ID: nht87-3.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/19/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Roger M. Cox -- R & R Lighting, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 8/11/88 letter from Erika Z. Jones to J. Mike Callahan (A32; Std. 108); 4/14/87 letter from J. Mike Callahan to Taylor Vinson (occ 409); 9/3/87 letter from Erika Z. Jones to David M. Romansky

TEXT: Mr. Roger M. Cox R & R Lighting, Inc. Route 1, Box 190 Gadsden, AL 35901

Dear Mr. Cox:

This is in reply to your letter of July 8, 1987, with respect to whether a lighting product you intend to market is "in violation of any federal regulation when mounted on a motor vehicle." You describe your product as a "lighted decal" which can be mounted in the rear window of any car or pick-up truck, and the photographs you enclosed show it mounted in the center of the rear window of a pre-1980 model Seville. The decal will be wired int o the brake system and when activated by the brake "only the letters in the decal will be lighted." You state further that although the letters will appear red to an observer this product is not designed nor will it be marketed as a brake light or a tail light.

In our opinion, your product may or may not be in violation of Federal requirements depending upon the following uses. The product does not appear to be intended as a substitute for the center highmounted stop lamp that has been standard equipment on pas senger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985. Indeed, it could not be so used unless it met all requirements for such a lamp. The principal requirements are that such lamps have a minimum of 4 1/2 square inches of illuminated lens area, that it meet specified photometrics at 13 test points, ad that it produce a signal visible from 45 degrees from the right to the left and from five degrees up to five degrees down. If your device does not meet these requirements, removal of the lamp and replace ment with your device would violate a prohibition of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act against rendering inoperative equipment installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, in this case Safety Standard No. 108, Lam ps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. However, a dealer could install it on a new pick-up truck, or to one side of the center lamp in a new passenger car before their initial sale, provided the device did not impair the effectiveness of the r ear lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108, and the device could be installed on some vehicles in use (cars built before September 1, 1984, and any pick-up) provided that it did not render inoperative in whole or in part other required rear ligh ting equipment.

By this we mean that the device appears allowable for these vehicles under Federal law provided that wiring it into the brake system does not reduce the stop lamp output or otherwise affect the operation or the effectiveness of the stop lamp system. You should also ensure that your product is acceptable under State and local laws as well. Because there are no Federal requirements for your product, each State may regulate it as it deems proper.

I am enclosing the samples that you enclosed, and hope that we have answered your questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

R & R Lighting, Incorporated Route 1, Box 190 Gadsden, Alabama 35901

July 8, 1987

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Attention: Ms. Erika Jones

Dear Mrs. Jones:

I am in the final planning stage before marketing/manufacturing a new product. After having exhausted all efforts at state and national levels, I talked with Mr. Brooks in the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. It was Mr. Brooks' opinion that we are no t in violation of any federal laps, but he suggested I correspond with you to get an appropriate legal opinion as to whether my product in violation of any federal regulation when mounted on a motor vehicle.

My product. the "#1-American Team Light", is a lighted decal. It is designed to be mounted in the rear window. My product can be mounted onany car or pick-up truck. It will be wired into the brake system and when activated by the brake, only the letters in the decal will be lighted. The letters will appear the same color as automobile manufacturers use in brake lights and tail lights; however, this product is not designed nor will it be marketed as a brake light or tail light. We have targeted the sport s enthusiast at high school and college level as our market group. We also feel we have a smaller market at local and state levels with a lighted decal that reads "Police" and "State Trooper".

In order to effectively market my product at its peak season, which would be September, time is of the essence. I have enclosed a sample lens and photographs.

Please review my information and sample and let me hear from you at your earliest convenience. If further information is needed, please call me collect at (205) 442-1642 or (205) 442-8436.

Very truly yours,

R & R LIGHTING INCORPORATED

Roger M. Cox

RMC/lc

Enclosures

ID: nht88-3.73

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/18/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: RAYMOND M. MOMBOISSE -- GENERAL COUNSEL IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/07/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO CLIFFORD ANGLEWICZ -- VERNE CORP; REDBOOK A34 [4]; INTERP SECTION 101 [3]; PART 571 [A]; LETTER FROM CLIFFORD T. ANGLEWICZ -- VERNE CORP TO NHTSA DATED 09/07/88; OCC 2529; BROCH URE FROM ARROWPOINTE; DRAGOON PATROLLER ARMORED RESCUE AND SECURITY VEHICLE; 5/19/88 letter from Raymond M. Momboisse to Bwayne Vance

TEXT: Dear Mr. Momboisse:

Your letter of May 19, 1988, to the General Counsel of the Department of Transportation has been forwarded to this Office for reply. You request a waiver "exempting the Hummer vehicle from the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) when purchase d directly from the manufacturer, AM General Corporation."

This response is based upon the information contained in your letter, and upon information my staff has obtained in telephone conversations with Ed Butkera of AM General Corporation, manufacturer of the Hummer, relating to its compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and Gary Runyon of the Border Patrol, relating to the mission of that agency and the role the Hummer plays in it. According to our information, the Hummer is a vehicle which was developed specifically for, manufactured f or, and sold exclusively to, the U.S. Army. The Border Patrol has bought Hummers from the Army because of certain features it finds advantageous in its operations, and its expanded missions involving interdiction of drugs. The principal reasons for you r request are (1) that the Border Patrol desires to buy Hummers equipped with an assembly line addition (a central tire inflation system) is not incorporated on the Hummers sold to the Army, and (2) that, by buying directly from AM General Corporation, t he Border Patrol will save $ 5,000 per vehicle, as the price of Army Hummers reflects the added expense of amortized development costs.

This agency has jurisdiction over "motor vehicles" as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. 1391(3). If a vehicle is not a "motor vehicle," then the Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply to it. The exclusion of military vehicles from applicab ility of the safety standards in 49 C.F.R. 571(a), which you quoted, is operative only if those vehicles would otherwise be "motor vehicles" required to comply with the standards.

2

Under 15 U.S.C. 1391(3), a "motor vehicle" is "any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways. . . ." The agency has interpreted this definition to exclude such vehicles as minibi kes, golf carts, all-terrain vehicles, single seat racing cars used on closed courses, airport crash and rescue vehicles, and farm tractors. On the other hand, the agency has included in the definition farm trailers which haul produce over the public ro ads to processing centers, stock cars modified for racing unless such modifications are so extensive that the vehicle can no longer be licensed for use on the public roads, and vehicles capable of use both on rails and the public roads.

You have informed us that the Hummer will "generally only be used on public highways to travel between stations and assigned duty areas." However, you have also informed us that this will constitute approximately 30% of its operational time. Were we to c onsider this factor alone, we could not conclude that the Hummer was not a "motor vehicle." However, there are further factors that make the proper classification of the Hummer a close question. The Hummer was developed as a vehicle for military operati ons and not for civilian applications, its manufacturer does not advertise or sell it for civilian purposes, and its configuration is such that it probably could not be licensed for use on the public roads without modification of some of its original mil itary specifications.

Resolution of this question is not necessary since the mission and method of operation of the Border Patrol provide a separate basis for concluding that the Hummers to be purchased by the Border Patrol are not subject to the FMVSS. We understand that on e of the missions of the Border Patrol is to act as an agency of national security in protection of the country's borders to ensure that persons and goods enter and exit only through official Customs and Immigration stations, and that this role has becom e of paramount importance in the "war against drugs." In this enforcement effort, the Hummers of necessity carry firearms such as the M-14 and M-16 rifles which the Army Hummer carries, can be equipped with military communications equipment enabling them to serve as command posts, and carry certain military equipment used for electronic interception and sensing movement. It further appears that in this mission the Border Patrol is not only equipped like a component of the Armed Forces of the United Sta tes, but also is trained and functions in many respects that are similar to such a component. Accordingly, for the purposes of applying the exclusionary phrase of 49 CFR 571.7(a), it is appropriate to regard the Border Patrol as being akin to a componen t of the Armed Forces of the United States. In consideration of the foregoing, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has concluded that AM General Corporation will not be in violation of the

3

National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act if it manufacturers and sells Hummers to the Border Patrol for its use as described in your letter.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-4.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/22/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: CLARENCE M. DITLOW II -- EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR AUTO SAFETY

ATTACHMT: NOVEMBER 7, 1988 LETTER FROM DITLOW TO JONES

TEXT: This responds to your most recent letter to me concerning retrofitting of cars originally equipped with rear seat lap belts with rear seat lap/shoulder belts. In my November 1, 1988 letter to you, I explained that we have sought the voluntary cooperation of manufacturers to make retrofit kits available for those customers who desire them and that the vehicle manufacturers have responded positively to our efforts. I also explained that the fact that retrofit kits are not available for all model lines pr oduced by each manufacturer does not suggest some failure on the part of the vehicle manufacturers or of our policy to encourage the manufacturers to make such retrofit kits available.

In a November 7, 1988 letter, you asserted that my November 1 letter "reflects such callous disregard and ignorance of the facts as to defy belief that you are doing little more than covering up for a GM policy that will kill rear seat passengers." You s tated that you would welcome a "substantive response" to this letter. I am happy to be able to give you such a response.

Let me begin by emphasizing that the lap belts in the rear seat of most vehicles on the road today are effective in reducing the risk of death and injury in a crash. Based on our analysis of a number of crash data files, we estimate that rear seat lap b elts saved about 100 lives and prevented over 1500 serious injuries in 1987 alone. These figures would have been substantially higher if more rear seat occupants used their lap belts. In fact, if everyone had worn their rear seat lap belts each time th ey rode in a vehicle, those belts would have saved about 660 lives and prevented more than 10,000 serious injuries in 1987 alone.

These facts illustrate that the fastest and most effective way to save the greatest number of lives and prevent the greatest number of injuries is to convince the public to use the safety belts, including the rear seat lap belts, that are in their vehicl es every time they ride in those

vehicles. Because of these facts, I do not accept your assertion that GM's policy of not providing rear seat lap/shoulder belt retrofit kits for a few of their past models will "kill people." To the extent that reckless assertions like this tell the pub lic that they should not wear their rear seat lap belts, it is unfortunate that you have chosen to divert attention away from the overriding issue of convincing the public to use their safety belts, and instead chosen to mislead the public about the qual ity of their safety belts.

Even though lap belts have been proven to be effective in reducing the risk of death and injury in a crash, we agree that properly designed lap and shoulder belts have the potential to offer even greater crash protection than lap belts alone. For this r eason, we have proposed to require that all new passenger cars sold in the United States be equipped with rear seat lap and shoulder belts beginning in the 1990 model year. Additionally, we have actively sought the car manufacturers' cooperation in prov iding retrofit kits to interested consumers. As you may know, every domestic manufacturer and many foreign manufacturers now offer retrofit kits for many of their vehicle models.

You objected to General Motors' (GM) statement in its Information Bulletin that retrofit kits are not offered for its 1978-88 Oldsmobile Cutlass, Buick Regal, Chevrolet Monte Carlo, or Pontiac Grand Prix, "because GM safety engineers have concluded that in these cars, a rear seat lap/shoulder belt combination would not enhance the safety offered by the lap belt alone." You asserted that since Leonard Evans, a GM employee, has concluded that lap/shoulder belts are significantly more effective than lap be lts and since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is proposing to require rear seat lap/shoulder belts, there is no "possible scientific basis" for GM's conclusion.

NHTSA's proposal reflects our tentative conclusion that rear seat lap/shoulder belts that are designed and installed at the factory have the potential to offer even greater crash protection than lap belts alone for vehicles in general. However, any parti cular vehicle model's floor pan design, seat stiffness, and seat design (as it relates to occupant posture) can affect the possibility of an occupant submarining under a lap/shoulder belt system in a crash. During the design and production of the vehicl e, the vehicle manufacturer can take these factors into account to minimize the likelihood of such submarining and its associated consequences.

However, this is emphatically not true for vehicles that were not originally engineered and designed to use rear seat lap/shoulder belts as original equipment. With respect to these vehicles, the effectiveness of a retrofitted rear seat lap and shoulder safety belt system may well depend on the belt system's compatability with the vehicle and the installation of the belt system. The suitability of a particular vehicle for retrofitting is therefore a complex question. It is our view that the judgment a s to whether a retrofit lap/shoulder belt system should be installed in a particular vehicle is best made by a vehicle manufacturer, which is most familiar with the detailed seat and structural design and crash performance of the car.

I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you have any further questions or would like some additional information on this subject.

ID: 86-1.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/12/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Jack H. McDaniel, Jr. -- President, Trim Plus

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Jack H. McDaniel, Jr. President Trim Plus P.O. Box 490811 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33349

This is in reply to your letters of November 18, 1985, and January 9, 1986, to the former Chief Counsel of this agency, Jeffrey Miller, asking questions about the relationship of the center high-mounted stop lamp provisions of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to the installation of deck-mounted luggage racks.

You have stated that you install accessories on new motor vehicles before their delivery by their dealers. You have asked whether deck-mounted racks that have cross bars violate the safety standards? It is not possible to give a definitive answer. When a passenger car leaves the factory, its center high-mounted stop lamp must meet certain specified minimum design photometrics at certain test points, and be installed so that it has a signal visible to the rear through a horizontal angle from 45 degrees to the left to 45 degrees to the right of the longitudinal axis of the vehicle. It must continue to meet these requirements at the time of delivery to the first purchaser, even if a deck rack has been installed. If the rack prevents the lamp from meeting its photometric output at any test point, the standard does allow a supplementary center high-mounted stop lamp to be added, provided that it meets all applicable photometrics. If no such lamp is added, and the rack affects the photometric compliance of the lamp, we would view the installer (if a manufacturer, distributor, dealer of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, or a motor vehicle repair business) as a possible violator of 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A) which forbids those commercial entities from rendering partially inoperative equipment that is installed in accordance with a Federal safety standard.

You have also asked whether a deck-mounted rack loaded with luggage would cause a violation. The answer is no; compliance with Standard No. 108 is determined without luggage in place, even if the lamp would be blocked when the rack is in use.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones

Chief Counsel

January 9, 1986

Mr. Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Councel U. S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Miller:

Mine is a company specializing in the sales and installation of automotive trim accessories with a clientele essentially being the franchised dealers of new American made automobiles.

Recently there has been some confusion among myself customers, and colleagues regarding one of the new motor vehicle safety standards which, I understand, is number 108 involving the center high-mounted stop lamp. Since one of the specialties of my company is the installation of rear deck-mounted luggage racks on new cars, I was wondering if you would give me some information as to how the new safety standards might infect this. Here is what I am particularly concerned about.

1. Would installing a rear deck-mounted luggage rack that has a cross bar on a 1986 automobile for a dealer cause a violation of the center high-mounted stop lamp provision of the new safety standard?

2. It seems to me that on most cars a deck-mounted luggage rack can be positioned so that the center high- mounted stop lamp can still be clearly seen from the rear. Are there any provisions of the new safety standards that I should know about that would help insure prevention a violation?

3. Would a deck-mounted rack loaded with luggage cause a violation?

Mr. Miller, this does make the second of my requests to your department for this information that I have yet to receive. I know how busy you department must be, but please let me hear from you at your earliest convenience. I shall await your reply with great interest, as it will make considerable difference in my sales and operation.

Respectfully, Jack McDaniel, President

November 18, 1985

Mr. Jefferey R. Miller Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Miller:

Ours is a company specializing in the installation of automotive trim accessories. Most of our services are to the franchised dealers of the major automobile makers, installing accessories on their pre-delivered cars.

Recently there has been some confusion among myself and colleagues regarding the new safety standards for 1986 vehicles concerning the center high-mounted stop lamps which, I have been told, is Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Since some of my orders are for installing deck-mounted luggage racks with cross bars on 1986 vehicles, I wonder if you could give me some information about how the new safety standards might affect this. I will list the things I am particularly concerned about.

1. Will deck-mounted racks that have cross bars violate the new safety standards? It seems to me that many racks can be mounted and positioned so that the high-mounted stop lamp is still clearly visible from the rear. How can we determine if one would cause a violation?

2. Would a deck-mounted rack loaded with luggage cause a violation?

I shall await your answers with great interest, Mr. Miller. Many thanks for any information you can give me. May I please here from you as soon as possible?

Respectfully,

Jack H. McDaniel, Jr. President

ID: nht94-2.48

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 19, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Judith Jurin Semo, Esq. -- Squire, Sanders & Dempsey (Washington, D.C.)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/5/93 from Judith Jurin Semo to John Womack (OCC 9287)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for NHTSA's determination that certain former East German military trucks, ZIL model 131, are not motor vehicles, and exempt from the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). We are unable to make such a determinatio n. As explained below, a ZIL model 131 truck imported into the United States is considered a "motor vehicle" for purposes of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) (15 U.S.C. 1391 et seq.), and is subject to the FMVSS.

Your letter explained that a client plans to import over 500 ZIL model 131 trucks into the U.S. Apparently, your client plans to modify the trucks in the U.S. to use for nonmilitary purposes. Your client intends to send most of the modified trucks to b uyers in other countries, but plans to sell some of the trucks in the U.S. Your letter states: "... (S)ome ZIL vehicles may be modified to meet DOT/NHTSA and EPA standards in order to satisfy those buyers who require vehicles conforming to those standar ds."

Under the Safety Act, any "motor vehicle," whether new or used, that is imported into the United States for sale in this country must be brought into conformity with all FMVSS that applied at the time of its manufacture. The question that must be answer ed is whether the ZIL 131 trucks, at the time of importation, would be considered "motor vehicles."

"Motor vehicle" is defined at section 102(3) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)) as:

(A)ny 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.

NHTSA has interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles designed and sold only for off-road use (such as airport runway vehicles and u nderground mining devices) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Vehicles that have an abnormal body configuration that readily distinguishes them from other highway vehicles and a maximum sp eed of 20 miles per hour (mph) are not considered motor vehicles, because their use of the public roads is intermittent and incidental to their primary intended off-road use.

On the other hand, vehicles that use the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, a utility vehicle like the Jeep is plainly a motor vehicle, even though it is equipped with special features to permit off-road operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be

off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, NHTSA has interpreted the vehicle to be a "motor vehicle." Further, the agency has determined that a vehicle such as a dune buggy is a motor vehicle if it is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, regardless of the manufacturer's stated intent regarding the terrain on which the vehicle is to be operated.

Applying the above criteria, and based on the information in your letter, the ZIL model 131 trucks are motor vehicles. You state that potential U.S. buyers would require vehicles that meet the FMVSS. This suggests that U.S. vehicle owners intend to use the ZIL model 131 trucks as they would other motor vehicles, on the public roads. Judging from your photographs, the trucks do not have abnormal body configurations that distinguish them from other vehicles on the road. You stated that the trucks have a top speed of almost 50 miles per hour, a speed suitable for public roads. These facts suggest that the ZIL model 131 truck is designed and intended to be routinely used on the public roads, and should be classified as a motor vehicle.

Assuming your client is still interested in importing the ZIL 131 trucks for resale in the U.S., the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act requires that the agency determine that the vehicles are capable of conversion to meet the FMVSS, and that the tru cks be imported by a "registered importer." The agency makes determinations upon the basis of a petition by the manufacturer or registered importer (or upon its own volition). A "registered importer" is one whom NHTSA has recognized as capable of conve rting vehicles to meet the FMVSS. If you would like further details on eligibility determinations and import procedures, please let us know and we shall be pleased to provide them.

The Safety Act also addresses trucks your client wishes to import into the U.S. for modification for export. Under section 108(b)(3) of the Safety Act, the FMVSSs do not apply to vehicles intended solely for export. Thus, trucks brought into the U.S. f or modification for export are not subject to the FMVSSs. Under 49 CFR S591.5, the importer would file a declaration under S591.5(c), that the vehicle does not comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety, bumper, and theft prevention standar ds, but is intended solely for export.

I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-6.22

DATE: April 19, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Judith Jurin Semo, Esq. -- Squire, Sanders & Dempsey (Washington, D.C.)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/5/93 from Judith Jurin Semo to John Womack (OCC 9287)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for NHTSA's determination that certain former East German military trucks, ZIL model 131, are not motor vehicles, and exempt from the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). We are unable to make such a determination. As explained below, a ZIL model 131 truck imported into the United States is considered a "motor vehicle" for purposes of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) (15 U.S.C. 1391 et seq.), and is subject to the FMVSS.

Your letter explained that a client plans to import over 500 ZIL model 131 trucks into the U.S. Apparently, your client plans to modify the trucks in the U.S. to use for nonmilitary purposes. Your client intends to send most of the modified trucks to buyers in other countries, but plans to sell some of the trucks in the U.S. Your letter states: "... (S)ome 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."

Under the Safety Act, any "motor vehicle," whether new or used, that is imported into the United States for sale in this country must be brought into conformity with all FMVSS that applied at the time of its manufacture. The question that must be answered is whether the ZIL 131 trucks, at the time of importation, would be considered "motor vehicles."

"Motor vehicle" is defined at section 102(3) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)) as:

(A)ny 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.

NHTSA has interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles designed and sold only for off-road use (such as airport runway vehicles and underground mining devices) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Vehicles that have an abnormal body configuration that readily distinguishes them from other highway vehicles and a maximum speed of 20 miles per hour (mph) are not considered motor vehicles, because their use of the public roads is intermittent and incidental to their primary intended off-road use.

On the other hand, vehicles that use the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, a utility vehicle like the Jeep is plainly a motor vehicle, even though it is equipped with special features to permit off-road operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be

off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, NHTSA has interpreted the vehicle to be a "motor vehicle." Further, the agency has determined that a vehicle such as a dune buggy is a motor vehicle if it is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, regardless of the manufacturer's stated intent regarding the terrain on which the vehicle is to be operated.

Applying the above criteria, and based on the information in your letter, the ZIL model 131 trucks are motor vehicles. You state that potential U.S. buyers would require vehicles that meet the FMVSS. This suggests that U.S. vehicle owners intend to use the ZIL model 131 trucks as they would other motor vehicles, on the public roads. Judging from your photographs, the trucks do not have abnormal body configurations that distinguish them from other vehicles on the road. You stated that the trucks have a top speed of almost 50 miles per hour, a speed suitable for public roads. These facts suggest that the ZIL model 131 truck is designed and intended to be routinely used on the public roads, and should be classified as a motor vehicle.

Assuming your client is still interested in importing the ZIL 131 trucks for resale in the U.S., the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act requires that the agency determine that the vehicles are capable of conversion to meet the FMVSS, and that the trucks be imported by a "registered importer." The agency makes determinations upon the basis of a petition by the manufacturer or registered importer (or upon its own volition). A "registered importer" is one whom NHTSA has recognized as capable of converting vehicles to meet the FMVSS. If you would like further details on eligibility determinations and import procedures, please let us know and we shall be pleased to provide them.

The Safety Act also addresses trucks your client wishes to import into the U.S. for modification for export. Under section 108(b)(3) of the Safety Act, the FMVSSs do not apply to vehicles intended solely for export. Thus, trucks brought into the U.S. for modification for export are not subject to the FMVSSs. Under 49 CFR S591.5, the importer would file a declaration under S591.5(c), that the vehicle does not comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety, bumper, and theft prevention standards, but is intended solely for export.

I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-4.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 1, 1994 EST

FROM: Williams, Harry L. Jr. -- President And Owner, Willy Lights Inc.

TO: NHTSA-Office Of The Chief Counsel

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached To 10/21/94 Letter From Philip R. Recht To Harry L. Williams, Jr. (A42; STD. 108)

TEXT: I'm Harry L. Williams Jr. Inventor of WILLY LIGHTS following up on a letter I received from MR. GREG NOVAK Traffic and Safety Engr. FHWA Nevada Division. A copy of that letter is attached.

I'm writing in regards to my invention. I'm now in the process of marketing the product called WILLY LIGHTS. I feel that my product will help prevent accidents that is caused by a vehicle pulling out in front of another vehicle.

My product does not interfere with any standard safety equipment on a vehicle.

I would like to know if there still are no regulations prohibiting the use of lighted wheel rims. If not which color of lights may I use since it is on the side of the vehicle and you can not see the product from the front or rear of the vehicle.

If you have any questions feel free to contact me at the above number.

Thank you for your time.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION FROM THE DOT IN MINUTE - MEMO FORM:

SUBJECT REQUEST FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

TO R J Bellard

I received a telephone call from Mr. Harry Williams (795-2334) requesting my assistance in the development of his invention to install lights on the wheel rims of vehicles. He was interested in learning about Federal regulations on such a device. I did not get further details but referred him to NHTSA in San Francisco. He called again after speaking to NHTSA there and on the Auto Safety Hot-line (1-800-424-9393) in Washington, D.C., saying that they said it was an FHWA matter. I agreed to follow up to minimize the [ILLEGIBLE WORDS] runaround he was getting, even though FHWA jurisdiction is very limited on vehicle equipment matters. I got some leads from Powell Harrison with NHTSA in San Francisco, and talked to the Crash Avoidance staff in D.C.

It appears that there are no regulations prohibiting the use of lighted wheel rims. Confirmation can be given if a written request is sent to:

NHTSA - Office of the Chief Counsel 400 7th Street S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20590

The lighted wheel rims could not, however, interfere with any standard safety equipment on a vehicle. That is handled by a self-certification statement from the manufacturer to NHTSA, so it would appear prudent for the inventor to have a copy of the vehicle standards for review beforehand. Although NHTSA will not test such a device initially because of policy, funding and manpower limitations, it may eventually purchase one once it is readily available in the marketplace. Such testing is done on a routine basis to be sure no regulations are violated and the product is free of defects. If defects are found, a recall notice could be issued. The manufacturer might have to pay damages to the purchasers in extreme cases. This quick summary in my in terpretation of NHTSA procedures after speaking with Mr. Larry Cook of the NHTSA Office of Vehicle Safety Standards - Crash Avoidance Division (NRM-II). I also spoke to Bill Leasure of the NHTSA Office of Crash Avoidance Research - Heavy Vehicle Researc h Division (NRD-53) and he did not have any problems with the use of lighted wheel rims. He also did not have any funding to test the device.

I was referred, however, to the Transportation Systems Center in Cambridge, Mass. The Small Business Innovative Research Program is centered there, run by Mr. George Kouetch. I spoke to one of his assistants and found out that new devices are consid ered on an annual basis, with the next solicitation planned for February 1989. A committee reviews proposals that address identified problems, but it sounded like lighted wheel rims were outside the current list of problem areas. Funding for testing on ly those new devices recommended by the committee is available. A proposal could be sent in response to the next solicitation, or an unsolicited proposal could also be considered at the discretion of the committee. Any correspondence should be directed to:

Mr. George Kovatch

Transportation Systems Center (DTS-23)

Small Business Innovative Research Program

Cambridge, Mass 02412

Telephone (617) 494-2051

My general impression is that a considerable amount of preparatory work is required to get an invention to the general public. The cost of lighted wheel rims may make the idea hard to sell when there may not be that much of a problem with vehicle vis ibility (reflectors and sidelights are standard equipment on most vehicles). A cheaper alternative might be to provide retroreflective sheeting on the wheel rims or body side molding. A similar proposal is being considered for truck trailers but receiv ing resistance due to the added initial and maintenance cost involved. Lighted wheel rims may have application as an after-market device for enthusiasts to install as an option. As mentioned previously, it does not appear that there is a NHTSA regulati on prohibiting it.

I would recommend Mr. Harry Williams write to NHTSA to get written confirmation of that and obtain a copy of the associated vehicle safety regulations at the same time. He could review them and certify his device to be acceptable if it does not inter fere with any existing safety requirements. I will send him a copy of this minute memo to document my effort on his behalf.

cc: Powell Harrison, NHTSA Region 9

Larry Cook, NHTSA Washington D.C.

ID: 9433

Mr. David Fabrycky
1633 W. Willeta St.
Phoenix, AZ 85007

Dear Mr. Fabrycky:

This responds to your letter about an aftermarket product you wish to manufacture. The product is a child safety seat buckle shield, which is intended to prevent a child from opening the buckle on a child restraint system. You state that your device would cover the buckle and prevent the child from gaining access to the pushbutton of a child seat buckle. To depress the pushbutton, the device requires that a latch be actuated and the cover pivoted away from the buckle. You indicated that the device requires "manual dexterity to exert the forces in many directions simultaneously."

Although we understand your concern that young children not be able to easily unbuckle a child safety seat, we have reservations about devices that interfere with the unbuckling of the seats. I hope the following discussion explains those reservations and answers the questions in your letter about the effect of our regulations on your product.

Our agency has the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Safety Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems," which applies to all new child restraint systems sold in this country. However, Standard 213 does not apply to aftermarket items for child restraint systems, such as your buckle shield. Hence, you are not required to certify that this product complies with Standard 213 before selling the product.

Additionally, you are not required to get "approval" from this agency before selling the buckle shield. NHTSA has no authority to "approve" motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial product. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet our safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates alleged safety-related defects.

Although we do not have any standards that directly apply to your product, there are several statutory provisions that could affect it. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as your buckle shield are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. The agency does not determine the existence of safety defects except in the context of a defect proceeding, and thus is unable to say whether your product might or might not contain such a defect. However, the agency is concerned that people be able to easily and quickly operate a child safety seat buckle in an emergency. As the agency said in a rule on the force level necessary to operate child restraint buckles:

The agency's safety concerns over child restraint buckle force release and size stem from the need for convenient buckling and unbuckling of a child and, in emergencies, to quickly remove the child from the restraint. This latter situation can occur in instances of post-crash fires, immersions, etc. A restraint that is difficult to disengage, due to the need for excessive buckle pressure or difficulty in operating the release mechanism because of a very small release button, can unnecessarily endanger the child in the restraint and the adult attempting to release the child. (50 FR 33722; August 21, 1985)

It appears that your product could significantly increase the difficulty of using the buckle release and thus hinder a person attempting to release the belt in an emergency.

In addition, use of your product could be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly tampering with devices or elements of design installed in an item of motor vehicle equipment, such as a child safety seat, in compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. In determining the effect of a buckle shield on a child seat's compliance with Standard 213, NHTSA would evaluate the performance of the seat with the buckle shield installed. Standard 213 specifies several elements of design with which a child restraint system is unlikely to comply if your buckle shield were installed. Section S5.4.3.5 of Standard 213 requires the pushbutton release for any buckle on a child restraint to have a minimum area for applying the release force. Since your device will completely cover the buckle when installed, the buckle shield would cause the child restraint to no longer comply with this requirement. That section also requires the buckle to release when a specified maximum force is applied. Your device will not allow the buckle to release when the force is applied because it will cover the buckle and require force to be applied "in many directions simultaneously." Your device would thus cause the child restraint to no longer comply with that requirement. Therefore, commercial establishments cannot legally install your device on customers' child safety seats. In addition, section S5.7 of Standard 213 requires each material used in a child restraint system to comply with the flammability resistance requirements of Standard 302, "Flammability of Interior Materials." If your buckle shield does not comply with the requirements of Standard 302, commercial establishments cannot legally install your device.

The prohibition of section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who may install or remove any items on child restraint systems regardless of the effect on compliance with Standard 213. However, our policy is to encourage child restraint owners not to tamper with or otherwise degrade the safety of their child restraints.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:213#VSA d:5/12/94

ID: nht72-6.48

DATE: 12/15/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Douglas W. Toms; NHTSA

TO: Chester H. Smith; United States Senate

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of October 26, 1972, forwarding the National Tire Dealers & Retreasers Association's (NTDRA) Resolution of October 2, 1972, regarding the Federal Regulation on Tire Identification and Recordkeeping.

The idea of attaching a return card on each tire at the factory to be filled out and returned by the purchaser was given serious consideration during rule making but no practical method was known for attaching a card that would assure retention through delivery to the dealer. Also, the suggestion that the consumer fill out the record card gave no promise of return as far as we could determine from our studies. However, we believe a dealer can be relied upon to record the data in a matter of a few minutes at minimum cost. These factors prevent us from accepting the NTDRA proposal as a reasonable compromise unit would still maintain the needed public interest.

With respect to effectiveness, we believe that the pay-off potential of the regulation, though rather poor in the first year of operation, is continuing to show improvement as time goes on. Although we have no precise count, many tires manufactured prior to May 22, 1971, were in stock and were put on the market during the past 17-month period. As time goes on these pre-regulation tires will gradually disappear from the market and be replaced entirely by the "identified" tires. We would expect that the effectiveness of Part 574 would not reach its full potential until a 3-year period had elapsed.

You may be interested in the following data concerning tire recalls: No. of Tires Recalled NHTSA Voluntary 1970 160,899 28,823 1971 78,050 157,143 1972 (incomplete) 100,000 76,915 338,949 262,881 Grand Total 601,830

These statistics show that almost 45 percent of tire recalls have been initiated on a voluntary basis by the tire manufacturer, and that voluntary recalls during 1971 and 1972 appear to have increased considerably over 1970. Although we have no exact figures on percentage of returns, we take this as an indication that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's tire safety program is removing dangerous tires from the road and the system we are using is showing considerable success toward reaching ultimate objectives. We are very much encouraged in the trend of Part 574 toward effectiveness of recalls.

We want to assure you that although the rule making docket reflects exploration of many ideas concerning tire identification and recordkeeping, we are still receptive to any new proposal that would appear promising in improving the present system.

Sincerely,

Enclosure

ATTACH.

United States Senate SELECT COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS

October 26, 1972

Douglas W. Toms -- Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Dr. Toms:

We enclose a copy of a Resolution adopted by the 52nd annual convention of the National Tire Dealers & Retreaders Association, Inc.

Could you inform us, please, of the consideration being given by your Administration to the NTDRA's proposal? Do you think their plan might represent a reasonable compromise between the public interest in tire safety and the obvious interest of tire dealers in lessening their burden of wholly uncompensated Federal paperwork?

With best wishes,

Sincerely,

Chester H. Smith Staff Director - General Counsel

cc: Thomas J. McIntyre -- Chairman, Subcommittee on Government Regulation

October 16, 1972

Chester H. Smith -- Staff Director & General Counsel, Senate Small Business Committee

Dear Mr. Smith:

We believe the attached Resolution adopted at our recent Convention on Tire Identification and Record Keeping will be of interest to you.

Sincerely,

NATIONAL TIRE DEALERS AND RETREADERS ASSOCIATION, INC.; Philip P. Friedlander -- Director of Communications

enc.

RESOLUTION

52ND ANNUAL CONVENTION NATIONAL TIRE DEALERS & RETREADERS ASSOCIATION INC. OCTOBER 2, 1972 WHEREAS the National Tire Dealers and Retreaders Association has received a number of complaints from its members on the difficulties of registering the name and address of each purchaser of tires as required by the Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulation as well as the attendant costs for the retailer without recovery, and;

WHEREAS the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has failed to provide a uniform form for such records in spite of requests by tire dealers and others in the industry;

WHEREAS some of the recalls that were conducted during nineteen hundred and seventy two have been for tires manufactured prior to the registration requirement of May of nineteen hundred and seventy one;

WHEREAS the burden on the retailer and consumer alike has not been offset by appropriate advantages to the consumer;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the National Tire Dealers and Retreaders Association in Annual Convention assembled this second day of October, nineteen hundred and seventy two, that this Association urges the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to re-examine its current program which requires the seller to register the first purchaser of a new tire and retreaded tire and that it consider a voluntary system of registration by the tire purchaser utilizing an uniform form supplied by tire manufacturers and distributed at the time of sale for the consumer to fill out and mail back to a designated place rather than to leave the entire burden with the individual tire dealer.

ID: gustback_doorlatch

Dr. Peter Gust
Kirchhoff GmbH & Co. KG
Oststrasse 1
58553 Halver
Germany

Dear Dr. Gust:

This letter responds to your e-mail and fax inquiries into the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door locks and door retention components. You asked a question about how a specific back door latch configuration is tested under the procedures specified in the standard. We have addressed your question below.

Your letter describes a back door that opens upward, with a single latch at the bottom of the door with a single striker on the back door sill. According to the diagrams sent with your letter, the latch is comprised of two sections. When the latch is engaged, (1) the portion of the latch that is attached to the door is oriented perpendicular to the vehicle floor plane (the "upper section"), and (2) the portion of the latch face that interacts with the striker is oriented along a plane that is roughly 45 degrees to the vehicle floor plane (the "lower section"). The diagrams also show that the striker plate is parallel to the lower section, with the striker oriented perpendicular to the striker plate. You asked how the test procedures in Load Test One and Load Test Two of FMVSS No. 206 apply to your latch assembly.

FMVSS No. 206 specifies requirements for door locks and door retention components including latches, to minimize the likelihood of occupants being thrown from their vehicle as a result of an impact. Under FMVSS No. 206, hinged back doors must comply with several load requirements, including:

S4.4.1.1  Load Test One. The primary door latch and striker assembly, when in the fully latched position, shall not separate when a load of 11,000 Newtons (2,500 pounds) is applied in the direction perpendicular to the face of the latch (corresponding to the longitudinal load test for side door latches) such that the latch and the striker anchorage are not compressed against each other. When in the secondary latched position, the primary latch and striker assembly shall not separate when a load of 4,450 Newtons (1,000 pounds) is applied in the same direction.

S4.4.1.2  Load Test Two. The primary door latch and striker assembly, when in the fully latched position, shall not separate when a load of 8,900 Newtons (2,000 pounds) is applied in the direction of the fork-bolt opening and parallel to the face of the latch (corresponding to the transverse load test). Figure 1 depicts the loading direction for this test. When in the secondary latched position, the primary latch and striker assembly shall not separate when a load of 4,450 Newtons (1,000 pounds) is applied in the same direction.

As indicated in S4.4.1.1 and S4.4.1.2, the orientation of the latch face dictates the direction of the loads. FMVSS No. 206 does not define latch face, but we have stated that SAE J839, Passenger car side door latch systems (JUN91), provides guidance on its meaning (see 60 FR 50124, 50128; September 28, 1995). While SAE J839 does not define latch face, it defines "latch plate" as "the main body or frame for supporting working components, appendages and transmitting or distributing loads to the door structure" (S3.1.1).

Based on the specifications in S4.4.1.1, Load Test One would be oriented with the lower section of the latch face in question. While S4.4.1.1 does not specifically address testing a latch face that aligns with more than one plane, the section does specify that the latch and striker anchorage should not compress upon application of the load. The intent of Load Test One is to apply the load such that there is no engagement of the latch face by the striker. This is accomplished with your latch assembly by applying the test load in a direction perpendicular to the lower portion of the latch face. By contrast, application of the test load perpendicular to the upper portion of the test face would result in some compression; i.e. , the striker would engage the latch face to some extent, and would thus not test the latch as specified by the standard.

Regarding the application of Load Test Two to your latch system, again the standard indicates that the direction of force should be oriented with the lower section of the latch face. Load Test Two specifies application of the load in the direction of the fork-bolt opening, parallel to the face of the latch. Figure 1 of FMVSS No. 206 illustrates that Load Test Two is applied in a direction that is parallel to the portion of the latch face that interacts with the striker. On the latch face in question, this corresponds to the lower section. Testing in this manner is consistent with the intent of the standard to test the latch in a manner representative of opening the door.

Further, applying Load Test One and Two as described would test your latch in a manner consistent with the longitudinal and transverse testing specified for side door latches, respectively. Additionally, orienting the test loads to the lower portion of the latch face would permit testing in accordance with SAE J934, as intended by the agency (see 60 FR 50128).

I hope that you find this information helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:206
d.11/19/04