ID: nht93-7.51

DATE: November 3, 1993

FROM: William J. MacAdam -- President and CEO, trans2 Corporation

TO: John G. Womack, Esq. -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/1/94 from John Womack to William J. MacAdam (A42; VSA 102(3))

TEXT:

Enclosed is a letter written on behalf of trans2 Corporation (trans2) requesting that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issue a letter confirming that the electric vehicle that trans2 plans to manufacture is not a "motor vehicle" as that term is defined in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. A list of vehicle specifications and two photographs of the vehicle are also enclosed.

Pursuant to 49 C.F.R. Part 512, I hereby request that NHTSA treat the list of vehicle specifications and the photographs as confidential business information and withhold them from public disclosure.

trans2 hasn't yet begun full scale manufacture of their low speed electric vehicle. Public disclosure of the vehicle's specifications and the photographic detail of the vehicle's appearance would cause the company substantial competitive harm. Such disclosure would provide trans2's competitors with an opportunity to develop competing products faster. As such, the information constitutes a trade secret and is confidential commercial information.

trans2 has made efforts to prevent the information contained in the vehicle specifications and the photographs from becoming publicly available. The photographs have only been seen by employees of trans2, the company's attorneys and investment bankers, a few key suppliers and limited number of potential investors. All of the above disclosures were on a confidential basis. The list of vehicle specifications has only been disclosed to the company's attorneys.

We are aware of no occasions on which this information has appeared publicly, or any other circumstances that would compromise the confidential nature of the information. We are aware of no prior determinations by NHTSA or any other federal agency or federal courts relating to the confidentiality of the submitted information or similar information. Moreover, disclosure of this type of information would impair NHTSA's ability to obtain similar information from small manufacturers in the future.

We request NHTSA to keep the materials confidential until January 1, 1995.

Thank you for you consideration of this request.

ENCLOSURE

11/3/93

Mr. John G. Womack, Esq. Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

Dear Mr. Womack:

On behalf of trans2 Corporation (trans2), I am writing to request the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issue a letter confirming that the electric vehicle which trans2 plans to manufacture is not a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the "Safety Act").

trans2 intends to manufacture a low speed electric vehicle for use in residential communities, university campuses, industrial complexes and on short commuter trips. As you can see from the attached photographs and technical description, the trans2 vehicle has a body configuration that readily distinguishes it from other highway vehicles. In addition, the trans2 vehicle has a top speed of 20 miles per hour.

Section 108(a)(1) of the Safety Act prohibits the manufacture for sale of motor vehicles that do not conform to applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards. 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1). Section 102(3) defines a "motor vehicle" as "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 rail or rails." 15 U.S.C. 1391(3) We understand that prior NHTSA interpretations of the Safety Act have excluded certain limited use vehicles from the definition of "motor vehicles." For example, NHTSA has determined that vehicles with "an abnormal body configuration that readily distinguishes them from other highway vehicles and maximum speed of 20 miles per hour (mph) are not considered motor vehicles." Letter from Paul Jackson, NHTSA Chief Counsel, to Matthew J. Plache, Esq., at 2 (Dec. 3, 1991); see also Letter from Jeffrey R. Miller, NHTSA Chief Counsel to Alexander E. Nagy, at 2 (April 16, 1985). The trans2 vehicle satisfies these two criteria.

Accordingly, based on NHTSA's prior interpretations of the Safety Act, we request a NHTSA letter confirming that the foregoing interpretation remain applicable and that when applied to the trans2 vehicle result in the conclusion that our vehicle is not "motor vehicle" under the Safety Act.

Thank you for your consideration of this request. Please contact me if you need further information about the trans2 vehicle.

ATTACHMENTS

(Specifications and photo omitted.)

ID: nht93-7.52

DATE: November 4, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John B. Walsh -- Legal Affairs Manager, American Suzuki Motor Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/29/93 from John B. Walsh to John Womack (OCC-9263)

TEXT:

This acknowledges receipt of your letter dated October 29, 1993, requesting an interpretation of the labeling requirements of the recent final rule mandating the installation of air bags in passenger cars and light trucks (58 FR 46551, September 2, 1993). As you suggested in your letter, we believe it would be appropriate to respond to your request in the notice responding to the petitions for reconsideration of the September 2 final rule.

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

ID: nht93-7.53

DATE: November 5, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Toshi Tanaka -- General Manager, Sales & Marketing Dept., Sensor Technology Co., Ltd.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/4/93 from Toshi Tanaka to Delmas Johnson

TEXT:

This responds to your FAX of August 4, 1991, to Ms. Delmas Johnson of this agency concerning Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Your questions and the answers to each follows.

Is it true that the belt fastening law now goes into a part of the federal law?

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes NHTSA to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Federal requirements do not, however, regulate the use of vehicles. While there is no Federal requirement mandating safety belt use, a recent final rule will impose penalties on states which do not have both a safety belt and a motorcycle helmet use law by 1994. Currently, all the states and territories have some type of mandatory belt use law except Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, North Dakota, and South Dakota.

Is it true that the cars with airbag do not need to perform "Roll Over Test"?

Passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1989, are required to be equipped with automatic crash protection at the front outboard seating positions. "Automatic crash protection" means that a vehicle is equipped with occupant restraints that require no action by vehicle occupants. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered on new passenger cars are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used). The performance of automatic crash protection is dynamically tested, that is, vehicles equipped with automatic crash protection systems are required to comply with certain injury criteria as measured by test dummies in a barrier crash test at speeds up to 30 mph. In addition, the automatic crash protection must either meet the lateral and rollover crash protection requirements or have a Type I (lap) or Type 2 (lap/shoulder) seat belt assembly. A passenger car equipped with an air bag does not have to comply with the rollover test if it has a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt at that position. To our knowledge, all vehicles currently being manufactured are certified to the automatic crash protection requirement by installing Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assemblies.

A new Federal statutory requirement will make air bags and Type 2 seat belts mandatory in all cars and light trucks by the late 1990's. I am enclosing a copy of the recently published final rule implementing these requirements. These requirements will make the option of complying with

the lateral and rollover crash protection requirements moot.

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: nht93-7.54

DATE: November 5, 1993

FROM: Terry Karas -- T.K. Auto Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/21/94 from John Womack to Terry Karas (A42; Part 591)

TEXT:

I would like to know can a Canadian car that was accommodated by a Canadian manufacturing letter stating that the vehicle complies with U.S. safety standards, can be imported as a conforming vehicle under Box 2?

If so, does it make a difference if it is being imported for commercial or private purposes.

Your prompt response would be greatly appreciated.

ID: nht93-7.55

DATE: November 5, 1993

FROM: Judith Jurin Semo -- Squire, Sanders & Dempsey

TO: John Womack, Esq. -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Importation from Germany of Demilitarized, Russian-Built, Special Purpose Trucks: Request for Determination That Trucks Are Off-Road Vehicles Not Subject To DOT/NHTSA Safety Standards

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/19/94 from John Womack to Judith Jurin Semo (A42; Part 591; VSA 102(3))

TEXT:

On behalf of our client, Agrinvest International, Inc., 8433 N. Black Canyon Highway, Suite 116, Phoenix, Arizona 85021 ("Agrinvest"), we are writing to request that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") issue a determination that demilitarized, special purpose, Russian-built trucks (ZIL model 131) are off-road vehicles for purposes of 19 C.F.R. Section 12.80(b)(1)(viii), and therefore are exempt from federal motor vehicle safety standards.

FACTS

Agrinvest plans to import 573 ZIL model 131 trucks into the United States from Germany later this month. Agrinvest acquired two different types of ZIL model 131 trucks at an auction in Germany in early 1993. All of the vehicles are demilitarized trucks that were used by the former East German military and, following re-unification, were sold through auction by the German Government.

DESCRIPTION

Each ZIL truck purchased by Agrinvest is a six-wheel drive vehicle with an eight-cylinder, spark ignition, internal combustion, reciprocating piston engine. Agrinvest purchased two types of ZIL model 131 trucks. Of the 573 ZIL trucks being shipped to the United States, 183 are demilitarized spraying tank trucks ("tank trucks"). The remaining 390 ZIL trucks are former military battalion trucks with various equipment configurations. (*) The battalion trucks are similar to the tank trucks in the basic design of the vehicle, i.e., the cab, chassis, engine, drive train, etc. in the two types of vehicles are the same.

Each ZIL tank truck has a tank constructed from heavy gauge steel, a mechanical pump, a manual pump, wide beam spray nozzles and associated equipment. The tank trucks were built to spray water or neutralizing agents to detoxify or decontaminate areas which have been biologically, chemically, or radiologically contaminated. The U.S. Customs Service has ruled that the tank trucks are classifiable as special purpose vehicles under HTSUS 8705.90.00. A copy of the September 7, 1993 ruling letter from the U.S. Customs Service is enclosed.

The battalion trucks were manufactured approximately five to ten years ago for use by the Soviet military for telecommunications, radar, and other military support purposes. The radio, telecommunications, and radar equipment were disabled and the frequency-carrying pans dismounted under the supervision of the German Ministry of Defense prior to the trucks being sold at auction. We believe that the battalion trucks, like the tank trucks, are special purpose

vehicles and would be classifiable in HTSUS 8705.90.00. Agrinvest has requested a Customs ruling on the classification of the battalion trucks.

Last spring, Agrinvest obtained confirmation from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms ("BATF"), which issues permits for the permanent import of commodities listed on the U.S. Munitions Import List, that the ZIL water tank trucks do not require a BATF permit. A copy of that letter is enclosed. This month, Agrinvest requested similar confirmation from BATF for importation of the ZIL battalion trucks.

INTENDED USE

The ZIL tricks will be reconfigured, modified, and converted in the United States into special purpose, nonmilitary vehicles. After the ZIL trucks are converted and after the approval of the U.S. Department of Commerce is obtained, Agrinvest plans to export most of the trucks for use by civilian purchasers in Eastern Europe, Africa, and other overseas destinations where these types of vehicles are in service and where parts and services for the vehicles are available.

Agrinvest may enter samples of the ZIL vehicles into the United States to test the vehicles against Department of Transportation ("DOT")/NHTSA safety standards and Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") emission standards. After such testing is completed, some ZIL vehicles may be modified to meet DOT/NHTSA and EPA standards in order to satisfy those buyers who require vehicles conforming to those standards. Any ZIL vehicles imported into the United States will comply with U.S. regulatory requirements. It is possible that, after the conversion is completed and the vehicles are brought into compliance with all requisite safety and emission standards, Agrinvest will import some of the vehicles for use in its orchard operation in Arizona.

ANALYSIS

Under 19 C.F.R. Section 12.80(b)(1)(viii), vehicles which were "not manufactured primarily for use on the public roads" are not considered to be motor vehicles as defined in Section 102 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. S 1391). Off-road vehicles are exempt from federal motor vehicle safety standards. We believe that the ZIL trucks are exempt from federal motor vehicle safety standards because the trucks were not manufactured primarily for use on the public roads.

VEHICLE FEATURES

The ZIL trucks were originally designed for military use on rugged terrain and in areas without roads. The trucks have self-inflatable tires which enable an operator to reinflate punctured tires while continuing to drive the vehicle. Moreover, these tires are very large, because they are designed to span gaps in the driving surface of 600 millimeters (approximately 23.6 inches) and to ford water over 1.4 meters high (approximately 55.1 inches). Such heavy duty, off-road capabilities show that the ZIL trucks were not designed primarily for use on public roads.

The ZIL trucks have a maximum permissible cruising speed of 70 kilometers/hour (approximately 42 miles per hour) and a maximum speed of only 80 kilometers/hour (approximately 48 miles per hour). The limited speed at which the trucks operate function as a practical restriction on their ability to be used on public roads; if they had been designed to be used primarily on the public roads, the trucks would operate at faster speeds. In addition, the trucks have a turning radius of 11.2 meters -- approximately 36.7 feet. This turning radius renders use of the trucks on public roads unwieldy and further illustrates that the trucks were not designed primarily for use on public roads.

Each of the ZIL tank trucks has a gross vehicle weight of 10,850 kilograms (approximately 23,900 pounds), which includes a payload of 2,700 liters and a driver and two passengers with a combined weight of 225 kilograms. Each of the ZIL battalion trucks has a gross vehicle weight of 10,185 kilograms (approximately 22,450 pounds), which includes a payload of 3,500 kilograms and a driver and two passengers with a combined weight of 225 kilograms. The trucks are 2,740 millimeters wide (approximately 97 inches). The dimensions and weight of the ZIL trucks indicate that they are slow, heavy, and wide vehicles, which are not practical for use on public roads.

CUSTOMS RULING

The U.S. Customs Service has ruled that, for Customs purposes, the ZIL tank tricks are classified as special purpose vehicles under HTSUS 8705.90.00. Agrinvest has requested that Customs issue a ruling on classification of the battalion trucks. The annotation to HTSUS Heading 8705 provides that "the primary purpose of a vehicle of this heading is NOT the transport of persons or goods" (emphasis in original). Although the Customs ruling on the tank trucks is not binding on NHTSA, it indicates that ZIL 131 trucks are not considered the type of vehicle that is primarily for use on public roads.

CONCLUSION

ZIL model 131 trucks are heavy, cumbersome vehicles, which were designed and built to be used on rough terrains. All of the ZIL 131 trucks will be reconfigured, modified, and converted in the United States. After the trucks are converted and the approval of the Department of Commerce is obtained, most of the ZIL trucks will be exported for use overseas in areas without good road systems. If Agrinvest can satisfy applicable regulatory requirements, it may use some of the trucks in its orchard operation in Arizona.

Photographs of the ZIL trucks and specifications for those trucks are enclosed with this request. Please call me at (202) 626-6606 if you have any questions or would like additional information in order to issue a ruling that the ZIL model 131 trucks are off-road vehicles for purposes of 19 C.F.R. Section 12.80(b)(1)(viii), and therefore are exempt from federal motor vehicle safety standards. Because the trucks are expected to arrive in the United States by the end of the month, we would appreciate an early response. To avoid mail delays, we ask that you call us once the letter has been prepared, so that we may arrange for a messenger to pick it up.

Thank you very much for your assistance.

(*) The 390 battalion trucks consist of 45 dual generator trucks, 90 radio equipment trucks, 62 radio equipment switching center trucks, 62 mobile teletypewriter trucks, 41 paraboloid antenna trucks, 45 mobile workshop trucks, 9 radio link system station trucks, 13 radar station trucks, 7 mobile Robutron/GUM computer trucks, 4 target acquisition trucks, 5 cable drum (with racks) transportation trucks, 3 mobile water treatment unit trucks, 1 telecommunications switching center truck, I mess/boarding truck (with built-in cupboards, shelves, benches, tables, etc.), and two messing/storage trucks (with built-in cupboards and shelves).

Enclosures

(Photos omitted.)

9/7/93 letter from the U.S. Customs Service, Department of the Treasury to Dennis Mack regarding classification. (Text omitted.)

5/5/93 letter from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to Judith Jurin Semo. (Text omitted.)

List of specifications. (Text omitted.)

Portions of the fourteenth edition of Jane's Military Vehicles and Logistics (1993-94). (Text omitted.)

ID: nht93-7.6

DATE: October 1, 1993 Est.

FROM: Larry Grabsky -- VML and Colonna Corp.

TO: John Wilman -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/16/93 from John Womack to Larry Grabsky (A41; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Regarding a phone conversation with a member of your staff recently we would appreciate any relevant information pertaining to the following:

Has your agency issued any recent and/or relevant advisory opinion regarding decorative neon lights or the use of oscillating or revolving lights even if they do not diminish the effect or performance of required lighting on a motor vehicle and does such violate FMVSS Section 108.

Once again, we do appreciate your forwarding us information and your agencies assistance in this matter.

ID: nht93-7.7

DATE: October 1, 1993 Est.

FROM: Bob Carver

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/22/93 from John Womack to Bob Carver (A41; Part 571; Std. 217)

TEXT:

I'm an engineer at Wayne Wheeled Vehicles, a commercial and school bus manufacturing company. My job here is to see ensure compliance to FMVSS 217, effective May 1994. I have a question for you in which I need an official ruling concerning FMVSS 217 S5.5.3(c):

Each opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter with a minimum 3 centimeters wide retroreflective tape, either red, white, or yellow in color, that when tested under the conditions specified in S6.1 of 571.131 meets the criteria specified in Table 1.

If an emergency roof exit is required, is it necessary to outline it with the retroreflective tape even though it is not visible unless the bus is tilted on its side? Also, Charles Hott at NHTSA said that the width requirement will be revised to 1 inch. Can you confirm this?

Thanks in advance for your prompt consideration and assistance concerning this matter.

ID: nht93-7.8

DATE: October 4, 1993

FROM: James E. Walker -- Manager, LSI Laboratories, Lighting Sciences Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/16/93 from John Womack to James E. Walker (A41; Std. 108)

TEXT:

I am writing to you at the suggestion of Richard Van Iderstein, NHTSA; recently, LSI Laboratories conducted a test on a customer's product - a tail light. At the conclusion of the test LSI Laboratories was unable to determine pass/fail criteria. Our discussion with Mr. Van Iderstein lead us to believe CFR 49, Ch. V Part 571, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 has a discrepancy. The discrepancy exists in paragraph S5.1.1.11 referencing the tail lamp. S5.1.1.11 states:

A ..., tail lamp, ..., shall meet the minimum percentage specified in Figure 1a of the corresponding minimum allowable value specified in Figure 1b. The values specified in Figure 1a and Table 1 and Table 3 of SAE J588 NOV84 Turn Signal Lamps are substituted for those specified in Table 1 of the Following SAE Standards: ..., J585e Tail Lamps (maximum at H or above), ... .

The discrepancy is that para. S5.1.1 requires equipment to be designed to Tables I, II and S7, which references SAE J585e for the Tail Lamp. Para. S5.1.1.11 requires Table 1 of this specification to be substituted for the values achieved by Figures 1a and 1b, and in addition, to substitute Table 1 of SAE 585e by the values achieved by multiplying the percentages of Figure 1a by Tables 1 and 3 of SAE J588 NOV84 Turn Signal Lamps.

LSI Laboratories would assume that the photometric requirements are those of Figure 1a, 1b, and 1c of 49 CFR Ch. V Part 571 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

It is hoped your clarification would allow LSI Laboratories to compare performance to establish pass/fail criteria. This would allow our customer to begin production or re-design.

ID: nht93-7.9

DATE: October 5, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Anonymous

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/9/93 from Anonymous to John Womack (Part 541)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of the theft prevention standard (49 CFR Part 541). You asked whether "embossing" is permitted to mark engines and transmissions for original and replacement parts. You also asked whether the symbol "DOT" and your company's logo may appear in identical locations on original and replacement parts. As explained below, embossing is permitted, but "DOT" may not appear on original parts.

The relevant Part 541 provisions are Sections 541.5 Requirements for passenger cars and 541.6 Requirements for replacement parts. Section 541.5(a) states that each passenger car subject to the theft prevention standard must have an identifying number "affixed or inscribed" on each of fourteen specified original parts.

Section 541.6(a) states that each replacement part must have the trademark of the replacement part manufacturer and the letter "R" "affixed or inscribed" on such replacement part. Section 541.6(f) states that each replacement part must bear the symbol "DOT," that is "inscribed or affixed."

In response to your first question about embossing, we note the required information on original and replacement parts must be "inscribed or affixed." To determine whether embossing is a means of "inscribing," we have reviewed the dictionary's definition. "Inscribe" means "to mark or engrave (words, symbols, etc.) on some surface." (See Webster's New World Dictionary, College Edition.) Since embossing is a means of marking on a surface, embossing would be included within the definition of "inscribing."

The preamble to the final rule that established Part 541 confirms the above interpretation. NHTSA then stated that it "has no authority to mandate the use of any particular marking system. NHTSA has authority only to establish performance criteria that will accomplish the purposes of the Theft Act. The manufacturers are free to select any marking system that satisfies those criteria." (See 50 FR 43166, at 431701; October 24, 1985.) Thus, if your company believes embossing satisfies Part 541 performance criteria, it may emboss.

Your second question asked whether "DOT" may be marked on original parts, The answer is no. Original parts must be marked with the vehicle identification number. If an original part includes "DOT," the part would be dual marked. "Dual marking" was discussed in Part 541's preamble:

... the agency cannot allow such dual markings under the theft prevention standard. Dual markings would give thieves the opportunity to present stolen original equipment parts as properly marked replacement parts. ... This would not serve the purpose of the Theft Act of

"decreasing the ease with which certain stolen vehicles and their major parts can be fenced." (See 50 FR 43166, at 43179).

It would also be inappropriate to mark "DOT" on an original part because "DOT" is a manufacturer's certification that a replacement part conforms to Part 541. (See 49 CFR 541.6(f)). Since an original part would not conform to Part 541's requirements for replacement parts, it would be inappropriate for a manufacturer to certify compliance by placing "DOT" on the original part.

Finally, it was requested that your company not be identified in public copies of this letter, and that your incoming letter be purged of references to your company. In order to save time, we agree to do this. In the future, however, please note that 49 CFR Part 512 Confidential Business Information sets forth procedures for protecting information that your company believes is confidential.

I hope this satisfactorily responds to your concerns. If there are further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht93-8.1

DATE: November 8, 1993

FROM: Herman Myburgh -- Executive Vice-President, Allvan Corporation

TO: John Womack -- NHTSA

TITLE: Re: FMVSS Part 571.108 on conspicuity striping on truck

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/22/93 from John Womack to Herman Myburgh (A41; Std. 108)

TEXT:

We are manufacturers of curtainsided trailers where the curtain material wraps around the side rails of the trailer. Currently there are no retroreflective tape manufacturer who makes a tape that can stick to or can be RF. welded to the curtain material itself.

Could we attach the conspicuity striping to the trailer frame rail itself in such a manner that it will still comply with the latest amendment of "anywhere from 375mm to 1525mm above the ground"? This will be in the same manner as it will probably be applied to container chassis. Your response to this at your earliest convenience will be appreciated.