only minor differences in GVWR and engine horsepower reflects our aim to provide that best suited equipment for each individual use.

In the discussion, your staff expressed interest in obtaining marketing data which would substantiate the off-highway nature of the vehicle as indicated by actual sales and implement applications. Enclosed please find a list of implements and attachments sold with Unimogs from 1975 to this date, the Unimog sales figure for the same period, and a summary of the Unimog use by business.

Other issues raised by your staff include whether the vehicle will continue to be labeled as in the past and sold through a dealer network related to farm machinery and heavy equipment. This is to re-affirm our intention to maintain both practices in our expanded program.

We trust that the information provided to your staff at the meeting, and the information contained in the enclosed material, are sufficient to enable you to maintain the decision expressed in the Agency's letter of March 9, 1972, for the new generation Unimog models which differ in size from the Unimog 900 but which, like their predecessor, were designed as off-road implement carriers and not intended primarily for use on roads and highways.

Since the initiation of our new marketing program is imminent, we respectfully request your expeditious review of this matter. Should you need any further information, please do not hesitate to contact this office.

Sincerely, Original signed by (?) Enclosure

Implements and attachments sold with Unimogs during Calendar Year 1975 through 1983 by order of sale volume:

QUANTITY IMPLEMENT/ATTACHMENT

150 Snowplow 112 Snowblower/Cutter 80 Backhoe 74 Doser Blade 64 Salt and Sand Spreader 34 Railroad Switcher 32 Front End Loader 24 Three-Point Hitch for Agriculture 23 Broom/Sweeper 23 Mower 18 Crane 24 Winch 11 Digger Derrick/Auger 10 Wood Shredder 9 Western Fire Package 5 Mobil Drill 3 Trencher 2 Man Basket 2 Forklift 2 Cable Plow 2 Dump Bed 1 Tree Spade 1 Sludge Pump 1 Brush Cutter

Comparison Unimog/Attachment Sales (Detail) 1975 - 1983 Ratio Unimog Sales Implement/Attachment Sales Unimog/Attachment 441 697 1 : 1.58

Unimog Use by Business

Federal, State, County and Municipal Departments 39% Contractors 15% Utility and Telephone Companies 11% Airports 10% Railroads 10% Agriculture 7% Others 8% PAGE 37 LEVEL 1 - 12 OF 169 ITEMS

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/08/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Bob D. Troxel -- Vice President and General Manager, J.F. Enterprises Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 10/15/73 letter from Richard B. Dyson to David J. Humphreys (RVI Inc.)

TEXT:

Mr. Bob D. Troxel Vice President and General Manager J. F. Enterprises, Inc. Box 583 Wakarusa, Indiana 46573

This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff, asking for a clarification of the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CFR S571.302). Specifically, your company manufactures innerspring mattresses, some of which are used in motor vehicles. You noted that the mattress covers on those mattresses for use in motor vehicles must comply with the flammability requirements of Standard No. 302, and that you had interpreted the mattress cover to consist only of the covering applied over the finished mattress. Hence, under your interpretation, Standard No. 302 would not apply to the ticking used as the outside of the mattress. However, you were told by several ticking manufacturers that a recent decision by this agency stated that ticking used on mattresses for use in motor vehicles must also satisfy the flammability requirements of the standard. It is correct that the ticking must satisfy Standard No. 302's flammability requirements.

The mattress cover has been interpreted by this agency to include both a covering put over a finished mattress and the permanent mattress ticking since Standard No. 302 became effective. Hence, the information that this was a recent decision by this agency is incorrect. For your information, I have enclosed a 1973 letter to the Recreational Vehicle Institute setting forth this interpretation over ten years ago.

Should you have any other questions about the applicability of Standard No. 302 to your products, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosure - 10/15/73 letter from Richard B. Dyson to David J. Humphreys omitted here.

December 7, 1983

Dear Mr. Kratzke:

Our company is a manufacturer of innerspring mattresses. A small percentage of our production goes to the Recreational Vehicle Industry. Of this portion of our business a portion goes into Motorized Vehicles (Mini Homes, Motor Homes, etc.).

I am told that you may be able to clarify an item pertaining to how these mattresses are affected by the FMVSS 302 Flammibility Standard. We have been informed that the DOC FF 4-72 Standard that all of our mattresses are manufactured under applies and FMVSS 302 applies only to mattress "covers". The term "cover" we understand applies to a covering applied over the finished mattress and not the ticking used as the outside of the mattress.

I have recently been "told" by several manufacturers of "ticking" that a recent decision has been made that the ticking must meet FMVSS 302 when the finished product is used in a Motorized Vehicle.

I am asking your help in clarifying this question of the FMVSS 302 as it applies to an innerspring (or poly) mattress used in a Motorized Recreational Vehicle.

Thank you for your help.

Sincerely,

Bob D. Troxel Vice President and General Manager

BDT:csy

ID: nht79-3.3

DATE: 08/28/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt for Joan Claybrook; NHTSA

TO: Honorable David Boren - U.S. Senate

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

AUG 28 1979

Honorable David Boren United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Boren:

This responds to your letter of August 2, 1979, on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Thomas J. Weaver, regarding problems he is having with the automatic belt system on his Volkswagen Rabbit. Apparently, the belt system does not properly fit Mr. Weaver, and Volkswagen has stated it cannot lower the driver's seat to correct the problem because of Federal regulations.

Before getting into the details of this matter, I want to express my admiration for Mr. Weaver in his efforts to obtain the benefits of his safety belts. It is discouraging to hear that a person wishing to use his belts is unable to do so. However, I must stress that we have no authority to compel a manufacturer to alter a vehicle in a situation like this. The most we can do is attempt to clarify whether it is federal law or other factors that led to Volkswagen's reluctance to make the alterations desired by Mr. Weaver.

The discussion in the letter you received from Mr. Kenneth Adams, Volkswagen's Washington representative, needs some clarification. Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208), requires passenger cars to be equipped with safety belts that adjust to fit drivers ranging in size from a 5th-percentile adult female (weighing about 102 pounds) to a 95th-percentile adult male (weighing about 215 pounds). Therefore, the regulation requires safety belts to fit at least 90 percent of the driving population. Of course, nothing prohibits manufacturers from designing their belts to fit 100 percent of the population, and the agency encourages manufacturers to do so. The standard is only a minimum requirement, allowing manufacturers some leeway because of unusual body sizes at either end of the spectrum.

Mr. Adams also stated in his letter to you that lowering the seat would change the performance characteristics of Volkswagen's belt system and would make it necessary "to begin the entire testing process for certification again." This statement too requires clarification. At the present time, Safety Standard No. 208 does not require safety belts as installed in motor vehicles to meet dynamic performance requirements. Dynamically testing safety belts would entail restraining a test dummy with a vehicle's safety belts and testing their performance by crashing the vehicle into a test barrier. In such testing, the position of the seat in relation to the belts would be important. However, the current requirements do not involve testing safety belts inside the vehicle. They require that the belts meet certain laboratory tests and that belts capable to passing those tests be installed in new vehicles.

Further, regardless of the type of performance standards involved, lowering the seat of a used vehicle could not raise any question about recertification. Certification relates to new vehicles exclusively. The only question which lowering the seat would lose under our statute, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, would be whether lowering the seat would cause equipment installed pursuant to Federal safety standards to no longer be in compliance. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative safety equipment. If this prohibition is the concern of Mr. Adams of Volkswagen, perhaps he can clarify for your constituent how Volkswagen believes lowering the seat would violate that prohibition. Mr. Adams does not state that lowering the seat would preclude the belt system from adjusting to fit the range of people specified in the standard.

It may be that Volkswagen's reluctance to lower the seat stems from a concern about products liability. Lowering the seat could very well alter the performance of the Volkswagen automatic belt system.

In an effort to promote further clarification of Volkswagen's position, I am sending a copy of this letter to Mr. Adams. The only further thing I can do is suggest that Mr. Weaver contact Mr. Adams again and obtain his reaction to my letter. Perhaps we can then see what other alterations are available. I hope some adjustment can be made to accommodate Mr. Weaver.

Sincerely,

Joan Claybrook

Enclosure Constituent's Correspondence

cc: Kenneth R. Adams Deputy Washington Representative Volkswagen of America, Inc. 475 L'Enfant Plaza, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20024

August 2, 1979

The Honorable Joan Claybrook, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S. W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Ms. Claybrook:

Enclosed are copies of a letter from a constituent concerning a problem he is experiencing with his new car seat belts and the corresponding answer from the government relations department of the car manufacturer.

As evidenced from the letter from the car manufacturer, the Federal Government requires that the car be equipped with seat belts that will fit more than 90% of the population. What is to be done for those other 10% who must try to cope with the regulations on seat belts, but do not want to do anything violative of the law and are unable to get any relief from the car manufacturer?

I would appreciate it if you could give me some information that would be helpful to Mr. Weaver. If you know of any special waiver to the regulations that can be granted on an individual basis such as this, it would be very helpful in assuring that Mr. Weaver is given full satisfaction while still obeying the regulations under which he must operate his car.

Thank you in advance for any assistance you may be able to give in this matter. Your full attention to this problem is respectfully requested.

Sincerely,

David L. Boren United States Senator

Enclosures

July 3, 1979

The Honorable David Boren United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Boren:

Thank you for the inquiry from Mr. Thomas J. Weaver regarding the seat belt system in his Volkswagen 4-door Rabbit-L Diesel vehicle.

I have personally checked with our safety engineers regarding the possibility of modifying Mr. Weaver's seat belt system. The system in Mr. Weaver's Rabbit is 100 percent in compliance with Federal standards for occupant crash protection. In fact, it is the Federal government that requires our seat belts to fit more than 90 percent of the American population.

To comply with these Federal standards, Volkswagen employs an integrated passive belt system in the model that Mr. Weaver owns. The occupant is protected by a combination of design features in the car which include the belt itself, a kneebar, the wheel and a special type of seat. If we were to lower the seat, the performance characteristics of our belt system would change, and it would be necessary to begin the entire testing process for certification again.

Therefore, because of the requirements of Federal laws in this area, we are unable to recommend an adjustment in the height of the seat.

If I can be of any further assistance, please don't hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Kenneth R. Adams Deputy Washington Representative

KRA:hk

025 N. Sherry Avenue Norman, Oklahoma 73069 21 April 1979

The Honorable David Boren United States Senate Washington, D. C.

Dear Senator:

I recently purchased a Volkswagon 4-door Rabbit-L diesel automobile. The seat belts in the front seats are attached to the front doors so the seat belts "put themselves on" as the driver and front seat passenger enter the car. When I am driving the seat belt should come over my left shoulder. Instead it comes across my left arm. In an emergency situation where the seat belt mechanism became locked, this would severly restrict the use of my left arm in turning the steering wheel and could cause an accident.

Due to the large backlog of orders, I was not able to test drive this model car before purchase. Soon after delivery I notified the local dealer, Thunderbird Imports, of this problem and requested the front seats be lowered which would eliminate the problem. I was told the local dealer could not modify any of the safety system without the authorization of at least the regional office.

On 3 April 1979 I sent letters to the San Antonio Regional Office and the national headquarters in Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, stating the problem and requesting that the front seats be lowered. On 19 April a representative from the San Antonio Regional Office, Jack Atwood, observed the situation but stated the car was made to specifications and no modifications could be made. The seat belts fit him properly--but he doesn't drive my car! Mr. Atwood passed the buck stating that only the U.S. Government could authorize changes to an approved automobile design. Today I recieved a letter from the San Antonio Regional Office confirming they would do nothing to correct this safety hazard.

Is there anything you can do have them lower the front seats of my car? I realize this is a lot of difficulty to make my car safer to drive. In their current position, I feel the seat belts are more likely to contribute to accidents and injury than to prevent them.

Sincerely,

Thomas J. Weaver

Copy to: Thunderbird Imports

ID: nht89-3.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/17/89

FROM: DOUGLAS MAYES -- CREATIVE PRODUCTS

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: BRAKING DISTANCE TEST & LABORATORIES USED BY D.O.T.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/18/90 FROM PAUL JACKSON RICE -- NHTSA TO DOUGLAS MAYES -- CREATIVE PRODUCTS; A35; STANDARD 105

TEXT: We have been in contact with Dr. Carl Clark, Inventor Contact Code NRD-12 and George Parker, Compliance Testing, regarding our product i.e. Gyroscopic Wheel Cover and in doing so, Dr. Carl Clark suggested we request a letter from your department specific ally outlining the requirements of the braking test used and a list of the various testing facilities used by the D.O.T., when testing a product for this purpose.

In lieu of the D.O.T. actually testing our product, we are requesting a letter from your office stating the FMVSS (571.105) Stopping Distance Test guidelines and a list of laboratories acceptable by the D.O.T., that could be used to test our product.

Is this a Proper Example? - SAE J299 Stopping Distance Test

Our intention is to use these testing standards and one of the acceptable laboratories so as to properly document our product's tests results in compliance with the D.O.T. testing standards.

Please return a copy of the specific guidelines used for this kind of test and a list of the acceptable laboratories as soon as possible.

Thank you so much for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Douglas Mayes, President CREATIVE PRODUCTS, INC.

Encl: Brochure, introduction, VHS

CREATIVE PRODUCTS, INC.

"THE GYROSCOPIC WHEEL COVERS"

Introduction

This unique product was invented by Mr. Kim Rush, of Anaheim, California. An extensive amount of research has been completed with various governmental and independent testing laboratories in order to substantiate several claims as to the positive effect s this product has on several performances of a vehicle. There are locking devices attached to keep the product from coming off or being stolen off the vehicle. There are several different designs or looks that can be manufactured into the facial appear ances of the wheel cover.

There has been extensive market studies completed on the number of new automobiles being manufactured, estimates on the number of vehicles already in service and operating in the U.S. and foreign countries, as well as some future market projections. Thi s number includes vehicles in fleet service, municipalities, cab companies, etc. In addition, a study or overview of competitive products marketed as a "gas saving device", and "devices that improve automobile highway safety", has been made.

Market Viability

It is important to note that any sales figures would just educated projections only and the potential results of any extensive marketing program is dependent upon a variety of external factors, such as:

* Consumer perceptions of the product

* Retail price

* The distribution structure

* Advertising strategies

* Competition

* Ability of the product to perform as promised

This kind of quality product by providing the safety features and handling enhancements that it does, should be important to everyone, including the government. As an added bonus, this product gives the consumer an actual investment payback on his or he r purchase within a very reasonable period of time in gas savings, extended tire wear, longer shocks and brake life and most importantly the safety benefits to family members and passengers when this unique product is installed on the family and/or busin ess car.

There are huge economic benefits to large fleet owners as well. When this product is used by a whole population of people, this product could have a substantial effect on helping us get through a gasoline shortage.

Product Description & Function

The Gyroscopic Wheel Cover model #1 is very similar in appearance to the conventional fancy spoke wheel covers currently being offered on a variety of expensive new domestic and imported automobiles in the after market. There are 13", 14" and 15" config urations and this unique product is designed to fit almost 95% of all wheels manufactured today. The steel spokes model is made from heavy 12 gauge metal and the spokes are cushion mounted at a 6 degree pitch. As the wheel rotates to a speed of 10-15 m iles per hour, the centrifugal force causes the spokes to flex in and expand, forming a disc.

The magnitude of the rotational force creates a gyroscopic effect which increases wheel stability, creates some 80 foot pounds of inertia or downward pressure at the kiss point of each tire, maximizing road contact, giving better transaction in rain and snow and greater road stability at all times.

The wheel cover can be manufactured in a variety of various type configurations and levels of ornamentation. A specific public demand for design and style can easily be met.

Situational Analysis

The U.S. consumer is at present time able to purchase gasoline at a reasonable price, but will this condition stay that way. Not according to some reports. The public is looking for more ways to save money and conserve energy. Starting in 1980, as you know, the U.S. Department of Transportation issued standards for Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) for U.S. automobile manufacturers, setting a minimum average fuel economy requirement based upon the manufacturer's total vehicle production. The aver age standard for 1990 is 26 mpg for car manufacturers. The net result forces the auto makers into building smaller cars, smaller engines in the efforts to develop fuel saving methods and whether we like it or not, exposing the buying public to some new dangers, by having less automobile or metal between you and all the other driving public. The next change is plastic engines.

European markets

The foreign car market is an exciting opportunity, especially when gasoline is priced around $ 2.30 per gallon in Europe, and when these users can add 16-20% annually to their fuel economy, that can amount to a lot of dollar savings, as well as energy sa vings. This product could be our part of the overall effort to conserve their energy resources.

Added Safety when using Product.

This product can improve your chances against having an accident in your car while these wheel covers are on your automobile. These wheel covers provide for quicker stops, better handling, less swaying in turns, better stability, lessens greatly the cha nce of hydroplaning in water and snow. We are presently in the process of contacting the insurance industry to try and obtain a auto insurance premium reduction when these wheel covers have been installed. Creative Products expects additional tests wil l have to be performed by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety to substantiate our claims and be able to offer a possible discount. Braking tests prove that this product reduces the stopping distance for automobiles by as much as 10% or more at 55 mph. A set of wheel covers in providing better traction, better stopping and handling capabilities will give the consumer more control, thus less wrecks in all kinds of weather.

Market Opportunities

There are almost two hundred million automobiles in the U.S., or over 40% of the world's totals. Owners with new and used automobiles that need this product and would desire a set of these wheel covers for their car. The U.S. market alone for this prod uct today may exceed $ 10,000,000,000.00, the European market may be just as good with a higher percentage of users. Fleet owners, new car manufacturers would be very interested in this product for their cars, vans and trucks.

Product Costs and Savings At todays' prices, a set of nice wheel covers may cost $ 350.00 or more and they obviously do nothing more for your car than looks. Certainly nothing for saving gas, tire wear or safety. This product will be offered for sale to distributors around the world and the retail price will probably be in the range of $ 350-$ 400 for a set of four. Sizes come in 13", 14", or 15", this price range would not be out of line with the standard priced wheel covers for the more expensive automobiles.

The actual money saved by a consumer when using this product for instances could be if presently they are using; (1) 110 U.S. gallons/mo., (2) getting 18 mpg of gas on the average, (3) the price of gas is at $ 1.20 cost per gallon, (4) when driving 24,00 0 miles of annually, using this product will provide the owner with an annual savings of $ 200.00 or 16% of his total gas bill. Saving this amount of money annually is very attractive to the average consumer and when taking into the consideration the ad ditional benefit of an extended tire life, the consumer gets all of his or her money back in the first year.

CONCLUSION

Creative Products believes this wheel cover will provide several new safety advantages to anyone buying this product. You have to drive your car with a set of these wheel covers on to believe the difference it makes. With this product installed on any car, you will experience a whole new dimension of safety driving in all kinds of adverse weather.

gyroscopic wheel covers[trademark]

energy efficient . . . money saver . . . greater road safety

increase mileage

increase tire life

increase brake life

increase traction in snow

filmed tests indicate vehicle braking reduced by fifteen feet at 55 m.p.h

ID: nht92-9.48

DATE: January 17, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Edward M. Klisz -- Chief, Light Tactical Vehicle Branch, Department of the Army, U.S. Army Tank-Automotive Command

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/30/91 from Edward M. Klisz to Paul Jackson Rice

TEXT:

This responds to your letter regarding foreign-made tires that the Army procured in Southwest Asia. You indicated that your office is trying to ascertain the suitability of these tires, not all of which are marked with a "DOT" certification, for Army use. You enclosed a list of the tires and, for those marked with "DOT", requested this office to "determine if the DOT codes are accurate according to (our) records." You also requested that we verify your understanding of the general requirements applicable to foreign tire manufacturers, and the process by which such manufacturers certify their tires as complying with our standards. I am pleased to have this opportunity to answer your questions.

For your information, I have enclosed a copy of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act). Section 103 of the Safety Act authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act defines a motor vehicle safety standard as, "a minimum standard for motor vehicle performance, or motor vehicle equipment performance, which is practicable, which meets the need for motor vehicle safety and which provides objective criteria." (See S102(2)).

The Safety Act then requires that all motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment sold or imported into the United States, regardless of whether the product is manufactured in the U.S. or abroad, must comply with the safety standards adopted by NHTSA. Specifically, S108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act provides:

no person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver into introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard and is covered by a certification issued under S114...

In the case of tires, this provision of the Safety Act means that a foreign tire manufacturer would be prohibited from exporting its new tires to the United States unless the manufacturer certified that the tire complies with the applicable U.S. safety standards. All new tires for use on passenger cars must be certified as complying with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 (49 CFR S571.109), and all new

tires for use on other motor vehicles must be certified as complying with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119 (49 CFR S571.119). These standards specify performance requirements (strength, endurance, high speed performance, and, for passenger car tires only, resistance to bead unseating), marking requirements (treadwear indicators and labeling information), and tire and rim matching information requirements that must be met by all tires to be sold in the United States.

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

Further, the Safety Act does not require that a manufacturer base this certification on a specified number of tests or any tests at all; a manufacturer is only required to exercise due care in certifying its tires. It is up to the individual tire manufacturer to determine in the first instance what test results, computer simulations, engineering analyses, or other information it needs to enable it to certify that its tires comply with the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Once a manufacturer has determined that its tires meet the requirements of the applicable standard, it certifies that compliance by molding the letters "DOT" on one sidewall of each certified tire.

As stated above, NHTSA does not do any pre-sale approval or testing of tires. Instead, the agency routinely tests certified tires that have been sold to determine whether the tires do in fact comply with applicable standards. For these enforcement checks, the agency purchases new tires and tests them according to the procedures specified in the standard. If the tires pass the tests, no further steps are taken. If the tires fail the tests and are determined to not comply with the standard, the tire manufacturer is required to recall the tires and remedy the noncompliance.

Turning now to your particular situation, it is not clear how helpful these requirements will be in assessing the current safety performance of the tires procured during Operation Desert Storm/Desert Shield. In the case of such tires that are marked with "DOT", that mark means the tire manufacturer certified that, when new, the tires complied with all applicable safety standards. However, the presence of a "DOT" symbol on a used tire does not mean that the tire in its current condition would still comply with the new tire standards. There are many instances in which used tires would be unlikely to comply with the new tire standards, simply because of normal environmental factors and without any fault in the construction of the tire. Such environmental factors include, but are not limited to, a hole larger than a nail suffered by the tire while in service, damage to the inner liner of the tire from being run flat,

damage to the bead area of the tire during mounting, damage to the sidewall from running against rocks, curbs, and so forth. In each of these instances, the vehicles on which the tires have been used and the conditions in which those vehicles have been operated would be at least as important in determining the tire's current performance capabilities as would the tire's capabilities when it was new.

Further, the absence of a "DOT" symbol on a tire purchased outside of the United States does not NECESSARILY mean that the tire, when new, would not have complied with the applicable tire safety standard. On the contrary, it is possible that the new tire would have, if tested, actually been found to comply with those safety standards. The only definitive conclusion you may draw about a tire without a "DOT" symbol that is purchased outside the United States is that the tire's manufacturer, for whatever reason, did not CERTIFY that tire's compliance. It could be that the tire did not comply when new, or it could be that the manufacturer did not produce the tire for importation and eventual sale in the U.S., and therfore felt no need to certify the tire.

You noted in your letter that this agency has established a requirement in 49 CFR Part 574 that all tire manufacturers, both foreign and domestic, must obtain an identification mark from NHTSA and label each of their tires with that mark. Before NHTSA will assign an identification mark to a tire manufacturer headquartered outside the United States, the manufacturer must designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of process in this country. However, the designated agent of the manufacturer only acts as the agent for service of process; the manufacturer's designated agent is NOT responsible for the certification of the tires. Only the manufacturer certifies that the tires comply with all applicable standards and, as explained above, that certification must be made (and indicated with a DOT symbol) before the tire would be allowed to enter the United States.

Finally, you requested in your letter that we review the list of tires you submitted and verify the accuracy of the "DOT" marks shown. I believe this request was based upon a misunderstanding of NHTSA's role in the certification process. Since manufacturers are not required to deliver their tires to NHTSA for testing, or register their products with the agency, the agency has no way to "verify the accuracy" of the DOT codes you submitted. To repeat, the DOT code molded into the sidewall of a tire represents the manufacturer's SELF-CERTIFICATION that the tire complies with applicable standards; the DOT code is not a statement or certification by NHTSA that the tire complies with our standards.

NHTSA would only have information about the "accuracy" of the DOT codes (i.e., whether the tires so marked actually meet the standards), in the event that the agency had conducted one of its random enforcement checks on a new tire like the one in question. Accordingly, we reviewed our enforcement records to determine whether NHTSA performed compliance tests on new versions of any of those tires. Having searched the agency's data base for the brands, types, and years of the listed tires, we found that the agency did not conduct compliance tests on any of these tires.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact Stephen Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have further questions.

ID: nht94-7.33

DATE: March 21, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Wolf Ebel -- President, Schroth Restraint Systems Biomatik USA Corp.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/5/94 to Mary Versailles from Stephen M. Monseu (OCC-9550)

TEXT:

This responds to a September 22, 1993, letter from Mr. Stephen M. Monseu of your company, asking whether the products manufactured by Schroth Restraint Systems (the Rally 3, Rally 4, and Autocontrol harness belt systems) meet the requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. The September 22 letter stated that these are after-market belt systems, intended for installation in addition to the factory-installed occupant protection system. This also responds to a January 5, 1994, letter asking whether the Schroth restraint systems would meet the requirements of Standard No. 208 if they were installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1381 et seq.; Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. Thus, while I cannot advise concerning whether or not the Schroth restraint systems comply with applicable safety standards, I can explain how the standards would apply to these products.

NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish four safety standards that may be relevant to the Schroth restraint systems.

The first is Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR S571.208), which sets forth requirements for occupant protection at the various seating positions in vehicles. The second relevant standard is Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR S571.209), which sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies. The third relevant safety standard is Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, which establishes strength and location requirements for seat belt anchorages. The final relevant safety standard is Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. This standard specifies burn resistance requirements for materials used in the occupant compartment of motor vehicles.

Because federal law operates differently depending on when the installation of the Schroth restraint system occurs, I will separately discuss three possible scenarios.

Installation as Original Equipment

Standards No. 208, No. 210, and No. 302 apply, with certain exceptions that are not relevant to your product, to vehicles and, not directly to items of equipment. Thus, the vehicle manufacturer, and not the equipment manufacturer, would be responsible for certifying that the vehicle complies with these standards with the Schroth restraint system installed in the vehicle.

Standard No. 208 requires seat belts to be installed at all designated seating positions in many, but not all, vehicles. Different belt installation requirements apply depending on the vehicle type, seating position within the vehicle, and the gross-vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of the vehicle. The belt installation requirements can be divided into three categories:

. Automatic crash protection systems which protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the automatic crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, in a 30 mph barrier crash test. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used). A new Federal statutory requirement makes air bags accompanied by manual Type 2 seat belts mandatory in all passenger cars and light trucks by the late 1990's.

. Type 2 seat belt assemblies, defined in Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, as "a combination of pelvic and upper torso restraints."

. Type 1 seat belt assemblies, defined in Standard No. 209 as "a lap belt for pelvic restraint."

The Schroth restraint-systems would not be considered automatic safety belts, and therefore could not be used in place of an air bag to satisfy the requirements of Standard No. 208 for seating positions requiring automatic crash protection.

The Schroth restraint systems would be considered Type 2 seat belt assemblies. Therefore, if the Schroth restraint systems meet the requirements of Standard No. 209 (discussed later in this letter), and if the anchorages for the Schroth restraint systems meet the requirements of Standard No. 210, they could be installed to satisfy the requirements of Standard No. 208 for any seating position requiring a Type 2 seat belt assembly. This would include installation of the Schroth restraint system with an air bag. Please note, however, that the dynamic testing requirement must be met both with and without the Schroth restraint system. In addition, because Standard No. 208, like all safety standards, is a minimum standard, the Schroth restraint systems could be installed to

satisfy the requirements of Standard No. 208 for any seating position requiring a Type 1 seat belt assembly. Please note however, that the Schroth restraint system does not appear to comply with certain sections of Standard No. 208, specifically:

. S7.1.1.3, which requires emergency locking retractors on the lap belt portion of safety belts in the front outboard seating positions.

. S7.1.2, which requires the intersection of the upper torso belt with the lap belt to be at least six inches from the vertical centerline of a 50th percentile adult male occupant.

. S7.2(c), which requires release at a single point.

Unlike the other three standards, Standard No. 209 applies to seat belt assemblies as separate items of motor vehicle equipment, regardless of whether the belts are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as replacements. Standard No. 209 defines a "seat belt assembly" as "any strap, webbing, or similar device designed to secure a person in a motor vehicle in order to mitigate the results of any accident, including all necessary buckles and other fasteners, and all hardware designed for installing such seat belt assembly in a motor vehicle."

Because the Schroth restraint systems would be considered "seat belt assemblies," the systems must be certified as complying with Standard No. 209 before they can be sold.

Installation Prior to First Sale

Because your September 22 letter indicated that the Schroth restraint systems might be installed in addition to existing belt systems, I would like to also discuss such an installation prior to the vehicle's first sale. If a Schroth restraint system was added to a new vehicle prior to its first sale, e.g., by the dealer, the person who modified the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. If the Schroth restraint system were installed in addition to the safety belts required by Standard No. 208, and provided that the installation did not interfere with the required safety belts, such installation would not affect the compliance of the vehicle with Standard No. 208, since the standard's requirements would be fully met by the original belts.

Installation After First Sale

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

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

This provision would prohibit any of the named commercial entities from installing a Schroth restraint system if such installation rendered inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any applicable safety standard. For example, if the material used in the system did not meet the burn resistance requirements of Standard No. 302, installation of the system would render inoperative compliance with that standard. Any violation of the "render inoperative" prohibition is subject to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. Please note that this provision does not prohibit owners from modifying their vehicles, even if such modification adversely affects the compliance of the vehicle with safety standards. However, this agency encourages vehicle owners not to make any modifications which would negatively affect the occupant protection systems installed in their vehicles. Also, vehicle modifications by owners may be regulated by state law.

I have enclosed an information sheet that identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers, and explains how to obtain copies of these materials.

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