ID: 7765

Mr. Tim Bohn
Portec, Inc.
Construction Equipment Division
West 21st Street
P.O. Box 20
Yankton, SD 57078

Dear Mr. Bohn:

This responds to your inquiry about whether portable construction equipment that you manufacture would have to comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, particularly those standards related to brakes. You explained that your construction equipment is transported over public roads, but only between job sites and from the factory. In a telephone conversation with Marvin Shaw of my staff, you further described your equipment as a portable conveyor belt that typically spends extended periods of time at a single construction site but is occasionally towed over the public roads to other construction 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 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 will consider a construction vehicle 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 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 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 is more than "incidental."

Based on the above considerations, it appears that your portable conveyer belt is not a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of the Safety Act. Therefore, it would not be subject to our Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. This conclusion is based on your statements that your 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 portable conveyor belt on the public roads to be incidental and not its primary purpose.

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.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Ref: VSA d:11/10/92

ID: nht92-2.37

DATE: 11/10/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY JOHN WOMACK

TO: TIM BOHN -- PORTEC, INC., CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT DIVISION

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 9-17-92 FROM TIM BOHN TO CHIEF COUNCILS OFFICE, NHTSA (OCC 7765)

TEXT: This responds to your inquiry about whether portable construction equipment that you manufacture would have to comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, particularly those standards related to brakes. You explained that your construction equipment is transported over public roads, but only between job sites and from the factory. In a telephone conversation with Marvin Shaw of my staff, you further described your equipment as a portable conveyor belt that typically spends extended periods of time at a single construction site but is occasionally towed over the public roads to other construction 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 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 will consider a construction vehicle 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 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 incidential and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured. In 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 is more than "incidental."

Based on the above considerations, it appears that your portable conveyer belt is not a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of the Safety Act. Therefore, it would not be subject to our Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. This conclusion is based on your statements that your 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 portable conveyor belt on the public roads to be incidental and not its primary purpose.

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

ID: 16507.drn

Carlton R. Csiki, Division Chief
Commercial Vehicle Safety Division
Department of Motor Vehicles
State of Connecticut
60 State Street
Wethersfield, CT 06161

Dear Mr. Csiki:

This responds to your November 10, 1997, request that we clarify our pupil transportation policies concerning which vehicles we believe should be used to carry students to school-related events. I appreciate this opportunity to address your concerns.

Your letter follows up on an October 15, 1997, letter that Administrator Ricardo Martinez, M.D. sent to pupil transportation officials of each state which recommended, among other things, that certified school buses should be used to transport children to and from school and school-related events. You state that Connecticut does not prohibit the use of buses other than school buses (hereinafter referred to as "non-school buses") to transport students to and from school-related events. You believe that it may not be feasible to transport students on long field trips in a school bus, and ask whether the recommendation is contrary to provisions in Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety (Guideline 17), which appear to make allowance for the use of "school-chartered buses" (which are non-school buses) for special events.

Our position is that children are safest when in school buses and thus these vehicle should be used rather than conventional buses, certainly when transporting children on a regular basis to and from school-related events. It should be noted that Federal law prohibits persons from selling new non-school buses if the vehicles will be used significantly for school-related events. However, non-school buses may be occasionally rented for special school-related events, because an occasional rental does not constitute "significant use" as a school bus.

Guideline 17 reflects the real world possibility that a non-school bus might have to be rented from time to time for a special event. Under the guideline, these buses, which the guideline refers to as "school-chartered buses," would be subject to the guideline's recommendations for the safe operation of school vehicles but not to the recommendations for equipping school buses with mirrors, lamps and stop arms and identifying them with signs and yellow paint. This distinction was to promote safety on trips to special events without imposing unreasonable burdens on school administrators.

The guideline's provisions for non-school buses only address the occasional, short-term rental of the vehicles. As for buses that are regularly used for school-related events, there is no question that school buses are among the safest vehicles on the road today and should be used instead of non-school buses to transport school children. We ask you and your colleagues to further consider choosing school buses over non-school buses for transporting students to these school-related events.

If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
d.1/8/98
ref:VSA#571.3

ID: 04-003224drn

Thomas D. Turner, Vice Chairman
School Bus Manufacturers Technical Council
6298 Rock Hill Road
The Plains, VA 20198-1916

Dear Mr. Turner:

This responds to your letter dated April 13, 2004, asking for a technical amendment to correct two errors in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release. We concur that the errors should be corrected.

You ask that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) revise the emergency exit window force application requirement at S5.3.3.2 of FMVSS No. 217, which reads in part: "In the case of windows with one release mechanism, the mechanism shall require two force applications to release the exit." You state that aJune 13, 1994, letter from former Acting Chief Counsel John Womack to the Blue Bird Body Company confirmed that the wording of S5.3.3.2 is in need of correction.

You are correct that in the June 1994 letter, the agency determined that the wording is susceptible to being misread as requiring two force applications to open the single release mechanism. In that letter, the agency said that the requirement should have been worded: "In the case of windows with one release mechanism, the exit shall require two force applications to open." (Emphasis added.) In a March 20, 1996, letter to Blue Bird, the agency affirmed the interpretation of the June 13, 1994, letter.

You ask that we proceed with issuing a technical amendment to correct S5.3.3.2. However, you ask that S5.3.3.2 be corrected by adding the words underlined in the following text: "In the case of windows with one release mechanism, the mechanism shall require one or two force applications to release the exit."(You also ask for an identical correction of a roof exit requirement in S5.3.3.3 that is similarly worded: "In the case of roof exits with one release mechanism, the mechanism shall require one or two force applications to release the exit.") Your suggested wording is different than the correction discussed in the previous letters.

Discussion

This letter affirms the position expressed in the agencys June 13, 1994, and March 20, 1996, letters that, under S5.3.3.2, in the case of windows with one release mechanism, the exit shall require two force applications to open. Similarly, under S5.3.3.3, in the case of roof exits with one release mechanism, the exit shall require two force applications to open.

However, we do not agree with your suggested wording. By stating that the mechanism shall require "one or two force applications to release the exit," it permits the mechanism to release (open) the exit upon a single force application. We believe that a single force application is insufficient because, for exits with one release mechanism, there is a potential for ejections through exits if the exit could be opened with just a single force. For example, passengers could be thrown against such a release mechanism in a rollover and accidentally ejected through the opening. (A discussion of NHTSAs concern about ejection through exits with a single action release mechanism can be found in the final rule issuing S5.3.3.2 and S5.3.3.3, 57 FR 49413; November 2, 1992.) Accordingly, the agency continues to interpret S5.3.3.2 and S5.3.3.3 as specifying, for windows and roof exits with one release mechanism, that the exit shall require two force applications to open.

We plan to conduct rulemaking to address this matter as resources permit. If you have any further questions at this time, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:217
d.6/16/04

ID: 1985-03.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/06/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Warren F.B. Lindsley, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 8/22/85 letter from Jeffrey R. Miller to Leo Kagan

TEXT:

Warren F. B. Lindsley, Esq. Camel Square Suite 200E 4350 East Camelback Road Phoenix, Arizona 85018

This is in reply to your letter of July 3, 1985, to Mr. Vinson of my staff, with reference to the center high-mounted stop lamp, in which you have asked "whether a light which pulsates a few times and then assumes a steady state meets the requirements of the code."

As Mr. Vinson explained to you, a center high-mounted stop lamp installed as original equipment on a passenger car manufactured before September 1, 1986, must be steady-burning in use, but is permitted to flash automatically with the hazard warning system. As of September 1, 1986, original equipment lamps must only be activated upon application of the service brakes, and can only be steady-burning. A "light that pulsates a few times then assumes a steady state" would not fulfill this requirement.

The standard does not cover aftermarket equipment for vehicles not originally manufactured with the center high-mounted stop lamp. For this application, the law of each State where a retrofitted car would be operated would determine the legality of a pulsating/steady state lamp. The agency, of course, would prefer that aftermarket equipment conform as closely as possible to original vehicle equipment specifications. We believe that standardization of rear signals minimizes the possibility of creating confusion to following drivers in situations where immediate action is essential to avoid a rear end collision.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

(See 8/22/85 letter from Jeffrey R. Miller to Leo Kagan)

July 3, 1985

ATTN: Attorney Taylor Vincent

Re: High Mounted Rear Brake Light Title 49 Revised October 1, 1984 Pages 243-244

Dear Mr. Vincent:

I appreciated talking with you recently about the above subject wherein you told me that the code required, after September 1, 1986, a steady state light in the rear of the car, not a flashing light.

My clients have asked me to inquire of you whether a light which pulsates a few times and then assumes a steady state meets the requirements of the code.

It is their position that initial short pulsating or flashing of the light followed by a steady state condition would alert the driver of a following vehicle quicker than a constant steady state condition.

Since an answer to this question is important to my clients, and has a bearing on their financial investment in the development of such a light, I would appreciate receiving your comments in the near future.

Very truly yours,

Warren F. B. Lindsley Patent Attorney

WFBL/mc

Mr. Leo Kagan Director of Marketing Automotive Division Amco Manufacturing Corporation 7425 Fulton Avenue North Hollywood, CA 91605

ID: 7930

Mr. Kenneth W. Webster II
Project Engineer
Transportation Research Center Inc.
East Liberty, OH 43319-0367

Dear Mr. Webster:

This responds to your letter of October 26, 1992, seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 124, Accelerator Control Systems (49 CFR 571.124). More specifically, your letter requested clarification of the correct test procedure for S5 of Standard No. 124 under a specific condition.

By way of background information, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its vehicles or products meet all applicable safety standards. Manufacturers must have some basis for their certification that a vehicle or product complies with all applicable safety standards. This does not necessarily mean that a manufacturer must conduct the specific tests set forth in an applicable standard. Certifications may be based on, among other things, engineering analyses, actual testing, and computer simulations.

Section S5 of Standard No. 124 requires vehicles to comply with certain requirements "when the engine is running under any load condition, and at any ambient temperature between -40 F. and +125 F. after 12 hours of conditioning at any temperature within that range." (Emphasis added.) For purposes of the safety standards, the term any "means generally the totality of the items or values, any one of which may be selected by the Administration for testing." (49 CFR 571.4) Therefore, vehicles must meet Standard No. 124's requirements at all temperatures within the specified range.

Your letter states that some vehicles are impossible to start after conditioning for 12 hours at -40 F. You asked which of the following procedures would be correct when testing a vehicle which will not start:

Alternative (1): Test with engine not running at the -40 F. test condition.

Alternative (2): Raise temperature until engine will start. Record test temperature and perform test.

In conducting a compliance test, NHTSA would follow the procedures set forth in Standard No. 124. The agency would not follow the Alternative (1) test procedure since the standard specifies requirements that must be met "when the engine is running."

The agency could conduct a compliance test at any temperature or temperatures within the specified -40 F. to +125 F. range. I note that S5.3 specifies that the performance requirement for maximum time to return to idle position varies depending on whether the vehicle is "exposed to ambient air at 0 F to -40 F. during the test or for any portion of the 12- hour conditioning period." This language makes it clear that the ambient air does not need to be held at a single temperature during the conditioning period or during the test.

If NHTSA chose to conduct a compliance test at -40 F. and the vehicle would not start because of the extreme cold, the agency would most likely either use a standard engine heater to assist in starting the vehicle or warm the entire vehicle to a temperature where it would start. I note, however, that if the agency did warm the vehicle to assist in starting, it might lower the temperature back down to -40 for purposes of conducting the test.

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:124 d.12/24/92

ID: nht92-1.12

DATE: 12/24/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: KENNETH W. WEBSTER II -- PROJECT ENGINEER, TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH CENTER INC.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10-26-92 FROM KENNETH W. WEBSTER, II TO PAUL J. RICE (OCC 7930)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of October 26, 1992, seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 124, Accelerator Control Systems (49 CFR @ 571.124). More specifically, your letter requested clarification of the correct test procedure for S5 of Standard No. 124 under a specific condition.

By way of background information, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its vehicles or products meet all applicable safety standards. Manufacturers must have some basis for their certification that a vehicle or product complies with all applicable safety standards. This does not necessarily mean that a manufacturer must conduct the specific tests set forth in an applicable standard. Certifications may be based on, among other things, engineering analyses, actual testing, and computer simulations.

Section S5 of Standard No. 124 requires vehicles to comply with certain requirements "when the engine is running under any load condition, and at any ambient temperature between -40 degrees F. and +125 degrees F. after 12 hours of conditioning at any temperature within that range." (Emphasis added.) For purposes of the safety standards, the term any "means generally the totality of the items or values, any one of which may be selected by the Administration for testing." (49 CFR @ 571.4) Therefore, vehicles must meet Standard No. 124's requirements at all temperatures within the specified range.

Your letter states that some vehicles are impossible to start after conditioning for 12 hours at -40 degrees F. You asked which of the following procedures would be correct when testing a vehicle which will not start:

Alternative (1): Test with engine not running at the -40 degrees F. test condition.

Alternative (2): Raise temperature until engine will start. Record test temperature and perform test.

In conducting a compliance test, NHTSA would follow the procedures set forth in Standard No. 124. The agency would not follow the Alternative (1) test procedure since the standard specifies requirements that must be met "when the engine is running."

The agency could conduct a compliance test at any temperature or temperatures within the specified -40 degrees F. to +125 degrees F. range. I note that S5.3 specifies that the performance requirement for maximum time to return to idle position varies depending on whether the vehicle is "exposed to ambient air at 0 degree F to -40 degrees F. during the test or for any portion of the 12-hour conditioning period." This language makes it clear that the ambient air does not need to be held at a single temperature during the conditioning period or during the test.

If NHTSA chose to conduct a compliance test at -40 degrees F. and the vehicle would not start because of the extreme cold, the agency would most likely either use a standard engine heater to assist in starting the vehicle or warm the entire vehicle to a temperature where it would start. I note, however, that if the agency did warm the vehicle to assist in starting, it might lower the temperature back down to -40 degrees for purposes of conducting the test.

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

ID: nht91-6.19

DATE: October 10, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Nikki G. Setzler -- Setzler, Chewning & Scott, P.A.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-6-91 from Nikki G. Setzler to Ronald E. Ingle (OCC 6476)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of September 6, 1991 to Mr. Ronald Engle which was forwarded to our office for response. Your letter asks whether it is a violation of Federal law for a school district to use "two vans that it purchased used after 1977" to transport school children. "(B)oth vans are built to carry more than 11 passengers."

I am pleased to have this opportunity to clarify the operation of Federal law as it applies to school buses. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, including new school buses. NHTSA defines "school bus" as a motor vehicle designed for carrying 11 or more persons, including a driver, and sold for transporting students to and from school or school-related events.

NHTSA has issued Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to all new school buses. It is a violation of Federal law for any person to sell any new vehicle that does not comply with all school bus safety standards if they are aware that the purchaser intends to use the vehicle as a school bus. It is not a violation of Federal law to sell any used vehicle that does not comply with all school bus safety standards, even if the seller is aware that the purchaser intends to use the vehicle as a school bus. It is also not a violation of Federal law to use a vehicle to transport school children that does not comply will all school bus safety standards. Individual States, not the Federal government, have authority over the use of vehicles. Therefore, to determine if the school district you represent may use noncomplying vans to transport school children, you must look to state law. You may also wish to consult state law concerning liability, because using a noncomplying van as a school bus could result in increased liability in the event of an accident.

NHTSA also has the authority under the Highway Safety Act of 1966 to issue guidelines for the states to use in developing their highway safety programs. Under this authority NHTSA has issued Highway Safety Program Guideline 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, which contains recommendations to the States on various operational aspects of their school bus and pupil transportation safety programs. Guideline 17 recommends that any vehicle designed for carrying more than 10 persons which is used as a school bus comply with all safety standards applicable to school buses at the time the vehicle was manufactured. A copy of the recent Federal Register notice updating Guideline 17 is enclosed for your information.

I must emphasize NHTSA's position that a vehicle meeting Federal school bus regulations is the safest way to transport students. I encourage the

school district you represent to give its most careful consideration to the possible consequences of transporting students in vehicles that do not comply with these regulations.

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

ID: nht90-1.37

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: February 2, 1990

FROM: Philip A. Hutchinson, Jr. -- Vice President, Public Affairs, General Counsel & Secretary, Volkswagen of America, Inc.

TO: Jerry Ralph Curry -- Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: Re CAFE Exemption Pursuant to 15 USC 2003(b)(3)

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-1-90 from P.J. Rice to P.A. Hutchinson, Jr. (A36; CSA Sec. 503(b)(3))

TEXT:

This is to notify you that Volkswagen of America, Inc. (VWoA) is no longer manufacturing automobiles in the United States and that its exemption from 15 USC 2003(b)(1) granted on October 23, 1981 and published in 46 F.R. 54453 of November 2, 1981 has bec ome moot and is therefore effectively terminated.

On July 29, 1981 VWoA filed a petition pursuant to 15 USC 2003(b)(3)(A) seeking an exemption from the general statutory requirement that fuel economy ratings for imported passenger automobiles may not be averaged together with ratings from domestically m anufactured passenger automobiles for the purpose of determining compliance with the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, as amended. 15 USC 2003(b)(3)(B) authorizes exemptions to be granted for a period of five years or, at the request of th e manufacturer, such longer period as the agency may specify. VWoA requested that the exemption be granted indefinitely and the agency acceded to this request subject to its right to reconsider its action "should it appear that the exemption is no longer consistent with the purposes of the Act." (46 F.R. 54453)

VWoA sought an exemption of indefinite duration because it expected to maintain a domestic assembly facility indefinitely. The exemption was intended by VWoA to remove a possible disincentive associated with the expected increase in the domestic content in US produced passenger automobiles above 75% in the event VWoA imported and domestic passenger vehicle fleets were not capable separately to comply with CAFE standards.

The exemption was granted on October 23, 1981 and made effective beginning with the 1982 model year.

For model year 1982 VWoA distributed "imported" passenger vehicles only.

For model years 1983 through 1987 VWoA distributed both "imported" and "domestic" passenger automobiles as defined in 15 USC 2003(b)(1) and (b)(2)(E) and (F). The manufacture of "domestic" passenger automobiles within the meaning of the Act ended on Jun e 30, 1987. Effective July 14, 1988 VWoA shut down its entire production in the United States so that commencing with the 1988 model year only "imported" vehicles have been offered for sale in the United States by VWoA.

15 USC 2003(b)(3)(F) provides that "Notwithstanding section 2002(1) of this title, in the case of any model year for which an exemption under this subsection is effective for any manufacturer", the manufacturer may not earn or use any credit pursuant to 15 USC 2002(l)(1)(B) and 2002(l)(1)(C).

Since VWoA discontinued all vehicle assembly in the United States effective July 14, 1988, the exemption granted on October 23, 1981 should be deemed to have been mooted at least since July 1988. It should be noted, moreover, that the exemption has prod uced no "effect" on VWoA's status of compliance of its passenger vehicle fleet with CAFE requirements, i.e. has not been "effective for VWoA" within the meaning of Section 2003(b)(3)(F) and conferred no benefit on VWoA since June 30, 1987 when the last p assenger automobile with domestic content in excess of 75% was manufactured in the United States.

Based upon the facts set forth above, VWoA maintains that the prohibition against accumulation of fuel economy credits ended on June 30, 1987 but in no event later than July 14, 1988.

Please advise us of NHTSA's position on this matter. In the interest of certainty VWoA is interested in knowing the amount of credits which have accumulated in its account.

Thank you for your assistance.

ID: nht94-2.72

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 6, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ilmars Ozols

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 2/8/94 From Ilmars Ozols To John Womack (OCC-9663)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Ozols:

This responds to your February 8, 1994, letter asking about how this agency's regulations might apply to your product, the Serv-o-tray. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations.

It appears from the enclosed technical description and photograph that the Serve-o-tray is a folding adjustable table designed to mount between the driver and passenger seats of a vehicle, and hold food, drinks, etc. As depicted, the Serv-o-tray is secu red to the center console with an adhesive pad. The table is mounted on a swiveling, articulated, lockable arm that is composed of two horizontal and two vertical tubular support members. The Serv-o-tray is made of injection molded plastic and is capab le of supporting up to 20 pounds, including a laptop computer. You explain that your product is intended to be used while the vehicle is stationary or moving.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 102(4) of the N ational Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the "Safety Act") defines, in relevant part, the term "motor vehicle equipment" as:

any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component or as any accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle . . . (emphasis added).

In determining whether an item of equipment is considered an accessory, NHTSA applies two criteria. The first criterion is whether a substantial portion of the expected use of the item is related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. We de termine a product's expected use by considering product advertising, product labeling, and the type of store that

2

retails the product, as well as available information about the actual use of the product. The second criterion is whether the product is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles. If the product satisfies both criteria, then the product is considered to be an "accessory" and thus is subject to the provisions of the Safety Act.

Applying these criteria to the Serv-o-tray, it appears that this product would be an accessory and thus an item of motor vehicle equipment. Based on our understanding of the product, it appears that a substantial portion of the expected use of the Serv- o-tray relates to motor vehicle operation, by allowing the occupants to eat while operating the car. Also, it appears that the product would typically be used by ordinary users of motor vehicles.

While the Serv-o-tray is an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA has not issued any standards for such a device. Nevertheless, there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect the manufacture and sale of your product. You as the product's manufact urer are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety related de fect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

This agency is very concerned about the safety implications of the Serv-o-tray, especially if it is swiveled in front of the occupants in an air bag-equipped vehicle. Under the provisions of FMVSS No. 208, "Occupant Crash Protection," all new cars-and t rucks must be equipped with a driver side and passenger side air bag by September 1, 1998. Manufacturers are already producing ever increasing numbers of air bag-equipped cars and trucks. The enclosed document entitled "Sudden Impact" describes the spe ed with which an air bag deploys. Should the Serv-o-tray be installed in an air bag-equipped vehicle, the occupants could be at risk of injury or death from the interaction of the deploying air bag and the Serv-o-tray or its contents. To protect the occ upant, this agency will require that every new vehicle with an air bag be provided with a caution label that states, among other things, "TO AVOID SERIOUS INJURY . . . Do not place any objects over the air bag or between the air bag and yourself." As you can see, the installation of a Serv-o-tray could be contrary to this warning.

There are other potential safety problems associated with the Serv-o-tray. Even without being propelled by an air bag, the Serv-o-tray or its contents could impact the occupant's head,

3

abdomen or lower extremities during a collision. It also seems possible that the Serv-o-tray could interfere with the driver's use of the vehicle's transmission shift lever in an emergency situation. We ask that you consider these and all possible safe ty impacts of the Serv-o-tray.

If the Serv-o-tray were installed by a vehicle manufacturer as original equipment, the vehicle manufacturer would have to certify that the vehicle, with the Serv-o-tray installed, complies with all FMVSS's. Among the FMVSS's that might be affected by th e Serv-o-tray installation are Standard No. 201, "Occupant Protection in Interior Impact" (copy enclosed), and Standard No. 208.

A commercial business that installs the Serv-o-tray would also be subject to provisions of the Safety Act that affect modifications of new or used vehicles. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397 (a)(2)(A)) provides that:

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

This means that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business must not install your product if the Serv-o-tray renders inoperative the vehicle's compliance with the FMVSS's. For instance, installing the Serv-o-tray in front of th e driver or passenger could degrade the performance of an air bag or the seat belts in the vehicle. Any violation of this "render inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation.

Please note also that the render inoperative prohibition does not apply to modifications that vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners install the Serv-o-tray in their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade any safety device or system installed in their vehicles. In addition, individual St ates have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their vehicles, so you might wish to consult State regulations to see whether your product would be permitted.

4

I hope this information is helpful. I have enclosed a fact sheet entitled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment." If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact us at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely

Enclosure