ID: ACSBcmc

[ ]

Dear [ ]:

This responds to your letter in which you asked about the applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) to an auxiliary child shoulder belt system (ACSB) for use with belt positioning boosters. Specifically, you ask whether the ACSB would be regulated as a Type 2a shoulder belt or as a child restraint system. As explained below, the ACSB would be regulated as a Type 2a shoulder belt.

Background

Your letter states that the ACSB would be an add-on shoulder belt that would allow the use of belt positioning boosters at seating positions equipped with lap belts only. You state that:

The add-on shoulder belt would be equipped with a standard buckle and length adjustment. It would easily attach to the lap belt buckle, and hook onto the standard top tether anchor for the rear outboard seating position using a standard tether hook.

You also state that the add-on shoulder belt would be recommended for children between 50 and 80 pounds. The add-on shoulder belt would not be originally installed in vehicles but would be provided as an aftermarket product.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to ensure that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts you provided in your letter, and addresses some or all of the specific issues you raised. If we have not addressed an issue, you should not assume that we have concurred with a position you have expressed on that issue.

Your letter asks about the applicability of four standards; FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash protection, FMVSS No. 209, Seat belt assemblies, FMVSS No. 210, Seat belt assembly anchorages, and FMVSS No. 213, Child restraint systems. I have addressed each standard below.

FMVSS Nos. 208 and 210

Your assertion that FMVSS Nos. 208 and 210 would not apply to the ACSB is correct. FMVSS Nos. 208 and 210 apply, with certain exceptions that are not relevant to this product, to vehicles and not directly to items of equipment. Because the ACSB would not be part of the vehicle as manufactured or sold, FMVSS Nos. 208 and 210 would not be applicable. However, please note that any commercial business that would install this product would be subject to the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 30122(b), which provides that:

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

None of the above named businesses would be able to install this product if installation would cause the vehicle to no longer comply with an FMVSS.[1]

FMVSS No. 209

Under FMVSS No. 209, the add-on shoulder belt would be classified as a Type 2a shoulder belt. Unlike FMVSS Nos. 208 and 210, FMVSS No. 209 is an equipment standard and applies to all seat belt assemblies regardless of whether the seat belts are originally installed in a vehicle or installed after the vehicle has been purchased.

FMVSS No. 209 defines a Type 2a shoulder belt as an "upper torso restraint for use only in conjunction with a lap belt as a Type 2 seat belt assembly."[2] As you state in your letter, this product would provide upper torso restraint and would be intended for use in conjunction with a lap belt only, making it a Type 2a shoulder belt. Type 2a shoulder belts are generally not permitted as original equipment under FMVSS No. 208.[3] However, this general prohibition under FMVSS No. 208 is a vehicle standard and does not prohibit the sale of Type 2a shoulder belts as aftermarket equipment.

You would be required to certify that the ACSB complies with the applicable sections of FMVSS No. 209. Under S4.1(c) of FMVSS No. 209, a Type 2a shoulder belt is required to "comply with applicable requirements for a Type 2 seat belt assembly in S4.1 to S4.4, inclusive." While only those requirements raised by your letter are discussed below, keep in mind that the ACSB would be required to comply with all of the applicable requirements in S4.1 through S4.4.

S4.1 Requirements

S4.1(f) Attachment hardware

Type 2a seat belt assemblies have specific hardware requirements under FMVSS No. 209. However, because of the design and the intended manner of use of the ACSB, it would not be required to provide the attachment hardware specified under S4.1(f) of FMVSS No. 209. S4.1(f) requires that a seat belt assembly must include:

all hardware necessary for installation in a motor vehicle in accordance with Society of Automotive Engineers Recommended Practice J800c, "Motor Vehicle Seat Belt Installation," November 1973. However, seat belt assemblies designed for installation in motor vehicles equipped with seat belt assembly anchorages that do not require anchorage nuts, plates, or washers, need not have such hardware, but shall have 7/16-20 UNF-2A or 1/2-13UNC-2A attachment bolts or equivalent metric hardware.

Because the attachment hardware required under S4.1(f) is needed for permanent installation of the seat belt assembly in a motor vehicle, we interpret S4.1(f) to apply only to seat belt assemblies designed for permanent installation. In this instance, the ACSB is designed to attach to a vehicles existing tether anchorage with the tether hook supplied with the ACSB, allowing for installation when a belt-positioning booster is placed in a seating position that has a lap belt. (The requirements for the tether hook are discussed later in this letter regarding S4.3.) Additionally, in the past we have not required seat belt buckles to comply with requirements that are obviously inapplicable.[4] Because the ACSB is not designed for permanent installation, it would not have to comply with the hardware requirements of S4.1(f) of FMVSS No. 209.

S4.1(g) Adjustment

The add-on system would not have to be certified as complying with the adjustment requirements of S4.1(g) of FMVSS No. 209, which requires Type 2a seat belt assemblies to be capable of fitting up to the dimensions of a 95^th percentile adult male. S4.1(g) contemplates seat belt assemblies that would be permanently installed in motor vehicles. Permanently installed belts need to fit a wide range of occupants. Conversely, the ACSB would be recommended for use only with a booster seat and only for children weighing between 50 and 80 lb. Because of this limited and specific recommended use, the ACSB would not be required to comply with the adjustment requirements of S4.1(g) of FMVSS No. 209. However, as discussed below, the ACSB must be labeled with information about the size of the occupants for whom it is intended.

S4.1(k) Installation instructions and S4.1(l) Usage and maintenance instructions

S4.1(k) and S4.1(l) of FMVSS No. 209 require appropriate installation and use instructions to be provided with the add-on shoulder belt. S4.1(k) requires the ACSB to be accompanied by an instruction sheet providing sufficient information for its proper installation. As such, in this case these instructions would have to including a statement that the assembly is for installation only in motor vehicles with an upper tether attachment point that meets the applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 225. S4.1(l) requires that written instructions on proper use accompany the assembly. Because proper use of the ACSB would only be with a booster seat and only for children up to 80 lb, the instructions would be required to specify as such. Also under S4.1(l), a warning would have to be provided stating that the system is not to be used without a lap belt or by occupants weighing over 80 pounds. In addition, we suggest that you consider placing warning labels on the belt to inform occupants of the weight and use restrictions.

S4.2 Requirements for Webbing

FMVSS No. 209 establishes several requirements for the webbing used in a Type 2a shoulder belt. These include width, strength and elongation requirements.

S4.2(a) Width

S4.2(a) establishes a minimum width for specific portions of webbing in a seat belt assembly, including a Type 2a belt. Seat belt assembly webbing must be a minimum of 46 mm in width, except for portions that do not touch a 95^th percentile adult male. S4.2(a) ensures that belt webbing coming into contact with an occupant spreads the load imposed by the belt in a crash. By requiring webbing to spread rather than concentrate the load, the belt width requirement helps minimize the possibility of webbing-caused injury. The shoulder belt portion of the add-on belt meets the minimum width, but the attachment webbing for the add-on buckle is of narrower width.

You state that the narrower webbing is not intended to apply restraint force to the occupant and is of a short, non-adjustable length. If the narrower webbing would not apply restraint force to the occupant, then the webbing need not meet the minimum width requirement.

S4.2(b) Breaking strength and S4.2(c) Elongation

You state that the ACSB buckle is attached to the lap belt with a short loop of 25 mm wide webbing. You concluded that because the ACSB buckle webbing would be used solely as a loop in the assembly, the strength and elongation requirements should be applied to the webbing as a loop and not to a single piece of webbing. We disagree. After the ACSB buckle is attached to the vehicles lap belt, it would be possible for the ACSB buckle attachment to experience a substantial portion of the loading along a single piece of webbing, not the loop. If the webbing were to break at a point on a single strap, the anchoring could fail. In addition, the load may not be distributed equally across both sections of the loop. One section could experience a higher load than the other. Because of these potential consequences, the strength and elongation requirements of S4.2(b) and S4.2(c) would be applied to a single piece of the ACSB buckle webbing and not to the webbing as a loop.

S4.3 Requirements for Hardware

S4.3(c) Attachment hardware

The tether hook used to anchor the add-on shoulder belt to the tether anchorage at an adjacent seating position would be considered a "quick-disconnect" type of attachment hook under FMVSS No. 209 and would be required to meet certain strength requirements. The tether hook is a single hook and would be capable of quickly connecting to, and disconnecting from, the tether anchorage, which acts as an eye bolt. Under S4.3(c)(3) of FMVSS No. 209, seat belt assemblies having single attachment hooks of the quick-disconnect type for connecting webbing to an eye bolt shall be provided with a retaining latch or keeper ("keeper"). "Keepers" must be certified as not moving more than 2 millimeters (mm) in either the vertical or horizontal position when force is applied as specified in S5.2(c)(3). The "keeper" requirements ensure that the attachment hardware does not disconnect when loaded. Because the tether hook used with the add-on belt would function as a quick-disconnect type of attachment hook for a Type 2a seat belt, the tether hook spring clip would be required to comply with the "keeper" strength requirements under FMVSS No. 209.

FMVSS No. 213

In your letter, you ask if the add-on shoulder belt would be defined as a child restraint system (CRS) under FMVSS No. 213 if it were recommended for children between 40 and 80 lb. Because this assembly would be a Type 2a assembly, it would be excluded from the definition of a CRS. S4 of FMVSS No. 213 defines a CRS as any device, except a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat or position children who weigh 50 lb or less.[5] (Emphasis added.) The add-on shoulder belt is intended for use in conjunction with a lap belt. Under the intended use, the entire assembly would provide pelvic and upper torso restraint and function as a Type 2 seat belt assembly. As a component of a Type 2 assembly, this product would not be a CRS under FMVSS No. 213. We note that while the ACSB is currently excluded from the definition of a CRS, Antons Law (Pub. L. No. 107-318; 2002) requires NHTSA to consider whether to include injury performance criteria for booster seats "and other products for use in motor vehicles for the restraint of children weighing more than 50 pounds" under FMVSS No. 213.

In closing, the agency encourages approaches that may increase the use of child restraint systems, provided that the approaches comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards and do not compromise the safety of motor vehicle occupants. As with any product that is designed to attach to an existing device on a vehicle, we urge you to consider ways to reduce the likelihood of misuse of the product. Further, the use of an additional buckle on a product used to restrain children could increase the difficulty in releasing the child in an emergency situation. We appreciate your concern in thoroughly considering these and all other safety issues.

If you have any other questions please contact Chris Calamita of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:209#213
d.4/8/03





---




[1] It is unclear whether additional loading from the ACSB would adversely impact the vehicles existing belt and anchorage systems. You should determine if the ACSB would negatively impact compliance with FMVSS Nos. 208, 210, or 225, Child restraint anchorage systems.

[2] Under FMVSS No. 209 S3, a Type 2 seat belt assembly is a combination of pelvic and upper torso restraints.

[3] The agency determined that the integrated assemblies of Type 2 seat belts are safer than the Type 2a shoulder belts. Original equipment Type 2a shoulder belts may only be used at the driver seating position of vehicles intended to accommodate a wheel chair (58 FR 11975; March 2, 1993).

[4] See letter from Frank Berndt to Donald J. Gobeille, dated April 4, 1976, in which the agency states that buckles that are unlikely to contact the steering wheel in a crash situation do not have to meet the crush requirements of S4.3(d)(3) of FMVSS No. 209.

[5] The agency is considering amending the definition to include devices recommended for use by children 65 lb or less. (67 FR 21836.)

ID: ADA3

Ms. Victoria Krull
Executive Director
Adaptive Driving Alliance
4218 W. Electra Lane
Glendale, AZ 85310

Dear Ms. Krull:

This is in response to your letter of March 11, 2002, requesting an interpretation of the vehicle certification regulations at 49 CFR Part 567.You state that the Adaptive Driving Alliance (ADA) is an organization that serves both manufacturers and dealers of vehicles for the handicapped and disabled, who are commonly referred to as members of the "adaptive driving" or "mobility" industry. You state that the ADA has learned that some final stage manufacturers and alterers may have sold to adaptive driving industry dealers vans with potential problems concerning their gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR).

As described in your letter, the assigned GVWR of these vehicles may be exceeded by the unloaded weight of the vehicle, when added to the weight of a full tank of gasoline and 150 pounds times the number of designated seating positions, without any cargo being added to the vehicle. You acknowledge that this presents a safety issue, in that an overloaded vehicle could be prone to failures of the suspension, axle, hubs, brakes, tires, rims, frame, and steering linkage. This has prompted you to ask a number of questions regarding the issue of gross vehicle weight, as it applies to vehicles manufactured or altered for use by the handicapped and disabled.

The Agency addressed your substantive questions regarding the computation of these vehicles GVWR in recent letters to Adaptive Mobility Inc. and Ride-Away Handicap Equipment Corporation. Copies of those letters are enclosed.

You have also asked what responsibilities a motor vehicle dealer has when it learns that a vehicle in its unsold inventory is overweight, and what responsibilities the vehicles manufacturer and alterer would have in that situation. As you point out in your letter, the situation you describe does not involve a noncompliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. If the GVWR/GAWR information on the certification label is incorrect, the manufacturer responsible for the determination of that value whether a final stage manufacturer or an alterer could be subject to civil penalties for violation of the Agencys regulation.Regardless of whether the GVWR/GAWR information on the label is correct, the vehicle could be considered to contain a safety related defect if the overloading presents a risk of a safety problem (e.g., because the axle failed or stability problems, potentially leading to a crash). Both a final stage manufacturer and an alterer could be responsible for notifying owners and remedying the defect free of charge, if the defect was introduced into the vehicle as a result of the manufacturing operations they performed.

The manufacturer, which includes an alterer, whose manufacturing operations led to the defect is responsible for making a defect determination and notifying the agency pursuant to Part 573 of the Agencys regulations. The manufacturer is also responsible for notifying the dealer that the vehicle contains a safety related defect and is subject to the recall obligations under the Vehicle Safety Act. Federal law prohibits a dealer from delivering to a purchaser a vehicle with a safety related defect or noncompliance without first repairing the defect or noncompliance. A dealer who believes a vehicle may be built in the overloaded condition described in your letter may also want to consider the impact of any applicable state laws.

You also ask whether the Agency might consider the defect to be inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Although NHTSAs empowering statute alludes to the possibility of an inconsequentiality determination with regard to a defect, the granting of such a petition would be highly unusual. The Agency has only once granted such a petition.The Agency determined that a certification label containing erroneous GVWR information was inconsequential because the correct information was also provided and the error was apparent.Since the obligation to recall and remedy a defect under the Safety Act is premised on a determination that the defect relates to motor vehicle safety, it is highly unlikely that the Agency would grant an exemption from the recall and remedy requirements. This is especially true given a situation, such as that you describe, which poses "an obvious safety issue."

If you have any further questions regarding vehicle certification requirements, feel free to contact Coleman Sachs of my staff at 202-366-5238.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:567
d.9/23/02

ID: AFTERMARKETWINDSCREEN

Mr. Rick Mckeon
P.O. Box 1845
Laguna Beach, CA 92652-1845

Dear Mr. Mckeon:

This responds to your letter asking for information about the application of United States safety standards to an "after-market product for the Mazda Miata intended to eliminate back-draft on the driver and passenger when the top is down or the plastic rear window is removed."

You ask whether the device must be transparent or translucent, or be a "screen" type material.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the statutory authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment or pass on the compliance of a vehicle or item of equipment outside the context of an actual enforcement proceeding. Instead, Federal law establishes a self-certification system under which motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers themselves certify that their products comply with all applicable standards.

NHTSA also has the authority to investigate and order recalls to remedy safety related defects in motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment.

As far as we can tell from your letter, your product appears to be an item of motor vehicle equipment regulated by NHTSA. Our statute defines "motor vehicle equipment," in relevant part, as any system, part, or component "sold as an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle" (49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(7)(B)). An item of equipment is an accessory if it meets the following criteria:

1. A substantial portion of its expected uses are related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles; and
2. It is purchased or otherwise acquired, and principally used by ordinary users of motor vehicles.

Your back-draft eliminator appears to be an accessory because it was presumably designed with the expectation that a substantial portion of its expected use will be with motor vehicles. (We make this assumption because you designed the product for use in a Mazda Miata). Further, you state that the back-draft eliminator is an aftermarket product and, therefore, intended to be purchased and principally used by ordinary users of motor vehicles.

The installation of a back-draft eliminator by a commercial entity is subject to certain restrictions. The Federal Vehicle Safety Act at 49 U.S.C. 30122 provides that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or vehicle repair business may not knowingly "make inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in accordance with any FMVSS. Therefore, the back-draft eliminator could not be installed by any of those entities if such use would adversely affect the ability of a vehicle to comply with any FMVSS. I have enclosed an information sheet that describes how you can obtain copies of the FMVSSs. You should carefully review the FMVSSs, particularly FMVSS Nos. 111 and 205 as discussed below, to determine whether installation of your back-draft eliminator would affect a vehicle's compliance with the standards.^up>

Pursuant to NHTSAs authority, the agency has established FMVSS No. 205, Glazing materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for various types of glazing (called "items"), and specifies the locations in vehicles in which each item of glazing may be used. The standard also incorporates by reference an industry standard, the American National Standard "Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways (ANSI Z26)."

Your companys product, as described in your letter, would be considered either item 4 or item 5 glazing subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 205 and ANSI Z26 if constructed of a glazing material, e.g., plastic or glass. Item 4 glazing includes safety glazing material for use in motor vehicles in auxiliary wind deflectors at levels requisite for driving visibility. We would consider the back-draft eliminator to be at a level requisite for driving visibility if it is at a level through which any size driver may view the road and traffic to the rear of the vehicle. Under FMVSS No. 205 and the ANSI standard, item 4 glazing must comply with Test Nos. 10, 13, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, and 24 of the ANSI Z26 as well as Test No. 2. Test No. 2 applies a 70 percent light transmittance requirement to areas of glazing that are at levels requisite for driving visibility. Item 5 glazing includes safety glazing material for use in motor vehicles in auxiliary wind deflectors. This glazing must comply with the Tests cited above for item 4 glazing except for Test No. 2.

NHTSA has also issued FMVSS No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, to establish performance and location requirements for rearview mirrors in each new motor vehicle. Under this standard, your back-draft eliminator may or may not affect compliance of a vehicle with this standard, depending on its particular material, size or location within the vehicle. "Inside" rearview mirrors are required for "passenger cars" by the standard (paragraph S5.1). Since a passenger car, such as the Mazda Miata, must meet FMVSS No. 111's requirements by way of an inside rearview mirror, a back-draft eliminator could not obstruct the view provided by the inside rearview mirror (i.e., the mirror must continue to provide the scope of view required by the standard).

In addition, the manufacturer, whether your client or a licensee, is subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. ''30118-30120, which set forth the notification and remedy procedures for products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. Thus, if NHTSA or the manufacturer determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and for remedying the problem free of charge. This responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which the product is installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.

I hope this information is helpful. For your further information, I am enclosing a fact sheet we prepared entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment. If you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Nancy Bell of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:205
d.6/7/02

^[1] The 'make inoperative" provision does not apply to equipment attached to or installed on or in a vehicle by the vehicle owner. However, NHTSA urges vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of any system or device on their vehicles.

ID: AIAM 003788 114

ID: AIAM.ekmy

Mr. Michael X. Cammisa
Director, Safety
Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, Inc.
1001 19th Street North, Suite 1200
Arlington, VA 22209

Dear Mr. Cammisa:

This is in response to your August 29, 2003 letter on behalf of the Technical Affairs Committee of the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, Inc. (AIAM), requesting clarification and interpretation of the Early Warning Reporting (EWR) regulations, as set forth in 49 CFR Part 579, with respect to the submission of certain marketing survey information. In your letter, you described certain consumer survey forms that are provided by manufacturers to consumers that elicit consumer opinions of their vehicles' performance. As described, these forms are in a "bubble" format, are machine-read, often contain spaces for comment, and consumers sometimes attach separate pages in response. You raised four specific points with respect to the information gathered from these forms, that I repeat below, followed by NHTSA's interpretation.

1. "Machine-read 'bubble form' responses to consumer surveys, requesting scaled, qualitative evaluations or product performance." You request our confirmation that these not be counted in consumer complaint totals.

You explained that "[t]he purpose of the 'bubble form' surveys is to seek qualitative evaluations of consumer preferences, so that future vehicles may be designed to better meet consumer needs and desires." The forms request consumers' ratings of their vehicles' performance (e.g., on a scale of 1 to 5) in particular areas, with typical questions addressing engine sound, smoothness, acceleration, steering effort, and seat comfort, among others. Although you have not provided pro forma exemplars of the "bubble forms," you explained that they are completed in a manner analogous to a standardized test and the responses are machine-read.

You note that these surveys are submitted at the request of the manufacturer, but recognized our previously expressed view to the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers of March 25, 2003, that the manufacturer's initiation of a communication is not determinative as to whether a communication is a complaint. Based on your description of the information sought in the forms used by your constituent manufacturers, the responses are likely to be "qualitative and general in nature."

In our view, the bubble portions of these consumer surveys do not fall within the meaning of "consumer complaint" as defined in the EWR regulations, 49 CFR  579.4(c). As you note, it would be unclear as to when or if a low a rating rises to the level of a "complaint," which would be dependent on the definitions and views of the consumers, and which would not be communicated by the standardized part of the form. As such, it is NHTSA's interpretation that the bubble portions of the survey forms, as you have described them, do not fall within NHTSA's definition of "consumer complaint." This is consistent with our letter of March 25, 2003 cited above.

2. "Comments written by consumers in the space designated for comment in the bubble form and expressing a complaint about a vehicle system covered by the early warning rule." You believe that these should be counted as consumer complaints.

You noted that the survey forms utilized by your constituent manufacturers "may have spaces at the bottom of the forms for consumers to write more detailed comments," in addition to the bubble portion. NHTSA agrees with your understanding that the comments provided in these spaces need to be reviewed by the individual manufacturers, like other communications, to determine whether they are complaints. If so, any complaints documented in these spaces must be reported if required by 49 CFR 579.21(c).

3. "Separate pages attached by the consumer to a bubble form and expressing a cognizable complaint."Again, you believe that these must be counted as consumer complaints.

You reported that a consumer might attach separate pages to the survey form documenting specific problems or dissatisfaction with a vehicle's performance. NHTSA agrees with your understanding, that the manufacturer is required to count any complaints contained in these separate, attached pages as "consumer complaints," and report such complaints according to the coded categories set forth in the EWR regulations.

4. You believe that "marginal notes written in spaces on machine read bubble forms that were not designated for recording comments need not be reviewed by manufacturers for possible inclusion in the consumer complaint counts."

You stated that consumers occasionally write comments or notes in the bubble portion of the survey forms, rather than in (or in addition to) the space designated for additional commentary or in separate pages. You further explained that the marketing contractors that manufacturers hire to tabulate the responses to these surveys are unable to capture such notes contained in the margins of the forms in their calculus of the responses. Under these circumstances, we agree that such marginal notes would not need to be counted in the manufacturer's report.

Should you have any further questions, please contact Andrew J. DiMarsico of my staff at (202) 366-5263.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:579
11/6/03

ID: AIT.jeg

Mr. Daniel H. Fagerstrom
Station Manager - AIT Freight Systems, Inc.
3340-C Greens Road
Suite 350
Houston, TX 77032

Dear Mr. Fagerstrom:

This responds to your inquiry whether a "truck-mounted hydraulic crane 'bundle extractor'" you wish to import is considered a motor vehicle that would have to comply with the applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. You submitted your inquiry on behalf of your client, Hydro-Engineering, Inc.

According to your letter, the unit "comprises a used Peinemann Truck Mounted Bundle Extractor (TMBE) which consists of a hydraulic crane apparatus permanently mounted on a special-order Mercedes diesel truck chassis." The TMBE is used to remove, handle, and replace bundles of heat exchanger and cooling tubes from industrial heat exchangers and cooling towers. The work for which the TMBE is designed is performed in oil refineries, electric power and process chemical plants, or other similar heavy industrial settings. You stated that "(t)ypically the TMBE spends extended periods of time at a single jobsite." You also stated that the intended use of the TMBE is definitely that of off-road applications, and that there are numerous features of its design and construction that make it unsuitable for anything other than sporadic, short-term road travel.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) interprets and enforces the laws under which the Federal motor vehicle safety standards are promulgated. NHTSA's statute defines the term "motor vehicle" as follows:

"Any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails."

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

Based on the information you provided, it appears that the TMBE is not a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of the statutory definition.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:VSA
d.6/22/00

ID: Alani.1

Mr. Y. Alani
Deputy General Manager
Autoluxe Tires (Israel) Ltd.
25 Hamelacha Street, Park Afeq
Rosh Haayin 48091
Israel

Dear Mr. Alani:

This is in response to your letter and subsequent e-mail to Eric Stas in which you requested clarification as to the proper application of speed rating codes for replacement tires. Specifically, your letter asked whether it would be permissible to replace original equipment tires with an "H" speed rating with replacement tires with a "T" speed rating, whether it would be permissible to place "H"-rated tires on the front axle and "T"-rated tires on the rear axle of a vehicle, and whether a damaged "H"-rated tires would retain that designation after being repaired. For the reasons discussed below, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) cannot advise you as to the proper application of these codes.

Speed ratings are not required under our Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs). It is our understanding that the tire speed rating system was established by the European Tyre and Rim Technical Organization (ETRTO), so you may wish to consult with that organization about the proper application of such codes (see http://www.etrto.org/pub_gb.html for contact information.)

We assume that you wrote to us because some tires sold in the U.S. are labeled with speed rating codes. By way of explanation, NHTSA is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (e.g., tires) introduced into the U.S. market. NHTSA does not issue approvals of these products, but instead, a manufacturer of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment must self-certify that its products meet all applicable safety standards, prior to offering such products for sale in the United States. Under our FMVSSs related to tires, manufacturers are not required to label tires with speed ratings. However, tire manufacturers are permitted to label additional information on the sidewall of tires, including speed rating codes, provided that the additional information does not obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information, or otherwise defeat its purpose.

If you have further questions, you may contact Eric Stas of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:109 d.6/21/05

ID: Alliance 114

ID: Alliance Letter - Sale of Electronic Odometer Resetting Devices

ID: alliance(9-2-03).ajd

Mr. Robert S. Strassburger
Vice President
Vehicle Safety and Harmonization
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Inc.
1401 H Street, NW, Suite 900
Washington, D.C. 20005

Dear Mr. Strassburger:

This is in reply to your letter of September 2, 2003, regarding my July 21, 2003 letter to Mr. Cavallo of Halcore Group, Inc., which discussed the early warning reporting (EWR) responsibilities of small volume manufacturers.

I had advised Mr. Cavallo that "[f]or the purposes of determining whether the production of vehicles meets or exceeds the 500 vehicles per year threshold in Section 579.21 et seq., the production of the divisions, parent, subsidiaries and affiliates must be aggregated." This interpretation is consistent with other letters interpreting the EWR regulation.See Letter from Jacqueline Glassman to John D. Evans of April 11, 2003, at p. 3; Letter from Jacqueline Glassman to Rod Nash of August 20, 2003, at p. 2; and Letter from Jacqueline Glassman to Rod Nash of October 10, 2003.

You assert that the interpretation that I provided to Mr. Cavallo was inconsistent with statements made by a person other than the Chief Counsel at a public meeting. The September 24, 2002 public meeting you reference concerned technical issues, such as security and acknowledgement of submissions, regarding electronic EWR submissions to the agency. The Federal Register Notice announcing this meeting was clear that this was to be only a technical meeting. See 67 FR 55448. Moreover, at the time of the meeting, we expressly stated that the information presented was not binding upon the agency, and that nothing stated at the meeting should be construed as a final NHTSA interpretation. Transcript p. 8. [1] In addition, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance) and its members are familiar with NHTSAs interpretive processes. As such, the Alliance is fully aware that the Chief Counsel is the only NHTSA official with authority to issue interpretations of agency regulations. See 49 CFR 501.8(d)(4).

Second, you state that the interpretation in the Cavallo letter is inconsistent with how the agency intends to use the information collected from EWR, as stated in the final rule. You also said that the value in the information provided by low volume manufacturers is very limited when conducting trend analysis because a single incident can look like a high "incident rate" relative to the performance of other vehicles manufactured in larger quantities. In addition, you concluded that "the agencys guidance from September 2002 public meeting regarding the limited reporting requirements for low volume subsidiaries makes sense in the overall context of the EWR rule and the uses to which NHTSA plans to put the EWR information."

We disagree with your conclusion. The statement was not "the agencys guidance." We determined that the 500 unit production threshold is the appropriate demarcation point in part based on small business concerns. We also determined that aggregate reporting is appropriate in order to capture all vehicles manufactured by an entity with affiliates or subsidiaries. Moreover, while a single incident may skew the "incident rate" relative to other vehicles, it is not the only factor that controls NHTSAs initiation of a defect investigation or the determining factor in deciding to issue an initial determination. Also, EWR information will not be the sole basis for opening a defect investigation. As we stated in the preamble to the final rule, "if we identify matters that might possibly suggest the existence of a defect, we plan to seek additional clarifying information from the manufacturer in question, and from other sources, to help us to decide whether to open a formal defect investigation." 45822 FR at 45865. We see no reason to vary from our current position.

Lastly, you stated that, in the context of FMVSS No. 208 phase-in requirements, the agency in an interpretation letter previously determined that low volume subsidiaries of larger parent companies retain their low volume status. As you recognize in your letter, a letter interpreting FMVSS No. 208 does not control the interpretation of the EWR regulation. We also noted in that letter that the interpretation provided therein only reflected consideration of factors underlying FMVSS No. 208, and did not provide guidance for interpreting any other regulatory provisions. See Letter from John Womack to Grant Nakayama of August 22, 2001. We do not believe that the concerns underlying that interpretation letter are the same as those underlying the EWR regulation. First, the exclusion of low volume subsidiaries from the phase-in requirements of FMVSS No. 208 reflected the technical challenges faced by smaller manufacturers given the complexity of the advanced air bag requirements. Second, that exclusion simply deferred compliance with the advanced air bag rule by low volume subsidiaries to the end of the phase-in period. In contrast, your suggestion would, in effect, totally exclude low volume subsidiaries from the comprehensive reporting requirements of the EWR regulation.

If you have any questions, you may call Andrew DiMarsico of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:579
d.11/4/03





---

[1] Docket NHTSA 2001-8677-530. Available at http://dms.dot.gov.