ID: itemco.jeg

Mr. Maury Solel
Marketing Manager
Itemco Industries, Inc.
57 Cedar Court
Closter, NJ 07624





Dear Mr. Solel:

This responds to your letter asking about the implications of "supplying to the automotive aftermarket a generic air bag." I apologize for the delay in responding. You ask whether the requirements of Standard No. 208 apply to such air bags. Based on a telephone conversation between you and Edward Glancy of my staff, we understand that you contemplate supplying replacement air bag modules for vehicles whose air bags have deployed in crashes. Your question is addressed below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under Title 49, Chapter 301 of the U.S. Code (Motor Vehicle Safety) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The FMVSSs apply in different ways. Some apply only to new motor vehicles ("vehicle standards"), others apply to new items of motor vehicle equipment ("equipment standards"), while others apply to both new vehicles and new equipment.

One of the standards established by NHTSA, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208), requires air bags to be installed in cars and light trucks. This standard sets forth a number of performance requirements related to air bags. With one exception, Standard No. 208 is a vehicle standard. Manufacturers of new vehicles are required to certify that their vehicles comply with Standard No. 208. The exception is paragraph S9, which is also an equipment standard. This paragraph specifies requirements for pressure vessels and explosive devices for use in air bag systems. Therefore, manufacturers of pressure vessels and explosive devices must certify that they comply with the requirements of S9 of Standard No. 208. You could not sell a replacement air bag module with these components unless the new components were certified as meeting the requirements of S9.

At this time, there are no other Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to air bags as items of motor vehicle equipment.

However, a manufacturer of a replacement air bag module would be a motor vehicle equipment manufacturer and would be subject to the notification and remedy requirements for products with defects related to motor vehicle safety (49 U.S.C. 30118-30121). A "defect" includes "any defect in performance, construction, a component, or material of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment." "Motor vehicle safety" is defined as "the performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in a way that protects the public against unreasonable risk of accidents occurring because of the design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment performance." 49 U.S.C. 30102.

If the manufacturer or NHTSA determined that the product had a defect related to motor vehicle safety, the manufacturer would have to notify all product purchasers of the defect, and either:

1. Repair the product so that the defect is removed; or

2. Replace the product with an identical or reasonably equivalent product that does not have the defect.

The manufacturer would have to bear the full expense of the recall campaign, irrespective of the option chosen, for any owner who purchased the product less than 10 years before the determination that the defect existed.

There is also a statutory provision that limits how certain entities may modify motor vehicles. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers and motor vehicle repair businesses are prohibited from knowingly making inoperative any part of a 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 (49 U.S.C. 30122). This provision would generally prohibit one of these entities from removing a functional air bag that was installed in compliance with Standard No. 208.

Your letter raises the issue of whether, when a deployed air bag is replaced, Federal law requires use of a replacement air bag that will enable the vehicle to comply with Standard No. 208. The answer to this question is no. Our statute does not require a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business to return a vehicle to compliance with a standard if a device or element of design has been "made inoperative" by another agent, such as a crash. Thus, Federal law does not require that deployed air bags be replaced or regulate the manner in which such air bags are replaced. However, as explained above, replacement bags must be free of safety-related defects. In addition, some States may have requirements applicable to such replacements.

Furthermore, we emphasize our concern that in order for a replacement air bag to provide protection to vehicle occupants, it is essential that the replacement be properly completed. The repair should be performed according to the procedures specified by the vehicle manufacturer. This may require replacement of system components in addition to the air bag inflator module such as crash sensors, wiring and other electronic components as specified by the manufacturer. Moreover, since air bags are designed for specific vehicles, taking into consideration such factors as the seats, steering column crush stroke force resistance, location of the air bag, location and nature of knee bolsters, and compartment acceleration responses in frontal crashes, we strongly believe that only air bags which are designed for the vehicle in question should be used. Finally, after the air bags are replaced, it is important that the air bag readiness indicator be in good working order to alert the occupants of any future malfunction of the air bag system.

I also note that, during the past several years, this agency and the industry have focused a great deal of attention on ensuring that air bags are designed to create less risk of serious air bag-induced injuries for persons who are close to the air bag at time of deployment. Among other things, manufacturers have reduced the power of many of their air bags and have used innovative fold patterns to reduce the aggressivity of air bags. The fold patterns may be unique to a specific vehicle model. We would suggest that you carefully consider this issue in designing your product.

Enclosed for your information is an information sheet titled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment."

Finally, you may wish to consult a private attorney concerning the state law implications of supplying replacement air bag modules, including possible tort liability implications.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:208
d.4/11/01

ID: GF004373

Kelly A. Freeman, Esq.
Assistant General Counsel
Quantum Value Management, LLC
33 Bloomfield Hills Parkway, Suite 240
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304

Dear Ms. Freeman:

This responds to your June 18, 2004, letter regarding a number of products assembled by subsidaries of your company. You believe that these products would not be classified as "motor vehicles" for the purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). As explained below, based on the information you provided, it is our opinion that two of the products are not motor vehicles for the purposes of our regulations. We are not taking a specific position with respect to the other products, but will identify the relevant factors that should be considered in making such determinations.

Title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to prescribe Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 30102(a)(6) defines "motor vehicle" as:

"[A] vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line."

We have issued a number of interpretations of this language. We have stated that vehicles equipped with tracks, agricultural equipment, and other vehicles incapable of highway travel are not motor vehicles. We have also determined that certain vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g. , airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not motor vehicles, even if they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Finally, we have concluded that items of mobile construction equipment that use the highways only to move between job sites and that typically spend extended periods of time at a single site are not motor vehicles. However, we do consider vehicles that use the public roads on a necessary and recurring basis to be motor vehicles.

You asked about the following products:


• Three Manitex Boom Truck models of various tonnage (models 2601C, 2201 and 3500);
• One Manitex SkyCrane, LLC Remote, Telescoping Aerial Service Platform and Crane (Skyhoist model RTA120X);
• One Manitex SkyCrane, LLC (f/k/a Phoenix) Arial Crane;
• One Manitex SkyCrane, LLC Sponco Arial Ladder;
• One Noble Construction Equipment Rough Terrain Lift Truck;
• One Noble Construction Equipment Pull Scraper (model 417B); and,
• One Noble Construction Equipment Mobile Water Truck.

It is our opinion that two of the products, the Rough Terrain Lift Truck, and the Pull Scraper, are not motor vehicles. According to your letter, the Rough Terrain Lift Truck is designed to lift items such as brick, beams, building materials in uneven and rough surfaces, such as on construction sites where land has not been leveled. The Pull Scraper is used to clear and/or move earth on a large scale at a construction site. You also indicated that these products are transported to the job site and are not used on the public roads, even for relocation to a new work site. These products are not manufactured for use on the highways and are therefore not motor vehicles.

The other products appear to be ordinary heavy-duty trucks equipped with special apparatus. You indicated that these products are manufactured mainly for the construction industry and that although capable of being driven on public roads, such use is incidental and is for the purpose of moving the equipment from one worksite to another. You also stated that these products are typically left at a construction site for an extended period of time.

You further explained:

The boom trucks, telescoping aerial cranes and aerial ladders have outriggers that slide out horizontally and extend laterally from each side of the bed to stabilize the truck while the boom, crane or ladder (as the case may be) are in operation. They are manufactured for heavy-duty lifting and operation. The aerial platform and crane is a hydraulic crane with the capability of holding three people on its platform combined with heavy duty load-lifting. The boom trucks and aerial cranes are often used to lift large loads of brick, building trusses, steel beams, large signage, billboards and construction equipment, among other uses. . . . The water truck is used to decrease dust and assist in settling the earth, often following in the tracks of the pull scraper.

You also enclosed copies of a number of brochures.

We note that, as discussed in two enclosed letters, a March 21, 2001 letter to LeAnn Johnson-Koch, Esq. , and an October 20, 2003 letter to Michael Ogle, our current interpretations regarding mobile construction equipment are based on a court decision in 1978. Subsequent legal developments make the holding of that court decision open for reassessment. Moreover, some mobile construction equipment may be using the public roads with greater frequency than the equipment the court decided were not motor vehicles subject to our jurisdiction. At some point in the future, we may revisit the issue of whether certain mobile construction equipment should be considered motor vehicles. However, if we were to take such action, we would announce it publicly, and address such issues as what standards should apply to the vehicles and what effective date is appropriate.

As indicated earlier, your products (other than the Rough Terrain Lift Truck, and the Pull Scraper) appear to be ordinary heavy-duty trucks equipped with special apparatus. Moreover, in view of the apparatus and their potential common uses, it appears that some of the products might travel to and from different short-term jobs. This would be different than the mobile construction equipment that has generally been the subject of our previous interpretations, which would commonly be used for extended periods at construction sites. We do not have detailed information concerning the specific usage patterns of each of the products you ask about. Moreover, while we seek to be helpful in providing opinions about our statutes, we do not have the resources to provide a detailed review of the products of each company. We would think, however, that some of these items may be motor vehicles.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions please contact Mr. George Feygin at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:571
d.8/16/04

ID: 21568.drn

Mr. James T. Castle
Fleet Manager, Transportation Services
Clemson University
Klugh Avenue, Box 345382
Clemson, SC 29634-5382

Dear Mr. Castle:

This responds to your April 10, 2000, request for an interpretation of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) prohibition on dealers selling new 15-person vans for transporting children to or from school or related events. You wish to know whether the prohibition affects children in custodial care facilities such as summer camps. Our answer is provided below.

In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you explained that by "summer camp" you mean that in the summer, Clemson University hosts children in the twelfth grade and below who want to improve their athletic skills. The children live at Clemson dormitories. Because of distances involved, the children may have to be transported between various sites (e.g., dormitory and athletic field) on the Clemson campus.

Some background information may be helpful. NHTSA is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles. Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30112 requires any person selling or leasing a new vehicle to sell or lease a vehicle that meets all applicable standards. Accordingly, persons selling or leasing a new "school bus" must sell or lease a vehicle that meets the safety standards applicable to school buses. Our statute defines a "schoolbus" as any vehicle that is designed for carrying a driver and more than 10 passengers and which, NHTSA decides, is likely to be "used significantly" to transport "preprimary, primary, and secondary" students to or from school or related events. 49 U.S.C. 30125. By regulation, the capacity threshold for school buses corresponds to that of buses -- vehicles designed for carrying more than ten (10) persons. For example, a 15-person van that is likely to be used significantly to transport students is a "school bus." Persons selling or leasing new 15-person vans for such use must sell or lease a van that meets our school bus standards.

In the past, when reviewing a dealer's sale of a new vehicle, NHTSA looked at the nature of the institution purchasing the vehicle. In recent interpretations (see the attached July 17, 1998, letter to Mr. Greg Balmer of the YMCA), we noted that it was more appropriate to consider the extent to which the buses are used to carry children to or from school or related events. In the Balmer letter, we stressed that, even if a bus were sold to a facility that provides custodial care (i.e., to a facility that is not a "school"), if that facility were purchasing the new bus to use significantly to transport students to or from a school or events related to a school, a dealer knowing of this purpose would be required to sell a school bus.

Turning to your letter, you ask about vehicles that would be used to transport children in "summer camps." Based on the facts provided about Clemson University's "summer camp," we would not consider Clemson's "summer camp" as a "school" because apparently, no education is to be provided to the children. Since there would be no significant use of the vehicles to transport children to or from school or related events, a dealer knowing of this purpose that wishes to sell you a new bus (e.g., a 15-person van) would not have to sell you only a bus that meets our school bus standards.

Because our laws apply only to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, we do not prohibit institutions such as your "summer camp" from using large vans to transport school children, even when the vehicles do not meet Federal school bus safety standards. However, each State has the authority to set its own standards regarding the use of motor vehicles, including school buses. For this reason, South Carolina law should be consulted to see if there are regulations about how children must be transported.

You asked for clarification of what "significant" means. There is no definitive answer to this question, but I have provided a basic guideline in an interpretation letter dated May 20, 1999 to Mr. Dennis Seavey of Plus Time New Hampshire (copy enclosed). The letter to Mr. Seavey explains that NHTSA considers "transportation provided to or from school on any two days during a week to be regular use and therefore 'significant.'"

In conclusion, we wish to emphasize that school buses are one of the safest forms of transportation in this country, and that we therefore strongly recommend that all buses that are used to transport school children be certified as meeting NHTSA's school bus safety standards. In addition, using 15-person vans that do not meet NHTSA's school bus standards to transport students could result in liability in the event of a crash.

I am enclosing NHTSA's publication: "School Bus Safety: Safe Passage for America's Children." This brochure explains the safety enhancements of a school bus that makes school buses safer than "conventional vans." There are small school buses available that seat 15 children. While school buses are more expensive than large vans, we believe that the cost difference is not so large that it should prevent facilities from acquiring school buses. The cost range for 15-person school buses is approximately $30-32,000, compared to $25-28,000 for 15-person vans. The longer service life for school buses will offset a part of this difference.

Our belief that vehicles providing the safety of school buses should be used whenever transporting children in buses is shared by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). At a June 8, 1999, public meeting, the NTSB issued the attached abstract of a special investigative report on nonconforming buses. The NTSB issued the report after investigating four crashes in 1998 and 1999 in which 9 people were killed and 36 injured when riding in "nonconforming buses." NTSB defines "nonconforming bus" as a "bus that does not meet the FMVSSs specific to school buses." Most of the victims, including eight of the fatalities, were children.

In the abstract of its report, the NTSB issued several Safety Recommendations, including the following that was directed to child care providers such as the National Association of Child Care Professionals, the National Child Care Association, and Young Mens' and Young Women's Christian Associations:

Inform your members about the circumstances of the accidents discussed in this special investigation report and urge that they use school buses or buses having equivalent occupant protection to school buses to transport children.

I am also enclosing NHTSA's February 1999 "Guideline for the Safe Transportation of Pre-school Age Children in School Buses." This guideline establishes NHTSA's recommendations for how pre-school age children should be transported in school buses.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's programs, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:VSA#571.3
d.5/26/00

ID: nht92-8.6

DATE: April 3, 1992

FROM: Herr Spingler -- Entwicklung Lichttechnik Systeme, Robert Bosch GmbH

TO: Richard van Iderstine -- Office of Rulemaking, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/29/92 from Paul J. Rice to Herr Spingler (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

For a new Porsche-car, we have decided to develop a headlamp as shown in the attached drawing. The lowbeam will be provided by an ellipsoid, the highbeam by a parabola. When highbeam is on, both bulbs will be on simultaneonsly.

My question is:

Will this headlamp meet the FMVSS-108-requirements concerning the location on a car?

Thanks in advance for a quick answer.

ID: nht95-2.56

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 26, 1995

FROM: John M. Quinata -- Customs And Quarantine Agency, Government Of Guam

TO: Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 7/25/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO JOHN N. QUINATA (VSA 102(3); REDBOOK 2)

TEXT: Dear Sir:

This is to request your assistance in determining whether or not Truck Cranes are subject to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Accordingly, Sanko Bussan Guam imported a used Nissan Truck Crane Lorries from Japan to off-load frozen tuna at the Port Authority of Guam.

Guam Customs currently enforces the FMVSS. Enclosed is the shipping documents concerning the imported Truck Crane.

Your urgent response to this matter is appreciated.

(Photos and shipping documents omitted.)

ID: nht90-4.43

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: October 12, 1990

FROM: A. Kling -- Hamadbik, Ltd.

TO: U.S. Dept of Transport, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: (FMVSS) No. 116

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-8-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to A. Kling (A37; Std. 116)

TEXT:

We are enquiring about the abovementioned Safety Standard regarding DOT 3 and DOT 4 brake fluids.

Clause S5.1.14 of the above standard refers to the color of the brake fluid being colorless to amber. We would much appreciate your sending us the color coding range of amber referred to in this clause. We would appreciate your sending us the color cod e and chart used by your department and as designated by the U.S. federal department

We much appreciate your cooperation and thank you in advance

ID: 571-3 -- multifunction school activity buses -- Georgia Dept of Public Health -- 12-005387

ID: nht94-8.12

DATE: February 14, 1994

FROM: Lawrence A. Beyer -- Attorney at Law

TO: Z. Taylor Vinson -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/7/94 from John Womack to Lawrence A. Beyer (A42; Std. 108)

TEXT:

This letter requests an opinion letter from your office concerning the re-importation of a certified vehicle.

My client wishes to re-import vehicles which were certified by the original manufacturer and purchased in the U.S. These vehicles would then be modified and sent back to the U.S. The vehicles in question are motorcycles which would then have a shell placed around it. The frame would be slightly modified and seating lowered to incorporate the design. However, my client would not knowingly render inoperative wholly or in part any device or element of design installed in accordance with the FMVSS.

On November 16, 1992, your office issued a letter regarding this matter. Please advise me if this letter is still your interpretation.

ID: nht93-1.8

DATE: January 13, 1993

FROM: John B. White -- Industry Standards & Government Regulations, Michelin

TO: General Counsel -- NHTSA

COPYEE: P. Jones -- Michelin

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-27-93 from John Womack to John B. White (A41; Std. 109; Std. 119)

TEXT: From time to time we receive requests from various customers or potential customers for copies of the tests that we performed to certify that our tires comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations. Implied in these requests is that NHTSA requires manufacturers to perform the tests contained in the various standards (FMVSS 109, 119 and Part 575) in order to comply with those standards. Furthermore, some of these requests, including one recently from the Department of Defense, have indicated that these test results, along with test tires, are submitted to NHTSA who then provides the certification.

We would appreciate it if you would clarify this situation.

Your prompt reply will be appreciated.

ID: nht91-6.3

DATE: September 18, 1991

FROM: Al Lipinski -- President, Mini-Max

TO: Hall, Jackson, Rice -- NATSA (NHTSA), Chief Counsel

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-23-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Al Lipinski (A38; Std. 108; Part 567)

TEXT:

I talked with Steve Kratzke on September 18, 1991 regarding the Dynamic Testing requirements for alterers of certified vehicles.

We are a small conversion company of walk in van type light trucks located in Escanaba, MI. Our projected production for 1992 is 75 vehicles. We do not alter anything forward of the B pillar of a certified vehicle, thus the crash protection system installed by the original manufacturer is not disturbed. We afix an additional label stating the vehicle alterations conform to all applicable FMVSS.

I would appreciate a letter stating what the dynamic testing requirements are for an alterer of a certified vehicle for my files in case this question arises in the future.