ID: nht76-5.15

DATE: 11/10/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Triplex Safety Glass Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your September 8, 1976, letter requesting information concerning the Federal regulations that would be applicable to safety glazing for use in "slow moving" vehicles. Please excuse our delay in answering your questions. Apparently, your earlier letter of February 5, 1976, was misplaced.

Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, specifies requirements for glazing materials for use in most motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. A glazing manufacturer must certify any glazing that is to be used in a motor vehicle (other than a trailer) as being in compliance with Standard No. 205. "Motor vehicle" is defined in @ 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. I am enclosing a copy of the agency's opinion of what vehicles qualify as "motor vehicles" under the definition. Glazing material that is to be used in a vehicle that does not qualify as a "motor vehicle" does not have to meet the performance requirements of Standard No. 205.

Sincerely,

Enclosure

ATTACH.

SEPTEMBER 8, 1976

Triplex Safety Glass Co Ltd

Robert L. Carter -- Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicle Programs, U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

Dear Mr. Carter,

On 5th February 1976 I wrote to the Department of Transportation requesting information on possible regulations in the U.S.A. governing the safety glazing to be fitted in slow moving vehicles. To date I have not received a reply. It may be that the letter was lost in the post and I, therefore, enclose a copy.

I realise, of course, that this query is probably nothing to do with your department, but I would be grateful if you could either forward it to the correct authority or alternatively let us have the address of this authority in order that we can write to them ourselves.

Yours sincerely,

MISS VALERIE HOOD -- Standards Department

FEBRUARY 5, 1976

The Administrator -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation,

Dear Sir,

SLOW MOVING VEHICLES

Can you please let us know what regulations, if any, govern the type of safety glazing which must be fitted in slow moving vehicles (i.e. vehicles with a maximum speed of 20-25 km/h) in the U.S.A. These vehicles are usually agricultural or forestry vehicles, etc. which might go on a public road for short periods.

Our understanding of U.S. National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act 1966 and F.M.V.S.S. 205 are that neither covers such vehicles. The former describes a motor vehicle as "any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads and highways" and the latter applies only to passenger cars, multi-purpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, motor cycles, slide-in campers and pick up covers.

If the above query does not come within your jurisdiction, we would be grateful if you would forward our letter to the correct authority.

Yours faithfully, TRIPLEX SAFETY GLASS COMPANY LIMITED;

MISS VALERIE HOOD -- Standards Department

ID: nht94-2.16

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 5, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Scott Slaughter -- Pitts Enterprises, Inc. (Pittsview, AL)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/2/94 from Scott Slaughter to Marv Shaw (OCC 9654)

TEXT:

This responds to your inquiry about whether a logging trailer known as the "knuckle boom loader trailer" that you manufacture is a motor vehicle that would have to comply with the applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. You explained that you r trailer stays in the woods the majority of its life and is infrequently transported over public roads between job sites. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

This agency interprets and enforces the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety, Act ("Safety Act" 13 U.S.C. S 1392 et seq.) under which the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards are promulgated. The Act 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 your trailer to be a motor vehicle depends on its use. It is the agency's position that this statutory definition does not encompass mobile construction equipment, such as cranes and scrapers, which use the highway only to m ove 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 for purposes of the Safety Act, since the on-highway use i s more than "incidental."

Based on the available information, it appears that your trailer is not a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of the Safety Act. This conclusion is based on statements in your letter and brochures that this equipment spends extended periods of time at a single construction site and only uses the public roads infrequently to move between job sites. Thus, the agency would consider the use of your device on the public roads to be incidental and not its primary purpose. Since your trailer is not a motor v ehicle, it would not be subject to our Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

If the agency were to receive additional information indicating that your trailer used the roads more than on an incidental basis, then the agency would reassess this interpretation. If the agency were to determine that your trailer is a motor vehicle, then the trailer would have to comply with the applicable Standards, including Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, which addresses conspicuity, Standard No. 115, Vehicle

Identification Numbers, Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, and Standard No. 121 Air Brake System which requires automatic slack adjusters and brakes to act on all wheels.

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

ID: nht95-3.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 8, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ron Hooker -- Missouri Department of Agriculture

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/9/95 LETTER FROM RON HOOKER TO JOHN WOMACK (OCC 10906)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Hooker:

This responds to your question about whether the State of Missouri has authority to promulgate regulations relating to the safety of motor vehicles powered by alternative fuels, particularly compressed natural gas (CNG). The short answer is that while M issouri is generally preempted in this area, it could issue its own more stringent safety standard for State-owned vehicles.

Federal law will preempt a State law if (1) there is a Federal safety standard in effect, (2) the State law covers the same aspect of performance as that Federal standard, and (3) the State law is not identical to the Federal standard. Specifically, sec tion 30103(b) of Title 49 of the United States Code states that

(b) Preemption - (1) When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a State or political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter. However, the United States Government, a State, or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe a standard for a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equip ment obtained for its own use that imposes a higher performance requirement than that required by the otherwise applicable standard under this chapter.

State safety standards applicable to CNG fuel system integrity are generally preempted by Federal law. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has issued Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 303, Fuel system integrity of compressed natural gas vehicles. (59 FR 19659, April 25, 1994, copy enclosed). The Standard specifies frontal barrier and rear barrier crash tests conducted at 30 mph and a lateral moving barrier crash test conducted at 20 mph. The Standard applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses that have a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less and use CNG as a motor fuel. It also applies to school buses regardless of weight that use CNG as a motor fuel. Th e Standard takes effect September 1, 1995. Accordingly, after September 1, 1995, Missouri could only issue its own safety standard applicable to CNG vehicle fuel system integrity if the State safety standard is identical to FMVSS No. 303. The one excep tion to requiring such identical standards is that Missouri could prescribe a standard for motor vehicles obtained for its own use, provided the State law imposed a higher performance requirement than the level of performance prescribed by FMVSS No. 303. Thus, Missouri could issue its own more stringent safety standard for State-owned vehicles.

NHTSA further notes that Missouri is free to issue safety standards applicable to the fuel system integrity of vehicles powered by other alternative fuels (e.g., liquid propane, hydrogen), since the agency has not issued any FMVSS applicable to other alt ernative fuels.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht69-2.18

DATE: 12/01/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert Brenner; NHTSA

TO: Executive Motors, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of October 28, 1969, to the National Highway Safety Bureau, concerning our Federal Motor Vehicle safety standards.

The Initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, "New(Illegible Word) Tires - Passenger Cars" was published in the Federal Register on November 13, 1967. This standard specifies tire(Illegible Word) and laboratory test requirements for head unseating resistance, strength, endurance, and high speed performance; defines tire load ratings; and specifies labelling requirements. The standard also requested "Persons desiring an amendment to Standard No. 109 adding tires not presently listed, should submit sufficient pertinent information relative to these tires in 10 copies to the Secretary of Transportation---."

The(Illegible Word) S.p.A. of Milan, Italy requested the addition of the 165-400 tire size designation to Standard No. 109 as well as the adoption of the letter symbols(Illegible Words) for tires. The(Illegible Words) petition was approved and published in the Federal Register on April 18, 1969. The(Illegible Word) tire size designation has been listed within Table I-D of Standard No. 109 since that time.

The labelling requirements of Standard No. 109 apply to all new(Illegible Word) tires - both domestic and foreign - manufactured after January 1,(Illegible Word). There are no "special markings" required on the tires coming into this country other than those detailed in Standard No. 109. For your information, I have enclosed Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 and No. 110 with amendments.

The 165-400 tire size designation is currently listed within our Standard No. 109 and the labelling requirements are considered to be reasonable and in the interest of safety. The National Highway Safety Bureau does not prohibit any tire manufacturer from fabricating motor vehicle tires. The availability of tires from a specific tire manufacturer is a matter of that company's policy for marketing and has no direct relation to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109.

As required by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, which deals with lighting requirements, was based on existing standards. Accordingly, the initial standard reflected existing requirements contained in Federal and State regulations and the Society of Automotive Engineers Standards on lighting equipment. Since publication of the initial standard on February 3, 1967, this Bureau has sponsored a continuing research program leading to the development of more effective and extensive requirements for vehicular lighting. In fact, during the past two years, eight research contracts have been awarded in the areas of improved forward and rear lighting systems. Under these contracts, in-depth studies, tests and evaluations will be conducted to determine the most effective color, size, intensity, location, and method of controlling the operation of the lamps which are required on the front and rear of motor vehicles. Further follow-on studies and evaluations are envisioned to determine the most-effectiveness and practicability of the proposed improved lighting systems. Results of this research will assist us in evaluating your suggestion and other similar suggestions relating to improved rear lighting systems.

ID: nht68-3.32

DATE: 05/02/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert M. O'Mahoney; NHTSA

TO: Weslock Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your letter of April 22, 1968, to Mr. Bridwell has been referred to me for reply.

You state that it is your understanding that the proposed rule making in Docket 2-16 will require door locks on trailers and mobile homes to be so constructed "as to be recessed flush on exterior doors." Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 206, Door Latches, Hinges, and Locks - Passenger Cars, was originally issued on January 31, 1967 and became effective on January 1, 1968. An amendment to this standard was issued on April 24, 1968 with an effective date of January 1, 1969.

Neither the standard as presently written or the proposed amendment in Docket 2-16 is applicable to trailers and mobile homes. Moreover, there is no provision either in the standard or in the proposed amendment which requires that door locks must be so constructed "as to be recessed flush on exterior doors," even as to those motor vehicles to which the standard applies presently or to which it is proposed to apply in Docket 2-16. For your information, we are enclosing a copy of the recent amendment to Standard No. 206 as attachment No. 1, and a copy of the proposed amendment for Docket 2-16 as attachment No. 2.

In view of the foregoing, you may wish to reconsider your request that we forward to you the comments contained in Docket 2-16. The cost to you for forwarding those comments would be fifty cents a page and the number of pages contained in Docket 2-16 is considerable. Since your understanding of the thrust of Docket 2-16 is not correct, your request for an extension of time to May 25, 1968 is denied.

WESLOCK COMPANY

April 22, 1968

Federal Highway Administration Room 316, Donohoe Building 6th & D Street, S. W. Washington, D. C. 20591

Attention: Lowell K. Bridwell Federal Highway Administrator

Although we have not received Docket 2-16, an amendment to Standard 206, we are told that all interested persons have until April 25, 1968 to file comments.

As manufacturers of locks for trailers and mobile homes, we have reason to believe we are affected by Docket 2-16. By hearsay, we understand that this Docket will require that locks be so constructed as to be recessed flush on exterior doors.

If our understanding is correct, we fear that we, and many other lock manufacturers, may be seriously damaged by this requirement. We respectfully request an extension of time until May 25, 1968 to file comments and shall appreciate your sending us Docket 2-16 for study.

May we also suggest that serious consideration be given to the danger of entrapment in trailers arising from the use of locks which do not open automatically upon turning of the inside knob. To prevent loss of life, it may be wise to require panic-proof locks; that is, those which unlock and open merely by turning the inside knob and which do not depend upon the performance of some precedent operation.

Sincerely,

Ernest Cipriano President

ID: Xiao.1

Mr. Xiaoda Xiao
President & CEO
ZX, Invention
135 Belchertown Road
Amherst, MA 01002




Dear Mr. Xiao:

This responds to your letter seeking an evaluation of your product (the Vector Blind Spot Mirror enclosed with your letter), in order to determine whether the mirror, when properly installed, blocks the front windshield or shakes during driving. Because, we do not conduct certification testing or offer product endorsements, we are unable to provide such an evaluation. The following discussion briefly explains how our Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) operate and how they may pertain to your product.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, it is the responsibility of manufacturers to certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards (see 49 CFR Part 571) before they can be offered for sale. NHTSA enforces compliance with the standards by purchasing and testing vehicles and equipment, and we also investigate safety-related defects.

As you are probably aware, FMVSS No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, sets forth requirements for mirrors on new passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, school buses, and motorcycles in order to provide a clear and reasonably unobstructed view to the rear (49 CFR 571.111). New vehicles must be certified as complying with the requirements of FMVSS No. 111, as well as all other applicable standards.

However, the packaging and descriptions of your product suggest that it would not be installed on the vehicle as original equipment, but instead, it would be sold as aftermarket equipment. Accordingly, we believe that your product would be a supplemental mirror that is not covered by FMVSS No. 111, so you would not have any corresponding certification responsibilities under our standards.

With that said, there are certain limitations on aftermarket installation of motor vehicle equipment. For example, 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. 49 U.S.C. 30122. Although the "make inoperative" provision does not apply to equipment attached to or installed on or in a vehicle by the vehicle owner, NHTSA urges vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of any system or device in their vehicles.

Beyond compliance with relevant federal safety standards, manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment have additional responsibilities, including a requirement to notify purchasers about safety-related defects and to provide a remedy free of charge, even if their equipment is not covered by a safety standard. 49 U.S.C. 30118-30120.

In addition, States have the authority to regulate the use and licensing of vehicles operating within their jurisdictions. Therefore, you may wish to check with the Department of Motor Vehicles in any State in which the equipment will be sold or used regarding any such requirements.

For your further information, I am enclosing a fact sheet we prepared titled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment. I hope you find this information useful. We are also returning to you the sample mirror provided with your letter. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:111
d.4/14/05

ID: nht80-2.48

DATE: 06/09/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Honorable John P. Murtha, House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent request for information on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Steve Zufall. Mr. Zufall is interested in the specifications applicable to the manufacture of propane tanks to be used in the conversion of gasoline-powered vehicles. He asked how to obtain "numbers" to be listed on the tanks and mentioned the designation "4VA-240", which someone had discussed with him.

The enclosed discussion sets forth the implications under Federal law of converting gasoline-powered vehicles to use propane, as well as a general discussion of auxiliary fuel tanks. The applicable statutory authority is the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1974 (15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq.). The discussion first looks at the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) applicable to fuel systems and then at the defect responsibilities that might be involved. Next, a brief mention is made of the possibility of product liability suits.

There are no requirements under the Federal motor vehicle safety regulations that specify "numbers" which must be stamped on propane gas tanks. The designation mentioned by Mr. Zufall, "4VA-240", is actually "4BA-240" and refers to specifications under the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety regulations relating to fuel systems on commercial vehicles or to tanks used for shipment of propane gas in interstate commerce. These regulations would not apply, however, to tanks or fuel systems on private vehicles. For further information regarding these regulations, Mr. Zufall should contact Mr. W. R. Fiste of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (202-426-0033).

ENC.

MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY

The Federal Implications of Installing Auxiliary Fuel Tanks and Of Converting Fuel Systems to Use Alternate Fuels

Before getting into the legalities of these installations and conversions, I want to stress my concern about the danger which these practices may pose to the occupants of vehicles with are altered and even to occupants of other vehicles. These practices may seriously increase the risk of fire if these altered vehicles are involved in accidents. Even where there are no legal liabilities, this threat to safety may be present.

The Act authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue FMVSS's applicable either to entire vehicles or to equipment for installation in vehicles. The only standard relevant to this discussion, FMVSS 301-75, is a vehicle standard. It applies to vehicles which use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees I. and which are (1) passenger cars, or (2) multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, or buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less or (3) schoolbuses with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds. If the need were found, a standard could also be issued for fuel systems designed for installation in new or used vehicles.

Under section 108(a)(1)(A) and (A)(1) of the Act, new Motor vehicles must comply with the FMVSS's applicable to them until they are first purchased by someone for purposes other than resale. That purchase is completed when the vehicle is delivered to the ultimate consumer. The NHTSA regulations include two measures designed to ensure compliance with applicable FMVSS's until this delivery. First, manufacturers of new vehicles are required to affix to each vehicle they produce a label which certifies the vehicle's compliance with all applicable FMVSS's. In addition, any person who prior to the first sale, alters a certified vehicle in a manner that significantly affects either its configuration or purpose is considered to be not only an alterer but also a manufacturer and therefore, must recertify the entire vehicle as complying with all applicable FMVSS's. (49 CFR 567.7 and Preamble to 37 F.P. 22800, October 25, 1972). The only alterations that a person may make prior to the first sale of a vehicle without being considered a manufacturer subject to the recertification requirements are minor finishing operations or the addition, substitution or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors, tires, or rim assemblies. (49 CFR 567.7).

Should a noncompliance be discovered in a recertified vehicle, as a result of an alterer's modification, the alterer would be liable for a civil penalty unless he or she could establish that he or she did not have actual knowledge of the noncompliance, and that he or she did not have reason to know in the exercise of due care that the vehicle did not comply. (Section 108(b)(2) of the Act). The civil penalty imposed could be up to $ 1000 for each violation of an applicable FMVSS. (Section 109 of the Act).

With respect to FMVSS 301, the effect of the alterer provisions is that not only must the original gasoline fuel system meet the performance requirements encompassed by the standard but that any auxiliary or replacement tank added by an alterer must meet them also.

If the alterer converts the gasoline fuel system to a propane fuel system, the vehicle must still be recertified. However, FMVSS 301-75 would cease to be a factor since the standard would no longer apply to the vehicle. Propane has a boiling point below 32 degrees F. and FMVSS 301-75 applies only to vehicles using fuel with a higher boiling point. Finally, if the alterer converts a gasoline-powered vehicle so that it is both gasoline-powered and propane-powered, he must recertify the entire vehicle as complying with all applicable standards, including FMVSS 301-75.

After the first purchase of a vehicle for purposes other than resale, tampering with the vehicle is limited by section 108(a)(2)(A). That section in essence prohibits the entities and persons listed below from knowingly removing, disconnecting or reducing performance of equipment or elements of design installed on a vehicle in accordance with applicable FMVSS's. There is no prohibition against an individual person modifying his or her own vehicle. Specifically, the section provides:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or 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 . . .

A person or entity found to have violated this section would be liable for a civil penalty of up to $ 1000 for each violation. (Section 109 of the Act).

If a tamperer adds an auxiliary gasoline tank to a vehicle manufactured in accordance with FMVSS 361-75, and in the process knowingly reduces the performance of the fuel system originally installed in the motor vehicle, he or she has violated section 108(a)(2)(A). (N.P. No. 1191, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 34 (1974). Such reduction of performance could occur, for example, if gasoline from the original system (a fuel system includes the filler pipe, tank, gasoline lines, fuel pump, carburetor, and engine) could be leaked through a rupture in the auxiliary tank and fuel lines, and if the design, materials, construction, installation or location of the auxiliary tank and fuel lines made them more susceptible to rupture than the original fuel system.

If a tamperer removes the original gasoline tank and installs a replacement one, section 108(a)(2)(A) is violated unless the performance (as defined by FMVSS 301-75) of the replacement tank equals or exceeds the performance of the original tank. To determine the relative performance of the replacement tank, a number of issues would have to be examined, including the quality of the replacement tank, the connection of the tank with the filler pipe and fuel lines to the fuel pump, and the location of the tank with respect to surrounding vehicle structures. For example, if unlike the original tank, the replacement tank were sufficiently near surrounding vehicle structures so that those structures might be pushed against or into the replacement tank and cause a rupture in a collision, the performance of the fuel system would have been impermissibly reduced.

There is no liability under section 108(a)(2)(A) in connection with FMVSS 301-75 if the tamperer converts a used gasoline-powered vehicle into a propane-powered vehicle. Modifying safety systems of a vehicle being converted from one vehicle type to another would not violate section 108(a)(2)(A) so long as the modified systems complied with the FMVSS's that would have been applicable to the vehicle had it been originally manufactured as the vehicle type to which it is being converted. For example, in converting a 1978 gasoline-powered car to a propane-powered car, the converter would not be covered by FMVSS 301-75 since that standard did not apply to 1978 propane-powered cars.

The case of a tamperer who modifies a used gasoline-powered vehicle so that it has a dual gasoline/propane system would be essentially the same as that of the person who adds an auxiliary gasoline tank. If the tamperer knowingly reduces the performance of the gasoline system in adding the propane system, he or she has violated section 108(a)(2)(A).

As to safety defect responsibilities under sections 151 et seq. of the Act, persons who alter new vehicles by installing auxiliary or replacement gas tanks or by converting a gasoline fuel system to a propane fuel system as well persons who produce the equipment being installed are fully subject to those responsibilities. Sections 151 et seq. provide that manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must notify owners of vehicles and equipment with safety-related defects and remedy those defects free of charge. As explained earlier the term "manufacturer" includes persons who alter new vehicles by doing more than simply adding, substituting, or removing readily attachable components or performing minor finishing operations. Since alterations involving installation of auxiliary replacement gas tanks or conversion of gasoline systems to propane systems are more substantial, persons who make those alterations are manufacturers.

Thus the alterer who installs auxiliary or replacement tanks or makes propane conversions is responsible for safety defects in the installation of the tanks and propane systems. Installation defects include defects in the method and location of installation.

Under 49 CFR Part 579, the auxiliary and replacement tanks and the propane systems would all be treated as "replacements equipment." Part 579 places the responsibility for safety defects in the performance, construction components, or materials, of replacement equipment on the manufacturer of such equipment. Therefore, the manufacturer who produces auxiliary or replacement tanks or propane systems, as distinct from the alterer who installs such equipment, would be subject to these responsibilities for production defects. A person who both produces such equipment and installs it in new vehicles prior to their delivery to the ultimate consumer would be subject to responsibilities for safety defects stemming from both production and installation of the equipment.

Under section 108(a)(1)(D) and 109(a), any person who fails to provide notification of or remedy for a safety defect is liable for a civil penalty of up to $ 1000 per violation.

Tamperers have no safety defect responsibilities for their tampering. As noted above, only manufacturers of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment are subject to sections 151 et seq. Since the term "manufacturer" is interpreted to refer to those who produce, assemble or import new vehicles or equipment and since tamperers, by definition, deal with used vehicles only, tamperers are not manufacturers.

Finally, there is the larger and more far reaching question of the liability of the alterers, tamperers, and manufacturers in tort. Whether or not these parties are liable under the Act for their actions, they may well be liable in tort. Both alterers and tamperers may be liable for the manner and location in which they install auxiliary or replacement gasoline tanks or propane systems in vehicles. Likewise, the manufacturers of these items of motor vehicle equipment may be liable for their design, materials, manufacture or performance. These persons may wish to consult a local lawyer on their liability in tort.

I hope that you will find this discussion helpful. If you have any further questions I will be happy to answer them.

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: nht88-1.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/09/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Karen Hastie Williams -- Crowell & Moring

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

December 1, 1987

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

Dear Ms. Jones:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

. No warranty relationship exists between the Government and seller.

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

. No additional benefit would flow to the Government.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Karen Hastie Williams Counsel for AM General/LTV Aerospace

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

ID: aiam5126

"Dear Mr. Daniels: This responds to your letter to Paul Jackson Rice our former Chief Counsel, in which you referred to a tire manufactured in Canada that had had the 'DOT number' obliterated. Because you think the tire was improperly sold in that condition, you asked whether it was illegal to import a tire from Canada without a DOT number and whether it was illegal to sell or use a tire on the highway without a 'DOT serial number.' By way of background information, under the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq., as amended (hereinafter Safety Act), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and items of new motor vehicle equipment, the latter of which includes tires. All new motor vehicles and items of new motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards. This requirement is found at Section 1397 (a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act which provides 'No person shall . . . import into the United States, any . . . item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect . . . unless it is in conformity with such standard . . . .' The effect of that language is to require that tires manufactured on or after the effective date of applicable Federal safety standards must comply with those standards before they can be legally imported into the U.S. Pursuant to Standard 109 (49 CFR 571.109, New Pneumatic Tires) and Standard 119 (49 CFR 571.119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars), tire manufacturers must certify compliance therewith by molding the symbol 'DOT' onto the tire sidewalls. Further, 49 CFR 574.5 requires that all tires sold in the U.S. have tire identification numbers (TIN) molded into or onto the tire sidewalls by the manufacturers to facilitate recall in the event of a noncompliance or defect. With that background in mind, your specific questions are answered as follows: 1. Is it illegal to import a tire from Canada without a DOT serial number? Answer: Yes. Each tire imported into the U.S. for highway use must have molded into or onto the sidewall a TIN and a DOT symbol or in the alternative, be accompanied by proof that the tire was manufactured prior to the effective date of applicable safety standards. The only exception to these requirements is that used truck tire casings which have less than 2/32 inch tread remaining and which are being imported solely for retreading prior to on- road use may be imported without displaying the TIN or the DOT symbol. 2. Is it illegal to sell or use a tire for highway use without the DOT serial number? Answer: It is illegal for a manufacturer, distributor, or dealer to sell a new or retreaded tire to the first customer for purposes other than resale without the DOT symbol and the TIN molded into or onto the sidewall. There are no Federal requirements for the use of such tire once it has been sold to the first customer. There may, however, be state safety requirements pertinent to the use of motor vehicle equipment. For that information you should check with appropriate state officials. If the tire in question is intended for or capable of being used on a commercial vehicle, you may want to check also with the Office of Motor Carrier Standards (Room 3404), of the Federal Highway Administration, at this address. (Telephone (202) 366-1790.) I hope this information is helpful. Should you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of this office at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam4306

Dear Ms. Osborne: This responds to your January 29, 1987 letter to Mr. Barry Felrice NHTSA Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, asking about our agency's position on safety belt use in small school buses (i.e., school buses with gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less). Your letter has been referred to me for reply.; In your letter, you explain that you and the Alaska School Bus Safet Committee are interested in Alaska's implementation of Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, *Pupil Transportation Safety.* You request clarification of NHTSA's position on safety belt use in small school buses because members of the committee believe that safety belts are provided on those buses only for the use of special education students. You also request information on safety belt education programs that schools could use to encourage the proper use of safety belts by student passengers in small school buses.; As you might know, NHTSA has two sets of regulations for school buses The first set, issued under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, applies to the manufacture and sale of new school buses and includes our motor vehicle safety standards for school buses. One of these safety standards is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection,* which requires the safety belts for passengers on small school buses. The second set of regulations, issued under the Highway Safety Act, includes Highway Safety Programs Standard No. 17 and relates to the use of school vehicles. Because requirements for the use of school buses are set by the states, Standard No. 17 sets forth recommendations to the states for the pupil transportation aspect of their highway safety programs. We encourage states to consider Standard No. 17's recommendations but do not insist on compliance with every aspect of the standard.; As you are aware, NHTSA does not believe that a Federal requirement fo safety belts on large school buses (GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds) is necessary because large school buses are very safe due to their mass, seating configuration and 'compartmentalized' seating positions. However, because small school buses experience greater force levels in a crash, passengers on these vehicles need the added safety benefits of the belts to mitigate against injuries and fatalities. Of course, the belts on small school buses provide safety benefits only if they are properly used. We thus recommend they be used by all pupils whenever the children are transported. This recommendation is consistent with Program Standard No. 17, which states, 'Passengers in Type II school vehicles equipped with lap belts shall be required to wear them whenever the vehicle is in motion.' (IV.C.3.d(5).); With regard to your question about belt education programs, NHTSA an the National PTA have put together a 'Safety Belt A/V Resource Kit' and a 'Children's Training Kit' as part of our 1986 safety belt awareness campaign. The kit contains material geared toward increasing safety belt use by children in passenger cars, and might be helpful in promoting belt usage in small school buses. I am sending you the resource kits by separate cover.; Further, some states have developed their own safety belt eductio programs for school children. The person in your state who might be able to provide you with more information on the programs available in Alaska is:; <<